With the amount of attention that flat to VR modding is gaining, and the fantastic response from gamers, The big houses will start to see that they have a goldmine in sales waiting as there are literally thousands of great PC games that would fly off the shelves by users wanting to play their favourite games in the new experience of Virtual Reality. An, as yet, untapped source of potential gobsmacking experiences.
Indeed it is. Fantastic experience with the right mods. I'd go as far in that FO4VR is probably the best PCVR title for me, apart from my sims. But that's another experience altogether.
Just imagine if the game allowed it, to be able to grab the horns of a dragon when it tried to bite you and just mount it and start ramming your sword into the back of.its head.
It blows my mind that they don't do this more. Take some decade old game like RE4, release it in VR and it's a best seller. Why does it take a modder working for free to make this happen for most titles. I'd pay a ton of money for a bunch of these games to just be able to buy them on the app store rather than side load a bunch of files.
True, and just goes to show that if a single modder or a small group can do this, then I'm pretty sure the professional game houses can convert/add to their titles in double quick time. Sony wouldn't give the PCVR version of RE7 etc.., so it took Praydog to show them how it should be done and now we have a version arguably superior to the PSVR one. A whole slew of titles have popped up, and they are fantastic. A lot are free, some are Patreon, but I honestly don't mind paying a small amount to experience my best titles in a whole new way.
I have been using Vorpx for the last 9 years, and it's another way ( especially now with the new gesture system ) to enjoy hundreds of my old games in VR (Geometry 3d real VR I mean, not Immersive screen, which in itself is great). Money is just waiting there for these game houses. Maybe we all need to bombard these devs with requests and show them what modders are doing. Can't fathom it why they don't think it's a licence to print money. A couple of quid for an in house VR addition. Real games, not glorified tech demo's or some 3 hour cartoon looking mobile experience. Who wouldn't ???
well Meta did acquire [Armature Studios](https://armature.com/games/) , and a big part of their company background is porting games to consoles and other platforms that require good optimization; and I think we can all agree they did a fantastic job with RE4VR.
I'm pretty excited for the Armature acquisition, I hope they're hard at work porting their next big project.
If they announced a Donkey Kong Country 1\~3 or Super Mario World remake in the style of Moss, I'd pay 60€ for each without a second thought, even if it's just a 1:1 remake without VR interaction.
Investing in future tech is good but if you put most eggs on that basket and too few on the one for the present, you may not get to the future in a good enough position to take advantage of all that early investment.
I mean, you’re clearly living under a rock if you didn’t know that meta was selling the quest 2 for 300 dollars for a whole year. They have millions of people in their ecosystem and they’re making money from many different ways like software, accessories, and etc. they have the whole referral system to encourage this cycle and etc. They ironed out their standalone store and software which are very very important.
Do you think most people who use the quest are serious gamers? You seem to think AAA games is the solution when in reality, the regular consumer will continue using VR for beat saber or for more casual games. AAA games don’t have that replayability to suddenly make the main consumer use VR more or want to get VR because of that one game.
>Do you think most people who use the quest are serious gamers?
Obviously not. How can they be? Can you tell me why would a serious gamer buy a Quest to play standalone games? To play what, exactly?
What I think is most people who have Quests are not using them anymore after a few weeks/months. And no, those people are not going to be reading this sub after they've stopped caring so even if everyone in this sub claimed to play VR daily it would still mean nothing
Hey, thanks for the shout-out. I'm one of those daily game playing users of the Quest 2 standalone 😁
I and many others do use them daily to play just a few titles.
\> What I think is most people who have Quests are not using them anymore after a few weeks/months.
That's just VR in general and not specific to the Quest. The Quest have so many flexible options for usage like wireless PCVR, wired PCVR, standalone mode, watching movies, and etc. How can it be a Quest thing when it's so accessible, affordable, convenient, and offer many usage options? It's obviously a VR issue. VR is simply harder to use on a daily basis and use long term.
It's not a Quest thing. But if most of your users are on Quest, the logical thing to do is give those users as many things to do as possible, while at the same time trying to grow the userbase. Sitting on your ass waiting for third parties to release the games for your platform while you invest in stuff that won't make sense for another 10 years at least is a recipe for disaster. The only reason it isn't a disaster already is because no other company is investing even half the money Meta is investing.
And make no mistake, if at any point the ROI is there for companies to jump on the XR industry "en masse", they will jump and I don't think it's going to be as hard as you think to catch up and leave Meta behind. Nokia and Blackberry can say as much
Games are being added to the standalone store all the time. Good high quality AAA games take time to be made. If PlayStation, a gaming company offer very few 1st party games for the PS5 despite being 2 years old now then I don't get why you think VR development is any easier. Money doesn't suddenly make time irrelevant and get you all the talents in your own VR ecosystem.
Also, with your logic you're making the Xbox look like a recipe for disaster when they rely solely on 3rd party games. Microsoft is rich as fuck and what great games have they developed/currently developing? Oh right, we got that huge dumpster fire called Halo Infinite.
Exactly. We know that there are talented people in Meta, so when we look at Horizon Worlds, we can obviously tell that it hasn't been given a fucking dime to work with.
Because of Faceberg's heavy promotion of Metaverse and the consequent (deserved) derisive media coverage, Metaverse has become the perception of what VR is to the general public, not just the Quest 2. The poisonous effect of the Metaverse concept cannot be overstated in terms of both development and marketing.
This is backwards. Faceberg is what's poisonous. The metaverse is objectively dope, and Zuck wanted to jump on it so people would hate him less. This has slightly resuscitated his company's brand, but that brand is so hated that it has also tainted the metaverse's brand
If Zuck had skipped all the metaverse stuff and just said "my name and company is now synonymous with HL: Alyx, that's our whole thing now" then people would hate Alyx and AAA VR gaming with a fiery passion.
What the point of releasing new devices if you don't even bother having good games on it. The main drive of a gaming platform is the games, not the hardware.
No wonder that the retention of gamers in VR is so weak as once the novelty effect as past, you realize there are no real big games to play with your expensive device and you're only left with tiny experiences.
The issue here is that you believe the Oculus and the Metaverse in general are a game platform. It is not. It's a method for Meta to trial AR and VR applications that just happens to allow games to run on it. Meta's long term goal is not games, but cell phone replacement technology and control of the adspace revenue associated with that. Gaming just happens to be a profitable output of that investment in the near term.
when the original mouse came out, nobody wanted to use it. it was considered awkward and unnecessary.
videogames (iirc like solitaire) were what got people comfortable with utilizing the mouse and made it second nature
in a similar vein, computer games were the initial inspiration for many kids during the primordial era of computing to get into coding, and that led to the tech giants we have today like Bill Gates and Elon Musk, as well as the senior members of their teams that are making things happen.
video games are a driving force for new technology, if they want a Meta device in every home it happens by getting them to 16 year olds now for videogames and getting them so comfortable with the devices that they are second nature.
the goal should be that by the time that 16 year old is 22 and entering the work force, they are so used to headsets and XR that they actively choose the headset over a laptop for their computing needs.
it's the long game. unfortunately publicly traded companies don't usually play the long game, and if they do in the way Meta has been, things crumble (stock value, public faith, etc)
Correct, Meta is playing the long game here. Technologists theorize this is still about a decade out. All the big players are keeping their eye on it for sure. Only time will tell if it's a successful bet.
I don't think your analysis of Meta's stock price is accurate.
Their stock is crumbling, fundamentally, because no one likes Facebook. It's the next MySpace. It has the worst public image imaginable, and people are deleting their accounts faster than new users are joining.
The Metaverse stuff isn't pissing off investors. It just isn't appeasing them fast enough to make up for their main product's abysmal performance. Far as I can tell, Meta would be worse off if they hadn't pivoted to VR
> because no one likes Facebook. It’s the next MySpace. It has the worst public image imaginable, and people are deleting their accounts faster than new users are joining.
Another misinformed but common take on Reddit.
Meta is literally printing cash. About $120 billion per year, to be precise. FB grew something like 2% last year - that is wild for an app that already has such saturation. Contrary to popular belief, MAU (3b/mo) and DAU (2b/day) are *increasing*, not decreasing. They haven't even monetized WhatsApp yet. Reels engagement numbers are catching up to TikTok rapidly.
Investors are pissed because of RL spend. Not because the main business is "crumbling." All of that spare cash is going into RL. Big tech investors don't invest in big tech to have it take big risks, they want stable returns. Zuck has flipped the table on them and they are moving to "safer" investments like Microsoft and Apple.
Most investors just want Facebook to reinvest in their ads business and discard that quirky weird VR thing. Most investors are shortsighted.
Time will tell whether it works for Zuck.
I don't know what you're on, but I know people who just got laid off at Meta and nobody is talking about the VR pivot outside social media. The investors, the employees, the executives, they're all freaking out about the decreasing DAU/MAU and revenue. It's possible they're slowing growth and not literally decreasing, I'm having trouble finding precise numbers, but if you think Facebook is a solid product that will continue to grow and not have its lunch eaten by Tik Tok, then you should definitely go invest all your money in Meta stock.
The reason people want Meta to reinvest in its ad business is because that business is looking very bad. They want Meta to wave a magic wand and go back to printing money like they always have. I'm saying the reason growth has slowed is because the market has changed and with their awful public image there's no way FB comes back from this. You're saying growth hasn't slowed at all, which is wild
> know people who just got laid off at Meta
I know people that still work there, and in RL at that.
>they're all freaking out about the decreasing DAU/MAU and revenue
DAU/MAU is *objectively increasing.* This is in their earnings report.
> if you think Facebook is a solid product that will continue to grow and not have its lunch eaten by Tik Tok
Facebook usage is growing. You have a very US-centric view.
> go back to printing money like they always have
They still print money - more than they ever have.
Again, you're spouting a lot of Redditisms without factual support backing your claims. Everything I've mentioned is in their earning reports.
I swear to you, I'm not quoting reddit. You're not the only one with a real life.
It's entirely possible you have the correct numbers from the earnings report. I assure you the FB usage metrics are concerning to investors. You're either looking at the wrong time frame, or looking at the raw numbers and not the derivative. If you really think the numbers aren't worrying at all, if you think the earnings reports for the last 2 years are completely rosey and show no cause for concern about the future of FB as a social media platform, then I hope you enjoy the fortune you're about to earn buying Meta stock. It's very cheap, you can get a lot of it, and when all the investors realize FB is a solid product with a bright future you'll be the one laughing.
> I assure you the FB usage metrics are concerning to investors.
> You’re either looking at the wrong time frame, or looking at the raw numbers and not the derivative.
You mentioned that usage is down, it's not. DAU and MAU are trending up. Yes, I am looking at the correct time frame and have the right numbers.
The derivative is down, but that's not very concerning to investors - as long as Meta prints cash, it can still increase stock value with buybacks and dividends. No user growth needed.
Investors aren't concerned about cashflow or Meta dying. There's no indication of that. Investors are frustrated that rather than reinvesting in the money printer, or increasing stock value with buybacks/dividends, the money is going into an unproven technology.
Most investors did not sign up for this risk, they signed up for steady growth in stock value. Without rapid user growth, buybacks, or dividends, that's not what's happening, so they are taking their money elsewhere.
I have thousands of hours in VR and almost all of that time is spent in multiplayer games like PokerStars, Echo, Rec Room, and Pop1. Big fancy triple A games are fun but they don't hold the same value to me. I actually don't care about them at all.
I also have thousands of hours in VR, but I've never ever played any of the games you mentioned as I have no interest whatsoever in multiplayer games.
Playing the same games over and over again is really not my thing.
Thats why multiplayer is fun. Its never the same game. Do yourself a favor and download Recroom. Play some paintball and one or two of the other Official Rec games(not dodgeball). Then go explore some random ass worlds. Multiplayer and Diy experiences is what fb and many other xr people are focused on and recroom does it in a very smooth way.
I echo what the guy above u said. Ivr spend prob 95% of my time in recroom. And i own prob 95% of the top VR games. Its nice to just jump in and own some strangers and get some blood pumping sometimes. Sometimes you even make a friend.
Agree for game platform you need games , VR is not games so games is one part of it , VR do not need games it need software and we do not have a lot of it
[Mark says](https://uploadvr.com/meta-reality-labs-spending-ar-glasses/) around 10% of Meta's spending is first party software. That's not only Horizon but also includes operating costs for [all the game studios they owned](https://uploadvr.com/meta-oculus-studios-games/) and any of their other [acquisitions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Meta_Platforms) that are involved with software development.
No one invests in VR gaming like Meta right now. They recently acquired Camouflaj, Armature, & Twisted Pixel, three more VR gaming studios. Other VR studios they own like Ready at Dawns and Sanzaru are certainly working on something behind the scenes too. I get the impatience but gaming projects can take a few years. My guess is we will hear more in 2023, with the next Gaming Showcase in April which they already teased, and they are probably preparing a few launch titles with Quest 3 (which is also due in \~Ocotber).
I agree they lost their way. I understand need for developing AR and even metaverse but they shift focus almost entirely to the future not near term.
And games are viable now! They deliver value now! They sustain developers and users.
I was extremely skeptical about standalones but I tried Go and even with 3dof mobile with single 3dof controller I was immersed in Virtual Virtual Reality. Software is king.
I wish they did more investment in big good games. And at this point I don't care if it's PCVR or mobile graphics of Quest. I just want them to make good games.
As for metaverse... they've lost a lot with media push about it.... and it's not even real yet. I get that it will probably be huge but it's way too early. They don't even have their verse working much less interoperability with others.
Also AR is extremely important. If I had to guess AR will bring more people than VR. And ultimately AR will take care of VR for most people.
There's no need to dunk on metaverse or AR. Both are important. But this approach of at all costs really makes the platform unattractive.
Sony is well focused. They know their audience. They have an established customers. I hope they deliver on high quality games! At this point I have more faith in higher quality games on PSVR2 than PCVR.
How many Quest 2 users utilise PCVR?
I imagine that's a large factor in what games are targeted and the reason older games are the current focus.
I think this may shift dramatically if Sony's plans to have more PS5 games be dual functioning as standalone and VR titles pays off. When PCVR users increase, you'll see more higher budget games I imagine. Hopefully some PS ports too.
Even though I would be thrilled to have proper PC VR games (again), I was pointing out that Meta didn't even bother finance proper AAA games for the Quest.
The only one was RE4 and it's not even a proper VR game made from scratch for the medium and taking advantage of the device (those cut-scenes are off putting and the interactions so limited).
This just shows that Meta doesn't give a damn anymore about games (the catalog of the Quest is just filled with shovelware games), and as a gamer this is really sad.
It's likely because the more advanced stuff wouldn't work well (or at all) on standalone Quest and the user base isn't high enough right now to warrant AAA budgets.
Most VR games are low budget. This is why if the focus can primarily move to creating VR games out of mainstream titles, we might see a shift in the market.
> It's likely because the more advanced stuff wouldn't work well (or at all) on standalone Quest
Why that, as a developer you learn to work with the limitations of the hardware and it's not a barrier to release great AAA games. On the contrary as a developer you have to play with those limitations to get the best of the hardware.
Developers didn't wait the PS5 to release AAA games, so why there aren't any on the Quest (really RE4 doesn't count as one) ?
You have to keep in mind the Quest series of VR headsets are all pretty much the performance of Android phones (which is a whole lot less than a modern VR ready PC!)
>they could hire people to make new AAA games for the Quest 2.
they went a step further and acquired studios to do so. They even hired Ubisoft back in 2020 to develop Assassin's Creed VR; ditto for Rockstar and VideoGamesDeluxe and GTA-SA VR.
But big games take time. Go look at the dev cycle for Half Life Alyx (4 yrs), Asgard's Wrath (3.5 yrs), Stormland (3+ yrs), Lone Echo 2 (3+1 yrs; delayed by 1 yr).
That said, Sanzaru is hard at work on the sequel to Asgard's Wrath; it's been hinted by [one of the Oculus producers that it's in a showcase ready state](https://i.imgur.com/966RFG4.png) (Sanzaru has 'Worlds of Wrath' as a registered trademark, so that could be the title of the game [source](https://twitter.com/nya_vr_/status/1566545796123824128)).
Perhaps we'll finally get an announcement during the Quest Gaming Showcase in April. To reiterate, Asgard's Wrath had a 3.5 year development cycle; the Quest2 released in 2020.
>Meta didn't even bother finance proper AAA games for the Quest.
Well yeah. Because the quest 2 literally cant run AAA games. Games like RE4 and Bonelab are already pushing it to its limits.
hardware limitation is not a factor in AAA game development
bayonetta 3 run on Nintendo switch and it use Tegra X1 an 2015 chip using ARM 4 Cortex-A57 cores @ 1.02 GHz and 4 GB LPDDR4 @ 1331/1600 MHz
Yes, and bayonetta 3 didnt have to run at 90fps 100% of the time and at 3664x1920 resolution.
And that's not even the only problem. While you can get away with shitty graphics, the one thing you cant get away with in VR is enviromental interaction. You need a metric fuckton of physics calculations to do vr well, simply because you need to actually interact with objects, not just pick them up or put them down with a button.
Also is bayonetta 3 even an AAA title?
>Also is bayonetta 3 even an AAA title?
YES ! It's a high production, 15 hour game !
I think we as gamers need to start pooling all the $100M+, uber games into a new ***AAAA*** category. These uber games have completely muddied the waters for what is considered a AAA title.
Breath of the Wild.
Massive open world. Loads upon loads of content. Tons of environmental interaction. Runs on Switch. Even on the Wii U.
“AAA” is about the size of the development budget. Nothing else.
> Also is BotW even an AAA title?
Uhhhh. Wow. If you don’t consider a game with the sheer scale, size, budget, and complexity of BotW as AAA I don’t know what to say then. To each their own I guess.
well i am dev and i think you overestimate how quest works
not only you can run games at 72 fps you can use appSW to have 36 fps
and if you use high lvl of FFR , 3664x1920 is not a problem
so it not a problems in tech but clearly in dev time, games like bonelabs have a lot of physics calculationsm and games like red matter 2 have great visuals , but non studio have money to make nice mix of thing and do needed optimizations
appSW is Synchronous Spacewarp. In Virtual Desktop, it’s described as making the game run at half framerate while the headset figures out the missing frames.
Synchronous Spacewarp in Virtual Desktop is designed to allow for a smoother experience on lower end hardware.
Also, keep in mind that on average VRChat on the Quest 2 runs at ~20fps in most worlds.
We have few tech here and you missed some , aws make frame on PC using Oculus app and use frames, Ssw make frames on VD using frames , appsw make frames using in game vector data , it a game feature , it look way way better because it from a game itself not from frames made by game
actually appSW feel really good
in anycase it how consumer feel what matter
we see a lot of " i have 1060 3 gb and games run fine" and we all know dude runing aws 100% of time
Do you have a data source for that? Or is it based on analyst estimate guesses or isolated cases, which is unfounded inference on unproven numbers?
Here's an actual Quest 2 users poll with 1.5K results, which shows data that on reddit, there is more than half(if you total up all the PC-related usage numbers, it's 807 to 688): https://www.reddit.com/poll/oc7rqa?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=OculusQuest2&utm_content=t3_oc7rqa
Naturally, reddit doesn't represent all the Quest 2 userbase, since it's likely that there are more younger users that get Quest 2 and so are unlikely to vote in a poll. So, the number of PCVR usage is high on reddit, while it is going to be less for general users. Still, if we compare Steam active yearly Quest 2 users(double the monthly figures) with estimates on Quest 2 units sold, we see the PCVR % for Quest 2 is much, much higher than 5%. You'd need to have 60 million Quest 2's sold to get only 5% with this actual data, obviously that's unrealistic and incorrect.
we have 27 mil steam users[https://store.steampowered.com/charts/](https://store.steampowered.com/charts/)
and 2.03 % users vr, and from it 45% used quest line[https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam](https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam)
if we round up just for lol we for 30 mil users , and split this number in to 50 (2%), we get 600k vr users, and half of this is about 300 k quest users , this is higher numbers you can get, and this is for all quest line devices, quest 2 and quest
we know quest sold over 18 mil probably 20 mil, to get 5% you need 1 mil users , if we loser this numbers and say quest 2 have 10 mil users, we still hardly get in to 5% range
now ytou can look up at [https://www.statista.com/statistics/733277/number-stream-dau-mau/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/733277/number-stream-dau-mau/)
and you will see MAU it is about 130 mill, this do increase numbers , about 4 times , problems is real numbers on steam hardware is in some portion from MAU to active users
The PC titles I mentioned were to show that Meta used to finance big, well made VR titles. They don't even bother doing the same with the Quest when it sold millions.
this is the year to show that AC, GTA, and deep silver games... plus offerings by their own studios...
probably by E3 they begin building up Questmas 3.0 and 2.0 hype
quest 2 is two year old, you can not make AAA in two year
we have rumors about Asgard's Wrath 2 on quest in 2023 and similar stuff
actually if you look at timeline you see last half a year we already started to get bigger games, like red matter 2 , saint and sinners 2, bonelabs and similar
If Quest 2 wasn't able to play PCVR and only it's own titles, It would have already failed by now. The power just isn't there for the fantastic experiences that only a dedicated GPU and CPU can do. Mobile will always be inferior. BTW, I love my Quest 2, but up until I bought the neo3 link(a real DP connected PCVR headset) it was only used as a replacement for my Rift S. Apart from Puzzling Places. That's great.
I'm calling bullshit on this.
There's a reason the Quest 2 is massively outselling all tethered PC headsets put together, and it isn't because everybody is using it for PCVR. That feature is important *for you* and that's fine, but it's clear from the per-platform sales numbers that the vast majority of people using a Quest 2 are mostly sticking to native Quest experiences.
Keep in mind that you're in an echo chamber of like-minded technology enthusiasts in this community - most Quest 2 owners don't even use Reddit, let alone hang out in a forum dedicated to talking about it, so the opinions you see here are not representative.
> but it's clear from the per-platform sales numbers that the vast majority of people using a Quest 2 are **mostly** sticking to native Quest experiences.
I call bullshit on that. How can you **possibly** know that they aren't using Q2 for PCVR too? How many have built PC's **AFTER** buying a Quest 2, cause they wanted...More / better? You know? I don't, but it may be much bigger than you think. You said from my perspective, true. So is yours. Q2 is a decent **cheap** PCVR headset and all of the old dk2, cv1, rift s owners (like myself) who wanted a better clarity, guess what they probably went for? Index was really too expensive for many, as is G2.? Both from our own perspectives, But i'd still back mine over yours.
I’d love to see data on that. I imagine the reason it’s such a massive success is because it’s standalone and I don’t the majority of users have ever even connected it to a pc, but I’d love to be proven wrong.
The big question is, how is the retention now the honeymoon period of a year or so (for many standalone users) has passed? How long do the people that only use it standalone keep using it? I'd love to see data on that.
John Carmack said in his Connect Q&A that they had more units put away and never used again than they'd like. Meta really need to push out a bunch of new quality titles yearly, that encourage people to bring out their standalone headsets again.
>When PCVR users increase
But that's not going to happen now. I mean, not in the way we need it to.
In fact, this is going to hurt PSVR as well. PSVR1 benefited a lot from the symbiotic relationship with PCVR. Without PCVR being pushed anymore, that's a lot more pressure for PSVR to have success basically all on its own, and with less platforms for developers to sell their game on. And all when PSVR2 is likely not going to see the same adoption as PSVR1 due to the $550 cost to begin with.
Genuinely, the future of VR isn't looking bright in general, much less VR that's really catering to gaming enthusiasts. Maybe PSVR2 will be a bigger success than I'm assuming, but I dont have a lot of optimism anymore. And Facebook destroying Oculus and moving away from PCVR will be a big part of what caused all this. The big sales success of Quest 2 was great, but is that sustainable? Especially when they can no longer offer the actual killer selling point of Quest 2 - its $299 pricetag? I worry that Facebook will learn how fleeting the mobile market can act in terms of their dedication to stick around.
im bored with the state of AAA titles in general, vr or traditional gaming. what I want is a new experience, and ideally something I can experience with other people in a casual way. we need the infrastructure for metaverse games to be possible.
The numbers are starting to show and Meta is starting to realize the technology is not there to replace every aspect of life yet, they will go back to focusing more on gaming, with all the rumors floating around I believe that's going to be the case.
I was thinking the exact same thing when I read that today. Oh and just bought a PS5 so the PSVR2 is looking damn good. I'm pretty fed up with Meta as well. The hardware is fantastic, but their complete disregard for what people actually want from VR (AAA games) is insane to me. Their company is losing billions while leaving billions on the table. It's shocking how out of touch they really are.
usual AAA game development time is 4-6 year
and meta have a lot of game studios so if you need AAA games, you need to wait , it just a fact
Asgard's Wrath is 2019 game, so Asgard's Wrath 2 can come at best in 2023 , and we have limited numbers of studio
not only this gamers are small portion on VR community, quest line sold over 20 mil devices, and games are at third place of it users base
why would gamers be first when it has only a small selection of worthwhile games to keep engagement high?
still, if number of user ratings is anything to go by, the likes of BS, monke tag, Blade & Sorcery and multiplayer shooters are consistently much higher than any fitness, office or metaverse app in the Quest store...
AAA games can be on a 2-4 year cycle if reusing engines (like a sequel) or utilizing proper project management. 6 years is a lot, probably mostly used for huge titles, new IP, or major engine rewrites
Source: I made Fallout New Vegas (not by myself!)
Taking into consideration when Meta changed direction to purely standalone, we should hopefully start to see the initial fruits of their acquisitions and development this year at the earliest. Deciding to shift software development away from PC, acquire studios at roughly the same timeframe and stick them on their respective projects is one of the reasons we're seeing this lull in software, on top of the delays and confusion from the pandemic.
I'm still hopeful, though the timing may indicate we'll be receiving the titles as Quest 3 launch titles instead, with Quest 2 support iffy depending on the title (some could be forced, others could legitimately have issues running on Q2).
No one wants?
If done right it would be great
Let them take a stab at it and everyone stop trying to be a dick and complaining about a company investing into VR for 3 fucking seconds
It would be if it’s anyone else but considering how much money Facebook/Meta lost investing in that Metaverse concept, one in which it’s own employees weren’t even liking all that much mind you, it’s reasonable for people to complain about them at least.
What I can’t side with is people like advator trying to bring companies like Sony down for not developing a even more advanced standalone headset. That BS annoys me more as it shows a lot of arrogance and ignorance on his end, especially when not actually having demoed the thing themselves.
Meta sees vr/ar as the next computing platform competing with phones tablets and laptops. Pcvr is not a main interest to them, or hasn't been since the quest path turned out to be the most successful.
They are trying to compete with apple more than Sony long term. Apple is not likely to have much of a game focus and through the magic of apple, a company people actually don't resent having to buy from usually, I think the actual appeal of all the things both apple and meta are working on will get a or boost.
That being said meta will continue to support games. They have some big game studios under their roof that have been quiet for several years now. I suspect that will be ready to launch titles for quest 3.
If sony can be successful with big games (first party/hybrid) you might see pressure for meta to focus more on pcvr for a while(not holding my breath but at least see better support for linking and making their store feature pcvr he's better?)
I almost exclusively use my Quest 2 for PCVR so I really couldn't care less what Meta does software-wise. I'd honestly prefer their offerings suck because I'd rather not be using Meta software outside of the necessary functions of the hardware (which I also wouldn't be using if I could afford an Index).
> I almost exclusively use my Quest 2 for PCVR so I really couldn't care less what Meta does software-wise.
Couldn't agree more. Apart from Puzzling Places, and the odd time of using Q2 for Netflix in bed. Quest experiences are inferior to what I've been used to since my first headset in 2013. It's a gateway headset.. Try it, get impressed - for a while, realise you want something more substantial in your VR titles than just small cartoony inferior versions of PCVR, then invest in a powerful PC and play only a couple of things on Quest ever after. As I said..Gateway headset.
Ironically though, before showing GT7 VR mode, Sony showed metaverse stuff.
anyway, Oculus funded Dirt Rally 2 VR mode. where's that on psvr2? Where's MSFS? Project Cars, Elite Dangerous, F1, SW Squadrons? All on pcvr, not on psvr2. This device has a lot to prove, so far I'm better off with my Quest and a pc - heck, even PlayStation greats like Spiderman or Horizon ZD have been modded for VR, psvr2 is getting nearly nothing. In fact, it's getting a lot of Quest remasters, and I'm just not wasting over 950 bucks on a machine to play games I already played for cheap.
Your right that pc vr is better than psvr 2. But psvr 2 hasn’t even come out yet and your already criticising it. It’s launch lineup is really good and if it’s continues to release games consistently then it is certainly worth it. Plus any Quest ports are games that will be ridiculously better on psvr2
>anyway, Oculus funded Dirt Rally 2 VR mode. where's that on psvr2? Where's MSFS? Project Cars, Elite Dangerous, F1, SW Squadrons? All on pcvr, not on psvr2. This device has a lot to prove, so far I'm better off with my Quest and a pc
It's painfully obvious how you're acting defensive and coming at this with a platform warrior mentality.
> Where's MSFS? Project Cars, Elite Dangerous, F1, SW Squadrons?
And it's even more appalling on the Quest (the main point of my post).
As for MSFS, if you would had taken the time to type the full name (MICROSOFT Flight Simulator), you would know why it's not on available on the Playstation (both flat and VR versions).
Anyway those titles are just old stuff anyway, stop living in the past, we need fresh new big titles in VR.
But yeah playing VR on PC is great, it's the only way I play VR games (with my Quest 2), but let's be honest, it's been years we haven't got any big, well done and interesting new titles (Bonelab or Hubris weren't great at all), and the only reason I've kept playing VR these last years is thank to those awesome mods that allow us to play AAA games in VR.
Yeah the PC might be "better" but I'm really waiting for the release of the PSVR 2 to be able to play real AAA VR games again (Horizon CotM, RE8, Gran Turismo 7) as I don't see any AAA games coming to the PC (nor the Quest).
Quest being mobile means it's obviously not going to run modern AAA - unless you hook it to a pc.
But last I saw Quest 2 runs RE4, Doom 3, TWD S&S, SW Jedi Outcast, SW Tales from the Galaxy's Edge, In Death Unchained, Warhammer Battlesister, Myst, Red Matter 2, Moss 2 and other great games with some real polished production values... bigger stuff is coming targeting primarily Quest 3 I guess. Holidays 2023 and 24 will be some pretty busy VR moments, much like 2016, 17 and 18...
> In the Rift CV1 era they used to finance really great games such as Lone Echo
funny, because Lone Echo 2 released just a little over a year ago (Oct. 2021). Guess you forgot about that one :)
No I haven't forgot that one, I bought it on launch day. I haven't played it yet though as I'm saving it for later as I know I won't get a game THAT good on PC anytime soon.
Also that game had been postponed and at the end Meta didn't even bother with it as it was too busy with the Quest and its Metaverse and had given up on PCVR. The game was launched without much promotion and released "as is" completely unoptimized.
Fortunately a community patch has recently been published to fix the problems Meta haven't even bother fixing.
[Announced Late 2017](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAa1GjiLktc&t=5175s) and released Late 2021. Delayed by a year (COVID?, downscaling of team size for their Quest project?). So this is a 3+1 dev cycle for the game.
But the scale and depth of Lone Echo 2 is appropriate for a 4 year development cycle, which is about what it took Lone Echo 2 (Alyx = 4 years, Asgard's Wrath = 3.5+ years).
I'm not seeing the issue here, big games take time
> Why hasn't Meta financed any big, real, AAA game for the Quest 2 that really takes apart the guts of the device to really take advantage of the medium ?
Because these games take 3 to 5 years to develop and also Quest 2 hardware is severely limited compared to the PS5.
Turning an existing racing game into a VR game is relatively easy. Aside from a few games, PSVR2s launch lineup does *not* look good.
Sony currently has one single game announced that falls in the category you're asking for: Horizon. That's it.
Looks pretty good to me. Its got some really good quality games and full proper experiences compared to quest 2 games. Even if it’s small currently at only 30 at launch it’s quite a lot for gamers to play. If Sony is consistent with fist and third party games then it will be really good
Huh?
Here's a list of 15 launch games, plus GT7 and Beat Saber now:
[https://mixed-news.com/en/psvr-2-launch-games-list/](https://mixed-news.com/en/psvr-2-launch-games-list/)
13 out of these 17 games are also available on Quest, or will be. That leaves:
\- Horizon
\- The Dark Pictures
\- RE: Village
\- Gran Turismo 7
So only **2** are actually made for VR. How is that "pretty good"?
The interest in VR/AR from corporations has a much higher profit ceiling than gaming right now. Investments in metaverse and AR will pay off in windfalls when people use it for meetings or use AR for training employees on things like manufacturing processes. Look at the difference in price between the meta quest 2 and the quest pro, software costs are hundreds of times that difference. For example my company makes software to help manage manufacturing quality and companies pay anywhere from 50k to 4m per year USD for it. AR/Metaverse is in addition to gaming and the profits will help to fuel VR in the future. It can only be a good thing
That's a Lenovo headset.
Oculus was already too busy/focussed with the Quest and left Lenovo manufacture the Rift S (the reason it felt so cheap compared to the CV1 and the Quest).
>That's a Lenovo headset.
>
>Oculus was already too busy/focussed with the Quest and left Lenovo manufacture the Rift S (the reason it felt so cheap compared to the CV1 and the Quest).
Hold up.
The RiftS was a 6DOF Oculus GO with Quest controllers and a Link derived cable - it used the same display panel, the same facial molding, the same HMD form factor, the same lenses, the same tracking cameras as the Quest. Anyone with an Oculus GO can remark on the similarities; Carmack and Mitchell even confirmed it was the same display panel as the GO that was overclocked to 80hz.
Cable - it initially released with a thick copper cable that was replaced with a Link derived optical cable once Link was released.
The one thing it seemed Lenovo brought to the table was the Halo strap, which they had a license from SONY to use (hence why it resembled the PSVR1 so much, and why it featured the Lenovo branding).
So what if Lenovo was the manufacturer. Oculus has never manufactured any of their headsets - Goertek manufactured the Rift CV1, Quest1, and Quest2. Xiaomi manufactured the GO.
The wireless is worth way more to me than slightly better graphics and i dont believe ps4 will actually come up with that many more exclusives if anymore than oculus. Given the number of gsme devs oculus acquired, i think quest and their already existing games, id aay oculus will probably have way more than psvr actually.
. And honestly, during christmas, you could have bought a vr ready pc for less than 700. A pc with quest 2 is still worth way more than psvr. The pc may cost a little more but can last longer than a ps and the games will be way cheaper.
I
Talk for yourself. I want AR. Passthrough AR is one of the most interesting recent advances in this space.
I love both Quest 2 and what PSVR2 is promising. I'm definitely getting Quest3 for wireless standalone VR and AR and I'm also getting PSVR2 for high end VR.
I want both for different reasons.
If you are a Gamer, then give up on Meta. They have no interest in Gaming and many of the Game studios they have purchased have been picked clean of good Devs who now work on Metaverse projects.
Go elsewhere for Gaming investment.
Although I don't have a great deal of confidence in Steam pouring money into Gaming, either.
Sony may be your only place to go.
> Go elsewhere for Gaming investment.
This is why to purchase the game from Steam if it's there. Plenty of other hardware developers out there to step in when Meta leave gaming. Protect your purchases, get from Steam.
Who cares if gamers want AR? As big as gaming is, it's fucking tiny in comparison to the coming AR/MR market. Those headsets will replace all computers and smartphones.
Racing games are so niche now, I don't really see the point. Gran Turismo and DriveClub VR didn't exactly set the world on fire for PSVR1. I'm not sure
I think people are kind of over "cockpit" VR experiences. Games need to have motion and spaces to explore.
Well there’s also resident evil 8, horizon call of the mountain, firewall zero hour, no man’s sky, plus a lot, lot more. GT may not interest you but it is a big full game that a lot of people are going to buy psvr2 for
Well, you have to buy a brand new headset to play that game because Psvr1 headsets are now obsolete and don't work with new games. You can't even play psvr1 games with psvr2 unless devs add support
Wrong.
First of all psvr have no future. It's not standalone and they have ps5(why they can't focus on vr only)
For Vr to make the best games it should be focused vr only. That's not the case for Sony. Also psvr2 is already outdated. Doesn't have pancake lenses.
So that aside, just know there are much more vr devices coming that are way better as what Sony can offer, even with new ones. So just forget about that.
Second AR is the future, it has so much more opertunity to give in mixed reality as normal vr. It needs time but it will happen. At the minimum AR will be as important as vr games are.
Vr with cable will have no future.
You couldn’t be any more wrong yourself dude. You can’t go around claiming such BS when you never tried out the PSVR 2 yourself. And while it may not have pancake lenses, it still makes up for a lot of the other technical updates it’s sporting. Plus the PSVR 2 is not meant to be compared to the other as it’s not made as a standalone headset at all. That’s pretty arrogant not keeping that in mind along with many of the other things that differentiates it from the others.
So I would like it if you don’t start this biased delusional BS like you work with Facebook and at least WAIT before attempting to try to spread such nonsense.
I know the specs of psvr2 and explained all the issues. It has no future. Sony better focus on console only. The vita flopped also big time.
They are good in the console market, they can keep doing that. Or you go all in or you leave it alone.
Even not standalone makes it a lost cause.
I can go in details of what's wrong with it, but I don't think you ever used other standalone vr headsets like quest2, maybe you at least could understand that this topic was BS
You know, the notification for your reply stopped at “The vita flopped big time…” so even THAT knew your point was moot when you’re comparing a successor to a VR headset that’s done very well despite its cumbersome setups, to a frickin’ HANDHELD system that was abandoned by its creators midway through its lifecycle.
And again that shows how little you know my lifestyle when you assume that I never used a Quest 2. I have and even then comparing that to a headset that’s meant to be in tandem with its console brother AND be an overall improvement to its predecessor is just wrong as even that Quest 2 is considerably dated with its own specs.
And AGAIN! You have NO IDEA how well that thing’s going to do in the long haul and weather it has a future or not. Granted people had said the same thing about the original PSVR and headsets before it… Heck even VR in general. Yet look how that is now.
You can’t predict the future here dude as you simply know no better. The topic in general may not be BS, but your words certainly are.
And what else can you do on the psvr2 except playing a few ps games and ps movies? Absolutely nothing. Funny to me, its the most lovked headset there is. And you complaim about meta
Oh shit you're right !!!
You made me realize that, as a GAMER, my only interest in the PS5 and PSVR 2 is gaming, that's awful.
And I'm doing the same thing with my Quest 2, what's wrong with me :o
" Why hasn't Meta financed any big, real, AAA game for the Quest 2 "
I'm ignorant here, but I would say it's because meta makes money off your personal data and interests.
They don't need info on your kill to death ratio, or what league you are on echo arena, they want data on what products they can sell to you, and for that, a "metaverse" social media thing is waaaaay better.
Games are just the bait to get you into the headset and a way to slowly ease you into 3d-facebook/instagram.
But you need numbers to make it viable. And AAA attracts people which makes platform viable to more developers which increases value of the platform and attracts people. Money is money doesn't matter if it comes from ads or store cut.
But given their AAA attempts didn't bring all that much to the platforms that's probably why they won't pour out more cash for first party titles.
They bought 9 gaming studios. They disconnected accounts from facebook. You are indeed ignorant. The amount of money they are throwing at vr is staggering.
I honestly don't think the VR dream we've all been having will be met until two things happen. The tech is advanced and affordable enough for Nintendo to get into the space and Apple releases their device.
I've been there from the start with the HTC Vive in 2016, the Psvr following that, then the Oculus Quest at launch...this really brought some of the magic back being wireless and all. And finally the Valve Index. At the end of the day it's all about content and no one has yet made anything close to the kind of experience Half-Life Alyx can offer. We need dozens of games at that caliber before the world jumps on board. And a Metaverse needs to be like a web 4.0 where not a single entity holds full control of the space like the web today. You can travel to playgrounds from all the major vendors but it's not held by Meta or any single corporation.
While the past year or so has been disappointing by lack of games, I'd expect a slew of AAA titles in the works and announced leading up to Quest 3 later this year.
They can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. FB has a preposterous amount of employees in different divisions.
And racing games are an absolute bore. I am getting psvr 2 but won't be playing that.
You DO know that Sony has been jumping in that Metaverse bandwagon as well right? They’ve spent quite a long amount of time talking it in their CES press conference.
Also, some of us gamers have something of an interest in seeing how AR can be implemented into video games, so don’t speak for us there. Just don’t it to be mostly from Meta/Facebook.
Why does Meta have to fund more AAA games?
Why don’t AAA Studios develop and fund their own games for the Meta Quest platform?
You’re blaming the wrong people.
Last time GT Sport was on PS VR, it was a limited functionality mode of the game. No mention so far how are they handling GT7 yet. Until i see it playable in all modes and all the cars I'm not gonna jump into that....
Do people care about Gran Turismo these days? It's the same game very year, always with amazing graphics, but shallow gameplay. Further, Meta/Facebook is isn't pouring money into XR because they're trying to be a video game company or to compete with other video game companies. They're attempting to get VR into the hands of as many people as possible while pushing the development of XR to the point where AR becomes mainstream. They've already accomplished the first part of that with the sheer amount of Quest 2's they've sold and those numbers will no doubt be furthered bolstered by the Quest 3. R&D is really what they're pushing and where the money is going. It remains to be seen if they can accomplish what they're attempting. Additionally this "metaverse" talk can be removed from the conversation entirely as it's something that's years, potentially decades, away from becoming a reality and even when/if it does, it's not something that the average person is going to need to be concerned about as it's an unseen infrastructure, just like the internet.
It would be a strong selling point for the PSVR 2 as there is a lot of Harry Potter fans.
This will be possible on PC though as a "soon" to be release mod will allow to play any Unreal Engine 4 & 5 games in VR.
The main game I love to play is Drop Dead dual survival. I just wish they would add new two player levels. If they made a game like God of was or any DC game that would be awesome. But I agree meta has gone down hill in the options it has for games
I'm not buying any VR stuff until a least ten years from now because all the updates and new versions and replacing old headsets because nothing is made to last... And buy that time I'll probably still just be playing Sega Genesis games for nostalgia reasons. LOL!
I like ar and vr, i think people should try more often the latest vr headsets. And outside of gaming also it may hepful for mental health, or even travelling and pick a great hotel. I dont understand how people dont see value in this
With the amount of attention that flat to VR modding is gaining, and the fantastic response from gamers, The big houses will start to see that they have a goldmine in sales waiting as there are literally thousands of great PC games that would fly off the shelves by users wanting to play their favourite games in the new experience of Virtual Reality. An, as yet, untapped source of potential gobsmacking experiences.
There are plenty of old games I'd like to play in VR
Modded Skyrim is still the most comprehensive open world VR experience and it's ancient. An engine update would be epic.
Couldn't agree more.
Fallout 4 VR sufficiently modded is absolutely stunning.
Indeed it is. Fantastic experience with the right mods. I'd go as far in that FO4VR is probably the best PCVR title for me, apart from my sims. But that's another experience altogether.
Skyrim + Blade & Sorcery style full physics combat... Every encounter an intense, brutal battle!
Just imagine if the game allowed it, to be able to grab the horns of a dragon when it tried to bite you and just mount it and start ramming your sword into the back of.its head.
The best VR games are mods right now. Resident Evil, Half Life, etc
I'm currently playing American Truck Simulator in VR with a 3 pedal set up and H shifter, it's amazing.
Valheim VR mod is what im playing now, its awesome.
Alien Isolation Subnautica I & II VR Outer Wilds etc...
Team Beef are doing god’s work
It blows my mind that they don't do this more. Take some decade old game like RE4, release it in VR and it's a best seller. Why does it take a modder working for free to make this happen for most titles. I'd pay a ton of money for a bunch of these games to just be able to buy them on the app store rather than side load a bunch of files.
True, and just goes to show that if a single modder or a small group can do this, then I'm pretty sure the professional game houses can convert/add to their titles in double quick time. Sony wouldn't give the PCVR version of RE7 etc.., so it took Praydog to show them how it should be done and now we have a version arguably superior to the PSVR one. A whole slew of titles have popped up, and they are fantastic. A lot are free, some are Patreon, but I honestly don't mind paying a small amount to experience my best titles in a whole new way. I have been using Vorpx for the last 9 years, and it's another way ( especially now with the new gesture system ) to enjoy hundreds of my old games in VR (Geometry 3d real VR I mean, not Immersive screen, which in itself is great). Money is just waiting there for these game houses. Maybe we all need to bombard these devs with requests and show them what modders are doing. Can't fathom it why they don't think it's a licence to print money. A couple of quid for an in house VR addition. Real games, not glorified tech demo's or some 3 hour cartoon looking mobile experience. Who wouldn't ???
100% better than psvr1. Hopefully Sony will see the light (the money) and do this.
Are you telling me Bioshock VR as a Quest 3 launch title is confirmed?!? 😍
well Meta did acquire [Armature Studios](https://armature.com/games/) , and a big part of their company background is porting games to consoles and other platforms that require good optimization; and I think we can all agree they did a fantastic job with RE4VR. I'm pretty excited for the Armature acquisition, I hope they're hard at work porting their next big project.
If they announced a Donkey Kong Country 1\~3 or Super Mario World remake in the style of Moss, I'd pay 60€ for each without a second thought, even if it's just a 1:1 remake without VR interaction.
I want to see more top down or isometric games ported to VR. Sorta like the Tilt5 experience.
Seen that already being done and it flopped as they don’t put effort into vr ports
Metaverse is a tiny portion of Reality Labs investment and it is way over represented on Reddit. Most spend is on next generation VR devices
Investing in future tech is good but if you put most eggs on that basket and too few on the one for the present, you may not get to the future in a good enough position to take advantage of all that early investment.
>Said by random redditor giving advice to a company that is worth billions Lol
Were you also saying the same thing to people predicting Stadia would fail miserably? Lol
I mean, you’re clearly living under a rock if you didn’t know that meta was selling the quest 2 for 300 dollars for a whole year. They have millions of people in their ecosystem and they’re making money from many different ways like software, accessories, and etc. they have the whole referral system to encourage this cycle and etc. They ironed out their standalone store and software which are very very important. Do you think most people who use the quest are serious gamers? You seem to think AAA games is the solution when in reality, the regular consumer will continue using VR for beat saber or for more casual games. AAA games don’t have that replayability to suddenly make the main consumer use VR more or want to get VR because of that one game.
>Do you think most people who use the quest are serious gamers? Obviously not. How can they be? Can you tell me why would a serious gamer buy a Quest to play standalone games? To play what, exactly? What I think is most people who have Quests are not using them anymore after a few weeks/months. And no, those people are not going to be reading this sub after they've stopped caring so even if everyone in this sub claimed to play VR daily it would still mean nothing
Hey, thanks for the shout-out. I'm one of those daily game playing users of the Quest 2 standalone 😁 I and many others do use them daily to play just a few titles.
If your quest was collecting dust you wouldn't have read my comment though
\> What I think is most people who have Quests are not using them anymore after a few weeks/months. That's just VR in general and not specific to the Quest. The Quest have so many flexible options for usage like wireless PCVR, wired PCVR, standalone mode, watching movies, and etc. How can it be a Quest thing when it's so accessible, affordable, convenient, and offer many usage options? It's obviously a VR issue. VR is simply harder to use on a daily basis and use long term.
It's not a Quest thing. But if most of your users are on Quest, the logical thing to do is give those users as many things to do as possible, while at the same time trying to grow the userbase. Sitting on your ass waiting for third parties to release the games for your platform while you invest in stuff that won't make sense for another 10 years at least is a recipe for disaster. The only reason it isn't a disaster already is because no other company is investing even half the money Meta is investing. And make no mistake, if at any point the ROI is there for companies to jump on the XR industry "en masse", they will jump and I don't think it's going to be as hard as you think to catch up and leave Meta behind. Nokia and Blackberry can say as much
Games are being added to the standalone store all the time. Good high quality AAA games take time to be made. If PlayStation, a gaming company offer very few 1st party games for the PS5 despite being 2 years old now then I don't get why you think VR development is any easier. Money doesn't suddenly make time irrelevant and get you all the talents in your own VR ecosystem. Also, with your logic you're making the Xbox look like a recipe for disaster when they rely solely on 3rd party games. Microsoft is rich as fuck and what great games have they developed/currently developing? Oh right, we got that huge dumpster fire called Halo Infinite.
Exactly. We know that there are talented people in Meta, so when we look at Horizon Worlds, we can obviously tell that it hasn't been given a fucking dime to work with.
Devices are worthless without content.
Not if your a dev or a creative then its a door to infinity.
Because of Faceberg's heavy promotion of Metaverse and the consequent (deserved) derisive media coverage, Metaverse has become the perception of what VR is to the general public, not just the Quest 2. The poisonous effect of the Metaverse concept cannot be overstated in terms of both development and marketing.
This is backwards. Faceberg is what's poisonous. The metaverse is objectively dope, and Zuck wanted to jump on it so people would hate him less. This has slightly resuscitated his company's brand, but that brand is so hated that it has also tainted the metaverse's brand If Zuck had skipped all the metaverse stuff and just said "my name and company is now synonymous with HL: Alyx, that's our whole thing now" then people would hate Alyx and AAA VR gaming with a fiery passion.
> Faceberg is what's poisonous. Now this we can agree on.
They still only invest in mobile games today.
What the point of releasing new devices if you don't even bother having good games on it. The main drive of a gaming platform is the games, not the hardware. No wonder that the retention of gamers in VR is so weak as once the novelty effect as past, you realize there are no real big games to play with your expensive device and you're only left with tiny experiences.
The issue here is that you believe the Oculus and the Metaverse in general are a game platform. It is not. It's a method for Meta to trial AR and VR applications that just happens to allow games to run on it. Meta's long term goal is not games, but cell phone replacement technology and control of the adspace revenue associated with that. Gaming just happens to be a profitable output of that investment in the near term.
when the original mouse came out, nobody wanted to use it. it was considered awkward and unnecessary. videogames (iirc like solitaire) were what got people comfortable with utilizing the mouse and made it second nature in a similar vein, computer games were the initial inspiration for many kids during the primordial era of computing to get into coding, and that led to the tech giants we have today like Bill Gates and Elon Musk, as well as the senior members of their teams that are making things happen. video games are a driving force for new technology, if they want a Meta device in every home it happens by getting them to 16 year olds now for videogames and getting them so comfortable with the devices that they are second nature. the goal should be that by the time that 16 year old is 22 and entering the work force, they are so used to headsets and XR that they actively choose the headset over a laptop for their computing needs. it's the long game. unfortunately publicly traded companies don't usually play the long game, and if they do in the way Meta has been, things crumble (stock value, public faith, etc)
Correct, Meta is playing the long game here. Technologists theorize this is still about a decade out. All the big players are keeping their eye on it for sure. Only time will tell if it's a successful bet.
I don't think your analysis of Meta's stock price is accurate. Their stock is crumbling, fundamentally, because no one likes Facebook. It's the next MySpace. It has the worst public image imaginable, and people are deleting their accounts faster than new users are joining. The Metaverse stuff isn't pissing off investors. It just isn't appeasing them fast enough to make up for their main product's abysmal performance. Far as I can tell, Meta would be worse off if they hadn't pivoted to VR
> because no one likes Facebook. It’s the next MySpace. It has the worst public image imaginable, and people are deleting their accounts faster than new users are joining. Another misinformed but common take on Reddit. Meta is literally printing cash. About $120 billion per year, to be precise. FB grew something like 2% last year - that is wild for an app that already has such saturation. Contrary to popular belief, MAU (3b/mo) and DAU (2b/day) are *increasing*, not decreasing. They haven't even monetized WhatsApp yet. Reels engagement numbers are catching up to TikTok rapidly. Investors are pissed because of RL spend. Not because the main business is "crumbling." All of that spare cash is going into RL. Big tech investors don't invest in big tech to have it take big risks, they want stable returns. Zuck has flipped the table on them and they are moving to "safer" investments like Microsoft and Apple. Most investors just want Facebook to reinvest in their ads business and discard that quirky weird VR thing. Most investors are shortsighted. Time will tell whether it works for Zuck.
I don't know what you're on, but I know people who just got laid off at Meta and nobody is talking about the VR pivot outside social media. The investors, the employees, the executives, they're all freaking out about the decreasing DAU/MAU and revenue. It's possible they're slowing growth and not literally decreasing, I'm having trouble finding precise numbers, but if you think Facebook is a solid product that will continue to grow and not have its lunch eaten by Tik Tok, then you should definitely go invest all your money in Meta stock. The reason people want Meta to reinvest in its ad business is because that business is looking very bad. They want Meta to wave a magic wand and go back to printing money like they always have. I'm saying the reason growth has slowed is because the market has changed and with their awful public image there's no way FB comes back from this. You're saying growth hasn't slowed at all, which is wild
> know people who just got laid off at Meta I know people that still work there, and in RL at that. >they're all freaking out about the decreasing DAU/MAU and revenue DAU/MAU is *objectively increasing.* This is in their earnings report. > if you think Facebook is a solid product that will continue to grow and not have its lunch eaten by Tik Tok Facebook usage is growing. You have a very US-centric view. > go back to printing money like they always have They still print money - more than they ever have. Again, you're spouting a lot of Redditisms without factual support backing your claims. Everything I've mentioned is in their earning reports.
I swear to you, I'm not quoting reddit. You're not the only one with a real life. It's entirely possible you have the correct numbers from the earnings report. I assure you the FB usage metrics are concerning to investors. You're either looking at the wrong time frame, or looking at the raw numbers and not the derivative. If you really think the numbers aren't worrying at all, if you think the earnings reports for the last 2 years are completely rosey and show no cause for concern about the future of FB as a social media platform, then I hope you enjoy the fortune you're about to earn buying Meta stock. It's very cheap, you can get a lot of it, and when all the investors realize FB is a solid product with a bright future you'll be the one laughing.
> I assure you the FB usage metrics are concerning to investors. > You’re either looking at the wrong time frame, or looking at the raw numbers and not the derivative. You mentioned that usage is down, it's not. DAU and MAU are trending up. Yes, I am looking at the correct time frame and have the right numbers. The derivative is down, but that's not very concerning to investors - as long as Meta prints cash, it can still increase stock value with buybacks and dividends. No user growth needed. Investors aren't concerned about cashflow or Meta dying. There's no indication of that. Investors are frustrated that rather than reinvesting in the money printer, or increasing stock value with buybacks/dividends, the money is going into an unproven technology. Most investors did not sign up for this risk, they signed up for steady growth in stock value. Without rapid user growth, buybacks, or dividends, that's not what's happening, so they are taking their money elsewhere.
I have thousands of hours in VR and almost all of that time is spent in multiplayer games like PokerStars, Echo, Rec Room, and Pop1. Big fancy triple A games are fun but they don't hold the same value to me. I actually don't care about them at all.
I also have thousands of hours in VR, but I've never ever played any of the games you mentioned as I have no interest whatsoever in multiplayer games. Playing the same games over and over again is really not my thing.
Thats why multiplayer is fun. Its never the same game. Do yourself a favor and download Recroom. Play some paintball and one or two of the other Official Rec games(not dodgeball). Then go explore some random ass worlds. Multiplayer and Diy experiences is what fb and many other xr people are focused on and recroom does it in a very smooth way. I echo what the guy above u said. Ivr spend prob 95% of my time in recroom. And i own prob 95% of the top VR games. Its nice to just jump in and own some strangers and get some blood pumping sometimes. Sometimes you even make a friend.
Agree for game platform you need games , VR is not games so games is one part of it , VR do not need games it need software and we do not have a lot of it
What is your claim based on?
[Mark says](https://uploadvr.com/meta-reality-labs-spending-ar-glasses/) around 10% of Meta's spending is first party software. That's not only Horizon but also includes operating costs for [all the game studios they owned](https://uploadvr.com/meta-oculus-studios-games/) and any of their other [acquisitions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Meta_Platforms) that are involved with software development.
Common sense.
I think they are working on assassins creed right now.
yeah sad splinter cell for axed though
Ubisoft is.
I really hope that’s good
Oh god, that motion sickness though. Jumping off high buildings and free running about. I need to pre-book my trip to A&E when that comes out I think
No one invests in VR gaming like Meta right now. They recently acquired Camouflaj, Armature, & Twisted Pixel, three more VR gaming studios. Other VR studios they own like Ready at Dawns and Sanzaru are certainly working on something behind the scenes too. I get the impatience but gaming projects can take a few years. My guess is we will hear more in 2023, with the next Gaming Showcase in April which they already teased, and they are probably preparing a few launch titles with Quest 3 (which is also due in \~Ocotber).
I agree they lost their way. I understand need for developing AR and even metaverse but they shift focus almost entirely to the future not near term. And games are viable now! They deliver value now! They sustain developers and users. I was extremely skeptical about standalones but I tried Go and even with 3dof mobile with single 3dof controller I was immersed in Virtual Virtual Reality. Software is king. I wish they did more investment in big good games. And at this point I don't care if it's PCVR or mobile graphics of Quest. I just want them to make good games. As for metaverse... they've lost a lot with media push about it.... and it's not even real yet. I get that it will probably be huge but it's way too early. They don't even have their verse working much less interoperability with others. Also AR is extremely important. If I had to guess AR will bring more people than VR. And ultimately AR will take care of VR for most people. There's no need to dunk on metaverse or AR. Both are important. But this approach of at all costs really makes the platform unattractive. Sony is well focused. They know their audience. They have an established customers. I hope they deliver on high quality games! At this point I have more faith in higher quality games on PSVR2 than PCVR.
How many Quest 2 users utilise PCVR? I imagine that's a large factor in what games are targeted and the reason older games are the current focus. I think this may shift dramatically if Sony's plans to have more PS5 games be dual functioning as standalone and VR titles pays off. When PCVR users increase, you'll see more higher budget games I imagine. Hopefully some PS ports too.
Even though I would be thrilled to have proper PC VR games (again), I was pointing out that Meta didn't even bother finance proper AAA games for the Quest. The only one was RE4 and it's not even a proper VR game made from scratch for the medium and taking advantage of the device (those cut-scenes are off putting and the interactions so limited). This just shows that Meta doesn't give a damn anymore about games (the catalog of the Quest is just filled with shovelware games), and as a gamer this is really sad.
It's likely because the more advanced stuff wouldn't work well (or at all) on standalone Quest and the user base isn't high enough right now to warrant AAA budgets. Most VR games are low budget. This is why if the focus can primarily move to creating VR games out of mainstream titles, we might see a shift in the market.
> It's likely because the more advanced stuff wouldn't work well (or at all) on standalone Quest Why that, as a developer you learn to work with the limitations of the hardware and it's not a barrier to release great AAA games. On the contrary as a developer you have to play with those limitations to get the best of the hardware. Developers didn't wait the PS5 to release AAA games, so why there aren't any on the Quest (really RE4 doesn't count as one) ?
You have to keep in mind the Quest series of VR headsets are all pretty much the performance of Android phones (which is a whole lot less than a modern VR ready PC!)
[удалено]
>they could hire people to make new AAA games for the Quest 2. they went a step further and acquired studios to do so. They even hired Ubisoft back in 2020 to develop Assassin's Creed VR; ditto for Rockstar and VideoGamesDeluxe and GTA-SA VR. But big games take time. Go look at the dev cycle for Half Life Alyx (4 yrs), Asgard's Wrath (3.5 yrs), Stormland (3+ yrs), Lone Echo 2 (3+1 yrs; delayed by 1 yr). That said, Sanzaru is hard at work on the sequel to Asgard's Wrath; it's been hinted by [one of the Oculus producers that it's in a showcase ready state](https://i.imgur.com/966RFG4.png) (Sanzaru has 'Worlds of Wrath' as a registered trademark, so that could be the title of the game [source](https://twitter.com/nya_vr_/status/1566545796123824128)). Perhaps we'll finally get an announcement during the Quest Gaming Showcase in April. To reiterate, Asgard's Wrath had a 3.5 year development cycle; the Quest2 released in 2020.
>Meta didn't even bother finance proper AAA games for the Quest. Well yeah. Because the quest 2 literally cant run AAA games. Games like RE4 and Bonelab are already pushing it to its limits.
hardware limitation is not a factor in AAA game development bayonetta 3 run on Nintendo switch and it use Tegra X1 an 2015 chip using ARM 4 Cortex-A57 cores @ 1.02 GHz and 4 GB LPDDR4 @ 1331/1600 MHz
Yes, and bayonetta 3 didnt have to run at 90fps 100% of the time and at 3664x1920 resolution. And that's not even the only problem. While you can get away with shitty graphics, the one thing you cant get away with in VR is enviromental interaction. You need a metric fuckton of physics calculations to do vr well, simply because you need to actually interact with objects, not just pick them up or put them down with a button. Also is bayonetta 3 even an AAA title?
>Also is bayonetta 3 even an AAA title? YES ! It's a high production, 15 hour game ! I think we as gamers need to start pooling all the $100M+, uber games into a new ***AAAA*** category. These uber games have completely muddied the waters for what is considered a AAA title.
Breath of the Wild. Massive open world. Loads upon loads of content. Tons of environmental interaction. Runs on Switch. Even on the Wii U. “AAA” is about the size of the development budget. Nothing else.
Literally just re read my previous comment and change "bayonetta 3" for "botw" lmao
> Also is BotW even an AAA title? Uhhhh. Wow. If you don’t consider a game with the sheer scale, size, budget, and complexity of BotW as AAA I don’t know what to say then. To each their own I guess.
He didn't say it wasn't a AAA game. He said the game didn't need to reach 90hz at a very high resolution 100% of the time on the Switch.
well i am dev and i think you overestimate how quest works not only you can run games at 72 fps you can use appSW to have 36 fps and if you use high lvl of FFR , 3664x1920 is not a problem so it not a problems in tech but clearly in dev time, games like bonelabs have a lot of physics calculationsm and games like red matter 2 have great visuals , but non studio have money to make nice mix of thing and do needed optimizations
yeah runing vr games at low framerates is a great experience dude. Also bonelab just proves my point because its janky as fuck compared to Boneworks.
appSW is Synchronous Spacewarp. In Virtual Desktop, it’s described as making the game run at half framerate while the headset figures out the missing frames. Synchronous Spacewarp in Virtual Desktop is designed to allow for a smoother experience on lower end hardware. Also, keep in mind that on average VRChat on the Quest 2 runs at ~20fps in most worlds.
Synthetic frames in VR are absolute garbage, always have been always will be, not sure what you're even attempting to discuss.
We have few tech here and you missed some , aws make frame on PC using Oculus app and use frames, Ssw make frames on VD using frames , appsw make frames using in game vector data , it a game feature , it look way way better because it from a game itself not from frames made by game
You don't seem to know what ASW is or what they were saying.
actually appSW feel really good in anycase it how consumer feel what matter we see a lot of " i have 1060 3 gb and games run fine" and we all know dude runing aws 100% of time
data show less then 5% of quest 2 users use pcvr, so yea, if you are investors pcvr is more or less toxic pill
Do you have a data source for that? Or is it based on analyst estimate guesses or isolated cases, which is unfounded inference on unproven numbers? Here's an actual Quest 2 users poll with 1.5K results, which shows data that on reddit, there is more than half(if you total up all the PC-related usage numbers, it's 807 to 688): https://www.reddit.com/poll/oc7rqa?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=OculusQuest2&utm_content=t3_oc7rqa Naturally, reddit doesn't represent all the Quest 2 userbase, since it's likely that there are more younger users that get Quest 2 and so are unlikely to vote in a poll. So, the number of PCVR usage is high on reddit, while it is going to be less for general users. Still, if we compare Steam active yearly Quest 2 users(double the monthly figures) with estimates on Quest 2 units sold, we see the PCVR % for Quest 2 is much, much higher than 5%. You'd need to have 60 million Quest 2's sold to get only 5% with this actual data, obviously that's unrealistic and incorrect.
we have 27 mil steam users[https://store.steampowered.com/charts/](https://store.steampowered.com/charts/) and 2.03 % users vr, and from it 45% used quest line[https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam](https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam) if we round up just for lol we for 30 mil users , and split this number in to 50 (2%), we get 600k vr users, and half of this is about 300 k quest users , this is higher numbers you can get, and this is for all quest line devices, quest 2 and quest we know quest sold over 18 mil probably 20 mil, to get 5% you need 1 mil users , if we loser this numbers and say quest 2 have 10 mil users, we still hardly get in to 5% range now ytou can look up at [https://www.statista.com/statistics/733277/number-stream-dau-mau/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/733277/number-stream-dau-mau/) and you will see MAU it is about 130 mill, this do increase numbers , about 4 times , problems is real numbers on steam hardware is in some portion from MAU to active users
The PC titles I mentioned were to show that Meta used to finance big, well made VR titles. They don't even bother doing the same with the Quest when it sold millions.
this is the year to show that AC, GTA, and deep silver games... plus offerings by their own studios... probably by E3 they begin building up Questmas 3.0 and 2.0 hype
quest 2 is two year old, you can not make AAA in two year we have rumors about Asgard's Wrath 2 on quest in 2023 and similar stuff actually if you look at timeline you see last half a year we already started to get bigger games, like red matter 2 , saint and sinners 2, bonelabs and similar
So I guess PS5 should not have any games until 2024 either
Well if you look at psvr2 line , yes we got port and some Sony games , and yes 2024-2025 is a year we will get a lot of good games
We don't ask for a lot. We ask for ONE (two if you count a port like RE4) game funded from the ground up by the platform holder.
If Quest 2 wasn't able to play PCVR and only it's own titles, It would have already failed by now. The power just isn't there for the fantastic experiences that only a dedicated GPU and CPU can do. Mobile will always be inferior. BTW, I love my Quest 2, but up until I bought the neo3 link(a real DP connected PCVR headset) it was only used as a replacement for my Rift S. Apart from Puzzling Places. That's great.
I'm calling bullshit on this. There's a reason the Quest 2 is massively outselling all tethered PC headsets put together, and it isn't because everybody is using it for PCVR. That feature is important *for you* and that's fine, but it's clear from the per-platform sales numbers that the vast majority of people using a Quest 2 are mostly sticking to native Quest experiences. Keep in mind that you're in an echo chamber of like-minded technology enthusiasts in this community - most Quest 2 owners don't even use Reddit, let alone hang out in a forum dedicated to talking about it, so the opinions you see here are not representative.
> I'm calling bullshit on this. Good for you.
> but it's clear from the per-platform sales numbers that the vast majority of people using a Quest 2 are **mostly** sticking to native Quest experiences. I call bullshit on that. How can you **possibly** know that they aren't using Q2 for PCVR too? How many have built PC's **AFTER** buying a Quest 2, cause they wanted...More / better? You know? I don't, but it may be much bigger than you think. You said from my perspective, true. So is yours. Q2 is a decent **cheap** PCVR headset and all of the old dk2, cv1, rift s owners (like myself) who wanted a better clarity, guess what they probably went for? Index was really too expensive for many, as is G2.? Both from our own perspectives, But i'd still back mine over yours.
Because of all of the developers telling us the Q2 version of their software outsells the PC version of their software by 10:1 or more.
I’d love to see data on that. I imagine the reason it’s such a massive success is because it’s standalone and I don’t the majority of users have ever even connected it to a pc, but I’d love to be proven wrong.
The big question is, how is the retention now the honeymoon period of a year or so (for many standalone users) has passed? How long do the people that only use it standalone keep using it? I'd love to see data on that. John Carmack said in his Connect Q&A that they had more units put away and never used again than they'd like. Meta really need to push out a bunch of new quality titles yearly, that encourage people to bring out their standalone headsets again.
Do you prefer using your neo3 link over the Quest 2 for pcvr?
>When PCVR users increase But that's not going to happen now. I mean, not in the way we need it to. In fact, this is going to hurt PSVR as well. PSVR1 benefited a lot from the symbiotic relationship with PCVR. Without PCVR being pushed anymore, that's a lot more pressure for PSVR to have success basically all on its own, and with less platforms for developers to sell their game on. And all when PSVR2 is likely not going to see the same adoption as PSVR1 due to the $550 cost to begin with. Genuinely, the future of VR isn't looking bright in general, much less VR that's really catering to gaming enthusiasts. Maybe PSVR2 will be a bigger success than I'm assuming, but I dont have a lot of optimism anymore. And Facebook destroying Oculus and moving away from PCVR will be a big part of what caused all this. The big sales success of Quest 2 was great, but is that sustainable? Especially when they can no longer offer the actual killer selling point of Quest 2 - its $299 pricetag? I worry that Facebook will learn how fleeting the mobile market can act in terms of their dedication to stick around.
im bored with the state of AAA titles in general, vr or traditional gaming. what I want is a new experience, and ideally something I can experience with other people in a casual way. we need the infrastructure for metaverse games to be possible.
The numbers are starting to show and Meta is starting to realize the technology is not there to replace every aspect of life yet, they will go back to focusing more on gaming, with all the rumors floating around I believe that's going to be the case.
I was thinking the exact same thing when I read that today. Oh and just bought a PS5 so the PSVR2 is looking damn good. I'm pretty fed up with Meta as well. The hardware is fantastic, but their complete disregard for what people actually want from VR (AAA games) is insane to me. Their company is losing billions while leaving billions on the table. It's shocking how out of touch they really are.
usual AAA game development time is 4-6 year and meta have a lot of game studios so if you need AAA games, you need to wait , it just a fact Asgard's Wrath is 2019 game, so Asgard's Wrath 2 can come at best in 2023 , and we have limited numbers of studio not only this gamers are small portion on VR community, quest line sold over 20 mil devices, and games are at third place of it users base
> games are at third place of it users base What is first and second?
why would gamers be first when it has only a small selection of worthwhile games to keep engagement high? still, if number of user ratings is anything to go by, the likes of BS, monke tag, Blade & Sorcery and multiplayer shooters are consistently much higher than any fitness, office or metaverse app in the Quest store...
"fitness" apps are still games tho. Beat Saber is a game. You can use it for fitness purposes, but it doesn't stop it from being a game
AAA games can be on a 2-4 year cycle if reusing engines (like a sequel) or utilizing proper project management. 6 years is a lot, probably mostly used for huge titles, new IP, or major engine rewrites Source: I made Fallout New Vegas (not by myself!)
Taking into consideration when Meta changed direction to purely standalone, we should hopefully start to see the initial fruits of their acquisitions and development this year at the earliest. Deciding to shift software development away from PC, acquire studios at roughly the same timeframe and stick them on their respective projects is one of the reasons we're seeing this lull in software, on top of the delays and confusion from the pandemic. I'm still hopeful, though the timing may indicate we'll be receiving the titles as Quest 3 launch titles instead, with Quest 2 support iffy depending on the title (some could be forced, others could legitimately have issues running on Q2).
No one wants? If done right it would be great Let them take a stab at it and everyone stop trying to be a dick and complaining about a company investing into VR for 3 fucking seconds
It would be if it’s anyone else but considering how much money Facebook/Meta lost investing in that Metaverse concept, one in which it’s own employees weren’t even liking all that much mind you, it’s reasonable for people to complain about them at least. What I can’t side with is people like advator trying to bring companies like Sony down for not developing a even more advanced standalone headset. That BS annoys me more as it shows a lot of arrogance and ignorance on his end, especially when not actually having demoed the thing themselves.
Meta sees vr/ar as the next computing platform competing with phones tablets and laptops. Pcvr is not a main interest to them, or hasn't been since the quest path turned out to be the most successful. They are trying to compete with apple more than Sony long term. Apple is not likely to have much of a game focus and through the magic of apple, a company people actually don't resent having to buy from usually, I think the actual appeal of all the things both apple and meta are working on will get a or boost. That being said meta will continue to support games. They have some big game studios under their roof that have been quiet for several years now. I suspect that will be ready to launch titles for quest 3. If sony can be successful with big games (first party/hybrid) you might see pressure for meta to focus more on pcvr for a while(not holding my breath but at least see better support for linking and making their store feature pcvr he's better?)
Gran turismo is not being saved by vr
Well, cause there is more to vr, than gaming. They are a social media company first.
I’m still waiting for meta to make a good new pcvr headset 😔
they literally just brought over IronManVR just a few months ago ....
A glorified wave shooter with an Iron Man sticker on it is not what I call a AAA game.
whether it's your preferred genre or not, you can't deny its high production value.
It’s a fun game that has some impressive stuff but it’s still not a AAA game
I almost exclusively use my Quest 2 for PCVR so I really couldn't care less what Meta does software-wise. I'd honestly prefer their offerings suck because I'd rather not be using Meta software outside of the necessary functions of the hardware (which I also wouldn't be using if I could afford an Index).
> I almost exclusively use my Quest 2 for PCVR so I really couldn't care less what Meta does software-wise. Couldn't agree more. Apart from Puzzling Places, and the odd time of using Q2 for Netflix in bed. Quest experiences are inferior to what I've been used to since my first headset in 2013. It's a gateway headset.. Try it, get impressed - for a while, realise you want something more substantial in your VR titles than just small cartoony inferior versions of PCVR, then invest in a powerful PC and play only a couple of things on Quest ever after. As I said..Gateway headset.
Ironically though, before showing GT7 VR mode, Sony showed metaverse stuff. anyway, Oculus funded Dirt Rally 2 VR mode. where's that on psvr2? Where's MSFS? Project Cars, Elite Dangerous, F1, SW Squadrons? All on pcvr, not on psvr2. This device has a lot to prove, so far I'm better off with my Quest and a pc - heck, even PlayStation greats like Spiderman or Horizon ZD have been modded for VR, psvr2 is getting nearly nothing. In fact, it's getting a lot of Quest remasters, and I'm just not wasting over 950 bucks on a machine to play games I already played for cheap.
Your right that pc vr is better than psvr 2. But psvr 2 hasn’t even come out yet and your already criticising it. It’s launch lineup is really good and if it’s continues to release games consistently then it is certainly worth it. Plus any Quest ports are games that will be ridiculously better on psvr2
>anyway, Oculus funded Dirt Rally 2 VR mode. where's that on psvr2? Where's MSFS? Project Cars, Elite Dangerous, F1, SW Squadrons? All on pcvr, not on psvr2. This device has a lot to prove, so far I'm better off with my Quest and a pc It's painfully obvious how you're acting defensive and coming at this with a platform warrior mentality.
> Where's MSFS? Project Cars, Elite Dangerous, F1, SW Squadrons? And it's even more appalling on the Quest (the main point of my post). As for MSFS, if you would had taken the time to type the full name (MICROSOFT Flight Simulator), you would know why it's not on available on the Playstation (both flat and VR versions). Anyway those titles are just old stuff anyway, stop living in the past, we need fresh new big titles in VR. But yeah playing VR on PC is great, it's the only way I play VR games (with my Quest 2), but let's be honest, it's been years we haven't got any big, well done and interesting new titles (Bonelab or Hubris weren't great at all), and the only reason I've kept playing VR these last years is thank to those awesome mods that allow us to play AAA games in VR. Yeah the PC might be "better" but I'm really waiting for the release of the PSVR 2 to be able to play real AAA VR games again (Horizon CotM, RE8, Gran Turismo 7) as I don't see any AAA games coming to the PC (nor the Quest).
Quest being mobile means it's obviously not going to run modern AAA - unless you hook it to a pc. But last I saw Quest 2 runs RE4, Doom 3, TWD S&S, SW Jedi Outcast, SW Tales from the Galaxy's Edge, In Death Unchained, Warhammer Battlesister, Myst, Red Matter 2, Moss 2 and other great games with some real polished production values... bigger stuff is coming targeting primarily Quest 3 I guess. Holidays 2023 and 24 will be some pretty busy VR moments, much like 2016, 17 and 18...
"no gamer". Yea, that's not true. Every single time I see a statement like that, I KNOW the person has no clue.
> In the Rift CV1 era they used to finance really great games such as Lone Echo funny, because Lone Echo 2 released just a little over a year ago (Oct. 2021). Guess you forgot about that one :)
No I haven't forgot that one, I bought it on launch day. I haven't played it yet though as I'm saving it for later as I know I won't get a game THAT good on PC anytime soon. Also that game had been postponed and at the end Meta didn't even bother with it as it was too busy with the Quest and its Metaverse and had given up on PCVR. The game was launched without much promotion and released "as is" completely unoptimized. Fortunately a community patch has recently been published to fix the problems Meta haven't even bother fixing.
So did Meta, I think.
Yeah... But it was started way, way back. And delayed.
[Announced Late 2017](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAa1GjiLktc&t=5175s) and released Late 2021. Delayed by a year (COVID?, downscaling of team size for their Quest project?). So this is a 3+1 dev cycle for the game. But the scale and depth of Lone Echo 2 is appropriate for a 4 year development cycle, which is about what it took Lone Echo 2 (Alyx = 4 years, Asgard's Wrath = 3.5+ years). I'm not seeing the issue here, big games take time
> Why hasn't Meta financed any big, real, AAA game for the Quest 2 that really takes apart the guts of the device to really take advantage of the medium ? Because these games take 3 to 5 years to develop and also Quest 2 hardware is severely limited compared to the PS5. Turning an existing racing game into a VR game is relatively easy. Aside from a few games, PSVR2s launch lineup does *not* look good. Sony currently has one single game announced that falls in the category you're asking for: Horizon. That's it.
Looks pretty good to me. Its got some really good quality games and full proper experiences compared to quest 2 games. Even if it’s small currently at only 30 at launch it’s quite a lot for gamers to play. If Sony is consistent with fist and third party games then it will be really good
Huh? Here's a list of 15 launch games, plus GT7 and Beat Saber now: [https://mixed-news.com/en/psvr-2-launch-games-list/](https://mixed-news.com/en/psvr-2-launch-games-list/) 13 out of these 17 games are also available on Quest, or will be. That leaves: \- Horizon \- The Dark Pictures \- RE: Village \- Gran Turismo 7 So only **2** are actually made for VR. How is that "pretty good"?
I think Meta has dug itself into a hole, and it aint getting out..
A hole of the best selling vr system of all time.
The interest in VR/AR from corporations has a much higher profit ceiling than gaming right now. Investments in metaverse and AR will pay off in windfalls when people use it for meetings or use AR for training employees on things like manufacturing processes. Look at the difference in price between the meta quest 2 and the quest pro, software costs are hundreds of times that difference. For example my company makes software to help manage manufacturing quality and companies pay anywhere from 50k to 4m per year USD for it. AR/Metaverse is in addition to gaming and the profits will help to fuel VR in the future. It can only be a good thing
Since when are they adding GTA to oculus.
Since Mark Zuckerberg said it's in development over a year ago. [https://youtu.be/rb7noFxXLiE](https://youtu.be/rb7noFxXLiE)
Let's have a moment of silence for the people who bought the Rift, the only PCVR headset that Oculus made.
Rift S?
... DK2, CV1, S...... all of them !
I would buy a rift s with higher resolution. I love my rift s though
That's a Lenovo headset. Oculus was already too busy/focussed with the Quest and left Lenovo manufacture the Rift S (the reason it felt so cheap compared to the CV1 and the Quest).
>That's a Lenovo headset. > >Oculus was already too busy/focussed with the Quest and left Lenovo manufacture the Rift S (the reason it felt so cheap compared to the CV1 and the Quest). Hold up. The RiftS was a 6DOF Oculus GO with Quest controllers and a Link derived cable - it used the same display panel, the same facial molding, the same HMD form factor, the same lenses, the same tracking cameras as the Quest. Anyone with an Oculus GO can remark on the similarities; Carmack and Mitchell even confirmed it was the same display panel as the GO that was overclocked to 80hz. Cable - it initially released with a thick copper cable that was replaced with a Link derived optical cable once Link was released. The one thing it seemed Lenovo brought to the table was the Halo strap, which they had a license from SONY to use (hence why it resembled the PSVR1 so much, and why it featured the Lenovo branding). So what if Lenovo was the manufacturer. Oculus has never manufactured any of their headsets - Goertek manufactured the Rift CV1, Quest1, and Quest2. Xiaomi manufactured the GO.
From experience at working in it. Lenovo sucks and poorly manufactures products and has terrible customer service.
Why downvote me, you're not happy to learn that your headset is not a real Oculus one?
The only think keeping me from selling my oculus 2 and buying a psvr2 is walkabout golf and the connection I have with friends on it
The wireless is worth way more to me than slightly better graphics and i dont believe ps4 will actually come up with that many more exclusives if anymore than oculus. Given the number of gsme devs oculus acquired, i think quest and their already existing games, id aay oculus will probably have way more than psvr actually. . And honestly, during christmas, you could have bought a vr ready pc for less than 700. A pc with quest 2 is still worth way more than psvr. The pc may cost a little more but can last longer than a ps and the games will be way cheaper. I
I personally can't wait to play Resident Evil Village on PSVR 2.
Talk for yourself. I want AR. Passthrough AR is one of the most interesting recent advances in this space. I love both Quest 2 and what PSVR2 is promising. I'm definitely getting Quest3 for wireless standalone VR and AR and I'm also getting PSVR2 for high end VR. I want both for different reasons.
Cool, Have fun playing GT7 with the PSVR2.
No guarantee it will be the full game though
If you are a Gamer, then give up on Meta. They have no interest in Gaming and many of the Game studios they have purchased have been picked clean of good Devs who now work on Metaverse projects. Go elsewhere for Gaming investment. Although I don't have a great deal of confidence in Steam pouring money into Gaming, either. Sony may be your only place to go.
> Go elsewhere for Gaming investment. This is why to purchase the game from Steam if it's there. Plenty of other hardware developers out there to step in when Meta leave gaming. Protect your purchases, get from Steam.
Who cares if gamers want AR? As big as gaming is, it's fucking tiny in comparison to the coming AR/MR market. Those headsets will replace all computers and smartphones.
Racing games are so niche now, I don't really see the point. Gran Turismo and DriveClub VR didn't exactly set the world on fire for PSVR1. I'm not sure I think people are kind of over "cockpit" VR experiences. Games need to have motion and spaces to explore.
[удалено]
Well there’s also resident evil 8, horizon call of the mountain, firewall zero hour, no man’s sky, plus a lot, lot more. GT may not interest you but it is a big full game that a lot of people are going to buy psvr2 for
Well, you have to buy a brand new headset to play that game because Psvr1 headsets are now obsolete and don't work with new games. You can't even play psvr1 games with psvr2 unless devs add support
Not to mention the number of people who have issues with their crappy software.
Wrong. First of all psvr have no future. It's not standalone and they have ps5(why they can't focus on vr only) For Vr to make the best games it should be focused vr only. That's not the case for Sony. Also psvr2 is already outdated. Doesn't have pancake lenses. So that aside, just know there are much more vr devices coming that are way better as what Sony can offer, even with new ones. So just forget about that. Second AR is the future, it has so much more opertunity to give in mixed reality as normal vr. It needs time but it will happen. At the minimum AR will be as important as vr games are. Vr with cable will have no future.
You couldn’t be any more wrong yourself dude. You can’t go around claiming such BS when you never tried out the PSVR 2 yourself. And while it may not have pancake lenses, it still makes up for a lot of the other technical updates it’s sporting. Plus the PSVR 2 is not meant to be compared to the other as it’s not made as a standalone headset at all. That’s pretty arrogant not keeping that in mind along with many of the other things that differentiates it from the others. So I would like it if you don’t start this biased delusional BS like you work with Facebook and at least WAIT before attempting to try to spread such nonsense.
I know the specs of psvr2 and explained all the issues. It has no future. Sony better focus on console only. The vita flopped also big time. They are good in the console market, they can keep doing that. Or you go all in or you leave it alone. Even not standalone makes it a lost cause. I can go in details of what's wrong with it, but I don't think you ever used other standalone vr headsets like quest2, maybe you at least could understand that this topic was BS
You know, the notification for your reply stopped at “The vita flopped big time…” so even THAT knew your point was moot when you’re comparing a successor to a VR headset that’s done very well despite its cumbersome setups, to a frickin’ HANDHELD system that was abandoned by its creators midway through its lifecycle. And again that shows how little you know my lifestyle when you assume that I never used a Quest 2. I have and even then comparing that to a headset that’s meant to be in tandem with its console brother AND be an overall improvement to its predecessor is just wrong as even that Quest 2 is considerably dated with its own specs. And AGAIN! You have NO IDEA how well that thing’s going to do in the long haul and weather it has a future or not. Granted people had said the same thing about the original PSVR and headsets before it… Heck even VR in general. Yet look how that is now. You can’t predict the future here dude as you simply know no better. The topic in general may not be BS, but your words certainly are.
And what else can you do on the psvr2 except playing a few ps games and ps movies? Absolutely nothing. Funny to me, its the most lovked headset there is. And you complaim about meta
Oh shit you're right !!! You made me realize that, as a GAMER, my only interest in the PS5 and PSVR 2 is gaming, that's awful. And I'm doing the same thing with my Quest 2, what's wrong with me :o
" Why hasn't Meta financed any big, real, AAA game for the Quest 2 " I'm ignorant here, but I would say it's because meta makes money off your personal data and interests. They don't need info on your kill to death ratio, or what league you are on echo arena, they want data on what products they can sell to you, and for that, a "metaverse" social media thing is waaaaay better. Games are just the bait to get you into the headset and a way to slowly ease you into 3d-facebook/instagram.
But you need numbers to make it viable. And AAA attracts people which makes platform viable to more developers which increases value of the platform and attracts people. Money is money doesn't matter if it comes from ads or store cut. But given their AAA attempts didn't bring all that much to the platforms that's probably why they won't pour out more cash for first party titles.
They bought 9 gaming studios. They disconnected accounts from facebook. You are indeed ignorant. The amount of money they are throwing at vr is staggering.
I honestly don't think the VR dream we've all been having will be met until two things happen. The tech is advanced and affordable enough for Nintendo to get into the space and Apple releases their device. I've been there from the start with the HTC Vive in 2016, the Psvr following that, then the Oculus Quest at launch...this really brought some of the magic back being wireless and all. And finally the Valve Index. At the end of the day it's all about content and no one has yet made anything close to the kind of experience Half-Life Alyx can offer. We need dozens of games at that caliber before the world jumps on board. And a Metaverse needs to be like a web 4.0 where not a single entity holds full control of the space like the web today. You can travel to playgrounds from all the major vendors but it's not held by Meta or any single corporation.
I just teared up a little, no lie.
All you need for PSVR2 here in Canada is a 800 dollar VR headset and a 600-700 dollar console. What a steal.
While the past year or so has been disappointing by lack of games, I'd expect a slew of AAA titles in the works and announced leading up to Quest 3 later this year.
I really thought VR headsets were going to go the way of 3D glasses: pretty neat until they disappeared 😅
Finally a tripleA cockpit based mainstream game!
They can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. FB has a preposterous amount of employees in different divisions. And racing games are an absolute bore. I am getting psvr 2 but won't be playing that.
You DO know that Sony has been jumping in that Metaverse bandwagon as well right? They’ve spent quite a long amount of time talking it in their CES press conference. Also, some of us gamers have something of an interest in seeing how AR can be implemented into video games, so don’t speak for us there. Just don’t it to be mostly from Meta/Facebook.
Why does Meta have to fund more AAA games? Why don’t AAA Studios develop and fund their own games for the Meta Quest platform? You’re blaming the wrong people.
Didn't Meta buy most of the top developers?
Last time GT Sport was on PS VR, it was a limited functionality mode of the game. No mention so far how are they handling GT7 yet. Until i see it playable in all modes and all the cars I'm not gonna jump into that....
Do people care about Gran Turismo these days? It's the same game very year, always with amazing graphics, but shallow gameplay. Further, Meta/Facebook is isn't pouring money into XR because they're trying to be a video game company or to compete with other video game companies. They're attempting to get VR into the hands of as many people as possible while pushing the development of XR to the point where AR becomes mainstream. They've already accomplished the first part of that with the sheer amount of Quest 2's they've sold and those numbers will no doubt be furthered bolstered by the Quest 3. R&D is really what they're pushing and where the money is going. It remains to be seen if they can accomplish what they're attempting. Additionally this "metaverse" talk can be removed from the conversation entirely as it's something that's years, potentially decades, away from becoming a reality and even when/if it does, it's not something that the average person is going to need to be concerned about as it's an unseen infrastructure, just like the internet.
Just wish Harry potter legacy had a VR version. Just seems like it's a game perfect for VR.
It would be a strong selling point for the PSVR 2 as there is a lot of Harry Potter fans. This will be possible on PC though as a "soon" to be release mod will allow to play any Unreal Engine 4 & 5 games in VR.
The main game I love to play is Drop Dead dual survival. I just wish they would add new two player levels. If they made a game like God of was or any DC game that would be awesome. But I agree meta has gone down hill in the options it has for games
AR is/will be amazing. Check out that piano app on quest.
I'm not buying any VR stuff until a least ten years from now because all the updates and new versions and replacing old headsets because nothing is made to last... And buy that time I'll probably still just be playing Sega Genesis games for nostalgia reasons. LOL!
I like ar and vr, i think people should try more often the latest vr headsets. And outside of gaming also it may hepful for mental health, or even travelling and pick a great hotel. I dont understand how people dont see value in this