cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Why is it that they over spec VR Games ?

Umpa_PC
Rising Star
So like The Walking Dead: Saints and sinners, massive specced game, i7 GTX1070 16GB - bla bla bla.  With specs like that you would not think it would even start let alone run OK on my system, but it does - it runs very well in fact.  Now sure everything is on low, but the graphics are stunning still. Game play is smooth as silk, no stuttering at all.  Made the hairs on my neck and arms stand up when I was playing it - lol.

Now I realise, they want you to have the best experience and I am sure many people want that - I am happy with an OK experience running on my 'its OK' computer.  I nearly did not bother because of the posted specs, and did not want the hassle of getting a refund - but boy I am glad I took the risk.

Every VR game I have downloaded from the O store has worked great for me.  If your on a low spec machine like me, how do you find performance ?
Oculus Rift S - Oculus Quest 128GB
MSI trident 3 7RB-200UK Intel Core i5-7400 3 Ghz x2
MSI GTX 1050 Ti (4GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1060 OC (6GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1070 OC 8GB
16 GB RAM x2, 1TB HDD x2, 1TB SSD x2
Windows 10 Home Edition Version 10.0.18363 Build 18363, Oculus version 17, Quest Version 17
Fan Cooling by Zotac FireStorm - AfterBurner cause me problems.
28 REPLIES 28

bigmike20vt
Visionary



RuneSR2 said:


Umpa_PC said:

So like The Walking Dead: Saints and sinners, massive specced game, i7 GTX1070 16GB - bla bla bla.  With specs like that you would not think it would even start let alone run OK on my system, but it does - it runs very well in fact.  Now sure everything is on low, but the graphics are stunning still. Game play is smooth as silk, no stuttering at all.  Made the hairs on my neck and arms stand up when I was playing it - lol.

Now I realise, they want you to have the best experience and I am sure many people want that - I am happy with an OK experience running on my 'its OK' computer.  I nearly did not bother because of the posted specs, and did not want the hassle of getting a refund - but boy I am glad I took the risk.

Every VR game I have downloaded from the O store has worked great for me.  If your on a low spec machine like me, how do you find performance ?



Devs also normally target 90 fps. Using asw 2.0 you can play just fine using 45 fps in games with native Oculus driver support - like Saints and Sinners. This basically means you can get an awesome experience using hardware that provides 50% of the speed provided by the recommended hardware. Awesome right? But that's thanks to Oculus - using non-Oculus hmds you need those 90 fps. 



I thought other HMD's have their own version of ASW? Or is that not the case?

Or do they have it, but it doesn't work as well for some reason?



I am almost certain SteamVR only have an equivalent to Asynchronous Time Warp,

Asynchronous Space warp I dont think it has an equivalent and certainly no one has an equivalent to the fantastic ASW2.0

it is the part of VR which is so so important that many people just write off.  "Some" people will tell you till they are blue that oculus are rubbish because of their HMD specs, but that is only half of the equation.

oculus are industry leading when it comes to the software powering these things...... (and that is why I am sticking with oculus at least for now)

Back to OP, the thing with VR on top of all the above, is, unlike flat screen games where a few stutters dont really matter...... stutters in VR can make you physically ill....... Developers therefore quite sensibly play it safe with the numbers..... reviewers can then be the ones to try on weaker hardware and spread the news if it runs on lesser machines.
Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR 🙂

OmegaM4N
Expert Trustee
VR is already a heavy load for pc's, but also the gaming industry standard of any lack of optimisation is usually the main factor in todays gaming industry going nuts with high requirements, because for a long time now they no longer bug test or optimises games anymore as they did in the past, they just stick a high spec requirment and hope brute force fixes most of their games problems, plus with the added bonus for them grabbing that money as quick as possible.
CV1/Vive-knuckles)/Dell Vr Visor/Go/Quest II/ PSVR.

Nekto2
Superstar
May be developers like to show best quality for their games?
If you set low settings you could post bad reviews on quality and overall impression. 😉

Comic_Book_Guy
Superstar

Umpa_PC said:

So like The Walking Dead: Saints and sinners, massive specced game, i7 GTX1070 16GB - bla bla bla.  With specs like that you would not think it would even start let alone run OK on my system, but it does - it runs very well in fact.  Now sure everything is on low, but the graphics are stunning still. Game play is smooth as silk, no stuttering at all.  Made the hairs on my neck and arms stand up when I was playing it - lol.

Now I realise, they want you to have the best experience and I am sure many people want that - I am happy with an OK experience running on my 'its OK' computer.  I nearly did not bother because of the posted specs, and did not want the hassle of getting a refund - but boy I am glad I took the risk.

Every VR game I have downloaded from the O store has worked great for me.  If your on a low spec machine like me, how do you find performance ?


A 1050ti is not going to give you anything but a baseline experience, if you're lucky. No super sampling, no high settings, and you will use lots of ASW. You don't seem to mind this, great, but it's the explanation you're after. Other people mind. A lot.

Umpa_PC
Rising Star



Umpa_PC said:

So like The Walking Dead: Saints and sinners, massive specced game, i7 GTX1070 16GB - bla bla bla.  With specs like that you would not think it would even start let alone run OK on my system, but it does - it runs very well in fact.  Now sure everything is on low, but the graphics are stunning still. Game play is smooth as silk, no stuttering at all.  Made the hairs on my neck and arms stand up when I was playing it - lol.

Now I realise, they want you to have the best experience and I am sure many people want that - I am happy with an OK experience running on my 'its OK' computer.  I nearly did not bother because of the posted specs, and did not want the hassle of getting a refund - but boy I am glad I took the risk.

Every VR game I have downloaded from the O store has worked great for me.  If your on a low spec machine like me, how do you find performance ?


A 1050ti is not going to give you anything but a baseline experience, if you're lucky. No super sampling, no high settings, and you will use lots of ASW. You don't seem to mind this, great, but it's the explanation you're after. Other people mind. A lot.


I think you will find it takes a lot of extra power to produce not a lot of extra visuals (as you should already know).  The whole point is that your 'baseline' is good enough for most people and should be reflected in the advertised specs IMO.  Otherwise it just goes to re-enforce the idea that VR is only for the rich, or people who have their money priorities wrong.
Oculus Rift S - Oculus Quest 128GB
MSI trident 3 7RB-200UK Intel Core i5-7400 3 Ghz x2
MSI GTX 1050 Ti (4GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1060 OC (6GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1070 OC 8GB
16 GB RAM x2, 1TB HDD x2, 1TB SSD x2
Windows 10 Home Edition Version 10.0.18363 Build 18363, Oculus version 17, Quest Version 17
Fan Cooling by Zotac FireStorm - AfterBurner cause me problems.

Ray_Sover
Expert Protege

Umpa_PC said:
I think you will find it takes a lot of extra power to produce not a lot of extra visuals (as you should already know).
Firstly, the gains of using something like a GTX 1070 or AMD Vega 56 as recommended for this particular game will be significant in terms of visuals and minimum frame rate unless it's been coded very badly. The same applies to every other one of the 200+ pancake and VR games in my libraries, so there's no reason to assume that it won't also apply to this one.

Secondly, it's stated as a recommendation, not a requirement. The recommendations will be a guide as to the hardware required to make the most of the game. Anything less will be a compromise. If a person is happy to make that compromise, that's fine. If they're not, that's fine too. Suggesting that it's not going to make much difference is just plain wrong.

The usual culprits in terms of eating up GPU clock cycles are environment mapping, reflections, shadows and advanced lighting. I've yet to see a game where sacrificing these to any degree doesn't make a visually noticeable difference. Will it matter to everyone? No. But it matters to those of us who want to see a game creator's efforts in all their glory.

Even with a heavily overclocked Sapphire Pulse RX Vega 56, I still have to turn down the graphics settings in some games if I want to apply enough antialiasing to adequately remove jaggies whilst maintaining a minimum frame rate of 80Hz for full immersion, so there's clearly a need for even faster graphics cards for those who want the full experience.

On the subject of people having their money priorities wrong, it could be equally argued that anyone buying a gaming PC when a console can also play games is wasting their money and that a PS4 with a PSVR HMD should be more than enough of a VR experience for anyone. Once again, that's their choice, but it's a factually incorrect statement.

We all have our own unique set of expectations when it comes to gaming, and it's up to the individual to decide how much they're willing to spend to achieve their idea of gaming nirvana.
Intel i7-6700K OCed to 4.7GHz (all cores) @ 1.37V with Corsair Hydro H60 Rev.2 liquid cooling | Sapphire Pulse RX Vega 56 OCed to 1.7GHz boost clock @ 1.05V | 16GB (2x 8GB) HyperX Predator DDR4-3333 CL16 RAM | Gigabyte GA-Z170-Gaming K3 motherboard | Win10 Pro 64-bit on 500GB Samsung 970 EVO Plus M.2 NVMe SSD on PCIe3.0 x4 | Corsair RM750x PSU | Oculus Rift S

Anonymous
Not applicable

OmegaM4N said:

VR is already a heavy load for pc's, but also the gaming industry standard of any lack of optimisation is usually the main factor in todays gaming industry going nuts with high requirements, because for a long time now they no longer bug test or optimises games anymore as they did in the past, they just stick a high spec requirment and hope brute force fixes most of their games problems, plus with the added bonus for them grabbing that money as quick as possible.


I would argue that games are not made the same way anymore and that it would double the price of games if all software is going to be 100% optimizes for all hardware out there. Today's games are also 100 times bigger and better than the games of the past and over all do require more power than ever before. Thus, to test - debug - and improve would be nearly impossible. Even older games still had bugs - but that their simple design just had hide their design flaws from the user. I recommend looking at some speed runner videos and then getting back with me how older games didn't have any bugs.

I always pointed out - would you pay 120$ for a game that would've went for 60$ if it meant only a 15% better performance? Because - optimizing code - doesn't net you 100% of anything - its usually closer to only 5-15% code wise. You can look at most driver updates to see what I mean there. And if you break that down - that's only another 15 FPS if you hit 100FPS already.

Umpa_PC
Rising Star
Ray_Sover
I don't disagree with all what you have said...  but I do think you have missed the point (and that is my fault).
Unless your running on a 1050ti, you wont know how well it does run ! - anyone with a 1050ti like myself will likely be impressed with how well VR does run on it - given the high 'recommended specs' of most of the games.

What I am trying to get across - and have obviously failed to do  - is that you can get a very good gaming experience on low-end hardware in VR, and because I don't see a minimum spec for the game (Saints and sinners), it was a gamble as to whether it would run given the offered spec is so high.  So that's what I am getting at, not the specs to actually run the game, but the high specs advertised to play it.

Having it look a bit more pretty is not top of the list for someone a low end gaming machine, as they want to know if it will run and play - thus I can see why you written what you have.  I feel you need to know that whilst the quality of the grafix might not be as good as yours, it might surprise you to know they still look very good, and most people would not spend the hundreds or even 1000's to get a few shadows and a bit more colour.  The frame rate on a 1050Ti is fine by the way.

Looking back at the original title it should have read "Why is it they over spec VR games when advertising them'
that's what I meant to say, but looking back I see why the thread has gone off on a tangent.

Now some games do have a minimum spec but not all & I don't see one for this game. I guess the more games that run at an advertised lower spec, might well sell more headsets coz it there is a doubt people won't buy them if they think it wont run.

Basically to boil it down - all the VR games I have including saints and sinners run fine on a 1050Ti,  and to advertise  the minimum spec is just as important as advertising a recommended spec and I don't understand why they did not bother.
Oculus Rift S - Oculus Quest 128GB
MSI trident 3 7RB-200UK Intel Core i5-7400 3 Ghz x2
MSI GTX 1050 Ti (4GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1060 OC (6GB) & MSI Aero GTX 1070 OC 8GB
16 GB RAM x2, 1TB HDD x2, 1TB SSD x2
Windows 10 Home Edition Version 10.0.18363 Build 18363, Oculus version 17, Quest Version 17
Fan Cooling by Zotac FireStorm - AfterBurner cause me problems.

Comic_Book_Guy
Superstar

Umpa_PC said

I think you will find it takes a lot of extra power to produce not a lot of extra visuals (as you should already know).  The whole point is that your 'baseline' is good enough for most people and should be reflected in the advertised specs IMO.  Otherwise it just goes to re-enforce the idea that VR is only for the rich, or people who have their money priorities wrong.


I mean...what ever helps you sleep at night. I'm not sure you understand medium settings vs high settings, or what super sampling does. Lighting, shadows, draw distance, environmental detail......ya, those all matter to a lot of people. You may be satisfied with what you got, great,  but what I don't understand is why this is hard for you. Your last sentence is a particular head scratcher. They specifically have reduced quality settings available for people like you who can seemingly barely afford VR. That's precisely what it's for, to get more people in the door. Here you are asking why. It makes no sense.

And contrary to what you think I should " probably know",  higher settings and super sampling is in fact a " a lot of extra visuals" generally,  vs what you're experiencing. Sorry, it just is. Do you wish it wasn't so? Are you jealous? upset about it? I seriously don't understand your mindset.

Anonymous
Not applicable
OP, you're right! I run on a GTX 1050 laptop (not even a Ti), and the VR experience is far from bad. Some updates do make it awful sometimes though, but apparently it's also the case for high-specs devices, lol. I could even use Super Sampling in some apps before certain updates came and made me turn it off, but even today I still use VR almost daily without much lags (granted, I haven't tried recent demanding games).
VR is demanding, it's true ; but it's not that demanding. Sadly, many developers over spec their games regardless.

(On a side note, your point did come through. But people who run on high-specs usually don't understand what we're talking about since, well, they're not on low-specs, xD)