Oculus Quest 2 v HP Reverb G2?

Zeeflyboy · 30 Sep 2020 at 12:36

Well that would be a good explanation of why it isn't working for you anymore lol.

What made you sell out of interest? If it was a lack of interest in VR generally have you seen anything of late that makes it more compelling? If not, then the risk would be you spend 300 (well 350, everyone needs the strap!) on a new headset and then never use it either.

true_gamer · 30 Sep 2020 at 13:03

I was originally selling all my PC hardware to buy a motorhome, which I now have. So as I now have one, I am looking to grab a VR headset for a mix of things.
The thing is, 3 months ago, I owned and ran a Sim racing community with 5k members, so a lot of the time, my hardware was mainly used for streaming the races, and so I never had time to play games myself.

Now I have moved on, I would like to play some of the older games I own and be able to complete them, like Lone echo and others.

Ravenger · 30 Sep 2020 at 13:59

Quest 2 is arguably better for playing Oculus PC exclusives, as Revive doesn't work well with some of the best games like Lone Echo, Asgards Wrath and Stormlands, due to performance issues. A lot of games work really well in Revive (Robo Recall in particular is incredible on my Index), but some really have problems maintaining a decent framerate, even at 80hz (And this is on a 3900x with a 1080ti FTW3). The same games on Quest are not quite as sharp but they run very smoothly, plus they are designed for Touch controllers and the finger sensing and haptic feedback features.

true_gamer · 30 Sep 2020 at 14:11

This was my thinking too. Though, now I have spoilt myself with previously owning the G1, I may have set the bar too high in what the Quest 2 might be able to do. Either way, as I would be late to the pre order of the G2, so I doubt I would see one before Xmas. I may just pre order a Quest 2, and if i don't get on with it, pre order a G2. (Though my laptop might not be up to running that high res with a 2060 in it.)

Ravenger · 30 Sep 2020 at 14:21

true_gamer said:
This was my thinking too. Though, now I have spoilt myself with previously owning the G1, I may have set the bar too high in what the Quest 2 might be able to do. Either way, as I would be late to the pre order of the G2, so I doubt I would see one before Xmas. I may just pre order a Quest 2, and if i don't get on with it, pre order a G2. (Though my laptop might not be up to running that high res with a 2060 in it.)

For laptop use a Quest 2 is a no-brainer, as it relies on USB rather than display port, and some laptops display ports don't work for VR.

The G2 apparently has a half-resolution mode. The main advantage is that you still have virtually (no pun intended) no SDE. It'll still probably be a bit sharper than a Quest 2, but then the controllers are nowhere near as good, as they eat batteries and there's no capacitive touch. If you want to play Oculus exclusives the lack of capacitive touch is a pretty big issue as the flagship games make good use of it. Asgards Wrath even uses thumbs up, fist bumps and high fives to interact with companions which probably won't work without finger sensing. I can't imagine Lone Echo without having the hands properly mimic my thumb and finger positions.

true_gamer · 30 Sep 2020 at 14:33

Yeah, this is what makes it hard, as at home I'd be connecting to my desktop. I think I will grab a Quest 2, and see how I get on with it.

Ravenger said:
If you want to play Oculus exclusives the lack of capacitive touch is a pretty big issue as the flagship games make good use of it. Asgards Wrath even uses thumbs up, fist bumps and high fives to interact with companions which probably won't work without finger sensing. I can't imagine Lone Echo without having the hands properly mimic my thumb and finger positions.

Yeah, I know what you mean, as I have used the cluncky WMR controllers since the Samsung oddyssey, so originally owning the CV1 and Rift S, I do apprecaite the controllers sensors of finger and thumb positions.

Zeeflyboy · 30 Sep 2020 at 14:37

I think in your case the Quest 2 is probably a good choice, as you say there's always the option to sell it on (demand will probably be high in the Christmas period even if Facebook have a load of supply, so you can probably get back most of what you pay for it) if it doesn't meet your expectations.

true_gamer · 30 Sep 2020 at 14:48

That's true. I'll go ahead and pre order one.
Thanks for your help.

PieEater · 30 Sep 2020 at 17:51

It would be interesting to find out whether registering your Quest 2 with Facebook includes a unique device ID / serial number that is tied to your account as I imagine this might make selling a device on problematic if not impossible.

Zeeflyboy · 30 Sep 2020 at 18:14

I sincerely doubt it

PieEater · 30 Sep 2020 at 19:20

Zeeflyboy said:
I sincerely doubt it

I sincerely doubted I would have any problems getting a Facebook account ready for a Quest 2 but ended up being permabanned and having to cancel my pre-order. I would just be careful taking anything for granted with Facebook until you're aware of the facts.

Zeeflyboy · 30 Sep 2020 at 19:37

I’m in full agreement that Facebook sucks, and I’m sorry you have been done over like that... I'd be salty too in your shoes. However when making claims like the one you did I would suggest the onus is on you to provide evidence of it being a fact rather than the other way around.

We know Facebook are requiring accounts to be linked, we know people are being perma banned seemingly at no fault, we have however absolutely nothing to suggest that there is the remotest bit of truth to what you said and it amounts to nothing but FUD without evidence to support it.

Ravenger · 30 Sep 2020 at 19:51

Oculus hardware has never been permanently locked to an account. In fact Facebook are bringing in multi-account support so you can easily switch accounts logged onto the device, with each user having their own saves. (Not sure if this means that all games stored on the device are accessible to all users, or if each account needs to have purchased games separately though - Facebook haven't given any details).

PieEater · 1 Oct 2020 at 08:21

Zeeflyboy said:
I’m in full agreement that Facebook sucks, and I’m sorry you have been done over like that... I'd be salty too in your shoes. However when making claims like the one you did I would suggest the onus is on you to provide evidence of it being a fact rather than the other way around.

We know Facebook are requiring accounts to be linked, we know people are being perma banned seemingly at no fault, we have however absolutely nothing to suggest that there is the remotest bit of truth to what you said and it amounts to nothing but FUD without evidence to support it.

My post was specifically in answer to your suggestion to another forum member suggesting that there would be no issue with selling on a Quest 2 if they didn't get on with it. I suspect you are in a similar position to myself in having no idea if there are any restrictions imposed by Facebook in transferring physical ownership of a device to a third party once it has been registered as I can't find the terms and conditions of this contract anywhere. You stated your opinion as fact I did not, I merely raised the possibility of a different approach by Facebook and implied it would be better to get the facts before making an assumption. If anyone needs to provide facts to back up an opinion stated as a fact I would suggest that is yourself. Yes I have been burned by Facebook and yes I am very angry with them but the fact remains that they have their own agenda in tieing Oculus devices to Facebook accounts a situation which is unparalleled as far as I know so you can't just make assumptions about what you can and can't do with a Facebook registered device as this is totally under Facebooks control and whim. Once again my suggestion that they could lock a device to an account and make it difficult to to transfer ownership of the device was merely a suggestion and I clearly stated this possibility ought to be considered before assuming otherwise. I did not state this as a fact unlike your assertion that selling on the device would definitely be possible.

Zeeflyboy · 1 Oct 2020 at 08:52

Fundamentally disagree, what you suggest is unprecedented and has no hint of evidence to support it. It also serves no purpose, because allowing a device to be reset and sold has no impact on their ability to gather data on the new user and yet would result in enormous backlash for no gain, especially if it wasn’t made explicitly clear when you purchased... it's simply illogical.

Being a "suggestion" of a possibility doesn't absolve you of backing it up. You can suggest that there's a possibility Zuckerberg might a lizardman, but without proof to back it up people can call you out on your suggestion.

Can you name a single consumer electronics device that can only ever be registered irrevocably to one user in the way you suggest? I can’t think of any at all. Even subsidised hardware from the other data-mining giants (echos, google homes etc) can all be de-registered and sold on. Hell even the flop that was the Facebook phone didn’t do it. I would take a bet that it isn't even legally viable in most places. The evidence supporting my suggestion is literally every single other consumer electronics device ever sold and the complete lack of any evidence to the contrary. Where is the evidence supporting your suggestion?

The fact you can’t find any reference in the terms and conditions is because it isn’t there. So no, you are currently doing nothing more than spreading FUD because you are quite rightly and understandably salty at Facebook. With such an outlandish suggestion that would entail a complete disruption to the status quo and well established practises the burden is yours to provide evidence. Next you’ll be telling me I have to provide proof that 5G definitely doesn't cause COVID before I can tell people they’ll be ok to buy a 5G phone because someone makes a suggestion that it "might be a possibility". There is literally as much evidence supporting that suggestion as there is supporting yours - nothing at all beyond wild baseless conjecture.

Ravenger · 1 Oct 2020 at 10:59

If anyone is debating 64gb vs 128gb, then this may help make up your mind:

Walking Dead Saints and Sinners on the Quest uses 12GB of storage :eek:

Makes me glad I went for the 256gb.

Unseul · 1 Oct 2020 at 11:05

Ravenger said:
If anyone is debating 64gb vs 128gb, then this may help make up your mind:

Walking Dead Saints and Sinners on the Quest uses 12GB of storage

Makes me glad I went for the 256gb.

Still not regretting the 64gb. I don't tend to play multiple major games at once, so even if I have 2 "big" games installed, there'll still be room for a fair few smaller experiences etc.

Zeeflyboy · 1 Oct 2020 at 11:05

Wow, that's a lot bigger than previous Quest games.

Do we know what the available memory is like on the 64gb yet? I don't recall seeing/hearing it mentioned.

I think I would personally still save the 100 bucks and go with the 64gb though... even with them all at around 12gb you could still have 4 maybe 5 big games installed on there at any given time, and 12gb doesn't take so long to download that it would cause me grief to have to occasionally shuffle.

Ravenger · 1 Oct 2020 at 11:19

Zeeflyboy said:
Do we know what the available memory is like on the 64gb yet? I don't recall seeing/hearing it mentioned.

51GB free. Rest is taken by the OS.

Zeeflyboy · 1 Oct 2020 at 11:24

Cheers, so 4 big games or maybe 2 big ones and a smattering of smaller ones.

I think that will still work for a lot of people, it would for me personally. It does improve the value proposition of the higher memory one though for those that need it though - had games stayed around 2-3gb it would have been a rare owner that needed it.