VR is dying

[twonha]

Rumor has it Valve has lost interest in VR somewhat, and that FB has clearly "won" the VR war with its stand alone headset. I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with that, if it's true, but at least that makes it easier on developers to choose where to focus.

[Mangler]

It's a shame that pcvr was spearheaded by such a passive entity, if valve had actually tried, it would have probably been in a better place right now.

[twonha]

I've been thinking for a long time now that Valve should take up a publisher-like role, in the same way that Epic is already doing. Support developers to create the kind of stuff you want to see for your platform. Unfortunately, Valve's fickle leadership and its vision of PC gaming as an open platform that develops on its own exactly without any kind of leadership prevents a lot of cool things from happening.

I am absolutely certain that if Valve were to outsource Half-Life 3 to Arkane Studios, we'd see a finale to the series within four years. Instead, due to Gabe's apparent indifference and Valve's insecurities, we got the promise from Episode Two, and the delivery from absolutely nothing. And if Valve really wanted to, they'd give 40 million to five awesome studios, and have them deliver five very different, very cool VR games within two years. Instead, we got the promise from Alyx, and the delivery from... Well, if anyone, Mark Zuckerberg.

We can be forever grateful that Valve pushed Steam the way it did and effectively played a big role serving as a PC lifeline during the financial crisis, but PC gaming's greatest strengths are sometimes equally its greatest weaknesses.

[azalea]

Originally Posted by Mangler

It's a shame that pcvr was spearheaded by such a passive entity, if valve had actually tried, it would have probably been in a better place right now.

I'd argue that they were one of the very few who did try. PCVR needed more to sustain the tiny wave of hype that Alyx generated. But hey, at least the Index is a fine-looking conversation piece, even if it doesn't do much these days.

[Mangler]

Originally Posted by azalea

I'd argue that they were one of the very few who did try. PCVR needed more to sustain the tiny wave of hype that Alyx generated. But hey, at least the Index is a fine-looking conversation piece, even if it doesn't do much these days.

They focused too much on the high end sid of vr though, metabook won when they released their headsets that did not require any base stations.

[SubCog]

Originally Posted by azalea

I'd argue that they were one of the very few who did try. PCVR needed more to sustain the tiny wave of hype that Alyx generated. But hey, at least the Index is a fine-looking conversation piece, even if it doesn't do much these days.

Originally Posted by Mangler

They focused too much on the high end sid of vr though, metabook won when they released their headsets that did not require any base stations.

It takes herculean effort to start a new platform, especially in a space that's new. Gotta hand it to Facebook/Meta for making this happen. They invested many billions of dollars, and I'm sure it's taken them longer than expected, but they muscled it through.

[azalea]

Originally Posted by Mangler

They focused too much on the high end sid of vr though, metabook won when they released their headsets that did not require any base stations.

At the same time, it's very PC-gaming to own something that has higher fidelity but costs a lot. I gave up on my PSVR way earlier, cus the experience just wasn't wonderful.

[SubCog]

Originally Posted by azalea

At the same time, it's very PC-gaming to own something that has higher fidelity but costs a lot. I gave up on my PSVR way earlier, cus the experience just wasn't wonderful.

Yes, PC gamers have a much higher tolerance for higher costs, both in $$ and effort. PC gamers are tinkerers at heart.

I knew a few guys who got in on VR early, with the CV1 or Rift. Although they really got into it for awhile, each experienced the same fatal problem. At some point they had to clean up their office (either to use for a guest room for visiting relatives, or moving to another house), at which point the base stations got put away into the closet. Once put into the closet, the base stations never came out again. The effort cost of setting up base stations a second time was large enough to kill the product usage, even for these enthusiasts.

Of course the Rift S improves that significantly. But clearly a fully wireless headset is best. My Quest gets put away for weeks or months sometimes, but it eventually comes back and gets used again. The only challenge is making sure it has battery power if it hasn't been used recently.

Quest is superior both in $$ cost and effort cost. Those are valuable, even for PC gamers.

[Mangler]

For me it was a matter of convenience, not cost, I just didn't want to deal with the base stations, so rift s was my entry into vr, valve forgot about lazy ppl, metabook didn't.

And my initial plan was move onto the g2, but then the quest 2 came along with its nifty wireless capabilities, so I went that route instead.

I still wish the quest 2 had a display port input though, link/air link is nice, but it's not as good as an uncompressed image.

[SubCog]

Originally Posted by Mangler

For me it was a matter of convenience, not cost, I just didn't want to deal with the base stations, so rift s was my entry into vr, valve forgot about lazy ppl, metabook didn't.

And my initial plan was move onto the g2, but then the quest 2 came along with its nifty wireless capabilities, so I went that route instead.

I still wish the quest 2 had a display port input though, link/air link is nice, but it's not as good as an uncompressed image.

Most folks agree that Virtual Desktop has far superior image quality to Link or Air Link. It's worth checking out.

[SubCog]

Bunch of VR related announcements and rumors over the last couple days.

Quest Platform

• Quest3 won't launch til late 2023 (rumor), so Quest2 will remain Metfaceulus's primary platform for another 18 months or so. If that's true, I think this is super smart. As long as they have the dominant platform, it's smart to stretch out release cycles to be longer, and try to stabilize their platforms a bit.
  
  
• They're trying to design their own silicon for Quest3, rather than rely on XR3 (rumor). They want something that can handle more robust graphics workloads.
  
  
• Cambria will launch this year (not a rumor). No real news there, but Carmack has reassured people that:
  

  An important point here is that the "project Cambria" product will *NOT* replace Quest 2, it will be sold alongside it. Quest 2 will have a long life.

Playstation VR2

• Sony announced specs for PSVR2. Of course it has higher res screens. Also has a much higher fov (110 degrees) and eye tracking for foveated rendering, along with inside-out tracking.
  
  
• Of course PSVR2 is going to dominate Quest in terms of graphics.
  
  
• PSVR2 is still a wired headset. It's hard to believe anyone is going to release a tethered headset in 2022, especially one that is otherwise really high-end.
  
  
• If Sony is smart, they'll have a wireless dongle that they can announce at launch... even if it's not available yet, and even if it costs a fortune. They really need to be able to claim that they're not completely locked into a wired solution.

XR3

• XR3 is supposed to be ready by end of 2022 (rumor). Of course we can expect it to be more powerful across the board, but especially in gpu power.
  
  
• I expect XR3 will support Wireless 6E, which should be able to better handle wireless video transfer for VR.
  
  
• imo, wired headset manufacturers should all be preparing XR3-based wireless modules for their wired headsets. It doesn't have to run mobile games, just pack in enough compute for inside-out tracking, make sure it has massive wireless bandwidth, very low-latency video decoding, and a battery. Work with Guy Godin for software support. You can still sell a basic wired-headset if you want a cheaper option, as long as it has an optional wireless module available.

-----------

Additional rambling thoughts

• I'm fascinated to see how the competition plays out between PSVR2 and Quest2, where PSVR2 is a strangely lob-sided product that mixes very advanced features into an old-style wired package. Can far superior graphics really make up the difference for the tether? PSVR2 will be a much more expensive ecosystem to get into, since the Quest2 costs less than the base PS5 alone. Quest is selling very well, and PSVR1 sold very well, so it seems likely that PSVR2 will be a big success.
  
  
• I do think an optimal VR product might include a separate compute module that runs games and broadcasts them wirelessly to the headset. Of course you can already do that with a gaming PC and Virtual Desktop, but that's an expensive and complex solution. Something like a PSVR + wireless capabilities would be ideal. A console-like platform that games can be perfectly optimized for, with easy setup, and near-PC graphics power, sold for the price of an xbox or playstation. DecaGear was rumored to be working on something like that, although it sounds like their plans have been shaken-up a bit.
  
  
• We'll have to wait and see what Quest3 looks like. Of course it'll have substantially improved graphics, but I doubt it'll compete with PSVR2.
  
  
• Every new headset seems to be boasting about 4k screens. Those screens are not much higher res than the Quest2. PSVR2 is confirmed to have 2x 2000×2040 screens, compared to Quest2's 2x 1832×1920, for example. I honestly don't think we need higher-res screens right now. If I run Virtual Desktop games on the highest resolution settings, I'm really blown away by how crisp the current screens are. The bottleneck right now is the rendering power... most Quest2 users have never seen the current screens maxed-out. imo, higher res screens are my lowest priority improvements for VR right now. I'd WAAAY rather see an emphasis on higher FOVs, for example (although you'd need higher res to properly support expanded fov).
  
  
• There are additional big players that have not yet entered the market. Apple, of course, has the potential to dramatically shake up the VR/AR ecosystem in ways that are difficult to predict right now. Google is also rumored to be developing an AR os. Microsoft has 2 platforms that appear to be going nowhere, but still exist (hololense and WMR). If PSVR2 is successful, it seems like xbox may be forced to get into VR as well. Valve is still rumored to be working on their Deckard Steam headset. Lots of smaller players as well, and who knows whether one of them may emerge as a giant? (Vive, Deca, Pimax, etc.) The industry will likely be big enough for multiple competitors to be successful, so we'll see how it plays out.

[Mangler]

I really hope that the quest 3 has an option to run a displayport/hdmi signal over usb-c or something similar.

As cool as wireless is, the image quality isn't there yet.

[Progression]

Originally Posted by twonha

Rumor has it Valve has lost interest in VR somewhat, and that FB has clearly "won" the VR war with its stand alone headset. I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with that, if it's true, but at least that makes it easier on developers to choose where to focus.

Hate to say this but after I bought CV1 there is NO WAY IN HELL I am buying another headset that doesn't have a wireless option. There's nothing that pulls me out of a game and irritates me more in VR than that. I can ignore low res, god rays, fov, whatever the f' you throw at me; I CANNOT handle being restricted on my movement and twisting the cables left and right. Valve never went wireless so good riddance (in the saddest of ways).

Other than facebook, who's actively developing consumer VR products that do not rely on Valve tech?

[Progression]

Originally Posted by Mangler

I really hope that the quest 3 has an option to run a displayport/hdmi signal over usb-c or something similar.

As cool as wireless is, the image quality isn't there yet.

Can't believe people prefer image quality over freedom of movement and a bunch of cables cluttering their room. I guess it's rather ok if you play sitting down.

[Mangler]

It would be nice for flight sims/driving games, the only thing wireless adds to games like that is compression artifacts.

[SubCog]

Originally Posted by Mangler

I really hope that the quest 3 has an option to run a displayport/hdmi signal over usb-c or something similar.

As cool as wireless is, the image quality isn't there yet.

Meta's priority will be improving the stand-alone VR experience. They'll push hard to improve the graphics in their own headset, through better silicon, foveated rendering, frame-interpolation, advanced scaling technology, etc. It's nice that they have link/air-link, but it's not going to be an emphasis moving forward.

[Progression]

Originally Posted by Mangler

It would be nice for flight sims/driving games, the only thing wireless adds to games like that is compression artifacts.

Alright I can agree with that.

[John C Flett]

Originally Posted by Mangler

It would be nice for flight sims/driving games, the only thing wireless adds to games like that is compression artifacts.

That accounts for about 90% of my VR time. I can imagine the market diverging with wired HMD being sold specifically to sim gamers.

[Eisberg]

Kind of funny that this thread went from "VR is dying" to now we are in a time where VR is a huge market due to Meta.

[SirBaron]

I don't see compression artefacts in wireless gaming?

Maybe people have the bitrate too low.

[Eisberg]

Originally Posted by SirBaron

I don't see compression artefacts in wireless gaming?

Maybe people have the bitrate too low.

That is one possibility.

Also since the bitrate can also be set to be dynamic, which I believe is the default, people's wifi connection might not be the best and the Quest is decreasing the bitrate for them.

another possibility, which this one effects me. I see compression artifacts when playing OpenVR games through Airlink, I don't see it when playing Oculus VR games (either from Steam or from Oculus store). But if I use Virtual Desktop for OpenVR games, then I get no compression artifacts at all.

[SubCog]

Originally Posted by SirBaron

I don't see compression artefacts in wireless gaming?

Maybe people have the bitrate too low.

I notice artifacting on occasion with Virtual Desktop. Only in certain types of scenes, and it's rarely noticeable. I would WAAAY rather accept those artifacts, rather than use a tethered headset.

[twonha]

Finished the Beat Saber campaign. That was tougher than I thought it'd be.

I've had the Quest 2 since August, and I find playing native games much more relaxing than playing wirelessly over Airlink. It's a bit like PC gaming vs console gaming, just press play to start, or switch around all the switches, walk back and forth between the PC and guardian area a few times, and hope Steam and Airlink and the Quest2 all play nice together. Still, fully intend to replay Alyx, try Lone Echo and a bunch of other stuff.

[Progression]

Originally Posted by SubCog

I notice artifacting on occasion with Virtual Desktop. Only in certain types of scenes, and it's rarely noticeable. I would WAAAY rather accept those artifacts, rather than use a tethered headset.

Now you are making me agree with you after our disagreement on SpiderMan movies.

[Progression]

Originally Posted by twonha

Finished the Beat Saber campaign. That was tougher than I thought it'd be.

I've had the Quest 2 since August, and I find playing native games much more relaxing than playing wirelessly over Airlink. It's a bit like PC gaming vs console gaming, just press play to start, or switch around all the switches, walk back and forth between the PC and guardian area a few times, and hope Steam and Airlink and the Quest2 all play nice together. Still, fully intend to replay Alyx, try Lone Echo and a bunch of other stuff.

Is Airlink really that annoying?

[SirBaron]

Quest is just, on then play.

With PC you have to do more steps, or if you're like me 500 more steps because I can't help but go "if I do this maybe it will run better... (tweak settings)"

[twonha]

Originally Posted by Progression

Is Airlink really that annoying?

I suppose it's a matter of opinion, preference, convenience... There are certainly more steps to go through to play through Airlink, than to play a native game. I haven't played VR enough, to have the steps memorized. So last night I was simply messing around. A native game has no messing around, just hit play.

If you've got it all set up properly, Airlink is at least cool in that it opens up your library while maintaining the wireless freedom. I value that very much. But given the choice, I buy the native games. Plus, I don't always play VR next to the PC, sometimes I move into the living room. So native is the 'better' choice in that regard, too, for me at least.

[SubCog]

Originally Posted by twonha

I suppose it's a matter of opinion, preference, convenience... There are certainly more steps to go through to play through Airlink, than to play a native game. I haven't played VR enough, to have the steps memorized. So last night I was simply messing around. A native game has no messing around, just hit play.

If you've got it all set up properly, Airlink is at least cool in that it opens up your library while maintaining the wireless freedom. I value that very much. But given the choice, I buy the native games. Plus, I don't always play VR next to the PC, sometimes I move into the living room. So native is the 'better' choice in that regard, too, for me at least.

Air Link (unless its been updated since I tried last) is a pain because you have to enable it in your oculus app on your pc, and it resets to non-air link every 24 hours. It's a very annoying extra step. They should always have both Link and Air Link ready to go, just depending on whether you have a usb cable plugged in or not. Also, video quality is significantly inferior to Virtual Desktop. Virtual Desktop is easier & better... although there's still some games that don't boot properly with VD.

Ideally how it should work is this: You click on a game in your Quest library, then if your gaming PC is turned on, near by, and meets the requirements for that game, it boots up the PC version over Air Link, otherwise it falls back to the Quest version. The user shouldn't even have to think about it. I know that's alot to ask for, but one can dream, right?

[twonha]

Originally Posted by SubCog

Ideally how it should work is this: You click on a game in your Quest library, then if your gaming PC is turned on, near by, and meets the requirements for that game, it boots up the PC version over Air Link, otherwise it falls back to the Quest version. The user shouldn't even have to think about it. I know that's alot to ask for, but one can dream, right?

I think I'd prefer it the other way around. If your Quest2 is within range, then the PC automatically detects it as if it were connected by cable. Start up a VR game from the Oculus app or from Steam or from wherever you got it, and the headset does its thing.

[SubCog]

Originally Posted by Progression

Now you are making me agree with you after our disagreement on SpiderMan movies.

I'm always here for you, if you want to check and see if you have the right opinions.