I didn’t know this was a thing, unfortunately I refuse to support Oculus store games until they drop the exclusivity crap.
I saw some speculation on ‘Big Navi’ outperforming 3080Ti, but as you mentioned there is no guarantee if VRS will be supported. I hope the performance/features are there though, hopefully that will keep prices on both sides in check.
Hopefully OpenXR can ‘solve’ this problem. The exclusivity Oculus created could have been harmful for the growth of vr, with people waiting out a ‘format war’ to be sure they didn’t back the wrong brand.
I agree, hopefully the eye tracking availability gives more incentive for developers to invest the time to add features that support it. Not just for the DFR, but gaze control and interactions etc. I have a tobii eye tracker, and the GTA V mod is fun to mess around with.
I jist saw on r/SteamVR someone is working on a vr mod for the Dark Mod
if you didnt buy oculus, theres no question you bought the wrong brand lol. 
In all seriousness though, I stopped caring about exclusivity because who cares. Oculus have done so much for VR just by existing that I think its ok for them to have exclusivity to games that they risked millions of dollars to create.
Asgards Wrath is such a damn good game, and it wouldn’t exist otherwise.
Blood and Truth and astro bot, are bankrolled by sony and they are ok too.
Maybe its because I grew up in a time when every system had nothing but exclusives(Sega, Nintendo).
Honestly I think the exclusivity caused a brand loyalty that allowed both sides to create healthy competition with each other and loyal fanbases and create the super industry we have today.
Besides our headsets can play Oculus or SteamVR games without needing SteamVR to run.
Revive opens other SteamVR compatible headsets a translation layer.
The difference is consoles are $300-$500 for the system. Consoles have a very broad appeal almost like selling tv’s etc. An exclusive for a low cost system can sometimes cause software to exist that wouldn’t have but often harms the industry as a whole. But the result has been extremely slow console innovation and lengthy design cycles.
Consider - the Playstation was released in 1994 and today in 2020 we are currently waiting on the Playstation 5. That is 26 *Years… between 1 and 5.
If the market is smaller to begin with and even “niche” how would it be possible to innovate hardware if software camps were fully split into exclusive territories?
Fortunately on the PC hardware innovation is still possible (largely due to SteamVR) and the desire to see rapid hardware innovation is quite strong.
IMHO it’s a very good thing that the exclusive mentality hasn’t become the norm on the PC side.
This is debatable, of course the developers are going to say this so the exclusivity doesn’t come off as fueled by greed.
For their own benefit, if they were doing it ‘for vr’ it wouldn’t be exclusive.
I fully understand when a first party developer creates a platform exclusive, it’s the paying a third party to keep others from playing(without workarounds) that is a problem IMO.
Exactly, this is the ‘format war’ that causes hesitation to ‘pick a side’. @PimaxUSA, any thoughts on the original topic, this is going off on a tangent.
Nah I think that’s more about Moore’s Law. I remember in 1994-2000 you would see 2 speed increases of CPU a year from both intel and amd.
its not so much that innovation stopped its that there is a diminishing return. Honestly the jump from ps1 - ps2 was far more amazing than the jumo from 4-5.
If they decide on a ps6 too early it will be even less significant an upgrade. You pretty much have to wait until 2028-2030 before a PS6 would be worth the financial cost of releasing a new console.
the rabid fanboy-ism between Sega and nintendo fans fueled that industry. Today multiplatform games have no meaning. Just look at any analysis from digital foundry on the differences, between console versions of assassins creed. They are comparing things that you need a magnifying glass to spot the difference
Bash Facebook Reality Labs all you want, but they’re pouring huge amounts of cash into basic research that will result in massive improvements to VR. Their game plan is clear: VR and AR are going to be next-gen social environments, so they must own that space or lose what they’ve built with Facebook. In a recent research talk at a conference, the presenter casually mentioned that their deep learning blur algorithm “must work on mobile processors” – because of course mobile is the future for social VR.
Whether you like their business model or Facebook as a company (personally I think they’re odious) you cannot write off what they’ve done and will continue to do for VR.
On topic, though, sounds like unless you have an RTX, the eye tracking is going to be limited to fun demos only for now. It’s very cool Pimax has DFR working, though, that’s an absolute first on a consumer VR headset and an example of them driving the industry forwards too.
And yet another thing to add to my “why nVidia over AMD” list
I’m not a corporate schill, I just don’t have time or money to waste on incompatible hardware.
nvidia is always first out of the gate when supporting cutting edge features AMD can’t be bothered to adopt until they “have” to
AMD is too busy raking in that console $$
Perfectly said, I dont even like facebook, but to deny their contribution to the VR space is ignorant.
When oculus released the Quest it was probably one of the most significant headsets ever created. …That device is a miracle!
at the same time Valve created index, which is great but does nothing to make VR more accessible to anyone. Its just another device that people who haven’t bought into VR, will refuse to buy.
I’m not saying it isn’t good or amazing, it just doesn’t really help anyone but us hard core. A section of consumer that they have already won over.
Not entirely true. Nvidia benefits greatly from Amd’s GPUOpen as Amd doesn’t make things usually too limited for others to utilize.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.