Please, the only major knock on PSVR tech compared to the others is tracking. Which is fine like 99% of the time. Other parts of the tech on PSVR is even better.
-
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.
After E3, how do you feel about the future of VR?
- Thread starter border
- Start date
Please, the only major knock on PSVR tech compared to the others is tracking. Which is fine like 99% of the time. Other parts of the tech on PSVR is even better.
VR is just not going to take off until the headsets aren't as bulky, and even then it's a bit meh.
Videogames are already a pretty solitary activity, but imagine if you had to completely block yourself from the outside world to enjoy them. Thats VR. Would be cool to try in an arcade, but at home. Nah.
Videogames are already a pretty solitary activity, but imagine if you had to completely block yourself from the outside world to enjoy them. Thats VR. Would be cool to try in an arcade, but at home. Nah.
So you are saying what Border said isn't true for him/her and others?
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
I played Batman on Vive with its improved graphic and tbh, its really just a tech demo at the end of the day. The game length is too short and it ends after about an hour.
The wobbling issue, no true 360 tracking and lack of room scale is a killer. Many PSVR games are compromised, like Job Simulator, Special Delivery, Fated The Silent Oath etc
Suburban Thug
Member
I have always thought it was a fad and E3 didn't change my mind. I haven't even seen a VR headset in real life let alone tried a demo unit. I don't see it advertised or talked about outside of this niche enthusiast forum.
GoldenCrow
Member
Driveclub VR is one of the ugliest games on the hardware and missing a few features but I still prefer DCVR over the standard version, if you want to play a pretty VR games DCVR is not the game you play. This is a game that wasn't built with VR in mind and was running at 30fps yet they got it to be rendered twice and run at 60fps. Dirt Rally VR is a better looking game and not missing any features and again this wasn't a game developed with VR in mind (best VR racing game on any platform). When you jump across to games that are developed specifically for VR or had a much lower overhead the visual quality jumps significantly, especially those created for the PSVR and come very close to rivalling what is on PCVR.
The differences between PCVR and PSVR are no different than the separation between PC and console as the hardware specs and the price difference would suggest. Having the ability to switch between the two the only real area where the differences are clearest is the high fidelity tracking on PCVR, but without being able to switch ignorance is bliss just like it always has been between console and PC. The visual quality for the most part is marginal especially due to the quality of the PSVR screen even though it is lower resolution. Bound for example looks just as good as anything on PCVR and there is little it being on PCVR could do to improve it compared to the Pro version except for maybe giving even higher supersampling than what it already has.
If VR is to survive or not is dependent upon developers regardless of size delivering the content users want. Maybe this is the bigger developers bringing older games with added VR support such as Skyrim VR, or implementing additional fully fledged VR support into traditional games such as Resident Evil 7 and Dirt Rally VR. Maybe it is an indie developer flooding the market with new and experimental content such as Statik (some of the best stuff I have played in a long time though often undercooked but not always) and maybe one of them finding the next big hit like Minecraft was. At the moment the AAA developers making massive budget games just for VR doesn't make sense unless they are prepared to take the hit to try and grow the VR market but that is rarely how publishers work but they can still dip their toes in the market without needing to rely on a large instal base as they can also make the game playable for those without VR. Then there is the non-gaming side of VR which hasn't even really been explored yet.
This is oh so completely wrong. I've had multiple evenings with friends, different groups, and every time someone wanted to try PSVR. And it was ALWAYS fun for the whole group and they didn't want to stop. Asynchronous multiplayer titles, watching people play horror titles, playroom VR, all of that is just so much better with more people.
So it's a fad because you haven't even tried it?
Sony said they will ramp up advertising, now that enough units are being produced. So you might (depending on your surfing behaviour), actually get some ads.
Uh, you know not being able to do more than 180 tracking is not a 1% difference, right? There's no roomscale on it and the resolution on PSVR is half that of the other major VR headsets. There are quite a few knocks on PSVR compared to other headsets.
I think there should be a motion-sickness conscious option in VR games, I just don't think that it has to be teleport. Balancing a game that can use either teleport motion or artificial locomotion is incredibly difficult. There are other ways to simulate motion that don't cause motion sickness.
Imp the Dimp
Member
Looks like a fad. I'm not even gonna say "told you so" because I didn't, as I was always impressed by the VR effect when I tried one of those things, but I wouldn't put any stock in this technology going forward. It's expensive and many people including me still get nauseous shockingly fast to the point where it's outright debilitating. And frankly, I feel like video games are not the right application for it. Traveling, simulation, movies, porn, stuff like that maybe, but games are hard to stomach (literally) for me personally in VR.
I'm not talking about game length, I'm talking about the potential of the mechanics and the success of selling VR. It works amazingly, the sensation of being in a huge open space as you descend into the batcave for the first time is insane, and unlike anything offered in conventional videogame formats.
Not very optimistic, the VR gaming future isn't near, I don't think the next gen of consoles will support it in a more significant way than current gen, still don't think it's a comfortable device for a long gaming sessions for most people, we have a loooong way for VR to become a standard in gaming, maybe never.
Yautja_Warrior
Member
It's the Moves that are the real problem when it comes to 360 tracking because the PSVR headset supports 360 tracking, as it has lights on the back of the headband. Other issues are minor really (I have very little issue with mine) and VR works fine without room scale, even though room scale is great to have too.
Games like Job Simulator have had a slight rework to get around the limitation but still work very well, it's not like the games are massively cut down or don't work anymore and games like Farpoint and RE7 are great on PSVR. It's cheaper tech at the end of the day though, so it's never going to be as good as something like Vive but for the money, Sony have still delivered a decent VR experience overall.
SwiftSweeper
Member
VR is a new way to play games. Yes, VR is not for everybody. Some people get motion sick no matter what. Others expect steady flow of AAA games, which will not happen at this stage in the game. I am not surprised that some choose to return their headsets, but plenty of people are blown away by VR experience as well. From anecdotal evidence, I would say that most choose to keep their VR headsets. Any kind of medium has evangelists and detractors. This is nothing new and certainly not unique to VR.
I disagree with the premise that VR has to do a lot more. If we follow this logic, then, there is no need for PS2, PS3, PS4, 360, and Xbox One. After all, these consoles mostly output better and prettier versions of the genres that are available on PS1 and Original Xbox... Furthermore, racing games and flight sim games work great in VR, and they are not much different from flat 2D versions. 3D platformer is another genre that works well in VR. These games just put you in a world, and that is enough for most. I am sure VR will have new genres, and other genres that were all but dead will make comeback due to VR.
A lot of things that make driving games better in VR also make Thumper better in VR. You are less distracted and more immersed when playing Thumper in VR. Plus, you can judge the distance better due to 3D. It is a better game in VR.
As far as new experiences go, Farpoint is a good example. I used to play a lot console FPSs, and Farpoint was a revelation to me because I could realistically aim down the sights. Mortal Blitz is another good example because I can realistically hide behind the cover, blind fire etc. I would say Batman: Arkham VR is another good example as well as Star Trek and Statik. Harmonix Music VR lets you draw in VR 3D space, which is not possible with 2D games.
I don't have much hope for VR gaming as it stands right now. I think the headsets need to become essential in life like a phone to really get things moving, these dedicated VR gaming headsets like Vive and Oculus are not going to be that. Mobile gaming didn't explode necessarily because of the games themselves, but because smartphone usage exploded and games in general were well-suited to that kind of hardware.
That's what needs to happen. You need to find a way for VR to tap into the social and every-day life, and use that as a trojan horse to make people play VR games. In that sense I put bigger trust into AR (in the long term, not gonna happen any time soon).
That's what needs to happen. You need to find a way for VR to tap into the social and every-day life, and use that as a trojan horse to make people play VR games. In that sense I put bigger trust into AR (in the long term, not gonna happen any time soon).
Gamers are a strange bunch sometimes.
Sony brings actual VR to your home for like a fifth of the cost of it's competitors. Tech we've been waiting over 20 years for. It offers you exclusive experiences tailored to the short play sessions, it gives you full fat gaming experiences with RE7, GT Sport and Farpoint with Aim, and yet gamers are like:
"It's just a fad, I can't play COD on it" etc. Strange.
Sony brings actual VR to your home for like a fifth of the cost of it's competitors. Tech we've been waiting over 20 years for. It offers you exclusive experiences tailored to the short play sessions, it gives you full fat gaming experiences with RE7, GT Sport and Farpoint with Aim, and yet gamers are like:
"It's just a fad, I can't play COD on it" etc. Strange.
SwiftSweeper
Member
Wobbling rarely happens to me. When it does, I just move closer to/away from the camera and reboot PS4, which solves the problem for me.
In some games like Job Simulator, Batman Arkham VR, and Mortal Blitz, I can take a step or two in each direction without loosing tracking. It kind of feels like mini roomscale to me in these games. Obviously, it is not like Vive where I can walk from one side of the room to the other without loosing tracking.
OmegaTreeFish
Banned
My thoughts havn't really changed. It doesn't really interest me. In terms of gaming there needs to be something you simply can't do on anything else. Im not talking about the immersion factor added on current games. It needs to be something entirely unique and I don't think the hardware is quite there for that yet in terms of controls and it fitting nicely in your home.
I think it holds more potential down the line in regards to phone VR and virtual tourism or in the industrial and medical sector.
For me releasing something like Fallout 4 in VR does nothing for me, I would rather play it slumped on my sofa on a TV. I don't really crave that 'its like your there' factor that some people seem to want.
I think it's more likely that AR will make more sense with regards to gaming but the tech is pretty far of still I feel. And to hit the masses it needs to pretty much be done through your phone or some smallish and comfortable glasses like tech and reasonably afordable.
Its basically a tough sell in its current state and will continue to serve a fairly small niche who desire it. It will get there eventually but I think that place is a LONG way off yet.
I think it holds more potential down the line in regards to phone VR and virtual tourism or in the industrial and medical sector.
For me releasing something like Fallout 4 in VR does nothing for me, I would rather play it slumped on my sofa on a TV. I don't really crave that 'its like your there' factor that some people seem to want.
I think it's more likely that AR will make more sense with regards to gaming but the tech is pretty far of still I feel. And to hit the masses it needs to pretty much be done through your phone or some smallish and comfortable glasses like tech and reasonably afordable.
Its basically a tough sell in its current state and will continue to serve a fairly small niche who desire it. It will get there eventually but I think that place is a LONG way off yet.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Its should move beyond being just showing off the potential, and instead be a proper game. Take throwing batarang for example, its cool to throw them, but the only places you really need to use it is in target practice and probably at the penguin thugs segment. You see that beautiful Wayne manor, but you can only teleport to like 3 fixed spots in it. You can't freely move around and examine everything up close.
But i guess it is so due to budget constrain.
Honestly? VR is in a really bad place right now. I moved about a half year ago and haven't even bothered unpacking my Oculus. The only game I have played on it that I thought, "OK, this is actually really worth playing and introducing others to as a real game" was Superhot VR around Christmas and I've had this thing since launch.
They've already tackled all of the low-hanging fruit and no one seems to really be pushing this in the right direction. It's a niche product that sounds great in theory but, in practice, just doesn't do very much that's overtly compelling as a gaming experience. You're way, way, way better off saving for a nice 4KTV at any price over the Oculus/PSVR/Vive.
It may not be fair to be so hard on these right now to some, but... the investment and asking price is really high for so little, so I say it is okay to be hard on them for what they offer. Also: The tech can never really take off until they go wireless on the headsets. It's a very limiting factor that breaks the all-important immersion a little too often.
They've already tackled all of the low-hanging fruit and no one seems to really be pushing this in the right direction. It's a niche product that sounds great in theory but, in practice, just doesn't do very much that's overtly compelling as a gaming experience. You're way, way, way better off saving for a nice 4KTV at any price over the Oculus/PSVR/Vive.
It may not be fair to be so hard on these right now to some, but... the investment and asking price is really high for so little, so I say it is okay to be hard on them for what they offer. Also: The tech can never really take off until they go wireless on the headsets. It's a very limiting factor that breaks the all-important immersion a little too often.
Suburban Thug
Member
It's a fad because nobody really cares outside of enthusiasts. Normal people aren't dropping $400+ on a vr headset and the fact that I never see them is proof.
Starbuck2907
Member
VR is very cool when does be right.
But gaming is becoming more and more social. VR, in its current form, sort of works against that.
Plus, there is no way in hell that most spouses or significant others are going to embrace the idea of their partner being so blocked off from the real world for so long at once.
But gaming is becoming more and more social. VR, in its current form, sort of works against that.
Plus, there is no way in hell that most spouses or significant others are going to embrace the idea of their partner being so blocked off from the real world for so long at once.
I mean, you're proving their point.
I have both, and while the PSVR is fine for what it is given the cost, its potential is seriously hampered by it's tracking solution. Where as The Vive can do literally anything the PSVR can, while also delivering those things at MUCH higher fidelity - room tracking, game resolution, game framerate (locked 90 for everything rather than just a handful of stuff), peripheral expansion (not just replacing what can be tracked), ability to go absolutely wireless, pass through camera, more capable controllers...
...while having a drastically larger library that will see much more experimental, ground breaking VR software as a result.
Let's not down play this as some difference between PC gaming and console gaming, where it's mostly just resolution and framerate.
It'd be like someone saying their GearVR isn't that far removed from a PSVR. Being disengenous just keeps the back and forth going.
well its stuff like Fallout, open world rpgs, full length games 'immersive' out of the box, that will ultimately end up selling VR on the gaming front. definitely not something to write off until you tried it.
VR is amazing tech, but,
1) the cost of entry is too high
2) the hardware is too bulky
3) devs have yet to settle on design principles.
Basically, we're still very much in the Wild West of VR gaming. When basic concepts, like locomotion, are still being experimented and researched it should be clear that the product isn't ready for the masses.
1) the cost of entry is too high
2) the hardware is too bulky
3) devs have yet to settle on design principles.
Basically, we're still very much in the Wild West of VR gaming. When basic concepts, like locomotion, are still being experimented and researched it should be clear that the product isn't ready for the masses.
My main boon in VR has been depth perception, and having played Thumper and Polybius in their 2D and VR modes back-to-back I completely agree with the poster you're replying to. Having true depth fundamentally alters my ability level in both games, in much the same way it does when selecting braking points in DCVR.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
I'll love to have an Oculus Rift. They have been releasing some top notch high quality & big budget titles this year like Robo Recall, Rock Band, Wilson's Heart, Lone Echo, Arktika 1, The Unspoken, The Mage's Wand etc
OmegaTreeFish
Banned
I don't think thats true. I think it will have to be something you cant just buy and play on a TV. And not because its exclusive but because it wouldnt work with traditional controls. And for that to happen a lot of progress needs to be made on the controls side of things.
We havn't had many full games appear in VR yet but RE7 was a good example. People praised it in VR and many of those people, even though they loved it in VR, prefered it on the TV and went back to it because its just more comfortable to play that way.
VR is doing fine, not only in the videogames space but also in the academic space, where I often see my colleagues using VR for the service of the artist and the arts. It's actually very common at our University, even though it's very rare at the console space in our country. I think VR will survive just fine, but it's never going to be the next mainstream breakthrough some thought it would.
Yautja_Warrior
Member
I don't know, it might not be for everyone but me, my GF and friends love playing on PSVR games together. Games like Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes or Playroom VR (with it's number of multiplayer games) use the Social Screen to great effect and are a lot of fun with other people.
Online multiplayer works great in VR when playing alone too, with games like Werewolves within and Star Trek Bridge Crew bringing great social interaction online.
SwiftSweeper
Member
I did not mean to imply that Vive tracking is on par with PSVR. Vive tracking is better no question. I also agree that Vive has better controllers. Sony really needs to update Moves with analog sticks at least. Aim is excellent though, but it is mostly limited to shooters, so an updated Move would be a nice move by Sony.
I just think that PSVR tracking is good enough. Yes, there are occasional hiccups, but these can be fixed with minor adjustments. I bought a mike stand for the camera, which helps a lot as well. As far as room-scale goes, I just do not have space for it, and I found that I increasingly prefer seated VR experiences anyway since I prefer to play a few hours per session.
PSVR appeals to me because I do not have a powerful PC, and I have always been a console guy anyway. I much prefer more curated approach of Sony then the wild west of PCVR scene. PSVR and Sony exclusives are also a nice selling point. More comfortable headset and less screen door effect are nice to have as well.
In short, both Vive and PSVR have their pros and cons.
GoldenCrow
Member
As an early adopter that is part of then fun. There are no set rules and it is great to experience different ideas on small but fundamental elements that by large are set as standard in traditional gaming. It does require a certain mindset from the player though, for example: Some people don't like teleportation as a form of traversal but sometimes you just need to give them a nudge to approach the mechanic differently. Such as how fast can you manoeuvre within the space and what cool things can you do with teleportation that you can't with standard locomotion. You often see people playing games like Raw Data and Robo Recall being very static and treating them like a wave shooter but teleportation can allow you to flank and move around enemies far faster than normally possible allowing you to get in and out super fast opening up different gameplay mechanics and making the gameplay as if you are nightcrawler from X-Men.
I'm sorry but that is anecdotal evidence, not proof.
a fifth, huh?