Be serious. The only way you can truly say that is if you've tried the two side by side. As I'm assuming that this is NOT the case, your statement simply isn't valid.
Is it fair to say that:
"the G2 will most probably have been visuals", and "the G2 has better audio that the built in cack solution that the Quest has", then absolutely. Agreed.
But that is NOT the same as absolutely confirmed.
Look I do get the point you are trying to make here, but from my perspective the mistake is that you are treating too many things as complete unknowns when in fact they aren’t.
What we do actually know
- G2 has 33% more pixels.
- G2 panels and lenses have been described by numerous previewers as being very good in terms of SDE/Contrast/Colour, sweet spot and clarity and have been compared favourably to other known headsets including with extensive through the lens footage. They are noted as being a significant improvement on the G1 which is already a known entity (notably getting rid of issues such as the perceived mura and further reducing screen door with larger pixels) and the lenses are reportedly superior to the index (primarily due to not needing the dual element design for the wider FoV) which is also a known entity. They aren’t realistically going to suddenly be substandard in the retail version, and indeed if you believe HP the lenses underwent further improvements during later product design.
- G2 uses a native displayport 1.4 connection to the PC
- The Quest 2 connects to PCVR either through WiFi or link, both of which require heavy compression and will continue to do so even when it is updated to use the full capabilities of the XR2. I have used both extensively and am very familiar with the visual and latency compromises entailed... again it is not an unknown. Native connection is and will continue to be higher fidelity and lower latency, even if link closes the gap in future.
- When not playing PCVR the hardware is far more limited than the typical gaming PC which again would usually result in lower overall visual fidelity due to lower quality textures, models and effects even if clarity and contrast aren’t being murdered over link. Here you could argue they are better than the blank screen that the G2 will produce without a PC, but as we are comparing visuals rather than features such as standalone I feel that would miss the point!
- Quest 2 uses “effectively the same lenses” as the Quest 1, which while perfectly good are not going to make up for the other shortcomings when compared to lenses on the G2 that are reportedly better than the index’s.
- Quest 2 uses 3 fixed IPD positions meaning it is impossible to precisely set your IPD unless you fall into one of those 3 exact values. Reviewers such as Tyriel noted that falling between setting 2 and 3 for example led to slight discomfort after longer sessions and increased chromatic aberrations. G2 allows for continuous IPD to avoid this for a much larger range of users.
- Quest 2’s use of a fixed panel is a compromise when it comes to IPD adjustment. Some have noted a reduction in FoV (black edges visible) when at the widest FoV setting. Again, G2 avoids this for a larger number of users by having panels that move along with the IPD adjustment.
So no, I just don’t agree. Given all we do actually know it is simply not realistic to suggest that we don’t know which will have the objectively better visuals, especially for PCVR. What is not known is just how big the gap will end up being and whether it justifies the premium the G2 is demanding, especially when considering some of the other advantages the Quest 2 has.
