Even as someone who has worked with VR for over a decade the
requirement was initially a head scratcher for me. VR had run for years
on cheap PCs. I was running my Oculus DK2 at the time on a mid-grade
iMac. Regular mobile phones could drive VR using Google Cardboard or
Samsung Gear VR. Surely, a cheap PC should suffice.
These steep
requirements are rooted in a decades-old technical limitation that could
keep virtual reality headsets from ever reaching the cutting edge of
visual experience. The gap between head-mounted and standard displays
will likely be a permanent obstacle for the nascent VR headset industry.
Here is why:
n order to understand the logic of headset manufacturer’s decision to require high-end computers, we must first understand what I call the VR gap. VR presents separate images to each eye, which doubles the strain on a PC’s graphical hardware. This is a factor of 2x. VR also needs to show about 90 frames per second to the viewer, as opposed to the 60 frames per second typical of a high-end computer game. This is an additional 50%. If we put these factors together, VR needs 3x as much graphical horsepower as a standard screen to display exactly the same image. Some sources—companies like Nvidia—claim this VR gap is 7x. Whatever the exact number is, it’s undeniably significant. The intense graphical processing needs for VR make one thing clear: games played on a standard display will be richer and more detailed than anything available in VR for years to come.
n order to understand the logic of headset manufacturer’s decision to require high-end computers, we must first understand what I call the VR gap. VR presents separate images to each eye, which doubles the strain on a PC’s graphical hardware. This is a factor of 2x. VR also needs to show about 90 frames per second to the viewer, as opposed to the 60 frames per second typical of a high-end computer game. This is an additional 50%. If we put these factors together, VR needs 3x as much graphical horsepower as a standard screen to display exactly the same image. Some sources—companies like Nvidia—claim this VR gap is 7x. Whatever the exact number is, it’s undeniably significant. The intense graphical processing needs for VR make one thing clear: games played on a standard display will be richer and more detailed than anything available in VR for years to come.
This VR gap is nothing new. In the 90’s, it was common to use a
$100k+ supercomputer to drive VR because, well, that was what was
considered needed at the time. However, then like now a supercomputer
wasn’t “needed”. It was merely desired, because otherwise VR would look
3-5 years behind the times, in terms of visual fidelity.
When it comes
to Oculus and Vive, the high-end PC requirements start to make sense
with this VR gap in mind. Both companies are releasing high-end products
for the PC Gaming Master Race.
This audience is used to AAA games. Anything less than a top of the
line PC would result in a steep decline in graphics quality when hopping
to VR. Gamers complained about the the clarity and visual richness of
early Oculus prototypes. Everything is on the line with a big product
launch. Understandably Valve/HTC and Oculus/Facebook want to limit the
experience to PCs that, even in VR, can match the visual fidelity of top
PC games, not to mention the Xbox and PS4.
The pricing also makes sense when we compare it to other innovations like the iPhone. At launch, the $600 iPhone price-point
was a shocker. However, rabid early adopters bought anyway, and the
technology naturally became more affordable over time. Oculus and HTC
may have similar motives. Apple’s first iPhone had a graphical richness
and responsiveness which matched average desktop PCs at the time. It
was, in my experience, the first phone to do so. By the same token,
these VR headsets are being built and sold to match today’s desktop
average.
The mobile gap, like the VR gap has not gone away. While advances in mobile like the Unreal Engine for iOS (anyone remember Infinity Blade?)
upped the ante with gaming graphics on phones, consoles and PCs have
gotten even better. Mobile, for the foreseeable future, simply won’t
catch up.
For similar
reasons, we will be stuck behind this VR gap for the foreseeable future.
The gulf seems solid. And it is not going away without a surprising
innovation—an unknown unknown at this point in time.
Good VR should
be good VR because it is good in VR. The benefits of the VR technologies
(whichever they may be—I have perhaps the world’s broadest definition
of VR—the subject of a future post) must be apparent even if the
resolution is low, and the tracking is poor. We in the VR community need
to build VR that is good because of the nature of the medium itself
(the subject of a past post).
As VR-ready PCs
get cheaper, we see more signs of the VR gap playing its course. Today
we see signs that Microsoft is releasing a new, more powerful
Xbox console to handle VR. And there are rumors that Sony is developing
a new Playstation 4 called NEO, because otherwise—well, VR would be “terrible“.
This year,
gamers will be making a choice. Play in a VR headset, or have higher
visual fidelity on the flat screen. Let’s hope that the VR-ness of the
VR is enough to make the tradeoff worthwhile.
EmoticonEmoticon