Support NeoGAF

[Eddie-Griffin]

https://www.trustedreviews.com/opin...ld-be-better-off-without-eye-tracking-4303024

The 4K OLED screen is gorgeous, the controllers allow for natural interactions and the inside-out tracking provides pinpoint accuracy. In terms of hardware and specs, it’s hard to see where Sony could improve on its new headset even further, besides allowing backwards compatibility.

But there is one sticking point that makes the PlayStation VR 2 hard to justify, and that’s the price. At $549.99/£529.99, the PSVR 2 is even more expensive than a PS5 – and that console was hardly considered cheap when it launched two years ago.

That’s a hefty outlay for the headset, but it’s actually a comparatively low fee when you consider the specs. For example, the Meta Quest Pro recently launched with a retail price of $1500/£1499.99.

It is worth pointing out that the PSVR 2 doesn’t have an internal chip or storage like the Quest Pro, which would have helped Sony reduce its costs. But it’s still clear that Sony has had to subsidise the price when you consider how expensive the Vive Pro 2 headset is, which offers similar specs and also lacks an internal processor.

But despite Sony’s efforts, I still think the PlayStation VR is currently too expensive to appeal to mainstream gamers – the same market that makes up the main bulk of PS5 sales.

Having reviewed the PSVR 2 headset now, I believe Sony should have cut corners in order to reduce the cost of the headset. And the most expendable feature, in my opinion, is the eye-tracking technology.

This technology is so new that only a handful of headsets actually support it. Aside from the PlayStation VR 2, every other headset that packs the technology costs at least $1000 – so it’s a fair assumption that this tech isn’t cheap to implement. And yet, I’m not convinced that it’s an essential feature for VR (at least in terms of gaming) right now.

The main use of eye tracking is for foveated rendering. Since the headset is able to detect which part of an in-game environment you’re looking at, the PS5’s GPU is able to improve the pixel density in that area, while reducing the quality of your peripheral vision. It’s an efficient way to utilise the graphics power of your PS5, and will no doubt make the likes of Horizon Call of the Mountain look even better than it would otherwise.

Sony claims (via UploadVR) that foveated rendering results in 3.6x faster GPU frame times, which is a significant performance boost. But foveated rendering may not be as efficient as we initially thought, with John Carmack (former Chief technology officer of Oculus) suggesting that hopes for high-performance boosts are unrealistic.

You could also argue that the PlayStation VR 2 doesn’t really need a performance boost for the vast majority of VR games in its library – the PS5 is comfortably powerful enough to power experiences such as Beat Saber, Thumper, Moss and more. It’s a different story for games such as Horizon, but how many games of that calibre will actually arrive on that platform? It’s difficult to know at this point.

John Carmack instead suggests eye-tracking technology could be more useful for user interaction and in-game features.

There are already a few confirmed PSVR 2 games that will make use of eye-tracking technology. Rez Infinite will allow you to aim at targets with your eyes, in Tetris Effect you’ll be able to activate ‘Zone mode’ by closing your eyes, and in Switchback VR certain monsters will attack you whenever you blink.

But I was really disappointed to see that Horizon Call of the Mountain only uses eye-tracking technology for menu navigation. It’s odd to see the headset’s biggest launch game failing to make full use out of one the PSVR 2’s most exciting features.

As a result, I’m pessimistic that many big releases on PSVR 2 will actually make full use out of the eye-tracking technology. It may even be difficult to convince third-party developers to do so, as they’ll want to ensure cross-platform support for headsets such as the Meta Quest 2 which still lack the technology.

I’m sure eye-tracking technology will have a big impact on VR headsets in the future, especially for social apps where eye contact can help to improve social interactions. But right now, I think most people (including myself) would be happy to sacrifice the eye-tracking technology if it meant the PlayStation VR 2 became that little bit more affordable.

So basically Ryan at Trusted Reviews believes that the big flaw with PSVR2 is price, and suggests that Sony could have sold the headset cheaper if they didn't include Eye-tracking/Foveated Rendering, which he claims is underutilized and not currently worth it. He also uses John Carmack to attempt to debunk Sony's claims of the benefits with Eye-Tracking, and that he doesn't believe many games will put in effort to support it, including Sony himself expressing his disappointment with Horizon: Call of the wild's implementation.

While there are some issues in his post, he does raise two points that are pretty reasonable,

1. Devs who want to make cross-platform games for the most money, may likely skip eye-tracking for compatibility since most headsets don't have it. This is especially true since the biggest software hub currently in the VR market right now is on headsets that don't have the feature.

2. Sony not having a major FP showcase of the feature at launch.

With that said, while these points are valid for now, his main argument still derives form the issue of the headsets price.

I believe that while many people on gaming forums and certain enthusiast circles are quick to shrug off the price, especially for the specs for the current headsets out at this time, I'm noticing more and more from non-hardcore gamers, to casuals bringing up the price more and more as we get closer to launch which does makes me believe it's going to be an issue that will impact sales.

Ironically, I'm not seeing this same mindset for Apple's rumored headset, and Bigscreen was mopped on the floor over there $999 reveal for their headset, granted Apple has the infrastructure to offer subsidization options, but that's still a bit hypocritical.

 

[vivftp]

Stupid article person says stupid thing. Hardly worth paying attention to, let alone making a thread about.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

More stupid takes from stupid sites.

 

[systemr123]

https://www.trustedreviews.com/opin...ld-be-better-off-without-eye-tracking-4303024


So basically Ryan at Trusted Reviews believes that the big flaw with PSVR2 is price, and suggests that Sony could have sold the headset cheaper if they didn't include Eye-tracking/Foveated Rendering, which he claims is underutilized and not currently worth it. He also uses John Carmack to attempt to debunk Sony's claims of the benefits with Eye-Tracking, and that he doesn't believe many games will put in effort to support it, including Sony himself expressing his disappointment with Horizon: Call of the wild's implementation.

While there are some issues in his post, he does raise two points that are pretty reasonable,

1. Devs who want to make cross-platform games for the most money, may likely skip eye-tracking for compatibility since most headsets don't have it. This is especially true since the biggest software hub currently in the VR market right now is on headsets that don't have the feature.

2. Sony not having a major FP showcase of the feature at launch.

With that said, while these points are valid for now, his main argument still derives form the issue of the headsets price.

I believe that while many people on gaming forums and certain enthusiast circles are quick to shrug off the price, especially for the specs for the current headsets out at this time, I'm noticing more and more from non-hardcore gamers, to casuals bringing up the price more and more as we get closer to launch which does makes me believe it's going to be an issue that will impact sales.

Ironically, I'm not seeing this same mindset for Apple's rumored headset, and Bigscreen was mopped on the floor over there $999 reveal for their headset, granted Apple has the infrastructure to offer subsidization options, but that's still a bit hypocritical.

You have to pay for good stuff, otherwise just buy a Quest 2. Sick and tired of hearing how expensive it is, when in the same article he says that comparable headsets are 3x, yes 3x as expensive. Not mentioning even the monster pc you need to paint a nice picture on it.

All those reviews complaining about price and content are hypocritical as F*ck. Complaining you get a lot of older Quest games, then complaining that it has no content, then port begging Alyx, which is also a pcvr game, and then complaining no must have titles, yet there are a few on release day already including around 30 other titles.

Could go on and on and on. And it’s awesome Sony included eye tracking. It makes the graphics way more powerful and it has actual good implementation and use case scenarios that you can already hear in other reviews.

This review/article is just pure salt.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Foveated rendering is a must for VR. It’s sad to see some of these “tech” sites run with such takes simply because their dear PC VR solutions aren’t there yet. As soon as they are these people will change their tune.

 

[SkyHighTrees]

imagine tryin to move up with the technology and someone saying you shouldnt. your shit should be mediocre just like the others!

 

[Evolved1]

That’s one of the dumbest fuckin takes yet. The biggest mistake of the first iteration was not being future proof…and this is such a killer feature. So dumb.

 

[Killer8]

The foveated rendering helps the PS5 punch above its weight when it comes to running the games. It's worth the extra cost that eye tracking brings.

 

[Spukc]

Wow insulting the PSVR2 is he an idiot? 2 is 1 more then 1

 

[mckmas8808]

Foveated rendering is a must for VR. It’s sad to see some of these “tech” sites run with such takes simply because their dear PC VR solutions aren’t there yet. As soon as they are these people will change their tune.

That's all this is. As soon as the PCVR gets ETFR it'll be a great idea overnight.

Plus it's not like eye tracking cost $200 to add.

 

[baphomet]

Whomever wrote that article is retarded.

They also have no idea how cheap those eye tracking cameras are.

 

[Loxus]

"PSVR2 price makes it hard to justify."

Processed to list VR headsets with same or less features at more than double the price.

 

[mckmas8808]

"PSVR2 price makes it hard to justify."

Processed to list VR headsets with same or less features at more than double the price.

That dude is one of the dumbest people in tech clearly.

 

[systemr123]

The foveated rendering helps the PS5 punch above its weight when it comes to running the games. It's worth the extra cost that eye tracking brings.

The extra cost being the device costs only 30% of a comparable headset using lcd screens . Such expensive

 

[Imtjnotu]

what.......

 

[FalsettoVibe]

Eddie, do you absolutely have to spam threads for every bit of videogame journalism that you can find? Quality is better than quantity and this article is trash.

 

[MasterCornholio]

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

That dude is one of the dumbest people in tech clearly.

Speaking of,

Having reviewed the PSVR 2 headset now, I believe Sony should have cut corners in order to reduce the cost of the headset. And the most expendable feature, in my opinion, is the eye-tracking technology.

He didn't believe they needed to cut corners until AFTER he reviewed the headset???

 

[vivftp]

Speaking of,



He didn't believe they needed to cut corners until AFTER he reviewed the headset???

A stupid take is a stupid take. Still not understanding why you felt the need to share their stupidity with the rest of us.

 

[Buggy Loop]

That's a dumb fucking take

The cameras for eye tracking are peanuts compared to optics-diplays. That's why Quest 3 is rumored to still sport LCD panels, but with pancake lenses at least. Will probably be higher priced than Quest 2, anything tech nowadays are $$$.

I actually wish Sony had even made it more expensive to have wireless as an option (and support PCVR damnit)

 

[the welsh one]

This reviewer is what's called commonly known as a "Moron".

 

[baphomet]

Eddie, do you absolutely have to spam threads for every bit of videogame journalism that you can find? Quality is better than quantity and this article is trash.

That's what he does.

Constantly post any random trash about videogames he can find.

Why he still has thread posting capabilities I don't know.

 

[TLZ]

Features are underutilized and the device hasn't been released yet. Talks as if it's been out for years.

 

[SLB1904]

While there are some issues in his post, he does raise two points that are pretty reasonable,

1. Devs who want to make cross-platform games for the most money, may likely skip eye-tracking for compatibility since most headsets don't have it. This is especially true since the biggest software hub currently in the VR market right now is on headsets that don't have the feature.

2. Sony not having a major FP showcase of the feature at launch.

With that said, while these points are valid for now, his main argument still derives form the issue of the headsets price.

I still don't know who has the shittiest option. If it's op or the dumb who wrote this article.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

With all due respect (which is none):

Shut the fuck up.

 

[Crayon]

The Verge say they thought the foveated rendering sounded cool but they couldn't see it being used. That was a bad thing, by the way.

 

[Fafalada]

He also uses John Carmack to attempt to debunk Sony's claims of the benefits with Eye-Tracking, and that he doesn't believe many games will put in effort to support it, including Sony himself expressing his disappointment with Horizon: Call of the wild's implementation.

The issue is he doesn't really debunk anything - Carmack's quote isn't quantified against anything, but he's mainly pointing out we're far from the 'ideal' cases (ie. theoretical 'optimum' for Foveated rendering is to only have 2 degrees of the view at high-resolution at any given point - which would yield a 55x performance improvement for PSVR2 - not 3.6x).
More importantly Sony never made claims regarding performance delta at all - 3.6x was a statement by Unity, for Unity3d specific optimizations on PSVR2 - not the platform in general. And there's nothing to debunk there - it was shown live in a real-world scenario.

While there are some issues in his post, he does raise two points that are pretty reasonable,

I mean - it's still a stretch as the entire thing relies on hypothesis that eye tracking interactive benefits are a major differentiator. Which has yet to be proven (academic research has certainly not done so, and game implementations prior to PSVR2 not really either).
But yes - the amount of support this gets will depend on success of the platform - like with every other novel I/O/control scheme ever.

That said I'd wait until Sony releases something that isn't running on Unreal before making judgements about how well 1st parties utilize unique features of the platform.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

nvm, inconsistent troll comment.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

The issue is he doesn't really debunk anything

I agree, that's why I said he attempted.

That said I'd wait until Sony releases something that isn't running on Unreal before making judgements about how well 1st parties utilize unique features of the platform.

Are you suggesting Unreal is the culprit here? Couldn't that be modified to make it easier without changing the engine?

 

[SLB1904]

Probably because your post and ones like yours are hypocritical, inconsistent, with double standards, and only seem to come out if there's a subject of personal interest involved, but if not you wouldn't be here making this complaint. Like the Xbox fans in the shoe thread not usually appearing in similar threads about Sony and EA releasing shoes, sometimes even making fun of those companies for doing them, but then complain when Xbox also does a shoe later, and others do the same thing back to them

Aww someone made fun of your xbox boohoo

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Aww someone made fun of your xbox boohoo

Talk about bad reading comprehension.

 

[Hoppa]

Yeah but then they’d be complaining in 2 years when all other headsets have it implemented in games and PSVR doesn’t

 

[reinking]

Eddie, do you absolutely have to spam threads for every bit of videogame journalism that you can find? Quality is better than quantity and this article is trash.

Eddie posts a lot, and a lot of concern-trolling type threads, but some of his threads typically turn out entertaining. He is like the "fair and balanced" FOX news of GAF.

 

[mckmas8808]

Speaking of,



He didn't believe they needed to cut corners until AFTER he reviewed the headset???

Pure idiocy.

 

[Brigandier]

"Trusted Reviews"

 

[HarryKS]

Has anyone watched movies with this thing? How is it?

 

[rofif]

What. Eye tracking is the best thing about it. At least something interesting.
Shame about fresnel lenses

 

[baphomet]

nvm, inconsistent troll comment.

The fuck are you talking about? Inconsistent?

You delete your post whining when you actually looked back and saw me clowning on the Sony shoes too?

Clown

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

The fuck are you talking about? Inconsistent?

You delete your post whining when you actually looked back and saw me clowning on the Sony shoes too?

Clown

You weren't in that thread at all so uh no... Also I was giving an example, I wasn't talking about you being in one when I brought up shoe threads.

Anyway,

 

[Crayon]

Has anyone watched movies with this thing? How is it?

Most of the reviews mention it and say it's good.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

WTF?

How are these people even getting access to these things when they are so stupid?

I mean while we are at it, the PS5 could be cheaper if sony only put in half the RAM.

Besides, you cant have focused foveated rendering without eye tracking. And foveated rendering improves performance.

And anyone or reviewer that talks about cutting features back because other platforms don't have them is an idiot in my book. Rather they should be pushing for other platforms to adopt them. Just imagine if people said Nintendo were stupid for adding an analog stick... or that sony was stupid for adding two.

 

[Crayon]

Then this article just would have been about how it should have had eye tracking...

 

[Fafalada]

Are you suggesting Unreal is the culprit here? Couldn't that be modified to make it easier without changing the engine?

Cross platform middleware tends to lag in these cases, especially if it's support for niche platforms like VR.
And modifications/workarounds cost time & money - time in particular is a very limited resource for launch titles, and VR budgets are also still relatively constrained.

So yes - particularly for launch titles - middleware is absolutely a limiter as much as it's an enabler.

 

[Ronin_7]

Imagine asking for less features because you're broke. Dude is not our problem you're a loser.

Thanks Sony for including top tier tech

 

[Jim Ryan other Clone]

WTF?

How are these people even getting access to these things when they are so stupid?

I mean while we are at it, the PS5 could be cheaper if sony only put in half the RAM.

Besides, you cant have focused foveated rendering without eye tracking. And foveated rendering improves performance.

And anyone or reviewer that talks about cutting features back because other platforms don't have them is an idiot in my book. Rather they should be pushing for other platforms to adopt them. Just imagine if people said Nintendo were stupid for adding an analog stick... or that sony was stupid for adding two.

Why stop at RAM, cut some ROM space and maybe some graphical fidelity and you will get Playstation series s at 299€. Fuck if it's expensive don't buy it, i don't understand why so many reviews are complaining for the price.

 

[RoboFu]

From what I have read eye tracking is supposed to help a lot with motion sickness. If true that should be the single most important feature to have in a vr headset.

 

[mckmas8808]

Cross platform middleware tends to lag in these cases, especially if it's support for niche platforms like VR.
And modifications/workarounds cost time & money - time in particular is a very limited resource for launch titles, and VR budgets are also still relatively constrained.

So yes - particularly for launch titles - middleware is absolutely a limiter as much as it's an enabler.

An indie company has it in Song of the Smoke and said it's great.

 

[Inviusx]

If eye tracking weren't included, reviews would call Sony out on being behind the times. I think consumers will appreciate the higher prices knowing they are getting more or less a top of the line VR experience without many cuts.

 

[FIREKNIGHT2029]

Another stupid article

 

[El Pistolero]

So much idiocy floating around...
$550, for that technology, is almost a steel. You know what, Sony? Rebrand the first PSVR and sell it to these imbeciles for $249...It will be the Series S to the VR2 Series X.