Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Mar 2016 20:48 UTC
Games

One question we were dying to ask is he sees a future for the Oculus Rift with Apple computers. When asked if there would ever be Mac support for the Rift, Palmer responds by saying "That is up to Apple. If they ever release a good computer, we will do it."

Palmer continues to clarify what he meant by that blunt statement by saying "It just boils down to the fact that Apple doesn't prioritize high-end GPUs. You can buy a $6,000 Mac Pro with the top of the line AMD FirePro D700, and it still doesn't match our recommended specs. So if they prioritize higher-end GPUs like they used to for a while back in the day, we'd love to support Mac. But right now, there's just not a single machine out there that supports it."

Harsh, but true. This simply isn't a market Apple is serving right now. Note: I'm not saying they should, just that they don't.

Order by: Score:
Gaming on the Mac
by areimann on Thu 3rd Mar 2016 21:49 UTC
areimann
Member since:
2006-06-12

This is why gaming stays (mostly) on Windows. I bought a Mac Book Pro for $2500 last year and it can't play any games because the video card is lousy. That's why I have a desktop with a decent card.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Gaming on the Mac
by moondevil on Fri 4th Mar 2016 07:39 UTC in reply to "Gaming on the Mac"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Quite right.

As someone that used to spend quite some time gaming and doing graphics programming, the CPU/GPU combo was always very important to me.

Only the Mac Book Pro do offer something that a graphics programmer could consider as hardware worth programming for.

However a Thinkpad W (graphics workstation laptop) costs 1000 € less and offers way more CPU/GPU capabilities.

Those 1000 € make a huge difference in the average salary of many European countries.

Funny enough, Unity3D started out as a game engine for Macs, they only went multiplatform with version 2.5.

Reply Score: 4

v what's the real "problem"?
by sergio on Thu 3rd Mar 2016 21:53 UTC
RE: what's the real "problem"?
by Johann Chua on Thu 3rd Mar 2016 22:01 UTC in reply to "what's the real "problem"?"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Newsflash: Workstation CPU and GPU not optimal for gaming. Film at 11.

Reply Score: 1

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

On a mac, there is literally no difference between the Fire Pro and Radeons - they use the same driver, and the FirePros in the Mac Pro lack ECC ram that the PC counterparts have.

Reply Score: 4

RE: what's the real "problem"?
by galvanash on Thu 3rd Mar 2016 22:04 UTC in reply to "what's the real "problem"?"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

If your product cannot run decently in an octa-core Xeon with two AMD FirePro D700... maybe the problem is NOT the computer... the problem is YOUR product.

IMHO with this stupid attitude Oculus will create the biggest flop since the Virtual Boy.


I get what your saying, but from a gaming perspective the FirePro D700 is actually a pretty damn weak card. It is a 4 year old design with about half the TFLOPs of what is considered upper mid-range now (GTX 950 for example). You can easily buy a gaming GPU for less than $200 that outperforms it now a days (in games anyway).

Plus, having two of them makes no difference on OSX because they do not actually use crossfire to gang their resources... The 2nd card can be used for compute purposes or to give you more physical screens, but thats it. Outside of that, especially in games, the 2nd card is useless.

edit - not half the TFLOPS, half the texture/pixel fill rate - which matters much more for most games. The D700 is still very competitive when it comes to compute, although even there is no longer at the ultra high end.

Edited 2016-03-03 22:12 UTC

Reply Score: 6

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Plus, having two of them makes no difference on OSX because they do not actually use crossfire to gang their resources... The 2nd card can be used for compute purposes or to give you more physical screens, but thats it. Outside of that, especially in games, the 2nd card is useless.


This is incorrect - you can use both GPUs for rendering, but you (the developer) just have to handle it yourself. The driver won't do it for you.

Of course, if you run Windows on the Mac Pro, the two chips show up as two FirePro cards with the consumer-level CrossfireX.

Reply Score: 2

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25


This is incorrect - you can use both GPUs for rendering, but you (the developer) just have to handle it yourself. The driver won't do it for you.


But there are no games I am aware of that support that...

Reply Score: 2

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

I'll bet the majority of Mac Pros are sold to people that wont' put games on it, as oppsed to workstation stuff.

Though, I wouldn't be surprised if few Pro apps support using both for graphics, too

Reply Score: 3

sergio Member since:
2005-07-06

I'll bet the majority of Mac Pros are sold to people that wont' put games on it, as oppsed to workstation stuff.


Sure, I also think 99.9% of Mac Pro users don't give a shit about Oculus. BTW what really annoys me is this l33t Oculus' attitude... it's a shame, they changed 180 degrees!!

Oculus started as a ~$300 kickstarter product: "VR for the masses" they said. DK1 and DK2 had that price point and Oculus gear kind of worked with regular Windows and Mac computers.

Then Oculus was acquired by Facebook... and magically the "VR for masses" turned into a $700+ elite product that cannot run ok even in a $6000 Mac Pro!!! C'mon!!!

I don't buy this Oculus bullshit, I think Facebook marketing team found a niche market for Oculus (hardcore PC gamers) and now they are 100% focused on milking money out of them.

Reply Score: 1

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Don't refer to the Mac Pro as a $6,000 computer.

It's a <$1,000 computer, being sold for $6,000 for some insane reason.

Edited 2016-03-04 02:07 UTC

Reply Score: 5

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Don't refer to the Mac Pro as a $6,000 computer.

It's a < $1,000 computer, being sold for $6,000 for some insane reason.


Where does this $6000 everyone is throwing around come from? The base model is half that. That is with a $350 CPU, $200 worth of memory, and a couple of GPUs worth (very conservatively estimated) about $200-$300 each.

If you look at a $6000 config (which I'm assuming is an 3Ghz/8 core/25MB cache E5 with 2 D700s), the CPU alone costs more than $1000...

Those are discount retail component prices, not Apple prices (except the GPUs since you can't actually buy those exact cards in the market).

I am not saying it is a steal, the things have a markup - no argument. But saying it is worth less than $1000 is just hyperbole... Reality is the pricing, while it certainly higher than what it would cost to build similar machines yourself, is actually quite competitive in the market it competes in (i.e. workstations).

Now you could argue that the component choices Apple makes are overpriced relative to their actual value for many users - I won't argue with that at all. They could build a very good machine for much less money by making some different component choices.
But they are what they are, and for what they are the price is actually fairly competitive.

Someone is certainly going to mod me down for it because they don't want to hear facts, but I don't really care... Mod away ;)

Reply Score: 5

sergio Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't refer to the Mac Pro as a $6,000 computer.

It's a <$1,000 computer, being sold for $6,000 for some insane reason.


Not true. A Xeon E5-2697 capsule alone costs more than $1000.

BTW Mac Pro is not the point... Oculus' ridiculous hardware requirements are the point.

Nevermind... let's bash Apple!! YEAAAHHH!! xD

Reply Score: 1

No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Even the $300 Kickstarter product needs a hefty GPU to render anything with quality. The real problem remains that there's not a single Mac on sale with a decent GPU solution, and they have poor support for upgrades.

This isn't even a new problem: back when I specced a PC for GTA IV, I looked into what I'd need to pay for a Mac capable of playing the game. I saved $1000+ by not going that route, and got a better computer, too.

Reply Score: 4

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

VR for the masses


It IS for the masses, it's just that Apple doesn't have any computers for the masses.

Reply Score: 5

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

It's not for the masses. Most PCs out there are not up to snuff to handle Oculus requirements either.

Reply Score: 2

RE: what's the real "problem"?
by javispedro on Thu 3rd Mar 2016 22:13 UTC in reply to "what's the real "problem"?"
javispedro Member since:
2014-06-04

If your product cannot run decently in an octa-core Xeon with two AMD FirePro D700... maybe the problem is NOT the computer... the problem is YOUR product.

I assume that they're saying that the $2500 "octa-core Xeon with two AMD FirePro" isn't actually as powerful as the sub $1000 computer they recommend.

That I said, I agree that it is insane to require top-of-the-line $200+ GPUs just for "basic support". VR's screen resolutions are not that high anyway. It sounds a bit strange.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: what's the real "problem"?
by ssokolow on Thu 3rd Mar 2016 22:40 UTC in reply to "RE: what's the real "problem"?"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

That I said, I agree that it is insane to require top-of-the-line $200+ GPUs just for "basic support". VR's screen resolutions are not that high anyway. It sounds a bit strange.


I believe it has to do with needing to guarantee that the framerate will never drop below a certain number because, on a VR display with head-tracking, such drops are much more noticeable than on a desktop PC and can also cause motion sickness.

Edited 2016-03-03 22:40 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: what's the real "problem"?
by sergio on Fri 4th Mar 2016 03:33 UTC in reply to "RE: what's the real "problem"?"
sergio Member since:
2005-07-06

I assume that they're saying that the $2500 "octa-core Xeon with two AMD FirePro" isn't actually as powerful as the sub $1000 computer they recommend.

That I said, I agree that it is insane to require top-of-the-line $200+ GPUs just for "basic support". VR's screen resolutions are not that high anyway. It sounds a bit strange.


Yeap, I think exactly the same that's the point.

Regarding Oculus bashing Apple... well they do it because it's the cheapest way to get praise from hardcore PC fanboys.

Don't forget Oculus is trying to sell a $700+ puke maker... only the most hardcore PC fanboys would pay that... so they speak directly to them. PR 101.

Reply Score: 0

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

The fact that Apple has their own VR project may also be a reason why the Oculus mouth boy did what he usually does; run it.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by ideasman42
by ideasman42 on Thu 3rd Mar 2016 22:10 UTC
ideasman42
Member since:
2007-07-20

It's not just Oculus, Blender and LuxRender had troubles with Apple's GPU support.

http://www.cgchannel.com/2015/05/open-source-3d-devs-criticise-appl...

This is a slightly different issue though, its not so much related to the hardware performance. Its more todo with poor OpenGL/OpenCL support and buggy drivers.

Edited 2016-03-03 22:10 UTC

Reply Score: 6

Apple Mac Product Range .....
by cade on Thu 3rd Mar 2016 23:07 UTC
cade
Member since:
2009-02-28

For quite a while I have thought that Apple should have another version of the mac-mini offering mid-to-high end GPU options (say NVidia GTX 965(M) and above, Radeon R9 series) paired with Intel i5/i7 CPU option. This "beefier" mac-mini would have a not too much larger case to provide better cooling of the internal components. Price also matters.

This new box would be better for gaming, game programming, etc. when compared with current mac-mini.

I do not think the new non-Intel GPU iMacs could address the potential market targeted for this "beefier" mac-mini.

Reply Score: 1

henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

I dunno, I have a Core i5 Mac Mini (I think it was the cheapest 2011 version, it has thunderbolt, but no USB 3) and after swapping out the hard drive for a 1TB SSD, the performance is now exceptional. I need to put in 16GB of RAM, but even with 4GB (I think it came with 2GB, but I had spare RAM after a RAM swap at work) it is pretty good. I've run a bunch of games through Steam and all seem okay for what I care. But then I'm no desktop gamer, I prefer my XBox 360 every time.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by ddc_
by ddc_ on Thu 3rd Mar 2016 23:14 UTC
ddc_
Member since:
2006-12-05

These statements only show how ill is the gaming industry. It is insane that today's gaming title requires current generation of video hardware. In a sane industry developers would target average CPUs and GPUs for medium settings, so that aging 5 years old desktop (which is still good enough for most tasks) would at least be able to run the product somehow.

For years now I am expecting to see new generation of game engines that would allow developers to scale their products nicely from old or low-end machines to shiny new gaming hardware that costs more then a used car. This would really be an important technical advancement that would turn the whole industry around.

Maybe my memory fails me, but back when I still played some computer games I never really had to care about minimum hardware requirements. Even though my hardware was quite modest at the time, every new game was enjoyable on my machine.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by ddc_
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 3rd Mar 2016 23:15 UTC in reply to "Comment by ddc_"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This isn't a game we're talking about, but brand new, crazy modern, untested technology. It's really, really unfair to compare this to a game.

The reason it requires such high-end specs is that for the VR to work and not make people vomit and faint (literally!), it needs to power two 'screens' at high resolution with absolutely no dropped frames. And yes, that requires insane processing power.

Edited 2016-03-03 23:17 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by ddc_
by ddc_ on Thu 3rd Mar 2016 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ddc_"
ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

This isn't a game we're talking about, but brand new, crazy modern, untested technology. It's really, really unfair to compare this to a game.

I don't see any technical difference that would set VR apart from gaming. Both do exactly the same: programmatically construct stream of frames from 3D models, textures and 3D goo. The amount of framedrop depends on the complexity of models, sizes of textures and amounts of goo that is supposed to be displayed in a given period of time. The amount of vomit and fainting in both cases equally depends on framerate, framedrop, content of textures and set of goo. In both cases framedrop can be fixed by reducing level of detail. Equally, in both cases high hardware expectations do not indicate compexity of the task at hand, but rather developers' attitude.

Edited 2016-03-04 00:00 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by ddc_
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 4th Mar 2016 00:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ddc_"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I don't see any technical difference that would set VR apart from gaming. Both do exactly the same:


...what?

Do you understand what virtual reality is referring to here?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by ddc_
by ddc_ on Fri 4th Mar 2016 00:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ddc_"
ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

I believe I do. Enlight me if you believe that different input and output mecahnics of headset bring some really fundamental changes to the 3D rendering technology, which actually sets the hardware requirements.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by ddc_
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 4th Mar 2016 00:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ddc_"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I believe I do. Enlight me if you believe that different input and output mecahnics of headset bring some really fundamental changes to the 3D rendering technology, which actually sets the hardware requirements.


The demands are much higher. Only a very small number of people get mild motion sickness when playing regular games. In VR, that number is a lot higher - virtually everyone using [bad] VR suffers from it - making the demands that much higher; framedrops that would go by unnoticed in a regular game, can instantly make you dizzy and motion sick in VR. Combine that with VR headsets requiring not one, but two 'displays', as well as process a multitude of sensors, and there you go - stringent hardware requirements.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by ddc_
by ddc_ on Fri 4th Mar 2016 01:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ddc_"
ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

I belive you overestimate it quite a bit. I may be wrong but:

framedrops that would go by unnoticed in a regular game, can instantly make you dizzy and motion sick in VR.

Yes, it is an important factor. Let's say it alone cuts off low-end GPUs.

Combine that with VR headsets requiring not one, but two 'displays'

These two displays are at well-known position. Basically, it is a slight increase in scene complexity, whic is in no small part remedied by reusable computation results. Proper support for dual screen setup (including different possible angle and rotation combination) would require a lot more resources.

as well as process a multitude of sensors

Now, this should be cheap in terms of computation. If any non-trivial computation is required here at all, it should be abstracted away in hardware or firmware.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by ddc_
by dpJudas on Fri 4th Mar 2016 03:32 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ddc_"
dpJudas Member since:
2009-12-10

Yes, it is an important factor. Let's say it alone cuts off low-end GPUs.

Yes, that is exactly why it can't run on Macs. ;)

Also, you do know that Quake 3 is a 17 year old title by now, right? What's next, that any computer than can run Elite from 1985 is ready for 3D? ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by ddc_
by Drumhellar on Fri 4th Mar 2016 00:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ddc_"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

It isn't a change in the rendering tech, so much as a change in requirements:

1. You have to have a minimum framerate to prevent motion sickness issues that are relate to head tracking. Any delays in motion from head tracking movements, or inconsistent framerates will cause motion sickness and vomiting all over your shirt.

2. Resolutions are fairly high in order to look good on screens located just a couple inches from the eyes.

3. Wider field of views means more geometry needs to be processed, since not as much can be ignored and tossed out before rendering.

Reply Score: 6

RE[6]: Comment by ddc_
by ddc_ on Fri 4th Mar 2016 01:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ddc_"
ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

1. You have to have a minimum framerate to prevent motion sickness issues that are relate to head tracking.

Rift has fixed 90 Hz refrash rate, which is 90 FPS rendering in worse case (if scene allows pre-rendering more then currently fits on the screen, you may end up with relatively low complexity update). Yes, it really depends on low delay, but that is not insanely high frame rate we are talking about. At the same time, you can't really move your head as fast as you move your mouse, so the difference between scenes per minute should be lower with Rift then with screen+pointer.

2. Resolutions are fairly high in order to look good on screens located just a couple inches from the eyes.

Let me see. Resolution of Rift is 2160x1200, which is a little under 1.5 of FHD or a little under ⅓ of UHD. Yes, it is fairly high, but there is already quite some dust on first FHD 3D software.

3. Wider field of views means more geometry needs to be processed, since not as much can be ignored and tossed out before rendering.

Human eye does poor job of detecting detail on the sides, so there is a lot of room for optimization. Note, Oculus is not just another set of screens - it is completely different output with its own SDK and runtime.

And again, while objective requirements of this device are higher then of common FHD screen, the most serious performance problem is basically the same: total complexity of models, total size of textures and total amount of 3D goo in the scene. I seriously doubt that well-optimized version of Quake III will have any problems running on Macs with Rift.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by ddc_
by _txf_ on Fri 4th Mar 2016 03:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ddc_"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17


Rift has fixed 90 Hz refrash rate, which is 90 FPS rendering in worse case (if scene allows pre-rendering more then currently fits on the screen, you may end up with relatively low complexity update). Yes, it really depends on low delay, but that is not insanely high frame rate we are talking about. At the same time, you can't really move your head as fast as you move your mouse, so the difference between scenes per minute should be lower with Rift then with screen+pointer.

Are you aware of how hard it is to hit that frame rate in most games at the resolution VR headsets are using?

It not only "just" has to hit it but it has to have headroom so that the minimum is 90fps.

Additionally most games will have longer render chains with buffering to compensate for things like frame rate variance. This of course, adds latency, which you do not want.

Human eye does poor job of detecting detail on the sides, so there is a lot of room for optimization. Note, Oculus is not just another set of screens - it is completely different output with its own SDK and runtime.

Nope, you need a wide FOV because otherwise it starts to feel and look worse than wearing ski goggles.

textures and total amount of 3D goo in the scene.
I seriously doubt that well-optimized version of Quake III will have any problems running on Macs with Rift.

To which one would ask, why bother if you're resorting to running extremely outdated software (or equivalent) just for the OSX version? Additionally the OpenGL in OSX is really bad in terms of performance. There is Metal, but here you're asking developers to support an API for and extremely tiny userbase.

Edited 2016-03-04 03:06 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by ddc_
by tylerdurden on Fri 4th Mar 2016 02:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ddc_"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

You think VR is a new untested tech, how cute.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by ddc_
by Soulbender on Fri 4th Mar 2016 08:39 UTC in reply to "Comment by ddc_"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Maybe my memory fails me, but back when I still played some computer games I never really had to care about minimum hardware requirements.


The PC gaming industry has ALWAYS been about the latest and greatest. Running the latest PC games was always a struggle if you didn't have the latest hardware.

Edited 2016-03-04 08:45 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by ddc_
by Johann Chua on Fri 4th Mar 2016 13:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ddc_"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Yeah, I remember having to fiddle with autoexec.bat to run DOOM on my first PC. Model M keyboard was a great controller.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by leech
by leech on Thu 3rd Mar 2016 23:58 UTC
leech
Member since:
2006-01-10

This is the same reason I don't understand why Linux has 1900 games as suppoerted on Steam and OSX has 2900. The OpenGL is old, the hardware is overpriced, and they don't have high end gaming gpus. Elite Dangerous was ported to the mac, but the expansion was not, because they don't support the shaders that are required for the planetary landings. On the other hand, why Oculus is ignoring Linux when the users are more inclined to try out new technologies is beyond me.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by leech
by Johann Chua on Fri 4th Mar 2016 09:31 UTC in reply to "Comment by leech"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Which Linux distros do you support, though? Fedora, Ubuntu/Debian, and derivatives?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by leech
by ahferroin7 on Fri 4th Mar 2016 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by leech"
ahferroin7 Member since:
2015-10-30

Officially, Steam only supports Ubuntu. That said, it's trivial to get it running on Gentoo, and it's not all that difficult to do so on Fedora. I've heard it's not too hard to get it running on Arch either. Debian is somewhat difficult due to their instance on 'stability', which really means they run old somewhat outdated software.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by leech
by jessesmith on Sat 5th Mar 2016 15:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by leech"
jessesmith Member since:
2010-03-11

Running Steam on Debian is as easy as installing it from Debian's repositories. Remember SteamOS was based on Debian, so it makes sense the Steam client would work on Debian with minimal fuss.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by leech
by judgen on Fri 4th Mar 2016 09:42 UTC in reply to "Comment by leech"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

OpenGL is NOT old, you are either a troll or a moron. OpenGL is a specification that NO hardware can do by definition (or they have failed) as it defines wishes and demands of the gaming, movie and rendering community. If a card is 100% capable of doing everytyhing in even 1.0 then no CPU is needed. To be compliant is another matter, and most are.
Vulcan has already won the developers minds and directz lost, ports to mac, linux, android, playstation and nintendo devices has won.
DX will be an afterthought and ports seems unlikely considering the xbox sales numbers.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by leech
by tylerdurden on Fri 4th Mar 2016 19:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by leech"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

The previous poster was clearly referring to the fact that the OpenGL implementation in OS is old.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by leech
by weckart on Fri 4th Mar 2016 09:59 UTC in reply to "Comment by leech"
weckart Member since:
2006-01-11

Presumably, it is a numbers game. Mac users are regularly castigated on this and other websites for overpaying for what they get. This would suggest that they are more inclined to open their wallets.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Sidux
by Sidux on Fri 4th Mar 2016 09:58 UTC
Sidux
Member since:
2015-03-10

Didn't Tim Cook say that the new Ipad Pro will replace the PC for many people?
Apple killed off their gaming division on Mac's long time ago. Instead they focus it on the professional market.
I'm pretty sure VR will come with Apple at some point as well, but not in the Mac/OSX department, just tightly integrated in iOS.

Reply Score: 2

How are any of you surprised about this?
by Spiron on Fri 4th Mar 2016 12:23 UTC
Spiron
Member since:
2011-03-08

It's a high end device that needs quite a lot of graphics power to run right, especially with the level of quality and immersion they want games running on it to have. In addition Apple hasn't got good graphics cards in their machines NOR up to date drivers for said devices. Their current max OpenGL version is OpenGL 4.1, a version that was standardised in 2010. It may be a bit of a stretch to call Mac's not "good computers" but from the point of view of someone that works with graphics for a living it's completely understandable. Apple have ignored that entire industry, and this is just the industry showing that that has hurt their prospects of getting new technologies like this.

Reply Score: 3

v much ado about nothing
by ezraz on Fri 4th Mar 2016 13:09 UTC
RE: much ado about nothing
by ssokolow on Fri 4th Mar 2016 13:21 UTC in reply to "much ado about nothing"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

it's all a distraction from the shit your life is, just admit it.


Please don't use ad hominem attacks like that. It invites people to attack you for being "that kind of person" whose idea of gaming is sports games and GTA rather than holding a constructive discussion.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: much ado about nothing
by ezraz on Fri 4th Mar 2016 14:55 UTC in reply to "RE: much ado about nothing"
ezraz Member since:
2012-06-20

i'm including myself in the slam. when i have something better to do, someone to visit, something to make, something to do, i don't play video games. i don't even think about them.

video games are useless distraction when you can't bother to do anything else. relaxation at best, although most aren't that relaxing. blowing off steam maybe.

i used a smart car to drive down the boardwalk last night, smushing nearly a hundred people before a helicopter shot my tires out and i crashed into the ocean and died. then i was respawned to go do it again. trying with a city bus this time.

gaming.

people who spend real money inside of a game? f'in crazy.


i just think of all the billions of cycles, billions of minutes, of generally intelligent people sitting inside of a video game world and it makes me sad.

a real challenge would be to work on cleaner power sources.
battery technology.
hell, cure a disease instead of playing games.

maybe in the future they will develop games that leave a positive impact on society. right now it's murder/violence, and general stupidity.

i am part of that, just a bit, and i'm calling it for what it is. a huge time waster. we each get to decide how to spend that 24 per day.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: much ado about nothing
by ssokolow on Fri 4th Mar 2016 20:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: much ado about nothing"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

In that case, it would have been better to say

it's all a distraction from the shit our lives are, just admit it.


Without non-verbal cues, you really need that extra cue that you're making a general, self-inclusive statement rather than talking down to others.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: much ado about nothing
by ezraz on Tue 8th Mar 2016 17:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: much ado about nothing"
ezraz Member since:
2012-06-20

fair enough, i'm on the fence.
i play probably 5-10 hrs of madden per week.
maybe 1 hour more per week on other games with wife.

so i don't think i'm a hardcore gamer, it's just what i do before falling asleep some nights.

i worry that i could play more than that. that i'd ignore my other hobbies, family, friends, arts, the outside world, randomness.

i've known lots of people that do play more than me. not all of them are outcasts, but many are, shall we say, challenged by the real world. i mean we all are but some of us feel more guilty about games i guess.

who knows, i can't clarify my thoughts on it. i have been playing video games my entire life but i keep a certain distance from/respect for their power. you can just forget life and play that fake game instead.

btw i threw for 470 yds and 6 touchdowns in the super bowl the other week. won by 33 points. such a major accomplishment and typing this was about the only real buzz it gave me.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by SaschaW
by SaschaW on Fri 4th Mar 2016 15:44 UTC
SaschaW
Member since:
2007-07-19

I love Apple's computers and use them for everything but gaming. That being said Apple's computers lack the graphics power you would get from building a good gaming rig. That doesn't mean those are bad or not good computers. They just don't server that type of market.

Reply Score: 2

LOL
by tylerdurden on Fri 4th Mar 2016 19:24 UTC
tylerdurden
Member since:
2009-03-17

the expensive, under performing, over hyped Apple computers aren't up to snuff for the expensive, under performing, over hyped Oculus VR gizmo.

News at 11.

Reply Score: 2

What other option do they have?
by ideasman42 on Fri 4th Mar 2016 22:44 UTC
ideasman42
Member since:
2007-07-20

All things considered, I don't think you can fault Oculus too much here.

They are attempting to make an advanced technology mainstream.
And while computers have been able to render 3D graphics on a head-set since the late 80's, having low latency and a high minimum frame-rate are going to push up the specs (assuming you care about the REALITY part of VR).

If they entered the market by giving a mediocre (or nausea inducing) experience... it wouldn't be well received. Further if they started out supporting low-end graphics... it also wouldn't be so appealing.

So - as with many new technologies - the first version will push the specs, some people will grumble, a year or 2 later computers will either support it... or VR will remain a technology for a minority of users.

And Oculus really _are_ putting the bar too high WRT hardware specs - let the market sort it out, I'm sure there will be lower end competition eventually.

Edited 2016-03-04 22:47 UTC

Reply Score: 3

I call BS on that.
by bram on Sun 6th Mar 2016 17:12 UTC
bram
Member since:
2009-04-03

Right, Oculus can make a Samsung phone do VR without a problem in the GearVR product.

But a Mac won't do?

If a phone can do VR, then so can a Mac Mini.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I call BS on that.
by unclefester on Mon 7th Mar 2016 04:25 UTC in reply to "I call BS on that."
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Right, Oculus can make a Samsung phone do VR without a problem in the GearVR product.

But a Mac won't do?

If a phone can do VR, then so can a Mac Mini.


The Oculus is far more sophisticated and powerful than the Gear VR.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I call BS on that.
by tylerdurden on Mon 7th Mar 2016 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE: I call BS on that."
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

There is not really that much to the Oculus. Most of the heavy lifting is done by the PC.

Having had experienced VR systems before, the Oculus really is not that impressive or significant. Their main value proposition was supposed to be the low cost of entry, and they haven't even been able to deliver on that front. It's the never overhyped startup.

Reply Score: 2