VR / AR Gaming Headset FAQ (Virtual Reality Gaming)

[Striderxdj]

I'm sure someone more educated could provide a better answer, and possibly even an alternative to what I'm saying (some exclusives may use proprietary engines, but even that wouldn't change much, the HMD is just a display).

I got into it with the Croteam developers a year back over their overpriced "ports". They released Serious Sam 1-3 with minor VR functionality (room scale / motion controls). They charged way too much, pretended it was a lot of work (it's not) and started lashing out at the community.

Porting a game to VR is as easy as porting a game to 4k, or Eyefinity / Nvidia Surround. As in there won't be so much of a port at all, rather a discrepancy in the interface or game play that was never intended to be viewed in that capacity. When you add in motion controls and room scale? Sure it gets more complicated, but honestly, not by much.

https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/tools/vrtk-virtual-reality-toolkit-vr-toolkit-64131



Not to take away from any of the developers porting stuff, but it's practically point and click. You can make any game a VR game with "no" coding experience (see; vorpx), and even getting the mouse / weapons slotted to the motion controls, combined with room scale is as easy as setting properties to an asset.

EDIT:

I'm not sure how many people realize this, but you can play almost anything in VR today.

Kingdom Come: Deliverance, Metroid Prime 1-3, Mario Kart, Witcher 3, World of Warcraft, etc.

GTA5 has multiple VR mods, some with motion controls (absolutely amazing, like shockingly cool stuff), some with controller support.

Here is a list of nearly perfectly supported non-VR games, in VR.

https://www.vorpx.com/supported-games/

And this list is highly incomplete. I was playing Quake 2 the other day in VR with full motion controls, I beat Half Life (the original) in VR with full motion controls as well.

Is it worth it to pay for VorpX? I have a vive and a decent system (I5 7600k, 16gb ram, gtx970, ssd, etc.)

but I am wary of paying 40 bucks for software that runs the games like shit...

 

[Mookie]

Is it worth it to pay for VorpX? I have a vive and a decent system (I5 7600k, 16gb ram, gtx970, ssd, etc.)

but I am wary of paying 40 bucks for software that runs the games like shit...

Getting to play Alien: Isolation is worth the purchase of it alone, but it needs a GTX 1070+ to really generate the visual fidelity it deserves. You'll have to downgrade the supersampling if you're at 1.5, at the very minimum bring your SS down to 1.0 / 0.8 for newer titles. The GTX 970 does VR fairly well, yeah? I have a 970 system I've just never hooked my Vive up to it.

Vorpx also has some great cinema features, and being able to play games (Diablo 3, Kingdom Come, etc) in G3D is really cool.

 

[Striderxdj]

Getting to play Alien: Isolation is worth the purchase of it alone, but it needs a GTX 1070+ to really generate the visual fidelity it deserves. You'll have to downgrade the supersampling if you're at 1.5, at the very minimum bring your SS down to 1.0 / 0.8 for newer titles. The GTX 970 does VR fairly well, yeah? I have a 970 system I've just never hooked my Vive up to it.

Vorpx also has some great cinema features, and being able to play games (Diablo 3, Kingdom Come, etc) in G3D is really cool.

Ive played several games with the 970 and had no issues, and I would buy a 1080ti right now if the fu**ing cryptofarmers werent ruining the gpu market.... Im not paying 1200$ for a $650 card.

 

[Gnaww]

Finally got a PSVR and a few games,
First thing I played was Rush of Blood, it's amazing how it actually makes you feel like you are moving on a roller coaster.

Anyways seems to be a PSVR sale going on, a lot of games marked down 30-75% off and the headset was marked down 100 bucks. Guessing they timed it for tax returns.

 

[LuchaBear]

Would be surprised if no mention of Xbox VR at E3. Maybe better to wait though since the OG Xbox sucks.

 

[Mookie]

Would be surprised if no mention of Xbox VR at E3. Maybe better to wait though since the OG Xbox sucks.

If Xbox gets VR right? That could actually stir things up. I just don't see it happening.

 

[treelo]

I just got a VR rig(1080, i7 8700 and it is stupidly awesome), i'd be surprised if it doesnt get bigger and better, i just think the price point at the moment is the most prohibitive thing

 

[Mookie]

I just got a VR rig(1080, i7 8700 and it is stupidly awesome), i'd be surprised if it doesnt get bigger and better, i just think the price point at the moment is the most prohibitive thing

Weirdly enough? It's your GTX 1080 that's the most prohibitive thing. Price isn't that big of a deal at this point, you have multibillion dollar niche markets in current era, right now it's performance, and visual fidelity.

Even with a GTX 1080 TI performance is an issue, and I have to adjust SS rates between games constantly. Some things run great, but more often than not they look like an older game. Getting something like Kingdom Come to run at good settings, with a high resolution and framerate? Good luck even with the current Vive resolution. Isn't going to happen. They need to figure out how to make games look good with the current DPI, instead of bumping that up, which will result in even more people being left behind.

 

[Madmick]

Weirdly enough? It's your GTX 1080 that's the most prohibitive thing. Price isn't that big of a deal at this point, you have multibillion dollar niche markets in current era, right now it's performance, and visual fidelity.

Even with a GTX 1080 TI performance is an issue, and I have to adjust SS rates between games constantly. Some things run great, but more often than not they look like an older game. Getting something like Kingdom Come to run at good settings, with a high resolution and framerate? Good luck even with the current Vive resolution. Isn't going to happen. They need to figure out how to make games look good with the current DPI, instead of bumping that up, which will result in even more people being left behind.

@Mookie, you're overreacting to an highly uncontroversial statement, and you're wrong.

A proper GTX 1080 rig costs at least $1,500 right now. Even the cheapest rigs which meet the minimum required specifications are around a grand. That's before you're asking the customer to sink $400-$600 into a PC-class headset (Oculus/Vive). Meanwhile, PS4s, Xbox Ones, and Switches are all out there for ~$250.

Who cares about niche markets? He's talking about a viable market to generate the revenue to attract more aggressive, specific R&D for the VR headset market, and more importantly, actual game development. It isn't there. So the overall consumer investment in this market is peanuts compared to mainstream non-VR gaming.

 

[Mookie]

@Mookie, you're overreacting to an highly uncontroversial statement, and you're wrong.

A proper GTX 1080 rig costs at least $1,500 right now. Even the cheapest rigs which meet the minimum required specifications are around a grand. That's before you're asking the customer to sink $400-$600 into a PC-class headset (Oculus/Vive). Meanwhile, PS4s, Xbox Ones, and Switches are all out there for ~$250.

Who cares about niche markets? He's talking about a viable market to generate the revenue to attract more aggressive, specific R&D for the VR headset market, and more importantly, actual game development. It isn't there. So the overall consumer investment in this market is peanuts compared to mainstream non-VR gaming.

Not overreacting in the slightest, and my analysis is accurate. I must not have explained it properly.

Opinions: $1,500 for a 5+ year future proof electronic device is nothing. I was spending $4k+ back in the 90's on computers from Costco. The fact is, is most people who buy PC HMD's already have a PC, and already use it for other things. It's not a price problem.

Facts: And even if it was a price problem my analysis is still correct as I'm saying the fastest, most expensive video card on the market *still* can't produce optimal results, and that's an even bigger problem than how much it costs.

Assuming I could spend $500-$1k more to get optimal VR? I would, and if you visit any major Oculus / Vive forums you'll find people can't wait to spend more on knuckles, base stations, etc. They want new gear, they spend "as much on games" as they did the system, and HMD.

Now full circle? If they learn to optimize, and develop with the existing DPI / Kits? It will by proximity reduce the price of VR as the requirement overhead is lowered. Making a GTX 970 completely viable should be more important, versus higher resolution headsets, or even lowering the price of the HMD. All these new HMD's are doing is pushing the ceiling even further above the 10 series cards, and making optimal VR experiences more, and more expensive.

The price while a problem for some, isn't the problem in the bigger picture, and before / after the purchase? Everyone still cares about performance, even more so than they care the library of released titles, and how much they spent to get through the gate. Once in, they want optimal results with sync, performance and graphical fidelity. That balance has *not* been met.

This new HTC Vive Pro is a failure, IMO. They raised the resolution, and even the newer headsets are talking about 4k per eye. It's all bullshit, and the exact opposite area in which the industry should be focused.

EDIT: Also VR has had a really unique history, huh? It reminds me of when Microsoft entered console gaming, and failure simply wasn't an option.

 

[Madmick]

Not overreacting in the slightest, and my analysis is accurate. I must not have explained it properly.

Opinions: $1,500 for a 5+ year future proof electronic device is nothing.

You're wrong, and this is why. You've already gone off the rails. He's not talking about you (i.e. the niche market).

He's talking about the larger world.

 

[Mookie]

You're wrong, and this is why. You've already gone off the rails. He's not talking about you (i.e. the niche market).

He's talking about the larger world.

No shit Sherlock, that's why multiple of my points expand on how to get "beyond" the ceiling we're currently in. Slow down and read, for fucks sake man.

Lowering the price isn't going to happen. Period. So I'm providing a solution with how to get it bigger by saying keep the kit / DPI the way it is, and focus on the real issues right now that are holding back VR: Performance, sync, fidelity.

 

[Madmick]

No shit Sherlock, that's why multiple of my points expand on how to get "beyond" the ceiling we're currently in. Slow down and read, for fucks sake man.

Lowering the price isn't going to happen. Period. So I'm providing a solution with how to get it bigger by saying keep the kit / DPI the way it is, and focus on the real issues right now that are holding back VR: Performance, sync, fidelity.

You posted no relevant "facts".

If you want to deal in facts, go dig up some numbers comparing the most lucrative $2000 home gaming systems to those in the $250-$500 throughout history, and their respective market presence. You're not going to like what you find.

 

[Mookie]

You posted no relevant "facts".

If you want to deal in facts, go dig up some numbers comparing the most lucrative $2000 home gaming systems to those in the $250-$500 throughout history, and their respective market presence. You're not going to like what you find.

I think you've misunderstood everything I've said, no offense.

You cannot get (by your own admission) over two thousand dollars worth of gaming equipment into a $250-$500 package. And even if you could it wouldn't be enough. Just read that as many times as you need to.

So back to what you *can* do Mick, and what I have repeatedly expressed: raise the bar of your niche industry / market value instead of expecting the entire computer industry "as we know it" to suddenly change so people can get affordable VR. Work on performance, sync and fidelity and by proximity the requirements, and overhead of the products will lower, making VR cheaper to get into.

Even if you could squeeze $4,000 of PC hardware into a $250 box, you still wouldn't be able to play games like Fallout 4 VR, L.A Noire, and many others without issues, or at optimal resolution simply due to the requirements being too high. Let games like GTA5, Kingdom Come, etc. Think about that man, it's not about the money, no amount of money can fix the problem, and as I pointed out the people *in* this market are already ready to spend more. It's the stability of the product, and what it can achieve in it's current state.

Oh, I should also note that Valve is already working on this in some capacity. Well at least they have "said" they are working on this. If they develop a killer application that is well optimized, and has the graphic fidelity we're seeing in recent AAA games? That could be the real push the industry needs.

Also one of the biggest negatives is the fucking bitcoin phenomena going on, it's making it harder, and harder to afford viable GPU's for VR.

 

[Madmick]

I think you've misunderstood everything I've said, no offense.

You cannot get (by your own admission) over two thousand dollars worth of gaming equipment into a $250-$500 package. And even if you could it wouldn't be enough. Just read that as many times as you need to.

So back to what you *can* do Mick, and what I have repeatedly expressed: raise the bar of your niche industry / market value instead of expecting the entire computer industry "as we know it" to suddenly change so people can get affordable VR. Work on performance, sync and fidelity and by proximity the requirements, and overhead of the products will lower, making VR cheaper to get into.

Even if you could squeeze $4,000 of PC hardware into a $250 box, you still wouldn't be able to play games like Fallout 4 VR, L.A Noire, and many others without issues, or at optimal resolution simply due to the requirements being too high. Let games like GTA5, Kingdom Come, etc. Think about that man, it's not about the money, no amount of money can fix the problem, and as I pointed out the people *in* this market are already ready to spend more. It's the stability of the product, and what it can achieve in it's current state.

No. I have no difficulty interpreting simple writing:

Weirdly enough? It's your GTX 1080 that's the most prohibitive thing. Price isn't that big of a deal at this point...

It's a huge deal. It's a huge, huge deal.

The fact that you can't pack all the necessary hardware to run these things into a sub-$500 range is precisely the point. It's a big part of why more people don't experiment with the tech (despite that most agree VR still isn't ready for mass market appeal as a technology regardless of price).

 

[Mookie]

No. I have no difficulty interpreting simple writing:

It's a huge deal. It's a huge, huge deal.

You want to know how courteous I've been? You really don't know how to talk to people. First off this number of two thousand dollars is absolute bullshit, and the vast majority of people using Oculus / Vive did "not" go buy a new two thousand dollar computer, if any computer, when they started playing with their VR. The market already existed, and they provided a HMD (ie; display device) akin to a 4k monitor, or widescreen 1440p monitor, or high end 144hz monitor. Yes, that's how SIMILAR the price points are.

Now again, even if I was completely incorrect, you would still be completely wrong. Why? Because as I have repeated over, and over again you will never fit two thousand dollars of modern equipment into a $250 package.

The fact that you can't pack all the necessary hardware to run these things into a sub-$500 range is precisely the point. It's a big part of why more people don't experiment with the tech (despite that most agree VR still isn't ready for mass market appeal as a technology regardless of price).

It's a bad point, because it doesn't have a solution. And the tech is being experimented with on an incredible, mass level as we speak by the largest companies in the world, providing the highest quality R&D anyone could pay for. No offense, again, but you sound like you don't work in the industry, and have no idea what you're talking about.

EDIT:

This could be studied in a business class, lol.

Person A: Grow the industry faster, make them cheaper!

Person B: Fix the hardware, make higher quality products!

 

[Madmick]

You want to know how courteous I've been? You really don't know how to talk to people.

You presume that I care how you receive me. I don't. Nonetheless, I haven't been rude at all-- merely frank.

First off this number of two thousand dollars is absolute bullshit, and the vast majority of people using Oculus / Vive did "not" go buy a new two thousand dollar computer, if any computer, when they started playing with their VR. The market already existed, and they provided a HMD (ie; display device) akin to a 4k monitor, or widescreen 1440p monitor, or high end 144hz monitor. Yes, that's how SIMILAR the price points are.

Yet, at one time, they had to purchase their hardware, and it was costly. We could shift it to $1500 or even $1200 if you like. The market discrepancies exist at even more modest price points like these.

It requires a high-end gaming PC (GTX 970 or better minimum recommended) and the Oculus or Vive itself.

Now again, even if I was completely incorrect, you would still be completely wrong. Why? Because as I have repeated over, and over again you will never fit two thousand dollars of modern equipment into a $250 package.

What the hell are you talking about? First, nobody has made this claim. You accuse me of failing to comprehend your writing, but this is the second time you've made this bizarre claim, and it is now apparent that you don't understand the central point being made, here. Second, in 10 years you sure as shit will (and it might be wireless, too). That's how tech evolves.

It's a bad point, because it doesn't have a solution. And the tech is being experimented with on an incredible, mass level as we speak by the largest companies in the world, providing the highest quality R&D anyone could pay for. No offense, again, but you sound like you don't work in the industry, and have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh, I see. I didn't realize you work in the industry. Who do you work for? What is your employment title? What is your educational background and training? What is your workload? What is your involvement in budgeting, and the extent of your knowledge about it?

Relay to us the exact apportionment of R&D to the Vive/Oculus, and not corrollary VR or related AI pursuits. While you're at it...maybe you can give us a full summary of money invested in game development across the industry, and what percentage of that is currently devoted to VR games. Can you do this?

 

[Mookie]

What the hell are you talking about? First, nobody has made this claim. You accuse me of failing to comprehend your writing, but this is the second time you've made this bizarre claim, and it is now apparent that you don't understand the central point being made, here.

You compared the high end PC to a $250 dollar product, not me, and this was in the middle of your argument that it had to be cheaper. I was assuming you were under the impression that in order for VR to compete with consoles, it would be near that price point.

That's before you're asking the customer to sink $400-$600 into a PC-class headset (Oculus/Vive). Meanwhile, PS4s, Xbox Ones, and Switches are all out there for ~$250.

So are you under the impression that a high end gaming PC that costs $2k+ isn't already competing with those $250 products? Because they are, and you don't need to (nor would it be possible as I have repeatedly said) to squeeze that $2k of hardware into a $250 package.

Oh, I see. I didn't realize you work in the industry. Who do you work for? What is your employment title? What is your educational background and training? What is your workload? What is your involvement in budgeting, and the extent of your knowledge about it?

Enough to make you look like an idiot, we'll leave it there.

Relay to us the exact apportionment of R&D to the Vive/Oculus, and not corrollary VR or related AI pursuits. While you're at it...maybe you can give us a full summary of money invested in game development across the industry, and what percentage of that is currently devoted to VR games. Can you do this?

Hahah, related to A.I!?

https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/virtual-reality-vr-market

"According to the report, the global virtual reality (VR) market was valued at approximately USD 2.02 billion in 2016 and is expected to reach approximately USD 26.89 billion by 2022, growing at a CAGR of around 54.01% between 2017 and 2022."

http://markets.businessinsider.com/...irtual-reality-vr-market-will-grow-1005308302

Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Valve, etc and numerous other companies are at the forefront of R&D.

Go home Mick, you need a nap.

 

[Madmick]

You compared the high end PC to a $250 dollar product, not me, and this was in the middle of your argument that it had to be cheaper. I was assuming you were under the impression that in order for VR to compete with consoles, it would be near that price point.

So are you under the impression that a high end gaming PC that costs $2k+ isn't already competing with those $250 products? Because they are, and you don't need to (nor would it be possible as I have repeatedly said) to squeeze that $2k of hardware into a $250 package.

That fact that the higher price point has always had incredibly low market saturation in direction competition was precisely the point. You have again demonstrated your remarkable failure of reading comprehension on that point.

Enough to make you look like an idiot, we'll leave it there.

So you don't work in the industry, but you just puffed out your chest and cock-a-doodled at me on the assumption that I didn't? Not only did you assume this, but it means you sneered at a group of people that includes yourself? Yikes.

The more I exchange communication with you the more I believe that you are very, very young, and don't yet have a rudimentary grasp of how business or money works.

Hahah, related to A.I!?

Well, now I know you're not in the industry.

]https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/virtual-reality-vr-market

"According to the report, the global virtual reality (VR) market was valued at approximately USD 2.02 billion in 2016 and is expected to reach approximately USD 26.89 billion by 2022, growing at a CAGR of around 54.01% between 2017 and 2022."

http://markets.businessinsider.com/...irtual-reality-vr-market-will-grow-1005308302

Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Valve, etc and numerous other companies are at the forefront of R&D.

Go home Mick, you need a nap.

The VR market is not R&D. That's the value of its goods. Normally, I wouldn't put this down, but I'm not sure if you understand the difference.

$2.02bn? A whole $2.02bn? For every application of VR, not just the game market (i.e. Oculus/Vive/PSVR/Daydream)? Wow. That sounds like a lot of money...to a kid. Are you aware that the global software gaming market was worth more than $100bn in 2016? The PC market alone accounted for roughly $35bn of this depending on which source you select. That's just the software.

Don't bite off more than you can chew, young gun.

 

[Mookie]

Well, this is starting to get sad. I actually like you, and I feel bad I have to keep doing this to you, and in front of your peers no less.

That fact that the higher price point has always had incredibly low market saturation in direction competition was precisely the point. You have again demonstrated your remarkable failure of reading comprehension on that point.

No, I understood completely, stop trying to squirm away from your point that "VR has to be cheaper". It's what you were arguing, and implying with the context. Saying VR has to meet those price points, or similar to succeed, or compete. You are wrong.

So you don't work in the industry, but you just puffed out your chest and cock-a-doodled at me on the assumption that I didn't? Not only did you assume this, but it means you sneered at a group of people that includes yourself? Yikes.

Been working in the industry for 20+ years, currently working with Robert Scoble, and have been apart of start ups that had rounds funded for more money than you'll ever see in your entire life.

The more I exchange communication with you the more I believe that you are very, very young, and don't yet have a rudimentary grasp of how business or money works.

Ok, well, I mean you're wrong? By all means you can try to illustrate me in any way that makes you feel comfortable. In the end? You still look, and sound stupid and have no idea how this industry is operating, let alone how the R&D is attached to market value. Let's briefly explain below.

Well, now I know you're not in the industry.

Again, whatever helps you sleep at night.

The VR market is not R&D. That's the value of its goods. Normally, I wouldn't put this down, but I'm not sure if you understand the difference.

You asked for proof that R&D was happening by large tech companies, and not by non-entertainment, AI standards.

Not only did I link a graph that shows the vast majority of the market is in consumer / consumer electronics, but I showed you the increase of the market value, and that always correlates with the amount of R&D you'll find with said product. Honestly? I thought you'd be smart enough to reverse engineer this, otherwise I'd have just started with links like this:

http://www.iam-media.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=6b19bfa2-2030-45d0-9adc-e6c566348078
https://beta.techcrunch.com/2016/06/29/htc-vive-announces-10-billion-vr-venture-capital-alliance/
http://fortune.com/2017/01/18/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-virtual-reality-billions/
https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/20/google-buys-htc-pixel-team-1-1-billion/
https://www.roadtovr.com/google-developing-vr-display-10x-pixels-todays-headsets/

But again, I thought you weren't an idiot? I apologize.

$2.02bn? A whole $2.02bn? For every application of VR, not just the game market (i.e. Oculus/Vive/PSVR/Daydream)? Wow. That sounds like a lot of money...to a kid. Are you aware that the global software gaming market was worth more than $100bn in 2016? The PC market alone accounted for roughly $35bn of this depending on which source you select. That's just the software.

Don't bite off more than you can chew, young gun.

Oh Mick, can you show anymore of your ignorance? This is an incredible market for a new "display", very few things, VERY few things in tech take off like this, and start with multibillion dollar market floors. Why are you even attempting to argue with me here? It's clear I know more, and it's clear I have a career in this field. Why are you just spouting dumb shit?

"Goldman Sachs predicted the virtual and augmented reality market could become an $80 billion industry by 2025, outpacing the TV market in annual revenue. It said the industry could pull in $45 billion in hardware revenue and $35 billion in software by then." - https://www.rt.com/business/378767-virtual-reality-market-growth/

It's hard, I know, you probably win a lot of arguments with your "rapid fire" bullshit, and constant accusations against the other persons credibility. I was under the impression it was common knowledge you aren't anymore near the VR industry, if I'm mistaken, I apologize, you still sound like a complete dolt that has no idea how to incentivize a market.