I don't agree. Because this (not requiring PC to show VR) either means: 1) Oculus is standalone (not requiring nvidias/amd 200W+ 200USD powershouses) with com

I don't agree. Because this (not requiring PC to show VR) either means: 1) Oculus is standalone (not requiring nvidias/amd 200W+ 200USD powershouses) with comparable quality/features to what other (with PC) sets are doing currently OR 2) it is not standalone UNLESS you have much (and here I mean much!) worse quality ad1: this would mean that Oculus did a great breakthrough (rendering price of nvidia stock overvalued tenfold - which we don't see) while also solving heat dissipation issue (look at your typical GTX card and cooling they require and POWER they require). ad2: currently, AAA games do require powerhouse in graphics department, and they still have a lot space to improve (from visual perspective). For VR you need 90fps lowlatency dual(sic!) rendered graphics - this brings you either subpar quality (A LOT OF SUBPAR) - hence I concluded this "no pc required) marketing gimmick of Oculus. Yep, it may work, but not at the level (not even close) to other solutions.