Own a Quest (1), use it nearly daily, and like my Quest.
I won't even be looking at the Quest 2 because they now require a Facebook account to use it, and I have absolutely no interesting in that (from a privacy or integrations standpoint).
I just want to game in peace. When I purchased my original Quest they were making guarantees that Facebook integrations were going to be optional, only to backtrack two years later.
This is going to be a big experiment in whether growing products need the early adopters that propel it to relevance and provide the early alpha/beta testing, development and QA in the early life of the product.
If we assume that the VR and the Quest in particular are past the early adopter part of the graph, then FB actually doesn't care that it's pissed you off, maybe it doesn't mind jettisoning the helpful but disposable fuel tank (AKA early adopters, no offense) before hitting the mainstream. I wonder if someone has done this (rather cynical) calculus internally, and if so, if it's repeatable.
There are echoes of this all over the product world -- API access on platforms are another prominent example, the rug pull from early adopters/builders on platforms seems orchestrated (in addition to inevitable) at this point.
What happens when Facebook closes the dummy, fake account you've associated with that device for not being a real person? Do all of the purchases you've made also get blocked?
This was discussed in depth in a previous discussion in the topic, but your assumption that it's trivial to create a fake Facebook account for this is wrong. There may be different experiences but you should assume you'll need a valid mobile number or a valid-looking social graph, or both.
Not just for this purpose, but Facebook accounts in general. If you try to create one without a valid number and/or seemingly valid friends list, chances are it's blocked in no time.
I don't know a thing about Google Voice, but I for one wouldn't bother setting up some fake numbers to create a fake account to use my own hardware.
I recently created a Facebook account with a made up name and a new Google Voice phone number to sell an old monitor and the account was disabled within 2 hours.
I tried to create a work Facebook account using my work email address and phone number and they required SMS verification. I tried all manner of services, even Twilio but Facebook seems to be able to differentiate.
Facebook collects data beyond what you provide when opening the account; they can use that to either detect the fakeness of the account and close it or track its activity to populate your (real) shadow profile, or both.
Just like with radioactive sludge, the best way to deal with Facebook is to not get anywhere near it.
Wasn't this a promise from Palmer Luckey as an individual, not a statement from either Oculus or Facebook? As a owner of Oculus, the difference doesn't really matter, it sucks none the less. But I think we're all better off never trusting what individuals nor for-profit companies says as they can always change their mind, especially if it brings them more money.
“I want to make clear that those promises were approved by Facebook in that moment and on an ongoing basis,” Luckey said, “and I really believed it would continue to be the case for a variety of reasons. In hindsight, the downvotes from people with more real-world experience than me were definitely justified.”
I've got a Rift, and that will be my last Oculus purchase unfortunately (unless they divorce from Facebook). Love the product, hate that the rug was pulled out and I will soon need to be tethered to Facebook to use it. I should not have to get the manufacturers permission every time I use a product I bought.
This generation of VR from Facebook (along with the launch of Facebook Horizon) is their first major move towards consolidating control over the next (perhaps final) communication medium, and burning in Facebook's assumptions to it. For example, they believe you ought to always be represented by your legal name, with a physical representation similar to the one you have in real life when communicating remotely through immersive computing. This can be seen being manifested by the slow steady changes to policies and terms. With this generation, Facebook will require a Facebook account, and thus a full chain back to a legal identity for you to communicate with others on their VR platform.
Over time they've slowly ratcheted up policies and behavior that are increasingly at odds with the desires of the early adopter enthusiast community. However, these have been done slowly so as to not kill the necessary participation in their ecosystem needed to bootstrap their wider VR platform plays.
These developments are deeply troubling and those worried about a future where human interaction is largely surveiled and behavior largely manipulated ought to be mindful before buying into Facebook's ecosystem.
I spoke extensively about the dangers here and now that it is coming to fruition it's even more important to understand the implications so consumers can choose wisely.
I love my Oculus Quest. I used to work in the VR industry over 20 years ago (work for SAIC, Disney via Angel Studios). When I bought a Quest, I felt like quality consumer VR had arrived.
My wife thinks the Quest is too heavy/uncomfortable and I would like higher resolution. We will both be happy with the Quest 2 update.
So you can play wirelessly some stuff with onboard chip and storage?
Correct me if I am wrong, but it doesn't seem like you would be able to do much with that. Since VR is such a power hog - say 2x 2K display at at least 70frames with onbard chip?
I've had an Oculus Quest for the past ~15 months (essentially since it came out). It doesn't have the power for high-end PC levels of detail, but being able to just strap on the headset and start playing is delightful.
It works quite well with a variety of games, and the Quest 2 should boost the experience.
Wireless is really the key here. For wired VR there are actually add on programs that give you ingame hints if you twisted the cable too much in one direction so you can correct for it but for movement/fitness focused games that won't really cut it.
I am developing an open-source fitness game for the Quest [1] (and other headsets but mainly for the Quest) and being able to just strap on your headset basically anywhere and go at it (don't even need controllers since it uses hand tracking) is such a nice way to play that it balances the lack of visual fidelity quite a lot (it helps that the game is not pretty to look at in the first place ;) )
I miss being excited about VR tech. I used to run a CRT/Shutter glasses setup back in the day for racing games. Now that big tech has moved in, my interest in trying it again, has waned.
I share your sentiment. Back in the 1970s (when I was a kid) through the 1990s, getting a new piece of hi-tech gear was just plain fun.
Modern hardware is even more awesome, but it seems like almost every product that interests me is tarnished by manufacturers hell-bent on recurring revenue streams, or gathering as much of my personal information as possible to increase their profits.
I make a living as a software developer, but I'm coming to hate so much about modern technology. It reminds me of a line from the movie Sneakers [0], where some anonymous corporate programmer says to another, "Remember when computers used to be fun?" (Or something like that. I saw the movie 25 years ago.)
The advantage and disadvantage of Valve's VR is entirely that it is tethered to a PC (at least wirelessly if you have the wireless module) and the PC ecosystem. That means you can take advantage of your existing Steam investment, Steam sales, and interface.
The disadvantage is that maintaining a gaming PC seems daunting for some folks. Also, you have to figure out how to get cables from your PC to an empty space that is wired for VR. That can be a logistics problem if your gaming PC isn't near your living space.
I've had the opportunity to use headsets from both companies, and own a Vive.
Oculus' devices seem generally a bit lighter and more comfortable, and Valve/HTC's devices tend to be a bit heavier, but with more focus on high-end performance.
This varies across their product lines of course, but I think it's fair to say both are strong contenders for good consumer VR products, albeit with different primary focuses.
What I really find sad it that most consumer electronic products now require some sort of account and/or internet service integration.
Before you could just buy some hardware and actually own it and use it directly however you like, nowadays you very often need some vendor website or external service just to get it running. Very annoying and complicated.
Tying this to my non-existent facebook account means I won't even think about buying it. A headset that doesn't constantly feed my data to big tech would be fantastic.
Quest 1 is still going strong though (until our 2 year facebook-less amnesty runs up). Great piece of hardware. The biggest problem I see is that there's not been much adoption in terms of creating software from major software companies. I don't think the hardware is a limitation for the current gen. We could do so much more with vr than what we are doing right now.
Until you get locked out because your account looks suspicious. This used to happen to my burner FB account every time I clicked the "developer" link in FB. I would get locked out and they'd ask me to send a scan of my passport. It was possible to get back by re-doing the phone activation, but I could not do any FB social auth development for customers without sending a scan of my passport.
The main difference as far as I'm aware is that it's wireless and doesn't require a computer. It seems there are a few others have already hit the wireless mark. Not needing a computer is a big deal, but doesn't affect me personally (I only use it at home; I still want wireless though).
It's a pretty big difference. The issue is that you're basically going to need on-board computing in order to compensate for the lower bitrate of wirelessness, a problem that gets worse as the resolution increase. You need to do warping on the headset itself (as well as sophisticated compression) or you'll have motion sickness. So while it's possible to hack wirelessness on some of the other headsets currently, that becomes less and less feasible as resolution improves. Also, not requiring a computer is a bigger advantage than you might think. I also use my Quest only at home, but I'm able to use it anywhere in my house (wireless video direct to a headset without on-board computing uses 60GHz WiGig, and therefore is basically line-of-sight and very short distance only) and regardless of what the main computer is being used for. (Also, requiring a gaming PC for operations easily doubles the cost of the solution.) A separate wireless adapter (WiGig) on the PC also adds cost and is bulkier than the lower bandwidth Wifi connection you can use if you have on-board computing.
An example of how it's qualitatively different is I use it outside (at dusk). That's not really practical with other devices, and it's a completely different experience.
What do you do with it? I remember trying it out like 2 years ago and didn't find it that engaging / useful / interesting that I would want one at home.
Quest is a great little piece of hardware that I'd like to buy since my PC is not good enough for VR games, but having to create and tie a FB Account to it just seems wrong.
So you never use google, don’t have an iPhone, and never purchase from Amazon or any other online store? Your only footprint online is hacker news? Only cash offline? I think that ship sailed many years ago and you’ve already died on the hill.
For years I’ve thought the hardware is the problem. The experience of all past headsets —- since the Oculus DK1 —- has been good enough to get a feel, or idea, of what this could be, but has never crossed that line where VR can become mass market. Discomfort, simulator sickness, and that “cross-eyed” feeling are something enthusiasts can push through, but the masses still view VR as a tech demo. And until there is a mass market install base, no-one is willing to spend the money creating great content.
IMHO this chicken-and-egg problem will only be solved when there is a step change in the hardware. I hope the Quest 2 is it.
I’ve been moving off google services to privately hosted email. Apple seems to care about user privacy more than other tech companies. There’s nothing wrong with ordering online, without internet services our lives would be worse and I wouldn’t have a job. I try to order from small businesses over Amazon whenever possible.
You can reduce your dependence on big tech without eliminating it entirely. The world isn’t black and white. Facebook in particular is far more offensive to me than any of the companies you named, so I expend extra effort to avoid it.
The higher resolution would be really nice for reading and therefore for non-game applications.
If someone ever makes a retina-level (60 pixels per degree) display that's wireless like the Quest but as cheap as a nice monitor and comfortable to wear, then people may just use it in place of a multi-monitor setup. Particularly as the ecosystem evolves and it becomes easier to use mouse and keyboard in VR. (I think Quest just recently added support for tracking of a Bluetooth keyboard so you can see it in VR while you're typing on it.) $300-400 is roughly that price point, which is about where the current Quest is.
But even with the upped resolution of the Quest2 (which might bring the pixel density to 20 pixels per degree), we're still about a factor of 10 away from the retina-like clarity that you'd want for reading and doing work in VR. (The highest end VR headsets are about a factor of 5 away from that, in terms of numbers of pixels.)
By the way, it's interesting that we're pushing the limits of display bandwidths. Even with lossless compression, it's tough to shoot that many pixels smoothly even to a wired VR headset. We might need wireless headsets like the Quest if only to do some of the heavy-lifting, low-latency processing.
I won't even be looking at the Quest 2 because they now require a Facebook account to use it, and I have absolutely no interesting in that (from a privacy or integrations standpoint).
I just want to game in peace. When I purchased my original Quest they were making guarantees that Facebook integrations were going to be optional, only to backtrack two years later.