Aww going back into the sea! Yarrrr yarr
Sony VR Headset/Project Morpheus/PlayStation VR
Jeff Canatta, who owns both an Oculus and a Rift said he was shocked by how good the PSVR is and said it has even less screen door effect than either PC solution.
But... why?
I'm not buying the notion that it's horrible as some seem to be trying to suggest but I also strongly believe there are likely scenarios where PSVR will struggle on a PS4. Neo should help those situations a lot but it probably won't be till we get to the second generation of VR hardware or even the third before we see solutions on console and PC to many problems that any of these platforms haven't addressed.
Second gen VR will surely need better than PS4 hardware. the specific point here is whether Neo was created of PSVR as some are suggesting. If true, PS4's VR experience would be sub-par and Neo on the same VR headset would be much better, with the significant situation where PSVR on PS4 basically doesn't happen and everyone would need a Neo, massively affecting PSVR adoption.
From what I can gather, PS4 VR is still just fine by and large. There are some complaints about sickness that are implied as being due to the limitations, but it could also just be those particular implementations. There are also some points raised about resolution but they say this doesn't matter once you get into the VR zone.* Overall I'm not seeing evidence that PSVR on PS4 isn't good enough.
* This is actually a concern as I'm sure it'll affect eyesight. If your eyes try focussing on something that cannot be focussed, they'll give up. Too long in VR will probably increase myopia.
or Neo is for PSVR2 down the line? so the generational upgrade is every half. So they can have more rapid PSVR iterations.
ps 4 , then PSVR got released.
PS 4.5 , then PSVR2 got released.
or PSVR will be "late", so it will be for full generatoin and half generation.
PS4 + PS4.5 = PSVR
PS5 + PS5.5 = PSVR2
ps 4 , then PSVR got released.
PS 4.5 , then PSVR2 got released.
or PSVR will be "late", so it will be for full generatoin and half generation.
PS4 + PS4.5 = PSVR
PS5 + PS5.5 = PSVR2
IMO PS4 = PSVR
PS4.5(NEO) = PSVR for people who need higher frame rates - I could see Sony answering critics of VR sickness with we have NEO which for 'X' dollars more provides greater fidelity for those consumers who need it.
Building out PS5 probably has very little to do with VR yet, at least I hope so. For one we don't know that VR is going to take off and it would be rather unfortunate if Sony committed resources to VR in PS5 similarly to how MS misallocated resources for XB1 on Kinect. Secondly, I think VR is still early - we'll likely going to see some huge advances based off what software developers end up doing with technology and where consumers show a genuine interest and willingness to spend for the experience. I wouldn't want to go too far in any direction till I had a better understanding of what is actually needed if I were Sony.
For now its probably enough to target building the core console platform around maximizing cost to performance. VR will need that to be successful anyways.
Or let the developer choose?
So they can add more effect or more frame rate or more resolution or more all of them.
Sony's mandate is only "minimum 1080p" right?
So they can add more effect or more frame rate or more resolution or more all of them.
Sony's mandate is only "minimum 1080p" right?
But it doesn't. PSVR is updating with very low latency and 120 Hz. Neo isn't going to help with that. The only thing Neo could help with is not using the 60 > 120 Hz reprojection, and I don't think that causes nausea. Reprojection ought to result in people complaining about graphical glitches and warping if they notice it at all.
Neo can't do anything for PSVR except improve IQ and pretties. Blurryness, latency, screendoor, etc. are all limitations of the headsets and not the machines driving them.
thats why i said to let the developer choose.
let me fix my post here:
Sony's mandate for PSVR is only "minimum 1080p" and "60fps" right?
So they can add more effect or more frame rate or more resolution or more all of them for VR games.
with more frame rate, they can display in native 120 fps. with more resolution, they can give better IQ. Like those oculus and vive that recommends 2x or 4x resolution (i forgot).
all they can make their own compromize and balance between frame rate resolution and effects.
We're at a point right now where the difference between a 1x and a 2x buffer can be the difference between certain content being playable or not. The jumps between 60->75->90->120Hz are pretty incremental, especially when you factor in that all of these devices have prediction and negligible latency regardless of refresh rate, and that most of the visible motion you experience is caused by your relatively slow moving head, so no one's going to have a revelatory experience seeing slightly smoother frame rates. On the other hand, reduced pixel popping, crawling and having an overall perceptibly stable, solid and useful image is the only savior we have from the low angular resolution of these displays. With the Rift and racing games for example: 1x makes it nearly impossible for me to decipher the distant apexes on fast straightaways and the appropriate place/time to begin braking, but at 2x I can. We don't have a lot of display pixels to work with so we need to make them count.
upnorthsox
Veteran
PSVR demos coming to Best Buy and Gamestop starting this Friday:
https://www.playstation.com/en-us/explore/playstation-vr/trial/
https://www.playstation.com/en-us/explore/playstation-vr/trial/
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
This video demonstrates the real problem with VR - selling it to people who've never used it. The amount of times he says "the sense of scale is incredible" epitomises the difference between watching the 2D representation and not being wowed versus being the one in the VR headset and the world being in 3D with actual depth and being able to judge scale and distances.
As I've said before, I thought I understood VR before I first tried it and I was nowhere near close to appreciating what the medium has to offer. It's a bigger shift from 2D to 3D games.
Amazon UK recently confirmed my PSVR pre-order for Day 1 delivery and I'm really psyched for this game. The fact that it's running on a PSVR is all the more amazing.
That was the thing that Carmack promoted during his initial PR round with duck-taped version of first Rift so many years ago. He described looking a pile of bricks in test level of Rage rendered in real 3D with realistic scale and ability to move in space and look it from any angle as "deeply fundamentally cool".
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Yup. I see lots of comments on this forum along the lines of folks not being interested in VR and this really does surprise me unless they either a) have some condition that precludes them using VR gear or b) they've not experienced a good VR experience - I imagine it's mostly the latter. This is the toughest sell of VR; like good sex you simply cannot describe it somebody who has not also experienced it. It's not relatable without a common frame of reference.
Or c) Don't see the value of spending more than the price of a console for something without killer apps. or games that redefine the experience.
We've been here before, with MS's claims for Kinect. So people should be skeptical.
Similar threads
