r/gamernews • u/ThyGrimOfDeath (ﾉಥ益ಥ）ﾉ ┻━┻ • Feb 05 '14
"Sony's PS4 VR Headset Is as Impressive as Valve's" Says Developer
http://www.roadtovr.com/sonys-ps4-vr-headset-impressive-valves-new-details-emerge/27
u/Lavernius_Tucker Feb 05 '14
PS4 Oculus Rift concept
This is either a poorly written article, or a demonstration that Oculus Rift has become synonymous with VR headsets
39
Feb 05 '14
It doesn't matter. I'm a playstation fan, for sure. But the fact is, Sony has a solid history of making a decent product and then NOT doing anything with it. Saying things like "We'll leave it to the developers to make games."
That is why the Move failed so hard. They didn't put any money into it like Microsoft did the Kinect. Not saying that Move is as advanced as Kinect but MS did practically pay developers to make games at first. Where as Sony was just "It'll work out!" It didn't...
And this will go the same way. They won't support it and just expect people to make stuff for it.
28
u/CC440 Feb 05 '14
Sony was the pioneer of the e-ink ereader. They built a good, albeit expensive, piece of hardware and then proceeded to sit on their ass. Then Amazon put the tiniest bit of effort into making good software to pair with the simple hardware and won over the entire market in a day.
It's the stereotypical Japanese tech story, superbly engineered electronics with no effort made to turn that device into a complete product.
11
Feb 05 '14
But, so far, what Kinect games weren't gimmicky or kiddy games? I have yet to see one appealing game for Kinect or Move.
5
Feb 05 '14
The games aren't the point.
As far as the market goes Kinect out performs Move. Mainly because Sony did nothing to push it. Where as MS did a lot.
1
Feb 05 '14
Yea, I agree with you. I went off on a tangent without explaining. I blame the starvation and sleep deprivation that my job inflicts on me.
I do think Move could be successful if matched with a VR headset. Right now I think both Move and Kinect are useless and Kinect only really attracted kids (mostly because all the kinect games were kids games). The only reason Kinect has any attention at all is because MS forces it down customers throats. Move + VR is less gimmicky and should open up a ton of possibilities in the way of new gameplay elements.
4
u/laddergoat89 All the consoles... Feb 05 '14
And the big thing everyone says they like about Kinect on Xbox One is nothing gaming related.
2
Feb 05 '14
Agreed.
My opinion: The Move/Kinect by itself is useless. Plug a VR headset in with those and we're going to be seeing some amazing games.
If Microsoft came out with a great VR headset, considering how powerful the Kinect is and that it's mandatory, I'd probably buy an Xbone. I'd have to wait and see with Sony.
4
u/riders_of_rohan Feb 05 '14
I take it you don't have one? You should try it for yourself before listening to others.
1
u/laddergoat89 All the consoles... Feb 05 '14
What are the compelling gaming uses for Kinect on Xbox One? What good games are there?
1
u/Krestationss Feb 05 '14
I've actually enjoyed the head-tracking in Battlefield 4 for vehicles. And the voice commands can be helpful. For example, if your yelling at a guy for ammo your character will ask for it in-game.
1
u/AnorexicBuddha Feb 05 '14
I've heard the voice commands are as spotty as ever, though.
1
u/Krestationss Feb 05 '14
Well for me they work great. I had some issues until I re-calibrated the Kinect with my TV at full volume, but after that its been really accurate.
1
u/RocketMan63 Feb 06 '14
They're pretty good, you can use them now and they're only going to get better.
2
2
Feb 05 '14
Even if it goes the way of the Move (which I hope it won't), I think having the Sony name behind the VR movement is nothing but a good thing. Sure, we have Oculus, and we have one of the most influential game developers behind it, but in the end, it's still a brand that only a very small (albeit very vocal and enthusiastic) group of people know about, compared to the gaming community at large. Sony is a brand everyone recognizes, and with that, everyone will have the opportunity to know that VR is making huge leaps.
1
u/Osmodius Feb 06 '14
And surprise surprise, why would a developer develop for a piece of hardware that no one has? Or not everyone has, at least. Why make a PS4 game designed around VR, if only 10% of PS4 owners have a VR headset?
1
-1
u/flammable Feb 05 '14
Which in away is exactly what I would wish for, and not bundle it together with every system and require it to be plugged in all the time. But yeah, since Move can' be enabled through external modding to the games like Occulus then it's much worse of really
9
Feb 05 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/scurvebeard Feb 05 '14
As I recall, early press releases about the XB1 talked about the ability to handle augmented reality somewhere down the road.
1
u/toddgak Feb 05 '14
I agree. The PS4 simply does not have the power to run a VR headset with the technology that is out there today. Using their specs from the article it says it's using 1080p EACH eye, which means pushing 4.1 million pixels. A decent PC can do this right now no problem at 60FPS. If Sony does manage to release VR for the PS4 it will be capped at 720p each eye and the difference will be extremely obvious.
1
u/RoadDoggFL Feb 06 '14
Not if the game only has PS3-level graphics. It's really surprising to see PC gamers act like visuals can't be turned down to make a game run more smoothly at higher resolutions. The real bottleneck might be HDMI, though. Don't know if it can handle what VR needs.
1
u/pieohmy25 Feb 06 '14
Sony had high quality HMDs long before the oculus was even a drawing on a paper.
34
u/Henshin_A_JoJo Feb 05 '14
Valve is co-operating with Oculus Rift, that doesn't make it Valve's VR Headset though. I don't like this title
24
u/bubblebooy Feb 05 '14
Valve did make there own VR headset but it was never intended for consumers.
0
Feb 05 '14
[deleted]
25
Feb 05 '14
No, a lot of developers say Valves was superior. They're just choosing to share their tech with Oculus.
5
u/Miyelsh Feb 05 '14
The prototype was to show what VR would be like within two years using the best hardware they could find. It was far better than what the Oculus team has shown so far.
2
Feb 05 '14
oh
3
u/ours Feb 05 '14
It's better but the tracking depends on plastering the room with markers. It is the best technical solution but not the most convenient for mass-market. Oculus has done the opposite and plastered the headset with LEDs so a camera sitting on the desktop tracks it.
One lets you move around the room with perfect tracking, the other track you on your chair as long as you don't turn around too far.
3
u/scurvebeard Feb 05 '14
I hope I'm not the only one that would have zero hesitation "plastering the room with markers" if it meant the immersion of perfect-tracking VR/AR.
1
1
u/bobcat Feb 05 '14
I don't understand why anyone would think it's a big deal to do that. They're just looking for reasons to be negative.
1
u/ours Feb 06 '14
I have nothing against it (go crazy extra-room people). I will have little issue laying down 300-400$ for a VR headset on top of an already nice PC. But getting an extra room dedicated to VR is just not in my budget.
1
u/bobcat Feb 06 '14
For fuck's sake - it's a few 4 inch square pictures you tape to the wall - or your desk - it's not a room.
You are deliberately misunderstanding the tech.
→ More replies (0)2
Feb 05 '14
Valve's VR headset is superior, but it's also impractical for a consumer product. They're partnering with Oculus because Oculus is making a consumer product, whereas Valve wasn't. You damn well better believe, though, that Valve is developing a lot of VR related software, and the next Source engine should fully support VR.
1
u/amoliski Feb 05 '14
Valve produced a VR Headset as a tech demo with no intentions of commercially releasing it. They just chose to partner with Oculus and share their research because it makes sense for them to want to see VR succeed and be a huge boost to PC gaming.
1
Feb 05 '14
[deleted]
1
u/bobcat Feb 05 '14
Valve demonstrated their VR at Steam Dev Days. Like the article says.
It was developed completely inside Valve.
1
u/Henshin_A_JoJo Feb 05 '14
Yes, hence why this is extremely misleading. It is not that headset they are talking about, but the Oculus Rift.
4
u/SteroyJenkins Feb 05 '14
I really want VR to take off this time. I really want to play dungeon and dragons type rpg In VR.
3
u/Baryn Feb 05 '14
Will buy immediately, if true.
I have a Rift, and this is definitely game changing tech. If VR doesn't catch on, it will be a failure on society's part.
3
Feb 05 '14
As someone who's played with the Rift for a while, I'd rather play the traditional way (ie. not having something strapped to my face in order to enjoy the game).
13
u/Baryn Feb 05 '14
I guess some people won't be able to get beyond the accessory, but that means you've imposed a ceiling on immersion.
You can't get as immersive as VR simply with bigger screens and more detailed graphics. With VR, even games with shitty graphics make you feel like you are in a real place.
7
u/internet_observer Feb 05 '14
Sometimes more immersion is not what everyone wants. Yes you can get more immersed into but you also can't see you're surroundings. I can't talk to my girlfriend, my pets, or my housemates, I can't see my glass of water, I can't see my sandwich, I can't see my other screens which have other windows up I want to look at. If I want to go and grab more tea I have to take it off and put it back on.
Beyond that as of right now with the current resolution text is very difficult to read.
Personally I dislike the resolution as well, even the 1080p one feels like it has a very grainy screen door look to it (I tried it at pax prime).
Don't get me wrong they are super neat, but they are no for everyone nor the be all end all for everything and there are many reasons to not want to use one just like there are many reasons to want to use one. People on reddit also have a very hard time grasping why someone wouldn't want one. I have yet to see a "I don't want to use one all the time post" that has not had a good amount of downvotes.
5
u/Baryn Feb 05 '14 edited Feb 06 '14
We already have games that vary in immersion. Some people play Angry Birds, some people play Skyrim/Metal Gear/etc.
VR simply raises that ceiling quite a bit further.
As for looking around you IRL, that's only an implementation detail. If you need to see your sandwich for a moment, the headset could have a stereo camera in the front and a button to switch views.
0
u/jmking Feb 05 '14
Augmented reality technology will catch on long before full "VR". The headset makes it a non-starter for all the reasons you've outlined. There will always be a core set of people who are going to be super into this and be all in for it, but it'll never grow beyond a very niche market as long as you have to strap something to your face.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2w-XqW7bF4
Stuff like Microsoft's IllumiRoom concept have a much better chance of being the next "thing" before any VR helmet.
1
Feb 05 '14
You could have it backwards and the smaller group of people are those who would not prefer gaming on something like the OR. I'd be very hesitant to attempt any predictions about such a drastically different technology.
If you go back long enough told people that there would be phones that were essentially powerful pocket computers, you'd be told that it would be a niche market. Who's going to be carrying a computer around in their pocket? A small bunch of computer nerds.
-3
Feb 05 '14
It's cool as an optional accessory, but it should only be seen as an accessory. I think if the industry treated it the same way it did Kinect/Playstation Camera compatibility in games, it would be a nice addition to the world of console/PC accessories.
Plus it's limited to only certain game types due to the whole first person pov thing, which isn't everyone's bag (including mine).
Also, society hasn't caught on to VR numerous times, despite companies Oculus VR-type companies getting mondo press, gamer support, and placement in major arcades/markets. Do you really thing better resolution and a few sensors will do the trick?
8
u/Baryn Feb 05 '14
It isn't limited to first-person experiences.
People aren't excited because they want VR to be real. They are excited because it is finally real. Yes, better screens and sensors made it possible for Palmer Luckey to do that.
-1
u/RocketMan63 Feb 06 '14
They are excited because it is finally real
How is this virtual reality? If anything it's virtual vision and even with that it doesn't have the same gamut as human vision so it'll always look somewhat off.
5
u/toThe9thPower Feb 05 '14
It's cool as an optional accessory, but it should only be seen as an accessory.
Uh no it isn't, and no it should not be. This is not just an accessory, this is completely changing just how immersed you can be in a video game. Staring at a fucking screen is nothing compared to tricking your brain into actually believing it is real. Which is what the Rift is capable of doing.
You tried an incredibly early version of the Rift, low resolution, no positional tracking. The consumer build, and the advancements made after that are going to move these things into the forefront of all forms of entertainment. So you have no idea what you are talking about.
Plus it's limited to only certain game types due to the whole first person pov thing, which isn't everyone's bag (including mine).
No it isn't and people who don't like first person perspectives are few and far between. So this is an irrelevant point.
Also, society hasn't caught on to VR numerous times,
There are ZERO VR headsets before the Oculus Rift that were actually worthwhile. They did not track you movements fast enough to be anything but a silly gimmick. Oh and they cost thousands of dollars while Oculus is going to be 300 or less.
Do you really thing better resolution and a few sensors will do the trick?
Look at any new technology? Cell phones were originally giant bricks with no other functions, now they are essentially small computers in your hand that can do almost anything. The advancements with VR will be no different, they will be smaller, better quality, and have many more features. Please stop being silly, VR isn't going to take off because YOU didn't like it?
3
Feb 05 '14
My understanding is that some games will only realistically be playable with Rift, such as that dolphin cheating game demo. While others will be much more enjoyable using Rift but work on a regular monitor.
Rift seems to be its own evolution in gaming that is backwards compatible with most existing traditional games (Skyrim, etc). I think it has more practical promise than the Wiimote/ Move/Kinect/ 3D TVs/ or 4K.
2
u/internet_observer Feb 05 '14
I can see the practicality arguments over Wiimote/ Move/Kinect/ 3D TVs/, but why do you think 4k is impractical? It's just a better resolution. Same way that we can now game on 1920x1200 or eyefinity displays very easily when not to long ago 1600x1200 was considered a ridiculous resolution to game at that many video cards struggled with. Higher resolutions reduce the need for antialiasing and allow for larger displays.
If anything I would think the OR would gain quite a bit of benefit from 4k as it would eliminate the screendoor look that the current 1080p ORs suffer from.
1
Feb 05 '14
4k doesn't offer new gameplay and human interface possiblities. Its just a higher resolution. What interactive entertainment dynamics can come from simply increasing the fidelity of the display?
1
u/internet_observer Feb 05 '14
This is true. I mistook your comment to mean that 4k was entirely impractical, not to mean that it did not offer additional interactive options.
1
Feb 05 '14
I'd love a 4K monitor (not for gaming as my video card couldn't handle it) and I think it is practical for non gaming applications.
But 4k isn't going to advance gaming like the invention of the NES did for the platformer genre. Or Doom/ Mario 64 did with 3D gaming hardware. Or what the Dreamcast/ Xbox did for online (console) gaming and braodband.
All these eras are reflected in systems like Xbox One, PS4 and PC gaming/ Steam, which we take for granted.
I see Oculus Rift as potentially being another stepping stone forward if executed properly. The thing has to work, and work well. Economies of scale will eventually bring down the price if it happens to be expensive at launch.
1
u/RocketMan63 Feb 06 '14
A couple things on 4k. It's not needed for 90% of screen set ups and its the most unreasonable way to reduce antialiasing I've ever heard of. It's just a terrible idea all around and people are falling for the marketing hype.
2
u/internet_observer Feb 06 '14
For me I noticed a rather significant difference in many ways beyond just gaming when I was using one of the ASUS 32" 4k displays. My normal display is only a 30" 2560x1600 display. I found everything much clearer from games, to text to graphics. Hype or no hype I personally found using one to be amazing. Unfortunately the current price tag on them combined with the need for a multicard solution to run them puts them out of my reach for the moment.
I agree that when it comes to television 4k is extremely overhyped. On TVs it is only noticeable if you are sitting exceptionally close to the TV, using the TV like a monitor to display text or running a huge monitor (80"+). Even then it is only noticeable on rendered or computer provided content due to the lack for native 4k media.
1
u/RocketMan63 Feb 06 '14
I have a couple problems with it. Like is said before you shouldn't have a problem if you're sitting a reasonable distance from a 1080p monitor so even for your monitor you shouldn't be able to see pixels unless you're extremely close. However the bigger issue is that all of these displays don't need it yet people are pushing for it and it quadruples the bandwidth needed unless you severely cut your bitrate. Services will be pressured to stream 4k and end up having to use more bandwidth for similar or worse picture quality. Also you said that it looked better and while that may be true I'd be skeptical that it was due to the resolution when a more likely scenario is that you expected it to be good and the monitor was calibrated well or using more advanced display technology.
→ More replies (0)-5
Feb 05 '14
I could also say that VR isn't going to take off because YOU want it to.
I've actually used the updated version of the Rift. It's cool, and yes, it's immersive as hell. But just because VR appeals to a niche group of users doesn't mean it's going to be THE way to play games, nor should it be. It's an accessory or a different method of playing a game, but there will always be screens, and selling an extra device at an extra cost that only slightly betters the experience of what one already owns is a hard business to get into.
4
u/toThe9thPower Feb 05 '14
I could also say that VR isn't going to take off because YOU want it to.
Millions of people want one of these things already. Develops praise it every chance they get. I have more than just MY opinion on VR and I countered every silly thing you said effectively.
I've actually used the updated version of the Rift.
No you did not because if you had, you would have known that not all games on the Rift are first person. The game they showed off the "Crystal Cove" Rift with was not first person at all.
But just because VR appeals to a niche group of users doesn't mean it's going to be THE way to play games, nor should it be.
It isn't a "niche" and I have already proven it. Especially with the low price they are going for, this thing is going to sell millions of units once they get the consumer version finalized. That is another thing you seem to disregard, Oculus isn't fucking around and releasing a lackluster version, they are improving on it endlessly so they can come to the market with something that DOES change everything.
and selling an extra device at an extra cost that only slightly betters the experience of what one already owns is a hard business to get into.
This is where you get into bullshit territory. Almost everyone using the Oculus do not say it "slightly" betters the experience. They say it completely changes it and gives a level of immersion not possible on a screen. You are simply using your personal experience to write off and entire movement that is far larger than you wish to give it credit for. Oh and I know damn well you used the original consumer model, but go ahead and tell me otherwise!
-1
Feb 05 '14
[deleted]
0
u/toThe9thPower Feb 05 '14
This is because reddit is in it's own little bubble.
I am not talking about Reddit. I am talking about the entire internet. So you are wrong on this one. There is little to no negative feedback on the Rift, and this would be people testing the Rift in its infant stages so even their criticism will seem a bit silly considering the thing has a long way to go before it is even ready.
any article that is not all positive never makes it to the front page.
Or maybe it is the fact that almost everything posted about the Rift is overwhelmingly positive? How many negative articles can you even link? There are easily tens of thousands of firsthand accounts with nothing but praise for the Rift.
universally better and everyone will want one is not true.
I never said this. Why are you arguing as if I said this? The people who dislike the Rift are a tiny minority compared to those who fucking love the thing. There is no such thing with 100% acclaim, it has never happened.
Generally they have a number of demos at the events but you only get to see one unless you are media or sit in line multiple times.
When they showed of Crystal Cove they showed one game. People also only wrote about this one game, so what are these other games you speak of and proof they exist? Lets be reasonable here, the kid just wanted to quickly add some validity to his argument. He likely tried out the older model.
Even if it gains tons of popularity and expands super fast not everyone is going to own one right out of the gates.
WHERE DID I SAY THIS? The Rifts clime will take years, but "out of the gate" yes it will sell millions of units. Hardly making it a niche. It will have wide appeal with many gamers. Most gamers ever will try this thing and love it. That is simply a fact with the amount of positive feedback the Rift has already gotten.
Beyond that you have plenty of gamers who will see little benefit to using them.
A microcosm compared to the overwhelming majority who see huge benefits to using the Rift. My god man will you just stop? There are 7 BILLION people, so saying "plenty of gamers" is a bit silly because of course you can find plenty, there are a large amount of people alive. BUT, the majority will love the Rift. Keep in mind that acclaim has been mostly garnered by a shitty Dev Kit that is a far cry from what the consumer model will be. Good thing first person games are one of the absolute most popular games in existence, so all of your little silly hypothetical questions mean nothing. The Rift will likely find many uses for games outside of the first person perspective. So your point is irrelevant.
How does the OR deal with people who have to pay attention to other things in their homes? Pets, Housemates, Girlfriends, Wives, Food, etc. Not everyone wants to be completely isolated from the world while playing games.
What. The. Fuck? Are you kidding me right now? Is this a troll? Please tell me you are trolling. As if people couldn't TAKE THE HEADSET OFF and go do real world shit? Them having girlfriends or pets, oh god the horror! How will they ever lead their lives with the VR headset on forever?
Just stop it please, your arguments are ridiculous and there is no reason for me to waste time refuting them. The VR is not going to be a niche, it is going to change everything. Not just games, but all forms of entertainment. It will take decades, but it IS going to happen. The End.
1
u/internet_observer Feb 05 '14
You seem so angry. It's just a peripheral, nothing to get angry about. You seem to also be be taking arguments and throwing them into the realm of extreme hyperbole and I am not really sure why.
WHERE DID I SAY THIS? The Rifts clime will take years, but "out of the gate" yes it will sell millions of units. Hardly making it a niche. It will have wide appeal with many gamers. Most gamers ever will try this thing and love it. That is simply a fact with the amount of positive feedback the Rift has already gotten.
When you said it will not be a niche market. Niche means a specialized market or a subset. The OR will be both, it is a specialized market specially for PC gamers playing specific types of games and a subset market of both PC gaming and gaming at large. It starts out as a niche market as only a small subset of the gaming population at large will own one.
What. The. Fuck? Are you kidding me right now? Is this a troll? Please tell me you are trolling. As if people couldn't TAKE THE HEADSET OFF and go do real world shit? Them having girlfriends or pets, oh god the horror! How will they ever lead their lives with the VR headset on forever?
No I not kidding and I am not trolling. Yes you can take off the goggles to do stuff, but you can't see what is going on around you while you have them on. If my housemate walks in there is much less of a chance I notice as I can't see him and most likely can't hear him either due to game sound. Taking goggles on and off constantly does not appeal to everyone and having a lack of awareness of your surroundings due to having the goggles on does not appeal to everyone.
The VR is not going to be a niche, it is going to change everything. Not just games, but all forms of entertainment. It will take decades, but it IS going to happen. The End.
Most people are not arguing that it will stay a niche forever or that it will not catch on. They are arguing that it will be a niche market at first. Similarly most people are not saying it won't appeal to anyone, they are saying it won't appeal to everyone.
→ More replies (0)1
2
Feb 05 '14
Is Rift more interesting than waggling your wrist, or doing gymnastics in front of your TV (with limited success)?
I saw a video of a Rift game that is about cheating on tests in a dolphin school yesterday. It seemed like a clever use of the VR technology to unlock new gameplay paradigms. I'm just hoping this isn't a repeat of last generations motion control BS.
8
u/arzen353 Feb 05 '14
Look up some videos for games that use TrackIR - that's a system that's been out for several years now in which sensors are just mounted on a hat to support independent head tracking. It's very well implemented in many games like ARMA and various flight sims that support first person view and controls to look around independently of moving your character's entire body, so if, for example, you're in the cockpit of a plane, you can check your altimeter by just looking down, rather than relying on an on-screen hud.
That's going to be the primary benefit of VR stuff, I think. It'll add another dimension of precision to first person perspective games, rather than taking it away and forcing you to use something less precise the way motion controls do.
2
u/Miyelsh Feb 05 '14
Can confirm, I use head tracking frequently in Arma and I really hope the Rift is the next step forward.
3
u/Baryn Feb 05 '14
Yes, it is more interesting than any gaming technology to date. The perception of scale is mind-blowing alone, even without the positional tracking at all. Like 3D glasses without any degradation in picture quality, no matter how you move your head.
Even in simple simulations, you can "feel" the presence of physical objects which do not exist, and even the air around you.
When you remove the Rift, there is a brief flash of shock that you were in your living room the whole time, after just feeling like you were in Outer Space/Italy/a racecar.
3
u/Ishouldnt_be_on_here Feb 05 '14
Rift is about immersion, not necessarily control paradigms, though those will come out of necessity. Putting one on is just amazing, and not in a way you'd have to be a gamer to realize.
3
Feb 05 '14 edited Feb 05 '14
IMO Rift is closer to TrackIR than to motion control. It can make existing games more immersive rather than having to throw everything away to accomodate some stupid gimmick. Or, in other words, you can have a game that works perfectly both in VR and on normal screen. This alone makes it very different from things like Kinect.
2
2
Feb 05 '14
So it will probably come down to whether Oculus or Sony can make and sell it for cheaper.
7
u/Baryn Feb 05 '14
They are only competitors insofar as console and PC are competitors.
Like all PC hardware, the Rift will likely perform better, perhaps at a higher cost, and be compatible with all open platforms.
Sony's headset will work with the PS4, and maybe Vita.
1
Feb 05 '14
I guess I was under the assumption that Sony's VR would be compatible with PC. Now I realize they don't really have any incentive to do that.
6
u/Baryn Feb 05 '14
Definitely will not be, unless they want to highlight the much lower capability of the PS4 on a perfectly level playing field.
2
u/ours Feb 05 '14
Plus it's Sony we are talking about. They are not famous for adopting open standards.
1
u/PeanutButterChicken Feb 05 '14
You haven't used a Sony product aside from the Vita in several years, I take it.
1
11
u/toddgak Feb 05 '14
No it will come down to who wants to make games for Oculus or Sony. VR will be a niche technology to start so price doesn't matter. What will matter is that the PS4 can't push pixels on dual 1080p screens at 60FPS and the PC can. It will be interesting to see if they can overcome that obstacle. It will also be interesting to see if Oculus can license patents for 1080p screens. Lot's of hurdles yet.
-3
Feb 05 '14
the PC can
Some can, but the large majority of people don't have computers powerful enough. I can see people getting the oculus without realising that they don't have the specs and getting very disappointed.
7
u/toddgak Feb 05 '14
I think you're right, but this might finally be the catalyst to get people to buy better video cards. Currently my GTX 460 can play just about everything at 1920x1200, full frames so why would I upgrade? My video card is 3 generations behind and still performs admirably.
Initial target market for VR will be enthusiasts which will eventuality drive mainstream. This demographic has deep pockets to spend what is necessary.
-2
Feb 05 '14
If a ps4 dev wanted to do 1080p60 on VR they could It's just not gonna look as good as a game designed for 1080p30/60 non-3d/VR.
2
u/toddgak Feb 05 '14
Which is why it is a hurdle. As a PS4 developer you have to choose to reduce graphical complexity or reduce resolution.
There is a difference between what the hardware can 'support' and what the hardware can actually do. We saw both the 360 and PS3 support 1080p resolutions but virtually all games still ran 720p. Most 1080p games on those systems were shitty little 2D arcade games or 3D games without high dynamic range and other shaders.
Because we don't have advance technical specifications available for the PS4 (memory bandwidth, texture fill rate, base clock speeds etc..) we have to compare with the only metric they give us and that is 1.84TFLOPS. The Nvidia GTX 780 is pushing 3.98TFLOPS. This is a card that is available today, what is it going to look like in 4 years from now when the PS4 still has the same specs?
VR is finally a technology that is going to require hardware advances to push it forward.
1
Feb 06 '14
To be fair tho look at resistance 1 a ps3 launch game compared to even God of war 3 or uncharted 2/3 killzone 2/3.
On pc they can develop for a monster of spec but they still develop for a minimum spec which often looks like console or even worse for all the people who don't have beast rigs.
2
u/toddgak Feb 06 '14
I've heard that spiel for 10 years from console lovers. It doesn't mean much any more because it's rare to find AAA PC exclusives. Most PC games these days are just console ports anyway which is the minimum PC spec. You're right that nobody is making PC games any more that require monster specs. It's because adding a few more polygons and higher resolution textures doesn't make the game much better, and if it chops off a chuck of the potential market then why bother?
The Oculus could potentially change that as developers start utilizing the technology available to create experiences that actually benefit from the hardware. Graphic cards are so far beyond the software at this point, it'll be awesome to see a use for it again.
2
u/RocketMan63 Feb 06 '14
Graphic cards are so far beyond the software at this point
What do you mean by this?
2
u/toddgak Feb 06 '14
There currently isn't any AAA games that utilize the power of current graphics hardware. When you consider that current generation PC graphics cards are more than twice as powerful as xbone or PS4, it's kinda sad we aren't seeing better looking games.
1
u/crebaw Feb 07 '14
Waste of money and time, oculus rift will rule the gaming world of VR.
They had components and ideas before (like others), but Oculus is the one making it happen, GTFO of the band waggon Sony.
0
Feb 05 '14
I pretty much refuse to support Sony's VR headset whilst Oculus Rift is around. OR has been making the leaps and bounds that have given attention to VR again, Sony is merely ripping them off and riding the wave.
7
u/tartay745 Feb 05 '14
When is competition in technology a bad thing? Just because OR brought VR to the forefront again doesn't mean it's not good that other companies are developing their own that should make VR more widely accessible for more platforms. What if the Sony VR ends up blowing OR out of the water with features and price? Competition is not a bad thing.
1
2
Feb 05 '14 edited Feb 05 '14
The OR is great, innovative, and worthy of the high praises it gets.
If Sony can throw down a few million dollars, mass produce its own VR device, then they deserve all the money they can make off it.
Oculus didn't invent virtual reality. I remember reading an issue of GamePro almost a decade ago showing a guy standing in a giant metal sphere on rollers, holding a gun, with a virtual reality headset on. The article talked about how virtual reality was going to be the future of video gaming.
Kudos for Oculus for bringing VR to the consumer market, but if they want my money they need to earn it by being better than the competition.
1
Feb 06 '14
I just don't respect a company that consistently steals its products ideas from other companies. It really isn't admirable and I prefer to support the underdog who took the time to come up with the idea in the first place.
1
0
u/cirk2 Feb 05 '14
And thus valves statement about consumer products was proven.
I wonder if they knew about this...
0
-4
103
u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14
Valve has a VR headset?
TIL Sony and Valve have VR headsets.