-
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.
Sony's Shuhei Yoshida: newly announced product at CES 2014 (VR headset?)
- Thread starter S¡mon
- Start date
francisnobleman
Banned
And the glasses augment the TV itself and the game comes out of it.
rainbowvomit.png
*Next uncharted doing this?*
girlyfaint.gif
infiniteheteroskdasticity
Member
Yes. My 2x 720p comment was like the bare minimum that would be acceptable. Realistically you'd need to push even more pixels. Variable framerate is also a big issue with the potential for motion sickness. That's why I wondered if the ideal solution was to have two PS4's running in some sort of cluster with one driving each "eye". The technology for clustering Playstations exists. I seem to recall a 4k GT5 demo driven by 3 PS3s.
If Sony reveals a VR device, you won't be playing Killzone on it so it's irrelevant whether the PS4 is powerful enough for existing titles. VR-titles will be like Kinect-titles last gen. Most games that weren't designed with VR in mind simply won't deliver a good experience, particularly fast-paced games like Killzone.
http://reald.com/Content/Files/Stereoscopic3DHowitWorks.pdf
A bit off topic but, Page 18 or so explains the hit to horizontal. I think it's safe to say sony would do something similar.
I disagree. I can see indy devs taking huge advantage of VR and creating smaller games, new genres and other non gaming uses all sold on PSN for varying prices. I can see it really taking off with the masses through word of mouth similar to the Wii back in 2006.
Neuromancer
Member
Nothing wrong with having Kinectimals on a HMD
Who says the indy community wouldn't embrace though?
Sickboy007
Member
If jeff rigby is onboard, it's basically a done deal.
Yeah, I was just speaking in terms of retail titles.
xn0
Member
Not to debunk this but I have a set of HMZ-T2's (the latest HMD from Sony released in 2013) because I mess around with HMD's. I can tell you that the HMZ's are good for short movies and thats about it. I've been horribly unimpressed with the T2's because the tunneling effect is pretty dramatic as well as they are really not comfortable even while lying down with the aftermarket head pad supports. The Oculus rift is fundamentally different given it is only 1 large panel vs 2 720p oleds and even with the drastic resolution difference the immersion you get in the Oculus is a considerable upgrade over the HMZ-T2's and the T2's were 6 times the price of the Rift.
Unless Sony's rumored new HMD is dramatically different from their HMZ product I don't see how it would be better than the Oculus for games. If it is anything like their HMZ it will likely just be 1080p upgrade and likely very expensive.
edit: I should mention I used the T2 for VR game testing. Head tracking was just as good as the Oculus and was accomplished by TrackIR by attaching a TrackIR sensor to the HMZ, but the tunneling effect was to much.
Unless Sony's rumored new HMD is dramatically different from their HMZ product I don't see how it would be better than the Oculus for games. If it is anything like their HMZ it will likely just be 1080p upgrade and likely very expensive.
edit: I should mention I used the T2 for VR game testing. Head tracking was just as good as the Oculus and was accomplished by TrackIR by attaching a TrackIR sensor to the HMZ, but the tunneling effect was to much.
maniac-kun
Member
Even if it is a VR headset dosnt mean its on the same level as the Occulus Rift. It still could be the very old VR tech with a high res display.
copelandmaster
Member
This how you get severe VR sickness. Three dimensional head tracking is REQUIRED for VR to work properly. Oculus is getting by without positional tracking, but they will be adding it to the consumer version.
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
I don't see how game developers couldn't just develop a VR mode with stripped down effects, in order to keep resolution and framerate high.
The immersion factor will likely trump the extra effects, so it's a worthwhile tradeoff.
The immersion factor will likely trump the extra effects, so it's a worthwhile tradeoff.
This is what Palmer Luckey also insists and I agree. Cut down on the extra effects and make it a priority to hit the highest possible framerate without it looking dull.
serversurfer
Member
Again, I disagree.
Can you explain why first-person games aren't well-suited to first-person play? Do we need to design games to be played from a second-person perspective or something?
There's nothing wrong with first-person play, the problem is fast-paced fps gameplay being particularly strenuous, if not nauseating in VR. I mean...Cliffy even says so and he's an investor.
If the target resolution is something like 960x1080 per eye and 60fps was targeted from the start, the compromises would be pretty small anyway. All I want out of AR is decent resolution, smooth framerates, good AA, and a quality display.
There's not a smartphone currently on the Market that's anywhere close to as powerful as the ps4.
serversurfer
Member
Oh, so the problem is not the perspective, but rather the unnaturally fast gameplay? Well, good. Unnaturally fast gameplay is unnatural.
thatsthejoke.gif
Raoul Duke
Banned
I had posted this in the Eurogamer VR in 2014 thread and think it might be somewhat useful here...
If this is really what is taking place, imagine what a studio like SSM can do with VR and a game built with it in mind from the ground up? It could just be one of the projects they are working on with indies, such as The China Room for Everybody's Gone To The Rapture. But what if it's a AAA title? Wasn't it rumored that the next big game from SSM is suppose to be a FPS? I recall being quite perplexed when first hearing that, but now if that is the case, it really makes a ton of sense. I'm just really looking forward to this generation, as the convergence of VR tech is becoming a reality, this type of experience can only help leap frog the medium of gaming into new realms.
And somehow we're back at square one...
As has already been pointed out to you in this very thread, the HMZ was never intended for VR use, so why even bring it up... again.
I honestly don't believe you should be worrying this much in the comparison of past designs for a product that wasn't its intended purpose. The fact that they are able to achieve proper head tracking on a device that was not built with that purpose in mind, should instill great confidence in a VR headset with those capabilities built in from the get go. You couple that with the fact that Sony is one of the top manufactures in displays, they have the makings of a home run here, now all they have to do is execute on price.
If this is really what is taking place, imagine what a studio like SSM can do with VR and a game built with it in mind from the ground up? It could just be one of the projects they are working on with indies, such as The China Room for Everybody's Gone To The Rapture. But what if it's a AAA title? Wasn't it rumored that the next big game from SSM is suppose to be a FPS? I recall being quite perplexed when first hearing that, but now if that is the case, it really makes a ton of sense. I'm just really looking forward to this generation, as the convergence of VR tech is becoming a reality, this type of experience can only help leap frog the medium of gaming into new realms.
No, it's made to seem like you're watching a 60" screen from 10' away in a dark room.
And somehow we're back at square one...
As has already been pointed out to you in this very thread, the HMZ was never intended for VR use, so why even bring it up... again.
I honestly don't believe you should be worrying this much in the comparison of past designs for a product that wasn't its intended purpose. The fact that they are able to achieve proper head tracking on a device that was not built with that purpose in mind, should instill great confidence in a VR headset with those capabilities built in from the get go. You couple that with the fact that Sony is one of the top manufactures in displays, they have the makings of a home run here, now all they have to do is execute on price.
Reallink
Member
Optimally, first person games should be designed to produce a sensation of 1:1 true to life scale (orthostereoscopy). This will require a number of physical variables to be taken into account (e.g. an individual's IPD, lens type if there are choices, distance from lens, etc...), and a shit ton of software variables to be scaled to match them. Given the abysmal and embarrassing efforts put into 3D support (particularly on consoles), it seems likely developers are going to opt for the bare minimum, which will just be producing stereoscopic output at a high FOV and feeding it to the warping algorithm. It will look comically unnatural and crappy to a lot of people, but that's how they rolled with 3D and there's no reason to believe VR will be any different. This would be what people are referring to and looking to avoid when they talk about "ground up" VR design and caution against slapping support on existing TV focused titles.
It's good for everyone. All those people moaning about stuttery framerates should be happy if VR means a focus on locked 60fps
The only thing I'm not sure of is how much a game will need to be tailored for VR. Anything like a cutscene etc can completely take you out of the immersion and be very disorienting. The language of VR hasn't really been fully developed yet, it is still a nascent technology and so it'll be interesting to see if a big player jumps in with both feet.
Sony could do it like the HMZs - they can do low volume runs to seed the technology and use the halo effect to benefit their brand. Like with 3D, they can get their first parties to support too, then see what happens.
Raoul Duke
Banned
I think the Sony that developed the PS3 would most certainly do this, and the current management might do so as well... but I think the shape that they are in, they hopefully realize they need a new "walkman" and can't risk this gamble in a half hearted attempt, the success of this product will vary greatly depending on if they open the flood gates or not...
What is the problem people have with the PS4 not being able to handle VR?
It is a rather simple problem:
- Update view as per head tracking
- Resolve stereo 3D & image warp to lens
If this is implemented at low level it is not a high impact. Any game updating at 60FPS can handle the head-tracking angle.
Also Sony are one of the few companies with extensive stereo 3D expedience from their previous collaborative work with their cinema division working with their studios. They have support and API's for it and several years ago reckoned that it can be as low as a half percent overhead.
Hell, Uncharted 3 was in 3D and it was beautiful... it dropped textures and resolution a bit but certainly did not look compromised.
Where is the heavy work in VR? Oculus (which I have) needs a beefy PC as it is working in Unity (a LOT of abstraction to hardware) or via a hacked driver. None of these are designed from the ground up to maximise performance.
Don't you think Sony planned this in the design? Any serious analysis of the PS4 hardware suggests that the GPU may be a little overpowered for the underlying CPU. Cerny imagined using that for GPGPU compute, but this is also ideal for rendering the second viewport for stereo 3D and warp for VR - as you don't need to touch the CPU.
I can see many future games from Sony offering stereo 3D options for existing 3D TV's and VR options for their headset. One is not much more complex than the other and dual purposes the effort to implement.
But I want to see what dedicated experiences the Indies and Sony's more "out there" studios come up with.
The PS4 is fine for knocking out VR experiences at PS3 or even XB1 levels of performance. Why not? it has 30-50% more rendering grunt than it's competition, so there is room to spare for VR while keeping IQ the same.
Sheesh - as a big PC gamer I seem to understand how this works better than many - can we knock the PS4 is not powerful enough crap on the head now - it is not as powerful as a high-high end PC... but it is more than enough for any VR.
Sony are doing it... but unlikely to be announced tomorrow. I imagine Vita TV launches outside Japan alongside some steaming services - perhaps Gakai - more in keeping with the CES type thing.
It is a rather simple problem:
- Update view as per head tracking
- Resolve stereo 3D & image warp to lens
If this is implemented at low level it is not a high impact. Any game updating at 60FPS can handle the head-tracking angle.
Also Sony are one of the few companies with extensive stereo 3D expedience from their previous collaborative work with their cinema division working with their studios. They have support and API's for it and several years ago reckoned that it can be as low as a half percent overhead.
Hell, Uncharted 3 was in 3D and it was beautiful... it dropped textures and resolution a bit but certainly did not look compromised.
Where is the heavy work in VR? Oculus (which I have) needs a beefy PC as it is working in Unity (a LOT of abstraction to hardware) or via a hacked driver. None of these are designed from the ground up to maximise performance.
Don't you think Sony planned this in the design? Any serious analysis of the PS4 hardware suggests that the GPU may be a little overpowered for the underlying CPU. Cerny imagined using that for GPGPU compute, but this is also ideal for rendering the second viewport for stereo 3D and warp for VR - as you don't need to touch the CPU.
I can see many future games from Sony offering stereo 3D options for existing 3D TV's and VR options for their headset. One is not much more complex than the other and dual purposes the effort to implement.
But I want to see what dedicated experiences the Indies and Sony's more "out there" studios come up with.
The PS4 is fine for knocking out VR experiences at PS3 or even XB1 levels of performance. Why not? it has 30-50% more rendering grunt than it's competition, so there is room to spare for VR while keeping IQ the same.
Sheesh - as a big PC gamer I seem to understand how this works better than many - can we knock the PS4 is not powerful enough crap on the head now - it is not as powerful as a high-high end PC... but it is more than enough for any VR.
Sony are doing it... but unlikely to be announced tomorrow. I imagine Vita TV launches outside Japan alongside some steaming services - perhaps Gakai - more in keeping with the CES type thing.
I'd be very surprised if they announce anything related to Vita TV yet - based on recent interviews, it seems they're going to take their time to come up with a decent marketing strategy and possibly even iterate the hardware to better suit North American entertainment-watching habits.
But yes, Gaikai could be on the cards.
serversurfer
Member
Sure, but that's true of all VR implementations. I was wondering specifically about the claim that Killzone wasn't well suited to VR, and apparently it's because things happen so fast, it's likely to induce motion sickness in the user, which I suppose makes some sense.
Thinking on that a little more, I'm wondering if the issues are caused by a couple of factors working together. I'm not particularly in to FPS games, especially fast-paced ones, so someone help me out here, but is the appeal of the faster games due primarily to the ability to aim more quickly? Like, users want to be able to "instantly" aim 30º to the right before their target runs away?
Assuming that's the case, then I think the real problem is the fact your view is locked to your gunsight. There's no way to snap-aim without also snapping your "head" just as quickly, which is decidedly unnatural. Unfortunately, with standard controls be it KB/M or a DS3 there's no way to decouple those things. If you want to be able to aim quickly, your head needs to lurch around just as quickly, and I'm not surprised that would in turn lead to motion sickness, particularly in a VR environment. Further, I think this effect would be magnified simply due to the fact your view is being affected by something other than your head/eyes. (Again, VR FPS players can correct me on this.)
However, the DS4 finally allows you to decouple looking and aiming. The lightbar on the front of the DS4 allows you to use it like a laser pointer. Now you can look around by turning your head and/or eyes, and since you're physically moving your body, you're unable to change the view in an unnatural, nausea-inducing manner. Most of the quick movement actually comes from your eyes, not your head, so the view doesn't really change as quickly as you might think given sufficient FOV. Meanwhile, since you're now aiming your weapon with a virtual laser pointer in your real hand, you can still get the snap-aiming everyone wants.
I think people don't realize how important this could be, or maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about. =/
xn0
Member
I apologize I didn't keep up with this thread and necropost to correct the people that incorrectly think that the HMZ is only designed for movies.
If you had been keeping up with the HMZ news you would see my point is valid. Sony displayed a prototype of the HMZ-T2 in 2012 with head tracking specifically for VR, then demoed it again in mid 2013 running an exploratory game using the Unity engine. Sony is also specifically using the words Virtual Reality in their reports showing their new HMZ-T3W which is basically a T2 in a newer and lighter case but with the same 720p dual OLED displays. The fact of the matter is, is if Sony is going to continue with the HMZ line as VR then they need to fundamentally change the design to work around the inherent tunneling effect they are going to get by using small 0.7-inch 720p OLED screens. Also OLED's are expensive and not many people are going to lay down $2000 for a head mounted movie viewer with head tracking. The fact of the matter is that the Rift was a game changer and in order to keep up other manufacturers are going to have to mimic the technology in order to produce a relatively low cost, high resolution, panoramic or even borderless head mounted display. I'm not saying that Sony isn't doing this, what I am saying is that they keep charging up the VR wall with the HMZ movie viewer line of products based around .7in OLED's.
vpance
Member
Maybe it'll project directly onto the retina, like this prototype from Avegant.
http://reviews.cnet.com/wearable-tech/avegant-virtual-retinal-display/4505-34900_7-35828603.html
Article says they're also supposed to show up at CES.
http://reviews.cnet.com/wearable-tech/avegant-virtual-retinal-display/4505-34900_7-35828603.html
Article says they're also supposed to show up at CES.
Murder. She Wrote
Member
Wow that's so damn cool, but it seems like something that won't come out within the next five years
vpance
Member
Wow that's so damn cool, but it seems like something that won't come out within the next five years
Dunno, apparently they're crowd funding soon and want to release something by end of the year. More impressions
I've only just read up on this VRD but it seems way better than any LED/OLED VR display solution.
mohsinkhan
Member
Is there gonna be an OT for the press conference.
vpance
Member
I guess it's no surprise, but Sony has patents on a VRD type headset as well. Hope we see this instead of an antiquated dual display thing.
ionicbluebird
Member
How is everyone expecting this thing to connect to the PS4? Direct connect like Vita remote play?
Sony really shouldn't have skimped on their wireless card.. the Xbox One is actually more suited to this.
Of course we all know MS is coming with augmented reality in 1-2 years... can Sony compete... Did they think far enough ahead?
Sony really shouldn't have skimped on their wireless card.. the Xbox One is actually more suited to this.
Of course we all know MS is coming with augmented reality in 1-2 years... can Sony compete... Did they think far enough ahead?
The Avegant isn't even really being targeted as a VR solution though.
"While the display quality might have been amazing with the right content, the 45 degree field of view positions the Avegant HMD more toward consumption of existing content than immersive virtual reality. Tang told me that Avegant wants to support the massive library of existing content and games that are out today rather than waiting for the creation of immersive VR content."
Still sounds cool, but like Sony's HMZ line it's not a real VR HMD. Down the line I'm sure that tech could be used for a much wider fov, but for the time being it's not cost efficient.
Raoul Duke
Banned
I apologize I didn't keep up with this thread and necropost to correct the people that incorrectly think that the HMZ is only designed for movies.
If you had been keeping up with the HMZ news you would see my point is valid. Sony displayed a prototype of the HMZ-T2 in 2012 with head tracking specifically for VR, then demoed it again in mid 2013 running an exploratory game using the Unity engine. Sony is also specifically using the words Virtual Reality in their reports showing their new HMZ-T3W which is basically a T2 in a newer and lighter case but with the same 720p dual OLED displays. The fact of the matter is, is if Sony is going to continue with the HMZ line as VR then they need to fundamentally change the design to work around the inherent tunneling effect they are going to get by using small 0.7-inch 720p OLED screens. Also OLED's are expensive and not many people are going to lay down $2000 for a head mounted movie viewer with head tracking. The fact of the matter is that the Rift was a game changer and in order to keep up other manufacturers are going to have to mimic the technology in order to produce a relatively low cost, high resolution, panoramic or even borderless head mounted display. I'm not saying that Sony isn't doing this, what I am saying is that they keep charging up the VR wall with the HMZ movie viewer line of products based around .7in OLED's.
Well let's see here, am I correct in that you don't believe sony can make a capable product because the HMZ line as it currently stands is lacking as a VR device because it has a tunneling effect? All the while knowing that its intended purpose is that of simulating a theater screen? If that is the case, I don't understand is why you assume they will wholesale copy that device for something that is being dedicated to gaming? Of course they will take some design cues from all the work they have done with HMD's in the past, but that is just common sense. Also, I never said anything about OLEDs...I have no clue what they will end up using, but I have confidence in them providing a very solid performing display... at this point tho we don't even have anything official, so its all kinda moot. It is fun discussing the possibilities and ramifications tho lol..
serversurfer
Member
Link? If you could also provide a link of them saying that the PSVR will be a carbon copy of the HMZ displays, that'd be great. <3
Given that Sony isn't run by the intellectually challenged, it seems likely they'll do precisely that. I'm not sure why you're so certain they won't.
Maybe, maybe not. What you seem to be forgetting/ignoring is unlike Oculus, Sony won't be building their headset with scavenged cellphone parts. Oculus aren't using a single display because it's a superior solution; they're using a single display because unlike Sony, they can't custom build displays of the appropriate size and shape. Oculus start with a cellphone display and use lenses to trick your eyes in to thinking you're looking at two displays. Sony can just use two displays, eliminating the need for the lenses, meaning the displays can be closer to your eyes. This in turn improves comfort and it means the display doesn't need to be as large to fill your field of view.
Yes, Oculus have done a lot of great work, especially when you consider their limited resources, but I can assure you it's Oculus wishing they were Sony, not the other way around.
xn0
Member
Both of you need to read my post before replying:
I really hope Sony is making a true VR headset and not just a movie/gaming headset I really do and if they go away from the 2 OLED's I'm sure it will be awesome. If their rumored VR it is based off of the HMZ line of products using small OLED's I simply don't see how that could match the immersion of the Rift. I've been messing with HMD's for years and there are physical limitations with screens under and inch. Yes Oculus is using repurposed hardware, however what they have done by having a larger screen is to use corrective lenses on a larger display to produce a panoramic near borderless display, this is physically not possible even with corrective lenses on a ~1" OLED display, there simply isn't enough real estate to compensate for eye movement (unless the OLEDs move with your eyes). Additionally by using a larger single display Oculus was able drastically reduce their cost.
Here's exactly what I'm saying. If Sony releases a VR at CES that is similar to the rift or fundamentally different than the HMZ's I'm going to go nuts but if it is based off of the HMZ and 2 OLED's its probably going to be less immersive than the rift.
googleplex
Member
Actually depending on the size of the screen and optics, using two OLED screens would be a MUCH better solution to VR then the rift.
InfinitEye Uses two screen and it has vastly superior FOV then the rift.
xn0
Member
I would hope they would use OLED's just not the ~1in ones. Its the size not the technology I'm concerned about. As seen in the InfinitEye you need larger displays.
The open space on the sides aren't distracting??
googleplex
Member
I think your brain kinda just accepts it because they're in your peripheral view. Using curved OLED screens would basically solve that issue. Using 2 curved OLED screens, would be the best solution for LED based VR but it would be more expensive.
Found a pretty cool pic while searching for the price of the InfinitEye. It's listed at $450 right now... I really hope Sony finds that sweet spot between functionality and price, IF the VR headset is true.
http://vrwiki.wikispaces.com/InfinitEye+V2#Development-Hardware
The wireless setup is pretty irrelevant here - so MS is not better off. Using the existing wireless will need compressed video and will add latency.
Instead they will probably go wired from the HDMI output using a pass-through connector. If they want to go wireless then there is WirelessHD and WHDI which are technologies designed to take HDMI wireless with sub-millisecond latency.
Getting low latency positional information back via wires will just be USB (like OR) but if they go wireless then they would have a small transmitter in the glasses which responds back to the same "VR base station" which can pass to USB or use the HDMI data back-channels (effectively Ethernet).
And if they go the full AR route then just a 2 way HDMI would be fine, with the raw feed from the AR cameras on the headset being fed into the "Aux" port on the PS4 (i.e. the PS4 Camera one which is designed to take in raw video). Problems arise if they need to have the PS4 Camera and a AR Camera at the same time - i.e. AR with Move support. In which case they may have under-thought the solution. But the USB3 ports on the PS4 would probably be able to take in another raw video feed too (as that is all the "Aux" port seems to be).
I am expecting it to be a wired device. Minimal latency & cheaper as you don't need a battery.
They want to keep this below $200 and that's with 2x 720p oleds, lightbar, optics?, headphone output & gyros.
I'm expecting it to be connected to the AUX output (tunneling the connection to the PS4 camera).
They want to keep this below $200 and that's with 2x 720p oleds, lightbar, optics?, headphone output & gyros.
I'm expecting it to be connected to the AUX output (tunneling the connection to the PS4 camera).
