The Oculus Quest 2(facebookblueprint.com) |
The Oculus Quest 2(facebookblueprint.com) |
I won't even be looking at the Quest 2 because they now require a Facebook account to use it, and I have absolutely no interesting in that (from a privacy or integrations standpoint).
I just want to game in peace. When I purchased my original Quest they were making guarantees that Facebook integrations were going to be optional, only to backtrack two years later.
If we assume that the VR and the Quest in particular are past the early adopter part of the graph, then FB actually doesn't care that it's pissed you off, maybe it doesn't mind jettisoning the helpful but disposable fuel tank (AKA early adopters, no offense) before hitting the mainstream. I wonder if someone has done this (rather cynical) calculus internally, and if so, if it's repeatable.
There are echoes of this all over the product world -- API access on platforms are another prominent example, the rug pull from early adopters/builders on platforms seems orchestrated (in addition to inevitable) at this point.
Seems like a dummy, fake, account would provide what you need?
What other concerns do you have?
Legitimately curious.
So tying expensive game licenses to an account Facebook may close at any time is a non-starter.
[0] https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/misrepresentatio...
Just like with radioactive sludge, the best way to deal with Facebook is to not get anywhere near it.
Some people who are critical of Facebook for their ethical lapses would feel like a hypocrite obtaining Facebook services under fraudulent pretenses.
Wasn't this a promise from Palmer Luckey as an individual, not a statement from either Oculus or Facebook? As a owner of Oculus, the difference doesn't really matter, it sucks none the less. But I think we're all better off never trusting what individuals nor for-profit companies says as they can always change their mind, especially if it brings them more money.
Over time they've slowly ratcheted up policies and behavior that are increasingly at odds with the desires of the early adopter enthusiast community. However, these have been done slowly so as to not kill the necessary participation in their ecosystem needed to bootstrap their wider VR platform plays.
These developments are deeply troubling and those worried about a future where human interaction is largely surveiled and behavior largely manipulated ought to be mindful before buying into Facebook's ecosystem.
I spoke extensively about the dangers here and now that it is coming to fruition it's even more important to understand the implications so consumers can choose wisely.
Facebook’s Oculus Quest 2 leaks in full via official promo videos A full launch of the headset is rumored for later this week
https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2020/9/14/21435891/ocu...
Modern hardware is even more awesome, but it seems like almost every product that interests me is tarnished by manufacturers hell-bent on recurring revenue streams, or gathering as much of my personal information as possible to increase their profits.
I make a living as a software developer, but I'm coming to hate so much about modern technology. It reminds me of a line from the movie Sneakers [0], where some anonymous corporate programmer says to another, "Remember when computers used to be fun?" (Or something like that. I saw the movie 25 years ago.)
Before you could just buy some hardware and actually own it and use it directly however you like, nowadays you very often need some vendor website or external service just to get it running. Very annoying and complicated.
Quest 1 is still going strong though (until our 2 year facebook-less amnesty runs up). Great piece of hardware. The biggest problem I see is that there's not been much adoption in terms of creating software from major software companies. I don't think the hardware is a limitation for the current gen. We could do so much more with vr than what we are doing right now.
If someone ever makes a retina-level (60 pixels per degree) display that's wireless like the Quest but as cheap as a nice monitor and comfortable to wear, then people may just use it in place of a multi-monitor setup. Particularly as the ecosystem evolves and it becomes easier to use mouse and keyboard in VR. (I think Quest just recently added support for tracking of a Bluetooth keyboard so you can see it in VR while you're typing on it.) $300-400 is roughly that price point, which is about where the current Quest is.
But even with the upped resolution of the Quest2 (which might bring the pixel density to 20 pixels per degree), we're still about a factor of 10 away from the retina-like clarity that you'd want for reading and doing work in VR. (The highest end VR headsets are about a factor of 5 away from that, in terms of numbers of pixels.)
By the way, it's interesting that we're pushing the limits of display bandwidths. Even with lossless compression, it's tough to shoot that many pixels smoothly even to a wired VR headset. We might need wireless headsets like the Quest if only to do some of the heavy-lifting, low-latency processing.
Well made and not at all that pushy like many commercials can be. Informative and to-the-point.
I love my Oculus Quest. I used to work in the VR industry over 20 years ago (work for SAIC, Disney via Angel Studios). When I bought a Quest, I felt like quality consumer VR had arrived.
My wife thinks the Quest is too heavy/uncomfortable and I would like higher resolution. We will both be happy with the Quest 2 update.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it doesn't seem like you would be able to do much with that. Since VR is such a power hog - say 2x 2K display at at least 70frames with onbard chip?
It works quite well with a variety of games, and the Quest 2 should boost the experience.
I am developing an open-source fitness game for the Quest [1] (and other headsets but mainly for the Quest) and being able to just strap on your headset basically anywhere and go at it (don't even need controllers since it uses hand tracking) is such a nice way to play that it balances the lack of visual fidelity quite a lot (it helps that the game is not pretty to look at in the first place ;) )
However I enjoy VR too much so I think I’ll just bite the bullet and make a burner FB, covering my tracks as well as I can.
What do you do with it? I remember trying it out like 2 years ago and didn't find it that engaging / useful / interesting that I would want one at home.
For years I’ve thought the hardware is the problem. The experience of all past headsets —- since the Oculus DK1 —- has been good enough to get a feel, or idea, of what this could be, but has never crossed that line where VR can become mass market. Discomfort, simulator sickness, and that “cross-eyed” feeling are something enthusiasts can push through, but the masses still view VR as a tech demo. And until there is a mass market install base, no-one is willing to spend the money creating great content.
IMHO this chicken-and-egg problem will only be solved when there is a step change in the hardware. I hope the Quest 2 is it.
You can reduce your dependence on big tech without eliminating it entirely. The world isn’t black and white. Facebook in particular is far more offensive to me than any of the companies you named, so I expend extra effort to avoid it.
If that would stand up in court (certainly outside of the US) isn't clear.
I'm actually thinking to get one for my family this Christmas. (I'm in the queue for ordering.)
The disadvantage is that maintaining a gaming PC seems daunting for some folks. Also, you have to figure out how to get cables from your PC to an empty space that is wired for VR. That can be a logistics problem if your gaming PC isn't near your living space.
Oculus' devices seem generally a bit lighter and more comfortable, and Valve/HTC's devices tend to be a bit heavier, but with more focus on high-end performance.
This varies across their product lines of course, but I think it's fair to say both are strong contenders for good consumer VR products, albeit with different primary focuses.
> Seems like a dummy, fake, account would provide what you need?
An example of how it's qualitatively different is I use it outside (at dusk). That's not really practical with other devices, and it's a completely different experience.
There's google voice for a number. Probably other services that offer that.
I think your post has a lot of assumptions... Social graph? What?
I don't know a thing about Google Voice, but I for one wouldn't bother setting up some fake numbers to create a fake account to use my own hardware.