That oculus rift is so indie has always been kind of charming to be honest. But I fear that they might get crushed if bigger companies just get their own versions out
If I was Sony and had a VR headset nearly complete before even pushing it on to 1st party studios I would throw money at someone like Activision to try and find a way to get CODs etc running on it.
Then after that other games like GT.
probably not technically possible, but it would be worth the shot.
So much wishful thinking.. My 2 teraflop PC has a snowball's chance in hell to run a big production game in double scenes, big FOV and perfect vsynced 60fps in 1080p+ VR. When flying around in "Outerra" with my devkit's 800p resolution pushed onto my eyeball it isn't even possible to see a runway to land on in the distance, it's all a big messy soup. That's how demanding VR is, and how low 800p resolution is. Well you can "smooth out" some of the screen door effect with better optics and displays, but the low resolution (800/1080p) would still be a big wall to climb over if you want to do something else than run tech demos (which is why OVR hinted that the consumer version would be higher than 1080p).
So much wishful thinking.. My 2 teraflop PC has a snowball's chance in hell to run a big production game in double scenes, big FOV and perfect vsynced 60fps in 1080p+ VR. When flying around in "Outerra" with my devkit's 800p resolution pushed onto my eyeball it isn't even possible to see a runway to land on in the distance, it's all a big messy soup. That's how demanding VR is, and how low 800p resolution is. Well you can "smooth out" some of the screen door effect with better optics and displays, but the low resolution (800/1080p) would still be a big wall to climb over if you want to do something else than run tech demos (which is why OVR hinted that the consumer version would be higher than 1080p).
Impossible. You can't run the kind of connection bandwidth/latency required to communicate with a GPU over any external connection, particularly not with consumer technology.
If they want to do VR on PS4, they should focus on creating custom experiences which make the necessary concessions in assets and effects in order to hit rock-solid 60 FPS with good IQ.
One type of Art style that reportedly looks great in VR are, Cartoony cell shaded graphics. That type of lightly textured graphics would run great in VR on the PS4.
One type of Art style that reportedly looks great in VR are, Cartoony cell shaded graphics. That type of lightly textured graphics would run great in VR on the PS4.
I still feel that Sony is making a huge mistake going with its own VR solution. Occulus tech is already out there and these guys have put the time into really developing the concept.
Yes but oculus has no intentions of expanding outside anything thats not open source, meaning console gaming or anything that's in a closed environment is not were they want to be. This is where other tech manufactures can reap the benefits in creating VR that works for their respective hardware and in return expanding to areas that oculus will not venture.
I didn't want to create a new thread for this, but I was just thinking about the DualShock 4 and it's "EXT"-port.
I've had a revelation!
EXT-port on DualShock 4
Sony says it is for charging. The question is: is Sony really willing to ship literally tens of millions of DualShock 4s over the years with a special charging port? It adds extra cost and it will only be used by a small percentage of DualShock 4 owners (namely, those who own the charging stations).
It seems, odd, that they would add a second option for charging (first one is Micro USB). As I said, it adds extra costs: it would eat into their profit margins. It can't cost much, but every penny counts in business.
Unidentified chips in DualShock 4
There are very few DualShock 4 teardowns and I have yet to find a teardown in which all chips, found in the DualShock 4, are identified and named.
I was thinking... what if there is a chip in there to handle incoming data... or, outgoing data (head movement, motion, etc.)?
My guess: "EXT-port" is for PS4 VR headset
It makes really sense now. Why include an, apparently useless, second charging port? Wouldn't it be useless for 90% of the people? Wouldn't it eat into their profit margin for... nothing? Because it acts as more as a charging port: it acts as a connection between a VR headset and the DualShock 4.
Images could either be send directly to the VR Headset (using the same technology used for Remote Play on Vita), or images could also be send through the controller (perhaps through an, until then unknown, WiFi chip?).
It would be really the best and most userfriendly method of bringing Virtual Reality to the homes of gamers. Simply insert your PS4 game (that supports VR) and plug-in your VR headset into the DualShock 4 controller - and you're done! You're ready to play a Virtual Reality game!
Yep, guys, I'm certain of it. If the PS4 VR Headset exists, than the EXT-port will be the connection between at least the VR headset and controller.
Whether is actually has anything to do with VR, I dunno. I'd say it's pretty unlikely it'll be used for transmitting images. That would be relatively laggy, not to mention killing the battery. I'll be surprised if images are sent via anything other than HDMI.
WRT head tracking, obviously SixAxiS data will need to be sent to the console from the headset, and I suppose you could send it down a cable to piggyback on the DS4's BT radio, but I'm not sure there'd be much point in that. BT radios are fairly cheap, and tethering users to the controller sounds kind of annoying.
Really, like USB, you can likely program the port to do any number of things, but I can't really think of anything VR-related you might use it for. I can't really think of anything you'd use it for, but I've never really been terribly creative. Maybe it'd be useful for connecting fancy headsets like the Pulse Elite? I dunno, man; I got nuthin.
FakeEdit: Oh, the Move wands have a similar port, and that's what the SharpShooter uses to communicate with the controller, for example. Maybe the one on the DS4 could be used for something similar? Like, stuff that "extends/enhances" the standard controller?
I didn't want to create a new thread for this, but I was just thinking about the DualShock 4 and it's "EXT"-port.
I've had a revelation!
EXT-port on DualShock 4
Sony says it is for charging. The question is: is Sony really willing to ship literally tens of millions of DualShock 4s over the years with a special charging port? It adds extra cost and it will only be used by a small percentage of DualShock 4 owners (namely, those who own the charging stations).
It seems, odd, that they would add a second option for charging (first one is Micro USB). As I said, it adds extra costs: it would eat into their profit margins. It can't cost much, but every penny counts in business.
Unidentified chips in DualShock 4
There are very few DualShock 4 teardowns and I have yet to find a teardown in which all chips, found in the DualShock 4, are identified and named.
I was thinking... what if there is a chip in there to handle incoming data... or, outgoing data (head movement, motion, etc.)?
My guess: "EXT-port" is for PS4 VR headset
It makes really sense now. Why include an, apparently useless, second charging port? Wouldn't it be useless for 90% of the people? Wouldn't it eat into their profit margin for... nothing? Because it acts as more as a charging port: it acts as a connection between a VR headset and the DualShock 4.
Images could either be send directly to the VR Headset (using the same technology used for Remote Play on Vita), or images could also be send through the controller (perhaps through an, until then unknown, WiFi chip?).
It would be really the best and most userfriendly method of bringing Virtual Reality to the homes of gamers. Simply insert your PS4 game (that supports VR) and plug-in your VR headset into the DualShock 4 controller - and you're done! You're ready to play a Virtual Reality game!
Yep, guys, I'm certain of it. If the PS4 VR Headset exists, than the EXT-port will be the connection between at least the VR headset and controller.
Good stuff! Don't think it makes sense to send the images through the controller, but I can't disagree with the rest. What made you suddenly associate the EXT port with VR???
Whether is actually has anything to do with VR, I dunno. I'd say it's pretty unlikely it'll be used for transmitting images. That would be relatively laggy, not to mention killing the battery. I'll be surprised if images are sent via anything other than HDMI.
WRT head tracking, obviously SixAxiS data will need to be sent to the console from the headset, and I suppose you could send it down a cable to piggyback on the DS4's BT radio, but I'm not sure there'd be much point in that. BT radios are fairly cheap, and tethering users to the controller sounds kind of annoying.
Really, like USB, you can likely program the port to do any number of things, but I can't really think of anything VR-related you might use it for. I can't really think of anything you'd use it for, but I've never really been terribly creative. Maybe it'd be useful for connecting fancy headsets like the Pulse Elite? I dunno, man; I got nuthin.
FakeEdit: Oh, the Move wands have a similar port, and that's what the SharpShooter uses to communicate with the controller, for example. Maybe the one on the DS4 could be used for something similar? Like, stuff that "extends/enhances" the standard controller?
I guess the most important thing we have to agree on: what does the PS4 VR headset look like?
In my opinion, it looks like this: the PS4 VR headset has as little hardware possible, to keep the price down. This is something they want to sell to the masses. This means: display + lenses (for, you know, the virtual reality part), charging port, perhaps motion sensors or lightbar and perhaps a WiFi chip for data.
My reaction on your post and some thoughts:
Images will probably be send directly to headset (probably similarly how it works on Vita). But you'll probably still need a controller to control the environment. That's when you plug your VR headset into the controller, so motion data, for example, will be send through the DualShock 4.
Obviously, there could be a direct connection but that would probably eat up additional bandwidth over Bluetooth. Also, I think they would like to save as much in cost as possible. Why put a bluetooth chip in the VR headset itself... if there's a bluetooth chip right in the hands of the gamer?
What you're saying is basically this:
- There's a controller that sends and receives data
- There's a headset that's connected through HDMI (!)*
- Sound will be send to the VR headset... how?
* Especially this point bothers me. Connect an HDMI cable to your VR headset? First of all, most people probably won't have very long HDMI cables. Secondly, if there's head tracking... well, with some bad luck, you'll basically be choking yourself. Thirdly, the HDMI port is on the BACK of the PS4 - it's not user friendly at all.
For sending through video, there are (in my opinion), three possibilities:
- Wireless through WiFi within the VR headset (á la PS Vita Remote Play)
- If there turns out to be a WiFi chip inside the PS4, through the controller via the EXT-port
- Perhaps via a USB 3.0 port, but you'll get in conflict with the cables (as mentioned before)
For audio, these are the possibilties, I think:
- Directly to the headset via WiFi
- Directly to the headset via Bluetooth (this would eat up additional Bandwidth, as the DS4 controller will also be connected)
- Through the DS4 controller (since the hardware is already in place)
For headtracking, these are the possibilities, I think:
- Directly from the headset to the PS4 via WiFi (unlikely, since they already opted for Bluetooth in the DS4 controller)
- Directly from the headset to the PS4 via Bluetooth (but... why? The gamer holds a bluetooth chip in his hands... this adds extra cost and puts profit margins under pressure).
- From the headset to the controller to the PS4 (to me this seems the easiest, as the 'infrastructure' is already in place)
(- Move (e.g. lightbar) is used and there are no motion sensors inside the PS4 VR headset at all!)
What I think the VR headset will look like and how it will work:
To sum up
Audio
For audio, the easiest and cheapest way to implement it, is by using the DualShock 4 controller (as it is already build to put-through game and voice audio).
Also, by using the DS4 controller, there will be no need for Bluetooth in the PS4 VR Headset. That saves money... and weight!
Headtracking / Motion controls
For sending back motion controls/headtracking data, I think the easiest way is also to do this via the DualShock 4 controller. The DualShock 4 has everything needed to send button/motion data with as little input lag as possible.
To achieve the same low-input lag, they would have to use some of the hardware from the DS4 inside the PS4 VR headset. Orrrrrrrrrrrrr they could simply connect the PS4 VR headset with the PS4 - than there's no need to put in additional hardware into the PS4 VR headset.
This would mean they wouldn't need any of the hardware you find in the DualShock 4 controller. Oh, and they wouldn't need to build in a Bluetooth chip into the PS4 VR headset.
Note: there's also the possibility that Sony doesn't implement any motion sensors at all. That they go the 'Move' way (e.g. a light bar). In that case, a PS4 Camera is required. And as I think of it, this would be even better as they could save money on implementing motion sensors.
By simply putting a lightbar on the VR headset, they would eliminate the need for seperate motion sensing hardware. A disadvantage would be that you wouldn't be able to do a full 360 degrees, unless there would be several light bars (e.g. on front, sides and back).
Also, they would sell extra PS4 Cameras. Than they could probably advertise it as: "Enjoying your PS4 VR headset? Great! Did you know that, in combination with the PlayStation Camera, you can actually watch around in virtual worlds by just moving around your head?"
Video
This is the most tricky one. I think wireless is the way to go, as it is the most user friendly option. The question is: how will they send the wireless video data? Bluetooth is not an option, as the bandwidth is too low.
This basically leaves the option between: wired (USB/HDMI) or wireless (WiFi [Direct]). As mentioned, wireless is the way to go. Then there are two options:
- One of the unknown chips inside the DS4 is a WiFi chip. [best case scenario]
Great. This means all the hardware for sending through images/video is right inside the DualShock 4.
- There's a WiFi chip inside the PS4 VR headset. Perhaps adds a little extra cost.
Conclusion
This is what the PS4 VR headset looks like (I think):
- Charging port
- Large capacity battery
- Display(s) plus lens(es)
- Port for connection between DS4 and PS4 VR headset
- Lightbar or motion sensors
- Possibly WiFi + video decoding hardware
That's it. They can create a very decent, but cheap Virtual Reality headset. How? By making very smart use of the DS4 controller - there's a lot of hardware within the DS4 that can take over a lot of tasks the VR headset otherwise should have done.
Finally, I'm obviously not an expert but I've put some thought in it and I think that, at least in some areas, I'm right.
Of course, I can be wrong and if so, than I have just wasted me time.
Good stuff! Don't think it makes sense to send the images through the controller, but I can't disagree with the rest. What made you suddenly associate the EXT port with VR???
I don't know. I saw someone mentioning "hopefully they'll announce a PS4 VR headset", or something like that... and I just started thinking about it. Suddenly, I thought: "That 'EXT'-port on the DualShock 4... it's used only for charging. That doesn't make sense since the Micro USB port could have been used for that..."
I've just submitted a new post in which I try to go in deeper detail of what I am thinking. Let me know what you think.
Video
This is the most tricky one. I think wireless is the way to go, as it is the most user friendly option. The question is: how will they send the wireless video data? Bluetooth is not an option, as the bandwidth is too low.
This basically leaves the option between: wired (USB/HDMI) or wireless (WiFi [Direct]). As mentioned, wireless is the way to go. Then there are two options:
- One of the unknown chips inside the DS4 is a WiFi chip. [best case scenario]
Great. This means all the hardware for sending through images/video is right inside the DualShock 4.
- There's a WiFi chip inside the PS4 VR headset. Perhaps adds a little extra cost.
Conclusion
This is what the PS4 VR headset looks like (I think):
- Charging port
- Large capacity battery
- Display(s) plus lens(es)
- Port for connection between DS4 and PS4 VR headset
- Lightbar or motion sensors
- Possibly WiFi + video decoding hardware
That's it. They can create a very decent, but cheap Virtual Reality headset. How? By making very smart use of the DS4 controller - there's a lot of hardware within the DS4 that can take over a lot of tasks the VR headset otherwise should have done.
Finally, I'm obviously not an expert but I've put some thought in it and I think that, at least in some areas, I'm right.
Of course, I can be wrong and if so, than I have just wasted me time.
I disagree. While I agree that you get a most optimal experience when there's a wired connection, I think they'll have to compromise.
Going wired is not very user-friendly. My bet? They'll use the same technology they use for Remote Play on Vita. Will there be input lag? Yes, same input lag as Remote Play on Vita (which honestly is very little).
Will it be a dealbreaker? For the hardcore fan, sensitive to input lag, maybe. For the more mainstream audience? Not at all.
I disagree. While I agree that you get a most optimal experience when there's a wired connection, I think they'll have to compromise.
Going wired is not very user-friendly. My bet? They'll use the same technology they use for Remote Play on Vita. Will there be input lag? Yes, same input lag as Remote Play on Vita (which honestly is very little).
Will it be a dealbreaker? For the hardcore fan, sensitive to input lag, maybe. For the more mainstream audience? Not at all.
Latency is part of what causes motion sickness, which most definitely would be an issue for the mainstream audience. VR has to be /perfect/ to have any chance at mainstream success.
Latency is part of what causes motion sickness, which most definitely would be an issue for the mainstream audience. VR has to be /perfect/ to have any chance at mainstream success.
For VR to have a chance at being a mainstream succes, it's also got to be user-friendly. Bringing in all sorts of cables that have to be connected from the PS4 all the way through the room to your VR headset isn't going to help.
Also, I think the input lag caused by Remote Play is really little. In fact, see this clip:
As you can see, Remote Play - in this scenario - only lags behind 2 frames.
I really don't think Sony will remove a good user experience (e.g. a wireless connection, lazy on the couch/chair/whatever) and replace it with a not-so-user-friendly wired connection, just to get these two frames back.
Very nice OP but I'm skeptical they can pull it off. The big reason the Oculus Rift isn't likely to be a mainstream entertainment product for a few years is that a PC that can run more complicated games with visuals equivalent to today's top non VR games at ultra high framerates and resolutions is going to run you a LOT of money. Its no good making a badass VR headset that you can sell for $400ish if the hardware needed to drive it satisfactorily is going to be more that $800 at the very least. The PS4 hardware is cheap enough to work with a VR headset from a marketing standpoint but I do not think it can run games like Killzone at the framerates and resolutions needed. At best I see a Sony PS4/VR combo being targeted more at lower fidelity games and non game VR entertainment. They'll have plenty of space to experiment in. Its not like they have any competition in the console space for VR. If the PS4 is iffy to run a true HD VR headset the Xbox One sure as hell isn't even in the picture with its weaker hardware.
For VR to have a chance at being a mainstream succes, it's also got to be user-friendly. Bringing in all sorts of cables that have to be connected from the PS4 all the way through the room to your VR headset isn't going to help.
Also, I think the input lag caused by Remote Play is really little. In fact, see this clip:
As you can see, Remote Play - in this scenario - only lags behind 2 frames.
I really don't think Sony will remove a good user experience (e.g. a wireless connection, lazy on the couch/chair/whatever) and replace it with a not-so-user-friendly wired connection, just to get these two frames back.
2 frames behind the TV is not nearly good enough for VR. It needs to have less latency than the TV, much less. If Sony puts out a VR headset with the latency of Vita remote play, it'll basically be a vomit machine.
There's wireless HDMI chips that's probably more what you're looking for. One of the standards is basically the same bandwidth as a normal HDMI connection, but the radio frequency is so high it needs line of sight, which is probably fine for a VR headset.
Rather than go through your post point by point, lemme lay out what I think PSVR will be like.
First, do you know how Move works? I ask because it seems like you think it's entirely camera based. In fact, the Move wands contain a SixAxiS sensor three-axis gyro and three-axis accelerometer just like you'd find in the DS3/DS4. The SixAxiS is actually the primary sensor, because although inertial sensors are not super accurate and are prone to drift, they operate quite quickly when compared to a camera.
The camera is nice because it gives us absolute positioning, meaning we know exactly where in the room the target is located, or more specifically, we know where it is in relation to the camera. Because the camera operates as a fixed point of reference, it's not susceptible to drift. The problem is, cameras don't take readings nearly as often as the inertial sensors can, meaning they introduce comparatively high latency in to the system.
So what you do is take your primary readings from the inertial sensors, and then you come by periodically with the camera data and do error correction. So let's say the user is holding the wand at coordinates 0, 0, 0, and they raise it straight up. You might get readings from the accelerometer like +0, +10, +0; +0, +12, +0; +0, +11, +0; +0, +12, +0. So now the wand is at 0, 45, 0, right? Well, no, not necessarily. Like I said, the inertial sensors aren't super accurate, but now we've got a fresh reading from the camera showing the wand is actually located at 0, 42, 0 so we overwrite the values we've accumulated from the accelerometer with that data. However, in the mean time, we've been updating the on-screen position of the wand using the accelerometer data. This makes the system feel very responsive to the user, because the accelerometer updates "immediately," and still feels accurate because the camera makes corrections often enough that drift can't accumulate to the point where you actually notice it.
Make sense? This is actually the system that Oculus finally(?) settled on. The dev kit has the inertial sensors, but without the camera as a fixed point of reference, there was no way to correct for drift
, plus inverse kinematics is hard
. This is also why the Wiimote was dismissed by many as "waggle." Because developers were mostly guessing what you were actually doing with the Wiimote, it was difficult for them to work with much beyond "swings up," "swings down," etc. Maybe you moved it 35 cm, or maybe you moved it 32 cm; there's no way to know, and those errors accumulate over time. You're probably familiar with how bad the motion tracking was on the Wiimote/Wiimote+. Well, Oculus had basically been using the same system to track your head. Hardly ideal, but now that they're following Sony's lead, they have a really solid system.
So yeah, I'm reasonably sure Sony will be using the same system for head tracking with PSVR likely with a lightbar or three rather than the bulbs you find on the Move wands though and no, I don't think head tracking will be optional, since it's kinda the entire point of VR.
WRT getting data to/from the headset, DS3/DS4/Move use BT for transmitting SixAxiS data, and it's worked well thus far, so I'm not seeing a compelling reason to abandon it. You say it will add cost and weight to the headset, and you'll get no argument there, but what are we talking about here? 25¢ and half as many grams? I'll admit I don't really know the cost and size, but I can't imagine it's that much.
I think HDMI will also be an acceptable solution. They'll probably include a cable of reasonable length (4m?) with a pass-through, so not only are you only required to plug it in once, spectators can watch what you're doing on the TV. The cable can come out the side of the headset and lay across your shoulder/chest, which should minimize tangling. I think wireless will add a lot of expense and batteries, and more important, a lot of latency. You point out that Remote Play adds "only" two frames of latency, which sounds pretty good, but two frames in a 30 fps game like Knack translates to 67 ms of latency, which is about triple what we want end-to-end for head tracking, so tacking it on to sensor latency, processing, and the display's own responsiveness is a no go. Another thing to consider is RP is only transmitting a mono 544p signal, but PSVR will likely be using stereo 720p, which is considerably more bandwidth.
Oh, HDMI can easily carry sound along with 3D 720p, so that's not really a concern.
For VR to have a chance at being a mainstream succes, it's also got to be user-friendly. Bringing in all sorts of cables that have to be connected from the PS4 all the way through the room to your VR headset isn't going to help.
Also, I think the input lag caused by Remote Play is really little. In fact, see this clip:
As you can see, Remote Play - in this scenario - only lags behind 2 frames.
I really don't think Sony will remove a good user experience (e.g. a wireless connection, lazy on the couch/chair/whatever) and replace it with a not-so-user-friendly wired connection, just to get these two frames back.
When it comes to motion/light bar, thanks for the additional explanation.
I still think wireless is the way to go. I understand what you all are saying, but I simply don't think Sony is willing to make a compromise.
Again, I really understand... but I also really think Sony wants to make this as user friendly and attractive as possible.
A third possibility is that they use own, patented, proprietary technology to wirelessly transfer video. I guess than the most user friendly way is some sort of dongle that you insert in the USB 3.0 port on the front of the device, but I don't know if using USB is a viable option.
I understand input lag is important and I get what you are saying but for this thing to succeed, there's other important things than input lag. It is really important that it's easy to set up and use. That's why:
- Using one of the ports on the back is unacceptable
- Physical set up should be REALLY easy
Regarding the ports on the back: the marketing team will shoot that idea down. It's very user unfriendly (have you ever tried changing a cable without looking on the PS4?) and it's a lot of hassle.
Physical setup must be easy? Why? Well, simply put, people are dumb. For example, tell a not so technical user to plug in an HDMI cable into a TV. A lot of people will succeed, but there will be plenty people who try to plug it into a USB port, or upside down into an HDMI port - and if they fail, some of them often still don't know why.
Again, I get what you all are saying regarding input lag... but I think using the HDMI port (that's located on the rear) is a no-go.
Well, if you say so. Then you need a much better wireless solution than remote play.
Or your marketing department just shot down high-quality VR.
(I'm sure this happened many times in these companies, which is why it took someone in a garage and a kickstarter to get rolling)
Little need to go wireless as my guess is that VR will only be intended for playing while seated. There would have to be some type of augmented reality setup for stand up play to be possible and I don't think the tech is ready for that. Without it you'd be tripping over your furniture.
And finally lag is more important than an easy setup:
Easy setup + lag = vomit
Slightly harder setup + no lag = minor initial frustration with great gameplay
Who cares if it's easy to setup if you'll end up disassembling it just as quickly due to nausea? Do it right and make people feel like they can't live without it.
Who cares if it's easy to setup if you'll end up disassembling it just as quickly due to nausea? Do it right and make people feel like they can't live without it.
Expect you'll be doing it wrong if you make it diffecult for the customer to use. Really, it should be the "Plug & Play"-principle. Using the HDMI-port, as everybody here is suggesting, is not a userfriendly way of doing stuff.
The most user friendly way would be wireless. If, for some reason, wireless seems 'not good enough', than yes, they must do it wired - but than they should use, if possible, a USB 3.0 port at the front of the PS4. And I dont know if USB 3.0 is well-suited for such a task.
Again, using the HDMI port - as everybody seems to be suggesting - on the back is not a viable option.
And what about the wireless technology used in the Wii U gamepad? A lot of videos have shown that images/video actually appear a bit faster on the Wii U gamepad than on the TV.
EDIT Yep, the Wii U gamepad has 16 ms input lag. According to this report the input lag in Virtual Reality can be as high as 40 ms before people start to have trouble following an object (with headtracking) in a virtual world.
According to this report (via Skytopia), in Virtual Reality people start noticing input lag in VR when the input lag is about 16 ms - that said, for most people to notice, the input lag must still be a little higher.
So, based on these reports, I'd say that if Sony manages to bring the input lag down to around 16 ms (similar to how Nintendo has managed to do that, with relatively cheap hardware), than wireless is certainly an option.
And what about the wireless technology used in the Wii U gamepad? A lot of videos have shown that images/video actually appear a bit faster on the Wii U gamepad than on the TV.
EDIT Yep, the Wii U gamepad has 16 ms input lag. According to this report the input lag in Virtual Reality can be as high as 40 ms before people start to have trouble following an object (with headtracking) in a virtual world.
According to this report (via Skytopia), in Virtual Reality people start noticing input lag in VR when the input lag is about 16 ms - that said, for most people to notice, the input lag must still be a little higher.
So, based on these reports, I'd say that if Sony manages to bring the input lag down to around 16 ms (similar to how Nintendo has managed to do that, with relatively cheap hardware), than wireless is certainly an option.
The only problem with this is that you're only taking into account the time it takes for the video being streamed from the PS4 to arrive at the headset. Unfortunately, each subsuquent system compounds this input lag, so while the 16ms of delay in and of itself is fine, you need to consider everything else. For example, in the current Oculus Rift dev kit, it takes almost 20ms just for the LCD to write an entire frame.
The only problem with this is that you're only taking into account the time it takes for the video being streamed from the PS4 to arrive at the headset. Unfortunately, each subsuquent system compounds this input lag, so while the 16ms of delay in and of itself is fine, you need to consider everything else. For example, in the current Oculus Rift dev kit, it takes almost 20ms just for the LCD to write an entire frame.
They'll likely use OLED, like Crystal Cove, making the display response time a non-issue. (0.1 ms)
S¡mon, the Wii U GamePad is pretty snappy, but again, it's dealing with a pretty small amount of data. At 854x480, the screen is only ~410K pixels. Stereo 720p is ~1843K pixels, or about 4.5x as many. That's a pretty significant difference. Out of curiosity, where did you get the 16 ms figure? DF came up with ~33 ms in their testing.
Can I ask why you feel wireless is so important? You mentioned tangling, but I'm pretty sure this will be intended for seated use. If you're expecting the users to be up and walking/spinning around, then you're going to need to clear the room of all furniture, etc. which hardly seems to fit the easy-to-setup ideal you seem to be striving for. And I'm not sure why it's a problem that the HDMI port is on the back of the console. That's how my TV is connected too; I turned the console sideways for a sec and plugged it in. I haven't thought about it since. Like I said, they'll likely use a pass-through connector, meaning you won't need to continually (un)plug it, and this will also allow for spectating on your standard TV. Are you expecting to need to physically swap cables every time you want to switch between the TV and the headset?
They'll likely use OLED, like Crystal Cove, making the display response time a non-issue. (0.1 ms)
S¡mon, the Wii U GamePad is pretty snappy, but again, it's dealing with a pretty small amount of data. At 854x480, the screen is only ~410K pixels. Stereo 720p is ~1843K pixels, or about 4.5x as many. That's a pretty significant difference. Out of curiosity, where did you get the 16 ms figure? DF came up with ~33 ms in their testing.
I don't have the source right now, but I'll look for it tomorrow.
And even 30 ms, if they use OLED displays, might be considered acceptable by Sony engineers - but that's obviously we can't properly decide.
Can I ask why you feel wireless is so important? You mentioned tangling, but I'm pretty sure this will be intended for seated use. If you're expecting the users to be up and walking/spinning around, then you're going to need to clear the room of all furniture, etc. which hardly seems to fit the easy-to-setup ideal you seem to be striving for. And I'm not sure why it's a problem that the HDMI port is on the back of the console. That's how my TV is connected too; I turned the console sideways for a sec and plugged it in. I haven't thought about it since. Like I said, they'll likely use a pass-through connector, meaning you won't need to continually (un)plug it, and this will also allow for spectating on your standard TV. Are you expecting to need to physically swap cables every time you want to switch between the TV and the headset?
I'm thinking about in a way about how customers would 'accept' ap roduct. It's similar like asking why the original iPhone didn't require you to use a stylus: after all, it isn't that bothersome, is it?
How do you imagine this HDMI pass through connector? Simply a connector that sticks out from the back and makes from 1 HDMI port, 2 HDMI ports? Or do you see it as a connector sticking out + a cable that you pull around the console so you can access another HDMI port on the front?
See my very bad drawing skills below.
Edit: I just realized I placed my HDMI pass-through over the optical port. It should go over the current HDMI-out port... but you get the idea.
In the first scenario, basically one HDMI cable would go from the back to the console to the TV (like usual). But what about the second HDMI cable? It's just plugged in and sticks out somewhere until you decide to use it?
You mention how easy it was to plug it in, but you must not forget that a lot of people will put the PS4 in, for example, a cabinet. People set it up one time and don't want to be bothered to do something with the cables (on the back) again.
So, what can customers do? Simply pull an HDMI cable around the console and let it stick out until it's needed? Not to mention you'd need a pretty long HDMI cable (because, as you mention, you see people using it while they are sitting... on a chair, on a couch... in any case, a long cable is needed).
The second PS4 has an HDMI pass-through connector with one HDMI-out as usual (e.g. on the back, for the TV) and one that first goes through a cable.
This basically means people can always pop-in an HDMI cable at the front of the console.
But still... it isn't very user friendly. It's a solution, but it's still bothersome. Maybe not for me, maybe not for you... but always assume customers are dumb idiots.
Oh, and there is another issue with using the HDMI port on the back. It means that a customer, in 99% of all the cases, needs to get a cable from the back to the console to the front of the console.
You may not have noticed, but on the sides of the PS4, there's space for ventilation. See the image below:
I will guarantee you right now: there will be people that will put the cable in that 'free space' on the side of the console. "Nicely tucked away," people will think. Not realizing that they are actually blocking ventilation ports.
Even if wireless is not a viable option, going wired through the HDMI port isn't the right solution - at least, that's what I'm thinking. Another wired solution would be by using a USB 3.0 port on the front, but I don't know if that's actually a possibility.
If Sony decides to go with a wired solution, than in my opinion the only somewhat user friendly way is by using a USB port on the front... as it will be the most easy accessible port for most PS4 users. But again, I don't know if that's a possibility.
I pictured something more like your first drawing, but I actually figured the cable would be hard-wired at the headset end to prevent it coming unplugged while you were looking around prolly be smaller and lighter that way too and the other end would have a T-shaped connector, with a male side for the PS4, and a female side to plug your TV cable in to. As I said, it would be relatively long 3-4 m and probably fairly supple, both to make it less intrusive for the wearer, and to make it easier to stuff back in to the entertainment center.
And yeah, I imagine that's what we'll be expected to do with it when not in use. I think that'll be fine for the target audience geeks with lots of disposable income. I know everyone is hoping/expecting VR to go "mainstream," but at $300 or more, I don't really expect either company to sell 50M of these things. Due to the cost and the nature of the device, I'm guessing this will still have fairly niche appeal for the foreseeable future. I think 10M by the end of the generation isn't unrealistic, but I'd be surprised if they sold more than 20M.
FWIW, I think Oculus will less "less," whatever that turns out to be, just because they'll have a smaller market to sell in to. Plus, they need to sell at a decent profit, while that's more optional for Sony.
Not dismissing the tech, because I think it's pretty sweet, but between How much??, Whoa, this is freaking me out!!, and *barf* I think there will be a lot more people who are not interested than interested. At least for a while. I'll be surprised/impressed if they finish with much higher than a 20% attach rate. I think 10% is more realistic.
I find it highly unlikely Sony will invest in the tech needed to make it wireless. The latency hurdles just seem too much as well as the additional costs that the consumer will end up having to pay because of it. I'd much rather prefer something corded with less latency and a better panel. It may not be "user friendly" for the masses, but I don't think a VR hmd is going to catch on this Gen for the mainstream anyhow. Give it a few years and maybe another Gen of hardware for consoles to really be able to show something wild, not unlike what Valve recently showed off at Steam Dev Days.
I pictured something more like your first drawing, but I actually figured the cable would be hard-wired at the headset end to prevent it coming unplugged while you were looking around — prolly be smaller and lighter that way too — and the other end would have a T-shaped connector, with a male side for the PS4, and a female side to plug your TV cable in to. As I said, it would be relatively long — 3-4 m — and probably fairly supple, both to make it less intrusive for the wearer, and to make it easier to stuff back in to the entertainment center.
Perhaps, but as I said: that cable shouldn't go from the back around the console. I think that's too user unfriendly and too risky regarding ventilatio.
And yeah, I imagine that's what we'll be expected to do with it when not in use. I think that'll be fine for the target audience — geeks with lots of disposable income. I know everyone is hoping/expecting VR to go "mainstream," but at $300 or more, I don't really expect either company to sell 50M of these things. Due to the cost and the nature of the device, I'm guessing this will still have fairly niche appeal for the foreseeable future. I think 10M by the end of the generation isn't unrealistic, but I'd be surprised if they sold more than 20M.
FWIW, I think Oculus will less "less," whatever that turns out to be, just because they'll have a smaller market to sell in to. Plus, they need to sell at a decent profit, while that's more optional for Sony.
Not dismissing the tech, because I think it's pretty sweet, but between How much??, Whoa, this is freaking me out!!, and *barf* I think there will be a lot more people who are not interested than interested. At least for a while. I'll be surprised/impressed if they finish with much higher than a 20% attach rate. I think 10% is more realistic.
I find it highly unlikely Sony will invest in the tech needed to make it wireless. The latency hurdles just seem too much as well as the additional costs that the consumer will end up having to pay because of it. I'd much rather prefer something corded with less latency and a better panel. It may not be "user friendly" for the masses, but I don't think a VR hmd is going to catch on this Gen for the mainstream anyhow. Give it a few years and maybe another Gen of hardware for consoles to really be able to show something wild, not unlike what Valve recently showed off at Steam Dev Days.
You guys may not think that it will go mainstream, I may not think that, but Sony will probably want it to go mainstream. They'll probably make it the PS4's "unique feature", like Microsoft is trying to push Kinect on Xbox One as their "unique feature".
If it will sell well or not, all depends on execution and marketing. It depends on execution as in: it needs to be a decent product - bad worth of mouth spreads quickly. And it needs good marekting because, well, the world needs to know about a product.
I think Sony's goal will be to make this a mainstream product, as in at least - let's say - 20% of PS4 owners will buy this VR headset. And that brings me back to the wireless vs cord discusion. As it appears, we all disagree on that... but let's say Sony decides "wireless isn't an option due to latency/input lag and extra cost", than that cord needs to go through a USB port on the front. It's everything but user-friendly to use a port on the back - using HDMI pass-through might be a solution, but than Sony engineers should really worry about people blocking PS4 ventilation.
I'm not sure USB3 has the bandwidth required. Its maximum throughput is 5 Gbps compared to 10 Gbps for HDMI 1.4, and I dunno about USB3 in particular, but USB in general is known for typically not reaching anything close to its theoretical throughput.
lol Well, I've talked about it in a few VR threads, and I never get any responses, so I dunno if I'm not explaining myself very well, if my ideas are crazy, or what.
Well, one of the issue with the transition to VR is decoupling looking, aiming, and movement. Aiming with your head sounds doable, but it's actually fairly clumsy unless you have eye tracking.
I think the lightbar on the DS4 is gonna help a lot here. Left analog will control player movement, just as it does now. Obviously, looking will be controlled by where you point your head, and the right analog will control your facing, just like the x-axis does now. I think aiming will be controlled by the lightbar. The camera can track it to determine where the controller is pointed, basically turning the DS4 in to a virtual laser pointer. You'll use the analog sticks to move through the environment just like you do now, and you'll aim your weapon by pointing the controller at your target. It should be very natural, and give you fully independent movement, looking, and aiming.
Hearkening back to the EQN Black Box video and the bit with Terry wearing the Oculus Rift...are you thinking about experiment with any other VR solutions in EQN such as the Virtuix Omni, STEM System etc.?
This is obviously way to expensive but commercialized and simplified it looks like the best option since it does not require you to switch HDMI cables and could keep it wireless.
I think the important thing to consider here is that this thing would have 100% custom screen, so having it have a native resolution that's slightly short of 1080p or even a sub-60 native refresh is not out of question. If PS4 is not powerful enough to drive more complex games in this environment, they could equip their VR with a screen that natively refreshes at, say 45 or 50FPS, and be 1800x960 resolution or something like that. Pinch here and there so that they could achieve the needed performance.
It's interesting to look back at all the rumors and talk.
How CCP's hinting about EVE Valkyrie technically being possible on a console last fall. Then in January Oculus-Rift assigned it as an exclusive so everyone wrote it off (from appearing on PS4 VR). Then the GDC surprise this week that it's coming to the PS4 with a demo for all to try.
The NASA project got fulfillment with it being a VR multiplayer demo.
Obviously also having Magic Labs with Richard & Anton prove to be the key-players behind this happened as expected (we knew that really from the GDC scheduling).
I think it's likely The Witness will support PS4 VR now with Jonathan Blow having tested the waters last xmas.
