Most VR games achieve 90+ fps on fixed hardware like PS4, and companies clearly indicate your PC needs to run the games at that rate for the best experience in PCVR (with games being more optimized for performance than fancy graphics as a result, though some can offer both). That's the result of extensive early testing by the likes of Oculus revealing the threshold for a solid, immersing experience with "presence" in terms of frame rate, input response, field of view and more. There already are VR sets with pretty great image quality (like Samsung Odyssey for something with consumer pricing vs Vive Pro or Pimax) but not everyone has the hardware to push the games at that kind of resolution and in full stereoscopic 3D. You really shouldn't believe you miss out on having a great experience with anything less, much like you don't miss out on great experiences if you play your PC games in SDR 1440p rather than 4K HDR. Improvements, visual and otherwise, are always around the corner when it comes to the tech world, in or out of VR, but there's no threshold where it "gets good" beyond the agreed upon requirements. It just gets even better with more.
Checkerboard rendering doesn't work for VR. VR has it's own ace which is foveated rendering, which provides a native picture and is extremely performant. So much so that it means VR games will be easier to render than non-VR games. It just needs a few years in the oven, as it requires perfect eye tracking.
It's already plausible because it already works. Presence is the unique trait of VR, and it happens today. So I'll take it you mean on a more mass consumer scale?
Needs what hardware? There are about as many standalone VR headsets as there are tethered headsets. The major future of VR is standalone systems. with all the compute built in. This is exactly why people tout VR as a full blown computing platform, because you know, it is.
Oculus Quest is cool but given the pricing I'd wait for more capable innard versions. It'll always have to be mobile chips but something better than a mid tier snapdragon will be possible very soon. It'd also be awesome if later models double as wireless (since they have a battery) or wired PCVR.
I'm sure we'll get hybrids that optionally tether wirelessly to a device, and then... hybrid hybrids, AR/VR hybrids that can also tether to devices.
Microsoft already has adopted VR.
LOL OK. I'm gonna need a citation for that. Show me a poll of "general public" non-VR owners saying they want big in-depth VR games.
I'm not even going to provide because you already know it's true. Look anywhere on the internet. People want big AAA games. Just about every single time anyone has ever said "there needs to be more games before I buy in", they are talking about AAA games.
I'd say people want both, the likes of Skyrim VR and Beat Saber garner roughly equal attention as far as I can tell. And I'm in the camp of both myself. Just as I'm in the camp of both outside VR. But yeah he's being ridiculous to deny the desire and success of deeper VR experiences. Most recently everyone interested wished there was more to Ace Combat VR rather than just a few stand alone missions for example, with many people thinking the whole game was going to be VR compatible before release and having that shot down as more information came to light.
People said the same thing about stereoscopic 3D and Kinect, and they were right.
LOL okay buddy. The few people you encounter on GAF are not representative of the mainstream non-VR owning public. Even the majority in THIS POLL are glad MS isnt focusing on VR. You are delusional.
Sure, both are wanted. But AAA is what's stopping them, because there is plenty of AA/A/Indie content at this point.
I said the Internet. Every single forum on the Internet. Every single video on YouTube, Facebook or other sites - there is no shortage of people saying they need big games (aka AAA) before they buy in.
You can find "no shortage" of people expressing literally any opinion you can think of on the Internet. That doesn't mean it represents the opinion of the general public. Get real.
Uh huh. You keep believing that in your own little bubble.
It's hard to be interested in something that has to be experienced first hand to really "get". According to Springboard VR, 95% of the world have never tried VR.
I'm talking specifically about people wanting AAA games. You've aligned yourself with him here without even knowing what the discussion is about.
So your reason for it being a gimmick is because it wasn't the next big thing overnight? Really?
VR isn't a gimmick, and it's not some flavor of the week trend either. Unlike every other peripheral, it has long legs.
Isn't that kinda of a contradiction?
