Wow, instant flashback to the nineties, oh Psygnosis...I'll hop on the hype train, hope it won't derail this time!!
EDGE: Sonys VR tech will be revealed at GDC
- Thread starter stryke
- Start date
Metallix87
Member
Hydra was a "me too" product, not a product innovating in a new, unexplored space, like Rift.
TheRealTalker
Banned
every thread has to have a comment like this
you'd think Sony wouldn't even invest their time, money and effort if this was the case
Basic Palmer's design is VERY cheap, especially for Sony who can manufacture everything in their own facilities in high numbers. Basic components can be even less than $130-150.
Price can go up if they:
- add audio headphones
- add on-board cameras that will give viewer the window into outside world [AR, object tracking, etc].
- use badass OLED screen
I agree, however my point was the hmz sucks balls even as a personal viewer or how they call it and costs a lot of money. And if they base this set on the hmz series, and just add motion tracking this will be a trainwreck imo
And as people have already stated, PS2 had a VR unit, and arcades had them much earlier than that.
The Rift isn't some unprecedented concept, it's been twenty years coming.
Metallix87
Member
I think it's definitely possible in that time frame.
The quality of the headset is not the issue. It may or may not end up being better than the retail Oculus Rift. Who knows. The problem is that all the triple AAA PS4 games seem to be only managing 30fps. That's a non starter with vr. When you look around, your brain needs to be tricked into thinking that what it is seeing is real. And you don't get judder in real life.
The applications of VR extends well beyond gaming, it could have massive impact in medical, education and architecture industries. The possibility of that expansion is probably way more alluring to both Sony and Oculus than gaming, in the long term. This is a stepping stone.
LegendofDragoonLives
Member
Hopefully no stupid balls. Design wise, those look horrific.
Metallix87
Member
You and I both know those older devices won't come close to the PS VR, let alone the Rift.
Well you design the content around the hardware though don't you? Minecraft VR is >>> Killzone SF. And the PS4 should easily be able to crunch Team Fortress 2, Crysis visuals etc @ 1080p 100fps+.
Betta Lines
Member
They're gonna have to make VR mode in supported games run at 60, by either cutting resolution or details/effects, otherwise people are going to have a bad experience (motion sickness).
RadarScope1
Member
Minecraft. Minecraft, Minecraft, Minecraft.
Easy way to build buzz with the younger set.
Easy way to build buzz with the younger set.
E-Cat
Member
Obviously VR will require per-game custom implementation. That includes scaling down the visuals to a point of an acceptable (~90 FPS) framerate.
It is weak for high end gaming. But there is no high-end VR gaming right now. Even Eve Valkyre uses very simple visuals, and people are blown away with it. Almost every VR demo had simple Unity-Unreal visuals, and nobody complained.
Well its obvious that VR on the PS4 isn't going to look like Killzone. Doesn't mean its not capable of VR, though.
Metallix87
Member
Oculus Rift will likely support Minecraft first, barring a BIG money hat from Sony.
TheRealTalker
Banned
I agree with this.... as I am well aware of its other benefits
I was just addressing Sony's particular interest on the gaming side compared to their other VR prototypes be it scientific/medical or casual
Indeed, but it's irrelevant to your point.
If Rift is going to sell more because it has the PC indie development, then the Hydra should have outsold the Move, and it didn't, I don't have the numbers, but I'd be surprised if Sony didn't beat them ten to one, and yes, Valve supported it notably.
As much as some people struggle to accept it, lots of people do not care what is best, or what has the largest library. The PS4 just sold six million units with basically nothing decent to play. People want consoles, and people are going to want console VR.
Sony also don't have competition on their system, Rift might seem like the only horse in the race on PC, but by the time they ship, that won't be the case.
Will CV1 be far better than PS4's VR? Of course, does that impact who'll sell more? Not really.
Why is 90fps the acceptable frame rate for VR? People were blown away by Oculus Rift at 60 fps
CadetMahoney
Member
StealthGoblin
Banned
I think this is a waste of time and money.
Sony have done so much right this generation so far.
This will end up like Move. Barely supported in a meaningful way.
If I were Sony I'd have doubled down on PS4 output - getting casual games out faster than Microsoft and massively improving the OS.
Sony have done so much right this generation so far.
This will end up like Move. Barely supported in a meaningful way.
If I were Sony I'd have doubled down on PS4 output - getting casual games out faster than Microsoft and massively improving the OS.
There is no 'winning' VR like you're implying, I don't think. VR will likely be here to stay and will only continue to get more impressive and crazier as time goes on. PS4 VR will clearly have inferior experiences compared to the PC in a few years time, but is that how you define 'winning'? Either way, PS4 will be replaced at some point. PS5 will likely be capable of 1440p or 2160p VR I'm sure. It will be an ongoing process. We really need both console and PC VR to do well to ensure the greatest and most rapid growth of the technology. q
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
The way the devs made it sound in the KZ:SF post-mortem it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility.
This is true. But there seems to be unwavering faith in them to meet their targets. I don't understand why the same shouldn't apply to Sony in the very least, who is a company quite a few times more capable than OR at this point.
E-Cat
Member
Because good VR requires low persistence. Low persistence needs > 60 fps, otherwise there will be flicker.
Well Oculus already sort of does thanks to the modding community.
Interested to see what Sony will do, but skeptical that they will really support it. Although more people doing VR is better for VR as a whole so this makes me happy.
And most importantly, for wider game support.
PC is going to bring the indies, PS4 is going to bring the major publishers. They will both benefit from one another doing well.
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
Bu bu but history repeat itself therefore it never going to work. Just look at 3D tv's, see?
Metallix87
Member
Kinect failed?
People were blown away by it, but they also almost all got sick with prolonged use in the beginning. Higher framerate is just one aspect of eliminating that effect. I'm sure Sony hasn't ignored this, though. It sounds like higher framerates are ideal for the moment, but not necessarily mandatory. Crystal Cove was apparently only 72fps.
Betta Lines
Member
The Crystal Cove prototype was being demoed at around 70-80fps, and supposedly eliminated motion sickness. It was the combination of many things, but one of those things was the very high framerate. 60 is doable however, as long as it is solid. But higher is better when it comes to VR, as is consistency.
Listening to the Valve presentation I sincerely doubt we will see anything on consoles that will be adequate.
If I knew what that meant, I'd reply meaningfully.
I'll take a stab at guessing the question though. You mean why use precedent when making predictions? That is the complete basis for projection models.
If you mean VR is going to die like 3D, no, that's not an apt comparison. 3D offers no serious advantage, VR has huge input advantages and much greater immersion. It's more like the introduction of 3D game design and analog input, than 3D.
They failed? Just look at the sales numbers for these devices.
TheDarkKnight774
Member
Please be good, please be good.
This is one type of peripheral that I really want to take off. And if we can get occulus rift, Sonys VR and whatever valve has out it'll have enough units to get dev support.
This is one type of peripheral that I really want to take off. And if we can get occulus rift, Sonys VR and whatever valve has out it'll have enough units to get dev support.
PS4 isn't powerful enough to deliver the VR consumers will expect or want. You can't have Killzone graphics at the needed frame-rate and resolution for VR with PS4's specs. This needs to be done right, right out the gate, or it will fail. It could do like Kinect 1.0, I guess, and sell great at release and then die off, with not many games using it worth a damn.
I think this is one of the most alluring concepts for me. Games on this don't necessarily need to be, well, games as we know them. It's probably going to be a mind blowing experience just walking around environments looking around at stuff. Heck, I personally love just doing that in most games anyway and consider it a huge part of the gameplay experience in itself.
CheDominik
Member
Sony isn't betting everything on VR. I assume they know that is a niche thing but with potential to grow.
But if it doesn't work out it's not a huge loss.
'Tis the nature of Sony as a corporation to seek out the new and undiscovered. Personally, I salute them for it. They don't always get it right but they also often do. And when they do it is frequently game-changing.
Metallix87
Member
People desperately want to write their own narrative on motion gaming. Motion gaming neither failed nor was a fad. Support merely dried up on all non-mobile fronts: first Wii, then Move, and lastly Kinect.