Originally Posted by junglechocolate
I don't know how VR which is harder to handle went ahead of 3D. I just got into 3D vision this past weekend and this news just happened. Damn shame.
not sure what their compatibility list looks like now a days, but for the couple of years that i used it the list was pathetic, and pretty misleading. ironically as per the thread this was with my 680
sometimes it would force an aspect ratio then stretch it to 16:9, some games would only render the shadows or HUD in 3d leaving the rest of the environment flat. colors would invert, frames would overlap themselves causing a cross eyed effect. i mean there were a few games that it worked fairly well on. shadow of mordor for instance ran pretty well. waves was entertaining, but the majority of the games i wanted to play in 3d, typically being something in the first person aspect, never ran properly.
as per VR its a little different when the development team aims the end product in the right direction, and yes it does take more to run it, but man when they get it right it feels so good. i find it hard not to smile while playing space pirate trainer. to me VR is the staple for "recommended hardware" where most of us just skim past this information anymore on most games. 1060/580/980 for the majority of games will yield an excellent experience. i think the big thing here is you have several different developers (including valve, google and microsoft) and manufacturers (htc, samsung, acer, ect) all trying to bring the best experience. little different than buying into the sub 1% of team green.
IMO its also your best chance at getting the girlfriend or wife into the game with out the "im doing this for you" sigh
Now vorpx on the other hand, now thats a game changer... and where that ridiculous performance hit people think of when someone brings up VR comes into play. but for $40 its given me everything i ever wanted from nvidia 3d vision, my favorite games rendered in a true 3d environment.