Oculus is slowly drip feeding information about the forthcoming consumer launch of the Rift, the so-called CV1. Today the company has revealed the recommended system specifications for users who hope to own the device and confirmed the resolution of the device’s dual displays.

In a post on the company’s official blog, Oculus recommends the following for the “full Rift experience” when the headset ships in Q1 2016:

  • NVIDIA GTX 970 / AMD 290 equivalent or greater
  • Intel i5-4590 equivalent or greater
  • 8GB+ RAM
  • Compatible HDMI 1.3 video output
  • 2x USB 3.0 ports
  • Windows 7 SP1 or newer

“The goal is for all Rift games and applications to deliver a great experience on this configuration. Ultimately, we believe this will be fundamental to VR’s success, as developers can optimize and tune their game for a known specification, consistently achieving presence and simplifying development,” the company says.

Oculus is working on several of its own first-party titles which are apparently being targeted to this configuration.

“All of the games and applications for the Rift created by Oculus will provide an incredible experience on this system,” says the company.

See Also: Oculus Announce Consumer ‘Oculus Rift’ Release Date as Q1 2016

Oculus Chief Architect, Atman Binstock, has a technical writeup explaining the decisions behind these recommended specs.

SEE ALSO
NBA & NextVR Announce 2018-19 VR Livestream Lineup

“Given the challenges around VR graphics performance, the Rift will have a recommended specification to ensure that developers can optimize for a known hardware configuration, which ensures a better player experience of comfortable sustained presence,” he writes.

In the writeup, Binstock confirms the Oculus Rift CV1 resolution:

“…the Rift runs at 2160×1200 at 90Hz split over dual displays, consuming 233 million pixels per second.”

While he surely could be speaking of the Rift Crescent Bay prototype, the post goes on to conclude that “Taking all of this into account, our recommended hardware specification is designed to help developers tackle these challenges and ship great content to all [consumer] Rift users.”

While minimum system requirements may not seem very exciting to the passerby, they’re actually a big deal for Oculus developers as there’s now a solid target specification at which to aim. Enthusiasts and early adopters as well no longer need to guess which specs to upgrade to if they want to be ready for the Oculus Rift.

It also gives a good ballpark for the cost of the hardware that will be required for the first Oculus VR experiences (one that will surely drop as we approach the headset’s Q1 2016 launch). You can find a pre-built gaming computer that meets or exceeds these specs around $1,200, or even cheaper if you’re willing to build your own.

oculus-rift-cv1-headstrap back plate

And last but not least, a (small) photo attached to the blog post shows the redesigned back headstrap of the CV1. On the prior Crescent Bay prototype, the back plate contained IR LEDs for the Rift’s positional tracking, though it didn’t have a triangular cutout as shown in the photo. It’s presumed that the IR LEDs are now hidden under the Rift’s plastic shell (as we saw when Oculus moved from the earlier ‘Crystal Cove’ prototype to the then-new DK2).

SEE ALSO
Oculus Just Made It Easier to Screencast Mobile VR Sessions to Your Phone

See Also: Oculus Rift CV1 High Res Photos Suggest a Lighter, More Comfortable Headset

This article may contain affiliate links. If you click an affiliate link and buy a product we may receive a small commission which helps support the publication. See here for more information.


  • WadeWatts

    Yeah baby! That is a nice base configuration and I happen to have a GTX 970 in my development rig so that all checks out. I have the Intel i7 and 16GB RAM but it would be easy to build this exact spec for development. Thank you Oculus!

  • mellott124

    So I’m reading dual 1080×1200 displays? That’s disappointing. Was really hoping for that Note 5 display rumored to be 3840 wide. And not that much better than DK2 at split 960×1080.

    “…the Rift runs at 2160×1200 at 90Hz split over dual displays, consuming 233 million pixels per second.”

    • Don Gateley

      I totally agree and since my main interest is non-gaming 3D video I want cinema level resolution. I was rather hoping they’d surprise us, but alas. I’ll definitely be waiting to see what the note 5 has to offer before taking any plunge.

      • SuperDre

        But the Oculus Rift was never meant for 3D video only, it was meant for VR…. So you aren’t the consumer this product is actually for.. 3D video headsets are nothing new…

    • davo01

      Wow, Palmer Luckey realy missed the boat on this one. With an open mind I had the chance to try out a DK2 for a week and concluded VR is definatly somthing but the resolution needs to be at least double for it to be somthing I’d use regularly basis especially for watching movies. To think weve had 1080p capable displays around for almoast 10 years now and this device straped to your head will only be 1 notch higher than that.. I atleast hoped they would release 2 models of the CV1, 1 for all these whining bitches complaining about their pocket money and then a high spec unit for enthusiasts willing to pay whatever it costs for a high end VR experience. Looks like were all stuck with recycled cell phone parts for now. Cheers Mark Zuckerberg

      • SuperDre

        When has Palmer actually said anything lately, I haven’t seen him in public for a long time already.. All publicity is done by other people these days…

        • davo01

          I think its because of his acid reflux problem. Always burping like he’s just finished a burrito.. Doesn’t make a good public speaker

          • rangry

            Acid reflux means he has alot of psychological stress.. young people as Palmer is are not likely to having acid reflux.. that’s for people 50+.. maybe he’s stressed because he could not make Oculus as he would like it. Maybe they knew about how awesome would the HTC Vive be in comparison to Oculus…so lol

  • SuperDre

    To be honest, I understand the ‘lower’ displays, but this actually means the GearVR with a galaxy S6 has a higher resolution (hell even the first GearVR) as the CV1, and with much slower rendering hardware..
    It’s the same as the HTC Vive now, so it will have a hell of a time to compete with that one especially if it’s released a few months earlier (let’s not forget, Q1 can mean by the end of march 2016, and in low quantities like the original release of the DK1 and DK2). So unless it’s really much better than the Vive or way less expensive, I’m thinking Oculus will have quite a problem…

    • why06

      After using the DK2, it is my opinion that resolution is important, but in many situations is not as important as refresh rate, tracking, and comfort. The one situation where resolution really matters is reading text in games. I had trouble in Elite Dangerous reading some menus, with the DK2 resolution. If the CV1 is significantly less expensive I would go for that while I wait for technology to improve. The most important thing is to get zero-lag while in VR. Even if I had a 4k headset I would never crank it up that high. Not saying which one I would buy yet, as neither has been released, but that resolution would not be my sole concern.

  • octopusrift

    It’s smart to standardize the experience but I can see this setup quickly becoming the minimum requirements for many games.
    http://www.octopusrift.com/building-the-rift-pc/

  • rangry

    My blood is boiling… I was waiting how many years for that resolution? What the heck… I don’t play games.. I can get as many graphic cards as I want to power the resolution I need… I’m in it for the experience not some stupid games and their requirements which losers can’t afford.

    I want to view high-res light-fields (Otoy), high-res 3d stereoscopic videos, do 3d modelling in Zbrush with it, create great rendered panoramas and light-fields.. do freaking amazing art with it … this is seriously such a letdown… screw this I’m buying S6 (just ordered it) and i’m going for GearVR.

    Thanks Suckulus!

    • rangry

      update: this is the first time in my life I’m behaving as a little spoiled brat because of any technology.. just threw my DK2 and stomped it…. I never even threw a cellphone in a fit let alone any deice… guess VR just rocks my boat…

      • deprecatedcoder

        Honestly dude, you need to reevaluate your life.

        • rangry

          because of one product and onej deed? naaah braah… I waited long enough… finally got to do what the spoiled people do.. let me have my evening of fun .. a letdown is a letdown

      • LordGourd

        maybe because you are in fact a spoiled brat?

    • Don Gateley

      I understand a subset of your anger. You aren’t the market that the Rift is going after, it is now clear. I’m with you on wanting more of a fine 3D display device than a highly responsive gaming device and realize the Rift path won’t be the one I’ll take. Waiting to see what the Note 5 with Gear VR offers in that regard. I am willing to continue to wait for something that truly fulfills my need. I hate buyers remorse. :-)

      I think this lower resolution is a function of the processing power available at this time more than the display technology. Gaming sucks cycles big time as it is and rendering 4 times as many dynamically calculated pixels may be well beyond what can be done right now.

      • rangry

        they could have come up with some uprezing trick for the lame gamers… hires screen but uprezed lowres signal… but the thing is I already have 3 titans in my basic desktop rig (I do rendering with GPU renderers) so I wasn’t afraid of doing 4k at all .. man this is beyond lame… Palmer said it will be the best for the money.. Vive is the same and even has nifty inputs and great tracking… I still can’t believe this crap

        • SuperDre

          Yeah, but how many consumers do have 3 titans in their PC, hell even 1..
          It’s not the few people who have ubersetup’s they have to think about, it’s the mainstream people..
          And they already know they will do another one after CV1 with a higher resolution, but at the moment those needed displays aren’t affordable in the headset which will be for the mainstream and ‘low pricing’.. those current 4K screens propably aren’t low latency and are still very expensive even in bulk, and what’s the use, almost nobody has the money to invest in GPU’s to be able to drive that resolution, so it’s a waste of time and effort to put such displays into a first consumer release..
          Let’s not forget, this is meant for the main consumer, and even with the current resolution the CV1 will be, it still won’t be for a lot of consumers because the needed GPU is too expensive..

          Try not to be a dumbass and only think about your self, you can always go for 3D glasses for modelling..

          • rangry

            nobody or nobodies? get your facts straight!

          • SuperDre

            you really are a nobody………

    • davo01

      Mate 1080×1200… What a fizzer. Why would I buy this when I have a crystal clear 4k monitor?

  • VRMatthew

    I am surprised the final resolution is not as least as high as the Note 4 / S6 display. Why not actually? What is going on? Samsung not providing higher end displays to Oculus and Valve? I even think the resolution on the Note 4 is still a problem but a step in the right direction. 1440 x 2560 pixels for the CV1 should have been the minimum display. I wonder what Oculus knows that we do not know. Perhaps they recognize the weakest link in the technology chain and know, the above PC specs cannot drive anymore resolution without comprimizing presence for the next year or two when the tech is here. With Moore’s Law heading towards chips as powerful as our brains by 2020, I am pretty sure VR and AR amoung many other industries like robotics and 3D printing are going to see explosive growth over the next decade and beyond. The power of exponential growth.

    VRMatthew

    • Pessimistic observer

      Moore’s law is operated. In terms of theoretical performance we still see incredible gains every few years in regards to cpus and gpus. However in terms of what users see in every day performance things like ssds and better broadband have mattered more for years.

    • davo01

      It’s because facebook bought them. They had a marketing meeting and all decided to produce a rift the average computer can run. That way 12 year old girls can use it to gossip with their friends in a Facebook VR chat room. I wouldnt rely on Oculus for a high end VR headset just yet. There will be a third party company bring somthing out after the first ones are released

      • SuperDre

        uhh, maybe you should read up on the original kickstarter page, it has ALWAYS been their plan to create a VR headset for the average computer/consumer.. So get you facts straight.. And they never said they were going for a highend headset, and with that, hell they are even a highend headset, because there isn’t any other headset out there which has a higher resolution (maybe in labs and costing $10K and up)..

        • davo01

          Ahh but that’s not true. Watch Nate Mitchel announce the CV1 at distrupt New York. He states over and over that the rift will be a hi end VR experience designed for gamers

  • Peter73

    I have DK2 and love it but resolution is terrible. If we get 4K panel rendered in 1080p it would be way better, and You don’t need nothing more then gtx970. After Facebook acquisition Oculus can afford custom OLED panels. When the economy of scale kicks in I presume it will be maybe $100 more expensive than the current screen. I would gladly pay $100-$200 more for Oculus with better screen. Why won’t they do 2 versions? (one with HD screen and one with 4K). Picture would be upscaled 4 times to fill 4K screen and rendering cost will be very minimal or nonexistent, and cheaper HD version just render normally as it is right now.

    • alxslr

      They will do and sell 2 versions, indeed. One in 2016 and the other one in 2017. And many of us early adopters us will buy them both. It’s clever.

    • SuperDre

      They won’t do 2 versions as they will already have enough trouble getting the one version out the door.. And you are really closeminded, yes YOU might be willing to pay $100 more for 4K screens, but most people won’t.. And to be honest, I don’t think the resolution of the DK2 is terrible..

      Having 2 different models is way much more trouble to support than 1 model on release and another one year down the line.. Let’s also not forget GPU’s are not powerfull enough to drive a 4K screen (with the visuals you are expecting, otherwise you wouldn’t even bitch about the DK2 resolution), not this year nor next year..
      And even as an owner of a DK2 and looking at the required specs of a GTX970, I’m not gonna buy a CV1 on release because I don’t want to fork out 300 euro’s to upgrade my GTX760 which already cost me 230 euro’s 1.5 year ago.. Only if the CV1 is much MUCH cheaper than what I’ve paid for the DK2 (around 460 euro’s including shipping and taxes) I might consider it..

      Also there are enough techniques to get rid of the screendoor effect without having to use a higher resolution screen..

      • Peter73

        You missing the point. The reason for two versions would be same as with everything else. You want to have CV-1, You buy CV-1. You want to have premium expirience (almost non existence of screen door effect) then You get premium product (say for $100-$200 more).
        My point is that with specification given today by oculus (GTX970) one can easy push the 4K screen (as easy as 2160×1200) if You quadruple HD resolution to much 4K screen.
        GTX970 will only do 1080p res (or so) and upscaling is not taxing on 4K because you render only quarter the resolution, but in 4K You don’t see screen door effect, that is very very annoying in DK-2 (or I assume 2160×1200)

        • SuperDre

          I’m not missing the point, having 2 separate units on release is just unfeasible, there is no point for them to have to support 2 different devices on release (and also support GearVR).
          It has nothing to do with being able to upscale to 4K, and the screendoor effect WILL propably be still present (as you can already read from Vive handon’s), but it shouldn’t be a problem unless you are really just staring blindly at it and not even try to get into the game/experience itself.. Yes no screendoor would be nice, but it certainly isn’t a showstopper (except for some snobbish people)..
          And if that is a problem for you, then you’ll just have to wait a year or 2, but to be honest, you aren’t serious about VR if you are staring blindly at the resolution..

          • davo01

            I don’t get all the hype about graphics cards needed to run 4k and VR? Im running a 4k 40″ monitor at 60hz on a single gtx 980 and it and it runs perfectly. It looks so good it would be hard for me to justify buying a CV1 running at that low res

          • SuperDre

            oh great, comparing a 2D fixed screen to a headmounted device… And I’m pretty sure you won’t be playing battlefield 4 in ultramode on that 4K screen in anything above 30fps.. Yes, it’s great to have a resolution like that in ‘windows’, but I bet you have increased the fontsize so it actually is just the same as running the same on a lower resolution screen…..

          • Peter73

            Having 2 separate units on release is just unfeasible? for company that have $2B and backing of company that have $100B. Are You try to be funny?

      • davo01

        Bullshit. I have a 4k monitor running perfectly on high settings with a single GTX 980

      • davo01

        Confirmed, You are a full of shit cheap cunt

        • Don Gateley

          Please ban this individual, davo01, from posting on Road to VR.

  • alxslr

    They want mass adoption. Asus GTX 970 is $340 in Amazon. GTX 980 is $555, the price of a small computer, too much for their plans, and there are many more 970 installed already. A higher resolution would have probably forced a GTX 980 requeriment to take full advantage of it, and just for scaling they’ve considered is not worth the extra requeriment cost. I think that’s the logic behind.

    • alxslr

      So, after the shock I can say I can understand… but still me to I’m sooooo disapointed :-(

  • alxslr

    I have and old card so I was wating for this anounce to buy a new one because I need a standard specifications unit for making accurate Oculus development testsing with my DK2. So today my 560ti has suddennly died, and since the week was ending and no news from Oculus specifications, and Nvidia had talked this week about a 980 recomendation, I have bought one (980) online this morning. And now finally the oficial spec arrives :-|
    So I’m returning my new 980 that I have not received yet for a 970. Why did she have to dy precissely today? Couldn’t she just wait one more day?

  • sibbo

    oculus wouldnt delay so long to release the cv1 unless it felt they had hit the sweet spot of resolution and realistic power requirements. I love my dk2 even without the CV1 improvements the extra bump in resolution will be great. Now people know they need at least a 970 for the full experience, they will sell more and prices will start tumbling. In the next 9 months before release nvidia/amd can start getting agressive on price. This time next year a 970 and an i5 will be standard issue and VR can finally take off and break into the mass culture.

  • qmox

    One Galaxy Note 4 display cost – 66.5 USd – thats resolution 2560 – 1440 . Now two displays would be more costly but given the fact oculus is planning to sell these in Q1 it can very well be samsung will make them pay following way.

    In Q1 / 2016 it can be reasonably assumed Samsung will have 4K sub 6inch displays and those will be in the either Note5 or Galaxy S7 . Once that happen all what samsung needs to do is allow cable connection with between their GearVR and PC + improve on lenses from oculus cv1.

    The fact is there were rumors that Samsung wants to make possible connecting future version gearVR to pc as one more pull for people to buy their note 5/ s7 . If thats happen why should I buy rift cv1 with screen when there would be more universal device which I could use either for standalone mobile VR experience or as PC peripheral?

    I have gearVR and note 4 and let me tell you even at 2560×1440 resolution pixels are clearly visible. I hoped given the Q1 launch that it will be at least full HD per Eye with better optics but this is disappointing on so many levels .

  • thePhi

    1080*1200? Welcome to 90’s gaming. VR doesn’t seem to be mature enough apparently…
    I don’t see how hardcore gamers (because mainstream players don’t buy $1,200 rigs) will be satisfy with it, after the first weeks of wonder (I know, I had the DK2).

  • Wmerr21

    Could it be possible that Oculus has managed to reduce the screen door effect and increase the image quality without needing to bump up the raw pixel density?
    Unless they have reduced the screen resolution since the crescent bay protoype (which I can’t really think of a good reason why they would unless they are really trying to reduce costs), I had the impression from hands-on-review by Paul James in 2014 that the resolution appeared to be 1440p or higher, with a much reduced screen door effect:
    https://www.roadtovr.com/hands-on-oculus-rift-crescent-bay-prototype/

  • augure

    So the Oculus is bound to fail. The ONLY reason there was to wait for the CV1 was for a better resolution, gesture and motion tracking, single cable tethering etc…

    Instead, we are really waiting 9 months for an almost year old Crescent Bay version…

    Consumers will NEVER pick-up such a product.

    • SuperDre

      The CV1 isn’t the crescent bay version (it’s slightly better), and without content (which was, and still is not very much) the (or any other) headset won’t be bought anyway..

      Also consumers will pick up such a product, because what you write as reasons to wait are only your own expectations and not that of regular consumers..

      • augure

        Part of my job is consumer analytics and forecasting. I don’t have any expectations on these topics.

        I repeat, consumers WILL NOT pay for a device at this price that has not a clear enough image, that is not untethered or the less possible, and most importantly, doesn’t have hand tracking.

        In fact, not having hand tracking is a conceptual non-sense for Virtual Reality.

        • SuperDre

          I guess you are bad at your job than, because everything you wrote as needed aren’t any of the things that a lot of consumers expect (handtracking build into a helmet? you really expect that?)

          Sorry but as I said, everything you mention is not something a common consumer is ‘waiting’ for… I do expect Oculus to ship a lot of units, at least the same ammount of units as they did with the DK2 (and even much more)..

  • DoctorBambi

    As someone who has tried both the DK1 and DK2 fairly extensively and whom owns a google cardboard headset that I use almost every day. I’m kind of surprised at all the upset comments here. Sure, the specs are a little underwhelming, but this is about setting a standard for VR experiences. What do you NEED to have a great VR experience? I would say no one is in a better position to answer that question than Oculus. At the end of the day when you’re sitting at your computer desk about to enter virtual worlds full of exciting new experiences, none of the specs will matter. There will be you and a moment. This headset will define THE virtual reality experience. There will be headsets that are better, worse, and different. But CV1 will be the standard against which they are all compared.

    • sibbo

      I agree. Oculus are releasing what they feel is the standard required to achieve the presence needed to immerse you in VR. If they get it right you will not be aware of looking at a panel whatever the resolution because you won’t notice it. I look past the issues the dk2 has and enjoy the experiences for what they are … awesome.

      cv1 will have better resolution, better optics, 3d sound, lighter, more comfort, better support, lower latency etc. Whats not to look forward too? VR will be here to stay.

      • Don Gateley

        When you can’t read the text and signage on that panel unless it’s child sized you’ll notice.

  • Curtrock

    There is magic in the VR experience. Period. Remember the 1st time you put on a DK1, and your mind was blown? Then there was HD, Crystal Cove, Crescent Bay, and finally there will be DK1. It will absolutely be good enough for the mass adoption. The verbal masturbation of tech heads debating specs will always be available to indulge in, but the debate about whether Oculus knows what they are doing, will thankfully be over.

    • Curtrock

      meant to say ” and finally there will be CV1″

      • Curtrock

        Holy mistakes batman, 3rd try….”HD, Crystal Cove, DK2, Crescent Bay, and finally CV1″

    • davo01

      Your right. At first it will be amazing, Then it will end up in a box in your cupboard with the old Sega master system. Oculus promised a breakthrough VR headset and this thing their releasing will only be a notch better than the development kits. No breakthrough technology included just recycled cell phone parts and a pair of lenses

      • SuperDre

        The CV1 is a breakthrough VR headset when it comes out compares to what was on the market before they started their kickstarter campaign.. It’s a breakthrough when it comes to price for instance.. Yes it isn’t a breakthrough compared to the devkits, but those are devkits which aren’t consumer products…

  • Curtrock

    “Recycled cell phone parts & a pair of lenses”. Yes, and human beings are bags of mostly water. See? You can make anything sound boring & mundane. :)

  • crim3

    Can’t you really trust a team of geniuses fully dedicated for several years now to create the best possible VR HMD at consumer level price? Is *everybody* around the globe suddenly experts in this kind of hardware? Maybe we are too used to obtain whatever we desire with a snap of the fingers.
    Those superior beings not interested in gaming but in high-res light-fields have always had available several HMD’s with outstanding specs for just a few tens of thousands that any non-loser can surely easily afford.
    I don’t know what this kind of users will do after 5 minutes of staring at a beautiful scene, though.
    We are far from the days of putting generic lenses in front of a generic display all paired with a slightly customized generic 3DOF motion tracker. This is all now finely developed specific hardware and software.

    • Don Gateley

      The word isn’t “superior”, it’s “evolved.” :-)

      Seriously those of us with that point of view generally realize that today’s low resolution display devices will remain in narrow niches. That to get the kind of content that this tech has the potential for requires a much wider audience to justify spending into it and that requires _much_ better graphic detail.

      You don’t know what such losers will do after 5 minutes of staring? They will begin moving around in it and exploring it, of course, but that won’t be sufficiently compelling at today’s resolution to attract the general user and the bucks on their credit card. The content industry needs those bucks to motivate and fund its maturation.

      It’s pretty clear that you are deeply in the niche so none of this much matters to you.

      • davo01

        Nice to see someone talking sense here Don. There’s a lot of people claiming how great the CV1 is before it’s even been released. I don’t like to be negative but the fact is it’s impossible to get a clear image with 1080 x 1200 displays looking through lenses. With an open mind I had a chance to try the gear VR S6 yesterday, The resolution was so low I didn’t even bother trying it for more than 1 minute. I dread to think the amount of people who are about to waste $200 on that device which is no more than a glorified google cardboard. The reactions people are seeing on you tube are simply from the 360 degree 3D effect of VR and not the image quality

        • Don Gateley

          Yes, I saw demos on the Gear VR (currently the resolution leader) at SVVR earlier in the week. The sports demos were something I would really really buy into. It is extremely cool to be that close to the action, to be able to watch in 3D and be able to turn to look where you are interested. In the end, though, all it did was make me wish for resolution would make it something I’d really want to spend any time with. It was, in fact, quite frustrating and not fulfilling. No market for frustration, I’m afraid.

          I do not want to take away from what Oculus has produced. As I said earlier, in every way _except_ detail my experience of the Crescent Bay was mind boggling. What it did from the standpoint of responding to motion to create that crucial part of immersion and the rock hard stability of the virtual world that it shows is hard to believe but it can’t go beyond hard core gamers. Yet.

        • ApocalypseAP

          GearVR sucks. You really think a phone’s processor can actually pump out 1080p VR with any modicum of detail whatsoever? Get real.

  • GrungePunk

    I find these “recommended” specs hard to believe considering my computer meets or exceeds all of them and yet when I play Elite Dangerous on the Rift DK2 (at a lower resolution) even with the settings at Low I’m not getting a constant 75 FPS. Sounds more like it’s going to be something game specific and not so much Rift specific which I would say is false advertising. We’ll see what happens though. Rift already got ED to drop DK2 support with the 0.7 firmware update. Now Frontier is talking about jumping ship to the HTC Vive. If that happens and Frontier stops supporting the Rift I know there’s going to be a lot of people that will just get the Vive instead. Oculus really dropped the ball by alienating all the Elite Dangerous players that have already been using DK2s to play it. The only saving grace for Oculus is that HTC pushed back their release date to Q1 2016 so if they’re able to get a Firmware update for the DK2 out that works with ED before then they might win the ED players back over to the Rift. I personally would prefer to be able to use the Rift with ED and StarCitizen because the Vive looks like a clunky DK2 with higher resolution and the new Rift looks much more sleek and lightweight and it comes with headphones. I could care less about being able to walk around the entire room and eventually pulling my computer off of my desk and breaking it. Until it’s wireless walking around just seems like a gimmick. Sure the Vive tells you before you hit a wall but what it won’t tell you is when you’re about to trip over it’s HDMI cable.

    • SuperDre

      uhh, it’s not Oculus who is alienating the Elite Dangerous players, it’s ED themselves. ED refuses to update to SDK (not firmware) 7 and above, that’s not something Oculus can do something about. And changing to Vive requires also a lot of work. Let’s not forget the DK2 is a DEVELOPERSKIT! NOT a consumer product, and that has always been warned about.. The new SDK has many performance improvements (and has much better GPU support)..
      So if you want to blame someone for not being able to play ED on the DK2, it’s ED, not Oculus..

  • kokuz0512

    I don’t understand where the cost for the gaming pc rig is coming from. It is not gonna cost 1200$ for a gaming rig alone. You can easily build a gaming rig not only capable of playing the rift but 4k games at medium to high settings depending on the game. I know cause I built one. you can get a GTX970 anywhere from 290$ to 320$, then you can buy cpu+motherboard combo for i5 4590 for 220-250$, the case the, ram and power supply and with fans and a dvd drive and all for another 150$ and you have a screaming computer for 700-750. Even a monkey can put it together, just youtube it and you will see how easy it is. So the pc is 750$ and the rift is 600 so for 1350$ you can have it all ready to go. not cheap by any stretch of imagination, but it can be done. If you are a real gaming enthusiast and want to play the future of gaming now, you will find a way.

  • David Reynolds

    Okay, the GTX 970 is recommended but what difference, if at all, would a GTX980 make?