- Status
Confidential source guy directly compared Sony VR tech and Valve VR tech that he personaly tried at "Valve Days" conference. Valve only once showed that "presence" demo, which uses two 1080p panels. They did not show any weaker models. You have confused Valve with Oculus.
loekf
Regular
I'm not quite sure what logic's driving that assumption but:
1. The power to deliver a PS4 experience to each eye in 6-12 months time when VR will be commercially available would barely qualify as an upper midrange PC, it wouldn't come close to qualifying as an "insane configuration"
2. No one needs to specifically support VR on the PC, it should be possible to force it through drivers for many existing games just like stereoscopic 3D, e.g. elder scrolls 6 may be a standard 2d game on all platforms but easily switchable to VR on the PC through drivers while delivering a PS4 level experience (or above) to each eye. In addition we've already already had talk about dedicated VR games available on the PC, not to mention all the third party cross platform games that will natively support it - unless your expecting every VR supporting game on the PS4 to be an exclusive which is going to make for a very short list of games.
And all that's before we talk about the myriad of none gaming VR projects that are likely to spring up in the PC space.
Are you really surprised that a secret source who just happens to be developing a game for this piece of kit is bigging it up? It might be worth waiting for some independent comparisons before drawing any conclusions.
Steams VR requirements for presence were something like 2x 1080p at 95 fps. I'm sure Sony are capable of producing such a headset but their latest console sure as hell isn't capable of running next gen graphics at those kinds of settings. You're just going to have to sacrifice something, next gen level graphics or presence level VR.
The new MGS game looks better on the PS4. Not surprising these days, but well, at least people know what we will get in advance.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/...oks-slightly-better-on-ps4-over-xbox-one.html
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/...oks-slightly-better-on-ps4-over-xbox-one.html
Kojima is preparing to release video that will showcase diferences between all console versions.
http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/02...olid-v-to-show-differences-between-platforms/
Its interesting that he is not backing down and keeping silent like all other game developers. GI journalists and Kojima were quoted that PS4 version looked little better than Xbone, and now he is even willing to showcase that. I wonder if MS will be happy.
At least customers will know what they are gonna spend their money. We are truly in nextgen age now.
http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/02...olid-v-to-show-differences-between-platforms/
Its interesting that he is not backing down and keeping silent like all other game developers. GI journalists and Kojima were quoted that PS4 version looked little better than Xbone, and now he is even willing to showcase that. I wonder if MS will be happy.
At least customers will know what they are gonna spend their money. We are truly in nextgen age now.
MS are free to refuse licensing for MGS5 and not have it on their system...
That would reflect worse on MS than Kojima though.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
Just a guess, but I would imagine the future PlayStation 5 (merely a twinkle in Cerny's eye right now) in about ~5 or ~6 years will be designed to handle VR @ 1080p with 60fps for each eye.
Without VR, for conventional Ultra HD displays, native 4K games.
Keep in mind, both Sony and EA have said they expect this gen to be somewhat shorter than last, more like 5-6 years after fall 2013.
Without VR, for conventional Ultra HD displays, native 4K games.
Keep in mind, both Sony and EA have said they expect this gen to be somewhat shorter than last, more like 5-6 years after fall 2013.
I should imaging that if they're serious about VR, their next console will do better than that. According to Valve "presence" requires at least 95fps (per eye) and in VR, even 1080p per eye is quite low. You'd probably really be wanting 4K or above for each eye but that's probably out of reach for even top end dual GPU PC's 2 years from now in the latest next gen games so a more intermediate resolution will probably have to make do.
hesido
Regular
All these VR talks also kind of signals that there will probably be a next generation of consoles with substantial local computing power (Some were forecasting that this gen could be the last, where cloud would take over next gen).
One way to stream VR would be using a special spherical image format that contains the whole scene so the "streaming" headset could look around in very high FPS even decoupled from the stream's fps but that wouldn't solve all the problems (you still would need to account for head motion other than orientation), but I think local compute will keep its relevance if VR's popularity increases, because you need that power locally in low latencies.
If a GPU 2 years from now runs a game like Crysis 3 at 95FPS or more at 4k rez we'll probably be quite lucky. Much less games two years from now.
Heck, an R9 290 clocks in at ~60fps at WQHD rez, which is well below 4k, and thus achieves a well below 'presence' framerate thresholdr result. Sure, GPUs will get faster in two years, but with the really, really long generations we see these days, I don't see how they'd be nearly enough faster to drive stereo 4k at almost 100fps in any decently complex game title. You'd easily need dual, perhaps even quad GPUs to get close to the performance needed for that...If a GPU 2 years from now runs a game like Crysis 3 at 95FPS or more at 4k rez we'll probably be quite lucky. Much less games two years from now.
Heck, an R9 290 clocks in at ~60fps at WQHD rez, which is well below 4k, and thus achieves a well below 'presence' framerate thresholdr result. Sure, GPUs will get faster in two years, but with the really, really long generations we see these days, I don't see how they'd be nearly enough faster to drive stereo 4k at almost 100fps in any decently complex game title.
To be fair, Crysis 3 on it's highest setting is more stressful to a system than any current (and likely future) "next gen" game at console equivalent settings so it's not really valid to say "if they can't do it with Crysis 3, how are they going to do it with next gen games". In reality, they are more likely to be able to do it with most next gen games limited to console settings than they are with Crysis 3 maxed out.
That's not to say Crysis 3 would look as good as those games (it won't), just that the developers have implemented features which sap performance for (IMO) dubious visual benefit at the expense of way too much power.
4K @ 95fps on a single GPU in "next gen" graphics (even limited to console equivalent settings) in the next 2 years, is still very unlikely though. It would require around a 3x jump in performance over the next 2 years where as we've most recently had around a 2x performance increase in the last 3 years.
PS Now beta invites already went out.
They haven't said any more than a launch in the US is planned for this summer.
- Status