Even though Microsoft has said themselves that VR for the Xbox only features a cinema mode. It seems like that would be waste of partnerships with Valve and Oculus. Oculus has already mentioned that they can have a great experience with VR on Xbox one. This leads me to wonder if the Xbox will get full support sometime next year after its Windows 10 release. I'm hoping that it will so I can try Elite on it. It seems like the perfect game to be played with VR. I know the console is capable but I'm just wondering if Microsoft is just waiting for more content to be made for VR before fully adopting it. If they fully adopt it and we're able to choose between VR products that are supported that would be a killer feature in the near future. Anyone else feeling the same way?
VR on Xbox
- Thread starter Deeboy
- Start date
I NEED it. I'll sell my car, my dogs, my kids, I don't care.
I'm not convinced the console IS capable of VR gaming.... 2x 1080P at 60fps minimum. It's not achieving those numbers on a single display of the game...
I bet they'll come out with a "downgraded" Rift within 2-3 year's for X1 from how the developer's of it were talking(they said it can work btw nay-sayer's).
Eh....grainy VR I mean already now vive and similar have screen door effect where you can notice black between pixels, lowering the resolution more will make this a lot worse.
Shamefaced
Banned
Lets get the game finished before looking at VR.
Lol... Ditto
You two are the kind that should not have any of above clearly
You two are the kind that should not have any of above clearly
You're absolutely right. Which is another reason to sell them
Actually there are tricks to get around this. It doesn't need to render the whole thing twice. I remember way back in 2001 my brother bought some very early 3D glasses tech, which ran games in 3D on a standard CRT monitor. It worked by rendering the image for one eye then the next in turn. So it didn't have to render it twice (simultaneously for each eye) Today instead of getting 60 fps on each eye you would get 30 fps on each eye, but the game would still be running at 60fps over all. It was quick enough that the eye didn't notice and worked incredibly well for all the graphically demanding games at the time. I see no reason that some similar trick would not work for VR. There are some other tricks that can convert 2d to 3d without the need for extra processing power, but but I don't know how it works or even if it would work.
.......ditto again ;P
Just a seengal waffer theen mint
If you're going to play VR games at 30fps, regardless of your alternating eyeball trick, you'd better keep a bucket handy near your games machine.
If you're going to play VR games at 30fps, regardless of your alternating eyeball trick, you'd better keep a bucket handy near your games machine.
Read it properly it is still at 60 fps over all the frames alternate between each eye. It worked for every game I tried back in the day with no noticeable difference. True it may not work so well in VR. However none of us know that until we try it. At the moment its all just conjecture.
I don't mean downgrade, I mean cheaper as the tech will be older.
Most people aren't that bothered with the 3D abilities of their tellies. It's just an extra that every telly has nowadays. When I replaced my telly a few years back I was interested in the 3D performance. Back in those days there used to be shops in the high streets where you could buy things. I had the chance to try out side by side the different technologies; the LCD shutter glasses as you've described, and the Passive Polaroid glasses. It was very easy for me to see which system produced the more convincing 3D effect.
When I got my DK2 my computer was pretty old. I was running the headset at 60fps. I was curious to see what difference the framerate made so I turned every graphic setting in Elite down to its lowest value and turned the Rift up to 75fps. It was a pretty ugly view, but what I experienced was enough to convince me to buy a GTX980. A high framerate is very important in VR.
I'm not saying that VR is impossible with the XBox One. John Carmack caused a bit of a stink a couple of years ago when he said that the XBox One and the PlayStation Four were pretty much the same. What he meant was that they were both powerful enough for VR. Of course the consoles will be able to run at the framerates needed for VR, as long as the geometry has been simplified enough. The amount they've got to simplify will really highlight any power differences in these consoles. It is quite interesting that Sony are quite far ahead with their own VR kit while Microsoft have decided to concentrate on augmented reality glasses where the size of the computer image overlay is quite small.
It is true that most people are not bothered about 3D tv. Most peoples experience of 3D tv though is movies, which is nothing more than a novelty that wares off pretty quick. Most peoples experience of 3D gaming is with the Nintendo 3DS. Whilst initially impressive... it has its short comings in that, 1) it is a small screen and, 2) if you don't keep the little console still, it looses picture quality to the point that it hurts your eyes as you try to keep focus. Most people have not experienced proper 3D gaming through a TV set or monitor. Mostly because they haven't had access to the technology, nor have many games supported it. In recent years I know of only 2 games that gave an option for 3D TV Avatar and the Batman Arkham series. There may have been others I don't know. It was around 12-15 yrs ago when got to play games in 3D. I had a modest PC then (I can't remember the specs), but it certainly was not cutting edge. I threw all sorts of games at it expecting a noticeable loss of frame rate, but I did not notice any. I tried Quake 3 arena, Unreal Tournament, Jedi Knight 2, X2 the Threat and many others. They all ran beautifully at 1280 by 1024, which was the maximum resolution of the CRT monitor I had at the time. Gaming in 3D is a whole different experience than watching movies. Being able to properly judge distance makes a huge difference whilst playing FPS. In FPS games you can do away with the target reticule all together, being able to judge distance and gaps properly to jump etc. It added a whole new dimension (the 3rd) to the experience. Once I returned the 3D glasses that my brother had loaned to me.... I really missed it.
Sony's project Morpheus VR was designed for PS4 gaming. The MS Hololens was not designed solely for Xbox augmented reality gaming. It was designed for a whole multitude of various industry applications. It will come to Xbox, but that was not its primary reason for being created. MS invested heavily into Kinect for Xbox, and its potential as a gaming peripheral never really amounted to much of anything. However Kinect has had more success elsewhere. MS does not want to invest heavily into creating its own VR headset. I don't think that its a case of them being unsure of whether VR will take off or not. Or that its going to be just another short lived fad, like motion controlled gaming was. Nor is it some fear that it will show everyone that the PS4 is so much more capable than the Xbox. Its quite simply there is no need to. They have partnered with Oculus and whilst right now they don't have any plans of creating VR games for Xbox. You can bet that if it really takes off on PS4, MS will jump in too. I do think however it is a bit of a mistake to wait and see how it all pans out before jumping in late to the party.
As for VR I have yet to try it. Even if we don't get the best in cutting edge graphics, it is still something that I believe I would enjoy very much.
Holy God the paragraphs. Please noooooooooooooooo my eyes!