Sony rumoured to be developing VR headset for PS4 *spawn

[betan]

That's the standard scifi look.

For me, this is the standard sci-fi look:

(couldn't help it)

 

[patsu]

Yeah, they are just rather standard clean lines and slits. The more "organic" designs are more interesting IMHO.

 

[MfA]

These VR setups do have a lot of hurdles to overcome. I think basic input will be a serious problem for lots of traditional game types. Since you can't actually see your hands it's easy to get shifted off the correct keys when using a keyboard/mouse. Old school look and movement controls also come into conflict to some degree with the inputs coming from the VR helmet. Lots of experimentation will be required to replace traditional paradigms.

You could put a camera on it, do some image recognition to find the hands and the controller and past them into the view

 

[upnorthsox]

You could put a camera on it, do some image recognition to find the hands and the controller and past them into the view

You don't even need to do that much, just switch the camera to video mode and you can see everything in front of you

 

[ERP]

It might be VR is only good for an hour or so, and that can't be helped without major new technology (haptic feedback or brain beaming). But it's not ideal for every game, and longer gaming sessions might be the reserve of different style. VR will do nothing for Diablo type games, or any third-person. COD fans may have to limit themselves to one-hour sessions, which might actually be good for humanity as a whole.

You certainly have to have the right content for VR, but what solutions like Oculus provides are ghost free 3D wide FOV gaming, which can be really compelling when you first experience it almost regardless of the actual game.
The only time I've felt disoriented using a VR headset is while standing, and having the the character in the game move in a different direction to the way I'm facing.
Games like Diablo feel very different, and there is scope I think for interesting games of a similar ilk in a VR environment.

 

[pjbliverpool]

You certainly have to have the right content for VR, but what solutions like Oculus provides are ghost free 3D wide FOV gaming, which can be really compelling when you first experience it almost regardless of the actual game.

Agreed, I 3D game on a 27" monitor from about 2-3 feet. COmpared to regular gaming it looks spectacular but even that field of view would be pretty tiny I'm assuming compared to what you would get with OR. Complete elimination of ghosting would also be great although it's not too much a a big deal in most games. I'm playing Batman Arkham City for example at the moment and thanks the dark nature of the game ghosting is pretty much non existent. BF3 on the other hand had some minor issues with it.

 

[baten]

You certainly have to have the right content for VR, but what solutions like Oculus provides are ghost free 3D wide FOV gaming, which can be really compelling when you first experience it almost regardless of the actual game.
The only time I've felt disoriented using a VR headset is while standing, and having the the character in the game move in a different direction to the way I'm facing.
Games like Diablo feel very different, and there is scope I think for interesting games of a similar ilk in a VR environment.

The Oculus, apart from lag, has a major disadvantage - ad least for the moment - and that is a very unsatisfactory resolution. The pixels are huge, man, huge and ugly...

 

[manux]

The Oculus, apart from lag, has a major disadvantage - ad least for the moment - and that is a very unsatisfactory resolution. The pixels are huge, man, huge and ugly...

That's only true for developer prototypes available at the moment. The end user product will come with higher res panel. Don't make too much assumptions on the performance of the final product based on the developer prototype. The current version is just there to enable development, not to be good solution for end users.

 

[baten]

I played FFXIV Beta with HMZ-T2, for 12-13 hours, night till morning sort of session. 2-3 movies marathon with it is pretty often too. My HMZ is kinda worn out from used. I'm surely going to get HMZ-T3. Haven't decided on wired or wireless model yet. Probably wired, since the battery solution dangling like that isn't that much different to the wired model.

In regard to Rift, I haven't had a chance to try it yet, but AFAIK the lenses are different compare to HMZ. It's a fisheye sort of lense. And I know I can get dizzy looking through those sort of lenses. That's my only worry with Rift solution to VR.

Sony could have used a wider OLED screen and curved them for each eye, and instead of 16:9 ratio maybe 12:3, which is about triple screens gaming and adjust the lenses to accomodate. (Heck if they have a technology to make OLED into a hemisphere do that, it would be awesome for immersion.) That would put the HMD in Rift territory in regard to fov.

I really like Rift HMD form factor design. The light blockers in Rift looks like it actually work. I had to use HMZ in complete darkness. The light blockers that comes with HMZ is a joke. The lenses seems to be bigger too in Rift so I assume the sweetspot is bigger. HMZ lenses are small and square, I hope T3 had bigger lenses.

Did you managed to stay 12 hours with the headset on, without going even to pee or drink something? My 4 hours were without taking them off at all. The longest gaming session with T2 was aroung 9 hours, but with small breaks for body service...

I am really happy with my T2 for now, will not get the T3. I will wait for the 1080p VR variant.
I will keep my T2 for th PS3 and play the PSVR on PS4.

The PSVR should be much less expensive than the T2-T3, since they will probably mass produce it. T2 was not even launched in USA, I doubt it was produced in more than 10000units.
The costs will be far less if they manage to produce 5-10 mil units.

And I have no doubt the quality of the image will be far better than the OR - the OR has a too cheap screen and it shows.

 

[DaveNagy]

And I have no doubt the quality of the image will be far better than the OR - the OR has a too cheap screen and it shows.

The RIft dev kit, you mean? The actual consumer version has not even been announced yet. The only two things Oculus has said about that eventual version is that it will definitely:

1. Include a higher resolution screen
2. Include some sort of absolute head position tracking

 

[Jay]

Didn't Oculus even have some 1080p ones at gamescom, which is higher than the dev ones?

It will be very interesting to see what Sony comes up with as a cheap mass market device. Compared to their current head mounted displays.

Nice that there's competition in that market.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's only true for developer prototypes available at the moment. The end user product will come with higher res panel. Don't make too much assumptions on the performance of the final product based on the developer prototype. The current version is just there to enable development, not to be good solution for end users.

Isn't there a 720p OR and a 1080p OR HD version? AFAIK the basic consumer version is still 720p, unless they've changed their plans.

And I have no doubt the quality of the image will be far better than the OR - the OR has a too cheap screen and it shows.

AFAIK the OR uses the same screen as the Nexus 7, which has been widely praised. And the 1080p screen is supposed to be the same screen as the new Nexus 7 which is even better. Unless that's not true.

 

[ERP]

Isn't there a 720p OR and a 1080p OR HD version? AFAIK the basic consumer version is still 720p, unless they've changed their plans.

My understanding is the retail units will ship with the 1080P panel, but I haven't been following that closely. Resolution is still "marginal" at that point, didn't bother me when I used it, but I'm a huge proponent of wide screen gaming and I could see some people not understanding the tradeoff.

The biggest challenge for OR is going to be content, years after NVidia introduced 3DVision I can count the number of perfect 3D versions of games on the fingers of no hands. I think this is where a company like Oculus has its work cut out for it if a company like Sony does decide to compete.

 

[DieH@rd]

There was never a plan to ship ~720p panel in consumer OR.

 

[DaveNagy]

Isn't there a 720p OR and a 1080p OR HD version? AFAIK the basic consumer version is still 720p, unless they've changed their plans.

They've been pretty clear that the first consumer version will definitely be higher res than the dev kit. At least 1080p, maybe higher.

AFAIK the OR uses the same screen as the Nexus 7, which has been widely praised. And the 1080p screen is supposed to be the same screen as the new Nexus 7 which is even better. Unless that's not true.

The new 1080p (prototype) uses a ~5.5 inch screen, so no, that's not true. The dev kit was originally designed with a ~5.5" screen, but the Kickstarter exploded to the extent that the planet's entire supply of that screen was depleted. (It's no longer in production.) So, they had to hurriedly source an alternate screen. The 7" screen they found is better in some ways than the original, but the size is definitely non-optimal. It was a "beggers can't be choosers" sort of situation.

(Ideally, the screen should be sized so that the center points of the two screen-halves are about 65mm apart. The same distance apart as the average human's pupils. A 7 inch screen is much larger than that, meaning that a lot of the screen real estate out towards the corners is un-view-able and is un-used. This leads to a lower effective resolution, and resolution is not something that the dev-kit has to spare.)

 

[manux]

Isn't there a 720p OR and a 1080p OR HD version? AFAIK the basic consumer version is still 720p, unless they've changed their plans.

There is no concrete specs on end user devices yet. Best guess is on the interviews given by oculus founder.


On resolution
http://penny-arcade.com/report/arti...-to-a-300-price-point-secret-features-and-the

The retail hardware is going to go up in quality in just about every way. During our meeting we were able to try the new HD prototype, which is an impressive experience, but they both say that the display in that hardware is still not good enough. “It’s the bare minimum,” Luckey said.

On latency
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/199361/a_conversation_with_oculus_vr_.php?page=4

And actually, the stuff that we're doing in the lab right now, we think that we've got latency basically solved. We think that, for the consumer launch, we're going to be able to get latency to the point where it's not even an issue -- it's a completely nonexistent issue, completely beyond the level of human perception.

It's better to leave judgment on oculus to final piece of hardware. Devkit is just a devkit to enable development. It doesn't resemble the final product.

edit. Those links are good reads. There is good talk about what resolution would be optimal(vr kits are not going to get there soon...). Also the latency they talk about is just the latency on oculus vr kit. The game engines could still have latency or framerate issues which then lead to bad user experience.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

The screens OR has and is supposed to use aren't 16:9 ratio. The old Nexus 7 had a 16:10 1280X800 screen and the new one has 1920X1200. The first consumer model probably has either that display or something like that. I can't see them releasing a 720 or 800p model. What would be the point as the higher res display should be easily cheap enough for this purpose?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What would be the point as the higher res display should be easily cheap enough for this purpose?

That's possibly true. The reason I wonder if there's two models is because I read somewhere that the HD model would cost more than the standard model, but that may have been talking about the devkit for all I know. Since the concpet of OR, mobile screen production has exploded and sourcing better screens if definitely likely, although 1080p is currently the limit of anything <10". I can't see that changing any time soon, limiting OR to 1080p, or ~720p per eye. Of course Sony are no better off. They have the same display tech to use. Unless they have 1080p versions of the microdisplays, which, let's be honest, they're not going to be putting into cheap, mass-consumer level headsets, Sony's solution will have the same resolution limits. And given 1080p on a 5" screen is beyond retina level, I doubt anyone's going to be pushing for higher resolutions unless there were other benefits like more resolution == less power, which is not the case.

I guess VR has hit a limit of economics for the time being, and will be stuck at ~720p per eye until the economics of VR justify a new pursuit of micro displays. That or a new tech comes along making micro displays cheap.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Well LG has already introduced a 2560X1440 5.5" display, which is 538ppi.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/20/lg-display-worlds-first-quad-hd-display/

A 2560x1600 display for 7" tablets doesn't sound like science fiction anymore and it could be just what we need for Oculus Rift

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What's going to drive screen progress though? If the LG screen has no perceivable benefit but costs more and consumes more energy, why bother going with higher resolution screens? Okay, 1280x1220 is a possibility for Oculus Rift instead of 960x1080 (although the price won't be $300, I'm sure), but that's surely the limit. Unless consumers are daft enough to buy more expensive phones for their new screens just because the numbers are higher (a distinct possibility), there's no sense in developing higher resolution screen tech than what we have (including this LG). 1080p per eye is going to need a 4k screen (no-one's going to make a 3840x1080 screen!). In 5", that's about 900 ppi. Even the most exceptional people with inhuman eyesight are going to hit biological limits way before that resolution when using those displays on a phone. As super high resolution is only warranted for massive FOV on small displays, the sane technological path will be 2-3" displays.