cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Standalone VR Vs. High-end PC VR

kevinw729
Honored Visionary

With the success achieved to date with some 2m Quest2 units in the field, and a new diverse and broad VR userbase joining the fray. It would seem a good time to through out a question for discussion. What is the way forwards for VR some five years since GearVR and CV1?

1. Standalone VR
Is this the path, a VR headset using mobile phone processing, with the capability to be tethered to a PC with limitations.
- examples – Quest2, Pico Neo3, Deepoon E3, HTC Focus+, Panasonic Eyewear[not released]

2. High-End PC VR
A dedicated VR headset, configured for usage with a high-end (but expensive) PC to achieve the immersive experience.
- examples – Index, HP G3, Pimax 4K, Varjo 4X, VRgineer, HTC Elite

…and the third and fourth options:

3. Console VR
A device connected to a console platform, with the ability to be untethered, benefiting from the console manufacturers content development resources and cost reduction for console bundling.
- examples – Sony PSVR2[not released]

4. XR Platform
The creation of a headset about to achieve see-through and complete VR experiences, linked by 5G to a mobile edge computing (MEC) solution.
- examples – Lynnix, Apple Glass[not released]

Comments (please stay on topic)?

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
56 REPLIES 56

Lol...interesting point of view. I agree that a lot of games 'are' geared to children, but I'm not quite sure 'Metal of honor' or Call of duty or even Alyx to name a few, quite fit in that category...LOL.

 

Also, imagine playing Metal of honor or Alyx with cartoon quality graphics? It just isn't the same. Certain games just require certain levels of realism in graphics. Though, I could see the prior named done in parody with cartoon graphics for a laugh...and that would work for that genre.

 

Those of us who like our Skyrim or other RPG style games are definitely embracing our digital other life. Thus the meaning of RPG...which most children wouldn't quite understand until they're minds are more mature. There are exceptions to this though. LOL

i7 8700k; 5ghz (water cooled), Asus Rog Strix Z370-E Gaming, Corsair 270R case, EVGA 3090 FTW3 Ultra, 32 GB Corsair Veng DDR4 2666 Ghz, Adata SX900 SSD, 1TB M.2 SSD, Adata Su800 SSD, Adata SU650 SSD, BarraCuda 2TB HD, Toshiba 3tB HD, Rift (dead), Rift S, Win 10 Pro 2004, Inateck KT4006 USB3.0

I hear ya, Phoenix. There are definitely a lot of young kids playing MoH and CoD. Granted, they probably shouldn't! lol

 

The official age rating is a bit more revealing. CoD is rated for 18 and up. MoH is rated for 16 and up. So yeah, 18 and 16 year olds are certainly kids (teens). Alyx is rated for 16 year olds as well.

 

Oculus and Facebook have an age rating of 13.

 

So I guess we would need to figure out what age group you were referring to. Because it's only a 3 year difference between 13 (minimum age for Oculus/VR) and 16 (minimum age for Alyx and MoH).

 

But nuances aside, one thing I would say overall even if we were to agree on the matter... is that Quest can be used to tether to the PC, and used for PCVR. The graphics quality increases quite a bit and becomes more on par with PCVR. So Quest can be used to play all those "adult PCVR games" as well.

 

In these types of comparative discussions, it seems like Quest is often depicted as a Mobile Headset exclusively. But it's not. Quest can be used for PCVR quite well. I know that dedicated PCVR headsets will perform better graphically (native GPU vs streaming graphics), but the main point is that Quest isn't limited to Mobile-only experiences.

 

Lastly, I am a bit confused about your RPG analogy. It seems like you are talking about extremely young children, when you reference kids whose minds don't understand what's happening in an RPG. So are you referring to like a 3 or 4 year old? Because by 6 or 7 years old, a child's mind can certainly understand everything about an RPG well enough to play it to completion. Either way, sticking with your example, a child too young to play an RPG is also a child too young to use VR. So I think the point is moot. And it would be rather hyperbolic to suggest that Quest VR titles are geared towards children too young to understand a game like Skyrim. That's just simply untrue. Just the complexities of using the VR hardware alone would be too complex for a child that young.

Just for clarity, I mentioned the Quest being mobile+tethered in a prior post in this thread...but ended up referring to the mobile portion of the Quest concerning the quality of games that are available for this stand alone mobile version.

 

Again for clarity, the use of RPG as an analogy, I mentioned 'most' children. I implied that 'most' children aren't going to play a game like Skyrim to live another life, they would be playing just for the fun of it or to see how many dragons or monsters they can defeat as an example. I did mention there are exceptions. I never implied that they couldn't play the game through to the end. The ones who aren't exceptions won't understand the way and adult would understand. Not all children have the same understanding. Again, there are exceptions.

 

Anyway, lets stay on topic. Cheers!!!

i7 8700k; 5ghz (water cooled), Asus Rog Strix Z370-E Gaming, Corsair 270R case, EVGA 3090 FTW3 Ultra, 32 GB Corsair Veng DDR4 2666 Ghz, Adata SX900 SSD, 1TB M.2 SSD, Adata Su800 SSD, Adata SU650 SSD, BarraCuda 2TB HD, Toshiba 3tB HD, Rift (dead), Rift S, Win 10 Pro 2004, Inateck KT4006 USB3.0


@PhoenixSpyder wrote:

Just for clarity, I mentioned the Quest being mobile+tethered in a prior post in this thread...but ended up referring to the mobile portion of the Quest concerning the quality of games that are available for this stand alone mobile version.

 

Again for clarity, the use of RPG as an analogy, I mentioned 'most' children. I implied that 'most' children aren't going to play a game like Skyrim to live another life, they would be playing just for the fun of it or to see how many dragons or monsters they can defeat as an example. I did mention there are exceptions. I never implied that they couldn't play the game through to the end. The ones who aren't exceptions won't understand the way and adult would understand. Not all children have the same understanding. Again, there are exceptions.

 


 

I would disagree that the games on Mobile Quest are categorically geared towards children. Some quick examples include Onward, Myst, Superhot, Virtual Desktop, Thrill of the Fight, Pistol Whip. Just to name a few.

 

Not to mention that Quest has business apps meant for the workplace.

 

I would agree that not all children have the same level of understanding, which is why I'm still trying to figure out what age group you are even referring to; as you have yet to make that clear.

 

Every gaming platform has software for kids. There are PC Games for young kids, and consoles certainly  have their fair share of kids games. Even theme parks have rides/attractions for kids.

 

In my honest opinion, going to the Quest mobile store and saying that all the apps are geared towards kids is like going to Universal Studios and saying that every attraction is for kids. It's just not accurate.

 

As for the Skyrim comparison, it is a bit confusing to mention the "live another life" aspect. I've been engaged in RPG games since I was a kid. Starting from Final Fantasy I. At not point, during my childhood nor adulthood, did I ever engage in an RPG in order to "live another life." I've always recognized the game avatar(s) and simply aspired to make "them" stronger, not "me" stronger. Besides, it's still irrelevant as to why one person would play a game (e.g. to live another life) vs a child (to have fun winning at things). That doesn't speak to your argument that kids wouldn't be able to play Skyrim. All you are saying now is that they can play it, but they would play it for different reasons.

w_benjamin
Adventurer

I've been happy with the Quest wireless link for most games, and I've been okay with it tethered when needed, but if I had my druthers I'd want a stand alone that allows for battery powered (and plug-in) add-on sensors. That way if I have the space away from my usual area I could deploy them and get full tracking for the controllers.

 

I love my quest but I love my CV1 more just for the 4 sensor surround I have when playing. 

It gives me such a sense of confidence in my game that even when I can't see one of my controllers the sensors are keeping track of it.

 

 

If someone came out with that, I would move to it in a second.

Fangzhou
Adventurer

If there is no software bugs I would suggest just go for a Quest 2. 

But v25-v27 software already ruins the experience with Quest 2. The device is no longer a good choice for PCVR. Just go for any other brand that won't publish very buggy software to customers. 

Oculus does not test their software properly, and they usually also don't listen to customers' voice. The microphone bug of Oculus Link was introduced in the beginning (2019 Nov) and not fixed until now, and they are keep inventing new bugs in every release. They usually either ignore bug report, or slowly fix critical bug after few months (like the snow noise screen problem of Rift S, happened in May 2019 and affecting all the customers, fixed in September 2019). 

Agreed, my son is 9 years old, he would not stand much of a chance getting into Skyrim VR - it's much to cognitively demanding remembering all sub-quests, constantly upgrading equipment etc. Also it's way too scary. After playing Ark Park he got scared of some of the dinos, although nothing much happened. Since then he's not been asking much about VR, I hope he didn't get scared too much... He plays tons of Roblox instead, while my 13-year old son - and the rest of the boys in his class (6th grade) - constantly play Minecraft or Among Us. I don't recall any of these young teenagers playing the more advanced rpgs.  

 

Concerning the future of VR, kids may indeed be a great driving force toward mass adoption. 

 

Using a Rift-S, Index or Vive (Pro) hmd etc. easily sets you back at least $1500 - 3000 when you include the rig. Many children, nor their parents, can not afford that. 

But they surely can afford just $300 for a Quest 2. When you lower the price to just $300 and remove the need for a PC, you open the floodgates for children - even small ones whose parents may just want to keep the kids entertained (and thus don't care about age restrictions). Like this post from today:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/mjluma/just_had_to_post/

 

Also, you just don't see such photos with Indices or Vive Pros, lol:

 

 

efwg0sekyto61.jpg

 

I read about every post on Oculus Subreddit (unless it gets deleted by the mods first of course), and I'm fully convinced more and more children are getting into VR due to Quest 2. Really feels like the average Oculus Reddit user is getting younger day by day. 

 

Furthermore, close to photorealistic textures, dynamic lights and shadows, and a very high polygon count make games look realistic. When you start to severely reduce - or completely remove - such effects, you end up with games looking extremely cartoonish - and things that look very cartoonish look like something made for children. 

 

For example this looks very cartoonish to me - completely devoid of real-time lighting, shadows and high-res textures, and the poly count is very low too:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When things look so cartoonish (and the content is very simple), they attract the attention of kids. Now, there's nothing wrong with creating playgrounds for thousands of kids and teenagers - it's just not what I'd personally prefer. Instead we could have a VR University for adults - discussing maybe physics, philosophy, art etc. Not sure that would fuel mass adoption though compared to more simple gaming activities for everyone (which may support families, because even smaller kids may be able to participate in chopping virtual vegetables). Note that Oculus funded all the games shown in the above videos, and I firmly believe these games and experiences were directed at kids younger than 13 (Traffic Jams even says 10+ in the trailer, it does not say 13+). 

 

Personally I'm not sure Quest 2 was directly made to make VR accessible for kids, but it seems that's the effect especially of the very low price - in combination with weak processors making games look cartoonish.

 

There have been many discussions about all those kids in VR and the consequences, for example:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest/comments/cgsvdu/all_these_little_kids_are_ruining_my_experience...

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest/comments/epuk30/is_it_me_or_have_kids_infiltrated_vr_almost_eve...

 

I don't see Quest 2 having a great effect on PCVR sales, at least not in the Oculus Rift Store. The last year not many more ratings have been given to Lone Echo - and to my great surprise also not for Asgard's Wrath even being free for many Quest 2 owners. The answer might be simple: most Quest 2 owners do not have (or do not attach the hmd to) a rig. I guess most Quest 2 users don't care for PCVR at all.  

 

Getting back to this thread's main focus. If current trends continue, I wonder if we're going to see average VR users getting a lot younger due to inexpensive VR access, which also may have a great impact on new content. I do wonder if some day Oculus/Facebook will completely cut the ties to PCVR - and then we may have two different roads going forward, those with or without a rig/PS5 (maybe Social VR vs. Highest-End Gaming VR). Then again, if we get a great breakthrough with foveated rendering, maybe a merge could happen, as the need for high-performance gpus could be reduced a lot maybe with Quest 3 or 4... 

 

And then there's the AR shadow coming closer, lol.

Oculus Rift CV1, Valve Index & PSVR2, Asus Strix OC RTX™ 3090, i9-10900K (5.3Ghz), 32GB 3200MHz, 16TB SSD
"Ask not what VR can do for you, but what you can do for VR"

I think the lines between stand-alone and high end are much more blurred than are perhaps being described here.

 

There's an ever-shifting line that defines mainstream and high-end, these lines are moving very fast as each iterations of headset is released, and that's the same for different headset manufacturer.

 

Are we defining Quest 2 in tethered mode as non-high end? Is that based on metrics and user experiences/comparisons? or is it based on prejudices going back to Oculus' decision to concentrate on dual mode headsets going forward rather than dedicated PC headsets? or even not having a DP connection?

 

I'm spending more time on the MSFS forum these days and it seems to me there are few hang-ups about which headsets to use with Q2 and G2 both being described in favourable terms by people who seem less invested in particular brands than is probably the case on brand-centric headset forums like this one, which I guess is natural.

 

Another big element is hardware capabilities that have always been a huge factor in driving the headsets. For the last couple of years, scarcity of high-end GPUs and farming have caused this issue to be exaugurated, the highest res headsets can't drive the progress of VR if the GPUs for them are a generation away, or the top end current generation aren't available. This is likely to be the case for another year at least imo. And it goes deeper than hardware availability, GPU performance/price isn't going to improve whilst nvidia and AMD know they can sell all the GPUs they make to farmers and people who'll pay big sums for gaming. Driver improvements for the high-end cards are going to be adversely affected too... there's either no incentive to develop or there's a much reduced ecosystem supplying data to feed back into the driver development process, if there are so few high-end GPU in gamers hands. And we've been seeing this lately with MSFS, the last few releases of the nvidia drivers seem to have been working better for the previous generation of cards than for the 3000 series and I'm sure that's true for other games, it's just that FS pushes the cards more.

 

The need for high-end has always been an important part of being an enthusiast, it's one of our credentials, it identifies us as enthusiasts, but it's only a driver for VR if it's attainable for more than just the very few, so I hope at least one company concentrates on attainable, cost effective, drivable high-end.

 

I suppose such a device, isn't high-end by definition, as it's attainable by the majority, but that's a contradiction that I don't really care much about.

 

As far as PC vs Stand-alone, well, as long as Oculus continue to have Link, I don't think vs applies. It's just another mode of the headset and one that seems to be encouraging both types of play if the steam hardware survey and MSFS forums are anything to go by. 

Thank you for your addition to this discussion. Always interested to review what you say.

Am also interested that you spend more time on the MSFS forum - I think you can see a number of us spend more time on other forums these days.
Interested you feel the posters there have less hang-ups about headset types, you must have missed the recent Quest2 discussion we had. 
I am sure as a volunteer moderator on the official Oculus forum it gives a interesting perspective - please visit us also on the MTBS3D forum where this phase of VR first started being discussed - still going strong.  
Thank you for sharing your opinion on Link allowing Quest2 to be considered as both Standalone and High-end PC VR - an interesting view, which I look forward to an open discussion regarding. 

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


@RuneSR2 wrote:
When things look so cartoonish (and the content is very simple), they attract the attention of kids.

If I may play Devil's Advocate for a moment, I would argue that this is observably untrue. We can see many cartoonish video games that are geared 100% towards adults. A great example is Blasphemous. This is practically Rated R and has satantic visuals that are certainly for adults. Yet it is 100% cartoonish and pixelated; and the mechanics are incredibly simple (jump, attack).

 

blasphemous.jpg

 

 

I think there's a confusion between the concepts of "games for kids vs adults" compared against "games for videophiles." And we have had this conversation before. As a videophile, you are strongly attracted to graphics moreso than the substance of the game. As you may recall, our first exchange over this is when you rated a game the lowest possible rating due to the fact that it was missing support for being able to set the graphics settings exceedingly high. And that is fine to have a preference, but to dismiss the entirety of a product in favor of "looks" is the definition of style over substance.

 

And here we are visiting the same matter again, with the attempt to portray "cartoonish games" as being geared towards children. Yet there are hundreds, if not thousands, of highly rated games on Steam that prove this concept to be observably inaccurate

 

If a game isn't made for a videophile, that doesn't mean that the game is made for children. Not all adults who enjoy gaming are videophiles. Such as all the adults who played and thoroughly enjoyed Blasphemous. Which is currently over 10,000 individuals.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/774361/Blasphemous/

 

This cartoonish low-graphics quality game is rated M for Mature (17+).

 

When it comes to VR, we can also see a similar example with Pixel Ripped. The graphics quality is made intentionally low, because it 100% is geared towards adults who enjoyed gaming in the 1980s and 1990s. In fact, Pixel Ripped is mostly appreciated by older adults and much less appreciated by children. So to most children - who weren't alive in the 80's and 90's and thus don't appreciate the amazing references in Pixel Ripped - simply view this title as a boring low graphics experience. I saw as much on reviews, and even had a debate with a younger VR consumer on this forum who thought Pixel Ripped was terrible because of its graphics. Yet that person didn't get any of the references Pixel Ripped was making.

 

Overall, it's more accurate to understand the preferences of users as opposed to distorting what those preferences indicate. In this case, it is a distortion to claim that low quality cartoonish games only appeal to kids. The reality is that games that have little substance but great graphics appeal to videophiles, while games with greater substance yet lower end graphics appeal to gamers who avoid "style over substance" and instead enjoy intricate gameplay with meaningful characters/stories/plots, and more engaging mechanics.