Hacker News Reader

The other massive advantage Oculus Quest has over headsets that depend on a computer (besides being massively more affordable not just in the cost of the headset but also by not requiring you to have a $1000+ gaming rig) is convenience.

When I grab my Quest, because I finally got some time and want to play, now, I press the power button, grab the controllers, select a game, and play. When I consider grabbing any other headset, I realize I'll have to boot my gaming rig, connect cables, and then likely spend at least 10 minutes getting it to work properly and will encounter random software issues.

That alone makes the Quest amazing.

Now, slowly, competitors are coming out (whose main advantage is "not owned by Facebook"), but most of them either aren't released yet, don't have a broad selection of games, or both. Unfortunately, that means that for casual gamers, the Quest is still king IMO, and has created quite a bit of lock-in.

(Edit: The Quest also had the advantage of being available - while Index is still not officially available from Valve in most countries, so resellers easily drive the price up to $2k for the kit with controllers and base stations, on top of the gaming rig you need).

You don't get the other end of the spectrum, though.

I'm told state-of-the-art quest on PC is running SteamVR through windows remote desktop. It's bad. Incredibly bad.

Once the Index is set up and calibrated, all you have to do is turn on a controller, and put on the headset. It's really not as inconvenient as you have made it out to be.

But my point here is not Index vs Quest. My point is closed-platform vs open-platform. The very issues that Carmack laments here are inherent in the closed-platform business model that Oculus (and later Meta) is built around. The very business that he was a core member of was explicitly designed to fail him in these respects. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Carmack got to do most of what he wanted: create VR tech and get paid big money; but he did not get to have the result he wanted: an open VR platform that works with (instead of against) its users. It's a serious compromise that he made. He didn't need the money. This is the man who famously gave away a Porsche at a Quake tournament! He could have put more value in his legacy than in his financial stability, but he didn't. I can only speculate on how that would feel, but I would be surprised to learn it feels good.

> I'm told state-of-the-art quest on PC is running SteamVR through windows remote desktop. It's bad. Incredibly bad.

You weren't told that. You don't know what "Virtual Desktop" is (an app that makes using SteamVR wirelessly on a Quest a one click process) and apparently assumed it's the same as Remote Desktop, the two are unrelated.

If you're willing to do wired you don't even need Virtual Desktop, AirLink and a normal Link cable both work just fine.

> When I grab my Quest, because I finally got some time and want to play, now, I press the power button, grab the controllers, select a game, and play.

When I grab my Quest I quickly remember how nauseating any games are that are actually good games. The only kind of decemt content that doesn't make me think "this game would be more enjoyable on my regular display" are arcade style like beat saber or pistol whip.

Personally I still don't think the current approach to VR will ever get mass appeal for gaming.

The main competitor that came out is pico which is "not owned by Facebook" but it's effectively owned by the guys that own TikTok which is worse IMO.

> he sees the failure of Oculus' business model

Huh? Oculus is the best selling VR headset available, it sold way more than the Index.

> The only advantage Oculus has had is affordability

...yes, this is how consumer sales works. People buy what is affordable.

Moral failure. The whole thing this article is about. For example:

> Carmack goes on to say that Bosworth greenlit the release of the Oculus Go root build (an unlocked OS allowing full access (opens in new tab)) that he had long pushed-for, but "after seeing how much internal effort was involved to make it happen, I almost felt bad about it," said Carmack. "The constraints are just different in a company the size of Meta."

The "constraints" are their business model: underprice the hardware and overprice the software. It's not a new model, this is what consoles have done since Carmack made Doom!

I don't see how that's a moral failure, it's just how console businesses operate, as you noted.

If you value the fruits of an open platform, the very same qualities that Carmack espouses in the OP, and if you are critical of a closed platform for failing to hold those qualities, then your criticism is an expression of the failure of closed platforms to live up to your moral values.

> Oculus is the best selling VR headset available, it sold way more than the Index

Release date of Valve Index: 2019-06-28

Release date of first Oculus¹: 2016-03-28

There were about three years of tech adoption by consumers between these releases, Oculus was, before their first commercial HMD release, was acquired by Facebook for US$2 Billion, FB which could also use its near monopoly in social networks to place ads and thus influence billions of people to buy the product(s) of one of its subsidiaries.

In contrast:

> It sold an estimated 149,000 sets in 2019, 103,000 of which were in the fourth quarter due to the announcement of Half-Life: Alyx, which buyers received for free. The sudden demand caused the unit to be sold out in all 31 countries except Japan in January 2020. As of December 2019, 6.67% of the VR units connected to Steam are Valve Index sets. While Valve had anticipated supply for many of those that had ordered the Index in time for the March 2020 release of Half-Life: Alyx, the COVID-19 pandemic impacted production of the Index which left Valve with a reduced number of units available on the release date.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valve_Index#Release (emphasis mine)

¹: since you didn't specify which of the range of Oculus HMDs you're referring to

The Quest 2 came out in 2020 and has massively outsold the Valve Index.

>> Yet it seems obvious from where I'm standing

First of all, You've never worked at a corporation? Sounds like it. Corporate politics can easily eat-up an individual influence on the direction a product goes. Especially when you're judging long periods of time, like entire history of Oculus from the looks of it.

Second of all, go read his public rant after resigning. you will find answers there.

I'm unworthy to criticize? Did you forget where you are? If you don't value my perspective, you can move on.

I'm sure the rant is interesting. I haven't really been following his life story.

I suspect that when Carmack was making PC games all the way from Commander Keen to Rage, he understood the value of PC as a free/liberated platform. Do I have proof? Well, here he is lamenting the consequences of working on a proprietary platform. I'm content with that.

This isn't some kind of trial. My point is not to condemn the man. My point is to use his character to articulate the story of my own perspective.

Knowing what I do about Carmack, if Facebook burns through billions trying to create a sad, failed VR utopia, he'd say it'd have been worth it for the opportunity to advance the tech via blue-sky development on such issues as non-cumbersome, accurate tracking hardware and high-resolution, low-latency displays.

Rather than criticize from the sidelines, Carmack should take some of his sweet Meta money, buy the rights from them, and fund the indefinite maintenance of these things himself. Or he should start a new game company that holds to these values. He'll either find himself agreeing with the business people or broke.

> Or he should start a new game company that holds to these values. He'll either find himself agreeing with the business people or broke.

He’s done it already with id software, he didn’t end broke. Feels like you don’t know who this guy is

He started id when he was 21 right as tech got good enough for first-person shoorters. It launched all its famous IP in its first 5 years. He left the job of maintaining legacy IP and a declining game engine to work on something new. There are different type of leaders. His strength is in building, not maintaining. His track record shows this. He's just hurt that the platform outgrew him.