• Now's your chance win big! Join our community and get entered to win a RTX 2060 GPU, plus more! Join here.

    Meet Stan Dmitriev of SurrogateTV on the Pi Cast TODAY! The show is live August 11th at 2:30 pm ET (7:30 PM BST). Watch live right here!

    Professional PC modder Mike Petereyns joins Scharon on the Tom's Hardware Show live on Thursday, August 13th at 3:00 pm ET (8:00 PM BST). Click here!

Sony's PSVR Official, Undercuts Rift And Vive At $399

Status
Not open for further replies.

CaedenV

Splendid
how does this thing get such great reviews by people who have used it? 18ms refresh, single 1080p display, powered by a console... on paper this thing looks like trash. I really need to get out more and check these out for myself some time to get a reference idea of what each provides.
 

everygamer

Distinguished
Aug 1, 2006
281
0
18,780
0
36 Million PS4 does not equal the count for VR developers, if only 100,000 VR headsets are sold by Sony, the developers market is only a max target of 100,000 for VR only games.
 

Tykkopoles

Reputable
Dec 16, 2015
21
0
4,510
0
120 Hz display, but games can opt to run at 60 Hz? No thanks. That's guaranteed motion sickness with a VR headset. Sony should mandate that developers optimize it for no lower than 90 Hz.
 

PhilipB82

Commendable
Mar 15, 2016
1
0
1,510
0
I don't see this price being a big deal IF they allow AAA developers to use this tech....Could you imagine God of War in VR? Uncharted? 2K18(already announced that 2kGames have something in the works!) GTA VI? There is potential here we as consumers and the industry have to allow this tech to work. And not to go on a rant, this may well bring 3D back into the forefront if done correctly.
 

wifiburger

Reputable
Feb 21, 2016
415
1
4,810
9
the price is too high for this accessory, how many % of PS4 owners are going to buy it to justify AAA games to come out ? lots of big ifs

and where's Microsoft Press on VR ? are they staying silent forever ?
 

turkey3_scratch

Polypheme
Ambassador
My question is how much more powerful this external processing unit really will be. It looks to me like the PSVR (external procesisng unit) connects via USB to the PS4. USB 3.0 transfer speeds are really slow, little bandwidth for a processing unit. How exactly is this going to communicate with the processor and the other GPU in the PS4 quickly enough over the limited bandwidth of USB 3.0? USB 3.0 bandwidth is 640 megabytes per second. Normal DDR memory technology used in GPUs has a bandwidth far exceeding that. Of course, I'm no expert when it comes to this memory and bandwidth, so I may be overlooking something here.

Also, how will the CPU not bottleneck? Eh, I guess good optimization will do it. The real question now is if Nintendo is getting into the VR game also with the NX console.

60 games at release seems like a lot more content than we have on PC.
 

hitman400

Honorable
Jul 24, 2012
90
0
10,630
0
No, you don't need the move controllers. You need the move controllers if you want to play the tacky VR games. NO thanks. I'll just use my headset for games like Project Cars. Games don't need to be built soley for VR
 

braneman

Distinguished
Nov 6, 2009
204
0
18,680
0
One thing I would like to say, Motion controls are GARBAGE. Not because there is no tactile feedback of any kind, nor because they require a lot more effort than normal controls, but because most developers have precisely ZERO CLUES as to how to implement them properly. Yes some of them have, but for every Skyward Sword there are a legion of failed games.

You should completely subtract the motion controllers from the cost as the likelihood of a game that's good, that uses VR AND uses motion controls that don't suck is about as likely as you winning the lottery.
 

fireaza

Distinguished
May 9, 2011
171
3
18,685
0
I've preordered the Vive, but at least in the event I decide to get a PSVR, I'll already have what I need. I knew it worth the extra ¥1000 to get the camera bundle! And I already have Move controllers, so I'd be set!
 

kcarbotte

Contributing Writer
Editor
Mar 24, 2015
1,993
2
11,785
0
Most people with PS4's don't have the move or camera. It'll basically cost as much as a Rift, which has better specs anyways...
Except a Rift needs a high end computer, so unless you already have that, the cost of a camera is negligible compared to the gaming PC for the rift.
Even if you don't have a PS4 yet, the cost of entry is still much lower.

how does this thing get such great reviews by people who have used it? 18ms refresh, single 1080p display, powered by a console... on paper this thing looks like trash. I really need to get out more and check these out for myself some time to get a reference idea of what each provides.
I had the same concerns until I tried it in September. The 1080p display isn't a normal 1080p panel. It's a low persistance display with independant R G and B subpixels. What that effectively means is that it can create a sharper image because each individual pixel can create any color. You don't need to blend 2 or 3 together to make colors.
This doesn't increase the resolution, but it sure tricks your eyes into thinking that it is.
There's also the fact that PSVR is made by Sony, which has many other divisions. The same teams that make Sony's SLR camera lenses were put to work on designing the optics for the PSVR headset. It makes a much bigger difference than you might think.

as for console power, the PS4 is surprisingly capable, but the VR games for the console won't be up to the same fidilety levels as we'll see on Vive and Rift.

36 Million PS4 does not equal the count for VR developers, if only 100,000 VR headsets are sold by Sony, the developers market is only a max target of 100,000 for VR only games.
Everone getting into the VR industry right now understands that it needs to grow. Thats one of the reasons you'll see lower budget games for the first generation of VR exclusive games.

120 Hz display, but games can opt to run at 60 Hz? No thanks. That's guaranteed motion sickness with a VR headset. Sony should mandate that developers optimize it for no lower than 90 Hz.
games can be made to run at 60Hz but Sony has a method of doubling that to 120Hz. This hasn't been explained in great detail. It remains to be seen how well this works.
It is likely that AAA games that have optional VR support will make use of this feature, but I suspect most VR only games will be 90Hz. Most developers are working together as a community to come up with best practices, and 90 fps is widely accepted as one of those.

I don't see this price being a big deal IF they allow AAA developers to use this tech....Could you imagine God of War in VR? Uncharted? 2K18(already announced that 2kGames have something in the works!) GTA VI? There is potential here we as consumers and the industry have to allow this tech to work. And not to go on a rant, this may well bring 3D back into the forefront if done correctly.
There's nothing stopping AAA developers from embracing VR except market size. You won't see a 10 or 20 million dollar budget game for VR for some time because there will be a much smaller market to sell to to try to recover that money.
It will happen, but it will be slow. The first game will be racing games, like we're already seeing, but other genres will pick up.
The more VR succeeds as a whole, the better it will be for content on all platforms.

the price is too high for this accessory, how many % of PS4 owners are going to buy it to justify AAA games to come out ? lots of big ifs

and where's Microsoft Press on VR ? are they staying silent forever ?
The price isn't too high at all. It's right in line with what the other competing devices cost. The tech inside them is cutting edge, and any new tech will always cost money. This isn't a Kinect. It's much more than that, and thar hardware is much more complex and expensive to make.

My question is how much more powerful this external processing unit really will be. It looks to me like the PSVR (external procesisng unit) connects via USB to the PS4. USB 3.0 transfer speeds are really slow, little bandwidth for a processing unit. How exactly is this going to communicate with the processor and the other GPU in the PS4 quickly enough over the limited bandwidth of USB 3.0? USB 3.0 bandwidth is 640 megabytes per second. Normal DDR memory technology used in GPUs has a bandwidth far exceeding that. Of course, I'm no expert when it comes to this memory and bandwidth, so I may be overlooking something here.

Also, how will the CPU not bottleneck? Eh, I guess good optimization will do it. The real question now is if Nintendo is getting into the VR game also with the NX console.

60 games at release seems like a lot more content than we have on PC.
The external box doesn't actually add any processing power. We covered this in september when I interview Richard Marks from the Sony Magic Lab (where they designed the VR headset)
The PS4 does all the processing. It warps the image to work in VR and does all of the calculations. The breakout boxes function is to unwarp the image that is going out to the TV.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/sony-richard-marks-playstationvr-immersed,30269.html


How many cables O.O
I uses a single HDMI and single USB cable that runs from the headset. Those cables go the box which has an HDMI cable and a USB cable leading to the PS4 and another one that goes to the TV.


No, you don't need the move controllers. You need the move controllers if you want to play the tacky VR games. NO thanks. I'll just use my headset for games like Project Cars. Games don't need to be built soley for VR
Most games do need to be built solely for VR, actually. A game like Project Cars translates very well to VR and is easy to just slap on and forget about everything else. Almost no other examples like that exist.
hand controls make a huge difference, and there's a reason that they are available for all three major heradsets. When Oculus first launched the Rift kickstarter it intended to sell just the headset, but the more people were show VR, the more it became obvious that the first thing that most people try to do while in VR is use thier hands. There's somethign eerie about not having your hands in front of your eyes when your brain knows they are moving. Motion controlls fix that uneasy feeling that some people get.

One thing I would like to say, Motion controls are GARBAGE. Not because there is no tactile feedback of any kind, nor because they require a lot more effort than normal controls, but because most developers have precisely ZERO CLUES as to how to implement them properly. Yes some of them have, but for every Skyward Sword there are a legion of failed games.

You should completely subtract the motion controllers from the cost as the likelihood of a game that's good, that uses VR AND uses motion controls that don't suck is about as likely as you winning the lottery.
In VR that is completly the oposite.
Its not easy at all to program abstract controls in VR, and having tracked motion controls takes away a large part of the animation process of development.
The key with VR is motion controls allow you to have natural, intuitive actions inside the game. It makes it much easier to pick up on the controls, and more approachable by a much wider audience, because you don't need to memorize a button to do an action. You just reach out and do it.

Motion controls are paramount for a great VR experience. They aren't going away, they will only be supported more and more over the years.
eventually, tracked hands will be the only way to interact in VR.
 

clonazepam

Distinguished
Jul 10, 2010
2,625
0
21,160
119
Seeing a video of a guy crawling around on his floor, banging his head on his own floor trying to look through a virtual hole pretty much sold me on the Vive.

I really like the idea here with the Cinematic mode. Turning off head motion and just kicking back in a recliner with a Dark Souls or other media is compelling to me. I understand its not what VR is all about, but I'm a big fan of options, so for better or worse, I support its inclusion. (not buying a PS4 etc, just hoping its available on all headsets)
 

Vorador2

Distinguished
Jun 26, 2007
462
2
18,785
0
Most people with PS4's don't have the move or camera. It'll basically cost as much as a Rift, which has better specs anyways...
You do realize that you don't need to buy the Move controller. Depending on what you're going to play, you might need it or not. Or it might suffice with the PS4 controller, it has basic motion sensors.

Besides, the Rift also doesn't include its own Motion Controllers, which will be released at a later date...
 
Sony seems to be doing what Oculus promised years ago and has so far failed to fulfill. VR for the masses at a reasonable price. VR on the PS4 might not provide the sharpest visuals, but it's available at a price that will allow for mass-market adoption. Oculus, on the other hand, is coming out with their consumer product years later than they should have, yet still aiming it at early adopters willing to pay a premium for tech that will be obsolete in a couple years. I have little doubt that Oculus could have launched their headset at $400 and still established a profitable business, allowing VR on the PC to rapidly become mainstream. They could have easily reduced the targeted system requirements a bit as well, to make their device more marketable to those without a $300+ graphics card and $200+ processor. As it is, many PC VR games will be designed to also run on the PS4 anyway, so a lower hardware target would have easily been possible.

As for the added cost of the camera and controllers to make the Move complete, that's not a problem. Oculus won't even have a first-party motion controller available when their product launches, and it isn't included in their $600 price either. Just a standard Xbone controller that hardly anyone buying the device will even need. Also, the PS4 camera is currently just $44 on Amazon, and the Move controllers are $29 each, so two controllers plus the camera would only add another $100 to the cost. Going by the pricing of the Rift, their eventual motion controllers will likely cost at least that much, if not more, keeping their device and controllers still a couple hundred dollars more than PSVR. And of course, there's the system required to run the setup, which is around $350 in the case of the PS4, and $1000 or more in the case of a capable PC. A complete PSVR system will set you back around $850, or probably even less when sold bundled together, while a complete Oculus Rift System will be around twice that.

I'll still more likely go the PC route for VR, since I primarily game on the PC and am overdue for a new desktop anyway. But I'll likely be looking elsewhere for a VR headset unless Oculus somehow manages to redeem themselves in the months to come. Even the Vive, while costing more, at least provides a much more complete VR package out the door, and never claimed to be a mainstream offering. I'm sure there will be plenty of other headsets appearing over the next year or so from other manufacturers to select from though. If anything, Oculus likely just missed the chance to define themselves as the go-to name for VR.


Motion controls are paramount for a great VR experience. They aren't going away, they will only be supported more and more over the years.
eventually, tracked hands will be the only way to interact in VR.
I mostly agree with this, but I don't think tracked hands alone will necessarily be the 'only' way to interact in VR. There's still certainly room for different kinds of controllers to fit different kinds of games. With a racing game, for example, ideally you would want a wheel and pedals to complete a VR experience, rather than just holding your hands out in front of you on some virtual wheel that will provide no tactile feedback and quickly make your arms uncomfortable. The same goes for a joystick setup for a flight game. Technically, I suppose we could argue that wheels and joysticks are a form of hand tracking themselves, but you'll want some kind of physical controller there. And even a standard gamepad would be better than virtual "air controls" for those kinds of games, although many motion controllers will continue to have some form of thumbsticks, buttons and triggers to handle those kinds of games. And think of something like a third-person fighting game, like street fighter, that could provide players with an interesting VR experience from an onlooker's point of view, without having the player flailing awkwardly with their own unskilled kicks and punches that they might get from a first-person perspective. There's certainly going to be plenty of VR games that you won't necessarily want to be controlling with one-to-one motions.
 

toddybody

Distinguished
Dec 13, 2010
1,201
0
19,960
240
Puke Goggles...for ~500.00 when everything is said and done. Current gen consoles should have left VR alone and waited for their new HW refresh.

The PS4 can't provide 60fps @ 1080p across titles...and the latency will be killer. The PS Eye wasnt made for VR.
 

kcarbotte

Contributing Writer
Editor
Mar 24, 2015
1,993
2
11,785
0


Valve announced a mode that lets you play your entire steam library on a virtual big screen. I'm not sure about turning head tracking off though.
You would think it would be great, but having a solid screen attached to your face is actually very uncofortable. When you're watching TV you have the suroundings of the room around you to ground you. Having just the screen takes away your frame of reference. It's wierd.

 

turkey3_scratch

Polypheme
Ambassador
@kcarbotte: I tried the Samsung Gear VR at Best Buy, and what bugged me was the resolution. The first thing I noticed was that I could distinguish all the pixels. When you tried the Gear VR< did you experience this, and are the Oculus and Vive VR dramatically different? I know you were talking about how the pixels act as their own colors in the Rift. So do you not notice the pixels at all? Because I did on the Gear VR.
 

clonazepam

Distinguished
Jul 10, 2010
2,625
0
21,160
119




It could be absolutely fine. It's really up to the art teams' creativity to do everything they can with what they are given. Would it be so bad to have VR games that have details on par with what we've seen last gen? Not the best example, but people have shouted loudly around the world that MGSV has incredible graphics, but look at the jeep as one example. It's basically a rectangular solid with an octagon on the back for a spare tire. The game world is incredibly bare, lifeless, propless, inanimate, and there's very little challenge in the way of NPC pathing and collision. None of that matters as you play it though. This is where a good (art) team comes in and really fools the eye.

I think it could be fine. It could end up like the original Playstation, and there's a ton of shovelware like Spawn, Mega Man, and thousands of other pieces of garbage. Surely, there will be a few gems in the mix.
 

clonazepam

Distinguished
Jul 10, 2010
2,625
0
21,160
119


I can only guess, but I'm going to assume just about everything from mobile VR will be ported to Oculus to maximize exposure. I'm also going to assume that the Vive might be much more flexible in that regard.

Cruise through Steam and try to find games compatible with VR. A lot of them look like they'd run on toasters.

VR games aren't replacing AAA games. There's no way that could ever happen. That's a huge downgrade in creativity as far as I'm concerned.

People like to run, take cover, power slide, sneak attack, JUMP, and all of those things would just be disorienting to a player. AFAIK, you can't be super human in VR. You'd puke.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY