Johnny Concrete
Member
If it's reasonably priced (as in not more then $500) and it's not increasing the VR playerbase then we're done.
I don’t see it, I just know a handful of people who own a Quest 2 and most have stopped using it. It’ll fall on software support. Bigger devs still don’t dare to fully invest, all we get is small budget games.Quest 2 already catapulted VR to the mainstream
This distinction doesn't actually exist - or at best, it's 100% a software question.AR is where things will truly explode
See above. Also AR as a concept doesn't actually eliminate motion sickness. It's staying tethered to 'room-scale' that does, but that again, is neither AR/VR specific.The motion sickness problem needs to be completely eliminated first.
Ita why I think AR will ve mainstream before VR.
It's a challenging proposition. The leap in fidelity is substantial (compared to anything on the market today), and we have headsets that still cost into thousands (or close to) that occupy the high-end right now. And I don't disagree with you that lower-price is needed for penetration, but the other side of it is that they may not want to be directly compared to Quest class of hardware (and 250 would be even lower price than that). The value proposition is just different.then it will die. it's not worth more than 250 to begin with, and needing a 500€ console to use it on top of that would be a fucking disaster
Exactly this.It’s still a high-cost, tethered, add-on accessory without AAA support.
I can’t see any difference in Sony’s strategy over the first PSVR. I’m not expecting a different result.
Correctly made software doesn't provoke motion sickness. It's entirely a game/experience design problem, not a hardware problem. It was a hardware problem back when the hardware simply wasn't good enough (low framerate, shit FOV), but we've been past that point for several years now.The motion sickness problem needs to be completely eliminated first.
Ita why I think AR will be mainstream before VR.
Nope.
Too big. Too expensive. Requires a Ps5. Tethered.
VR goes mainstream when it’s stand alone, looks and feels like a light pair of glasses, is under £200, and streams high fidelity VR right from the cloud.
So phones, consoles, PC, TV, monitors etc. can all be way more expensive but a stand alone VR headset needs to be under $200?
I never really get that argument. Quest 2 is already pretty cheap.
This. I was always prone to extreme motion sickness ever since I was a kid and it never really went away but even for me most modern VR titles aren't a problem at all.Correctly made software doesn't provoke motion sickness. It's entirely a game/experience design problem, not a hardware problem. It was a hardware problem back when the hardware simply wasn't good enough (low framerate, shit FOV), but we've been past that point for several years now.
This distinction doesn't actually exist - or at best, it's 100% a software question.
Both Quest 2 and PSVR2 are noticeably better AR devices than any dedicated AR headset I've tested to date (especially including Hololens).
What you 'might' be saying is 'light-weight wearable HMDs' is when things will truly explode - but that's neither AR or VR specific, everyone wants it - tech just takes time to get there (and it's till a long ways away).
See above. Also AR as a concept doesn't actually eliminate motion sickness. It's staying tethered to 'room-scale' that does, but that again, is neither AR/VR specific.
It's a challenging proposition. The leap in fidelity is substantial (compared to anything on the market today), and we have headsets that still cost into thousands (or close to) that occupy the high-end right now. And I don't disagree with you that lower-price is needed for penetration, but the other side of it is that they may not want to be directly compared to Quest class of hardware (and 250 would be even lower price than that). The value proposition is just different.
I think if they can pull off the 'nearly seamless' development for flat vs. VR on AAA products (which is where PSVR already had an edge, albeit slight, against other HMD libraries), that alone would generate enough traction to keep it differentiated and supported regardless of entry price. Not a likely mainstream breakout though, agreed.
It’s really going to blow your mind to find out that already exists for just $200.Probably 10 years away from anything that will potentially go mainstream and it will be a small standalone device people will use to watch sports and live entertainment like concerts that will propel it.
The oculus go isn't what I would call small form factor, I was talking smaller form factors. Something like the HTC flow but all contained in the hmd without the phone brick hanging off it to run it. Then to make it mainstream I was implying content being available like for example being able to watch sport live in VR from multiple camera angles around the field/circuit like your standing there where traditional cameras would be the same time as the live broadcast. Meta could probably sell a bunch of quests and go's by just doing this with something like the surperbowl or fifa finals right now. Although again to make it mainstream form factor and screens are still going to need improvements, people wont want any of the distortion current lens and screen cause.It’s really going to blow your mind to find out that already exists for just $200.
You can watch NBA games from courtside seats on the Quest and they do concerts all the time.Then to make it mainstream I was implying content being available like for example being able to watch sport live in VR from multiple camera angles around the field/circuit like your standing there where traditional cameras would be the same time as the live broadcast.
I'm personally not convinced AAA is the most likely avenue to get mainstream adoption. Oculus managed to generate true system sellers on the back of mostly smaller productions (there was one or two AAA-like exceptions, but even those were VR budget AAAs - so still different scale).It’s still a high-cost, tethered, add-on accessory without AAA support.
Yea fair enough - I kind of just get triggered with the AR being treated as something uniquely different when the only unique thing it really had (inside-out tracking&cameras) is now the preferred VR standard too. May well be that VR as a concept disappears overtime and all we do is different flavors of 'AR' but it's semantics at that point.Well the thread says "will PSVR make VR mainstream"
I'll be honest - as a big proponent of the medium, that specific example is something of an existential nightmare scenario, not a desired end state. But I also know it's almost inevitable at this point :/I would like a pair of glasses with a tv show always on in my Peripheral vision, its like the next evolution from podcasts lol.
Well one of those is where there's actual improvements being made for the first time in 6 years - but we'll see how it lands.The main issues with the hardware will still be unsovled, namely movement and cables.
I'm personally not convinced AAA is the most likely avenue to get mainstream adoption. Oculus managed to generate true system sellers on the back of mostly smaller productions (there was one or two AAA-like exceptions, but even those were VR budget AAAs - so still different scale).
PSVR was the only headset that had true AAAs to begin with - and while they generated a lot of buzz, it's unclear whether that was really moving the needle or not (possibly it was and they just lacked volume/throughput, but we just don't have enough data here yet). But it seems clear to me that Sony intends to make a harder push into that strategy, so they will definitely have the bigger throughput of AAAs coming - so if your hypothesis about AAA support holds, that may yet validate it.
Yea fair enough - I kind of just get triggered with the AR being treated as something uniquely different when the only unique thing it really had (inside-out tracking&cameras) is now the preferred VR standard too. May well be that VR as a concept disappears overtime and all we do is different flavors of 'AR' but it's semantics at that point.
I'll be honest - as a big proponent of the medium, that specific example is something of an existential nightmare scenario, not a desired end state. But I also know it's almost inevitable at this point :/
Well one of those is where there's actual improvements being made for the first time in 6 years - but we'll see how it lands.
There's already a Horizon game announced exclusively for PSVR2, and word on the street says most of Sony's 1st-party games will have PSVR2 modes akin to the one in Hellblade, i.e. no VR-only gameplay but with ability to follow the 3rd-person character gameplay in VR.It’s still a high-cost, tethered, add-on accessory without AAA support.
There's already huge difference in convenience (single-cable, no additional setup, no HDMI TV splitter, etc.) and performance with foveated rendering + eye tracking. Foveated rendering + eye tracking can probably enable developers to render at the exact same settings as the games' 60FPS performance mode which simplifies the process of including a VR mode.I can’t see any difference in Sony’s strategy over the first PSVR. I’m not expecting a different result.