On the topic of PSVR's tracking: it's mostly absolutely fine, but it does suffer from drifting. The Move controllers are more prone to tracking issues, but I generally find that a bit of a wiggle fixes them.
Is there any benefit to combining the current, fixed camera form of tracking with inside out?
I ask because I firmly expect PSVR2 to be wireless, which requires line of sight with a transmitter. To my mind, the most practical solution would be for the next PS camera to contain said transmitter. But then, why would they bother with inside out tracking unless it offers some benefit?
1)mostly absolutely fine is not a thing .Its either fine or it isn't. The problem with move is that its tracking only one light source at the top of the controller. If you look at something like touch there are dozens of ir lights in it to track and based on the pattern it can tell what direction its pointing. Its also harder to mistake it with random reflections.
2) Yes inside out your going to be limited to the fov of the headset. So anytime your body gets in the way or there is a lack of camera visability due to placement an external camera / light house can pick up the slack. its good if you want to add in things like foot tracking.
For high end pc vr , I would not be surprised is the companies go for both. For something like santa cruz the inside out on its own would be enough for most experiances.
3) I doubt psv will be wireless unless the resolution barely increases. Its a lot of data to transmit and the set ups we have today are really bulky and require dedicated routers for it.
https://www.roadtovr.com/htcs-vive-wireless-adaptor-works-with-vive-and-vive-pro/
Of course it would look much nicer intergrated from the start into the design. however the tpcast adds almost $300 to the cost of a vive. I would love a wireless solution but I think higher resolution and greater fov are more important at this stage than that .