This VR company thinks high specs and low price can beat Oculus and HTC

vanguard d2

Comments

  • As brash as Ballmer was.. he nailed it with his “Developers, developers, developers” speech. I think the OR has the momentum advantage + they are known as being the ones who got this whole VR thing going. If I was developing VR apps/games for any platform right now, it’s pretty clear cut where I would be spending my time.

    • Viperswhip

      It’s all exciting, I will wait a couple years for the bugs to be worked out, much like I did for CD burners way, way back, the price also tends to drop significantly.

    • Victor Creed

      PS4+PS VR is where the devs will most likely go IMO

    • avow

      Doubt it. Most indies don’t like the control of the closed market and loss of profits.

    • Since Oculus has become synonymous with the concept of VR, I think the Rift will likely be the premiere headset. Although the Vive has Valve backing it.

    • BillDjango

      There are 34 million PS4 units sold worldwide that will be capable of using the PS VR. Kaz Hirai announced at CES that 200 developers that are making PS4 VR games. The barrier to entry for PC VR is too high and when it comes to gaming, the money is in the console side. More console gamers = more money. The future of VR is PS VR and you’re ignoring it at your peril.

    • blzd

      I’m not sure, console gamers have proven they are not willing to spend money on their hardware. They’d actually prefer to pay more over time for software so they can pay less upfront, indicating that large purchases are out of their budget.

      If $500 is all they’re willing to spend on their entire machine, I doubt they’ll be willing to drop another couple hundred on a headset for said under powered machine.

      Now PC gamers who buy $500 graphics card without batting an eye, they will actually spend money on new tech and push the industry forward.

  • Marc P

    The real world price is actually lower. In China the retail price is 2980rmb but you can buy a pair for about 1950rmb($420 CAD). It’s very tempting but I would have to drop another $400 into my gaming PC as well. So I guess I’ll wait till next year.

    • I was told by 3Glasses that all prices are in U.S. dollars and then converted to Canadian (so the price will likely fluctuate).

    • When you order from china and include duties and shipping, it about equals the same price quoting in the article, wouldn’t it?

  • Jamie

    I’ll be watching this very closely. 4k gaming is not hard to achieve today so a 4k (2k per screen/eye) is what I’ve been waiting for. Maybe I won’t have to wait as long as I thought.

    • blzd

      Native 4k gaming isn’t hard to achieve? Even the fastest single graphics card struggles with modern games at 4k resolution. You’d need 2 of the fastest cards to achieve a stable frame rate (above 30 FPS at all times).

      4k gaming is still not practical yet. Maybe next graphics generation but I doubt it will be that soon.

    • Jamie

      That’s just not true. I have a R9 290, getting old and I still play all my games at 4k. I average 50 fps on most high end games and thats the settings on high-ultra. AA, SMAA, FXAA, all that stuff is off or at 2x but at 4k you don’t need it since the resolution is so high (much more detail on textures).

      R9 290 is nothing new, and with a $1000 price tag for other VR, many PC gamers are not concerned with upgrading the GPU as they do every 2-3 years anyways.

      Practical for everyone? no.. Is the first year or two designed/priced for everyone? not really…

      4k is here and on single GPU just fine unless your threshold is minimum of 100 fps.

    • blzd

      What is wrong with you? 290 can’t even get 50 FPS at 4k resolution in much older games like Metro Last Light (20 FPS average), Batman Arkham Origins (25 FPS average), BioShock Ininfite (28 FPS average), Battlefield 4 (30 FPS average).

      With slightly newer games like Shadow of Mordor, Dragon Age Inquisition, Far Cry 4, and Total War Atila (can’t even get 15 FPS in this game) even the Radeon 290X which is faster than your 290 can barely scrape 30 frames together at 4k resolution with ultra settings. It often averages in the 20-25 range, which is unplayable because the minimum frame rate would be in the single digits at that point.

      ALL of these numbers quoted are with zero AA usage, but then you say you even enable 2x sometimes huh? which would destroy your frame rates even further well below the 20 FPS average mark.

      Anyone can find these numbers with a 10 second Google search. Just search Anandtech 980 ti review, and look at the 3840×2160 Ultra settings 0x AA and look at the 290X at the bottom of the list each time.

      So I’m not sure why you want to spread misinformation about your performance. Maybe you genuinely think you’re getting 50 FPS when you’re getting 20? That is certainly a possibility.

      I don’t mean to ridicule you but my original point still stands, 4k gaming with high settings is not viable for 99% of PC users today.