Razer OSVR Hacker Developer Kit 1.4 Review
Conclusion
Consumer-grade virtual reality hardware is just getting off the ground. The industry is still in its infancy and we're bound to see plenty of change in the months to come. The idea of an open source platform that embraces all manner of VR devices sounds great. But there's plenty of room for apprehension too. We currently have two excellent products in the Rift and Vive. And although more competition is always welcome, without some sort of standard in place, it's difficult to peg the OSVR HDK's place in the market.
On paper, the OSVR HDK 1.4 doesn't seem that impressive, especially compared to the other options out there. The headset is heavier and employs a lower resolution; the OSVR kit doesn't even refresh at the 90Hz we've come to accept as a minimum for enjoyable VR. Hardware-wise, the OSVR HDK's biggest draw is its more accessible gaming PC requirements.
After testing the HMD for myself, I've come to realize that spec sheets don't tell the full story. The OSVR HDK isn't a refined Cadillac like the Rift, and it's not a sophisticated Ferrari like the Vive. The OSVR HDK is what you buy when you can't afford luxury, but still want to have some fun. It may take a bit of tinkering, or even upgrades down the road, but it gets the job done at the end of your day.
A 60Hz display isn't perfect, of course. Then again, if you have enough graphics horsepower at your disposal, the lower refresh rate doesn't manifest as a problem. You'll notice it most if your VR experience involves looking from side to side quickly. Occasionally, the display can't keep up when you move too fast.
Stepping up from a low-end graphics card certainly mitigates much of this. Razer says a GeForce GTX 660 delivers enough performance to operate the OSVR HDK 1.4, but I don't agree. You can enjoy some content on a low-end card, but that's not universal across all of the VR titles we ran. If you really want to enjoy the full range of VR experiences available through SteamVR, you need a more powerful GPU.
The OSVR HDK's ability to take upgrades in the future is rather compelling, though we've yet to see this in practice. The HDK 1.4 already incorporates IR tracking, which is the one option available for the older version of the OSVR HDK. A Leap Motion-enabled faceplate was announced around the same time that the HDK 1.4 was revealed, but it's still not selling yet. Really, the upgrade path for this HMD isn't clear at all, and Razer doesn't have any announced plans to bolster the two components we'd like to see upgraded most: the display and IR tracking system.
Razer did announce a new version of the OSVR HDK at E3, though. It features the same display configuration as Oculus' Rift and HTC's Vive, boasting two 1080x1200 displays refreshing at 90Hz. Unfortunately, the company tells us that there are no provisions for existing owners to upgrade. We were also surprised to hear that the IR tracking system will remain the same for version 2.0, too. In our opinion, these are the OSVR HDK 1.4's weakest points.
Virtual reality will be around for a long time. Eventually, you'll be able to buy GTX 970- or R9 290-class performance cheaply (we're already seeing that with the RX 480 and possibly the GTX 1060). But for now, if you don't want to spend the big bucks, you'll have to make some compromises. The OSVR HDK 1.4 is by no means perfect, but it's relatively affordable. Some content doesn't work well yet, and the tracking system leaves a lot to be desired. Then again, for SteamVR on a budget, there's no better option.
The OSVR Hacker Developer Kit was originally meant for software devs, but it's much more interesting to gamers now that SteamVR is supported. If you want to build a SteamVR-compatible game on a budget, the OSVR HDK offers a way to get your feet wet, so long as you don't need room-scale tracking for your concept. Develop your game with the OSVR, and it should work with both the Vive and Rift through SteamVR.
The OSVR HDK is far from perfect. It suffers from some tracking hiccups and the ergonomics could use some refinement, but if you wan't to get an early start in the world of VR and can't afford the graphics cards needed for that experience, the OSVR HDK 1.4 will likely allow you get into VR without the GPU upgrade.
Razer OSVR Hacker Developer Kit 1.4
MORE: The History of Virtual Reality
MORE: The HTC Vive VR Launch Titles
MORE: SteamVR Performance Test: 16 GPUs Compared
MORE: Beta SteamVR Interface Is Easy To Navigate, Offers Customization
MORE: The Oculus Rift Review
MORE: The HTC Vive Review
MORE: The Past, Present, And Future Of VR And AR: The Pioneers Speak
Follow us on Facebook, Google+, RSS, Twitter and YouTube.
If you can get games to work with it, maybe, if you haven't experienced modern VR and aren't susceptible to VR sickness.
I had an eMagin 800x600 per eye VR system a decade ago, and it was pretty good for people who don't get VR sick, until Nvidia dropped support and it became useless.
I'd recommend saving up for a Vive, the only full-VR system available today. Buying a low-quality alternative to something nice rarely turns out well. you'll just wind up junking it and spending the money on what you really wanted later.
So it's kind of crazy to me that some companies think they can put out a good HMD that only splits a 1080p screen across both eyes. It might be worth it as a super-budget option for $99, but at $300 it's not all that cheap. Like it's not something most people are just going to buy on a whim and then happy forget about after they realize it looks ugly and makes them sick. Hate to be a downer but this really seems like the worst of both worlds. If you want a quick, cheap VR experience, you can build or buy a Google Cardboard. If you want the real thing, save up a little while longer and get an Oculus or Vive (or just wait until those are $300).
Um, it was more of a "me first" effort, with the initial version beating them to market by about a year. I think the author dropped the ball on explaining HDKs origin and backstory. Although it's touched upon, in the last page, I think the rest of the review would've been better served by covering it in a little more depth, right up front. Otherwise, it's not clear why the product compares so poorly with Vive and Rift. It was made to compete with Oculus DK/DK2-era hardware. And the whole review should've been prefaced with the caveat that they're basically reviewing an obsolete product (see above point about HDK2).
I'm also puzzled as to why you feel there's only room for 2 players, in this young and dynamic market. Would you say that about any other aspect of computer hardware? (true that, defacto, we have 2 players in CPUs and discrete GPUs, but that's more an issue of cost to enter those markets vs. upside potential).
I'm really glad to see a low-cost solution in between phones and the premium PC HMDs. Maybe 1.4 isn't yet a compelling value offering, but I think there's definitely room for other players and other segments in this market than Vive/Rift.
BTW: why are all vr games stupid space games? :|
easy+everyone who ever played a space game, vr was the dream.
It's not only about computer performance. Software is improving too. Vulcan api, new rendering features and technologies.
I don't see performance as the biggest problem in the future since software, tools and optimization is currently the biggest issue imo.
Try holopoint or brookhaven
GPU/CPU performance needs to increase before we see any meaning full advances in VR. Therefore new players can only offer more of the same right now. Unless of course they offer downgraded systems like this one, which just make people sick. And the more VR systems out there, the more developers have to code for, and the more proprietary crap we might have to endure. I would say it's not needed right now, until VR is established.
There are way more aspects of VR that can be improved or innovated than, say, computer monitors. Do you think we should have only 2 computer monitor brands?
Like Oculus' DK2, this already served its purpose, and that's why Razer is replacing it with their HDK2. The only problem I see here is why they decided to review HDK 1.4 now. It is potentially useful for anyone thinking about picking up one of these units on the used market, however.
I'd argue quite the opposite. The sooner more players enter this market, the sooner we're likely to see some standards. And that will shorten the time of having to deal with proprietary crap.
Valve already has a defacto standard API that games can use to be HMD agnostic, although it's currently tied to Steam.
Heh yea, if someone else can make improvements bring it on. Oculus/Valve already have huge funding and employ some of the biggest talent in PC gaming so I'm skeptical. You never know though.
There's a reason this is called a "Hacker Dev Kit".
That aside, we've heard about other VR HMD development efforts. I think we will see other HMDs enter the market, in the next year, and I think the value segment represents a ripe target, for many, while a couple are aiming even higher than Rift/Vive.
In terms of rendering performance, all that's needed is to support dual-GPU. I don't exactly know why it hasn't happened, but it's the obvious solution for enabling 4k.