Support NeoGAF

[border]

Sounds like a lot of people only have one job.

A $1,000 pc could get you the Witcher 3 at 1080p/60 with mostly high settings. So, that's a bonus.

Yeah, I kinda feel like people are reacting to this thinking "I'm not going to pay $1500 for VR!"

At the end of the day though, that $1500 gets you a home PC and all the usefulness that that brings, as well as a gaming machine that has probably 2 or 3 times the performance of any console and will be forever backwards-compatible. I won't pretend like that is the greatest value in the history of videogaming or anything, but you aren't paying that much just for VR.

 

[Mechanized]

Early adopter price people. These are the very early days of VR. It will take a few years to hit mainstream affordability.

 

[Trojan X]

Ummm. I basically bought my $2100 PC for VR just back in February.

Doersn't matter, my PC cost over $3000 but that doesn't mean I would spent $1500 on Oculus. You know what I mean? This is why I said the specs got to justify the price if Oculus was $1500. Right now, we do not know anything.

 

[totowhoa]

Early adopter price people. These are the very early days of VR. It will take a few years to hit mainstream affordability.

Yup. And VR will improve too, but if you can get the 2016 oculus experience in 2019 for 800... Whatever. It'll pick up steam once that starts happening. People shouldn't worry too much.

This is most definitely targeted at people who mostly need to spend sub-1k today, and the outliers who are willing to jump in for more. Others will come later

 

[Antiwhippy]

Doersn't matter, my PC cost over $3000 but that doesn't mean I would spent $1500 on Oculus. You know what I mean? This is why I said the specs got to justify the price if Oculus was $1500. Right now, we do not know anything.

But then you won't have to spend $1500 because you already have the PC part covered?

 

[ChosenPredator]

Yeah i always figured this made zero sense appearing on PS4, maybe ps5

 

[Compsiox]

But then you won't have to spend $1500 because you already have the PC part covered?

Yeah like I didn't understand his point.

He might legit think the Oculus itself costs 1500 or he's drunk.

 

[Iced_Eagle]

My pc is already under the desk where am I supposed to find the space to put a vr station.

The Rift is primarily designed for a seated experience.

They did announce the consumer version will support standing experiences as well, but you don't need any more space than you already do for many games. This is depending on their input solution of course. If it's hand tracking, you may need to roll your chair back a little bit so your hands won't slam against your desk or something.

Looking at the general performance of the 970 at 2560 x 1440 in newer games I'm scratching my head as to why it is deemed acceptable. I understand that VR games are not necessarily going to be graphically intensive but for those that are a 970, when attempting to hold 90fps, is definitely not going to cut it. To me this is a rather large elephant in the room

You answered your own question though. VR titles need to be designed for framerate first, and now they have a concrete target to shoot for. In cases where you have small and infrequent dips below 90 though, that is why they have async timewarp, which will greatly minimize nausea if you dip below 90, but again, only for a short period of time. It's not like the 970 is incapable of putting out a game at the Rift's resolution @ 90fps... The game just needs to be optimized for it. Trying to look at The Witcher 3 at equivalent resolution and seeing that it's like 30 or 40 fps is not even close to equivalent. Plus, developers have many months ahead of them to further optimize.

 

[Roto13]

Doersn't matter, my PC cost over $3000 but that doesn't mean I would spent $1500 on Oculus. You know what I mean? This is why I said the specs got to justify the price if Oculus was $1500. Right now, we do not know anything.

Uh, you know you don't need a separate, Oculus-specific PC, right?

 

[totowhoa]

Yeah like I didn't understand his point.

He might legit think the Oculus itself costs 1500 or he's drunk.

He's just saying he was confused and thought it was 1500 at first, and said he wouldn't pay that. Now he realized it wasn't and thinks it's crazy to spend that much in the first place, and is waiting to see what the final price is.

The only confusing part is the last bit, since we have a good idea of the potential price range

Just isn't being very clear.

 

[somesang]

Yeah, I kinda feel like people are reacting to this thinking "I'm not going to pay $1500 for VR!"

At the end of the day though, that $1500 gets you a home PC and all the usefulness that that brings, as well as a gaming machine that has probably 2 or 3 times the performance of any console and will be forever backwards-compatible. I won't pretend like that is the greatest value in the history of videogaming or anything, but you aren't paying that much just for VR.

VR is priceless.

 

[totowhoa]

VR is priceless.

Just like your avatar <3

 

[Antiwhippy]

$1500 is about what I expect for a really good PC and a really good monitor.

 

[PdotMichael]

People saying this wont be a success because they cant/don't want to spend the money on it?
What about the millions of people that already have a PC good enough to use it?

Wishful thinking on your part.

 

[Trojan X]

But then you won't have to spend $1500 because you already have the PC part covered?

Ah. You didn't read my prior posts. I said before that I've mis-read the OP, thinking that $1500 was strictly for the Oculus.

Uh, you know you don't need a separate, Oculus-specific PC, right?

That's completely obvious, my friend.

Yeah like I didn't understand his point.

He might legit think the Oculus itself costs 1500 or he's drunk.

Well, you could ask me for clarity if you were confused in any way.

 

[kyser73]

Youre not rendering at 1080p. Youre rendering at the very least double that.

Morpheus uses a single 1080p OLED, software split into 2x(960x1080) screens.

Something that is also being missed is that these screens also have a greated OLED density toward the centre, which is where most vision is concentrated, and Eurogamer, RoadtoVR and several other outlets commented that Mopheus had the lowest incidence of screendoor effect because of it.

Seriously - some of the FUD written about Morpheus on these threads is depressing, since there have been many reports in specialist VR and generalist gaming websites as well as impressions from gaffers that it is more than capable of creating presence and running software at the required res & framerate.

 

[Patchy]

Guess I'll take a pass. Too bad, seemed like it could have been successful.

So because you've decided not to buy it the product will fail?

 

[visiblemode]

This just keeps getting more strange for me. That is a really high barrier for entry for something which is, at once spawning from niche roots and at the same time attempting to seize the attention of the masses.

In it's current state, it would seem that widespread adoption will require a lot of proselytizing from the group which was expected to jump all over it in the first place.

Essentially, this price point won't attract users from any other groups than those already likely to bite and advertising this has so many inherent challenges...a lower price point seems absolutely necessary.

 

[totowhoa]

So because you've decided not to buy it the product will fail?

They're producing 5 million of these next spring obv

 

[border]

Seriously - some of the FUD written about Morpheus on these threads is depressing, since there have been many reports in specialist VR and generalist gaming websites as well as impressions from gaffers that it is more than capable of creating presence and running software at the required res & framerate.

Having a single targeted hardware platform is probably Sony's biggest strength. Even someone on a beefy PC can have their framerate and performance ruined if they are experiencing a shitty browser memory leak or running some janky anti-virus software. Sony is the only one in a position to offer a guaranteed level of performance.

I'm not really sure how Oculus is going to deal with varying levels of performance among hardware configurations. It would be in their favor to push Minecraft VR or VR movies, and that wouldn't need anywhere near a Geforce 970. Are they just going to ignore the fact that owners of lower-end hardware could still get a lot of value out of the Oculus headset?

 

[kyser73]

Also - OMFG at the lack of reading comprehension of that $1500 being the 'all-in' cost of meeting their recommended gaming development target specs for builld the rig from scratch AND the headset.

Having a single targeted hardware platform is probably Sony's biggest strength. Even someone on a beefy PC can have their framerate and performance ruined if they are experiencing a shitty browser memory leak or running some janky anti-virus software. Sony is the only one in a position to offer a guaranteed level of performance.

I'm not really sure how Oculus is going to deal with varying levels of performance among hardware configurations. It would be in their favor to push Minecraft VR or VR movies, and that wouldn't need anywhere near a Geforce 970. Are they just going to ignore the fact that owners of lower-end hardware could still get a lot of value out of the Oculus headset?

Whenever I see a plug & play argument about VR on PCs I always have a small chuckle when PC enthusiasts claim that PCs are 'easy' these days.

I suspect that Sony will issue minimum performance specs for Morpheus titles too. A good example of how wrong it can go for PC VR is Palmer's comment about having a headache from judging all the Samsung VRJam entries at SVVR that barely reached 60FPS.

 

[Dr.Acula]

This isn't the cost of Rift, it's the cost of VR. If you hook up your Morpheus to the PC, the games won't run faster than on the same machine with the Rift. Similarly, if you get cross-plat games, you won't need a 1500 dollar system to run them at PS4 levels.

 

[struggler_guts]

Sick, my PC I plan on building is about 1000 bucks and I'm guessing rift will be at or under 500 (idr dev kit prices) so this is perfect. Reassuring that my parts choices are probably right

 

[Fudgepuppy]

For minimum or for recommended settings? I'll be damned if my computer that runs GTA V on highest settings wont be able to use Oculus on Minecraft.

 

[border]

Oculus sells dev kits for $350. Are people expecting the consumer version to be more expensive or less expensive?

 

[Nzyme32]

By the way, this here is an average example of a computer someone would need to power the Oculus Rift, that is part of that $1500 total cost:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229626

Intel Core i5 4690K (3.50GHz)
16GB DDR3
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 4 GB
16GB Ram
2 usb 3.0 ports
$1150

It is not the average since that is over the top for even the recommended specs and doesn't even include the headset. Also note he spoke of the most someone would pay

You could buy this http://m.newegg.com/Product/index?itemnumber=N82E16883220835

Add an r9 290 for $240 and it costs a total of $765. Add the headset and you probably hit $1k. Venture to pc part picker or any other build it yourself option, and you can knock the price down to sub $700.

And that is just if you want to match the "recommended" so you can be certain you can use every single thing. Many games will support below that with ease.

 

[somesang]

Oculus sells dev kits for $350. Are people expecting the consumer version to be more expensive or less expensive?

$299. $399 with input device.

 

[metareferential]

This thread went full retard in no time, amazing!

That figure is about a full, capable gaming pc, maybe even factoring in peripherals and a monitor.

VR is not going to start guns blazing like other fads. It will start slow, but will eventually get huge as hardware gets cheaper and better.

The first consumer devices have to be perfect, even if that means a bigger entry price.

 

[Trojan X]

... I'm not really sure how Oculus is going to deal with varying levels of performance among hardware configurations. It would be in their favor to push Minecraft VR or VR movies, and that wouldn't need anywhere near a Geforce 970. Are they just going to ignore the fact that owners of lower-end hardware could still get a lot of value out of the Oculus headset?

I don't think that matters as Oculus is an display output like your monitor, right? Is there something I am missing from your statement or my knowledge of Oculus? I think I got a little confused with the phasing of your 1st and 2nd sentence.


Strange. Maybe my reading comprehension is "off" today. First time for everything. Maybe.

 

[kyser73]

This thread went full retard in no time, amazing!

That figure is about a full, capable gaming pc, maybe even factoring in peripherals and a monitor.

VR is not going to start guns blazing like other fads. It will start slow, but will eventually get huge as hardware gets cheaper and better.

The first consumer devices have to be perfect, even if that means a bigger entry price.

The first consumer VR devices ARE out there.

One is made of cardboard, and they both involve sliding a mobile phone into them.

 

[chromatic9]

I'm guessing the PS4 will be at $300 and their VR will be $350-400 so $650-700 to get Sony VR? Can Sony do the lot for $600, I'm not sure plus they need to factor in a controller.

A new GTX 970 build with the CPU they suggested is around $750-800 and I guess $400-500 for the Rift. So $1200-1300. I reckon a 970 type build in 2016 will be more like $600 and the Rift hopefully $400 so a grand all in vs $650-700 Sony VR. Can't help but say anyone interested early on should have a 500W PSU and HDD/SSD and Case so $150 off right there so a PC with the Rift can be $850-900 vs maybe a $650-700 Sony setup.

I totally get it though, if you just want to give a quick guide or likely scenario the PC will cost around a $1000 and the Rift probably $500.

We'll probably find out that more intel CPUs can run these made for Rift games and its more GPU dependent so probably just a GPU upgrade for most and there's still quite a lot who a 970/980/Titan OG/290/290x/780/780ti and 970 perf will be mid range in 2016.

The only shift is the 60fps to 90fps which does add ~$200.

I don't see much of a problem in the sense that a decent rig has always been in the $700-1000 range.

Also 2017 will be the second year and the barrier will be much lower. The biggest problem I see Is content and the controller and how good is the image to resolve the assets that are slightly ahead of view.

For my personal satisfaction, I predict its still 3-4 years away in image quality/resolution for me to spend any serious time with it on.

 

[metareferential]

The first consumer VR devices ARE out there.

One is made of cardboard, and they both involve sliding a mobile phone into them.

And both offer sub-par experiences when it comes to gaming.

Even the DK1 offers better gaming experiences.

 

[justsomeguy]

Are there people super-hyped for the oculus who don't already have a PC setup?

I have a PC but it's not powerful enough

 

[Moon_frogger]

People saying this wont be a success because they cant/don't want to spend the money on it?
What about the millions of people that already have a PC good enough to use it?

Even without the cost of the PC it's still likely to be the most expensive peripheral ever made. Peripherals almost always fail. This stood a better chance then most but even if it's priced competitively it's still going to have a rough go.

 

[border]

I don't think that matters as Oculus is an display output like your monitor, right? Is there something I am missing from your statement or my knowledge of Oculus? I think I got a little confused with the phasing of your 1st and 2nd sentence.

To put it simply, you won't need an i5-4590 processor and GTX 970 to watch VR videos or play Minecraft. At the same time, Oculus has stated that those parts are necessary for the headset.

So is Oculus just going to ignore the fact that low-end users without the recommended specifications could still enjoy lots of VR content? Are they going to just pretend like you need a $1000 PC to even get in at the ground level?

I had imagined that they would start an Oculus App Store, and give a rating to games/apps based on necessary hardware requirements. Something like Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Silver games run on integrated desktop/laptop hardware, Gold games run on dedicated mid-range videocards, Platinum games run on high-end videocards like the 970. It seems like they gave up on offering software in tiers, and just said "Fuck it, everybody with an Oculus needs to have a $350 videocard."

 

[Amagon]

I'm okay with this.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

At least actual reality is free

Spoiler

to use

.

 

[Compsiox]

Well, you could ask me for clarity if you were confused in any way.

Totowhoa cleared it up for me. Sorry about that.

 

[Clockwork5]

Seems almost reasonable. $1500 is a hard pill to swallow.

 

[Mooreberg]

I am still not sure that Sony is the horse to bet on when it comes to accessory pricing or marketing. A combined console + headset price of only half the figure in the thread title would still be above what people typically stomache outside of enthusiast circles.

We will have to see what Valve does. Nothing we are seeing now points to mainstream adoption of VR at the current prices.

 

[Trojan X]

To put it simply, you won't need an i5-4590 processor and GTX 970 to watch VR videos or play Minecraft. At the same time, Oculus has stated that those parts are necessary for the headset.

So is Oculus just going to ignore the fact that low-end users without the recommended specifications could still enjoy lots of VR content? Are they going to just pretend like you need a $1000 PC to even get in at the ground level?

I had imagined that they would start an Oculus App Store, and give a rating to games/apps based on necessary hardware requirements. Something like Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Silver games run on integrated desktop/laptop hardware, Gold games run on dedicated mid-range videocards, Platinum games run on high-end videocards like the 970. It seems like they gave up on offering software in tiers, and just said "Fuck it, everybody with an Oculus needs to have a $350 videocard."

Got it. Completely agree with you. Oculus is an output tool, it doesn't need to cater for the high-end users only.

 

[1st Course]

Early adopter price people. These are the very early days of VR. It will take a few years to hit mainstream affordability.

Morpheus is releasing in less than a year.

 

[pottuvoi]

Do it for VR Star Citizen.

Although, wait a few years to buy the GPU it's going to need

Really hope they will change early to Vulkan or DX12, should give nice boost.

In general new APIs are really good thing for VR.

 

[Etnos]

If they product is actually that good I don't see a problem with it, if Apple has teach something is that people will pay for premium as long as worth it

rather pay full for a full working product, than half for a semi functional one.

 

[darkside31337]

I am still not sure that Sony is the horse to bet on when it comes to accessory pricing or marketing. A combined console + headset price of only half the figure in the thread title would still be above what people typically stomache outside of enthusiast circles.

We will have to see what Valve does. Nothing we are seeing now points to mainstream adoption of VR at the current prices.

What is Valve going to do? Its not going to coming for much cheaper than at $1500. If it is at all.

Best shot of mainstream adoption of VR is honestly still through phones. Like Apple deciding to get into VR would realistically be the most plausible scenario of it taking off.

 

[daniels]

yeah whatever just release a usable consumer version already.

 

[dezzy8]

I think it's going to be successful regardless. I'm pretty sure people who are following the development already have a PC capable of using the rift or are and upgrade away. This price range is for people like myself who would have to just buy an up to date system.

I really hope that the rift is a success though. VR is going to be the future of gaming in the next 5-10 years.

 

[Clockwork5]

2002: rip HDTV. I mean, $5000? HDTV is over before it could really even begin again.



Maybe in like 20 years... yeah, that's a reasonable amount of time to allot to newly viable and continuously moving tech before it becomes affordable and accessible.

HDTV is different for countless reasons, not least of all big cable money had its hand in that pot. Also, everyone has a TV. Demand for VR content is minuscule compared to the demand for television content. It took a price point of less than $1000 to get HDTVs in people's homes. The average person spends much more time watching TV than playing video games. Keeping all this in mind, it still took HDTVs 5+ years to be common as a ton of people were still holding on to their tubes for quite some time.

Maybe when an integrated video GPU on a tablet can handle VR, it will take off like HDTV.

 

[metareferential]

Even without the cost of the PC it's still likely to be the most expensive peripheral ever made. Peripherals almost always fail. This stood a better chance then most but even if it's priced competitively it's still going to have a rough go.

It is not a peripheral, though.

It's a new display standard.

And it's way cheaper than most high end monitors, while offering something you simply cannot get anywhere else (talking about oculus and vive altogether).

VR will be huge. Like smartphone huge. But it will take years if not decades to get to that level.

Still, you have to start somewhere, and for now it's a damn good start all things considered.

 

[Clockwork5]

It is not a peripheral, though.

It's a new display standard.

And it's way cheaper than most high end monitors, while offering something you simply cannot get anywhere else (talking about oculus and vive altogether).

Its a peripheral. You will still want a monitor for your pc.

Edit: technically a monitor is a peripheral.