CollectedDust
Member
As others have said and / or alluded to, I'm not sure GameStop can be considered an unbiased source for this type of information.
I don't follow OR news so I don't know the big games for it, but normally I'd hear about really big titles through forums like NeoGaf.
I've not heard of any really big mass market games for OR, but I do know Gran Turismo Sport, Ace Combat and that cheeky DOAX game is coming to PSVR.
Can anyone fill me in, or is there no dedicated new big VR games so far in the pipe line for OR that we know about? Or is it just patching up old games.
Oh man I do love when people copy paste things when they have no clue what they are actually talking about lol
PC VR renders more pixels but displays them on screens with lower sub-pixel resolutions, so a reasonable proportion of that extra fill rate is to make up for a sub-par display.
PSVR can more easily get away with lower FPS, targeting 60, because of the hardware involved in the re-projection. It works well for orientation, not so well for positional, but is good enough. PC doesn't need this it has raw grunt, so targets 90 FPS instead.
PSVR has other tricks as well, such as using a hidden area mesh stencil equivalent.
Add up all the pixels PSVR is saving, and that's how it was able to render Unreal Showdown at "equivalent" quality (so Durante's comments in the other thread are right; and wrong, quarter the fill rate for almost the same quality)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8bREFpp2o8&feature=youtu.be&t=26m10s
The bottom line is that while I agree resolution and fps and fov are all very important, the PSVR HMD does a really good job on all of them, because of how Sony engineered it to the strngths of their platform, such that the final projection quality is up there with OR and Vive, an 8 instead of a 9 say, but in the same ball park.
And that's the point I was making, though as Durante point out, mangled my words a bit.
Hope this all makes sense
This.Still wairing for dat No man's Sky VR announcement Sony
Rift will be in retail stores, with a limited amount starting in April. Samsung Gear VR is already in Best Buys and stuff. I'd bet Vive will be in stores as well.
I've seen a few of you posts now, and suspect that you don't understand the full context of the stuff you copy paste.
Some of it just doesn't do what you think it does.
And when you even manage to call the Rift displays for "sub-par"
and on top of that think the sub pixel configuration in the PSVR, and that Reprojection is some kind of silver bullet
(With that said, PSVR is fine, Sony is doing all the right things that they should do from the circumstances they are in)
Gamestop has a PC section guys.
*cicadas chirp*
source?BernardoOne said:That and the headset itself. Gamestop isn't going to carry Vives and Rifts, but it is going to carry PSVRs
Opinions from CES are quite different. While not being bad, PSVR is a subpar experience compared to Rift and Vive.
http://www.gizmag.com/playstation-vr-review-hands-on-2016/41286/
Shhh! The PC guys don't want to hear any of that nonsense!Uh, don't they sell Steam cards and controllers in Gamestop these days?
It's funny that when Palmer says anything, we believe him. Then it's not a company man justifying company decisions and pimping his product.
Shhh! The PC guys don't want to hear any of that nonsense!
Uh, don't they sell Steam cards and controllers in Gamestop these days?
The Rift is going to have A LOT more content available Day 1. Their own VR games look well done too. We don't even know official line-ups yet, but I definitely don't agree with the guy.
are you guys saying not a lot of people buy PC games at retail anymore? you're kinda blowing my mind right now
The Rift is going to have A LOT more content available Day 1. Their own VR games look well done too. We don't even know official line-ups yet, but I definitely don't agree with the guy.
Do you know that for a fact, or are you just speculating?GameStop CEO gives praise for the only VR that will be sold at GameStop.
News at 11.
Do you know that for a fact, or are you just speculating?
So how do you know that then?
The Rift is going to have A LOT more content available Day 1. Their own VR games look well done too. We don't even know official line-ups yet, but I definitely don't agree with the guy.
But they sell Steam cards and gaming PCs, and in this very article they say they are interesting in selling PC HMDs.Pretty damn good bet I'd say. Gamestop isn't well known for it's support for PC nowadays, especially niche peripherals.
Overall, Raines said GameStop is optimistic for the future of VR, hoping to work with the device's creators to sell the headsets, as well as their games and accessories, in GameStop's network of stores around the world.
Raines said GameStop is in discussion with all the major VR players about stocking their devices in the company's stores.
It will definitely have more content, but not necessarily games, nor certified-for-release or completely stable stuff either. Nature of the PC game. Anything and everything can be thrown at the accessory, but the millions of computer variations out there mean it won't necessarily run correctly, or even be any good. The official Oculus stuff will, of course, be pretty legit!So how do you know that then?
So how do you know that then?
Sony has been demoing the same damn demos for damn near a year. I don't how anyone could say Sony will have more content based on what supposed to be in development. Unless they are going to have a Sony VR event or something like that, I'm incline to only believe what I see.
So how do you know that then?
Do you! that's quite a thing to say, and to back that up?
You can read my mind now? Again, examples; if you want to diss me, the courtesy of some attempt at proof would be appreciated.
Care to explain?
The PS VR solution is arguably far more efficient in that rendering pipeline, for architectural reasons, than say OR.
As an example, the PC VR solutions need significantly larger render targets for the same IQ. or PSVR can better utilise re-projection, keeping its own fps down, because of the breakout box. and the sub-pixel superiority of the PSVR is important because the screen is so close to the eye.
That's not trying to say there is no difference between an ultra PC VR solution in terms of the quality of the final projected scene, but PS4 really is pushing hard against that minimum spec PC VR solution. And the HMD itself is very close in capability to OR and Vive.
PSVR can more easily get away with lower FPS, targeting 60, because of the hardware involved in the re-projection. It works well for orientation, not so well for positional, but is good enough. PC doesn't need this it has raw grunt, so targets 90 FPS instead.
PSVR has other tricks as well, such as using a hidden area mesh stencil equivalent.
Add up all the pixels PSVR is saving, and that's how it was able to render Unreal Showdown at "equivalent" quality (so Durante's comments in the other thread are right; and wrong, quarter the fill rate for almost the same quality)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8bREFpp2o8&feature=youtu.be&t=26m10s
The bottom line is that while I agree resolution and fps and fov are all very important, the PSVR HMD does a really good job on all of them, because of how Sony engineered it to the strngths of their platform, such that the final projection quality is up there with OR and Vive, an 8 instead of a 9 say, but in the same ball park.
And that's the point I was making, though as Durante point out, mangled my words a bit.
Hope this all makes sense
Content or games?
Games. The Rift already has hundreds of games that support it. No other set has even close to the support that the Rift has. Everything from Doom to GTA5 has Rift support.
That's because developers currently put their efforts into making games look as good as possible and not into making games 60fps. It's a design decision more than anything else. PS4 is capable of running games at 60fps when developers choose to target it and with VR, developers will have to make the effort.Serious question: How viable is Playstation VR even going to be? To get a great VR experience I thought 90 frames per second is the minimum requirement. Console games still struggle to get 60 FPS.
Serious question: How viable is Playstation VR even going to be? To get a great VR experience I thought 90 frames per second is the minimum requirement. Console games still struggle to get 60 FPS.
That was fn awesome!Good video showing just how powerful VR can be to the casual audience. This video is of a lady using PSVR for the movie The Walk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYhZEREhbsI
Alrighty, its becoming really annoying keeping on reading so much misinformation about VR, and PSVR for whatever reason has the most FUD surrounding it. So here goes.
1. "Far more efficient in the rendering pipeline". That's an incredibly interesting spin. Would you call XB1 games that run at 900p " far more efficient in the rendering pipeline" than their PS4 1080p counterparts?
2. "Need significantly larger rendering targets for the same IQ". This is just untrue. The render targets are larger because Oculus and Vive want are going for a better VR experience, higher resolutions, higher framerates.
3. "or PSVR can better utilise re-projection, keeping its own fps down, because of the breakout box." For the umpteenth time, the breakout box does nothing except some spacial audio processing and video splitting. These are CPU tasks, and are largely irrelevant on any gaming PC as the CPUs are an order of magnitude faster. And also, for the umpteenth time, reprojection is not PSVR exclusive Sony magic. It has existed in the Oculus SDK for years, Carmack pioneered its development. It also has limitations, significant ones. Which is probably why Sony recently reccomended devs to hit 90fps, and use 60fps as a fallback.
4."the sub-pixel superiority of the PSVR is important because the screen is so close to the eye." This is true. But sub-pixels do not encode information, the strip config reduces SDE compared to an equivalent resolution pentile. From CES reports it seems that PSVR and CV1 have quite similar amounts of SDE, but the PSVR has noticeably lower resolution.
1. "PSVR can more easily get away with lower FPS, targeting 60, because of the hardware involved in the re-projection." There is no extra hardware either used or required in reprojection.
2. "It works well for orientation, not so well for positional, but is good enough. PC doesn't need this it has raw grunt, so targets 90 FPS instead."
It works perfectly for rotational, it doesn't work at all for any translational movement without getting disocclusion issues. "Good enough" depends on how its used, a 90 native with 90 reprojection is good because it reduces perceived latency. A 60->90 reprojection results in either artefacting, or if you turn off translational movement information for the repro step, poorer in game tracking.
3. "Hidden area stencil mesh equivalent". A Valve dev talked about that early last year and using it with Vive. Any software solution will be shared among all VR headset developers. PDF presentation for completeness.
4. "Add up all the pixels PSVR is saving, and that's how it was able to render Unreal Showdown at "equivalent" quality"
Again. Equivalent quality in this case means equivalent graphical settings. At lower resolution and framerates. Those are two very important factors when it comes to a good VR experience.
5. "the PSVR HMD does a really good job on all of them, because of how Sony engineered it to the strngths of their platform, such that the final projection quality is up there with OR and Vive, an 8 instead of a 9 say, but in the same ball park."
Sony has really made one good decision that isn't even used as a strength but rather to counter a weakness, the strip subpixel pattern. From a technical perspective there is no other feature of PSVR which positively differentiates it from the Rift or the Vive Pre. I'm not saying PSVR is bad, by all accounts it still offers a good experience, but the misinformation surrounding it is mind boggling. And from CES impressions, in comparison to the CV1, there is a very noticeable difference in quality.