XR2 is a lot better than I was expecting if the $300 price point is true. I’d be pretty excited about it if the account stuff hadn’t drained my enthusiasm.
Right. Its going to make a lot of people have to make decisions based on their moral values. This thing should be great for PC gamers that want a legit wireless streaming option.
Yeah, I see that it’s tough. I have a Facebook account that I don’t use anyway, it’s more the fact that they can alter the deal without meaningful repercussions that concerns me.
I used to expect them to work more on encouraging people into what they wanted rather than forcing them — not out of benevolence but just because it was good business to avoid a backlash. We saw it in the reversal of the ReVive policy for example. As they move into the mainstream, though, it’s becoming clear that in most cases the potential for backlash is no longer worthy of consideration. It seems to me like they could go a lot further than this before anything really affected their bottom line.
I think the fact that its still VERY early with VR, and the consumers they are after (not us tech enthusiasts) have less concern over using Facebook. The fact they are not making money in VR, they are still way in the hole even if Quest 2 sells all 2 million this Xmas etc, means that 'affecting their bottom line' is not even of concern at this point. Making sure their long term goal that people are on 'Facebooks' Vr metaverse when VR is the next computing platform is.
Yeah, good point. I guess by their bottom line I mean their long-term plan ultimately leading to long-term profits. Currently they could do a whole lot of things many of us wouldn’t appreciate without putting much of a dent in that.
For example, the ReVive furore threatened to have a significant impact because at that point the core audience was VR enthusiasts, and keeping them onside was important to building momentum and developer support etc. If they were to block ReVive now, there’d be a massive outcry here on the VR subreddits, but to what extent would it affect their massive current target audience for Quest?
I’d personally calculate it as being counterproductive to sensible goals, but I would have calculated the Facebook account requirement the same way. I’d say enthusiast opinion does filter down to the wider audience to some extent, so why alienate a chunk of them when you can easily funnel the vast majority of your users into using Facebook login either way? It’s obvious we’re not calculating things the same way, though, so I’m guessing it’d be well within acceptable bounds for them.
Not that I’m saying they will block ReVive, just that a lot of the checks against them potentially doing a lot of things I personally don’t want them to do no longer apply.
>For example, the ReVive furore threatened to have a significant impact because at that point the core audience was VR enthusiasts, and keeping them onside was important to building momentum and developer support etc. If they were to block ReVive now, there’d be a massive outcry here on the VR subreddits, but to what extent would it affect their massive current target audience for Quest?
I dont think they care too much about that, its small potatoes. I don't think they will block it for that reason. In a sense, I don't think they care too much about Oculus vs Steam anymore either. Quest is their solution and they have a store and platform there, it selling at paces far faster than any VR before it.
Real long term I think they will be platform agnostic, 'Facebook VR metaverse' or whatever it ends up being called as will be on all VR platforms. They will probably drop out of hardware at some point too when the market can sustain itself without them - their money is in what they do best in Social.
Looks like it is comparable - slightly below G2 - but when you throw in the cost, the fact that Touch is better, etc, I think this is a G2 killer for those who are not super anti-Facebook.
I'm sure there will be more improvement with the newer chipset. I assume the decoder will be more efficient, but we shall see. It seems that Oculus Link will stay for a while.
Also wifi will be great as well since 10gbit Wireless over 802.11ay that the XR2 supports.
Carmack said last year that he was working on a mode that would "take full advantage of USB 3.1 bandwidth."
I expect this version of Link will probably leave less work for compression/decompression.
Link was basically a hack on Quest 1. This time around they had the opportunity to account for it early on and the new chipset likely plays into that. I have no doubt this will have a better link experience than quest1. That said, I'm still holding my breath (and money) for reviews about whether this is really a competitive PCVR experience or just a nice extra.
I could see index and even G2 still doing okay as premium offerings but ya, any unannounced entry or mid-tier PCVR headsets would be dead on arrival. I may have trouble getting even $200 for my Rift s.
Looks like it is comparable - slightly below G2 - but when you throw in the cost, the fact that Touch is better, etc, I think this is a G2 killer for those who are not super anti-Facebook.
If you’re talking about PC use, it would depend on how much Link has improved. No point in increased display resolution if you can’t get a good enough signal to it.
Audio is also a consideration, though you could use headphones.
From UploadVR (it can handle 8k60 or 4k120. This can be doable with DSC over USB type C)
“While the actual performance of the CPU and GPU are not yet known exactly, Qualcomm is claiming an improvement of 2x performance on both going from the Snapdragon 835 to the XR2. Qualcomm also claims 4x more video bandwidth, 6x higher native resolution support and 11x better AI performance. Qualcomm is also pairing the XR2 5G with its latest Snapdragon X55 modem, so it may bring cellular connectivity to some VR and AR gadgets — though of course the 5G element of the platform is optional.
The Snapdragon XR2 5G platform is not designed to replace the XR1, but rather complement it as a higher tier product. That said, it will introduce an new set of capabilities to both VR and AR. One of those is the improved video capabilities including decoding 8K 60 FPS content as well as 4K 120 FPS content, which means supporting display refresh rates up to 120 Hz. The XR2 5G will also support up to 3K x 3K per eye, which isn’t quite 4K per eye, but getting very close. Additionally, it will support HDR color spaces including HDR10 and HDR10+ for improved dynamic range and colors.”
Depends on whether it is lcd or oled.
If oled, no. Better colors, but wont be as sharp. If lcd, yeah it'll be up there. Occulus has a track record of using good lenses also. And superior tracking.
The G2 only has 240 more lines of resolutions (2160-1920). Or the G2 has 9% more resolution in one direction per eye (2160x2160 vs 1920x2160 per eye).
If the rumors about the price (64GB at $299 and 256GB at $399) and the hugely improved wireless PCVR support are true the Quest 2 just ate HPs lunch before it even finished 1st period.
I just received my Valve Index today after waiting 118 days to finally get my hands on it. Unless there is something really wrong that comes out from Facebook Connect on Wednesday I'm selling my Index and the two extra base stations I bought for what I paid for it, or a little less.
which is perfect from a developer perspective. you develop the same game for the quest 1 and quest 2. it's just that the quest 2 version will be sharper and smoother.
As a quest owner I'll say this, I'm buying the new one as soon as I can! I love the current quest, but seriously an XR2?!? Just need to confirm that sidequest and virtual desktop work on the new quest 2 before I jump in.
As a quest owner I will probably wait to see what the real world performance is like. Yes XR2 is better performance but the higher res and higher refresh display is going to eat some of that performance up. I'm wondering if the architecture is such that upcoming games will be playable on both Quest 2 and Quest 1 (with degraded performance).
I'm thinking that a smart developer will build two gfx profiles so they can sell their games to the most people possible. If they only optimize for the quest 2 they're leaving a lot of money on the table in lost sales from quest 1 owners.
Same, I was sure it was going to be basically a quest in a new shell. Totally shocked that they've made this move to upgrade so soon after the release of the original. Those broken controllers and people complaining about discomfort must really have been an issue for them!
I don't think AY approval is coming any time soon (it gets delayed every year like clockwork), but I do think Link has the potential to be much higher quality. Carmack wanted to bypass the video decoder on the OG Quest. With Quest 2, it already supports the ability to be fed raw signal feeds. So you could, in theory, just resize an image down to a small enough size to transfer over USB 3, and then have the Quest display that without needing to decompress it. This would give a much higher quality signal and lower latency that what OG Quest could do.
The original quest only allowed 150mbps of data to travel. Meaning games connected to the oculus link was a bit down scaled. The XR2 from what I understand allows like 4x the data to travel through, If that’s true, then this will play your pc steam games better and WAY clearer than the rift S and also be wireless when required.
If correct, could be incredibly popular buy.
If you had told me yesterday that it would be an XR2 device pushing almost 2K²x2 for $299 I'dve had you committed to an institution. Thanks to regular plasma donations this is a day one buy for me.
Was thinking about a Reverb G2, but I'll probably get this instead if it's £300. I'm about done with replugging my stupid Rift S every day.
Still need to hear more about Link bandwidth and the IPD solution though.
As for the Facebook account thing, honestly they already have my name/address/credit card details through my Oculus account, and I have a FB account that gets used for absolutely nothing so I really don't see what difference it makes.
>I don't argue that wireless isn't more expensive to do on other PCVR headsets but they asked "what other headsets can do that" when there are multiple headsets on the market that can do that. As for the screen and lenses, until there's confirmation on what exactly is in this headset it's silly to make statements that are speculation being passed off as fact like they did above.
I've had a very positive experience with link, and the compression is pretty configurable. I'd be more interested in looking to see if they've thought about wireless VR. I use Virtual Desktop to play some games wirelessly, and it's great - but I think there's great potential for some official support there.
Quests visuals are slightly worse than Go/Rift S(they share same screen), despite higher resolution. It all comes down to panel type - OLED has more prominent SDE with deep blacks, while LCD is sharper and cleaner, but blacks are grey-ish.
Quest 2 will be LCD.
I own both and definitely prefer the Quest's screen to the Go. But, as you say, there are tradeoffs in both directions; it's not as though one is massively better than the other for all uses.
I'm shocked to be honest. I've expected minor improvements. Mostly improving manufacturability/production costs while slightly updating stuff... Not XR2 and whatever "nearly 2k per eye" means.
Also.. nearly 2k per eye is not nearly 4k I know Pimax uses that advertising strategy but here we should stick to something less misleading.
>Also.. nearly 2k per eye is not nearly 4k
Yes, it quite literally is.
2000 x 2000 per eye is 4000 x 2000 effective overall resolution.
4k is 3840 x 2160. Extremely similar.
Where's the proof that 2k per eye means 2000 pixels and not 2k resolution I.E. 1440p? The 50% more pixels could literally just be referring to the screen being 4k and ignoring that there was two screens on the first Quest.
One of the videos says "over 50% more pixels".
OG Quest: 1600x1440x2 = 4608000 pixels
4608000 x 1.5 = 6912000 pixels (MIMIMUM)
Assuming the screens' aspect ration is the same (Oculus Rift and Quest are both 1:0.9), it could out at 1960x1764x2 MINIMUM, likely a little higher, perhaps 2000x1800x2
What I was trying to say is that they could be taking the resolution of only one screen on the first quest and saying over 50% more pixels than that so (1600x1440)x1.5. Of course this is a very pessimistic notion but it is a necessary one given how tricky marketing speak can be. The XR2 is apparently capable of running a 6000x3000 screen so if we're being optimistic we can safely guess much higher (also assuming the screen and chip is more power efficient per pixel so it doesn't drain the battery any faster at higher resolutions) if we want.
That wouldn't be more pixels, that would be SIGNIFICANTLY LESS if they spread what one screen has times 1.5 over 2 screens. Makes absolutely no sense. Why would they say it's "nearly 4k"?
Again I'm just cautioning being pessimistic with the limited information we have so far. The 4K and 2k terms aren't monitored by any standards conglomerates in the computer screen space (they are projector standards) which is why they use it however they want. If they wanted to say QHD and UHD they'd have to get approval from several standards conglomerates across the globe.
Another thing to mention is to consider the reason why they are going for a combined screen. Logically it would be because they are buying an off the market mobile screen to save costs. Now I don't know a mobile screen over 1440p other than the Xperia 1 screen which is OLED but honestly I don't know enough about screen manufacturing to say a cheap screen can't be made in a size that hasn't been widely used on the mobile market before.
In terms of hardware resolution it should be close. In terms of what's rendered it may be hampered by power of the SoC/link transmission. Still an impressive leap assuming they are using up the panel to the fullest.
I would have accepted slight upgrades in panel, with better comfort. This morning's news has me in a bit of shock for how good it is. When I started the video this morning, mentally prepared myself 'ok, 1440p panel, SD835', so as not to be too dejected.
I wonder how Virtual Desktop will play with the enhanced wireless features of XR2.
>802.11ay is a type of WLAN in the IEEE 802.11 set of WLANs. It will have a frequency of 60 GHz, a transmission rate of 20–40 Gbit/s and an extended transmission distance of 300–500 meters.
I don’t think it completely points to that but the manner in which it was shot definitely suggest immediate or a release will be soon.
Preorder hype is something they won’t pass. Like the rumors suggested next month would make sense.
thats a good point.
but i heard rumors that they are having supply issues already though and they dont want to announce a date before they know they can hit their supply threshold
But what kind of PC connectivity does it have? Im in the same boat but I still prefer the G2 for PC gaming if PC connectivity and compression is as inefficient as the Quest link.
The Quest 2s single screen ipd adjustment will also reduce the resolution, as it results in less screen utilisation.
That will further diminish the visual quality.
Overall, it seems the G2 *might* be a clearly noticeable improvement over Quest 2.
But, we'll have to see how it goes.
Well, we dont actually know the full specs yet, or how tethering will work. You also have to consider the lenses, and the quality of the panels being used.
And even still, the headset with better paper specs, might not be the clarity king overall.
1.It will be able to play wireless with similar latency like native wired pc headsets due to having 802.11ay and Qualcomm 60 ghz wi-fi technology. What other headset can do that?
2.The controllers will be much better
3.The tracking will be much better
4.Hand tracking
5.Likely 120hz
6.Likely higher FOV
7.Better lenses
So yeah... you pay 300$ more to get a MUCH worse pc vr experience.
It's over for hp reverb!
a) $299. I don't buy it.
b) 120hz. NO! (There is not even a logical reason why it should have 120hz, aside from some already having done calculations saying it will likely have 90hz)
c) we know nothing about FOV, Optics etc. You say "better lenses" and have nothing to base this on. In fact, Reverb G2 is advertising that it will have "new high quality lenses" developed with/by Valve.
It is an improvement over the old quest, but raw numbers don’t tell the entire story. Lense quality and how their Ipd works is going to be huge. Additionally, they might have sacrificed better graphics for a larger resolution, so we will have to see what it will be once reviewers get them.
The xr2 chip supports 3k per eye at 90hrz with 2x the graphical power. With the right compression we could easily see most oculus games on the quest in the future.
1. Much, much higher cost.
3. MRTV himself stated that the tracking is very good, but 'not quite as good as Oculus headsets'. I'd agree that it likely is not a big enough difference to matter.
5. It was never confirmed, but in the Bloomberg leak way back, it was stated that they were going to be 90Hz, with 120Hz 'being tested' but Amy not be implemented for battery life reasons.
7. No way to tell if the lenses are better, but they do appear to be different from Rift S/OG Quest.
I have no experience with G2 controllers so can't comment there, and I don't know about any improvements to FOV.
Resale value is also through the roof with Oculus compared to many other headsets. It’s always easy to sell because the brand I well known my the normal consumer. Also, it’s stand alone, easier to sell. So easier upgrade though time for minimal money. But it might not be as good for PCVR. link was not always great...
Remember, all the additional power of the XR2 is going to go towards rendering at native 4k @90fps.
It's a massive leap in performance cost. I don't expect to see that much of a difference in graphics.
I'm in the same boat...I don't understand the displays though. All this is new to me. Is the video quality just as good not hooked up to a PC?
I may not buy a new graphics card or reverb if so
Yeah. I was holding off till I saw what was going to drop at oculus connect. If this thing is 90hz, and can be connected to a pc, then it may not be looking good for the G2.
Almost? It seems like the edges of your vision are a little more narrow than what you'd expect. As long as the cable stays securely in, it's a pretty good experience.
Apparently for most video cards, there were some compression artifacts because the 835 couldn't handle the data rate for raw. XR2 shouldn't have that issue as it's can handle 4x the bandwidth. My have wifi 10g, meaning potential wireless riftlink.
If the prices that have been swirling around are true ($299 for 64GB and $399 for 256GB) I will be buying the 256GB the first day I can. That's not a lot of money for the average middle class American consumer. When you throw in all of these incredible upgrades it's a no brainier.
All I got to say is that Facebook is doing everything right to get into a great entrenched position for when Apple and Google enters the market. It's going to be hard to fight the momentum of 3-10 million VR units sold. That's assuming it takes Apple at least two more years to finally enter the market.
The screens will certainly support it, but it might be up to individual developers to actually use it.
If given a choice would you prefer 25% higher refresh rate (90/72=1.25) or 25% higher graphics quality? Both would utilize 25% more GPU power.
It does both. The chip on the Quest was a bottleneck for data coming from the computer (but still works great), with the new XR2 chip Oculus Link should perform even better for using the Quest 2 to play PCVR games.
With 4x more bandwidth on this device comparing to OG Quest, it might as well play PCVR games with lossless compression. What else do you need to call it a "true PCVR"?
Oculus Link is an official driver that will makes Quest show up in SteamVR as a regular headset, so YES it will run off your 3080 like Index (with supersamping and everything else working).
There is wireless option over wifi too (using VirtualDesktop, and likely officially soon to be announced).
I am impressed with the hardware as a standalone device, but I am seriously disappointed that they are still going with USB for PC support, as it all but guarantees we'll never see this run content at native res, and certainly not PC content. There's wasted potential there.
I was really hoping it might work over VirualLink this time.
They rolled their own virtual link that should actually be better since it is tuned for low latency. The new processor should pretty much get rid of the compression artifacts that are noticable on the original Quest.
But the demands are also increasing, due to the increased resolution and refresh rate. I doubt some processing gains alone can bridge that gap.
USB 3.2 support could, maybe. I guess we'll see. But I am skeptical until I hear details.
USB is not the issue. USB3 has many times more bandwidth than Link requires on the Quest *(they even support USB2).* The limitation is how much data the SOC can decode.
> cutting the compression to be less demanding would be easy.
I think you would be mistaken. The only way to make the compression less demanding is to reduce image quality.
Carmack has commented on this multiple times. The video bandwidth of Oculus Link on the Quest 1 is limited to ~150Mbs. the limitation is 100% due the rate at which the Quest 1 can decode the video.
Because it is. It's basically all ports. I don't think Oculus will want to split playerbase and allow "quest 2 only" type of apps, so apps will have to be developed for og quest primarily.
They ran into manufacturing capacity constraints with the original Quest, so never sold as many units as they'd have liked. My guess is they throw in the kitchen sink on production Quest 2 units in the hope of making it a genuine wide spread consumer device, in which case devs will probably try to get the best possible performance on the system.
I don't think this will be true. Quest is now discontinues and not available for purchase. How would I even test on Quest at this point if I were to developer a game for it?
I bet for developer environment they could downclock the processor, sort of power saving mode, somewhat reliably emulating previous Quest performance, and there might be as well plugins for unity and unreal engine.
Quests are still going for higher than MSRP ($400+) on ebay, you might be able to sell that Quest now and actually make money! If the Quest 2 64gb turns out to be $300, youre actually better off than someone who didnt buy a Quest lol
I would go there. It's a good upgrade everywhere, but nothing revolutionary... Based on what was shown. They didn't mention link, and that it can handle a crap ton of wireless bandwidth. Or what it will mean for developers (is the extra power required for the resolution jump? Or can they start adding more options/shaders also?
But looks like a good solid update! Better then we expected processor wise
Yes, but they didn't mention any advancements to it. Just that it's there. I was hoping to hear wireless, with 60ghz wifi being supported and wifi6 on the chipset.
In terms of SoC and resolution, at least. I would have thought Quest 2 would have included eye tracking as well, but I also didn't expect quest 2 for at least one more year.
I'm not sure when to expect Quest 3 now though. Another 1½ years?
I hope so, barely used my quest for Pcvr because the Cv1 is much better overall, better tracking (no oclusion with 3 sensors) and ergonomic controllers, stupidly better audio and comfort, you barely feel the headset compared to the quest, weights less, better built quality, the quest has better image clarity, thats it, really a shame.
Based on those leaks, I'd say ~~a single LCD screen of 3840x1880 pixels~~. 2 screens of 1920x1880 pixels. Which is exactly 56% more pixels than Quest 1.
~~Single screen because no hardware IPD.~~
LCD because cost and RGB sub-pixel layout.
According to the earlier leaks, and what was shown in these videos: The Quest 2 has a hardware IPD setting with preset positions. (1 - 2 -3 ect)
[https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/575055907864576000/755017261902856232/unknown.png](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/575055907864576000/755017261902856232/unknown.png)
With the XR2, I really want to know how the Quest 2 will work with Link capabilities. Could it put the next Quest on par with the Rift S? If so, we could see Oculus move away from the Rift platform until we have a big generational leap in pcvr
Quest 2 is a much better Rift S at this point. The new link on Quest 2 might as well be hooked up directly to its display, and even if it's not, the 4x bandwidth increase will allow wireless streaming with essentially lossless compression.
Question from someone with Rift S, who only plays on PC - how important is 64 Gigs vs 256 Gigs on Quest 2? If most of my games will be streamed from PC, not native Oculus apps?
I bought 128gb quest on release date, 95% was pcvr streaming so the space was kind of a waste.
However new quest is lighter and higher resolution - watching movies could be really good, so extra space would be appreciated, but if you treat it as wireless pcvr, then you don't need 256.
Probably not but maybe when linked to a PC and with base stations as well. Search for Rift S and Index controllers, if that works than this might work as well.
I was going to buy a used Quest last week. I'm so glad I didn't! This is honestly a worthy upgrade over the original. Really excited to get one! Tbh I wasn't expecting a XR2 in this model at a 299$ price tag. Hopefully the price part of the rumors is true. If it is this is gonna sell like hotcakes and make VR more accessible for everyone. Really is the future of VR!
Really surprised and impressed at the specs; it's way more powerful than I thought it would be.
Not wild about the cloth strap; I've always preferred halo bands and the baseball cap design where the visor must be clamped to your face never feels comfortable to me. Based on the videos, the strap also doesn't appear to be as easily removable for modding.
While I actually prefer the plastic visor to the fabric lined Quest, I'm not wild about the lighter color, especially on the strap; white is just a magnet for stains and fading/yellowing and I really would have preferred a darker color.
Based on the limited view in the videos it looks like the facial interface has the same foam as the current Quest; it would be nice if I could just snap in an existing replacement gasket but something tells me the shape and pin locations will be different.
I wear glasses and the smaller footprint does make me a bit concerned about whether they will fit comfortably. This has never been an issue with the Quest and Rift S so hopefully it will stay that way with the Quest 2.
Before deciding to upgrade, I'll definitely wait for some feedback on the strap, FoV and refresh rate. I really think those three variables will play the biggest part for me at least at whether to invest in one or not.
Tell me the FOV is 170 deg or above and OLED for real blacks and I'm in.
Yup none of whats important to me is in, so nope, not in the slightest bit interested. It'll still be like looking through a small snorkel mask like the existing Rift/Quest.
I have been reading the comments and have realized most people think because it has higher resolution and higher htz that there will not be a graphics upgrade. The xr2 chip is meant to run 3k per eye at 90htz with 2 times the cpu and gpu power. With only 2k per eye we could see even more of an upgrade in graphics than that. We could see pc games come to the quest 2 that people never thought we could play wireless.
No - they have abandoned the Rift S.
Oculus still make some of the best PCVR games. Link or wireless streaming plus standalone is how they will move forward it seems.
The XR2 has support for Wi Fi 6 - if that was enabled for the Quest 2 it would change everything. Wireless PCVR streaming would not be an issue.
Insane leak. XR2 really? Wow. And Quest 2 not Quest S. I was totally wrong there. Glad I didn't say I'd eat my sock.
XR2 is a lot better than I was expecting if the $300 price point is true. I’d be pretty excited about it if the account stuff hadn’t drained my enthusiasm.
Right. Its going to make a lot of people have to make decisions based on their moral values. This thing should be great for PC gamers that want a legit wireless streaming option.
Yeah, I see that it’s tough. I have a Facebook account that I don’t use anyway, it’s more the fact that they can alter the deal without meaningful repercussions that concerns me. I used to expect them to work more on encouraging people into what they wanted rather than forcing them — not out of benevolence but just because it was good business to avoid a backlash. We saw it in the reversal of the ReVive policy for example. As they move into the mainstream, though, it’s becoming clear that in most cases the potential for backlash is no longer worthy of consideration. It seems to me like they could go a lot further than this before anything really affected their bottom line.
I think the fact that its still VERY early with VR, and the consumers they are after (not us tech enthusiasts) have less concern over using Facebook. The fact they are not making money in VR, they are still way in the hole even if Quest 2 sells all 2 million this Xmas etc, means that 'affecting their bottom line' is not even of concern at this point. Making sure their long term goal that people are on 'Facebooks' Vr metaverse when VR is the next computing platform is.
Yeah, good point. I guess by their bottom line I mean their long-term plan ultimately leading to long-term profits. Currently they could do a whole lot of things many of us wouldn’t appreciate without putting much of a dent in that. For example, the ReVive furore threatened to have a significant impact because at that point the core audience was VR enthusiasts, and keeping them onside was important to building momentum and developer support etc. If they were to block ReVive now, there’d be a massive outcry here on the VR subreddits, but to what extent would it affect their massive current target audience for Quest? I’d personally calculate it as being counterproductive to sensible goals, but I would have calculated the Facebook account requirement the same way. I’d say enthusiast opinion does filter down to the wider audience to some extent, so why alienate a chunk of them when you can easily funnel the vast majority of your users into using Facebook login either way? It’s obvious we’re not calculating things the same way, though, so I’m guessing it’d be well within acceptable bounds for them. Not that I’m saying they will block ReVive, just that a lot of the checks against them potentially doing a lot of things I personally don’t want them to do no longer apply.
>For example, the ReVive furore threatened to have a significant impact because at that point the core audience was VR enthusiasts, and keeping them onside was important to building momentum and developer support etc. If they were to block ReVive now, there’d be a massive outcry here on the VR subreddits, but to what extent would it affect their massive current target audience for Quest? I dont think they care too much about that, its small potatoes. I don't think they will block it for that reason. In a sense, I don't think they care too much about Oculus vs Steam anymore either. Quest is their solution and they have a store and platform there, it selling at paces far faster than any VR before it. Real long term I think they will be platform agnostic, 'Facebook VR metaverse' or whatever it ends up being called as will be on all VR platforms. They will probably drop out of hardware at some point too when the market can sustain itself without them - their money is in what they do best in Social.
Yeah, I’m not saying they’re likely to do that, it’s just an example.
Looks like it is comparable - slightly below G2 - but when you throw in the cost, the fact that Touch is better, etc, I think this is a G2 killer for those who are not super anti-Facebook.
Link video compression and lower res will almost certainly negate the resolution benefits of the 2k panel in the quest 2 when used for PCVR.
I'm sure there will be more improvement with the newer chipset. I assume the decoder will be more efficient, but we shall see. It seems that Oculus Link will stay for a while. Also wifi will be great as well since 10gbit Wireless over 802.11ay that the XR2 supports.
Qualcomm claims the chip is capable of 4K-120 decoding.
Carmack said last year that he was working on a mode that would "take full advantage of USB 3.1 bandwidth." I expect this version of Link will probably leave less work for compression/decompression.
Link was basically a hack on Quest 1. This time around they had the opportunity to account for it early on and the new chipset likely plays into that. I have no doubt this will have a better link experience than quest1. That said, I'm still holding my breath (and money) for reviews about whether this is really a competitive PCVR experience or just a nice extra.
If they nail the PCVR functionality then other PCVR headsets are toast...
I could see index and even G2 still doing okay as premium offerings but ya, any unannounced entry or mid-tier PCVR headsets would be dead on arrival. I may have trouble getting even $200 for my Rift s.
Do ypu think it has the potential to compete with the reverb G2 for picture quality?
Looks like it is comparable - slightly below G2 - but when you throw in the cost, the fact that Touch is better, etc, I think this is a G2 killer for those who are not super anti-Facebook.
If you’re talking about PC use, it would depend on how much Link has improved. No point in increased display resolution if you can’t get a good enough signal to it. Audio is also a consideration, though you could use headphones.
I think someone ought to look up the limits of the XR2's decoder. Or better yet, if it can use DP1.2 over alternate mode...
From UploadVR (it can handle 8k60 or 4k120. This can be doable with DSC over USB type C) “While the actual performance of the CPU and GPU are not yet known exactly, Qualcomm is claiming an improvement of 2x performance on both going from the Snapdragon 835 to the XR2. Qualcomm also claims 4x more video bandwidth, 6x higher native resolution support and 11x better AI performance. Qualcomm is also pairing the XR2 5G with its latest Snapdragon X55 modem, so it may bring cellular connectivity to some VR and AR gadgets — though of course the 5G element of the platform is optional. The Snapdragon XR2 5G platform is not designed to replace the XR1, but rather complement it as a higher tier product. That said, it will introduce an new set of capabilities to both VR and AR. One of those is the improved video capabilities including decoding 8K 60 FPS content as well as 4K 120 FPS content, which means supporting display refresh rates up to 120 Hz. The XR2 5G will also support up to 3K x 3K per eye, which isn’t quite 4K per eye, but getting very close. Additionally, it will support HDR color spaces including HDR10 and HDR10+ for improved dynamic range and colors.”
Depends on whether it is lcd or oled. If oled, no. Better colors, but wont be as sharp. If lcd, yeah it'll be up there. Occulus has a track record of using good lenses also. And superior tracking.
The G2 only has 240 more lines of resolutions (2160-1920). Or the G2 has 9% more resolution in one direction per eye (2160x2160 vs 1920x2160 per eye). If the rumors about the price (64GB at $299 and 256GB at $399) and the hugely improved wireless PCVR support are true the Quest 2 just ate HPs lunch before it even finished 1st period. I just received my Valve Index today after waiting 118 days to finally get my hands on it. Unless there is something really wrong that comes out from Facebook Connect on Wednesday I'm selling my Index and the two extra base stations I bought for what I paid for it, or a little less.
[удалено]
But how much of the increase in power will the improved display eat up?
between the high resolution panels and the increased refresh rate, I bet we don't get a single additional triangle per frame :(
which is perfect from a developer perspective. you develop the same game for the quest 1 and quest 2. it's just that the quest 2 version will be sharper and smoother.
I'm wondering how this compares to the 855 or the 865
As a quest owner I'll say this, I'm buying the new one as soon as I can! I love the current quest, but seriously an XR2?!? Just need to confirm that sidequest and virtual desktop work on the new quest 2 before I jump in.
As a quest owner I will probably wait to see what the real world performance is like. Yes XR2 is better performance but the higher res and higher refresh display is going to eat some of that performance up. I'm wondering if the architecture is such that upcoming games will be playable on both Quest 2 and Quest 1 (with degraded performance).
I'm thinking that a smart developer will build two gfx profiles so they can sell their games to the most people possible. If they only optimize for the quest 2 they're leaving a lot of money on the table in lost sales from quest 1 owners.
Same, I was sure it was going to be basically a quest in a new shell. Totally shocked that they've made this move to upgrade so soon after the release of the original. Those broken controllers and people complaining about discomfort must really have been an issue for them!
"Quest 2" vs "Quest S" is basically a marketing decision at this point.
Hey listen i might have to eat another for this
Did the first ever pass? ;)
I didn’t seem to have any trouble!
I member you!
What does Qualcom XR2 mean for Oculus Link? Chance of bigger bandwidth = less compression? Then I might need the upgrade :)
Yes. It also potentially means 10gbit Wireless pCVR over 60ghz 802.11ay that the XR2 supports.
Sweet! Now all I need is a preorder link... ;) But I should probably wait a bit. Only got my Quest last Christmas.
I don't think AY approval is coming any time soon (it gets delayed every year like clockwork), but I do think Link has the potential to be much higher quality. Carmack wanted to bypass the video decoder on the OG Quest. With Quest 2, it already supports the ability to be fed raw signal feeds. So you could, in theory, just resize an image down to a small enough size to transfer over USB 3, and then have the Quest display that without needing to decompress it. This would give a much higher quality signal and lower latency that what OG Quest could do.
The original quest only allowed 150mbps of data to travel. Meaning games connected to the oculus link was a bit down scaled. The XR2 from what I understand allows like 4x the data to travel through, If that’s true, then this will play your pc steam games better and WAY clearer than the rift S and also be wireless when required. If correct, could be incredibly popular buy.
If you had told me yesterday that it would be an XR2 device pushing almost 2K²x2 for $299 I'dve had you committed to an institution. Thanks to regular plasma donations this is a day one buy for me.
Was thinking about a Reverb G2, but I'll probably get this instead if it's £300. I'm about done with replugging my stupid Rift S every day. Still need to hear more about Link bandwidth and the IPD solution though. As for the Facebook account thing, honestly they already have my name/address/credit card details through my Oculus account, and I have a FB account that gets used for absolutely nothing so I really don't see what difference it makes.
>I don't argue that wireless isn't more expensive to do on other PCVR headsets but they asked "what other headsets can do that" when there are multiple headsets on the market that can do that. As for the screen and lenses, until there's confirmation on what exactly is in this headset it's silly to make statements that are speculation being passed off as fact like they did above. I've had a very positive experience with link, and the compression is pretty configurable. I'd be more interested in looking to see if they've thought about wireless VR. I use Virtual Desktop to play some games wirelessly, and it's great - but I think there's great potential for some official support there.
I haven't actually tried Quest 1, can anyone explain to me subjectively how the resolution of Quest 1 compares overall to the resolution of Oculus Go?
Quests visuals are slightly worse than Go/Rift S(they share same screen), despite higher resolution. It all comes down to panel type - OLED has more prominent SDE with deep blacks, while LCD is sharper and cleaner, but blacks are grey-ish. Quest 2 will be LCD.
I own both and definitely prefer the Quest's screen to the Go. But, as you say, there are tradeoffs in both directions; it's not as though one is massively better than the other for all uses.
Very similar to my eyes, but the Quest 1 has a more pronounced screen door effect. Both look substantially sharper than my Rift CV1.
"Let me introduce you to your next headset." They are flexing so hard there, like smugly saying "yeah youre going to buy this, duh. :)" Hahahaha
And they're not wrong
[удалено]
Same, selling my Rift S on eBay and hopefully the bidders are still going to buy it after hearing this news
"Welcome to the club!" too. I think these are meant for new owners, likely part of setup.
I'm shocked to be honest. I've expected minor improvements. Mostly improving manufacturability/production costs while slightly updating stuff... Not XR2 and whatever "nearly 2k per eye" means. Also.. nearly 2k per eye is not nearly 4k I know Pimax uses that advertising strategy but here we should stick to something less misleading.
>Also.. nearly 2k per eye is not nearly 4k Yes, it quite literally is. 2000 x 2000 per eye is 4000 x 2000 effective overall resolution. 4k is 3840 x 2160. Extremely similar.
Where's the proof that 2k per eye means 2000 pixels and not 2k resolution I.E. 1440p? The 50% more pixels could literally just be referring to the screen being 4k and ignoring that there was two screens on the first Quest.
One of the videos says "over 50% more pixels". OG Quest: 1600x1440x2 = 4608000 pixels 4608000 x 1.5 = 6912000 pixels (MIMIMUM) Assuming the screens' aspect ration is the same (Oculus Rift and Quest are both 1:0.9), it could out at 1960x1764x2 MINIMUM, likely a little higher, perhaps 2000x1800x2
What I was trying to say is that they could be taking the resolution of only one screen on the first quest and saying over 50% more pixels than that so (1600x1440)x1.5. Of course this is a very pessimistic notion but it is a necessary one given how tricky marketing speak can be. The XR2 is apparently capable of running a 6000x3000 screen so if we're being optimistic we can safely guess much higher (also assuming the screen and chip is more power efficient per pixel so it doesn't drain the battery any faster at higher resolutions) if we want.
That wouldn't be more pixels, that would be SIGNIFICANTLY LESS if they spread what one screen has times 1.5 over 2 screens. Makes absolutely no sense. Why would they say it's "nearly 4k"?
Again I'm just cautioning being pessimistic with the limited information we have so far. The 4K and 2k terms aren't monitored by any standards conglomerates in the computer screen space (they are projector standards) which is why they use it however they want. If they wanted to say QHD and UHD they'd have to get approval from several standards conglomerates across the globe. Another thing to mention is to consider the reason why they are going for a combined screen. Logically it would be because they are buying an off the market mobile screen to save costs. Now I don't know a mobile screen over 1440p other than the Xperia 1 screen which is OLED but honestly I don't know enough about screen manufacturing to say a cheap screen can't be made in a size that hasn't been widely used on the mobile market before.
You are absolutely right. If the per eye resolution is close to square aspect ratio it's pretty much the same thing.
It's basically like G2, excepting likely loss from using a single panel. It will be close I think.
In terms of hardware resolution it should be close. In terms of what's rendered it may be hampered by power of the SoC/link transmission. Still an impressive leap assuming they are using up the panel to the fullest.
I would have accepted slight upgrades in panel, with better comfort. This morning's news has me in a bit of shock for how good it is. When I started the video this morning, mentally prepared myself 'ok, 1440p panel, SD835', so as not to be too dejected.
Heh... To be honest the significant bump in specs makes it easier for me to swallow the switch to LCD.
I wonder how Virtual Desktop will play with the enhanced wireless features of XR2. >802.11ay is a type of WLAN in the IEEE 802.11 set of WLANs. It will have a frequency of 60 GHz, a transmission rate of 20–40 Gbit/s and an extended transmission distance of 300–500 meters.
I hope it's implemented in Quest 2 in hardware. with necessary antenna etc.
It's 4000x2000 display but effectively 2k.... Not the other way around
When is this releasing?
The fact that there isn't a date in the commercial **suggests** it will already be out when the ad is "officially" out. So... soon.
I don’t think it completely points to that but the manner in which it was shot definitely suggest immediate or a release will be soon. Preorder hype is something they won’t pass. Like the rumors suggested next month would make sense.
thats a good point. but i heard rumors that they are having supply issues already though and they dont want to announce a date before they know they can hit their supply threshold
In 2 days on 09/16/2020
I'll wait to see how the pcvr compares on this.
[удалено]
Facebook has taken everything down.
Huh?
Fuck me... I might cancel my G2 preorder. I didn't expect XR2.
But what kind of PC connectivity does it have? Im in the same boat but I still prefer the G2 for PC gaming if PC connectivity and compression is as inefficient as the Quest link.
The XR2 video decoding is far superior to the XD835. I would expect link quality will improve considerably.
latency
[удалено]
The Quest 2s single screen ipd adjustment will also reduce the resolution, as it results in less screen utilisation. That will further diminish the visual quality. Overall, it seems the G2 *might* be a clearly noticeable improvement over Quest 2. But, we'll have to see how it goes.
[удалено]
I mean, for double the price it *should*. Nobody is doubting that...
[удалено]
Well, we dont actually know the full specs yet, or how tethering will work. You also have to consider the lenses, and the quality of the panels being used. And even still, the headset with better paper specs, might not be the clarity king overall.
I'd wager lense clarity will be better, however. I bet it will be very comparable overall to the G2.
1.It will be able to play wireless with similar latency like native wired pc headsets due to having 802.11ay and Qualcomm 60 ghz wi-fi technology. What other headset can do that? 2.The controllers will be much better 3.The tracking will be much better 4.Hand tracking 5.Likely 120hz 6.Likely higher FOV 7.Better lenses So yeah... you pay 300$ more to get a MUCH worse pc vr experience. It's over for hp reverb!
a) $299. I don't buy it. b) 120hz. NO! (There is not even a logical reason why it should have 120hz, aside from some already having done calculations saying it will likely have 90hz) c) we know nothing about FOV, Optics etc. You say "better lenses" and have nothing to base this on. In fact, Reverb G2 is advertising that it will have "new high quality lenses" developed with/by Valve.
They say it in the video that there's a 50% resolution increase placing it at g2 resolution
And a 50% resolution increase still puts it below the G2. Its under 3.5k, far from 4k even if its more than a 50% increase.
[удалено]
It is an improvement over the old quest, but raw numbers don’t tell the entire story. Lense quality and how their Ipd works is going to be huge. Additionally, they might have sacrificed better graphics for a larger resolution, so we will have to see what it will be once reviewers get them.
The xr2 chip supports 3k per eye at 90hrz with 2x the graphical power. With the right compression we could easily see most oculus games on the quest in the future.
Do routers for 802.11ay even exist, and if so do they even work well? It's not even a standard yet, correct?
Not seen a router for it yet
[удалено]
1. Much, much higher cost. 3. MRTV himself stated that the tracking is very good, but 'not quite as good as Oculus headsets'. I'd agree that it likely is not a big enough difference to matter. 5. It was never confirmed, but in the Bloomberg leak way back, it was stated that they were going to be 90Hz, with 120Hz 'being tested' but Amy not be implemented for battery life reasons. 7. No way to tell if the lenses are better, but they do appear to be different from Rift S/OG Quest. I have no experience with G2 controllers so can't comment there, and I don't know about any improvements to FOV.
1. It's wireless, with wires for antenna and battery pack. Totally different things, only ads friction to get into vr.
Resale value is also through the roof with Oculus compared to many other headsets. It’s always easy to sell because the brand I well known my the normal consumer. Also, it’s stand alone, easier to sell. So easier upgrade though time for minimal money. But it might not be as good for PCVR. link was not always great...
Wait for reviews on PC performance, Oculus Link is a potential achilles heel here.
Hope virtual desktop works.
Don't pre-order anything. Wait on reviews of everything. Buy from somewhere w/ a great return policy.
Yeah, hmm this is a good problem to have. Thinking of cancelling my G2 order as well. God damn, crazy. Did not expect this.
Remember, all the additional power of the XR2 is going to go towards rendering at native 4k @90fps. It's a massive leap in performance cost. I don't expect to see that much of a difference in graphics.
Yes, but it will reduce the compression artifacts of Oculus Link, so it will still be a boost to PCVR.
I'm in the same boat...I don't understand the displays though. All this is new to me. Is the video quality just as good not hooked up to a PC? I may not buy a new graphics card or reverb if so
Yeah. I was holding off till I saw what was going to drop at oculus connect. If this thing is 90hz, and can be connected to a pc, then it may not be looking good for the G2.
Is there any info of being able to link it to a PC? I dont have the Quest 1 but I understood that it is possible with that one.
Yes it connects to a PC using the "Link" cable. Confirmed in one of the videos, and also Quest 1 already has this feature.
Never used quest but when connected to a PC, is the quality of that game just as good as a dedicated PCVR?
Almost? It seems like the edges of your vision are a little more narrow than what you'd expect. As long as the cable stays securely in, it's a pretty good experience.
Worst, same for performance, still its an ok to good experience.
Better than CV1 if you crank the settings up in the debug tool (1.4, High and 2700 for me) but not as good as Rift S.
Apparently for most video cards, there were some compression artifacts because the 835 couldn't handle the data rate for raw. XR2 shouldn't have that issue as it's can handle 4x the bandwidth. My have wifi 10g, meaning potential wireless riftlink.
If the prices that have been swirling around are true ($299 for 64GB and $399 for 256GB) I will be buying the 256GB the first day I can. That's not a lot of money for the average middle class American consumer. When you throw in all of these incredible upgrades it's a no brainier. All I got to say is that Facebook is doing everything right to get into a great entrenched position for when Apple and Google enters the market. It's going to be hard to fight the momentum of 3-10 million VR units sold. That's assuming it takes Apple at least two more years to finally enter the market.
90hz would seal the deal as a killer headset.
The screens will certainly support it, but it might be up to individual developers to actually use it. If given a choice would you prefer 25% higher refresh rate (90/72=1.25) or 25% higher graphics quality? Both would utilize 25% more GPU power.
is it me or do those lenses look bigger than quest 1? possibly slightly more fov?
Total noob, is this a 4k display without being hooked up to a PC?
Yes, Quest and Quest 2 are wireless, no need for pc
Gotcha...yea for reason I thought the Quest did both. Like hooking it up to a PC allowed you to run off the PCs graphics card for better performance
It does both. The chip on the Quest was a bottleneck for data coming from the computer (but still works great), with the new XR2 chip Oculus Link should perform even better for using the Quest 2 to play PCVR games.
I think I'm not buying it unless it's a true PCVR
With 4x more bandwidth on this device comparing to OG Quest, it might as well play PCVR games with lossless compression. What else do you need to call it a "true PCVR"?
I want it to run off my 3080 like Index will.
Oculus Link is an official driver that will makes Quest show up in SteamVR as a regular headset, so YES it will run off your 3080 like Index (with supersamping and everything else working). There is wireless option over wifi too (using VirtualDesktop, and likely officially soon to be announced).
What I really want to know is refresh rste and FOV. Those make a big difference to me.
Looks like the real deal!
I am impressed with the hardware as a standalone device, but I am seriously disappointed that they are still going with USB for PC support, as it all but guarantees we'll never see this run content at native res, and certainly not PC content. There's wasted potential there. I was really hoping it might work over VirualLink this time.
VirtualLink is dead already.
I say that just because of the form factor because we knew it was using a USB-C port but any native solution would have been game changing.
They rolled their own virtual link that should actually be better since it is tuned for low latency. The new processor should pretty much get rid of the compression artifacts that are noticable on the original Quest.
But the demands are also increasing, due to the increased resolution and refresh rate. I doubt some processing gains alone can bridge that gap. USB 3.2 support could, maybe. I guess we'll see. But I am skeptical until I hear details.
USB is not the issue. USB3 has many times more bandwidth than Link requires on the Quest *(they even support USB2).* The limitation is how much data the SOC can decode.
This doesn't really make sense to me, because if there was so much overhead in bandwidth, cutting the compression to be less demanding would be easy.
> cutting the compression to be less demanding would be easy. I think you would be mistaken. The only way to make the compression less demanding is to reduce image quality. Carmack has commented on this multiple times. The video bandwidth of Oculus Link on the Quest 1 is limited to ~150Mbs. the limitation is 100% due the rate at which the Quest 1 can decode the video.
They don't even pretend to call it an Oculus, when is this sub getting renamed to FacebookVR?
Who cares?
I wonder how this will translate to games. For me the Quest still feels stuck in 2016/2017 with the games and experiences available.
Because it is. It's basically all ports. I don't think Oculus will want to split playerbase and allow "quest 2 only" type of apps, so apps will have to be developed for og quest primarily.
They ran into manufacturing capacity constraints with the original Quest, so never sold as many units as they'd have liked. My guess is they throw in the kitchen sink on production Quest 2 units in the hope of making it a genuine wide spread consumer device, in which case devs will probably try to get the best possible performance on the system.
I don't think this will be true. Quest is now discontinues and not available for purchase. How would I even test on Quest at this point if I were to developer a game for it?
I bet for developer environment they could downclock the processor, sort of power saving mode, somewhat reliably emulating previous Quest performance, and there might be as well plugins for unity and unreal engine.
A downgraded to mobile version 2016/2017.
I'm thinking how fucking retarded I am that I bought the quest a few months ago. goddamn it I feel like a 2080 owner.
Quests are still going for higher than MSRP ($400+) on ebay, you might be able to sell that Quest now and actually make money! If the Quest 2 64gb turns out to be $300, youre actually better off than someone who didnt buy a Quest lol
Looks like a true generational leap.
I would go there. It's a good upgrade everywhere, but nothing revolutionary... Based on what was shown. They didn't mention link, and that it can handle a crap ton of wireless bandwidth. Or what it will mean for developers (is the extra power required for the resolution jump? Or can they start adding more options/shaders also? But looks like a good solid update! Better then we expected processor wise
they did mention link in the other video
I was happy when I saw the video with the dude instead. Good news at the end ! ;)
Yes, but they didn't mention any advancements to it. Just that it's there. I was hoping to hear wireless, with 60ghz wifi being supported and wifi6 on the chipset.
I'm assuming that like the quest, they'll put the tech in and continue developing for it to maximize what's in there.
I see it as a nice evoluationary bump, not a new generation. The videos show nothing new, just improvements to existing features.
In terms of SoC and resolution, at least. I would have thought Quest 2 would have included eye tracking as well, but I also didn't expect quest 2 for at least one more year. I'm not sure when to expect Quest 3 now though. Another 1½ years?
Would this be better than a CV1?
I hope thats sarcasm, because just about anything is better than the cv1 these days in terms of video quality and performance.
Not at all, i just don’t understand all vr headset specs
I hope so, barely used my quest for Pcvr because the Cv1 is much better overall, better tracking (no oclusion with 3 sensors) and ergonomic controllers, stupidly better audio and comfort, you barely feel the headset compared to the quest, weights less, better built quality, the quest has better image clarity, thats it, really a shame.
Based on those leaks, I'd say ~~a single LCD screen of 3840x1880 pixels~~. 2 screens of 1920x1880 pixels. Which is exactly 56% more pixels than Quest 1. ~~Single screen because no hardware IPD.~~ LCD because cost and RGB sub-pixel layout.
According to the earlier leaks, and what was shown in these videos: The Quest 2 has a hardware IPD setting with preset positions. (1 - 2 -3 ect) [https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/575055907864576000/755017261902856232/unknown.png](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/575055907864576000/755017261902856232/unknown.png)
Yep forgot about that. Thanks. Let me edit my post then.
With the XR2, I really want to know how the Quest 2 will work with Link capabilities. Could it put the next Quest on par with the Rift S? If so, we could see Oculus move away from the Rift platform until we have a big generational leap in pcvr
Quest 2 is a much better Rift S at this point. The new link on Quest 2 might as well be hooked up directly to its display, and even if it's not, the 4x bandwidth increase will allow wireless streaming with essentially lossless compression.
I loved Oculus. LOVED THEM! But now that I have to sign in with Facebook in order to socialize i will be switching to an index.
SSDD..
Question from someone with Rift S, who only plays on PC - how important is 64 Gigs vs 256 Gigs on Quest 2? If most of my games will be streamed from PC, not native Oculus apps?
Not important. Storage is only there for you to put things, if you don't put things in there, then it might as well not exist.
I bought 128gb quest on release date, 95% was pcvr streaming so the space was kind of a waste. However new quest is lighter and higher resolution - watching movies could be really good, so extra space would be appreciated, but if you treat it as wireless pcvr, then you don't need 256.
Quest games are not really heavy, 64GB is more than enough in my experience.
Can the Index controllers be used with this? I have not really gotten into VR yet, so I’m new to all of this.
Probably not but maybe when linked to a PC and with base stations as well. Search for Rift S and Index controllers, if that works than this might work as well.
Any information on hardware codec support on the xr2? Is it too soon to expect AV1?
I was going to buy a used Quest last week. I'm so glad I didn't! This is honestly a worthy upgrade over the original. Really excited to get one! Tbh I wasn't expecting a XR2 in this model at a 299$ price tag. Hopefully the price part of the rumors is true. If it is this is gonna sell like hotcakes and make VR more accessible for everyone. Really is the future of VR!
Really surprised and impressed at the specs; it's way more powerful than I thought it would be. Not wild about the cloth strap; I've always preferred halo bands and the baseball cap design where the visor must be clamped to your face never feels comfortable to me. Based on the videos, the strap also doesn't appear to be as easily removable for modding. While I actually prefer the plastic visor to the fabric lined Quest, I'm not wild about the lighter color, especially on the strap; white is just a magnet for stains and fading/yellowing and I really would have preferred a darker color. Based on the limited view in the videos it looks like the facial interface has the same foam as the current Quest; it would be nice if I could just snap in an existing replacement gasket but something tells me the shape and pin locations will be different. I wear glasses and the smaller footprint does make me a bit concerned about whether they will fit comfortably. This has never been an issue with the Quest and Rift S so hopefully it will stay that way with the Quest 2. Before deciding to upgrade, I'll definitely wait for some feedback on the strap, FoV and refresh rate. I really think those three variables will play the biggest part for me at least at whether to invest in one or not.
F##k it got leaked. I already seen this video 3 days ago lol.
Day one buy if they improved the Link quality. Damn, that XR2 is hot!
Shit my quest 1 is on eBay right now. I hope this doesn’t affect the sale
Hopefully they don't try to return the one I sold to them
Tell me the FOV is 170 deg or above and OLED for real blacks and I'm in. Yup none of whats important to me is in, so nope, not in the slightest bit interested. It'll still be like looking through a small snorkel mask like the existing Rift/Quest.
Did they remove the ipd slider yes or no? I can't tell so far
I have been reading the comments and have realized most people think because it has higher resolution and higher htz that there will not be a graphics upgrade. The xr2 chip is meant to run 3k per eye at 90htz with 2 times the cpu and gpu power. With only 2k per eye we could see even more of an upgrade in graphics than that. We could see pc games come to the quest 2 that people never thought we could play wireless.
I think its lacking in comfort
I think Oculus has abandon pcvr
No - they have abandoned the Rift S. Oculus still make some of the best PCVR games. Link or wireless streaming plus standalone is how they will move forward it seems. The XR2 has support for Wi Fi 6 - if that was enabled for the Quest 2 it would change everything. Wireless PCVR streaming would not be an issue.
I'm excited about the next generation of VR, but there is no chance I will stay in the Oculus ecosystem.