Support NeoGAF

[Biff]

Sony already said it will use a single cable.

It will connect to the PS5's front USB-C port.

Shit you're right, I totally missed this. I didn't know they officially confirmed PSVR2 already:

Introducing the next generation of VR on PlayStation

First details on the next-generation VR system coming to the PS5 console.

blog.playstation.com

That is super disappointing. The PSVR was a 9/10 device (only dinged a point for sub-par resolution as the design was otherwise perfect) with a 5/10 experience (dinged 4 points for the highly restrictive and immersion-killing cable). A PSVR2 can be a 10/10 device but as long as it is still wired it's a mediocre-at-best experience and I'll have to pass.

 

[Shmunter]

Shit you're right, I totally missed this. I didn't know they officially confirmed PSVR2 already:

Introducing the next generation of VR on PlayStation

First details on the next-generation VR system coming to the PS5 console.

blog.playstation.com

That is super disappointing. The PSVR was a 9/10 device (only dinged a point for sub-par resolution as the design was otherwise perfect) with a 5/10 experience (dinged 4 points for the highly restrictive and immersion-killing cable). A PSVR2 can be a 10/10 device but as long as it is still wired it's a mediocre-at-best experience and I'll have to pass.

The 2nd revision off psvr2 made the single cable as light and thin as a basic usb cable. It really was no longer a genuine problem.

The original psvr2 was quite bad indeed.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

technically XCloud can be extended relatively straightforward to support a reasonable VR experience - they just need to add 360 encoding for their video streams.

That's not VR at all. And the better VR improves the more obvious it would be that it has nothing to do with 360 streaming. You can go online with VR, but only because your own experience is localized and instant while other people are lagging. Xcloud would mean your own experience is lagging, and that is puke city. NASA couldn't solve the lag from speed of light, I doubt anyone else could.

Shit you're right, I totally missed this. I didn't know they officially confirmed PSVR2 already:

Introducing the next generation of VR on PlayStation

First details on the next-generation VR system coming to the PS5 console.

blog.playstation.com

That is super disappointing. The PSVR was a 9/10 device (only dinged a point for sub-par resolution as the design was otherwise perfect) with a 5/10 experience (dinged 4 points for the highly restrictive and immersion-killing cable). A PSVR2 can be a 10/10 device but as long as it is still wired it's a mediocre-at-best experience and I'll have to pass.

It is not cable vs no cable. I said this before. it is Cable vs nocable but with big battery, massive cooling fan, potentially added weight of processor, and if no onboard processor then really short range wireless.

Heavier, more expensive, gets hot, and need recharging, is hardly good things. One cable solves all that. And there is no reason to go wireless when you are not separated from the PS5. You are tethered either way by being in the same room as the console, might as well tethered in a way that gives you a better headset.

 

[PuppetMaster]

My dream is still a PSVita2 PSVR Hybrid!

But maybe the technology is not quite there yet.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

VR is in direct conflict with Xcloud. They are on opposing ends and going further apart. VR is basically an extension of tradition Console gaming. You buy a powerful machine that you run locally in your home. It isn't portable, but Console is fine with it not being portable. Microsoft basically can't divert resources to Xbox VR without ending up with competing goals that disagree with the future of gaming.

Cloud gaming still requires a display, and even Microsoft figures the future of consumer display viewing exists in AR/VR.

If we're streaming games in 10-15 years, I would bet a ton of people will be doing it on virtual displays, and that also feels like the path Nintendo Switch's hybrid model will go.

 

[RoboFu]

Didn't they also say switch pro was being announced soon a month ago?

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

Cloud gaming still requires a display, and even Microsoft figures the future of consumer display viewing exists in AR/VR.

If we're streaming games in 10-15 years, I would bet a ton of people will be doing it on virtual displays, and that also feels like the path Nintendo Switch's hybrid model will go.

And it still wouldn't be VR. VR requires that the world updates in real time to your head movements. Streaming does not and cannot provide that.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Lol imagine a full Spider-Man game in VR. $10 says you couldn't play it for 10 minutes without puking. I feel sick just thinking about it.

Not necessarily. Devs can pull all sorts of techniques to make it a comfortable experience.

For instance, I always get motion sickness whenever there is any movement. I'm not kidding, I got motion sickness even while playing Astrobot Rescue Mission. Whenever Astro moved, I had to close my eyes lol.

Then came Iron Man PSVR. I was super excited, but I knew I wouldn't be able to play it for more than two minutes, because if I couldn't play Astrobot without getting sick, there is no way I was going to fly as Iron Man at breakneck speeds in a 360* view. Although the devs said that they have used plenty of techniques so players wouldn't feel motion sickness, I didn't believe them at all.

But when I played it, I was absolutely shocked. I didn't get any motion sickness at all. It was absolutely brilliant.

With PSVR 2, higher fidelity, possible frame rates, and a larger FOV, devs can make it easier to play. I will remain hopeful

 

[Shubh_C63]

I have been waiting for this news since PSVR1

 

[ZehDon]

It is not cable vs no cable. I said this before. it is Cable vs nocable but with big battery, massive cooling fan, potentially added weight of processor, and if no onboard processor then really short range wireless.

Heavier, more expensive, gets hot, and need recharging, is hardly good things. One cable solves all that. And there is no reason to go wireless when you are not separated from the PS5. You are tethered either way by being in the same room as the console, might as well tethered in a way that gives you a better headset.

Well, not really. I think there's less to it than that. Quest 2 asks: why not just do both? And the answer is the same answer as to why the PSVR1 used inferior light-based tracking: cost. Sony simply cannot produce a next-gen VR HMD with all of the expected improvements and make it wireless and get it done at a mainstream price. At that point, you're better off making the best VR HMD you can and just tether it to the console and keep the HMD's cost way down. There are lots of reasons to go wireless, even for console VR - it's simply an objectively better experience than a wired one, if the only difference was the cable. But the cost of that places it out of reach for the mainstream market. Sony crushed it with the PSVR1, out-sold everyone else combined; I see no reason they won't crush it again with the PSVR2, cable and all.

 

[Shmunter]

Not necessarily. Devs can pull all sorts of techniques to make it a comfortable experience.

For instance, I always get motion sickness whenever there is any movement. I'm not kidding, I got motion sickness even while playing Astrobot Rescue Mission. Whenever Astro moved, I had to close my eyes lol.

Then came Iron Man PSVR. I was super excited, but I knew I wouldn't be able to play it for more than two minutes, because if I couldn't play Astrobot without getting sick, there is no way I was going to fly as Iron Man at breakneck speeds in a 360* view. Although the devs said that they have used plenty of techniques so players wouldn't feel motion sickness, I didn't believe them at all.

But when I played it, I was absolutely shocked. I didn't get any motion sickness at all. It was absolutely brilliant.

With PSVR 2, higher fidelity, possible frame rates, and a larger FOV, devs can make it easier to play. I will remain hopeful

There is info that PSVR2 helmet will also use haptics to mitigate motion sickness. It makes sense when you relate that the sickness actually eventuates from what you see being disjoint from physical feedback.

We'll see if legit.

 

[xrnzaaas]

I think that it's still too early to make a device like that completely wireless unless you want to make it significantly heavier because of the batteries. Imo the most important thing is to ensure good image quality so that it wouldn't look very blurry and low quality anymore like with PSVR1.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

Well, not really. I think there's less to it than that. Quest 2 asks: why not just do both? And the answer is the same answer as to why the PSVR1 used inferior light-based tracking: cost. Sony simply cannot produce a next-gen VR HMD with all of the expected improvements and make it wireless and get it done at a mainstream price. At that point, you're better off making the best VR HMD you can and just tether it to the console and keep the HMD's cost way down. There are lots of reasons to go wireless, even for console VR - it's simply an objectively better experience than a wired one, if the only difference was the cable. But the cost of that places it out of reach for the mainstream market. Sony crushed it with the PSVR1, out-sold everyone else combined; I see no reason they won't crush it again with the PSVR2, cable and all.

Well yeah, I thought i didn't need to explain it.

Costs is the invisible factor for PSVR success. Invisible in the sense that VR enthusiasts seems to not care about how much they are willing to pay. As such threads are filled with people wanting Sony to release a 800 dollar headset. But Sony know better than anyone that keeping costs down is important for mass market, and they learned that the hard way with the PS3 launch.

Console gaming is not about being cutting edge; it is about being the best possible compromise and value for what you are spending. Getting the balance right is hard but Sony has the experience.

Facebook's headset is skewed because it is designed to be given away. Because anyone who buy one becomes a product that Facebook can sell. Trying to use Quest 2 as comparison makes no sense because Facebook is not interested in earning money from software.

 

[RoadHazard]

Those Bloomberg Switch Pro rumors sure panned out...

 

[RoadHazard]

I think that it's still too early to make a device like that completely wireless unless you want to make it significantly heavier because of the batteries. Imo the most important thing is to ensure good image quality so that it wouldn't look very blurry and low quality anymore like with PSVR1.

The Quest 2 exists, and it's not prohibitively heavy even though it packs in more hardware than a non-standalone headset would. Batteries don't weigh very much. What's more important is that it's properly balanced.

 

[Ceadeus]

That would be quite a game changer depending the price and the game in development.

 

[RoadHazard]

Well, not really. I think there's less to it than that. Quest 2 asks: why not just do both? And the answer is the same answer as to why the PSVR1 used inferior light-based tracking: cost. Sony simply cannot produce a next-gen VR HMD with all of the expected improvements and make it wireless and get it done at a mainstream price. At that point, you're better off making the best VR HMD you can and just tether it to the console and keep the HMD's cost way down. There are lots of reasons to go wireless, even for console VR - it's simply an objectively better experience than a wired one, if the only difference was the cable. But the cost of that places it out of reach for the mainstream market. Sony crushed it with the PSVR1, out-sold everyone else combined; I see no reason they won't crush it again with the PSVR2, cable and all.

Quest 2 does wireless streaming with a regular WiFi chip, there's no "special" hardware in there making it possible. So I don't really see why this would make it much more expensive.

 

[Unknown?]

I hope Microsoft won't simply keep ignoring VR for the foreseeable future. Maybe a collaboration with Oculus is in the cards. Compatibility shouldn't be an issue, Xbox is basically a PC anyway.

Oculus sucks now that Facebook is required to use it and are now starting to send personal ads to oculus users. Microsoft needs to do their own thing.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

Quest 2 does wireless streaming with a regular WiFi chip, there's no "special" hardware in there making it possible. So I don't really see why this would make it much more expensive.

You are not paying the true price of Quest 2. There is a reason why Facebook log-in is mandatory. You get it for way below cost so they can spy on you and sell your data for profit. So trying to argue about Quest 2 being cheap is meaningless, you are ignoring the reason why it is so cheap. it is a Trojan Horse.

 

[RoadHazard]

You are not paying the true price of Quest 2. There is a reason why Facebook log-in is mandatory. You get it for way below cost so they can spy on you and sell your data for profit. So trying to argue about Quest 2 being cheap is meaningless, you are ignoring the reason why it is so cheap. it is a Trojan Horse.

Sure, but I don't think the WiFi chip in particular is one of the more expensive components. It's more the other stuff that makes it a standalone gaming device, stuff the PSVR2 wouldn't have either way.

 

[xrnzaaas]

The Quest 2 exists, and it's not prohibitively heavy even though it packs in more hardware than a non-standalone headset would. Batteries don't weigh very much. What's more important is that it's properly balanced.

That's cool, I didn't know about that, because I don't follow the VR market very closely. I wouldn't give Zuckerberg my money though.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Shit you're right, I totally missed this. I didn't know they officially confirmed PSVR2 already:

Introducing the next generation of VR on PlayStation

First details on the next-generation VR system coming to the PS5 console.

blog.playstation.com

That is super disappointing. The PSVR was a 9/10 device (only dinged a point for sub-par resolution as the design was otherwise perfect) with a 5/10 experience (dinged 4 points for the highly restrictive and immersion-killing cable). A PSVR2 can be a 10/10 device but as long as it is still wired it's a mediocre-at-best experience and I'll have to pass.

So tell me, how are you going to get wireless with the PS5 processing power and no latency (like streaming does) in your eyeballs? We are not there yet.

Even Oculus has the one wire to play your higher end VR games on the PC, and then low end stuff using mobile processing power in comparison wireless.

 

[SF Kosmo]

I think Sony is the only company that can take a bite out of Facebook's market dominance at this moment. I am looking forward to what they come up with.

 

[SF Kosmo]

I think that it's still too early to make a device like that completely wireless unless you want to make it significantly heavier because of the batteries. Imo the most important thing is to ensure good image quality so that it wouldn't look very blurry and low quality anymore like with PSVR1.

Obviously batteries and to a lesser extent the computing hardware needed to decide compressed video at those resolutions and frame rate adds weight, but Quest 2 does it and weighs the same as Rift S, and a couple ounces LESS than PSVR so clearly that's a limitation that has been overcome.

Aside from which, balance seems to have a bigger impact on comfort than actual wight. PSVR was heavier than the competition but often considered more comfortable because it distributed weight well with it's halo strap.

Wireless (and indeed all compressed video solutions) DOES mean some degradation/limitation of video quality quality compared to native video as well as some additional latency. Occulus has managed to do this at quality that is worth the trade off for most people, and it looks great but there are still slight artifacts and banding in low contrast areas, comparable to what you might see in a Blu Ray. Some might claim there's no difference, but you can definitely see it if you know what to look for.

Likely Sony didn't want to do wireless because it would increase costs more than anything. Quest, as a standalone, already had the compute, networking, and battery built in to do it, but PSVR2 doesn't need these things except to do wireless.

 

[ambo]

OLED Screens? I'm in big time, was starting to give up hope for immersive VR.

PSVR has always had OLED screens. They're pretty low res but they're OLED.

 

[Moomalade74]

PSVR has always had OLED screens. They're pretty low res but they're OLED.

I know they had, I owned the original PSVR, and HTC Vive, hence I know OLED is the only way to go. But given that the industry at large has adopted LCD screen tech instead, I feared the worst for PSVR2.
This report makes me happy, fingers crossed it's accurate.

 

[SF Kosmo]

I know they had, I owned the original PSVR, and HTC Vive, hence I know OLED is the only way to go. But given that the industry at large has adopted LCD screen tech instead, I feared the worst for PSVR2.
This report makes me happy, fingers crossed it's accurate.

I think OLED is a bit overrated in VR. For sure my Quest 2 looks miles better than the Vive or Rift CV1. Rift CV1 in particular had awful mura, and the mura calibration in these headsets mean you never really got true blacks either. Plus most OLEDs use a coarse pentile subpixel arrangement that looks worse than the RGB stripe in LCDs.

You CAN do it right, of course (and I think PSVR1 did, other than the low res), but I think the advantages are often overstated based on theoretical capabilities rather than practical result.

 

[supernova8]

Maybe they should shut their pie holes until that supposed Switch Pro actually gets revealed.

 

[mckmas8808]

It would seem weird to start the marketing from now if its going to be 2 years out. I would think it would be spring 2022 or something.

1.5 years or less depending on the release. It's it's October 2022, we're talking about 1 year and 3 months of marketing. That time length seems reasonable.

 

[Vlodril]

1.5 years or less depending on the release. It's it's October 2022, we're talking about 1 year and 3 months of marketing. That time length seems reasonable.

I think for VR that is a big amount of time since the tech is progressing rapidly. But hey we ll see.

 

[INC]

Hopefully Half Life Alyx will launch on it.

Not interested in multiple vr headsets. All developers should come together and develop standard controllers/experience for it.

I hope by then, there's something better than alyx

Kz2 vr please

 

[Moomalade74]

RE8 in vr as a launch title would be fine.

 

[IDKFA]

Guess we'll find out soon. Pretty certain that Sony will announce this at their Summer State of Play event.