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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Do You Own a VR Device?

 

Do You Own a VR Device?

Yes, and it's awesome 168 13.05%
 
Yes, it's alright 84 6.53%
 
Yes, but I regret it 43 3.34%
 
No, but I really want one 143 11.11%
 
No, but I'm considering it 243 18.88%
 
No, not interested at all 606 47.09%
 
Total:1,287
vivster said:
Errorist76 said:

Have you seen the cost, the weight and the size of the Vive wireless pack?

Wireless data transmission costs huge amounts of power, especially at high res 90 fps stereoscopic with ultra low latency.

I’m sure you’ve experienced how fast your cell phone drains from looking at a few websites.

It also needs a very high bandwidth data transmission, all this is not cheap.

My cellphone needs more than 1 day to drain and I'm playing Hearthstone with it while having 4G, bluetooth and wifi on at all times. You need to get a better phone. Wireless transmission is extremely efficient nowadays and will only consume a tiny fraction of what the display does, which is what the battery pack is mostly for.

The battery pack is just huge because the Vive is not meant to be used wireless and has as such zero energy saving features and hardware, let alone proper compression. Also because it's external and not integrated. A proper headset that's designed for wireless use is gonna be just fine.

Isn't hearthstone a 2D game? I know Switch drained rather fast while playing Zelda and that only has one 720p screen. A good next gen headset should start with dual 1440p screens. For wireless it can't use a lot of compression as any compression artifacts will be very noticeable when blown up to 150 degree stereoscopic view and interfere with the stereoscopic effect as well. dual 1440p at 90fps is 1.85 GB/s uncompressed. Some compression is required plus using multiple 5GHZ channels to get all that data across. Then enough processing power in the device to handle decompressing and displaying that 1.85 GB/S dual 1440p image at 90hz.

It's not comparable to your phone playing a 2D game on a single screen while occasionally sending a wireless data packet.



Around the Network
Errorist76 said:
KazumaKiryu said:

I dont have a VR system, but would like to try out "Summer Lesson", "Resident Evil 7" and the new "Astro Bot" game on PSVR :)


Astro Bot is maybe Jump'n Run of the Year and the best VR-Game. 89 % ratings, worldwide. In my opinion, its impressive for a VR-title. Here some words:
Gaming Age - 100 %
"Astro Bot Rescue Mission is an extremely fun and engaging game, and a dynamite addition to the growing PSVR library. At $39.99, it is an absolute bargain for what you get here. Once you start playing you will find it hard to stop. Games like these are the reason why I love PlayStation VR as much as I do. It’s a simple concept that works on so many levels here. If you have a PSVR system, Definitely check this one out, I can’t recommend it enough"!

Playstation Universe - 95 %
"Easily the best platformer and PS VR game on the market this year. Astro Bot: Rescue Mission is a showcase to how VR should be utilized moving forward. Astro Bot: Rescue Mission is a must buy".

IGN Italia - 90 %
"Astro Bot: Rescue Mission is a one of a kind platform game. A smart, funny, unpredictable game that testifies to how the VR can truly change any game".

IGN - 90 %
"The challenging platforming and natural implementation of VR make it one of the most interesting and genuinely new-feeling games in recent memory. Astro Bot Rescue Mission delivers on the potential of PSVR and is a must-buy for owners of the device".

Digital Chumps - 90 %
"Astro Bot Rescue Mission neatly unfolds platforming’s trick and tropes with immunity from the traditional hazards of virtual reality. Astro Bot is a treasure for PlayStation VR enthusiasts".

I can sign all that. Just been playing two more levels and it makes me feel like a kid again. I’ve been smiling and giggling as if it was my first video game.

good to know, thank you! Maybe I will test it in the near future.



SvennoJ said:
vivster said:

My cellphone needs more than 1 day to drain and I'm playing Hearthstone with it while having 4G, bluetooth and wifi on at all times. You need to get a better phone. Wireless transmission is extremely efficient nowadays and will only consume a tiny fraction of what the display does, which is what the battery pack is mostly for.

The battery pack is just huge because the Vive is not meant to be used wireless and has as such zero energy saving features and hardware, let alone proper compression. Also because it's external and not integrated. A proper headset that's designed for wireless use is gonna be just fine.

Isn't hearthstone a 2D game? I know Switch drained rather fast while playing Zelda and that only has one 720p screen. A good next gen headset should start with dual 1440p screens. For wireless it can't use a lot of compression as any compression artifacts will be very noticeable when blown up to 150 degree stereoscopic view and interfere with the stereoscopic effect as well. dual 1440p at 90fps is 1.85 GB/s uncompressed. Some compression is required plus using multiple 5GHZ channels to get all that data across. Then enough processing power in the device to handle decompressing and displaying that 1.85 GB/S dual 1440p image at 90hz.

It's not comparable to your phone playing a 2D game on a single screen while occasionally sending a wireless data packet.

And people are demanding 4k or more per display on a wireless VR device for affordable 300$ per unit including controllers..... Yeah no....not happening for the next 10 years or more.

 

Edit: 

Https://newatlas.com/world-record-wireless-data-transmission-access-6-gb-s/43495/

Guessed as much, 2016 the record for wireless data t ransfer was 6Gbit/s. That's not enough for one 1440p display.

1440p with 90fps, 8 bit and Chroma 4:4:4 would be around ~ 8Gbit/s. 

Edit 2:

I should really do my research. The record on a distance of 20 meters is about 100Gbit /s. The above link is for 37km.

https://www.helmholtz.de/en/technology/the-fastest-wireless-data-transmission/

Last edited by Peh - on 10 October 2018

Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

John2290 said:
Kyuu said:

This is probably the first reason I'll never consider getting a 1st gen PSVR. It looks cumbersome with cables coming in and out, and chunks of plastic all over the place! That's the last thing that I want in my room.

Not even close. I've PSVR mk2 and there is one cable from my TV stand to beside my couch to my psvr that slips neatly into it's sturdy and pretty little white box that it came with. My moves slip in the box underneath of it and all other cables are kept behind my ps4 10 or a bit feet away. Sometimes, I just nudge my PSVR box over behind my TV stand but the need is rare as the cable is strong and trails along the floor in a straight line. I've moved the thing and brought it with me traveling at least half a dozen times this year and its been no less hassle than my ps4 itself, albiet identical HDMI cable can cause an annoyance but that's not confined to VR. It's exactly the same as if you were to hook up a high quality headset to your TV for better audio, infact less so because the cables a aren't this high quality with strength and flexibility being top notch, it rarely twists or tangles and you need to buy a stand for a HS but PSVR comes with the 'designer' box. 

People who say tjis is a hassle either have mk1, are already juggling wirse like headsets or maybe they're lazy/OCD prone. I'm both of the latter and i feared cables too with all the talk however it was never an issue and became less so than even a ps4 controllers charging needs. The camera always slips ontop of my TV and after figuring out it's proper orientation I haven't needed to adjust it since spring and I've moved it multiple times since then. 

Many games are best played on a swivel chair, I'd worry more about being able to easily pull one in front of your tv within 12-6 feet. That is the biggest annoyance if you can even call it one. I'll also moving to a slightly smaller place in November and had a chance to setup up there just recently as I stayed to fix it up a few weeks and everything worked flawlessly with no issues. No more cumbersome as moving the PS4 itself. 

The thing is I'm growing more and more minimalistic as time goes. Long gone are the days where I stack multiple platforms on top of one another and play like my life depends on it. I have a synth, and a digital piano which I use as a table to place my TV on and save some space. There is already plenty more cables and objects in my limited space (in the living room too) than I'd like to have, so just looking at the picture below breaks the deal:



That's the shit from nightmares! I know you can invent ways to hide, organize and clean up this mess but it just isn't something I can see myself living with. Because yes, I'm weird; I realize that it isn't as bad as I'm making it out to be lol.

Last edited by Kyuu - on 10 October 2018

potato_hamster said:

Yeah, I'd say if you think "We'll see the medium explode within the next 10 years" that you think it's on the verge of mass appeal. But I'll admit that's just semantics.

I think there's a good chance it will.  

You keep comparing it to the iPhone when that comparison doesn't make sense right now.

A phone has a ton of obvious uses, you can justify spending some money on it.  The iPhone itself was a very slick device.  

VR on the other hand has few uses.  It's fricken amazing, but there's only a handful of things that I can actually do with it.  There are very few AAA titles, most experiences are very small.  The headset is warm and bulky, there are still a lot of wires.  The only real reason to have it right now, is to have the experience.  It's a great experience, but there's no comparisons.  Most people haven't used a headset.  They don't know what it actually adds to their experience.  

Over the next 10 years as long as companies are still interested in developing for it, we'll start to see the costs drop, we'll start to see high quality, low weight, wireless headsets.  We'll also start to see some real applications for it.  

I'm pessimistic, but I'm hopeful.  I'm still surprised how much is going on in VR, and what will tell if it ends up being successful in 10 years, is what happens in the next few years.  

potato_hamster said: 

"Third generation" is such a nebulous, meaningless term. Why even bring it up?

Because we use those kinds of terms all the time with hardware.  Even if it doesn't make any sense, because you almost always have to make arbitrary decisions.  

Pemalite said:

Companies say allot of things. Not always does it work out.
I mean... How many companies clinged to 3D citing at as the next best thing since sliced bread?

It's true.  

To be honest, I don't know how many clinged to 3D.  I didn't care for 3D, because I always thought it was pretty worthless.  

vivster said:

As far as I've seen the Quest is only a minor upgrade to the Go. The added tracking capabilities are irrelevant for videos. What I need is the Quest that's using a PC and has a proper resolution.

Why do you need a PC for watching videos?



Around the Network
the-pi-guy said:
potato_hamster said:

Yeah, I'd say if you think "We'll see the medium explode within the next 10 years" that you think it's on the verge of mass appeal. But I'll admit that's just semantics.

I think there's a good chance it will.  

You keep comparing it to the iPhone when that comparison doesn't make sense right now.

A phone has a ton of obvious uses, you can justify spending some money on it.  The iPhone itself was a very slick device.  

VR on the other hand has few uses.  It's fricken amazing, but there's only a handful of things that I can actually do with it.  There are very few AAA titles, most experiences are very small.  The headset is warm and bulky, there are still a lot of wires.  The only real reason to have it right now, is to have the experience.  It's a great experience, but there's no comparisons.  Most people haven't used a headset.  They don't know what it actually adds to their experience.  

Over the next 10 years as long as companies are still interested in developing for it, we'll start to see the costs drop, we'll start to see high quality, low weight, wireless headsets.  We'll also start to see some real applications for it.  

I'm pessimistic, but I'm hopeful.  I'm still surprised how much is going on in VR, and what will tell if it ends up being successful in 10 years, is what happens in the next few years.  

potato_hamster said: 

"Third generation" is such a nebulous, meaningless term. Why even bring it up?

Because we use those kinds of terms all the time with hardware.  Even if it doesn't make any sense, because you almost always have to make arbitrary decisions.  

I just want to clarify. I never thought the iPhone was a good comparison, it's a comparison that many VR fans have used since the first iPhone "only" sold several million units its first year and now it sells like gangbusters. I brought it up because the VR progression has made the divide between the two even greater.

Look, the writing is on the wall and it's not good. Oculus's next two headsets are standalone units. It appears they might have given up on PC-powered units altogether and are now focusing on affordable standalone units. Meanwhile the Rift is pulling up on 3 years old and not aging well. HTC on the other hand, has gone completely in the other direction and is releasing Vive Pros at $1400. Sony is just chugging along and accepting dwindling VR sales, and churning out some neat little VR titles that no one had heard of.

let's be clear, I think VR, as it always has been, is here to stay. You'll keep seeing more VR headsets released over the years, and a steady stream of VR games that almost no one will buy and almost no one will play. But it just simply isn't ready for mainstream today. It's still very much an "early adopter" device and it doesn't look like it's crossing into crossing over into mainstream gaming any time soon. I think VR is just going to cater to it's hardcore niche fanbase, and I think companies like Sony and MS are just going to give up the market to these smaller players as it's becoming increasingly clear it just isn't worth their time. Just like EVE Online, there's nothing wrong with having a small, hardcore, dedicated fanbase. I just think VR enthusiasts need to accept that thats far more likely the future of VR than, as some have suggested, having GTA VI being a VR exclusive.

Even though the term "generation" has always been nebulous, we don't call the generation the NES came out the first generation even though there was a period of years before it where video game sales had flat lined. We acknowledge the past. We start with the first home console as the first generation, and build out from there. To call this latest batch of home VR headsets as "the first generation" completely ignores the past personal VR headsets, or lumps in literally decades of VR technology as one generation. That's even more ridiculous. By all means, find out a way to sort out past VR headsets into past generaitons, and let these VR units be, I don't know, generation four, and be done with it.



 

ARamdomGamer said:
No and I won't divulge if I want one or not.

What are your top 10 VR games.



NNID: Zephyr25 / PSN: Zephyr--25 / Switch: SW-4450-3680-7334

potato_hamster said:


Look, the writing is on the wall and it's not good. Oculus's next two headsets are standalone units. It appears they might have given up on PC-powered units altogether and are now focusing on affordable standalone units. 

The Oculus Quest which was just announced, was shown off as a prototype 2 years ago.  And they've been talking about it since.  

It's not something that came out of the blue because of poor rift sales.  

Additionally, after the Rift came out, Oculus talked about their 5 year plans for a Rift successor.  

potato_hamster said: 

let's be clear, I think VR, as it always has been, is here to stay. You'll keep seeing more VR headsets released over the years, and a steady stream of VR games that almost no one will buy and almost no one will play. But it just simply isn't ready for mainstream today. It's still very much an "early adopter" device and it doesn't look like it's crossing into crossing over into mainstream gaming any time soon. I think VR is just going to cater to it's hardcore niche fanbase, and I think companies like Sony and MS are just going to give up the market to these smaller players as it's becoming increasingly clear it just isn't worth their time. Just like EVE Online, there's nothing wrong with having a small, hardcore, dedicated fanbase. I just think VR enthusiasts need to accept that thats far more likely the future of VR than, as some have suggested, having GTA VI being a VR exclusive.

So do you think VR will ever be mainstream and when do you think that it'll?  

@bold, and I do.  I know that it's incredibly likely that VR will be dropped.  



Yes PSVR and samsung Gear. VR is ok, but the low resolution and motion sickness kills it abit for me, and the absolute faff of wires and the fact that i cant use my 4k tv whilst VR is set up. All adds up to not a very user freindly set up. Stuff like Rush of blood and Resi 7 are fantastic games though.



Nogamez said:
Yes PSVR and samsung Gear. VR is ok, but the low resolution and motion sickness kills it abit for me, and the absolute faff of wires and the fact that i cant use my 4k tv whilst VR is set up. All adds up to not a very user freindly set up. Stuff like Rush of blood and Resi 7 are fantastic games though.

Are you sure you're experiencing VR right? Have you tried purchasing 10 more games just to see? And then 10 more after that?