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.
No argument there.
I just had to find a term to differenciate Quest games in general from PC VR. ? Mobile VR is what came to me. Might not have been the best term ... maybe standalone VR ?
The climb 2 feels 100% like it could be a PC game.
And at the same time, as much as I enjoyed Blair witch, I 100% felt it was NOT a PC game most of the time.
It's a bit hard to explain. I really enjoyed a lot of quest games. But at the same time, for most of them I can always feel that I'm playing something that was made to fit on a quest. Lower res textures and fewer polygon of course. ( Wich, as I explained, is not ideal for immersion but also not a dealbreaker. ) But also the whole game design. Less interactive objects, less detailled physics, much smaller levels ...
I have yet to play battle sister, but for what I've seen it's a perfect exemple of a game that sometimes tried to do things that were simply not possible with Quest computing power. The battleground scenes look really ... empty, unimpressives. I say that from videos of course, but that's also what all the review and feedback I saw mentionnned.
I guess what I'm trying to say is :
The Quest 2 definitively provide full VR experiences, comparable to PCVR.
And at the same time, it can't reach the level of SOME PCVR experiences.
Quest is real VR. But also can't show all VR has to offer.
I will always mock the PC Master Race mentality, because it is stupid and arrogant. It espouses you aren't a "real" gamer or VR enthusiast unless you have an expensive computer, all the most expensive bleeding edge accessories, and use an oversized monitor (or six) exclusively to play your games/experience VR. It was a stupid attitude to take back in the 90's, and it's still a stupid attitude today.
People keep claiming that Facebook "doesn't care about PCVR" or "wants to kill PCVR". News flash people: it was us consumers who dictated which direction Oculus would take for the foreseeable future. They offered a PCVR headset and a stand-alone headset, and let sales dictate which direction they should focus. This is a valid and effective market research strategy that's been used for decades, at the very least.
Facebook/Oculus keep using market research to make decisions. If they didn't care about PCVR and would rather it go away, they never would have worked on Oculus Link. Nor would they have decided to develop Air Link. Instead, they acknowledged that the Quest 1 was the way to the market was leaning, but that people did still care about PCVR. So they worked on a way to enable a Quest to function as a PCVR headset. They also realized there is a market for wireless PCVR, and began working on a way to natively support that.
This just in: Facebook is not the one refusing to develop games for their PCVR store. That is a decision being made by the software developers.
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.
I am addressing what you mean, and explaining its flaws. I do agree that you end up repeating yourself a lot, and it appears that you repeat yourself in order to avoid the details of the argument while willingly ignoring the valid counter-points (or misunderstanding the counter-points). I would say you may be equally guilty of doing these things just to technically win the argument for the debate's sake, rather that address what my counter-points really mean.
"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."
That is quite the strawman argument, and you're using cherry-picked invalid motives to draw these conclusions. Trying to say that Oculus only need, but don't want, to support PCVR is rather nonsensical. I mean hell, we can say that about everyone in the PCVR space today. Valve, HP, and Pimax don't really "want" to support PCVR, they just "need" to in order to try to achieve some sort of positive ROI.
Besides, Facebook understands the power of PCVR far beyond the fact that there are some "titles that can't be ported." Facebook is heavily invested in to AI and Machine Learning, all of which are best implemented through powerful GPUs. This is in their own documentation. Your attempt to generalize Facebook's vast understanding of PCVR throughout the entire VR space - which includes combining AI with VR - in no way reflects the reality of what they are actively working to achieve.
"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."
I'm glad we're agreed. So then what you say things like this:
"Still, denying that graphics DO matter makes no sense."
... it sounds like you're arguing with your own previous argument.
Besides, if you read my actual words, I said that graphics do not matter "much" at all. And you seem to agree that they don't matter "much." So there's no need to continue arguing with something that you apparently agree with anyway.
To be clear: Graphics matter in that they should exist in some competent manner, but graphics do not matter very much at all when it comes to immersion itself. Your above quote confirms that you agree. So lets move on.
"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."
You have it backwards. People who are antagonistic against the Quest 2 in favor of a dedicated PCVR headset come across as people who enjoy videophile-level entertainment, and feel that they have to justify their expensive purchase on EVERY front no matter what.
"Here you seem to be half misunderstanding me on purpose, half nitpicking on technicalities."
Very pot/kettle; as you are very much guilty of the same. Moreso in some instances. Such as the debate on the importance of graphics, where you make an argument that agrees with my point and then follow it up with disagreeing with my point.
"The Quest being almost smartphones hardware is absolutely true, and as absolutely irrelevant in that context. "
Incorrect. Quest literally provides a Mobile SDK in order to build Quest titles. Emphasis on "mobile"
There's no point in arguing against the science of how things work.
"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."
First there is a strawman argument. Saying that Quest 2 can be used for games in no way proves that Quest is therefore more console than mobile. Also, Quest's focus is certainly not exclusively for playing video games. Quest 2 is being geared towards Social and Workplace experiences. Sure it is video game heavy for now, but that is only because so many video games existed when Oculus VR was first launched. But the direction Facebook is taking now is far more social VR than video games.
The business model is closer to mobile than console. You proved this yourself when you argued that Quest is going through a 3-year cycle compared to consoles going through 5+ year cycles. Mobile phones are 2 year cycles and Quest is a 3 year cycle. That is your clue that their business model for the Quest platform - which uses a Mobile SDK - is closer to mobile than console.
The target audience for Quest is closer to mobile than console... as noted by the "mobility" of Quest. With the exception of the Nintendo Switch, all major consoles are tethered to an output device. XBox and Playstation are tethered to a Television. Whereas Quest can be played anywhere indoors or outdoors. Just like mobile phones and smart tables.
"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."
Nope. The statement made here intentionally misuses terms to try to prove an otherwise invalid point. The reality is that Quest is either: PCVR or Stand-Alone.
Trying to replace the term "stand-alone" with "console" is just a semantic trick that distorts the reality of the Quest's mobile platform.
"And wich is why, when talking about life cycle, the comparaison to console is relevant, and the comparaisons to smartphone isn't."
Comparing Quest to console isn't realistic nor scientifically accurate.
"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."
I'm a Rift owner and a GO owner. But the items you are using in your slippery slope argument take these situations to another hyperbolic extreme.
My Rift and Go continued to work after their lifecycle support ended. Oculus PCVR is still alive and well today, as I'm able to use my Quest 2 to enjoy it.
Slippery slope arguments always take one thing that actually happened and use that to justify a hyperbolic extreme prediction. It's a logical fallacy. And citing that it is based on something that actually happened (which is just repeating the premise) doesn't suddenly make it valid.
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
Agreed. I think the confusion is around the fact that "Stand-Alone" in Quest 2 is based off of a mobile platform:
However, that doesn't make Quest 2 a "mobile phone." It's simply a stand-alone VR platform powered by a Mobile OS.
The problem in this debate is that we're arguing over hardware life cycles. In that context, we have to acknowledge that Quest, which runs off of a mobile OS, is closer to a Mobile Lifecycle (2-3 year hardware cycles) than to a console.