We have some new headsets on the horizon. I’m curious what direction people are hoping it goes in besides just overall improvement.

  • poVoq@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    That isn’t the problem, the reverse is the problem. Meta generally has the right idea to offer a relatively cheap standalone headset, but the way they try to control everything on it, lock it down and try to establish a monopoly appstore with a huge cut makes it very unattractive for developers.

    The few games that exist only on Quest are there because Meta bought the studio or directly paid for the development of the game.

    • fer0n@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      30% cut is the default for consoles, isn’t it? I hate meta just like the next guy, but the quest is the most attractive platform for VR games due, simply due to the user base and that stems from selling the hardware as cheaply as possible.

      Most people don’t care about a platform being open or closed, what they care about is the experience, ease of use and the content. Meta bought a lot of studios, but they’re far from owning or paying for the majority of studios with games on Quest.

      Imo VR‘s main problem is comfort, friction and people disliking having something stripped to their face.