But the breakout box is just for Audio and splitting the video signal AFAIK.
It doesn't do any external processing.
-
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.
Developer: PS4 Neo exists because PVR was going to be awful on reg PS4s[debunked]
- Thread starter Matush
- Start date
- Status
But the breakout box is just for Audio and splitting the video signal AFAIK.
It doesn't do any external processing.
fastest finger
Member
Utter bullshit.
I played PSVR on a PS4 8 months ago. It was a legit experience. (EVE Valkyrie)
PS4K will be better, obviously, but the standard experience is in no way bad.
I played PSVR on a PS4 8 months ago. It was a legit experience. (EVE Valkyrie)
PS4K will be better, obviously, but the standard experience is in no way bad.
As he said it all comes down to the demo. He tried all three and loved the Sony more, but did say that they all not being cordless is a huge problem.
You can absolutely target the PS4 if you want to develop for the PSVR.
The real problem is a few years in a future - where the delta between PC and PS4 performance is so large that anyone really interested in VR for gaming has migrated onto the PC side of the ecosystem.
Meaning the PSVR helps to kickstart the VR market, but then hands the baton of growth off to the PC-centric developers...
That's strategically unacceptable if you believe VR is going to be an expanding portion of the market for future gaming. And if you've used it, it's definetly easy enough to see how this could be the case.
So, having not just a refresh that can lower the delta between PC and PS4, but also establishing a new paradigm of behaviour to create an expectation in consumers that they can expect the platform to keep in relative lockstep with PC development is a crucial way of letting developers know that they can continue to rely on the console market for games development.
There's actually a positive synergy with PC development as well in this sense - justifying the development of relatively high end gaming is much easier when you have an install base of multiple, relatively homogenous platforms.
The trick for the console owners then becomes how to differentiate their products from the competitors through better services.
So this is really just the logical next step of a strategy that has been playing out for more than a decade in the console space.
The real problem is a few years in a future - where the delta between PC and PS4 performance is so large that anyone really interested in VR for gaming has migrated onto the PC side of the ecosystem.
Meaning the PSVR helps to kickstart the VR market, but then hands the baton of growth off to the PC-centric developers...
That's strategically unacceptable if you believe VR is going to be an expanding portion of the market for future gaming. And if you've used it, it's definetly easy enough to see how this could be the case.
So, having not just a refresh that can lower the delta between PC and PS4, but also establishing a new paradigm of behaviour to create an expectation in consumers that they can expect the platform to keep in relative lockstep with PC development is a crucial way of letting developers know that they can continue to rely on the console market for games development.
There's actually a positive synergy with PC development as well in this sense - justifying the development of relatively high end gaming is much easier when you have an install base of multiple, relatively homogenous platforms.
The trick for the console owners then becomes how to differentiate their products from the competitors through better services.
So this is really just the logical next step of a strategy that has been playing out for more than a decade in the console space.
Portugeezer
Member
Bullshit. People already played PSVR and said it was good.
EventHorizon
Member
That's no excuse because VR tech is just as important as traditional graphics tech. What I've seen happen in many different areas is that sometimes people get locked into only a single way of seeing things and can't appreciate that there might be at times other qualities that can be just as important. This debate isn't even new. Before VR it was 30/60 FPS vs graphical quality. Some people are adamant that 60 FPS is the bare minimum for good gaming while others are willing to trade increased graphical quality for 30 FPS.
SlipperyFishes
Banned
And these games running were not full spectrum titles. Just vertical slices of concepts to show VR off
Sony's policies of demanding high frame rates and not allowing certain 'peripherals' to only be supported by the neo version would seem to go against that.
Personally though I think they should let developers have a VR mode exclusive to the neo if that means we can get AAA games like Battlefield etc running on psvr, although that does still feel like a distant dream at the moment.
Personally though I think they should let developers have a VR mode exclusive to the neo if that means we can get AAA games like Battlefield etc running on psvr, although that does still feel like a distant dream at the moment.
DangerMouse
Member
And there it is.
oldergamer
Member
I think what was meant by the quote was that performance wasn't the issue, it was that the PSVR games don't look very next gen or look much more simplistic compared to non VR games? Can we see some screen shots of the launch game to gauge this?
Newtype-001
Member
Rigs is a full title read the positive impressions here from fellow gaffers
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1153547
Yes, but you have a fixed factor, the framerate. Which mean you're forced to compromise. But you can't compromise too much, because you have another limiting factor, the resolution. Which is too low for VR (but acceptable for the first gen of VR). You can't compromise everything because it would just look bad, which can break immersion as well. Yes the style can be minimalist for the VR games, but the tech side still needs to be decent because of the resolution. So it's not that easy. And that's why I can see how a developer that usually produces impressive games might be annoyed by these constraints. That doesn't mean that the games will be bad.
fastest finger
Member
PSVR demo units start going into GameStop stores in the US in June.
Are people expecting Sony to miraculously pull hundreds of PS Neos out of their ass to run them all on?
Are people expecting Sony to miraculously pull hundreds of PS Neos out of their ass to run them all on?
Neo is actually a firmware update
Dirtyshubb
Member
This just sounds like the sort of shit you would hear pc master race type people come out with, we have tonnes of hands on experiences with the psvr that shows it works well.
Does that mean ps4k won't improve things? Of course not but I have seen that plenty of people really have no idea of what is capable with the psvr as they seem to think unless you have a £1000 pc and a vive you are playing the equivalent of a virtual boy when you can still have great performing games as long as they are made to a certain standard which from all reports Sony are strictly enforcing.
Does that mean ps4k won't improve things? Of course not but I have seen that plenty of people really have no idea of what is capable with the psvr as they seem to think unless you have a £1000 pc and a vive you are playing the equivalent of a virtual boy when you can still have great performing games as long as they are made to a certain standard which from all reports Sony are strictly enforcing.
rayman1900
Member
I think in the short term, playing psvr games on the OG ps4 will meet expectations in term of games you can play relatively well, but that in the long term, it can be a detriment to developers who wants to follow the current trend of PC gaming. Remember that a psvr game needs to be at constant 60fps at all time in order to be accepted by Sony. I imagine it's pretty easy for a vertical slice or a demo to reach that status, but that a full game would prove to be quite a challenge...
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
So this is one way they'll force people onto PS4K.
boredandlazy
Member
By people spewing bullshit?
I actually don't believe that PSVR won't work good on the PS4... that's just non-sense if you need to buy a PS4K to use it in a decent way...
It's like "we want to kill this project before it even starts".... how many will really buy a PS4K to use it?
Even with the compatibility with the PS4 the range of customer will not be enormous, but if to use it will be necessary a PS4K then... it will be a flop.
So don't panic, It's just some non-sense to let us talk about PSVR to remember it exist
It's like "we want to kill this project before it even starts".... how many will really buy a PS4K to use it?
Even with the compatibility with the PS4 the range of customer will not be enormous, but if to use it will be necessary a PS4K then... it will be a flop.
So don't panic, It's just some non-sense to let us talk about PSVR to remember it exist
This.
I'm not buying into the bullshit.
Of course PSVR will be significantly better on the Neo, but the impressions have been been good to very good, by all reports, on original PS4 since GDC 2015.
To click on what?
So is the article just trying to fish for clicks or what?
EventHorizon
Member
I can agree with that, and to be honest that is not entirely wrong because there will be plenty of gamers who will feel the same way. They simply won't be able to accept that graphics in VR games will be inferior to their non-VR counterparts. My only point is that the Graphics <=> VR Presence tradeoff is one that I'll happily make. I am perfectly willing to accept Tron type graphics if it meant feeling like I was actually there in the game. However others will not be able to get beyond the graphics downgrade.
My goto response when people mention the graphical hit that VR on the PS4 will have to take is to point out the phenomenal success of the graphically challenged Minecraft. Even in this day and age, gamers are able to appreciate more than just the graphical quality of their games if those games can give them something else they value.
The article doesn't actually says that the PSVR games are awful on PS4. Just that a CTO thinks that PS4 is an awful machine for PSVR. Which is a different thing. And hyperbolic. But that guy looks at it from the tech point of view, most probably.
GHound
Member
Sounds like a bunch of bullshit hyperbole if we have the real specs.
I mean, if that were the case, instead of "truly awful" it'd just be "mildly terrible"? Oooookay.
And if we don't have the real specs and it's a huge leap they could just as easily wait until next year to reveal it, release it in 2018 and call it PS5. They'd sell way more units that way.
I mean, if that were the case, instead of "truly awful" it'd just be "mildly terrible"? Oooookay.
And if we don't have the real specs and it's a huge leap they could just as easily wait until next year to reveal it, release it in 2018 and call it PS5. They'd sell way more units that way.
Sony just shot themselves in the foot.
I don't know how much the rest of you know about gamer culture (I'm an expert), but graphics and frame rate are huge parts of it. It's not like it is in movies where you can become successful by throwing in more explosions and lens flare. If you screw someone over in games, you bring shame to yourself, and the only way to get rid of that shame is repentance.
What this means is the PS4 owners, after hearing about this, is not going to want to purchase PSVR for either system, nor will they purchase any of Sony's games. This is HUGE. You can laugh all you want, but Sony has alienated an entire market with this move.
Sony, publicly apologize and cancel PS NEO or you can kiss your business goodbye.
I don't know how much the rest of you know about gamer culture (I'm an expert), but graphics and frame rate are huge parts of it. It's not like it is in movies where you can become successful by throwing in more explosions and lens flare. If you screw someone over in games, you bring shame to yourself, and the only way to get rid of that shame is repentance.
What this means is the PS4 owners, after hearing about this, is not going to want to purchase PSVR for either system, nor will they purchase any of Sony's games. This is HUGE. You can laugh all you want, but Sony has alienated an entire market with this move.
Sony, publicly apologize and cancel PS NEO or you can kiss your business goodbye.
thats because it is wrong
/thread
The thread is Gaf at its absolute worst. Inaccuracy & misinformation all over the place, chronic hyperbole, people not just jumping but pole-vaulting to poor conclusions, not to mention a smattering of Xbone fans stirring the pot.
First, the quoted article is a re-write of one from Edge, so it isn't even the original source.
Second, this is one anonymous person as a source, contradicting not just press reports but the words of fellow gaffers, gamers and devs who post here, who gave experience of using PSVR.
Third, the PC comparisons are really pointless. Vive and OR are pushing nearly twice as many pixels just to achieve the baseline resolution for the panels.
Finally, that the re-write article YET AGAIN repeats the erroneous information about the breakout box is a big red flashing alarm.
If Matt says PS4 is fine, you can pretty much take it to the bank so yeah, this is a bit clickbait and its funny seeing people not read the thread and just jumping in here commenting lol.
It isn't because impressions from people who have used it on OG PS4s prove otherwise.
Can someone fill me in on who Matt is?
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
Chû Totoro
Member
Who is Matt?
I'm sorry but I'm sceptical because games are not well optimized on PS4 and VR requires a few things that some gamers may accept for games (frame drops, tearing...).
I wouldn't say "awful" though but more that PS4K will offer a significantly better VR experience than PS4 (like 360 / Xbox One Titanfall). But maybe Matt can give details on what to expect?
Edit: to people who keep saying that it's bs... it's f*cking mathematics guys ! Of course maybe not awful (again I agree hyperbole here... but hey this is Internet) but surely I'm expecting to see a significant difference. More powerful system => better performance (duh).
I'm sorry but I'm sceptical because games are not well optimized on PS4 and VR requires a few things that some gamers may accept for games (frame drops, tearing...).
I wouldn't say "awful" though but more that PS4K will offer a significantly better VR experience than PS4 (like 360 / Xbox One Titanfall). But maybe Matt can give details on what to expect?
Edit: to people who keep saying that it's bs... it's f*cking mathematics guys ! Of course maybe not awful (again I agree hyperbole here... but hey this is Internet) but surely I'm expecting to see a significant difference. More powerful system => better performance (duh).
gunslikewhoa
Member
OléGunner;204707008 said:
You'd have to be an idiot to believe everything you hear from anonymous sources.
FreedomFighter
Member
I mean, this does make a lot of sense. PS4 is doing so well and launching is new and upgraded console is unprecedented. PSVR being the catalyst seems totally believeable to me.
Who would do such a thing? Go on the Internet and lie!?
Myspcr_Shadow
Member
So it's just some guy trying to downplay the vr hype and giving skeptics validation. I'm glad there's lots of good word of mouth and hands on experience from gaf itself.
Sangetsu-II
Member
I don't believe it Richard Marks and Mark Cerny wouldn't lie to me.
Neuromancer
Member
Edge is a good outlet but that doesn't mean they can't have a source who gets something wrong. Everything we know about PSVR suggests the PS4 was made with it in mind.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll