I hate to keep saying "I told you so" but I've had many conversations at Oculus Connect & elsewhere about the abject failure of 3DoF with few people seriously considering that the market has spoken. 6DoF standalone VR is the minimum bar for success with spacial computing. Forget 3DoF & AR. Focus on what's growing and retentive. That's 6DoF VR standalones and currently Quest is king.
I'd go so far as to say 3DoF was a massive setback for popular perceptions of VR.
Low-resolution spherical imagery and video is just not that impressive, and that's all you get with 3DoF. Contrast with the presence and immersion you get with even the cheapest 6DoF headsets, and it's not even the same technology category.
So, now we have a bunch of people walking around thinking they "tried VR" because they had a Gear or a Go or a Cardboard, but they didn't get what the big deal was about.
Yes, 3DOF was a gimmick and lead to the perception that VR was another 3DTV waiting to happen. Turns out "VR" is, 3DOF devices and phone holder VR of the mid-2010s had a similar adoption and failure curve as 3DTV. I didn't really get excited about VR until I tried Vive, as tracked controllers are important also.
I bet there are a large number of people who have felt sick because of 3DOF "VR", as well, and have since written off VR because they don't want to feel sick again. Having a system that ignores most of your movements but not all of them is a recipe for motion sickness, even if it _is_ running at 90 frames per second. Developers at Oculus and elsewhere have poured tons of energy into solving that with stuff like Asynchronous Spacewarp, where the goal is to respond to every little movement your body makes as soon as possible. As it turns out, this is really important. And I think we've all learned here that simply having hands is huge. (It doesn't even matter if they do anything: being able to see your hands is immediately reassuring). So it's really sad to me that the product people went on to ignore (might even say sabotage) that effort with the Go.
I agree. I bought a Go on Black Friday for under $100 and it impressed me so much for such a low cost that I’m looking for a “real” VR headset. Unfortunately it seems I started looking just as companies stopped making any affordable 6dof headsets and the jump from $100 for the Go to $1000 for the only currently available VR headset is just too much for me so I’ll be waiting a bit longer. But dipping my toes in the water definitely whetted my appetite for more.
The Oculus Rift S and Oculus Quest are both in active production; they're just usually sold out (as is the Valve Index, presumably being the $1000 headset you're referring to.)
Funnily enough I had the opposite experience. 3D spherical video made a lot of sense and I could immediately see the point. I still use my Gear VR pretty regularly. Meanwhile my expensive fancy headset sits gathering dust because it's just too much faff to get everything set up and use it, and the overall experience isn't really much better.
I recognize your point of view. For me the Quest was a game changer. Just press the power button and you are ready to go. Even your previous boundary settings are retained. Just step into the circle and fly.
I am a complete newbie in VR. We had a Quest borrowed by a friend a few weeks back, when my family was in quarantine. Playing Superhot was a lot of fun, but it became next level shit when we tried it in our basement, where we have a huge empty 40m² room. It was absolutely insane, moving through the room, around opponents. This was it! So yeah, 3DoF is not what we need. Give me 6DoF, a lighter headset and a wider angle of view, and I will spend the rest of my life in our basement :)
Passthrough in high end VR will become the early experience of where Magic Leap / Hololense should be in a few generations (AR with wide FOV, High Def Egocentric 360 SLAM, etc). That hardware is almost available (see Qualcomm XR2 specs [1]).
This comes with all the high end VR HMD limitations like compute tethering, physical footprint, & mobility issues - but it will have early productivity applications.
The blurring of AR/VR/XR/EtcR will be felt less where hardware formats are lightweight low cost like Quest or xyzGlasses
I think the big surprise in the next few years is going to be Apple coming out of left field and taking the lead in the hybrid AR/VR space.
Why Apple? Think about the level of software-hardware integration for the camera in the past few generations of iPhones. Imagine that expertise being channeled into an ultra-low latency, 90fps passthrough pipeline combined with exhaustive research on optical distortion, perceptual FOV, etc, and then layering the existing SLAM of ARKit on top of it, advanced by another generation or two.
Apple may well realize the original Magic Leap concept videos before Magic Leap does.
There was an article recently in Bloomberg on the internal, political struggles the AR/VR team at Apple had with other executives. Seems like it is struggling.
While most Quest games are already mini games. The Sidequest stuff is even a level lower, most of the stuff there just amount to interesting experiments.
EchoVR is very exciting because it demonstrates the 6DoF VR experience pretty well and interaction with space (e.g. you have to throw discs and catch them, while floating), but it's still in beta so it has limited content. Pavlov Shack too but it's also in alpha and requires SideQuest. The Climb is pretty cool as an experience, but not necessarily mind blowing.
One of the first games I tried with the Quest was "The Exorcist" which was pretty creepy and really showcases the immersiveness of VR. You really feel like you're there in that game, which was not always a good thing.
Unpopular opinion, but personally I don't really like Beat Saber (yes, partially because I suck at it). It feels too casual and very repetitive, which I don't feel demonstrates VR's potential. Too much like fruit ninja but for VR.
Outside of games (you can use Oculus for more than games!), I'd also check out Immersed VR. I don't think it's there yet, but the idea has a lot of potential. Very innovative app.
In the boxing demo on the quest I was surprised at how much my brain did not like the idea of this ultrabig guy getting into my personal space with violent intentions.
My primal brain said "Run."
EchoVR is nice, yes. The throwing never really worked for me, but moving around like in a space station is really cool. You can basically grapple around and don't need your legs at all.
Depends what you are into but I love Space Pirate Trainer as an "intro" as it really is superbly done and takes advantage of lots of the unique VR capabilities (think, space invaders where you can physically duck or sway out of the way of bullets) - but it is still completely intuitive to someone new.
Yes, content is the single biggest problem with VR now. There is a lot of it on some platforms (like Steam and Oculus PC), but most of it isn't very good. On Quest there isn't much to play or experience period. VR needs to get to the point where multiple Beat Saber quality games are coming out every month, and an Alyx level AAA game comes out a few times a year.
> There is a lot of it on some platforms (like Steam and Oculus PC), but most of it isn't very good. On Quest there isn't much to play or experience period.
With an appropriate USB-C cable[1], Quest has access to the Steam and Oculus PC library too :D
[1] As I’m sure most people on HN already know, there are many different types of USB-C cable, each supporting different subsets of USB-C’s potential functionality...
That's a good question, I think once a single VR device sells 10-20M units, VR might get there. However, PSVR is at 5M and Quest is at ~0.5M-~1M units. PC VR (really Steam VR) is at ~2M. Headsets keep selling (for now), and we finally have a system seller game in the form of Alyx, Facebook's multiple game studio acquisitions are also a good sign for high quality content in the future. Theoretically these studios will be able to attract better talent by offering FAANG level salaries (3x-4x most game industry equivalents).
Beat Saber is the big hit, which I love; but if you're really into rhythm games I would also take a look at Audica, from Harmonix.
If you are into puzzle-light exploration in a beautiful space, I would highly recommend Fujii as a hidden gem. The only drawback is that it's pretty short.
Not really "content", but if you are interested in productivity apps, Immersed or BigScreen are among the options for streaming your desktop to your headset, depending on what platform you're on. They can also be used for online VR screensharing. (Disclosure: I have a small stake in Immersed.)
The various streaming apps (Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Youtube, etc.) are not exactly novel, but I like being able to watch stuff without being in front of the computer. (I finally have the screen on the ceiling that I've always wanted.)
Oh also, it's not really a game but there's something called "Ritchie's Plank Experience". I'm afraid of heights and I seriously pulled the Quest off my head the first time cause I freaked out.
I have had my quest for a week and I'm very impressed but the tech has a long way to go and I'm deeply skeptical VR will ever be more than a niche product.
I agree that in the current form VR will not become fully mainstream. But do you remember when you set the perimeter with your Quest and could see your room? If this is refined (a lot), true immersive AR would become possible, which solves the problem of isolation. I think then, and with less bulky headsets, VR/AR has the potential to get out of its niche.
that's like saying dos was a mistake because MS should have just developed xp instead.
of course 6dof is better than 3dof - that's obvious - but that is also a question of how expensive computing power is. Quest is simply the next iteration of Go - so obviously they'll sunset Go at some point.
The way you sound it seems like you think you split the atom or something.
You're right that 3DOF needed to exist before 6DOF, which is a much harder problem to solve, doubly so for inside-out. But, PCVR entirely skipped 3DOF as a consumer product, and even though Rift shipped without touch controllers it had tracked controllers 6 months after launch.
Early 3DOF mobile VR was an attempt at getting more users, without actually thinking about the user experience. Early mobile VR advertisements (for Gear VR or Daydream), had people using 3DOF VR headsets like they were standalone 6DOF headsets with full hand-tracking. People walking around their hands in front of the HMD, etc. Marketers knew how the device should work, it actually wouldn't be insane to say the device that people want is 3-5 years out and not release 3DOF hardware
I'm slightly perturbed that I picked up a Rift S instead of something else. I feel like Facebook^WOculus has it next on their list of abandonware, and the vendor lock-in feels heavier by the day. No OVR stuff, Can't run anything without the Oculus Store app open, etc.
Same. But between the quest and a rift S, I would certainly pick the latter. The quest wasn't for me, it just doesn't do enough on its own (bought the quest first because I didn't know the disadvantages). You can theoretically connect your PC too, but that is finicky. The rift S was fun for a time, but the lock-in is disastrous, but far worse for the quest. Typical for "modern" software, but VR landed in a corner like many other attempt before. It can be fun for a time though.
The first time people are very impressed with VR, but it is just too much effort for regular use. Even in games like Elite, which has really good VR support, I returned to my flat screen after a while. Nice to find you coffee mug, be able to find your phone... I have "see-through" mapped to a button, but you still feel caged.
I'm still annoyed that they don't have multiple user profiles for Quest. What kind of gaming device doesn't support that in 2020? Every time I hear an announcement from Oculus, I have a little hope they'll announce support for this, and every time I'm disappointed.
Yeah this is the dumbest part of using a Quest right now. No profiles means no separate save data, so I can't differentiate my high scores in Beat Saber from my wife's, which is really annoying.
And then of course in some games with a story mode, if they didn't build in multiple save files into the game then you're just kind of screwed.
Totally. When I make Oculus friends, I hate that I have to tell them to find me as [my husband's username] because he signed up on the device first, so now I can never have my own Oculus account.
I solved the Beatsaber highscores problem by being really really good at Beatsaber, so I only play on Expert+ and he only plays the lower levels. That way our high scores are separate. :)
Was just chatting with a friend about this. It makes no sense.
The Quest is the perfect machine to share with others. I can take it to friends or family (well, pre-covid I could). VR _needs_ to reduce the friction to trying it out.
Even just a generic "guest" profile would be a huge step forward.
Which is evidence of them being substandard for gaming, IMO. For the iPhone, it's sort of justified, since it's more of a personal device (even if I've handed my phone to my son to play games plenty of times). But the iPad? One of the main use cases of that is a shared family device, isn't it?
I'll believe their new distribution method when I see it. How will they handicap it? How will they maintain their requisite absolute control? And we won't see it until sometime next year? Hmm. (Spoken as someone who was rejected from the Rift store.)
Yeah anything from them should be taken with a healthy grain of salt at this point, but I'm cautiously optimistic. My game was on Go/Rift but reject from Quest with a "Why don't you try releasing on the Rift first!" message. This despite my game already being on Rift with 10,000+ downloads and a 4.5 star rating average. I said it when they announced the approval process for Quest, and I'll say it again, it was too early in VR's life to pull an Apple.
Its actually kind of funny for them how much money they seem to be making hand-over-fist with their Oculus Store and Quest titles.
But not funny when you are locked out of that. And they can lock out apps or games that they have a conflict with in terms of titles they are associated with themselves or any other reason.
I think if their new distribution system isn't open enough, that leads the market wide open for someone to come in with a device that has an open marketplace and I would drop Oculus in a second if that were the case. Because Sideloading is a pain in the ass.
I feel like so much of the submission to the Quest store lead to a lot of devs adding stupid features / mechanics _just_ to show off the quest features (forced climbing or hand interactions and similar in games where it doesn't really seem necessary).
Trying to inject themselves into development at the concept phase (at least for Quest) sucked too. I understand not wanting trash in the store but there has to be a middle ground.
I'm imagining you'll just have a direct link to your app in the store that you can use e.g. on your website or submit to SideQuest. Your app won't be findable on the Quest store otherwise. Why is that hard to believe?
Because they haven't given us any of these details that you're imagining. Will there still be an approval process? Will Facebook give up any control? Will this be just like "keys only" distribution, a return of the Concepts/Early Access channel, or something like the old Oculus Share? So...I'll believe it when I see it.
In the linked blog post, they say that apps will be still subject to their policies (same as when you want your app in the iOS app store or Android Play Store), but that you'll have a direct link to distribute.
> > That’s why we’re going all-in, and we won’t be shipping any more 3DOF VR products.
> This is not exactly surprising, but still a bold and absolutely correct move from Oculus.
> As a developer who was rejected from the Oculus Quest store before, it's great to hear that they now how concrete plans to start opening up the store.
If you were rejected from the Quest store, you can still put your content out there on SideQuest.
"May put your account and device at risk" is not going to get you a viable third-party app ecosystem, especially when it's an open question what Facebook/Oculus might decide to clamp down on in the future.
In case you're not into VR but is curious about it from time to time: DoF means degree of freedom and you can easily imagine the tech leap from 3 to 6 (X, Y & Z axis of movements of the head plus surge [back and forth], sway [sideways] and heave [vertical] movements of your body).
I think by "X, Y & Z axis of movements" you meant "X, Y & Z axis of rotations". It sounds like you're talking about translations, which is confusing because that's the same thing you mention in the next sentence.
The Go is a great piece of hardware for what it is.
In my opinion, working with it since day one: It isn't going anywhere. You can still sideload, you can still tinker and the tooling is there to do this in pure android studio + 3d engine.
You don't need anything from FB / oculus for hobby projects as long as the driver is available (and they're already "out" so hopefully FB just puts it on GitHub or similar).
I still prefer the Go for watching content on planes, to "zone out" with virtual zen spaces, etc.
There were similar comments in a thread I commented on in 2018. It’s interesting that a lot of people immediately jump to porn. The Redbull content is really good and watching regular content in the void or similar is a novelty, IMO, when you don’t do it everyday.
What a dick move.
I can understand that they won't accept any new apps, but also not accepting updates?
A lot of apps for media playing and social media for the Go are still under active development. Not allowing updates will effectively cut off Go users from social media.
Depends on what you're looking for exactly. Quest is what I'd recommend to most people since it's the only major headset that can operate completely on its own without a PC, and you can still connect it to one if you want to play titles that aren't available on Quest natively.
If you're confident you won't be using your headset without a PC though, there are other options. Rift S is more comfortable and offers better latency and image quality than Quest's PC connection feature does, for example. On the low end of the price scale there are also cheap WMR headsets which have worse controllers and controller tracking but can get you the basic experience of a 6DoF headset for ~$200 if you buy used. On the high end there's also the Valve Index, which offers significant improvements in image quality, FOV, and refresh rate, but you already explicitly ruled that out as too expensive.
Don't drop a cent on a Valve rig until there's a wireless option.
I got a Quest thinking I would just use it for some casual portable gaming here and there, and now I'm going to just sell off my vive rig because there's no way I can go back to tethered VR.
A more powerful Oculus Quest would probably be a day one purchase for me at this point.
This is exactly what I'm thinking. I got the quest, and having played around with link, it's terrible going from fully wireless VR back to tethered.
It doesn't sound like much, but cable tangle as you move is an absolute nightmare. Looking behind you now has to come with remembering the direction you turned in so you can undo the coil after.
Quest is better just because you can buy it relatively quickly, and for Valve Index you have to wait many weeks in line. Valve Index (or Rift, for example) is lighter, because it doesn’t have battery, and has better tracking (pros), but is connected by cable (cons). But you need cable for Quest to play PC games anyway!
But it’s not significantly cheaper - you want 128GB version because games are huge, this is $500. Then you need a case - this is relatively fragile equipment, and you don’t want your lens to get dirty since it’s hard to clean - $40. Then you need Oculus Link cable to play Half Life: Alyx or other more demanding games - $80. Quest doesn’t have built-in headset - $50 more (I’m actually using over-the-ear headphones with $10 short cable). You may also need grips (magnetic battery cover is the most stupid thing!). You can buy cheaper accessories, but they are hit or miss, so I opted for first-party case and cable at least. Anyway, this is $670, which is getting into Valve Index territory.
The Link cable is totally optional & only if you want a 15ft super-light USB3 cable. You can use any USB cable you want including USB2 cables, 26ft cables, cables you already own, the in-box charging cable.
On price, the Valve Index is $999. $999 - $670 = $329. Generally a $300 price difference at this level puts you in a very different market price point targeting different users. You may also not already have a Windows gaming PC. Then the TOC difference rises to $~1329-2000 between the two setups because the Quest works just fine without any extra hardware.
Regarding the case, it was unclear to me if you're implying that the Valve Index is more robust & thus doesn't need a case?
For 15ft you kinda want light cable. Also you want L-shaped connector on one end. From the speed test it does during setup it kinda looks like it needs USB 3 speeds, so USB2 presumably won’t cut it. Anyway, I was going to get one of the cheaper cables from Amazon, but after reading bunch of problematic reviews for cheaper cables I ponnied up for the Oculus cable since I didn’t want to deal with potential problems.
Sure, there is a price difference, but my point was that Quest needs a bit more accessories than Index, so it pushes the price a bit up. I still would recommend Quest to anyone, because people who get Index (or other PC-based headset) know what they need already.
My plan is to store Index in the original case. It didn’t work out for Quest because case is not that convenient for reuse, and Quest is not actually stored in the office next to PC (and at the kitchen area I prefer smaller footprint). Also Quest is moved around way more.
>Disclaimer: I work on Oculus Link.
I sure hope you’ll fix the problems because some VD users report better colors (deeper blacks specifically) and better latency (hard to believe, but still). ;) ;) ;)
We still officially recommend USB3 but USB2 is still functional.
> after reading bunch of problematic reviews for cheaper cables I ponnied up for the Oculus cable since I didn’t want to deal with potential problems.
That is your choice as the consumer to make. A non-trivial amount of users are using USB2 cables & there are lots of successful reports on the subreddit discussing cables that work.
> but my point was that Quest needs a bit more accessories than Index, so it pushes the price a bit up.
In my experience I haven't observed the need for these accessories personally but YMMV. Still, even with all the extra accessories, you're still $300 cheaper than the Index. I wouldn't put them in the same pricing category. The pricing disparity grows significantly if you consider someone knew to VR without a gaming PC. The TOC for just trying VR content is significantly higher as is the setup complexity.
> I sure hope you’ll fix the problems because some VD users report better colors (deeper blacks specifically) and better latency (hard to believe, but still). ;) ;) ;)
I have not heard any feedback that indicates that VD latency is better than Link. There are some color differences. IIRC VD uses the wrong color space for its rendering (intentionally or otherwise) which can make things seem more vibrant, but that reproduces if you compare against Rift/Rift S as well.
"Deeper blacks" generally wouldn't be impacted by anything in the Link stack & this is the first I'm encountering of anything like that.
If you have any actual links to such reports (lower latency, color issues) that would be helpful so we can make sure to be talking about the same thing. If you have links for reports of these problems that would be helpful. Given what you've described it's hard to link it back to anything actionable.
FYI you can stream PCVR games on the Quest wirelessly with VirtualDesktop (20€ and good AC router required). Experience is surprisingly good, I don't bother with the cable anymore.
Can someone please explain to me why 64GB of flash memory costs over 100 dollars/pounds in 2020? That's an order of magnitude too much. Okay, they're probably price differentiating, but that's just insulting.
Oculus Quest. Hands down. I used to be a real VR skeptic before but after trying it I immediately got one and now use it every day. For me you either go all-in with Valve Index or get a Quest.
At this point HTC headsets like Vive makes sense only in China. Everywhere else it's Valve Index at the top end, Quest/Rift S in the middle and discounted/used WMR headsets on the lower end.
The Quest has worse tracking and slightly worse resolution, is about as comfortable on your head, but is far, far more convenient to use.
It's not just about the raw specs, it's about the experience, and Oculus are doing everything right there. It's standalone; the tracking is worse (but not so bad as to be a problem) because there are no lighttowers; it uses optical recognition of your room instead.
This means you can go absolutely anywhere, put it on, and be playing a game within sixty seconds.
I've never had it fail on me, while I've lost count of the number of times I've had to reset the Vive. Getting that thing ready for play is more like five minutes.
Might not seem like a huge deal, but it makes a difference.
I also find that the curation matters. The Quest store doesn't seem to have bad games, just games that might not be to my personal taste. Steam... Not so much.
Thanks. I think I'm a little gun shy right now because last I checked into this (2013ish?) My coworkers were very much Vive over Oculus. I don't want to box myself in on a losing platform, but I guess this is like any other tech. You're going to be leapfrogged at some point.
There was a brief period back in 2016 just after release when the Rift didn't have tracked controllers and the Vive did. That lead to Vive being the fan favorite for quite a while afterwards, even once the Rift finally did get 6DoF controllers a few months later.
A lot has happened since then; the landscape today is completely different.
Squadrons is unlikely to be Quest native but the Oculus Link is great and I use my Quest tethered to my PC to play flight sims which I think is preferable to virtual controls as I can have a full stick, throttle and rudder setup.
I’ve been thinking of getting one now that it is a pretty well supported target in Godot (https://godotengine.org/article/godot-oculus-quest-support), which means I could easily get prototypes running on it with little hassle. Am curious about when they’ll refresh the hardware, though, because it comes across as a little underpowered on the standalone front (and I don’t have a beefy machine to use Oculus Link with it).
> People have spent more than $100M on Quest content and more than 10 titles have generated over $2M in revenue on Quest
That sounds weird: The only numbers they can share with us are that people have spent $100M on game development, but they only point to a total of $20M of revenue. Obviously $20M isn't the entire revenue on the platform... but since they didn't share any other numbers, the default assumption would have to be that they aren't very flattering, either.
"Come develop on our platform! Spend $100M to make $20M in revenue!"
They are saying $100M in transactions have taken place on their app store, and a handful of the most popular titles have made $2M each. Not that developers are burning $5 to make $1.
Focusing their product line like this is a great move. I hope that they do more to hone in on overall usability for the average user, and continue to expand beyond gamers as their core persona. Focusing on standalone VR, hand tracking, and hopefully more social and productivity apps like Facebook Horizon will be the best way to grow.
As an old VR developer, this is great news. I agree with you all - remove 3DoF, it’s “diluting” the experience, and not in a good way. In the apps themselves, too many design sacrifices have to be made to account for this narrow use case.
The price point was great - but for overall flexibility standalone devices are the future.
I bought a Go recently because it was the only VR platform I could afford and... it was cool for a minute but quickly felt like a gimmick, so this isn't surprising.
I'd still like to develop for "real" VR and play around with it in the future but this is out of my league at the moment.
Unfortunately just the kind of experience you can expect when buying non-open systems. Company loses interest in hardware - it can stop everyone developing for it. If they would at least open it up for sideloading so the hardware isn't doomed to become electronic trash.
You can sideload. I've sideloaded some things on Quest, and as far as I can tell from googling it's the same on Go (I don't own one though).
However, in practice it's not going to get any new software, because developers will be writing for new generations, and porting to hardware with a slower GPU speed is more effort than it's worth.
Registered developers can do sideloading, no info yet if that will continue to work. Or if it will be possible for users to register as Oculus developers in the future or if that is shut down as well.
If hardware can still be used there are generally people around who continue to use it in some way. And the hardware of the Oculus was pretty nice actually (even if many here don't seem to like it because of only 3-dof).
Despite my desire to have open systems everywhere, I think this issue falls more under the bucket of being an early adopter of a technology. New tech can always die like that.
But of course we need the early adopters, otherwise things never evolve to the point of being mature, so thanks to early adopters for being our guinea pigs.
To my view, pretty much everybody buying VR headsets today is still an early adopter :)
I don't know about Palm as I never had one. But I can still code for my first Android phone. And I do not ask for support, but for opening up sideloading so users can install apps from PC when the shop closes.
You do like hardware getting locked down for development less than 2 years after it's release? (edit: OK, a bit over 2 years - 31. May 2018, still not that old)
I don't care about the shop. I just wish people could continue to develop for it as it is (or now was...) a pretty fun device to experiment with VR.
I haven't seen that tool yet (been a few months since I developed for Oculus), so I can't tell yet anything about that (and looks like a Mac app from screenshot, so not sure if it'll work for me).
The first solution described there needs users to register as developer (not just unlock it as in Android phones) and being able to use adb. We will have to see if that continues to work. No info about that yet. It's definitely not completely disconnected from the online stuff. For example - when the system needs updates you can't do any development in that time (I learned about that when after some weeks pause it prevented me completely from developing for nearly a full day because of outstanding updates).
The second solution is using the shop which as the as described by the original article will be shut down and not even updates to existing apps will be possible anymore.
How easy is it to ship exemplar apps to Quest? Can I just pick up Unity XR, riff a little on the FPS example, and compile it straight to something I can load on a Quest?
I don't think there's a pre-built FPS VR template from Unity, but it is pretty simple for basic projects. Word of warning, though: VR locomotion is very different from FPS locomotion, and gets very complex pretty quickly.
Ah, that’s a shame. I naively thought the Unity FPS game would load onto Oculus Quest.
My real goal is to have students ship content of their own to the Quest, to dive a little deeper into programming and technology than they might do as mere consumers.
Currently you could sideload it or work with the Oculus submission process to release it on their store. This article seems to suggest they will release another, frictionless avenue to make VR experiences accessible on Quest.
I own a Quest and Rift CV1. It's hard to go back to the Rift, even with the extra computing power. It's just a pain to clear enough space, whereas I can be more flexible with where I use the Quest. Plus, the cameras are an eyesore, think I might just take them down.
The resolution on the Quest is better too, and when I really need my gaming PC for some VR title I can always use link with it.
The Quest has a lot of cool titles on it, though I'd be lying if I didn't admit that most of the time it's a Beat Saber machine for me. Beat Saber is fantastic.
I have both the Quest and Rift S (previously a Rift and DK2, along with regular usage of the Vive). I would say just get the Quest.
For PC-backed graphics and exclusives, you can use Virtual Desktop with the sideloaded unlock to do wireless streaming or use Link for a hardwired experience.
The Rift has better quality screens and optics, but the Quest has a higher FoV and I find that ultimately wins out for overall experience.
The hand tracking stuff is very cool, extremely well done, and a bunch of stuff is coming down the pipe for it right now. It's supposed to come to the Rift too, but for now Quest has the advantage there.
I will probably end up selling my Rift at some point. I got the value of playing Alyx at full quality, but don't consider the minor IQ loss with streaming to the Quest to be that much of a blocker. I can do everything with the Quest, so it's the system for me.
Rift was outstanding at the time and I think I still prefer the shape of the controllers but that said I haven't even touched it since getting the Quest.
Being able to use it anywhere in the house and without a cable just make it a much better experience.
Also when you do use it with a PC the guardian setup process is more reliable and less error prone than having to set up external PC sensors.
After a few years with an Oculus Touch, my basic conclusion is that I'm too good at immersing myself in standard games to ever be truly excited about VR. For me there just isn't a big enough difference to justify all the inconveniences.
