PS4 SDK 2.0 brings big improvements to Camera functions & more.

[patsu]

I bet Sony saw Kinect 2 last year and thought "we need a stronger lineup against that." And so they start winding things up, pushing sdk updates hard and working on products, and will be delivering from 2015 onwards.

Sony probably went back to interviewing all their key developers to straighten their priorities, just like what they did in the past few years during PS4 development. They may not see a need to change a "winning formula" for core gamers. I bet they reallocated resources to VR and Gaikai. Those 2 projects will suck money.

Figuring out casual game market would be a different thrust.

The only reason I got the camera was it was essentially free with my PS4 package. Don't get me wrong, Play Room is very cool and can keeps kids entertained for hours, but I'm not seeing anything on the horizon that would be making me think I should buy the camera if I didn't own it already.

I rarely, very rarely, even use the voice controls. And they are very reliable in my experience.

Pretty much. Early adopters focus more on hardware. I got it just to be complete since there's not much software. After fooling around for a day or two, I left it unplugged for security reasons.

 

[patsu]

I would like to know this too. It would be really good if the depth processing was able to get somewhat of a free ride in between the standard graphic workloads.

There will most likely be a cost because of contention. If they can guarantee a 1.5ms turnaround regardless of what happens inside the GPU, then they probably have reserved some GPU resources ahead of time. The question is how, how much and perhaps what else they are going to do with the APU.

When they go VR, they will also need to imagine how the CPU + GPU can be "arranged" to prevent nasty surprises during VR gameplay.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

When they go VR, they will also need to imagine how the CPU + GPU can be "arranged" to prevent nasty surprises during VR gameplay.

How can Sony prevent my girlfiriend eating the last of the choc-choc-mint icecream while I'm in VR land?

 

[eastmen]

I bet Sony saw Kinect 2 last year and thought "we need a stronger lineup against that." And so they start winding things up, pushing sdk updates hard and working on products, and will be delivering from 2015 onwards.

Meanwhile, MS panic about Kinect and continue doing nothing.

2015: Sony win again.

Don't want to derail the thread but the Kinect 2 was never really about party games , it was about 2016. Now for some 2016 just gets a bit more expensive (hopefully they can get the Kinect 2 price down a bit more cause their glasses will come in close to $200)

 

[function]

If Kinect was really about 2016 then MS shouldn't haven't forced it in 2013 with a $500 machine.

I still think that MS were deluded in thinking that people would pay them $500 in order to be allowed to also pay them $60 a year in order to be able to watch tv services they could already get for no extra cost on everything else ever made. Kinect was corrupted into being a Play/pause/Bing remote control.

Sony's approach, while technologically greatly inferior, has been far more organic in allowing the 3D camera to move in when games and services are there to justify it. MS need to get the price of Kinect down if they're going to be selling VR/AR glasses for it, because Sony are going to be able to be very competitive in that space (or at least the 3D/VR one).

 

[Nesh]

If Kinect was really about 2016 then MS shouldn't haven't forced it in 2013 with a $500 machine.

I still think that MS were deluded in thinking that people would pay them $500 in order to be allowed to also pay them $60 a year in order to be able to watch tv services they could already get for no extra cost on everything else ever made. Kinect was corrupted into being a Play/pause/Bing remote control.

Sony's approach, while technologically greatly inferior, has been far more organic in allowing the 3D camera to move in when games and services are there to justify it. MS need to get the price of Kinect down if they're going to be selling VR/AR glasses for it, because Sony are going to be able to be very competitive in that space (or at least the 3D/VR one).

We will have to see about that. I suspect that Morpheous will be costly. Especially if you include a camera and a move.
We dont know much about what MS has in store. I suspect it wont be a VR solution, but a sole AR solution. If it is the latter I suspect that it may be a lot cheaper to sell with kinect than the Morpheous. Even if Morpheous is technologically a more advanced solution, the AR may see more game implementations and a better entry cost. Lets not forget that VR is facing many practical challenges that devs are trying to work out both in the hardware side and the software side. This may establish AR easier than VR in the market even though potentially VR may be capable at offering a better experience

 

[Shifty Geezer]

An AR solution has limited applications for gaming IMO. MS's ambitions in AR are probably for the wider market of mobile devices.

 

[eastmen]

If Kinect was really about 2016 then MS shouldn't haven't forced it in 2013 with a $500 machine.

I still think that MS were deluded in thinking that people would pay them $500 in order to be allowed to also pay them $60 a year in order to be able to watch tv services they could already get for no extra cost on everything else ever made. Kinect was corrupted into being a Play/pause/Bing remote control.

Sony's approach, while technologically greatly inferior, has been far more organic in allowing the 3D camera to move in when games and services are there to justify it. MS need to get the price of Kinect down if they're going to be selling VR/AR glasses for it, because Sony are going to be able to be very competitive in that space (or at least the 3D/VR one).

What I saw was impressive and I'm a huge vr fan but it was impressive in a different way.

I would be skeptical of Morpheus coming in at under $200 and you would still need the cost of the camera and move since a ton of the demos are using it. So all together i'd put the package for $300.

For MS they wanted to make sure everyone had a Kinect so the cost would be less on the hybrid vr/ar so they could keep it around $100.

MS's solution also has a much smaller performance hit compared to traditional games.

 

[onQ]

If Kinect was really about 2016 then MS shouldn't haven't forced it in 2013 with a $500 machine.

I still think that MS were deluded in thinking that people would pay them $500 in order to be allowed to also pay them $60 a year in order to be able to watch tv services they could already get for no extra cost on everything else ever made. Kinect was corrupted into being a Play/pause/Bing remote control.

Sony's approach, while technologically greatly inferior, has been far more organic in allowing the 3D camera to move in when games and services are there to justify it. MS need to get the price of Kinect down if they're going to be selling VR/AR glasses for it, because Sony are going to be able to be very competitive in that space (or at least the 3D/VR one).

Technology wise I wish both MS & Sony would have waited at least a year or so before releasing their cameras. But at the same time I can understand why they would want to make the cameras a standard part of the console.

What I saw was impressive and I'm a huge vr fan but it was impressive in a different way.

I would be skeptical of Morpheus coming in at under $200 and you would still need the cost of the camera and move since a ton of the demos are using it. So all together i'd put the package for $300.

For MS they wanted to make sure everyone had a Kinect so the cost would be less on the hybrid vr/ar so they could keep it around $100.

MS's solution also has a much smaller performance hit compared to traditional games.

It's still my opinion that Sony would be dumb not to add a camera to Morpheus for AR / MR.

VR is cool but I feel that MR will be better for some games & I wouldn't want to be limited to only the virtual world when I'm looking through the headset.

 

[Nesh]

An AR solution has limited applications for gaming IMO. MS's ambitions in AR are probably for the wider market of mobile devices.

I dont think it will be used to change the gameplay. I believe it will be used to enhance the immersion as in looking at HUDs and certain objects as if they are in front of you (like flying bullets right at you). I believe it will be used as a substitute of some of "illumnirooms" demonstrations

 

[Deleted member 11852]

$200 sounds kind of low, I don't want them to cheap out on the hardware - particularly the displays. Costs will drop over time and not everybody is going to buy it straight away anyway. Early adopters have shown that if they've bought into the technology they will pay a little more.

 

[eastmen]

$200 sounds kind of low, I don't want them to cheap out on the hardware - particularly the displays. Costs will drop over time and not everybody is going to buy it straight away anyway. Early adopters have shown that if they've bought into the technology they will pay a little more.

what's the point in better displays resolution wise if the ps4 can't drive it. I'm not sure it will drive a 1080p panel well.

One of the main concerns of occulus is high refresh rate. They want 100hz + for the consumer kit. I don't believe any of us here think the ps4 is capable of that at 1080p let alone higher resolutions.

I guess they can drop to 900p and upscale it but who knows how it will work with the hit coming from vr .

I'd wager them getting it as cheap as possible at its current quality level is their biggest concern

 

[Deleted member 11852]

what's the point in better displays resolution wise if the ps4 can't drive it. I'm not sure it will drive a 1080p panel well.

There is far more to panel quality than resolution. Response, ghosting, perceptible gaps between pixels, contrast, colour response. Have you seen a panel on a cheap phone/tablet compared to a good one?

One of the main concerns of occulus is high refresh rate. They want 100hz + for the consumer kit. I don't believe any of us here think the ps4 is capable of that at 1080p let alone higher resolutions.

I think they'll "cheat" this. The frame interpolation (100Hz, 200Hz) on my current and old Bravia is very neat. It can produce the odd unnatural looking effect because the content isn't produced with expectation of it being interpolated. But if you make this the norm for all Morpheus games then developers can compensate.

 

[eastmen]

maybe but does sony have that screen tech ? Gaps between pixels will only get smaller with higher resolutions . I know that upscaling is a decent solution now a days but it will introduce more latency and going from something like 900p to a 1440p or higher resolution screen could look really bad esp if they pair it will frame interpolation (which would add even more latency) that stuff already looks really fake on tvs.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

maybe but does sony have that screen tech ? Gaps between pixels will only get smaller with higher resolutions.

Sony use those screens in their TVs and if they can get them in large panels, they can get them in smaller panels. As for the gaps between the pixels, this actually has nothing to do with the resolution.

esp if they pair it will frame interpolation (which would add even more latency) that stuff already looks really fake on tvs.

It can look weird with live TV but live TV isn't shot to prevent those weird moments. Games can be. Latency is going to the big issue but there is already plenty of latency in the game pipeline, the trick is hiding it.

 

[eastmen]

Sony's 4k tvs also cost thousands of dollars ( I think the cheapest I saw for 3k) the pixels per inch are also much less than a 4 or 5 inch screen.

Also what do you mean the pixel gap isn't releated to resolution ? If you have a 5 inch screen with 300dpi then there will be a larger gap between pixels than a screen that's 5 inches with a 500dpi .

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Sony's 4k tvs also cost thousands of dollars ( I think the cheapest I saw for 3k) the pixels per inch are also much less than a 4 or 5 inch screen.

If that's really the case then WOOHOO! Finally the UK is cheaper than the USA!

I bought a Bravia X8505 (4K, 3D, Triluminous Display, Smart, Skype, Dual remotes - one a touch remote for apps) four months ago for £1,200. And that model is now under £1,000 in plenty of places.

 

[eastmen]

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-49...lack/5006005.p?id=1219106275394&skuId=5006005
looks like they have a 49 inch now at 1,300

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I dont think it will be used to change the gameplay. I believe it will be used to enhance the immersion as in looking at HUDs and certain objects as if they are in front of you (like flying bullets right at you). I believe it will be used as a substitute of some of "illumnirooms" demonstrations

Why bother when instead you could go VR? I don't see the value for games using AR glasses while playing on a TV. Whatever you can overlay, you could go full VR using the same display tech, probably for cheaper and more immersion.

 

[Nesh]

Why bother when instead you could go VR? I don't see the value for games using AR glasses while playing on a TV. Whatever you can overlay, you could go full VR using the same display tech, probably for cheaper and more immersion.

In my original post I said

Even if Morpheous is technologically a more advanced solution, the AR may see more game implementations and a better entry cost. Lets not forget that VR is facing many practical challenges that devs are trying to work out both in the hardware side and the software side. This may establish AR easier than VR in the market even though potentially VR may be capable at offering a better experience

I dont know much about the tech. But I suspect that many of the challenges that VR is facing are less with an AR experience.
For reference of the VR challenges that devs are facing read here
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-12-11-back-to-reality-what-should-we-expect-from-vr-games
It appears that implementing and making VR a pleasant experience is a big challenge.

To my understanding AR glasses wont need to render fully the scene 1080p or 720p at 60fps for each eye. Your TV screen is where you will be watching your game. The in game camera will be controlled just like how you always controlled your games. Developers will make games as they always did with the difference that they will have to decide what will be moving beyond the space of the TV screen.

AR is not a substitute to VR. It is a different experience that may appear more convenient and simpler to implement (guessing). I suspect the fact that since it wont need to deal with accurate head tracking, expensive high res panels at 100Hz-200hz (and an additional high res camera at the front for AR) and neither would require reinventing games to fit, it will be less expensive and find more game impementations. Imagine playing Halo where HUD information is displayed on the glasses as if you are wearing a visor, bullets are coming at you, and some objects protrude from the TV screen. If AR can find its use in more games and its cheaper to buy more people will jump in to that instead of VR despite that VR is a different but better experience.

Its basically like Illumniroom but unlike illumniroom you wont need a projector and two Kinect cameras. You will need the AR transparent glasses and a Kinect Camera.

So despite that VR may be a better experience, I think people may opt easier for the different experience of AR