Well, sure, but if you guys can manage 144 fps, I would think even more folks would be able to hit 120. Plus, if you're looking at PSVR because you're on a budget, then the 120 Hz display makes native 60 fps a viable option for you as well.It's not just your rendering that has to fit in the now 8.3ms frame time (down from 11.1), but the entire game simulation / render prep. The GPU is only one part of the equation.
Looks like fun to me. /shrug Anyway, I thought we were talking about PC and whether or not it was reasonable to expect it to be able to do 120 fps. My point was only that it's hard to imagine PC can't if PS4 can.Sure, anything is possible if you reduce the complexity enough. Anything running natively at 120fps with 2x supersampling on the PS4 is going to be exceedingly basic.
I'm sure Durante will be happy to uncap the frame rates for you guys to hit 120 fps.Anyhow, whatever theoretical benefit you'd get from the 120fps rendering on the PC (that nearly nobody is going to target with the major players being 90)
Well, not to get too far in to the ol' PC/console debate here, I don't imagine Move and/or DS4 support as appropriate will to be too much of an issue for anything worth playingis going to be more than offset by the inferior controls. No 360 or room scale possible combined with less inputs on the tracked controllers means that anybody buying PSVR for the PC for a potential framerate gain is missing the forest for the trees. VR is more than resolution and framerate. VR is presence and interaction. PSVR can't match the Rift or Vive there. It's a great cost saver for those that don't want to buy multiple headsets, but you're kidding yourself if you're buying it thinking you're getting something better than the PC options.
Well, sure, but if you guys can manage 144 fps, I would think even more folks would be able to hit 120. Plus, if you're looking at PSVR because you're on a budget, then the 120 Hz display makes native 60 fps a viable option for you as well.
Looks like fun to me. /shrug Anyway, I thought we were talking about PC and whether or not it was reasonable to expect it to be able to do 120 fps. My point was only that it's hard to imagine PC can't if PS4 can.
I'm sure Durante will be happy to uncap the frame rates for you guys to hit 120 fps.
I'm kinda surprised to hear a PC gamer describe a 33% boost to frame rates a "theoretical benefit" though
Well, not to get too far in to the ol' PC/console debate here, I don't imagine Move and/or DS4 support as appropriate will to be too much of an issue for anything worth playing
Source
Also, IHS predict PSVR will have 64% of the (high end?) VR market by the end of 2016, with 1.6M sold, and they expect it to be supply constrained in to 2017. So, yeah.
Well, not to get too far in to the ol' PC/console debate here, I don't imagine Move and/or DS4 support as appropriate will to be too much of an issue for anything worth playing…
Ok somebody needs to clear this up. My understanding is the PSVR has a 90hz native refresh rate but can use a type of interpolation essentially to get to 120hz. The PS4 will target 60hz gameplay with interpolation to 120hz?
With this move Sony will win vr. Do what you gotta do Sony to sell PS software then make the leap!
Ok somebody needs to clear this up. My understanding is the PSVR has a 90hz native refresh rate but can use a type of interpolation essentially to get to 120hz. The PS4 will target 60hz gameplay with interpolation to 120hz?
Now here I'll have to strongly disagree. First and foremost, I agree with Oculus; nobody anywhere close to the "normal" part of the bell curve will be setting themselves up for room scale. Even spinning fully around seems pretty unlikely. It's just not convenient. Outside of small experiments, I don't expect we'll see much in the way of room scale support in the home, PC or otherwise. The audience simply won't be there to support it. IHS was predicting a mere 1.6M PSVR in play by the end of the year, and ~900k PCVR. Assuming they haven't changed the PCVR split they gave back in December, that'd make less than 400k Vives out there. Then of those, only some fraction will be set up for wandering around at all, and fewer still will be able to wander far. So yeah, not a lot of money to be made making room-scale VR for the home, it would seem. I've no doubt it'll be one of the more popular attractions at Six Flags though.Instead I'll focus on that comment. If the experiences made possible by occlusion free tracked controllers don't fall in the "worth playing" for you, then your definition of "worth playing" is so different from mine that we'll never see eye to eye. It's those controllers that are what allows VR to be a transformative experience instead of an evolution of standard play.
Ok somebody needs to clear this up. My understanding is the PSVR has a 90hz native refresh rate but can use a type of interpolation essentially to get to 120hz. The PS4 will target 60hz gameplay with interpolation to 120hz?
Interpolation is not reprojection.
There is no interpolation at all in reprojection.
Then what is "reprojection" and how are they doubling the frames? Is it not some kind of pre-buffered state, analyzing and creating additional frames?
If they do (and they should), they'll need to update their move controllers to add the missing analog control elements to bring their stuff in parity with Oculus Touch and HTC Vive.
Otherwise anytime the control scheme relies on those elements (and they will, because they're there), developers will have to redesign their control and interface scheme for the PSVR.
Now here I'll have to strongly disagree. First and foremost, I agree with Oculus; nobody anywhere close to the "normal" part of the bell curve will be setting themselves up for room scale. Even spinning fully around seems pretty unlikely. It's just not convenient. Outside of small experiments, I don't expect we'll see much in the way of room scale support in the home, PC or otherwise. The audience simply won't be there to support it. IHS was predicting a mere 1.6M PSVR in play by the end of the year, and ~900k PCVR. Assuming they haven't changed the PCVR split they gave back in December, that'd make less than 400k Vives out there. Then of those, only some fraction will be set up for wandering around at all, and fewer still will be able to wander far. So yeah, not a lot of money to be made making room-scale VR for the home, it would seem. I've no doubt it'll be one of the more popular attractions at Six Flags though.
More to the point though, I think your argument conflates a few issues, so I don't really agree with your resulting conclusion. Yes, it's all about presence, but I think it's pretty well established that high frame rates are conducive to invoking a strong sense of presence. In fact, before Sony announced 120 Hz, it seemed like most agreed you couldn't even start talking about "fast enough" until you were up around 1 kHz. It was also pretty well established that performance was more important than stuff like per-pixel quality/realism; even completely unrealistic environments are completely convincing if the performance is up to snuff, and the higher the performance, the better. Hand tracking is big too, and the Move wands have been handling that nicely for years. Physically spinning around? Sure, it eliminates sickness, but there are more practical solutions that do the same.
But now of course VR is instead about "transformative" experiences. The thing is, I too am looking for a transformative experience, and pacing around an empty room actually ain't it. I'm not particularly interested in experiences built around the actions I can personally pantomime, or "exploring" environments that are never more than three paces long and a sidestep wide. People dismiss stuff like flight and teleportation and ratcheting because they're not realistic, but that's precisely what makes them transformative. You think of walking as the ideal form of locomotion because you're used to thinking in terms of your human limitations. Although you will indeed be present in these virtual environments, there's no reason to be bound by human limits unless you choose to be. My hope is as time goes by, fewer and fewer people make said choice. How about replacing aim-down-sight with face-in-barrel? Put the player's viewpoint looking directly out the end of their wand/pistol/whatever. Not only can they poke it around corners, they can shake it around as violently as they want and never get sick, because it's 1:1, so it's perfectly predictable.
tl;dr Presence and realism aren't the same thing. You can be present in a completely unrealistic environment doing completely unrealistic things. That's transformative.
Okie dokie.For the analysts, I don't give a shit what they think or predict.
That will means developers will switch focus from PS4VR exclusive towards PC VR now
Since making it for PC means they can port to every VR headsets easily. summer lesson VR and DOA VR for PC looks to be closer to reality now
I think developer will have to port their games to psvr even if it's on pc. User who expect oculus or vive games to suddenly be playable on psvr will be disappoited. So in the process of porting it, developer will have to change their control system to support whatever controller psvr use. Either dualshock 4 or ps move.Where would we buy the games for PSVR on PC? Steam store? Would non PS4 owners need to buy a DS4?
Now here I'll have to strongly disagree. First and foremost, I agree with Oculus; nobody anywhere close to the "normal" part of the bell curve will be setting themselves up for room scale. Even spinning fully around seems pretty unlikely. It's just not convenient. Outside of small experiments, I don't expect we'll see much in the way of room scale support in the home, PC or otherwise. The audience simply won't be there to support it. IHS was predicting a mere 1.6M PSVR in play by the end of the year, and ~900k PCVR. Assuming they haven't changed the PCVR split they gave back in December, that'd make less than 400k Vives out there. Then of those, only some fraction will be set up for wandering around at all, and fewer still will be able to wander far. So yeah, not a lot of money to be made making room-scale VR for the home, it would seem. I've no doubt it'll be one of the more popular attractions at Six Flags though.
More to the point though, I think your argument conflates a few issues, so I don't really agree with your resulting conclusion. Yes, it's all about presence, but I think it's pretty well established that high frame rates are conducive to invoking a strong sense of presence. In fact, before Sony announced 120 Hz, it seemed like most agreed you couldn't even start talking about "fast enough" until you were up around 1 kHz. It was also pretty well established that performance was more important than stuff like per-pixel quality/realism; even completely unrealistic environments are completely convincing if the performance is up to snuff, and the higher the performance, the better. Hand tracking is big too, and the Move wands have been handling that nicely for years. Physically spinning around? Sure, it eliminates sickness, but there are more practical solutions that do the same.
But now of course VR is instead about "transformative" experiences. The thing is, I too am looking for a transformative experience, and pacing around an empty room actually ain't it. I'm not particularly interested in experiences built around the actions I can personally pantomime, or "exploring" environments that are never more than three paces long and a sidestep wide. People dismiss stuff like flight and teleportation and ratcheting because they're not realistic, but that's precisely what makes them transformative. You think of walking as the ideal form of locomotion because you're used to thinking in terms of your human limitations. Although you will indeed be present in these virtual environments, there's no reason to be bound by human limits unless you choose to be. My hope is as time goes by, fewer and fewer people make said choice. How about replacing aim-down-sight with face-in-barrel? Put the player's viewpoint looking directly out the end of their wand/pistol/whatever. Not only can they poke it around corners, they can shake it around as violently as they want and never get sick, because it's 1:1, so it's perfectly predictable.
tl;dr Presence and realism aren't the same thing. You can be present in a completely unrealistic environment doing completely unrealistic things. That's transformative.
Huh, London Studio new VR engine having a PC version makes even more sense now
Low cost option.
It's not really cheaper than oculus, which includes proper headphones and better technology. You would need the camera and controls too.
It's not really cheaper than oculus, which includes proper headphones and better technology. You would need the camera and controls too.
It's not really cheaper than oculus, which includes proper headphones and better technology. You would need the camera and controls too.
That Pornhub VR channel is enticing Sony
Of course it is cheaper. Especially if you already own the camera. Plus, you can't include the PS Move in you arguement when you omit the additional cost required for the Oculus controllers later this year.
If anything the Rift remains an unknown quantity compared to the PSVR and Vive, simply because we do not know how much the additional controllers will cost.
It's not really cheaper than oculus, which includes proper headphones and better technology. You would need the camera and controls too.
It would need a camera. Done. That doesn't make it "a very small price difference", it makes it around 250 cheaper if the camera would be 50 bucks.The total price difference would most likely be very small and at that point you probably want to go with the better hardware designed for PC from start.
I honestly have no idea why ANYONE would actively be against another HMD landing on PC while also supporting a console.
Just don't.
I can understand saying, "pass" cause you got the money for a better experience, but otherwise come the fuck on son.
VR wars. Gotta fight people on the internet to defend your $600/$800 purchase.
This will be a thing, won't it. Goddamn lol.
For your already high cost rig? Please. PC gamers that are already invested in that space will go for the option that is built for PC.
I'm speaking specifically about this version of PSVR.
PSVR 2 is another story and will probably be compatible with PC, PS5 and as many other devices that makes sense. Will most likely have it's own PC storefront.