I'm not so sure the PSVR 2 will succeed, and may fall short like the first one. (PSVR2+PS5 may potentially cost $1,040 with two games)

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
PSVR2 is still tethered. Without a wireless option, it's going to require roughly the same setup as the first PSVR1, which was already enough for many users to let their headsets gather dust.
I think it is a far different issue from the setup PSVR1 had.
We were talking about far more cables, a separate breakout box, and the console had to go through the breakout box which did not support HDR (even if you upgraded to the second model with the HDR capable breakout box you will be bandwidth limited for 4K HDR and higher frame rate).
We are going from all that to a single cable between console and headset. It is unfair to see the two situations as comparable.

This was acceptable for the PSVR1, because it was the first generation of VR, but future facing VR is wireless, which places PSVR2 firmly in the past. Why buy a new VR headset when you stopped using the old one because it's a pain in the ass to setup?
Because it is a far better headset, with a far simpler setup, and supports next generation VR games ;).

Secondly, the cost. The PSVR1 punched well above its weight, coming in as the cheapest headset at the time of its release, while also providing a pretty great entry level experience. For its small cost, it provided a gateway into VR and was an easy recommendation. Hell, some PSVR1 and PS4 bundles were cheaper than some PC VR headsets on their own. However, times have changed. PSVR2 is not punching above its weight - it's punching at exactly its weight. All of the positive impressions for PSVR2 simply align it with existing PCVR headsets. So, its more expensive than the Quest 2, which is a pretty brilliant piece of kit and works with and without PC, but without really providing much in the way of truly objective improvements. Quest 2 has some really great games out of the box without requiring a PC, while PSVR2 requires a PS5. If you're just interested in VR, PS5 is now a comparably expensive option, whereas PS4 was really the most cost effective option if you wanted to get into VR. Now, this falls in line with Sony's current PlayStation pricing strategies - charge more for less - but its a proven kiss of death to peripherals. Without the value attraction of the PSVR1, I'm not sure PSVR2 will maintain strong sales after the launch period.

Another issue is that the PSVR2 will have a tiny library for, potentially, years. PCVR has spent years cultivating a large library, and even then, there's still only a few truly great titles. PSVR1 had this problem too, and it took most of the PS4 generation for it to build up a solid library of titles. PSVR2 throws all that work away. It now requires developers to do porting for free, or, require users to re-buy PSVR2 versions of their PSVR1 titles. Without a built-in day one library of improved titles, PSVR2 is a hard sell. The launch window looks to be almost laughable, and if it wasn't for Horizon, I'd question why Sony are releasing it at all.

Lastly, the "new" factor is gone, and combined with the above, means PSVR2's target audience is going to be that much smaller. At this point, core gamers have likely tried VR in some form. For a not-insignificant-number, VR isn't for them, or at best, the current crop of VR headsets isn't for them. PSVR2 doesn't really address a lot of that. "The image is less fuzzy" is a nice thing to solve, but if PSVR1 and Job Simulator wasn't for you, then PSVR2 likely won't be something you're chomping at the bit for. At least not at launch, given the low-quality initial offerings. The curiosity for VR has died down, and as part of that, it's found its enthusiasts, but also those you simply aren't coming back for another try just yet. I'm certainly a VR enthusiast, which is why I moved from PSVR1 to PCVR, and once Sony has built up a good raft of exclusives, I'll gladly jump in. But, I feel that I'm in the minority - and it creates a negative feedback loop. I won't buy in until Sony have properly supported it, which they won't do until people buy in. There's a chance there isn't enough critical mass for Sony to be able to fully support it, and we end up with another Vita: brilliant hardware with un-Godly wasted potential.

Anyway, thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
Compared to Quest 2 without PC perhaps, but then the visuals are nowhere near comparable and still specs wise (display tech) it does go above it too.

Compared to PSVR1 it is not only that much better of a headset, but it also packs the two controllers (and requires no PSVR camera) so it is still a quite good deal.
 

ArtHands

Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
These things aren't mutually exclusive. There are plenty of games I skipped on psvr1 because I was hopellful for psvr2 version and that was way before psvr2 was a thing. One of them is Saint and sinners. I'll be playing the definitive version on psvr2 and I'm glad I skiped the psvr1.
Also the bone works dev said they would gladly port their games to psvr 2 due to better controls. Thats why psvr1 never got. And I'm pretty sure loads vr devs are thinking the same. No more compromises.
Plus you'll get bunch of new games coming out as well. Shrugs
that's not the definitive version. That's just the 2nd game.

You said previously that you have played those games, and now you are saying there're plenty of games you skipped.

Actually, nevermind. I don't think you are making any sense at all.
 

midnightAI

Gold Member
They’ve announced like 25 games for it, including another 11 or something when they announced the release date. Whether or not it is strictly speaking the launch or the launch window or later, who cares. Most of the games are fucking LAME.

If they were going to announce ports of their top PSVR1 games I would think they would have already, but until they do, I am assuming they aren’t.
All you had to say was you don't know the launch lineup.

I have heard it so many times that the launch lineup is rubbish, but we don't actually know it yet, sure, there may not be anything more of note to add to the launch lineup, but we can't say for sure. But anyway, for me Resident Evil Village, Horizon, No Mans Sky, Switchback VR and then future releases alone (not sure if Walking Dead and Firewall Ultra are launch) are worth the price of entry, like any console, you don't really buy the console for just the launch titles.

Again, its all personal preference and you do you, I was just making the point that we don't actually know the launch lineup and I'm hoping Sony will have either a State of Play or full showcase where they show the launch and future titles.
 
Last edited:

diffusionx

Member
All you had to say was you don't know the launch lineup.

I have heard it so many times that the launch lineup is rubbish, but we don't actually know it yet, sure, there may not be anything more of note to add to the launch lineup, but we can't say for sure. But anyway, for me Resident Evil Village, Horizon, No Mans Sky, Switchback VR and then future releases alone (not sure if Walking Dead and Firewall Ultra are launch) are worth the price of entry, like any console, you don't really buy the console for just the launch titles.

Again, its all personal preference and you do you, I was just making the point that we don't actually know the launch lineup and I'm hoping Sony will have either a State of Play or full showcase where they show the launch and future titles.
I can only go by what Sony tells me. If there is some hidden cache of amazing titles that they are hiding from us, then they should stop doing it because they’re asking a lot of money for this thing. It’s coming out in a few months and they’re already taking preorders, so at some point you have to go with what you know.
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
I do believe launching a peripheral device that's more expensive than the device itself is sheer madness.
marisha ray horror GIF by Alpha
The PSVR launched more than the PS4. Especially the pack with controllers and a game which was $560. This is $40 more with 3 generations ahead of tech with a game packed in. Especially in a time of inflation, it really didn't inflate that much.
 

midnightAI

Gold Member
I can only go by what Sony tells me. If there is some hidden cache of amazing titles that they are hiding from us, then they should stop doing it because they’re asking a lot of money for this thing. It’s coming out in a few months and they’re already taking preorders, so at some point you have to go with what you know.
Well Sony haven't announced the launch lineup, they just put out a blog post saying here is 11 titles that are in development for PSVR 2, some of those aren't even launch titles. We'll get a launch list soon (well, we'll have to, its launching in Feb). I do agree that Sony could do better with the announcements but I do believe there is a showcase coming showing PS5 and PSVR 2 titles for 2023 and 2024 and that is why they are quiet.
 
Last edited:

Smokken

Member
I fail to see how PSVR2 price tag is an issue? 500$ for a decent vr headset is not much these days, unless you live in a shitty third world country with abysmal salary.
It would barely make a dent in my economy, and I only have an average income.
I suspect this is a Gen Z issue, expecting to get stuff cheap when you are still in college or whatever.

I see the same whining about price of games these days. 70$ for a new game is nothing, when you look back 30 years and realise they cost roughly the same back then....when income was way less than now.

If 500$ is a problem, I'd say time to prioritize differently.
 

SLB1904

Banned
that's not the definitive version. That's just the 2nd game.

You said previously that you have played those games, and now you are saying there're plenty of games you skipped.

Actually, nevermind. I don't think you are making any sense at all.
Lol look my post history. Always said I skip most the since I saw the potential of a proper vr headset. Don't put words in my mouth. I don't hide my post history go look
 

Hero_Select

Member
I would have strongly considered it if it had PC compatibility. As it is now, I can't justify purchasing it which is a shame because I'd like to upgrade my headset.

I'll just wait for a Quest 3/Index 2
 

poppabk

Member
As of today wireless means shitty visuals, the cable was required to don't make it more expensive and ensure better visuals. The setup is way more simple and easier to use than PSVR1 with no external cameras/sensors and a single cable.
The slight compression vs having a wire, I choose the former for anything that isn't a driving or flight sim and honestly I still often go with streaming for ease of use.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
The slight compression vs having a wire, I choose the former for anything that isn't a driving or flight sim and honestly I still often go with streaming for ease of use.
I choose high resolution to combat screen door, OLED, HDR, antiglare lenses, foveated eye tracking, etc.

Especailly when the wireless only lasts an hour and change on a good day.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
The slight compression vs having a wire, I choose the former for anything that isn't a driving or flight sim and honestly I still often go with streaming for ease of use.
It isn't only the compression and lower resolution, but also higher latency, occasional stutter and also battery life. I think we're still a few years away from having a stable, reliable and fast enough 4K 120fps wireless streaming, and to improve on batteries or consumption to have seamless VR wireless experience during several hours in a row.

The PSVR launched more than the PS4. Especially the pack with controllers and a game which was $560. This is $40 more with 3 generations ahead of tech with a game packed in. Especially in a time of inflation, it really didn't inflate that much.
PSVR was released in October 2016, $560 from then adding inflation were $687.60 in September 2022 (most recent month I found to compare).
 
Last edited:

ZehDon

Gold Member
As of today wireless means shitty visuals, the cable was required to don't make it more expensive and ensure better visuals. The setup is way more simple and easier to use than PSVR1 with no external cameras/sensors and a single cable.
Actually, Air Link on Quest 2 is incredibly solid, hence my complaint: we're passed cabled VR now. If you're experiencing issues with your Quest 2 Air Link setup, you should look into refining it, or, swapping to Virtual Desktop streaming, which offers a more configurable wireless implementation. Playing Duck Season over Air Link yesterday, it was literally perfect. I played through all of Walking Dead: Saints and Sinners, and never had a single issue wirelessly. As for the setup, the PSVR1 first time setup involved the camera, breakout box, etc. After that, it was just a matter of connecting the headset via a cable with two end plugs. This is what I meant in my post: the on-going setup to just play a game. The PSVR2 will require exactly the same amount of setup - taking out the headset and plugging it in - and so, it'll fall prey to the same issue as the PSVR1.

PSVR2 is cheaper than the PSVR1 setup needed was at launch (PSVR1+camera+controllers) specially considering the inflation, and that the setup that similar headsets had. PSVR2 is way better than Quest 2: bigger resolution, eye tracking, haptic feedback in the headset and controllers, OLED display instead of LCD, bigger field of view, etc. and this is why it costs $150 more.
This is simply wrong. The PSVR1 launched at AUD$499.00. The camera was AUD$79.95 and a brand-new set of controllers was also AUD$79.95. Adjust for inflation, that's AUD$750.00 in 2022. However, even that's disingenuous: the camera was included in many launch bundles, including mine, and PS3 Move controllers could be picked for ten bucks. The Quest 2 is AUD$630.00 delivered today. The PSVR2 is launching for AUD$900.00. The PSVR2 is a marginal improvement over the Quest 2 in terms of raw specs, with the biggest improvement being the OLED screen. It actually has a lower PPR (pixel per radian) display than the Quest 2, meaning a slightly lower (and I mean slight, it's like 5% lower) perceptible resolution in the headset. Cost wise, the PSVR2 is quite a lot more expensive than either the PSVR1 and the Quest 2, adjusted for launch.

If you want to play high end like Alyx games on Quest 2 to get a somewhat similar high end games quality than in PS5 you'll need a PC that it's going to be over $150 more expensive than a PS5.
Actually, a PS5 costs AUD$850.00. You can get a mid-range VR ready PC for that - not inclusive of a monitor, mouse, keyboard, etc. However, the Quest 2 doesn't require a PC. Top-notch titles like RE4VR, Bonelabs, and Into the Radius, as well as high quality titles like Beat Sabre, Pistol Whip, Asgard's Wrath, are all fully playable and enjoyable in the Quest 2 without a PC at all.

Yes, you can use low end games that run only in the headset ... in the same way you can also run Google VR cardboard stuff with your phone or Nintendo labo. But that won't be the a somewhat similar experience to PSVR2 at all.
Comparing the Quest 2 to Google VR Cardboard is fucking laughable. Have you even used a Quest 2? You're aware that the PSVR2 is using nearly identical tracking and perceptible resolution, right? Yes, the PS5 will deliver industry leading graphics. No arguments there. However, looking over the launch line up for PSVR2, there's precisely one game that can't be done on a Quest 2.

Yes, the library will be smaller at launch. We'll have to see which PSVR1 games are going to be ported to PSVR2. We know some now but obviously won't be like in PC.
This isn't something to be hand waved away: the PSVR2's library needs to justify all of Sony's choices. They need to deliver and fast. So far, the launch line up looks kinda terrible for the asking price.

PSVR2 will be the lowest priced and easier to setup high end premium VR experience...
What does this mean? What are you comparing it to?

. In theory at launch they'll have enough units ready (2M) as would be around a third of what PSVR1 sold (6M)...
You're conflating shipped with sold, and that's what we're discussing. A $900.00 peripheral to an $850.00 console that doesn't solve several of the core issues with the previous hardware iteration with exactly one launch title that may or may not be good. Will Sony sell those 2m units, or, will people leave it on shelves until its worth the asking price?

... Sony with PSVR2 makes other step on maturing the tech and games but it's still far from maturing it but it will be closer than if PSVR2 would have been a low end standalone $300 headset.
Actually, PSVR2 doesn't really push VR forward much at all. It uses Quest 2 style tracking, Quest 2 style controllers, and a Quest 2 level screen - though, OLED over LCD - and, it's still tethered. And you're being disingenuous: literally no one is saying Sony should've launched a deliberately lower-class headset. People are saying Sony should've offered a USB-C wireless receiver - even as an optional purchase - and price the headset like a console peripheral. I believe PSVR2's cost is a bridge too far. Meta can sell a stand-alone wireless VR device with comparable specs for nearly AUD$300.00 less - and it has a literal computer built inside! This all comes down to current Sony strategies: charge more for less. Sony has the market leader position, and its charging people as much as it possibly can for everything from games, to services, to hardware, because it knows people will pay it and defend it.
 

poppabk

Member
I choose high resolution to combat screen door, OLED, HDR, antiglare lenses, foveated eye tracking, etc.

Especailly when the wireless only lasts an hour and change on a good day.

It isn't only the compression and lower resolution, but also higher latency, occasional stutter and also battery life. I think we're still a few years away from having a stable, reliable and fast enough 4K 120fps wireless streaming, and to improve on batteries or consumption to have seamless VR wireless experience during several hours in a row.
There is very little latency, no drop in resolution and no stutters. Compression is the main drawback, but it is not particularly noticeable unless you are looking for it. Wired will be fine, but if there was an option for wireless trust me you would use it, if I could I would have the quest 2 boot straight into Virtual Desktop and have the Quest part as a separate app instead of the other way around.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
There is very little latency, no drop in resolution and no stutters. Compression is the main drawback, but it is not particularly noticeable unless you are looking for it. Wired will be fine, but if there was an option for wireless trust me you would use it, if I could I would have the quest 2 boot straight into Virtual Desktop and have the Quest part as a separate app instead of the other way around.
I’m not saying I wouldn’t use it, but a single long USB-C wire is not a deal breaker for me… at all, especially when all the other tech is the best in the biz at the moment.
 
Last edited:

poppabk

Member
I’m not saying I would use it, but a single long USB-C wire is not a deal breaker for me… at all, especially when all the other tech is the best in the biz at the moment.
I agree it's not a deal breaker but I do still hold out hope they will figure out a way to have it is as some kind of add-on.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
As for the setup, the PSVR1 first time setup involved the camera, breakout box, etc. After that, it was just a matter of connecting the headset via a cable with two end plugs. This is what I meant in my post: the on-going setup to just play a game. The PSVR2 will require exactly the same amount of setup - taking out the headset and plugging it in - and so, it'll fall prey to the same issue as the PSVR1.
Same setup just hand waving away all the multitude of cables and the impact of the breakout box on what you console displays (and still a far ticker cable connecting the breakout box to the headset than one single USB cable).
You are seriously underestimating the mess that the old breakout box caused to one’s setup permanently that the new one did not.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Actually, Air Link on Quest 2 is incredibly solid, hence my complaint: we're passed cabled VR now. If you're experiencing issues with your Quest 2 Air Link setup, you should look into refining it, or, swapping to Virtual Desktop streaming, which offers a more configurable wireless implementation. Playing Duck Season over Air Link yesterday, it was literally perfect. I played through all of Walking Dead: Saints and Sinners, and never had a single issue wirelessly. As for the setup, the PSVR1 first time setup involved the camera, breakout box, etc. After that, it was just a matter of connecting the headset via a cable with two end plugs. This is what I meant in my post: the on-going setup to just play a game. The PSVR2 will require exactly the same amount of setup - taking out the headset and plugging it in - and so, it'll fall prey to the same issue as the PSVR1.


This is simply wrong. The PSVR1 launched at AUD$499.00. The camera was AUD$79.95 and a brand-new set of controllers was also AUD$79.95. Adjust for inflation, that's AUD$750.00 in 2022. However, even that's disingenuous: the camera was included in many launch bundles, including mine, and PS3 Move controllers could be picked for ten bucks. The Quest 2 is AUD$630.00 delivered today. The PSVR2 is launching for AUD$900.00. The PSVR2 is a marginal improvement over the Quest 2 in terms of raw specs, with the biggest improvement being the OLED screen. It actually has a lower PPR (pixel per radian) display than the Quest 2, meaning a slightly lower (and I mean slight, it's like 5% lower) perceptible resolution in the headset. Cost wise, the PSVR2 is quite a lot more expensive than either the PSVR1 and the Quest 2, adjusted for launch.


Actually, a PS5 costs AUD$850.00. You can get a mid-range VR ready PC for that - not inclusive of a monitor, mouse, keyboard, etc. However, the Quest 2 doesn't require a PC. Top-notch titles like RE4VR, Bonelabs, and Into the Radius, as well as high quality titles like Beat Sabre, Pistol Whip, Asgard's Wrath, are all fully playable and enjoyable in the Quest 2 without a PC at all.


Comparing the Quest 2 to Google VR Cardboard is fucking laughable. Have you even used a Quest 2? You're aware that the PSVR2 is using nearly identical tracking and perceptible resolution, right? Yes, the PS5 will deliver industry leading graphics. No arguments there. However, looking over the launch line up for PSVR2, there's precisely one game that can't be done on a Quest 2.


This isn't something to be hand waved away: the PSVR2's library needs to justify all of Sony's choices. They need to deliver and fast. So far, the launch line up looks kinda terrible for the asking price.


What does this mean? What are you comparing it to?


You're conflating shipped with sold, and that's what we're discussing. A $900.00 peripheral to an $850.00 console that doesn't solve several of the core issues with the previous hardware iteration with exactly one launch title that may or may not be good. Will Sony sell those 2m units, or, will people leave it on shelves until its worth the asking price?


Actually, PSVR2 doesn't really push VR forward much at all. It uses Quest 2 style tracking, Quest 2 style controllers, and a Quest 2 level screen - though, OLED over LCD - and, it's still tethered. And you're being disingenuous: literally no one is saying Sony should've launched a deliberately lower-class headset. People are saying Sony should've offered a USB-C wireless receiver - even as an optional purchase - and price the headset like a console peripheral. I believe PSVR2's cost is a bridge too far. Meta can sell a stand-alone wireless VR device with comparable specs for nearly AUD$300.00 less - and it has a literal computer built inside! This all comes down to current Sony strategies: charge more for less. Sony has the market leader position, and it’s charging people as much as it possibly can for everything from games, to services, to hardware, because it knows people will pay it and defend it.
Given how much credit you are giving them for their screen, not sure how fair the rest of the assessment is, but sure Facebook is not selling the quest at a massive loss… :rolleyes:.

What they do with wireless, when they can do it in an affordable way without sacrificing the quality of the video and the latency (the “fine for you” might mean others being motion sick). We will see more when the headset is going to be out. You are being massively unfair to it IMHO.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
I agree it's not a deal breaker but I do still hold out hope they will figure out a way to have it is as some kind of add-on.
I’m guessing if this does as well as PSVR1, we will see a wireless version down the line utilizing the wifi 6.
 

ArtHands

Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
There is very little latency, no drop in resolution and no stutters. Compression is the main drawback, but it is not particularly noticeable unless you are looking for it. Wired will be fine, but if there was an option for wireless trust me you would use it, if I could I would have the quest 2 boot straight into Virtual Desktop and have the Quest part as a separate app instead of the other way around.

Yup. Wireless essentially gives you both option, since you can use it both as a wireless and wired. If you want wireless , you can use it as a wireless. If your brother prefer wired he can just plug the usb c and play it wired.

Besides, Quest 2 is also capable of running the game all by itself, so there’s no latency unless you’re streaming a PCVR game
 
Last edited:

ArtHands

Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Comparing the Quest 2 to Google VR Cardboard is fucking laughable. Have you even used a Quest 2? You're aware that the PSVR2 is using nearly identical tracking and perceptible resolution, right? Yes, the PS5 will deliver industry leading graphics. No arguments there. However, looking over the launch line up for PSVR2, there's precisely one game that can't be done on a Quest 2.
Indeed this. Both library has major overlaps and will likely be the case going forward, so saying they won’t have somewhat similar experience is setting yourself for disappointment
 

poppabk

Member
Same setup just hand waving away all the multitude of cables and the impact of the breakout box on what you console displays (and still a far ticker cable connecting the breakout box to the headset than one single USB cable).
You are seriously underestimating the mess that the old breakout box caused to one’s setup permanently that the new one did not.
Yeah a guy at my work is on the fence about PSVR2 because the set-up of the original was such a pain in the ass that he stopped using it.
 

LiquidMetal14

hide your water-based mammals
Think about this in simple ways.

We as adults spend a lot of money on things, including VR, that cost more to some and nothing to others.

Also, much like when us adults buy nice things, go on vacation, and buy hookers, we do it because we want and can do it.

And it's cool to make a thread like this but us adults with money need no warning to make a decision that will seem niche to you or the next person. I hope the thing is successful because it will be one of the best headsets out there.

And that means it will cost me the house I bought, the down payment on the electric to be turned on, console, VR, game, 65" LGCX, and comfy couch.

I hope this thing is successful. It's an awesome piece of tech. This is from a 4090PC w/Valve Index owner.
 
Last edited:

ZehDon

Gold Member
Same setup just hand waving away all the multitude of cables and the impact of the breakout box on what you console displays (and still a far ticker cable connecting the breakout box to the headset than one single USB cable).
You are seriously underestimating the mess that the old breakout box caused to one’s setup permanently that the new one did not.
That's a fair point - one that didn't impact me with the PSVR1 at all, so perhaps I am unintentionally downplaying that element. Do you think that it impacted the majority of PSVR1 users?

Given how much credit you are giving them for their screen, not sure how fair the rest of the assessment is, but sure Facebook is not selling the quest at a massive loss… :rolleyes:.

What they do with wireless, when they can do it in an affordable way without sacrificing the quality of the video and the latency (the “fine for you” might mean others being motion sick). We will see more when the headset is going to be out. You are being massively unfair to it IMHO.
This post is a bit of a mess.

OLED is better than LCD, no question, but you're pretending Quest 2's screen is some kind of unusable mess. It's actually pretty great - though, not as good as an OLED, obviously. As for the cost: Meta increased the price of the Quest 2 when they removed Facebook from it, because they were offsetting the cost of the hardware by that value. Now, they have to price it without the loss-lead, because its now entirely possible to use Quest 2 without giving Meta an additional cent past the hardware purchase. Quest 2 is priced AUD$630.00 delivered today and is considered profitable. PSVR2 is priced AUD$900.00 - nearly AUD$300.00 more. Do you really think PSVR2 - which requires a PS5 and can't connect to a PC - is AUD$300.00 better than the Quest 2? Really?

With regards to wireless VR, either you haven't used it, or, you know very little about it. On Quest 2 today, with the appropriate hardware, there's imperceptible latency and video differences. You're talking to someone who doesn't tolerate those kinds of things well. Again, you're pretending Quest 2 is some kind of mess held together with duct tape. It isn't.

I'm not being unfair to PSVR2 at all. I've outlined my concerns with the device, a large number of which exist due to the high price. If it was priced AUD$500 - the same as the PSVR1 at its launch - I largely wouldn't complain at all, because it'd be the cheaper headset delivering an experience on par with the market leader. That's an objective win for PSVR2 owners. Good job Sony, gold star. But, that's not what Sony are delivering. It's AUD$300.00 more expensive than the market leader - and AUD$400.00 more expensive than its previous iteration - so, I set my expectations accordingly, and PSVR2 doesn't meet them for me. It doesn't offer AUD$300.00 more value. Which is sad: PSVR1 knocked it out of the park and delivered an incredibly entry level VR experience for the asking price. PS4+PSVR1 was an easy recommendation. RE7 on my PSVR1 is still, hands down, the best VR I've ever experience. So, PSVR2 will deliver a high-quality VR experience and its owners will love it - it's simply not as attractive a value proposition as it should be, because Sony's current pricing strategy charges more for less.
 
Last edited:

midnightAI

Gold Member
With regards to wireless VR, either you haven't used it, or, you know very little about it. On Quest 2 today, with the appropriate hardware, there's imperceptible latency and video differences. You're talking to someone who doesn't tolerate those kinds of things well. Again, you're pretending Quest 2 is some kind of mess held together with duct tape. It isn't.
One major thing you appear to be forgetting about with PSVR2 is the eye tracking. Foveated rendering is used to allow the PS5 to hit above its weight and the round trip latency needs to be below 70ms (ideally much faster than that). Also allows devs to use the eye tracking in creative ways (such as the blink mechanic in Switchback).
 

ArtHands

Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
One major thing you appear to be forgetting about with PSVR2 is the eye tracking. Foveated rendering is used to allow the PS5 to hit above its weight and the round trip latency needs to be below 70ms (ideally much faster than that). Also allows devs to use the eye tracking in creative ways (such as the blink mechanic in Switchback).

That example is literally the only example here. At the moment hand tracking on Quest 2 is more adopted by developers in the VR industry.
 

ZehDon

Gold Member
One major thing you appear to be forgetting about with PSVR2 is the eye tracking. Foveated rendering is used to allow the PS5 to hit above its weight and the round trip latency needs to be below 70ms (ideally much faster than that). Also allows devs to use the eye tracking in creative ways (such as the blink mechanic in Switchback).
I didn't forget at all, it's simply not going to do what we all thought. John Carmack commented during Connect 2022 that eye-tracked foveated rendering wasn't all that great in terms of improving performance. Turns out, the processing necessary to detect where a human eye is looking actually eats up a lot of time. Foveated rendering's primary benefit is full resolution FOV - which only really works with pancake lenses, which PSVR2 doesn't use. Looking around the FOV will still result in blurred edges without those lenses. Eye tracking in terms of games will be nice, however, it's not enough to justify AUD$300.00. In terms of performance improvements, Meta are working on new techniques that allow for better ASW implementations, allowing for - hypothetical - 70% improvements in application performance at the high end. With that said, it's all software, so we're likely to see developers implement similar techniques for PSVR2 titles if it all pans out.
 
Last edited:

midnightAI

Gold Member
That example is literally the only example here. At the moment hand tracking on Quest 2 is more adopted by developers in the VR industry.
Are you talking about the blink mechanic? I was mentioning that more as an aside, the foveated rendering is much more important and will be used by the majority of the larger PSVR 2 titles (Horizon, Resident Evil etc will use it).Hand tracking just uses the inside out cameras, PSVR 2 will be able to do the same.
 

midnightAI

Gold Member
I didn't forget at all, it's simply not going to do what we all thought. John Carmack commented during Connect 2022 that eye-tracked foveated rendering wasn't all that great in terms of improving performance. Turns out, the processing necessary to detect where a human eye is looking actually eats up a lot of time. Foveated rendering's primary benefit is full resolution FOV - which only really works with pancake lenses, which PSVR2 doesn't use. Looking around the FOV will still result in blurred edges without those lenses. Eye tracking in terms of games will be nice, however, it's not enough to justify AUD$300.00. In terms of performance improvements, Meta are working on new techniques that allow for better ASW implementations, allowing for - hypothetical - 70% improvements in application performance at the high end. With that said, it's all software, so we're likely to see developers implement similar techniques for PSVR2 titles if it all pans out.
Carmack was saying there isn't much performance benefit of dynamic foveated rendering over fixed foveated rendering not that it didn't much improve performance.
 

ZehDon

Gold Member
Carmack was saying there isn't much performance benefit of dynamic foveated rendering over fixed foveated rendering not that it didn't much improve performance.
You typed out something that disagrees with your original position, and yet, posted it as a response to me disagreeing with your original position. PSVR1 used fixed foveated rendering, Quest 2 uses fixed foveated rendering, Valve's Index uses fixed foveated rendering. Eye-tracked foveated rendering doesn't improve upon the performance gains of this technique, so, the PSVR2 doesn't get a bonus point to "punch above its weight" because it now has eye-tracked foveated rendering: every VR solution uses foveated rendering, so everything is punching above its weight. PSVR2 is not special in this regard.
 
Last edited:

ArtHands

Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Are you talking about the blink mechanic? I was mentioning that more as an aside, the foveated rendering is much more important and will be used by the majority of the larger PSVR 2 titles (Horizon, Resident Evil etc will use it).Hand tracking just uses the inside out cameras, PSVR 2 will be able to do the same.

PSVR2 technically could but fact is it doesn’t.
 

midnightAI

Gold Member
You typed out something that disagrees with your original position, and yet, posted it as a response to me disagreeing with your original position. PSVR1 used fixed foveated rendering, Quest 2 uses fixed foveated rendering, Valve's Index uses fixed foveated rendering. Eye-tracked foveated rendering doesn't improve upon the performance gains of this technique, so, the PSVR2 doesn't get a bonus point to "punch above its weight" because it now has eye-tracked foveated rendering: every VR solution uses foveated rendering, so everything is punching above its weight. PSVR2 is not special in this regard.
Well, no, depends on how aggressive you are with FFR, in PSVR games that did use it they weren't aggressive at all, you can look to the edges of the screen and still see everything mostly clear. Dynamic FR allows you to be much more aggressive as I'm sure you are aware. Dynamic FFR does improve on performance because of this (and you don't get crappy picture quality across the screen, so yeh, hits above its weight as it's effectively full resolution across the screen when you look at it)
 
Last edited:

Varteras

Gold Member
I was getting concerned that we weren't seeing enough obligatory negative threads surrounding Sony from the usual suspects after another confirmed banger from them. All is well.

But I'm not one to make such a post without engaging in the topic. So my response to the OP is... yes.
 

ZehDon

Gold Member
Well, no, depends on how aggressive you are with FFR, in PSVR games that did use it they weren't aggressive at all, you can look to the edges of the screen and still see everything mostly clear. Dynamic FR allows you to be much more aggressive as I'm sure you are aware.
Basically none of this is true? PSVR1 games employed fixed foveated rendering to the degree required to achieve their performance targets, and PSVR2 will do the same. Eye-tracked foveated rendering doesn't magically lower performance targets - it just allows you to alter the area of screen rendered at lower resolutions. That's all it does. The PSVR's custom OLED pixel arrangement helped hide the lower edge quality quite a bit in combination with its lenses - part of the PSVR1's special sauce. I'm sorry, but the PSVR2's foveated rendering doesn't have some kind of PlayStation Magic® that allows it to be dramatically more performant than every other foveated rendering implementation. PSVR2 is punching exactly its weight.
 
Last edited:

midnightAI

Gold Member
Basically none of this is true? PSVR1 games employed fixed foveated rendering to the degree required to achieve their performance targets, and PSVR2 will do the same. Eye-tracked foveated rendering doesn't magically lower performance targets - it just allows you to alter the area of screen rendered at lower resolutions. That's all it does. The PSVR's custom OLED pixel arrangement helped hide the lower edge quality quite a bit in combination with its lenses - part of the PSVR1's special sauce. I'm sorry, but the PSVR2's foveated rendering doesn't have some kind of PlayStation Magic® that allows it to be more dramatically more performant than every other foveated rendering implementation. PSVR2 is punching exactly its weight.
The resolution for foveated rendering isn't fixed, you can alter the resolution and size of the foveated area, using FFR the area was quite large and outside of that (for most PSVR games at least which did have FFR) the resolution wasn't lowered all that much, that's why Tobii are quoting 2.5x for FFR and 3.6x for dynamic so there are performance gains, and like I said, when you effectively look around the display using dynamic foveated rendering you see the full resolution compared to FFR which is blurred around the edges so visual gains also.
 

ArtHands

Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
I don't get your point? I'm talking about latency, why PSVR 2 is wired, I don't see what hand tracking has to do with anything?

Oh, you were replying something about latency by bringing up foveated rendering which is irrelevant, so I thought you were trying to indicate that it has this feature to compensate for the lack of streaming feature.
 

midnightAI

Gold Member
Oh, you were replying something about latency by bringing up foveated rendering which is irrelevant, so I thought you were trying to indicate that it has this feature to compensate for the lack of streaming feature.
Foveated Rendering isn't affected by latency? Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying that eye tracking is nothing to do with Foveated Rendering? I'm confused (maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say)
 
Depends on what your idea of “succeed” is. VR is definitely not the future of gaming, I think we know that by now. However, Sony is gonna make bank off it…soooo, I’m pretty sure they will see that as a “success” regardless of what GAF thinks 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:

ArtHands

Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Foveated Rendering isn't affected by latency? Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying that eye tracking is nothing to do with Foveated Rendering? I'm confused (maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say)
The real question is why is latency being brought up in the first place. Quest 2 doesn't need an external machine to run at all so I thought you are just bringing in irrelevant point.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
That's a fair point - one that didn't impact me with the PSVR1 at all, so perhaps I am unintentionally downplaying that element. Do you think that it impacted the majority of PSVR1 users?
I think so, I think the majority of people got the first revision which made it even more of a mess to use, but even the second one with the HDR pass through was limiting and coming with PS5 was blocking you from taking advantage of your HDMI 2.1 features and full bandwidth and was still a mess of extra cables and an extra box in your AV centre.

OLED is better than LCD, no question, but you're pretending Quest 2's screen is some kind of unusable mess.
Never said it was an unusable mess, just that the PSVR2 OLED screens with HDR are better, period :).
You have higher resolution, eye tracking, HDR vs SDR, OLED vs LCD, higher FoV, etc…


Not sure why most comparisons disregard the HDR support in PSVR2…

It's actually pretty great - though, not as good as an OLED, obviously. As for the cost: Meta increased the price of the Quest 2 when they removed Facebook from it, because they were offsetting the cost of the hardware by that value. Now, they have to price it without the loss-lead, because its now entirely possible to use Quest 2 without giving Meta an additional cent past the hardware purchase. Quest 2 is priced AUD$630.00 delivered today and is considered profitable. PSVR2 is priced AUD$900.00 - nearly AUD$300.00 more. Do you really think PSVR2 - which requires a PS5 and can't connect to a PC - is AUD$300.00 better than the Quest 2? Really?
Once I think about the cost to get to the games I want and the visuals I want yes it is better (eye tracking leading to proper dynamic foveated rendering should allow the PS5 to punch ahead quite a bit, sure you have much faster PC’s available, but you are adding to the cost), plus they seem to have invested a great deal again in comfort and user friendly features (headset weight and materials, small fan in the headset to let air circulate better, space for glasses, eye distance regulation controls on the headset, etc…).
Controllers and features wise we also have the same DualSense haptic feedback in the new controller and the headset which should be quite nice too.

With regards to wireless VR, either you haven't used it, or, you know very little about it. On Quest 2 today, with the appropriate hardware, there's imperceptible latency and video differences. You're talking to someone who doesn't tolerate those kinds of things well. Again, you're pretending Quest 2 is some kind of mess held together with duct tape. It isn't.

I'm not being unfair to PSVR2 at all. I've outlined my concerns with the device, a large number of which exist due to the high price. If it was priced AUD$500 - the same as the PSVR1 at its launch - I largely wouldn't complain at all, because it'd be the cheaper headset delivering an experience on par with the market leader. That's an objective win for PSVR2 owners. Good job Sony, gold star. But, that's not what Sony are delivering. It's AUD$300.00 more expensive than the market leader - and AUD$400.00 more expensive than its previous iteration - so, I set my expectations accordingly, and PSVR2 doesn't meet them for me. It doesn't offer AUD$300.00 more value. Which is sad: PSVR1 knocked it out of the park and delivered an incredibly entry level VR experience for the asking price. PS4+PSVR1 was an easy recommendation. RE7 on my PSVR1 is still, hands down, the best VR I've ever experience. So, PSVR2 will deliver a high-quality VR experience and its owners will love it - it's simply not as attractive a value proposition as it should be, because Sony's current pricing strategy charges more for less.
Yes you are being unfair, you are comparing a headset that is newer and better specced (Wireless aside) and we are talking here in the UK about £459 for the Oculus Quest 2 with controllers vs the £530 PSVR2 bundle with controllers. Meta is still heavily subsidising it too (they are spending a fortune on the meta verse).

I compare PSVR2 with the £420-430 PSVR1+PS Move Controllers bundle’s today prices (again much worse controllers). Again, currency exchange issues wise it stacks well.

For some reason not only people are not mentioning eye tracking as one of the non cheap specs differences (haptic feedback too), but are now downplaying it? Odd…
 
Last edited:

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
The resolution for foveated rendering isn't fixed, you can alter the resolution and size of the foveated area, using FFR the area was quite large and outside of that (for most PSVR games at least which did have FFR) the resolution wasn't lowered all that much, that's why Tobii are quoting 2.5x for FFR and 3.6x for dynamic so there are performance gains, and like I said, when you effectively look around the display using dynamic foveated rendering you see the full resolution compared to FFR which is blurred around the edges so visual gains also.
Exactly, you are able to push dynamic foveated rendering further and without the same negative visual impact… which means more games can take advantage of it more easily. It was widely known lack of eye tracking was holding foveated rendering back.

ZehDon ZehDon you are now downplaying eye tracking foveated rendering why? Because Quest 2 does not have it (comparing it to lowering the resolution of peripheral parts of the screen regardless of what people are focused on really?…)?
 

Three

Member
PSVR2 is still tethered. Without a wireless option, it's going to require roughly the same setup as the first PSVR1,
which was already enough for many users to let their headsets gather dust. That's an issue because users who purchased, and later abandoned, PSVR1 due to this will likely not be jumping in once they apply a little thought. This was acceptable for the PSVR1, because it was the first generation of VR, but future facing VR is wireless, which places PSVR2 firmly in the past. Why buy a new VR headset when you stopped using the old one because it's a pain in the ass to setup?

That's nonsense, "roughly the same setup" it isn't. I had the latest revision of the PSVR1 on a PS4 Pro and still had a mess setting up a breakout box and had to face a specific way for line of sight to a camera. This is just a usb-c to the PS5 directly with inside out tracking meaning you don't have to set up anything, just plug it in. People are exaggeration this thing but seem to never raise it for other high end headsets like the VIVE or Valve Index.
 
Last edited:
You know it's a great (some might even say: GOLD) thread and great analysis when the usual bunch of morons give LOL reactions and reply with stupid GIFs.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom