Zoombael said:
No, this is not the context. Steam survey participants are not the entire Steam Userbase. It's only those who participate in the survey. The purpose of those hardware surveys is... "...to collect data about what kinds of computer hardware and software our customers are using. Participation in the survey is optional, and anonymous. The information gathered is incredibly helpful to us as we make decisions about what kinds of technology investments to make and products to offer." http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ Not to determine the exact percentages of graphics cards in usage. I repeat, apart from the GPU there are various other things required to meet minimum requirements. No, steam survey are not a reliable source to prove how many PC users have ascended to master race status. There are certainly not 10s and 10s of 100s of millions of VR ready machines out there. The estimation provided by nvidia is far more realistic. Even though i think its still very optimistic. "Gaming hardware company Nvidia, which makes many of those graphics cards, recently estimated that only 13 million PCs will fit the bill next year." http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/8/10723082/nvidia-vr-ready-pcs-bullet-train-everest-ces-2016 http://wccftech.com/steam-hardware-survey-shows-1080p-majority-intel-hd-4000-gpu/ Why do i think it's optimistic? Because a graphics card isn't a console. There aren't just 2-3 different kinds out there in a time span of over half a decade. 280, 480, 580, 680, 780, 680ti, 780ti, 580ti, aaaaand so on and so forth. There are the ATIs too. 970 is minimum, there isn't much above it. |
That is the context, it is what I was basing my numbers around.
You are right that Steam doesn't poll every single user, but it also doesn't need to, you have the power of mathematics and the law of averages.
VR isn't GPU dependent. You could run it on an Intel IGP. Steam also doesn't recognize Multi-GPU systems, thus a system which has a single GPU under the needed hardware for VR will likely exceed the requirements with Crossfire/SLI enabled.
Converesly, Steam also doesn't recognize systems with Switchable graphics, a large chunk of systems which are polled to have Intel graphics might be running nVidia or AMD too.
But that is getting into semantics, it's irrellevant.
For those do not wish to have a high-end GPU, you could just lower the fidelity for acceptable performance.
You do not need a Geforce 970, it isn't the minimum.
VR needs roughly 3x - 3.5x the rendering power of 1080p 60FPS, if you are happy with 720P and 30FPS, then that significantly reduces the amount of hardware you will need, it is going to impact your experience though.
If you think the PS4 is going to have equavalent Geforce 970 VR quality, then you will sadly be mistaken, it doesn't have the horsepower to do so.
nVidia and AMD have also been working on VR SLI/Crossfire, where one GPU renders the left, the other GPU renders the right, meaning a couple of cheap mid-range cards is all you will need.
Oculous state that you need a GTX 650 / AMD 7750 GPU or better as minimum, majority of Gaming PC's exceed that my dear friend. Majority.
https://www.oculus.com/en-us/blog/powering-the-rift/
Zoombael said:
No, we wouldn't. It is not the prime objective to implement VR into every AAA game. VR will simply be a new form of entertainment. Your view on VR is very shrouded. |
If you want it to have the widest game support, you will need a new generation, same goes for any peripheral, the more consoles that have the hardware, the more financial sense that it makes for developers to include such support in their games.
There will likely be games that would fit VR and never be supported on the PS4.
Converesly... A new generation is needed because the PS4 struggles to do 1080P, 60fps. How is it going to handle double that? With a reduction in graphics quality. *slow clap*
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
