Microsoft Declares PC Best for VR & AR

[Hagrid]

That's just not much experience from the perspective of someone like me. If you don't like VR or have issues, fair enough. But there's simply no reason based on your experience with it to take much from what you say beyond simple trial.

Well crap, I have to agree with heatlesssun........

People need to try a bigger variety of games. Also the ones specially made for VR as well. The biggest thing holding back VR right now is hardware.
To get the better resolution a better GPU is going to a big must. But the difference playing a game in VR as to a flat 2D screen is night and day, to me at least. Playing Onward's night missions are pretty sweet. Arizona sunshine was very well made.(A bit short)
I am also playing Andromeda on the 2D screen. It is still fun, but the experience is just not there anymore.

 

[ChadD]

Converted non VR titles? There are quite a few games that were built for VR. I love my Rift. Could it look better? Yes but 2 4K resolutions would not work unless you can run each eye on a GPU.

https://store.steampowered.com/sale/2017_top_vr_titles/

Hey I have no doubt there are some very good games in there. I'm mainly a Linux gamer hey I get that good games doesn't have to mean big huge massive budgets.

Still if I spent 500 bucks on a headset... and another 500-1000 more on hardware then I would need otherwise.

I'm not doing cart wheels over a bunch of AA and indie titles... mixed with a ton of games that would play fine on android. 5 year old AAA titles re spun as VR titles are fine and all. Fallout VR, Doom VR, The Talos Principle VR, Arkham VR.... I'm sure there are some good times there but they are games everyone has already played.

 

[ChadD]

That's just not much experience from the perspective of someone like me. If you don't like VR or have issues, fair enough. But there's simply no reason based on your experience with it to take much from what you say beyond simple trial.

I don't need to ride every attraction at Universal to know which ones my kids are going to stand in line for. lol I also don't have to own a thread ripper or every Intel chip ever made to have an somewhat educated opinion.

Yes your right I had a simple 30 min or so trial... threw up on my shoes and said why would anyone pay money for this. My experience with VR is the same experience a way to large a chunk of the masses are going to have as well.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26388085
According to this study almost 10% of men and 40% of women are not going to be VR fans ever... unless the tech has some crazy breakthrough. The issue is almost the same as motion sickness, I'm not sure there is a 100% tech fix for that. I also doubt people are going to be popping gravol to game either.

Studies also show that kids are more prone to VR sickness... which is interesting and I guess is interesting for Nintendo. Not that we are going to get VR zelda anytime soon. lol

 

[heatlesssun]

I don't need to ride every attraction at Universal to know which ones my kids are going to stand in line for.

But you're not actually gone to any of the attractions. You mentioned "Fallout VR, Doom VR, The Talos Principle VR, Arkham VR". I have actually played all of these titles to some extent, more than your total experience with VR, in both 2D and VR.

You have your opinion and that's what it is. But you're dealing with people that use VR constantly like me here and have spent a lot of time and money on it. So many you convince some neophytes that Linux is the future of gaming. Fine. People who use this stuff daily are going to have a different opinion.

I think people who deal with something constantly have the edge in these conversations. What can you really know about a bleeding edge tech you don't use? And why the hell talk about it so much?

This time you don't get the "This wasn't a thread about Windows VR." card. Because that's EXACTLY what this thread was about.

 

[pcgeekesq]

I'm waiting for VM on Windows to mature a little, but when it does, I'm going to dedicate an entire room to it. Probably pad the walls, even.
I've got over $10K invested in my media room hardware at the moment; I expect to match that in investment VR, when it's worth it.

But will my wife and I both be able to play coop VR in a single 12x12 room? That's a sticking point; I'm not sure she'd be willing to convert the MBR.

 

[ChadD]

But you're not actually gone to any of the attractions. You mentioned "Fallout VR, Doom VR, The Talos Principle VR, Arkham VR". I have actually played all of these titles to some extent, more than your total experience with VR, in both 2D and VR.

You have your opinion and that's what it is. But you're dealing with people that use VR constantly like me here and have spent a lot of time and money on it. So many you convince some neophytes that Linux is the future of gaming. Fine. People who use this stuff daily are going to have a different opinion.

I think people who deal with something constantly have the edge in these conversations. What can you really know about a bleeding edge tech you don't use? And why the hell talk about it so much?

This time you don't get the "This wasn't a thread about Windows VR." card. Because that's EXACTLY what this thread was about.

What are you talking about ? Seriously... that's it no more opinion educated or otherwise on the forum about anything. Unless your an expert with 1000+ hours in a subject. Heatle I expect you to now go and delete at least 46 thousand of your 48 thousand posts as clearly you are not speaking as an expert in at least that many posts. Unless at 48k your expertise is posting brain spew... I guess I'll concede you have earned your expert status there.

Really though windows VR card what are you on about ? Have we not been discussing VR ? Have we went off topic and I didn't notice or something.

Really I get what I am stating (facts) is painful to hear in regard to a technology you clearly love and are well invested in. But not liking what I am saying doesn't mean your opinion is worth anymore then mine. We aren't reviewing gear here... we are talking about the long term viability of technology, that while everyone (including me) agrees is promising has a debatable future forecast. I do believe in 10-20 years form now VR could well be a main stream thing... my fear and it always has been if you read what I'm saying. Is that this current push is way to early the masses are going to have a bad experience and be turned off for years... and even the hardcore like yourself will get sick of seeing the only game options be low budget affairs and revamps of games you have already played years prior. I believe (oh damn an opinion) that in 3-4 years this push is going to fizzle and it may be 10 more years before a large company takes a chance again.

 

[whatevs]

It's a far ways off, because if you thought the single player experience was expensive, wait for the co-op/living room experience...

You need to handle two head sets plus another camera/view to put up on TV.

So while it might not be true that each headset is basically 200% the work because 2 eyes, the very high refresh rate probably makes that true if not more.

So to do a simple co-op game
A) a PC/PS4/Xbox One and two controllers and enough seats for spectators
or
B) a machine with a minimum of 5 times the power ( 2 eyes times 2 plus TV view) and two headsets. (no one is saying headsets will cost $40-$60 anytime soon)

Simple you play, others watch:
A) box, you play, other watch for free
or
B) 2-3 times more powerful box (2 for headset, one for shared view. NOT A NICHE, we are matching graphics quality),
plus either the headset or the display is extra cost vs just one display in A

Simplest scenario, you play by yourself in competitive multiplayer
A) baseline, remember to be fair and match this graphics quality, not minecraft quality.
or
B) you need significantly more powerful box to match the graphics quality
AND: who do the devs match you up against? is it fair or even practical to have VR and non-VR folks in the same game?


Everyone who saw why 3D displays had obvious mass market issues, sees quite a few with VR. It's just inherently more expensive.

 

[gunbust3r]

A wise move if you look at the utterly incompetent launch Microsoft did on "mixed reality" in Win 10 with like 6 launch partners making headsets that are collecting dust on shelves or getting blown out for $150

 

[heatlesssun]

Really I get what I am stating (facts) is painful to hear in regard to a technology you clearly love and are well invested in. But not liking what I am saying doesn't mean your opinion is worth anymore then mine. We aren't reviewing gear here... we are talking about the long term viability of technology, that while everyone (including me) agrees is promising has a debatable future forecast. I do believe in 10-20 years form now VR could well be a main stream thing... my fear and it always has been if you read what I'm saying. Is that this current push is way to early the masses are going to have a bad experience and be turned off for years... and even the hardcore like yourself will get sick of seeing the only game options be low budget affairs and revamps of games you have already played years prior. I believe (oh damn an opinion) that in 3-4 years this push is going to fizzle and it may be 10 more years before a large company takes a chance again.

Agree with a lot of this. But VR doesn't actually have to become mainstream to be viable. Is high end PC gaming mainstream? Nope, but there's still plenty of support for it because that's a market that spends money. Even now there is a wide price range and options for PC VR that don't have to break the bank. One an get into PC VR with a something like a GTX 1060 gaming setup and $160 for the headset:https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07CSFYJK...colid=OEP2RSKENWBM&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it. And there is a lot content out there. You talk a lot about AAA VR content. With VR what is AAA doesn't necessarily equate to conventional 2D AAA content. For instance, Beat Saber. I've not tried it yet but that's the kind of thing that just works with VR and is engaging, I'd call it AAA VR content based on reviews. In 2D it just wouldn't garner that kind of praise.

We're definitely at the beginning of consumer VR and sure there are plenty of issues to overcome. But I don't think the barrier to entry is quite as high as you're purporting and that there's a lot more content than aware of. Steam already has over 2500 VR only and supported titles in a little over two years. I don't think at this point VR is just going to disappear. Maybe not mainstream but not going away. Like desktop Linux gaming.

 

[ChadD]

Agree with a lot of this. But VR doesn't actually have to become mainstream to be viable. Is high end PC gaming mainstream? Nope, but there's still plenty of support for it because that's a market that spends money. Even now there is a wide price range and options for PC VR that don't have to break the bank. One an get into PC VR with a something like a GTX 1060 gaming setup and $160 for the headset:https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07CSFYJK...colid=OEP2RSKENWBM&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it. And there is a lot content out there. You talk a lot about AAA VR content. With VR what is AAA doesn't necessarily equate to conventional 2D AAA content. For instance, Beat Saber. I've not tried it yet but that's the kind of thing that just works with VR and is engaging, I'd call it AAA VR content based on reviews. In 2D it just wouldn't garner that kind of praise.

We're definitely at the beginning of consumer VR and sure there are plenty of issues to overcome. But I don't think the barrier to entry is quite as high as you're purporting and that there's a lot more content than aware of. Steam already has over 2500 VR only and supported titles in a little over two years. I don't think at this point VR is just going to disappear. Maybe not mainstream but not going away. Like desktop Linux gaming.

A returned refurb blow out price cause no one wanted them HP AR set isn't going to be a great experience. They are also sold out so your looking at 270 for a new one... although reading the referb reviews and people claiming they had to clean hair out of their refurbs that's for the best I'm sure.

I am also not saying games need to be AAA 50 million dollar budget games to be good. I'm sure a game like beat saber is fantastic. However you are completely proving my point about game development. If beat saber is considered VR AAA, they are never going to shift millions of units. Games sell platforms not hardware. Look at the switch as a prime example. Hardcore gamers in general laugh at a unit like the switch... it can't even do 1080p proper, or play the latest greatest AAA titles... ect ect. All the things you hear "hardcore" gamers complain about switch. Yet a game like Zelda shifted millions of those things in the first year.... Nintendo sold more switches in the first month of switch sales as ALL the PC VR companies combined pushed lifetime. That type of sales power is completely on the strength of the software. You can also look at the entire PS4 / pro vs XboxOne... MS releases faster better hardware yet Sony is still clobbering them hard. Mainly because they are seen to have the better game lineup.

Which brings us to the massive difference between high end game development and VR development. High end game development is no different then low end game development. There are very few high end hard core AAA games that don't also ship on PS4 and Xbox... and that can't be played on even low end PCs with the settings turned down. Yes a low end PC playing a recent game at medium or low settings may not be good enough for you... but its good enough for the software company to increase their potential market. The issue with VR development is there is no chance of selling an extra copy to people with real main stream machines.

That my friend is why I believe the entire VR platform was pushed out the door to consumers way to early. Even 1060 class hardware is not even close to main stream yet. VR suffers from the Crysis conundrum... the requirements limit the market to, too small a potential sales market to justify spending a ton of development cash. The little studios may continue turning out cool games made on a shoestring budget but that isn't going to shift millions of hardware units.

For the record though Heatle... hey I hope a bunch of those little studios turning out games like beat saber do manage a real break out hit. What VR needs is a breath of the wild. A system exclusive that makes non hardcore gamers wanna spend money on millions of hardware units.

 

[Hagrid]

It would make things much easier if there was just 1 term. VR works just fine.

 

[heatlesssun]

A returned refurb blow out price cause no one wanted them HP AR set isn't going to be a great experience. They are also sold out so your looking at 270 for a new one... although reading the referb reviews and people claiming they had to clean hair out of their refurbs that's for the best I'm sure.

A couple of folks around here have bought this and have been very happy with it, they're still in stock, I'm thinking about picking one up because of the portability. In any case my point is that there is a wide price range with PC VR HMDs, you certainly don't have to go all out on something the Vive Pro and can get a decent experience for a lot less money than that.

However you are completely proving my point about game development. If beat saber is considered VR AAA, they are never going to shift millions of units. Games sell platforms not hardware. Look at the switch as a prime example. Hardcore gamers in general laugh at a unit like the switch... it can't even do 1080p proper, or play the latest greatest AAA titles... ect ect. All the things you hear "hardcore" gamers complain about switch. Yet a game like Zelda shifted millions of those things in the first year.... Nintendo sold more switches in the first month of switch sales as ALL the PC VR companies combined pushed lifetime. That type of sales power is completely on the strength of the software. You can also look at the entire PS4 / pro vs XboxOne... MS releases faster better hardware yet Sony is still clobbering them hard. Mainly because they are seen to have the better game lineup.

​

Not getting your point. Beat Saber has been a VR hit, not saying it's AAA per se, but it is the kind of unique experience that's popular and I think can get people into VR and there's no way to really replicate the experience with conventional 2D gaming. ​

For the record though Heatle... hey I hope a bunch of those little studios turning out games like beat saber do manage a real break out hit. What VR needs is a breath of the wild. A system exclusive that makes non hardcore gamers wanna spend money on millions of hardware units.

How many games on Steam sell in the millions? There are niche markets out there and there's been a good market for VR titles. We'll see how that goes but we've gone from nothing in two years to thousands of VR only and supported titles on the PC. I'm not saying VR is the strongest market out there but I don't see it going away and companies are going to invest in it and improve it for years to come, even Microsoft though it may not ever do so for the Xbox.

 

[Shadowed]

I want 8k per eye at 240hz. I'll be waiting in my coffin for the meantime.

 

[xellos2099alpha]

Owning a PSPro / PSVR and i7 1070 / WMR I'd say so far the PSVR offers better bang for the buck for me. Inb4 "But Oculus Rift and HTC", at the price point they are, they're out of my desire to spend. Mass market appeal is what any technology needs to succeed, and that's consistent product at a cheaper price, consoles have that in spades.

"The best VR experience" is entirely subjective, for me a $4k gaming rig and a $2k HTC setup isn't the best, but being able to drop $600 on a PS4 and a PSVR setup is "the best experience" for me at 1/10th the price.

As for Windows being the best experience, that's market driven (target the most people, see above mass market comment), not necessarily the product itself.

I dunno i got myself a window MR for and I fidn ti better value than psvr

 

[_l_]

In other news, water is wet.

you sure? Please describe what "water" and "wet" feel like

 

[gunbust3r]

It would make things much easier if there was just 1 term. VR works just fine.

Well they are different, Microsoft decided to call it mixed and then had no mixed/AR content... Does it even have the capability?

 

[ChadD]

Not getting your point. Beat Saber has been a VR hit, not saying it's AAA per se, but it is the kind of unique experience that's popular and I think can get people into VR and there's no way to really replicate the experience with conventional 2D gaming. ​

How many games on Steam sell in the millions? There are niche markets out there and there's been a good market for VR titles. We'll see how that goes but we've gone from nothing in two years to thousands of VR only and supported titles on the PC. I'm not saying VR is the strongest market out there but I don't see it going away and companies are going to invest in it and improve it for years to come, even Microsoft though it may not ever do so for the Xbox.

You are the one missing the point.

Beat Saber is fantastic and for the price it sells at I wouldn't be surprised to hear all 2 million or so PC VR users own a copy.

My point is another 2 million users didn't go and buy VR hardware specific to play beat saber.

Nintendo sold 18 million switches in a year... and had like a 105% attach rate for Zelda. Because people bought switches to play Zelda... they didn't buy Zelda for their switch.

That is the issue with PC VR going forward. The only VR titles in development are small scale indie studio games, or conversions of non exclusive in general older non-vr titles. There is no Zelda, Uncharged, Halo, God of War, Grand Turismo, Mario, Final Fantasy.... Exclusive platform games that sell the platform. As neat as a game like beat saber seems... its not going to bring in 18 million VR users in a year.

Really I'm not to shocked to hear MS is inept and not willing to bring even basic VR to their Xbox. There isn't anything stopping them selling something like the HP headset for the xbox and bringing games like beat saber to the platform. For software development to happen there needs to be a larger install base. To my ears MS saying they won't be looking to bring VR to xbox is an admission that they don't see a future in it at all. (they don't make any damn money on windows VR) The Xbox is failing in general as MS has never really understood what sells consoles to the masses... they go on about tflops and 4k, no realizing that normal people don't care. They just want good games... and if the only way to play the games their friends and family are raving about is to buy X or Y console (or a VR rig) that is what happens.

 

[tetris42]

So at this time we have reached 5 million VR devices sold? The Wii U sold about 14 million and that was abandoned. It had better games too. I'm just trying to give some perspective here. I think VR is neat. I don't think you guys are dumb for buying it, if it brought you joy. I think it has to fully collapse before it is reborn into something better.

Again, I haven't bought it, I'm waiting for better hardware. My point is it's growing slowly year after year. I don't call that "dead". I call something that's DECLINING year after year dying, dead meaning only the last remnants of it are still moving. Not being a blockbuster isn't the same thing.

Also, please look at these dates:
https://www.hardocp.com/reviews/vr/

If you base your news on VR only on hardocp, I can understand your perception. Were you even aware of any of there six headsets released since any of those articles? Particular the Samsung Odyssey which has better display specs than the Vive or Rift? Or the Pimax 8k coming out this month? Or the Vive Pro released in April? Or Samsung, JDI, and LG working with google releasing new high-density panels released specifically for VR? There's literally more VR options than there's even been with stuff still on the horizon. I think you're making the case more that VR is dead on Hardocp.

I'm mainly a Linux gamer hey I get that good games doesn't have to mean big huge massive budgets.

Still if I spent 500 bucks on a headset... and another 500-1000 more on hardware then I would need otherwise.

I'm not doing cart wheels over a bunch of AA and indie titles...

Okay the irony is too thick here. Is it safe to say the VR gaming market is larger than the entire Linux PC gaming market combined?

 

[heatlesssun]

You are the one missing the point.

Beat Saber is fantastic and for the price it sells at I wouldn't be surprised to hear all 2 million or so PC VR users own a copy.

My point is another 2 million users didn't go and buy VR hardware specific to play beat saber.

Nintendo sold 18 million switches in a year... and had like a 105% attach rate for Zelda. Because people bought switches to play Zelda... they didn't buy Zelda for their switch.

A Switch is $300. You can spend $200 on an RGB keyboard but there's plenty of those around. You don't seem to understand that there are ranges in the gaming market. Sure the volume will be at the lower end of cost but there is a well established market for pricey hardware. By your logic no one would buy expensive GPUs for gaming because it's not like you need one to play games but the market is there.

There is no Zelda, Uncharged, Halo, God of War, Grand Turismo, Mario, Final Fantasy....

Sure, not much of those on PCs regardless.

Really I'm not to shocked to hear MS is inept and not willing to bring even basic VR to their Xbox.

Windows 10 is the most powerful and complete VR platform currently. Steam VR for Linux has been in beta over a year now and the way that's going the Xbox will have had 3 gens of VR hardware before desktop Linux sees any production VR.

There isn't anything stopping them selling something like the HP headset for the xbox and bringing games like beat saber to the platform.

If Microsoft didn't have big VR presence then I think this would be a bigger deal. If you're Microsoft you're already sitting on the most powerful VR platform in Windows and a unique tech with HoloLens. I does make sense to concentrate on those and down the line think about Xbox.

For software development to happen there needs to be a larger install base.

Sure, I make this point all the time relative to desktop Linux. Not that it matters to desktop Linux fans. But still there are niche markets and that's long been a part of PC gaming. Why you don't get that, in a place like this were people spend a lot of money on stuff is odd.

To my ears MS saying they won't be looking to bring VR to xbox is an admission that they don't see a future in it at all.

Which makes no sense considering the power of Windows VR and HoloLens.

(they don't make any damn money on windows VR)

Sure it does. In the consumer space, Windows gaming is PC gaming. And the reason that's the case is because virtually PC games are Windows compatible. Just think how badly damaged Windows' gaming dominance would be if Linux were the VR king? Windows would no longer be the nearly 100% go to platform for all PC gaming. This a huge deal to Microsoft when it comes to selling Windows licenses for gaming PCs.

The Xbox is failing in general as MS has never really understood what sells consoles to the masses... they go on about tflops and 4k, no realizing that normal people don't care. They just want good games... and if the only way to play the games their friends and family are raving about is to buy X or Y console (or a VR rig) that is what happens.

​

I agree a lot with this, people just want good games. But they also what good experiences. That's why PC gaming is a thing. I was in a Walmart the other day and there it was, an aisle with a $1300 GTX 1060 gaming PC with a tempered glass side door and RGB lighting. Connected to a $500 27" 1080p 144hz GSync and 3D Vision capable Acer Predator monitor. That's easily a decent VR system with another $200 added in.

If there weren't a market for more than the basics you'd never see something like that setup in a Walmart and this site wouldn't exist.

 

[Hagrid]

A Switch is $300. You can spend $200 on an RGB keyboard but there's plenty of those around. You don't seem to understand that there are ranges in the gaming market. Sure the volume will be at the lower end of cost but there is a well established market for pricey hardware. By your logic no one would buy expensive GPUs for gaming because it's not like you need one to play games but the market is there.



Sure, not much of those on PCs regardless.



Windows 10 is the most powerful and complete VR platform currently. Steam VR for Linux has been in beta over a year now and the way that's going the Xbox will have had 3 gens of VR hardware before desktop Linux sees any production VR.

If Microsoft didn't have big VR presence then I think this would be a bigger deal. If you're Microsoft you're already sitting on the most powerful VR platform in Windows and a unique tech with HoloLens. I does make sense to concentrate on those and down the line think about Xbox.



Sure, I make this point all the time relative to desktop Linux. Not that it matters to desktop Linux fans. But still there are niche markets and that's long been a part of PC gaming. Why you don't get that, in a place like this were people spend a lot of money on stuff is odd.



Which makes no sense considering the power of Windows VR and HoloLens.



Sure it does. In the consumer space, Windows gaming is PC gaming. And the reason that's the case is because virtually PC games are Windows compatible. Just think how badly damaged Windows' gaming dominance would be if Linux were the VR king? Windows would no longer be the nearly 100% go to platform for all PC gaming. This a huge deal to Microsoft when it comes to selling Windows licenses for gaming PCs.

​

I agree a lot with this, people just want good games. But they also what good experiences. That's why PC gaming is a thing. I was in a Walmart the other day and there it was, an aisle with a $1300 GTX 1060 gaming PC with a tempered glass side door and RGB lighting. Connected to a $500 27" 1080p 144hz GSync and 3D Vision capable Acer Predator monitor. That's easily a decent VR system with another $200 added in.

If there weren't a market for more than the basics you'd never see something like that setup in a Walmart and this site wouldn't exist.

Windows 7 works fine as well, but MS blocked some games and require 10. It's only the best because there is nothing else. If Linux could run it all, there would be a huge drop in Windows.

 

[ChadD]

Okay the irony is too thick here. Is it safe to say the VR gaming market is larger than the entire Linux PC gaming market combined?

Its not irony its being realistic. Yes I use windows as little as I need to... and mostly game in Linux. However I am under no illusion. I am in no way a majority. No one is releasing a Linux ONLY game any time soon if ever. VR gaming isn't even PC gaming anymore. It is VR gaming. The fact that it happens on a PC is irrelevant as almost no one has a PC that is really ready to simply buy a headset and plug and play. VR is an entirely new platform that requires specific hardware.

The only way to drive millions of users to buy VR capable PCs and Headsets.... is to entice them with some insane must have game that only VR can do. So far there is no VR exclusive driving VR sales. There just isn't.

The story would be the same for Linux... Linux gaming will never catch fire with the masses without some publisher making some insane must have Linux only game. The only way that happens is if Google all of a sudden decides to make ChromeOS a gaming platform.

Again to the topic of the thread. I take it as a real bad omen that MS feels VR on Xbox wouldn't work. If VR on Xbox won't work... then it will be 10 years before mainstream VR is a thing, as the Xbone1 is more powerful then the average home PC will be until then.

Whats crazy is I honestly believe of all the gaming companies... it would take a company like Nintendo to make VR a thing in the next 2-3 years. 10 years from now sure the masses hardware should be up to snuff and perhaps VR as it stands right now takes off. I say Nintendo would have the best chance because what VR needs is a KILLER game. It doesn't have to be a Graphics tour de force... it needs to basically be a Zelda / Metroid / Mario type game that isn't hit the same squares for 20 min, or play the same game you played before but with VR and teleportation movement. VR needs to attract software development from the big gaming houses. (as Linux came up yes Linux has the same issue... big software houses don't support it cause the # are low)

IMO Linux and PC VR have about the same chances of going main stream in the next few years. (and no I don't believe Linux will go main stream in the next few years). But hey perhaps in 10 years we'll all live in VR where we will have floating bash terminals. Those hacking movies of the 80s from my youth are coming man. lol

 

[heatlesssun]

Okay the irony is too thick here. Is it safe to say the VR gaming market is larger than the entire Linux PC gaming market combined?

According to Steam's latest survey, 0.72% of Steam users have VR and 0.57% are on Linux. I know that desktop Linux fans HATE the Steam survey and it's not perfect but I think it's fairly safe to say that PCVR is easily as big as desktop Linux gaming.

 

[ChadD]

A Switch is $300. You can spend $200 on an RGB keyboard but there's plenty of those around. You don't seem to understand that there are ranges in the gaming market. Sure the volume will be at the lower end of cost but there is a well established market for pricey hardware. By your logic no one would buy expensive GPUs for gaming because it's not like you need one to play games but the market is there.

Sure, not much of those on PCs regardless.

Windows 10 is the most powerful and complete VR platform currently. Steam VR for Linux has been in beta over a year now and the way that's going the Xbox will have had 3 gens of VR hardware before desktop Linux sees any production VR.

If Microsoft didn't have big VR presence then I think this would be a bigger deal. If you're Microsoft you're already sitting on the most powerful VR platform in Windows and a unique tech with HoloLens. I does make sense to concentrate on those and down the line think about Xbox.

Sure, I make this point all the time relative to desktop Linux. Not that it matters to desktop Linux fans. But still there are niche markets and that's long been a part of PC gaming. Why you don't get that, in a place like this were people spend a lot of money on stuff is odd.

Which makes no sense considering the power of Windows VR and HoloLens.

Sure it does. In the consumer space, Windows gaming is PC gaming. And the reason that's the case is because virtually PC games are Windows compatible. Just think how badly damaged Windows' gaming dominance would be if Linux were the VR king? Windows would no longer be the nearly 100% go to platform for all PC gaming. This a huge deal to Microsoft when it comes to selling Windows licenses for gaming PCs.
​

I agree a lot with this, people just want good games. But they also what good experiences. That's why PC gaming is a thing. I was in a Walmart the other day and there it was, an aisle with a $1300 GTX 1060 gaming PC with a tempered glass side door and RGB lighting. Connected to a $500 27" 1080p 144hz GSync and 3D Vision capable Acer Predator monitor. That's easily a decent VR system with another $200 added in.

If there weren't a market for more than the basics you'd never see something like that setup in a Walmart and this site wouldn't exist.

Again you miss the point completely. Higher end GPUS have a market because the same game I run at 1080p you can run at 4k if you wish. The gaming company doesn't have to do a damn thing different. Exact same software. You can buy a $100 GPU or a $900 GPU and play the exact same game. It will look better on the high end GPU clearly... and people pay the money for better eye candy. But the game play is unchanged. We are playing the same game. If your the CEO of a game development company... developing for VR means not being able to sell anything to anyone other then that 4-5% of gamers who own GPUs that can really deliver a decent experience. Yes that % will grow in time... I never said I believe VR can never happen just that they started pushing it way to soon. No big name game developer is going to spend millions developing high end games for a platform with less then 2 million potential customers. They are putting a really low ceiling on potential sales.

Again you miss the point completely on the game titles. NO those games I listed are not PC games (ok MS may have released halo) the rest are all Playstation Nintendo exclusives. Get it those titles entice people to buy those systems. Games like Uncharged and God of War are why little when little Jimmy goes down the the local best buy with his paper route monies he chooses the playstation over the xbox. Yes the xbox if faster may even be cheaper from time to time... but it doesn't play the game he wants to go home and play. That is the issue for VR right now... they have no killer must have game that people are asking, "what do I need to run INSERT VR KILLER GAME". They asked that when the switch launched... what do I need to play Zelda.... "Do I need / want the pro controller". VR has nothing like that... and from the sounds of it none of the companies working on the hardware have anything like that lined up.

I honestly stopped reading once you mentioned Linux again.... dude I don't care what you think of Linux. I'm not here telling you Linux VR is the way to go. This thread has nothing to do with Linux stop bringing it up. This thread is about MS and their decision to NOT bet big on mainstream VR. Cause that what they are saying. That VR is a niche product and will be for a long time. HoloLens is not a Gaming product... and their low end headset push hasn't really went anywhere so far.

OK I did read your last bit... yes great walmart is selling over priced 1060 class hardware that will BARELY play current low end VR titles. There you go next year is the year... Mainstream VR. lol

 

[ChadD]

According to Steam's latest survey, 0.72% of Steam users have VR and 0.57% are on Linux. I know that desktop Linux fans HATE the Steam survey and it's not perfect but I think it's fairly safe to say that PCVR is easily as big as desktop Linux gaming.

And no one is making exclusive games for either. See the issue. Neither is going mainstream anytime soon.

 

[heatlesssun]

Windows 7 works fine as well, but MS blocked some games and require 10.

Sure most VR titles work with it because they are DX 11 based. There are titles on Steam that list themselves as Windows 10 only, Gorn and Superhot VR are two great ones I have played that come to mind though I've read that Superhot VR works with 7. I get people who have problems with Windows 10 but Windows 7 is 9 years old and in the consumer space pretty much near the end of its life. Again, I get what some are saying about Windows 10 but I've bought a lot of new hardware since the introduction of Windows 10 like my sig rig and it's fucking tight. I've installed a shitload of hardware and software on my sig rig and it's been running great for two years. In my case Windows 7/8.1 aren't going to fix anything and will introduce problems, high-DPI compatibility, loss of good UWP apps like Netflix, Hulu, Xodo, etc. and I'm even thinking about trying to install Windows 7/8.1 on a Surface Book 2.

It's only the best because there is nothing else. If Linux could run it all, there would be a huge drop in Windows.

I totally agree. I tried setting Steam VR under Linux last summer. It was completely frustrating and pointless then. I've not seen anything that would indicate the situation has improved.

 

[Red Falcon]

I totally agree. I tried setting Steam VR under Linux last summer. It was completely frustrating and pointless then. I've not seen anything that would indicate the situation has improved.

Careful now, you wouldn't want to upset BloodyIron by saying that Linux isn't the best VR platform out there. j/k

 

[heatlesssun]

Again you miss the point completely. Higher end GPUS have a market because the same game I run at 1080p you can run at 4k if you wish.

If you're running a 1080 Ti on a 1080p monitor, why? Super high framerates on a Gsync monitor perhaps, those are not cheap monitors.

The gaming company doesn't have to do a damn thing different. Exact same software. You can buy a $100 GPU or a $900 GPU and play the exact same game.

​

This is called a console port and those are often blasted in places like this. ​

Again you miss the point completely on the game titles. NO those games I listed are not PC games (ok MS may have released halo) the rest are all Playstation Nintendo exclusives. Get it those titles entice people to buy those systems. Games like Uncharged and God of War are why little when little Jimmy goes down the the local best buy with his paper route monies he chooses the playstation over the xbox. Yes the xbox if faster may even be cheaper from time to time... but it doesn't play the game he wants to go home and play. That is the issue for VR right now... they have no killer must have game that people are asking, "what do I need to run INSERT VR KILLER GAME". They asked that when the switch launched... what do I need to play Zelda.... "Do I need / want the pro controller". VR has nothing like that... and from the sounds of it none of the companies working on the hardware have anything like that lined up.

If what you say here is true no one would by or build expensive gaming PC because on the titles they want to play are on consoles. PC gaming is about the experience of doing more than other platforms can do.

I honestly stopped reading once you mentioned Linux again.... dude I don't care what you think of Linux.

​

What I think of gaming on Linux is irrelevant. It's a niche platform at best today but it's not going away in spite of its difficulties with gaming. VR is a different gaming experience with its own set of difficulties but I don't see it going away anymore than desktop Linux at this point. I make the comparison because it's perfectly logical to compare niche platforms. ​

I'm not here telling you Linux VR is the way to go. This thread has nothing to do with Linux stop bringing it up. This thread is about MS and their decision to NOT bet big on mainstream VR. Cause that what they are saying. That VR is a niche product and will be for a long time. HoloLens is not a Gaming product... and their low end headset push hasn't really went anywhere so far.

Again, the comparison is between niche platforms, don't make it into more than that. Linux VR support is so bad at this point relative to Windows no one would ever say Linux VR is the way to go. Again, niche platforms, that's all the comparison I'm making involves. I don't see VR gaming going way anymore than Linux gaming.

​

OK I did read your last bit... yes great walmart is selling over priced 1060 class hardware that will BARELY play current low end VR titles. There you go next year is the year... Mainstream VR. lol

The GPU in that machine is a PCIe card. So upgradable. I've never used VR with a 1060 but from what I've read it's fine for a good number of VR titles as basic settings.

 

[heatlesssun]

And no one is making exclusive games for either. See the issue. Neither is going mainstream anytime soon.

Actually Oculus does.

 

[Red Falcon]

What I think of gaming on Linux is irrelevant. It's a niche platform at best today but it's not going away in spite of its difficulties with gaming. VR is a different gaming experience with its own set of difficulties but I don't see it going away anymore than desktop Linux at this point. I make the comparison because it's perfectly logical to compare niche platforms.

Again, the comparison is between niche platforms, don't make it into more than that. Linux VR support is so bad at this point relative to Windows no one would ever say Linux VR is the way to go. Again, niche platforms, that's all the comparison I'm making involves. I don't see VR gaming going way anymore than Linux gaming.

I have to agree with you on this, and you know what a Linux shill I can be.
I do game on Linux, and while it is fun, and a (very) few titles are indeed more optimized than their Windows counterparts, the majority of games, and especially VR games, are far more optimized for Windows.

This isn't hating on Linux or saying that it can't be done, but it most certainly hasn't been done yet and has a very long way to go, still.
VR isn't mainstream at all at this point in time on any platform and is very niche, and (GNU) Linux gaming is even more niche, let alone Linux VR gaming...

Perhaps Microsoft doesn't want to hedge their bets on VR gaming, and while it might become mainstream in the future, the reality is this: a controller is much easier to use and a large HD/2K/4K screen will be just as immersive as a VR headset, minus the potential vertigo sickness I've seen with many people and VR gaming.
I'm sure they do see that there is a market for it, but for the cost of R&D and support for such a small market, they would be wise to keep their distance for now until the technology develops further and the costs for such technology are greatly reduced in order to pull a bigger market share and cut development/production costs.

 

[ChadD]

If you're running a 1080 Ti on a 1080p monitor, why? Super high framerates on a Gsync monitor perhaps, those are not cheap monitors.

You are seriously the densest person I have ever argued with online.

The point is the developers target PS4 / Xbox..... and any extra resolution you get with a high end PC is just gravy. The game is still the same game no matter if you buy it for PS4 Xbox or PC. Its also the same game if Joe average is playing it on a 4 or 5 year old machine with a 750ti... or if you are playing it with your made up SLI running 1080ti machine. At 1080 or 4k the game isn't going to change and the developers are not spending a dime more.

Yes if you haven't noticed 95% of the games on PC are also on one or both of the major consoles. I hope that isn't new information for you... perhaps it is.
http://ca.ign.com/wikis/e3/Games_at_E3_2018
Of the 154 (aprox I didn't really count them all the search just found PC 157 times) PC games announced at E3 this year 10 of them are PC exclusives. Based on the search function it looks like PS4 has 175 or so coming and Xbox around 160.

1080TI cards are not developers target hardware no. I'm not saying games don't look better on a faster card... just that those games still play on Console hardware, and developers are going to be targeting PS4/Xbone class hardware for years.

 

[ChadD]

I have to agree with you on this, and you know what a Linux shill I can be.
I do game on Linux, and while it is fun, and a (very) few titles are indeed more optimized than their Windows counterparts, the majority of games, and especially VR games, are far more optimized for Windows.

This isn't hating on Linux or saying that it can't be done, but it most certainly hasn't been done yet and has a very long way to go, still.
VR isn't mainstream at all at this point in time on any platform and is very niche, and (GNU) Linux gaming is even more niche, let alone Linux VR gaming...

Perhaps Microsoft doesn't want to hedge their bets on VR gaming, and while it might become mainstream in the future, the reality is this: a controller is much easier to use and a large HD/2K/4K screen will be just as immersive as a VR headset, minus the potential vertigo sickness I've seen with many people and VR gaming.
I'm sure they do see that there is a market for it, but for the cost of R&D and support for such a small market, they would be wise to keep their distance for now until the technology develops further and the costs for such technology are greatly reduced in order to pull a bigger market share and cut development/production costs.

I agree with you... and for the record I have no idea why Heatle feels the need to bring Linux gaming into every discussion like that instantly wins him something. lol

I don't think any of us Linux boosters have ever claimed we believed Linux gaming was going mainstream this year, next year or the year after. Linux gaming going mainstream comes down to Valve and perhaps google. The steam machine didn't take off but I doubt Linux gaming ends there. And google at any point could decide to tack gaming onto chromeos in some form beyond android games. In any event its hardly the topic at hand.

I agree with you on VR. My argument isn't against VR, I simply believe they pushed far to early. The hardware isn't really ready.... very few people have machines capable of just buying a VR headset like a second monitor. VR will make more sense when the masses have machines that can actually smoothly game at 4k. I think the VR companies may have been victims of Mining in a way as crazy as that sounds. Nvidia and AMD have both put the slow walk on their GPU plans. Perhaps if the 1180 had launched late last year... by now we would be swimming in more mid ranged GPUs capable of at least decent VR. As it stands the Mid range GPUs on the market today simply are not good enough. Never mind the APUs and low end cards that are in mainstream machines.

1060 class cards are simply not good enough all you have to do is read Kyles VR game tests... to see at 1060 / 580 Reprojection starts getting pretty high and the more intense VR games start getting more likely to have people loosing their Lunch. It seems Vega 56 / 1070 is the bare min if you really want decent PC VR... we need faster cheaper more ubiquitous mid range VR capable hardware choices.

Myself I'm not confident VR can survive long enough for the Mainstreams GPU horsepower to catch up to the min requirement to just pick up a headset and go. It seems neither is MS right now.

 

[heatlesssun]

Yes if you haven't noticed 95% of the games on PC are also on one or both of the major consoles. I hope that isn't new information for you... perhaps it is.
http://ca.ign.com/wikis/e3/Games_at_E3_2018
Of the 154 (aprox I didn't really count them all the search just found PC 157 times) PC games announced at E3 this year 10 of them are PC exclusives. Based on the search function it looks like PS4 has 175 or so coming and Xbox around 160.

1080TI cards are not developers target hardware no. I'm not saying games don't look better on a faster card... just that those games still play on Console hardware, and developers are going to be targeting PS4/Xbone class hardware for years.

Not really sure what you're going on about, I've repeatedly said I agree with a lot of what you're saying. My point again is that niche markets can be their own thing. VR gaming is much different experience compared to conventional gaming. It may never be a mainstream thing but it doesn't have to be to be successful. Sure it needs to grow beyond its current base but there's plenty of development going on, it will improve. And in the last years the cost on entry on the PC has gone down considerably.

 

[SickBeast]

What do you guys think of the Microsoft VR headsets? My friend is telling me not to get one even though they are cheap. He says the Rift and the Vive are much better. My main issue is that there are very few good VR games that I could even play, and it looks like the VR market is fragmented; I won't be able to play games from the Oculus store, for example. If I buy one it looks like the best use will be a few racing sims.

 

[tetris42]

Not really sure what you're going on about, I've repeatedly said I agree with a lot of what you're saying. My point again is that niche markets can be their own thing. VR gaming is much different experience compared to conventional gaming. It may never be a mainstream thing but it doesn't have to be to be successful. Sure it needs to grow beyond its current base but there's plenty of development going on, it will improve. And in the last years the cost on entry on the PC has gone down considerably.

Yeah, it's a niche market that's growing and it's unclear where the ceiling is. I don't think it will become as big as regular gaming if just due to the isolation and potential motion sickness, but it's certainly not at its peak yet. It's weird that because it's not as big as an established console release out the door, people are declaring it done or dead, I guess that's just binary thinking. Everything is either huge or dead, nothing in between apparently.

 

[heatlesssun]

What do you guys think of the Microsoft VR headsets? My friend is telling me not to get one even though they are cheap. He says the Rift and the Vive are much better. My main issue is that there are very few good VR games that I could even play, and it looks like the VR market is fragmented; I won't be able to play games from the Oculus store, for example. If I buy one it looks like the best use will be a few racing sims.

There are a number of folks around here with WMR headsets, overall I'd say the reviews are pretty positive. Tracking is probably the biggest issue, it's not as good as the Vive or Rift but that's to be expected with the tracking sensors in the headset and not external which does give the advantage of portability. Yes, there is some fragmentation with Oculus and it's exclusives, kind of sucks but there are crossover solutions for many of those titles and the large bulk of VR titles work across all the headsets, even WMR has pretty decent Steam VR support now.

 

[heatlesssun]

Everything is either huge or dead, nothing in between apparently.

It does seem like all of the prognosticators never envision markets with variety. Like PC gaming and even PCs in general. Phones and tablets were going to replace all PCs, PC gaming was going to die off and go mobile and console. I think a lot of people miss is that there's always markets for better than common and average. That's very much at the core of PC gaming. Sure there's tons of PC gamers on very basic hardware, then there are those that buy $2k 4k HDR gaming monitors or $800 VR headsets. Sure those are niche markets, but they spend a LOT on gaming and games. These folks aren't going to out and buy ten Nintendo Switches when what they want are experiences that can only be had on higher end PCs.

 

[Hagrid]

What do you guys think of the Microsoft VR headsets? My friend is telling me not to get one even though they are cheap. He says the Rift and the Vive are much better. My main issue is that there are very few good VR games that I could even play, and it looks like the VR market is fragmented; I won't be able to play games from the Oculus store, for example. If I buy one it looks like the best use will be a few racing sims.

The Rift is very good. The Vive Pro is about 20% better from I have read. If you want to have now, I would go with a Rift based on cost.

 

[heatlesssun]

The Rift is very good. The Vive Pro is about 20% better from I have read. If you want to have now, I would go with a Rift based on cost.

In terms of bang for the buck along with exclusives I agree. Personally I prefer the Vive Pro but I get the cost issue especially if you have to buy a complete setup. The increased resolution of the Pro isn't that big on paper but I found going back to the original Pro and Rift to be a noticeable downgrade in visuals.