• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Anyone else feel PSVR2 is a GIANT waste

drezz

Member
" You can do whatever the fuck you want"

No you can't. You're limited by your own body and fatigue. It's a different experience with it's own set of limitations.
Thats very true.
Playing and having adrealin rush help you forget you are tiring and in turn, get a fun workout!
But as scenes play and you catching your breath you are reminded you are not in the greatest of shapes; blame covid lockdown... i do!
Can only go UP from there doh, so more you play and "Train" the better you do in many areas, even outside VR
 

drezz

Member
I love VR, so of course I want to see more money being put on it.

I'm not going back to wired VR tho, but that's just me. I'm pretty sure many will buy the psvr2 and will love it.
Im very certian a PSVR2 "PRO" variant will come out with wireless and even more immersive controllers(Think all 10 fingers).
When?
I'd say around PS5 Pro
 

tassletine

Member
Thats very true.
Playing and having adrealin rush help you forget you are tiring and in turn, get a fun workout!
But as scenes play and you catching your breath you are reminded you are not in the greatest of shapes; blame covid lockdown... i do!
Can only go UP from there doh, so more you play and "Train" the better you do in many areas, even outside VR
I agree, but not everyone wants to workout after a day at the office -- I'd imagine that would be doubly unappealing if you did a lot of physical labour.

I'm really interested in WHY there doesn't appear to be that much traction for it. The sales are there, but I rarely see mainstream reviews gushing, and I don't know anyone besides myself who owns one -- And I haven't touched either of my kits in over 2 years.

I think it's basically like any sport -- unless you are a real addict you don't want to be playing every day. You book time with your friends to do it -- And that depends on their physical shape as well.
There are all sorts of problems with it (that prevent sales) that go way beyond the benefits of immersion or a good workout.
 

DarkestHour

Banned
I've been pretty vocal about not being a fan of VR since the software available isn't really "great" to me. However, if Sony can get something special on their platform that really takes advantage of VR, then I'm in. I'm talking a full blown Ace Combat campaign. Maybe a space fighter game. Gran Turismo in VR.

It's going to take more than these indie games to really get me onboard.

I have a Quest and Quest 2 in the household, but no interest due to the games available rarely being more than a carnival ride. Additionally, the screen door effect is still bad. Watching Netflix was so cool on it but a much higher display quality would be incredible.
 
Last edited:

Ev1L AuRoN

Member
The technology have to start somewhere, this is the second generation of the product. Eventually we will have a cordless VR headset, but to get there we need to start somewhere. The first barrier Sony is trying to break is to make it affordable. Once Wifi6 becomes more mature and cheaper to implement, then yes, I see Sony making a true wireless VR HEADSET, until such time, I'm glad to see the evolution happening, an improved screen, better FOV and a more capable machine to drive it.
 
I did mention Polybius, which should give you some idea of what I would want with VR. I understand where you got the idea that I want a more relaxed experience, but that's not the case.
What I'm talking about is what games offer now, the experience they offer now, and how VR is almost the complete opposite to that on a physical level.
The capacity to wow in VR has been there for a long time, so there must be some other resistance to it right? That resistance is mostly physical. Fatigue, eye strain, sickness etc. All factors that are very minor with a controller.

I've seen immersion, or realism touted so many times now, in all art forms, as some sort of holy grail, but after the initial WOW, it almost always fades away. 3D cinema, the Wii -- They grab people and thrill them, but that thrill wears off.

I think if you're really looking for an escape from reality, then it will have a genuine use (even if that will almost certainly cause other problems) but I really can't see much improvement on any core gameplay yet.
Having said that, I have to admit I haven't gone near either of my VR sets in over two years though, so thanks for the titles, I'll check them out.

I'm a sculptor and in VR there are some small uses there. Mainly that you can use broad movements with your arms to get smoother lines. Blowing up tiny details to work on them in a massive scale etc. -- But there are also drawbacks, so you tend to have to output the sculpt then work on it in zbrush anyway. I think as a collaborative and social tool it's extremely useful though.
The improvement in core gameplay is how it greatly increases agency. It's like I said - you can be in many more states at once. If I am climbing a ladder in a regular game, I am locked to the ladder and have a choice to move the analog stick up or down. Perhaps I can also hold the left trigger and aim, but now I'm stationary on the ladder. I could use both sticks to move up/down and aim/shoot, but it is still a rigid move X in-game distance each frame on this ladder, and aiming with a gun is the same each time.

In VR, I could hang onto that ladder with one hand while shooting with the other. That can apply to many scenarios where the player would normally be in one state.

Another thing I didn't talk much about is AI reactivity. In VR, you have a lot more input that AI can react to. You have gestures and body language, soon eye-tracking and face tracking to discern emotional responses or eye contact. This could be used for building AI relationships with new dialogue if you stare at someone too much, or they could respond to your emotional state, but in terms of actual gameplay systems, you could have a guard in Skyrim who is looking for contraband, and you could be physically hiding your knife behind you with your hands behind your back, and they may step around you to see, so now it's a game of subtlety and misdirection. Who knows, maybe with good cloth physics, you could slide it down your sleeve. This is player agency on a level that couldn't work without VR.

One last gameplay improvement I'll talk about is a passive improvement - depth perception. There are plenty of 3D platformers where I have died because I couldn't judge a distance correctly. I experienced this most recently in Elden Ring too, with the Twin Gargoyles boss - the poison mist is pretty hard to see and I've died plenty of times due to missing it. VR will make all of those platforming jumps apparent, the poison mist will be much easier to see, as will just enemy attacks in general.

You speak of some of the downsides of VR like fatigue, eye strain, sickness. Those are indeed issues of today, but aren't inherent to the medium. We know that fatigue and eye strain will be fixed with better optics, like varifocal. Sickness has a lot of improvements on the way too. Ultimately, we're looking at (in the long-term, 10+ years future) something that resembles curved sunglasses. Pretty effortless and comfortable. Today's VR tech is early, which explains why it has not exploded. We are in the Commodore 64 days. VR hasn't had its mouse, its GUI, its internet. Those are advances that made PCs actually viable, and without them they would only be a niche thing. Will the mouse of VR be an EMG + haptic gloves interface? Will the GUI be some kind of effortless spatial UX with eye-tracking? Will the internet of VR be the metaverse?
 
Last edited:
No technological advancements are a giant waste. Even 3DTV, which everyone knew was a gimmick, was enjoyable. The Wii, Eyetoy and Kinect were all crap to me, but i respected the big 3 for trying something different.

Personally, I want VR to be a more seated, traditional experience, and less Eyetoy/wii/kinect - where jumping around is the main goal.

Give me an FPS that i can play sat down, with the added benefits of advanced aiming and head movement.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
What market? Here's how much Xbox owners clamor for VR:

jez-xbox-feedback-2022.jpg


A whopping 2%! No wonder MS isn't interested in competing with Sony for this non existing market.
Can’t have anyone interested if they’ve never had it to begin with 🤷‍♀️

And this was extrapolated from rando bots of Twitter. By Jez.
 
Last edited:

tassletine

Member
The improvement in core gameplay is how it greatly increases agency. It's like I said - you can be in many more states at once. If I am climbing a ladder in a regular game, I am locked to the ladder and have a choice to move the analog stick up or down. Perhaps I can also hold the left trigger and aim, but now I'm stationary on the ladder. I could use both sticks to move up/down and aim/shoot, but it is still a rigid move X in-game distance each frame on this ladder, and aiming with a gun is the same each time.

In VR, I could hang onto that ladder with one hand while shooting with the other. That can apply to many scenarios where the player would normally be in one state.

Another thing I didn't talk much about is AI reactivity. In VR, you have a lot more input that AI can react to. You have gestures and body language, soon eye-tracking and face tracking to discern emotional responses or eye contact. This could be used for building AI relationships with new dialogue if you stare at someone too much, or they could respond to your emotional state, but in terms of actual gameplay systems, you could have a guard in Skyrim who is looking for contraband, and you could be physically hiding your knife behind you with your hands behind your back, and they may step around you to see, so now it's a game of subtlety and misdirection. Who knows, maybe with good cloth physics, you could slide it down your sleeve. This is player agency on a level that couldn't work without VR.

One last gameplay improvement I'll talk about is a passive improvement - depth perception. There are plenty of 3D platformers where I have died because I couldn't judge a distance correctly. I experienced this most recently in Elden Ring too, with the Twin Gargoyles boss - the poison mist is pretty hard to see and I've died plenty of times due to missing it. VR will make all of those platforming jumps apparent, the poison mist will be much easier to see, as will just enemy attacks in general.

You speak of some of the downsides of VR like fatigue, eye strain, sickness. Those are indeed issues of today, but aren't inherent to the medium. We know that fatigue and eye strain will be fixed with better optics, like varifocal. Sickness has a lot of improvements on the way too. Ultimately, we're looking at (in the long-term, 10+ years future) something that resembles curved sunglasses. Pretty effortless and comfortable. Today's VR tech is early, which explains why it has not exploded. We are in the Commodore 64 days. VR hasn't had its mouse, its GUI, its internet. Those are advances that made PCs actually viable, and without them they would only be a niche thing. Will the mouse of VR be an EMG + haptic gloves interface? Will the GUI be some kind of effortless spatial UX with eye-tracking? Will the internet of VR be the metaverse?
I'm sorry but a lot of this seems like PR stuff. Very far in the future and not exactly on topic.

For example your comment about AI would mean something if AI in games wasn't pitifully poor, as it is today.
What you're describing not only seems far away but it is basically just describing Reality, not a game. -- there's no imagination to that and it's an obvious pitch.

If you're aiming for reality, I think that's a red herring as far a games are concerned, as all games are a reduction of reality not a direct simulation. Do movies get better because they get more real? Does drama? Does painting? I'd say no. And that's to say nothing about the computing and man power needed to power such a simulation, diminishing returns etc.

I agree about the depth perception though -- In Polybius this added gameplay and allowed you to react much quicker than usual. You're brain instinctively judged the distance, and you dodged like you would in real life, out of pure instinct --- But then again I would say if every game feels like that (reality) then it limits things, and certainly your audience due to the various disabilities and sheer laziness you would encounter.
Games are generally quite badly balanced now, I can't imagine how tough that would be if you had to take into account body type.

I agree it's the C64 days (yay!) at least commercially speaking -- But I think there was a great deal more experimentation back then regards genre, so it's a bit different. The mouse was with us from the start as were input gloves. We're in a weird position now where VR can clearly be seen as innovative, but the innovation is traditional games has practically stagnated so it's a bit stuck.

I was talking to the military 20 years ago about VR and their problem was always motion sickness -- So if they've cracked that now (do you have any info on that?) then it's a start.
 
OP even though YOU don’t have any interest in VR does not mean you are the spokesperson for the whole community. YOU’RE not that important.
 
I'm sorry but a lot of this seems like PR stuff. Very far in the future and not exactly on topic.

For example your comment about AI would mean something if AI in games wasn't pitifully poor, as it is today.
What you're describing not only seems far away but it is basically just describing Reality, not a game. -- there's no imagination to that and it's an obvious pitch.

If you're aiming for reality, I think that's a red herring as far a games are concerned, as all games are a reduction of reality not a direct simulation. Do movies get better because they get more real? Does drama? Does painting? I'd say no. And that's to say nothing about the computing and man power needed to power such a simulation, diminishing returns etc.

I agree about the depth perception though -- In Polybius this added gameplay and allowed you to react much quicker than usual. You're brain instinctively judged the distance, and you dodged like you would in real life, out of pure instinct --- But then again I would say if every game feels like that (reality) then it limits things, and certainly your audience due to the various disabilities and sheer laziness you would encounter.
Games are generally quite badly balanced now, I can't imagine how tough that would be if you had to take into account body type.

I agree it's the C64 days (yay!) at least commercially speaking -- But I think there was a great deal more experimentation back then regards genre, so it's a bit different. The mouse was with us from the start as were input gloves. We're in a weird position now where VR can clearly be seen as innovative, but the innovation is traditional games has practically stagnated so it's a bit stuck.

I was talking to the military 20 years ago about VR and their problem was always motion sickness -- So if they've cracked that now (do you have any info on that?) then it's a start.
I have experienced a level of AI interactivity in VR that can only be done in VR, though it was not crazy complex. It was just NPCs reacting to certain gestures or handing me objects or vice versa, but these direct interactive experiences only work in VR. It's also possible right now to use eye-tracking and face tracking add-ons (while we wait for Project Cambria later this year which has built-in support) to control game mechanics. In Neos VR, I have seen people raise their eyebrows and have it lift them into the air. Make an angry face and cause them to have a dark aura around them. Open their mouth to breathe fire. Point is, these actions can be represented today, which means we can already get AI to react to these.

Having realistic VR physics interactions does not mean the games are getting inherently less fun. If anything, people love the freedom they can get. People mess around like crazy in Boneworks - it has arguably the most versatile physics in VR - the closest to simulating the real world in terms of player agency, and yet people goof around and have a blast.

You may have some circumstances where a game with depth perception actually limits it, like the game Superliminal which works because you don't have that depth, but in many if not most cases, I struggle to see why depth perception would make people lazy. Take Hellblade VR as an example. I actually got more into it because the combat was more visceral when in it's happening right in front of you. I was contorting my face and really getting into certain actions. VR Depth perception could however cause issues in design if we start relying on the depth and a stereoblind person plays the game, so that is a valid point. Accounting for physical body types is more about games that use room-scale movement. One of the main competitors in a VR E-Sport (Echo VR) is actually a wheelchair user. If we have games that allow you to be seated or simply gamepad games in VR, then it's pretty workable.

For motion sickness, we know that there are two sides. You have sickness through latency/optics limitations where someone can wear a headset, do nothing, and still get sick. This just requires iterative improvements. Then there is sickness through the sensory disconnect of moving virtually without your inner ear sensing it. This can be helped by improving latency/optics, but a true solution would require tricking the inner ear. There is some promising research on this (Sony is also working on the same technique): https://www.roadtovr.com/researchers-head-mounted-haptics-combat-vr-discomfort-walkingvibe/

Hard to say if that will truly pan out, but there is promise.
 
Last edited:

ksdixon

Member
No technological advancements are a giant waste. Even 3DTV, which everyone knew was a gimmick, was enjoyable. The Wii, Eyetoy and Kinect were all crap to me, but i respected the big 3 for trying something different.

Personally, I want VR to be a more seated, traditional experience, and less Eyetoy/wii/kinect - where jumping around is the main goal.

Give me an FPS that i can play sat down, with the added benefits of advanced aiming and head movement.

Resident Evil 7
And I believe RE8/RE4make too.
 

tassletine

Member
I have experienced a level of AI interactivity in VR that can only be done in VR, though it was not crazy complex. It was just NPCs reacting to certain gestures or handing me objects or vice versa, but these direct interactive experiences only work in VR. It's also possible right now to use eye-tracking and face tracking add-ons (while we wait for Project Cambria later this year which has built-in support) to control game mechanics. In Neos VR, I have seen people raise their eyebrows and have it lift them into the air. Make an angry face and cause them to have a dark aura around them. Open their mouth to breathe fire. Point is, these actions can be represented today, which means we can already get AI to react to these.

Having realistic VR physics interactions does not mean the games are getting inherently less fun. If anything, people love the freedom they can get. People mess around like crazy in Boneworks - it has arguably the most versatile physics in VR - the closest to simulating the real world in terms of player agency, and yet people goof around and have a blast.

You may have some circumstances where a game with depth perception actually limits it, like the game Superliminal which works because you don't have that depth, but in many if not most cases, I struggle to see why depth perception would make people lazy. Take Hellblade VR as an example. I actually got more into it because the combat was more visceral when in it's happening right in front of you. I was contorting my face and really getting into certain actions. VR Depth perception could however cause issues in design if we start relying on the depth and a stereoblind person plays the game, so that is a valid point. Accounting for physical body types is more about games that use room-scale movement. One of the main competitors in a VR E-Sport (Echo VR) is actually a wheelchair user. If we have games that allow you to be seated or simply gamepad games in VR, then it's pretty workable.

For motion sickness, we know that there are two sides. You have sickness through latency/optics limitations where someone can wear a headset, do nothing, and still get sick. This just requires iterative improvements. Then there is sickness through the sensory disconnect of moving virtually without your inner ear sensing it. This can be helped by improving latency/optics, but a true solution would require tricking the inner ear. There is some promising research on this (Sony is also working on the same technique): https://www.roadtovr.com/researchers-head-mounted-haptics-combat-vr-discomfort-walkingvibe/

Hard to say if that will truly pan out, but there is promise.
Thanks for all the information, very interesting.
 

fybyfyby

Member
Actually I look forward for PSVR 2 very eagerly. One cable and no external camera is great. Much better would be wireless VR. BUT.....if you dont have to position yourself in front of the camera is huge argument for me. That was worst thing on PSVR(for me). Im buying it day one. I also hope, all games from PSVR1 will be playable on PSVR2. I still have a few in backlog.
 

GenericUser

Member
My takeaway from the state of play was that sony itself doesn't seem all the confident in VR2. No new full AAA games for the device. Maybe they have the PS5 shortages in mind. A lot of people won't even be able to use the VR2, even if they wanted to.
 

Gandih42

Member
I used to be completely uninterested in VR but I've actually started getting excited for it. Even though it seems to me like the other VR options are better, I like the idea PSVR so it can be an expansion of my existing PS5 setup.
 

mkacc

Neo Member
Honestly, I think it is a waste of time and resources.
Obviously the original PSVR was successful in Sony's eyes, at least enough to grant new hardware, but I just can't see a big enough audience to buy another system. I doubt most of the people who bought PSVR will be churning out money for the new one. The hype surrounding VR kind of dried out meanwhile and I can't see it being as successful as the first one. I also feel like the games are very limited in what they can offer. There are a lot of "experiences" but there arent lot's of games... Maybe I'm wrong about this but ehh...

I'd rather have a new portable but that would be even more niche nowadays...
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I think VR in general is a very strong space, but I understand that other people may have different opinions.

I would much rather sit on a comfortable chair in front of a big screen and enjoy a nice experience like that without putting strain on my eyes or having anything bulky placed on my head or worry about tripping over wires.
 
Last edited:

Danknugz

Member
Do people honestly thing flatscreen gaming is the future? lol same shit nicer graphics will only get you so far and we are already reaching that wall where all you are playing is the same endless uninspired content with shiny bells & whistles, this has been going on since gaming first emerged. GAF is zoomer central, kids easily entranced by sniny new graphics because you were born into the hobby way down the timeline. Try playing for 30+ years and at the end no matter how nice the graphics are on screen it's still the same old thing again & again eventually you'll want something more, something new.

VR currently has it's limitations devs not knowing how to properly use it so we get the same uninspired endless gallery shooters and other easy stuff like racing games there have been games that have used it well ones that made my stand there amazed, but i'm glad at least one of the 3 is doing VR as i have felt more immersion inside a game in VR with low res graphics than anything that's ever come on a flat screen.

VR is probably the only reason i'll be picking up a PS5 as it was the thing that made me buy a PS4, been gaming since the late 70's for me VR is the only thing that feels genuinely new, been inside a game is nothing like just looking at some shiny graphics on a screen. Once i finally saw technology be able to properly do VR there was no going back to just flatscreen only. I remember when VR ran at like 10fps and looked like starfox if you were lucky i'm glad it's now at the point it's useable & doesnt cost thousands.
well said, although i would rather PC VR instead of locked hardware that feels like a 3 yr old PC. maybe psvr2 will be pc compatible? love the PSVR2 specs and it would be a shame to see it wasted on just a ps5.
 

nani17

are in a big trouble
Vr is just like motion controls just like 3D gaming with your 3D monitor and your 3D glasses
 

ZoukGalaxy

Member
Yes it's trash and a niche. How can anyone play those games without getting sick. Unless there is a way to walk/run/jump/crawl whatever like that treadmill solution but better, it will never succeed except for racing/flying/boxing games.
brain GIF by whateverbeclever

Well, you are not compatible with VR, time to upgrade it.
 
Last edited:
These threads are frankly embarassing. Just because you don't like it it doesn't mean there is not a market for it.
I dislike FPS, should I open a thread saying that "THEY ARE A GIANT WASTE" because I don't see the point in them?
No, you don't understand. I just can't see the value in something I don't want to buy in the first place. They should scrap it and focus on stuff I like instead.
 

triphero

Banned
I could see it being a waste a bit. It does seem like its fighting a losing battle and is also kinda outdated in a weird way.

Clearly cordless VR is the future. There's a premium oculus quest coming out this year. Who knows how good it will be? It will be expensive, and all the tech is custom built for VR. I don't know if it will be able to play Alyx, but its probably going to close the gap big time. Thats coming out this year. That should be far more appealing than PS5 VR2, even if it can't play everything it can.

Apple, Google all making googles and none of them are tethered. I think even though Oculus Quest is far more limited than a Vive connected to a powerful computer, a headset with no wires is just a far superior experience.

Not convinced about WiFi 6, or streaming being the future. Best experience is going to be the fastest possible refresh rate and latency. The future is going to be future generations of Oculus Quest.
 
Last edited:

Danknugz

Member
I could see it being a waste a bit. It does seem like its fighting a losing battle and is also kinda outdated in a weird way.

Clearly cordless VR is the future. There's a premium oculus quest coming out this year. Who knows how good it will be? It will be expensive, and all the tech is custom built for VR. I don't know if it will be able to play Alyx, but its probably going to close the gap big time. Thats coming out this year. That should be far more appealing than PS5 VR2, even if it can't play everything it can.

Apple, Google all making googles and none of them are tethered. I think even though Oculus Quest is far more limited than a Vive connected to a powerful computer, a headset with no wires is just a far superior experience.

Not convinced about WiFi 6, or streaming being the future. Best experience is going to be the fastest possible refresh rate and latency. The future is going to be future generations of Oculus Quest.

you're going to be waiting quite a while if you expect wired fidelity VR to match wireless, and on the same hand some might argue that's a losing battle because at that point, wired fidelity will still be that far ahead, wireless will never catch up unless some amazing form of wifi comes out that is imperceptible in difference, the problem is that VR is so sensitive to the tiniest of delays and lag which can make you motion sick, even perfect frames still make some people sick.

the other problem is that companies like oculus aren't focused on progressing VR as a medium, they are going for mass adoption and they are willing to dumb down / water down the experience with wireless in the hope that most people won't care or know any better, and they basically disregarded everyone who supported them before they were bought out. that's why carmack et al all left oculus.
 
Last edited:

Punished Miku

Gold Member
But whyyyyy? Get PSVR 2 and stare at her dirty pillows with us!
I just got a Quest 2 for Christmas. Enjoying it a ton.

PSVR2 would need multiple killer exclusives to justify the extra cost for me. I'll likely just be skipping it, and maybe getting a Quest 3 or 4.

But I'll be watching the PSVR2 price, and exclusives as time passes to see how that looks.
 

CrustyBritches

Gold Member
you're going to be waiting quite a while if you expect wired fidelity VR to match wireless, and on the same hand some might argue that's a losing battle because at that point, wired fidelity will still be that far ahead, wireless will never catch up unless some amazing form of wifi comes out that is imperceptible in difference, the problem is that VR is so sensitive to the tiniest of delays and lag which can make you motion sick, even perfect frames still make some people sick.

the other problem is that companies like oculus aren't focused on progressing VR as a medium, they are going for mass adoption and they are willing to dumb down / water down the experience with wireless in the hope that most people won't care or know any better, and they basically disregarded everyone who supported them before they were bought out. that's why carmack et al all left oculus.
Quest 2 has had 120Hz wireless for over a year now. *edit* Works great and has better latency than 72Hz link cable mode.

Oculus has absolutely pushed the VR medium forward: standalone VR, 120Hz wireless, inside-out-tracking, hand tracking, keyboard tracking, desk tracking.
---
---
I was testing some games using 3060 laptop + Virtual Desktop with active performance overlay, and in Asseto Corsa(1) I was getting 39-41ms latency, while in Beat Saber depending on the settings it could go as low as 31ms latency(lowest streaming quality).

After tweaking with different quality settings, I think the biggest hurdle for "high end" wireless VR on Quest 2, and theoretically other future wireless headsets, isn't the game, encoding, or networking, but rather the decoding part of pipeline. It's probably cost-prohibitive to have a PSVR 2 headset with hardware built-in that can decode video streams fast enough for low latency gameplay. Let alone the additional cost incurred from having a battery setup. I can see why Sony went with wired. It was necessity, really.
 
Last edited:

Danknugz

Member
Quest 2 has had 120Hz wireless for over a year now. *edit* Works great and has better latency than 72Hz link cable mode.

Oculus has absolutely pushed the VR medium forward: standalone VR, 120Hz wireless, inside-out-tracking, hand tracking, keyboard tracking, desk tracking.
---
---
I was testing some games using 3060 laptop + Virtual Desktop with active performance overlay, and in Asseto Corsa(1) I was getting 39-41ms latency, while in Beat Saber depending on the settings it could go as low as 31ms latency(lowest streaming quality).

After tweaking with different quality settings, I think the biggest hurdle for "high end" wireless VR on Quest 2, and theoretically other future wireless headsets, isn't the game, encoding, or networking, but rather the decoding part of pipeline. It's probably cost-prohibitive to have a PSVR 2 headset with hardware built-in that can decode video streams fast enough for low latency gameplay. Let alone the additional cost incurred from having a battery setup. I can see why Sony went with wired. It was necessity, really.

when I said "medium" i meant VR objectively in and of itself as an experience in its most advanced form. while it's true that they developed the first standalone headset, my point is that those engineering efforts fall more on the convenience/adoption side of things, and takes valuable money/resources away from a focus on VR itself. you seem to be quite knowledgeable on oculus history so don't forget that they actually scrapped higher end wired headsets after being bought out by facebook. their vision clearly changed from focusing on delivering the best possible VR experience to that of the "lowest common denominator" approach with the quest, casting a wide, shallow net to get more headset sales and wider adoption of VR. one could argue this was a form of "selling out".

this literally was the reason brendan iribe stated he left oculus:

https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/22/o...ook-after-cancellation-of-rift-2-headset/amp/

also, don't forget inside out tracking was available on the hp reverb before quest, finger tracking was done by magic leap years before, and vive trackers were also already around which allowed you to track anything, not just keyboards and desks. 120hz is great but what kind of fidelity are you going to have with a stand-alone snapdragon chip?

i agree on psvr2.
 

CrustyBritches

Gold Member
also, don't forget inside out tracking was available on the hp reverb before quest, finger tracking was done by magic leap years before, and vive trackers were also already around which allowed you to track anything, not just keyboards and desks. 120hz is great but what kind of fidelity are you going to have with a stand-alone snapdragon chip?

i agree on psvr2.
Here's the thing, though. How much of that stuff did Sony do with PSVR1? And you're using multiple VR headsets to equal what the Quest 2 does for $299. This is how Quest 2 has meaningfully pushed the medium forward: buy offering everything in a $299 headset that can be used standalone or wired/wirelessly in tandem with the most powerful PCs. They give VR developers a meaningful install base, with somewhere in the range of 10-15 million units on the market, and growing.

Looking at PSVR2 games, there's nothing groundbreaking there. RE4VR already exists on Quest 2, and RE8 has already been done by modders on PCVR. Horizon Call of the Mountain looks like it will be fun, but climbing and archery are common VR game mechanics. Screen quality should be great, and the eye tracking might have potential for performance saving although the games don't really look any different than PCVR.

Wireless 120Hz on Quest 2 looks great in the games my mid-range 3060 laptop can run at that speed. Latency is really good. For Quest 2 users looking for a high-end wireless experience, the quality of wireless performance comes down to hardware: A powerful enough GPU like a 3070 or better, and a good router that runs $100-200. For PSVR2, I believe the decision came down to restrictions on build cost. PS5 is powerful enough, routers and software can stream good enough, it was just cost-prohibitive to build a wireless unit like the Quest 2 in addition to the tech their putting in it.
 
Last edited:
It's simple. VR will be mainstream and successful when (in descending importance but all required):

-It's wireless AND the size, weight, and comfort of a pair of sunglasses. As it stands it's most people aren't willing to put up with the hassle, discomfort of a sweaty medieval torture device for a long gaming session
-It's entirely standalone, and doesn't require a beefy expensive rig to play its BEST games.
-It's got big heavyweight gaming experiences that parallels and inherits traditional gaming. Not just full body immersion stuff that requires you to move your arms around. It's fun at first but most people don't play games for hours to move their arms drastically, they want to relax. More traditional AAA stuff but like Moss, Astrobot, racers and flight sims, games that play like traditional sit down games with less strenuous controls and the occasional immersive gesture
-It has the aforementioned dimensions, top of the line specs to play the best games AND cost like $200-$300. Yeah, standalone for that price.

Right now some headsets are standalone and others are cheap but no single headset has ALL the conditions which I think is all necessary for the tipping point. I'd give it another 5-10 years.
 

Gambit2483

Member
VR is a REAL, legitimate (niche) gaming experience. I'm glad at least one of the "Big 3" are diving head first into it.
 
Top Bottom