2 ms·
$300 is a barrier to plenty of people but it's really not a sticking point for a lot of the target demographic.
by distrill 5y ago
$300 is a barrier to plenty of people but it's really not a sticking point for a lot of the target demographic.
- sho_hn 5y agoFrom an employer POV, a hypothetical equivalent $300 VR headset would be cheaper than two 4K 27" screens. Cost could even incentivize adoption, really.
- checker 5y agoIt's certainly an interesting concept. I'm not an expert but from what I've come across, it's currently very expensive to match the resolution of a 27" 4K monitor that's 2 or 3 feet away from your eyes. This is because the headset would need a very high pixel density on the very small screens sitting a few inches from the user's eyes. I'm sure someone has done the calculation somewhere but I couldn't find it. This page says we're at 2,000 pixels per eye but we need 4,000 to get "Immersive VR" (not sure if that will fit this use case) https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/virtual-reality-desktops-save-money-space/ https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/virtual-reality-desktops-save-... So it might happen eventually. People are actually leveraging "Virtual Desktops" now, but accepting the inherent resolution issues.