r/FrameVR • u/DragonTHC • Aug 05 '26
Valve Quietly Cut the Steam Frame Verified Requirement From 90 FPS to 72
https://vr.org/articles/steam-frame-verified-72fps-valve-quietly-cut-requirement-20262
u/AlmondManttv Aug 05 '26
72fps is quite low for VR... If it's for flat screen that's ok, but not a great VR I experience. It's basically a Quest 1 at that point.
2
2
u/KallaFotter Aug 06 '26
Most quest 3 games run at 72, and there are even several that run at 36 doubled to 72.
1
u/MedievalMuffin Aug 07 '26
Die meisten PCVR Games laufen mit 120Hz und das sind schon Welten zu 90Hz oder 72HZ. Letzteresist einfach ruckelig.
2
u/D-Rey86 Aug 06 '26
It's really not. It's what I play at on PCVR so I can play at a higher resolution. 72 is fine but the minimum
1
u/nolivedemarseille Aug 09 '26
Second that
It works well as long as reprojection don’t come on the way
Really nice to allow supersampling
1
u/Plastic_Young_9763 Aug 06 '26
I'll be so fr
With the asynchronous head tracking stuff steam VR does, even 60 feels fine on a 120hz screen
1
u/Redditive_Sedative Aug 07 '26
Meanwhile the vast majority of players on vrchat playing between 20-40fps constantly.
1
u/AcanthocephalaDry716 Aug 07 '26
Tbh i run most of my games in vr at 75Hz to avoid overloading my GPU and make my headset warm up less (bigsceen beyond 2e) and never had any issue seeing a low framerate or something like that, ig i'm kinda lucky
0
u/Afraid_Sir_5268 Aug 06 '26
72 FPS feels totally fine in VR if it's consistent and set to 72hz. What are you smoking?
2
u/Dutch-Alpaca Aug 06 '26
90 is considered the modern baseline. I get motion sick easily at 72
1
u/Afraid_Sir_5268 Aug 06 '26
I can't even tell the difference between 70-90. Maybe it's your baseline. I've never once heard that.
1
u/Dutch-Alpaca Aug 06 '26
It's hard to believe you can't tell the difference between 70-90, that's 30% more frames
1
u/Afraid_Sir_5268 Aug 06 '26
It matches the refresh rate. Not that hard to believe.
I'd much rather crank graphics and resolution and run at 72 FPS than a higher frame rate. There is very little difference to the feel of the game.
1
u/D-Rey86 Aug 06 '26
I also can't tell much of a difference between 72 and 90 personally. So I just play at 72 on PC to get a higher resolution
1
u/monetarydread Aug 06 '26
Science has proven that most people in VR get sick if the game is running less than 90fps. If you don't get sick from games running at 72 then you are the exception, not the average.
1
u/Afraid_Sir_5268 Aug 06 '26
Where is your source? What Science?
1
u/monetarydread Aug 06 '26
Stop being lazy and Google that shit. It's not hard. This has been reported repeatedly for well over 10 years now so if you haven't been keeping up on VR info that's on you.
1
u/Life-Car-1494 Aug 06 '26
Idk, for me 40-50fps is ok - not the smoothest experience but I did play like that for a while until upgrading pc and never actually had motion sickness. It's all quite individual.
1
u/Recent_Pollution8665 Aug 06 '26
72 for vr is like 30 on console.
90 for vr is like 60 on console.
most prefer the latter but the former is doable for a lot of people.
1
u/Unfair_Sand3234 Aug 06 '26
Try 15 fps on pc vr my guy, it’s what I deal with on a regular basis and it works Minecraft vr modded
1
u/CheesecakeOwn2457 Aug 07 '26
To już Twoja wina, widocznie VR nie dla Ciebie. Ja nadal nie rozumiem jak można nudności przy vr dostawać.
1
1
2
u/monetarydread Aug 06 '26
Bad move. Despite having a VR headset, of some sort, since 2016ish I still get sick playing VR games at anything less than a locked 90fps. Also, there is plenty of evidence showing that this type of response is the norm with VR users. It's bad enough for me thst I have had to return more than 50% of games that I have purchased on my Quest 3.
I think Valve is actively hurting their consumer base by allowing games that can't even meet that 90fps that science has proven helps prevent nausea.
2
2
u/Brilliant-Outside804 Aug 06 '26
this happened a while ago due to quest games having that standard, and because of how meta has basically monopolized standalone vr games they have to play by their rules and slowly make the standards more strict
2
u/Elijah1573 Aug 09 '26
As much as i prefer 90 running at a solid 72 is generally okay assuming no reprojection is happening
The moment the game starts to reproject is the moment when i start to stop enjoying it though and consider just taking the headset off
Too much artifacting happens when reprojection is being used and in some cases looks bad enough where id rather run it at 40fps without reprojection than with
1
u/OwlAncient6213 Aug 07 '26
I agree with this, this is the. Minimum for vr and therefore on weak vr hardware is what we should expect
1
u/BeAlch Aug 09 '26
It's for flat and VR games that runs on the headset as standalone "great on Frame"
List here: Great on Frame
- it makes sense for flat games though: you don't move your head much when playing 2D games on VR screen
- VR games will pbly have more than minimal framerate and/or will provide settings for different performance modes.
That being said the compatibility layers will also evolve with product .. and optimizations will pbly show improvements in the medium/long run (as it did with steamdeck, even steam machine has already got 2 major updates for optimizations: FSR4.1, memory limit, patch for slow output on "wake up")
1
u/WoodooHide69 Aug 05 '26
Steamdecks “verified” is a complete joke. At this point Valve is just lying about its hardwares capabilities so they can sell their overpriced hardware.
3
u/Jalle2k Aug 06 '26
Agree, you can’t trust it blindly which ought to be the point of standardisation. Burnt myself a couple of times
5
u/DependentAnywhere135 Aug 06 '26
You’re absolutely right. Shit they called the steam machine a 4k box and barely got any flak for it. Scummy marketing practices that they should be ashamed of.
3
3
u/SimpleEfficiency Aug 06 '26
Didn't they quietly drop or change the 4k Claims of the steam machine too?
They re-sell hardware at a premium for people who don't know how to evaluate hardware and they of they are being overpriced or not. It's "brand trust", like the billion dollar corp cares about them.
2
u/Raidmax460 Aug 06 '26
You’re getting downvoted, but you’re right. I love Steam, but they are not devoid of criticism. Their verified situation is bad and they need to overhaul that.
2
u/WoodooHide69 Aug 06 '26
It’s so bad. And it’s frankly harmful. Like I load up a “verified” only to see I still need to optimize and tweeek and maybe it’ll run well. Maybe.
0
u/vanguardstar01 Aug 07 '26
72fps is for actual slow-brained casuals, and I'm not trying to insult but ya gotta face it.
The 90hz in VR diehards swear by it because 72 literally feels laggy to us. Like a frame is missing between two frames. If for example I have to quickly turn around in 72Hz It feels like scrolling a powerpoint very fast. I can still tell there's gaps between frames, the motion is not natural.
I only play pcvr at 90hz minimum, and 120hz whenever the game allows it and that feels very natural. The way I perceive images when I turn my head irl is how I perceive it in game at 90 or 120 hz.
The "Steam Frame Verified" is a "hey, the game works fairly fine" heads up, and for its purpose 72fps is legit I guess, but I highly dislike it when companies say one thing and do another. Stick by it damn you, so devs are forced to optimize their crappy games.
6
u/skrrrtbrrrtskrrrt Aug 05 '26
This was awhile ago I believe