Oculus sunsets Go, will add easier Quest app distribution

https://www.oculus.com/blog/an-update-on-the-evolution-of-the-oculus-platform-/

by shafyy • 6 years ago

114 168 6 years ago

shafyy10• 6 years ago

That’s why we’re going all-in, and we won’t be shipping any more 3DOF VR products.

This is not exactly surprising, but still a bold and absolutely correct move from Oculus.

As a developer who was rejected from the Oculus Quest store before, it's great to hear that they now how concrete plans to start opening up the store.

ericflo3• 6 years ago

I'll believe their new distribution method when I see it. How will they handicap it? How will they maintain their requisite absolute control? And we won't see it until sometime next year? Hmm. (Spoken as someone who was rejected from the Rift store.)

cybwraith• 6 years ago

Yeah anything from them should be taken with a healthy grain of salt at this point, but I'm cautiously optimistic. My game was on Go/Rift but reject from Quest with a "Why don't you try releasing on the Rift first!" message. This despite my game already being on Rift with 10,000+ downloads and a 4.5 star rating average. I said it when they announced the approval process for Quest, and I'll say it again, it was too early in VR's life to pull an Apple.

shafyy10• 6 years ago

I'm imagining you'll just have a direct link to your app in the store that you can use e.g. on your website or submit to SideQuest. Your app won't be findable on the Quest store otherwise. Why is that hard to believe?

leetrout4• 6 years ago

I feel like so much of the submission to the Quest store lead to a lot of devs adding stupid features / mechanics _just_ to show off the quest features (forced climbing or hand interactions and similar in games where it doesn't really seem necessary).

Trying to inject themselves into development at the concept phase (at least for Quest) sucked too. I understand not wanting trash in the store but there has to be a middle ground.

ilaksh• 6 years ago

Its actually kind of funny for them how much money they seem to be making hand-over-fist with their Oculus Store and Quest titles.

But not funny when you are locked out of that. And they can lock out apps or games that they have a conflict with in terms of titles they are associated with themselves or any other reason.

I think if their new distribution system isn't open enough, that leads the market wide open for someone to come in with a device that has an open marketplace and I would drop Oculus in a second if that were the case. Because Sideloading is a pain in the ass.

whywhywhywhy3• 6 years ago

How will they handicap it? How will they maintain their requisite absolute control?

I mean they already allow you to install anything you want on the device with a single click so not sure why you're using this sort of language.

Think they clearly just want a middle ground where indie developers can release something but there isn't a chance of malware.

vageli2• 6 years ago

> That’s why we’re going all-in, and we won’t be shipping any more 3DOF VR products.
This is not exactly surprising, but still a bold and absolutely correct move from Oculus.
As a developer who was rejected from the Oculus Quest store before, it's great to hear that they now how concrete plans to start opening up the store.

If you were rejected from the Quest store, you can still put your content out there on SideQuest.

shafyy10• 6 years ago

And I have. But the reality is that the vast majority of Quest users don't know about SideQuest and/or don't want the hassle of sideloading.

gwillen2• 6 years ago

Sideloaded apps now give multiple scary warnings about the Terms of Service: See e.g. https://www.howtogeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/4487.pn... .

"May put your account and device at risk" is not going to get you a viable third-party app ecosystem, especially when it's an open question what Facebook/Oculus might decide to clamp down on in the future.

coffeeaddicted6• 6 years ago

Unfortunately just the kind of experience you can expect when buying non-open systems. Company loses interest in hardware - it can stop everyone developing for it. If they would at least open it up for sideloading so the hardware isn't doomed to become electronic trash.

throwaway1777• 6 years ago

Quest is a huge step up from go, so I don’t think anyone is going to complain in this case. Most new apps/games aren’t being released for it anyway.

Kiro3• 6 years ago

100% correct decision in this case.

coffeeaddicted6• 6 years ago

You do like hardware getting locked down for development less than 2 years after it's release? (edit: OK, a bit over 2 years - 31. May 2018, still not that old)

I don't care about the shop. I just wish people could continue to develop for it as it is (or now was...) a pretty fun device to experiment with VR.

shafyy10• 6 years ago

That's like saying the Palm handhelds should still be supported.

pinfisher• 6 years ago

I pine for an m105 again

coffeeaddicted6• 6 years ago

I don't know about Palm as I never had one. But I can still code for my first Android phone. And I do not ask for support, but for opening up sideloading so users can install apps from PC when the shop closes.

dyingkneepad• 6 years ago

Despite my desire to have open systems everywhere, I think this issue falls more under the bucket of being an early adopter of a technology. New tech can always die like that.

But of course we need the early adopters, otherwise things never evolve to the point of being mature, so thanks to early adopters for being our guinea pigs.

To my view, pretty much everybody buying VR headsets today is still an early adopter :)

jimrandomh• 6 years ago

You can sideload. I've sideloaded some things on Quest, and as far as I can tell from googling it's the same on Go (I don't own one though).

However, in practice it's not going to get any new software, because developers will be writing for new generations, and porting to hardware with a slower GPU speed is more effort than it's worth.

coffeeaddicted6• 6 years ago

Registered developers can do sideloading, no info yet if that will continue to work. Or if it will be possible for users to register as Oculus developers in the future or if that is shut down as well.

If hardware can still be used there are generally people around who continue to use it in some way. And the hardware of the Oculus was pretty nice actually (even if many here don't seem to like it because of only 3-dof).

ArcVRArthur• 6 years ago

I hate to keep saying "I told you so" but I've had many conversations at Oculus Connect & elsewhere about the abject failure of 3DoF with few people seriously considering that the market has spoken. 6DoF standalone VR is the minimum bar for success with spacial computing. Forget 3DoF & AR. Focus on what's growing and retentive. That's 6DoF VR standalones and currently Quest is king.

didgeoridoo• 6 years ago

I'd go so far as to say 3DoF was a massive setback for popular perceptions of VR.

Low-resolution spherical imagery and video is just not that impressive, and that's all you get with 3DoF. Contrast with the presence and immersion you get with even the cheapest 6DoF headsets, and it's not even the same technology category.

So, now we have a bunch of people walking around thinking they "tried VR" because they had a Gear or a Go or a Cardboard, but they didn't get what the big deal was about.

rorykoehler• 6 years ago

The latest vive changed my mind on VR. I guess I’m in that cohort

shafyy10• 6 years ago

I think there are huge differences between Cardboard, Gear and Go.

I believe the Go was a good step to get many people into VR in the first place. I know it pulled me in. But now is a good time to move on.

Impossible4• 6 years ago

Yes, 3DOF was a gimmick and lead to the perception that VR was another 3DTV waiting to happen. Turns out "VR" is, 3DOF devices and phone holder VR of the mid-2010s had a similar adoption and failure curve as 3DTV. I didn't really get excited about VR until I tried Vive, as tracked controllers are important also.

lmm• 6 years ago

Funnily enough I had the opposite experience. 3D spherical video made a lot of sense and I could immediately see the point. I still use my Gear VR pretty regularly. Meanwhile my expensive fancy headset sits gathering dust because it's just too much faff to get everything set up and use it, and the overall experience isn't really much better.

SubiculumCode6• 6 years ago

I just opened up my new O. Quest last night...and I'm blown away. This is the future.

k__9• 6 years ago

Yes, it's pretty awesome tech. Got one a week ago too.

But the content is a bit lacking right now...

mulderc• 6 years ago

I have had my quest for a week and I'm very impressed but the tech has a long way to go and I'm deeply skeptical VR will ever be more than a niche product.

toby5• 6 years ago

Completely agree. I was wholly unimpressed with "VR" until I got a Quest and now I think it's a shame that 3DoF ever pitched as such.

baby4• 6 years ago

I think people are being a bit harsh on the Go, I still thought it was really cool and I got family and friends to try some VR experience for cheap.

There is no denying that the Quest is light year ahead.

pj_mukh• 6 years ago

"Forget 3DoF & AR"

Sidenote, Quest will be mixing between AR and VR [1]. Maybe it'll take a hardware revision to really bring it to the fore, but the future of AR/VR are quite blurred. [1]: https://tech.fb.com/the-future-of-work-and-the-next-computin...

k__9• 6 years ago

The cameras are too crappy for that right now.

jimmySixDOF• 6 years ago

Passthrough in high end VR will become the early experience of where Magic Leap / Hololense should be in a few generations (AR with wide FOV, High Def Egocentric 360 SLAM, etc). That hardware is almost available (see Qualcomm XR2 specs [1]).

This comes with all the high end VR HMD limitations like compute tethering, physical footprint, & mobility issues - but it will have early productivity applications.

The blurring of AR/VR/XR/EtcR will be felt less where hardware formats are lightweight low cost like Quest or xyzGlasses

[1] https://www.roadtovr.com/qualcomm-snapdragon-xr2-5g-announce...

jansan3• 6 years ago

Isn't setting the perimeter already done with AR? I think this is a good start.

throwaway9468• 6 years ago

that's like saying dos was a mistake because MS should have just developed xp instead.

of course 6dof is better than 3dof - that's obvious - but that is also a question of how expensive computing power is. Quest is simply the next iteration of Go - so obviously they'll sunset Go at some point.

The way you sound it seems like you think you split the atom or something.

Impossible4• 6 years ago

You're right that 3DOF needed to exist before 6DOF, which is a much harder problem to solve, doubly so for inside-out. But, PCVR entirely skipped 3DOF as a consumer product, and even though Rift shipped without touch controllers it had tracked controllers 6 months after launch.

Early 3DOF mobile VR was an attempt at getting more users, without actually thinking about the user experience. Early mobile VR advertisements (for Gear VR or Daydream), had people using 3DOF VR headsets like they were standalone 6DOF headsets with full hand-tracking. People walking around their hands in front of the HMD, etc. Marketers knew how the device should work, it actually wouldn't be insane to say the device that people want is 3-5 years out and not release 3DOF hardware

jobigoud• 6 years ago

At the same time the Go was on the market Lenovo had a 6DoF standalone headset working on Google Daydream.

jachee2• 6 years ago

I'm slightly perturbed that I picked up a Rift S instead of something else. I feel like Facebook^WOculus has it next on their list of abandonware, and the vendor lock-in feels heavier by the day. No OVR stuff, Can't run anything without the Oculus Store app open, etc.

raxxorrax• 6 years ago

Same. But between the quest and a rift S, I would certainly pick the latter. The quest wasn't for me, it just doesn't do enough on its own (bought the quest first because I didn't know the disadvantages). You can theoretically connect your PC too, but that is finicky. The rift S was fun for a time, but the lock-in is disastrous, but far worse for the quest. Typical for "modern" software, but VR landed in a corner like many other attempt before. It can be fun for a time though.

The first time people are very impressed with VR, but it is just too much effort for regular use. Even in games like Elite, which has really good VR support, I returned to my flat screen after a while. Nice to find you coffee mug, be able to find your phone... I have "see-through" mapped to a button, but you still feel caged.

jansan3• 6 years ago

I am a complete newbie in VR. We had a Quest borrowed by a friend a few weeks back, when my family was in quarantine. Playing Superhot was a lot of fun, but it became next level shit when we tried it in our basement, where we have a huge empty 40m² room. It was absolutely insane, moving through the room, around opponents. This was it! So yeah, 3DoF is not what we need. Give me 6DoF, a lighter headset and a wider angle of view, and I will spend the rest of my life in our basement :)

caiobegotti• 6 years ago

In case you're not into VR but is curious about it from time to time: DoF means degree of freedom and you can easily imagine the tech leap from 3 to 6 (X, Y & Z axis of movements of the head plus surge [back and forth], sway [sideways] and heave [vertical] movements of your body).

k__9• 6 years ago

3DoF -> looking around

6DoF -> looking & moving around

NegativeLatency• 6 years ago

6DoF -> looking around and moving around

andybak• 6 years ago

And "moving" includes small movements. Parallax is obvious just from leaning small amounts and it's absence is what spoils 3DOF VR.

6DOF is important even for static seated experiences.

keyle• 6 years ago

I remember opening my DK2 prototype with huge excitement, open a game, nearly vomit twice and put it back in the box "for later".

I have not adopted more VR options since (still sour from the money spent). But I imagine 6-dof is the minimum requirement.

Box still there, covered in dust.

m12k• 6 years ago

FWIW the DK2 made me queezy within minutes, but the Valve Index I recently got never does even after hours of use. They've really come a long way.

quietbritishjim• 6 years ago

I think by "X, Y & Z axis of movements" you meant "X, Y & Z axis of rotations". It sounds like you're talking about translations, which is confusing because that's the same thing you mention in the next sentence.

arkades2• 6 years ago

So, for someone who isn’t gonna drop a grand on a Valve rig, what’s the right purchase for a gamer today?

Kiro3• 6 years ago

Oculus Quest. Hands down. I used to be a real VR skeptic before but after trying it I immediately got one and now use it every day. For me you either go all-in with Valve Index or get a Quest.

iamwil2• 6 years ago

What do you use it everyday for? Gaming? Or something else?

If it's porn, you don't have to answer, but it's a genuine question what you're spending all your time in VR doing.

Filligree3• 6 years ago

Hands down the Quest. I have both for development purposes, but I find the Quest a far better experience and end up using it most of the time.

arkades2• 6 years ago

I was expecting someone to say like, Vive or something. The Quest is that good?

I see it being pitched as stand-alone. Does that mean you can't use it to do VR for PC games (e.g., Skyrim)?

flak482• 6 years ago

The Quest. The 64 GB option is enough for 99.99% of people.

Ajedi322• 6 years ago

Short answer: Quest.

Long answer:

Depends on what you're looking for exactly. Quest is what I'd recommend to most people since it's the only major headset that can operate completely on its own without a PC, and you can still connect it to one if you want to play titles that aren't available on Quest natively.

If you're confident you won't be using your headset without a PC though, there are other options. Rift S is more comfortable and offers better latency and image quality than Quest's PC connection feature does, for example. On the low end of the price scale there are also cheap WMR headsets which have worse controllers and controller tracking but can get you the basic experience of a 6DoF headset for ~$200 if you buy used. On the high end there's also the Valve Index, which offers significant improvements in image quality, FOV, and refresh rate, but you already explicitly ruled that out as too expensive.

xwdv• 6 years ago

Don't drop a cent on a Valve rig until there's a wireless option.

I got a Quest thinking I would just use it for some casual portable gaming here and there, and now I'm going to just sell off my vive rig because there's no way I can go back to tethered VR.

A more powerful Oculus Quest would probably be a day one purchase for me at this point.

esyir2• 6 years ago

This is exactly what I'm thinking. I got the quest, and having played around with link, it's terrible going from fully wireless VR back to tethered.

It doesn't sound like much, but cable tangle as you move is an absolute nightmare. Looking behind you now has to come with remembering the direction you turned in so you can undo the coil after.

snapetom3• 6 years ago

For everyone saying Quest, how safe of a bet is it to support Star Wars Squadrons?

I was thinking about eventually getting a Vive rig, but never felt there was a killer app just quite yet. Squadrons got my attention.

istorical2• 6 years ago

If you get Quest you can just play any rift or vive game if you have the PC for it using Oculus Link cable.

https://www.oculus.com/blog/play-rift-content-on-quest-with-...

meheleventyone2• 6 years ago

Squadrons is unlikely to be Quest native but the Oculus Link is great and I use my Quest tethered to my PC to play flight sims which I think is preferable to virtual controls as I can have a full stick, throttle and rudder setup.

vl3• 6 years ago

Quest is better just because you can buy it relatively quickly, and for Valve Index you have to wait many weeks in line. Valve Index (or Rift, for example) is lighter, because it doesn’t have battery, and has better tracking (pros), but is connected by cable (cons). But you need cable for Quest to play PC games anyway!

But it’s not significantly cheaper - you want 128GB version because games are huge, this is $500. Then you need a case - this is relatively fragile equipment, and you don’t want your lens to get dirty since it’s hard to clean - $40. Then you need Oculus Link cable to play Half Life: Alyx or other more demanding games - $80. Quest doesn’t have built-in headset - $50 more (I’m actually using over-the-ear headphones with $10 short cable). You may also need grips (magnetic battery cover is the most stupid thing!). You can buy cheaper accessories, but they are hit or miss, so I opted for first-party case and cable at least. Anyway, this is $670, which is getting into Valve Index territory.

vlovich1233• 6 years ago

The Link cable is totally optional & only if you want a 15ft super-light USB3 cable. You can use any USB cable you want including USB2 cables, 26ft cables, cables you already own, the in-box charging cable.

On price, the Valve Index is $999. $999 - $670 = $329. Generally a $300 price difference at this level puts you in a very different market price point targeting different users. You may also not already have a Windows gaming PC. Then the TOC difference rises to $~1329-2000 between the two setups because the Quest works just fine without any extra hardware.

Regarding the case, it was unclear to me if you're implying that the Valve Index is more robust & thus doesn't need a case?

Disclaimer: I work on Oculus Link.

Guillaume86• 6 years ago

FYI you can stream PCVR games on the Quest wirelessly with VirtualDesktop (20€ and good AC router required). Experience is surprisingly good, I don't bother with the cable anymore.

dTal• 6 years ago

you want 128GB version because games are huge

Can someone please explain to me why 64GB of flash memory costs over 100 dollars/pounds in 2020? That's an order of magnitude too much. Okay, they're probably price differentiating, but that's just insulting.

leetrout4• 6 years ago

The Go is a great piece of hardware for what it is.

In my opinion, working with it since day one: It isn't going anywhere. You can still sideload, you can still tinker and the tooling is there to do this in pure android studio + 3d engine.

You don't need anything from FB / oculus for hobby projects as long as the driver is available (and they're already "out" so hopefully FB just puts it on GitHub or similar).

I still prefer the Go for watching content on planes, to "zone out" with virtual zen spaces, etc.

baby4• 6 years ago

for watching content on planes

wow, didn't think about that! The battery is not that great though

leetrout4• 6 years ago

Agree. Most planes have USB power right at the seat, though.

rixrax• 6 years ago

And go is still great for watching porn (maybe not in airplane though) for as far as Im aware all of it is 3DOF 180 fov movies.

leetrout4• 6 years ago

There were similar comments in a thread I commented on in 2018. It’s interesting that a lot of people immediately jump to porn. The Redbull content is really good and watching regular content in the void or similar is a novelty, IMO, when you don’t do it everyday.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17509327

krapp• 6 years ago

I bought a Go recently because it was the only VR platform I could afford and... it was cool for a minute but quickly felt like a gimmick, so this isn't surprising.

I'd still like to develop for "real" VR and play around with it in the future but this is out of my league at the moment.

whywhywhywhy3• 6 years ago

Definitely try the Quest if you have a chance.

Real VR isn't about the 3D effect it's about having body and hand presence.

kbenson2• 6 years ago

I'm still annoyed that they don't have multiple user profiles for Quest. What kind of gaming device doesn't support that in 2020? Every time I hear an announcement from Oculus, I have a little hope they'll announce support for this, and every time I'm disappointed.

TulliusCicero4• 6 years ago

Yeah this is the dumbest part of using a Quest right now. No profiles means no separate save data, so I can't differentiate my high scores in Beat Saber from my wife's, which is really annoying.

And then of course in some games with a story mode, if they didn't build in multiple save files into the game then you're just kind of screwed.

bonniemuffin• 6 years ago

Totally. When I make Oculus friends, I hate that I have to tell them to find me as [my husband's username] because he signed up on the device first, so now I can never have my own Oculus account.

I solved the Beatsaber highscores problem by being really really good at Beatsaber, so I only play on Expert+ and he only plays the lower levels. That way our high scores are separate. :)

jaaron• 6 years ago

Was just chatting with a friend about this. It makes no sense.

The Quest is the perfect machine to share with others. I can take it to friends or family (well, pre-covid I could). VR _needs_ to reduce the friction to trying it out.

Even just a generic "guest" profile would be a huge step forward.

MikusR2• 6 years ago

iPhone, iPad.

kbenson2• 6 years ago

Which is evidence of them being substandard for gaming, IMO. For the iPhone, it's sort of justified, since it's more of a personal device (even if I've handed my phone to my son to play games plenty of times). But the iPad? One of the main use cases of that is a shared family device, isn't it?

kingnothing• 6 years ago

How does Quest compare to Rift for anyone who's used both?

TulliusCicero4• 6 years ago

I own a Quest and Rift CV1. It's hard to go back to the Rift, even with the extra computing power. It's just a pain to clear enough space, whereas I can be more flexible with where I use the Quest. Plus, the cameras are an eyesore, think I might just take them down.

The resolution on the Quest is better too, and when I really need my gaming PC for some VR title I can always use link with it.

The Quest has a lot of cool titles on it, though I'd be lying if I didn't admit that most of the time it's a Beat Saber machine for me. Beat Saber is fantastic.

timdorr• 6 years ago

I have both the Quest and Rift S (previously a Rift and DK2, along with regular usage of the Vive). I would say just get the Quest.

For PC-backed graphics and exclusives, you can use Virtual Desktop with the sideloaded unlock to do wireless streaming or use Link for a hardwired experience.

The Rift has better quality screens and optics, but the Quest has a higher FoV and I find that ultimately wins out for overall experience.

The hand tracking stuff is very cool, extremely well done, and a bunch of stuff is coming down the pipe for it right now. It's supposed to come to the Rift too, but for now Quest has the advantage there.

I will probably end up selling my Rift at some point. I got the value of playing Alyx at full quality, but don't consider the minor IQ loss with streaming to the Quest to be that much of a blocker. I can do everything with the Quest, so it's the system for me.

whywhywhywhy3• 6 years ago

Rift was outstanding at the time and I think I still prefer the shape of the controllers but that said I haven't even touched it since getting the Quest.

Being able to use it anywhere in the house and without a cable just make it a much better experience.

Also when you do use it with a PC the guardian setup process is more reliable and less error prone than having to set up external PC sensors.

bni• 6 years ago

I have both Quest and Rift S

Quest is front heavy and Rift S is much more comfortable.

Screen on Quest has better blacks due to OLED. Rift S screen is much sharper but due to the LCD dark scenes looks a bit washed out.

Very much looking forward to the unified headset that supports both standalone and wireless PC connection, that is surely coming next year or 2022

theschwa• 6 years ago

Focusing their product line like this is a great move. I hope that they do more to hone in on overall usability for the average user, and continue to expand beyond gamers as their core persona. Focusing on standalone VR, hand tracking, and hopefully more social and productivity apps like Facebook Horizon will be the best way to grow.

gorgoiler2• 6 years ago

How easy is it to ship exemplar apps to Quest? Can I just pick up Unity XR, riff a little on the FPS example, and compile it straight to something I can load on a Quest?

zlsa2• 6 years ago

I don't think there's a pre-built FPS VR template from Unity, but it is pretty simple for basic projects. Word of warning, though: VR locomotion is very different from FPS locomotion, and gets very complex pretty quickly.

gorgoiler2• 6 years ago

Ah, that’s a shame. I naively thought the Unity FPS game would load onto Oculus Quest.

My real goal is to have students ship content of their own to the Quest, to dive a little deeper into programming and technology than they might do as mere consumers.

johncozen• 6 years ago

Currently you could sideload it or work with the Oculus submission process to release it on their store. This article seems to suggest they will release another, frictionless avenue to make VR experiences accessible on Quest.

mrfusion• 6 years ago

To paraphrase, we want a way you can distribute crappy games but no way they’re going in our store.

drcode• 6 years ago

People have spent more than $100M on Quest content and more than 10 titles have generated over $2M in revenue on Quest

That sounds weird: The only numbers they can share with us are that people have spent $100M on game development, but they only point to a total of $20M of revenue. Obviously $20M isn't the entire revenue on the platform... but since they didn't share any other numbers, the default assumption would have to be that they aren't very flattering, either.

"Come develop on our platform! Spend $100M to make $20M in revenue!"

rgovostes• 6 years ago

They are saying $100M in transactions have taken place on their app store, and a handful of the most popular titles have made $2M each. Not that developers are burning $5 to make $1.

zhoujianfu2• 6 years ago

Also, at least $2M... it’s probably like #1: $20M, #2: $10M, #3: $5M, and so on. So probably half the $100M went to the top 10?

terpsichorean• 6 years ago

As an old VR developer, this is great news. I agree with you all - remove 3DoF, it’s “diluting” the experience, and not in a good way. In the apps themselves, too many design sacrifices have to be made to account for this narrow use case. The price point was great - but for overall flexibility standalone devices are the future.

Causality1• 6 years ago

After a few years with an Oculus Touch, my basic conclusion is that I'm too good at immersing myself in standard games to ever be truly excited about VR. For me there just isn't a big enough difference to justify all the inconveniences.

Uhrheber• 6 years ago

What a dick move. I can understand that they won't accept any new apps, but also not accepting updates?

A lot of apps for media playing and social media for the Go are still under active development. Not allowing updates will effectively cut off Go users from social media.

I sense a class action coming.

rcarmo• 6 years ago

I’ve been thinking of getting one now that it is a pretty well supported target in Godot (https://godotengine.org/article/godot-oculus-quest-support), which means I could easily get prototypes running on it with little hassle. Am curious about when they’ll refresh the hardware, though, because it comes across as a little underpowered on the standalone front (and I don’t have a beefy machine to use Oculus Link with it).

Mindwipe• 6 years ago

https://developer.oculus.com/blog/the-next-chapter-of-oculus...

Still lots of content censorship requirements for this new way to distribute.

Why does content have to submit to a blanket rejection of dealing with any sexuality when it's not even going through their store?

https://developer.oculus.com/policy/content-guidelines/

toeachtheirown• 6 years ago

When this happens, will we still be able to sideload into the Go? Haven't found a solid answer for this yet.

Oculus sunsets Go, will add easier Quest app distribution

Related Stories