5 ms·

Your second to last point seems to be the biggest problem right now, and that's not going to change until requirements have come down to what the average pc gam

Your second to last point seems to be the biggest problem right now, and that's not going to change until requirements have come down to what the average pc gamer can reasonably be expected to have available. No one wants to make games for a platform with such a low adoption rate.

enraged_camel 10y ago
Your comment got killed for some reason, so I vouched for it. I completely agree. VR seems to be a gimmick right now. Too many technical challenges and not fast enough adoption.
nom 10y ago
I think his first three points are the main problem. Image quality, latency and systems requirements. They are all linked. VR hardware is great step-up from the common gaming setups, where you only have to render a single scene @ 30-60 FPS and display it on a monitor @ >1080p. VR is much more involved than that. Not only do you need to render the scene twice, but you have to do it at a resolution >4k per eye (which probably isn't even enough to satisfy all users), and on top of you should do it in <20ms or something in that order, to be sure nobody gets sick. _including_ position tracking. The rest of your points can be solved, once we can mass-produce hardware that meets the specs.
- loup-vaillant 10y ago
  > you should do it in <20ms I've heard perfection needs less than 7ms latency. That's over 140 FPS, possibly higher if you have any kind of double buffering.
- majewsky 10y ago
  > you have to do it at a resolution >4k per eye I'm sure there's someone working on a headset that tracks eye movements and adjusts the rendered resolution of the image on the fly. The human eye has something like 4-5 megapixels worth of photo receptors, but the absolute majority of them are located in a relatively tiny area of your FOV where your eyes focus on.
derefr 10y ago
On the other hand, I've also seen forum threads about blockbuster games like FFXV that are getting VR support, and many of the comments are "why bother? 3D wouldn't add anything to this sort of game anyway."
kordless 10y ago
Which is complementary to the point about it being anti-social. If everyone got into it, it'd be worth it and wouldn't be so anti-social, within certain aggregates (like a family that games together). Whether those aggregates are worth it or not to the individuals depends on the quality, or aesthetic, of the experience.

enraged_camel 10y ago

Your comment got killed for some reason, so I vouched for it. I completely agree. VR seems to be a gimmick right now. Too many technical challenges and not fast enough adoption.

nom 10y ago

I think his first three points are the main problem. Image quality, latency and systems requirements. They are all linked. VR hardware is great step-up from the common gaming setups, where you only have to render a single scene @ 30-60 FPS and display it on a monitor @ >1080p. VR is much more involved than that. Not only do you need to render the scene twice, but you have to do it at a resolution >4k per eye (which probably isn't even enough to satisfy all users), and on top of you should do it in <20ms or something in that order, to be sure nobody gets sick. _including_ position tracking. The rest of your points can be solved, once we can mass-produce hardware that meets the specs.

loup-vaillant 10y ago
> you should do it in <20ms I've heard perfection needs less than 7ms latency. That's over 140 FPS, possibly higher if you have any kind of double buffering.
majewsky 10y ago
> you have to do it at a resolution >4k per eye I'm sure there's someone working on a headset that tracks eye movements and adjusts the rendered resolution of the image on the fly. The human eye has something like 4-5 megapixels worth of photo receptors, but the absolute majority of them are located in a relatively tiny area of your FOV where your eyes focus on.

derefr 10y ago

On the other hand, I've also seen forum threads about blockbuster games like FFXV that are getting VR support, and many of the comments are "why bother? 3D wouldn't add anything to this sort of game anyway."

kordless 10y ago

Which is complementary to the point about it being anti-social. If everyone got into it, it'd be worth it and wouldn't be so anti-social, within certain aggregates (like a family that games together). Whether those aggregates are worth it or not to the individuals depends on the quality, or aesthetic, of the experience.