Consoles are 'too limited' for Oculus Rift's dreams

Oculus Rift may be the latest 'future of gaming' for people who have money to spend on expensive peripherals (and whose eyes are fooled by fake 3D), but it doesn't seem very interested in consoles. That's because the quickly-developing nature of VR tech and the slowness of console generations means that "Consoles are too limited for what we want to do," Oculus VR founder Palmer Luckey has said.

12

Oculus Rift may be the latest 'future of gaming' for people who have money to spend on expensive peripherals (and whose eyes are fooled by fake 3D), but it doesn't seem very interested in consoles. That's because the quickly-developing nature of VR tech and the slowness of console generations means that "Consoles are too limited for what we want to do," Oculus VR founder Palmer Luckey has said.

"We're trying to make the best virtual reality device in the world and we want to continue to innovate and upgrade every year - continue making progress internally - and whenever we make big jumps we want to push that to the public," Luckey told TechRadar.

"The problem with consoles in general is that once they come out they're locked to a certain spec for a long, long time. Look at the PCs that existed eight years ago. There have been so many huge advances since then. Now look at the VR hardware of today. I think the jump we're going to see in the next four or five years is going to be massive, and already VR is a very intensive thing, it requires rendering at high resolutions at over 60 frames a second in 3D."

Given that some first wave games are making resolution concessions to hit reliable FPS, they're not a good match for VR. Developers learn how to squeeze more power out of a console over its lifespan, of course, but it's hard to compete with new hardware.

And, you know, presumably console manufacturers would rather do their own thing rather rely upon Oculus VR. Sony has already filed patents showing that it's at least exploring VR headsets.

The pace of hardware improvements is also why Oculus is going mobile, though Luckey's planning to get processing power actually into the headsets. "It won't be too many years before you can get a much better experience than a console in a headset that has everything built into it and is still cheaper than a console," he said.

From The Chatty
  • reply
    November 13, 2013 11:45 AM

    Alice O'Connor posted a new article, Consoles are 'too limited' for Oculus Rift's dreams.

    Oculus Rift may be the latest 'future of gaming' for people who have money to spend on expensive peripherals (and whose eyes are fooled by fake 3D), but it doesn't seem very interested in consoles. That's because the quickly-developing nature of VR tech and the slowness of console generations means that "Consoles are too limited for what we want to do," Oculus VR founder Palmer Luckey has said.

    • reply
      November 13, 2013 12:10 PM

      [deleted]

      • reply
        November 13, 2013 12:26 PM

        Tiny 1080p video screens aren't cheap. Neither is the head tracker inside.

      • reply
        November 13, 2013 12:28 PM

        there really is no comparison, the devices dont do the same thing at all. kinect is also subsidized i would assume, if you are referring to the original one, and there is a whole fucking lot more going on tech wise with OR than the kinect.

        fake3d comment she made is probably referring to things like the 3DS that are just a single screen using tricks and 3d movies that are using glasses to trick your eyes. alot of people cant see it, or it makes them sick.

        • reply
          November 13, 2013 1:34 PM

          Kinect isn't subsidized. MS has said in the Xbox One announcement that they will be profitable from the beginning instead of taking a loss like is the usual way - meaning they're taking a page from Apple is probably why the Xbox will be $100 more than the PS4.

          • reply
            November 13, 2013 2:10 PM

            It's *sort of* subsidized - Kinect for 360 was $150 but Kinect for Windows was $250 (for a time you could use the 360's Kinect for Windows development but they've since changed that).

            Implication is that 360 Kinect probably cost about $150 to make (maybe a little less) but they wanted to make their money with Kinect games. Since they can't (or just don't) do the Kinect games thing on Windows, they instead decided to make their money on the device itself so they raised the price $100. Tradeoff being that it can be used for anything without further obligation to Microsoft.

            Also, you're taking a publicly traded company at their word that they'll be profitable (read: sell hardware at a profit) from day one?

      • reply
        November 13, 2013 11:29 PM

        It wasn't written very well, I think that's where the confusion comes in. Sorry Alice!

      • reply
        November 13, 2013 11:32 PM

        Real 3D = volumetric display.

    • reply
      November 13, 2013 12:47 PM

      So no that Next Gen then...

    • reply
      November 13, 2013 12:57 PM

      [deleted]

      • reply
        November 13, 2013 12:59 PM

        No, exactly as he said, translation: 30fps at 720p is not enough for a smooth, responsive experience and to avoid motion sickness.

        As Carmack pointed out, the maximum latency (from movement to screen refresh) should be under 20ms, and the consoles are hard-pressed to do that at an acceptable resolution.

        • reply
          November 13, 2013 11:40 PM

          Both consoles can easily output 1080p @ 60fps. Hell, FIFA is 1080p @ 60fps during gameplay on both. There's absolutely no reason both consoles couldn't handle outputting to the Rift at 60fps assuming the software is developed with that requirement as a cardinal rule from the beginning.

          This whole resolutiongate thing is a bunch of bullshit. The simple answer is the developers made a conscious decision to target a lower resolution to gain back some fillrate/bandwidth so they can have prettier effects. If they valued 1080p more than fancier graphics then we'd have CoD at 1080p on all platforms. That's not to say that there aren't differences between the consoles, there absolutely are. But both can output 1080p just fine and to say otherwise is ridiculous.

          • reply
            November 14, 2013 4:17 AM

            Oculus isn't going to stop at 1080p, that's just the absolute minimum for an enjoyable experience. They'll be at 4K before the console cycle is even half done.

          • reply
            November 14, 2013 4:21 AM

            I don't think anyone has argued that either console would be unable to render 1080p @ 60fps if the game running was Quake 1. The question in this context is that do the consoles have the horse power necessary to run a modern game at a resolution and frame rate high enough for it to make sense on Oculus, without sacrificing so much elsewhere that it doesn't make sense anymore.

            Everything I've read about Oculus Rift says that for it to be really great, they need to pump up the resolution, and achieve high frame rates. I don't see anything questionable about a statement that basically says that a mid-tier gaming PC of today won't have the horse power to play Oculus games the way they vision them to be played in the future, not without too many sacrifices in regards to graphics quality.

          • reply
            November 14, 2013 9:57 AM

            You seem to be forgetting that it has to render this in 3D. Take a look at the sacrifices made when playing PS3 games in 3D.

      • reply
        November 13, 2013 1:03 PM

        That's quite a leap to make.

      • reply
        November 13, 2013 2:11 PM

        Translation: Consoles are making their own VR headsets and won't play ball with Oculus.

    • reply
      November 13, 2013 1:46 PM

      Make OR work with Rocksmith. When I put it on, I'm looking out at the audience.

    • reply
      November 13, 2013 2:28 PM

      I will be getting Oculus Rift on day #1. I can't wait for this tech to become available to the public!!! 1 step closer to the Holodeck!!!

      • reply
        November 13, 2013 2:32 PM

        Are you a nurse that lifts?

        Swole RN. Horrible, I know.

    • reply
      November 13, 2013 2:38 PM

      Nintendo should buy them and make it their next 'console'.

      • reply
        November 13, 2013 3:06 PM

        I can easily see the return of the Virtual Boy but in console form. And while Nintendo would be the one to most likely attempt a VR console, they wouldn't involve the Rift. If anything the Rift would be a "go" or "no go" trigger. In turn Nintendo would be forced to go back into the high-end console market since VR relies on high frame rates to be most effective.

        So I'm really hoping the Rift is a success on the PC scene next year, and that Nintendo puts into motion a high end console with similar Rift VR in 2017, 2018 or so. Microsoft and Sony would be in an incredible awkward situation since it would be the "middle age" of their console lifespan.

    • reply
      November 13, 2013 3:27 PM

      Oculus Rift is the kinect for the pc.

Hello, Meet Lola