More than onceThe only relevant statistic would be the number of Quest 2/3 users that use it on PC.
Steam VR is not the only VR on PC plus hardware survey is optional.The only relevant statistic would be the number of Quest 2/3 users that use it on PC.
Let's say the Steam user count is 132 Million and the VR users equals roughly 2% of that number. That's about 2.6 Million users that use VR on Steam. Now based on the stats that 56% of those users are using a Quest 2 or 3 then that means about 1.5 Million. Combined Quest 2 and 3 sales are roughly 22 Million.
So roughly 6-7% of Quest users use it on PC (at least one time).
The only relevant statistic would be the number of Quest 2/3 users that use it on PC.
Let's say the Steam user count is 132 Million and the VR users equals roughly 2% of that number. That's about 2.6 Million users that use VR on Steam. Now based on the stats that 56% of those users are using a Quest 2 or 3 then that means about 1.5 Million. Combined Quest 2 and 3 sales are roughly 22 Million.
So roughly 6-7% of Quest users use it on PC (at least one time).
...unless you factor in the pancake lenses that the Quest 3 uses vs the fresnel lens on PSVR, in which case I'd still take Quest 3 any day.
And it also has 100% of its sub pixels intact via RGB stripe against the notoriously hated pentile diamond layout with only 66%.Quest 3 has no mura, no blurry edges, better colour contrast, as well as no blue and red borders too
And it also has 100% of its sub pixels intact via RGB stripe against the notoriously hated pentile diamond layout with only 66%.
Ouch. PSVR1 last reported sales were 5 million in 2019. (Likely they broke the 6 million mark in 2020-2021). No wonder why games are developed on standalone first.The only relevant statistic would be the number of Quest 2/3 users that use it on PC.
Let's say the Steam user count is 132 Million and the VR users equals roughly 2% of that number. That's about 2.6 Million users that use VR on Steam. Now based on the stats that 56% of those users are using a Quest 2 or 3 then that means about 1.5 Million. Combined Quest 2 and 3 sales are roughly 22 Million.
So roughly 6-7% of Quest users use it on PC (at least one time).
PSVR2 has much better color contrast. Look up VR enthusiast reactions.Quest 3 has no mura, no blurry edges, better colour contrast, as well as no blue and red borders too
PSVR2 has much better color contrast. Look up VR enthusiast reactions.
Edit. Just one example. 38 min in…
The only relevant statistic would be the number of Quest 2/3 users that use it on PC.
Let's say the Steam user count is 132 Million and the VR users equals roughly 2% of that number. That's about 2.6 Million users that use VR on Steam. Now based on the stats that 56% of those users are using a Quest 2 or 3 then that means about 1.5 Million. Combined Quest 2 and 3 sales are roughly 22 Million.
So roughly 6-7% of Quest users use it on PC (at least one time).
So I've tried PS R2 on my second rendering rig with RTX 2080 today directly through USB-C on the card (without any adapter) and with BT on the mobo.
It works natively and flawlessly with SteamVR. So I can see no lies. Any native VirtualLink port or adapter should work with PSVR2, you don't need to buy Sony's adapter.
Yes, there aren’t a lot of VR games that support eye tracking on PC, for instance.
However the (more expensive) VR headsets with eye tracking, *do* continue to support that feature with the few PC games that support it (eg flight sims).
What’s Sony’s excuse?
I don't think it's incompetence in that these "core features"* are missing from almost all other PC headsets too. They don't have things like eyetracking and head haptics. The dualsense was built for PC support and bluetooth connection too but it also has "missing features" on PC compared to PS5 that most PC controllers don't have anyway. These boil down to mostly software support in games and apps not being there on PC rather than the hardware (often some modder gets some things working in some way like DS4Windows). Still, "this support was the plan all along" isn't the same as "we expect every feature to work like on the PS5"Why would they want this statement out there, in light of core features not being supported on PC. If they play it as PC support being a bonus, then it is justifiable. If they want to play it as "this was the plan all along," then it makes them look incompetent. As I didn't believe they are incompetent, I call BS as well.
... I already gave my sentiment regarding the potential quality of the experience without eye tracking, headset haptics, and OLED with HDR displays. The games would still be immersive and top notch.
It clearly was but they did not want to to sell these to PC only people at a loss with no return from software.
I don't think it's incompetence in that these "core features"* are missing from almost all other PC headsets too. They don't have things like eyetracking and head haptics. The dualsense was built for PC support and bluetooth connection too but it also has "missing features" on PC compared to PS5 that most PC controllers don't have anyway. These boil down to mostly software support in games and apps not being there on PC rather than the hardware (often some modder gets some things working in some way like DS4Windows). Still, "this support was the plan all along" isn't the same as "we expect every feature to work like on the PS5"
*Core features: what the fuck, I thought you were saying these weren't core to the VR experience just a few days ago:
This was when you were asking for cheaper and putting it up against the Quest alternative I guess.
I worded in a regrettable way, differentiators would be better. Regardless, we shouldn't conflate "core to the current value proposition" with "core necessity to enjoy an experience", and my poor word choice may hint that I was doing that. I did not intend to.I don't think it's incompetence in that these "core features"* are missing from almost all other PC headsets too. They don't have things like eyetracking and head haptics. The dualsense was built for PC support and bluetooth connection too but it also has "missing features" on PC compared to PS5 that most PC controllers don't have anyway. These boil down to mostly software support in games and apps not being there on PC rather than the hardware (often some modder gets some things working in some way like DS4Windows). Still, "this support was the plan all along" isn't the same as "we expect every feature to work like on the PS5"
*Core features: what the fuck, I thought you were saying these weren't core to the VR experience just a few days ago:
Great and informativeSony clearly designed this thinking that VirtualLink would be a standard on video cards moving forward and were blindsided when manufacturers decided to cut it out.
They pushed to design their own VirtualLink adapter, but it's not as if that instantly jumps to the front of the priority list. You have to design, produce, and test the adapter and the software that will go with it on PC.
Meanwhile, you have people complaining that they didn't test enough bluetooth adapters..., something that is damn near impossible to do. The market is saturated with different adapters and even if something is Bluetooth 4.0, there is no real guarantee that it means specific requirements.
Anyways, I fully expect the PSVR2 to significantly drop permanently at or before black Friday.
There could be a multitude of reasons. Two off the top of my head would be
My guess is the other features eventually come via an updated driver. If they release GT7 on PC and want people to be able to play it with PSVR2, there could be an update in line with the games release to support those features.
- They need to build out support for it in the driver and test the driver out
- They rather people buy the headset for PS5 rather than PC
People continue to forget that this headset has only been on the market for 18 months and it has had official PC support for 1 day. The more people buy it to use on PC, which they can get solid metrics Toyota Prado rental around for the number of people using PSVR2 via Steam, they can ascertain whether to put resources on enabling the rest of the features.