cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

BREAKING - Quest 2 Video Revealled!

kevinw729
Honored Visionary
Edit by mod.
Vid temporarily removed.


Just spoken with @Techy111 - and he agrees that as the video(s) are now all over the web, it can go back up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4EPMxJiJRQ&feature=share


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JTgq3uoQBE&feature=share
https://vrawards.aixr.org/ "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities" https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959
412 REPLIES 412

OmegaM4N
Expert Trustee

inovator said:


OmegaM4N said:


RedRizla said:


Zenbane said:


RedRizla said:

What do people think will happen if Oculus stop producing the Rift S line and call the new Oculus Quest their standalone and PC -VR headset? 



You wouldn't call it a "standalone and PC-VR" headset. The proper term is, "all-in-one headset." And Oculus Quest is already called that.

So... you're just basically asking, what if Oculus stopped making Rift products. And that is the same 'ol tired rhetoric that people have been saying since 2016. My answer to you is the usual stuff: 
  • The Rift is supposed to have been dead since launch, so Rift is Oculus official Undead VR HMD.
  • Currently, only the Quest 1 and GO have been pulled from manufacturing, while Rift-S continues to with production.
  • Oculus already publicly stated that they are doubling down on the Oculus Rift.
  • You can't have PCVR without a PCVR HMD.

The non-Oculus owning naysayers have a few more hours left for the doom n gloom though. Have at it!
 😄 



That's great to hear that Oculus will continue with Rift S and continue to make great Oculus exclusive PC -VR titles.

I don't think you answered my second question, though. What about other devs in general? Will favour a larger Mobile VR crowd like the Onward devs did, or will they continue to cater for a smaller PC -VR crowd and make great PC -VR games?

Thanks for the input, but I'm not sure why you feel the need to lol a lot of my posts recently when it's just a question. Remember, it's never silly to ask a question. Cheers!



VR is a strange market at present as it seems only Sony are able to sell their VR platform in decent numbers to what is a almost insignificant number of PS4 console owners when you compare it against the potential unlimited market open to PCVR and FBs own few billion user base, yet Sony with just over 100 million PS4 in consumers hands managed to sell over 5 million units in 4 years, and that also has to also take into account that each PSVR buyer has already spent money on a PS4 to use said PSVR, so what are Sony doing right that PCVR and FB are not.......... it's a very strange time for VR. lol


To me it's not so strange. Every ps console owner has a vr capable machine. Since they own the consoles for gaming even if they didn't do vr the headset is their only investment. The ease of use is the most important thing. Just plug and play using hardware  and software that is uniform across the board. I never had a tech problem with my psvr. In comparison the pc vr has always been a pain.



Yeah i have no doubt ease of use was a major seller, well as ease of use as you can get with that explosion of wires and that breakout bcx. lol..............but also the ports they got of Skyrim and Borderlands VR alone were some cracking work, hell if they had managed to get Elite Dangerous on the PSVR i doubt i would have touched PC vr at all. 😉
CV1/Vive-knuckles)/Dell Vr Visor/Go/Quest II/ PSVR.


Mradr said:




Mradr said:



I think it will depend on the developers willingness to include settings within their game to cater for both Quest headsets or not, model complexity and textures size etc.
A simple 'Quest 1 or Quest 2' option in the app's menu would be ideal (or auto detect). Graphics sliders are the default way of thinking for PC games but we're in the hands of the developers as to whether they take the time to do it for Quest.


Quest 1 SoC is just too weak and the jump will be party large. I assume some games could of course do this - but I have a feeling it will be a hard press not be able to support both without some really big cut in how the game works or looks. If Quest 1 has used a better SoC at the time of release - maybe it would have a better chance. As of what leaks there has been - it looks like a big enough change in performance I am not sure any dev creating with Quest 2 in mind will be able to go backwards to Quest 1 that easy. Plus - all the devs already wishing there was just a little more with the Quest 1 already so their games could "fit" with in the hardware specs.


Variations in graphical complexity is a relatively simple thing to allow for within a single game.

I think storage would be the potential problem, Quest 1's would struggle to store many games if they include the large textures and model detail options that make the most of Quest 2's capabilities.


Yes to a point - but you have many factors you have to deal with. I mean if it was that simple - we see more PC games going over to the Quest or Quest games not being resolid as new games if that was the case, yet it did happen and yet it took/taken many devs hours to "recreate" their idea on the Quest because of the fact it was such a large difference. I wouldn't say its simple so long as the hardware is with in generations - but this isn't. We're talking a big enough jump and future jumps where we will see large performance gains to come.

Correct, textures are going to get better, visuals (res), memory (6GB or more), better key hardware performance, etc. Its just too large of an upgrade to really say Quest 2 games (in mind) are going to be able to scale downwards f or Quest 1 so easy. While some games again could, larger titles are going to find it a bit harder to do/not be able to do.

Its both good and bad - mostly good - as the cost to upgrade is cheaper than Quest 1. Its just a fact though as hardware gets better older hardware will not see as much love going forward as the hardware ages out.


Well yes, but we're not talking about PC games, just Quest 1 and Quest 2. The difference in capabilities may be big but not on the scale of PC to mobile

OmegaM4N
Expert Trustee

kevinw729 said:






That so much needs the countdown tune. lol





CV1/Vive-knuckles)/Dell Vr Visor/Go/Quest II/ PSVR.

Anonymous
Not applicable



Mradr said:




Mradr said:



I think it will depend on the developers willingness to include settings within their game to cater for both Quest headsets or not, model complexity and textures size etc.
A simple 'Quest 1 or Quest 2' option in the app's menu would be ideal (or auto detect). Graphics sliders are the default way of thinking for PC games but we're in the hands of the developers as to whether they take the time to do it for Quest.


Quest 1 SoC is just too weak and the jump will be party large. I assume some games could of course do this - but I have a feeling it will be a hard press not be able to support both without some really big cut in how the game works or looks. If Quest 1 has used a better SoC at the time of release - maybe it would have a better chance. As of what leaks there has been - it looks like a big enough change in performance I am not sure any dev creating with Quest 2 in mind will be able to go backwards to Quest 1 that easy. Plus - all the devs already wishing there was just a little more with the Quest 1 already so their games could "fit" with in the hardware specs.


Variations in graphical complexity is a relatively simple thing to allow for within a single game.

I think storage would be the potential problem, Quest 1's would struggle to store many games if they include the large textures and model detail options that make the most of Quest 2's capabilities.


Yes to a point - but you have many factors you have to deal with. I mean if it was that simple - we see more PC games going over to the Quest or Quest games not being resolid as new games if that was the case, yet it did happen and yet it took/taken many devs hours to "recreate" their idea on the Quest because of the fact it was such a large difference. I wouldn't say its simple so long as the hardware is with in generations - but this isn't. We're talking a big enough jump and future jumps where we will see large performance gains to come.

Correct, textures are going to get better, visuals (res), memory (6GB or more), better key hardware performance, etc. Its just too large of an upgrade to really say Quest 2 games (in mind) are going to be able to scale downwards f or Quest 1 so easy. While some games again could, larger titles are going to find it a bit harder to do/not be able to do.

Its both good and bad - mostly good - as the cost to upgrade is cheaper than Quest 1. Its just a fact though as hardware gets better older hardware will not see as much love going forward as the hardware ages out.


Well yes, but we're not talking about PC games, just Quest 1 and Quest 2. The difference in capabilities may be big but not on the scale of PC to mobile


mmm kind of my point its not that simple 😛 If its with in the same generation of hardware upgrades like an 980 to a 1080 sure a lot of games will support each other. To me base off the SoC its more like a 980 compare to 3080. While it might be able to play some basic games - it wont be able to touch the higher end games all that well.



While of course these are benchmarks from the company and not real ones - the jump in numbers are still pretty crazy. A 2x better performance is not really heard of ... more like 30% improve - that's double!

kevinw729
Honored Visionary

DaftnDirect said:
.......

Well yes, but we're not talking about PC games, just Quest 1 and Quest 2. The difference in capabilities may be big but not on the scale of PC to mobile



An interesting point. 
I wonder if selling the Quest-2 as a say "All-in-One" platform being both able to connect to a PC and also being standalone, and promoting this more, without the confusion of its difference against Rift-S would make for a sales sales opportunity?

Competing alongside the soon to be launched HTC Focus Elite (standalone), the Pico N3 (standalone), and proposed Lynx, Samsung, Panasonic and much rumored Sony (standalone(s)) all with XR2 processors. But at the Quest-2's unique piece point (minus the Link cables' obviously).
https://vrawards.aixr.org/ "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities" https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959

Calibos
Heroic Explorer
FB/Oculus will not segment the Quest 1/2 game libraries.

A. Because it would create a shitstorm.
B. Because the extra performance of the XR2 CPU and GPU Performance is mostly swallowed up by the increase in resolution to near 4k and the increase in refresh rate from 72-90hz.

The Rift S is dead, mark my words. They'll announce its EOL early next year.

The XR2 will allow them to improve Oculus Link to be almost as transparent to the end user as a DP cable and also allow them to have a Wireless Oculus link over Wifi6 and a PC Dongle. 60ghz 802.11ay has more bandwidth than an actual HDMI or Display Port cable but its LOS (Line of Sight) downsides and lack of availability of consumer 60ghz AY PC Dongles makes me think we'll have to wait for zero compromise 60ghz Wireless PCVR till Quest 3.

I predicted the XR2 and Res correctly and posted my thoughts before the Big leak. I also predicted an Official Oculus DAS (Deluxe Audio Strap). The reduced weight and size of the Quest 2 makes the fabric strap viable for casual Standalone use, makes it more baggable for transport than the Rigid strap of the Q1 and most importantly is partly responsible for the headline grabbing and enticing $299 base price. However, Oculus are well aware of all the Franken-Quests and Franken-Rifts using the Vive DAS that gifted HTC Revenue.

Mark my words, Oculus will announce a PCVR DAS for Quest 2. There will be an integrated extra battery in it if my intuition about the Code snippet that mentions, "Extra Battery Connected" is correct. Both Enthusiast Standalone and PCVR Quest 2 users will be initially enticed by the $299 base price, both enticed by premium Audio from an (high margin) Official Oculus DAS, standalone users enticed by longer gaming sessions enabled by the integrated battery in the DAS and PCVR users enticed because that battery is really there to help power the headset fully when in Wireless PCVR mode.

I am a PCVR enthusiast. I have a CV1, GO, Rift S, Reverb G1 and pre-ordered a Reverb G2. For $299 + another $200 (for DAS and Wifi6 PC Dongle)  = $499 I'll be getting a near Reverb Res Wireless PCVR HMD......with the best Standalone HMD on the planet effectively thrown in for free. The Walmart/Target leaks which were correct about the 64gb and 256gb units, will be proved correct about the $299 and $399 price and will also be proved correct about the October 13th Shelf date which 'coincidentally' ties in with when FB's Login Policy on new HMD's goes live. In other words, I'll likely receive my Quest 2 before my Reverb G2, will get to compare the res with my 4320x2160 Reverb G1 and will be able to decide whether or not to cancel my Reverb G2 pre-order.

Not only is the Rift S Dead but so is every other PCVR HMD. Game, Set & Match to Facebook/Oculus.

One AIO HMD to Rule them All!!

It was always going to be thus. Think about it. A dream of all PCVR enthusiasts is wireless PCVR. The choices at the moment are $399-$1099 2880x1600 PCVR HMD's combined with $300-$400 Wireless add-ons like the TPcast and Vive Wigig which have to include a heavy hot ugly mass of Battery, Video Decoder/HDMI electronics, Antennas and cables on the top of the head.

Facebook/Oculus are on the cusp of giving us a $299+$200 AIO HMD that has everything we need for near 3840x2160 Wireless PCVR gaming, and all of it neatly, lightly and invisibly already built into the HMD chassis and DAS. ie. There is no need for all that current Wireless PCVR crap on top of your head because most of it is already included in the XR2 SOC which can do double duty as either the Standalone compute unit or the Wireless PCVR 'Decoder'.

(Why didn't the Quest 1 do wireless PCVR when the SD835 already supported WIFI and even 60ghz 802.11ad, I hear you ask?? For the same reason that Oculus link despite being a marvel considering the hardware limitations, couldn't rival a DP connection. Compression latency of the slow video decoder of the SD835 and WIFI5 random 100ms Latency spikes. The extra performance of the XR2 and inclusion of WIFI6 solves both those problems)

kevinw729
Honored Visionary
We should know in a few hours 😉
https://vrawards.aixr.org/ "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities" https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959

Anonymous
Not applicable

Calibos said:

FB/Oculus will not segment the Quest 1/2 game libraries.

A. Because it would create a shitstorm.
B. Because the extra performance of the XR2 CPU and GPU Performance is mostly swallowed up by the increase in resolution to near 4k and the increase in refresh rate from 72-90hz.


I'll read more - but just to cut off - its not that Facebook/Oculus will - it will be the customers and devs that will create the cut off between them. They already segment it off with the hardware (witch is normal) with coming out with better hardware for the price. Now, software will just naturally make use of the new hardware and that will segment off the game libraries over time. Also while true the new display will take more resources to run - the new GPU on the other hand is design for higher resolution in place as well. Meaning - it sounds like it will be a wash with still enough over all performance to pull way a head of the current SoC.

kevinw729
Honored Visionary
I think we need to understand that this will be a highly curated ecosystem, and anything that could cause confusion will be addressed. For Facebook the idea of a new "non tech savvy" Quest 2 owner having a problem with their new purchase (mistakenly buying one game that does not work on their Quest 2) is not a situation that will be accepted. For the Quest 1 owners I think they will need to find a happy medium. 
https://vrawards.aixr.org/ "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities" https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959

Zenbane
MVP
MVP

synchromesh62 said:
We are not really talking 8 bit to 16 bit here are we. Totally different technology. 



Personally, it feels like you are looking for any reason to avoid the obvious comparison. Arguably, the snapdragon leap is comparable to going from 8-bit to 16-bit.

The main point, though, is that there is no reason to retire a Quest 1 just because one purchases a Quest 2. That fact remains unchallenged.