# Sony VR headset unveiled



## GameWinner (Mar 19, 2014)

Project Morpheus.



> 'We believe Morpheus will further enhance PlayStation'. It'll work alongside the camera, and Move.





> The current dev kit (tentative) has a 1080p display, 90+ degree field of view.





> Tracking builds on PS Move and DualShock 4 technology, "supports forward prediction." Position and rotating head tracking: 1000HZ, 3 Meter Working Volume, Full 360 Degrees





> PS Move's technology is being used in Project Morpheus to help with tracking. PlayStation Camera on PS4 is also essential. "It's almost as if it was designed for VR," he said with a wink.





> They're using the same tech as PlayStation Move - with a lot higher rate sensors, and the PlayStation Camera.





> DualShock 4's sensors and light can be used in conjunction with Morpheus. PS Move may also prove essential.





> They want it to be able to be picked up and used with no issues. Pick it up, put it on, you're in VR. Put it down, you're out. No issues.





> Finally, we've come to Content. "At Worldwide Studios, we have a really good team." Sony's own studios will "seed" the VR landscape, but they need other devs, hence they're here at GDC.





> Current focus is on PlayStation - no talking about how this will, or could, work on PC.


 






Source


----------



## mrtofu (Mar 19, 2014)

deleted


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 19, 2014)

I was actually going to write an article about it today, but I see that you took care of it and made a thread. As far as the capabilities of this thing are concerned, the visor runs at 1080p at a 90 degrees viewing angle and supports PSMove, Dual Shock 4, external headphones and headsets and is wearable for those who wear glasses, which is neat. More later when I'm back from uni.


----------



## Veho (Mar 19, 2014)

something something price something. 




Foxi4 said:


> supports PSMove, Dual Shock 4, external headphones and headsets


...just like any other display. I don't see how it "supports" any of that in particular.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 19, 2014)

Right now it's only confirmed for the PS4; I guess there's just a Rift between Sony and the PC crowd.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 19, 2014)

So the occulus rift has competition? That's nice, I guess. Except that the technology is all but new (I remember these devices playing doom 2 and descent), and that the first must-play game still needs to be invented.

(from the now-closed thread in user submitted news)


XrosBlader821 said:


> Project Morpheus? Are we in the Matrix now or what?


I was thinking the same thing. It's not like this has anything to do with the God of dreams, after all.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 19, 2014)

Veho said:


> ...just like any other display. I don't see how it "supports" any of that in particular.


Many previous 3D sets had built-in speakers with no space or port for headphones. As far as PSMove support is concerned, I believe the visor is equipped with a light used for head tracking. The Dual Shock 4 support is simply a part of the announced functionality - no clue why they mention it.


----------



## Hydrazine (Mar 19, 2014)

PS4's lack of raw power will probably hinder this product. VR needs high framerates to not cause motion sick, a minimum of 60fps according to the Valve VR team. PS4 can barely do 1080p 60fps in current non-VR titles. Rendering at 1080p* stereo3D* 60FPS doubles system load. So PS4 will barely manage 30fps in VR, unless visual fidelity takes a bit hit. And 60fps is only the baseline. Valve said something like 90fps in really ideal.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 19, 2014)

Firstly, I don't understand the whole "barely" bit - contemporary games are nowhere near fully utilizing the system's horsepower and still aren't properly paralleled on 6 cores, secondly, you assume that stereoscopy requires rendering the frame twice which is false, you can fool around with frame buffers and achieve the same effect.

Valve is not an authority in terms of optics by the way - on average, the human eye stops noticing differences in motion fluidity after passing the 72 FPS mark.


----------



## Hydrazine (Mar 19, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Firstly, I don't understand the whole "barely" bit - contemporary games are nowhere near fully utilizing the system's horsepower and still aren't properly paralleled on 6 cores, secondly, you assume that stereoscopy requires rendering the frame twice which is false, you can fool around with frame buffers and achieve the same effect.


 
The CPU utilization matters less to the GPU of the PS4, which is rather weak and the bottleneck. It doesn't take that long to utilize what are basically locked-down PCs (x86 CPU and radeon GPU). Look at AAA games right now for the PS4. How many run at native 1080p 60fps?

FIFA Soccer 14
NBA 2K14
Call of Duty: Ghosts
DC Universe Online
Injustice: Gods Among Us Ultimate Edition
Diablo III: Reaper of Souls

6 Games. 6. And these don't even high fidelity visuals. All other games for the system can't 1080p 60fps.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 19, 2014)

Oh God, the locked down PC debacle again... No, just no. The PS4/Xbox One are as much PC's as the Xbox 360 is a Mac. As for the GPU, it's mid-tier at worst and enjoys a more direct API, so you can squeeze more juice out of it. Besides, the native resolution doesn't have to be 1080p to reach 1080p output.


----------



## McHaggis (Mar 19, 2014)

Looks cool, it might be the kind of thing I'd buy a PS4 for.  I remember reading a games magazine years ago that speculated Nintendo's internal Project Reality name was going to be a VR machine like this.  Seeing the image in the article was like a huge flashback to my childhood.

What I want to know is, will they pre-empt all the complaints about people hurting themselves by releasing this with a human-sized condomWii Remote-esque silicon jacket?


----------



## Hydrazine (Mar 19, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh God, the locked down PC debacle again... No, just no. The PS4/Xbox One are as much PC's as the Xbox 360 is a Mac. As for the GPU, it's mid-tier at worst and enjoys a more direct API, so you can squeeze out more juice out of it.



No, it's pretty low end if it can't even run BF4 at 1080p 60fps. A 750 Ti can do that, and that's a $150 low end card.

Back to topic, it does matter how well you squeeze power, it'll still be far from ideal for VR. VR is where truly raw power is important. You want the best VR, you stick to PC.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 19, 2014)

I'd rather wait till GDC before passing judgement - we still don't know how the technology works and what impact it has on the system.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Mar 19, 2014)

they tried VR already in the 90's...it failed


----------



## Black-Ice (Mar 19, 2014)

1 step closer to VR Tekken.

Soon...
soon......


----------



## lokomelo (Mar 19, 2014)

hope it works on PC aswell (VR emulators would be good)


----------



## Flame (Mar 19, 2014)

when Nintendo done it... LAME, BORING, NINTENDON'T

when Sony does it.. FUTURE, AWESOME, NINTENDON'T


----------



## Veho (Mar 19, 2014)

Taleweaver said:


> As far as PSMove support is concerned, I believe the visor is equipped with a light used for head tracking.


Technically, that's PlayStation Camera support   



Taleweaver said:


> So the occulus rift has competition? That's nice, I guess. Except that the technology is all but new (I remember these devices playing doom 2 and descent), and that the first must-play game still needs to be invented.


The concept itself isn't new, the "new" part about it are the improvements the new models have compared to the old hardware. They are smaller, lighter, much cheaper, the field of view is much wider, the screen quality is way greater, and the lag between head movement and image movement is greatly reduced (almost imperceptible, or so they say). It's like tablets for example. They aren't a new invention but the technology for them became ripe only recently. 

As for a "must play" game... The ability to look around by looking around already enhances existing games, so people will have something to do while a truly "must play" game is developed. I think for most people it's about immersion rather than the potential new gameplay mechanics a VR headset could offer. 




Bladexdsl said:


> they tried VR already in the 90's...it failed


Yes but why did it fail?


----------



## Kwartel (Mar 19, 2014)

Veho said:


> Yes but why did it fail?


Massive headaches.


----------



## Veho (Mar 19, 2014)

Kwartel said:


> Massive headaches.


Caused by...?


----------



## Kwartel (Mar 19, 2014)

Veho said:


> Caused by...?


I could read you a wikipedia page, but you could also read yourself. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Boy


----------



## loco365 (Mar 19, 2014)

I'd get a PS4 just to try this.


----------



## Kwartel (Mar 19, 2014)

Team Fail said:


> I'd get a PS4 just to try this.


I'm thinking about it too.. I WANTED to get an Xbox One when it would be financially responsible for me to do (student here), but now I'm not sure, as this thing is sexy as hell too.


----------



## Flame (Mar 19, 2014)

Veho said:


> Caused by...?


 
Veho...  with all these questions you make it sound like your some kind of Gaming Psychologist..


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 19, 2014)

Flame said:


> when Nintendo done it... LAME, BORING, NINTENDON'T
> 
> when Sony does it.. FUTURE, AWESOME, NINTENDON'T


To be fair, Nintendo did it by shining a red LED at the user's retinas causing intense nausea while Sony... well, Sony appears to be doing it right.


----------



## T Link7 (Mar 19, 2014)

Kwartel said:


> I could read you a wikipedia page, but you could also read yourself.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Boy


 

I read the page and near the end it says: 


> In an interview with IGN, Shigeru Miyamoto stated that Nintendo is working on a new virtual reality based on the 3DS technology.


 
When you look at the notes, the source is http://ca.ign.com/articles/2014/03/10/new-nintendo-vr-console (retrieved 10-03-14), but that gives a ''404 page not found error''...
So I guess it's fake or did I miss something? The wikipedia page was last edited 17 march 2014.


----------



## Kwartel (Mar 19, 2014)

T Link7 said:


> I read the page and near the end it says:
> 
> 
> When you look at the notes, the source is http://ca.ign.com/articles/2014/03/10/new-nintendo-vr-console (retrieved 10-03-14), but that gives a ''404 page not found error''...
> So I guess it's fake or did I miss something? The wikipedia page was last edited 17 march 2014.


I think it's fake. That's the risk of Wikipedia. I, at least, couldn't find info.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 19, 2014)

Flame said:


> Veho... with all these questions you make it sound like your some kind of Gaming Psychologist..


To be fair, I think his first question was sort of rhetorical, as he already outlined the very reasons those things failed to breakthrough in the nineties.



Veho said:


> As for a "must play" game... The ability to look around by looking around already enhances existing games, so people will have something to do while a truly "must play" game is developed. I think for most people it's about immersion rather than the potential new gameplay mechanics a VR headset could offer.


I can name a few more things that already "enhances existing games" (isn't that the same tagline for the kinect? Or the wiiu gamepad?). However, it's only when a certain widely hyped game that actually lives up to the hype gets released that it starts to sell.
As for that immersion...people aren't going to play it in a bureau chair, so doing a 360 will be done by looking left of your tv (or right) for a time until you're done turning. Moving forward, backward jumping and crawling will also still be by buttons, so the really being "in" the game gets broken just at another spot now.


----------



## DaVince (Mar 19, 2014)

Valve might not be quite the expert on VR, but they're working closely with Oculus, who _does_ have this experience. It also has to be said that Valve has a lot of expertise on high performance, which is something that's required for VR to work well.



Kwartel said:


> I could read you a wikipedia page, but you could also read yourself.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Boy


 
The VB is hardly comparable to this. At all. It lacked so much needed to get proper VR, especially on the technical side. (Not to mention there was no head tracking or, well, color other than red.) It's also fairly well-known by now _why_ VR systems up to now have given people headaches and motion sickness, but here's the thing: with modern-day technology, it's finally becoming feasible to make a system in which you can truly immerse yourself _and not get headaches or motion sickness_.

VR isn't just another gimmick. People who have actually tried the VR demo at Valve claim that it adds a whole new layer to the experience - especially with the accurate and functional head tracking. I have a fair bit of confidence when I say that VR will be the next Big Thing in gaming in years. (No, flatscreen 3D doesn't count. That was basically a gimmick.)

That said, I do think that the PS4 won't be quite fast enough to properly support VR. It does take massive amounts of processing, and part of this is because you do need the high framerate to keep up with the _required_ brief reaction time to make the VR "real" and non-sickening. You can only push so much detail through such a short time frame, and the devs know it all too well.


----------



## osaka35 (Mar 19, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> ...on average, the human eye stops noticing differences in motion fluidity after passing the 72 FPS mark.


 
Just wanted to mention that just because you don't notice it doesn't mean it doesn't have an effect. Your eyes don't work in frames per second, it's something more of a constant stream to them. It's just when your brain gets a hold of those signals, what you can consciously digest comes to around 72 FPS, but it does vary a bit as you suggested. All the info is still being sent to your brain though, and can have effects that you aren't necessarily conscious of(motion, etc). Though I'm not sure at what rate those signals are produced at the back of your eye, it's not as simple as a "72 FPS" kind of answer.


----------



## T Link7 (Mar 19, 2014)

Kwartel said:


> I think it's fake. That's the risk of Wikipedia. I, at least, couldn't find info.


 
Darn... I couldn't find anything either.
Why do people put fake stuff on wikipedia... <.< So pathetic...


----------



## Harsky (Mar 19, 2014)

I really want this but at the same time, I'm dreading the price. High price = low take up. Low take up = less incentive for developers to make use of the VR feature. It might just end up being another Kinect.


----------



## DaVince (Mar 19, 2014)

osaka35 said:


> Just wanted to mention that just because you don't notice it doesn't mean it doesn't have an effect. Your eyes don't work in frames per second, it's something more of a constant stream to them. It's just when your brain gets a hold of those signals, what you can consciously digest comes to around 72 FPS, but it does vary a bit as you suggested. All the info is still being sent to your brain though, and can have effects that you aren't necessarily conscious of(motion, etc). Though I'm not sure at what rate those signals are produced at the back of your eye, it's not as simple as a "72 FPS" kind of answer.


 
I imagine a part of this also has to do with the reaction time of moving the picture to keep up with the head tracking, which works at a higher rate than the FPS rate...


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 19, 2014)

osaka35 said:


> Just wanted to mention that just because you don't notice it doesn't mean it doesn't have an effect. Your eyes don't work in frames per second, it's something more of a constant stream to them. It's just when your brain gets a hold of those signals, what you can consciously digest comes to around 72 FPS, but it does vary a bit as you suggested. All the info is still being sent to your brain though, and can have effects that you aren't necessarily conscious of(motion, etc). Though I'm not sure at what rate those signals are produced at the back of your eye, it's not as simple as a "72 FPS" kind of answer.


I'm well aware of that, I'm just saying that the difference is not noticeable for the naked eye. The comfort of using a VR set is an individual matter, some people are sensitive to high framerates, some the other way around, but the biggest problem here is actually the steadyness of the framerate. Framerate dips cause discomfort as far as I know, so a steady 60 is better than jumpy 72. That's all besides the point though.


----------



## lokomelo (Mar 19, 2014)

Kwartel said:


> Massive headaches.


AND lack of games, AND lack of colors...

for who is interested, there is a awesome article here on temp: http://gbatemp.net/threads/virtual-boy-review.319784/


----------



## osirisjem (Mar 19, 2014)

It'll be interesting to see what PS4 games will write "extra code" to support this "second screen" (VR headset).
Maybe the Gamepad failed as a second screen whereas this one "might work". 

Does it have 3D sound ?  Like you can hear something behind you ? 
3D sound might be useful in many games.


----------



## T Link7 (Mar 19, 2014)

osirisjem said:


> It'll be interesting to see what PS4 games will write "extra code" to support this "second screen" (VR headset).
> Maybe the Gamepad failed as a second screen whereas this one "might work".
> 
> Does it have 3D sound ? Like you can hear something behind you ?
> 3D sound might be useful in many games.


 
Pretty sure you won't be able to look at your television AND use the virtual reality headset.
And the GamePad did not fail as a second screen, atleast mine still works  whether or not it was a succes... eh...


----------



## DaVince (Mar 19, 2014)

T Link7 said:


> And the GamePad did not fail as a second screen, atleast mine still works  whether or not it was a succes... eh...


 
...Failure also means the opposite of success. Just so you know.


----------



## Nah3DS (Mar 19, 2014)

let's wait to see if this ends up being just a gimmick
I hope not.... Virtual Reality is cool


----------



## Hells Malice (Mar 19, 2014)

osirisjem said:


> It'll be interesting to see what PS4 games will write "extra code" to support this "second screen" (VR headset).
> Maybe the Gamepad failed as a second screen whereas this one "might work".
> 
> Does it have 3D sound ? Like you can hear something behind you ?
> 3D sound might be useful in many games.


 
You don't seem to comprehend what a VR headset actually is, do you? It is the screen. The only screen.

and i'll chock this one up to a piss poor job by the OP not giving any good info, but yeah it supports positional sounds.


> Morpheus will use Sony-developed 3D audio technology that recreates positional sound, "such as footsteps climbing up stairs below them, or engine noises of helicopters flying overhead." Sounds will change along with players' head orientation ""creating a highly realistic audio environment within an immersive 360-degree virtual world."


----------



## T Link7 (Mar 19, 2014)

DaVince said:


> ...Failure also means the opposite of success. Just so you know.


 
I know, it was a not so funny joke.  Though I wouldn't really say the GamePad is a failure as much as the Wii U is a failure. But I suppose people will have different opinions regarding that.


----------



## osirisjem (Mar 19, 2014)

Hells Malice said:


> You don't seem to comprehend what a VR headset actually is, do you? It is the screen. The only screen.


Good point.
I was vague.
What I meant was one person might be using the VR screen while another person might be using the regular screen.
I think that would be better described as Iwata's asymmetric gameplay.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Mar 19, 2014)

Curious to see how this works out. Got to try out the Oculus Rift for a few days and it wasn't exactly all the impressive (though it is just the dev model), and the games that supported it were pretty poor.

It's definitely cool, I just hope this thing isn't a billion dollars. Also, is this wireless or wired? That was one of my biggest complaints with the Oculus Rift, the wiring sort of gets in the way after a while.



osirisjem said:


> Good point.
> I was vague.
> What I meant was one person might be using the VR screen while another person might be using the regular screen.
> I think that would be better described as Iwata's asymmetric gameplay.


I assume it'll work like Remote Play, the image is both displayed on the TV screen (if there's an Output) and on the target device.


----------



## osirisjem (Mar 19, 2014)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> Curious to see how this works out. Got to try out the Oculus Rift for a few days


Cool !  Lucky you. (I'm jealous)
What were the "games" you tested ?

Did the gameplay "work" well ?
What I mean by that is ... for some games the WiiMote feels so natural ... and I love the game. Other times it feels awkward and I wish they did a better job of translating accurately my actions to what happens in the game.

So ... Did the gameplay "work" well ?


----------



## chavosaur (Mar 19, 2014)

I wonder how disorienting Playing Mirrors Edge 2 would be with this.


----------



## GameWinner (Mar 19, 2014)

The headset will not be released this year.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Mar 19, 2014)

osirisjem said:


> Cool ! Lucky you. (I'm jealous)
> What were the "games" you tested ?
> 
> Did the gameplay "work" well ?
> ...


 
Hardly "lucky". You can buy one for $300. My boss bought one, thought it was shit, and let me dick around with it for a few days before he sold it off.

I tried a bunch of indie stuff, horror games mostly since it seemed to be the only practical use for the OR. That stuff was ok, made jump scares feel more threatening but other than that it was pretty meh. Also tried out BF3, TF2, and Skyrim, all of which had terrible controls compared to keyboard/mouse.


----------



## osirisjem (Mar 19, 2014)

GameWinner said:


> The headset will not be released this year.


 
NOooooooooooooooooooo.





I hate product annoucements that are talked about for 6 months ... and then delayed 6 months .... and the annoucement is .... "we are working on it".
I think they are having problems getting it working right.
This delay is bad news for the VR headset.


----------



## mightymuffy (Mar 19, 2014)

If they released it this year it'd be a rush to get software going for it, which never works in the end. Also a delay until next year might help to bring prices down: looking at the specs we've been given I doubt they could release that for under £200/$250. So, plough what [comparatively] little money they have into rushing it out, with no decent software and a hideous pricepoint = Fail. And Sony can't afford one of those..... Let them take their time lads, we don't want another VB.


----------



## DaVince (Mar 19, 2014)

And then, Oculus releases this:
http://www.oculusvr.com/dk2/

And a discussion thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/20tg3l/official_devkit_2_announcement_video/

Edit: and more info on the whole deal from the Verge:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/19/5524972/oculus-reveals-virtual-reality-development-kit-2-announced

Such timing.
Regarding Oculus and stuff - yeah, it's known that the current gen VR display is inferior. I think they sell dev units partially as a reason to get it tested widely what makes it that way (as well as just providing a dev environment for devs, not to mention funding). The same goes for the DK2 I linked above, I believe - they're not there yet.

But yeah, it's good that Sony won't release it this year. That would be premature.


----------



## mrtofu (Mar 19, 2014)

deleted


----------



## Veho (Mar 19, 2014)

Taleweaver said:


> I can name a few more things that already "enhances existing games" (isn't that the same tagline for the kinect? Or the wiiu gamepad?). However, it's only when a certain widely hyped game that actually lives up to the hype gets released that it starts to sell.


I don't see how the Kinect enhances pre-existing games (games that weren't designed for it). You can replace control of one of the actions with waving and wiggling but with a VR headset you leave the existing controls in place, the "looking around" bit is an extra. 

The major difference here is that Kinect and the Gamepad are input devices, whereas a VR headset is a display. The "enhancement" it brings is way closer to the enhancement color or higher resolutions brought to games. The headtracking is not a control scheme. VR is there parallel to the controls. Replacing the main controls with headtracking would be idiotic. And while I know some developer is bound to make a game for it controlled entirely by vigorous nodding, it's primarily an output device and should be treated as such. Ultimately, all it brings is immersion. 

Unfortunately that means the improvements it brings to games are nothing essential, and it would be very very difficult to make a game that absolutely couldn't be played without it. Is there a game that absolutely demands, say, HD resolution? A few might, but the majority play just as well in 720p. 



Taleweaver said:


> As for that immersion...people aren't going to play it in a bureau chair, so doing a 360 will be done by looking left of your tv (or right) for a time until you're done turning. Moving forward, backward jumping and crawling will also still be by buttons, so the really being "in" the game gets broken just at another spot now.


It's not a holodeck, true, and it doesn't give you complete freedom, but you can't deny it's more immersive than a static unresponsive screen.


----------



## Maxternal (Mar 19, 2014)

*DO WANT*



Maxternal said:


> Sometimes it's hard to separate a gaming gimmick from innovation but if this works well it would SOOO be a system seller for me. (Heck, I even owned a Virtual Boy ... but always wished it was something like this)
> ...


----------



## kristianity77 (Mar 19, 2014)

I think this headset looks decent to be honest.  I've never tried anything like this before but would probably stump up for one when released.

To the people on here who are stating the PS4 cannot possible handle 1080p 60fps hardly through one screen as opposed to two thats a ridiculous argument really.  There is no stopping (I suppose) games "cutting" back a bit when outputting to these devices.  Like say a drop in res (and then an upscale) or maybe just drop a few bits of eye candy here and there in order to achieve desired performance.


----------



## Hydrazine (Mar 19, 2014)

kristianity77 said:


> I think this headset looks decent to be honest.  I've never tried anything like this before but would probably stump up for one when released.
> 
> To the people on here who are stating the PS4 cannot possible handle 1080p 60fps hardly through one screen as opposed to two thats a ridiculous argument really.  There is no stopping (I suppose) games "cutting" back a bit when outputting to these devices.  Like say a drop in res (and then an upscale) or maybe just drop a few bits of eye candy here and there in order to achieve desired performance.



"Upscaled"

If it's upscaled, that means its not actually running at 1080p. It'll still be just as pixelated as if it was running at that lower resolution you're upscaling from. Guess what kills immersion a lot? Pixelation. That was the biggest complaint with the first Oculus Dev kit. The PS4 is too weak for good VR. Running in stereo 3D doubles system load.


----------



## kristianity77 (Mar 19, 2014)

Hydrazine said:


> "Upscaled"
> 
> If it's upscaled, that means its not actually running at 1080p. It'll still be just as pixelated as if it was running at that lower resolution you're upscaling from. Guess what kills immersion a lot? Pixelation. That was the biggest complaint with the first Oculus Dev kit. The PS4 is too weak for good VR. Running in stereo 3D doubles system load.


 

Well, then I guess by your reckoning then it will be a massive failure and no one will ever buy one. Perhaps you should get on the blower to Sony and advise them of this, save them a shitload of cash 

And also, although it could be because I'm tired and missing something, but where does it say this device is 3D?


----------



## Hydrazine (Mar 19, 2014)

kristianity77 said:


> Well, then I guess by your reckoning then it will be a massive failure and no one will ever buy one.  Perhaps you should get on the blower to Sony and advise them of this, save them a shitload of cash



Oh, people will still buy it. But be disappointed that all games for it either a) look bad due to reduced resolution and visuals or b) give headaches and motion sick due to sub-60fps.

The best VR right now is Oculus, especially with the new DK2 releasing in July.


----------



## kristianity77 (Mar 19, 2014)

Think I edited before you answered. Where does it state its 3D?

and the Oculus is for PCs is it not and this is for PS4 so how is that relevant?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 19, 2014)

Hydrazine said:


> "Upscaled"
> 
> If it's upscaled, that means its not actually running at 1080p. It'll still be just as pixelated as if it was running at that lower resolution you're upscaling from. Guess what kills immersion a lot? Pixelation. That was the biggest complaint with the first Oculus Dev kit. The PS4 is too weak for good VR. Running in stereo 3D doubles system load.


...that's not how pixels work. At all.

_Whatever native resolution you run_, 1 pixels _always_ references 1 pixel - 720p isn't any more pixelated than 1080p. What actually changes is the size of pixels, which is a different matter entirely. Since LCD and other similar panels have a fixed amount of physical pixels, scaling algorithms are used to resize the image from a smaller resolution to a larger one, approximating the colours of pixels - this is what causes _"pixelation"_. It's a decrease in quality, but said decrease highly depends on the algorithm utilized to approximate.

The complaints regarding the first Oculus Rift did not concern upscaling of any kind, they concerned the _physical size of pixels_ because the panel was low resolution and the physical pixels were noticable from up-close. Although not ideal, upscaling from 720p to 1080p and displaying on a 1080p panel or something along those lines is _better_ than displaying 720p on a 720p one because the physical size of pixels is smaller.


----------



## Hydrazine (Mar 19, 2014)

kristianity77 said:


> Think I edited before you answered.  Where does it state its 3D?



It's a VR headset. By convention, VR headsets send images spereately to each eye, which is what stereo 3D is. Look at all the other VR headsets from recently, Oculus, Avegant, Gameface, VRase, etc. They're ALL 3D. Every single one.

Where does it say on Lamborghini's website that their cars have seatbelts.


----------



## Hydrazine (Mar 19, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> ...that's not how pixels work. At all.
> 
> _Whatever native resolution you run_, 1 pixels _always_ references 1 pixel - 720p isn't any more pixelated than 1080p. What actually changes is the size of pixels, which is a different matter entirely. Since LCD and other similar panels have a fixed amount of physical pixels, scaling algorithms are used to resize the image from a smaller resolution to a larger one, approximating the colours of pixels - this is what causes _"pixelation"_. It's a decrease in quality, but said decrease highly depends on the algorithm utilized to approximate.
> 
> The complaints regarding the first Oculus Rift did not concern upscaling of any kind, they concerned the _physical size of pixels_. Although not ideal, upscaling from 720p to 1080p or something along those lines is _better_ than displaying 720p on a 720p screen because the physical size of pixels is smaller.



Maybe pixelated isn't right word, but upscaling still makes the image looks muddy. Not ideal for VR, or gaming in general. Unless Sony want the headset to be a "I forgot my glasses simulator", it will be far from ideal.


----------



## osirisjem (Mar 19, 2014)

Hydrazine said:


> IWhere does it say on Lamborghini's website that their cars have seatbelts.







Oh wait. I get it.  That was rhetorical.



Definitely not alot !


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 19, 2014)

Hydrazine said:


> Maybe pixelated isn't right word, but upscaling still makes the image looks muddy. Not ideal for VR, or gaming in general. Unless Sony want the headset to be a "I forgot my glasses simulator", it will be far from ideal.


Muddy, yes, which is why the algorithm would have to be spot-on and the VR set would require a dedicated scaler specifically designed for this task. Of course this is all speculation at this point, so the conversation has very little sense. My point is, when the screen is an inch away from your eyeballs, you want the physical pixels to be as small as humanly possible - upscaling the final image is the least of your worries. It's better to upscale than to see visible gaps between the pixels.

For anyone who wants to see what I mean, take a 256x192 picture, full-screen it on a phone with a high resolution display, put it close to your eye, then display the same image on a DS and do the same. One image will be crap and one will be managable to look at. This is because with a higher physical resolution, you can at least approximate the correct colours. With a small physical resolution, you can do nothing - it's just small and you have to grim and bear it.


----------



## Hydrazine (Mar 19, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Muddy, yes, which is why the algorithm would have to be spot-on and the VR set would require a dedicated scaler specifically designed for this task. Of course this is all speculation at this point, so the conversation has very little sense. My point is, when the screen is an inch away from your eyeballs, you want the physical pixels to be as small as humanly possible - upscaling the final image is the least of your worries. It's better to upscale than to see visible gaps between the pixels.
> 
> For anyone who wants to see what I mean, take a 256x192 picture, full-screen it on a phone with a high resolution display, put it close to your eye, then display the same image on a DS and do the same. One image will be crap and one will be managable to look at. This is because with a higher physical resolution, you can at least approximate the correct colours. With a small physical resolution, you can do nothing - it's just small and you have to grim and bear it.


 

Even a perfect algorithm cannot make it as sharp as native resolution. It's simply a matter of the amount of data available. I take a 1080p picture, downscale it to 720p, and give the 720p version to you. No matter how many photoshop filters and post-processing you do on it, it'll never look as sharp as the native 1080p resolution picture. And if there is a dedicated scaler, that'll simply add to the cost of the headset, which should already be more than the Oculus as Sony likes to overprice.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 19, 2014)

Hydrazine said:


> Even a perfect algorithm cannot make it as sharp as native resolution. It's simply a matter of the amount of data available. I take a 1080p picture, downscale it to 720p, and give the 720p version to you. No matter how many photoshop filters and post-processing you do on it, it'll never look as sharp as the native 1080p resolution picture. And if there is a dedicated scaler, that'll simply add to the cost of the headset, which should already be more than the Oculus as Sony likes to overprice.


Downscaling is hardly as harmful as upcaling which is what we're talking about, and yes, you're right, you can't really do it in a lossless way. As for dedicated scalers, come to think of it, I'm pretty sure the PS4 already has one built-in, so that's covered. Either way, again, the conversation is pointless since we don't know if the games will even be scaled in the first place. Developers who want to take advantage of this can simply keep in mind that the native resolution has to be 1080p - simple. Right now they're A) Taking liberties in programming since they don't have such a requirement and B) Aren't terribly familiar with the SDK yet. We'll see how things go later down the line.


----------



## Hydrazine (Mar 19, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Downscaling is hardly as harmful as upcaling which is what we're talking about, and yes, you're right, you can't really do it in a lossless way. As for dedicated scalers, come to think of it, I'm pretty sure the PS4 already has one built-in, so that's covered. Either way, again, the conversation is pointless since we don't know if the games will even be scaled in the first place. Developers who want to take advantage of this can simply keep in mind that the native resolution has to be 1080p - simple. Right now they're A) Taking liberties in programming since they don't have such a requirement and B) Aren't terribly familiar with the SDK yet. We'll see how things go later down the line.


 

Um... yeah I think you misunderstood me. I mean if you have a 1080p (native) picture and 720p (native) picture, you can't make the 720p pic as sharp as the 1080p pic through post FX. But back on topic.

Yes, the best way is to keep native resolution at 1080p. But can the PS4 run games with modern visuals at 1080p native 60fps stereo 3D? No. So upscaling the the only way to have games run. But upscaling makes the game look bad, and that's bad. The other option is to have worse textures/effects/shaders/meshes, but that also makes the game look bad.

Therefore Sony headset will not offer the optimal VR experience. Oculus DK2 is still king.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 19, 2014)

Hydrazine said:


> Yes, the best way is to keep native resolution at 1080p. But can the PS4 run games with modern visuals at 1080p native 60fps stereo 3D? No. So upscaling the the only way to have games run. But upscaling makes the game look bad, and that's bad. The other option is to have worse textures/effects/shaders/meshes, but that also makes the game look bad. Therefore Sony headset will not offer the optimal VR experience. Oculus DK2 is still king.


The Oculus Rift is just a VR headset - what you wanted to say is that PC is still king, which is something we already know. It's also a more expensive solution. I suppose everything depends on what you treat as modern visuals. Again, engines are scalable - if the developers will feel like taking advantage of the headset functionality, they'll keep that in mind when designing the game.


----------



## Hydrazine (Mar 19, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> The Oculus Rift is just a VR headset - what you wanted to say is that PC is still king, which is something we already know. It's also a more expensive solution. I suppose everything depends on what you treat as modern visuals. Again, engines are scalable - if the developers will feel like taking advantage of the headset functionality, they'll keep that in mind when designing the game.


 

Cost all depends on how much sony prices this. Sony's other HMD, the HMZ-T3, costs $1000. The HMZ was from less than 1 year ago, so it's not like sony's gotten so affordable in a few months. The HMZ also has around the same specs, so it costs around the same to make. Therefore, this VR headset will probably costs at least $500, and that's being conservative. $500 (headset) + $400 (console) + $50 (PS+ service) + $60 (Game) = $1010. If you go the Oculus route you have this. $700 (gaming PC) + $300 (Oculus) + $40 (Game) = $1040. Pretty much same cost.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 19, 2014)

Hydrazine said:


> Cost all depends on how much sony prices this. Sony's other HMD, the HMZ-T3, costs $1000. The HMZ was from less than 1 year ago, so it's not like sony's gotten so affordable in a few months. The HMZ also has around the same specs, so it costs around the same to make. Therefore, this VR headset will probably costs at least $500, and that's being conservative. $500 (headset) + $400 (console) + $50 (PS+ service) + $60 (Game) = $1010. If you go the Oculus route you have this. $700 (gaming PC) + $300 (Oculus) + $40 (Game) = $1040. Pretty much same cost.


The HMZ-T3 is using OLED panels with a resolution of 1280x720 _per eye_, this is probably based on LCD and it has a smaller per-eye resolution which substantially lowers production costs.


----------



## Hydrazine (Mar 19, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> The HMZ-T3 is using OLED panels with a resolution of 1280x720 _per eye_, this is probably based on LCD and it has a smaller per-eye resolution which substantially lowers production costs.


 

Right, which means it's probably only going to cost about half as much as the HMZ, making it $500. This VR headset has the added cost of motion sensors as well, don't forget that. Sony isn't a company to make affordable products.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 19, 2014)

Hydrazine said:


> Right, which means it's probably only going to cost about half as much as the HMZ, making it $500. This VR headset has the added cost of motion sensors as well, don't forget that. Sony isn't a company to make affordable products.


Mmm, yeah - gyros are not expensive. All of Sony's controllers have built-in SIXAXIS and they're not terribly expensive - you're making it sound as if gyros would inflate the price by hundreds of dollars when they really won't. In any case, I guess we'll wait and see. They'll have to price it competitively - this much is obvious. If a no-name company that popped out of nowhere overnight can manufacture a VR set for $300 then Sony with established connections and their own manufacturing plants can match that.


----------



## kristianity77 (Mar 19, 2014)

Hydrazine said:


> Right, which means it's probably only going to cost about half as much as the HMZ, making it $500. This VR headset has the added cost of motion sensors as well, don't forget that. Sony isn't a company to make affordable products.


 

Right, so Sony are going to develop and release a VR headset which is going to be more expensive than the console itself, is that what you are saying?  

I think what it is, is that the PC elitist in you just cannot begin to comprehend that something could come out, that is arguably on par with this PC oculus rift that you speak of but for a lot less money.  

No way in the world are sony going to release an accessory for $500 as A: the capture rate for people that own the PS4 to buying this would be what....5% at best? And at 5%, they won't get any developers on board to give it any consideration.


----------



## Hydrazine (Mar 19, 2014)

kristianity77 said:


> Right, so Sony are going to develop and release a VR headset which is going to be more expensive than the console itself, is that what you are saying?
> 
> I think what it is, is that the PC elitist in you just cannot begin to comprehend that something could come out, that is arguably on par with this PC oculus rift that you speak of but for a lot less money.
> 
> No way in the world are sony going to release an accessory for $500 as A: the capture rate for people that own the PS4 to buying this would be what....5% at best? And at 5%, they won't get any developers on board to give it any consideration.


 

On par with the Oculus Rift and PC? Is this a joke? It *might* be cheaper, but definitely not on par.

The Oculus is objectively superior to Sony's headset. (Oculus is OLED 75Hz screen 100FOV vs Sony's LCD 60Hz screen 90FOV)
PC is objective superior to the PS4. (A high-end gaming PC is over 5 times more powerful as the PS4)

Therefore Oculus + PC is superior to Sony headset + PS4.


----------



## kristianity77 (Mar 19, 2014)

Hydrazine said:


> On par with the Oculus Rift and PC? Is this a joke? It *might* be cheaper, but definitely not on par.
> 
> The Oculus is objectively superior to Sony's headset. (Oculus is OLED 75Hz screen 100FOV vs Sony's LCD 60Hz screen 90FOV)
> PC is objective superior to the PS4. (A high-end gaming PC is over 5 times more powerful as the PS4)
> ...


 

Its plainly obvious that the only reason your on this thread though it to just hail to all who will listen about how the PC + the oculus is the better option.  Yet anyone who is going to read this thread isn't going to care about that....


----------



## Hydrazine (Mar 19, 2014)

kristianity77 said:


> Its plainly obvious that the only reason your on this thread though it to just hail to all who will listen about how the PC + the oculus is the better option. Yet anyone who is going to read this thread isn't going to care about that....


 

Alright fine, I get some people don't want the best VR experience. That's completely fine with me.


----------



## Joe88 (Mar 19, 2014)

kristianity77 said:


> I think what it is, is that the PC elitist in you just cannot begin to comprehend that something could come out, that is arguably on par with this PC oculus rift that you speak of but for a lot less money.


 
Now that you mention it, this might be kirito-kun under an alt account


----------



## Hydrazine (Mar 20, 2014)

Joe88 said:


> Now that you mention it, this might be kirito-kun under an alt account


 

Isn't Kirito a character from SAO?


----------



## Densetsu (Mar 20, 2014)

Bladexdsl said:


> they tried VR already in the 90's...it failed





Veho said:


> Yes but why did it fail?


The world wasn't ready for it 


Spoiler



Were I rich enough to afford the $180 price tag at the time, I think the red monochrome and overall craptastic graphics probably would've killed it for me. And the abundance of nogaems.


----------



## DaVince (Mar 20, 2014)

kristianity77 said:


> Its plainly obvious that the only reason your on this thread though it to just hail to all who will listen about how the PC + the oculus is the better option. Yet anyone who is going to read this thread isn't going to care about that....


 
Objectively speaking, though... it is. As was clearly stated through the specs. VR also needs a _lot_ of processing power and the very best hardware - Oculus themselves claim that "good enough" just isn't good enough for the immersive experience. And they're right about this. I'm not sure a 60 Hz LCD display is going to work well when the bare minimum for good immersion seems to be 72 Hz, and Oculus themselves moved from LCD screens to OLED screens to solve one of the major issues they encountered with the prototypes before it.

All that said: Sony still has plenty of time to adjust their specs, and it seems likely to me that they will. Especially since they're not out to make a failing product, and a lot can still change (well, except for the PS4's internal hardware, which is one of the possible issues here).


----------



## Hydrazine (Mar 20, 2014)

Are there still people using the Virtual Boy's fail as argument? That was around 20 years ago. Technology has advanced WAY past what we had back then. Throughout the 1800s, many tried to create powered aircrafts and failed, until success came in 1903. Just because it failed before doesn't mean it'll never succeed.


----------



## DaVince (Mar 20, 2014)

Hydrazine said:


> Are there still people using the Virtual Boy's fail as argument? That was around 20 years ago. Technology has advanced WAY past what we had back then. Throughout the 1800s, many tried to create powered aircrafts and failed, until success came in 1903. Just because it failed before doesn't mean it'll never succeed.


 
Now, now. The VB failed for multiple reasons and we all know it. It's not even comparable to these modern-day goggles. People just seem to be bringing it up as a joke.


----------



## Hydrazine (Mar 20, 2014)

DaVince said:


> Now, now. The VB failed for multiple reasons and we all know it. It's not even comparable to these modern-day goggles. People just seem to be bringing it up as a joke.


 

Wouldn't be surprised if there's some people who are serious about it...


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 20, 2014)

Hydrazine said:


> Isn't Kirito a character from SAO?


I find it odd that you'd know that considering SAO is obscure as f*ck, but alright.

As far as the Oculus Rift is concerned, the great thing about it is that it continues to be a prototype and isn't on storeshelves yet, however everybody still circlejerks around it for some reason. Both headsets are prototypes, we don't actually know what the final specifications or prices will be, so this entire conversation is completely pointless.


----------



## Hydrazine (Mar 20, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> I find it odd that you'd know that considering SAO is obscure as f*ck, but alright.
> 
> As far as the Oculus Rift is concerned, the great thing about it is that it continues to be a prototype and isn't on storeshelves yet, however everybody still circlejerks around it for some reason. Both headsets are prototypes, we don't actually know what the final specifications or prices will be, so this entire conversation is completely pointless.


 

https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=Kirito (Although in actually, I've known what SAO is before, but never bother watching it. Seen it talked about a lot though.)

Although the Rift is a prototype, it's still well within consumer usability. I'm fairly certain the majority of people who bought DK1 weren't devs.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 20, 2014)

Hydrazine said:


> https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=Kirito (Although in actually, I've known what SAO is before, but never bother watching it. Seen it talked about a lot though.)
> 
> Although the Rift is a prototype, it's still well within consumer usability. I'm fairly certain the majority of people who bought DK1 weren't devs.


The DK1 was also infinitely worse than Crystal Cove.


----------



## DaVince (Mar 20, 2014)

Well, it's fun to speculate (especially since we got approximations of the specs of both of them). Still, though... Sony just hasn't revealed enough info to really get a proper statement out on if it'll work or not. Except that it just won't with the specs they announced for now.


----------



## Hydrazine (Mar 20, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> The DK1 was also infinitely worse than Crystal Cove.


 
But DK2 is on-par with Crystal Cove. The reason some people choose to make-do with DK1 is reason was CC was never sold and they couldn't wait. You made-do with what you have. I bet many people will buy DK2 who aren't devs, just to play around with it. Rift enabled games already exist.


----------



## kristianity77 (Mar 20, 2014)

DaVince said:


> Well, it's fun to speculate (especially since we got approximations of the specs of both of them). Still, though... *Sony just hasn't revealed enough info to really get a proper statement out on if it'll work or not*. Except that it just won't with the specs they announced for now.


 

Im pretty sure actually, that it will work.....  I don't see a company designing a product, shipping a product (for $500 a go apparently!) for it to just "not work".


----------



## DaVince (Mar 20, 2014)

kristianity77 said:


> Im pretty sure actually, that it will work..... I don't see a company designing a product, shipping a product (for $500 a go apparently!) for it to just "not work".


 
It'll work... but I don't think it will under the current released spec info. 60 FPS + an LCD screen have already been shown to perform pretty poorly. Which is why I think these are not at all the final specs to begin with. (Not to mention Oculus released a dev kit that's better than that already.)


----------



## Hydrazine (Mar 20, 2014)

kristianity77 said:


> Im pretty sure actually, that it will work..... I don't see a company designing a product, shipping a product (for $500 a go apparently!) for it to just "not work".


 

If you think it'll be priced less than $500, look at this:

http://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/head-mounted-display-products/hmz-t3w

This is sony's most similar thing they have to VR headset right now. It's for movies mostly, but in design, principle, and form is the same. Guess how much it cost? 1300 EUROS! GG for anyone's wallet.


----------



## kristianity77 (Mar 20, 2014)

Hydrazine said:


> If you think it'll be priced less than $500, look at this:
> 
> http://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/head-mounted-display-products/hmz-t3w
> 
> This is sony's most similar thing they have to VR headset right now. It's for movies mostly, but in design, principle, and form is the same. Guess how much it cost? 1300 EUROS! GG for anyone's wallet.


 

Ok, that a fair bit of money, but a 30 second scout round the internet now shows this set (which to me, looks absolute top of the line) for $999, which is only only just over 700 euros so its a far cry from 1300 but I get your point.  But still, when this Project Morpheus goes to market, it will not be $500, it will be considerably less.  The reason?  no one will buy it else.  Granted it will be a luxury peripheral, but its gotta be priced as such so that its an affordable one, and also one that people would buy on impulse, or have just a "passing" interest in what it might be like.  $500 does not put it into those categories.

Having said that, I'd fully expect in the UK where im based, for this to come out for around the £150-200 mark.  So my guess is perhaps 250 euros or maybe $299. I cant see it being more than that.  Even these prices are beyond the reach of many for a peripheral.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 20, 2014)

Hydrazine said:


> If you think it'll be priced less than $500, look at this:
> 
> http://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/head-mounted-display-products/hmz-t3w
> 
> This is sony's most similar thing they have to VR headset right now. It's for movies mostly, but in design, principle, and form is the same. Guess how much it cost? 1300 EUROS! GG for anyone's wallet.


Assuming makes an ass out of you and me. _*Shitty pun!*_

Rumours about Sony working on a VR kit similar to the Oculus Rift have been around in the ether for at least half a year now and among those rumours was the pretty obvious one - that Sony wants it to be far more affordable than their earlier HMZ line simply because it's going to be a strictly gaming-oriented device so it has to be attractive for the average gamer and well-within his or her budget. Unless Sony Corp. is filled from top to bottom with orangutans, they're going to price it competitively with the Oculus - d'uh. One of the biggest and most stressed selling points of the PS4 was its affordability considering the hardware it packs at $399 - I _sincerely_ doubt that an accessory for that system is going to follow a different pricing logic.


----------



## Hydrazine (Mar 20, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> One of the biggest and most stressed selling points of the PS4 was its affordability considering the hardware it packs at $399 - I _sincerely_ doubt that an accessory for that system is going to follow a different pricing logic.


 

Speaking of that, in Canada last week they actually *increased* the price of the PS4 from $400 to $500. Now it's the same as the Xbone, which is also $500 here. Doubt I'll buy either, but that proof that sony does have some greed.


----------



## DaVince (Mar 20, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Assuming makes an ass out of you and me. _*Shitty pun!*_
> 
> Rumours about Sony working on a VR kit similar to the Oculus Rift have been around in the ether for at least half a year now and among those rumours was the pretty obvious one - that Sony wants it to be far more affordable than their earlier HMZ line simply because it's going to be a strictly gaming-oriented device so it has to be attractive for the average gamer and well-within his or her budget. Unless Sony Corp. is filled from top to bottom with orangutans, they're going to price it competitively with the Oculus - d'uh. One of the biggest and most stressed selling points of the PS4 was its affordability considering the hardware it packs at $399 - I _sincerely_ doubt that an accessory for that system is going to follow a different pricing logic.


 
Also, if Oculus can do it, why not Sony, with its better market position to negotiate better bulk deals (not to mention Sony is big enough to have a bunch of the technology in-house already)?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 20, 2014)

Hydrazine said:


> Speaking of that, in Canada last week they actually *increased* the price of the PS4 from $400 to $500. Now it's the same as the Xbone, which is also $500 here. Doubt I'll buy either, but that proof that sony does have some greed.


Uhh, no. It was raised from $400 CAD to $450 CAD, mostly because the value of the Canadian dollar is _not_ equivalent to the value of the American dollar. It's not a matter of greed, it's a matter of the Canadian dollar losing value. Currency exchange and whatnot.

Guess how much $450 CAD is in USD? $400 USD. Surprise, surprise - you're paying the exact same amount of money as other people.


----------



## Hydrazine (Mar 20, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Uhh, no. It was raised from $400 CAD to $450 CAD, mostly because the value of the Canadian dollar is _not_ equivalent to the value of the American dollar. It's not a matter of greed, it's a matter of the Canadian dollar losing value. Currency exchange and whatnot.


 

Then why Wii U, Xbone, PS Vita, PS3, Xbox360, 3DS, 2DS, etc. didn't get a price increase? It's not as innocent as sony wants you to think. There's definitely some greed going on.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 20, 2014)

Hydrazine said:


> Then why Wii U, Xbone, PS Vita, PS3, Xbox360, 3DS, 2DS, etc. didn't get a price increase? It's not as innocent as sony wants you to think. There's definitely some greed going on.


Maybe because the Wii U and the PSVita don't sell, the XBox One is already overpriced and Nintendo doesn't really understand how business works as far as the 3DS and 2DS are concerned. _;O;_

Fact of the matter is, the PS4 is already sold at practically dumping price. They bumped the price up not to drown in losses-per-unit that result solely from the current state of the currency exchange. And just to be clear, I don't support that move and I think Sony should just suck it up, I'm merely giving you the actual economic reason why the price was changed.

If the system would continue to sell for $400 CAD, I'd be the first in line to get it as it'd mean that it's selling for approx. $355 USD, which is almost 50 bucks less than anywhere else.


----------



## kristianity77 (Mar 20, 2014)

Hydrazine said:


> Then why Wii U, Xbone, PS Vita, PS3, Xbox360, 3DS, 2DS, etc. didn't get a price increase? It's not as innocent as sony wants you to think. There's definitely some greed going on.


 

Foxi is totally right.  Its absolutely a currency thing.  Granted, some companies might just swallow the losses when currencies go up and down but by no means does a company have to.  And by all accounts, the canadian dollar is actually struggling, its not just your typical fluctuations that normally happens with currency.  (As viewed here from the UK anyhow)


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Mar 20, 2014)

I have been following in the VR arena since the 90s, and I'd just like to clear up a few misconceptions:

Just "porting" games over to the headset screen won't work. At all. Think about it. Your height from the ground, movement speed, Field of View, even object scaling is completely out of whack in your average console or computer game, and for a 2D display, that's completely fine. You don't really notice it when you have that one degree of separation from the in-game world. Telephones the size of your head, cars the size of Power Wheels, it's all good most of the time. In VR, you REALLY notice that stuff. The key term you will be hearing in reference to VR in the coming years is Presence.Immersion is to Presence  as a drawing of a car is to an actual real life car. That's about as well as I can explain that term. It's something you have to see for yourself. Okay, so back onto what I was saying, you can't just port over a game to a VR environment. You have to completely rebuild it from the ground up, or you have the potential to make things look really wonky, or even worse, make people really sick. More often than not, you'll see games built for Morpheus rather than ported for use in Morpheus.

Second, the Virtual Boy is not even close to real VR. It's one of the first 3D consoles, a mistake and an eyesore in more than one way. Why the hell are you even referencing something that was introduced when the VR movement had barely started sprouting legs?

Third, it's not fair either to say that the Oculus Rift "sucks" because of your first 5 minutes with the *Dev Kit 1*. The Crystal Cove set AKA Dev Kit v2 is much better in terms of persistence and ghosting, and that's coming from someone with first-hand experience with both models, and I guarantee none of you that are poo pooing it have had any experience beyond the few pack-in demos it comes bundled with. At the present, not knowing much in terms of actual real usage of the Morpheus, it seems very close in specs to the Crystal Cove prototype/Dev Kit 2 besides having a smaller FOV.

In terms of pricing, it will have to be competitively priced with the Oculus Rift when it releases (Very likely Oculus will bust out of the gates first), or they risk it failing in the consumer market.Having a set that costs more than the console it goes for would be a bad thing, no?

Some of you are also asking "why hasn't VR succeeded before?" or "Isn't this going to fail like it has in the past?", and while I'm not a fortune teller or a mind reader, I can say that the reasons that VR failed in the past are for the most part, things that have been eliminated. Price: VR units of the past cost a hell of a lot more money than anyone would realistically spend. Graphics power and persistence: It's safe to say that early VR systems were horribly primitive in the graphics area. Not just with models and textures, but in resolution, frame rate and persistence. Using a VR system in the mid-90s would result in a massive headache if used for too long, if not motion sickness as well. Size of the hardware: It's no secret that the amount and sheer size of VR systems of the past needed a lot of room. The headset was the smallest part, and usually you needed it hooked up to a fairly large and beefy computer that would also need gargantuan cooling units to keep it from overheating. Will it succeed this time? I can't say for sure, but f I were a betting man, I'd say yes.


----------



## Pleng (Mar 20, 2014)

As a fan of racing games I'm quite excited about the prospect of VR.
I think it'll be best applied with games that already have 'real life' control schemes available (so far I can only think of driving and flying; anybody think of any others?) as jumping running shoot with a controller, surely can't be as immersive as turn the wheel, pedal to the metal kind of stuff.

The amount of space required to make a cab for gaming would go right down; all you'd need would be a small shell to fit the pedals and wheel... the screen + distance requirement would be lost.


----------



## Kippykip (Mar 20, 2014)

The real question is... Can you play Doom on it?


----------



## DaVince (Mar 20, 2014)

Kippykip said:


> The real question is... Can you play Doom on it?


 
I know you're joking, but the practical answer is no. The GUI and gun would be all up in your face.


----------



## Veho (Mar 20, 2014)

DaVince said:


> I know you're joking, but the practical answer is no. The GUI and gun would be all up in your face.


All games need some tweaking in order to work with the Rift. GZ3Doom removes the HUD and places the gun further away from the face. This leaves the gun and hand sprite hovering in midair in front of the player, unattached to the "body" but at least it's not poking you in the eye.


----------



## DaVince (Mar 20, 2014)

Then I take it back. It _can_ play DooM. Nice to see.


----------



## Kippykip (Mar 20, 2014)

Aww Sweet!


----------



## calmwaters (Mar 22, 2014)

T-hug wrote this in such an eloquent manner; I request that thread be reopened and all future replies to this thread be redirected to that one. Besides, this has nothing to do with the Oculus Rift technology: it has to do with the new immersion thingy Sony has created using the technology. (not sure if I understand this concept completely) Or if it did, this was just a reveal of the features. That new one is a reveal of what the features can do.


----------



## chartube12 (Mar 23, 2014)

Morpheus huh? so the first game is going to be based on sonic sat


----------



## joelv6 (Mar 24, 2014)

seems legit. closer to sword art online


----------

