cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Resident Evil 4 VR is an Oculus Quest 2 exclusive

Zenbane
Level 16

It was announced today that Capcom is partnering with Oculus to bring RE4 over to Quest 2:

 

News:

https://www.gamesradar.com/resident-evil-4-vr-is-an-oculus-quest-2-exclusive/

 

Video announcement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrI2Woxqdnc

 

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.

75 REPLIES 75


@RuneSR2 wrote:

My bad - I thought they finally got the PSVR RE ready, but I can see that's RE7, not the very old RE4. RE4 has no interest to me - it's a game from 2005, but might perfectly fit the powers of the XR2 - in solid 120 Hz 😉

 

Quest isn't VR to me - maybe VC ("Virtual Cartoon"); none of the Quest games I've seen even remotely look like reality - at least to me. 


Just wait until everyone is talking about it. You know you're gonna wanna play it, Rune!

 

If you get tempted, just go buy a Quest 2, download RE4, play it, and then return the Quest 2. I really think you need to get this out of your system already 😉


@RuneSR2 wrote:

Quest isn't VR to me - maybe VC ("Virtual Cartoon"); none of the Quest games I've seen even remotely look like reality - at least to me. 


I played Tetris in VR. It looks nothing like reality. And that's a good thing. If I wanted everything to look like "reality" then I'd just walk around the Earth a bit more.

 

Being immersed in completely unrealistic worlds is fascinating to me. Hell, I would love to enter in to some Atari 2600 games, with the exact same graphics quality! These are all different worlds with different imagery. I enjoy being immersed in every type of world. Whether it being something visually stunning like Lone Echo, or something completely pixelated like Pixel Ripped.

 

Being immersed in to the world is not dependent upon the graphics quality of that world.


@RuneSR2 wrote:

Standalone Quest isn't VR to me - maybe VC ("Virtual Cartoon"); none of the Quest games I've seen even remotely look like reality - at least to me. 


 

I should also mention,

 

This is far from the first time that a non-Oculus user takes the whole, "this Oculus VR product isn't real VR," approach.

 

Back when Rift CV1 launched with 1 sensor and a gamepad, this forum had non-Oculus users saying:

  • If it's not room-scale, then it's not VR.
  • If you don't have hand-presence, then it's not VR.

But then what happened? Oculus received better hand-controllers than everyone else in the Industry... and all of a sudden, magically, hand-controllers and hand-presence no longer defined VR. 

 

And now look at Quest... it provides much bigger room-scale than any tethered PCVR experience. And once again, magically, room-scale no longer defines VR.

 

Funny how something that supposedly "defines VR" no longer defines it the moment Oculus does it better, right? 

 

So saying that RE for Quest isn't real RE, or saying that Quest isn't real VR... it's all just the same rinse/repeat soundbites that come from the opposition. But those soundbites speak more to the inexperience of the opposition moreso than any negative element of an Oculus product or any truth to VR itself.

 

I know you're a true VR enthusiast, Rune! So don't let product and visual preferences lure you in to the soundbite traps of the VR spectators and sideliners of the past, my friend.


@Pixie40 wrote:

If it, as I'd expect, requires a beefier CPU and GPU then the Quest 1 has, then it's only natural that RE4 wont run on it. I'm kind of surprised it's not going to be a Cross-Buy title. But that's not really a deal breaker to me.

 

As for the concerns that this means whenever a Quest 3 (or whatever it's called) is released apps will be released that are exclusive to it... Uhm, isn't that a given? I mean, think about it for a moment. If you have a Playstation, Playstation 2, Playstation 3, and Playstation 4 (yes, I do in fact have all 4 consoles mentioned) then would you really expect the PS3 to be able to play PS4 games? Or for the PS2 to play PS3 and PS4 games?

 

Or to put it another way, you can get a Windows XP program to work on Windows 10. You can't get a Windows 10 program to run on Windows XP.



I feel like you're misunderstanding me on purpose.

 

The problem is not that Quest would eventually have game that can't run on the Quest 2. It was bound to happen, and will allow for better games.

It's that it's happening less than 3 years after the Quest 1 released. All the consoles you mentionned - PS1, 2, 3, 4, and now 5 - are separated by at least 6 years from each others. And new game kept comming for each  system for at least one year agter the new ones released. Meaning that when you bought any of those systems in the year following it's release, you could expect at least 6 years of new content.

Meanwhile, Quest users that bought it in the year following it's release are seing the end of new content arriving 2 years after their purchase. That's a big difference.

 

Also, if can't be cross-buy if it's releasing on only one support.

nalex66
Volunteer Moderator
Volunteer Moderator

The release of the first Quest 2 exclusive doesn't spell the end of new content for Quest 1, though. Until this point, everything on the Quest store supports both Q1 and Q2, and going forward in the near future, the majority of apps will likely continue to do so. It will ultimately be up to developers to decide whether they want to push maximum performance and limit their audience, or maintain support for both models and reach a broader market (although that math may change fairly quickly, given the high sales numbers of Q2).

 

There are plenty of apps on the store that support higher fidelity on Q2 while still running on Q1. I'm sure there is much more already in the pipeline that will release over the next year with support for Q1. At some point though, they have to start allowing the Quest 2 to flex its muscles without being held back by the previous generation.

i7 5820K @ 4.25GHz | EVGA GTX 1080 SC | Gigabyte GA-X99-UD4 | Corsair DDR4 3000 32GB | Corsair HX 750W
SSDs: Intel 660p M.2 2TB, 3x Samsung Evo 1TB | Startech PCIe 4x USB 3.0 | Startech PCIe 2x USB C 3.1 gen2


@kakek wrote:
It's that it's happening less than 3 years after the Quest 1 released. All the consoles you mentionned - PS1, 2, 3, 4, and now 5 - are separated by at least 6 years 

There's a few things wrong there. First, consoles do not define a standard for version lifecycle. If we look at smart phones, they are replaced every 2 years. So from that perspective, Quest using a 3 year cycle is better than what Android and iOS perform on the market.

 

Secondly, the console market is far better established today than it was in the beginning. While the VR market is only now gaining a stable foothold. Every VR competitor has been struggling to find stable ground since release: Valve, Samsung, Oculus, HTC, etc. Microsoft and Apple still do not have full investment in to VR, and HP only recently joined the fray.

 

So comparing VR hardware to consoles isn't very realistic. And if we are to compare them, then it's best to go back to the days where consoles were in the same situation as VR HMD's today.

 

Just look at the Atari 2600. The first version was in 1977, then a revised version 1978, then another revision in 1980, then a whole new system (the 5200) in 1982.

 

So the things happening with VR HMDs is quite standard, and not cause for any alarm.

Well, my RTX 3090 arrived last week - i9 10900K and new rig next week (maybe, might take up to 15 working days according to the shop though). Personally I'll probably get back to Asgard's Wrath and Stormland, lol - but sure, I'll try to keep an open mind, let's see the RE4 reviews first... 

Don't really see much interest in Quest 2 - but Quest 3 or 4 could be interesting. Oculus is still my favorite content creator by far - but saddening to still see such limited PCVR support, more Quest exclusives don't exactly improve my mood. News about Lone Echo 2 may arrive shortly though 

RuneSR2_0-1618594968771.png

 

 

 

Valve Index & Oculus Rift CV1, Asus Strix OC RTX™ 3090, i9-10900K (5.3Ghz), 32GB 3200MHz, 8TB
"Ask not what VR can do for you, but what you can do for VR"

Pixie40
Level 9

And there you go again, assuming "older game" equals "bad game". Let alone that it means "ugly" game. I'm also not really sure what apps you've used if you think all stand alone VR is low poly cartoon graphics. The Room: A Dark Matter looks pretty realistic. Creed: Rise to Glory also looks realistic. Aflicted: The Manor and Star Trek: Bridge Crew look rather good too. No, they aren't hyper realistic graphics. Then again, PCVR doesn't achieve that either. Sure, there are apps with a cartoonish visual theme. But that is a deliberate choice by the devs rather then forced by limitations of the hardware. Yes, there might be fewer fine details in a Quest app then is possible on a high end PC. But that doesn't mean they can't look very nice.

 

It looks like they rebuilt RE4 from the ground up to make the Quest app.

Lo, a quest! I seek the threads of my future in the seeds of the past.

kakek
Level 4

@nalex66 

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.

 

@Zenbane 

I'm not the one that brought console in the discussion. Someone used them as an exemple of how it's alright to make Quest 2 only games. I realise the market for VR is not the same as for classical gaming.

That being said, comparing the Quest with early computer or smartphones is even less pertinent.

Video games market in general, and consumer expectations, are not the same than it was when Atari was making computers.

First, note that my comparison go back to the first playstation, a time when video game market was not that big. I can go back to NES, and still find the same time of 6+years between 2 generations.

While it's true new phones release all the time, smartphones do NOT break compatibility with each generation. When you buy a last generation smartphone the year of it's release, you can expect it to be able to run every games for more than 3 years. And more importantly, they are NOT primarily gaming devices. And you can expect it to perform it's main functions and give you access to most apps and content it's made to display much longer than that.

Quest might not be axactly a console, but if I have to compare it to anything else, that's what they are the closest to in term of functions, target market, and consumer expectations.

 

And lastly anyone who said anything along the line of "gfx don't matter for immersion, XXX is great without advanced graphics" is full of it. Specially if they also defended not releasing RE4 on Quest 1 because it can't run it.

OF COURSE grafics matter for immersion. The whole reason for not releasing RE4 on Q1 is that it can't go graphics good enough to provide immersion ! I guarantee that you could bring RE4 to Q1, if you remove all texture, divide polycount by 10, and basically make it look like a simpler RecRoom.

Would you enjoy that ? Would it provide the same immersion ? I doubt it.

Someone brought up tetris, but that's even more ironic, because all the VR version of tetris effect bring to original gameboy VR IS graphics.

 

That being said, graphics help immersion but are not an absolute requirement. It depends what ambiance the devs want to immerse the player in. Superhot is super immersive ... in a strange minimalistic ambiance. You can't create a resident evil ambiance with that style. Lies beneath even manage a horror ambiance, by relying on a clever comicbook style. But again, not really a resident evil ambiance.

 

Graphics matter. RE4 couldn't be as good on Q1. And could be better on PC.


@kakek wrote:

@Zenbane 

I'm not the one that brought console in the discussion. Someone used them as an exemple of how it's alright to make Quest 2 only games. I realise the market for VR is not the same as for classical gaming.

That being said, comparing the Quest with early computer or smartphones is even less pertinent.

Video games market in general, and consumer expectations, are not the same than it was when Atari was making computers.

 

Graphics matter. RE4 couldn't be as good on Q1. And could be better on PC.


 

A few things wrong there. The original comparison of consoles was more of a cross-reference to the concept of "exclusives." But what you did is change the subject matter and context entirely by switching from a subject of "exclusive titles" to "hardware support  lifecycles." Apples and oranges.

 

The original cross-reference is correct: It is perfectly acceptable to make exclusives to a platform. The console market is a great example of this.

 

However, it was invalid to portray the Quest's 3-year life-cycle as something bad considering that Smart Phone life-cycles are only 2 years.

 

The next thing wrong is for you to say that comparing Quests to a computer or smartphone is "less pertinent." That is just scientifically inaccurate to claim. Quest literally has an Android OS powering it, and Quest can literally connect to a PC to use PCVR. So it is far MORE pertinent to compare Quest to the technology it actually uses (PC's and Smartphones) than to compare it to technology it doesn't use (consoles).

 

With all that in mind, Virtual Reality as a platform is very much new in every sense. From how the input mechanisms are coded, to how developers must design their games for immersion. This is all very much inline with other "new" technologies in history, including the Atari 2600. Consumer expectations have not been fully set in VR the way they are already set in other technological platforms. VR has maintained an advantage from the start, in that we can immerse people. That has served as a sort of "one trick pony" all these years as the industry continues to figure out what users would actually expect in terms of standards. Even users don't fully know what their standard for expectation must be in VR.

 

To emphasis this point: Every major VR competitor continues to rely on sending out Feedback Surveys to both Customers and Developers, as a means to try to understand what sort of expectations are being developed around this new and immerging technology.

 

This is why we continue to get the same types of games ever since VR hit the public market in 2016. The standard of expectations for the immerging "immersive" platform is relatively unknown, and cannot be compared to the standard of expectations for flat-monitor gaming that has existed for decades. The standards are not applied the same for painfully obvious reasons: The difference between staring at a monitor vs being immersed inside a piece of software.

 

Lastly, graphics do not matter much at all. Immersion is what matters in VR, and graphics play next to no role in immersion whatsoever. You can easily get immersed in a game that has Atari 2600 level graphics. You claim that anyone who says otherwise is "full of it." By that I'll assume you mean... that they are "full of knowledge and education on the matter." Because anyone who believes that needing high-end graphics is the only way to become "immersed" is full of conjecture, hyperbole, and inexperience.