Why in 2022 Oculus will try to break back into PCVR a second time.

@Atmos I thought I was disagreeing with your original prediction of a Facebook PCVR return in 2022 :rotfl:

Yup. πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

I assume Facebook's objective is to get people to adopt Facebook accounts for VR use.
They can do it two ways, sell to people who are looking for a stand-alone experience provided there are decent apps available with no PC requirement, and they can do it by selling to PCVR users who want to use it that way.

Both ways necessitate Facebook accounts (for the Quest) so both ways work from their point of view. I don't see why they wouldn't want to carry on with both routes to be honest.

There may be a few people who only use Quests for PCVR but I'd guess they were in a small minority, Most people who bought a Quest for PC use are going to also try out the stand-alone features, Steam would seem to be a decent enough vehicle for Oculus so is definitely of interest.

You've also got to remember that anyone using Oculus-Link to play PC VR games has the Rift Store in their face as soon as they press the Link button so the first port of call is going to be the Rift Store when it comes to buying PC VR games.

And like I've said above developers are still using the Rift Store to launch their games so the Rift platform isn't as dead as SOME PEOPLE would like it to be. 😎😁😎
 

JustinTheNick

Standard Member
Yup. πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚



You've also got to remember that anyone using Oculus-Link to play PC VR games has the Rift Store in their face as soon as they press the Link button so the first port of call is going to be the Rift Store when it comes to buying PC VR games.

And like I've said above developers are still using the Rift Store to launch their games so the Rift platform isn't as dead as SOME PEOPLE would like it to be. 😎😁😎
That's true.
I'm not sure the Rift store is a big earner for Oculus when balancing the cost of developing games for a relatively small userbase that PCVR still is. It's been there to support the Rift and now the Quest but if Steam can do the same thing, they may be starting to think that that's all they need. Steam for PCVR, and the Quest store when unplugged.

Provided they maintain driver control, that side of the software needs to stay with Oculus rather than be deferred to SteamVR as it's always performed better for their headsets imo. Their OpenXR implementation seems to be better for the Rift too from what I can make out.

It wouldn't be completely crazy for them to release Horizons (when it's eventually released) on Steam but I think that depends on how much they see it as a Quest thing, to further the Quest ecosystem, or to open up to PCVR users of all camps, to get those accounts.
 
Last edited:

Atmos

Well-known Member
That's true.
I'm not sure the Rift store is a big earner for Oculus when balancing the cost of developing games for a relatively small userbase that PCVR still is.

Yes its small. 3 million connected each month which is only 2.3% of Steam users. So Gaben still has 97.7% in his back pocket. Oculus on the other hand have to find new business from scatch so they price their headset accordingly which is why servers are full of 8-15 year olds.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JustinTheNick

Standard Member
Yes its small. 3 million connected each month which is only 2.3% of Steam users. So Gaben still has 97.7% in his back pocket. Oculus on the other hand have to find new business from scatch so they price their headset accordingly which is why servers are full of 8-15 year olds.

Dude, I'll be whoever you want me to be, I'm just not dressing up for it. You have my first comment to respond to before jumping to my last one though. I'll give you time to catch up. Otherwise I'll talk to the others here sensibly.

Also, not sure how making statements about whether Oculus will or will not produce another PC only headset is either defending or attacking, it's just a statement about whether they'll produce another PC only headset.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

outoftheknow

Moderator
Edit: It looks like this Atmos has removed the bit about me being someone he doesn't like and says I'm defending Oculus with my posts, which now makes my post seem weird!!
Do the quotes change when the original post is edited? just curious, difficult to keep people honest.
A moderator may edit a post and then that post where it is quoted.
 

outoftheknow

Moderator
Moderators please lock this thread I will not be taking part in it anymore.
No need to lock the thread - the original discussion was a good one as long as all involved don’t resort to the unfortunately usual bickering :) :thumbsup:
 

MikeKay1976

Distinguished Member
Facebook have previously announced that the Rift-S would be their last PCVR headset... as far as this article from Techradar claims along with claiming the Rift (not the Quest) is dead.


(I think the article heading should have said Rift in place of Quest, the dips:censored:ts)

Its very widely reported that there will not be a successor to the now discontinued Rift-S, Facebook PCVR is dead.
Oculus PC ONLY VR being dead != PCVR is dead. Quest 2 is a hybrid device . It has higher resolution, higher refresh rate to rift S and on top of that has manual IPD adjustment (or sorts). The rift S and quest 2 are so similar to each other in terms of PCVR ability but quest 2 has the whole standalone going for it too and at Β£300 I think it would be silly Oculus continuing with rift S.
This is not the direction I would have chosen Oculus to go myself but it's a far cry from Oculus killing pcvr
 

JustinTheNick

Standard Member
Oculus PC ONLY VR being dead != PCVR is dead. Quest 2 is a hybrid device . It has higher resolution, higher refresh rate to rift S and on top of that has manual IPD adjustment (or sorts). The rift S and quest 2 are so similar to each other in terms of PCVR ability but quest 2 has the whole standalone going for it too and at Β£300 I think it would be silly Oculus continuing with rift S.
This is not the direction I would have chosen Oculus to go myself but it's a far cry from Oculus killing pcvr
Yeah, I'm not sure what route I would have chosen tbh. Probably the same as you, dedicated PC and hybrid would have been my first choice for them but at the same time it would be good to just buy 1 headset when the time comes to upgrade.

I guess it all depends on Link being developed further, along with data compression etc, I think at some point it'll perform the same as a direct GPU connection or so close to that as to be a non-issue. I mean I guess it's a non-issue for many people now but I'm not convinced. A wire-free Link would be nice too.

I don't subscribe to stand-alone or hybrid being a threat to PCVR, I'd say it's an introduction to VR for some people and a straight-in PC headset for others. Anyone who buys a Quest is surely going to use it both ways, if they have the PC for it.
 

MikeKay1976

Distinguished Member
So my PCVR device is a reverb G2. In may ways it is specswise what I hoped a CV2 would be (a reverb G2 but using Oculus touch and insight tracking and the Oculus backend would be amazing).
Sadly that was not to be. I bought the quest 2 just for standalone but of course I tried it out for pc and was actually blown away at how good it is. For my uses if I could ONLY have 1 it would probably be the G2 but it would not be an easy call. For those looking to dip their toe into VR however the quest 2 is a no brainer.
It's affordable and despite what some try to claim it is also a highly capable device both as standalone AND as PCVR.
In this case cheap does not mean rubbish.

I would say those wanting a really high end solution (and I perhaps include myself in that) are perhaps a little left behind from Oculus..... But we are a tiny niche within the niche of VR users.
For 90% of VR users the quest 2 is perfect imo.

The TLDR of my ramble is that for OP to be correct would be to accept that Oculus no longer have a decent PCVR device and I fundamentally do not accept that.
I really do hope they encourage developers making quest games to also release versions for the PCVR store and ideally it should be a certainty for any titles that they fund or part fund. I would suggest IF you want Oculus money then that should be in the contract.
 

JustinTheNick

Standard Member
I think developers will always be drawn towards the populous of VR users. PCVR is increasing (if steam surveys are to be believed) with a quarter of those being Quests, so in that respect the headset's feeding into that, at least as much as any other headset.

Yeah I'd pick the best PCVR headset for myself within the tight limitations of my budget and that may mean buying 2 headsets come upgrade time, like you, I wouldn't push that opinion onto anyone else and I don't get the threat reaction from a stand-alone/hybrid.

I get the Facebook account threat reaction though and maybe that was what this thread was really about. It's the part that makes sense even if I don't personally feel threatened by it.
 

PodJim

Active Member
It was the CV1 that got me into PCVR. I don't consider the Quest 2 that I use now a downgrade. Being wireless with Virtual Desktop far outweighs any compression artifacts. I really don't like being tethered now. I suppose we're all different.
 

MikeKay1976

Distinguished Member
I Would miss the sound of my CV1 if Q2 were my only headset. Personally I think it edged even my reverb G2 (which has v highly regarded sound).

I also liked the proper physical ipd adjustment... However over all Q2 is a huge improvement over CV1 imo
 

JustinTheNick

Standard Member
@MikeKay1976 what are the controllers like on the G2? any preferance between those and Touch?

Truth be told I know next to nothing about the G2 except it's propably the simmer's headset of choice. Was wondering about non-simmimg PC stuff like Alyx or Skyrim, would you default to the G2 for all that stuff?

@PodJim from what Ive heard Virtual Desktop is pretty good but dependent on the app? a few apps not supported. But then I guess you just use Link for those. I'm kind of waiting for GPUs to become available at reasonable prices before upgrading this time... GPU, then decision on a headset. Quest 3 could be an option by the time that happens.
 

MikeKay1976

Distinguished Member
The G2 controllers are serviceable.... But they are not as good as Oculus touch.

They feel a bit cheaper, they are heavier, spank the batteries and the vibration is not as good.

The tracking is ok but again not as good as Oculus insight.

When it comes to inside out tracking Oculus are the king's. But I would say it's not a deal breaker nothing I have tried (admittedly I have not tried much) has not been fully playable with the controllers.

The headset ittself is where the G2 shines however.. (with the face insert mod) it is a seriously impressive bit of kit.
 

css_jay99

Active Member
The Quest lineup can only get better with each iteration. There is no reason why Q3 can't be "very good" for PCVR. I think it's a backward step for any high end HMD to rely on a tethered solution for PCVR as we move forward.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
PCVR is dead for me if Oculus don't release cutting edge PCVR games which push a PC to its limit.

As long as every game is designed around a portable VR chip...
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
The Quest lineup can only get better with each iteration. There is no reason why Q3 can't be "very good" for PCVR. I think it's a backward step for any high end HMD to rely on a tethered solution for PCVR as we move forward.


Yes, and no.

Ultimately if you want to push the best graphical fidelity, you'll need a wire. We aren't getting wireless 4K per eye until we get a crazy technological breakthrough in foveatet rendering and wireless protocols.

Multiple components to VR than just tetherless and I'm a big wireless fan.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
The G2 controllers are serviceable.... But they are not as good as Oculus touch.

They feel a bit cheaper, they are heavier, spank the batteries and the vibration is not as good.

The tracking is ok but again not as good as Oculus insight.

When it comes to inside out tracking Oculus are the king's. But I would say it's not a deal breaker nothing I have tried (admittedly I have not tried much) has not been fully playable with the controllers.

The headset ittself is where the G2 shines however.. (with the face insert mod) it is a seriously impressive bit of kit.


Its mental that the Index controllers are 2-3 generations ahead of the Touch ones, which are the second best on the market.

Oculus have big catching up to do to make me believe they care about PCVR.


then again, where is the Index 2? I have question marks for valve too.
 

JustinTheNick

Standard Member
Wireless or wired, foveated rendering is going to be needed for the high resolutions that are desirable for everyone, not just the lucky few with the very top GPU money can buy. Otherwise, yep it's cutting edge, but, with GPU supplies the way they are, it's adopted by so few as to be in danger of being irrelevant.
 

MikeKay1976

Distinguished Member
@kenshingintoki It depends on the games you play. I really rate touch, more than you it seems, I find them comfy and do what I need of them.... But that said ultimately I am not really a full room vr gamer as shown by my untouched collection of quality titles. If there was 1 feature I could nick from the index and stick on my G2 it would not be the controllers. It would be the FOV even with the modded faceplate the index still beats the G2 in that regard.
What I would really like in PCVR games would be combined hand tracking and stearing wheel / hotas support in racing and flight Sims that way I can use my proper hotas for instance but also flick all the switches and what not in my plane.

But I am not saying you are wrong at all, different customers have different priorities.

My last 3 vr headsets I would say 90% of their use is in elite, 5% in eurotruck sim 2 and racing games and then 5% on everything else combined (and that includes standard pad games as well as motion controllers)
Going forward.i plan to put some time into MSFS 2020 but again I won't need VR controllers for that)
The truth is as much as I moaned about disliking the vive wands (and I really do) the fact of the matter is it would hypothetically have been a mistake for.me personally to have ignored a VR package because of those.
 
Last edited:

MikeKay1976

Distinguished Member
Wireless or wired, foveated rendering is going to be needed for the high resolutions that are desirable for everyone, not just the lucky few with the very top GPU money can buy. Otherwise, yep it's cutting edge, but, with GPU supplies the way they are, it's adopted by so few as to be in danger of being irrelevant.
Hopefully the GPU supply disaster will sort ittself out sooner rather than later. Add to that that whilst the 3090 is insanely expensive now, next gen a 4070 or equivalent will likely give it a run for its money for 1/3 of the cost. (Or AMD equivalent of you are in the red team)
 
I'm going to B&Q tomorrow to buy myself a spade, break into next door's shed and will start digging for silicon.

If I find enough to make a 3080 I'm going to give Nvidia a shout. πŸ˜ŽπŸ˜πŸ˜ŽπŸ˜‚
 
Regarding wireless, until I actually tried playing wireless I didn't think it was a big deal. But now I've experienced wireless goodness I find it difficult going back to a wire now. 😲
 

The latest video from AVForums

LG G1 OLED Evo TV and SVS SB-1000 Pro subwoofer reviews, Samsung OLED rumours and more...
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Samsung's 110-inch Micro LED TV on pre-order at Harrods
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Bang & Olufsen introduces Beosound Emerge speaker
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sony launches native 4K VPL-VW290ES and VW890ES projectors
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 14th April 2021
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Ruark introduces R5 Signature audio player
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom