cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Facebook - VR needs "great wireless experience and low costs for consumers"

kevinw729
Honored Visionary

 

kevinw729_0-1622960941759.png


https://www.techradar.com/au/news/oculus-quest-3-could-be-cheaper-than-earlier-vr-headsets

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
44 REPLIES 44

 Thank you for reply. You are writing that "the same way three times". But for me it is a sign of that we have different opinions. For me they are not the same.

 You think those details are not important, but I think those are main difference.

So we highlight different parts of the same.

 

"Ecosystem" is hardware+software+services. So It is an "ecosystem" from the time store was launched. That is not the point. Difference is in "is it closed or not"? So may I run any app which is not approved by oculus? Yes I can with business solution and webXR.

 

But I'll agree that October could bring some news.

>  I still feel IMHO that the there has to be a separation at the point between Standalone and PCVR - and to claim that Quest2 is both PCVR and Standalone have to quantify the sacrifices.

 

But why you need to classify it as "PCVR" or not? Isn't it better to split in "with sacrifices" or "without sacrifices" groups (but both are PCVR)?

Same way that you have "Sports cars" and "Other consumer cars" (even more types for prices/sacrifices)?

 

It looks like you will call a "TV" is not a "PC monitor" even so you could use a modern "TV" as a great PC monitor 🙂

 

kevinw729
Honored Visionary

Thanks again for defining your point - and agree that we are in the same mind, just coming from different directions.
I have to confirm that my terminology of "ecosystem" is loose, and more just a description of a exclusive platform that excludes usage of other developers content or firmware. The Apple approach.
I also see your point about that October is going to be the land in the sand.

Liked your point about the PCVR and Standalone - again we are agreeing on the same point, and I love your "Sports car" and "other consumer car" perspective.

I have also used in my writing the term SeriousVR and CasualVR and am lucky enough to see them now being adopted. I do not think there is a case that a Standalone could not also support PCVR quality - the FOCUS3 and the Lynx both seem to have that in their focus. I just feel that the consumer Standalone is more focused at cost restraints and impact on hardware performance, compared to what a High-end PCVR headset is aiming at.

I do not think that the Quest2 will not be able to play HL:A, but not to the same performance and quality including interfaces as a Valve Index - but would the quest3 9pro) be able to to that......? 
Interesting times ahead. Thanks again for your points. 





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


@kevinw729 wrote:


I have to confirm that my terminology of "ecosystem" is loose, and more just a description of a exclusive platform that excludes usage of other developers content or firmware. The Apple approach.


This is incorrect. The term ecosystem refers to all the components, including the platforms, that define "what" and "how" things work together.  Linux is a platform. And Linux is the polar opposite of "the Apple approach." 


To try to correlate the idea if an "ecosystem" to the idea of "the Apple approach" depicts a huge misunderstanding of platforms and information technology in general.

 

Referring to the term, ecosystem, as "loose" is also a bit of a stretch.  Here are some great quotes to help dispel any mystery around technological ecosystems:

  • Technology ecosystems are product platforms defined by core components made by the platform owner and complemented by applications made by autonomous companies in the periphery.
  • we may define tech ecosystem as an interconnected and interdependent network of diverse entities coming together to spur innovation in the tech environment pertaining to products and services in sustainable manner.
  • The reason we call it an ecosystem — as opposed to just "collection of apps" or "app stack", for example — is because the term "ecosystem" describes not only what tools you’re using, but also how they interact with one another.

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+ecosystem+technology

 

 


@kevinw729 wrote:

I have also used in my writing the term SeriousVR and CasualVR and am lucky enough to see them now being adopted.


Sorry, but "SerousVR" and "CasualVR" are fake terms. Their only purpose seems to be try to convince people that playing Mario Kart VR in a Shopping Mall is somehow "serious" compared to playing Half-Life: Alyx at home. Yeah, nah. 😂

 

The reality of the VR Industry today shows that Consumer VR is dominant, and Location-BasedVR is a struggling niche that still has the stigma of "gimmick" attached. Over the last 2 years, Consumer VR has thrived while Location-Based VR suffered massive losses and business closures.

 

Trying to defy this reality with terms like "SeriousVR" to depict Location-BasedVR compared to "CausalVR" to depict the vastly superior ConsumerVR industry seems quite the exercise in futility. It would be like trying to refer to a Fried Twinky as "Serious Protein" in order to falsely portray it as healthy.

 

I have searched for these phrases as well, and they don't seem to be adopted by anyone. The Terms OOH (Out-Of-Home Entertainment), CausalVR, and SeriousVR seem to be non-industry based terms that are rarely, if ever used.

 

Their lack of Industry adoption makes sense, because the terms in no way describe or portray either an experience, product, or technology in a way that is sensible or even mature, for that matter.

 

"My toys are SERIOUS, but your toys are... CASUAL." Not very professional, na' mean?

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=casualvr+seriousvr

Per the Google Search above, trying to search for "CasualVR" and "SeriousVR" simply results in... Causal vs Serious Dating advice lol.

> I have also used in my writing the term SeriousVR and CasualVR and am lucky enough to see them now being adopted. I do not think there is a case that a

 

To be honest, I do not like term "Serious" in this context.

It could be some other to highlight more processing power, but "Serious" could touch idea or task which VR is used for. I thing using VR for medicine and business is "serious" use.

 

> Standalone could not also support PCVR quality - the FOCUS3 and the Lynx both seem to have that in their focus. I just feel that the consumer Standalone is more focused at cost restraints and impact on hardware performance, compared to what a High-end PCVR headset is aiming at.

 

I think "Standalon" is misleading term also. It could be better to use "ARM processor based" or "Android based" VR.

We know about back-pack PC VR which is powerful enough to run HL:A and more. And It is "Standalon", you could play out of home in the field without any power or other connection.

 

ps. actually "pcvr" power is referred to "pc processing power" not "vr hmd power" but in AndroidVR it referred to "internal ARM processing power". So we compare a little different devices (pc+card and hmd+arm).

I think the reason "TV" is different from "PC monitor" is that "TV" device has more functionality on it's own as to compared to "monitor without PC". Same way "Quest" has more functionality on it's own then "RiftS" without PC. So those are different devices and "PCVR" is misleading as a description of "device" on it's own.