Actually, to get 1:1 pixel mapping everywhere and use the full FoV after the Oculus view transformation you need to render at ~30% higher resolution. You really want to render at 200% physical resolution though, since all IQ artifacts (flickering, aliasing, you name it) are much worse in VR, and the only real way to get rid of them is adding more samples.You'll have double the vertex work, but if it was - say - a single 1080p screen, you'd be doing two views with 1080p/2 pixels each - i.e. the same amount of pixel work as 1080p.
I seem to recall one of the Oculus guys early on talking about how much better OLED is for VR displays due to the faster response times than LED... yeah, I think Sony is very nicely positioned to do something awesome. Fingers crossed they don't screw it up.If Sony can produce a good VR device at a good price point it will be a grand slam. Theoretically, Sony should be able to produce a Oculus like device cheaper then the Rift guys just due to their superior supply chain for 5 inch 1080p panels and manufacturering partnerships.
Although part if me hopes Sony uses 2x 720p screens for better FoV, and but I'll take what I can get.
Am I the only one who has zero interest in the Oculus Rift and other VR headsets? The idea of completely cutting myself off from reality to immerse myself in one of things like a sensory depravation chamber...I dunno, just can't see the appeal.
Actually, to get 1:1 pixel mapping everywhere and use the full FoV after the Oculus view transformation you need to render at ~30% higher resolution. You really want to render at 200% physical resolution though, since all IQ artifacts (flickering, aliasing, you name it) are much worse in VR, and the only real way to get rid of them is adding more samples.
The rift is being slowly developed as hardware improves for a reason. If the console manufacturers or anyone else get a product to market that has draw backs to it they are going to kill the Occulus' opportunity.
Of course you could do VR on consoles. And of course it wouldn't be as good as on a high-end PC, and it wouldn't match the graphical fidelity (in terms of effects and asset detail) of traditional TV games on the same systems. And of course VR is the future. When, not if.
The rift is being slowly developed as hardware improves for a reason. If the console manufacturers or anyone else get a product to market that has draw backs to it they are going to kill the Occulus' opportunity.
The Only way for VR to truly take off is for it to have mass market appeal. And that going to take one of the console manufacturers to really embrace VR in a real way.
VR might be good for next-NEXT gen in the 2020s.
Just like current gen PS360 didn't really have enough power to do high-end games in 3D very well, PS4/One do not really have the power to do VR well.
Totally agree. VR for the consoles is a hugely important and hype-worthy ambition to take hold of.The Only way for VR to truly take off is for it to have mass market appeal. And that going to take one of the console manufacturers to really embrace VR in a real way.
Except you don't need a screen with a 120hz refresh rate or a 2560x1600 resolution. The 1080p model is just fine, and I don't see how the PS4 would struggle to run that.
It has to push that resolution X2 as far as I understand it.
I want to believe.
It has to push that resolution X2 as far as I understand it.
Because it's not 1920x1080. A system needs to be able to power 2 screens at 960x1080. If both consoles are looking into this then they only have plans for very low system intensive games to run on it because their systems cant handle a BF4 type of game running at those resolutions.
This is going to follow the traditional path of gaming technology. Created and grown on pc, then available to console gamers 5 or 6 years later.
Marketing gimmick. See 3D, etc.
Datura
Are already on PS3 and would be perfect for a VR device.
I can't define "good enough" of a starting point for VR, but I can define "Not good enough". Mid-1990's tech, when PCs were still rendering 3D in software and 60fps was simply unheard of, and LCD displays were 320x200 (at the high end) and super-laggy, was the last time there was a big VR push. You were lucky if a game had texture maps. Ruined the whole VR scene for over a decade.I'd be curious for you to define 'well'.
Obviously VR is going to get better and better as rendering as tech improves. But where can we start this journey? Where's good enough?
I mean most people seem to highlight Valkyrie as a sort of killer VR experience. But on the rendering side it's not doing anything that would seem to be out of the reach of consoles at the required res/framerate. That's a lay observation, I'm open to correction. But it seems to me that the defining quality of VR is in the way it places you in a world as much as the pure rendering quality that is applied.
tldr: i'm pretty confident the consoles can host very good and worthwhile VR experiences. Unlike 3D it sounds like it's also going to emerge early in the cycle rather than at the tail end - which means it should benefit from years of maturing techniques and improving software.
This is exactly why VR needs to happen on consoles. So people can stop thinking this ignorant nonsense.Marketing gimmick. See 3D, etc.
There's a difference between games that push something at the expense of framerate because they can, and games that have hard requirements.
If games have a hard 1080p/60 requirement, there's no reason you can't do that on PS4 or whatever. You're going to have to make sacrifices - in either per-pixel complexity or optimisation time - vs a game that can just suffer the framerate loss, but so be it. It can still be worthwhile. Frankly you could take some PS3-level graphics and put them in a VR context on PS4 and it would be really worthwhile. But PS4 will be capable of more than that again. People have marvelled at playing HL2 with OR. PS4 would certainly be capable of that fidelity of experience and much more.
Not to mention we'll be on second gen software by the time this arrives. And there are some serious tech wizards in Sony's studios. You might be surprised at what's possible.
This is exactly why VR needs to happen on consoles. So people can stop thinking this ignorant nonsense.
If its only on PC, too many people will miss out.
It's not even that - it'll end up ghettoised and carry the stigma of niche interest with it.
One of the big issues to overcome in reaching mainstream-ish audiences will be the isolating aspect of it - motion control stuff at least has the advantage of being social and party oriented, whereas by it's very nature VR is about immersing yourself. Consoles are the platform, but I think addressing the sociability of the basic idea of VR is something that needs attention.
Some of the pessimism regarding VR on consoles is ridiculous IMO.
VR is a game changer.
You could take PS3 level visuals at 60 FPS 1080p on VR and it would be incredible. Games like Bioshock, Mirrors Edge, Portal, Uncharted. Do not forget how good those games look.
Now Next gen is going to far surpass that. Games like Eve Valkyrie should run great. Imagine stuff like a next gen WipeOut in VR. It would be incredible.
Now the question is wether the absolute top tier graphical games can run at 1080p at 60 FPS on the consoles. Who knows, I'm sure some tech wizards will make it work. Engines like UE4 and CryEngine 3 will most likely run great on consoles. Even if visual compromises need to be made, the experience will still be great in VR. The compromises will be barely noticeable once your brain is tricked into the VR world. Even old games like Quake 2 are amazing in VR. It makes everything better.
There's going to be PLENTY of stuff that will run great in VR on consoles. People who are dismissing this are being silly.
720x1280=921600I doubt these consoles have the power to do VR justice, it'll probably be a compromised experience, only the pc can deliver.
I don't know if VR is next-gen, but having tested the Oculus Rift, I am certain it's the future.
This. I'm extremely excited about seeing how this'll turn out. Hopefully they don't price themselves out of the market.
So What should we expect from Sony's headset?
Not two 720p OLEDs like their HMZ Line? Maybe the same screen from their 6.4" Xperia phone...and similar Rift approach. To be honest I would hope Sony uses 2 phone like screens, like that other Rift competitor. InfinitEye.
1080p? (also maybe a more expensive 4k option >_< )
The reasons I believe this is because, they just released the HMZ T-3 and that has similar screens to the past two HMZs, YET is still about $1000. What ever tech they are using for that device, they can not afford to try to make tailored for gamers.
and with their new system, I'm sure they want to get away from the 720p tag line.
I'm surprised by some of the apathetic or disinterested replies in this thread. I guess I'm just overzealous, but VR is a pretty fantastic leap forward in the entertainment medium, in my opinion. I'm eagerly anticipating VR like the oculus rift entering consumer markets in the near future.
It's the ultimate conclusion of entertainment, for me. All boils down to how it's implemented, and how the device/medium interfaces with the player.
Yup and I've said before that I'd rather MS go for simpler AR and Sony to go for VR because I love both approaches and I'd like to have different experiences considering I'm buying both consoles.
I doubt these consoles have the power to do VR justice, it'll probably be a compromised experience, only the pc can deliver.
It's still a gimmick, a niche market. It's not like everyone who likes video games have a strong desire to run around in an immersive first person world in every game. I know I don't.Nope, sorry, but i've used one. When they get the resolution right, this will be amazing. Being able to look around in realtime by moving your head, and having it accurately represented, is a game changer.
It's still a gimmick, a niche market. It's not like everyone who likes video games have a strong desire to run around in an immersive first person world in every game. I know I don't.