Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oculus Quest 2

oculus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 591 posts

Re: Oculus Quest 2

#481

Post by dalbasal »

superkuh wrote: post #21
wlesieutre wrote: post #4

$300 is a pretty big deal for pricing on a VR headset, that feels very different from $400 for wide adoption. Seems like this is also the end of the road for Rift, the Quest 2 is lower cost, more pixels, and they mentioned 90 hz screens for PCVR games over Link. EDIT - review units went out in advance, so 3rd party reviews are already up. Here's one from Tested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x6lux6f_6g

The Rift is a VR head mounted display for a beefy PC. The Quest is an entire computer system powered by battery and tiny in surface area. They're different products for different markets. Anything in a mobile form factor as your VR computer will necessarily be limited for either shorter time periods or significantly less graphical fidelity.

True, but...

Tethering just feels like an bootstrapping niche. Appealing to those who already find gaming PCs appealing, obviously dovetailing with highly engaged gamers. But, tethering is never going to "win." Tethering for power makes current battery life OK, even the quest 1 is good enough.

Mass adoption, almost certainly, means an affordable all-in-one unit. We have enough history at this point (with home gaming) to know what the price range is. Oculus have been playing within that range.

Graphics/power is already (Quest1) good enough for a lot of games. An interesting part of the history of home gaming is that both "more is never enough" and "good enough is good enough" seem to be true. Lots of the most popular gaming products (games, consoles.. eg minecraft) did not push boundaries at all. OTOH, bleeding edge has always been highly relevant, especially for blockbuster games.

On balance, I don't think graphics is a (commercially) limiting factor for VR anymore. This makes a rift/tethered device kind of questionable. If it doesn't get mass adoption, and I don't think it can), it can't support the high end games that really need these graphics. The oculus product line strategy (whether accidentally or deliberately) seems clever. The rift is what you develop new games for. They will (hopefully) be portable to the next gen Quest.

Overall, I think the current game is all about weight/comfort and content. The current devices are heavy & sweaty. This one weighs just 10% less. Every gram counts, but I don't think this is a breakthrough. Content is the other factor. IMO, exercise apps still need to breakthrough. I'm surprised ankle controllers and heart rate monitors aren't a thing yet. I really think the right game & controllers with the current gen quest could become a breakthrough workout thing. A lot of current games are pretty physical, but I suspect you can get to a point where a 6 week game addiction makes you look visibly fitter... on par with a daily gym routine.

Re: Oculus Quest 2

#482

Post by Certhas »

puranjay wrote: post #466
rektide wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What stodgy complainy whininess. I can play 60%+ of games on Linux because Valve cares way more than anyone else. Big Picture works great for a console like experience far better than anyone elses. Valve Controller let's practically any game under the sun be couch & controller playable. Remote Play, then Remote Play Together, now Remote Play Tablet blow everything else out of the water. I'm sorry the you doesn't meet…

Anyone who says Valve is resting on their laurels clearly hasn't tried Half Life: Alyx. They've sigularly pushed VR further than all the other games and experiences out there combined.

Agreed. As far as my household is concerned there are two relevant VR experiences: BeatSaber and Alyx. (Serious Sam of all games gets an honourable mention). We would not own a Quest if not for Alyx.

Re: Oculus Quest 2

#483

Post by jyrkesh »

na85 wrote: post #421
someperson wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point it's clear that Facebook have "won" VR. At least for the current generation that's mostly focused on gaming. The original Oculus Quest is already really good, and was constantly sold out for almost its entire lifetime, and now Facebook are selling a near-4K resolution headset with a top-of-the-line Snapdragon XR2 for $299. I have been considering starting an open firmware project for the Oculus Quest 2…

>Is anyone interested? Honestly, I feel like you could position such a project as "Deconstructing Facebook's business models one step at a time: The corporation" and hire a lot of anarcho-hacker types while positioning the company as a social-good venture. I personally would love to get paid to gradually undercut and destroy facebook. I worry that 2 things would happen: 1. The company would become what it set out to…

Whenever you talk about startups with people outside the HN-like crowd, they always ask you about "your ideas", particularly if you assume you have all the funding lined up no problem.

My go-to response is always "put Facebook out of business".

I've been thinking about it for probably 10 years, I still have no idea what that means, but your post here got me a little stoked it could be possible

Re: Oculus Quest 2

#484

Post by the-dude »

someperson wrote: post #442
ghostpepper wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think the bulk of the Oculus innovation is deep in the stack? Is there much custom hardware in the Quest 2 or is it similar to a phone in a different form factor? How much of the accuracy of the sensor fusion algorithm comes from the inherent accuracy/calibration of the underlying sensors? Has anyone tried bringing up a stock android distribution on the Quest 2?

John Carmack does several hour-long sessions at every annual Oculus Connect event (now called Facebook Connect). [1] [2] He has often spoken about deeply optimizing virtual reality by peeling back all the software layers. From his annoyance at the Android's process scheduling on the GearVR to writing custom microcode for the Qualcomm chip's Digital Signal Processor to try and optimize playing PC games (over Oculus Li…

Transmitting video per scan line sounds very much like slices to me. And those are not particular new.

Re: Oculus Quest 2

#485

Post by spicybright »

eugeniub wrote: post #211
SubiculumCode wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its good that Facebook is over-reaching. We are in too early for one headset to be the only player in town. This will give others a chance to move into the space, I think. Looking at you Nintendo :)

I would be shocked if Nintendo released a competitive (I.e. not Labo) headset in the next year.

Right? I can't imagine the R&D costs behind the switch, and, as big of a success that it is, I'm sure they're still making up the cost of that.

Re: Oculus Quest 2

#486

Post by bserge »

VRay wrote: post #339
sharkweek wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what adblockers will look like in this dystopian hellscape you describe.

Adblockers will require you to "jailbreak" your device and their installation/use will be against numerous terms of service agreements. Maybe they won't be illegal though, who knows

A firewall with deep packet inspection and a shared database among people who block ads would be easier.

Re: Oculus Quest 2

#487

Post by fuzxi »

MrStonedOne wrote: post #407
polyomino wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They mentioned businesses getting accountless and/or alternative authentication methods in the keynote.

Why should businesses get a pass but not normal users?

Because businesses buy in bulk. Regular users have to make up the difference by trading in personal data.

Re: Oculus Quest 2

#488

Post by bserge »

kichik wrote: post #84
ianlevesque wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is it with HN and trying to read between the lines so hard? There's literally an Oculus Store app store for quest games. Probably they are just making money on game sales, like every other game console has for 35 years.

If it were truly just about the games, they would let you keep using Oculus login. Why else would they force you to use a Facebook login? If they only cared about store profits, logins wouldn't be required at all.

Just make a separate/dummy Facebook account. That's what I use.

Re: Oculus Quest 2

#489

Post by bserge »

anilakar wrote: post #473
chaostheory wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah but WMR requires a PC. Quest is an all in one device that you just turn on and put on your head.

I'd compare the Quest 2 to Nintendo's Wii and Switch. It's probably a good platform for the few exclusive titles that have been designed from the ground up to work on the gimmicky controllers and below-than-average hardware specs.

You can use the Quest to play PC games, too.

Re: Oculus Quest 2

#490

Post by bserge »

VRay wrote: post #343
filoleg wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's why Oculus is killing off Rift S. Because Quest can do the exact same thing, but also function as a completely standalone device, all for $299/$399. It is indeed a killer value proposition.

> Quest can do the exact same thing [as a Rift S] There's multi-frame latency and compression artifacts involved in this. It's really disingenuous to say that a Quest 2 is unambiguously better than an actual PC VR headset

Oculus Link uses USB-C
Post reply on HN