I was one of those early adaptors for the CR headset. To this day I say if you ain't tried it, try it as I had some amazing experiences on it. From the simple things with VW World's to experiencing G Force in Rush of Blood to watching my young cousin's gangster friends scream like little girls and almost fall over. The damn thing was good, but ultimately my dear is software.

Like any console or device, it will live and die depending on software support and I think Sony missed a huge trick : creating games that are AA and work with our without VR.

On rail games are the best for this. God do I miss the days of playing Virtua Cop, Time Crisis, House of the Dead, Point Blank. 

These games should be cheap to make and bring back those arcade experiences easily with little tweaks so you can enjoy them both ways.

Bring back the light gun and allow the games too be enjoyed in more way than one so they have a larger install base to get sold on. This would not only encourage more sales, but will also encourage developers to support your device.

Racing games are an obvious choice, but then you also have RTS games, Sports games and fighting games that could have little tweaks to add an extra layer.

What would you like to see in the next Sony VR?

The thing with VR is, if you wanna develop a VR game, don't try to get both worlds, because you will sacrifice certain elements of interaction in one of them and the overall experience will turn mediocre. Superhot developed a VR game slighy different from the flat one. They just didn't add VR to it like it was done with Skyrim VR and Fallout 4 VR, those are terrible imo.
VR is not just a TV strapped to the head. It's way more than this. So, if a developer wanna go VR, go all out.
For Sony's PSVR, there wasn't much option, since the VR was pretty much limited. That will certainly change with PSVR 2.

I don't see the point of promoting mediocre VR games (as cross-compatible with conventional version). VR does have negatives to it's, so it doesn't really make sense to use it if the game works just as good without VR. Any system that can handle VR can also play conventional games on a screen (assuming you have TV and not just VR rig, which is certainly reasonable). The rationale seems to be "more sales" yet it's not clear why this is more sales than just releasing fully non-VR games, so I don't see why cross-compatible VR games (which essentially means a sub-optimal port for VR) is coherent if prime motive is sales. And certainly having more mediocre VR games that are fully playable without VR does not really create a reason for anybody to go out and buy a VR headset. Truly optimized VR native game experiences do that. This isn't to say that cross-compatible VR ports can't sell at all, and they can make sense for 3rd parties I guess. But why would Sony do that whose interest is in the platform and promoting PSVR(2) as such?

I am interested to see what their headset solution ends up like, and how PS5 architecture is exploited for VR games. I think there were some unique architecture choices like favoring clockspeed over wider GPU, which seem like they could help high refresh rates and responsiveness, with the high speed I/O also helping with quickly updating memory (indirectly allowing higher fidelity assets, since higher speed reduces need for 'insurance' i.e. conservative projection of what assets may be immediately needed). I see people talk about foveated rendering or disparate pixel densities from center to edge, but without eye tracking & fast system responsivity tied to that any such system would de facto need to be training users to not move their eyes much away from center... Possibly that could be easy "training" to do (either overtly or passively), I'm not sure.

I'm glad to hear that they're sticking with VR. But, the whole industry really needs to get rid of cables tethering the headset to the console/PC. That cable, IMO, the single biggest drawback of the current VR headsets.

I see most the arguements are you can't just rack on VR, but what if you made it based on VR, then stripped it down for non Vr?

The main thing about VR is able to move the FoV by turning your head so you can see beyond where the cursor is. The second thing is controls and like most games these days you can remap controls.



Naturally it won't work with all games, and that's a given, but that don't mean games where it can be done shouldn't be revoked.

Games like Rez Infinite was originally a non VR game. Games like time Crisis, Rush of Blood and other games in today genre could easily benefit from having two modes.

Even games like top down bullet hell shooters and side scrolling shooters could receive a VR treatment and work perfectly without it.

You can't strip down HL:Alyx to play outside of VR, or other games specifically designed around precision motion controls with total freedom of head movement. With PSVR 2 controllers the difference will only get bigger. Motion controls of course can also be used outside VR, however in 2D on a small screen, motion controls that rely on 3D placement just don't work very well.

Head tracking can also be the primary control input like with Eagle flight, there is simply no way you can be fast and precise enough with a stick to get through the speed challenges. Plus of course the whole getting a different perspective / looking behind things will be hard to replicate outside VR, Astrobot and Moss won't be the same. Also for on rail shooters, peripheral vision is the big advantage in VR. Your attention is automatically drawn to where the next action happens. Without VR you would have to scan side to side continually. Rush of Blood would be very hard outside VR.

However you can port non VR games to VR and enhance them. Skyrim works pretty well with dual controllers, dual casting, sword plus shield, bow all very fun to use in VR. Simple ports like RE7 and Borderlands 2 are functional as well. So more games could have VR modes, especially with foveated rendering baked into the console. PSVR 2 has eye tracking, with foveated rendering the required step down in fidelity should be a lot lower than it was on PS4. Also higher resolution means less work on getting all the UI elements readable.

Yes, the resolution. Wonder what they will go with since the last one was 2x720p. 

Peripheral vision your right about, similar to playing racing games like GTS where you could look around, or even Star Wars Squadrons, but as we know both games work really well without VR too and still remain mainly non VR games. Which is why I think although it may be better with VR, don't mean it won't be great without it, it will simply lack that added depth.

Games like Moss and Astrobot simply wouldn't work without VR and would need to be redesigned. As always not everything worked be possible to translate over. 

That's not easy to solve, though.

With higher res and higher framerate you cause higher datarates. A cable can deliver it, wireless is a different story. 

We got WiGig (60Ghz) for the Vive Family for Wireless PC VR. That is based on the Wi-fi Network protocol. But works only for a few meters and still does not reach the bandwidth of a cable. AFAIK, HTC is still the only one who is doing that. 

The alternative are standalone HMD's, which can't compete with PC VR quality for obvious reasons. 

So, we are running in an issue here. People demand higher resolution, higher framerate, better graphics and wireless with best tracking running on potato hardware (Hyperbole). That's simply not possible by today's technology.

The problem that Sony has created for itself is building up the install-base for VR. IMO they should have concentrated on getting the existing headset working on PS5 rather than waiting for an upgraded headset.

If you think about it, the hardcore early PS5 adopters are very likely to have a PSVR headset already. Why no PS5 VR games for that combination?