[HN Gopher] Oculus Quest 2
___________________________________________________________________
Oculus Quest 2
Author : sidhanthp
Score : 184 points
Date : 2020-09-16 17:44 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.oculus.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.oculus.com)
| jugg1es wrote:
| I bought a rift S exactly one month ago. Disappointing to hear
| they are discontinuing it next year.
| brutus1213 wrote:
| Really sad that they are getting out of PC based VR. That said,
| my rift has been sitting in a corner for a year. I was really
| impressed from a technical perspective and felt the tech showed
| great promise. Good for HTC I guess.
| tomnipotent wrote:
| > That said, my rift has been sitting in a corner for a year
|
| Same. When "Half-Life: Alyx" was released, I started the
| motions of setting up my Oculus with the sensor towers,
| remembered how tedious it was, and promptly put it back. Sounds
| like the Quest 2 solves all of that.
| jugg1es wrote:
| I seriously doubt the Quest 2 will be able to run Alyx. My
| mid-range PC can't handle it on the Oculus (I think due to
| some heavy lifting Steam had to do to integrate with the
| Oculus)
| filoleg wrote:
| Alyx is a PCVR game, not an Oculus Quest standalone game.
| You aren't expected to be able to run it standalone, you
| are expected to run it the same way you would run it on any
| other VR headset - by connecting it to your PC using a
| cable (or using wireless solutions).
| jon-wood wrote:
| Occulus Link allows tethering to a PC via a USB cable, and
| Virtual Desktop can do SteamVR over WiFi. When I first
| heard of Virtual Desktop I was dubious, but on a good
| quality network it's ridiculously good.
| worldsayshi wrote:
| Indeed, I was very sceptical that it would work on my ISP
| provided wifi-router but it worked flawlessly. Although
| I've only played Alyx where you probably have some
| subconscious latency tolerance.
|
| It's so strange that they don't package wifi based oculus
| link as an out of the box feature.
| noir_lord wrote:
| I've really enjoyed the RiftS because of its zero setup but
| wouldn't buy it's replacement if there was one from Oculous
| because Facebook.
|
| G2 next for me I think.
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| are they really though? With the link it does make the quest a
| PC VR headset no?
| filoleg wrote:
| You are correct, the parent comment is just misinformed.
|
| Oculus is indeed "getting out of PCVR" in a sense that they
| won't have a device that does only PCVR in the future, yeah.
| But both Quest and Quest 2 support PCVR functionality that
| works the exact same way Rift does, natively and very
| smoothly. With that in mind, it just doesn't make sense for
| Oculus to release a PCVR-only device, if their standalone-
| capable devices can support PCVR just as fine.
| TwoBit wrote:
| Oculus isn't getting out of PC VR. They are converging on a
| single headset for both PC and standalone VR.
| alkonaut wrote:
| I'm happy to be locked to a store when I use it as a gadget, but
| when I use it as a PC VR headset, am I really stuck with Oculus
| store still? Why can't any title from Steam or wherever work?
| jayd16 wrote:
| No you're not stuck. I've been playing HalfLife: Alyx on the
| first Quest.
| polyomino wrote:
| You can sideload apks on quest and you can use steam if you
| connect it to your pc.
| moron4hire wrote:
| I'm really curious to see an engineering presentation on the
| Quest 2, how it utilizes the XR2 hardware, and what it adds on
| top. From my understanding, the XR2 is capable of doing all the
| tracking on its own. The previous gen of hardware was based on
| the 835, which did not have SLAM on-chip, and thus Oculus'
| tracking algorithms were the big value-add over the competition.
|
| And originally, Oculus was behind the curve on hadware
| implementations. The Lenovo Mirage Solo was the first 6-DOF
| headset, a year prior to the Quest, also running the 835. The
| Vive Focus was in the middle of the two. So, if the XR2 is doing
| the heavy lifting, it would suggest a big roadblock for
| competitor devices has been lifted.
|
| So how much of the Quest 2 is above and beyond the Qualcomm XR2
| VR headset reference design minus Facebook's services
| integrations?
| bryan_w wrote:
| The quest now has finger tracking which I imagine is still done
| in SW.
| how2draw wrote:
| So, are there any sex games or is this going to be yet another
| walled kindergarten like we're used to nowadays?
| istorical wrote:
| there are sex games for the Oculus Quest 1 (and a streaming
| pornhub style app). seems very unlikely Facebook would be
| stupid enough to intefere with the latter, not sure about the
| former.
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| give names pls!
| TwoBit wrote:
| Oculus has always allowed side-loading third party apps on the
| PC, which you can connect with Quest.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| They're restricting this in 2021 to accounts that are willing
| to share more personal information
| andybak wrote:
| Specifically either a phone number or credit card to enable
| 2FA.
|
| Doesn't the mandatory Facebook account already involve
| sharing a phone number?
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| No idea. Up until now I've been able to sideload apks
| without a FB account (although I did have to agree to an
| extra EULA). I'm doing some soul-searching to decide
| whether I capitulate to FB or get rid of my current quest
| (or try to use it with an Oculus account until it gets
| bricked)
| blensor wrote:
| They actually have a kind of strange app ecosystem at the
| moment. They have their own very restrictive store which is
| hard to get into and a thriving sideloading community [1] which
| allows you to run anything you want and is actually inoficially
| accepted by FB. It's very easy to list your game there and you
| can reach ~1Mio Quest users with it. I developed my own full-
| body fitness game [2] there which would never make it into the
| official store
|
| [1] https://sidequestvr.com [2] https://vrworkout.at
| chaostheory wrote:
| I played your game on Steam. Good work! I hope to see more.
|
| On a side note, it's strange that Steam doesn't have a
| fitness category yet.
| blensor wrote:
| Oh wow, that's awesome! You can add tags to a steam title
| but I guess VR fitness is not mainstream enough yet. I'm
| currently working on a battle mode where the physical
| exercise is the measure to score points against your
| opponent and a little tactical element by having to decide
| between offense and defense in each exercise, but that's
| not ready yet. And another feature that is coming or almost
| ready is the targeted HR training (set a HR target and the
| game will adapt to you during the session)
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| sidequest!
| rainyramen wrote:
| I wonder how the FB leadership team thinks about this whole
| FB/Oculus integration. It is clear that they think adding a
| "social" component to Oculus is going to help the Quest gain
| traction.
|
| But the question is, why does that "social" component have to be
| Facebook? With all the negative baggage a FB account carries with
| it, maybe the easier option would've been to let Oculus build its
| own social model, a la Play Station Network-style?
| ShamelessC wrote:
| Optimistically? I think they're definitely betting on VR being
| "reality adjacent" eventually and hence social interactions
| might actually be more meaningful in VR than they are on a
| website.
|
| Cynically, I think they just want even more datapoints on what
| everyone is doing. If people start to use VR the way they use
| the internet even a little (accessing content provided for free
| with ads), then data from a person's VR headset will have
| valuable information about how to target ads to that person.
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| I have a Quest and I can tell you that for me (and at least for
| people like me) the real value is in social games/experiences.
| I have a hard time going through a solo game (although I
| haven't tried Half Life Alyx yet) but social stuff are amazing!
| Everyone should try to play settlers of Catan in VR (it was
| only available on the Go unfortunately) which was insane!
|
| At this point I just want more of my friends to get a Quest so
| that I can hang out with them in VR. I already communicate with
| these friends via facebook so for me it's natural that this
| would work out perfectly.
| istorical wrote:
| try PokerStars VR if you haven't, it's a great and free
| social app.
| okramcivokram wrote:
| I also have a Quest and I can tell you that for me there was
| absolutely no value in social stuff.
| deskamess wrote:
| Seconded.
| screye wrote:
| I worry that Quest-2 will be the death of VR as the next UX
| frontier.
|
| VR tech is still a few years away from being 'seamless'.
| Historically, such moonshot ideas have only worked when they
| develop as expensive hobbies for years, until the tech catches up
| and they can be offered at a reasonable price.
|
| Facebook seems to want to skip that step. Give people a half-
| baked product before it is ready for the market.
|
| It is a real shame, because all the tech needed for great VR
| getting better at a rapid pace in consumer products. Mobile
| processing, Tiny/curved displays, high refresh rate
| accommodations, low latency throughout the stack, battery
| efficiency are all getting better FAST.
|
| With a few killer games and apps for VR, we could have had a
| killer consumer VR headset in 2-3 years. I worry that the Quest
| 2's half-bakedness will forever ruin the reputation of VR in the
| eyes of your average person.
| trixie_ wrote:
| 5 years ago you would of been right.. the entire last decade
| we've seen the tech maturing - Quest is at least gen 4 has been
| a smashing success. Quest 2 is a refinement of already mature
| technology.
|
| Not sure where you're getting the impression that the Quest and
| especially the Quest 2 is 'half baked'
| LockAndLol wrote:
| VR has been a thing since the 80s if I'm not mistaken. It
| wouldn't surprise me if some researcher from that era jumped on
| here to express how they were working with similar tech back
| then.
|
| "Forever" is a long time. I bet you're wrong about your claim
| of perpetual ruin unless there's another world war that wipes
| us out.
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| > Give people a half-baked product before it is ready for the
| market.
|
| Have you tried it? I have a Quest and it is the future, not a
| half-baked product at all.
| screye wrote:
| I have used all the Windows MR-devices and Vive Pro.
|
| It is not terrible, but I don't expect any non-tech savvy
| person to use it a ton any time soon.
| pluc wrote:
| Pretty scathing review on Ars:
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/09/review-we-do-not-reco...
| nvarsj wrote:
| There is something odd about this Ars review. It's not the
| normal high quality review I expect from them. There is a lot
| of subjectivity and plain wrong things stated (like less IR
| sensors in the controller). The only legit criticisms I picked
| up are the IPD adjustment and the FB requirement.
| TheRealSteel wrote:
| "nor can you toggle the system's "developer" mode and sideload
| VR-optimized Android apps of your choosing"
|
| That kills this product for me. If I can't mod BeatSaber it's
| useless.
| esyir wrote:
| Talk about a misleading quote. The full text here is this.
|
| Quest 2 requires a Facebook account to function; without one,
| you cannot run the system's built-in fork of Android, nor can
| you toggle the system's "developer" mode and sideload VR-
| optimized Android apps of your choosing.
| moron4hire wrote:
| That's also leaving out information. The full-full text
| here is this:
|
| "But Facebook's policies make that "standalone VR" magic
| harder to recommend this time around. As we've previously
| reported, Quest 2 requires a Facebook account to function;
| without one, you cannot run the system's built-in fork of
| Android, nor can you toggle the system's "developer" mode
| and sideload VR-optimized Android apps of your choosing.
| (Speaking of: New rules coming to the Facebook VR developer
| portal will soon force anyone who wants to sideload apps to
| either supply a working phone number or a credit card. Yes,
| that is separate from the FB account requirement.)"
| [deleted]
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| The review is wrong about the controllers though
| akhilcacharya wrote:
| Can you expound?
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| they updated the article:
|
| > Update, 3:30 p.m. ET: Since this article went live, we've
| seen infrared camera footage from Tested confirming an
| identical number of LED bulbs in both generations of Quest
| controllers
| Dahoon wrote:
| How about the last part of that quote?
|
| >"....which puts Facebook's original statement into
| question. The FB rep may have been describing a downgrade
| in frequency or power for those LED bulbs in Quest 2
| controllers."
| rcv wrote:
| Or this part
|
| > I went back to compare tricky "expert" Beat Saber
| levels on both Quest 1 and Quest 2, and sure enough, the
| older controller is noticeably more accurate. It's hard
| to perfectly measure VR controller detection without
| access to verbose data logs (which I've used to diagnose
| issues with SteamVR in the past). But I can safely say
| that after an hour going back and forth between Quest 1
| and 2, the number of lost swipes on the newer hardware
| was higher.
|
| Regardless of whether the new controllers have fewer IR
| emitters or not, the tracking performance seems to be
| subjectively worse.
| shajznnckfke wrote:
| The review really seems like a takedown piece, so I don't
| trust it too much on subjective measures, especially when
| they are mixed in with factual errors.
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| I honestly don't trust this review
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| yup, they obviously don't know what they're talking
| about...
| tootie wrote:
| The Verge seems to like it:
|
| https://www.theverge.com/21437674/oculus-quest-2-review-feat...
| Someone1234 wrote:
| As an owner of Q1 all I wanted from Q2 was:
|
| - Reduce or re-distributed weight (neck/upper back ache remains
| an issue)
|
| Instead, what we got in the Q2 is the same weight but a head-
| strap that's a substantial downgrade. That decision just
| compounds the Q1's most glaring weakness.
|
| Then throw in the mandatory Facebook account, downgraded eye
| adjustments, side-grade screen, downgrade battery life, and a
| bunch of cost-cutting all over: You just killed Quest.
|
| I've gone from recommending Quest to outright recommending
| _against_ Quest. They should have taken some weight out of the
| headset and put it in a box that goes in your pocket, not kept
| the weight and made a bad head-strap _even_ worse.
|
| Even with the $50 headstrap "upgrade" it is still worse than
| the HTC Vive Deluxe Audio Strap which many Q1 owners including
| myself own (via 3D printed adapter).
| modeless wrote:
| I disagree with almost everything you said. Firstly it's not
| the same weight; it's 10% lighter. If you want a better head
| strap then you can get the official upgraded one and combined
| it's still cheaper than Quest 1. Tested's review [1] says
| battery life is the same, plus there's now a battery strap
| you can buy to double it _and_ balance the weight
| distribution. Tested also says the controller tracking is not
| worse, audio is better, and all things considered the screen
| is a significant improvement. Then of course there 's the
| extra RAM and upgraded SoC.
|
| The only serious downgrade here IMO is the IPD adjustment,
| but for the vast majority of people it's not an issue. In
| other ways it's a clear improvement. I won't be getting one
| as I have an Index, but this is going to sell more than any
| other headset. The tech and the price are both incredible.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x6lux6f_6g Tested's
| review is the one to trust. Norm knows his stuff.
|
| Edit: Ah I see about the weight, you must have been talking
| about the weight combined with the upgraded headstrap, which
| does indeed make it heavier than Quest 1, by about 7%. I'll
| reserve judgement on comfort until I try it. Quest 1 wasn't
| exactly comfortable for me but it's about more than just the
| weight number.
| augstein wrote:
| According to a Review by Ars Technica, the 10% weight
| saving comes from the flimsier headstrap.
|
| I also think Facebook is kind of admitting they messed up
| the headstrap, if they have to sell a proper one
| separately.
| nvarsj wrote:
| I'm fairly sure the Ars review is plain wrong on this as
| well. Measurements in other reviews show the Quest 2 at
| 503g, vs the Quest 1 at 580g. That is around a 14% weight
| improvement, not 10%. On top of that, the headset depth
| has been reduced by 1-2cm from pictures which will
| improve things substantially due to reduced moment.
|
| I don't agree that selling an improved headstrap is
| admitting "they messed up the headstrap". They had to
| reduce costs to hit $300 to appeal to the mainstream
| casual market. I think it's awesome they are finally
| offering a premium headstrap for those of us who want
| comfortable VR and are willing to pay a bit extra for it.
| modeless wrote:
| The reduced cost and increased portability make it
| clearly the right choice for the product IMO. Cost and
| convenience are the #1 and #2 barriers keeping people out
| of VR. Once people see the value they can decide to spend
| on the headstrap for upgraded comfort.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| They didn't increase portability from the Quest 1 though.
|
| All they've done is forced the consumer to pick between
| portability but a bad user experience or no-portability,
| $50 cost, and a basically acceptable one.
|
| At least the Quest 1's headstrap was basically passable,
| this isn't.
| modeless wrote:
| The cloth headstrap is absolutely more portable than
| Quest 1. The $50 upgrade cost is more than compensated by
| the $100 discount on the headset itself.
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| I'm pretty sure comfort is one of the top priority there,
| so I really doubt the comfort was not improved between
| two Quest versions, it makes no sense to me, better check
| other reviews.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| > Firstly it's not the same weight; it's 10% lighter.
|
| The Quest 2 itself is the same weight as the Quest 1. The
| "10%" you're quoting is entirely from the headstrap
| changes, if you put a Q1 headstrap on the Q2 they'd weight
| the same.
|
| They made no improvements, and because of the downgraded
| headstrap it is actually in worse shape out of the box.
|
| > If you want a better head strap then you can get the
| official upgraded one
|
| And lose the 10% weight savings, and portability in a
| portable VR console.
|
| > Tested also says the controller tracking is not worse
|
| Wasn't a claim I made.
|
| > all things considered the screen is a significant
| improvement
|
| One screen instead of two, and downgrade from OLED to LED.
| If by "significant improvement" you mean cheaper and worse,
| but higher FPS then yes, otherwise no
| modeless wrote:
| If LCD is a downgrade from OLED then why did Valve Index
| at 3x the price choose LCD? The fact is it's simply
| better overall. The resolution, brightness, screen door
| reduction, full subpixel array, and uniformity matter
| more than the contrast. Really contrasty scenes are
| problematic anyway because of the fresnel lenses and OLED
| black smearing. 1 vs 2 screens is only a downgrade for
| IPD adjustment, which I agree is the one area that got
| significantly worse on Quest 2.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| The Valve Index _only_ went with LCD in order to use a
| new LCD tech that allowed high refresh rates and low
| persistence, it was a downgrade in all other ways except
| refresh rate. The Quest 2 and Quest 1 have the same
| refresh rate, so it 's a side-grade at-best.
|
| Contrast matters a lot in VR, too.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| > And lose the 10% weight savings, and portability in a
| portable VR console.
|
| What? It's still quite portable with an alternative
| strap. Somewhat bulkier for sure, but still easily small
| enough to put in a backpack.
| [deleted]
| moron4hire wrote:
| I just used black electrical tape to secure the DAS to my
| Quest :)
| Someone1234 wrote:
| I've read many have had success with that strategy,
| particularly in the early days of the FrankenQuest.
|
| But these days you can buy the adapter on etsy for under $5
| ($20 full kit), which will keep your stuff from needing to
| get tape residue on it.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| Its good that Facebook is over-reaching. We are in too early
| for one headset to be the only player in town. This will give
| others a chance to move into the space, I think. Looking at
| you Nintendo :)
| eugeniub wrote:
| I would be shocked if Nintendo released a competitive (I.e.
| not Labo) headset in the next year.
| warp wrote:
| Considering the success of the Quest compared to most other
| headsets.... I'm wondering of Sony is going to try to make
| the next PlayStation VR a standalone device.
|
| Sony is launching the PS5 in November this year, and there
| hasn't been any word on a new VR headset to go with it, but
| I imagine they're developing something new.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Overly negative, IMO. (Except for the Facebook deeplinking,
| which is bad.)
| Dahoon wrote:
| You have actually tested it before saying you know better?
| spdustin wrote:
| I'm sure I'm deeply in the minority here, but I still wish PCVR
| (or a native headset/driver) worked on Mac. My MBP's graphics are
| beefy enough to handle the sort of games or experiences I'd want
| to enjoy in VR.
|
| I had the DK2 when Mac was still supported, and even my old
| MacBook Air could drive it well enough to enable some pretty
| enjoyable experiences from third parties writing for it. The
| solar system tour in particular was a favorite of mine.
|
| Granted, it's not a hardcore gamer-friendly setup, but there was
| still a lot to enjoy, and even develop for.
| song wrote:
| Completely agreed, I was happy to see steamVR beta for mac but
| it never progressed beyond a beta and I have to boot to
| bootcamp every time I want to play VR games. I have an egpu
| which is more than beefy enough for a good experience but it
| sucks that I can't actually use it in macos.
|
| It does show that if Apple switches to arm, the value
| proposition will be significantly reduced since I will have to
| have a separate PC for gaming and testing things on windows.
| chaostheory wrote:
| > My MBP's graphics are beefy enough to handle the sort of
| games or experiences I'd want to enjoy in VR.
|
| As a fellow Mac user, I highly doubt it's the case anymore
| unless you're going to limit yourself to Beat Saber.
|
| 1. Most games are not optimized for the Mac to put it lightly.
|
| 2. Mobile GPUs just don't cut it when you're running VR and
| displaying on 2-3 screens at once
|
| You really don't have a choice but to either go with Facebook
| or Steam PC for VR, for now at least. Who knows when Apple will
| risk it with another potential paradigm shift, but if they're
| still going with the 'just glasses' Jony Ive route, it will be
| years.
| butz wrote:
| How do I bypass Facebook login and how do I use it on Linux?
| fsflover wrote:
| You can't: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24201306
| tinyhouse wrote:
| I'm thinking of pre-ordering it for my family. I'm not going to
| use my personal FB account for this. I'm assuming one can open a
| new FB account just for this, right? Also, is it worth getting
| the 256GB for extra $100? Never had a VR device and not sure how
| many games/apps you can have on 64G.
| utopcell wrote:
| I don't think you can have a FB account that is not linked to a
| real name.
| k__ wrote:
| Did they say something about the FoV?
|
| I have to admit, I would prefer more FoV instead of higher
| resolution.
| pugworthy wrote:
| There is a trade off though in terms of detail. You're
| essentially taking a pixelated image and stretching it out more
| with just a FOV increase. The result for your eyes is
| essentially increasingly greater simulated myopia.
| k__ wrote:
| Okay, but having a bigger display with the same PPI instead
| of making it the same size, but higher PPI should be
| perferable here, right?
| MBCook wrote:
| Battery doesn't last as long as the old version (which didn't
| exactly have fantastic battery life in the first place).
|
| And you'll soon HAVE to use your FB account with it.
|
| Interesting they've killed the Rift S. So they're all in on the
| Quest.
| shajznnckfke wrote:
| I imagine they have done research on how much people care about
| using it without the power cable plugged in vs. the weight of a
| larger battery. Even for portable use, it might be better to
| use an external USB C power pack than have a large battery on
| your head.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| There's an official accessory strap with battery now, if
| battery is a problem. Helps with balance, I've done a similar
| setup with a 3D printed bracket and a power bank.
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| https://www.oculus.com/accessories/quest-2-elite-strap-
| batte... where is the battery in this thing??
| wlesieutre wrote:
| It's the curved white chunk on the back
| tus88 wrote:
| More like 3D TVs "2".
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| of course...right after I bought an oculus quest 1.
| sputknick wrote:
| Been there. But it's still a really good headset. I have one,
| you'll love it.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| Oh im loving it, no doubt.
| aaroninsf wrote:
| Anyone who buys into the Facebook borg today has blood on their
| hands.
|
| There's no way to sugarcoat it, hand-wave about business units,
| make puppy dog eyes about such smart well meaning people...
|
| The culture and company behavior is fundamentally compromised,
| irredeemable to all appearances, and is the bedrock of the
| contemporary severing of a significant number of people not only
| from the political mainstream, but from consensus reality.
|
| It's a shame they bought Oculus. That renders it a non-option.
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| it's a very one-sided opinion
| fsflover wrote:
| So what is the opinion of the other side?
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| That it actually connects friends, and people, across
| communities and countries?
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| This gets a really poor review from Ars Technica:
| https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/09/review-we-do-not-reco...
|
| The downgraded controllers and the awkward IPD adjustment system
| are the deal breakers for me.
|
| From the review:
|
| The takeaway: Bullet points for this review A better screen, both
| in pixel resolution and refresh rate.
|
| 90Hz, but when? Facebook isn't clear about higher frame rate
| support.
|
| More powerful wireless-VR hardware, which powers nifty under-the-
| hood tricks.
|
| Less battery life. You'll barely exceed two hours of gaming on a
| single charge.
|
| A cheaper, flimsier headstrap. You can pay more for a nicer one.
|
| A baffling change to the "IPD" slider. Only certain skulls need
| apply.
|
| The controllers are the same... but worse. I'm a bit shocked by
| this one.
|
| The F-word. Yeah, we'll get into that.
| frakkingcylons wrote:
| Yeah I appreciate the honest review from Ars here for sure.
| Really disappointed by the downgraded controller tracking.
| Superb tracking was one of the surprises of the first Quest.
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| > The downgraded controllers and the awkward IPD adjustment
| system are the deal breakers for me.
|
| This is not true btw, their review is wrong on that
| mrkstu wrote:
| Considering he reported his feedback loop w/his Facebook
| handlers on the issues he encountered, how is Sam 'wrong?'
| esyir wrote:
| Someone took ir camera footage and counted the leds.
| marcan_42 wrote:
| Which means Facebook was wrong, since they claimed that.
|
| Yet the controllers are still less accurate, as per Sam's
| testing, so his point still stands. It doesn't matter how
| many leds there are, only that they're worse controllers.
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| They're not less accurate, I would trust other reviews
| applecrazy wrote:
| Is there expandable storage?
| rektide wrote:
| You missed the best/worst part!
|
| > But Facebook's policies make that "standalone VR" magic
| harder to recommend this time around. As we've previously
| reported, Quest 2 requires a Facebook account to function;
| without one, you cannot run the system's built-in fork of
| Android, nor can you toggle the system's "developer" mode and
| sideload VR-optimized Android apps of your choosing. (Speaking
| of: New rules coming to the Facebook VR developer portal will
| soon force anyone who wants to sideload apps to either supply a
| working phone number or a credit card. Yes, that is separate
| from the FB account requirement.)
|
| > Quite frankly, I had designs on testing Oculus Quest 2 with a
| burner Facebook account. I'd set one up years ago with a spam
| email address, and Facebook's reps asked me for my Facebook
| account address before they shipped me the review unit. I gave
| them my burner profile URL, then went to reset the password. By
| wrongly typing my new password one time, I was locked out.
| "Please send us proof of your identity," the site sternly
| warned me.
|
| This is just the start of a long long section of the article on
| how Facebook will, at the drop of a hat, ban you, remove access
| to all your purchased software, & how invisible moderators
| haunt all your VR spaces.
|
| All-in on evil, cruddy, awful policies. An affront to general-
| purpose computing as the world had known & enjoyed it.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| I think that's covered in the reviewer summary line "The
| F-word. Yeah, we'll get into that. " F-word -> facebook.
| Subtle, but a great analogy.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| $300 is a pretty big deal for pricing on a VR headset, that feels
| very different from $400 for wide adoption.
|
| Seems like this is also the end of the road for Rift, the Quest 2
| is lower cost, more pixels, and they mentioned 90 hz screens for
| PCVR games over Link.
|
| EDIT - review units went out in advance, so 3rd party reviews are
| already up. Here's one from Tested:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x6lux6f_6g
| dylan604 wrote:
| Facebook will makeup that subsidized $100 on selling the data
| the glean from the user while using the Quest 2.
| shajznnckfke wrote:
| Really though? Facebook makes money by displaying targeted
| ads to users. What data from the Quest is being used to
| target ads? I'm not familiar with anything related to this in
| Facebook's product for ad buyers, and can't think of anything
| particularly useful that they could be doing.
|
| You could think of Oculus as an effort to increase the amount
| of user attention inventory Facebook has in supply to rent
| out to advertisers. Also, they are positioning themselves as
| an intermediary for transactions in the future VR economy by
| being platform owner (a la Apple owning the App Store). My
| guess is the long-term plan is to make money here by
| displaying ads in VR and by getting a cut of goods and
| services sold though VR (see: Ready Player One).
| dx87 wrote:
| You could advertise similar games based on what they're
| already playing.
| dylan604 wrote:
| You're thinking too small. By owning a Quest 2, you're
| signalling that you (or your parents) have disposable
| income they are willing to spend on electronic devices.
| Yes, it clearly shows you're a gamer. So if you're a
| gamer, you probably drink Mountain Dew and eat Doritos.
| Based on your FB profile, you probably like certain types
| of shoes. 75% of other people with matching criteria
| purchased something, so let's shove that in your face as
| well to see if we can't get it up to 80%. Oh, you play
| games between the hours of xxx, so you must be a
| teenager. Let's target ads to get your parents money.
| shajznnckfke wrote:
| That info seems like table stakes for Facebook. It
| doesn't take the many billions invested in Oculus to find
| any of that out.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Sure if that was the only data point. however, this is
| just one more thing they will use to refine the data they
| are sucking in about you every second. At this point, why
| would they not do it? It's in their DNA.
| phonon wrote:
| https://funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4640768/Xbox+one+gre
| ent...
| Tossrock wrote:
| They may not be exposing the data they're collecting to ad
| buyers today, but it's a safe bet they're collecting it.
| You can extract a lot of signal on ad effectiveness based
| on what people look at via head pose, and once eye tracking
| is in - nominally for foveated rendering, of course - it
| will be even stronger.
| croes wrote:
| What data? Movement range, size, speed,reaction time. With
| touch controllers you can even track the stress resistance,
| because people tend to tighten their grip if stressed. And
| there a lots of companies like Cambridge Analytica that can
| use that data to push their agenda even better. Easier game
| for people like the Koch brothers.
| pritovido wrote:
| Data from a VR is extremely useful.
|
| First it measures your fitness level. Those devices have
| high quality acceleration and gyroscope sensors. They could
| know your visual and acoustic acuity.
|
| They measure what games you play, for how long, at what
| time.
|
| With these data and processing done by AI created by
| engineers they can extract and know more about yourself
| than you do.
|
| We know from Snowden that places like the NSA collect and
| save data expecting technological changes in 5-10 years in
| the future for processing that data. The technology for
| processing does not need to be ready yet.
|
| This is extremely useful for Advertisers and secret
| services. This is not what you say you are, this is what
| you are.
| underwater wrote:
| That's a bit of a stretch. Facebook uses data to improve
| ad targetting on their own platforms. They're not selling
| your HR or fitness data to your insurance company or
| anything crazy like that.
|
| Facebook generated $29 per user in the US last year. A
| small bit of extra info about people's gaming habits is
| not going to improve ad targetting enough to make up for
| a $100 gap in price.
| rado wrote:
| What data? All the data!
| ianlevesque wrote:
| What is it with HN and trying to read between the lines so
| hard? There's literally an Oculus Store app store for quest
| games. Probably they are just making money on game sales,
| like every other game console has for 35 years.
| kichik wrote:
| If it were truly just about the games, they would let you
| keep using Oculus login. Why else would they force you to
| use a Facebook login? If they only cared about store
| profits, logins wouldn't be required at all.
| gibolt wrote:
| You could imagine a future where VR/AR is the equivalent
| of Mac or Windows, iOS or Android. The platform is the
| asset
| xnx wrote:
| I agree that being a game platform would be enough to be
| profitable, though their biggest dream must be to be the
| ultimate gatekeeper/taxman to what goes into your eyes.
| Aside from injecting thoughts right into your brain, what
| is more important than a screen that blocks out
| everything else you see? (phone, laptop, and TV are worth
| zero when you're wearing goggles).
| petre wrote:
| And the next thing you know firemen are running around
| burning books, like in Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| I do worry that Facebook will figure they might as well
| double dip on sales and advertising; future headsets are
| probably going to have eye tracking (ostensibly for
| foveated rendering and better avatars), and combining in-
| world advertising with exact data on how long people
| looked at them is a pretty compelling sell for what is
| fundamentally an advertising company.
|
| They spent like 15 minutes of the presentation talking
| about how ethical they're going to be (re: AR glasses)
| and how trust has to be earned, but their ethics track
| record isn't exactly stellar.
| throwaway423342 wrote:
| do you work for FB?
|
| within FB people 'assume good intention'.
|
| outside FB not so much.
|
| think about why
| wincy wrote:
| Also remember that Mark Zuckerberg himself demoed the
| Samsung Oculus headset to everyone. That was a really big
| deal at the time. It's possible that this is a pet
| project he's adopted and really wants to see succeed.
| However, practically, it's a great jumping off point for
| AR and we know that Apple is experimenting with Augmented
| reality headsets that are tied to your phone.
|
| Facebook might just be trying to get ahead of the game,
| betting that the next step past phones is VR/AR.
| shajznnckfke wrote:
| I'm skeptical the Facebook would bother to invest so many
| billions into VR just for the chance of being part of the
| competitive game console market. It makes sense to think
| about how it fits into the long-term strategy for their
| main cash cow, ads. If there's a future where
| internet/app usage hours shift toward VR, Facebook
| doesn't want to be left in the dust like Myspace when
| users switch to a new social network. Even if they can
| keep users on a Facebook-owned VR app, they don't want to
| wind up paying a 30% tax to some platform owner.
| jayd16 wrote:
| > being part of the competitive game console market
|
| You mean being part of the many billion dollar game
| industry by controlling the highest growth sector in that
| industry with vendor lock in and rent seeking for any
| game sold in that new market?
|
| Yeah...who would want that...
| shajznnckfke wrote:
| Sure, but that would also apply to other companies who
| could have bought Oculus. I think the way it fits into
| Facebook's overall company strategy explains why they
| would bid the most.
| bentcorner wrote:
| My guess: The simple answer is they want to be the VR
| platform of the future so they can show ads on it,
| however that may look. Selling ads in VR
| apps/games/homescreen is obvious - selling AR ads is
| probably on the horizon (so, if you look at your fridge
| in the Oculus Quest 5 AR you'll see an ad asking you to
| upgrade to the latest Samsung Fridge).
|
| I kind of doubt we have anything to worry about _now_ ,
| but there is a terrifying future on the horizon where
| everything you look at, everything you do, is measured
| and any value is extracted and sent to ~~our new
| overlords~~ FB.
| technotony wrote:
| Zuckerbery has talked about the strategy here for ages.
| It's not about VR, it's about AR. The tech to build
| realtime, always on AR is just a more advanced VR tech.
|
| AR will be all about the ads as facebook can serve them
| everywhere you go. That's where they will make $100BN in
| ad revenue.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| I hope that the platform as a whole don't start stuffing
| ads everywhere, but I'd be shocked if there weren't some
| monitization plan for Facebook Horizon
| renewiltord wrote:
| It's just run of the mill conspiracy theorists. I remove
| them from my feed and move on.
| jimrandomh wrote:
| They make it up by taking a 30% cut on any games you purchase
| through their store (which is the only place you can buy
| games for it), similar to consoles. This is much more money
| than user data is worth. (Not that they won't use/sell that
| data, too, but let's not confuse ourselves about how much
| it's worth.)
| gibolt wrote:
| Facebook doesn't sell user data. Advertisers have access to
| targeting that occurs in a black box to them
| dylan604 wrote:
| If you want to get down to a nit picky level like that
| then, sure. And to be fair, maybe it should be explicitly
| stated. However, Facebook sells access to the data it
| collects. It may not be access to the raw data that a
| phrase like 'selling the data' makes it sound. However,
| it is making money from the knowledge it has about people
| (can't even say its users anymore). Either way, the ad
| buyer (end user) gets access to that data even if it is a
| black box API style system.
| polyomino wrote:
| No, advertisers do not "get access" to that data.
|
| They get the ability to target ads against people who
| match some characteristics. Facebook's business is
| literally built on advertisers inability to access that
| data. If they had access, advertisers would advertise
| elsewhere and Facebook wouldn't get a cut.
| jjn2009 wrote:
| buying peoples data would be a big deal, that's why its
| not a nit picky detail. I also don't agree with facebook
| having all of my data in the first place but they don't
| just tar up my entire life and hand it to someone.
| jjn2009 wrote:
| were talking about cameras that are actively scanning your
| room, you do realize this thing is painting a detailed 3d
| picture of your house right?
| chaostheory wrote:
| yeah, the Oculus store is more expensive than the Steam
| store for the same titles.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| EXCEPT for the privacy bull (pretty angry about that),
| that's actually not a terrible deal for consumers.
| frakkingcylons wrote:
| They'll make up the difference on the Oculus Store
| commission, just like Sony and Microsoft.
| akhilcacharya wrote:
| $300 is what I paid for my Windows Mixed Reality headset, which
| is also inside out tracking. Works phenomenally well with Half
| Life Alyx.
|
| But I do agree that it seems like a killer value - I'll
| probably preorder one!
| chaostheory wrote:
| yeah but WMR requires a PC. Quest is an all in one device
| that you just turn on and put on your head.
| filoleg wrote:
| that's why Oculus is killing off Rift S. Because Quest can
| do the exact same thing, but also function as a completely
| standalone device, all for $299/$399. It is indeed a killer
| value proposition.
| superkuh wrote:
| The Rift is a VR head mounted display for a beefy PC. The Quest
| is an entire computer system powered by battery and tiny in
| surface area. They're different products for different markets.
| Anything in a mobile form factor as your VR computer will
| necessarily be limited for either shorter time periods or
| significantly less graphical fidelity.
| Digit-Al wrote:
| From the article:
|
| >We're going to focus on standalone VR headsets moving
| forward. We'll no longer pursue PC-only hardware, with sales
| of Rift S ending in 2021. That said, the Rift Platform isn't
| going anywhere. In fact, we've seen significant growth in PC
| VR via Oculus Link, and the Rift Platform will continue to
| grow while offering high-end PC VR experiences.
|
| So, yeah. End of the road for the Rift. Oculus Link makes it
| redundant.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Rift S is being discontinued, if you want a dedicated PC
| headset now you'll want to look at an Index or an HP Reverb
| G2.
|
| But you can plug the Quest into a PC and use it as a PCVR
| headset. Oculus sells a 16 ft fiber optic cable for $80, but
| it works well over any good quality USB 3 cable (and even
| works over USB 2 now).
|
| The downside of this is that it's more front heavy than a PC
| headset without all the standalone guts, and I'm sure there's
| non-zero latency for running the video stream over a USB
| connection rather than a standard video cable. It works
| pretty well though, I think the trade-offs are absolutely
| worth the benefits of having a standalone headset.
| StavrosK wrote:
| Hell, it works fine over wifi.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Also check out https://www.vrdesktop.net/ for PC streaming,
| this option works wirelessly and performs very well as long
| as you have a fast and stable wifi connection.
|
| The version on the Oculus Store doesn't do SteamVR
| streaming though, you have to buy it and then sideload an
| alternate version (which still checks for a license from
| the store).
|
| There's supposed to be some sort of easier sideloading
| system coming (currently you need to sign up for a
| developer account and enable developer mode), but no new
| info since that was announced a few months ago.
| superkuh wrote:
| Yes, but with 30 ms additional latency on top of base
| latency for doing the same with a normal head mounted
| display. You can see confused questions about this all over
| the oculusvr forums.
|
| So now you're tethered, your tether is more fragile, and
| you have significant extra latency.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Yes, serious PC VR gamers will probably want to look
| elsewhere, for me my gaming computer is mostly running
| flatscreen games and being able to enjoy games like HL:
| Alyx via Link is a bonus.
|
| Standalone headsets are so much more convenient, and are
| affordable to people without a high powered gaming
| computer, so I see why Facebook is going in this
| direction.
| fossuser wrote:
| At the end of the linked post they say rift is EOL.
|
| It's clearly dead and as someone who owned one it's been
| clear FB hasn't cared about it for some time.
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| Note that the Quest is basically a rift with link
| ggreer wrote:
| Oculus Link[1] lets you render everything on the PC. The
| cable also provides power so you don't have to worry about
| battery life. The only disadvantage is the extra weight of
| the battery in the headset.
|
| https://www.oculus.com/blog/play-rift-content-on-quest-
| with-...
| [deleted]
| scotty79 wrote:
| I've planned to buy Valve index and this announcement gave me a
| pause. But ultimately I'll be sticking with Index for 120hz
| refresh rate (vs 90hz of Quest 2)
| shoulderfake wrote:
| But I need a facebook account to use one of these dont I ?
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| you need an online account to download the games on the app
| store yes
| Jemm wrote:
| What is the FOV?
| tehwebguy wrote:
| Love my Quest but I basically only play Pavlov Shack, a game that
| requires sideloading and I am somewhat sure will not come to the
| official Quest store.
|
| Will probably end up selling mine and getting another brand.
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| didn't they say it would come to the store?
| xnx wrote:
| I don't know all the tradeoffs involved, but seems like a
| downgrade to go from the pure black of OLED to the backlight
| bleedthrough of LCD for a screen so close to the eyes.
| ShamelessC wrote:
| Ghosting on completely black regions in Half Life Alyx was the
| only complaint I had with my OLED HMD. I tried an LCD one and
| my brain was better at ignoring the extra brightness than it
| was the ghosting.
| moh_maya wrote:
| We develop industrial training solutions using the rift S and
| quest. But the deep linking with FB, the battery downgrades on
| the quest, etc, all are going to push us away.
|
| For PC-based training sims, we'll probably get the HTC Vive. And
| the Pico for the quest equivalent.
| jayd16 wrote:
| >the battery downgrades
|
| I haven't seen anything about this. Only battery news I've seen
| is they have a new strap system with a battery pack in it.
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| what's the blocker with the FB linking?
| TwoBit wrote:
| Why do care about the Facebook link? You needed an Oculus
| account previously and a Facebook account now, but there's no
| forcing of Facebook on you.
| Dahoon wrote:
| You do need a FB account - and a real one at that. If you
| create a fake one and you get locked out and you can't prove
| you are that fake person FB will lock you out of the account
| (and all bought software).
| deskamess wrote:
| Will the Oculus account continue to work? Otherwise they are
| forcing Facebook on me.
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| I think it's fine to not buy a product if you don't want to
| create an online account
| emsy wrote:
| It's fine to buy a product and expect it not to require
| an intrusive violation of my privacy to use it. I hope
| lawmakers will completely bar this practice for all
| devices.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Some features won't work without an FB account. No one is
| forcing you to buy this device, but if you do and want to
| utilize features that require a FB account then it is forced
| upon you
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Since the last update a Facebook account is necessary for
| essentially everything.
| polyomino wrote:
| They mentioned businesses getting accountless and/or
| alternative authentication methods in the keynote.
| [deleted]
| Causality1 wrote:
| It's quite ironic that by attempting to force me to use a
| Facebook account, all they've accomplished is forcing me to
| exclusively pirate my VR titles.
| mouldysammich wrote:
| the whole mandatory facebook thing has made me want to sell my
| quest. Its a shame, I think its truely the best device out there.
| I was able to play have life alyx totally wirelessly and enjoy
| the full experience, and I dont think there is anything close out
| there to emulate this.
| mrfusion wrote:
| I thought half life requires a cable to the pc?
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| There's 3rd party software like OpenALVR (FOSS) and Virtual
| Desktop ($ but works better IMO) that let you stream PC VR
| games wirelessly
| worldsayshi wrote:
| I'm using Virtual Desktop and it works flawlessly with
| Alyx. It's so puzzling that you need to enable developer
| mode and sideload stuff to enable wireless while they allow
| you to connect with a cable out of the box.
| cj wrote:
| I'm hoping the improved graphics specs and refresh rate help
| people (like me) who are sensitive to VR motion sickness.
| shafyy wrote:
| It most certainly will
| [deleted]
| Monitor2019 wrote:
| Genuine question - if this was the perfect AR/VR device, would
| you use it even though it is a FB product? I have real concerns
| about privacy and the need to log in with FB credentials, but I
| am also very hopeful for devices that can continue to grow the
| market and help take it mainstream.
| echlebek wrote:
| No. I will never willingly use facebook or facebook products.
| jackhack wrote:
| I know I wouldn't. I have stayed off FB -- active avoidance --
| for a reason. Now that they have taken over the Oculus (I was
| an early Rift developer, and have the production Rift now) my
| journey with them is complete.
|
| I don't trust Facebook and at this point I simply cannot
| imagine any possible action they could take to restore that
| trust.
|
| It's a real disappointment. I admire the product and appreciate
| the contributions of the engineering team to advancing the
| state-of-the-art.
| klmadfejno wrote:
| I'd buy one for myself and for my family as gifts if it weren't
| an FB product. Disappointing really.
|
| I hope Valve can produce a competitor. Index is doing just fine
| but the target markets are different.
| time0ut wrote:
| I wouldn't use it even if it was free. I don't want the market
| to grow in the direction FB is trying to take it. I don't want
| to subsidize it with my privacy.
| moron4hire wrote:
| Well, I have a legacy Oculus account, and the Quest 2 will be
| obsolete before the grandfathering time has expired, so I am
| going to get the Quest 2. Hopefully a reasonable competitor
| will be available by then.
|
| EDIT: never mind. I won't be getting the Quest 2.
| slipheen wrote:
| For what it's worth, I don't think the grandfathering
| applies.
|
| "All future unreleased Oculus devices will require a Facebook
| account, even if you already have an Oculus account."
|
| https://www.oculus.com/blog/a-single-way-to-log-into-
| oculus-...
| moron4hire wrote:
| shit...
| meheleventyone wrote:
| I bought the original Quest and will stop using it when the
| Facebook account becomes mandatory. Hopefully there is a
| suitable replacement from a less odious company at that time. I
| absolutely will not get a Quest 2 despite being very impressed
| by both the hardware update and price.
| cyrux004 wrote:
| create a new facebook account just for this and dont use it
| ever ?
| slipheen wrote:
| This also involves agreeing to the Facebook ToS.
| numpad0 wrote:
| If you make a Facebook account and tie it to VR goggles,
| you're not "not using it ever" but polar opposite of it...
| mortenjorck wrote:
| One of two things happens.
|
| A) An algorithm flags your newly-created account as
| "inauthentic" and now you have to submit a copy of your
| driver's license to Facebook just to use a piece of consumer
| electronics you bought.
|
| B) A different algorithm puts the pieces together and deduces
| that your burner account is the same identity as the real
| Facebook account you stopped using years ago or perhaps even
| "deleted." Nothing escapes the big-data inferences of The
| Graph.
| t0mbstone wrote:
| I don't know... Facebook hasn't detected a single one of my
| 6 fake facebook accounts, and I've had them for years. I
| have been using one of them with my Quest ever since I got
| it, and they still haven't caught on.
|
| Maybe I'm slipping through their net because my accounts
| are old?
| oefnak wrote:
| They would definitely connect the dots. Same home WiFi, for
| starters.
| cyrux004 wrote:
| now that would be an interesting experiment to see how and
| if they figure that out
| te_chris wrote:
| Absolutely not
| mike_d wrote:
| I would purchase this in a second if it was from any other
| company.
|
| I refuse to financially support a company that is doing so much
| to hurt democracy worldwide.
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| > that is doing so much to hurt democracy worldwide
|
| what makes you think that facebook hurts democracy? Weren't
| democracy hurt way before facebook due to TV, radio,
| newspaper, and whatever was the communication mean of the
| day? I think a lot of people are over reacting here. If
| anything, FB helps against wannabe dictators, see how
| critical everybody is of Trump? Without social networks I
| think it'll have been much easier for Trump to make the US a
| dictatorship.
| stanlarroque wrote:
| We are building exactly this : https://lynx-r.com
| oefnak wrote:
| Looks very interesting. But that's a lot of money, so you
| need to make sure people can try it out somewhere.
| the_hoser wrote:
| No, you aren't. You're building a business-focused product
| that might share some similarity to the Quest 2. The
| hardware isn't what makes the Oculus a compelling consumer
| product.
| KarimDaghari wrote:
| Genuine question: What makes the Oculus a compelling
| consumer product?
| the_hoser wrote:
| Content, price, and experience. It's fun to talk about
| SoC's and pixel count, but at the end of the day those
| don't matter as much as we like to say that they do. You
| can have the most amazing hardware in the world, but if
| it's hard to get content made for said hardware, and it
| costs too much, and it's too difficult to use... then it
| will fail.
|
| Facebook is doing the boring work that people don't like
| to talk about in tech forums, and that's why they're able
| to make a compelling consumer product.
|
| The only other VR company that seems to get this is Sony,
| and they're married to a 6-8 year product cycle.
| xyzzyz wrote:
| Availability of fun games you can play, no need for
| external PC, no complex environment setup, and the
| sticker price of $300 vs. $1500.
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| It's the most developed VR experience out there?
| worldsayshi wrote:
| 1. It can connect with your gaming pc wirelessly. Also
| battery driven, so completely wireless. 2. No base
| stations, only headset and controls 3. You can run many
| games directly on the device, so no gaming pc required
| for for example beat saber. 4. Portable, you can bring it
| to your friends place.
| frakkingcylons wrote:
| Accessible price, no gaming PC needed, no external
| hardware setup required for tracking.
| mike_d wrote:
| Yikes.
|
| I advise a few companies doing enterprise VR and they are
| all OEM'ing the HP Reverb at half your list price with 4K
| per eye and high quality 6DoF.
|
| Are you going to try to integrate SteamVR, cut the price by
| a thousand dollars and try to sell a privacy conscious
| headset?
| stanlarroque wrote:
| We already have SteamVR compatibility with remote
| rendering over Wifi 6 or USB-C. And for the rest of your
| questions, yes.
| t0mbstone wrote:
| What kind of latency are you getting with the headset and
| wireless remote rendering
| dorkinspace wrote:
| Personally, price doesn't matter, I would not use a FB device.
| [deleted]
| renewiltord wrote:
| Yep, pre-ordered it and I bought my parents a Quest and I have
| a Quest at home too.
| slim wrote:
| this will grow _and_ capture the market. so it 's an unuseful
| growth. you will actually have less options in the future if
| you buy it
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Not as long as Valve still wants to be a player in the VR
| device space. The Index has had an 8+ week wait to receive
| one for several months now because they keep selling out,
| despite the $1,000 price tag for the full kit.
| Fordec wrote:
| If Facebook is going to be the market, and I believe it will
| be judging by what's out there right now, VR on the whole as
| a market is dead to me. Since the facebook linking account
| news I've removed all VR news blogs from my RSS feed. I don't
| need to know about what's happening in the industry anymore.
|
| If the only way to avoid Facebook is to not play, I'm not
| playing. It's just that simple.
| Kiro wrote:
| Yes, the Quest 1 was such a game-changer for me that I would
| sell my soul to get the next generation. Really hoping other
| companies will step up their game though.
| reader_mode wrote:
| What's the privacy concern here ? Facebook knows what I do in
| VR ? I don't necessarily want that but TBH I don't really care
| about it either - I don't plan on using it for anything
| compromising anyway and I'm bombarded by advertisement spam
| everywhere to the point of immunity.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| How about the scanning of your home in precise 3D?
| jackhack wrote:
| Will they be running automatic object
| detection/classification on the video streams?
|
| Is that a completely legal firearm/sword in the background?
| Is that a MAGA hat on the desk? Care to explain that Antifa
| flag on the wall? Maybe you supported that politician that
| lost the last election?
|
| Could you have a Falun Gong book on your shelf, or a poster
| with Tiananmen Square's "tank man"? Maybe an image mocking
| a country's leader as a cartoon character?
|
| What if SpyCam2 sees/hears something "islamophobic"? This
| is merely illegal in some countries, but a ticket to a
| death penalty in others. What then? Should the authorities
| be notified? Will Facebook turn over recordings if asked or
| demanded by a court or pre-emptively send them?
|
| All reasonable questions in my mind.
|
| Let's go just a bit further. Are you prepared to adjust
| your surroundings and life to be completely PC, a sterile
| pokerface world devoid of any Anti-whatever-that-
| isn't-politically-correct items which might offend? That's
| the world that the East Germans suffered under, while the
| Stazi collected every available fact, trying to ferret out
| "traitors" among the populace. at least they were safe in
| their own homes, for the most part (although some important
| conversations took place in the rest room, with the water
| running, to hide from microphones).
|
| So should you fail to hide your unpopular thinking, at the
| least you'll face a 30-day ban from the hardware+software
| you paid for. If you're not so lucky, they might just have
| to call the authorities, or the religious police, you know,
| "for your protection."
|
| Now add monitoring/recording/cataloging of your speech...
| are you comfortable knowing everything you've said is TOS-
| approved? Will it remain so, forever? doubtful.
|
| Think this is absurd? It's not. Oculus just became part of
| Facebook's platform. Try any of the behaviours above on
| facebook and see what happens. (hint: enjoy your ban)
|
| That's not entertainment. That's Dystopia: Big Brother
| invited into your home, re-imagined as a face-hugger with
| cloth straps.
| mhh__ wrote:
| VR currently has a innocence to it. I'm sure we'll see
| adverts like usual at some point
| moron4hire wrote:
| It's not just knowing what I do in VR. It's also seeing and
| hearing into my house, because they have provisions for
| scenarious in which they would keep full sensor data
| indefinitely.
| numpad0 wrote:
| They'll have control of your vision, literally.
| reader_mode wrote:
| I mean this is a toy you put on for leasure (a tool at best
| but at that point you'll probably invest more money and not
| use a FB product) if it's not a satisfactory experience I
| stop using it
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| If they've got eye tracking, they know basically how your
| visual cortex behaves - and hence how to put stuff where you
| look at it. That'll get infuriating _very_ quickly.
|
| They'll also know what gets your attention, what doesn't...
| unless you can control your saccades, that'll leak a lot of
| information about your mind-state while viewing Facebook-
| controlled media. They could, if they wanted to, blackbox
| reverse-engineer bits of _you_ via controlled-input attacks.
|
| VR headsets are basically _the_ most creepy thing they could
| be tracking my behaviour with - perhaps second to the
| smartphone, since at least I can take off the VR headset.
| reader_mode wrote:
| >That'll get infuriating very quickly.
|
| And as soon it does I stop using it.
|
| As for reverse engineering my preferences I'm not sure I
| care honestly - if it means ads I get are more relevant it
| might even be a good thing.
|
| I don't know I just don't feel there's a lot of value in
| profiling me specifically and it probably only helps them
| in aggregate anyway.
|
| I'm not against dats privacy, but if it gets me superior
| hardware at a better price point I don't see the downside.
|
| I'm much more bothered by wall garden platform like Apple
| imposing Apple tax and will slowly roll off Apple devices.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| > _I don 't know I just don't feel there's a lot of value
| in profiling me specifically_
|
| Nah; only a few dollars a (time period), really.
|
| Multiply that by all their customers and you have a _lot_
| of money coming in from the creepy tracking.
| slipheen wrote:
| I don't want or need a Facebook account, and I don't want
| their software running on my machine.
|
| They've shown to be bad actors in the past with harvesting as
| much data as possible, even on people who don't have
| accounts.
| reader_mode wrote:
| I can see that, but TBH I already use their products, the
| benefit outweigh the cost so not much changes here.
| oefnak wrote:
| Don't you use an adblocker? I really believed everyone on
| this site would.
| reader_mode wrote:
| I do but it's still present in plenty of places - mobile
| especially. I prefer paid as removal options if I use the
| service (YT premium, Spotify, etc.)
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| Absolutely yes, which is why I have one. I genuinely don't see
| the issue.
| legohead wrote:
| > Quest 2 requires your Facebook account to login
|
| That's a strange barrier to entry. I haven't had a FB in years,
| and have zero interest in going back, not even for some great
| hardware.
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| That's quite a light barrier to entry to download online games
| choward wrote:
| I disagree completely. I absolutely refuse to have a Facebook
| account linked to my identity that Facebook uses to spam
| people asking if they know me.
| d--b wrote:
| There is one thing that will make me buy VR, it's a full field of
| vision.
|
| They say virtual reality, but they sell virtual binoculars...
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| You want the Pimax 5K then. It claims a 200 degree FOV.
| moron4hire wrote:
| As someone who owns a Pimax 5k, you do not want a Pimax 5k.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Oh. What's wrong with it?
| moron4hire wrote:
| All the extra angles of FOV are very distorted, and there
| is a red static constantly fuzzing away in the display.
|
| Plus, you have to deal with the Pimax company, which has
| to be one of the most incompetent companies I've ever met
| when it comes to taking money and delivering product
| without stepping into the realm of actual fraud. When I
| bought mine, it was 3 false "it's shipped" announcements,
| 2 months, and a threat to reverse my credit card charge
| before I finally received it.
| Kiro wrote:
| The FoV is anything but binoculars on modern headsets. It's as
| close to full FoV that you're never bothered by it or even
| think about it.
| Karawebnetwork wrote:
| It's not that different than regular glasses. Anything that
| involves lens will require you to look at the middle and rotate
| your head.
| rhexs wrote:
| My regular glasses don't block out an additional 30% or more
| of my vision. I can see fine peripherally, it's just a bit
| blurry.
| joemi wrote:
| I wonder if that might be a useful next step for FOV in
| VR... Some additional screen area in the peripheral that's
| lower res than the main screen area?
| Karawebnetwork wrote:
| People have been know to DIY leds around the lenses to
| help with that.
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/05/how-side-mounted-
| leds...
| msikora wrote:
| This seems like an obvious and fairly low cost solution
| (in terms of both money and CPU). I wonder why this
| wasn't integrated into commercial headsets yet?
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| have you tried it? I have a Quest and I don't really understand
| your complaint, as soon as you wear the headset you just forget
| about the real world.
| pugworthy wrote:
| Psychologically, yes one does forget about the real world.
| But in terms of actual FOV measurements the human eye is far
| better.
|
| However having that narrower FOV in VR is actually a good
| thing, as it makes for a smaller arc subtend for each pixel.
| If you were to give the wearer a 60 degree FOV in VR, they'd
| see very crisp and detailed things. But the more you stretch
| it out, the worse the effective visual quality becomes.
| BillinghamJ wrote:
| I have a Valve Index and love it. Yes it's immersive
| regardless, but VR still has such a long way to go on the
| quality front. FOV is fairly poor, pixel density is awful.
|
| I'm looking forward to an actual "retina display"-like option
| (60+ PPD) with higher FOV in another 5-10 years, but I'd
| assume that'll be 8K minimum per eye, maybe more like 10-12K.
| shpx wrote:
| If you have $6,000 then the Varjo VR-2 headset has a 60 PPD
| (pixels per degree) display embedded in the middle of a 15
| PPD display.
|
| https://varjo.com/products/vr-2-pro/
| BillinghamJ wrote:
| Very very low FOV though, even considering the 15 PPD
| portion
| joemi wrote:
| I'm not the person you're asking but I've tried it and it
| goes both ways for me. Sometimes it's still very immersive,
| and other times the reduced FOV (compared to reality) does
| take away from the experience.
| derefr wrote:
| I'm just waiting for tech that uses eye-tracking to put a tiny
| hi-DPI display that "moves around" so it stays right in line
| with your foveal vision, while having a static, head-wrapping
| low-DPI display behind it, to cover your peripheral vision.
|
| I can't imagine there's any tech that'd let an actual LCD move
| around at the speed your eyes do. But maybe the foveal display
| could be from ultra-low-power short-throw laser DLP, bounced
| right into your eyeballs? It could even use the glass surface
| of the peripheral LCD display as a DSLR-alike mirror, so that
| it can reach your pupil from a straight-on angle.
|
| What I'm describing does seem to exist (a
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_retinal_display) -- but
| it doesn't seem that anybody has tried _combining_ them with
| traditional LCD tech yet.
|
| I feel like such a hybrid device would have a number of obvious
| operational advantages, e.g. much lower bandwidth/render-power
| requirements (each frame, your GPU would only have to render a
| high-resolution image of a little square, along with a very
| low-res image of the rest of the scene.)
| shock-value wrote:
| > I feel like such a hybrid device would have a number of
| obvious operational advantages, e.g. much lower
| bandwidth/render-power requirements (each frame, your GPU
| would only have to render a high-resolution image of a little
| square, along with a very low-res image of the rest of the
| scene.)
|
| Foveated rendering provides these benefits without needing a
| mechanical mechanism. (Though it does still require full-
| field high resolution displays and apparently the eye-
| tracking requirements haven't been fully solved yet -- which
| would also preclude your suggestion of a hybrid device.)
| buzer wrote:
| > I'm just waiting for tech that uses eye-tracking to put a
| tiny hi-DPI display that "moves around" so it stays right in
| line with your foveal vision, while having a static, head-
| wrapping low-DPI display behind it, to cover your peripheral
| vision.
|
| Isn't that what Varjo is doing? They do have headsets out,
| but they are strictly targeting enterprises at this point
| (cheapest headsets start at 5k + mandatory support for 800).
|
| [edit] actually no, I remember them discussing that approach,
| but apparently they went with some kind of semi-transparent
| mirror to combine the images.
| https://varjo.com/blog/introducing-bionic-display-how-
| varjo-... &
| https://gfycat.com/perkywastefulhorsechestnutleafminer
| yboris wrote:
| I'm an Oculus CV1 owner and I still love it.
|
| The next one I'm buying is the HP Reverb G2. The resolution is
| phenomenal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZvPnd_xTBs Consider
| it when you're deciding on a headset.
| t0mbstone wrote:
| Any VR headset with a tether is a dealbreaker for me, period.
| swalsh wrote:
| It's really great to see VR coming down in price and becoming
| more accessible... but it's coming at the cost of quality, and
| it's bringing the rest of VR down with it. As an example, Onward
| VR recently added support for Quest in its game. The process of
| doing so required a significant scale down in the quality of
| graphics, sound, and all kinds of things that were great about
| the game. Over night the game took a nose dive, and that's not
| even mentioning the complete community change that came along
| with it.
|
| EDIT: here's a video with examples:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVgxk0ytTyI&feature=emb_titl...
| tantalor wrote:
| Why do people put the before on the right and the after on the
| left? Is it a mental disorder?
| chaostheory wrote:
| While I primarily use my Vive Index with base stations, I love
| what the Quest is doing for the VR industry as a whole. While I
| really like my prosumer VR setup with base stations. It also
| sucks for the following reasons:
|
| 1. Sure, nothing beats it for visual quality and performance,
| but it is expensive. Minimum $999 AND you need a beefy PC with
| an equally beefy Nvidia GPU so the real minimum is really
| around $2499 with PC vs $299 for a Quest 2. That's a $2200
| difference.
|
| 2. It is a pain to setup. You either have to deal wires and
| wire control on the ceiling, or if you have a Vive Pro, then
| you can spend another $299 to install a wireless option
| bringing the total cost to $2798. Let's not forget the base
| stations. While nothing beats them for tracking accuracy and
| the fact that they're the only option for full body tracking,
| it's yet another pain to set up. You might either drill holes
| in your walls, or you might buy camera tripods as a pricier
| alternative $25-$79 each on sale. Of course, once you set it up
| it's a dream, but the initial hill to climb is high.
|
| What Oculus and PSVR are doing is expanding the market for VR
| and democratizing it so that it's no longer a niche hobby for a
| select few techies. Also, it is 'Apple'ing' VR. You just plug
| and play. You don't have to go through a convoluted setup that
| even some techies will balk at. i.e. I can buy this for my mom
| as a fitness machine.
|
| Facebook and crossplay will also fix the problem of empty
| multiplayer games.
|
| On a side note, I believe Onward devs are working to revert the
| PC VR Steam graphics. It's also good to note that it's just one
| game.
|
| I will definitely be buying an Oculus Quest 2.
| kcb wrote:
| Bad developer implementation. Games have had scalable graphics
| settings for decades.
| Fabricio20 wrote:
| While I understand the concern, isn't the blame to be made on
| the company behind the implementation? (In this case, the
| developers of Onward?).
|
| Most PC games nowadays offer a free "DLC" for extra-high
| graphics you can download, which means they maintain
| compatibility but for those who have beefy machines it also can
| provide super high fidelity. Why didn't they do it that way?
| chaostheory wrote:
| My guess is because Onward as of a few months ago or even
| now, only has one developer. Even if that's changed recently,
| they probably don't have the manpower to maintain drastically
| different versions of the game yet.
| asou wrote:
| Is anyone making a similar standalone without forced FB ?
| karmakaze wrote:
| The Quest has a resolution of 1440 x 1600 per eye. So the 50%
| more pixels works out to 20% more scan lines (1920) and 27% more
| pixels/line (1832). 90 Hz has potential perhaps via PC link.
| nixass wrote:
| Mandating to link Facebook account with this VR set screams red
| flags to me.
| haberman wrote:
| As someone who only barely follows VR, what benefits would this
| have over the upcoming HP Reverb G2 besides price?
|
| I was eying the HP Reverb G2 for high resolution, and for its
| Microsoft Flight Simulator support.
|
| EDIT: ah I just found this:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/HPReverb/comments/it5jvj/hp_reverb_...
| XCSme wrote:
| The biggest difference is that the Quest is a standalone VR
| platform (it includes hardware that can also run the games),
| whereas the majority of VR devices are just display devices
| (screens, lenses, audio, controllers).
| chaostheory wrote:
| I feel that wireless and better tracking are the biggest
| technical differences that favor the Quest 2. WMR, whether
| deserved or not, has a bad reputation for tracking. I don't
| know why Reverb didn't support a base station option since it
| was supposedly about "no compromises". Oculus would be superior
| for non-sim games and would be near equivalent in sim game
| performance when it's linked to a PC.
|
| The facebook requirement is a hard sell for many people though.
| The lack of IPD adjustment may be a be killer for a lot of
| people, but I'm pretty sure that's one of the major things that
| brought down the price to $299
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| If you're going to ignore 2X the price, why not compare to
| Pimax 8K?
| haberman wrote:
| Maybe I should! I didn't know about the Pimax 8K.
|
| Will all of these have access to the same software titles, or
| are they built on closed or incompatible software ecosystems?
| song wrote:
| Pimax supports steamVR, same for the HP reverb. You should
| be able to use Revive to access occulus games on those
| headsets too.
| TwoBit wrote:
| A benefit of the Quest is that you will have a wider range of
| apps. You can run all the apps that you can with Reverb G2,
| plus all the Oculus PC apps and the Oculus Quest apps.
| [deleted]
| syspec wrote:
| > We're going to focus on standalone VR headsets moving forward.
| We'll no longer pursue PC-only hardware, with sales of Rift S
| ending in 2021. That said, the Rift Platform isn't going
| anywhere.
|
| Well, actually it is isn't it?
| evanextreme wrote:
| Not necessarily. Since the Rift S launched and Oculus Link
| released, Facebook changed the branding of games that require a
| PC to "Supports Rift Platform" to signify that they can also be
| played on a tethered Quest. I expect they'll change the name in
| the future though
| fossuser wrote:
| Yeah, but as someone who owned the Rift S and then bought a
| Quest - it turns out there's a rude surprise that all the
| games you bought for the Rift S have to be _bought again_ for
| the Quest.
|
| The Rift S was a huge mistake, ironically I only bought it
| because when I asked my friend working at Oculus which one to
| get he said to get the Rift S (I suspected then they didn't
| care about it).
|
| They should never have shipped it.
| filoleg wrote:
| > all the games you bought for the Rift S have to be bought
| again for the Quest.
|
| Wrong on 2 accounts.
|
| 1. A lot of games support cross-buy between Rift and Quest
| versions.
|
| 2. For those that don't support cross-buy (or games that
| only have a Rift version), and you already own them for
| Rift, you can play them on Quest just fine by connecting it
| to your desktop either wirelessly (using software like
| VRDesktop) or using a cable. Just like you were previously
| able to with Rift (minus the wireless option, iirc it
| wasn't a thing for Rift).
|
| Tl;dr: Quest is a superset of Rift's functionality. You can
| do everything with Quest that you could do with Rift.
| Officially supported, without any hacks or workarounds. If
| you had a game you purchased for Rift, you can play it on
| Quest just as if you were playing it on Rift without paying
| anything extra.
| fossuser wrote:
| 1 is not true for the games I had (which were the most
| popular ones including beat saber).
|
| Saying "just use a cable" or crappy streaming software to
| play games on the quest when the entire point is to have
| a wireless device is lame.
|
| Most people are going to assume if you buy something in
| the oculus store that you can play it on oculus devices
| (unless it's an issue related to device performance which
| I can understand).
| filoleg wrote:
| Your original complaint was that you have to rebuy games
| you already bought for Rift to be able to play them on
| Quest, which is not true. You can play them on Quest the
| exact same way you were able to on Rift.
|
| Also, wireless solution isn't "crappy". I tried Half-
| Life: Alyx using both cable and wireless (VRDesktop) for
| an hour each, and ended up finishing the game using
| wireless, because it felt more comfortable, and I didn't
| notice any difference that I could actually spot.
| fossuser wrote:
| > "You can play them on Quest the exact same way you were
| able to on Rift."
|
| Yeah, but the entire point of buying the Quest is so I
| don't have to play them the exact way I was able to on
| the Rift.
|
| For a comparison, what you're describing feels like this:
|
| 1. I buy a videogame on steam and play it on my computer.
|
| 2. I buy a new computer and download steam.
|
| 3. Steam tells me that I have to rebuy the game to play
| it on new computer.
|
| 4. Someone on HN says I can just connect my new computer
| to the old computer in order to play the game and that
| this is 'the exact same way'.
|
| Do you know see how that's a shitty experience?
|
| It's ridiculous that the quest version of the game is a
| separate thing you have to buy even though it's the same
| store. Your solution relegates me to being attached to
| the PC defeating the entire point of the quest. If the
| game couldn't be played on the quest because it needed
| the PC's graphics that's one thing, but this isn't that -
| beatsaber exists and works fine on the quest.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| This is pretty huge, although bummer with the Facebook
| deeplinking.
|
| Much better resolution for just $300 including the controllers.
| That's the price of a large monitor.
| msie wrote:
| A good video review (Adam Savage's Tested):
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x6lux6f_6g
| devwastaken wrote:
| Quest can't do VR titles. It will always be a niche mobile game
| market that can't give VR justice. If they would integrate h264
| hardware decode and allowed the PC oculus software to stream to
| it, then we'd be in business.
|
| Wireless VR is a big problem right now, it's expensive, doesn't
| work well, and for it's price you might as well get better
| hardware.
|
| Oculus should ship quest with a cheap little 5Ghz USB broadcaster
| that you can put into your gaming PC and the oculus software can
| then stream through. Everyone wants to be able to have no cords
| and tuck their PC into a corner, not drag it with them.
| ipsum2 wrote:
| Have you tried the Quest? I've owned many different VR headsets
| in the past, the Quest is pretty fantastic. "can't do VR
| titles" is such an exaggeration it doesn't make sense.
| pavlov wrote:
| _> "...allowed the PC oculus software to stream to it"_
|
| You can do this with the Oculus Link cable. It makes the Quest
| essentially into a Rift.
| jon-wood wrote:
| > Wireless VR is a big problem right now, it's expensive,
| doesn't work well, and for it's price you might as well get
| better hardware.
|
| There's an app for the Quest called Virtual Desktop that allows
| streaming SteamVR over WiFi, which on a good network is almost
| indistinguishable from wired VR. Playing Half-Life: Alyx
| without being tethered to your computer is a pretty awesome
| experience.
| t0mbstone wrote:
| and by "almost indistinguishable" you mean "nauseating lag
| every time you turn your head"
| filoleg wrote:
| Nope. I played Half-Life: Alyx with both cable and wireless
| for the first few hours, alternating, and ended up playing
| the rest of the game in full wireless, because I haven't
| noticed any difference.
|
| And I am saying that as someone who is fairly sensitive to
| this kind of stuff, like, I can easily see the difference
| between 60hz and 144hz refresh rate on monitors, for
| example (yes, i am aware that refresh rate and input delay
| are different things, this was just an example).
| Thaxll wrote:
| I'm going to buy a RTX 3080 and was looking for a cheap VR
| headset...
| anon776 wrote:
| Can I watch netflix in bed with this?
| rwmj wrote:
| Can anyone comment how well the latest VR headsets work for
| people who wear spectacles?
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| There are some companies that make custom lenses for the Quest.
| I've used one, and it works really well.
|
| Of course, that's not for the model being shown here, I'm not
| sure if it's still an option.
| ggreer wrote:
| I've probably had a dozen people with glasses use my headset.
| None of them seemed to have any issues with visual quality,
| though a couple had issues with comfort. The Quest comes with a
| spacer for glasses. That works fine 90% of the time, but some
| people's glasses are too big and can hit the lenses in the
| headset. This can be uncomfortable and (more importantly) it
| can scratch the lenses in the headset.
|
| If you have glasses, I'd recommend getting some lens protectors
| for the headset. They're usually around $10 and take a minute
| to apply.
| JonathanFly wrote:
| They work okay, but I recommend looking on Etsy and finding
| some magnetic lens adapters for about $25 dollars. They click
| into the headset and then you take the lenses out of of a
| specific $10 pair of Zenni Optical lenses and stay attached to
| the headset itself.
| k__ wrote:
| I use a Quest with glasses and works good.
|
| There is a special retainer that keeps the headest a bit
| farther away from your head.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-09-16 23:00 UTC)