Bullshit article. Neither public prototype is ready for release, and neither has announced a release date yet.
When it comes to their public prototype, they have a lot to catch up to. I wonder how they'll get low-persistence screens and whether they implement time-warp.
They could have done that already, but who knows?
90fps is above the flicker fusion threshold in most situations, but not everything and there is still the issue of temporal aliasing.
It won't be the gold standard until we see temporal anti-aliasing and/or frameless rendering like Carmack discussed during his GearVR keynote.
1440p is far from gold-standard. It isn't even equivalent to a HDTV at typical viewing distances.
I know you're quite a smart guy and are not clueless about VR, so I've gotta ask - why did you post this article as if it was news? Surely you knew very well how nonsense it was?
I mean, I'm always happy to get more VR discussion, but this seemed a bit of a bait, maybe?
The experience the way I envision it is far more involving than something like a Google Tour because despite the valid barriers to complete immersion you bring up it still enables a far more thorough and immediately understandable experience than viewing stills. For the same reasons real life approximations of things, like models depicting famous landmarks, architectural designs, objects, representations of data, etc. exist, but on a larger scale. Through VR you get a truer sense of depth and place, as though you're looking at actual objects or representations of objects and can actually relate them with reference points in your mind. It's one thing to describe architecture and say "the ceiling in this room is x feet high", or to even view panoramic pictures of a setting on the internet, and another entirely to view even a decent approximation as though you're looking at it in person, with actual depth. it's not something to be understated. You don't need something like an Omni to make things like this possible and rewarding, either. I'd imagine that in an example like this the users (students) would traverse the simulation using keyboard to move their viewpoint and turn 180 degrees, and head tracking to change their perspective. They don't have to be represented as much more than floating ghosts so long as they can communicate verbally with one another and with their teacher (although this isn't a totally social example, and as I mentioned earlier when it comes to socializing in VR you do bring up valid points of concern). If you have something to point out, a virtual marker could be placed where you're looking at the press of a button, notifying your teacher. These are all things that can be addressed in intuitive manners that don't keep the experience as a whole from being elevated above other means of learning about that sort of material. Even if you just popped from room to room, from painting and sculpture to painting and sculpture, unable to move but able to turn your head and visualize things, that's still a step up.
The cost is a bit of an irrelevant detail to this hypothetical because #1 I guarantee you schools wouldn't be paying full price for these things, especially in bulk #2 it's a one time expense (plus licensing fees for applicable software etc) #3 you'd really only need enough for one classroom at a time, it's not like you'd need to outfit the entire school in these things.
Thank you for the first full fledged response. I agree its a step up, but there are a whole lot of details that need to get figured out to get there.
My biggest issue on the cost side isn't the headsets themselves, its who spends the money to recreate each location to the level of detail required to create a fully 3D immersive environment for use. Today, game developers build the world can cater it to VR. Think about having to go and perform measurements at possible field trip locations to approximate being there. The amount of time and money that would need to go into that is absurd. You would need to front all of that money and then hope that people are willing to license the tour from you.
I can totally see Sony succeeding with Morpheus as an accessory for the PS4. They will hit the market first because they are more aggressive and they have a healthy stable of 1st party developers that might actually take a crack at it. Plus, Sony will add some style to it, even if it says nothing about it's technical ability.
Occulus VR seems more like an eccentric pet project. It's constantly iterating. They still have not settled on a basic input method. There is also the potential for "too many hands in the pot" with all the names associated with it now. I just don't see this thing ever getting big time traction. It feels like a permanent Trade-show/Demo type of thing that will never make it's way to retail.
Outside of games is where I think this has the most promise. If I bought an OR or a Morpheus to play games, it would completely cut me off from the outside world. I can see why some people would think that is desirable but I will soon have a new born. I would use the thing once and my wife would rip it off my head to get me to help with the baby!
However, OR coupled with a powerful camera rig and a robotic surgery device would allow for some amazing things.
I want VR to work in the sense of making a really cool video game. I think it can add a ton to the immersion on that end. Whenever I get a real gaming rig built up, I will be diving into OR.
I just think the recreation of making field trips and other real life encounters is far fetched.
Yea....this is a going to be a hot topic in regards to that, because I would rather go to Kings Dominion, Six Flags vs trying to experience it in VR. Water park wouldnt be the same...lol
That said tho....I am nervous about roller coasters. VR could help me experience the feeling without actually being on one. I say this because years ago at the Air n Space Museum, there was a movie that wasnt in 3D....but the camera angle, view made it feel like we were flying in space, in a space shuttle and on a roller coaster. My stomach actually dropped.
And it should be alot cheaper doing it in VR vs real life. If some choose to use VR vs the real thing, so be it. I think many ppl spend more time online than off line as is. Probably talk more and express their opinions more online vs off line.
I do agree with you in regards to not replacing real experiences. Because our family trip to Myrtle Beach wouldnt have been the same in VR. The water, the sand, getting ice for the room, the way the air felt and smelled in the morning.... Sights n sounds probably can be duplicated in VR....but not feel n smell.
I think its up to individuals if they want VR to replace some experiences. The debates in this thread reminds me of the movie Surrogates. And I wont lie and say I do fear a situation like The Matrix happening or the premise for The Terminator. Sometimes I wish we stepped back from online, technology....give it a break at times. I see adults acting like kids on Twitter, Face Book. I shake my head at times.
"untethered" how though? I don't think mobility is very relevant for VR. You need a headset and an input method, and you need to be in a safe, sit-down place. It's not like a phone where it's always in your pocket taking up essentially zero space at all times and ready at a moment's notice.
The main advantage mobile can provide is just a screen and processor you already own, VR is probably mostly going to be a sit-down at home experience regardless.
I guess I meant as an unwired standalone experience. Yes you need a headset, but bringing that with me or passing it around the room to is much easier than me having to pack up my Oculus and making sure I have a laptop or computer that chug out some tech demo at a decent frame rate.
I know you're quite a smart guy and are not clueless about VR, so I've gotta ask - why did you post this article as if it was news? Surely you knew very well how nonsense it was?
I mean, I'm always happy to get more VR discussion, but this seemed a bit of a bait, maybe?
I spend my free time talking about videogames rather than playing them. I'm already at the bottom.
I agree that the article is silly in predicting that VR will hit a wall and just disappear for ten years if it is not super-successful in its first year (prediction: it will do 'ok' but no more).
I do believe that Sony is better situated to capture that potential early market due to the benefits of a console ecosystem.
I don't really except either Sony nor Oculus to make large profits from VR in quite a while. I don't expect either to cross ten million units in their first two years. It's all future investment.
Outside of games is where I think this has the most promise. If I bought an OR or a Morpheus to play games, it would completely cut me off from the outside world. I can see why some people would think that is desirable but I will soon have a new born. I would use the thing once and my wife would rip the thing off my head to get me to help with the baby!
However, OR coupled with a powerful camera rig and a robotic surgery device would allow for some amazing things.
This would be a much better way to use Occulus, VR IMO.
Dropping a unit into a mining tunnel or a volcano or a deap-sea drilling unit to locate oil beds seems more practical to me.
Use it to replace Ultrasound or Sonar - or maybe even combine it with the two to get a VR-view of something that we otherwise couldn't get into safely.
No it doesn't. I just struggle to imagine that the amount of work required to make it worthwhile is out there. Can you imagine trying to model the Grand Canyon?
The best Move for Sony would be to make the Morpheus compatible to PC as well. If I had to chose between Morpheus and OR and only one of them was compatible with both PC and PS4 I wouldn't have to think about which one I would chose.
Morpheus would be a system seller if it takes off. They're not going to make huge profits off the device itself, and the real upside for them is attracting people to PS platform and SEN. Making $10 off each of the 100k potential buyers on PC is useless.
I'm not saying its worthless. I'm saying its not the savior that everyone seems to think it may be. It's a cool experience and nothing more than that. People think this will revolutionize social experiences but I don't see it.
To use your example, the school shells out $300 a pop for a VR headset and everyone heads to the Louvre. How do they traverse it? Are they on one of those pads where you can walk or do they have a controller? How do they get closer to the pictures? How do they talk with their classmates about what they see and point stuff out?
The only way this gets done is if you put mics on everyone and give them fully modeled bodies and faces so you can see where people are pointing or who is talking. Is each person modeled to look like they do in real life or is it just an avatar with a name over it? Is it worth someone spending the time to do this?
How is this different from a click through Google Tour? You still aren't there, you can just now see the whole room? The resolution will be nowhere near as high as it would be if you were there. So what do you get out of it more than an expensive video tour?
Something like improved PS Move controllers would be ideal in the short term, and sufficiently realistic for the purposes you outline. With regards to what you would see when you look at your classmates who are with you in VR-Louvre, you would ideally see a customized avatar made using a 3D image taken of their faces, as well as the physiological data. Both are possible in current gen games using a Kinect or PS Camera; while still flawed, it's come a long way. Oh, and you'd be wearing a headset with a mic. Obviously.
What you'd get out of it is an actual sense of presence, as well as absolute freedom of movement. I presume you haven't tried either the Morpheus or the newer iterations of the Oculus, but exploring a place even using something as basic as the DK1 would be a huge improvement over clicking through static images in Streetview.
The phone and other means to communicate are a way to stay in touch, but it has not replaced true social interactions. If one of your family members was in distress, does a phone call work? Does a video call work? Does VR do anything different? Can it replace you putting your arm around them? No. In person works best.
My main point is that VR will not revolutionize social experiences. Until it can full replicate the sensations such as touch and smell and the emotional aspects of social experiences it will remain a cooler form of video.
I agree that VR may be a cooler way to go to the Grand Canyon then looking at photos, but it does not replace being there. Its an expensive way to go view something.
Uh, no. No it isn't. If I wanted to go to the Grand Canyon right now, it would cost me at least 1228.31 USD(According to momondo.com), just for the round-trip on the plane. And that's just the Grand Canyon. With a VR headset, I could see the Grand Canyon in the US, the Forbidden City in China, Mars, the Apollo 11 landing site, and anywhere else we can manage to get a 3D camera to. No, it won't be the same as going there using any VR headset that is likely to be available within a decade, but as time goes by, the disparity between real life and VR is only going to decrease.
Ok so explain to me how VR would replicate the feeling of picking up a rock in the Grand Canyon? How does it replicate the mass? Will someone come up with a product that instantly changes mass and transforms into what we want it to be to reflect what you are feeling?
This is obviously not going to happen in the very near future, but there's a lot of interesting development going on in the prosthetics industry, where the first prosthetic arms with actually nervous feedback have just recently undergone very successful human trials. Currently, they require a physical connection between a wire and the raw nerve, but there's no reason to believe that close-distance wireless manipulation of nerve signals is impossible to achieve, or at worst could be achievable with a small implant in the spinal cord. At that point, the border between real life and VR will truly be all but gone, although I would be the first to admit that I don't see it happen for at least 30 years, and in the case of an implant, would probably only interest die-hard VR fanatics like me. Then again, if someone had predicted that most of humankind would be connected through the internet by way of a screen small enough to fit in a jeans pocket just 50 years ago, people would have found that preposterous as well.
In the meantime; we know that electromagnetic fields have a way of screwing with our sense of touch, at least. Further developments in that area might serve as an adequate stopgap until the more futuristic technologies become widely available.
But even if none of that comes to pass, from what I've seen of VR(Morpheus & DK1), a slightly higher-resolution screen and increasingly powerful hardware should be plenty to satisfy most tourists. It's certainly more immersive than watching a documentary or doing a Skype-call, and both seem to be doing very well in spite of their limitations.
Fun fact: If I were to want to see my parents or girlfriend right now, it would cost me about the same as that trip to the Grand Canyon. I travel between Europe and Japan quite frequently, so I'd really like to have an alternative to Skype calls. For that reason alone, I'll buy any decent VR-headset in a heartbeat the moment a social VR application becomes available.
You think Sony haven't build a dozen or more different prototypes behind doors?
Just because Oculus is showing off what they're doing more doesn't mean their approach to developing this hardware isn't actually quite similar. Oculus going out and doing trade shows and getting dev kits into people's hands is what's created all this VR buzz in the first place. You think Sony's few meagre showings would have made this much of an impact by half?
Outside of games is where I think this has the most promise. If I bought an OR or a Morpheus to play games, it would completely cut me off from the outside world. I can see why some people would think that is desirable but I will soon have a new born. I would use the thing once and my wife would rip it off my head to get me to help with the baby!
However, OR coupled with a powerful camera rig and a robotic surgery device would allow for some amazing things.
Wouldn't you have to help with the baby if you were just playing a game on your console?
It takes one second to remover the Headset and your audio is just a regular headphone, I don't see why people think it is the end of the world.
I think VR will be much more social than regular games, since it will probably make it much easier for people that aren't used to VG to enjoy them, just like the WiiMote did for while. Trying to get someone who isn't not used to games to control a 3D camera in a 2D screen can be a nightmare, while in VR its just the natural motion of their heads, combiner with some sort of motion control for their hands.
Morpheus would be a system seller if it takes off. They're not going to make huge profits off the device itself, and the real upside for them is attracting people to PS platform and SEN. Making $10 off each of the 100k potential buyers on PC is useless.
The wrong way of thinking and why Sony missed the bus on many previous technologies. PS4 doesn't need Morpheus exclusivity to sell more and a successful Morpheus with the backing of PC devs, independent devs, would result in much more support for Morpheus in PS4. Just getting devs to develop games thinking about the Morpheus is a gain to Sony and the PS4.
Its just like DS4 or Move support for PC, Sony can only gain from it. To me this is similar to Sony developing a PS4 exclusive TV whit the hopes it would help selling PS4s, all they would do be doing is limiting the potential market for said TV.
No it doesn't. I just struggle to imagine that the amount of work required to make it worthwhile is out there. Can you imagine trying to model the Grand Canyon?
I can. And there are simplistic demos of photos. It also depends how it's filmed. There are 3D orb cameras being researched right now that can film "on a rail" but you'd be able to "Be there" and see it like you would if you were actually there.
Right now, the tech is based on a sitting experience, so imagine if you were flying through the grand canyon or in a hot air balloon where you can't/wouldn't walk up to a small rock and see the pixels. But you are flying/hovering through the canyon with complete freedom to move your head around. Like a rollercoaster through the Grand Canyon.
There's a game called World of Diving and a demo called Ocean Rift that replicate diving ... it's amazing, you know it's just a model because it's done by a couple guys but if the screen/hardware could replicate a really really good 3D model, like "Toy Story Graphics", you would be blown away.
The tech isn't there right now, but like anything we go from Pong to GTA IV with mods on PC making it look practically realistic.
Thank you for the first full fledged response. I agree its a step up, but there are a whole lot of details that need to get figured out to get there.
My biggest issue on the cost side isn't the headsets themselves, its who spends the money to recreate each location to the level of detail required to create a fully 3D immersive environment for use. Today, game developers build the world can cater it to VR. Think about having to go and perform measurements at possible field trip locations to approximate being there. The amount of time and money that would need to go into that is absurd. You would need to front all of that money and then hope that people are willing to license the tour from you.
that's true but the technology to enable these things are actively advancing alongside with Oculus. For example, while measurements for a place like this already exist, it may be difficult to translate minute detail over to a virtual environment, and that's after modeling the basics and most important details of the environment to begin with. Environment scanning using 3D cameras is already a technology that exists, however, and in tandem with hand-modeling specific little details I could imagine an effective streamlined process for this eventually coming to be, inexpensively relative to measuring and then hand-modeling an entire environment. And I'd also imagine that suppliers of virtual environments would concentrate on those most viable for education and entertainment purposes first (likely being content providers who are already entrenched in those fields), and build catalogs of these to license in group.
The niche enthusiast group will undoubtedly want Oculus, but I think Sony has a better chance for wide-spread consumer adoption if only because it's a closed hardware system and games can literally be designed to automatically run well on the system while using Morpheus. I'm sure the Oculus will run better than the Morpheus given the right computer, but when you're selling a product owned by Facebook the key is to reach as many people as possible, not to reach a niche group that can run the system at max settings to get an awesome experience (see: Nvidia 3d Vision). The software and drivers and graphic settings need to be incredibly damn slick and hassle-free (nearly automated) on the PC side for Oculus to be workable on an average consumer level.
The niche enthusiast group will undoubtedly want Oculus, but I think Sony has a better chance for wide-spread consumer adoption if only because it's a closed hardware system and games can literally be designed to automatically run well on the system while using Morpheus. I'm sure the Oculus will run better than the Morpheus given the right computer, but when you're selling a product owned by Facebook the key is to reach as many people as possible, not to reach a niche group that can run the system at max settings to get an awesome experience (see: Nvidia 3d Vision). The software and drivers and graphic settings need to be incredibly damn slick and hassle-free (nearly automated) on the PC side for Oculus to be workable on an average consumer level.
No it doesn't. I just struggle to imagine that the amount of work required to make it worthwhile is out there. Can you imagine trying to model the Grand Canyon?
I think there will be many levels of quality in VR. In the early stages, the success of one should help the other. If Morpheus is the cheap mass produced product that becomes popular, Oculus will be the high end experience that's better but has a higher barrier of entry. Basically it will be similar to console vs high end PC.
Thank you for the first full fledged response. I agree its a step up, but there are a whole lot of details that need to get figured out to get there.
My biggest issue on the cost side isn't the headsets themselves, its who spends the money to recreate each location to the level of detail required to create a fully 3D immersive environment for use. Today, game developers build the world can cater it to VR. Think about having to go and perform measurements at possible field trip locations to approximate being there. The amount of time and money that would need to go into that is absurd. You would need to front all of that money and then hope that people are willing to license the tour from you.
There are still a lot of(valid) concerns as to whether this technology is suitable for games, but as for virtual tourism? Hell yeah. With this, I'd argue mapping the Grand Canyon in 3D would end up costing less than making a modern AAA title, and would have a far bigger potential audience.
But how many of them outperform a PS4 when it comes to rendering actual current-gen games? I sincerely doubt it could be all that many(Though I haven't been able to find any data relating to this subject).
Like many others have said, the PS4 doesn't have enough power to drive games at a fidelity that we would be used to from its first party exclusives. I think the Occulus' biggest advantage will be the ability to use a PC's more powerful hardware and have more advanced features.
I think there will be many levels of quality in VR. In the early stages, the success of one should help the other. If Morpheus is the cheap mass produced product that becomes popular, Oculus will be the high end experience that's better but has a higher barrier of entry. Basically it will be similar to console vs high end PC.
This. I don't think that the success of one VR device necessarily means doom and gloom for the other. It's not like they are directly competing. Morpheus is targeted towards the PS4 and their respective owners, whereas Oculus is clearly being marketed for PC.
If anything, Crescent Bay indicates that they're closer than ever. They kept saying at Oculus Connect how they're almost there, and Palmer said in an interview after Connect "The quality of the [Crescent Bay] experience is good enough that it could ship as a product right now and we wouldnt be ashamed of it, there is just a lot of last-minute tweaking that needs to go on".
We need both. Console VR is great and open-platform VR is great. They both hit different markets and expose people to VR in different ways. VR is going to be all the better for having as many platforms as possible served. Oculus will benefit from console VR and console VR will benefit from PC VR. And add in mobile VR and its another 'win-win' situation for VR and everybody involved.
The wrong way of thinking and why Sony missed the bus on many previous technologies. PS4 doesn't need Morpheus exclusivity to sell more and a successful Morpheus with the backing of PC devs, independent devs, would result in much more support for Morpheus in PS4. Just getting devs to develop games thinking about the Morpheus is a gain to Sony and the PS4.
Its just like DS4 or Move support for PC, Sony can only gain from it. To me this is similar to Sony developing a PS4 exclusive TV whit the hopes it would help selling PS4s, all they would do be doing is limiting the potential market for said TV.
It's relatively easy for most PC or Indie devs to get on PS4 if they wanted to, and most likely will want to anyways. Depending on how well Morpheus is received, Sony could be the ones leading the charge on attracting devs for software support, not PC. In the end both will get ports so I don't think lack of software support will be a worry despite exclusivity.
Sony may not need Morpheus to sell more PS4s but it sure doesn't hurt. Like I said, attracting people to the platform is key because of the ecosystem, as in selling subs and software sales.
There are still a lot of(valid) concerns as to whether this technology is suitable for games, but as for virtual tourism? Hell yeah. With this, I'd argue mapping the Grand Canyon in 3D would end up costing less than making a modern AAA title, and would have a far bigger potential audience.
But how many of them outperform a PS4 when it comes to rendering actual current-gen games? I sincerely doubt it could be all that many(Though I haven't been able to find any data relating to this subject).
Is more power good? Yes. Will PS4 VR look as good as OR VR on an expensive PC? No. Is the PS4 powerful enough to create compelling VR experiences, albeit at a slightly lower visual fidelity than traditional games on the console? Yes.
How can it be both Apple and Android? Worst analogy possible.
If anything Sony will try to go with the Apple strategy of a more controlled environment while OR will use the Android strategy of being more open and available everywhere.
It's relatively easy for most PC or Indie devs to get on PS4 if they wanted to, and most likely will want to anyways. Depending on how well Morpheus is received, Sony could be the ones leading the charge on attracting devs for software support, not PC. In the end both will get ports so I don't think lack of software support will be a worry despite exclusivity.
Sony may not need Morpheus to sell more PS4s but it sure doesn't hurt. Like I said, attracting people to the platform is key because of the ecosystem, as in selling subs and software sales.
Even regarding power that I see gets brought up, what's stopping Sony from releasing more powerful models later?
The technology isn't going to stop with PS4. Just like how it took many console cycles till we got proper 3D graphics, Morpheus could just be considered the first gen of VR till the next generational upgrade.
The next model wouldn't have to benefit from just power. There could be new technology that enhances how you use VR that wasn't possible before. And I think Sony would rather exploit that, then hype up more power.
Morpheus has the chance to take off like the Wiimote and Kinect, Oculus doesn't have that privilege. When was the last time a pc exclusive peripheral set the world on fire? A simple device that connects to the PS4 out of the box and ready to use. Simplicity will define these products, and the AAA games of course.
Like many others have said, the PS4 doesn't have enough power to drive games at a fidelity that we would be used to from its first party exclusives. I think the Occulus' biggest advantage will be the ability to use a PC's more powerful hardware and have more advanced features.
And Morpheus will have the massive advantage that it just works. You plug it in (there may be some setup), you get a compatible game, and off you go. It's guaranteed to work as intended, because both the headset and the games target a single hardware specification. As long as devs that make Morpheus games make sure that their games run smoothly (which, again, shouldn't be a problem) you're guaranteed a good experience without any fuss. For more casual users intruiged by VR, Sony has a pretty big advantage here.
With OR you're gonna have to worry about if your PC is powerful enough, tweak settings to get a good experience if it isn't, mess with drivers, etc. It has the potential to deliver even more visually impressive VR experiences, yes, but it will not just work in the same way.
Additionally, there's already a standard 3D controller for the PS4, the Move. You know that's the one to get, and you know it's gonna work. The DS4 also has motion sensing, as well as limited 3D positioning thanks to the lightbar, so even without the Move some 3D motion stuff can be done with the controller every PS4 owner already has. Has Oculus made any 3D controller the "standard" for OR yet? Or is this just gonna be a big mess of varying compatibility?
But how many of them outperform a PS4 when it comes to rendering actual current-gen games? I sincerely doubt it could be all that many(Though I haven't been able to find any data relating to this subject).
If Steam surveys are anything to go by, for every person with a PS4, there's at least 1 person on Steam alone that has a PC at least as strong (7870 / 660 and above).
Also, what's gonna give in PS4 VR games when they cannot decrease the framerate or resolution because it would make people sick? Will the graphics kinda peak somewhere, or the worlds / environments get smaller?
One big problem for sony is that the PS4 isn't as powerful as a decent PC, so the experiences will be lower fidelity. But still good.
One big problem for oculus is that there isn't one box you can buy to go with the rift. Buy Morpheus and a PS4 and you're done, buy an oculus rift and then the relative minefield of PC buying awaits. Not for enthusiasts, but for the mainstream I think it will be a problem. Also ensuring a smooth framerate may be more difficult for the average user. On console that is a single target and so the onus is on the developer. Not so on PC. I wonder if oculus could make something like nvidias optimiser to adjust graphics settings for framerate?
If Steam surveys are anything to go by, for every person with a PS4, there's at least 1 person on Steam alone that has a PC at least as strong (7870 / 660 and above).
Also, what's gonna give in PS4 VR games when they cannot decrease the framerate or resolution because it would make people sick? Will the graphics kinda peak somewhere, or the worlds / environments get smaller?
Simpler geometry, etc. Sony has said that Morpheus devs should start out with PS3-level visuals as a base (which the PS4 can definitely do in 3D at 1080p60), and then work up from there. So that's pretty much the minimum we should expect. I expect many/most games to reach quite a bit higher than that. I haven't tried OR/Morpheus myself, but I've seen many reports that it doesn't really matter that the visuals are simpler (as they usually are with OR demos as well), because good VR makes even rather low-fi games very immersive. So I'm not worried.
If Steam surveys are anything to go by, for every person with a PS4, there's at least 1 person on Steam alone that has a PC at least as strong (7870 / 660 and above).
Also, what's gonna give in PS4 VR games when they cannot decrease the framerate or resolution because it would make people sick? Will the graphics kinda peak somewhere, or the worlds / environments get smaller?
PS4 would still manage to output decent graphics at high framerate and resolution. The techniques that work in VR aren't necessarily the same that work on a 2D screen, simple games could be very impressive. Sony could also compensate with production values, ascetics, etc, they certainly have the studios for it and that is exactly what they do when it comes to consoles compared to PC.
Sony will be just fine. People act like they started this project last year, it's been in development since 2011. When they revealed Morpheus, it showed that they had a great grasp of direction and features already in place and oculus is just now catching up to some of those features. Next years dev conference you will get pretty much the final Morpheus, and pretty much a plethora of games being shown running on a PS4. Mark my words.
While there are still some issues, Gear VR seems poised to prove that top-of-the-line cell phones can provide "good enough" virtual reality at a relatively cheap cost and on a relatively short time scale.
The 1440p, 515 PPI display on the Galaxy Note 4 doesn't totally do away with the problem of visible pixels, but it's above or equal to most any other consumer-grade VR product on the horizon.
The 3D environments rendered in Gear VR demos obviously can't hold a candle to those generated by a high-end PC tower with a modern graphics card. That said, the Galaxy Note 4 seems powerful enough to generate 3D environments with a level of detail along the lines of a late PlayStation 2- or early PlayStation 3-era game, as long as the scenes aren't too crowded.
Not hating on sony or anything but based on the track record of sony engineers and designers, I predict the sony vr headset will be nicely made but overpriced. It will seem decent but there will be one weird design aspect or omission. In addition, it will have some kind of proprietary cable or port. Finally, it will probably have terrible software support even with the power of their playstation hand. *grimaces about ps4 and ps3 firmware*
