-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Sony: OK with PSVR on PC in future, but current focus is games
- Thread starter Blanquito
- Start date
ForsakenLotus
Member
I don't know how difficult it would be, but they should absolutely allow PSVR on PC's and I think they should make it possible as soon as they can manage. Obviously the Rift and Vive are more premium headsets and the true enthusiasts are likely to get on of those; however, there are probably a decent amount of people who would get a PSVR considering it is $200+ cheapr, and that is especially true for those with a PS4 and a PC making the chances for software even higher.
I've thought from the start it was a mistake for the PSVR to be PS4 exclusive. I'm glad Sony is at least open to the PC market.
I've thought from the start it was a mistake for the PSVR to be PS4 exclusive. I'm glad Sony is at least open to the PC market.
serversurfer
Member
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.
Lister
Banned
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.
Oh well an analysts predicts it, so it must be so...
Zalusithix
Member
I'm just going to ignore everything about the framerate at this point because I'm getting to the point where I just don't give a damn. If people want to get the PSVR for potentially getting 120fps on the PC, fine. Maybe they'll be able to hit that target. Maybe they wont. Not my problem, and they wont be doing it on the cheap either way, which nullifies the major benefit of cost savings.
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.
Aztechnology
Member
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?
Zalusithix
Member
Devs can do 60 native reprojected to 120, 90 native displayed at 90, or 120 native. The higher they target, the more they have to sacrifice. 90 to 120 isn't supported. Nor is 60 to 90.
Mushroom021
Member
With this move Sony will win vr. Do what you gotta do Sony to sell PS software then make the leap!
Omnii-chan
Member
Make PS VR PC compatible and I'll buy the fuck out of one.
I wanted Oculus to play on my PC with FPS games and Euro Truck sim but the thing is so damn expensive and it's unclear about how their store works and with Steam games.
I wanted Oculus to play on my PC with FPS games and Euro Truck sim but the thing is so damn expensive and it's unclear about how their store works and with Steam games.
jabberwocker
Banned
What does win VR mean? How do they win anything? You mean sell the most headsets?
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
People really shouldn't make it about one headset vs another. As they've said, the main rival will always be mainstream adoption.
No. It supports 90hz and 120hz natively - it's either 60hz reprojected to 120, 90, or 120 native. Those are the three options.
serversurfer
Member
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.
potatohead
Member
Interpolation is not reprojection.
There is no interpolation at all in reprojection.
Aztechnology
Member
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.
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.
potatohead
Member
It is actually very simple.
All they are doing is frame-shifting or moving a single rendered frame up/down/left/right to make 60 fps become 120 fps. This creates the illusion of having a 120 fps even with only 60 fps.
The head movement and corresponding "movement" of the scene relative to the head motion makes it feel like another frame is made when it's actually just the last frame moved to a slightly different position.
This is literally "projecting" the same image twice, only the second time in a slightly different position (almost like parallax sideways movement to judge distance). Therefore it is literally "re-projection."
It works best in slow scenes with slow moving objects, which is what they have talked about in all their presentations.
For games with high speeds or fast-moving objects within the scene it is better to have a natively higher framerate like 90 fps or 120 fps that doesn't depend on reprojection.
In a perfectly static scene with no motion and no change in perspective you could even have 1 fps become 120 fps or 1000 fps like this, not unlike a paused 3D vision YouTube video that is paused.
Nightengale
Member
Won't devs just port the control scheme that the PSVR version of the games already implement?
As for games that have analog controls, I expect Sony to ask devs to adapt to their controller, and not the other way round.
Not until a PSVR 2 which will refresh everything from headset to tracking to controllers. (potentially)
Zalusithix
Member
For the analysts, I don't give a shit what they think or predict. The PC thrives regardless of what they think. The PC has been regarded as dead by analysts many times before, yet here it is still trucking. Also, numbers wise it's not just Vive. The Rift is technically capable of room scale with the touch controllers, and is certainly capable of 360 standing, regardless of whether Oculus push for it or not.
As for the framerates, I haven't heard of anybody demoing the Vive talking about how they were taken out of the experience by the 90hz. I wont say (and never did) that 90hz is the holy grail, but obviously it suffices, and wont break the feeling of presence anywhere near as much as your controller going haywire. Meanwhile on the quality bit, realism doesn't matter, but image quality sure as hell does. There's a reason why there's been efforts to reduce/eliminate SDE, kill aliasing, etc.
On the roomscale topic, you are welcome to your opinion, but I disagree. Personally I view the lack of being able to track a controller when I turn 180 degrees from the camera as a major limitation. It might not be needed for all experiences, but for those that it does make sense for? You're gimped without it. Same for roomscale. Nothing is the end all be all, but when you don't even have the option on the table, you're needlessly restricting yourself for no good reason. That and even in front facing situations, the move controllers are still lacking when compared to the Rift/Vive. A number of traditional buttons plus a trigger and ye ol rumble is archaic compared to either of what the PCVR options provide.
serversurfer
Member
Okie dokie.
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
Roomscale is just not viable for a lot, and I mean A LOT, of people though. Is it amazing and where i want vr to get to? Yes. Do I see it taking over as the main component of vr? No.
You think the space requirement is part of what killed kinect? Roomscale is that increased exponentially.
Honestly I can see room scale vr being great for theme parks, arcades and paintball ranges, but for home use? Don't see it becoming the main asset of vr for a long time.
You think the space requirement is part of what killed kinect? Roomscale is that increased exponentially.
Honestly I can see room scale vr being great for theme parks, arcades and paintball ranges, but for home use? Don't see it becoming the main asset of vr for a long time.
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
Dude, you can get what you want from DOA X3 on the PC already. Even more hardcore versions even.
googleplex
Member
Sony could also have their own PSN store front on PC and sell games through it.
Callibretto
Member
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.
Full room scale - 15ft X 15ft - I agree with you.
But standing or a small amount of movement? Grannies were playing Wii tennis standing up and millions of people did. Standing in a small space will not put people off. It needs no more space than your average Wii or Kinect game, but potentially offers a lot more entertainment
darkinstinct
...lacks reading comprehension.
Huh, London Studio new VR engine having a PC version makes even more sense now
Game development for consoles is mostly done on PC.
Possumowner
Member
This would be awesome,only for my own selfish needs as PSVR is my only affordable option so far,and id rather use the power of my PC over Ps4 anyday.
I hope this happens
I hope this happens
KampferZeon
Neo Member
Sony would not release pc support and i think hacking unofficial support is very technically difficult for games.
PSVR pc support only benefits PS4/PSVR owners to enjoy pc vr games. It will only happens if psvr proves to be a success. i.e. the psvr achieves a critical mass.
There are 35 million ps4, i will accept 10percent as the critical mass / minimum. So Sony need to sell 3 million units.
The most optimistic plam may be one third (10 mil)
Anyway i think the biggest blocking issue is quality control. Remember sony will reject any psvr games if the framerate drops below 60.
Sony doesnt want the psvr brand be tainted by news stories of people getting mption sickness
PSVR pc support only benefits PS4/PSVR owners to enjoy pc vr games. It will only happens if psvr proves to be a success. i.e. the psvr achieves a critical mass.
There are 35 million ps4, i will accept 10percent as the critical mass / minimum. So Sony need to sell 3 million units.
The most optimistic plam may be one third (10 mil)
Anyway i think the biggest blocking issue is quality control. Remember sony will reject any psvr games if the framerate drops below 60.
Sony doesnt want the psvr brand be tainted by news stories of people getting mption sickness
It's not really cheaper than oculus, which includes proper headphones and better technology. You would need the camera and controls too.
Nightengale
Member
Well, you need controls with Oculus as well.
I got a camera for 25 and two move controllers for 30. That's 455 total for PSVR. The Rift starts at 699 without shipping. How is that not cheaper?
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.
michaelius
Banned
I'd be more interested in getting one if I can use it like monitor for all the stuff that I own.
As long as all helmets are competing platforms with their own exclusives they are nothing more than toy accessories for me.
As long as all helmets are competing platforms with their own exclusives they are nothing more than toy accessories for me.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
That Pornhub VR channel is enticing Sony
True. Thats closest Sony can get for porn on PSVR
Sure but we are talking about the potential PC version here. It would need it's own camera and controls is another issue. 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.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
It's almost half price compared to the PC equivalents in the UK.
D
Deleted member 10571
Unconfirmed Member
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.
There's no need talking move when we're comparing PC rift to PC psvr.
VR wars. Gotta fight people on the internet to defend your $600/$800 purchase.
Utterly moronic, if you ask me. These are supposed to be add ons, not platforms. VR developers will be more than happy to have more options, specially cheaper ones, to sell their games to. Developing exclusively for specific headsets is utterly idiotic, unless you're getting a moneyhat.
D
Deleted member 10571
Unconfirmed Member
This will be a thing, won't it. Goddamn lol.
Sidewinder
Member
Pretty much what I expected to happen: PC compatibility at a later stage if ever, they need to meet the PS4 demand first, because that's where their money is at. But the fact, that they don't sell the PSVR at (near) loss makes this more probable than before.
Hope it happens.
Hope it happens.
Gotta make sure to keep the $400 plebs on their place.
Remember that the cost difference can be even more extreme outside of the US. For an Australian like me, the Rift and Vive are available only on their shops, complete with price increases, huge shipping costs, and then the currency conversion which results in prices of (if I recall correctly) either ~AU$1100 for the Rift (plus whatever Oculus Touch costs) or ~AU$1400 for the Vive. PSVR can be bought locally for AU$549, the camera is AU$79 but is sometimes on sale, and plenty of people like me already own the Camera and 2 Moves, making for over half a grand in savings. PSVR also has 120Hz instead of a max of 90, and a better quality screen besides the resolution.