It was announced today that Capcom is partnering with Oculus to bring RE4 over to Quest 2:
Quite awesome for Horror VR! I imagine that this would be a timed exclusive, and while I haven't seen any confirmation, it would make sense to bring this to PCVR at some point. But for now, this is great news for the Quest platform.
I explained why I considered RE4 could mark the end of Quest 1 games - based on what they did with Rift games - and why it's not certain - They don't have the same interrest in dropping PC VR and dropping Quest 1.
To this day, Oculus still supports PCVR, they simply focus on Quest as their PCVR HMD. As nalex pointed out, it is up to developers to decide whether to create their Apps for Quest 1, Quest 2, and even PCVR. And as nalex also pointed out, Quest 1 still shares a vast majority of the library with Quest 2.
The argument you are presenting here is the "slipper slope argument." But slippery slope is more of a fallacy than something that leads to a logical conclusion. In this case, just because RE4 is being used to showcase Quest 2's functionality, doesn't conclude (slipper slope) that Quest 1 is now dropped.
A lot of these slippery slope doomsday predictions tend to improperly mix up the hardware with the software. Ergo, dropping the Rift hardware doesn't mean the end of Oculus PCVR; and releasing RE4 for Quest 2 doesn't mean the end of Quest 1.
For those who don't wanna wait - right now you can get Resident Evil 4 for just 5 bucks on Steam:
i7 7700K (4.5GHz); MSI GTX 1080 8GB Gaming X (oc 2100MHz gpu boost, 11GHz mem speed); 16GB 3200MHz; MSI Z270I (VR-Ready) mainboard; Samsung 961 NVMe 128GB (OS) + Samsung 860 4TB SSD (games) + Toshiba P300 HDD 3TB (games); Win10; Valve Index and Oculus Rift CV1 using super sampling 2.0. "Ask not what VR can do for you – ask what you can do for VR"
@kakek The last Oculus game released on the Rift Store was Medal of Honor on 11th December last year, almost two years after the Rift S launched. I suspect that they contracted Respawn to make a generic WWII shooter then did a deal with EA after the buyout to use their IP in exchange for agreeing that EA released the game on other platforms (Steam). Oculus are probably getting a smaller cut of sales on Steam I would have thought as part of that deal.
Can't wait to play RE4 in VR, looks awesome from the trailer. Shame they're not bringing RE7 to PC VR though 😡😠😡
@RuneSR2, We get it. You're a member of the PC Master Race, and are salty that a VR game is coming out that's exclusive to the Quest 2. But would you please stop being so obtuse and dismissive of stand alone VR headsets?
While I can't speak for anyone else, I already have Resident Evil 4. If I feel like playing it, I'll grab the game off my shelf and put the disk into either my PS2 or PS3 and play it on a 40 inch screen. Thus I have no desire to buy the game on Steam. After all, the Steam version wont have anything different enough from the PS2 release beyond maybe some localization changes to justify buying the game again according to my research.
The Wii version of RE4 would be worth a rebuy due to the motion controls changing up how you play the game. And the VR version is going to be worth a rebuy due to once again changing up how you play the game. At least, that's my opinion. I'd imagine that those of us who are interested in buying RE4 as a flat screen PC game have already jumped on the Steam release. That is, of course, assuming you don't have one of the other 10 ports of the game. No, seriously. Since it's initial Gamecube release Resident Evil 4 has been ported to pretty much everything, including the Zeebo. I'd never even heard of the zeebo.
Can someone confirm for me - just heard RE4 VR will not be compatible with Quest1 - is that the case?
Mocking PCVR master race is as stupid as BEING "PCVR master race". Anyone acting like there's an opposition between the two supports and rejoicing that the other is deprived of games is a dumb brat.
I was perfectly happy when the existence of the quest was bringing new games to VR in general. Even if I realised said games had to work around the limitations of the quest, and that the work put on them could have been sublimed if it had been a PC game. ( Journey of the gods, lies beneath ... ).
OBVIOUSLY PC VR can offer a better experience, and I deplore that it's not picking up faster. Alyx is still lightyear ahead of anything you'll play on a Quest.
But that does not mean I can't see the strong point of mobile Vr, including it's wider appeal to casuals ( wich is a GOOD thing, gaming should not be elitist ! ).
I had a problem when Facebook started to not only prioritise Quest, but also completely stop porting it's quest titles to PCVR.
Considering the minor cost of porting a quest title to Rift, I see that not only as a move to prioritise the quest, but more as move to actively work against PCVR.
I guess wether I'm paranoid will be confirmed ( or contradicted ) when facebook anounce if lone echo 2 is now Quest exclusive, or if the PC version still exists.
My bad, you're right. There IS a more recent Oculus title for PC.
It's still a specific case though, considering the partnership with EA might have limited Facebook's choices.
Even if I include this point of data in my reflexion, I reach the same conclusions about facebook's politic.
Again, I feel like I am repeating myself with you.
It feels like you are only picking on small technicalities in my arguments, sometime wiliingly ignoring or misunderstanding part of it. Just to technically win the argument for debate's sake, rather than adressing what I really mean.
Wether it is a knee-jerk reaction to opposing opinion or a will to defend facebook at all cost, I can't tell.
About support of PCVR :
I am aware that Facebook still technically support it's older PC headset. And moreover, activelly support Quest PCVR capacities.
But I think this is not out of "real" support for PCVR, but rather a strategic concession to it's existence. They know it still offers some really atractive titles that can't be ported to Quest. They know that if they openly make consumer choose between mobile OR pc they might loose a good share of the market.
They do not WANT to support PCVR, they NEED to do it to sell as much Quest 2 as possible.
PCVR support is a strategic concession. And as they make it, they also wish they wouldn't have to and PCVR would just die down already. Leaving their very closed and controlled quest store with one less concurent and one step closer to a monopole on VR gaming.
The also have to care a little about image. Openly paying a dev to NOT devellop a game to kill competition might be a bit unpopular with most gamers ( except hardcore facebook simps. )
Wich is why they will both support Quest 2 PCVR capcities, while quietly pushing for as little new PCVR titles as possible.
And as long as they maintain Quest 2 PCVR capacities, it's not worth it to drop support of Rift headsets. To bad for the image. The products are still too young to be effectivelly killed (like can't be used.) even for facebook.
Hell, I think in some countries it wouldn't even be legal to stop supporting a product so fast.
Also, it's possible that all I described apply to facebook as a whole, but not to a every decision maker inside of it. Carmack might be more concerned with VR as a whole rather than facebook's control of it.
About graphics and immersion,
That's where you seem to be willingly misunderstanding what I said. Is it worth it to explain again that I did NOT say graphics were ALL that mattered for immersion ? Or even even absolutely necessary. I even gave exemples of games that works very well without it. Hell, you can manage immersion with just a skillfull textual evocation.
But that does NOT mean it's not important. Graphics might be ONE tool among others to create immersion, but it's a freaking effective one. It plays a huge role in some atmospheric titles. Yes, you can also do without if it's not available. Same as music and sounds. Same as colors. same as natural physic interraction with objects around you.
Still, denying that graphics DO matter makes no sense.
I can only see it as defensive argument by people who enjoy a technically limited device, and feel that they have to defend it on EVERY front no matter what.
And you haven't answered my question : If graphics don't matter, WHY even bother making anything better looking than Recroom on any device ? WHY isn't RE4 coming ot Quest 1 ? While I'm at it, why don't you personally lower graphics to the absolute minimum whenever you play on PC ?
About the comparison with console :
Here you seem to be half misunderstanding me on purpose, half nitpicking on technicalities.
The Quest being almost smartphones hardware is absolutely true, and as absolutely irrelevant in that context. They are primarily and almost exclusively video game playing devices. Their business model is closer to console. Their use is closer to console. Their target audience is closer to console.
And if you really doubt it, ask yourself : when a consumer is considering the purchase of a Quest, what will he consider as an alternative if he has a limited budget ? A smartphone or a console ?
The concurence of the Quest is either other PCVR headsets, or console ( mostly depending on wether the potential customer is already a PC gamer, or a more casual user ). It is never a smartphone, wich a completely different purchase for a different use.
And wich is why, when talking about life cycle, the comparaison to console is relevant, and the comparaisons to smartphone isn't.
Also, something is not a slipery slope argument if it actually happened.
Quietly leaving the rift behind happened. Ask any Rift S user if he feels like the headset he bought last year is receiveing the support he expected, when he see oculus relasing only Quest games.
Believe me, the whole argument I make, that short life cycle is problematic, stems from an ACTUAL case.
I think I already said it, but I have a friend that own a Rift. He was already bothered by not having enough game to play. And he was quite disapointed last year when all the game announced by occulus lacked a PCVR port. But he was still considering upgrading to Quest 2.
He just changed his mind because of RE4 exclusivity. Exactly because of what I described.
Basically, his reflection is :
I'm unhappy with my rift because I feel Oculus is not selling me the games they COULD give me to play with it (considering it's their own, internally develloped games) for no good reason.
I consider Quest 2 at least partially because I hope it will have new games for longer.
Then I realise Quest 1 users are already starting to miss out on some game, only 3 years after it's released.
I pass, I don't feel like buying a device that might only receive new games from it's parent company for 2 or 3 more years, like it happened for my Rift.
And I rationally can't contradict him. He's not afraid Facebook might do something they have never done before. He's afraid they will do AGAIN something they HAVE DONE BEFORE to a device he owns.
That's not hte same thing at all.
I think it was even explicitely confirmed on twitter or reddit by capcom ? Sorry, I can't find the link. But I'm pretty sure I saw it confirmed that it was what Quest 2 exclusive meant.
To call quest 2 mobil vr is kind of silly. If you play on a game console then a game on your phone there is a massive difference. But if you play on PCVR then the quest 2 to me it's not as big of a difference. You get a true vr experience. True you can't play Alex but take for example the climb, it dosen't feel like a mobil experience. It feels like a vr experience close to pc. To me this is stand alone vr not mobil vr