The Big Question: What Virtual Reality Horse Are You Going To Back?

There's no doubt about it: virtual reality is here to stay. There's a greater question to be asked about the merits of virtual reality versus the benefits of augmented reality, but that isn't going to play out in 2016.

What we will see is the rise of virtual reality. And it's also a serious consumer problem, because there are multiple horses to back.

In one corner we have the original: Oculus Rift. It won't come with the touch controllers until later this year, and even though you'll be able to pre-order the tech as of tomorrow we still don't know how much the Rift will cost.

But it's been around the longest and has the largest groundswell of support amongst developers. Oculus have also been giving seed funding to studios for a while, meaning the Rift is likely to have the most content off the bat — provided you have a PC capable enough of handling it.

In another corner lies Sony's solution: Project Morpheus, which is now just called PlayStation VR. The hardware limitations are less of a concern here since it's being developed for a console with one set of specifications. But those specs are also substantially lower than competing devices, we still don't know precisely when PlayStation VR will launch, how much it will cost and there are only a handful of exclusives announced for this year. Some of those are cool — and having Battlezone as a timed exclusive for PlayStation VR is neat — but it's nowhere near the level of content available for the Rift.

Valve and HTC are with SteamVR, more commonly known as the HTC Vive. Their tech was delayed to April this year due to a supposed significant development, something the companies are going to show off at CES. Like the Rift, the Vive has two 1080x1200 OLED screens for a full resolution of 2160x1200, compared to PlayStation VR's single 1080p screen offering.

The Vive shares the Rift's 90hz refresh rate and connects via HDMI and USB 3.0, but one key difference is the tracking system. According to HTC, their tech can come with a base station called the Lighthouse that emits structured light lasers within a space. The lasers, in conjunction with two front-facing cameras on the base station, can map and model your room, while also tracking any moving or static objects in the area.

The practicality of having 4.5mx4.5m free space in your gaming environment isn't practical for many, however. The idea of walking around while your VR device is plugged into the back of a PC isn't that appealing to me either — I'd rather sit down in a safe space and pretend to be Johnny Mnemonic or something. And the level of support for the Vive among developers is also a question mark at this stage, although it seems Valve are taking the right steps to catch up on that front.

So those are the main three (but not the only ones) we'll see some time this year — and sooner, rather than later. What VR horse are you getting behind?


Comments

    None... or Hololens.

    I only have one eye, so unless I can get an answer as to any of them working with that limitation, then none of them will be of any use to me.

      SteamMonocle? I imagine they'd still work but you'd obviously not get the 3D effect, much like real life. Interesting to see if you get your hands on one how it goes.

      Happy to lend you my Rift to try out if you want to see how it works for you. I'd be really interested in what you think.

      The immersion should still be there, even when you turn off the 3D effect, the immersion is more about looking up when you hear a fighter plane overhead, and seeing the plane through the cockpit glass etc. than it is about the 3D effect.

        To add to this, we perceive depth in two major ways;

        1. Having two eyes at two different viewpoints
        2. Head motion made possible by positional tracking (very subtle/ even a cyclops can perceive depth using a little involuntary head wobble)

        According to some interviews I've seen, developers have found that the second method to be the most vital for immersion. They would go so far as to say, if they had to choose between the two, they'd choose the latter.

        According to John Carmack, they tested people without telling them, that the 3D was OFF. They (Brendan Iribe) didn't notice and thought it was ON.

        So, to surmise IMO, @banderdash WILL perceive depth.

        Last edited 06/01/16 3:13 pm

          What about the iris? Doesn't focal point play any part in identifying depth? I reckon although you can't determine depth with the iris, it's one of the reasons that 3D makes you feel so crap, you can't force the focus.
          EDIT: I think it's the lens bit I'm thinking of. Not really an eye doctor :/

          Last edited 07/01/16 3:52 pm

            Focal depth is also a method, but it's not considered major and it isn't a "tractable" problem for the near future. But, you are correct that also works in unison with the other two.

      It should still work just the same as your normal day-to-day vision. I mean normally you'd get your depth cues from parallax, which you can get in these headsets thanks to positional tracking. It's not like a 3D movie where you're stripped of the only thing that differentiates it from regular viewing.

      As cool as Hololens seems it needs to come down in price an absolute buttload from the $3000 cost of a dev kit for anyone but the hardest of hardcore to even consider buying it.

        Hololens is also AR, not VR, just to be that guy

          It also (currently) has a tiny field of view compared to the other VR headsets which claim upwards of 100 degrees.

        As it's more likely to be business based, I'd imagine most of that cost could be written off to tax.

        With hololens I think you just add a camera on the front of the Rift and voila! You have a far cheaper hololens solution with a much wider FOV.

          Kind of what the Vive has done

            I don't think Valve will use the camera for AR exactly. If you port through a video feed from the larger circumference of the HMD, it will mismatch your normal vision as you turn your head.

            Your eyes are inside your head and therefore travel less when you turn your head.

            I'm guessing, they will use it to detect perimeter obstacles and marked objects (Stickers/ peripherals) and render them (you only need to render a wire-mesh of the obstacles side that faces you) in when necessary.

            When you look Down, you could see your actual hand movement rendered in the game.

            Unless they found a way around the problem.

            Last edited 06/01/16 7:32 pm

        Developers typically have more money and it isn't even for consumer at all in its current iteration so reducing the cost makes no sense. Those who will develop it for commercial use within business and such have the money and those without will wait for a cheaper iteration.

      I can only see with one eye and got the DK1. It was pretty cool, looking forward to seeing the final thing - only because I was an original backer and get a free one, otherwise I'd be waiting a while to see how it played out in future.

        Realistically, the opportunity to see one in the wild hasn't eventuated for me... but when it does, I look forward to trying one out.

      I have a friend in the exact same situation as you. Sat him down with the rift and he still had a good time cause all the head tracking stuff still works, it's just the 3D effect that's missing. I'd recommend seeing if you can borrow one from a friend and making your decision based on that as it'll be a judgement call.

      I wonder if you had a single monocle that flicked between the left and right hand image at say 120hz, whether your brain would eventually figure out how to create depth from the blurry image, or if it would simple stay as blurry forever. If it can invert images back around the correct way when wearing inversion glasses perhaps it can do something more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHMvEMy7B9k

    As much as I like the Rift and have always intended to back it, trying the HTC Vive gave me a more "complete" feeling of immersion. It's enough to make me wait until the consumer release of the Vive (rather than jumping straight on to Rift) and compare the final consumer versions and features / price points. I think there's enough there for Vive to just sneak past Rift.

      Yeah. I have not tried the VIVE and thought the Rift was great but after hearing a few people I know who have tried the VIVE, nothing compares so I'll have to get that. Still undecided on day one or not but with Steam behind it, the support will likely be awesome. Secretly hoping their big development and delay was because they can now automatically provide support for all existing games :).. but I'll be watching CES closely for this stuff.

      I do like the simplicity of the PS version and lack of PC upgrades that will go with the other options, I feel like this is something I want to experience in the best way possible.

        Don't forget about content partners, not only does the VIVE have Valve behind it it also has a deal with Lionsgate.

        And correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember Sony announcing that they had a deal with NASA. Not to mention the fact that the Playstation VR will probably be the cheapest of them all (Sony have said that it will probably be the same as the cost of a console, so roughly $400-$500), and as you mentioned you don't have to shell out for upgrades either just to be able to use the thing.

          I see "Lionsgate" and all I think of is a "Hunger Games" inspired VR game

    I have a Rift DK2, probably am more interested in the Sony VR at this point.
    I love VR, but find I only get the Rift out when people come over that haven't tried it, I think the PS4 VR might end up getting more use.
    I still see VR on the PC ending up in a niche, i.e. the same customer type that might buy a $400 Steering Wheel or Flightstick setup, for the more hardcore flight/space-sim and driving games, and early adopters.

    Realistically I think VR will be successful as an experience setup that is for short-ish bursts, and probably at arcades/events/theme parks/VR Laser tag, where you can have wranglers and relatively short, fun, augmented experiences (that use fans, props and other devices to enhance the experience) in a safe space.

    The headsets are still too uncomfortable for most people to wear them for longer sessions regularly, and it is still a bit fiddly to setup and play.

    I'll stick with my Dk2, might pick up the Touch if it gets good reviews and get a SonyVR if it has some fun launch titles.

      If VR was just for games, I'd tend to agree with you. Though if someone comes up with a killer application for VR, all bets are off. We're basically on the cusp of a technology that could either be revolutionary or sedentary. It'll be interesting to follow, that's for sure.

      I'll buy PS VR first, since it'll be supported throughout the life cycle of PS4. Oculus and Valve might have a second version next year, or even better, other competitors.

      It will also give them more time to iron out any bugs. I expect a lot at first.

    Didn't vote because I'm planning on buying both the HTC Vive and Playstation VR.

    I'm all aboard the Rift train. But as for which one I think will take off the most? Hard to say. PSVR seems like it'd be more accessible since the prerequisite hardware is easier to come by, and I think regular consumers are more likely to just go out and pick up a console than piece together a dedicated gaming PC. Plus with how the prices have dropped recently it should be a fair bit cheaper all up than either of the PC platforms, though who knows how much the PSVR unit itself will end up costing. I think it might still have the edge, but then Oculus has Facebook behind them while HTC has Valve, so they all have some pretty hefty clout in terms of reach.

    Is there a standard protocol or API across all of them? If not, then I won't be committing to one until I see which ends up with the broadest support.

    Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot Rift is owned by Facebook. That's one I won't be touching at all then, but the above applies to the remaining options.

    Last edited 06/01/16 12:02 pm

      There is a standard protocol / API.

      Occulus were very bullish about ensuring that there would be standard languages.
      To the point that they had Carmack editing some of their code and distributing it to other headset developers. I don't have a specific source for this though, Palmer Lucky mentioned it on an E3 bombcast, and there were stories circulating about Carmack doing just that.

        That's certainly the goal. When you have a standard API, the HMDs become just third party peripherals. You will have more options in the future.

        For example, at every price point, and at varying qualities.

        I just hope they don't each tie their HMDs to one Point of Sales client. If they do that, they are merely dividing the PC ecosystem between them, and it'll keep dividing every time a company enters the game on PC.

        Worse, people will switch to knock-offs that are compatible with all clients.

        Last edited 06/01/16 3:57 pm

      Why is facebook owning them an issue. What will you do in the hypothetical situation where is the dominant player in the market, swear off it because of some arbitrary hipster fascination with being against the grain and edgy for hating on another business(facebook)?

        Trollish comment but i'll bite. Was all for occulus until it was bought out by facebook - now im hoping any other product becomes the standard. Its what facebook has done in the past and is looking at doing in the future in terms of information gathering. Not to mention facebook as a company is pretty hypocritical (internet.org and net neutrality) - i have no wish to support that.

          My comment wasn't trolling and I have no idea how that could have been misconstrued, Regardless of facebook owning OR they're a company I can believe will actually push VR hard after making such a sizeable investment into the genre.

          I do see how you can be fearful of information gathering but if you're using email,web banking, signed up to an ISP, any forum website or blog site you have already given away as much as facebook would have taken. You can be fearful or resentful of facebook but at the end of the idea they are exactly the same as any of the big guys(Apple, Google, Microsft, and etc).

        I consider Facebook as a company to be unethical in ways that are enough for me to not want to interact with them in any way.

          Psst... You know they're partnered with Google, MSFT, Apple, and others as first party partners which means that can/do/have/will share your information that they have or that the other partners have.

          Fair enough though, you can stick to your principles.

            Check out Apple's stance on privacy, I don't think you will see them sharing information with Facebook any time soon.

      Microsoft owns Windows. We all know what everyone thought of them but they seem to have recovered in the public's eyes recently. And nearly everyone ran Windows back then.

      Steve Jobs owned Apple and we all know what a dick he was, but that didn't stop people from buying iDevices.

        I have no problem with Microsoft. I do have a problem with Facebook and with Apple as companies, irrespective of the products they sell. I'm not "people", I don't care what other people like or dislike. I make my own choices.

    I have been leaning towards the Playstation VR mainly because I dont want to have to invest in upgrading my PC. I have a developer Rift, and had a lot of fun mucking about with it and doing some basic dev work, VR has a lot of potential, but is still a few years off from being main stream.

    That first image ( oculus-rift-inside.jpg ) I've seen on so many articles about the Oculus Rift. A quick search reveals it is actually a mobile phone holder called the vrAse. The Rift doesn't look like that.

    I tried the Rift and the Spider demo. I don't know if it was just how bad the demo was, but I thought it was a total waste, not as good as regular 3D for immersion.

    I'm just waiting for about the 3rd gen of general consumer/production models. Then I'll decide based on who puts out the better product at the time. Plus I'll have to build a new pc. No rush on that, at least not till the next gen of Nvidia cards anyway.

    Still years away from the time I will actually care about VR enough to build a new pc, research the best products in a couple of gens time and have a dedicated space for it. I can see how it can be used for cockpit views, but beyond that the experience becomes kind of wonky for fast paced action games that I prefer to play.

      I'm betting by 3rd gen the Rift will have Facebook pre-installed and you'll be bombarded with ads and friend requests all the time.

      Waiting for whatever version is released after these. Then decide on which has the content I want. There's always issues with the early versions of anything and everything gets cheaper once the mass production ramps up. For example: the socket for the cables getting loose or the cable ends breaking, or a small drop and it causes bad misalignment of the optics or some flimsy part of the housing breaks off. Plus the formats if they arent compatible - its gonna be VHS and beta all over again.

    I'm on the "virtual reality is a fad that will not have long term mainstream sustainability" wagon.

    I think VR has pretty decent applications but not in the traditional gaming space, and I don't believe that there are current prospects for VR to pave a new path. The tech is neat, but for now I simply can't get behind it as anything but a novelty with a smattering of worthwhile "experiences" as opposed to the fully immersive games proponents are emotionally investing in.

    It's possible we need a stepping stone to get us away from traditional gaming interfacing so I can see the Hololens having some applications as an interim measure until we're ready to embrace actual VR, but ultimately I think it'll do about as well as the power glove and motion controls.

      I like to lay back & move as little as possible when I play.

      I have a go of Kinect, bought one for the boy, but I quickly tire & stop.

      I don't mind riding my bike though.

        That's why motion controls don't tend to work - gaming often requires snap reflexes and judgements and button presses will always be more efficient. With VR, you have to have a game where the core experience is optimised for VR to drag people away from their monitors and while I see more and more of these games popping up, I feel it's still not going to really take off.

        Theres another interesting strawman I see pop up whenever VR is mentioned too. Cliffy B is a repeat offender on this. Let's use your bike riding as an example.

        Cliffy B will post something sarcastically on twitter like "Oh, VR isn't good, you have to get all this expensive specialised gear" then post it alongside a picture of someone riding a bike, with a helmet and whatever other gear. Or a skier in a snow suit, goggles, skis and poles.

        Well, Cliffy, VR bike riding and real bike riding aren't the same thing. Now sure, I can use my VR headset to do things other than one single activity which is the one advantage VR has, but at the end of the day it isn't a substitute for the real thing, and unless I have a particular passion, am I going to go VR bike riding? If so, why not real bike riding. There are some people who obviously have situations that answer that question. They could be disabled. They might not have any good places to ride. Maybe I want to bike tour a village in Holland without leaving my armchair. Whatever. The point is, the applications become quite narrow.

        Now me personally, I think it would be amazing for flight sims, especially spaceflight sims. I can see myself one day in the future playing No Man's Sky or Star Citizen (whenever those games "go gold" so to speak, and I have a PC that does them justice) strapping on the Oculus mk37 and having a go. But as someone mentioned in another post, it's still a fairly narrow utilisation despite the versatility of the device itself, akin to someone who buys a specialised control deck or steering wheel system.

          I bought my bike & a $20 helmet from Kmart.

          Gets me to the train station in the morning, fun with the boy on weekends. I don't understand why so many people buy the rights & everything if they aren't taking it up as a full-time hobby or sport.

    I dropped interest in the Rift once Facebook got involved. So it's between PS VR or Vive for me but honestly, even though these products are all on their way I still son't see a solid future in VR. IMO it's still nothing more than a gimmick and there isn't a compelling reason to shell out what will likely be a substantial amount of money for any of them. I'll stick to Google Cardboard for my VR fix for now.

    My gut says Vive though I don't really like the name but I'm ultimately undecided since I've not tried any of them. Given the Vive and Oculus exist in the PC space, I just hope they don't start doing the "exclusive to this headset" garbage to sell more of their units but they probably will.

    I've got a DK2, and while its pretty good, proper hand tracking would make a massive difference in the experience, so not having the Oculus Touch controllers being available for a few months after the HTC ones makes me want to wait, at least. In terms of tracking options as well, the Lighthouse system just seems vastly superior to the camera/IR option the rift can use, but it will all depend on how they actually perform once released.

    Which ever headset I get for PC (rift/vive), I'll likely get the PS VR too anyhow, as the software lineup that Sony announced was extensive, well beyond what I ever expected, and in terms of selling VR to other people, a PS4 and PS VR is a more cost effective and consumer friendly setup than either the rift or HTC Vive will be, both likely needing a GTX 980/Titan bare minimum specs on a PC.

    Exciting times!

    Probably none - they all look like trying to wear and use them would be a giant pain in the butt.

    One day in the future they'll get them down to the size and weight of a pair of sunglasses (and wireless to boot), and then I might get more interested.

    If I was to get one I'd go PSVR simply because my PS4 is the only device I've got capable of getting the job done - my PC would not be up to the task.

    Probably the second or third generation of the retail version of the rift; when and if it functions without wires...

    At this rate I will probably wait 2017, in 2016 I will be saving up for my second 3D Printer (a more professional model this time). Plus something tells me I will be disappointed with these low res VR systems considering I have been using 4k screens for 1.5 years now.

    Be going the Oculus after experiencing Zero Latency in Melbourne.

    Ill try and wait. Will depend on the content that comes out on how soo i buy in to it. With the motion issues for long period use im still not sold.

    It would have to be Playstation VR. I have zero interest in upgrading my PC to use any of the others. I will probably end up with none of them, but I'm really looking forward to trying out PSVR.

    a) I've owned two HTC phones in recent years and they were both faulty and underpowered - I would avoid any of their products with extreme prejudice.
    b) I feel like Occulus has the best chance of success with its Facebook backing whereas Sony will probably have a bigger uptake by virtue of being the most consumer friendly device it also runs the risk of poisoning the well - look at Kinect it sold like 20 million units - everyone wanted to try it out but it wasn't sustained by good software (only one game, Fruit Ninja, was completely hassle-free to play on the device and what it did could've arguably been accomplished by an EyeToy. When Xbox One rolled around Kinect had lost its appeal mostly because gamers have sore memories of the last few years on 360 where exclusives thinned out as 1st and 2nd parties focussed on Kinect, you can't blame MS - those last few years of the 360 netted them a huge new customer base of kids and families that previously had a Wii, meanwhile my Xbox friends list suffered as people trailed off to PC or PS3 where they still had attractive exclusives. Can Sony avoid the same trap with their VR - every time I see one of their VR presentations it just reminds me of how I felt when I saw Kinect (trust me that a good, hyped feeling) but I've seen what's on the other side of that - approach with caution.

    Since 3D makes me feel ill, I don't have high hopes.

    But I'll try it out when I can. See how it goes.

    Probably Sony, because I'm so invested in all their game systems already.

      How invested can you be with Sony? Just a Console which come with controllers, I guess headset and PSN subscription?

        Longevity of account, ongoing PS+ subscription with "free" game licenses that will expire if his sub lapses, friendlist, existing library of purchased games... there's a lot of reasons. I'm similarly invested in the Microsoft ecosystem, hence why when I get a PS4 it will always be secondary to my "core" platform.

        Last edited 06/01/16 2:42 pm

        All the consoles, many games.

        No subscription, waste of my money.

        The thing is, I already have a ps4, I don't have a gaming PC, Heck my craptop can barely be considered a PC at all.

        On my low budget, if I were to buy anything, it'd have to be an add-on to something I already own rather than a whole new anything else.

        Ha ha! No headset either, in the year I did have ps+ I managed to join in on exactly 0 multiplayer games. No, that's not true, I had a go at the Dragon age inquisition multi once, multi just isn't my thing.

        Well, online multi, back before I had responsibility, I really enjoyed couch multi.

    I'm leaning towards the HTC/Valve option. But that being said, all this talk of exclusive titles and non-compatibility between different platforms is putting me off the whole thing entirely.

    I think the PS one will be garbage. Like the Move, PSeye etc.... An expensive peripheral that no one will use. It might get more mainstream coverage but ultimately it's worse hardware running on a worse platform.

    The other huge issue is content. Buying a VR headset to play COD or BF4 is pointless. Not only because you'll need a very high spec PC, but because they aren't designed for it. I think VR will shine when games are built for it. I feel like it might be a huge let down for early adopters. Ultimately the consumer versions will be no different for anyone who's already playing with the dev kits. It might look better, feel better, run better but the experience will be largely the same.
    The devil is in the details, and the details are the content. I hope valve has enough developer clout to push VR. I don't think occulus/facebook will be a smart choice because they are going to want to control everything.

    Time will tell but right now (price depending), as much as I love VR, I probably won't be getting a first generation device.

    All I can say is not Sony. The PS4 will have to run at a terrible res to output in 3D without hitching and other frame rate drops.

      According to popular reports from people who have actually tried all of them, you are wrong, so wrong. It's not how big it is, it's how you use it!

      Have you tried your expert opinion on the qualified engineers working with Sony?

      Last edited 06/01/16 3:27 pm

        No, I have a Nvidia 3D vision setup and I am fully aware of the performance hit rendering a separate image for each eye represents after years of experience with it.

          nVidia 3D Vision?!?

          Yes I had that too. That was terrible. It didn't work with DX11, shadows got screwed up. It was a total underdeveloped gimmick.

          I think your logic is flawed in a serious way, but I don't have the time to explain any of that to you. Hint: Optimization/ Culling / VR specific SDK/ API layers /games designed for VR

          If your theory is so obvious, how come qualified engineers hadn't thought of it?

          All I will say is that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

          Last edited 06/01/16 4:41 pm

        According to popular reports from people who have actually tried all of them, you are wrong, so wrong. It's not how big it is, it's how you use it!

        Personally i believe it'll be rubbish as the PS4 just doesn't have enough grunt to deliver what is needed (fps/resolution) unless games are specifically designed for it with graphics fidelity of ~2005 game. It can have all the optimizations in the world but at a certain point you just need the right power output to get the results required for optimal experience without sacrificing graphical fidelity.

          at a certain point you just need the right power output to get the results required for optimal experience without sacrificing graphical fidelity.

          What is that point? The PC you have right now? Next years model? The spec Facebook told you?

          IMO all of them do not have the required power to make immersive VR the way you think it's going to happen. All of them fail by miles.

          Games will have to be designed specifically for VR, and highly optimised, for either platform. Nice try though. :)

            IMO all of them do not have the required power to make immersive VR the way you think it's going to happen. All of them fail by miles.

            Check my post on next page. Essentially i agree atm nothing has enough power vs price. Nvidias pascal certainly has the specs if it lives up to the hype, so the generation after that we should start seeing graphics cards at a decent price vs VR performance. Consoles, imo, have no chance for any decent VR - it'll be gimicky for sure OR the graphic fidelity will be era 2005 (ie early ps3/xbox360). I'd be happy to be proved wrong tho.

            EDIT: You have to remember nvidia's pascal is rumored to be 10x faster than maxwell (gtx980 - and honestly i'd say its more likely twice as fast) and the gtx980 is over 5 times quicker than ps4 graphics architecture. No optimizations can close that gap.

            Last edited 06/01/16 5:56 pm

              Consoles, imo, have no chance for any decent VR - it'll be gimicky for sure OR the graphic fidelity will be era 2005 (ie early ps3/xbox360)

              OK. Let's do prophesies...

              If VR actually takes off as is predicted, both Sony and Microsoft will debut their next generation consoles custom designed for VR (around 2019, they'll be backwards compatible, probably already working on it).

              They will just pluck one of the best they find on PC and heavily customise it to yield better real world performance (I hope you don't think that Software is the only thing that can be highly optimised) just as they started doing 2 years into the life cycle of the PS3, with the PS4.

              Last edited 06/01/16 6:15 pm

          I think you may have missed all of the articles about ps vr. It comes with an extra graphic processor that is a size of a wii just for the vr

            I have but it doesn't do any graphics rendering (ps4 still does that). From what i've read it just upscales the resolution\fps for VR output. Ie takes a 60fps 1080p stream and outputs it to 960x1080 @ xfps for each eye. Not sure how smart it is at upscaling the fps tho i'd imagine it has to do some processing on the image which is only going to add to latency. Like i said earlier i feel it will be gimicky but i'd be happy if proved wrong.

              If I understand/recall right, the upscaling works through reprojection of the previous frame using the depth buffer and current rotational data for the headset and is actually quite fast. It's not like taking frame 1 then frame 2 and merging them to create frame 1.5, then presenting the three in order with a delay or something like that.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now