Holy shit, Oculus is owned by Facebook that has shitton of money. Why wouldn't they sell Rift at lost to get this technology to more people and then pack themselves on game sales?
You need really expensive PC + Rift while Sonys option will be definitely cheapest on the market (not counting this cardboard VR shit).
What do you think?
>Holy shit, Oculus is owned by Facebook that has shitton of money. Why wouldn't they sell Rift at lost to get this technology to more people and then pack themselves on game sales?
I can't believe an adult can come up with such thoughts.
Are you retarded? Sony gets money for every game sold on the console. facebook gets nothing from sold games, apart from the ones they themselves make. So how should they get their lost money back?
Why would you need a super computer to play VR games? Just make less demanding games for it. I'm sure any modern PC could play VR games with last gen graphics at 60 fps just fine.
Well, atleast I thought I read somewhere that Rift will have it's own store for games and everybody will have to publish software on it - they'll get cut from every game sold.
But now that I think about it, it was maybe about how every game on Rift store will only have to be run on minimum spec PC.
I was wrong, so I apologize for bad info. As a punishment I stabbed my dick with a needle.
>Sells 5 million ps4's in 1 month
>34 million software sales including battlefront for which ea has to pay licensing fees for each copy sold
>EA making more money than Sony.
I don't think you know how money works anon
Sony is spending more than they earn. EA is making more money than what they spend. Sony is having to sell more things to offset debt. EA is comfortably making games for the Star Wars IP and reeping benefits from Disney and Lucas.
Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR VIRTUAL LOLI PORN!
seriously, you guys are idiots if you think that playstation VR is going to be a big thing, extra hardware in consoles is always abandoned and sony has never given a good support to any of those things. They will release it launch minigames for it then launch sequels for those minigames and let it die, and don't expect any extra effort to make it survive
>guys all these professionals are wrong
>clearly I, an anonymous internet user, know better than them
Sure. For starters, 60 FPS is unacceptable for VR. The OR runs at 90Hz, and that's already cutting it close to the limit of what's tolerable. Ideally, it'd be 120Hz+.
I agree it will be limited. If Sony was going all out we'd see uncharted in vr but they know that shit won't look good. Probably won't get anything beyond simplistic undemanding games or limited "experiences."
On the flip side on pc you have the potential for great vr but it's too early for big name released as devs are skeptical. When you start seeing popular titles bring dropped in vr like say elder scrolls 6, then it will be a safe bet.
Would the ps4 be able to handle tes 6, ass creeds and stuff like gta 6 in vr without looking like crap? Would devs even bother? Will they bother on the pc where people don't all have vr? It's too early for this shit and I feel Sony is just trying to jump on vr hype instead of doing it properly in the ps5.
>implying you can't lower graphics quality to get better FPS
Also, anon, I think I read that games on PSVR "only" have to run on 60/45 fps and then they're somehow doubled to 120/90 fps.
Sony wants to avoid reprojection if they can for good reason. They know 90 fps is best natively. If devs must they can try to hit 60 but since vr requires the game to be rendered twice, they would have to strip the game even further just to get two instances to reproject at 60.
Any day now my ultimate Sega rig will become worth it!
So, they're gonna be selling a hardware upgrade to give the ps4 2-4 times as much power, so that it can render games at 3 times the framerate instead of just cutting down the graphics and scope down by 3 times right?
Because otherwise you're stuck with really really low quality shit if you wanna hit 1080p, 90fps with a ps4
Google started selling a prototype of Google Glass to qualified "Glass Explorers" in the US on April 15, 2013, for a limited period for $1,500, before it became available to the public on May 15, 2014, for the same price.
Expected Ship Date: June 2016. Limit 1 per Customer
so if i want to buy 1 for a brother or cousin i cant?
>they know that shit won't look good.
Are you people dumb?
It depends how they fucking program it. If they program it to look good, itl get shit framerate
If they program it to get 90fps, yeah, itl look like a fucking indie game, no shit, which is why they cant do that
>Would the ps4 be able to handle tes 6, ass creeds and stuff like gta 6 in vr without looking like crap?
No, you're fucking stupid
Unless you want a nauseatingly low framerate, so you can take one single frame and be like LOOK SEE WE HAVE VR GAMES THAT LOOK GOOD
>sony trying to push vr when they still struggle to maintain 60fps or even hit that high
Enjoy your bleeding eyes.
Sony's VR will not be viable as the PS4 is an outdated piece of plastic that would require devs to make their games look like PS2 games in order to maintain 120 FPS for the damn thing
>its not coming out for years so it doesnt matter
>nevermind that it will blow everything else the fuck out so hard people will be ashamed to own VR for consoles because by then it'l be obvious its just an attempt to prevent people from jumping ship to PC
Nah I think it will be in the middle like a ps2.5 game not as bad as the ps2
Take mgs v. It runs at 60 fps but doesn't exactly look that great. Devs would have to render the game twice at 60 fps meaning the game would have to take a heavy downgrade to run both renders without dips at a solid 60. That's assuming they will reproject which might cause discomfort.
It's not a cpu they are lying. It's just a breakout box that adds fake frames via interpolation. The rift uses this too but only to assist with small dips. Not replace and standin for literally 30-60 frames.
Has anyone here actually tried one of these VR machines? I recently had bought a plastic VR (google cardboard) setup that I used in conjunction with my phone, and holy hell was it uncomfortable to use for long periods of time. My head would just get so tired of having this heavy shit on it, I couldn't even be arsed to use it anymore. Are these any better in that regard? Has anyone used one of these in an elongated setting?
>being this naive
>thinking Star Citizen is savior of PC gaming
>thinking because of one game consoles will die
>not thinking console version of that game will be made
How much does Chris pay you?
Ok now you are informed that vr renders two instances of the game meaning you will have strip that game of more visuals to hit 60 without dips on both eyes.
You also ignore that most high end pcs in 2011/2012 had an overclocked i5 or i7 at 4ghz while the ps4 uses a literally netbook cpu at 1.6 ghz. Running two renders of a game presses stress on the cpu so you can see where this is going.
I'm going to have to disagree with you. Sony has a chance but not the best chance. Samsung has the best chance because they have Oculus to back them up on the technical aspects of what VR requires and they themselves have the resources to spend and help proliferate VR to 100's of millions of galaxy owners. The smartphone is still the most used device and it will continue to be so with the chance of VR entering into the equation.
I think Sony has a great chance at failing to sell VR to PS4 owners. Not because of price or technology but because of a lack of content from them. I look at the Eyetoy, the Move controller, the camera and the Vita. All these things suffer from being the side project. Something that was not of greatest priority to Sony for them succeed. Obviously it's a great risk but just look at how little Sony supported the Vita. Once it started to not sell, it became largely absent from all their marketing and conferences. That's how it's likely to turn out for PSVR.
The flaw of PSVR is the fact that they can't put their high end titles on it to really push it. They will keep both markets separated. Games like fighters would be possible or other simple ganes without much details/assets but what about the big stuff casuals love like assassins creeds? Keep in mind stuff like anti aliasing is also important to keep up the illusion of vr.
Yeah, I believe Sony will actually want to get their VR to as many people as possible, so the whole price of PS4 + VR should be lower than other VR devices + PC's. But time will show.
Sonys external device is PURELY for connecting the ps4 to the VR headset itself, since the PS4 cant inately produce the image VR needs.
It has NOTHING to do with performance and it will not improve performance at all.
Listen you underage shit. Not only is the porn industry huge on consoles it was literally porn that chosed who won the bluray vs hd dvd fight back in the ps3/xbox era and made the ps3 so successful.
So stop freaking out about no porn when consoles are literally the second best platform for it and its fucking full of it
I think sony is making a huge mistake by not letting this thing work on PC.
Because I sure as fuck won't be buying a morpheus for my ps4 AND a rift for my pc. If I have to choose between both, it's gonna be PC all the way.
Now if I could buy a morpheus and use it on both, then that would be excellent.
I don't understand this stupid decision. They are just gonna lose sales.
>Objective: move these refrigerators
>Move theses color teveeeeeesss
Reminder that PS4 VR will never get the porn games. So no loli dating/sex sim for you faggots.
Source? Why would PS make this for their VR? Doesnt seem likely they would pander to waifu lolifags when they just have to undercut oculus by 100 or so dollars to take the VR market
>can only play games developed with vr in mind
>no way to patch old games to use vr
>can't even play old games on ps4
kek m8 how many games will support vr on ps4? 1? So you got 2 games to play with Bloodborne in total WOW
Pretty fucked off with this whole Oculus affair. I have a decent gaming PC that runs recent games at 1080p on full settings.
After getting hype as fuck for literal years, including the costs of upgrades it would set me back £1100 at a bare minimum to get a rift and be able to use it.
That's more than I save in a year.
Are Oculus taking the Michael?
meant room tracking.
Play the waiting game my man. Let's be honest until we see battlefield vr, gta vr, assassins creed vr, and elder scrolls vr this isn't worth it. Also if by some remote chance PSVR gets a unpfficial driver you can try it out
The base stations are pretty cheap, also it comes without headphones.
On the other hand PS VR has headphones included, you need a PS eye camera, move controllers and the processing box.
PS VR wont be as cheap as people think.
>People saying the only worthwhile VR games will pc exclusives
I know there will be few scattered pc exclusives but I feel like devs are gonna want to get their VR games on as many platforms as possible because at least in the start there is probably gonna be a pretty small VR userbase.
I can understand for games that just have a VR option but can be played normally, but strictly VR games?
How many are announced right now?
I've followed VR a little but not that hard, one o the biggest games I know of is that Eve one, but thats also on ps4 so what else?
So far from what we've seen, the most it'll be capable of is early to mid period PS3 level graphics, which isn't bad per say, but still isn't comparable to what you can get out of a good PC. Even so, Cardboard showed you really don't need high end graphics to please normies, what really matters is the quality of the unit itself, something we won't know until we get to personally use it. It would do Sony some goodwill to take a note from Nintendo's book and demo the unit to the public at electronic stores like they did with Smash 4. Probably an ominous comparison, but this stuff is like the Wii, you actually have to try it in person to "get" it, building up hype should be their main priority. I'm personally waiting for someone to make a PC driver first before I would ever consider one, but if Sony keeps the price low and keeps securing tons of content like they're doing now, I could see this becoming very successful.
Why are people acting like Sony is anywhere close to being the same as oculus and vive?
Seriously, only the most uninformed sony fanboy could think the PS4 could run VR that isn't a platformer or an "virtual aquarium" game
Someone at my work made the same fucking retarded argument.
>Oculus is owned by Facebook that has a shitton of money
That doesn't mean that money is available to the Oculus team or that Facebook is willing to take a loss on top of its acquisition. Facebook wants a return.
>Why wouldn't they sell Rift at a loss to get this technology to more people and then pack themselves on game sales?
They cannot subsidize their tech with game sales because it's open source and they don't own the compatible platform (PC). Dev kit/licensing sales could never catch up to and properly subsidize a loss per unit sold.
Furthermore, Rift is being smart by getting to market first with a premium price point. Once the technology has matured and competitors like Vive have released then prices will go down but early adopters are willing to pay a premium.
When will you stupid faggots begin to understand that a company doing something you don't like isn't the same as a company doing something that will hurt themselves.
Here's the thing: that box most likely ruins the entire project when it's on.
Interpolation takes time, and is only really great at small numbers of frames in certain conditions. Having frame interpolation on every other frame will not only introduce latency (and if you'll recall reducing latency to near-zero was the entire point of these VR technologies), it will make things look strange in motion and break immersion.
I never understood why /v/ hated Sonyggers so badly, especially when they have such a minimal presence on /v/. Then one day I read the YouTube comments on a Playstation video, and it all came crashing down.
Most Playstation games are singleplayer, really the only good multiplayer exclusive is TLoU, which will get you laughed out of /v/ if you tried to discuss it. Communities around singleplayer games become extremely cancerous if there's no new updates or content coming out, /vg/ is proof of this. The only reason people are still talking about Bloodborne is because there was a recently dlc released
and their parents bought them a shillstation for Christmas.
I thought the chaperone system being HTC's big breakthrough was underwhelming and not that big a deal until I saw
Its just edge detection from the camera feed, but it is a pretty damned effective way of navigating your surroundings or reaching for objects in your surrounding if need be.
It is pretty huge to me now., don't know how much it would facilitate typing on a keyboard if I need to type something quick without removing the helmet and switching to monitor. I didn't know their controller had two triggers in one, you can click it normally or pull it down on it to click the secondary trigger.
I am torn between oculus touch and the vive controllers. The touch is more compact with gesture recognition which feels like a comfier fit. But the vive controllers have trackpad and double trigger with a better tracking system in my opinion.
Gotta check if the lighthouse base stations communicate through bluetooth and if they supply a dongle since I don't have one installed, I hear they are fairly cheap. beats the hell out of having to use more USB ports for cameras, and apparently you can daisy chain several of them with ease. Though I think 2 of them would be plenty enough.
It all boils down to who has the better bang for buck, oculus rift price was abysmal despite selling at cost. I was expecting them to be a good bang for buck option for 400~500 without motion controllers including fees, that is pretty much thrown out the window at 780 USD, fucking retarded.
Pretty excited to get into VR as a tripple monitor replacement because bezels suck, but I am not expecting being able to afford the tech at this point.
Max I am willing to part with is 650~700 USD including fees and motion controllers. It seems I will have to wait for 3 years for the price to come down to something reasonable or competitors with better bang for buck options to emerge.
Hopefully the tech isn't dead in the water by that point.
But is it really? Isn't the Oculus about 800 euro while a sony vr set + PS4 is about the same?
Anyways knowing how other Playstation addons have worked in the past they will make a big deal about it, release about two games and then it will be forgotten.
Yep, if Vive is a better deal I'll probably cancel my Oculus pre-order. Good thing Vive pre-orders open up in February and my Oculus won't ship until March. If nothing else, I'll scalp it. Some are selling for $1500+ on eBay and people will become more desperate now that the ship date is June.
It's anyone's guess who comes on top at this point, the technology is still in its infancy.
I was excited for early vive release, then oculus made its announcement about touch and vive delayed so I got excited about oculus since it comes out first and was apparently going to be cheaper, then 599+ship and I'm back on the Vive train.
Such a wild ride, I am not optimistic at this point but there is hope yet for a miracle.
VR screens are not nearly as good as traditional monitors right now, they fill a higher FOV but the quality is just not good enough yet, the pixels are too big for how close the screen is to your face.
Vive will cost $495.
Valve's design is better in every way. And by every way I mean not only is its tracking system better, its cheaper to manufacture too. Their controllers for example are identical whereas the Rift's controllers are unique to each hand. That means they only need one mold and can produce twice as many of a smaller PCB. They also charge with microUSB instead of requiring a special charging dock. Futhermore the lighthouse system uses cheap components, whereas the Rift requires two high definition cameras to track the LEDs. The Vive does have a camera on the front, but as it is only used for sensing the shape of things in the environment it can be a cheaper lower resolution one. And finally the headset itself looks like it was designed to be cheap to manufacture. It's all plastic, and has an ordinary elastic strap for the head, while the Rift has a fabric cover and fabric inside and a more complex head strap which is plastic and adjustable.
Yeah, it seems a little bit like Oculus are the idealistic incompetents whereas HTC have experience in mass manufacture of technology, and now how to keep shit cheap while still being effective.
I guess that's why getting actual investment from an experienced group is better than kickstarter money.
It's going to be $400 and have great image quality. Source: Bloomberg.
Reminder that $599 is the "subsided by Touch controllers" price, so add AT LEAST $150 more to the full experience price.
Vive only needs to cost $750 or less to outright beat the Oculus, with even $850 being a good spot as a better deal considering the better technology.
>Tfw Facebook paid more for Oculus than what all of HTC is worth currently
Reasons no one will buy a Rift:
>970 GPU minimum
>4 USB ports, 3 of which need to be 3.0. dongles don't work
>750$+ for Europe
-So, the WHOLE laptop market is gone. Mobile parts can't handle VR
-MOST of the pre-built PC market is gone due to lack of available USB ports
-Some of masterrace will need to spend even more money on better MOBOs to get cucked out of 4 USB slots for VR
Meanwhile, I'll buy a PSVR at half the price of a Rift and it "just werkz". No worries about getting new PC parts. Can't wait
That's the whole thing though, money isn't everything. Throwing shitloads of money at incompetents won't stop them from being incompetents, they'll just be incompetent and rich.
>Sony calls the small box a “PU”, short for “Processing Unit”. The box makes sure that the signal coming from the console is accurately transformed into a proper VR signal for the headset, and it also helps convert the footage into 120Hz.
>microsoft and nintendo handed them the 8th generation
>oculus handed them VR
Literally the luckiest company in the world.
tl;dr: They are retards that researched their own type of cloth for minimal to no improvement and everything in the Rift is custom-built and custom-ordered at several different factories.
Meanwhile HTC is re-purposing readily available parts and making logical decisions like having symmetrical controllers.
I really hope PSVR is cheaper
and I sincerely hope that if Sony doesn't make it compatible with PC, I hope at least someone out there will make unofficial drivers.
yeah I didn't mean emulating desktop monitors, I know they will suck for reading fine print.
I meant a substitute for surround/eyefinity, I can move my head around in game and the sweet spot will follow me unlike tripple monitor where you have to keep looking at the center and get that irritating fish eye distortion if you look at the monitors on the sides that should be in your periphery.
Having a large overall horizontal+vertical FoV without black bars and the entire background cut off from your view sounds pretty neat. I can even look around without significant distortion unless I stray too far to the very edge of the display. Stereo is another advantage.
I don't have 2k or 4k surround, it's shitty 1080 TN, still has its advantages over current HMDs. The OLEDs will likely have better colour depending on the quality of the optics I suppose.
resolution per eye is less than 1920x1080, but I guess it is more about PPI and distance from the display. So something like 4K would start to look pretty close to the quality of a 1080 monitor I suppose. Won't know until I try it, just blabbing out of my ass at this point.
Only got excited after trying someone's DK1 a few years ago, the quality was awful with massive screen door but I saw promise in it.
yep. if xbox would have avoided the whole DRM/used games thing and shipped without the kinect they would probably be neck and neck right now, or at least much closer.
even if PSVR ends up at $399 (i think $299 is more likely), it will be comparatively a bargain.
it comes with an extra power box to bring the PS4 up to snuff you dolt.
ALSO the lighthouse tracking Vive uses is simply a laser on a motor, with cheap photosensors on the peripherals, meanwhile Rift uses a expensive high-resolution IR camera (1 more camera for the Touch) which adds a LOT to the final price, and it's an inferior tracking solution.
>interpolation artifacts in a vr headset
interpolation artifacts are a thing right? or am i just shit at implementing svp? also on tv's when it's enabled you can see little shitty spots all the time.
>Time named the HTC First as one of the 47 "lamest moments in tech" for 2013, and ReadWrite similarly named it one of the "Top 10 Tech Failures" of 2013
>SONY WINS AGAIN BABY
Jesus Christ you faggots are unbelievable. Worst fanbase on /v/
>not preordering and cancelling if vive is better/cheaper
90hz x2. Plus specs makes no sense if you think about it since not all games are created equal in terms of resources. Your example pic is clearly not the same as Bullet Train, but yet 'recommended 970' is still the same. Guess it's just there to keep people away with their gtx240
So what if the PSVR is cheaper. The PS4 is a closed system right? It won't allow porn right?
It'll be "the price of a new console"
PS4 started at 400$ so it won't be more than that
If you just want it as a display, probably. But expecting full compatibility for VR titles would be unlikely. Even going from Vive to Oculus (and vice versa) is not a sure thing. When you couple it with requiring a PS4 camera/PS move it's even more unlikely.
why is VR so demanding? isn't it just a monitor strapped to some goggles and a gyroscope thing?
Color me excited when they showcase how the fuck is it going to run mainstream games in 2k resolution at over 75 fps.
If I'm paying 350 for low quality sluggish VR I'd rather pay another 350 and get the full experience. Half measures SUCK.
Everything needs to be rendered twice. Some people's eyes aren't good at that so they get epilepsy sometimes.
>PS4 is an outdated piece of plastic that would require devs to make their games look like PS2 games in order to maintain 120 FPS
I think there's no way VR at this point is anything other than a failure.
>limited to only the most powerful PCs (consoles can't run this if you didn't know)
>humongous set of unwieldy goggles
The technology just isn't there to make this good enough for the masses. It's like they're trying to force this about ten years too early.
To play most modern pretty games on a 4k monitor at 60 fps you need two 980ti's or equivalent cards. That's 1300€ in GPUs alone. The screen itself is going to easily run you 700€.
The rift requires something like "only" 20% more resolution over 1080p (2k res has more horizontal space p much) but the framerate requirement is 75-90fps, which puts it in a difficult area for most non-enthusiast hardware.
3D doesn't work that way. Then you might as well just be looking at your computer monitor instead.
when you say render twice, does that mean one render on the monitor and another to the headset or one render in each eye slot? Why cant they just stream it to each eye slot?
>all these people who don't know how their eyes work
This is how I feel about it, it feels like a gimmick I know thats a word here used a lot but don't you think you are going to get tired of having a thing strapped to your head while you play games?
I don't think it will be a success and probably will be forgotten.
It is not even VR anyways.
how would you do true stereo on flat panels with lenses if your field of vision for both eyes overlap? don't they provide each eye with a separate screen? you can't have both screens overlapping each other in the middle.
do they chop off part of your FoV? I imagine getting very close to objects would be irritating or introduce a large blind spot so it wouldn't feel natural.
One to each eye slot.
And because video quality afaik, you have to simulate the view per eye, anything else is google cardboard tier>>323037576
>>how would you do true stereo on flat panels with lenses if your field of vision for both eyes overlap?
Assuming this is theory (because honestly otherwise it would be pretty fucking retarded) the image would have to be ridiculously close to the eyes.
>do they chop off part of your FoV?
If you are asking what is actually done, the panels aren't flat
>1080p resolution (1920x1080) at 60Hz is generally seen as the standard target setting for modern gaming. That also happens to be about one-quarter the raw pixel rendering cost of a VR headset display at 90Hz. So, you could think of the raw pixel demands of VR gaming at 90Hz as being approximately 4 times the demand at 1080p/60Hz.
>Another simple comparison: VR gaming has roughly 90 percent the pixel demand of gaming at 4K resolution (3840x2160) at 60Hz. If you’re familiar with gaming benchmarks, you’ll know that achieving 60 FPS at 4K resolution is no simple feat. Very few gamers have PCs that can play something like Fallout 4, Star Wars Battlefront, or the Witcher 3 at 4K/60 FPS.
>Once again, before factoring in the additional costs of stereo rendering, let’s compare the raw pixel rendering cost of each display:
>124 million pixels/second: 1080p monitor @ 60Hz
>457 million pixels/second: Rift/Vive @ 90Hz
>498 million pixels/second: 4K monitor @ 60Hz
>Now, factor in the additional graphical demand of stereo rendering with VR headsets, which multiplies the total hardware demand on the PC by somewhere between 1x and 2x, depending on what’s occurring in the game. It’s easy to assume that playing many games on the Rift or Vive will require even more computing power than it would take to play the same game at 60 FPS at 4K resolution.
To 'render' simple means create an image from a scene.
Not passing the data of a single rendered image isn't a problem. The problem is rendering the scene twice for each eye where there's an offset. You can get away with a gimmick of just offsetting the picture, but muh immersion. I know it sounds so stupid to have it be so demanding to just move the camera to the left, right? But this will sound even dumber, you have to move every object relative to where the camera 'is'. Technically you're always looking at (0,0,1). Why do this? It's faster than moving the camera position and calculating a matrix from the camera for a single object since they're all different vs creating 1 for all.
Though what I'm confused about is why they're not recommending SLI/crossfire to have each GPU do that..
Each view is different
Just like each one of your eyes sees things from a different perspective and your brain merges both to create your sense of distance AKA "3D"
While focusing on your monitor, hold your finger in front of your nose (2 inches away, or 5cm away) and close one eye at a time. On your left eye your finger will be further to the right, on your right eye your finger will be further to the left. With both eyes open your finger will be 2 ghost images with 50% opacity because it's too close for your eyes to focus on it (unless you get cross-eyed to focus on it)
That's just how it werkz. You need 2 seperate perspectives rendered
This guy looks like he can make waifu age porn but he's a NEET and can't buy a Rift. But he might be the chosen one. Picture semi related.
There's no advantage to SLI for that, two cards half as fast in SLI won't be faster than a single card.
It's literally just a gimmick to make people buy two cards that just end up being more expensive than a single card at double the speed, SLI is only useful if you already have one card and want to upgrade by 100%.
Who honestly believe that VR is the future of entertainment?
it is the new 3d
Whoa..... So.... You're like.... Saying.....
A company that primarily sells hardware isnt making as much profit as a company that sells easy to produce vaporware???
Lighthouse actually only needs power, its not connected to the pc in any way, its just a rotating laser with diodes - and that's why its awesome.
VR is just a FNAF controller
imagine the shovelware.... we are going to experience a new wii era
>"We want to deliver the most premium VR experience the world has seen. That’s not marketing speak, but more about where Vive is positioned in the market. This is at the high end,” Gattis says.
>"Starting with the premium experience, even if it has a slightly higher price point, is the right thing to do from a strategic point of view. The price can always come down as the market grows. We know there is some pent up demand there, so there’s not so much price sensitivity early on. But to get the broader consumer adoption we’re all hoping for, the industry will have to drive price down to make it more accessible.”
>He concludes: “Whether we do that with Vive, or other form factors and devices, we understand the importance of driving price down to achieve adoption.”
This was in March 2015, when people expected the Rift to cost $400, so the "slightly higher price point" might very well be 500-600.
You do know that each gpu could render an eye,right? Dx12 and vulkan support it. Sli doesn't mean x2 the perf,but with the scene split up it sorta does. That's what i was getting at.
Maybe because they've already been operating like over a year now on THE PROMISE that they will one day be profitable and they probably need to start showing earnings now instead of generating even more losses on the further promise that they'll make money some day if they sell at a loss.
looks like 4 cables, let me guess
1 USB3.0 for positional data and camera
wait can't they send audio through HDMI? that would bring the cable count down to 2
the 2D->3D situation will repeat with VR.
just like 2D didn't go away, we would still play the usual non-ultrainteractive games, but in VR.
there would be not much need for the standard monitors besides work, since all content is best consumed through VR(at least, when foveated rendering and 4k screens become mainstream).
that sounds like a better option since USB is used anyways. And have the headphone jack on the HMD itself for those that want to use their own headphones.
I'd prefer they include integrated headphones, my headphones would make it too cumbersome on my head. I'm no audiophile so I won't notice a big difference in quality. Got G230 which isnt that great anyway.
Unless Sony's VR is compatible with PC it's not going to eclipse Occulus. There will still be all those PC games you can't get on PS4 that people want to play. Also the people able to shell out the $600 for VR most likely already have a nice rig and possibly no playstation making Occulus the cheaper option compared to buying a ps4 + playstations VR.
nip neets on suicide watch
>Will the integrated DAC+amp be usable with third party headphones? e.g. through a 3.5mm jack on the headset. Or only with the shipped ones?
Not officially, and not without a little hardware hackery. Our DAC+amp are optimized for our specific driver modules, and are definitely not designed for high-impedance cans. The quality of our built-in audio stack is pretty great, if you really want something better, you are probably better pairing off with an external DAC.
>As a self-professed audiophile, how would you rank the integrated audio solution alongside entry-level audiophile headphones like the ATH-M50x, or the HD 598s?
Favorably. They are open-back drivers with pretty accurate response and a great soundstage. Somewhat similar to ATH-AD700s.
It depends on how will it be implemented and how much developer support it.
Making game to be able to run smooth are a such headache for those people, making it run smooth for VR will be nightmare mode.
I've found the HTC Vive the most immersive and impressive VR setup I've spent time with.
-And I was really impressed with the surprisingly low price point.
The spatial position tracking really makes all the difference to immersion. Its eerily immersive to walk around in a virtual space with seamlessly smooth tracking.
-And it has one of the nicest, simplest and smoothest spacial tracking setups I've used.
Quite funny that 4 weeks before I spent time with the Vive, I'd be testing out a 'WorldViz' spatial tracking VR system. ...Not at all impressive in comparison and they wanted ~£30k for the system, as apposed to the £400-500 of the HTC Vive.
Having used nearly all of the big current VR kit being developed at the moment -the Vive has me most excited.
-Still got in a few Oculus Rift Preorders yesterday though. Looking forward to seeing what difference the improvements since DK2 make.
Well, VR compatible might be every game made. I think there is software to play those older games that didn't have support for VR included.
Another thing is how will tohe games run. Even 60 fps is supposedly too low framerate to acceptable experience (90 or 120 fps is a must)
HTC Vive is the true normie VR since you can use true 1:1 realistic movement.
Is there ANYTHING going for Rift right now? At least the PSVR has brand name, install base and possibly lower price.
>what is cheeky bantz
It's like you came here from Reddit merely two weeks ago.
Thus said, Sony always wins baby!
well then, I see it was probably cheaper and less hassle for htc to hook up audio straight to motherboard/sound card.
I am no expert but I wonder how much impact that would have on 3D audio for vive, palmer did say you could use an external DAC so it wouldn't have any impact on a hardware level it seems.
But what about on the software side with games that are developed to run on both rift and vive. 3D audio is important for spacial awareness so I hope the audio implementation in game is hardware agnostic regardless whether you use rift or vive.
Well its just analog audio signals, what am I talking about if you can already run the game it should work the same since audio should be tied to the game's engine. Unless there is some mumbo jumbo locked to the rift SDK requiring vive to have their own implementation.
Thanks anon, if I move that to my 3ds with PC can I see it with 3d?
Why not just render it once and simply mirror the image?
Rift has its own closed audio SDK, they are trying really hard to fragment the community and score some exclusives.
They know they lost in the hardware side, so they push hard to create artificial value through software.
>mfw we've seen multiple public demos of the PSVR in action.
>People still don't think it can work.
Oculus lied to you. You don't need a godrig and a $600 headset to make VR work. The DK1, DK2, Google Cardboard and Gear VR all wowed people, and they were -shittier- than the PSVR.
Prolly doesn't work that way, otherwise why would he make this image >>323038317
>Funny how PC guy is the fat one
It's funny because it's true.
yeah that sucks, its what I was worried about.
But with more peripheral manufacturers joining the fray I think the more open platform will triumph in the long run.
Steam already has openVR, and vive seems to be interested in free roam which would benefit heavily from spacial audio cues.
So I don't think they'd neglect 3D audio, there would likely be some 3rd party support by the game engines themselves like unreal engine, unity and what have you.
Everyone should listen to this guy. Having 8 cores at 1.2GHz per core isn't as good as having 1 core ate 4.0 GHz per core.
Let's go tell fucking intel and AMD that they've been fucking up for the last 10 years!
Fuck, I have an idea.
Let's, as humanity, share one really really really fast car. It doesn't make sense that two people have two cars. They just need one car that goes twice as fast!
they INTENDED to fail all along
I know very well what it is, but I wasn't clear enough, so sorry for that.
What I meant to ask is why not mirror it, but at the same time set off the mirrored image to match the eyes' field of vision?
I don't know how to word it any better as English is not my first language.
The fact that SonyVR needs an external component to run, thats half the size of a PS4, basically goes to show that the setup will likely cost the same or more then Oculus unless Sony underprice it heavily and even then what games other then AC7 are coming out for it? SonyVR doesn't even have its own Wii Sports to hook casuals in, if it doesn't have a killer app nobody will pay $400+ for the damn thing.
>EA made more money this holiday from Battlefront than Sony did all year.
>listening to "guesses" and "predictions" from Michael Pachter
single thread performance generally is more important
look at amd lol8core
Your poor analogy would work if GPUs weren't parallel processors to start with.
Oh and if you had two PCs instead or only one in case of the car analogy.
A better analogy would be saying 2 half-powered engines in a car are better because each engine can power two wheels, which makes no sense since a single powerful engine can easily power 4 wheels and doesn't require 2 fucking engines.
Maybe you should stop trying to rationalize your stupid purchases and learn some of the technical aspects of computers, get over your buyer's remorse.
>and even then what games other then AC7 are coming out for it?
If you actually followed PS4's lineup you would know that there are like a dozen games being made which will specifically take advantage of PSVR or are being outright developed just for it. That's a dozen games more than what Oculus R.I.P. has to offer aside from some indie shit tech demos. Instead you chose to stay ignorant and spout the LE PC MASTER RACE maymee.
Pic related alone wins the VR race by default. Of course you are too underage to know what REZ is. Now gb2 shittalking in TF2.
Oh so that box has better specs then a ps4?
Because a pc 3 times better then a ps4 is required for VR.
People cant be this stupid.
The games have to run at double the resolution plus double the framerate.
How powerful can that tiny box be?
>People still don't think it can work.
You're comparing apples and oranges though man. Yes the Gear VR and cardboard work fine. But obviously they're incredibly limited in computing power, being phoned based.
Playstation VR works well.
But obviously, being on a closed hardware system there will be limits to what is achievable in graphical quality and complexity whilst maintaining the high framerate required for non sickness induing VR.
Not a case of Oculus lying. Just logically, the more computational heft, the better.
>off set the image to match the eyes' field of vision?
You mean like moving the virtual camera and rendering as a second output?
You don't understand what it is.
>not just jerking to normal porn
>unironically defending normal porn
>"HOLY FUCK ANON WHY WONT YOU JUST EAT THIS FESTERING SHIT LIKE THE REST OF US, ARE YOU SOME KIND OF FREAK?" WHY WOULD YOU NOT WANT TO EAT THE MOST HORRIBLE, DISGUSTING SHIT YOU CAN FIND?" TIPPY TOPPY JEJ WHAT A LOOZER RIGHT GUYS?
Of course I know what REZ is you stupid fuck, the question I posed was what KILLER APP aka something casuals know about and will buy in droves does Sony have to push a $400+ piece of component hardware? Cause there isn't a single game on that list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_VR#Games that does this, the only closest one would be GTSport but even then racing game fans have been ded since forever and the amount of people getting a VR along with the standard game will be less then 1% because VR to GT doesn't add much since most people play it in 3rd person anyways.
SonyVR needs a Wii Sports like title to attract casuals to its expensive potential price tag or it'll fail. All Vive would need is to release it same time with Source 2 and make Portal 3 or similar a launch title compatible.
What you mean is the sense of depth, that's created by your brain processing the slightly different images of both your eyes.
On VR each eye has it's own screen rendering a slightly different POV of the game, in theory that way it would trigger your brain to
In my experience with VR it dependes on the game mostly, some feel really flat, like Assetto Corsa for example. Others like Elite Dangerous feel really 3dish.
Man I was SO ready to buy this. I was ready to go to 400 USD, maybe 450 even. At 500 USD I would think about it for a while.
I was shocked over the price.
Not the price itself but over how piss-poor Oculus had communicated with us. They knew people were expecting it to be 350-400 USD, it's been quoted for months. Yet not once did they correct this correctly, the right thing would have been to put it at the top of on their homepage since 400 USD was so far off.
I really expected Oculus to be better than this. Very unprofessional. They even left the subtotal as "59900" for 12 hours if not more. How can you forget such an important dot?
And then they are surprised when people get upset? Of course people will get upset when they have been saving for months, thinking they are going to be part of this big thing, and then it turns out they will be excluded.
What's worse is that VR didn't take off with a bang now, if we're unlucky VR might die off again now due to the lack of hardware out there.
I don't think it's the price that upset most people, it's their disappointment in Oculus as a company.
I don't mind the price in a vacuum. It definitely looks like the hardware and pack ins are worth the price.
What worries me is that this completely kneecaps any hopes VR had of being mainstream early on. (unless the Vive/OSVR/PSVR pick up the slack).
1080 is 1080 m8
it doesnt matter how close it is
a 10 inch screen from half a foot away should look exactly the same as a 50 in screen from 7 feet away if they have the same resolution
On the other hand, if I am not wrong, PC has some kind of software that can run every game through Rift. That is library big enough.
>inb4 this comes from guy that will probably go with PSVR
You are retarded and don't know shit about human vision.
Get a magnifying glass and put your face really close to your screen, you will most likely see individual pixels.
This is exactly how VR works and that's why it needs such huge pixel density to look good.
They don't want plebs buying rifts and owning a mediocre system to just give up on VR because they can't read spec requirements.
This way at least, anyone with enough money to buy a rift WILL surely have a high-specced hardware to go with it.
Better stay niche for a year or so but works well than go full chinese economic bullshit and make everyone throw up for the rest of their lives when trying VR stuff.
>M-MUH KILLER APPZ!
It's a new gimmick which is your so called killer app itself. People went to see Avatar not because it was the best movie ever made - it was actually quite fucking shit. People went to see it because it was the first movie to pull off the gimmick that was 3D.
Normies will gobble it up.
Wii Sports was bundled with the Wagglanconsole. No one gave a shit about Wii Sports. People just wanted to waggle.
Blow it out your ass.
Yeah that was what i think as well. Price is probably reasonable but they didn't give us a heads up about this price, they gave us a heads up on a 400 bucks price.
So now instead of an explosion of VR hardware that would make developers take interest in making stuff for VR specifically, we get a slow growth in VR devices that might die off due to the lack of software and expensive hardware (or not if luck would have it).
I really thought Oculus wanted to bring VR into mainstream, not just do business like a normal company.
It's not going even going to be able to run current gen graphics in VR. The amount of AAA ports to PSVR will be smaller then PC vr will be.
It's guaranteed that there won't be ports for Star War Battlefront, Alien Isolation, GTAV.
>there are people on /v/, right now, who have no fucking idea how depth perception works
The biggest disadvantage is that you can't mod VR into non-VR games, and console devs are inherently more limited by hardware. That doesn't necessarily mean the games will be shit, or even ugly (See: AC7, Gran Turismo, etc)
youre the fucking retard m8, the pixels on a little vr screen are fucking tiny compared to a tv's, thats exactly how it has the same resolution you dickhead, unless theyve got a shitload of space in between the pixels for some fuckheaded reason, you shouldnt be able to tell a difference
I don't think you quite understand, anon. VR gaming is on the same levels of 4K@60fps game in terms of graphic demand. The reason why computer specs on PC is high is because the power required to play VR is insanely high.
This means that there will be a selective amount of modern games ports that will appear or PSVR for this reason. You shitpost about indie games pc gamings, but you bullshiting yourselves if you think that won't be the bulk of PS4 vr too. In addition PSVR will be mostly artsistic, and focusing on framerate over graphical fideltly.
>people talking about all this tech like it won't be obsolete in 15-20 years
Are you stupid? How does that invalidate my first post which stated that VR screens are not as good as traditional monitors right now?
A VR screen has more PPI but it's still not enough to be as good as a traditional monitor since you are essentially putting your face really close and adding a magnifying glass on top of that, the screen's smaller size is not enough to counteract that.
A small 1080p VR screen doesn't look the same than a 23" 1080p monitor screen at a reasonable distance at all and you would know that if you ever tried VR.
>Europe (traditionally hardcore PC market)
>It definitely looks like the hardware and pack ins are worth the price.
>oculusfags genuinely believe that a gimmick that takes too much computer power is worth the price
But he is right, my dear ameripeasant.
>Also razer and Microsoft will join
>razer will join
"Razer DeathWatcher Chroma"
>99% RMA rate
Jesus christ VR is going to be amazing.
>people getting to see real breasts
Not enough for this to work. You still need an extremely powerful rig to run this and even then it's a bad concept to begin with. A shitty screen taped to your face. Can't wait for this to go the way of the kinect.
>you would know that if you ever tried VR.
well shit, i guess the ruse is up, youve caught me
ive never tried vr and have in fact been talking directly out of my ass this whole time
My computer is at least five years old, and can run VR just fine. And it wasn't top of the line five years ago. You need a good PC for VR, but people saying you need a brand new 2016 top of the line specs are retarded.
It did but people will never be satisfied with the current technology, they will be always get used to it and crave for more.
A good example is how people used to run away scared at those first movies of trains moving towards the camera, but nowadays no matter how many explosions and shit you put in a gigantic IMAX 3D screen people don't really care.
yah and so would a lamborghinni and a jetpack, and a mansion on the moon
do you know where we are, anon?
Everyone is defending $600, but consider the following:
A higher barrier to entry means fewer people who can play vr games, ie less vr development. You can't price too low, but pricing too high kills the market prematurely.
All I want is a first person Harvest Moon game on VR. Is that too much to ask?
>Sure. For starters, 60 FPS is unacceptable for VR. The OR runs at 90Hz, and that's already cutting it close to the limit of what's tolerable. Ideally, it'd be 120Hz+.
why doesn't it support more?
people on /g/ were claiming that HDMI 1.3 should support up to ~130 Hz at its resolution, and OLED supposedly has low response times.
Law of diminishing returns.
A 90 Hz screen of that size and resolution already had to be custom-built and is fairly expensive, 144 Hz would add even more to that for minimal benefit.
>Everyone is defending $600
Only complete fucktards are defending it. Fucking Luckey himself just a year ago was talking about how CV has to be affordable for wide market, and here we are with a thing that costs more than any console and requires a rig that costs twice of that.
There's no guarantee any of those games are going to play above 30 FPS, especially if the console has to render the game twice -- ya know, from the offset angles required for a 3D effect.
Reminder to not buy into the shilled 15x15 meme, 15x15 meters is the MAXIMUM you can have with 2 cameras, with possibility of even more if you get more cameras. The minimum is probably enough for a small room.
>/v/ suddenly hates VR because they can't afford it.
This is entertainment in its purest form. Creating a product weebs have been waiting for to have sex with their waifus, but making it too expensive for NEETs to ask their mom for. It's such a delightful catch 22. Please continue to hike the price, Oculus. This is the most fun I've had on this site in a long time!
>but making it too expensive for NEETs to ask their mom for.
What? You just ask for it as a birthday/christmas present. My dad's getting one for him and one for me and we don't even live together.
>implying NEETs can live IRL without learning parental manipulation
Oh look a smartass PC Mustfart Race VR expert gives his opinion about Sony's VR tech
You have shit for brains if you think anything @30fps is even playable with VR, you also think you know better than the engineers working at Sony. Drink some cool aid and get fucked, kiddo.
Also many industry heads have said that PSVR is really good.
Has it EVER crossed your mind that developers simply can make less hardware taxing games? That's what the Wii U has been doing with their 1080P@60fps titles. They barely look any better than early ps360 games yet run at high resolutions and framerates whereas the great art style makes up for the lack of MUH NEXXXT GEN GRAFIKS EFFECTS.
If you expect Uncharted 4 visuals with PSVR you are a god damn retard.
>it supports everything the Rift does and beyond.
I honestly don't understand the hype for Rift. It's a piece of Samsung-tier trash shit.
sorry, 90 Hz + wide FOV + strobing = migraine for a lot of people.
Rift is basically a third of a UHD panel running at 1.5x stardard refresh rate.
Any GPU coming out this year that can do UHD@60Hz will be completely bottlenecked by the Rift.
I would have been a lot more enthusiastic if they required a 90 Hz minimum rate but supported up to 144Hz or at least 120Hz.
LOL. the thing already costs $600, and OLED panels already support 1000+Hz.
It's probably just that Oculus didn't want to have to pay for a beefier controller chip than what 90+% of their potential customer base could effectively utilize.
GPUs will get cheaper and better consoles will come out.
low barrier to entry is google cardboard which sucks ass and will cause many people to think twice about VR if they become motion sick.
only mid range budget option at the moment is potentially PSVR, I think that will receive the most widespread adoption initially because console is still easy for the average joe.
It will be better than cardboard but they are cutting too many corners which could be problematic particularly considering how weak the PS4s APU is. That external processing unit is used to perform timewarp and display what you are seeing on a TV for others to see.
It has nothing to do with processing the game's logic and doesn't aid the GPU in rendering, all it does is recieve a 60Hz or so feed from the PS4 and spit out 120Hz by fitting frames in between based on your most recent head position. Timewarp is not perfect and introduces artifacts and can be jarring at lower framerates.
Instead of having timewarp as a safety measure they are using it as a crutch, their screen has higher persistence than OLED so the image will look more smeared and blury as you move your head around since it takes time for the pixels to change to the new assigned value, this can lead to motion sickness.
So I am worried about how PSVR will fare, if it turns out to be a gimmick that consumers loose immediate interest in because of motion sickness or the games being awful compared to non VR titles then VR in its entirety will not hit critical mass for the gaming industry to invest in and flop hard.
On PC VR is decent but far too cost prohibitive currently, VR will not gain mainstream adoption on PC
Many devs will not want to take a large risk to go all in and decide to double dip instead, making traditional games and adding "VR support", if they don't design their games from the ground up with VR in mind they will likely resort to mere gimmicks which will harm VR.
>while Sonys option will be definitely cheapest on the market
$350 for the PS4. Plus $350 for PSVR. Plus $50 a year for PS+.
Is not "definitely the cheapest on the market".
Beyond this. PSVR will have no mods and no porn.
It's a processor unit that is going to be included with every playstation vr device because it wouldn't work without it. Consider them as one unit, it doesn't even have to be necessarily expensive. It was just necessary to make it external. Otherwise the VR headset itself would have turned out much heavier and uncomfortable trying to cram everything that is now in the PU into the headset.
I expect them selling it at a loss for $399 seperately from the console and bundled with the PS4 for wait for it...
Well valve and nvidia/amd will just have to push vr to sell their stuff. I doubt Facebook will be doing anything to push it on mainstream gaming. A far cry in vr would be cool.
True about PSVR. The interpolation is not a good thing and will be limiting. I can imagine sony running telltale type or on rails ganes pumping up visuals though but for the real games? I can't see them using the vr when vanilla versuon will look a lot better vs the downgraded version in vr. Sony is about pretending their netbook is powerful and they wouldn't allow it.
>he buys VR for things other than porn
Face it. VR is a novelty. It's only really good for porn. Investing in VR and not even get porn is just sad. Much sadder than getting VR for porn.
You're basically paying for a sex toy without the sex. That's beyond pathetic.
>lewd but pure handholding sim
>B-B-BUT MUH LOLI PORN MODS!!!!!!!!!
There is a limit to everything, fatso.
>You're basically paying for a sex toy without the sex. That's beyond pathetic.
Oculus Rift confirmed for ironic dragon dildo tier