3 ms·

60Hz 1080p isn't good enough for VR. Bulky hardware that can be built for $100 isn't good enough for mass adoption. There's a reason why Meta is investing so he

by Tepix 5y ago

60Hz 1080p isn't good enough for VR. Bulky hardware that can be built for $100 isn't good enough for mass adoption. There's a reason why Meta is investing so heavily.

ben_w 5y ago
60Hz: I agree with you 1080p: I disagree, that can either be good or bad depending on the content. E.g. original iPhone was only 320x480, but Apple made it feel good.
- Tepix 5y ago
  The iPhone display takes up just a fraction of your field of view whereas a VR display covers most of it. The difference is pixels per degree.
- advrs 5y ago
  Have you tried VR at 1080p? I understand your point (one number does not adequately represent "quality of experience") but for VR, 1080p is simply not enough due to the distance to the display (pixels are very visible).
  - int_19h 5y ago
    FWIW, I own HP Reverb G2 (2160x2160 per eye - the highest I could find when I got it), and it's still not quite enough. 4K per eye might be what it takes.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    I’ve tried it on even less than 1080 — a first generation iPhone SE (1136×640) in a one of those £30 plastic head-mounts. Yes, you can see the pixels. But it’s easy enough to ignore that if the content is compelling.
CoolGuySteve 5y ago
People have been arguing that Nintendo hardware doesn't deliver high enough fidelity ever since the Wii but that hasn't stopped most of their products from being incredibly successful. The idea that it's refresh rate or resolution that's keeping VR from becoming mainstream seems ridiculous when even a relatively friendly platform like PSVR ships with this bundle of cables: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/Sony-PlayStation-4-PSVR-Cables.jpg/2880px-Sony-PlayStation-4-PSVR-Cables.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/So... Occulus seems to realize this but their software side still needs work.
- Tepix 5y ago
  Virtual reality is different than gaming hardware. If the quality is too bad you may get motion sickness or not experience immmersion. There is a certain quality threshold you need to cross, similar to the uncanney valley you experience when looking at virtual human avatars. Yes, cables are also something that lowers immersion.
- int_19h 5y ago
  It's not an either-or. It definitely needs to be wireless to truly take off, but resolution and refresh rate requirements are also required to provide an enjoyable experience.
- sangnoir 5y ago
  Nintendo offsets lackluster hardware with exceptional games. The end result is Nintendo rarely becomes the outright leader in any hardware segment. I agree they are successful, but I can't recall when they last "blew away the market"
  - specialp 5y ago
    5 out of the top 10 consoles sold of all time are Nintendo. They are the outright leader and always have been in handhelds and the Switch has been the best selling console for the past 2 years
    - 5y ago

by Tepix 5y ago

60Hz 1080p isn't good enough for VR. Bulky hardware that can be built for $100 isn't good enough for mass adoption. There's a reason why Meta is investing so heavily.

ben_w 5y ago

60Hz: I agree with you 1080p: I disagree, that can either be good or bad depending on the content. E.g. original iPhone was only 320x480, but Apple made it feel good.

Tepix 5y ago
The iPhone display takes up just a fraction of your field of view whereas a VR display covers most of it. The difference is pixels per degree.
advrs 5y ago
Have you tried VR at 1080p? I understand your point (one number does not adequately represent "quality of experience") but for VR, 1080p is simply not enough due to the distance to the display (pixels are very visible).
- int_19h 5y ago
  FWIW, I own HP Reverb G2 (2160x2160 per eye - the highest I could find when I got it), and it's still not quite enough. 4K per eye might be what it takes.
- ben_w 5y ago
  I’ve tried it on even less than 1080 — a first generation iPhone SE (1136×640) in a one of those £30 plastic head-mounts. Yes, you can see the pixels. But it’s easy enough to ignore that if the content is compelling.

CoolGuySteve 5y ago

People have been arguing that Nintendo hardware doesn't deliver high enough fidelity ever since the Wii but that hasn't stopped most of their products from being incredibly successful. The idea that it's refresh rate or resolution that's keeping VR from becoming mainstream seems ridiculous when even a relatively friendly platform like PSVR ships with this bundle of cables: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/Sony-PlayStation-4-PSVR-Cables.jpg/2880px-Sony-PlayStation-4-PSVR-Cables.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/So... Occulus seems to realize this but their software side still needs work.

Tepix 5y ago
Virtual reality is different than gaming hardware. If the quality is too bad you may get motion sickness or not experience immmersion. There is a certain quality threshold you need to cross, similar to the uncanney valley you experience when looking at virtual human avatars. Yes, cables are also something that lowers immersion.
int_19h 5y ago
It's not an either-or. It definitely needs to be wireless to truly take off, but resolution and refresh rate requirements are also required to provide an enjoyable experience.
sangnoir 5y ago
Nintendo offsets lackluster hardware with exceptional games. The end result is Nintendo rarely becomes the outright leader in any hardware segment. I agree they are successful, but I can't recall when they last "blew away the market"
- specialp 5y ago
  5 out of the top 10 consoles sold of all time are Nintendo. They are the outright leader and always have been in handhelds and the Switch has been the best selling console for the past 2 years
  - 5y ago