Oculus's embarassing direction for VR

You can both trust me, you missed nothing memorable.
 
I completely agree with what he said about Valve though.

Sure, The Lab and Half Life Alyx were great, but imo it's too little too late.

Can you imagine the amount of headsets sold if Half Life 2 VR was available on day one of the Rift and Vive launching?

I've always said that they should have had Half Life 2 available on launch day, then had either Portal VR/Left 4 Dead VR available to buy in 2018 and Half Life Alyx avaliable this year.

They could have started Portal/Left 4 Dead easily a year before the Rift and Vive launched, they could have started and finished Half Life 2 with a small team in a matter of months, 6 at the very most.

They also haven't shown much support for developers either.

Oculus Sony and even HTC are streets ahead of Valve when it comes to support for developers and it's a real shame.

I think we might see some DLC for Half Life Alyx at some point though because there's a hell of a lot of space on that map that isn't used up.

I'm also expecting a port of Half Life Alyx for PSVR 2 when it releases too, which also be released on the NextBox once Microsoft join the VR Revolution.

It's just such a shame that Valve haven't done more than they have so far.
 
I completely agree with what he said about Valve though.

Sure, The Lab and Half Life Alyx were great, but imo it's too little too late.

Can you imagine the amount of headsets sold if Half Life 2 VR was available on day one of the Rift and Vive launching?

I've always said that they should have had Half Life 2 available on launch day, then had either Portal VR/Left 4 Dead VR available to buy in 2018 and Half Life Alyx avaliable this year.

They could have started Portal/Left 4 Dead easily a year before the Rift and Vive launched, they could have started and finished Half Life 2 with a small team in a matter of months, 6 at the very most.

They also haven't shown much support for developers either.

Oculus Sony and even HTC are streets ahead of Valve when it comes to support for developers and it's a real shame.

I think we might see some DLC for Half Life Alyx at some point though because there's a hell of a lot of space on that map that isn't used up.

I'm also expecting a port of Half Life Alyx for PSVR 2 when it releases too, which also be released on the NextBox once Microsoft join the VR Revolution.

It's just such a shame that Valve haven't done more than they have so far.


I can only agree with most of your points. Valve were happy to sit pretty and milk all the sales from a shoddy and inferior version of a VR ecosystem (Steam VR vs Oculus).

Its only since the Index has released that Oculus fixed SteamVR and I'd now say it is as good or better than the Oculus PCVR experience.

I think the argument for Valve not released HL2 port in VR is their 'high standards for videogames' but TBH they've had a fair few duff pancake games so I don't get this point completely.

I can't talk on commitment and support to developers. As far as I know they've created SteamVR to make it easy for developers to port games... and Valve don't seem to be a company to throw cash about... which is sad. If they threw some cash at someone and said lets make a VR game TOGETHER because we simply don't have the manpower to do it by ourselves.. I'd be impressed.


But yes, we have one company which goes down the exclusive route. We have one company which does nothing. and then we have another company who despite having the biggest VR userbase (on an exclusive platform console) decides to go very very slow in VR development.
 
What are we back in 2016? Lol

Why am I not surprised a thread about Oculus is suddenly turned into a let’s bash Valve thread?

Oculus have ditched Constellation, GO, RiftS, PCVR and Quest in the space of 18 months and introduced mandatory Facebook sign in for new headsets.

They’ve even stopped waving the Halfdome carrot in favour of an even more futuristic AR headset and teamed up with Raybans because they want to look cool.

The fact is if you want a dedicated PCVR HMD that will take advantage of the power of your PC Oculus is no longer for you.
 
What are we back in 2016? Lol

Why am I not surprised a thread about Oculus is suddenly turned into a let’s bash Valve thread?

Oculus have ditched Constellation, GO, RiftS, PCVR and Quest in the space of 18 months and introduced mandatory Facebook sign in for new headsets.

They’ve even stopped waving the Halfdome carrot in favour of an even more futuristic AR headset and teamed up with Raybans because they want to look cool.

The fact is if you want a dedicated PCVR HMD that will take advantage of the power of your PC Oculus is no longer for you.

We're just having an open discussion about each company.
This isn't a valve versus Oculus competition.
Why can Oculus flaws be highlighted but Valves can't?

I don't think either company has been perfect when it comes to VR.

I've paid £300 quid for the best VR controllers on the market.. is it that unfair to be asking Valve to provide software and games which take full advantage of them?
 
Thought this was the Oculus’s embarrassing direction for VR thread?

I don’t see how Valve are an embarrassment to VR with the best VR package and best VR game.

Maybe you should start a new thread for Valve.
 
Thought this was the Oculus’s embarrassing direction for VR thread?

I don’t see how Valve are an embarrassment to VR with the best VR package and best VR game.

Maybe you should start a new thread for Valve.
There is a thread for Valve. However Valve and Oculus are ALWAYS going to cross paths in threads because they're competitors.


Valve have been dissapointing for VR in that they:
1. Released a headset with the worst glare of any headset
2. Have had hardware issues with the joysticks not clicking down on Index controllers and NEVER publicly admitted to it. Instead they SILENTLY fixed it a couple of months into production and made early adopters fight tooth and nail through RMAs to get replacements (which were not advanced RMAs).
3. Have the worst vertical SDE of any VR headset which required a 'column correction' setting
4. Promised 3 VR titles but only delivered one VR title
5. In all their years in VR, have only one game to their name.

etc. etc.


I really don't get this fanboy mentality. It always surprises me. Can't we openly critique any headset maturely without people getting their panties in a twist?
 
I agree with all your points about Valve and the Index. The glare is bad, my controllers suffered with click gate and Valve need to release more games.

I’m not fanboying on Valves failures. But games of Alyxes size take years. Reverb G2 is getting Valve latest quality lenses and who knows how long before we’ll get Index 2.

We have to have patients or should Valve do what Oculus has done, build a Qualcomm XR2 unit and grind down Alyx to mobile standards? Just to appease the masses?
 
I agree with all your points about Valve and the Index. The glare is bad, my controllers suffered with click gate and Valve need to release more games.

I’m not fanboying on Valves failures. But games of Alyxes size take years. Reverb G2 is getting Valve latest quality lenses and who knows how long before we’ll get Index 2.

We have to have patients or should Valve do what Oculus has done, build a Qualcomm XR2 unit and grind down Alyx to mobile standards? Just to appease the masses?
no doubt about it.. valve might have made mistakes..

but oculus have done far far far far far far worse for the PCVR community. they've even tried to drop the minimum standards for what is acceptable for VR.

72.. 80hz... these were never accepted standards for VR 90 was always minimum.
headphones were always minimum standard for Vr.. now we have piped in audio comparable to a £40 bluetooth speaker..
 
Thought this was the Oculus’s embarrassing direction for VR thread?

I don’t see how Valve are an embarrassment to VR with the best VR package and best VR game.

Maybe you should start a new thread for Valve.

1 game dude, thats pretty embarassing for a company so big and one of the main players in VR.
 
1 game dude, thats pretty embarassing for a company so big and one of the main players in VR.

I am of the oppinion of evolution over revolution. Oculus started from nothing so wanted a VR revolution to take over the world before anyone else had time to react.

Valve already had what Oculus and Facebook wanted a huge online game store. Valve didn't need revolution to overthrow its existing business and turn it into a VR store.

People simply can't put Valve and Oculus head to head.

Valve wants evololution if thats what gamers choose. So far the revolution has failed. Steam gamers are still 98% pancakers on their 4k 144hz monitors.

Evolution takes years. Years for new games, years for, mind sets to change, years for quality HMDs to appear.

Once we get past VR drawbacks like SDE, Glare, resolution and FOV a PCVR revolution might happen. But until then evolution continues.

All we need is a StarVR One with 4k per eye resolution full game support at a sub £1000 price point.
 
I am of the oppinion of evolution over revolution. Oculus started from nothing so wanted a VR revolution to take over the world before anyone else had time to react.

Valve already had what Oculus and Facebook wanted a huge online game store. Valve didn't need revolution to overthrow its existing business and turn it into a VR store.

People simply can't put Valve and Oculus head to head.

Valve wants evololution if thats what gamers choose. So far the revolution has failed. Steam gamers are still 98% pancakers on their 4k 144hz monitors.

Evolution takes years. Years for new games, years for, mind sets to change, years for quality HMDs to appear.

Once we get past VR drawbacks like SDE, Glare, resolution and FOV a PCVR revolution might happen. But until then evolution continues.

All we need is a StarVR One with 4k per eye resolution full game support at a sub £1000 price point.
tbh if reports are to be true, the hp reverb g2 from a visual perspective might be there.

im still puzzled why valve didnt work with HP to get index controller compataibility out of the box for the headset though.
 
I am of the oppinion of evolution over revolution. Oculus started from nothing so wanted a VR revolution to take over the world before anyone else had time to react.

Valve already had what Oculus and Facebook wanted a huge online game store. Valve didn't need revolution to overthrow its existing business and turn it into a VR store.

People simply can't put Valve and Oculus head to head.

Valve wants evololution if thats what gamers choose. So far the revolution has failed. Steam gamers are still 98% pancakers on their 4k 144hz monitors.

Evolution takes years. Years for new games, years for, mind sets to change, years for quality HMDs to appear.

Once we get past VR drawbacks like SDE, Glare, resolution and FOV a PCVR revolution might happen. But until then evolution continues.

All we need is a StarVR One with 4k per eye resolution full game support at a sub £1000 price point.
But surely Oculus has done more for evolution than all the others?

They brought out several developer kits, before bringing out their consumer HMD, allowing programmers to create VR content prior to any of the others even releasing a HMD.
They went from wall mounted sensors to inside out tracking a few years ago, where the others are just utilising it now.
They went from tethered to stand alone a few years ago too, where the others are still chained to something else. (PC, PS, xbox etc).
 
Last edited:
But surely Oculus has done more for evolution than all the others?

They brought out several developer kits, before bringing out their consumer HMD, allowing programmers to create VR content prior to any of the others even releasing a HMD.
They went from wall mounted sensors to inside out tracking a few years ago, where the others are just utilising it now.
They went from tethered to stand alone a few years ago too, where the others are still chained to something else. (PC, PS, xbox etc).



i think your last point isn't really a positive if we're talking about evolution for PCVR.

Strictly talking about VR, its an evolution in some ways and a step backwards for the complexity in the software for what VR will offer..
 
i think your last point isn't really a positive if we're talking about evolution for PCVR.

Strictly talking about VR, its an evolution in some ways and a step backwards for the complexity in the software for what VR will offer..
It wasn't meant to be a positive or negative, just an idea how evolution is.... evolving.
But having said that, it is a positive as its a step forward (for untethered) and can/will only get better. It has to start somewhere, and usually the bottom is the only starting point.

Put it another way, what has anyone else done for the untethered evolution.
 
It wasn't meant to be a positive or negative, just an idea how evolution is.... evolving.
But having said that, it is a positive as its a step forward (for untethered) and can/will only get better. It has to start somewhere, and usually the bottom is the only starting point.

Put it another way, what has anyone else done for the untethered evolution.


Vive pro wireless adaptor.
And they did that without compromising the quality of VR software of graphical fidelity of the games. If every Oculus exclusive moving forwards has to be able to be played on the little crap processor on the Q2, then say goodbye to high end games which push the envelope of VR such as LE, Asgard's Wrath, the high fidelity version of Robo Recall. There is ALREADY a gulf in class between pancake and VR games, to make the decision to farther that gap means they don't care about gamers.

We can play this game with any feature and most companies.

Valve forced VR forwards re:evolution with the following improvements for:
1. Higher Refresh rates which help enormously for some with immersion and tolerance of VR
2. A true high fidelity off ear audio solution for VR
3. Pushing the envelope on FOV horizontal and vertical to eliminate the toilet paper roll effect of some VR headsets
4. Lower persistence panels to improve level of immersion and limit motion blur
5. True finger tracking for control schemes
6. Being able to let go of the controller for proper full immersion in games
7. Pinpoint perfect tracking rather than compromised tracking systems like inside-out or the constellation tracking oculus used before
8. Proper Glasses support

The difference is that some of Valve's 'evolution' was so advanced, and so costly, that other companies simply can't compete or didn't want to compete with those features. Apart from resolution, both the G2 and Quest as a PCVR solution don't surpass, and actually fall short of the Index despite having a pretty large 12-18month headstart with evolution of tech on their side.. and the fact they have the Index to copy the homework from if they wanted to.

Then we can also talk about the the general premium build quality improvements the Index introduced to its headset such as the magnetic face gaskets, the better materials used in the cloth (before and even now, we still get on oculus headsets horrible cheap foam which needs a replacement with a VR cover) etc. I feel these were clear intentional evolutions on the quality of what we should expect for a VR headset. As much as I love the CV1, its a cheap piece of fabric crap compared to the Index. And its good that Valve evolved the headsets to have that much more of a premium feel.

Every company has brought something to the table with VR.

Yes, Oculus did portable untethered VR first but I don't think we can then discount that HTC, Valve and soon to be the G2 will bring to the table too.
HTC pioneered untethered PCVR, something neither Oculus or Valve have matched.

There is more to VR than resolution, there is more to VR than tether, there is more to VR than FOV, there is more to VR than controllers, there is more to VR than responsiveness and there is more to VR than tracking. But lets not cherry pick specific things which headsets have 'evolved' to paint them in a superior light.
 
Last edited:
Lets also remember Oculus were happy with VR having no room scale and using an XBOX 360 controller.

They had to remedy this later, after Valve and HTC's work and dedication to room scale and a native VR control scheme. I'd say room scale and having actual VR controllers is pretty god damn evolutionary for VR.
 
Vive pro wireless adaptor.
And they did that without compromising the quality of VR software of graphical fidelity of the games. If every Oculus exclusive moving forwards has to be able to be played on the little crap processor on the Q2, then say goodbye to high end games which push the envelope of VR such as LE, Asgard's Wrath, the high fidelity version of Robo Recall. There is ALREADY a gulf in class between pancake and VR games, to make the decision to farther that gap means they don't care about gamers.

We can play this game with any feature and most companies.

Valve forced VR forwards re:evolution with the following improvements for:
1. Higher Refresh rates which help enormously for some with immersion and tolerance of VR
2. A true high fidelity off ear audio solution for VR
3. Pushing the envelope on FOV horizontal and vertical to eliminate the toilet paper roll effect of some VR headsets
4. Lower persistence panels to improve level of immersion and limit motion blur
5. True finger tracking for control schemes
6. Being able to let go of the controller for proper full immersion in games
7. Pinpoint perfect tracking rather than compromised tracking systems like inside-out or the constellation tracking oculus used before
8. Proper Glasses support

The difference is that some of Valve's 'evolution' was so advanced, and so costly, that other companies simply can't compete or didn't want to compete with those features. Apart from resolution, both the G2 and Quest as a PCVR solution don't surpass, and actually fall short of the Index despite having a pretty large 12-18month headstart with evolution of tech on their side.. and the fact they have the Index to copy the homework from if they wanted to.

Then we can also talk about the the general premium build quality improvements the Index introduced to its headset such as the magnetic face gaskets, the better materials used in the cloth (before and even now, we still get on oculus headsets horrible cheap foam which needs a replacement with a VR cover) etc. I feel these were clear intentional evolutions on the quality of what we should expect for a VR headset. As much as I love the CV1, its a cheap piece of fabric crap compared to the Index. And its good that Valve evolved the headsets to have that much more of a premium feel.

Every company has brought something to the table with VR.

Yes, Oculus did portable untethered VR first but I don't think we can then discount that HTC, Valve and soon to be the G2 will bring to the table too.
HTC pioneered untethered PCVR, something neither Oculus or Valve have matched.

There is more to VR than resolution, there is more to VR than tether, there is more to VR than FOV, there is more to VR than controllers, there is more to VR than responsiveness and there is more to VR than tracking. But lets not cherry pick specific things which headsets have 'evolved' to paint them in a superior light.

Actually the XR2 is pretty impressive, particularly in terms of CPU power.

According to a developer the other week he said that it's on a par with a minimum spec VR Ready PC. The architecture is different, so developers like me might need to optimise things and bring the texture resolution down but there's no reason why any of the Rift games can't be ported to the Quest with a bit of work. They won't be as pretty, they won't have as much frilly bits and pieces like the same amount of clutter of objects and foliage in-game but it should be doable.

I'm going to stress test a Quest 2 in preparation for Dino Coaster VR to see what I can get away with in terms of my jungle. Going to be interesting to see how far I can push it, I should be able to manage a thousand trees going by feedback from that dev I mentioned above.
I am of the oppinion of evolution over revolution. Oculus started from nothing so wanted a VR revolution to take over the world before anyone else had time to react.

Valve already had what Oculus and Facebook wanted a huge online game store. Valve didn't need revolution to overthrow its existing business and turn it into a VR store.

People simply can't put Valve and Oculus head to head.

Valve wants evololution if thats what gamers choose. So far the revolution has failed. Steam gamers are still 98% pancakers on their 4k 144hz monitors.

Evolution takes years. Years for new games, years for, mind sets to change, years for quality HMDs to appear.

Once we get past VR drawbacks like SDE, Glare, resolution and FOV a PCVR revolution might happen. But until then evolution continues.

All we need is a StarVR One with 4k per eye resolution full game support at a sub £1000 price point.

Valve could have had Half Life 2 VR completed from start to finish with a team of 2 developers and 2 testers inside 6 months.

Sure, it took years for a NEW Half Life game to be developed but Half Life 2 VR could have been done inside 6 months. And you can halve that time if you add an extra developer and an extra tester.

I'm speaking as someone in the know here, I used to work in the industry. 6 months would have been all it would have taken.

This is why I've been SO pissed off by Valve. They should have been working on Half Life 2 VR for launch day and started work on a Portal or Left 4 Dead game at least a year before the Rift and Vive launched.

They could have released Half Life 2 VR in 2016, Portal/L4D VR in 2018 (and split the team at the Beta stage to work on Alyx in 2017) and Alyx in 2020.

The Lab and Half Life Alyx just don't cut the proverbial mustard.
 
Actually the XR2 is pretty impressive, particularly in terms of CPU power.

According to a developer the other week he said that it's on a par with a minimum spec VR Ready PC. The architecture is different, so developers like me might need to optimise things and bring the texture resolution down but there's no reason why any of the Rift games can't be ported to the Quest with a bit of work. They won't be as pretty, they won't have as much frilly bits and pieces like the same amount of clutter of objects and foliage in-game but it should be doable.

I'm going to stress test a Quest 2 in preparation for Dino Coaster VR to see what I can get away with in terms of my jungle. Going to be interesting to see how far I can push it, I should be able to manage a thousand trees going by feedback from that dev I mentioned above.


Valve could have had Half Life 2 VR completed from start to finish with a team of 2 developers and 2 testers inside 6 months.

Sure, it took years for a NEW Half Life game to be developed but Half Life 2 VR could have been done inside 6 months. And you can halve that time if you add an extra developer and an extra tester.

I'm speaking as someone in the know here, I used to work in the industry. 6 months would have been all it would have taken.

This is why I've been SO pissed off by Valve. They should have been working on Half Life 2 VR for launch day and started work on a Portal or Left 4 Dead game at least a year before the Rift and Vive launched.

They could have released Half Life 2 VR in 2016, Portal/L4D VR in 2018 (and split the team at the Beta stage to work on Alyx in 2017) and Alyx in 2020.

The Lab and Half Life Alyx just don't cut the proverbial mustard.


Come on.

The XR2 is not going to be able to play a game like Asgard's Wrath in a hundred years.

Oculus games were pushing my 8086k/RTX 2080 to its knees.. thats how advanced and cutting edge Oculus were 1-2 years ago with Asgard's Wrath and Stormland. This is a compliment to them retrospectively.. but now they're taking 10 steps back.


Relying on mobile CPU/GPU power IS going to hold back Oculus's exclusive VR development from bettering higher end VR titles. Trying to argue against this is a bit of a joke. In no way is a mobile GPU/CPU ever going to better or even come close to competing with a dedicated GPU and CPU. Any developer saying its in line with a gaming PC is flat out lying.

I'm actually shocked you even can begin to believe that. Oculus themselves released figures on the performance of the XR2 chip and no slide say it was 20x or 40x faster than the Q1.

Play Robo Recall on the Q1, then play it on a PCVR headset and the different is astronomical. Thats how much Q1/Q2 are holding back VR. If you haven't done it, go and do it.

Of course some games can be ported over, and they look god damn awful. Vader Immortal was atrocious on Q1 compared to its PCVR version for example. I remember playing through it on Q1 and I was so dissapointed despite the inky blacks of the OLED panel. It just looked bad, cheap and about 3 generations too old.


Really.. this isn't even a debate. Anyone arguing against this is just being silly.
 
Last edited:
Vive pro wireless adaptor.
And they did that without compromising the quality of VR software of graphical fidelity of the games. If every Oculus exclusive moving forwards has to be able to be played on the little crap processor on the Q2, then say goodbye to high end games which push the envelope of VR such as LE, Asgard's Wrath, the high fidelity version of Robo Recall. There is ALREADY a gulf in class between pancake and VR games, to make the decision to farther that gap means they don't care about gamers.

We can play this game with any feature and most companies.

Valve forced VR forwards re:evolution with the following improvements for:
1. Higher Refresh rates which help enormously for some with immersion and tolerance of VR
2. A true high fidelity off ear audio solution for VR
3. Pushing the envelope on FOV horizontal and vertical to eliminate the toilet paper roll effect of some VR headsets
4. Lower persistence panels to improve level of immersion and limit motion blur
5. True finger tracking for control schemes
6. Being able to let go of the controller for proper full immersion in games
7. Pinpoint perfect tracking rather than compromised tracking systems like inside-out or the constellation tracking oculus used before
8. Proper Glasses support

The difference is that some of Valve's 'evolution' was so advanced, and so costly, that other companies simply can't compete or didn't want to compete with those features. Apart from resolution, both the G2 and Quest as a PCVR solution don't surpass, and actually fall short of the Index despite having a pretty large 12-18month headstart with evolution of tech on their side.. and the fact they have the Index to copy the homework from if they wanted to.

Then we can also talk about the the general premium build quality improvements the Index introduced to its headset such as the magnetic face gaskets, the better materials used in the cloth (before and even now, we still get on oculus headsets horrible cheap foam which needs a replacement with a VR cover) etc. I feel these were clear intentional evolutions on the quality of what we should expect for a VR headset. As much as I love the CV1, its a cheap piece of fabric crap compared to the Index. And its good that Valve evolved the headsets to have that much more of a premium feel.

Every company has brought something to the table with VR.

Yes, Oculus did portable untethered VR first but I don't think we can then discount that HTC, Valve and soon to be the G2 will bring to the table too.
HTC pioneered untethered PCVR, something neither Oculus or Valve have matched.

There is more to VR than resolution, there is more to VR than tether, there is more to VR than FOV, there is more to VR than controllers, there is more to VR than responsiveness and there is more to VR than tracking. But lets not cherry pick specific things which headsets have 'evolved' to paint them in a superior light.
I did actually write about the Vive wireless adaptor but deleted it as it was never really mainstream, too expensive and appeared a little heavy and clunky.

What makes you think that every Oculus game moving forward will have to be played poor quality on a mobile processor? This is the beauty of evolution. It starts at the bottom and moves up. The mobile processor of today was the equivalent of a PC processor a few years back. In a few years time the mobile processor will be the same as the PC processor of today (although the PC processor will also move forward too).

I know we can play this game all day, but that wasn't what i meant. I have no doubt that other makes have also made great evolutionary steps too, but my point was that Oculus have also (its not like they have brought nothing to the table after all).
Having said that your list is a little 'clutching at straws'.

Of course i am cherry picking, its to highlight what Oculus did (which was my point). the same as you have cherry picked what other manufacturers have done for VR in your list above. That's not a negative, its a positive as they have ALL made evolutionary advances (and long may it continue).
I am certainly NOT painting any of them in a superior light as clearly some have surpassed what each other have done.

As a disclaimer i have only ever owned (and used) a DK2, and CV1.
I have on pre-order a G2 and don't have any intentions of going untethered.
 
Last edited:
I did actually write about the Vive wireless adaptor but deleted it as it was never really mainstream, too expensive and appeared a little heavy and clunky.

What makes you think that every Oculus game moving forward will have to be played poor quality on a mobile processor? This is the beauty of evolution. It starts at the bottom and moves up. The mobile processor of today was the equivalent of a PC processor a few years back. In a few years time the mobile processor will be the same as the PC processor of today (although the PC processor will also move forward too).

I know we can play this game all day, but that wasn't what i meant. I have no doubt that other makes have also made great evolutionary steps too, but my point was that Oculus have also (its not like they have brought nothing to the table after all).
Having said that your list is a little 'clutching at straws'.

Of course i am cherry picking, its to highlight what Oculus did (which was my point). the same as you have cherry picked what other manufacturers have done for VR in your list above. That's not a negative, its a positive as they have ALL made evolutionary advances (and long may it continue).
I am certainly NOT painting any of them in a superior light as clearly some have surpassed what each other have done.

As a disclaimer i have only ever owned (and used) a DK2, and CV1.
I have on pre-order a G2 and don't have any intentions of going untethered.

Thanks, I will explain this as simply as possible.

Oculus until the Q1/Q2 produced cutting edge games which pushed PCVR hardware to its limits. Stormland, Asgard's Wrath, Lone Echo.

Now with the Q1/Q2, the games they make need to be able to support the Q1/Q2. Games are not simply about down-sizing resolution and textures. They are far far more complex. For example, look at Skyrim, the script engines requires and the AI/intelligence used. This requires strong compute power. This power is not available on a mobile device. Therefore if Q1/Q2 support is top priority for Oculus, they simply won't make complex games which would push the envelope and qualuty for VR.

Instead they will make cartoony games which are shorter experiences with limited gameplay options and simpler gameplay loops. Which is exactly what we saw at Facebook Connect and with their latest game teasers.

Oculus's direction seems to now be targetting social media gamers, ipad gamers... not your Sony and PC users. I get the bottom up approach but I predict that if the bottom is giving them a lot of success, they will simply keep going with the bottom and never return to the top.

Top end PCVR is a lot of work, a lot of development, a lot of headache, would require a whole new headset and gives you limited money and limited social media exposure... all that effort they can just pump into the love child quest line.


Oculus have brought a lot to the PCVR table but they've also stepped up and walked away from it and sat down at the portable VR table.



Oculus's timeline of committment to PCVR is also interesting. The writing was on the wall when they released the RIft S and outsourced it to Lenovo so they could concentrate on the Q1.

Many would argue Oculus actually left PCVR when they stopped making the CV1. I don't believe since the CV1 stopped, they invested in anymore high end PCVR games. As far as I know sTormland, LE2, Asgards wrath and MOH were all being made during CV1 days.
 
Thanks, I will explain this as simply as possible.

Oculus until the Q1/Q2 produced cutting edge games which pushed PCVR hardware to its limits. Stormland, Asgard's Wrath, Lone Echo.

Now with the Q1/Q2, the games they make need to be able to support the Q1/Q2. Games are not simply about down-sizing resolution and textures. They are far far more complex. For example, look at Skyrim, the script engines requires and the AI/intelligence used. This requires strong compute power. This power is not available on a mobile device. Therefore if Q1/Q2 support is top priority for Oculus, they simply won't make complex games which would push the envelope and qualuty for VR.

Instead they will make cartoony games which are shorter experiences with limited gameplay options and simpler gameplay loops. Which is exactly what we saw at Facebook Connect and with their latest game teasers.

Oculus's direction seems to now be targetting social media gamers, ipad gamers... not your Sony and PC users. I get the bottom up approach but I predict that if the bottom is giving them a lot of success, they will simply keep going with the bottom and never return to the top.

Top end PCVR is a lot of work, a lot of development, a lot of headache, would require a whole new headset and gives you limited money and limited social media exposure... all that effort they can just pump into the love child quest line.


Oculus have brought a lot to the PCVR table but they've also stepped up and walked away from it and sat down at the portable VR table.



Oculus's timeline of committment to PCVR is also interesting. The writing was on the wall when they released the RIft S and outsourced it to Lenovo so they could concentrate on the Q1.

Many would argue Oculus actually left PCVR when they stopped making the CV1. I don't believe since the CV1 stopped, they invested in anymore high end PCVR games. As far as I know sTormland, LE2, Asgards wrath and MOH were all being made during CV1 days.

You're making it sound like the likes of The Climb 2, Population One, Jurassic World Aftermath, Project 4, Warhammer 40K Battle Sister, Star Wars Tales From The Galaxy's Edge, Sniper Elite VR, Myst, Assassin's Creed VR and Splinter Cell VR are going to be poor quality games with crap graphics on the PC VR headsets. All of these games are ALSO being developed for PC VR, most of that footage was from the PC VR SKUs.

Oculus are continuing to bring these games to PC VR headsets and they'll continue to be a step ahead of anything that other PC VR developers are bringing to the table. And once developers stop supporting the first Quest (there are currently NO restrictions for developers regarding standalone headset support, we're not forced to support the first Quest) you'll see better quality games on the Quest 2 using its internal hardware comparable to the first generation of Rift titles (the likes of Edge Of Nowhere, Chronos etc) in terms of scope with downgrades in textures and poly counts. You've mentioned Robo Recall as an example but that game has been ported to the FIRST Quest which is powered by a potato. The Quest 2 is a different kettle of fish altogether.

For the Quest 1 version of Dino Coaster VR I'm expecting to be able to have 500 or 600 stylised trees and rock formations in my jungle, the Quest 2 version to have well over a thousand trees and the Rift version to have several thousand of the things. Doesn't sound too shabby to me.
 
You're making it sound like the likes of The Climb 2, Population One, Jurassic World Aftermath, Project 4, Warhammer 40K Battle Sister, Star Wars Tales From The Galaxy's Edge, Sniper Elite VR, Myst, Assassin's Creed VR and Splinter Cell VR are going to be poor quality games with crap graphics on the PC VR headsets. All of these games are ALSO being developed for PC VR, most of that footage was from the PC VR SKUs.

Oculus are continuing to bring these games to PC VR headsets and they'll continue to be a step ahead of anything that other PC VR developers are bringing to the table. And once developers stop supporting the first Quest (there are currently NO restrictions for developers regarding standalone headset support, we're not forced to support the first Quest) you'll see better quality games on the Quest 2 using its internal hardware comparable to the first generation of Rift titles (the likes of Edge Of Nowhere, Chronos etc) in terms of scope with downgrades in textures and poly counts. You've mentioned Robo Recall as an example but that game has been ported to the FIRST Quest which is powered by a potato. The Quest 2 is a different kettle of fish altogether.

For the Quest 1 version of Dino Coaster VR I'm expecting to be able to have 500 or 600 stylised trees and rock formations in my jungle, the Quest 2 version to have well over a thousand trees and the Rift version to have several thousand of the things. Doesn't sound too shabby to me.

Half of the games you mentioned looked awful in the trailers and very cartoony and simple and actually prove my point.

How many times gpu and cpu compute power does the q2 have over the q1? It isn’t 100x more fyi which is what you’re making it out to be
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom