/g/ should i buy into the virtual reality meme? I only use my

VR is a shamwow right now.

Don't get it unless you're going to develop software for it.

>>57894329

When do you think I should get it?

>>57894294
I tried it. Not really worth it.

1- The price for the gear itself is extremely high, as much as a good PC.
2- Your need high-end graphics. Really high end: GTX 1070 or better. That is also pricey.
3- VR gaming library is extremely limited. Try and find 3 universally praised VR-exclusive titles.
4- The VR experience itself is still not up to par:
4a- The gear is heavy
4b- The resolution is not high enough, you can still see the pixels
4c- The refresh rate is too low
4d- The tracking is a bit slow (i.e "lag").
4e- The four items above cause you to feel dizzy/sick. Does not apply to younger gamers

I would not recommend it. Maybe in ~5 years time, when you can get 4K screens per eye @240Hz, a lighter headset with faster tracking, and AAA titles designed for VR from the ground up... maybe then it will be worth it.

>>57894379
1, 2- I have the money to afford the graphocs card processor, and I already have decent specs, as i used to use this pc to game earlier last year

3 - I don't mind if thw VR library is limited, rather if the actual games are fun and there is a game I can get sort of hooked on to play when Im bored of wow or lol

4 -

a. I dont mind if the gear is heavy, unless it really weighs you down.

b. Do you have to look closely to see the pixels or are they really, really obvious.

c. Is the refresh rate extremely noticibly low?
d. Was the lag on your part or is it really that bad, because some gameplay I've seen of the vive, it did not have much delay.

>>57894294
You should look into doing a couple of demos. Some best buy and micro center locations do them. Look them up online. I just did one the other day and loved it. Don't spend the money without knowing what it is.

>>57894474
3- This is a more serious issue than you think. If you are a millionaire, then maybe not. If your wallet is normal, then you will be spending ~$1200 to play just a few games.

4b- While the screens-per-eye are much smaller than your current PC/laptops screen, they are much, MUCH closer to your eyes. As in: Long eyelashes will touch the screen when you blink! So even though the pixel density is very high, it is still not high enough.

See:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4gu7q2/seeing_soo_much_pixels_any_way_to_improve/
http://steamcommunity.com/app/358040/discussions/0/365163686059878502

That said, it is not that bad. But it is an issue.

4c- It is 90Hz, higher than the 60Hz standard, but again: The screen is basically pressing against your eyeballs, so every tiny effect is magnified. It felt less smooth than 60Hz on my normal screen.

4d- I played a couple of games only. It might have been the games, but in both, the world/view would follow my head movement, just a fraction of a second behind. On a normal screen, it would barely be an issue, but it is magnified when the screen is that much closer.

Can you try it at a store first?

Yep, I think that the low resolution of the displays currently are really pathetic. I mean, my phone has a higher total pixel count

>>57894294
I got a rift, and barely used it. I played a shit social game the most.

The library is small, but you can definitely enjoy certain titles if you choose the right ones, and there's plenty of free ones to get into. War Thunder has a VR mode, and it's free. You can play Honey Select in VR if you want some niptits.

There's a lot of multiplayer content. A lot of people like Onward, but I haven't played it myself. You just need to find the right content. A lot of stuff is way overpriced though, so you'll need to pocket some money for 2-3 good games you see yourself playing often enough, and hope you can pirate some other titles. Maybe Elite Dangerous if that's your shtick.

Anyone complaining about res of the displays should understand it can be improved through supersampling and software technologies like asynchronous time warp and space warp. Super-sampling has a higher hardware demand, though. That said, it's not unbearable as-is, but don't expect ultra-sharp details.

File: nvidia-near-eye-light-field-displays.jpg (378KB, 1006x429px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 1006x429px

>>57895506
hello cv1 owner here..

to be honest, the resolution isn't much of a problem.
of course some things could look less edged but what would be more important isn an increase in depth perception.

the problem with vr headsets is not the resolution actually, but the greater depths of distance the display isn't able to without a loss in other areas and making pixel appear due to the "trouble" that you use your eyes like they were meant to be..

this is why nearfield displays are currently in the productions to make way for a much greater experience, without even adding much more pixels

>>57896211
Now this is what I want to see.

I want to imagine that someday these small light-weight VR glasses will replace monitors.

Why buy 3+ monitors when you can just buy a single pair of these glasses and simulate a whole room of monitors?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwCwtBxZM7g

a video which explains the technology