By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Professional game dev explains why Sony's Morpheus won't get much backing from developers.

I think that some people are naysayers regardless of what it is. Those kind of people just like to say that you can't do something or that it won't work. There's 3 companies that I know of working on VR and sony is the furthest along to a final product. It also has the most popular console and they are friendly to devs. Hmmm, I wonder who will popularize VR with the mainstream.



Around the Network
Tachikoma said:

Poor aliasing protection (library)
Poor texture alignment/mapping
Poor foliage distribution
Extremely low poly branch geometry even on direct paths and key locations
No effort made at all to equalize quality between general play an zoomed in scripted events
Low quality repeating textures stretched to cover larger areas
Textures mapped to surfaces stretched along with geometry to bridge gaps in terrain without remapping texture positioning resulting in linear stretch
Low complexity collision mapping resulting in "Sorry you cant walk this way theres a twig on the ground" physics.
Mismatched texture quality along primary paths, both sides, with clear cut bridging in texture elements
Stark difference between the pulled-from-DOA player character mesh and actual game environment mesh complexity
Lighting clipping in subscene buffer draw because DOA5 engine not suited to game format.

Quoting this for bigtakilla, since you watched the stream you will now understand what i mean, esp the bolded.

Let's just try and forget the whole wood texture thing entirely, nobody deserves that in their memory.



Aeolus451 said:
Hmmm, I wonder who will popularize VR with the mainstream.

IMO, It wont be any one manufacturer, It will be a combined sum of all manufacturers making the push at the same time.



DonFerrari said:
So now all of a sudden some people think graphics matters and inovation is unnecessary?

I know that if Sony put at least one ND level game (QD or SSM could do as well) for it I would bite the 200 even if Just for the novelty.

That's the point, what is its audience. 



Tachikoma said:
Tachikoma said:

Poor aliasing protection (library)
Poor texture alignment/mapping
Poor foliage distribution
Extremely low poly branch geometry even on direct paths and key locations
No effort made at all to equalize quality between general play an zoomed in scripted events
Low quality repeating textures stretched to cover larger areas
Textures mapped to surfaces stretched along with geometry to bridge gaps in terrain without remapping texture positioning resulting in linear stretch
Low complexity collision mapping resulting in "Sorry you cant walk this way theres a twig on the ground" physics.
Mismatched texture quality along primary paths, both sides, with clear cut bridging in texture elements
Stark difference between the pulled-from-DOA player character mesh and actual game environment mesh complexity
Lighting clipping in subscene buffer draw because DOA5 engine not suited to game format.

Quoting this for bigtakilla, since you watched the stream you will now understand what i mean, esp the bolded.

Let's just try and forget the whole wood texture thing entirely, nobody deserves that in their memory.

Well yes, all true. But it feels like a retail game. With a decent budget.



Around the Network
Tachikoma said:
Aeolus451 said:
Hmmm, I wonder who will popularize VR with the mainstream.

IMO, It wont be any one manufacturer, It will be a combined sum of all manufacturers making the push at the same time.

True but sony is in the best position to lead it. 



I don't think the VR scene's games and popularity will come from the well known triple A publishers, and that doesn't mean that it wont have an audience. It might introduce a new level of play and interactivity. Making a game for that would appeal to a lot of experimental small studios.



.- -... -.-. -..

Some one help me. Are people actually whining about Vr graphics, based on 2d screen caps ? Really people, any one else see the pointlessness of opinions based of that alone ?



TheSpindler said:
Yeah I've been seeing the VR hype-train for a while now, and I still don't get why people think this will be successful anytime soon.

VR being successful needs to be taken up by the masses and there are too many roadblocks to that atm. Sony coming in wont really help as Sony has a checklist approach to tech like this. It exists but they wont go full steam ahead with it for it to be successful. A few games will come out from them, they'll fund a few more through third parties and some indies will jump on, and maybe some of the bigger companies will have a VR mode or something, and that'll be it.

How it looks, its graphics really don't matter, its success depends on developer support(which it seems will be a pain, along with the fact that most developers wont be supporting VR anyway) and it being cheap enough to afford and appealing enough for the consumer to pick up, which again comes down to games and how much games and which high profile or good games will have them.

There's also stuff like aesthetics(while wearing them) and awkwardness for the average consumer, but i don't think that its that much of a problem for most.

Really? Considering there's not a full blown commercial product out and there are an increasingly large list of developers on board with different VR projects:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_Oculus_Rift_support

With only the Occulus Rift dev kit, there are already nearing 200 games with native VR support plus others with unofficial mod support. That list is obviously not including studios involved with Sony and we don't know if any additional studios are involved with Valve and HTC's project.

The other factor that sceptics are completely ignoring is the fact that VR is also becoming a great medium for showing movies:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/facebook-oculus-story-studio-virtual-reality-films

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/534791/a-film-studio-for-the-age-of-virtual-reality/

So I very much doubt content will be a major hurdle.

The last problem for VR I see is cost, but we don't know how much these devices will cost yet. Obviously, costs will come down as time goes on though. 



Scoobes said:
TheSpindler said:
Yeah I've been seeing the VR hype-train for a while now, and I still don't get why people think this will be successful anytime soon.

VR being successful needs to be taken up by the masses and there are too many roadblocks to that atm. Sony coming in wont really help as Sony has a checklist approach to tech like this. It exists but they wont go full steam ahead with it for it to be successful. A few games will come out from them, they'll fund a few more through third parties and some indies will jump on, and maybe some of the bigger companies will have a VR mode or something, and that'll be it.

How it looks, its graphics really don't matter, its success depends on developer support(which it seems will be a pain, along with the fact that most developers wont be supporting VR anyway) and it being cheap enough to afford and appealing enough for the consumer to pick up, which again comes down to games and how much games and which high profile or good games will have them.

There's also stuff like aesthetics(while wearing them) and awkwardness for the average consumer, but i don't think that its that much of a problem for most.

Really? Considering there's not a full blown commercial product out and there are an increasingly large list of developers on board with different VR projects:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_Oculus_Rift_support

With only the Occulus Rift dev kit, there are already nearing 200 games with native VR support plus others with unofficial mod support. That list is obviously not including studios involved with Sony and we don't know if any additional studios are involved with Valve and HTC's project.

The other factor that sceptics are completely ignoring is the fact that VR is also becoming a great medium for showing movies:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/facebook-oculus-story-studio-virtual-reality-films

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/534791/a-film-studio-for-the-age-of-virtual-reality/

So I very much doubt content will be a major hurdle.

The last problem for VR I see is cost, but we don't know how much these devices will cost yet. Obviously, costs will come down as time goes on though. 

Like 3D was for gaming? I'm just saying it's not so cut and dry. There are a TON of 3D movies, and quite a few 3D games and it's not a big time hit. The best example we have is the 3DS, and most people prefered to turn the 3D off.