Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Gaming Discussion' started by GameWinner, Mar 19, 2014.
A quick gif I made before I go to sleep. Super excited for VR to take off!
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.
something something price something.
...just like any other display. I don't see how it "supports" any of that in particular.
Right now it's only confirmed for the PS4; I guess there's just a Rift between Sony and the PC crowd.
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)
I was thinking the same thing. It's not like this has anything to do with the God of dreams, after all.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
they tried VR already in the 90's...it failed
1 step closer to VR Tekken.
hope it works on PC aswell (VR emulators would be good)
when Nintendo done it... LAME, BORING, NINTENDON'T
when Sony does it.. FUTURE, AWESOME, NINTENDON'T
Technically, that's PlayStation Camera support
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.
Yes but why did it fail?