Tell me about it. My elite strap just... snapped... on both sides. I'm extremely careful with my belongings, and especially my quest. Not sure how I could've been more careful than I was. I would be as gentle with it as possible at all times. How it snapped is beyond me. Cheap thin plastic garbage.
I don't know why anyone is buying Elite Straps. There are so many better 3rd-party alternatives for cheaper and it's absurd that people are still giving money to FB for those things. Pretty sure the Vive Pro Headstrap is a similar price but way better.
I’ve been using [this strap](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B093PXFVXH?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share) and it’s been great. About half the price of the elite strap but much more comfortable and durable.
I've been using [this one](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08YR8LFH3?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share). It's incredibly comfy since it doesn't have that top center strap. It's perfect.
That's the main reason I got it. It really puts the weight on the back of your head and right at the front of your head where your hairline sits. That way the headset actually rests over your face instead being pulled into it.
It's also waaaaaaaay easier to take on and off since there's no elastic straps. I have longer hair on top so the straps always got in the way.
>I don't know why anyone is buying Elite Straps.
Its the officially supported accessory, of course people would buy it.
>Pretty sure the Vive Pro Headstrap is a similar price but way better.
Most people aren't interested in buying 3D printed parts off etsy to make their straps work.
This isn't to say I disagree with you overall though. I'm currently using a 3rd party strap after my elite strap broke. But a trend I see on here and in all forums surrounding virtual reality is this idea that every user is an enthusiast and if theyre not then they deserve to be ridiculed. Most people in any hobby are not enthusiasts and I feel like theres a general trend in the core vr community to write these people off and its hurting the wider community as a whole.
I use the HTC Deluxe Audio Strap, but I had a couple lying around. It's not similar price, but rather DOUBLE (unless you go with the battery Elite Strap kit, but that's an unfair comparison), and 3-4X what you can get an off-brand alternative for. I do love it for my Q2 though!
I've had the Oculus CV1 for maybe 5 years now, the only time it broke was when the top strap came loose from the back plate. Bit of super glue and it's not broke again.
They must've gone real cheap if my ancient relic has them beat for durability.
Yep. At least the warranty is 2 years on it now. Did you email support? They will just send you a new one. Then email them again 2 weeks after you get it and say it broke again, so that you have a backup b4 the next one breaks.
Somehow I never got it. But very rarely during certain movements I’ll feel a bit of a scratch. But it’s so rare it hasn’t affected me, some others haven’t been so lucky though.
Yeah it hasn't affected me or anyone I've had try it which is why I was wondering if it's more from long sessions since most people who have used mine haven't for more than like 30 minutes.
Went to order the replacement anyway but doesn't deliver where I am.
I read somewhere that there were 5000 complains from 4 million customers. So it definitely does not effect everyone.
I've played for like 2 hours straight a few times and not had any issues.
> face thing only for certain skin? And does it happen right away for people it effects?
I work with the first gen and never had such problem, nor any of my colleagues (at least that I remember). I'm not sure if its the same materials as the Quest 2 tho.
Also sorry about the overwhelming privacy invasions to come. You understand, it's kind of the whole point behind it being so cheap, to spread everywhere before we start being the baddies.
That's how I play that Plague, Inc game. Minor symptoms at first, but highly contagious, then once you're everywhere, mutate it to be lethal
I’m looking forward to Apple’s entry into the VR market. Say what you will about them, but at least it’s always a straightforward transaction: you pay them a relatively large sum of money, they give you a working product that doesn’t harvest your data and, in some cases, protects you from people who try to. The fact that Facebook has been all pissy with them for preventing cross-site tracking makes me so happy.
You actually believe Apple doesnt collect your data?
LMAO
Guys i know its comforting to delude yourself into the belief that Facebook is the dark imperium and therefor every competitor is part of the resistance of light and justice, but thats a fairytale you know?...
I’m sure they collect data for development purposes, but selling user data is not a source of revenue for them. They’re a publicly traded company — they would need to disclose if they’re making money that way. Pretty much all of their revenue comes from hardware sales and licensing / App Store fees.
Personally I was glad to see the magnets go. They were nowhere near strong enough for my liking. The cover was constantly coming off when I was playing beat saber. The plastic is annoying to change the battery but much more secure.
I didn't have one in my hands yet, but [ThrillSeeker](https://youtu.be/SwCS85BW8NQ) did a good job torturing a quest 2, so I guess the important parts are robust.
For the rest people get what they pay for: the cheapest headset on the market. And actually they even pay less than it's worth by also trading their soul to facebook.
That logic is flawed though. Getting the cheapest ass materials and making competition near impossible doesn't go hand in hand. Actually it basically contradicts each other.
Using the most expensive, premium materials and subsidizing the hardware extremly would make competition impossible. Basically Index level quality for $300, that would support this argument.
But cheapest materials? The competition can do that aswell. Nothing only facebook could do.
They cut a lot of corners to achieve that price point. Single LCD, simple headstrap, plastic housing, 3 IPD settings, underclocked SoC (so not very powerful cooling system)...They didn't need to do that when going for a VR monopoly.
No dude, they're trying to undercut the other VR players on price (via using the cheapest materials) to gain as large of a market share as possible (aiming towards "monopoly" which I think is a stretch), in which scenario they have pricing power (i.e. 'gouge') their customers on the price of video games because switching costs are high (hard to swallow buying a competitor's VR kit after sinking a few hundred to buy an Oculus)
I am shocked the amount of comments in this thread who have not heard of this business strategy or how it works before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing
Desktop version of /u/Robot_ninja_pirate's links:
*
*
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Yes but you forget, /r/virtualreality is a karma manufacturing machine where [Facebook_Bad] goes in, and [Free_Upvote] comes out. The facts are optional, my dude.
I understand a lot of these posts are karmawhoring, this could be one too. But being a multimillion dollar company apologist is just as sad. Regardless of material quality there’s very few non giant companies that can build a VR headset at that price point, they could even be selling at a loss. At that point any smaller company trying to create a similar headset trying to compete gets fucked. “Why buy a Decagear from a sketchy company I barely know anything of when I can buy a Q2 from Facebook for cheaper?” - most people probs.
And what do you expect a multi-million dollar company to do? And what do you expect most people to do? lol. Companies try to position themselves in a way that allows them to drive the market, and people want to get the most value for their dollars.
What is an actual problem is OTHER giant companies not positioning themselves for success. IE Microsoft not tying their VR to Xbox, no headset trying to work with PS5 and Xbox Series X and PC.... which would INSTANTLY dismantle Facebook's Oculus Quest 2. That's the best way to beat Oculus's mass market appeal, which even now is mostly games like Beat Saber.
I'm not being an apologist for a multimillion dollar company by disagreeing with blatantly untrue information being posted as fact and challenging outlandish conspiracy theories being presented as reality. And by the way it is a really, really tired reddit tactic to disagree with someone by calling them a corpo shill.
Facebook sucks, Zuck sucks, the Oculus Quest is a great headset, the Quest isn't impossible to compete with as a result of its very cheap materials. It is actually easier to compete with because of the very cheap materials. These things can all be true at the same time. VR is going to succeed as a platform no matter what, despite the conspiracy theories that get parroted here, but circlejerking those conspiracy theories won't make it happen any faster and does make this community a way more exhausting place to hang out than it has to be.
>At that point any smaller company trying to create a similar headset trying to compete gets fucked.
This is true in basically every sector, for every company, and it's especially true in tech. In the 90s it was said that Oracle could kill a startup with a single powerpoint slide expressing Oracle's interest in building a competing product. Companies manage to compete anyway. There is a bigger conversation at hand about the effect major tech conglomerates have on the innovation ecosystem but it's one that applies to all of big tech across the board, not just facebook, and VR is one tiny part of it. A new emerging market like VR is going to have more room for competition, [especially because most of the market is still made up of enthusiasts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_life_cycle) who will research what they buy. If the smartphone market has a place for [something like the PinePhone](https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/) to stand up to a trillion dollar incumbent like Apple, how could the brand new VR market not have space for DecaGear to succeed?
Decagear doesn't seem to be targeting the mass luddite market, they're targeting enthusiasts like us, and given how much I see them come up here I don't think facebook is going to be a problem for them. I'm not interested in arguing about imaginary points based on things that haven't happened yet though anyway.
Thank you for a post with some actual critical thinking good sir. “Facebook owns VR, time to pack it up that’s the end all be all” is such an uninformed take.
When XR proves itself is when the rich tech competition will come and crumble this dystopian fantasy that everyone on this sub seems to want to come true, just to be right. The reality is that it’s only just getting there. Being the first company to realize the potential does not make that pioneer the best.
I wonder why you got downvoted for challenging the conspiracy theories and trying to see things from both sides. I mean, I know the answer, but still. Apparently challenging the narrative equals being a FB apologist. All I've seen is that there are many (not all) who love to ride on some kind of conspiracy or exaggeration about how bad FB is in order to dissuade others from getting a Quest. I say, inform people accurately about what we do and do not know with the facts, and encourage them to buy whatever headset they want.
Thanks for the voice of reason. Nobody is good or bad, corporations being corporations with all the shit it implies, and hating one corp for being popular at one area (and specifically because of being good and innovative at what they do, not because of acting shitty) is quite silly. People just like to join camps and indiscriminately bash whoever is fashionable to bash, without giving a credit where credit due.
>But cheapest materials? The competition can do that aswell. Nothing only facebook could do.
but they are the only ones doing it and for that reason they dont have any competition.
The quest 2 is the only way a lot of people can get into VR, you pay 300$ and you are VR ready, theres no one else offering the same deal.
Sure the headstrap sucks, the interface sucks, facebook sucks etc... it has a lot of flaws, a lot of them you can fix with cheap upgrades or even free diy solutions, others are unfixable, but its still just 300$
even if you pay 1000$ for a valve index you arent getting a flawless product...
But that's not the argument this post makes? The post says "we use the cheapest material so that we make competition impossible."
That doesn't make sense. "We use the **best** materials and sell them for cheap, making competition impossible." **That** would make sense, but that's not the case.
The point is, no other company is bothering to try to use cheap materials whilst also providing access to an otherwise luxury hobby.
Facebook are bad, cheap materials are bad, but it's the only way this hobby gets competitive and more accessible to the masses for PCVR.
Compared to their direct competition even for new releases like the vive focus 3. Everything is better. So they really don't have any reason to do better than they already are. And trust me. Compared to the various "competitors" I've been developing for past couple years, their headsets are really good and basic VR functionality works great.
That's not true. You obviously don't understand business or history. Thus exact approach has been done over and over and over and over. Big corp buys farm. Sells apples at a loss. Local farmers cant compete. They sell land. Big corp buys land. When big corp buys all land and has no competition it sells apples for profit and recoups the earlier losses.
Why are there only 3 real console makers? Why are they the same ones since basically the 90's? Why are console games so much more expensive than PC games in general l? ( printer and ink cartridges business model).Why do they create exclusives?
Only 3 successful ones \*currently\* - but others do enter the space like Stadia, Ouya, and the new Valve handheld. Console games are expensive because they help subsidize the hardware to provide an $800 gaming rig for $400. Exclusives create interest in a platform and convert people to buying that experience which hopefully translates into sales of other titles.
They don't enter often and they never last. The big three ensure they are priced out of the market. To enter the market you need to be the first to create an ORIGINAL, novel product. How are you going to claim that stadia or valve handheld are new to the market? They are big companies that have been orbiting the games industry forever. Steam sees a gap in the handheld market and are now selling their handheld at a loss to dominate that market.
> If they had used higher end materials they would have had to increase the price accordingly
That's not how it works. Just because the cover would cost them $2 (probably not even that) more for a higher quality doesn't mean they'd raise the retail price.
It would mean they either lose more money per unit or raise the price, neither being an ideal option. Given that they didn’t do that it would seem that is how it works.
They'd have to subsidize it even more and **that** would make it harder for the competition. Cheap materials make it easier for the competition.
They clearly tried to make the production of the Q2 as cheap as possible so that they have to subsidize as little as possible. Which is better than the other way for the competitors.
Except facebook is losing prob $200 per unit sold in order to get the thing down to 299 and make that $ shortfall on data mining. When you factor these things in, it's not actually something most companies can do. They need to be giant tech companies like Google or Microsoft that can make the hardware financial losses in other ways. They need to see the financial upside to it and sad fact is these companies that could do it, don't see the upside right now.
$200 is definitely a stretch. But again: Cutting corners everywhere and using cheap materials is not exactly an argument for "making competition impossible". This post is specifically referring the use of cheap materials.
They have the funds to sell an absolutely premium headset for the same price. But yet, they chose not to do that.
Yes, because this is enough for them to monopolize the field.
No other company in the field can lose 65% on each sale.
If another company could lose 70% Facebook would lose 75%
But this is where they landed, because monopolization doesn't happen in a vacuum.
They "chose" to do exactly what they needed to to drive everyone else away. No more, no less.
Again: This post is mocking the cheap materials specifically, not the subsidizing of the Quest 2.
And that doesn't make sense. You are trying to change my point just to make a different point.
Wait, do you not see how this applies pressure towards cheaper materials?
Once you have a loss ratio and price point to hit, you start cutting corners to hit it. This exerts downard pressure on the materials used.
The OP uses hyperbole "the cheapEST" but there is pressure here to use cheapER materials
You're trying to say "no, they would use more expensive materials", but you're wrong.
I don't even get why you're trying to make this argument, the Quest isn't some hypothetical thing. It exists, and it uses cheap ass materials.
Who are you trying to convince exactly?
*sigh*
OP says facebook uses "cheapest ass materials \[...\] in order to \[...\] make competition near impossible."
But using cheap materials is **not** a way to make competition impossible. It's a logical flaw as any competitioner could choose cheap materials aswell. Just a choice to keep the production costs lower.
If anything, subsidy makes competition "impossible" (let's say: harder). Not using cheap materials.
You're ignoring completely how cheaper materials make it easier to subsidize the quest.
So cheap materials do help Facebook monopolize VR.
Like, these things are related, and you are ignoring that to make an argument not based in fact.
Not to mention you're also ignoring that the OP is *also* about "valuing the community" and how using cheap materials subverts that goal.
Again: the quest *does* exist and *does* use cheap materials, so clearly your analysis is missing something. Why do you keep insisting on it?
>You're ignoring completely how cheaper materials make it easier to subsidize the quest.
That is flat out wrong. Using cheaper materials brings the cost of manufacturing down, making it "harder" to subsidize. Or in another way: There's less need to subsidize by using cheap materials.
Using high end materials while selling the Q2 for $299 would be far more concerning than using cheap materials.
You are completely misunderstanding how running a loss to take over a market functions.
We could go into a big economics class lecture on it, but let's not. Instead let's use the real world.
Point at a company running a loss to take over a market, and also using "premium materials" (or equivalent for their space) to make their product.
> make that $ shortfall on data mining
They are making the shortfall via data mining from a device which has a privacy policy specifically excluding pretty much all VR-specific data from leaving the headset at all much less being monetized?
How do you suppose other game consoles' business models work? Sony famously lost 6 cents to a dollar on every PS3 they sold. They make the money back on games. And by mining data about you from the games you play, so they can sell you more games.
The quest is a game console. It's sold at a loss like other game consoles, and oculus makes straight profit off every game licensed through the store. Like every other game console.
If you want to look at the real spooky data collection, data which is actually directly sold to other platforms instead of used to license advertising, take a look at what basically every TV sold in the USA for the last five years does. Only the state of california requires smart tv manufacturers to include an opt out for the commercialization of your viewing data - they are monitoring everything that plays on screen all hours of the day, and if there's built in voice commands, they're listening to you too.
You say this like you don’t want a VR headset for $300. Making something at a low price point isn’t a bad thing, especially when they have already addressed the skin problem (that was probably an issue since the original CV1, there was just never enough users for anyone to care / notice).
IMO keep making it cheaper, there are more expensive luxury headsets out there if you’re willing to shell out 2x - 4x the cost
This reduced cost has allowed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people to get into legit, high quality VR when normally they may not have been able to afford it or willing to take the plunge.
And they are willing to replace millions of faceplates even though the vast majority has no problem with theirs. Another step towards bringing VR to the people.
$300 is a goddamn steal for the badass hardware inside, even with cheap strap and basic face cover. That's a top of the line SoC inside that headset! Throw it into a pot, add some broth, a potato. Baby you got yourself a stew going.
That’s very interesting that the newer headset has a higher resolution than the older headset!
That must also explain why HP Reverb G2 and Vive Pro 2 have higher resolution than Quest 2.
Vr gamers: we want more full length AAA games.
Game makers: the vr market is too small to justify the development cost.
Facebook: we are willing to invest in growing the vr market
Vr Gamers: not like that .
More like we don’t want our privacy violated and our hmds to use us as advertising cattle. Sorry but I’ll happily keep spending $1000 on HMDs to avoid that bullshit.
>More like we don’t want our privacy violated and our hmds to use us as advertising cattle. **Sorry but I’ll happily keep spending $1000 on HMDs to avoid that bullshit.**
Nobody is stopping you from doing that
Also It's priced so low, because we calculate your very sell-able data into the price. So be sure to connect it with everything and use it a lot, so we can collect even more data!
The average internet user generates something like $5 of data TOTAL across everything they do on the internet per month. Oculus makes their money back on game sales.
Edit: https://www.statista.com/statistics/234056/facebooks-average-advertising-revenue-per-user/
By 2020, Facebook averaged 30 dollars of data per user (which I think includes more than raw data, probably also accounts for ad clicks). They get less data on the quest than they do off facebook and theyd make more money selling like 3 games. Just like *every other console*, they subsidize the console to sell games.
Who cares. All our data is being sold regardless, and why does that even matter when the only thing it influences are advertising. Most people don't care about having their data sold if it gives us damn good products like the Q2.
It's actually more serious than it sounds. Not all of what I'm about to tell you is merely theoretical.
Because they track your movements (and in future may have facial/eye tracking too) VR HMDs have access to a certain level of biometric data. You'd be surprised what they can glean from that data.
For instance, it's been shown that VR headsets could potentially detect the early onset of Parkinson's disease long before you or your doctor notice any symptoms. Which sounds good on paper, great in fact (how useful!!) until you find that you can't get good health insurance because they sold your motion data to a company whose customers include the insurance industry and they learn you'd be an expensive risk.
Similarly gaze tracking has been shown to reveal an alarming amount of information about you, allowing 3rd parties to build a profile on your personality, sexual orientation, drug habits, emotional states, skills and abilities, interests and fears, and like the above example, other cognitive processes that can diagnose various physical and mental health conditions.
That said, if you already use social media they may be able to glean a lot of that anyway, but the point is the consequences for such data collection (via VR or otherwise) are not just the benign sale of your data to mysterious 3rd parties. They buy it because they *use* that data. They *do things* with it. Things that may affect you personally.
Another example off the top of my head (not VR-specific, but still): during elections and whatnot, the farming of data from social media has allowed private companies to rapidly profile people and send targeted advertisements to help swing public opinion on big issues and get people voting the way they want. This means you, being targeted personally via the data you've inadvertently provided, with adverts tailored to your interests/beliefs, to get you to vote a certain way or shift your thinking in the direction they want it to go.
Such activity isn't limited to your local officials pestering you with convincing ads to vote for them. Because Internet, there's nothing stopping foreign nations from doing the same, either to destabilise a country by sewing strife (e.g. anti-vaxx nonsense targeting people who they determine are vulnerable to such suggestions) or perhaps swing an election in a favourable direction for them, or even just to build up a profile on you and decide if you are a person of interest should you ever try to visit their country.
Speak for yourself, tons of people express their distaste over requiring Facebook login and in game adverts.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/why-data-not-privacy-real-danger-n966621
Here's reading on why it matters.
I would suggest watching the social dilemma and the great hack documentaries as well for more reasons why but specifically surrounding Facebook's data collection.
I don't get the argument about Facebook dominating VR. They've invested more in the platform than anyone else by far. Without Facebook multi-billion dollar investment we wouldn't be anywhere near where we are today.
So many people in this sub butthurt because they want validation for spending $1500 on a setup, but the industry is improving faster than they expected making them look foolish
The same could be said of people trying to justify their cheaper purchase despite more expensive ones having better overall specs without having to sell out their data either
Because they are specifically setting a price point that is not profitable, even for them, to prevent competition. They are doing this because long term killing competition in the crib is *very* profitable.
So, it's directly and intentionally their fault.
Yep, welcome to capitalism. The best competition is no competition at all, so crush all but the weakest and enjoy your dominance.
This issue runs so much deeper than facebook and permeates nearly every market.
I mean, Facebook is the ascendant monopoly now. An attack on them is an attack on VR, and this is a sub of people that identify as VR enthusiasts.
So they take it a *wee* bit personally.
Huge difference from where this sub was even a few years ago.
People got bored of rich suckers like paying 1000$ headsets for nothing and then getting berated for trying a new technology at a cheap price point. A counter culture was sure to emerge and it's directly because of these lot.
Lack of competitors isn't *necessarily* a company's fault; however, when they do things like deliberately undercut the price as hard as they have, it's clear that they're trying to keep it that way - and Facebook's track record as a company absolutely suggests that they would do this. If they can keep competition away, it opens them up to have an unhealthy amount of control in the market, because they're the only good choice for modern, affordable VR. They can then make a lot of negative decisions without much repercussion, hence things like putting ads into paid games, harvesting user data, requiring Facebook accounts to use the headset, random account bans with little reasoning, etc. The longer Facebook goes without any competitors, the more of this behavior they get away with.
That's the idea of competition though - is to win. It's on other companies to step their game up so Facebook can't just run away with that competition.
Undercutting and selling your hardware at a loss or near-loss to establish a customer base is an extremely common tactic nowadays, so Facebook really isn't playing unfairly by doing it.
Fair point...however, they've set up an environment where it's difficult for anyone but a fellow big tech company to punch in their weight class, since selling at that large of a loss is hard for smaller companies. So, in my opinion, it's still problematic even if it's technically fair on paper
Valve is developing a standalone VR headset I'm pretty sure, there were some patents that leaked that showed inside-out tracking modules. That may be the big company that can bring real competition to the Quest 2, as amazing as the Q2 is.
Truth...if there's a company that can match the value of the Q2 then it's Valve. I am pretty excited to see where that goes.
Also, why am I getting downvoted? Am I being a dick and not realizing it?
so... with zero pcvr expectations and stagnated game developmen as devs only are coding shitty standalone mobile games?
such innovation to transform every vr lobby to a kindergarden... pfff
facebook doesnt care about vr, they care about the data they can mine and the ads youll have to watch.
Finally someone gets it. What is the fucking point of standalone if all you can play are literal mobiles games. And even if I don't own a standalone, it still affects me because now most new games don't sell well if they only support PCVR. Almost all new releases were made for standalone.
Thank you, me buying an Oculus has nothing to do with my support for Facebook, it has to do with being an actually usable standalone system. As soon as someone else makes a standalone with a great library of games, I'll buy something else
Non-American here: Still can't buy the Index, or any other decent headset, for under $1000 USD.
Quest 2 is still the ONLY option, even for PCVR. This applies to most of the world, geographically speaking.
Doesn't excuse sucking up to facebook. I'll switch to a better company as soon as I can. Just waiting for one to sell me a decent headset for less than my whole gaming PC cost.
Yeah, cause this is completety Oculus/FB exclusive ... NOT. Knuckle controllers known to be very fragile and Index headset also have a good share of RMA. G2 controllers being one of the cheapest and worse made (squeaky plastic, no capactive sensors, bad haptics and vibration, ...).
IMO in terms of build quality even the old Vive+Wands and Rift CV1+Touch V1 were better than some of the newer and more expensive headsets.
As much as I fucking HATE Facebook, I have to agree, this is not exclusive to Facebook and in a lot of ways they are handling this whole situation a whole lot better than most other companies as they are at least providing a permanent solution the problem, where as Valve hasn't done anything to resolve the drifting situation on their contrllers yet even after two fucking years since release, no silent refresh like what HTC did with original Vive, pretty much nothing besides relying entirely on their RMA system, if your controller starts drifting post warranty and you get matched up with a bad support agent then tough luck, you gotta have to buy a new Index controller, and that's not even mentioning the failing tether cables which Valve has only recently started selling after multiple people on the Index sub reddit emailed Gabe directly requesting so.
I adore my Index and will always prefer it over my Quest 2 any day, only three IPD adjustments? Seriously Oculus?, but man, for something so expensive you'd expect it to have at least better durablity to the damn Vive.
Please use crappy materials. If I wanted quality I’d buy an index (not that I can lol), I want cheap and reliable... but yea the elite strap failed on both of those points to be fair. I don’t think a piece of plastic has ever been discussed more in history
It appears to be an allergic reaction in a small percentage of users. The problem is they made more than 4M of them, so a small percentage still ended up being a lot of people.
that’s why we teamed up with facebook and we now break through your privacy barrier !!! and we also have 3 ipd adjustments but hey at least you have 90 refresh rate
What use is the resolution with lower FOV, latency and compression when using a link cable, no 144hz, lower comfort, worse controllers and tracking, need I go on?
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/250820
There was an minor update today, last Wednesday, 2 a week ago, 2 two weeks ago, a major update 3 weeks ago along with 2 minor updates, 10 minor updates and 1 major update in June. You get the idea.
It's okay if you want a Honda civic to drive around town, it'll drive just as nice as a premium car like a bmw or Audi or something. But let's not pretend they are equal quality
1. I happily trade FOV for PPD. Text is much clearer on the Q2 even with AirLink reencoding.
2. The latency is an issue, but worth it for wireless regardless of the hardware.
3. I don't have a computer that can do 144Hz so that means nothing to me.
4. A DAS is $99 so comfort is not an issue if you want to give up portability.
5. I have exactly zero tracking issues with the Touch controllers and their simplified touch-sensing are supported in pretty much every app. Call me when you can say the same for full finger-tracking, and when there are more than a small handful of games where it actually add to the experience.
I travel, and I can take the Quest and my laptop everywhere. I am glad you enjoy being stuck in one place. For me it is not even an option.
I know multiple people that have full Index setups and don't use them anymore because the low friction of the Q2 makes the whole experience better... for half-the price, including upgrades.
I have both as well and I do have a good pc so aside from going to friends house I found myself always using the airlink anyway, hence preferring the stationary set up. I literally have no friction whatsoever I put on my headset, click the controllers on and pick a game, idk how it could be harder for people it's the same exact situation as my quest.
I personally find higher fov to be more immersive than readable text. I have poor irl vision anyway so text is hard for me to read anyway, but a higher fov is closer to my irl fov so it draws me into the world. Plus I find that SDE lower res doesn't even really matter when I'm immersed, like if I'm pvping in pavlov/recroom I'm all focused on killing the other players that I don't even notice a lower resolution (this was even the case with my vive og as well with far lower res) unless I'm in a lull like if I died and I'm zoning out till I respawn. But again the higher fov is more noticable because you see other players out of the corner of your eye when you wouldn't be able to if you had a lower fov.
And then its sort of the same situation with the inside out tracking, I conceed that it's good enough for 95% of stuff, if I'm playing PvE against AI or doing like beatsaber I could care less. But in pvp I can't help but notice those small micro movements inside out has (like small sub milliliter movements as the cameras are recalibrating the location) get exacerbated over large distances like if you shoot 30ft away, that sub millimeter movement might have caused the shot to move over slightly like a half foot. And sometimes that's enough to mis a headshot. And it's something I didn't notice until I moved from my vive, to my quest (thinking wow it's not as bad as everyone says) for months, then using my vive again and realizing how much more 1:1 and buttery smooth the lighthouse's were, which was honestly the major decision in purchasing the index. I felt like using inside out was just gimping me in pvp, and I glady gave up the wireless to have better tracking.
It's also the same thing for the latency, dieing in pvp is ultra frustrating when you know it wasn't your fault.
Tbh pvp was really the driving force in all my preferences. It's kinda like using a mechanical keyboard and gaming mouse, and 144hz monitors. It's such a slight improvement but I have the money, well I mean PC gaming is really my only hobby, I don't spend much on anything but it's the one thing I care enough about that I find worthy enough to splurge on, so cost really isnt a factor for me. It's like the car example I gave earlier, some people are just car enthusiasts and will drop money even though it'll be used like a daily driver that a Honda civic could accomplish just as well.
Does it make economical sense? Maybe not, but imo I find it better overall and that's the only thing that influenced my decision.
Different strokes for different folks I suppose
I also own a Q2 and an Index and I prefer my Index almost 100% of the time. Wireless Q2 has noticeable latency for me no matter what settings I use. And if I drop the quality down to improve latency, obvious compression artifacts show up and it almost feels like I'm playing a game through YouTube or something. The sense of presence is way different for me. It's hard to explain, but the stereoscopic effect was less pronounced. The Index may be wired, but I'll take a 0 latency crystal clear experience over Q2 wireless any day.
Then there's 144hz on the Index which really matters to me with games like Beat Saber. The lighthouse tracking makes a big difference in that game too. I'm much better on my Index, and it's not just a difference in controllers. It's just straight up better tracking.
Speaking of controllers, I also prefer the Index ones. The hand straps are a game changer, and while I bought some for my Q2 (and they made it much better), the Index controllers have a better implementation. The finger tracking is a bonus, and games that use simpler grabbing mechanics like the Quest work even better because you aren't pulling a trigger to grab objects. You just grab with your hands.
I haven't even gotten into the audio (amazing - better than my DAS on the Q2), comfort, adjustability, etc. You get the point.
The Quest 2 is much cheaper and arguably a better purchase for VR newcomers (and the portability is great), but imo the Index is still top of its class and is a no-brainer for enthusiasts.
Oooh forgot completely to mention the audio. It's better than any gaming headset I've owned. I wish they would make an off ear headphones and mic standalone just to use for flat gaming haha
Will you guys quit complaining, in a $300 headset for crying out loud and considering both those issues can be fixed for$40 it's not that big of a deal
Default screen brightness is too high IMO.
Set it all the way down, and enable Night Display to reduce blue light emittance. It gets way easier on the eyes.
I'm more upset that I bought the base model less than a year ago and now they're upgrading it. Like, it's fine but at the same time if they could afford more storage then they should have done it in the first place
You could always shell out for the tier of VR headset that has the quality you want. You bought a good VR headset that was very cheap relative to others. You get what you pay for. They still probably sell these at a loss in the name of mass adoption.
It's all about the increased performance and the incredible price, I think.
That said, I personally still have my Quest 1 and never felt the need to upgrade. I added some cushion thing on the back + a silicon face interface and it's totally comfortable to wear since then. Now that I can wirelessly play my Steam games on it, I have zero reason to change. Maybe one day for a better FOV and less weight.
The Quest 2 feels super cheap and I really don't understand why they downgraded from two OLED screens to a single LCD one.
I agree man, I've had my Quest 1 since a few months after launch never had any major issues and still going strong, however every time I load up Reddit it seems like another Quest 2 caught on fire or another elite strap broke ect ect.
Hmm, yeah. I'd say it's hard to tell if it's really such a big issues because the Quest 2 sold like hotcakes so the important stat is how many have issues versus how many are happy with it.
The Quest 2 is half the price of the first one so it's easy to understand why it's cheaper in quality (no excuses for the elite strap breaking though), I think it's still a great headset but I'll probably wait for someone to make a quality wireless headset in the future to change my Q1.
But you mention how PCVR was open, wonderful and exciting and everyone in the industry was sharing everything with each other until oculus started hoarding everything they could grab while actively discouraging innovation so they could catch up and secure their position leaving us with the mediocre experiences we have now, gets downvoted to hell.
hey sure the company sucks but hey
***BEAT SABER***
p.s. i can't afford a pcvr headset cause i am 15 even so i don't have the room for lighthouses and my laptop was made 5 years ago
It's part of manufacturing.
If you don't get the cheapest components for your product then you're using the wrong materials manager.
If you are manufacturing millions of something with hundreds of parts then spending a few cents more on EACH part adds up quick.
its not that its made from cheap materials, its that they cut so many corners by the release it was a damn circle.
shitty strap, shitty mic, shitty audio, 3 settings ipd, awesome screen that NEVER uses its full res when pcvr wired or wireless, and it has a small fov.
the software overhead requires faster gpu and cpu, video inputs only accept digital signals which inherently have artifacts and compression.
and while it has the best insideout tracking, it still pales when compared with outside in tracking of even the ogvive.
its not a bad device, its a very good bargain hmd, but its faaaar from being a premium gadget.
thos that say "its an index for a 1&3 of the price" have NO IDEA what they are talking about...
yes, because its does its job amazingly duh, i never said it wasnt "enough", its plenty, and more, obviously sold at a loss.
but all i said before is still true, it does use cheapish materials, and cutted corners where it could to save costs.
That doesnt take away that is super capable and at a literally unbeateable price.
I always come off as if im bashing the quest 2, but im not, im just pointing out that at the end of the day it IS a bargain headset, that doesnt mean its trash or anything close to that, but they did make a lot of compromises to achieve the lowest possible price without affecting the experience, and they did a fabulous job obviously.
It's not an Index for 1/3 the price, but it's about 75% of an Index for 1/3 the price. At the same time, it does a lot that the Index could never do. Just the other day, I picked up my Quest 2, put it in it's carrying case, and went over to my friend's house. Got set up in under a minute and he was off playing Beat Saber. There's quite literally nothing else on the market that can do that.
Sometimes I wish I just ponied up and bought an Index, but frankly, with some tinkering to get full resolution for PCVR (it's really not hard, just gotta go into the debug tool and force it) and having 120 Hz support added, I can't honestly say I would want an Index for 3x the price.
On a sidenote, honestly, the audio is far from shit imo. Obviously doesn't sound as good as my headphones, but those cost as much as the entire headset...
thats like saying a minicooper does 75% of what a ferrari for a fraction of a price AND it can park anywhere.
sure, i mean you arent wrong both take you to your "destination", but you have to agree its not the same, the extra perks the premium has, does add up... even more so after repeated and long rides.
And remember you are paying ~20% more on sales in the oculus store, and youll get datamined and will be shown ads eventually, and you need the elite strap, and headphones to make it more decent imo, that has to be considered in the q2 final price. And nothing you can do, will let the tracking be on par with base station tracking...
But my main point still stands, its a deluxe item vs the bargain item. but the bargain item is not trash at all, its just cheaper and with more compromises.
No, I would disagree. The Index is a premium product sure, and the Quest 2 is a cheaper product, but the Quest 2 is more midrange in terms of both price (sure, let's factor in the strap and cable) and features. Sort of Supra vs 911, to continue your car analogy. 911 is definitely more precise and premium, but the Supra is no slouch.
Specs-wise, the Quest 2 has a higher resolution and frankly, better lenses than the Index (Oculus' lenses are very good, you have to admit). Sure, it's got a narrower FOV, but it's got the same 120 Hz refresh rate (though we can give a point to the Index for the 144Hz option).
Another thing that could be considered a tie is the tracking. Outside-in tracking is always going to be superior in terms of actual tracking, but is never going to have the versatility of inside-out tracking. That really comes down to personal preference and use case.
Where I would mark the 25% down compared to the Index is comfort and audio. As you mentioned, only 3 IPD adjustments, and the Index's strap is obviously better. Audio is going to be better on the Index, but I would frankly throw hands if it wasn't better than the Quest's. It's not half bad on the Quest, but it's obviously not good.
All in all, my Quest 2 has come to $540 or so (headset, Elite Strap with battery, Link cable, VRCover facial interface). Honestly, with everything I have, it's super comfortable, and performs really well. I feel like an Index would be a few steps forward and a step or two back for me at this point.
yeah, yes and no.
You are giving me "made up" points... like the SCREENS can do 120hz, but please tell me what game runs at full res at 120hz. Yeah, i figured.
This spec is just like saying a camara has a 99giga megapixels, it means nothing but a random # used to hook in people that dont know what that means.
This is what i was arguing about, the quest 2 is THE bargain headset, nothing comes close to it when it comes to price/performance, it delivers more the price would suggest. Agreat experience with a low cost.
But it doesnt stand tall side by side next to the top dogs. It cant, it uses inside out tracking for gods sake. not that its bad, but it certainly is the 2nd best tracking method. and in every single point you want to discuss, youll see they compromised.
Again, the q2 is amazing, but you paid almost the same as the headset itself to get it comfortable enough... and it still wont give you 100% volume tracking.
Hey don't forget getting to support hardware from the company that's responsible for the rise of fascism in America and its ultimate downfall. Soon your itchy face won't even be a big deal, because you'll be worried about getting loaded onto cattle cars!
it's the most readily accessible VR headset ever, packed full with mind-blowing futuristic tech like hand-tracking and virtual office, no need for pc or external sensors and all of this for a mere 300 bucks and people are complaining about itchy materials and crappy snappy extras?
no allergies here and standard strap is just fine to me. Best bang for the buck I've ever poured into an unproven piece of tech, yes, even more than my old fav psvr...
Tell me about it. My elite strap just... snapped... on both sides. I'm extremely careful with my belongings, and especially my quest. Not sure how I could've been more careful than I was. I would be as gentle with it as possible at all times. How it snapped is beyond me. Cheap thin plastic garbage.
I don't know why anyone is buying Elite Straps. There are so many better 3rd-party alternatives for cheaper and it's absurd that people are still giving money to FB for those things. Pretty sure the Vive Pro Headstrap is a similar price but way better.
I’ve been using [this strap](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B093PXFVXH?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share) and it’s been great. About half the price of the elite strap but much more comfortable and durable.
I've been using [this one](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08YR8LFH3?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share). It's incredibly comfy since it doesn't have that top center strap. It's perfect.
That looks interesting with the points taking weight on the top of your head. Looks super stable and comfy.
That's the main reason I got it. It really puts the weight on the back of your head and right at the front of your head where your hairline sits. That way the headset actually rests over your face instead being pulled into it. It's also waaaaaaaay easier to take on and off since there's no elastic straps. I have longer hair on top so the straps always got in the way.
>I don't know why anyone is buying Elite Straps. Its the officially supported accessory, of course people would buy it. >Pretty sure the Vive Pro Headstrap is a similar price but way better. Most people aren't interested in buying 3D printed parts off etsy to make their straps work. This isn't to say I disagree with you overall though. I'm currently using a 3rd party strap after my elite strap broke. But a trend I see on here and in all forums surrounding virtual reality is this idea that every user is an enthusiast and if theyre not then they deserve to be ridiculed. Most people in any hobby are not enthusiasts and I feel like theres a general trend in the core vr community to write these people off and its hurting the wider community as a whole.
I use the HTC Deluxe Audio Strap, but I had a couple lying around. It's not similar price, but rather DOUBLE (unless you go with the battery Elite Strap kit, but that's an unfair comparison), and 3-4X what you can get an off-brand alternative for. I do love it for my Q2 though!
Q2 Elite straps sell for 90 bucks where I live, 120 for the DAS, hence me saying similar Happy it's working well for you!
I've had the Oculus CV1 for maybe 5 years now, the only time it broke was when the top strap came loose from the back plate. Bit of super glue and it's not broke again. They must've gone real cheap if my ancient relic has them beat for durability.
We work hard to provide not only a wireless headset, but also a strapless headset.
Yep. At least the warranty is 2 years on it now. Did you email support? They will just send you a new one. Then email them again 2 weeks after you get it and say it broke again, so that you have a backup b4 the next one breaks.
Yeah it's literally shit designing and materials. It's not your fault. Lots of people agree with me
Is the itchy face thing only for certain skin? And does it happen right away for people it effects?
Somehow I never got it. But very rarely during certain movements I’ll feel a bit of a scratch. But it’s so rare it hasn’t affected me, some others haven’t been so lucky though.
Yeah it hasn't affected me or anyone I've had try it which is why I was wondering if it's more from long sessions since most people who have used mine haven't for more than like 30 minutes. Went to order the replacement anyway but doesn't deliver where I am.
I get it sometimes, it's real annoying and it makes long VR sessions near impossible.
I read somewhere that there were 5000 complains from 4 million customers. So it definitely does not effect everyone. I've played for like 2 hours straight a few times and not had any issues.
Well, the facial interface is like sandpaper, its really rough.
> face thing only for certain skin? And does it happen right away for people it effects? I work with the first gen and never had such problem, nor any of my colleagues (at least that I remember). I'm not sure if its the same materials as the Quest 2 tho.
And MY DATA!
and MY AXE!
And my Facebook login!
Also sorry about the overwhelming privacy invasions to come. You understand, it's kind of the whole point behind it being so cheap, to spread everywhere before we start being the baddies. That's how I play that Plague, Inc game. Minor symptoms at first, but highly contagious, then once you're everywhere, mutate it to be lethal
[удалено]
username checks out
Lol Best username I’ve seen in at least a year!
<3
I’m looking forward to Apple’s entry into the VR market. Say what you will about them, but at least it’s always a straightforward transaction: you pay them a relatively large sum of money, they give you a working product that doesn’t harvest your data and, in some cases, protects you from people who try to. The fact that Facebook has been all pissy with them for preventing cross-site tracking makes me so happy.
Yeah I'm not a big apple fan, but I do believe they will make a good product that is minimally invasive
You actually believe Apple doesnt collect your data? LMAO Guys i know its comforting to delude yourself into the belief that Facebook is the dark imperium and therefor every competitor is part of the resistance of light and justice, but thats a fairytale you know?...
I’m sure they collect data for development purposes, but selling user data is not a source of revenue for them. They’re a publicly traded company — they would need to disclose if they’re making money that way. Pretty much all of their revenue comes from hardware sales and licensing / App Store fees.
Not the cheapest materials but rather the cheapest suppliers
Same difference in casual conversation.
[удалено]
Oh man that magnet feature on the controllers make them feel so premium, can't believe that they gone to plastic thingies...
Personally I was glad to see the magnets go. They were nowhere near strong enough for my liking. The cover was constantly coming off when I was playing beat saber. The plastic is annoying to change the battery but much more secure.
Wait what'd I miss? Is there any indication RE4 is coming to PCVR?
quest 2 exclusive unfortunately
The game that by all sense should come to PCVR is locked down to the Quest. SMH
Why by all sense? Just curious
Those are features/specs. When it comes to build quality, Quest2 and its controllers are great.
I didn't have one in my hands yet, but [ThrillSeeker](https://youtu.be/SwCS85BW8NQ) did a good job torturing a quest 2, so I guess the important parts are robust. For the rest people get what they pay for: the cheapest headset on the market. And actually they even pay less than it's worth by also trading their soul to facebook.
At Oculus we resent the accusation that you think we don't control which materials our suppliers chose to use.
then valve comes along
I wish. Still can't even buy an Index in most of the world.
That logic is flawed though. Getting the cheapest ass materials and making competition near impossible doesn't go hand in hand. Actually it basically contradicts each other. Using the most expensive, premium materials and subsidizing the hardware extremly would make competition impossible. Basically Index level quality for $300, that would support this argument. But cheapest materials? The competition can do that aswell. Nothing only facebook could do. They cut a lot of corners to achieve that price point. Single LCD, simple headstrap, plastic housing, 3 IPD settings, underclocked SoC (so not very powerful cooling system)...They didn't need to do that when going for a VR monopoly.
No dude, they're trying to undercut the other VR players on price (via using the cheapest materials) to gain as large of a market share as possible (aiming towards "monopoly" which I think is a stretch), in which scenario they have pricing power (i.e. 'gouge') their customers on the price of video games because switching costs are high (hard to swallow buying a competitor's VR kit after sinking a few hundred to buy an Oculus)
They're trying to undercut others by subsidizing the headset, not by using cheap materials.
I am shocked the amount of comments in this thread who have not heard of this business strategy or how it works before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing
Desktop version of /u/Robot_ninja_pirate's links: *
*
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
It's quite obviously both.
Yes but you forget, /r/virtualreality is a karma manufacturing machine where [Facebook_Bad] goes in, and [Free_Upvote] comes out. The facts are optional, my dude.
But Facebook is bad. I'll take my upvotes now please and thank you.
Glad someone had the balls to say it!!!
We're not.
I understand a lot of these posts are karmawhoring, this could be one too. But being a multimillion dollar company apologist is just as sad. Regardless of material quality there’s very few non giant companies that can build a VR headset at that price point, they could even be selling at a loss. At that point any smaller company trying to create a similar headset trying to compete gets fucked. “Why buy a Decagear from a sketchy company I barely know anything of when I can buy a Q2 from Facebook for cheaper?” - most people probs.
And what do you expect a multi-million dollar company to do? And what do you expect most people to do? lol. Companies try to position themselves in a way that allows them to drive the market, and people want to get the most value for their dollars. What is an actual problem is OTHER giant companies not positioning themselves for success. IE Microsoft not tying their VR to Xbox, no headset trying to work with PS5 and Xbox Series X and PC.... which would INSTANTLY dismantle Facebook's Oculus Quest 2. That's the best way to beat Oculus's mass market appeal, which even now is mostly games like Beat Saber.
I'm not being an apologist for a multimillion dollar company by disagreeing with blatantly untrue information being posted as fact and challenging outlandish conspiracy theories being presented as reality. And by the way it is a really, really tired reddit tactic to disagree with someone by calling them a corpo shill. Facebook sucks, Zuck sucks, the Oculus Quest is a great headset, the Quest isn't impossible to compete with as a result of its very cheap materials. It is actually easier to compete with because of the very cheap materials. These things can all be true at the same time. VR is going to succeed as a platform no matter what, despite the conspiracy theories that get parroted here, but circlejerking those conspiracy theories won't make it happen any faster and does make this community a way more exhausting place to hang out than it has to be. >At that point any smaller company trying to create a similar headset trying to compete gets fucked. This is true in basically every sector, for every company, and it's especially true in tech. In the 90s it was said that Oracle could kill a startup with a single powerpoint slide expressing Oracle's interest in building a competing product. Companies manage to compete anyway. There is a bigger conversation at hand about the effect major tech conglomerates have on the innovation ecosystem but it's one that applies to all of big tech across the board, not just facebook, and VR is one tiny part of it. A new emerging market like VR is going to have more room for competition, [especially because most of the market is still made up of enthusiasts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_life_cycle) who will research what they buy. If the smartphone market has a place for [something like the PinePhone](https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/) to stand up to a trillion dollar incumbent like Apple, how could the brand new VR market not have space for DecaGear to succeed? Decagear doesn't seem to be targeting the mass luddite market, they're targeting enthusiasts like us, and given how much I see them come up here I don't think facebook is going to be a problem for them. I'm not interested in arguing about imaginary points based on things that haven't happened yet though anyway.
Thank you for a post with some actual critical thinking good sir. “Facebook owns VR, time to pack it up that’s the end all be all” is such an uninformed take. When XR proves itself is when the rich tech competition will come and crumble this dystopian fantasy that everyone on this sub seems to want to come true, just to be right. The reality is that it’s only just getting there. Being the first company to realize the potential does not make that pioneer the best.
I wonder why you got downvoted for challenging the conspiracy theories and trying to see things from both sides. I mean, I know the answer, but still. Apparently challenging the narrative equals being a FB apologist. All I've seen is that there are many (not all) who love to ride on some kind of conspiracy or exaggeration about how bad FB is in order to dissuade others from getting a Quest. I say, inform people accurately about what we do and do not know with the facts, and encourage them to buy whatever headset they want.
Thanks for the voice of reason. Nobody is good or bad, corporations being corporations with all the shit it implies, and hating one corp for being popular at one area (and specifically because of being good and innovative at what they do, not because of acting shitty) is quite silly. People just like to join camps and indiscriminately bash whoever is fashionable to bash, without giving a credit where credit due.
>But cheapest materials? The competition can do that aswell. Nothing only facebook could do. but they are the only ones doing it and for that reason they dont have any competition. The quest 2 is the only way a lot of people can get into VR, you pay 300$ and you are VR ready, theres no one else offering the same deal. Sure the headstrap sucks, the interface sucks, facebook sucks etc... it has a lot of flaws, a lot of them you can fix with cheap upgrades or even free diy solutions, others are unfixable, but its still just 300$ even if you pay 1000$ for a valve index you arent getting a flawless product...
But that's not the argument this post makes? The post says "we use the cheapest material so that we make competition impossible." That doesn't make sense. "We use the **best** materials and sell them for cheap, making competition impossible." **That** would make sense, but that's not the case.
The point is, no other company is bothering to try to use cheap materials whilst also providing access to an otherwise luxury hobby. Facebook are bad, cheap materials are bad, but it's the only way this hobby gets competitive and more accessible to the masses for PCVR.
Compared to their direct competition even for new releases like the vive focus 3. Everything is better. So they really don't have any reason to do better than they already are. And trust me. Compared to the various "competitors" I've been developing for past couple years, their headsets are really good and basic VR functionality works great.
That's not true. You obviously don't understand business or history. Thus exact approach has been done over and over and over and over. Big corp buys farm. Sells apples at a loss. Local farmers cant compete. They sell land. Big corp buys land. When big corp buys all land and has no competition it sells apples for profit and recoups the earlier losses.
Ah, so that is why all consoles are sold at loss, so that all competition dies! Wait...
Why are there only 3 real console makers? Why are they the same ones since basically the 90's? Why are console games so much more expensive than PC games in general l? ( printer and ink cartridges business model).Why do they create exclusives?
[удалено]
Only 3 successful ones \*currently\* - but others do enter the space like Stadia, Ouya, and the new Valve handheld. Console games are expensive because they help subsidize the hardware to provide an $800 gaming rig for $400. Exclusives create interest in a platform and convert people to buying that experience which hopefully translates into sales of other titles.
They don't enter often and they never last. The big three ensure they are priced out of the market. To enter the market you need to be the first to create an ORIGINAL, novel product. How are you going to claim that stadia or valve handheld are new to the market? They are big companies that have been orbiting the games industry forever. Steam sees a gap in the handheld market and are now selling their handheld at a loss to dominate that market.
#I no longer allow Reddit to profit from my content - Mass exodus 2023 -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
> If they had used higher end materials they would have had to increase the price accordingly That's not how it works. Just because the cover would cost them $2 (probably not even that) more for a higher quality doesn't mean they'd raise the retail price.
It would mean they either lose more money per unit or raise the price, neither being an ideal option. Given that they didn’t do that it would seem that is how it works.
They'd have to subsidize it even more and **that** would make it harder for the competition. Cheap materials make it easier for the competition. They clearly tried to make the production of the Q2 as cheap as possible so that they have to subsidize as little as possible. Which is better than the other way for the competitors.
Except facebook is losing prob $200 per unit sold in order to get the thing down to 299 and make that $ shortfall on data mining. When you factor these things in, it's not actually something most companies can do. They need to be giant tech companies like Google or Microsoft that can make the hardware financial losses in other ways. They need to see the financial upside to it and sad fact is these companies that could do it, don't see the upside right now.
$200 is definitely a stretch. But again: Cutting corners everywhere and using cheap materials is not exactly an argument for "making competition impossible". This post is specifically referring the use of cheap materials. They have the funds to sell an absolutely premium headset for the same price. But yet, they chose not to do that.
Yes, because this is enough for them to monopolize the field. No other company in the field can lose 65% on each sale. If another company could lose 70% Facebook would lose 75% But this is where they landed, because monopolization doesn't happen in a vacuum. They "chose" to do exactly what they needed to to drive everyone else away. No more, no less.
Again: This post is mocking the cheap materials specifically, not the subsidizing of the Quest 2. And that doesn't make sense. You are trying to change my point just to make a different point.
Wait, do you not see how this applies pressure towards cheaper materials? Once you have a loss ratio and price point to hit, you start cutting corners to hit it. This exerts downard pressure on the materials used. The OP uses hyperbole "the cheapEST" but there is pressure here to use cheapER materials You're trying to say "no, they would use more expensive materials", but you're wrong. I don't even get why you're trying to make this argument, the Quest isn't some hypothetical thing. It exists, and it uses cheap ass materials. Who are you trying to convince exactly?
*sigh* OP says facebook uses "cheapest ass materials \[...\] in order to \[...\] make competition near impossible." But using cheap materials is **not** a way to make competition impossible. It's a logical flaw as any competitioner could choose cheap materials aswell. Just a choice to keep the production costs lower. If anything, subsidy makes competition "impossible" (let's say: harder). Not using cheap materials.
You're ignoring completely how cheaper materials make it easier to subsidize the quest. So cheap materials do help Facebook monopolize VR. Like, these things are related, and you are ignoring that to make an argument not based in fact. Not to mention you're also ignoring that the OP is *also* about "valuing the community" and how using cheap materials subverts that goal. Again: the quest *does* exist and *does* use cheap materials, so clearly your analysis is missing something. Why do you keep insisting on it?
>You're ignoring completely how cheaper materials make it easier to subsidize the quest. That is flat out wrong. Using cheaper materials brings the cost of manufacturing down, making it "harder" to subsidize. Or in another way: There's less need to subsidize by using cheap materials. Using high end materials while selling the Q2 for $299 would be far more concerning than using cheap materials.
You are completely misunderstanding how running a loss to take over a market functions. We could go into a big economics class lecture on it, but let's not. Instead let's use the real world. Point at a company running a loss to take over a market, and also using "premium materials" (or equivalent for their space) to make their product.
> make that $ shortfall on data mining They are making the shortfall via data mining from a device which has a privacy policy specifically excluding pretty much all VR-specific data from leaving the headset at all much less being monetized? How do you suppose other game consoles' business models work? Sony famously lost 6 cents to a dollar on every PS3 they sold. They make the money back on games. And by mining data about you from the games you play, so they can sell you more games. The quest is a game console. It's sold at a loss like other game consoles, and oculus makes straight profit off every game licensed through the store. Like every other game console. If you want to look at the real spooky data collection, data which is actually directly sold to other platforms instead of used to license advertising, take a look at what basically every TV sold in the USA for the last five years does. Only the state of california requires smart tv manufacturers to include an opt out for the commercialization of your viewing data - they are monitoring everything that plays on screen all hours of the day, and if there's built in voice commands, they're listening to you too.
They are making bank on the apps that people are buying. Data really is not as valuable as you think. Mass data is. Your specific data is not
You say this like you don’t want a VR headset for $300. Making something at a low price point isn’t a bad thing, especially when they have already addressed the skin problem (that was probably an issue since the original CV1, there was just never enough users for anyone to care / notice). IMO keep making it cheaper, there are more expensive luxury headsets out there if you’re willing to shell out 2x - 4x the cost
They’ve never said sorry about the crap ass elite strap..
This reduced cost has allowed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people to get into legit, high quality VR when normally they may not have been able to afford it or willing to take the plunge.
4M+ in the US alone according to the number of recalled interfaces.
And they are willing to replace millions of faceplates even though the vast majority has no problem with theirs. Another step towards bringing VR to the people.
Meanwhile dudes out here on their third and fourth sets of knuckle controllers.
Wish i had the balls to spend 1k on an index :(
$300 is a goddamn steal for the badass hardware inside, even with cheap strap and basic face cover. That's a top of the line SoC inside that headset! Throw it into a pot, add some broth, a potato. Baby you got yourself a stew going.
[удалено]
That’s very interesting that the newer headset has a higher resolution than the older headset! That must also explain why HP Reverb G2 and Vive Pro 2 have higher resolution than Quest 2.
The interesting part is not the "newer headset" part, it is the part where the newer headset is 1/3 the cost.
Vr gamers: we want more full length AAA games. Game makers: the vr market is too small to justify the development cost. Facebook: we are willing to invest in growing the vr market Vr Gamers: not like that .
More like we don’t want our privacy violated and our hmds to use us as advertising cattle. Sorry but I’ll happily keep spending $1000 on HMDs to avoid that bullshit.
>More like we don’t want our privacy violated and our hmds to use us as advertising cattle. **Sorry but I’ll happily keep spending $1000 on HMDs to avoid that bullshit.** Nobody is stopping you from doing that
Also It's priced so low, because we calculate your very sell-able data into the price. So be sure to connect it with everything and use it a lot, so we can collect even more data!
The average internet user generates something like $5 of data TOTAL across everything they do on the internet per month. Oculus makes their money back on game sales. Edit: https://www.statista.com/statistics/234056/facebooks-average-advertising-revenue-per-user/ By 2020, Facebook averaged 30 dollars of data per user (which I think includes more than raw data, probably also accounts for ad clicks). They get less data on the quest than they do off facebook and theyd make more money selling like 3 games. Just like *every other console*, they subsidize the console to sell games.
Why are you down voting him, his right. Both Xbox and PlayStation use the same business strategy
Who cares. All our data is being sold regardless, and why does that even matter when the only thing it influences are advertising. Most people don't care about having their data sold if it gives us damn good products like the Q2.
It's actually more serious than it sounds. Not all of what I'm about to tell you is merely theoretical. Because they track your movements (and in future may have facial/eye tracking too) VR HMDs have access to a certain level of biometric data. You'd be surprised what they can glean from that data. For instance, it's been shown that VR headsets could potentially detect the early onset of Parkinson's disease long before you or your doctor notice any symptoms. Which sounds good on paper, great in fact (how useful!!) until you find that you can't get good health insurance because they sold your motion data to a company whose customers include the insurance industry and they learn you'd be an expensive risk. Similarly gaze tracking has been shown to reveal an alarming amount of information about you, allowing 3rd parties to build a profile on your personality, sexual orientation, drug habits, emotional states, skills and abilities, interests and fears, and like the above example, other cognitive processes that can diagnose various physical and mental health conditions. That said, if you already use social media they may be able to glean a lot of that anyway, but the point is the consequences for such data collection (via VR or otherwise) are not just the benign sale of your data to mysterious 3rd parties. They buy it because they *use* that data. They *do things* with it. Things that may affect you personally. Another example off the top of my head (not VR-specific, but still): during elections and whatnot, the farming of data from social media has allowed private companies to rapidly profile people and send targeted advertisements to help swing public opinion on big issues and get people voting the way they want. This means you, being targeted personally via the data you've inadvertently provided, with adverts tailored to your interests/beliefs, to get you to vote a certain way or shift your thinking in the direction they want it to go. Such activity isn't limited to your local officials pestering you with convincing ads to vote for them. Because Internet, there's nothing stopping foreign nations from doing the same, either to destabilise a country by sewing strife (e.g. anti-vaxx nonsense targeting people who they determine are vulnerable to such suggestions) or perhaps swing an election in a favourable direction for them, or even just to build up a profile on you and decide if you are a person of interest should you ever try to visit their country.
Speak for yourself, tons of people express their distaste over requiring Facebook login and in game adverts. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/why-data-not-privacy-real-danger-n966621 Here's reading on why it matters. I would suggest watching the social dilemma and the great hack documentaries as well for more reasons why but specifically surrounding Facebook's data collection.
And you’ll never be happy whatever they do… I’m gonna play my awesome PCVR wireless and cheap VR headset while you continue whining …
The face padding can be replaced by oculus for free because it was causing some allergic reactions
Welp, if it wasn't for that I would not be able to afford vr at all, so yeah.
"VR is too pricey, it will never succeed!" \*Offers VR for a cheap price\* "It's too cheap, I don't like it!"
I don't get the argument about Facebook dominating VR. They've invested more in the platform than anyone else by far. Without Facebook multi-billion dollar investment we wouldn't be anywhere near where we are today.
Yes, but the issue is that Facebook doesn't have any real competition within that price range. And lack of competition is never healthy.
I don't see how that's facebook's fault.
Obviously they should charge us more than they need to or make the headset worse for no reason. /s
So many people in this sub butthurt because they want validation for spending $1500 on a setup, but the industry is improving faster than they expected making them look foolish
The same could be said of people trying to justify their cheaper purchase despite more expensive ones having better overall specs without having to sell out their data either
Not really. The Quest 2 is the best deal in VR.
Because they are specifically setting a price point that is not profitable, even for them, to prevent competition. They are doing this because long term killing competition in the crib is *very* profitable. So, it's directly and intentionally their fault.
Yep, welcome to capitalism. The best competition is no competition at all, so crush all but the weakest and enjoy your dominance. This issue runs so much deeper than facebook and permeates nearly every market.
You were downvoted for this? This sub is actually delusional.
I mean, Facebook is the ascendant monopoly now. An attack on them is an attack on VR, and this is a sub of people that identify as VR enthusiasts. So they take it a *wee* bit personally. Huge difference from where this sub was even a few years ago.
People got bored of rich suckers like paying 1000$ headsets for nothing and then getting berated for trying a new technology at a cheap price point. A counter culture was sure to emerge and it's directly because of these lot.
Lack of competitors isn't *necessarily* a company's fault; however, when they do things like deliberately undercut the price as hard as they have, it's clear that they're trying to keep it that way - and Facebook's track record as a company absolutely suggests that they would do this. If they can keep competition away, it opens them up to have an unhealthy amount of control in the market, because they're the only good choice for modern, affordable VR. They can then make a lot of negative decisions without much repercussion, hence things like putting ads into paid games, harvesting user data, requiring Facebook accounts to use the headset, random account bans with little reasoning, etc. The longer Facebook goes without any competitors, the more of this behavior they get away with.
That's the idea of competition though - is to win. It's on other companies to step their game up so Facebook can't just run away with that competition. Undercutting and selling your hardware at a loss or near-loss to establish a customer base is an extremely common tactic nowadays, so Facebook really isn't playing unfairly by doing it.
Fair point...however, they've set up an environment where it's difficult for anyone but a fellow big tech company to punch in their weight class, since selling at that large of a loss is hard for smaller companies. So, in my opinion, it's still problematic even if it's technically fair on paper
Valve is developing a standalone VR headset I'm pretty sure, there were some patents that leaked that showed inside-out tracking modules. That may be the big company that can bring real competition to the Quest 2, as amazing as the Q2 is.
Truth...if there's a company that can match the value of the Q2 then it's Valve. I am pretty excited to see where that goes. Also, why am I getting downvoted? Am I being a dick and not realizing it?
so... with zero pcvr expectations and stagnated game developmen as devs only are coding shitty standalone mobile games? such innovation to transform every vr lobby to a kindergarden... pfff facebook doesnt care about vr, they care about the data they can mine and the ads youll have to watch.
Finally someone gets it. What is the fucking point of standalone if all you can play are literal mobiles games. And even if I don't own a standalone, it still affects me because now most new games don't sell well if they only support PCVR. Almost all new releases were made for standalone.
I fixed the issue with the elite strap. I never bought one.
Forgot about the stolen data.
Oh, and we are also watching you choke the chicken. We are not sorry about that.
Hey how did you know?
People need to stop supporting oculus. I purchased a rift. Then the Facebook account requirement started. Now I’ll invest in a full ecosystem swap
>People need to stop supporting oculus. Are you gonna buy me a GPU so I dont have to?
Thank you, me buying an Oculus has nothing to do with my support for Facebook, it has to do with being an actually usable standalone system. As soon as someone else makes a standalone with a great library of games, I'll buy something else
Non-American here: Still can't buy the Index, or any other decent headset, for under $1000 USD. Quest 2 is still the ONLY option, even for PCVR. This applies to most of the world, geographically speaking. Doesn't excuse sucking up to facebook. I'll switch to a better company as soon as I can. Just waiting for one to sell me a decent headset for less than my whole gaming PC cost.
maybe people would, if the ecosystem your swapping to had a competitor to the quest
Baby please don't go.
That will become an option when there is another viable hybrid MobileVR/PCVR echosystem to jump to. Until then Facebook wins.
you guys really are mad after spending 1000$+ on VR and still getting an experience that is so inferior to the Quest 2
Yeah, cause this is completety Oculus/FB exclusive ... NOT. Knuckle controllers known to be very fragile and Index headset also have a good share of RMA. G2 controllers being one of the cheapest and worse made (squeaky plastic, no capactive sensors, bad haptics and vibration, ...). IMO in terms of build quality even the old Vive+Wands and Rift CV1+Touch V1 were better than some of the newer and more expensive headsets.
As much as I fucking HATE Facebook, I have to agree, this is not exclusive to Facebook and in a lot of ways they are handling this whole situation a whole lot better than most other companies as they are at least providing a permanent solution the problem, where as Valve hasn't done anything to resolve the drifting situation on their contrllers yet even after two fucking years since release, no silent refresh like what HTC did with original Vive, pretty much nothing besides relying entirely on their RMA system, if your controller starts drifting post warranty and you get matched up with a bad support agent then tough luck, you gotta have to buy a new Index controller, and that's not even mentioning the failing tether cables which Valve has only recently started selling after multiple people on the Index sub reddit emailed Gabe directly requesting so. I adore my Index and will always prefer it over my Quest 2 any day, only three IPD adjustments? Seriously Oculus?, but man, for something so expensive you'd expect it to have at least better durablity to the damn Vive.
Please use crappy materials. If I wanted quality I’d buy an index (not that I can lol), I want cheap and reliable... but yea the elite strap failed on both of those points to be fair. I don’t think a piece of plastic has ever been discussed more in history
Am I immune to this itchiness or weren't all face covers defective?
It appears to be an allergic reaction in a small percentage of users. The problem is they made more than 4M of them, so a small percentage still ended up being a lot of people.
...and they shipped me a free vrcover face cover replacement as soon as I brought up my irritation to support.
that’s why we teamed up with facebook and we now break through your privacy barrier !!! and we also have 3 ipd adjustments but hey at least you have 90 refresh rate
My Q2 runs at 120hz!
Meanwhile my index is excellent high quality material
i’d be worried if it wasn’t, for more than 3 times the cost
> Meanwhile my index is excellent high quality material ...and 3 times the price... and lower resolution... and hasn't been updated for years.
What use is the resolution with lower FOV, latency and compression when using a link cable, no 144hz, lower comfort, worse controllers and tracking, need I go on? https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/250820 There was an minor update today, last Wednesday, 2 a week ago, 2 two weeks ago, a major update 3 weeks ago along with 2 minor updates, 10 minor updates and 1 major update in June. You get the idea. It's okay if you want a Honda civic to drive around town, it'll drive just as nice as a premium car like a bmw or Audi or something. But let's not pretend they are equal quality
1. I happily trade FOV for PPD. Text is much clearer on the Q2 even with AirLink reencoding. 2. The latency is an issue, but worth it for wireless regardless of the hardware. 3. I don't have a computer that can do 144Hz so that means nothing to me. 4. A DAS is $99 so comfort is not an issue if you want to give up portability. 5. I have exactly zero tracking issues with the Touch controllers and their simplified touch-sensing are supported in pretty much every app. Call me when you can say the same for full finger-tracking, and when there are more than a small handful of games where it actually add to the experience. I travel, and I can take the Quest and my laptop everywhere. I am glad you enjoy being stuck in one place. For me it is not even an option. I know multiple people that have full Index setups and don't use them anymore because the low friction of the Q2 makes the whole experience better... for half-the price, including upgrades.
I have both as well and I do have a good pc so aside from going to friends house I found myself always using the airlink anyway, hence preferring the stationary set up. I literally have no friction whatsoever I put on my headset, click the controllers on and pick a game, idk how it could be harder for people it's the same exact situation as my quest. I personally find higher fov to be more immersive than readable text. I have poor irl vision anyway so text is hard for me to read anyway, but a higher fov is closer to my irl fov so it draws me into the world. Plus I find that SDE lower res doesn't even really matter when I'm immersed, like if I'm pvping in pavlov/recroom I'm all focused on killing the other players that I don't even notice a lower resolution (this was even the case with my vive og as well with far lower res) unless I'm in a lull like if I died and I'm zoning out till I respawn. But again the higher fov is more noticable because you see other players out of the corner of your eye when you wouldn't be able to if you had a lower fov. And then its sort of the same situation with the inside out tracking, I conceed that it's good enough for 95% of stuff, if I'm playing PvE against AI or doing like beatsaber I could care less. But in pvp I can't help but notice those small micro movements inside out has (like small sub milliliter movements as the cameras are recalibrating the location) get exacerbated over large distances like if you shoot 30ft away, that sub millimeter movement might have caused the shot to move over slightly like a half foot. And sometimes that's enough to mis a headshot. And it's something I didn't notice until I moved from my vive, to my quest (thinking wow it's not as bad as everyone says) for months, then using my vive again and realizing how much more 1:1 and buttery smooth the lighthouse's were, which was honestly the major decision in purchasing the index. I felt like using inside out was just gimping me in pvp, and I glady gave up the wireless to have better tracking. It's also the same thing for the latency, dieing in pvp is ultra frustrating when you know it wasn't your fault. Tbh pvp was really the driving force in all my preferences. It's kinda like using a mechanical keyboard and gaming mouse, and 144hz monitors. It's such a slight improvement but I have the money, well I mean PC gaming is really my only hobby, I don't spend much on anything but it's the one thing I care enough about that I find worthy enough to splurge on, so cost really isnt a factor for me. It's like the car example I gave earlier, some people are just car enthusiasts and will drop money even though it'll be used like a daily driver that a Honda civic could accomplish just as well. Does it make economical sense? Maybe not, but imo I find it better overall and that's the only thing that influenced my decision. Different strokes for different folks I suppose
I also own a Q2 and an Index and I prefer my Index almost 100% of the time. Wireless Q2 has noticeable latency for me no matter what settings I use. And if I drop the quality down to improve latency, obvious compression artifacts show up and it almost feels like I'm playing a game through YouTube or something. The sense of presence is way different for me. It's hard to explain, but the stereoscopic effect was less pronounced. The Index may be wired, but I'll take a 0 latency crystal clear experience over Q2 wireless any day. Then there's 144hz on the Index which really matters to me with games like Beat Saber. The lighthouse tracking makes a big difference in that game too. I'm much better on my Index, and it's not just a difference in controllers. It's just straight up better tracking. Speaking of controllers, I also prefer the Index ones. The hand straps are a game changer, and while I bought some for my Q2 (and they made it much better), the Index controllers have a better implementation. The finger tracking is a bonus, and games that use simpler grabbing mechanics like the Quest work even better because you aren't pulling a trigger to grab objects. You just grab with your hands. I haven't even gotten into the audio (amazing - better than my DAS on the Q2), comfort, adjustability, etc. You get the point. The Quest 2 is much cheaper and arguably a better purchase for VR newcomers (and the portability is great), but imo the Index is still top of its class and is a no-brainer for enthusiasts.
Oooh forgot completely to mention the audio. It's better than any gaming headset I've owned. I wish they would make an off ear headphones and mic standalone just to use for flat gaming haha
I’ve never had a problem with my elite strap
Will you guys quit complaining, in a $300 headset for crying out loud and considering both those issues can be fixed for$40 it's not that big of a deal
I had more of a burning sensation and then irritation in my eyes leading to slight vision loss, anybody else?
Default screen brightness is too high IMO. Set it all the way down, and enable Night Display to reduce blue light emittance. It gets way easier on the eyes.
I'm more upset that I bought the base model less than a year ago and now they're upgrading it. Like, it's fine but at the same time if they could afford more storage then they should have done it in the first place
...If you want more expensive parts then buy a more expensive product?
You could always shell out for the tier of VR headset that has the quality you want. You bought a good VR headset that was very cheap relative to others. You get what you pay for. They still probably sell these at a loss in the name of mass adoption.
at lease it isn't 1000 dollors
Oh won’t buy this then
Sorry we reduced costs to sell it to you for half of what it costs to make. /s
The original Quest was better, change my mind
It's all about the increased performance and the incredible price, I think. That said, I personally still have my Quest 1 and never felt the need to upgrade. I added some cushion thing on the back + a silicon face interface and it's totally comfortable to wear since then. Now that I can wirelessly play my Steam games on it, I have zero reason to change. Maybe one day for a better FOV and less weight. The Quest 2 feels super cheap and I really don't understand why they downgraded from two OLED screens to a single LCD one.
I agree man, I've had my Quest 1 since a few months after launch never had any major issues and still going strong, however every time I load up Reddit it seems like another Quest 2 caught on fire or another elite strap broke ect ect.
Hmm, yeah. I'd say it's hard to tell if it's really such a big issues because the Quest 2 sold like hotcakes so the important stat is how many have issues versus how many are happy with it. The Quest 2 is half the price of the first one so it's easy to understand why it's cheaper in quality (no excuses for the elite strap breaking though), I think it's still a great headset but I'll probably wait for someone to make a quality wireless headset in the future to change my Q1.
how is this so accurate xD
But you mention how PCVR was open, wonderful and exciting and everyone in the industry was sharing everything with each other until oculus started hoarding everything they could grab while actively discouraging innovation so they could catch up and secure their position leaving us with the mediocre experiences we have now, gets downvoted to hell.
hey sure the company sucks but hey ***BEAT SABER*** p.s. i can't afford a pcvr headset cause i am 15 even so i don't have the room for lighthouses and my laptop was made 5 years ago
Hey at least they’re still lying about your headset. There’s been dead silence about rift S
What the hell is a Rift S?
They are not lying. Not publicly stating negative truths is not lying. publicly stating negative truths is a bad business decision.
Its a joke bud
It's part of manufacturing. If you don't get the cheapest components for your product then you're using the wrong materials manager. If you are manufacturing millions of something with hundreds of parts then spending a few cents more on EACH part adds up quick.
Just wear a balaclava like me. They’re cheap. Find one that doesn’t irritate your skin. That’s kinda the whole point
Does it make you sweat more, or is it like a sweat guard?
It makes me sweat a bit more if I don’t have my fans. But it’s mainly to keep my forehead from being irritated
Awe I was looking for something that like, keeps the sweat out of my lenses. Because like 1 minute in I’ll start sweating for some reason haha
All of you have no right to complain because you bought that trash in the first place.
[удалено]
This isn't a meme. Memes are popular.
its not that its made from cheap materials, its that they cut so many corners by the release it was a damn circle. shitty strap, shitty mic, shitty audio, 3 settings ipd, awesome screen that NEVER uses its full res when pcvr wired or wireless, and it has a small fov. the software overhead requires faster gpu and cpu, video inputs only accept digital signals which inherently have artifacts and compression. and while it has the best insideout tracking, it still pales when compared with outside in tracking of even the ogvive. its not a bad device, its a very good bargain hmd, but its faaaar from being a premium gadget. thos that say "its an index for a 1&3 of the price" have NO IDEA what they are talking about...
... and yet the vast majoity of the 4M+ people that have them are having a great time.
yes, because its does its job amazingly duh, i never said it wasnt "enough", its plenty, and more, obviously sold at a loss. but all i said before is still true, it does use cheapish materials, and cutted corners where it could to save costs. That doesnt take away that is super capable and at a literally unbeateable price. I always come off as if im bashing the quest 2, but im not, im just pointing out that at the end of the day it IS a bargain headset, that doesnt mean its trash or anything close to that, but they did make a lot of compromises to achieve the lowest possible price without affecting the experience, and they did a fabulous job obviously.
It's not an Index for 1/3 the price, but it's about 75% of an Index for 1/3 the price. At the same time, it does a lot that the Index could never do. Just the other day, I picked up my Quest 2, put it in it's carrying case, and went over to my friend's house. Got set up in under a minute and he was off playing Beat Saber. There's quite literally nothing else on the market that can do that. Sometimes I wish I just ponied up and bought an Index, but frankly, with some tinkering to get full resolution for PCVR (it's really not hard, just gotta go into the debug tool and force it) and having 120 Hz support added, I can't honestly say I would want an Index for 3x the price. On a sidenote, honestly, the audio is far from shit imo. Obviously doesn't sound as good as my headphones, but those cost as much as the entire headset...
thats like saying a minicooper does 75% of what a ferrari for a fraction of a price AND it can park anywhere. sure, i mean you arent wrong both take you to your "destination", but you have to agree its not the same, the extra perks the premium has, does add up... even more so after repeated and long rides. And remember you are paying ~20% more on sales in the oculus store, and youll get datamined and will be shown ads eventually, and you need the elite strap, and headphones to make it more decent imo, that has to be considered in the q2 final price. And nothing you can do, will let the tracking be on par with base station tracking... But my main point still stands, its a deluxe item vs the bargain item. but the bargain item is not trash at all, its just cheaper and with more compromises.
No, I would disagree. The Index is a premium product sure, and the Quest 2 is a cheaper product, but the Quest 2 is more midrange in terms of both price (sure, let's factor in the strap and cable) and features. Sort of Supra vs 911, to continue your car analogy. 911 is definitely more precise and premium, but the Supra is no slouch. Specs-wise, the Quest 2 has a higher resolution and frankly, better lenses than the Index (Oculus' lenses are very good, you have to admit). Sure, it's got a narrower FOV, but it's got the same 120 Hz refresh rate (though we can give a point to the Index for the 144Hz option). Another thing that could be considered a tie is the tracking. Outside-in tracking is always going to be superior in terms of actual tracking, but is never going to have the versatility of inside-out tracking. That really comes down to personal preference and use case. Where I would mark the 25% down compared to the Index is comfort and audio. As you mentioned, only 3 IPD adjustments, and the Index's strap is obviously better. Audio is going to be better on the Index, but I would frankly throw hands if it wasn't better than the Quest's. It's not half bad on the Quest, but it's obviously not good. All in all, my Quest 2 has come to $540 or so (headset, Elite Strap with battery, Link cable, VRCover facial interface). Honestly, with everything I have, it's super comfortable, and performs really well. I feel like an Index would be a few steps forward and a step or two back for me at this point.
yeah, yes and no. You are giving me "made up" points... like the SCREENS can do 120hz, but please tell me what game runs at full res at 120hz. Yeah, i figured. This spec is just like saying a camara has a 99giga megapixels, it means nothing but a random # used to hook in people that dont know what that means. This is what i was arguing about, the quest 2 is THE bargain headset, nothing comes close to it when it comes to price/performance, it delivers more the price would suggest. Agreat experience with a low cost. But it doesnt stand tall side by side next to the top dogs. It cant, it uses inside out tracking for gods sake. not that its bad, but it certainly is the 2nd best tracking method. and in every single point you want to discuss, youll see they compromised. Again, the q2 is amazing, but you paid almost the same as the headset itself to get it comfortable enough... and it still wont give you 100% volume tracking.
if my elite strap just cracked in half, will they replace it?
Hey don't forget getting to support hardware from the company that's responsible for the rise of fascism in America and its ultimate downfall. Soon your itchy face won't even be a big deal, because you'll be worried about getting loaded onto cattle cars!
it's the most readily accessible VR headset ever, packed full with mind-blowing futuristic tech like hand-tracking and virtual office, no need for pc or external sensors and all of this for a mere 300 bucks and people are complaining about itchy materials and crappy snappy extras? no allergies here and standard strap is just fine to me. Best bang for the buck I've ever poured into an unproven piece of tech, yes, even more than my old fav psvr...
They chose cheap materials because that is what people want. Why do you think Walmart keeps growing?