Oppoi
Member
It was my fav, cause it was the peak of PC and VR, you know, before Facebook bought them and made it into a playhouse for kids since every single kid had an oculus.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Meta is releasing the Quest OS to 3rd parties
- Thread starter MarkMe2525
- Start date
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Didn't Facebook specifically design their algorithms to push divisive content & polarizing news to users? I mean a lot of that is on places like Twitter/X now & Reddit I guess but where do you think the users who pushed it on those platforms likely came from first?
I will admit though, I could be wrong in that assumption. Stopped really paying attention to Facebook/Meta after 2018 or so.
Oppoi
Member
I belieive one of the most polular game mode nowadays is "Simon Says" yeah...
Last edited:
mitchman
Gold Member
https://steamdeck-packages.steamos.cloud/archlinux-mirror/sources/ contains the full SteamOS 3+ distribution. Proton is separate and also somewhere there in source form afaik.
MarkMe2525
Member
Idk, I'm sure it pushed content similar to content that a user previously interacted with, maybe that happens to be divisive and polarizing content. Who knows, I'm largely out of my depths on the topic.
MarkMe2525
Member
I'll go concede that point for sure. The attainability of the Quest, due to its low price, allowed many kids to flood many multiplayer lobbies. Largely ruined Echo VR for me.
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
No worse than creating an Xbox or PlayStation account these days.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
The VR dreams is not over bois. The medium needs all the help it can get to gain a better adoption rate.
Bry0
Member
These aren’t really intended for desktop use, and the “desktop” variant on valves website is years and years old and still based on Debian, it’s basically obsolete.
I think what people mean is that they want valve to officially pack in the needed drivers and support steam os 3 for desktop with a relatively user friendly out of the box experience.
Valve said they would, but we are still waiting.
Last edited:
Oppoi
Member
VR was growing steady and fast enough. PCVR today is crazy compared to the first Vive/Rift. Meta is working against all that.
StereoVsn
Member
Well yeah, if it can’t play the division in the first place, lol… Although for the new PS5 Digital model you can buy a drive.I'm an idiot, I tried to install Rebirth with the play disk.
So you can play disks without an account on a disk machine, but I assume not with the digital versions of both the PS5 or the series S. The Quests are also digital consoles so my point still stands.
StereoVsn
Member
Yep, they sure did. Divisive content promoted more “engagement”. They also didn’t police said content, the actual fake news and so on. That played a big part in Brexit as one example.
No, they specifically designed their algorithms to promote contentious and often false information in order to create more “conversation” around events. They even promoted that shit above actual people’s friends’ posts.
Anyways, enough of this sad topic from me and I will never touch anything Meta with a pole long enough to tower over Empire State.
Last edited:
DaGwaphics
Member
In the case of FB and the American social platforms, I'd say the driving factor behind the algorithms was greed more than anything else. How to make users consume more content and accompanying ads, how to gain more telemetry that can be sold etc. The unfortunate side effect of that is that we are fed what we show an interest in, which has resulted in self created echo chambers that surround users.
For those that are critical of social media's impact on society, like I am, it's easy to make a connection between the rise of these echo chambers and the fact that large swaths of society seem extremely resistant to objective truths. Which leads us to 185 genders, millions of people believing in wild conspiracy theories, and an alarming amount of people that seemingly have no interest in more scientific/fact based sources of information. Maybe I'm the crazy one, but I look at so much of it and just think there has been some kind of large scale devolution of the human mind (which seemed to get amplified greatly by the isolation brought forward by the pandemic).
Somehow I think that rather than pushing content that encompassed the entirety of a subject at people, they pushed just the side that specifically aligned with each user. Seems like if you have an idiotic thought but can find enough like minded idiots to share it with, people will grasp to it like that must be the honest truth, regardless of what evidence is provided to the contrary. Once you start to rely entirely on your gut instincts and become resistant to any contrary evidence I think you risk losing the ability to correctly decipher the difference between truth and lies (at least to the best of human ability), IMO.
In the case of the foreign social networks, some of the research there seems to indicate that western users, particularly in the US, are actively steered to extreme positions. Perhaps to sew social discontent, etc.
As you can tell, I'm not a big fan of social media overall. LOL I prefer social platforms where content is created by users who's intentions/motivations become clearer to me over time and where information is presented in a straightforward way, where BS can be called out quickly, etc. Like this board.
MarkMe2525
Member
No? What you are saying does not make my statement untrue. Two things can be true at the same time. They develope algorithms that prefers and pushes content with high interaction rates (engagement). People interact more with divisive or controversial content. Ergo, algorithms push divisive and controversial content. What you claim as intent, can just be an eventuality when delivering content based on "popularity bias". This article in scientific America speaks to something like this happening
Facebook Whistleblower Testified That Company's Algorithms Are Dangerous: Here's Why
Frances Haugen confirmed the negative effects caused by attempts to maximize engagement
Last edited:
StereoVsn
Member
Oh sure, it’s all by accident. If you think they didn’t plan the outcome perfectly well known how it’s all going to work out I got a bridge to sell to you.No? What you are saying does not make my statement untrue. Two things can be true at the same time. They develope algorithms that prefers and pushes content with high interaction rates (engagement). People interact more with divisive or controversial content. Ergo, algorithms push divisive and controversial content. What you claim as intent, can just be an eventuality when develering content based on "popularity bias". This article in scientific America speaks to something like this happening
Facebook Whistleblower Testified That Company's Algorithms Are Dangerous: Here's Why
Frances Haugen confirmed the negative effects caused by attempts to maximize engagementwww.scientificamerican.com
MarkMe2525
Member
Your conspiracy laden assertion is the claim that's should be backed up with evidence, as the burden of proof falls on you. Attempting to mischaracterize my skepticism as some lack of critical thinking isn't going to win you any arguments. Notice, I am the one citing sources.
Edit: here is an excerpt from the article I linked.
"Our research shows that virtually all web technology platforms, such as social media and news recommendation systems, have a strong popularity bias. When applications are driven by cues like engagement rather than explicit search engine queries, popularity bias can lead to harmful unintended consequences."
Last edited:
MarkMe2525
Member
Broader customer base to potentially monetize. At the same time, it could be great for the VR market.
The Mad Draklor
Member
They're working on bringing SteamOS to other PC handhelds first before getting it ready for desktop. My guess is that Valve is also waiting on Nvidia hardware to play more nicely with Linux. Explicit sync was only very recently merged to Wayland and NVK is looking promising, but still has a lot of room to improve.
If you really can't wait, then there are Bazzite and Chimera to try out in the meantime.
SiahWester
Member
Meta wants to be the Windows of VR.
CamHostage
Member
We had also already been through a full cycle of VR and ended with little enthusiasm at the time, even from the biggest investors in the field, for another round...
Samsung was heavy into it, their Gear VR was popular (well, they gave it away free in some cases, but still, it did respectable numbers as a platform) and was supported for a long while (and technically got better with every new phone, even if it was never the greatest answer overall to VR interests,) but Samsung abandoned that whole ecosystem and is only now, much less bullishly, approaching a second go (in an alliance with Google and Snapdragon) as an Apple Vision competitor. Google also had its Dream and Cardboard initiatives, and both are essentially ephemera. Others have come and gone too. Even Valve with Index, they made the best tracking technology and came out with one piece of killer app software, but their heart has seemed to be in Deck more and their only big piece of software in a while has been the SteamVR 2.0 interface. And PlayStation... I just don't know what to say about PlayStation and its commitment or noncommitment to VR, it's hard to tell what their level of future speculation is at the moment? Rift was around for ages as a PC product but never had an incredibly commercially viable product... until it came under Meta and went a new way with Quest.
Meta just said, "We're doing this," and to whatever degree we can conclude that it was successful, they have just done it.
There's still Pico and some other VR providers on different ends of the spectrum, some of the big guys are still or have fairly recently made a new play for the market, and of course Apple Vision is a massive push. But this market wouldn't be anywhere near as visible today if it wasn't for Meta betting big and making news in the market (and failing spectacularly a few times... any news is good news, somehow, maybe?), and I don't think Rift alone could have succeeded on its own even if Quest had been their own independent product.
Last edited:
MarkMe2525
Member
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25412558/439756446_1788968978523144_627619598901261471_n.png)
An Xbox VR headset is on the way, but it’s a “limited edition” Meta Quest
An Xbox-inspired VR headset is coming soon.
www.theverge.com
My title admittedly is a little clickbaity, but Meta is partnering with MS to release a limited edition "Xbox inspired" Quest headset. Does this hint at future further collaborations between the two companies? I like the idea of a black Quest 3, but does this sound appealing enough to any gaffers, that you would make the leap to get one?
Edit: already posted
Last edited:
StereoVsn
Member
Your sources would need to have Facebooks’s internal algorithms and their design patterns. Considering the results I will agree to disagree with you.
MarkMe2525
Member
My sources provide an evaluation of imperical evidence. They use real world data to draw conclusions, while you are using confirmation bias and anecdotal experiences. I'm sorry to say but your claim is rather unconvincing. It will continue to be unconvincing until you back your assertion up with something other than "it looks like this".
ChuckeRearmed
Member
I think VR will find success with more tech advances - batteries, size etc.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Meta as a company sucks. But they have done a lot for the VR platform, and I appreciate it very much.
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
The part where they might do away with App Lab and just put all games in the main store is great for indies.
The partnership with other companies for different VR kits however may or may not do anything positive. Is it a positive for VR if Microsoft/Xbox actually do come out with their own example of a light Xbox Quest that does cloud Xbox gaming on a big screen and comes with an Xbox controller, or just a super niche product that doesn't expand the VR market meaningfully and doesn't even let the user migrate to full VR down the line (unless Microsoft see fit to also release VR controllers at that point, but will they if they don't benefit in any real way and have to connect it to the Quest store for stand alone gaming and if it's simply compatible with Meta's sold separately is it good for the user, is it even powerful enough for Quest games if it was initially only made for cloud gaming and cheaper and if by the time the user looks into full VR there's an even newer and more powerful Quest device around)? Is a wireless lightweight PC VR kit without all Quest innards/stand alone capabilities also running via their software for Steam and other VR games a positive in any way or just a second rate Quest that may not even cost much less?
Does anyone really think more hardware is what's needed for PC VR to take off? There's plenty out there already and more are coming and unifying it under Meta rather than just OpenXR or whatever is the current standard doesn't seem like it would make any difference more than the Quest line having PC VR capabilities does (but maybe it makes a difference for companies making alternative products, if they can have all the standard inside out tracking, passthrough and what not without developing it from scratch, but again at that point what are they doing different to compete against Quest and other PC VR products). It's not like they're really fully opening it like say Android or Linux or even Windows can be put on any device that can run them nowadays, at home or commercially, they're just partnering with specific companies for specific products.
That seems like they'll probably make sure they do not outcompete their own products but maybe give them a foothold to certain niches/fields they don't chase on their own, like PC VR. Unless these partnerships ares a first step and they do intend to fully open it to anyone and make it the VR Android (which Google will launch and had contacted Meta to partner with and migrate to which they refused btw) and allow other devices to have their own store rather than just the Quest store only Meta benefit from etc., who knows, we'll see, but with their current examples I don't see why people are so excited for it like they're waiting for some sister/cousin product of Quest to convince them to get one in a way the real Quest does not fulfill their needs and a third party/new player is somehow more likely to do that over the next Quest, 4 or Pro 2 or whatever else.
We'll see how they handle it and what the products actually are and what they actually mean when they talk about Steam and Viveport and whatever games, like do they mean something like the fabled deckard, and why would one even need Meta's collaboration for something like that anyway.
To those praising this preemptively as so amazing and what not, what kind of product that couldn't exist without this excites you so much in a way the current Quest doesn't?
Or do you just hope for say, a Pico to come out with something as good as or even more powerful than Quest for cheaper, which I guess is plausible but I just don't see Meta partnering with Xiaomi or whoever only to have them undercut their own offering with something just as good/better for less unless again they do intend to fully open it and migrate from relying on the hardware like a console first party to just turning/expanding it into a platform and ecosystem they profit from hoping to be the first around to do this before Google XR. But that's not announced and I'd sooner trust Google as Android has been much more open platform like (and indie friendly etc.) for phones and tablets than Meta's locked down ecosystem has been so far for VR, even with these potential changes coming.
Hard to explain some of this, hope you get me.
The partnership with other companies for different VR kits however may or may not do anything positive. Is it a positive for VR if Microsoft/Xbox actually do come out with their own example of a light Xbox Quest that does cloud Xbox gaming on a big screen and comes with an Xbox controller, or just a super niche product that doesn't expand the VR market meaningfully and doesn't even let the user migrate to full VR down the line (unless Microsoft see fit to also release VR controllers at that point, but will they if they don't benefit in any real way and have to connect it to the Quest store for stand alone gaming and if it's simply compatible with Meta's sold separately is it good for the user, is it even powerful enough for Quest games if it was initially only made for cloud gaming and cheaper and if by the time the user looks into full VR there's an even newer and more powerful Quest device around)? Is a wireless lightweight PC VR kit without all Quest innards/stand alone capabilities also running via their software for Steam and other VR games a positive in any way or just a second rate Quest that may not even cost much less?
Does anyone really think more hardware is what's needed for PC VR to take off? There's plenty out there already and more are coming and unifying it under Meta rather than just OpenXR or whatever is the current standard doesn't seem like it would make any difference more than the Quest line having PC VR capabilities does (but maybe it makes a difference for companies making alternative products, if they can have all the standard inside out tracking, passthrough and what not without developing it from scratch, but again at that point what are they doing different to compete against Quest and other PC VR products). It's not like they're really fully opening it like say Android or Linux or even Windows can be put on any device that can run them nowadays, at home or commercially, they're just partnering with specific companies for specific products.
That seems like they'll probably make sure they do not outcompete their own products but maybe give them a foothold to certain niches/fields they don't chase on their own, like PC VR. Unless these partnerships ares a first step and they do intend to fully open it to anyone and make it the VR Android (which Google will launch and had contacted Meta to partner with and migrate to which they refused btw) and allow other devices to have their own store rather than just the Quest store only Meta benefit from etc., who knows, we'll see, but with their current examples I don't see why people are so excited for it like they're waiting for some sister/cousin product of Quest to convince them to get one in a way the real Quest does not fulfill their needs and a third party/new player is somehow more likely to do that over the next Quest, 4 or Pro 2 or whatever else.
We'll see how they handle it and what the products actually are and what they actually mean when they talk about Steam and Viveport and whatever games, like do they mean something like the fabled deckard, and why would one even need Meta's collaboration for something like that anyway.
To those praising this preemptively as so amazing and what not, what kind of product that couldn't exist without this excites you so much in a way the current Quest doesn't?
Or do you just hope for say, a Pico to come out with something as good as or even more powerful than Quest for cheaper, which I guess is plausible but I just don't see Meta partnering with Xiaomi or whoever only to have them undercut their own offering with something just as good/better for less unless again they do intend to fully open it and migrate from relying on the hardware like a console first party to just turning/expanding it into a platform and ecosystem they profit from hoping to be the first around to do this before Google XR. But that's not announced and I'd sooner trust Google as Android has been much more open platform like (and indie friendly etc.) for phones and tablets than Meta's locked down ecosystem has been so far for VR, even with these potential changes coming.
Hard to explain some of this, hope you get me.
Last edited:
analog_future
Resident Crybaby
And let's be honest, it's not like they're any worse than any of the other major conglomerates. Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.. all suck just as much.
I don't really see much benefit unless Meta decide to not have low price/subsidised Quests in the future. Nobody at the moment can compete with their volume and losses so any device that comes with this OS will likely be more expensive than the quest. Even the new low budget Pico Light comes in at $699 for less hardware. The consumer benefit in this is only compatibility with a closed ecosystem. As I said earlier it's likely that they just want to get Meta accounts and attract store sales from even the smaller VR players with Quest OS compatible games and apps. Something OpenXR doesn't have. Think of it like the battle between DirectX and OpenGL.
MarkMe2525
Member
Nothing wrong with asking questions, but we cannot draw conclusions from baseless hypotheticals. We should wait until some products start being announced before diving into the question of value and place in the market.
With a little imagination, I can think of a few products that I think can fit a niche in the market. These developments can fast track large portions of product development and dare I say that sometimes we don't know what we want, until we see it.
I don't agree with this premise, as Meta has never taken steps to discourage nor limit the ability to side load. They are aware of 3rd party store fronts, that work with their platform, and have openly stated that they are ok with that. While I can't pull up a itch.io or sidequest storefront out of the box, they do allow me to do so if I am so inclined. I would never describe Meta's ecosystem as "locked down", but maybe I am misunderstanding you.
Last edited:
MarkMe2525
Member
I agree that it would be foolish to compete with Meta in the low end, but there is huge opportunity in the mid-high end standalone market. An "apple vision" clone that focuses on enhanced passthrough and MR could find success if priced right. Quest 3 is missing some important features that would benefit social experiences, such as face and eye tracking. Quest 3 productivity capabilities are also limited, this gap could be filled by a competitor as well.
The problem is though that Meta Quest did a race to the bottom by taking astronomical losses on price and nobody would be able to compete with Quest. For example nobody is going to buy a Pico at $699 with an actual Quest being much cheaper. That Pico doesn't have eyetracking, battery, wireless, standalone processor or anything. Their high end that has those is $1599. That isn't going to be pushing many systems. The only benefit would be if Pico wanted the Quest OS content that has been written for the heavily subsidised Quest that the majority of the VR crowd already own. I think Apple's system is kind of what pushed them to do this but it's mainly about the battle for the developers. I don't think it's going to help other VR systems unless Meta decide to make bigger margins on Quest.
MarkMe2525
Member
Yes, we both agree that there isn't room for competition at the low to low-mid end. Now back to my comment I made a minute ago, would you agree that Meta is not currently serving customers looking for a headset focused on productivity or high end MR?
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Seems like by the time that happens when such partnerships are just starting there will be a Quest 4 out or around the corner. Maybe an add on device or even just software suite for the latter would find more success than a wholly separate product that only offers that extra. And what higher end, they already buy up (with exclusivity/first run benefits) the best XR snapdragons every time so other companies are gonna have what, a 1 year window to be the first to launch a higher end kit inbetween Quest series releases (which could be filled by a Pro product anyway, which also had eye tracking mind, but if they stop making that I guess that leaves room for the niche, just as they've stopped caring for PC VR so others fill that, but if they have to abandon something as too niche for the partnerships to make sense then this isn't really transformative or exciting)? Apple Vision is hardly even a launch with the numbers available so Quest is still the cutting edge in stand alone passthrough, sure it's still flawed but it was also a huge leap from 2, if Quest 4 is another leap nobody will need a 3rd party Quest sandwiched between 3 and 4 or 4 and 5 that then improves that area & does more.
Last edited:
I agree just don't think this move would help there. The high end is already served by the very niche expensive headsets and the content (games and apps) written for Meta Quest OS are not written for these features, they're written for the big Quest 1-3 crowd who don't have them. The Meta Quest Pro did but it did poorly. Nothing to me suggests that somebody else having a go with the Quest OS will do better especially when they can't subsidise like Meta.
Last edited:
MarkMe2525
Member
A lot of what I imagine as possible does require a significant time gap between the Q3 and the Q4. I imagine Meta would love to be able to not have to sell headsets with little to no margin on the hardware. This could be the first step away from that. Not saying that I want that, as I have been happy with the Quest hardware in general, specifically the Q1 and Q3
MarkMe2525
Member
After doing some reading and thinking more on the topic, I believe a direction they are wanting to go involves more task specific hardware. I believe Meta is imagining a future with a fitness branded headset that's super light and has breathable fabric. A ROG branded headset (not specifically ROG, just the idea) with extra cooling and battery, covered in LED's. Productivity headset with High density displays with a foldable bluetooth keyboard accessory. Obviously, this list comes from my imagination, but I find them plausible.
If Meta can't get other manufacturers on board, then they will be giving ground to the Google XR OS. Meta made a gaming console first, and the entertainment/productivity potential is the open gap in the market that Google can exploit. It's still early days for this tech and while Meta currently has the largest foothold in the market, their continued dominance is not guaranteed.
Last edited: