Comment by modeless | Hacker News Reader

Comment by modeless | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I disagree with almost everything you said. Firstly it's not the same weight; it's 10% lighter. If you want a better head strap then you can get the official upgraded one and combined it's still cheaper than Quest 1. Tested's review [1] says battery life is the same, plus there's now a battery strap you can buy to double it and balance the weight distribution. Tested also says the controller tracking is not worse, audio is better, and all things considered the screen is a significant improvement. Then of course there's the extra RAM and upgraded SoC.

The only serious downgrade here IMO is the IPD adjustment, but for the vast majority of people it's not an issue. In other ways it's a clear improvement. I won't be getting one as I have an Index, but this is going to sell more than any other headset. The tech and the price are both incredible.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x6lux6f_6g Tested's review is the one to trust. Norm knows his stuff.

Edit: Ah I see about the weight, you must have been talking about the weight combined with the upgraded headstrap, which does indeed make it heavier than Quest 1, by about 7%. I'll reserve judgement on comfort until I try it. Quest 1 wasn't exactly comfortable for me but it's about more than just the weight number.

According to a Review by Ars Technica, the 10% weight saving comes from the flimsier headstrap.

I also think Facebook is kind of admitting they messed up the headstrap, if they have to sell a proper one separately.

The reduced cost and increased portability make it clearly the right choice for the product IMO. Cost and convenience are the #1 and #2 barriers keeping people out of VR. Once people see the value they can decide to spend on the headstrap for upgraded comfort.

They didn't increase portability from the Quest 1 though.

All they've done is forced the consumer to pick between portability but a bad user experience or no-portability, $50 cost, and a basically acceptable one.

At least the Quest 1's headstrap was basically passable, this isn't.

The cloth headstrap is absolutely more portable than Quest 1. The $50 upgrade cost is more than compensated by the $100 discount on the headset itself.

I’m fairly sure the Ars review is plain wrong on this as well. Measurements in other reviews show the Quest 2 at 503g, vs the Quest 1 at 580g. That is around a 14% weight improvement, not 10%. On top of that, the headset depth has been reduced by 1-2cm from pictures which will improve things substantially due to reduced moment.

I don’t agree that selling an improved headstrap is admitting “they messed up the headstrap”. They had to reduce costs to hit $300 to appeal to the mainstream casual market. I think it’s awesome they are finally offering a premium headstrap for those of us who want comfortable VR and are willing to pay a bit extra for it.

I'm pretty sure comfort is one of the top priority there, so I really doubt the comfort was not improved between two Quest versions, it makes no sense to me, better check other reviews.

> Firstly it's not the same weight; it's 10% lighter.

The Quest 2 itself is the same weight as the Quest 1. The "10%" you're quoting is entirely from the headstrap changes, if you put a Q1 headstrap on the Q2 they'd weight the same.

They made no improvements, and because of the downgraded headstrap it is actually in worse shape out of the box.

> If you want a better head strap then you can get the official upgraded one

And lose the 10% weight savings, and portability in a portable VR console.

> Tested also says the controller tracking is not worse

Wasn't a claim I made.

> all things considered the screen is a significant improvement

One screen instead of two, and downgrade from OLED to LED. If by "significant improvement" you mean cheaper and worse, but higher FPS then yes, otherwise no

If LCD is a downgrade from OLED then why did Valve Index at 3x the price choose LCD? The fact is it's simply better overall. The resolution, brightness, screen door reduction, full subpixel array, and uniformity matter more than the contrast. Really contrasty scenes are problematic anyway because of the fresnel lenses and OLED black smearing. 1 vs 2 screens is only a downgrade for IPD adjustment, which I agree is the one area that got significantly worse on Quest 2.

The Valve Index only went with LCD in order to use a new LCD tech that allowed high refresh rates and low persistence, it was a downgrade in all other ways except refresh rate. The Quest 2 and Quest 1 have the same refresh rate, so it's a side-grade at-best.

Contrast matters a lot in VR, too.

This is false, Quest 2 has 20% faster refresh rate than Quest 1 (in hardware, software support is coming after launch). You don't know if persistence was improved or not (my guess is it was). As I mentioned, OLED contrast is limited in VR due to the fresnel lenses and black smear correction, and my comment lists several other areas that are upgrades over OLED that you just ignored.

Valve made the wrong decision. I bought an Index in August, sold it 2 days later. One reason was how washed out the LCD looked compared to the Rift (non-S). Another reason is the controllers are not porn friendly as they require 2 hands to put on. Hoping the HP coming soon will be a better upgrade.

> And lose the 10% weight savings, and portability in a portable VR console.

What? It's still quite portable with an alternative strap. Somewhat bulkier for sure, but still easily small enough to put in a backpack.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com