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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony VR Round 2

Tagged games:

 

Should Sony create VR games that also work without VR?

Yes 4 16.67%
 
No 16 66.67%
 
Sony should give up on VR 4 16.67%
 
What's VR?! 0 0%
 
Total:24
VAMatt said:

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.

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.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Asus PG27UQ gaming on 3840 x 2160 @120 Hz GSYNC HDR| HTC Vive Pro :3 (Vive Pro 2 pre-ordered!!!)

Around the Network
Fei-Hung said:

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?

Your Idea might work, Miku was nice with VR, but, House of the Dead with this sounds amazing ,I'm gonna be a good boy and ask Sega for PS vR 2 Port of the Sega Saturn original, though Will beg Sega to port House of the Dead scarlett dawn 2018 arcade to PS VR 2.

Last edited by dx11332sega - on 22 March 2021

I game on all consoles and PC

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?



Fei-Hung said:
SvennoJ said:

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. 

"The most concrete info we have on what PSVR 2 could be capable of comes from JDI’s announcement of its 3.2-inch display with 1,001ppi and 2160 x 2432 resolution.

JDI claims that this display will reduce latency to 2.2msec (compared to >18msec today), allow for 120Hz (same as the PSVR 1), and demand less processing power to achieve better image quality—potentially unlocking a lighter, smaller design for the headset."

https://www.techradar.com/news/playstation-vr-2-release-date-price-news-and-rumors


The last one had a single 5.7" 1080p screen, 960x1080 per eye. The question is will PSVR2 use a split screen design again or go for one screen per eye, 2432x2160 per eye or 1216x2160 per eye. Both a big upgrade, however no more OLED (JDI is a LCD manufacturer)


PSVR 2 is also said to have 220 degree fov instead of 110. Which kinda requires the dual screen setup or otherwise there would hardly be any perceived increase in resolution while doubling the fov. But as with PSVR the perceived density will be much higher in the middle than on the edges due to the lens, and also since your own eyes only perceive a tenth of the resolution they do in the center.



Btw Peripheral vision isn't just for better immersion and awareness, it's hard wired into out brain to alert us to movement in our peripheral vision to draw your attention to potential threats. That's a huge difference compared to pancake games and is what makes Rush of Blood's enemy placement playable in VR. On a screen you need all kinds of tricks to grab the players attention including those directional flashes at the edge of the screen. Rail shooters in VR can literally open up the 'tunnel' and have threats popping up on all sides. Plus you can also shoot in independent directions with 2 motion controllers.

GTS currently relies on 'radar' to show the position of cars beside you. In VR you don't need that extra screen since your peripheral vision keeps you updated to movement on things beside / near you. Actually peripheral vision already works on the screen as well with the big rear view mirror. Any suspicious movement there draws you attention to it to avoid 'missiles' from behind. (No clue how people can survive without the rear view mirror in other modes) In VR you have that for all around you, 100 degree alertness to either side, plus the rear view mirror for what comes up from behind. The current radar is a necessary patch job, but it has its limitations. It doesn't show you what's out of range of the radar and you have to take your eyes off the road to look at it. I've gone through many corners just looking at the radar, top down view racing, as the front view isn't good enough to drive side by side in traffic through a corner. It works, but might as well ditch the graphics and steer little arrows around a map :)



Peh said:
VAMatt said:

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.

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.

Yes, I agree.  That is the fundamental problem faced by VR, and (I think) the biggest hurdle remaining.  

I've used every major tethered VR headset excluding the Index.  I own PSVR and I owned Gear VR.  IMO, Gear VR was the overall best experience because of the relatively higher level of immersion possible without a cable.  There are much better looking games on the tethered headsets. Many of the games are much better in many other ways as well.  But, you simply cannot forget about the cable(s) in most games.  You must pay attention to them, otherwise you'll get wrapped up.  So, either you're consciously thinking about cables, or you're ignoring them for a minute until you get wrapped up and have to stop playing to untangle. Either way is extremely immersion breaking.  

I have not used in Oculus Quest, nor have I used the wireless accessory for Vive.  I hear very good things about the latest Quest.  My buddy, who has been messing around with VR since the early days of Rift DK2 (that's when I first was exposed as well), and is much more of a VR enthusiast than I am, speaks highly of it.  So, I think I may take the plunge this year. 

I haven't been doing much with VR lately, because I kind of lost interest after a couple of years when I finally accepted the reality that the necessary levels of immersion just weren't really possible yet in high rez, cutting edge games.  



Around the Network
OneTime said:

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?

all current PSVR games already work on the PS5 with VR. So I'm not really sure what you are suggesting is that much different except the fact that

1) it gives the false impression that PSVR will be usable going forward for PSVR games built for PS5 (they won't)

2) extra work for the devs getting a PS5 game running on PSVR, just to have to get it running on PSVR2. (an existing PS4 game makes sense since PS4 is the current VR market for Sony)

The sheer fact that VR is still kicking, and that PS4 (PS5) is still getting new VR games is testament to their being a viable market. All Sony needs to do is ensure they are able to hit an attractive price point with software that shows off what the PSVR2 can do, and they're set.



Yeah, I didn't understand the logic of their scenario. Besides what you mention, none of that "increases the install base" if it's just serving people who already own PSVR1 with PS4/PS5. I don't know if they were unaware that PS4 VR games can run on PS5, but it doesn't make sense to produce PS5 only games designed for PSVR1 which is vastly smaller than combined PS4/Pro/PS5 PSVR market, and any new VR games entering production can make the biggest splash if they target PSVR2 for PS5.



mutantsushi said:

Yeah, I didn't understand the logic of their scenario. Besides what you mention, none of that "increases the install base" if it's just serving people who already own PSVR1 with PS4/PS5. I don't know if they were unaware that PS4 VR games can run on PS5, but it doesn't make sense to produce PS5 only games designed for PSVR1 which is vastly smaller than combined PS4/Pro/PS5 PSVR market, and any new VR games entering production can make the biggest splash if they target PSVR2 for PS5.

I think most people with PS5 and PSVR1 at the moment are aware that they can play their old PS4 games.  From what I understand, developers can't really use the enhanced features of PS5 for these games (the PSVR locks the system in bc mode or something similar - I haven't found any examples of "here's what PS5 can do for PSVR").

Should new PS5 VR games support old headsets?  That must be up to the developers, in my opinion.  Building a PS5-only game is already a costly business.  Building a PS5-only, PSVR2-only game may result in a lot of developers baulking.

To me it feels like a mistake for there not to be a couple of PS5 VR titles at launch for the old headset, even if they were just small demos.  It makes it look like Sony "forgot" about their VR product.



VAMatt said:
Peh said:

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.

Yes, I agree.  That is the fundamental problem faced by VR, and (I think) the biggest hurdle remaining.  

I've used every major tethered VR headset excluding the Index.  I own PSVR and I owned Gear VR.  IMO, Gear VR was the overall best experience because of the relatively higher level of immersion possible without a cable.  There are much better looking games on the tethered headsets. Many of the games are much better in many other ways as well.  But, you simply cannot forget about the cable(s) in most games.  You must pay attention to them, otherwise you'll get wrapped up.  So, either you're consciously thinking about cables, or you're ignoring them for a minute until you get wrapped up and have to stop playing to untangle. Either way is extremely immersion breaking.  

I have not used in Oculus Quest, nor have I used the wireless accessory for Vive.  I hear very good things about the latest Quest.  My buddy, who has been messing around with VR since the early days of Rift DK2 (that's when I first was exposed as well), and is much more of a VR enthusiast than I am, speaks highly of it.  So, I think I may take the plunge this year. 

I haven't been doing much with VR lately, because I kind of lost interest after a couple of years when I finally accepted the reality that the necessary levels of immersion just weren't really possible yet in high rez, cutting edge games.  

What games are you playing that you have to stop to untangle the cable?

I'm only aware of the cable while playing Beat Saber and there I hang it over my shoulder down my back to avoid stepping on it or getting wrapped in it. For sit down games it's never an issue, just the few you walk around a bit. It would be nicer without a cable but you still need a power source. Wearing a battery on your body or on the headset isn't comfortable either. I'm much more aware of the headset than the cable. Lighter and more comfort first.

Two fundamental problems, transmission rates and power. If the battery only lasts a couple hours, I'll still be playing tethered on a charge cable while having the extra bulk and weight of the battery...

Nr 1 improvement for comfort for me would be adjustable lenses so I don't need to wear my glasses inside the headset. I don't with beat saber since I can see all the shapes fine and it's a lot more comfortable. It's blur on top of low res though, far from ideal.



SvennoJ said:
VAMatt said:

Yes, I agree.  That is the fundamental problem faced by VR, and (I think) the biggest hurdle remaining.  

I've used every major tethered VR headset excluding the Index.  I own PSVR and I owned Gear VR.  IMO, Gear VR was the overall best experience because of the relatively higher level of immersion possible without a cable.  There are much better looking games on the tethered headsets. Many of the games are much better in many other ways as well.  But, you simply cannot forget about the cable(s) in most games.  You must pay attention to them, otherwise you'll get wrapped up.  So, either you're consciously thinking about cables, or you're ignoring them for a minute until you get wrapped up and have to stop playing to untangle. Either way is extremely immersion breaking.  

I have not used in Oculus Quest, nor have I used the wireless accessory for Vive.  I hear very good things about the latest Quest.  My buddy, who has been messing around with VR since the early days of Rift DK2 (that's when I first was exposed as well), and is much more of a VR enthusiast than I am, speaks highly of it.  So, I think I may take the plunge this year. 

I haven't been doing much with VR lately, because I kind of lost interest after a couple of years when I finally accepted the reality that the necessary levels of immersion just weren't really possible yet in high rez, cutting edge games.  

What games are you playing that you have to stop to untangle the cable?

I'm only aware of the cable while playing Beat Saber and there I hang it over my shoulder down my back to avoid stepping on it or getting wrapped in it. For sit down games it's never an issue, just the few you walk around a bit. It would be nicer without a cable but you still need a power source. Wearing a battery on your body or on the headset isn't comfortable either. I'm much more aware of the headset than the cable. Lighter and more comfort first.

Two fundamental problems, transmission rates and power. If the battery only lasts a couple hours, I'll still be playing tethered on a charge cable while having the extra bulk and weight of the battery...

Nr 1 improvement for comfort for me would be adjustable lenses so I don't need to wear my glasses inside the headset. I don't with beat saber since I can see all the shapes fine and it's a lot more comfortable. It's blur on top of low res though, far from ideal.

I find myself wrapped up whether sitting or standing. I don't find walking to be the only issue.  Simply spinning around (whether seated or standing) wraps up the user.  Yes, you can generally avoid becoming entangled.  But, you have to think about the cable to avoid it, and that's the problem (for me, at least). 

It's not so much that I really stop to untangle the cable.  It's things like noticing thay the cable is around both legs, or stepping on it and feeling the pull on my headset.  In those circumstances, I'll just turn around time the opposite direction to unwrap, or I'll simply lift up my foot and pull the cable out of the way.  That kind of thing.  Just stuff that reminds me that the cable is there.  That stuff ruins the immersion, IME.  My most recent annoying cord experience has been with Astro.  It's a great game.  Probably my favorite VR game aside from some early Gear VR game I played that I can't recall the name of.  But, I just can't get myself into long play sessions of VR anymore, even with a game that I generally consider excellent.  

And, yes, it would be great to get adjustable lenses so I don't have to wear glasses.  I have used contacts for this purpose several times.  But, I'd prefer not to have to worry about corrective lenses at all.