Do you think Meta is ignoring PCVR?

[chiliwili69]

As the title, what do you think?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I don't think so because they have technology build in and software to connect to PC but having USB to DP like Pico 3 would be great. I hope next quest will have it.

[Aapje]

Like I said in the other thread, they do release features for PCVR like Quest Link and they keep maintaining the desktop software. If they would ignore PCVR, they wouldn't do any of these things.

 

Now, I've heard from a lot of sources that PCVR sales are extremely poor compared to standalone sales, so it makes perfect sense for a big company like that to put most of its effort in the spot where most customers are, especially since their end goal is a standalone device anyway.

 

The main thing you can complain about is a lack of displayport on the Quest, but Meta's hands are probably tied here, because I don't think that the Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2 supports HDMI over USB. Meta actually went out their way to create separate software to allow HDMI support using a capture card, so if they could have supported HDMI over USB directly, I'm sure they would, because it would be a nicer solution than what they made.

 

Ultimately, with the Quest you benefit from it being a mass market device made in huge numbers, but the consequence of that is also that it can't be targeted at just simmers, who won't make up the required sales numbers.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

New snapdragons support DisplayPort Alt Mode, should have enough bandwidth for quest.

Edited October 20, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[chiliwili69]

21 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

software to connect to PC but having USB to DP like Pico 3 would be great. I hope next quest will have it.

 

Yes, the Pico3 Link is a device with XR2 gen1 and it uses an optical DisplayPort cable to directly connect to the PC.

But in the Pico4 and Pico4 Ultra, they didn´t include any DP cable or any USB-C DisplayPort Alt-Mode.

 

The new HTC Vive Focus Vision is another standalone device with support the DisplayPort Alt-Mode over USB-C.

 

This is something that Meta could have introduced with an small extra cost (10-20$, look here), but they didn´t do it in any of the Quest2, QuestPro, Quest3 or Quest3S. I think they will not do it for future devices, but I will be very happy to be wrong.

 

So, It looks like they don´t care too much about the people who only want PCVR using DisplayPort.

 

It would be really great if the Quest3 could have a DisplayPort option like the Pico3 or the HTCViveFocusVison, so we would not need to spend resources with compress/decompress image and reduce image quality.

Edited October 21, 2024 by chiliwili69

[chiliwili69]

20 hours ago, Aapje said:

they do release features for PCVR like Quest Link and they keep maintaining the desktop software. If they would ignore PCVR, they wouldn't do any of these things.

 

My point is that they cancelled the Rift CV1 and Rift-S PCVR-only line in April-2021. This means they had zero interest in the PCVR niche. Their goal was (and is) just Mixed reality and to be the next computing platform to substitute the PCs, laptops and phones along the next decades.

Just image what would be the cost of a Quest3 or Ques3S if you remove the expensive XR2 chip and the battery and put just a DP cable. And making controllers optional. They could really go very low with the price and make PCVR so popular in the game industry. But they don´t do it.

 

They provided the USB QuestLink functionality with the first Quest in Nov-2019, and in April-2021 the AirLink with the Quest2. So, they wanted to move ("force") their initial PCVR user base (from Oculus DK1, DK2, CV1, Rift-S) to the Quest line and that´s why they provided a way to use the PCVR games and apps. At that time, Oculus/Facebook/Meta was forcing you also to have a Facebook account and many people (including me) were forced to exit the Oculus/Facebook/Meta universe.

 

Also, Meta has initially supported many games/app in their PCVR Oculus exclusives, and now they are more focused in supporting developers in the Standalone VR games, no PCVR.

Meta knows they can not compete with Valve in the PCVR software game industry, where Valve dominates.

Meta is not interested in making PCVR-only devices because they know that the real revenue is in selling software, so there is no business for Meta doing PCVR devices and Valve selling millions on games.

 

Meta keeps maintaining the QuestLink and AirLink, and even allowed Valve to create SteamLink app in the Meta store, Why Meta does that?

 

The theory is that somone who just buy a Quest3 or Quest3S for just PCVR gaming (like me) is also exposed to all Meta store (PCVR and Standalone) and also all Mixed reality games and applications. So, at the end, is another valid entry point to capture users (like me) and grow the user base (I will jump quickly from Meta as soon as there is something better than Quest3 for IL-2).

 

In fact, 66% of Steam VR users are Meta devices, and this 66% is 1.7 million devices. It is not an small group to get into their garden. That´s why they still mantain that umbilincal cord, but for sure one day they will cut it. (The day this PCVR group is so small comparing to their Standalone only group)

21 hours ago, Aapje said:

Meta actually went out their way to create separate software to allow HDMI support using a capture card,

Hey, This is just using the Quest as a 2-D visualization device.

21 hours ago, Aapje said:

I'm sure they would, because it would be a nicer solution than what they made.

 

Don´t be so sure.

Meta doesn´t support Display Port over USB-C Alt-Mode because they don´t care about PCVR niche.

It is something they can technically do as Pico or HTC have done with the Pico3 and the HTC Focus Vision.

[Aapje]

1 hour ago, chiliwili69 said:

This is something that Meta could have introduced with an small extra cost (10-20$, look here), but they didn´t do it in any of the Quest2, QuestPro, Quest3 or Quest3S. I think they will not do it for future devices, but I will be very happy to be wrong.

 

That is a huge amount of money. It would be one of the most expensive parts of the headset. They save something like $5-10 by shipping with the poor headstrap instead of something better, and changing that would be a much bigger benefit for more people.

[chiliwili69]

I like the way this guy (spanish, but you can activate subtitle in other language) explains the starting point and to where are we going.

 

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

@chiliwili69 what about meta and VR cloud gaming aka avalanche. This is like playing pcvr high demanding titles where power of standalone is not enough for that fidelity.

Edited October 21, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

I think the better question is when will the mass market stop ignoring PCVR, and why isn't Valve pumping out a budget PCVR headset since they're the ones making money from PCVR game sales. Lots of companies are making fancy 4 figure headsets, but not a budget one with pancake lenses and a display port.

[[CPT]Crunch]

The money has always been in the software side and owning the store side access to it.  Hardware's not a major concern for the software shop owner when there's always dozens of fools slowly going broke building cutting edge HMD's.  Meta's biggest problem is they keep such a tight control over the software end and than end up building things nobody really wants so the software side never creates a major lift off, certainly not enough to float all the hardware out here being sold, many on razer thin margins.  Hence the niche headsets that do very well when they focus and concentrate on one specific gaming sector like the Crystal with racing and flight simulations, we don't even need no stinking store.

[chiliwili69]

6 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

VR cloud gaming aka avalanche

 

Latency problems apart, I don´t think this will be viable (profitable). You will always need powerful CPUs and GPUs for the best demanding games or simulators (a never ending story, we always want something better). You will need to pay them in one way (local PC) or the other (fee for cloud PC + overheads).

 

Like the business of the rental of beefy PCs to play games, it doesn´t exist.

 

2D games in Cloud has been there for more than a decade but I see everyone at their home PC playing all Steam catalogue. Same than consoles, games are downloaded and executed in consoles not in Cloud.

 

But I could be wrong.

 

 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

4 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

The money has always been in the software side and owning the store side access to it.  Hardware's not a major concern for the software shop owner when there's always dozens of fools slowly going broke building cutting edge HMD's.  Meta's biggest problem is they keep such a tight control over the software end and than end up building things nobody really wants so the software side never creates a major lift off, certainly not enough to float all the hardware out here being sold, many on razer thin margins.  Hence the niche headsets that do very well when they focus and concentrate on one specific gaming sector like the Crystal with racing and flight simulations, we don't even need no stinking store.

What you're saying makes sense for meta, but I think Valve would have an interest in some type of version of a cheap display port PCVR headset, since it could expand the amount of people buying PCVR games on steam, whether it's them making it themselves or not. Hopefully Deckard will have a cheap budget display port/pancake version, and won't be just another fancy expensive one. There's a hole in the market.

[Aapje]

Valve already made an attempt to kickstart the PCVR revolution with Half-life Alyx and the Valve Index, which didn't work out for them.

 

Any new attempt will have to take a different approach.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

The index was expensive at double what the Quest 3 costs, and Half-life Alyx while being amazing, was still just 1 short single player game. It's not surprising that wasn't enough to start a revolution. Going the cheap and simple route works for the Quest, why not PCVR? The game library is bigger now. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

12 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

Latency problems apart,

Yes, when I gonna see  bitsaber gameplay without issues I gonna try it. 

[Aapje]

9 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

and Half-life Alyx while being amazing, was still just 1 short single player game.

 

That cost many tens of millions to make and probably broke even at best. They tried to inspire others to follow suit, since they obviously can't carry it alone.

 

9 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Going the cheap and simple route works for the Quest, why not PCVR?

 

First of all, because the market for PCVR is smaller, so a company won't get the same sales by targeting PCVR. They will also not earn money from their own game store, so the economics become even worse.

 

Earlier in this thread, someone is asking for a substantial increase to the production costs to suit a relatively small subset of buyers, which is not 'cheap and simple.' Of course you can (more than) offset that by getting rid of the standalone option, but that would mean losing a large segment of the market to appeal to a much smaller segment. In other words, a play for a niche, while the Quest targets the majority. Even many PCVR players would be turned off by losing the wireless option, so even in that market you'd lose some buyers, while gaining others.

 

Pimax is making a play for the PCVR Displayport niche and even though they are not very smart, they finally figured out the formula, it seems. But their relatively low sales means that they can't spend as much on software, or on really getting on top of their QA issues.

[Bravo13]

I feel personally, and i hope this is an opinion shared by my fellow flight simmers, as well as general PCVR enthusiasts, that what we really want in a VR headset is:

A headset with a resolution of between approx. 2500x2500 to 2800 x 2800, circa 35 PPD or thereabout

Pancake Lens of the quality of a Quest 3

A minimum refresh rate of 90 Hz, 120 preferable

OLED panels ideally

A horizontal FOV of at least 110 and a vertical FOV of at least 100

Display Port connection

No wasted features like standalone, no need for Snapdragon or Battery, I personally will never use that functionality, heck I don't even care about pass-through to be honest which is more wasted complexity. VR hardware manufacturers struggle to even get the basics right, don't make the job even harder for yourselves.

Comfortable out of the box, without the need to rely on the aftermarket industry to fix a badly designed facial interface, so many companies have gotten this right that excusing headset manufacturers on the basis that there are so many different facial shapes just doesn't ring true. My original HTC Vive was comfortable, My HP Reverb G2 was comfortable.

Weight approx 500 gram, any more than this is just bad design, surely if the Reverb can do it then others using newer  technology can too, not to mention that the Fresnel lens in the Reverb introduce a sub optimal form factor design consideration due to their deeper lens stack.

GOOD speakers, again like the Index or Reverb. Paying an extra $200 for a speaker upgrade is ludicrous , are we supposed to throw away the crappy speakers we received with our headsets when we upgrade? How wasteful.

And lastly, form factor, its seems to me that VR headsets with high resolution and wide FOV, don't need to be massive dimensionally, the Quest 3 form factor should be the target, not the Crystal.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2024 by Bravo13

[Aapje]

2 hours ago, Bravo13 said:

I feel personally, and i hope this is an opinion shared by my fellow flight simmers, as well as general PCVR enthusiast

 

Obviously not, because at least a subset of PCVR gamers/simmers do either use the headset wireless or would, if the quality would be better. Secondly, you are missing eye tracking based foveated rendering, which can improve performance a lot.

 

And I think that many people would enjoy passthrough like this: https://rkapps.shop/products/simxr At least, if the quality is good enough.

 

Quote

OLED panels ideally

 

The reason why OLED is not used that often is because there are huge downsides, and it is really just personal preference whether you prefer the up/downsides of OLED over those of LCD. So again I think that you are wrong if you think that all current PCVR gamers/flight simmers want OLED with current technology, and it is almost certainly not going to be the desired tech in the future.

 

MicroLED looks to be the most promising screen tech in the medium future, even though we can do a lot better in theory.

Edited October 22, 2024 by Aapje

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

3 hours ago, Aapje said:

First of all, because the market for PCVR is smaller, so a company won't get the same sales by targeting PCVR. They will also not earn money from their own game store, so the economics become even worse.

That's a problem for companies like Pimax but not Valve. Valve makes money passively from everything sold in the steam store, so they just need to expand their already existing customer base.

 

3 hours ago, Aapje said:

Earlier in this thread, someone is asking for a substantial increase to the production costs to suit a relatively small subset of buyers, which is not 'cheap and simple.' Of course you can (more than) offset that by getting rid of the standalone option, but that would mean losing a large segment of the market to appeal to a much smaller segment. In other words, a play for a niche, while the Quest targets the majority. Even many PCVR players would be turned off by losing the wireless option, so even in that market you'd lose some buyers, while gaining others.

Just because PCVR isn't the majority market, doesn't mean there isn't money to be made. If Valve made PCVR more accessible with a cheap PCVR headset that's similar to Quest 3 specs stripped of the unnecessary stuff for PCVR they could grow their steam sales. They don't need to target everyone, they just need to grow from where they are now.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

VR will grow on PCVR but slowly, fast grow can be achieved in  standalone mode. History already showed it. 

Flight sim are a niche and VR is nich in niche. Good that in  flight simulator genre, getting support for VR is something normal.

VR will grow on PCVR but slowly, fast grow can be achieved in  standalone mode. History already showed it. 

Flight sim are a niche and VR is nich in niche. Good that in  flight simulator genre, getting support for VR is something normal.

 

I believe not just meta is ignoring PCVR. Great and big budget only VR titles are absent, use to be better when Oculus was owner of the technology and product.

[Aapje]

55 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

That's a problem for companies like Pimax but not Valve. Valve makes money passively from everything sold in the steam store, so they just need to expand their already existing customer base.

 

True, but it is only worth their effort if they can grow the market for PCVR games in a meaningful way. If people just buy a Valve Deckard instead of a Pimax Crystal Light or Quest, but buy the same amount of games, then they don't earn any more.

 

55 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Just because PCVR isn't the majority market, doesn't mean there isn't money to be made. If Valve made PCVR more accessible with a cheap PCVR headset that's similar to Quest 3 specs stripped of the unnecessary stuff for PCVR they could grow their steam sales. They don't need to target everyone, they just need to grow from where they are now.

 

The leaks so far don't suggest that Valve is making a stripped down headset. And the issue remains that the costs of good GPUs is very high, so even if you make a relatively cheap $400 headset, the total cost to get into VR is not meaningfully reduced.

 

[[CPT]Crunch]

OLED's and pancake lenses aren't a good mix, low light level producing screens with a stacked pancake lens system with grossly inefficient light transmission.  What do the good ones transmit, about a bit over 10% makes it to the eye, don't see any easy way of ever combining the two.  Always a trade off of some sort to be paid for. 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

 

True, but it is only worth their effort if they can grow the market for PCVR games in a meaningful way. If people just buy a Valve Deckard instead of a Pimax Crystal Light or Quest, but buy the same amount of games, then they don't earn any more.

 

 

The leaks so far don't suggest that Valve is making a stripped down headset. And the issue remains that the costs of good GPUs is very high, so even if you make a relatively cheap $400 headset, the total cost to get into VR is not meaningfully reduced.

 

I'm sure a fancy Deckard will make the current/rich PCVR market happy, but I dont know how many non-VR people are on the sidelines waiting for the right $1000+ headset to come along, vs those who are on the sidelines waiting for a ~$300 headset to be mature enough to get into. The price of a decent gaming computer will always be a factor, but a lot of people already have decent computers but no VR. A $3-400 headset on top of that is a much lower barrier to entry than the $1000+ ones.

[Araosam]

Not ignoring per se, but the Quest 3 not having the Display Port connection seems to me that they are not so invested as they were before, the reasons being mostly what was already said here about game sales and marketshare and all.

 

Being a Quest 3 owner, I do recognize that I'm at the mercy of Meta keeping support for this minimal PCVR thing until it deems not worth it anymore, and also think about the chance of a cheap (as possible) DIY open-source solution to, at least, keep PCVR alive independent of brands and their services. What a dream it would be.