08-02-202406:19 AM - last edited on 08-02-202411:39 AM by FunkyTanuki
I am sure this has been beaten to death, but it really is a bad decision on Meta's side to restrict games to just standalone. This creates a scenario where you are needing to constantly buy these games to experience the higher quality experience of PCVR. If I am going to need to purchase the games to enjoy them fully, then what even is the point of the Quest Plus Subscription?
Meta want to promote standalone because that's where they see the majority of their efforts paying off in the form of future use cases, it's why Apple have gone the same route, and why other headset makers will eventually follow.
The subscription service promotes standalone for sure, but as users we have a choice whether to go with that or not. Meta have always and will probably always facilitate PCVR, and we're constantly seeing improvements and developments in the way we use PCVR, including third-party connections with VD developments and Steam Link for example.
But I think we should allow Meta to promote their own platform because increasing the platform userbase is what's going to give them the reason to continue to invest, to innovate and develop the hardware. It's what's resulted in untethered headsets, inside-out tracking without the need for base stations, dual VR/MR headsets... all these things initially rejected by the PCVR 'enthusiasts'. Like it or not, it's grown the userbase and that in turn promotes more investment.
Sometimes we have to look beyond what we want and what's overall the best for the future. I love PCVR, I spend most of my VR time in MSFS and Fallout VR but I recognise the big push for better VR at competitive hardware prices doesn't come from the PCVR side, it's too small a userbase and is likely to stay that way unless PC hardware prices fall substantially. The Steam hardware survey hasn't shown any meaningful increase in overall PCVR users in a long time, new PCVR titles on PC are pretty much missing in action when you look at Steam's top 100 list and I suspect I'll still be enjoying the same PCVR titles I enjoy now.. in 2, 3, 4 years time.
Not the case with standalone, even though maybe 70% of my time is playing a handful of PCVR titles, I've enjoyed many many more titles in standalone including mixed reality (I don't use the subscription survice by the way). It's a much more sustainable platform and it benefits everyone even they don't realise it.
Well, just my thoughts.
13700K, RTX 4070 Ti, Asus ROG Strix Z790-A Gaming, Corsair H150i Capellix, 64GB Corsair Vengence DDR5, Corsair 5000D Airflow, 4TB Samsung 870 , 2TB Samsung 990 Pro x 2, DK2, CV1, Rift-S, Quest, 2, 3, Pro, Windows 11 Pro 24H2 (10.0.26100)
Meta want to promote standalone because that's where they see the majority of their efforts paying off in the form of future use cases, it's why Apple have gone the same route, and why other headset makers will eventually follow.
The subscription service promotes standalone for sure, but as users we have a choice whether to go with that or not. Meta have always and will probably always facilitate PCVR, and we're constantly seeing improvements and developments in the way we use PCVR, including third-party connections with VD developments and Steam Link for example.
But I think we should allow Meta to promote their own platform because increasing the platform userbase is what's going to give them the reason to continue to invest, to innovate and develop the hardware. It's what's resulted in untethered headsets, inside-out tracking without the need for base stations, dual VR/MR headsets... all these things initially rejected by the PCVR 'enthusiasts'. Like it or not, it's grown the userbase and that in turn promotes more investment.
Sometimes we have to look beyond what we want and what's overall the best for the future. I love PCVR, I spend most of my VR time in MSFS and Fallout VR but I recognise the big push for better VR at competitive hardware prices doesn't come from the PCVR side, it's too small a userbase and is likely to stay that way unless PC hardware prices fall substantially. The Steam hardware survey hasn't shown any meaningful increase in overall PCVR users in a long time, new PCVR titles on PC are pretty much missing in action when you look at Steam's top 100 list and I suspect I'll still be enjoying the same PCVR titles I enjoy now.. in 2, 3, 4 years time.
Not the case with standalone, even though maybe 70% of my time is playing a handful of PCVR titles, I've enjoyed many many more titles in standalone including mixed reality (I don't use the subscription survice by the way). It's a much more sustainable platform and it benefits everyone even they don't realise it.
Well, just my thoughts.
13700K, RTX 4070 Ti, Asus ROG Strix Z790-A Gaming, Corsair H150i Capellix, 64GB Corsair Vengence DDR5, Corsair 5000D Airflow, 4TB Samsung 870 , 2TB Samsung 990 Pro x 2, DK2, CV1, Rift-S, Quest, 2, 3, Pro, Windows 11 Pro 24H2 (10.0.26100)
I think you are missing the point. There is more to the quest 3 than standalone. If I am paying for Quest plus then If the game is one that is normally cross buy (Available standalone and on the PC Meta Quest Link app)... then it makes zero sense for the free quest plus games to be limited to just standalone.
The truth is that while most of the standalone games are great, they are not as visually appealing as their pcvr counterparts. So, what happens is we are getting these games, but still being forced to buy them on the pcvr store to fully enjoy the best version of them. If I am just going to need to buy them, then what value does the quest + subscription have? I can tell you how much... almost zero. There are a few games that are standalone only, but these are normally lower priced games anyways.
There is no actual reason to not offer these games in both locations. If they are crossbuy games, then redeeming it should grant the same benefits as buying it outright.
