I would quite honestly pay for N64-grade graphics if delivered with head tracking and ultra-low latency. I strongly believe that as in literature, most of the immersion experience is in the mind. Oculus technology (+3D sound) really helps to get the computer out of the way of the story.
Agreed. Wonder what they'll suggest? Prob one with tons of fast memory. I read that most devs are using the new Nvidia 980s because the latency is less.
The latency issue is now entirely solved in the DK2 so that's now a non-issue. I had it working on a 7950 even. The 980s and the Titan allow for real-time down sampling to eliminate all judder and help with the SDE.
A $550 video card on top of the price of the device itself? If that is the case, I'm going to have to wait for a device to come out like Hololens that can stand on its own.
As someone mentioned earlier, today's $550 video card is tomorrow's $250 video card. Either way, there's gonna be some expense if you want to be an early adopter. This will be easiest to swing for people who already have a decent desktop computer (recent-ish i5 or better, 8GB RAM or better). Then you either buy a $500 GPU and a HMD or you buy a $400 PS4 and a Morpheus. Lots more early content and tools will be available for Win/Lin/OSX but if you already own a PS4 it will be a lot less additional expense.
Then again, if you already have a decent GPU you can still do quite a bit. When I got my DK2 it ran many things just fine on an older GPU. I only upgraded to a GTX980 because I hadn't splurged on anything in a while and it helped a lot with un-optimized, demanding programs like Elite: Dangerous. I could have kept using my existing card if I just wanted to mess with less demanding content or make stuff in UE4.
If you are a gamer, you should already have that to play current gen games at max settings. I'm on $1000 worth of GPU right now for 4k, and the 4k screen itself was about $500.
Don't make it sound like Oculus is more expensive than what gamer already have to pay to get the best experience.
Lots of people game without playing everything on max. The difference here is that the oculus WON'T work with the max setup. Most other games work just fine. I play lots of games on my iMac I use for work, but it obviously can't run the oculus. I'd have to buy another 1500-2000 machine just for it, and that is tough to swallow.
You're not wrong re: best experience, but your $1000 of GPU + $500 screen puts you in like the top 1% of gamers. Most ppl are gaming on cheap rigs, laptops, etc. It's possible that FB/Oculus are trying to make something that will only appeal to the big spending "prestige-rig" gamer set, but I'd think that they would be trying to make a product that will be compelling to a bigger audience.
Why upgrade now? 10 months is a long time in the world of graphics cards. At least wait a month or two to see if the new AMD cards like the 380 are any good -- even if they aren't nVidia may reduce prices to compete.
For what? VR experiences differ as much as any graphical simulation in terms of needed performance. Thats why the GearVR is a thing next to the Oculus Rift.
Pick any Mid-Range Card and upgrade once you hit a roadblock, that will keep your expenses reasonable while not excluding you from experiences if you deem them necessary.
The current development kit prototype is just 1920×1080, which is split horizontally into 960x1080 per eye. So it's really not "two high def screens". Hopefully they will be able to improve this further before shipping the consumer version.
The new PASCAL Nvidia cards will be out and so will the new Intel chips will be releasing this August (with potentially a progression to 7nm next year).
Good question, I say... I have the DK2 and I don't have the nvidia card in my macbook. It runs... ok, but is really an issue with heavier games/demos. Dropping frames with VR is a huge problem if you get dizzy at all - it makes it a lot worse.
Sure, but you have several things working against you. Integrated graphics aren't gonna be great for even non-VR applications if they're graphically demanding. And you're running 1) a laptop, and 2) a Macbook so you've got something that is much more geared toward lower power usage and (in the case of most Apple notebooks) thinness and lightness so those power tradeoffs may be more pronounced.
Honestly, I'm impressed you've been able to do a whole lot with it at all. I've got a fairly decent laptop (i7, 16GB RAM, and a mediocre nVidia 760m GPU) and it's still been underwhelming when I hooked the Rift up to it.
Desktop will be much more power for the buck this early in the game. Portable will catch up but you sacrifice some bang for the buck when you get something more optimized for portability and battery life.
Nobody knows what the final specs are yet, look at the resolution and the refresh rate when they release that info and pick a card that can reach that frame rate in your favorite game. I'm hoping for 120hz!
