-
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.
PSVR is the best-selling VR headset so far this year
- Thread starter Shmunter
- Start date
Boris The Spider
Member
Well it is LOTS cheaper to buy into PSVR than a Rift/Vive (though Oculus Go negates that somewhat as can be seen by the graph above and is therefore a more fair comparision). Still a great achievement though. My rift doesn't often get played as the fairly low res annoys the heck out of me. I hear good things about the Samsung Odyssey+ but they don't sell it in Europe, I've no idea why.
FranXico
Member
What the rumours lead to believe is that there are a few hardware features built-in to make the need for a separate box obsolete, but the VR headset is still going to be sold separately.
Note that as a side effect, there are higher base hardware requirements (they need to make the PS5 more powerful for VR support).
It will likely drive the price up though.
Last edited:
Racer!
Member
Dont like VR?
TBiddy
Member
Not many people do, to be frank. It's a fun gimmick, but that's about it.
Racer!
Member
Ok. How many people like VR?
Mr Hyde
Member
Nope. Not one bit. I´m extra hostile when rumors starts to fly around that Sony will make VR even more integral with the Playstation brand than it already is.
Racer!
Member
Understand. Any particular reason....motion sick etc or plain just not fun?
Mr Hyde
Member
This. It´s a boring gimmick that got worn out fast. I´m classically built gamer so gimmicks usually tends to lose my interest fast. VR, motion controls, kinect, hand waving etc, it´s just not for me. I will never buy into stuff like that.
DarthBuzzer
Member
This report is falsified. Why do people continue to eat it up?
reconminicon
Banned
Do you buy disk based games at all?
DarthBuzzer
Member
Incorrect. Most people do.
You obviously will buy into it, as it will become core to daily life as time goes on. It is going to be the next smartphone alongside AR.
Last edited:
Gamernyc78
Banned
As expected. I fully hope ps5 is taking vr into account. Those black Friday bundles were selling like crazy and the ppl that bought them seemed to reach a consensus that it is a great way to game. Also helps that out of all the VR solutions PSVR has a goty contender in Astrobot. Other games like Firewall, Farpoint, etc are great as well. Ppl can hate but VR will be nurtured and grow.
nowhat
Member
According to rumours (which are just that at the moment, no definitive info) the functions of the PSVR breakout box will be integrated into PS5. But I doubt it'll change the price much - all the box does is turn the VR video signal back to a TV-compatible version and handle positional audio, neither of which is a very complicated task.
Racer!
Member
Fair enough. Any thoughts on what it would take to get you interested? How good would the tech have to be?
BANGS
Banned
Sony wouldn't be that stupid. There's no way they'd dump that much money into something that doesn't show nearly enough promise to justify it...
AlexxKidd
Member
No way it does. Those are pre-Astro bundle BF numbers.
Last edited:
Nikodemos
Member
Would that tack on a couple hundred thousand more on PSVR sales?
AlexxKidd
Member
Easy. Going under the assumption that the graph is pre-BF, which it has to be because there's no way they know those numbers yet unless they're taking a wild guess. Astro Bot is a VR seller even beyond what Skyrim was last year, and at $200 bucks it was a no-brainer if you were on the fence before.
Mr Hyde
Member
I don´t have a smartphone either, so I´m guessing no. Also big luls of VR becoming core to daily life.
Shifty
Member
These posts are beginning to sound like market research
"And what would your ideal price point be? How about as a subscription service?"
Last edited:
TBiddy
Member
A few million worldwide, from the looks of it. No, I have no idea, but if most people loved it, it would be much more popular. VR is fun, but let's be honest. Right now it's headed one way, and that's in the direction of 3D glasses for your tv.
DarthBuzzer
Member
Well isn't that a surprise. And you might laugh at it now, but that's only because you don't understand what VR actually is, what it's capable of, and just lack overall vision.
Clearly you think VR is just some gaming device and that's all it will be.
Last edited:
DarthBuzzer
Member
There's nothing to suggest it's heading the way of 3D TVs because sales are pretty much where they were expected to be. This is like smartphones back in 2003, when they were thought of as a gimmick and a niche.
Racer!
Member
Quite the opposite. 3D glasses had absolutely no way to go, it was a dead end. Same as Kinect. With VR, we havent even began.
Last edited:
Azurro
Banned
It will never get there. You'd need a huge technological leap that simply isn't attainable in the short term for it to be all that useful.
You'll need to fix performance issues, cost issues, content issues, comfort issues, privacy issues and so on. There are many reasons none of the VR headsets are selling even decently.
DarthBuzzer
Member
This. 3D TVs could only go one way: Viewable from all angles, without glasses, with higher resolution, and with vergence accommodation. Maybe light-field displays on top as the final form of the 3D TV. Even when you get to that point, it's still such a small change.
VR on the other hand can be improved so much more: Higher resolution, wider FoV, eye tracking, facial tracking, body tracking, hand tracking without gloves, haptic gloves, treadmills / running shoes, haptic suits, motion sickness cure, perfect 3D audio, wireless, mixed reality support, AR support, smaller form factor, actual vergence accommodation, foveated rendering.
Everything added is a big change, unlike 3D TVs, and I haven't even talked about stuff like smell, taste, or a much further off future with a brain interface.
Last edited:
DarthBuzzer
Member
Ah, sorry. I'll take your random words as gospel. I bow down to your wisdom.
No. You are speculating without any research. This is like saying computers will always be the size of a room before PCs came into play.
- Performance issues are easily fixed with foveated rendering, as it would make VR much more performant than non-VR
- Cost issues are already on their way to being fixed, with $200 headsets currently available. The value proposition for VR only goes up and up each generation too. People will only be willing to spend more once they realize the potential, such as replacing all of their other devices.
- Comfort issues will be solved with waveguide displays to enable a much slimmer form factor, and eventually sunglasses.
- Privacy issues are the only caveat, but would not stop anything because it's just a part of the world we live in now.
And other issues on the hardware side are entirely fixable. Every single problem can be fixed, and Oculus are close to fixing most of them in the next 4 years.
That huge technological leap? It's being worked on, and is inevitable. Stop being pessimistic for no reason.
Last edited:
TBiddy
Member
You might be right, but as it looks right now, VR has no future. It's a gimmick mostly used in theme parks to allow guests to try a racing game, a "walk the plank" experience or whatever. Even the most ardent VR-defenders I know (outside of neogaf) rarely uses theirs, since it's cumbersome and more or less useless.
I get the whole "wait for the technology!", but it's like hearing the old "Wait for Build!!" defence, I used to run back in the days with Windows Phone.
If we ever get to a point where it's affordable for anyone, easy to use, practical, actually has games, allows you to keep track of the real world in the same time and doesn't cause motion sickness, we can have a conversation of how VR has a future.
Personally I think AR has a much higher chance of gaining traction. One could argue, that AR is already a lot more succesful than VR with Pokemon Go and others, and it runs on something most people have.. a smartphone
DarthBuzzer
Member
Mobile VR is in the process being replaced by standalone VR so it makes sense. But these numbers are bogus anyway.
DarthBuzzer
Member
Except AR and VR are just going to be the same device as time goes on. So both succeed if only one succeeds at first.You might be right, but as it looks right now, VR has no future. It's a gimmick mostly used in theme parks to allow guests to try a racing game, a "walk the plank" experience or whatever. Even the most ardent VR-defenders I know (outside of neogaf) rarely uses theirs, since it's cumbersome and more or less useless.
I get the whole "wait for the technology!", but it's like hearing the old "Wait for Build!!" defence, I used to run back in the days with Windows Phone.
If we ever get to a point where it's affordable for anyone, easy to use, practical, actually has games, allows you to keep track of the real world in the same time and doesn't cause motion sickness, we can have a conversation of how VR has a future.
Personally I think AR has a much higher chance of gaining traction. One could argue, that AR is already a lot more succesful than VR with Pokemon Go and others, and it runs on something most people have.. a smartphone
VR by definition can't be a gimmick as gimmicks are meant to be marketing ploys that don't add real value. VR is the opposite as it isn't a marketing ploy, and adds lots of real value even today, for both consumers and enterprise, inside gaming, and outside of gaming.
olimariOA
Banned
VR is the future.
Astrobot sold me and Super Hot gave me a glimpse into how interactive games could be.
I wish every game had a VR more for true immersion.
Even if it's just a 3D camera, that's all I need.
Happy for PSVR.
I believe that VR is made or broken based on how included it is with PS5.
Astrobot sold me and Super Hot gave me a glimpse into how interactive games could be.
I wish every game had a VR more for true immersion.
Even if it's just a 3D camera, that's all I need.
Happy for PSVR.
I believe that VR is made or broken based on how included it is with PS5.
BANGS
Banned
I wonder where you got this definition from... The definition of gimmick is "a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business."
In VR's case, it's a device intended to attract both attention and business. So by definition it is indeed a gimmick... just like Kinect, wiimotes, guitar hero controllers, etc.
It's an immersion gimmick, and even if you want to add the caveat that it doesn't add real value, most gamers would agree VR doesn't...
Last edited:
DarthBuzzer
Member
VR has been used for various practical use cases that don't fit any of those three. If we consider VR as a consumer product a gimmick, then every product in existence is a gimmick, and the whole definition loses it's meaning.
Last edited:
TBiddy
Member
Gimmick might be the wrong word (English is my second language), but you know what I mean.
I don't think we'll see AR and VR devices combined any time soon. I haven't seen any use cases for VR in enterprise yet. I have read that some are looking into it, but compared to AR it's probably negligible.
Azurro
Banned
That comparison is silly, switching to transistors from previous technologies made the world we know possible, but can you think of a single technology that would make VR possible?
What do you mean by foveated rendering? Is it when you don't render anything outside of the frustum? Because that's already been done since like, ever. And it would be used in non VR games if it's such a performance saver as well. Both simply try to raster stuff, VR just asks for 90+ fps at a higher resolution.
The cost issues are a matter of the VR headset + the base system (either PC/Console/cellphone) + controllers. I don't think the VR numbers are setting the world on fire for any of the configurations, even the cheapest ones.
So, aside from the hardware issues, you have the content issues. I don't know, it just seems like too many things need to come right for it to be even a viable platform.
And the biggest question, if the development needs that long, why we're headsets released already? They are simply failing in the marketplace.
DarthBuzzer
Member
AR and VR fully combining is a much longer term eventuality. However, expect VR to have powerful mixed reality fairly soon. Infact, VR will be the best place for powerful AR/MR for the foreseeable future. By 2022, it should be standard to have your headset do a pretty realistic real-time scan of real life and merge it into VR as an overlay.
TBiddy
Member
How do you define "fairly soon"? And why do you think VR will be the 'best place' for powerful AR? One of the hurdles of VR is that it's cumbersome. Usually, when you're talking AR, you want to bring it with you.
DarthBuzzer
Member
I can tell you know little about VR, so why speak as if you know it all? No, it's not frustum culling. It's like a biological version of frustum culling. Your eyes are only sharp at the center of your fovea. The vast majority of your vision is blurry and filled in by the brain. We can exploit this trait by replicating it in software. Only render high resolution pixels where your fovea is looking (using eye tracking) and degrade outwards. Especially using the technique Oculus are working on, this would result in 20x less pixels being rendered. That's so big it means you can increase the resolution from 1080x1200 90Hz per eye today to 6000x6000 120Hz per eye without really any change in GPU performance. Additionally, you can start to do the same for other aspects of rendering. Raytracing? Don't sample every ray as you normally would, just sample the normal amount around your fovea, and have very few ray samples outside.
It becomes obvious that VR will simply surpass non-VR in every technical area. Photorealistic graphics at high framerates and high resolutions will be a lot easier to do in VR. Think of how even 1080p 60 FPS raytracing is a struggle today. With VR, you cut the pxiels by 95% and the rays by 95%. Easy. You can only truly use it for non-VR if a console or monitor ships with eye tracking as standard, and it will never be remotely as performant because you have much less field of view to gain from.
Also you can test that this effect does work: https://www.shadertoy.com/view/4dsXzM
PSVR + PS4 was $400 altogether this Black Friday. That's a pretty damm good price, If you went 10 years into the future, that $200 headset would let you replace any display in the world. Infinite 4K/8K screens, even a full blown IMAX theater that beats the real thing. And today we have $200 standalone headsets that require no other hardware.
Content is getting much better. Just look at 2018 for PSVR. Astro Bot is a genuine GOTY contender, and PC VR has 5 AAA exclusives on the way, including 3 games from Valve, one of which is likely a new Half Life game.
Because that's how you grow a market and get developers to learn how to make content in the first place? Things don't just magically move unless R&D and funding is going on.
Last edited:
DarthBuzzer
Member
Fairly soon, 4 years: https://uploadvr.com/abrash-2018-predictions-oc5/
The best place for AR will be VR for a while, but that is within the context of power. AR glasses will be lower fidelity compared to MR/AR in a VR headset for the foreseeable future.
This just means that if you want the highest quality AR within your home, you'll want to use a VR headset.
Last edited:
BANGS
Banned
I meant VR in the video game space...
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Sad but expected given it only requires a console vs a gaming PC and a more intricate setup process. Hopefully come next gen all the VR sets have equally capable core features and differentiate in other ways (like form factor, resolution, analog stick vs touchpad etc). Move is so inferior to the other VR controllers, I don't understand why Sony didn't make a Move 2 to launch alongside it instead of reuse that
Last edited:
DarthBuzzer
Member
Again, this is pointless as we'd have to say almost every game, every console, every platform is a gimmick. VR has very much been a passion project more than than it has a way to get rich quick. PSVR only came about because Sony's R&D team and developers were excited about what it would offer. Oculus only started because Palmer Luckey loved VR. Vive was partially business sense from HTC but also passion from Valve.
Last edited:
BANGS
Banned
Well this is why we self regulate our terms as a community so people know what they're talking about. We can all accept that peripherals like VR are gimmicks... well everyone but the foaming mouthed fanboys anyways. Just like we don't think every game where you play the role of a character is a role playing game, or every game where characters fight is a fighting game... it's not that hard to be reasonable and understand what we all mean by these terms that could technically be stretched to the extreme...
DarthBuzzer
Member
There is no self regulation. Almost everyone uses gimmick as a widely negative word. It also becomes an excuse. "I don't want Microsoft to invest in any more gimmicks after Kinect", "VR is a gimmick, not interested."
Last edited: