Support NeoGAF

[SparkTR]

I wonder how many people will throw down ~$1000 for a PC that will run Oculus for 1-2 years before becoming outdated and subpar.

The PSVR is attractive because it's guaranteed to at least last the whole generation, even if it might not be as technically proficient as PC VR a few years down the road.

If it's like how pc gaming is now, it'll allow better results for the rest of the generation compared to the ps4, regardless if standards increase on the pc side.

 

[TouchMyBox]

I wonder how many people will throw down ~$1000 for a PC that will run Oculus for 1-2 years before becoming outdated and subpar.

The PSVR is attractive because it's guaranteed to at least last the whole generation, even if it might not be as technically proficient as PC VR a few years down the road.

Why would people who get upset that they're not getting the highest-end graphics feel better by settling for the low-end? PCs haven't really experienced the phenomenon of "hey, your 2-3 year old medium-to-high-end computer can't run this shit at all. You better upgrade." for over a decade, at worst they'll have to turn down their settings to an experience that's still greater than what PSVR would provide.

 

[catbrush]

How is this different than any other time people buy a new PC?

Non-VR games are playable below rock solid 70-90+ fps.

Why would people who get upset that they're not getting the highest-end graphics feel better by settling for the low-end? PCs haven't really experienced the phenomenon of "hey, your 2-3 year old medium-to-high-end computer can't run this shit at all. You better upgrade." for over a decade, at worst they'll have to turn down their settings to an experience that's still greater than what PSVR would provide.

This is not the way PC gaming works in my experience. Some games scale down well, but for many falloff is harsh once your hardware becomes a few years outdated. Some of the new VR releases are going to be outright unplayable. Playing Dying Light on a 6970 is a stuttering, frame-tearing mess even on the lowest settings.

And developers will be forced to make sure that their games run at those targeted framerates on something lower-end than two of the best cards on the market in SLI.

Assuming VR takes the market by storm and there is a large market of VR users with outdated GPUs. I think it's much more likely that only PC enthusiasts will buy PC VR, and a sub-$1000 PC that released in 2015 will not be able to render 2 1080x1200 viewports at 90Hz on a 2018 release, even at low lettings.

 

[Ferrio]

Non-VR games are playable below rock solid 70-90+ fps.

And VR games will still be playable, you'll just have to tone down the settings just like any other PC game when you want to achieve a certain framerate.

All these arguments about price, and graphics etc could be applied to all of PC gaming to date, and it hasn't stopped PC gaming.

 

[SparkTR]

Non-VR games are playable below rock solid 70-90+ fps.

Still the same scenario provided the players want above ps4 performance for the rest of the generation. Standards increase on pc but not everybody has to keep up with those changes these days.

 

[TouchMyBox]

And VR games will still be playable, you'll just have to tone down the settings just like any other PC game when you want to achieve a certain framerate.

All these arguments about price, and graphics etc could be applied to all of PC gaming to date, and it hasn't stopped PC gaming.

And developers will be forced to make sure that their games run at those targeted framerates on something lower-end than two of the best cards on the market in SLI.

 

[Bert]

This is nothing but marketing crap. It's all going to depend on each individual game, obviously.

I dunno, it may be, but they have a point in the fact that there's value in developers having some kind of "minimum spec" to work to in VR. You need to guarantee a certain level of performance and this mark could be a good way of communicating that.

Or it could be marketing crap.

 

[UrbanRats]

I wonder how many people will throw down ~$1000 for a PC that will run Oculus for 1-2 years before becoming outdated and subpar.

The PSVR is attractive because it's guaranteed to at least last the whole generation, even if it might not be as technically proficient as PC VR a few years down the road.

I think most big VR games will be developed to be running on both Oculus and PSVR.
That will leave a lot of headroom to PC rigs to keep the framerate high enough.
After all they'll still need to optimize these games to run on PSVR, so the optimization has to be done either way.
If big publishers will have to cut corners, i think they'll do it elsewhere, maybe doing shorter and simpler games (at least the first few years).

Most publishers don't care about hitting 30 rock solid, let alone 60, because the public doesn't care or even notice, but for VR, it's a whole different story, because anyone just gets physically sick from even a mildly unstable framerate, so they'll have to take optimization seriously, if they're interested in staying in the market.