Review: Too Good To Be True? A 4K VR Headset That Supports SteamVR For $300

Oh, virtual reality. So much promise, so many drawbacks. Stick your hand into the Tombola Of VR Woes and see what you grab. Headaches and nauseau? High system requirements? Too many cables? Screen door effect? Apparent low resolutions? Gimmicky games? Problematic prices? Your face in a box? I could go on, but I won’t because, er, that is most of them. Both Oculus Rift and the Vive offer a real jolly good time for initial forays into lifesize 3D wonderlands, but come up short when it comes to longer term usage, for reasons we’ve opined about at length here and here. But those constitute just the first consumer generation of hardware.

The tech will be refined over time (unless the market totally loses faith in the concept), but whether that is achieved by Oculus, Valve/HTC or someone else entirely is very much up for grabs still. In the interim, here’s Chinese outfit Pimax, who are selling what they label as the first 4K VR headset for PC, which works with SteamVR. It’s also $350 (or $300 without headphones), compared to the Rift’s $599 and Vive’s $799. Two questions, then. 1) Can it really solve the image quality problem? 2) Can it really do what it needs to at half the price of the big boys of VR? I’ve been testing the Pimax for the last few days, and here’s what I think.

You’ll be wanting the nuts and bolts of the thing first, I imagine. The resolution is 3840×2160, up from Oculus and Vive’s 2160 x 1200. However, this is the total resolution – the more telling figure to bear in mind is the per eye resolution, which is 1,080 x 1,200 on Vive and Rift and, as far as I can ascertain, 1920×2160 on the Pimax. So a big step up for sure, but in practice we’re more in 1440p or 2K territory than 4K. (And thank God, because almost no PC in the world could possibly power full-4K VR right now). I’ll get onto how the image looks shortly, but first let’s run through the other vital statistics.

FOV is 110 degrees, on par with the big lads, while refresh rate (and therefore maximum frame rate) is 60 down from 90. There’s no base station or sensor or anything like that here – it just uses gyroscopes built into the headset, like the earliest Rifts did. This closes the door on fancier-pants positional tracking but can map which direction your head’s looking in. It also means that the only connections the device requires is one HDMI port and one USB 3.0 port (though 2.0 is supported to some extent, at what cost I do not know).

Finally, there’s an option for integrated headphones if you like, and it claims it can be adjusted to be usable without glasses by myopic folk – though there is space for glasses also. It also boasts some frippery such as ‘auto-demisting’ with some kind of blue laser (FWIW I have never been aware of misting or demisting on any headset I’ve tried. There is some grease on the nosepiece after using this and that is the only thing I can tell you about fluids) and its own, currently empty games store, which no-one will ever use.

No controller is included, though apparently Pimax are working on something, so before you even consider this thing you should bear in mind that it’s not going to support anything that requires Vive controllers or Oculus’ pointer thing. If a game uses pad or keyboard or mouse you’re good to go – presuming it’s a SteamVR game, anyway. Reading up, it seems support for Oculus exclusives can be hacked in without huge exertion, but I’m spoilt enough for choice on Steam that I haven’t bothered with this as yet.

So yeah, in terms of games, if it’s on Steam and doesn’t require Vive wands, it’ll work with this right out of the box. That means the likes of Elite Dangerous, American/European Truck Simulator and DCS World are all yours in VR for sub-£300. A ton of other stuff too, but my strong suspicion is that this headset will be of particular interest to sim fans who cannot countenance the high spend on a Vive or Rift given that they don’t need any of the flappy-handed stuff for their game of choice. It’s also a more convincingly high-def way of watching movies on a virtual cinema screen than the Vive or Rift if that’s your bag, although that comes with several caveats.

I should delay no longer: clearly the critical question is that of image quality. Yes, in all honesty the picture is sharper and clearer than either of the major headsets. It’s comparable to looking at 1080p where Vivulus is like watching 720p. Not relevalatory in practice, but enough to shift it from “if I squint I can just..” to “oh hey, I can see basically clearly.” This is a big win in theory. There is no screen door effect to speak of, and text is more legible – if, big if, you can coax its pupil distance adjustment feature in the software into working correctly. Right now, it’s bugged to hell, but forthcoming updates may or may not address this. It’s close to where it needs to be when I wear my glasses, but maybe too sharply in focus, which incites near-instant headaches, while without glasses or with contact lenses I can tune down the intensity but can’t escape some blur. Browsing forums, it seems this is due for a fix, so fingers crossed.

A more severe issue is that, while stuff looks fairly sharp if you’re looking at it dead-on, turning your head even a little or flicking your eyes fast is hoo-boy territory. Edges and text swim for a micro-second, long enough that you’re aware of your eyes adjusting, and given this is something you’re going to do hundreds of times during one session, it’s a huge downside. I’m not well-versed enough in the under-the-hood stuff to be able to say if this is down to the lower 60Hz refresh rate or pupil swim issues resulting from the shape and design of the lenses, but I can speak to the effects, which sadly are fairly unpleasant fairly quickly. Sickness and head/eyeache, basically, particularly the latter. For the record, I did conscript an independent volunteer to test the headset too, because I would be the first to admit to a certain motion sickness vulnerability, and he reported the same physical issues as I did, very quickly.

On Vive and Oculus, I do get headaches after extended use and nausea in any game with fast first-person movement (other types of camera and/or movement are by and large OK, and I’ve even watched a few movies in ’em without issue), but these problems simply aren’t a given in the way that they are on the Pimax, nor are they as fast to kick in. Other folk have stronger stomachs than I, and games that involve broader shapes and less reading turn down the headache aspect, but even so, my feeling is that in terms of comfort and construction, the Pimax is a throwback to modern-day VR’s devkit days, and as such is likely to be highly problematic for your long gaming or watching sessions. Even Elite Dangerous, a game I’ve been able to kick about in for a good few hours without feeling lousy in a Rift or Vive, knocks my sealegs from under me after 20 minutes or so.

Add to this that the headset is dramatically more uncomfortable than the big boys, particularly on the bridge of the nose due to a hard, almost sharp plastic element unwisely placed there, and unfortunately you’ve got yourself a recipe for feeling absolutely dreadful.

It’s a crying shame, because as I say, from a pure image quality point of view it’s taken the step that PC VR needed to. Even if you don’t play at the full resolution – a tall order both because of hardware demands and because not everything recognises it – the image is sharper and less pixelly. Except, tragically, there’s also noticeable ghosting (i.e. you sometimes briefly see the outline of the prior frame to the current one) and it’s also noticeably murkier than its pricier contemporaries.

The Pimax’s displays just aren’t as bright and colours aren’t as vibrant as the Rift or Vive. I couldn’t tell you if this was down to the construction of the lenses or because a different type of screen tech has been employed, but the net result is that quite a bit of the clarity gain is offset by the image being so much dimmer and duller. In some applications, such as useful Windows-in-VR tool Virtual Desktop and movie player apps, I’ve also had problems with fish-eye shaped displays and oddly shrunken images, but again I’m reasonably confident that software, either official or third party, might iron that side of things out. It can’t be guaranteed, however, and the murkiness is, I suspect, here to stay.

The good news, and this is really, really good news, is that in the main, the Pimax Just Works despite its confidence-shattering low-quality manual and support website. You have to install a driver and app package from Pimax’s somewhat mangled English site, but once you’re past that you basically only need SteamVR. (Pimax has its own store, but it is currently empty).

That it only requires two plugs, both sprouting from the end of one relatively thin’n’light cable, further endorses the Pimax as a little more of a plug’n’play device than Vive or Rift. It’s light and compact too. I even carried it over to my ‘office’ (i.e. rotting cupboard above a coffee shop) to use with the PC there instead of at home, which would be basically unthinkable for the heavyweights.

Unfortunately, there’s a further piece of bad news, which is that its gyroscopes are a bit dicky and if you take it off for a couple of minutes then put it back on again, there’s often a big lag before it corrects from whatever weird angle it got itself into, or you end up having to manually reset your position from within Steam VR’s settings. Quite possibly something that can be fixed in updates but it’s just one more way in which I felt I was battling against something that just didn’t feel slick enough. And, really, that’s the trade-off here: there is a meaningful boost in sharpness, but the price you pay is poorer construction, comfort and polish.

Which brings us onto the final critical issue: the actual real-monies price. At the time of writing, Gearbest, who sent us this review unit, sell it for $300 without earphones or $350 with. (For the record the headphones are passable – got a reasonable amount of bass, but sound a touch muffled and don’t attach to the headset very well. I would definitely use my own third-party headphones in preference, though it does involve an extra cable). UK shipping comes out at about $5. All told, that works out at about £240 in my local currency, compared to £800 for a Vive or £550 for a Rift (now that they’re available direct from stores).

So, the million dollar question. Or rather the five hundred and sixty Pounds Sterling question. Is a Vive £560 better than a Pimax? No. The room-scale is cool (if you have space), the wands are a revelation in apps which know how to use ’em, such as Tiltbrush and Fantastic Contraption, but the baseline experience is very similar in many ways. I.e. not really, truly ready for the mainstream, by which I mean a device with which you would regularly play games or watch movies rather than one that your gran might use.

The gap obviously closes a bit when it comes to the cheaper Oculus – you can get a far more comfortable headset with more motion sensing, a brighter display and an Xbox pad for ‘only’ twice the price. If the Vive, with its room-scale and its wands and thus so much more software potential over the months and years to come was the £550 device, I’d name that the go-to device in heartbeat (albeit with the caveat that I’m increasingly unconvinced that anyone should be buying into VR until at least the next generation of hardware, if it happens).

Right now, having three different headsets sat on top of my poor, confused PC, it’s the Rift I’m feeling best about, or at least ‘least distrustful of’. It’s comfortable, it’s slick, it hasn’t got too many cables and its cost isn’t totally heart-wrenching. But if I had a strong constitution, not much cash and wanted to embed myself as deeply impossible in one or two specific games, such as Elite Dangerous or American Truck Simulator? Sure, there’s a definite case to be made for the Pimax, especially as software updates might iron out some problems. And yes, alright, dammit, I’ll say it: if your major motivator is saucy VR movies, this thing is probably going to do all the awful things you need it to at a fraction of the cost.

If I were a potential customer rather than some awful bastard who got sent these things for review and thus would be far more motivated to keep using them regardless, I’d have to glue some foam under the monstrously uncomfortable nosepiece and stock up on Paracetamol, but yeah, it could work. Crucially, the price is such that I’m not going to scream at the sky for too many hours if I realise it’s mostly gathered dust a year from now.

There are a great many very sizeable drawbacks to the Pimax, particularly in terms of comfort (i.e. expect to feel rotten often), but it does get you the base fundamentals of the PC VR experience for sub-£250/$350, which is at least worth considering if you just can’t wait for a next-gen or a major price-drop from the current one. Waiting would absolutely be my recommendation, however. If someone’s made this for $300, surely someone’s going to make something even better for similar before too long.

The PIMAX 4K UHD Virtual Reality 3D PC Headset was supplied to us for review by Gearbest, and can be purchased from here for $350 with headphones or $300 without. They also offer this coupon for $40 off the headphones version, if you want: LHPIMAX. FYI RPS doesn’t receive anything however or from wherever you buy it.

Sponsored links by Taboola

More from the web

From this site


  1. hohlraum says:

    60hz? yikes.

    • El_MUERkO says:

      my first thought too, you need at least 75hz

      still, it’s a start

    • Premium User Badge

      Vandelay says:

      I haven’t even tried VR and that made me wince.

      However, reading this does seem to suggest that VR that is practical isn’t completely unfeasible and gives an idea of when the tech should be ready. 90hz sounds like it is the minimum you would want (120hz preferred.) The 4K-but actually 2K of these is also the minimum (real 4K preferred.)

      Those preferred specs and the computer to run them sound achievable in roughly 5 years, along with thinner cables. So, a generation or two sounds about right.

      Now we just have to hope VR survives long enough to get there.

      • frenchy2k1 says:

        Good news in that VR is backed by strong companies, with long term visions and investment in the ecosystems, both Facebook (for facetime VR, telepresence and social activities) and Valve (for gaming).

        So, hopefully, they should push long enough for it to reach maturity.

        • waltC says:

          The technology graveyards are full of “new” tech backed by strong, innovative companies…;) If the basic concept is flawed from a market perspective then it doesn’t matter how much money gets thrown at it, it dies. Market perspective = product living up to expectations at the price point people are willing to pay for it. So far, VR has missed the mark, imo.

      • thebunnyrules says:

        When I saw the reviews about the the vive and occulus, I had no desire to pay the price they were asking for first gen products that are more like works in progress. Real VR solution will have no SDE, 90hz, 210 field of view with eye tracking based detail optimization (most eye FOV have tops 110 but we glance around – we don’t only use our necks to look around in real life). For the Vive, it just doesn’t make sense to pay 1100$CANADIAN for tech is so far from where it needs to be and Occulus is just out of the question because they’re a bunch of lying facist assholes and I just don’t want to give them money. Current VR tech is worth 300US, the price of a Pimax in all its flaws.

  2. robamcclellan says:

    Hey! Since you have 3 VR devices sitting on your computer I’m completely up for helping you clear out space and taking one of those bad boys off your hands! Even the Pimax ones! I mean, who really NEEDS 3 VR devices when you can only use one at a time. I’m just here to help! ;)

  3. communisthamster says:

    Maybe RPS could spend some of that Supporter dough on buying one for testing purposes?

  4. Clavus says:

    However, this is the total resolution – the more telling figure to bear in mind is the per eye resolution, which is 1,080 x 1,200 on Vive and Rift and, as far as I can ascertain, 1920×2160 on the Pimax. So a big step up for sure, but in practice we’re more in 1440p or 2K territory than 4K. (And thank God, because almost no PC in the world could possibly power full-4K VR right now)

    I don’t know what you’re reasoning is here, but that still means the PC has to churn out 4K+ res (don’t forget good VR upscales the render target to compensate for crushed pixels in the middle), while going over the scene twice. So it requires more power than 4K already does.

    Also the text swim is a dead giveaway that they’re using an LCD display of sorts, because it’s lacking low-persistence (something we’ve had since the Rift DK2).

    • PenguinJim says:

      I assume Alex means that in practice, “each” eye is “seeing” 1440P or 2K (although I’m not sure how those two are equatable – 1440P is much higher resolution than 2K! 2K is ~1080P, although it’s an odd resolution – I don’t know anyone who actually uses it, and it’s strange to see it mentioned here. Did you mean 1080P, Alex?).

      • frenchy2k1 says:

        2k is how people are now referring to 1440p or 1600p. It’s, as often, a misnomer, shortening too much.
        1080p = 1920×1080, full frame refresh (16:9)
        1200p = 1920×1200, full frame refresh (16:10)
        1440p = QHD = 2560×1440 = 2.5k = 2k (16:9) (yes, dumb)
        1600p = 2560×1600 = 2.5k = 2k (16:10) (still dumb)
        4k = UHD = QFHD = 3840×2160 (another misnomer)
        cinematic 4k = DCI 4k = 4096×2160 (1.90:1) (real 4k)

        I was quite confused too, at first.

        • PenguinJim says:

          Now that you mention it, I did see someone say 2K instead of 1440P a few months ago. But… I think that’s it! If that’s what Alex has done here, then that’s only the second time I’ve seen that mistake, and I do read about monitors/resolutions a fair old bit!

          A search for ‘1440P is 2K’ seems to bear that out, although one of the results suggests that 2K is used (again, wrongly) to refer to 1440P portable telephone screens, and then a search for ‘2K phone resolution’ shows that as a common mistake.

          So… it doesn’t seem like a common mistake for monitors, which is fair enough, as most people buying monitors would be geeky enough to be able to count (sorry, Alex!), but it’s a common mistake for smartphones, which no-one is too stupid to own. ;)

          • PenguinJim says:

            The bigger question is why I keep typing “Alec” as “Alex”. Damn finger autocorrect!

  5. Chaz says:

    I have a Rift and I almost feel like buying one of these just to see what the extra resolution is like, especially in Elite Dangerous as that’s probably what my Rift gets used for about 80% of the time.

  6. Drib says:

    As much as it sounds like a bad thing, I’m glad to see the production of cheap, knock-off crap in this field. When you start getting those things, that means people are buying them, and the concept might just manage to hold on.

    I think VR is a good step forward, or at least an interesting step sideways. I’d like to see more of it, and more-affordable options will do wonders to promote it. I think.

    Hell maybe it’ll just make HTC a little less crazy and force them to actually compete, price-wise.

    • Hedgeclipper says:

      Steam stats suggest HTC has 2/3 of the market, it’d be nice if they were less expensive but they seem to be competing fine.

    • P.Funk says:

      How is it cheap knock off crap? Sounds more like an underdog competitor filling a clear niche in the market that the allegedly sound vendors are happy to ignore.

      The knock off allegation is one used for things where you are buying a Chanel without paying Chanel prices. Knock offs are about imitating style, not really about function. Frankly people’s attachment to brand over function or functional value is one of the problems with consumerism.

      For once the word “China” shouldn’t be seen with derisive eyes as far as I’m concerned. A bare bones feature list is a very attractive option, and Alec is right that this appeals to simmers who already have peripherals and don’t need those silly wands and what not. In many respects I think the biggest problem with Vive and Oculus is their almost imperialistic need to achieve beyond the wildest dreams of people, to create an omnibus tool that will replace everything and take over your interface for that particular company. I prefer the more utilitarian approach of making it into something I can use and you know… isn’t the second coming of Jesus.

      • frenchy2k1 says:

        it’s not a “knock off” per-se, as it does not claim to from another brand, but it is a step back from current consumer grade equipment, re-introducing problems solved by its competitors:
        – low refresh rate (at 60Hz, leading to ghosting)
        – low comfort
        – wrong positioning (relying on gyro, which have accumulative errors)
        – higher latency
        – low contrast
        Those are all problems that pushed occulus to delay their release, for good reasons.
        Now, they also improved on resolution, but if the result is unusable, this does not help much…
        Such low cost products help move forward, but they can also damage the market, making people think that the sickness is integral to VR.

  7. UniuM says:

    At this point i’m just waiting for everyone to buy into the Vive and Oculus so that they can justify releasing a 2.0 version. Because i’m not buying the current versions, to much fluf and no substance. Also, my R9 390X will not preform at my own standarts.

  8. cloudnein says:

    Thanks for the review, I bought one as a monitor for filmmaking with my GH4 (which puts out 4K on HDMI) so I’ll see if I can mod this to be best for 2-D viewing. Heck I might rip off the whole headset and make it just a monitor for all to view. A lot cheaper than most 4K monitors for cameras.

  9. Hennet says:

    The attractive pricetag seems to only be a flash sale though… I don’t think it is worth the 750$ they would ask for it in 4 days.

    • Thurgret says:

      I see some indication of that in a recommended products link, which points to:

      link to

      But that’s a different thing to:

      link to

      which is what is reviewed here. I think. I’m curious about the first one now. Also curious as to why you think the price is going up – I can’t find any immediate indications of that.

    • neofit says:

      Gearbest and consorts are in continuous “flash sale” mode. Quick buy it now, in 4 days it will be… oh, another flash, it costs $352.23 instead of $750. $349 in a couple more weeks, etc.

  10. grimdanfango says:

    Would the swimming effect not be down to this, presumably, using an LCD panel instead of an OLED panel? (I don’t think OLED phone-size panels have hit 3840×2160 res yet) – Which would mean a “low-persistence mode” is basically impossible… and as has been well proven already, is a pretty basic requirement for any reasonably comfortable VR experience.

    • Sakkura says:

      Yep. It’s one place it was obvious it would fall behind the Vive and Rift.

      This thing isn’t going to set the world on fire, but I think it’s a sign of what’s to come. Another couple years and the cheap knock-offs may start to be quite good. Along with more content being churned out, my hope is for 2018 to be the year quality VR really takes off (mobile VR may take off sooner if it hasn’t kinda already, but it’s got severe limitations right now).

  11. PsychoX says:

    4K is completely unnecessary. Even 1080p is stretching it. 720p is good enough. If an image presented is clear it’s good enough. It saddens me that good enough is not good enough in society’s eyes.

    • Sakkura says:

      It’s not good enough though. If we’re being honest, the Rift and Vive don’t actually match the angular pixel density of a typical 720p screen. They have decent resolution, but it’s spread out across a huge slice of your field of view, so the image is really quite grainy.

    • Premium User Badge

      Aitrus says:

      I don’t know if you’ve used a VR headset or not, but it’s very different when the pixels are an inch away from your eyeballs. Any fine details become too blurry to appreciate with the Vive/Rift resolution.

    • Koozer says:

      I’ve never used a VR headset, but if I can tell the difference between 720 and 1080 from 5m away I sure as hell will notice it from 5cm.

    • Premium User Badge

      Marclev says:

      This thing sits a few centimetres in front of your eyes. You want all the resolution you can get!

    • Premium User Badge

      phuzz says:

      Good enough for what? To see an image, sure, but I can tell you that 1080 in a VR headset (the Oculus DK2) is not enough to read small text properly.
      That’s VR headsets though, and they’re right in front of your nose. If we’re talking TVs on the other side of the room, I don’t notice a difference above 720 on a 27″ screen.

  12. vorador says:

    So not only is extremely easy to get headache/nausea because the panel only has high resolution going for it, but also head tracking is basic gyroscopes and ergonomics are lacking.

    So basically, a movie headset and barely usable for anything else, unless you have a very strong stomach and don’t mind the image swimming.

    Man, i’m hoping Avegant licenses their stuff so VR headsets can be made from their screenless technology.

  13. xvre says:

    I hope the word Vivulus catches on.

  14. geldonyetich says:

    My big takeaway here is to wait until retinal display resolutions are common in VR, and hopefully they’ll have cut down on the nausea by then too.

    • hpoonis says:

      Am of the opinion that the nausea will not abate. People may be able to quash it a little but the whole VR experience is always going to be based on someone else’s view of the world – whatever world that may be. VR is, in reality, just a fancy “first-person” view that one already gets with games like doom, counterstrike, etc. and I say that from MY standpoint. They are, at best, 0.-person views.

      Regular folk have…wait for it…peripheral vision which is never recognised by software developers. I, personally, use peripheral vision a lot and I appreciate the ability to detect movement, people, stuff that I can either ignore, physically avoid, or deliberately encounter without having to turn in that direction to see what it is.

      Most folk can detect far more of their body than just disembodied hands or a floating gun-barrel. Without even trying to move my eyes very far I am able to perceive shoulders, forearms, abdomen, frik! I can even see my nose. None of this reality appears in any software I have seen.

      I tried Mirror’s Edge but just kept getting confused as to direction. There was no environment acting upon ME, just disembodied hands and feet interacting with vague surfaces in a virtual world.

      Horses for courses, I suppose.

      I never get the sense of ‘being’ from first-person software. Not sure I ever will.

    • SingularityParadigm says:

      Retinal? The endgame is 16K x 16K resolution *per eye*, and the exponentially enormous amount of GPU rendering capability that would require is not arriving any time soon.

  15. Christian Dannie Storgaard says:

    Since their website mentions nothing about it, what are the system requirements for it?

    My long-term goal for VR is to get a Vive, but since it is still lacking its promised Linux support, maybe this thing can function as a stopgap?

    • Sakkura says:

      The raw rendering power needed should be just over double what the Vive and Rift need. Though that’s to get a properly supersampled image. Then you’re looking at a GTX 1080 as about the minimum.

      • Christian Dannie Storgaard says:

        Sure, that’s expected. I was thinking more software / driver wise. Does it register itself as a screen on any platform? Is the orientation output readable? Does it use some custom Windows-only driver from hell? Is it OSVR-compatible? That sort of thing.

  16. C0llic says:

    So, what does their patented Anti-Vertigo tech actually do then?

    I’m asking this because i’m curious, but at the same time I’m sure no one can decipher the marketing spiel from a Chinese language manual.

  17. SingularityParadigm says:

    Other major difference between this HMD and the major players in the market: Pimax only offers 3-DoF rotational tracking, it does not have 6-DoF positional tracking. The GearVR is better than this thing since it at least has a low-persistence display. What Pimax is selling is nothing more than a stereoscopic video viewer HMD that is lacking too many necessary basic features to qualify as a VR HMD. The Oculus DK2 had a 75Hz low-persistence OLED display with positional tracking almost 2.5 years ago. Literally the only thing this Pimax HMD has going for it is a higher resolution.

  18. emertonom says:

    The big difference between this and the Oculus Rift or the HTC Vive is that the Rift or Vive probably won’t make you sick unless you’re playing something with artificial locomotion, whereas this headset almost certainly will, because it lacks a low-persistence display, has an insufficient refresh rate, lacks positional tracking, and even the rotational tracking gyros are described in the article as “dicky.”

    When Oculus was warning companies not to “poison the well” by releasing headsets without solving the nausea problem, this is exactly the kind of thing they were talking about.

    Don’t buy this. You’re better off using Google Cardboard with VRidge Riftcat. Heck, if you get a Leap Motion too, you can even have hand tracking that way.

  19. Berious says:

    That is disappointing, sounded so good until you talking about actually using it. I’m still waiting for the device that makes VR anything more than an expensive novelty.

  20. Don Reba says:

    You are making too much of the price, not everyone has the budget of a game journalist. And you should definitely not conflate it with quality; whether Vive is better or not than Pimax is one issue, and whether I can afford it is a totally separate one.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>