I hope not, but they have specifically stated 30 fps games are supported...
-
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.
Oculus CEO: The headset and computer to run it will cost you ~$1,500
- Thread starter BD1
- Start date
I hope not, but they have specifically stated 30 fps games are supported...
You didn't read my tongue-in-cheek post.. I did after all write "timewarp up the wazoo" (meaning: framerate doubling)
I wouldn't run consumer VR in anything else than proper hardware drivers and software, including DX12. Even Elite Dangerous isn't fully optimized for VR in a DK2, far from it, it's beta on beta, not really comparable. A PC with a 760 on low specced consumer VR and mature software should be fine for many PS4-like experiences (in a comparison context)
A lot of VR software on PC, like K&L's (Technolust also), is running like utter crap on most GPUs out there with the power of 3-4 PS4s, that should tell you the story.. But then you have software like Live for Speed which is so smooth I sometimes feel could run in VR on a calculator.. My old 660 could cope with plenty demos at 75Hz at full 1080p resolution, while in some it couldn't.
oh, it'll be in AAA games, patched in etc. and i expect it in most games using that method. but i'm talking about built from the ground up VR games. not half life 2 with an occulus patch. i just can't imagine facebook throwing a ton of money making a AAA PC VR game. indie's will continue to make haunted houses and that'll be the main attraction.
baphomet
Member
Definitely not going to be the case.
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
nvm, read this wrong.
Gucci Messiah
Banned
for who?
Gumbie
Member
Yep
I'm imaging people with prebuilt $400 Dell's and HPs seeing Oculus on a shelf in store and being like "WOW VR!!" and buying it to take home and install on their PC.
The fuck is wrong with you, sensitive much?
Wipeout HD is a amazing experience in terms of IQ and framerate and has been regarded as such for years on this board. I thought it was a good example to remind us what kind of visual fidelity is actually possible even with old ass consoles like the PS3.
It's an attempt to cull the hyperbolic statements implying that the PS4 is so underpowered that it cannot possibly hope to deliver a good VR experience.
Wipeout HD's resolution goes down to 1280x1080 a lot of the time, and it's always without AA. Not nearly the IQ you want for VR (Which is this amount of pixels: http://abload.de/img/capture3munx.png with 4xMSAA or better).
Me, because my PC died last year. I need to go all in as a result.
And this is a PS3 games.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
This being the default opinion of a significant amount of this forum is the reason why I don't see Morpheus being a mainstream success.
It has nothing to do with the technical capabilities of the PS4, it has everything to do with the target audience that the PS4 aims itself at.
EDIT:
It's also the reason the cost of access for VR is mostly irrelevant. It's a new experience, it costs what it costs. All early adopter technology is expensive.
My bad on this one in my dyslexic haze I read it as $1500 not $1150. If you want an all in one system, that is around the right price, although you could go for this for $1049 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00UEFSTB8/?tag=neogaf0e-20
My point here is that that is a recommended target but not a minimum to reach those framerate and the required high resolution. Palmer Luckey has stated they already have things running as low as on on integrated graphics. Of course that won't be the case for games, yet the recommended spec is not the minimum requirement or even in between. A quick example would be the Arizona Sunrise game for SteamVR, recommending that spec but yet to state a minimum spec. Just because you are using VR does not suddenly mean you have no graphics options or flexibility
I'm a little surprised by how surprised people in here are. I think this is very much in-line with the expectations they've been setting for years in terms of the level of hardware required (assuming the headset is in the $300-$400 range).
Fully okay with Oculus leading the charge on the high end front with other competitors working the other markets, as I think VR has a place in both and it's good that consumers will have a number of options (the fragmentation of development, however, is both unfortunate and unavoidable).
Fully okay with Oculus leading the charge on the high end front with other competitors working the other markets, as I think VR has a place in both and it's good that consumers will have a number of options (the fragmentation of development, however, is both unfortunate and unavoidable).
GuitarAtomik
Member
Early 2016.
This can't be stressed enough and should probably be in the OP of every Rift thread that deals with the specs. There are so many posters in this thread that misread that as "minimum" instead of "recommended" and don't understand what that means.
baphomet
Member
Spoken like someone who obviously hasn't tried it.
magnumpy
Member
oculus also has the gear VR product. when that product has an actual launch with it being full blitzed every where in cell phone stores, their is a very real chance for it to gain mainstream adoption. even more so than morpheus. where morpheus requires a PS4 to work, and rift requires a gaming pc, gear VR just requires a cell phone. at the very least that should make for some impressive demos at the cell phone store.
Can't wait till you and others like you eat a healthy serving of crow!!
I've not tried VR, so for all I know it could be an amazing and life changing experience.
I still don't think it's going to be a success, neither Morpheus, Occulus or anything else.
A) It's a shit ton of money.
B) People just do not want to wear shit on their face, no exceptions.
Mihos
Gold Member
This seems about right to me coming from nothing to VR. Why would anyone think it was different?
Even on the mobile VR you need to buy the headset and have a phone powerful enough to run it. If it wasn't subsidized as a phone, then you would be looking at $7-800 if all you wanted to do is play VR stuff.
If they retitled this "You will spend up to $900 to play the Witcher 3" with the base assumption playing Witcher 3 is the only thing you will ever do with that PC.
There are tons of exceptions. Like me and everyone in my family, and many who post in this thread. To my 20 year old self, $100 was a lot of money, to my 43 year old self, I am looking at maybe a video card and the device... I spent more than that on groceries last week. My youngest kid and his friends are all in on the Vive. We have VR headsets in the family already and we love it.
Even on the mobile VR you need to buy the headset and have a phone powerful enough to run it. If it wasn't subsidized as a phone, then you would be looking at $7-800 if all you wanted to do is play VR stuff.
If they retitled this "You will spend up to $900 to play the Witcher 3" with the base assumption playing Witcher 3 is the only thing you will ever do with that PC.
There are tons of exceptions. Like me and everyone in my family, and many who post in this thread. To my 20 year old self, $100 was a lot of money, to my 43 year old self, I am looking at maybe a video card and the device... I spent more than that on groceries last week. My youngest kid and his friends are all in on the Vive. We have VR headsets in the family already and we love it.
So there is literally no quality of experience that would justify wearing "shit on their face"? None? Forever? People's aversion to "wearing shit" will always trump "amazing and life changing experience"?
baphomet
Member
A. Its bleeding edge technology, of course its expensive. Doesn't mean that me and millions of other people don't already have computers that will handle the Oculus just fine.
B. If you tried it you would be changing your stance. Again, me and tons of others absolutely will wear this.
Did you talk shit about the analog stick and 3d graphics when they first came out too?
GuitarAtomik
Member
No exceptions guys. Not even sunglasses.
baphomet
Member
God forbid you actually wear glasses. Because no one ever would want to wear that shit on their face. No exceptions.
For everyday use amongst everyday customers around the home, and outside niche enthusiasts like on this forum / Reddit / elsewhere?
I don't think there is actually, no.
I'm strictly referring to it in a mainstream consumer settings. Enthusiasts will be all over this.
And while I was too young back then, no I wouldn't have "talked shit" (aka disagreed with you). Analogue sticks and 3D graphics were affordable, required no additional peripherals to function, and didn't require wearing anything for it to work.
VR might get there eventually, but not yet.
Okay, so we're comparing a big headset to something you wear to be more comfortable in the sun.
You genuinely struggling to see the difference between the two?
Further point, (edited in) Sunglasses can be fashionable. A VR headset? Okay.
3D televisions would be a better comparison, and look how well they did.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Meanwhile in the real world millions of people spend thousands of dollars to strap shit on their face and go scuba diving.
Has it really come to this level of dense, or are you capable of scuba diving in your front room at home?
I expected FB to not want to throw their investment away. I expected a console sold at a major loss ($600 in 2016?). If this is going to be the next wave of computing, FB/Oculus is doing it wrong.
Fair enough, but even by your own admission it could potentially be life-changing and you still don't think that's enough for an inconvenience? Has there ever been any life-altering tech that's floundered because people couldn't be bothered? In the end it's simple cost/benefit situation. You actually think the "cost" of inconvenience is so high that there is NO benefit to outweigh it? Crazy pills.
This always gets trotted out in these arguments, but it never holds water. The reason 3D didn't take off wasn't because of sunglasses, the reason it didn't take off was because 3D offered very little. Do you honestly think if 3D tv experiences were without glasses, that it would be a thriving industry? Of course not. People just didn't care about 3D. Now if for some reason you think people just won't care about VR in the same way they don't care about 3D, then that's a separate conversation and totally irrelevant to the "wearing shit on your face" conundrum. These headsets aren't even that cumbersome and they're not even products meant for consumers yet.
GuitarAtomik
Member
Oh so there are exceptions.
Seriously though, a VR headset doesn't need to be fashionable. It just needs to be comfortable. It's not like you're going to wear it around town. This isn't Google Glass. As long as it's comfortable, and the experience it provides is sufficiently awesome, people won't give a shit about putting it on their face. Why would they?
That's the thing about investments. They take time to build. That's what's happening here. The first iteration of an investment.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
With VR you can.
Whats the "in your front room at home" disclaimer supposed to mean, anyway?
Not to be an asshole but people comparing VR to 3D TV and existing motion controls simply aren't seeing the technology's potential. It's not just an enhancement to existing games, it's an entirely new medium. You really need to try it before dismissing it like that.
edit: When done properly, VR actually tricks your subconcious mind into thinking what you're seeing is real even though you know it isn't. Can't get that sensation any other way.
magnumpy
Member
sunglasses? I think they're fairly mainstream.
MrCunningham
Member
That doesn't seem too unreasonable to me, given that this is the price of the headset and a PC. Sounds about right. At least they are being honest with the system requirements.
What the fuck?
You realize we're talking about the PS3 here, correct? And isn't the display in the Morpheus headset a 1080p display?
All i'm saying is that the requirements of 'good VR' aren't set in stone and that crisp, high-framerate visuals are not impossible to achieve on a console at all.
baphomet
Member
Wow.
Of course not. But the point is that people will put uncomfortable shit on that makes them look silly on their faces if the result is being able to dive under the water and see amazing stuff.
Just like VR. Lots of gaming is already done on your own in a room, so why would you care if you look a bit silly? Or make it a social thing and share the experiences with friends and family.
People look pretty silly playing Wii boxing or Wii tennis. They still loved it.
I don't think any benefit can outweigh this cost just yet. That's a crazy amount of money for what is essentially, a luxury.
The last life altering tech was smartphones I'd say. (or it is the first to come mind) These became successful because
A) Everyone needs a phone. VR is a luxury.
B) Contract plans made them affordable.
Again, I'd say 3D TV's as an example of how people don't want to wear stuff, regardless of how comfortable it may be.
Another example is Google Glass, wasn't that a huge failure? Why? Expensive, a luxury, and people don't want to wear them.
So why not just watch scuba diving videos on YouTube if you consider that the same thing? You can't compare doing it on VR to actually going to do it in any way.
Nothing? If you can scuba dive in your bathroom or back garden, I'd be equally impressed.
I'm not dismissing it, I think it has potential in certain settings. But amongst the mainstream consumer, not yet, by a long shot.
Time will definitely tell who is right or wrong.
You think?
An interesting point actually. To that i would say the Wii was cheap, simple to use and inclusive.
I wouldn't strap my Nan into the London Heist demo personally though, but the reaction would probably be worth the price of entry.
Do you also think masturbation is going to be a fad because you don't look fashionable enough while doing it?
That phrase makes me cringe whenever it is brought up in VR discussions.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
I don't.
You do, because you're comparing 3DTV to VR.
They're not comparable. A VR diving experience would be far closer to actually diving than any other medium is capable of portraying.
That's the point.
We just recently heard what "minimum specs" they recommend, but people knew that a decent desktop PC is going to be required. For the past year they have been talking about how they want games to run at 90fps (75fps minimum) with AA on and I think even VSync.
Chances are people will be able to get by with older systems (I currently have 2nd gen i5 with 2 670s), but I have actually been holding off on upgrading until the devices actually come out.
Hahaha, what?
I don't think it'll be enough to convince people to pick them up in droves outside of enthusiasts, who will love it.
Time will tell who is right / wrong.
Also, I'm aware and very self conscious that I'm taking up a lot of space with long, constant replies and the sort. If I'm doing it wrong and wrecking the thread, please PM / drop a comment telling me to stfu.