this is why i prefer console gaming, hardware architecture is the same and optimizing for one hardware is a good thing for console fans.

@abzdiine
But if a developer can't make the game run with good resolution, or on a steady framerate, or even if it's steady but it's only 30fps, you're stuck with that.

Consoles this gneeration.. are basically pcs.. so im not sure why u would think optimization plays any role here. The fact of the matter is if u optimize your game right it works for everything.. its no longer a special architecture like playstation 3. For VR to work right you need 60-75 fps constantly or there will be studdering. Consoles are in for a world of hurt for that simple reason... No upgrading your graphics card. Has to be rendered for each eye and at hd resolutions.

Do your own research. A low frame rate with a VR headset causes motion sickness. It's not my fault if you have not kept up with the information regarding VR tech. Not to mention you need to run at 120fps to get dual 60fps screens. 60 fps isn't enough, in two ways, you decide the important one.

edit: Unless you think 30fps for each eye is enough, then 60fps is enough. I guess it comes down to personal preference?

@Stapleface

Thanks again for making comments without showing any proof of your claims other than "It's not my fault if you have not kept up with the information regarding VR tech". My question stills stands. WHAT IS YOUR PROOF? I never said you were right or wrong and I did not debate with you, I simply asked for you to point where you got your info from.

Yes if u want info or proof just go to occulus rift dev forums.. You need 60-75 fps in order to get a smooth vr experience or you get studdering. The screen it self has a refresh rate of 75hz.. it needs to stay with it... your probably going to get screen tearing if u dont. In fact they have an entire pdf document of tips for developers. I get my rift this month :)

They shouldn't be years ahead. I seriously doubt much money was given to the VR research until Oculus became popular. VR was such a financial risk for a long time. The technology has finally caught up with expectations. So, I would imagine major advances are fairly new.

Palmer and the rest of the Oculus team have had a working relationship with many Sony engineers over the past couple of years.

Its funny, because sony is still so far behind the devkit 2 version of the rift. They are basically playing catchup and trying to copy the rifts ideas and specifications for making vr work. Its hilarious. Props to sony for trying, seeing as though we see nothing from microsoft, but lets not worship sony for trying, failing, and then copying.

If time was the only factor then yea, they "should" be, but it isn't the only factor.

Sony simple cannot throw the amount of resources at VR that OVR can.

Hardware is expensive. First you have the cost of R&D and then, unlike software, you have the even larger cost of producing and manufacturing that hardware.

Sony can take all the risks and even take a loss on the PS4, because that will sell. VR is, generally speaking, still failed tech and very risky to get behind. Its to Sony's credit they are even trying, but even they know they can't single-handedly bring VR to the mass market. Which is why they were happy with the whole Facebook buyout, because there was a player with the ability to do what they simply can't do.

OT:
I can see the advantages to consistent hardware, but I also see advantages to no limitations. In fact as of right now I think both are equally important.

i assume your one of my disagrees along with your other pc brothers that disagreed with me