Playstation VR2(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Playstation VR2
https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/2/23436550/sony-playstation-vr2-release-date-price-features-games
246 comments
> I'm hoping with the PSVR2 launch that people will finally realize that the metaverse consists of way more than just meta and Horizon.
agreed. it's unfortunate that FB decided to just coin "Metaverse" since it's all encompassing. to your later point, it's as if Yahoo decided to launch a product called "Internet" and have it be an awful piece of software turning off everyone from the concept of the internet and pushing it back another decade simply due to terrible branding
agreed. it's unfortunate that FB decided to just coin "Metaverse" since it's all encompassing. to your later point, it's as if Yahoo decided to launch a product called "Internet" and have it be an awful piece of software turning off everyone from the concept of the internet and pushing it back another decade simply due to terrible branding
They didn't coin "metaverse" it comes from Snowcrash and was later evangelized by Mathew Ball.
sure, to us nerds that's obvious. but not to my fiance, or to my mom. metaverse = FB
my parents definitely don't think metaverse = FB
if they don't associate metaverse with FB, then they most certainly don't associate metaverse with snowcrash nor matthew ball
True, but outside of HN-bubbles, where do you think most people first heard the term?
Yes, this what drives me crazy. I don’t understand how so many smart and educated people fell for meta’s ad and marketing campaign. I guess the campaign was just so amazing for that many people to be mislead. Someone should rename their company into Internet and maybe enough people will believe that this new company is the sole owner and developer of the Internet
Haha, the 3d TV industry deserves some marketing hate too, and Google for their godawful crap cardboard platform.
I'll bet that once someone puts out a super polished platform with a handful of killer apps, it'll take off anyway. Right now even if you gave away preconfigured VR headsets to everyone for free they wouldn't use them
I'll bet that once someone puts out a super polished platform with a handful of killer apps, it'll take off anyway. Right now even if you gave away preconfigured VR headsets to everyone for free they wouldn't use them
I strongly feel that meta already did create that super polished platform with Beat Saber as the first killer app. Not enough people are even willing to give it a try due to a combination of FB’s broken brand and the intimidating giant box that you have to put on your face. Hopefully, the new smaller form factors will help with the last problem
Or, you know, we played guitar hero and there's no need to relive the past with a screen 3 inches from your eyeballs?
You haven't tried modern VR yet have you? Google Cardboard doesn't count.
No, of course not. Just like I haven't tried bungee jumping.
Then why comment as if you know anything about it? I can see normal people doing that, but this is HN
Here's the part I responded to:
> Not enough people are even willing to give it a try due to a combination of FB’s broken brand and the intimidating giant box that you have to put on your face
I'm not willing to give it a try because it doesn't interest me, it has nothing to do with FB or being 'intimidated' buy a box. I just don't want to play things in VR, especially games that I've already played and the only new feature is '3 inches from face'
> Not enough people are even willing to give it a try due to a combination of FB’s broken brand and the intimidating giant box that you have to put on your face
I'm not willing to give it a try because it doesn't interest me, it has nothing to do with FB or being 'intimidated' buy a box. I just don't want to play things in VR, especially games that I've already played and the only new feature is '3 inches from face'
Yeah, fair enough, there's a tiny, tiny sliver of humanity that has no interest in fun
You should quit repeating "3 inches from face" though since it's misleading and pointless. There's this thing called a "lens" which can make something appear farther away than it really is, and they use this bold technology to make stuff in VR appear far enough away that it actually tricks your brain into thinking it's really there in 3D space
You should quit repeating "3 inches from face" though since it's misleading and pointless. There's this thing called a "lens" which can make something appear farther away than it really is, and they use this bold technology to make stuff in VR appear far enough away that it actually tricks your brain into thinking it's really there in 3D space
It's not so much "falling for it" as it is jumping on the bandwagon.
The hype is real, and mirthless smart people are just looking to cash in on Meta's billion dollar branding moves.
The hype is real, and mirthless smart people are just looking to cash in on Meta's billion dollar branding moves.
> It's not so much "falling for it" as it is jumping on the bandwagon.
I don't see much of a difference between the two. I can understand the non-techie masses doing this, but not what seems like the majority of HN users.
I don't see much of a difference between the two. I can understand the non-techie masses doing this, but not what seems like the majority of HN users.
I don't care about the metaverse. Just let me have fun playing some video games in VR.
I’ll do you one better…
It’s been almost 3 years since Half Life Alyx and nothing in the Vr space has come even remotely close.
It’s the killer app problem. There are a few very cool experiences in VR, but overall it a sad environment.
I have no doubt it’ll be big. Just curious on HOW SLOWLY it’s going.
It’s been almost 3 years since Half Life Alyx and nothing in the Vr space has come even remotely close.
It’s the killer app problem. There are a few very cool experiences in VR, but overall it a sad environment.
I have no doubt it’ll be big. Just curious on HOW SLOWLY it’s going.
I don't think it's a killer app problem so much as a general UX issue. I really love RE4, I've played it 100x on the GC and Wii, I could play it in my sleep.
I got it on VR and it was awesome. It was so much more intense and fucking cool and extra flexible (I can hold a knife and a shotgun at the same time???? fucking amazing).
The main thing is that I don't want to just play video games. I like to jump around a bit and do other things. Switching apps is just really annoying in VR, usually it's not even possible.
Probably a better example is Netflix. I usually have TV shows on throughout the day, pausing them constantly for seconds, minutes, or hours, as I do something else, or often letting them play in the background. Can't do that on my Quest 2, it's either "sit in front of a TV and do nothing else" or don't.
To me, these issues are really more OS level/ platform level. The VR UX is out of whack with how I want to use it. Individually though, I can say that my experience is that a VR version of something can be way cooler.
Also, I'd like to have a keyboard interface. If I could wear something like fingerless gloves + have a keyboard hooked up and I just sit at my desk with N virtual monitors that would be amazing. But again, that's not really an "app" problem, it's the OS/platform/UX.
I got it on VR and it was awesome. It was so much more intense and fucking cool and extra flexible (I can hold a knife and a shotgun at the same time???? fucking amazing).
The main thing is that I don't want to just play video games. I like to jump around a bit and do other things. Switching apps is just really annoying in VR, usually it's not even possible.
Probably a better example is Netflix. I usually have TV shows on throughout the day, pausing them constantly for seconds, minutes, or hours, as I do something else, or often letting them play in the background. Can't do that on my Quest 2, it's either "sit in front of a TV and do nothing else" or don't.
To me, these issues are really more OS level/ platform level. The VR UX is out of whack with how I want to use it. Individually though, I can say that my experience is that a VR version of something can be way cooler.
Also, I'd like to have a keyboard interface. If I could wear something like fingerless gloves + have a keyboard hooked up and I just sit at my desk with N virtual monitors that would be amazing. But again, that's not really an "app" problem, it's the OS/platform/UX.
This is possible on PCVR
https://www.reddit.com/r/SteamVR/comments/manbp4/how_do_i_ge...
It’s not really possible on Quest 2 for the hardware intensive apps because it doesn’t have enough RAM and the Qualcomm XR2 is still a really weak processor compared to either Apple Silicon or anything AMD or Intel paired with an Nvidia GPU
https://www.reddit.com/r/SteamVR/comments/manbp4/how_do_i_ge...
It’s not really possible on Quest 2 for the hardware intensive apps because it doesn’t have enough RAM and the Qualcomm XR2 is still a really weak processor compared to either Apple Silicon or anything AMD or Intel paired with an Nvidia GPU
Wanting to multitask VR and non-VR workloads is...... unusual. You may be extremely niche here.
I don't know anyone who sits down to just do one thing, everyone hops between apps.
I think I'd like that. Having some way to pop up an overlay that I can interact with (reply to a chat message, check a YT video, etc) while the game remains in the primary display. Sort of an AR in VR.
It makes me sad that not even VR is going to escape the pervasiveness of smartphones.
My take is simply that the resolution is too low relative to average users expectations (set by their tv and smartphone).
Every single person with whom I have shared my Quest 2 has said something to the effect of “is it supposed to be so blurry?” and “this thing is uncomfortable”.
The tech is really cool - and the experiences are not totally there (as you say) - but it’s not developed enough as a product.
Every single person with whom I have shared my Quest 2 has said something to the effect of “is it supposed to be so blurry?” and “this thing is uncomfortable”.
The tech is really cool - and the experiences are not totally there (as you say) - but it’s not developed enough as a product.
That sounds more like issues with IPD adjustment rather than resolution issues. I feel that resolution is already good enough for gaming especially if you pair the Quest 2 with a VR ready PC. The resolution only isn't good enough for work. Reading a lot of text on a Quest 2 is nausea inducing. Since the Quest Pro's resolution isn't much better than Quest 2, I don't have high hopes for it when work involves a lot of reading and writing, but Quest 2 is already great for design collaboration.
I agree that it’s “good enough” for gaming - but the Q2 has obviously much worse perceived resolution than most people’s televisions and phone screens (regardless of IPD adjustment).
We can hand wave away the poor resolution because the whole package is kind of amazing, but it undercuts the argument that ‘this is the future!’ when first impressions are that it looks like the past.
We can hand wave away the poor resolution because the whole package is kind of amazing, but it undercuts the argument that ‘this is the future!’ when first impressions are that it looks like the past.
The Quest 2 is all about immersion and presence. Most people are impressed by that despite standalone limitations. Maybe they played the wrong games, or they don’t like to move? Sedentary people really hate VR from my anecdotal experience.
Graphics and visual fidelity can be solved easily. PCVR works well with the Quest 2
Graphics and visual fidelity can be solved easily. PCVR works well with the Quest 2
I think we agree, but terminology wise its not a killer app problem. Its an install base problem. (which is a chicken and egg problem) If the install base was there, big studios would invest the time.
Yea, same-same.
It'll happen eventually, that projects like HL-A won't seem sooo risky and not require an entity like Valve that seems to have done it mostly for bragging rights - or something.
I think given the size and cost of games like this, it's going to be a very slow crawl... and not an explosion like iPhone was.
It'll happen eventually, that projects like HL-A won't seem sooo risky and not require an entity like Valve that seems to have done it mostly for bragging rights - or something.
I think given the size and cost of games like this, it's going to be a very slow crawl... and not an explosion like iPhone was.
Multiplayer VR games are part of the metaverse… the metaverse is just XR with a network connection over the internet. That’s all it is which one reason I don’t understand all the hate for such a neutral medium from fellow techies
You miss the point that video games are not a top priority for meta, they are betting on work and casual users that will hang out all day long in their metaverse VR world with their goggles on, much like people use their phones nowadays, and then consume their ads.
If Zuck was smart, he could have a partnership with Sony and push out a launch title for this.
If Zuck was smart, he could have a partnership with Sony and push out a launch title for this.
> You miss the point that video games are not a top priority for meta
If that were true, the work features would have shipped already, but they were busy with gaming which is why they bought several game studios. Games were a major focus for meta because it’s one of the traditional vectors for new technology adoption. Well, that and pornography.
Let’s hope that you’re right now assuming meta is changing course, and I’m wrong because I’ve been waiting to use the work features. So far, the 3rd party options and the resolution for reading text still isn’t good enough
If that were true, the work features would have shipped already, but they were busy with gaming which is why they bought several game studios. Games were a major focus for meta because it’s one of the traditional vectors for new technology adoption. Well, that and pornography.
Let’s hope that you’re right now assuming meta is changing course, and I’m wrong because I’ve been waiting to use the work features. So far, the 3rd party options and the resolution for reading text still isn’t good enough
Gaming is just the gateway drug to the Metaverse. And they probably bought the studios mainly for talent.
The recent launch of the Quest Pro was clearly focussing on use cases other than games, and the pro's resolution and pancake lenses appear to be now reached "good enough" to work with/read text in.
That's true, but a common reviewer complaint is that the work applications still aren't there yet. There are a few design VR apps, but most of the big productivity apps on the Meta store are just bookmarks to web apps. This changes when MS and Office arrive on the Quest.
I think you forgot Valve although they don’t seem to follow through with their hardware.
The WMR headsets are all pretty good, but the ecosystem suffers from the typical MSFT, "Oh yeah, we should build one of those too!" dynamic. Pretty good hardware, but a variety of factors which just end up failing to attract people to the platform in the long term.
See: Zune.
See: Zune.
WMR is slowly being abandoned by MS. The G2 was a decent attempt, but HP is pulling out too
That’s why I didn’t mention them. They’re like Rolls Royce where they build expensive toys for people with discretionary cash. Most normal people outside of Silicon Valley do not have the resources to justify spending about $3,000 on a complete PCVR setup
I have the disposable income I cant justify it because I can’t multitask and also I have to also pay for glasses inserts. I want to play a space based VR game but I don’t see one out. I have a stand-alone headset (a oculus quest 2) and I don’t even play it.
Elite Dangerous and No Man's Sky are both space-based PC VR games, if you're still looking around for one. Your quest 2 might be able to stream them from a PC.
My eyesight is _just_ able to play without glasses inserts, so I marginally feel your pain. I wish I could use my glasses. Maybe it's time I pulled out contacts again.
My eyesight is _just_ able to play without glasses inserts, so I marginally feel your pain. I wish I could use my glasses. Maybe it's time I pulled out contacts again.
Saw them both but they aren't worth it. Forgot to mention.
What are you looking for in a space game? I also know that Overload (Descent clone) has a VR mode.
Overload sounds cool. I should check it out. Maybe since no man’s sky has been updated I will check it out again.
I really want a serious FPS with spaceships .
I really want a serious FPS with spaceships .
Tbf the quest pro does exactly that. You can wear it with glasses and it’s designed to let you multitask
You don't need glass inserts for the Meta Pro, and some other headsets. With PCVR, it is totally possible to multitask. You just have to both able and willing to pay for better systems.
> their brand is so toxic
signed, 1 of 2,000,000,000 monthly active users across Messenger, Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram
signed, 1 of 2,000,000,000 monthly active users across Messenger, Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram
Do you read the news or talk to people outside of Meta? Like it or not meta lost the PR war
Their users are trending older now, and the brunt of ad revenue will be destroyed eventually. Why do you think Mark pivoted the company?
Their users are trending older now, and the brunt of ad revenue will be destroyed eventually. Why do you think Mark pivoted the company?
> Like it or not meta lost the PR war
I don't disagree. HackerNews comments + Reddit insist the Meta is the worst thing ever.
Why? I don't know? Because HackerNews comments + Reddit sentiment said so? I'd love to learn why the company is so hated.
It can't be ignored that tons of people still "trust them enough" (begrudginly?) to use their products. Sure, a very vocal minority will say "I'm Meta free/use none of their products!" but that's not what their earnings shows trend wise.
> Meta's standard user metrics also show continuing stability and growth during Q3. Both Daily Active People ("DAP") and Monthly Active People ("MAP"), users of Meta's Family of Apps, grew sequentially by just over 1.5% in Q3, while Monthly Active Users ("MAU") and Daily Active Users ("DAU"), users of Facebook only, both grew 0.8%:
I don't disagree. HackerNews comments + Reddit insist the Meta is the worst thing ever.
Why? I don't know? Because HackerNews comments + Reddit sentiment said so? I'd love to learn why the company is so hated.
It can't be ignored that tons of people still "trust them enough" (begrudginly?) to use their products. Sure, a very vocal minority will say "I'm Meta free/use none of their products!" but that's not what their earnings shows trend wise.
> Meta's standard user metrics also show continuing stability and growth during Q3. Both Daily Active People ("DAP") and Monthly Active People ("MAP"), users of Meta's Family of Apps, grew sequentially by just over 1.5% in Q3, while Monthly Active Users ("MAU") and Daily Active Users ("DAU"), users of Facebook only, both grew 0.8%:
I agree with your points and I’m a fan of Meta, and I have skin in the game because I believe in the new company direction. However, I can’t ignore public sentiment. The Quest 2 is a revolutionary product that was nearly ignored just because it came from Facebook. Meta will do better once someone like Sony or more likely Apple convinces everyone that the metaverse is great.
Apple is the worst thing that could happen to VR.
Facebook may be 'toxic' but the Meta is cheap, amazing, supports Air Link for PC, even has cross-play (buy a Quest game, play it on PC at better graphics). Privacy options, they -removed- Facebook login, you can sideload apps. Tacit support for modding games like Beat Saber.
Apple would turn their headset into a walled garden with no ability to run custom apps and definitely no Air Link. Try to mod a game and get banned.
Facebook may be 'toxic' but the Meta is cheap, amazing, supports Air Link for PC, even has cross-play (buy a Quest game, play it on PC at better graphics). Privacy options, they -removed- Facebook login, you can sideload apps. Tacit support for modding games like Beat Saber.
Apple would turn their headset into a walled garden with no ability to run custom apps and definitely no Air Link. Try to mod a game and get banned.
It’s ironic, but I like and support meta so I agree with your points.
Like meta, I also agree that Apple will be a double edged sword for XR. On the positive side, Apple will help the masses understand the potential of XR beyond gaming, and the M chips blow everything away. On the negative side, only we’ll be able to afford a $3000 XR Apple headset which will save meta’s XR related effort since they’re the affordable option. They’re scared of if, but whether or not Meta realizes it, meta needs that Apple headset to release
Like meta, I also agree that Apple will be a double edged sword for XR. On the positive side, Apple will help the masses understand the potential of XR beyond gaming, and the M chips blow everything away. On the negative side, only we’ll be able to afford a $3000 XR Apple headset which will save meta’s XR related effort since they’re the affordable option. They’re scared of if, but whether or not Meta realizes it, meta needs that Apple headset to release
> Privacy options
Are we talking about the same Meta company that owns Facebook?
> they -removed- Facebook login
Which they added in the first place, much to the dismay of literally everyone.
Are we talking about the same Meta company that owns Facebook?
> they -removed- Facebook login
Which they added in the first place, much to the dismay of literally everyone.
Apple, on the other hand, loves to talk about privacy, but if anyone in the conversation backs up messages to iCloud then the whole thing is sitting on Apple's server unencrypted[1]. WhatsApp is better.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2020/01/21/appl...
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2020/01/21/appl...
Do you expect an equivalent Apple product to not require an iCloud login?
An Apple headset and marketing dollars would galvanize the industry. Meta will still release their headsets and probably be better off for it because Apple will have primed consumers to what the experience is. Apple doesn't usually pay for exclusives so apps will make it to other platforms.
Removed the Facebook login? Lol, now it prompts me every-time I use it to create a Horizon's account. I personally couldn't care less about the facebook login, and really never saw what the big deal was. I created a facebook account which I only use for the quest 2. You're going to need an account, what does it matter which platform it is from?
I'm sick of people criticizing Apple's walled garden. It's the primary feature of Apple products. It's what makes them what they are. If you don't like it, just buy something else. No one is forcing you to buy Apple if you don't like the walled garden. Many people like it and I'm amazed that there are so many people that don't understand that.
I'm sick of people criticizing Apple's walled garden. It's the primary feature of Apple products. It's what makes them what they are. If you don't like it, just buy something else. No one is forcing you to buy Apple if you don't like the walled garden. Many people like it and I'm amazed that there are so many people that don't understand that.
If you like the walled garden fine, I just don't want it influencing VR. For example Apple's decision to take a 30% cut of ebooks, prompting Kindle to remove the ability to buy books in their app, led to Google doing the same thing.
Apple will lock down the hardware and increase prices, and that doesn't benefit consumers if other companies follow suit.
Apple will lock down the hardware and increase prices, and that doesn't benefit consumers if other companies follow suit.
> they -removed- Facebook login
They called it something else, they make you use different credentials, but it’s all Facebook on the backend.
They called it something else, they make you use different credentials, but it’s all Facebook on the backend.
I am no expert but it does seem to be an improvement because you don't have to install the FB app on your phone or login to FB on your browser. The app in particular is such a roach motel I am very glad to get away from it.
Whose backend should it be using? Apple’s?
Source?
I believe its now a Meta Account.
>>Apple is the worst thing that could happen to VR
Like they were for MP3 players, Smartphones, expensive headphones and Smartwatches?
Like they were for MP3 players, Smartphones, expensive headphones and Smartwatches?
I can't deploy my own developed app to my own devices permanently without paying $100/year.
Yes, I use Android.
Yes, I use Android.
I'm confused. Why not? Android lets you sideload.
If you want to develop on iPhone you need to pay to become a developer, $100/year. You can't just run whatever code you like on it.
Google is one-off $25 to publish on their store, but running your own code via sideload is free.
Google is one-off $25 to publish on their store, but running your own code via sideload is free.
They definitely innovated once. Nowadays they are mostly responsible for inflating high-end phone and headphone prices to ridiculous levels.
[deleted]
Meta built an amazing, affordable product, but their brand is just so toxic that it’ll take a generational change before it can eventually recover its good will and people in developed countries trust it again.
It's not their brand per se that's the issue, but the fact that their headsets were bricks unless you had signed up for a Facebook account with all the issues that come with that, from privacy concerns to getting locked out seemingly on a whim: https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest/comments/j22lmx/im_out_...
The response from Meta still leaves a lot to be desired: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/07/quest-vr-has-traded-f...
Less important than Meta rehabbing their brand image would be them actually putting a stop to their user hostile behavior.
It's not their brand per se that's the issue, but the fact that their headsets were bricks unless you had signed up for a Facebook account with all the issues that come with that, from privacy concerns to getting locked out seemingly on a whim: https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest/comments/j22lmx/im_out_...
The response from Meta still leaves a lot to be desired: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/07/quest-vr-has-traded-f...
Less important than Meta rehabbing their brand image would be them actually putting a stop to their user hostile behavior.
This isn’t true. You’ve always been able to use a headset with an oculus account. More recently you had to switch to a Meta account. Neither of those are Facebook accounts.
Source: never had Facebook, but have had Quests
Source: never had Facebook, but have had Quests
If you didn't have a previously-existing Oculus account, there was a period in which you were forced to use your Facebook account. I think this was since the release of Quest 2, up until a few months ago.
This sounds like it could be right - I was pretty early on the oculus bandwagon - then only recently had to "upgrade to meta".
To answer some of the siblings. Yes a Meta account is not a Facebook account. Facebook = A product. Just like an Instagram account isn't a Facebook account either. But they are both 'meta'.
Meta essentially end-of-lifed oculus accounts but transitioned them to Meta. I think (myself included) people would not have liked being forced into another product.
To answer some of the siblings. Yes a Meta account is not a Facebook account. Facebook = A product. Just like an Instagram account isn't a Facebook account either. But they are both 'meta'.
Meta essentially end-of-lifed oculus accounts but transitioned them to Meta. I think (myself included) people would not have liked being forced into another product.
I also never had to connect my (rift) headset to a Facebook account, but wasn't there a period when new quests needed to be connected to Facebook accounts?
The problem I see is my PSVR1 is dusty because I'm bored with it. It was a cool experience and battlezone was fun but maybe 20 hours in and I'm done and its dusty.
The marketing solution to the PSVR1 being boring is "its got more pixels and no backwards compatibility". That message is just not going to sell to upgraders like me. "It costs more" is not going to sell to people who couldn't/wouldn't pay for the PSVR1. So who's supposed to buy this, exactly? People who collect VR headsets is not a large enough market.
The technology reminds me of the wii fit balance board. If you can't have 20 hours of fun with that, there's something wrong with you. Likewise, if you're having more than 20 hours of fun, I have to ask "how?" Its about as many hours of fun as a VR headset, but costs less. The balance board is just a few years older than VR headsets and nobody sells that type of tech anymore. That is the future of VR headsets.
I think this is a valid HN story in the sense of being an object lesson in how not to sell something technological. Your marketing message needs to be aimed at a market and has to have a message, you can't just leave those two parts out and expect product success.
The marketing solution to the PSVR1 being boring is "its got more pixels and no backwards compatibility". That message is just not going to sell to upgraders like me. "It costs more" is not going to sell to people who couldn't/wouldn't pay for the PSVR1. So who's supposed to buy this, exactly? People who collect VR headsets is not a large enough market.
The technology reminds me of the wii fit balance board. If you can't have 20 hours of fun with that, there's something wrong with you. Likewise, if you're having more than 20 hours of fun, I have to ask "how?" Its about as many hours of fun as a VR headset, but costs less. The balance board is just a few years older than VR headsets and nobody sells that type of tech anymore. That is the future of VR headsets.
I think this is a valid HN story in the sense of being an object lesson in how not to sell something technological. Your marketing message needs to be aimed at a market and has to have a message, you can't just leave those two parts out and expect product success.
6 years is a lifetime in technology and a lot has changed. There are new use cases for VR since you last tried it.
1. Fitness - It's just a lot more fun to do when you're boxing in a Mike Tyson's Punch Out clone or slicing blocks with lightsabers. There are also VR specific fitness apps have a lot more variety than normal cardio exercises. In my case, I've lost 20 lbs to date... playing VR video games
2. Social - For friends and family who are hundreds or thousands of miles away, XR becomes a platform for hanging out with them while doing activities like ping pong, bowling, table top games, mini golf, and more. It has way more immersion and presence than a Zoom, Facetime, or normal phone call.
I would try it out again one day before rushing to judgement. At least you tried it the first time though unlike everyone else.
1. Fitness - It's just a lot more fun to do when you're boxing in a Mike Tyson's Punch Out clone or slicing blocks with lightsabers. There are also VR specific fitness apps have a lot more variety than normal cardio exercises. In my case, I've lost 20 lbs to date... playing VR video games
2. Social - For friends and family who are hundreds or thousands of miles away, XR becomes a platform for hanging out with them while doing activities like ping pong, bowling, table top games, mini golf, and more. It has way more immersion and presence than a Zoom, Facetime, or normal phone call.
I would try it out again one day before rushing to judgement. At least you tried it the first time though unlike everyone else.
I respectfully disagree. I think VR is about in the same place experience-wise. PSVR has Beat Saber. And the social experiences (I'm assuming you mean VRChat and such) are... just fine, in my opinion? And I definitely have long-distance relationships where it makes sense. The novelty wears off quick and being isolated and with an uncomfortable headset on is a non-negligible cost vs video/voice/text.
(I have a recent headset and associated hardware, FWIW.)
(I have a recent headset and associated hardware, FWIW.)
> I think VR is about in the same place experience-wise.
If all you've experienced is PSVR1, the visual fidelity has gotten much better on newer platforms and so have the controls and tracking which all greatly affect the experience. Wireless is also a big game changer.
> And the social experiences (I'm assuming you mean VRChat and such) are... just fine, in my opinion? And I definitely have long-distance relationships where it makes sense. The novelty wears off quick
How can the novelty for social wear off when you haven't actually tried the social portion? That didn't exist on PSVR. (and no, I wasn't talking about VRChat)
Working out in VR also handily beats working out without it. In many cases, the novelty does not wear off since working out without VR tends to be very repetitive and dull.
> I have a recent headset and associated hardware, FWIW.
Which one? If so, why don't you discuss that "recent headset" instead of ancient 6 year old hardware that no one really uses anymore?
If all you've experienced is PSVR1, the visual fidelity has gotten much better on newer platforms and so have the controls and tracking which all greatly affect the experience. Wireless is also a big game changer.
> And the social experiences (I'm assuming you mean VRChat and such) are... just fine, in my opinion? And I definitely have long-distance relationships where it makes sense. The novelty wears off quick
How can the novelty for social wear off when you haven't actually tried the social portion? That didn't exist on PSVR. (and no, I wasn't talking about VRChat)
Working out in VR also handily beats working out without it. In many cases, the novelty does not wear off since working out without VR tends to be very repetitive and dull.
> I have a recent headset and associated hardware, FWIW.
Which one? If so, why don't you discuss that "recent headset" instead of ancient 6 year old hardware that no one really uses anymore?
I think you’re looking at VR from a point of view that it can do no wrong, for some reason. If VR workouts are so fun, why isn’t there a larger adoption of it? If the social interactions are so incredible, why aren’t people living their lives in VR yet?
The answer is pretty simple… because it’s really not. The experience is 90% novelty and once that wears off you really don’t have much left unless you find a game you really really enjoy.
VR has had enough time to see adoption numbers reach critical mass. They just haven’t. Most people that own them are probably like me and the person who posted their original opinion. They sit and gather dust.
The answer is pretty simple… because it’s really not. The experience is 90% novelty and once that wears off you really don’t have much left unless you find a game you really really enjoy.
VR has had enough time to see adoption numbers reach critical mass. They just haven’t. Most people that own them are probably like me and the person who posted their original opinion. They sit and gather dust.
> I think you’re looking at VR from a point of view that it can do no wrong
No. I know VR has a ton of problems, but for the people who have actually tried it extensively, none of those problems are mentioned by people who have near zero experience with modern VR ie not Google Cardboard
> If VR workouts are so fun, why isn’t there a larger adoption of it? If the social interactions are so incredible, why aren’t people living their lives in VR yet?
Several factors:
1. price and complexity for PCVR
2. Facebook’s brand is destroyed for the current working population. Even though it released a technological marvel, no one is even willing to try it just because it’s from Facebook. I write about it in more detail in other comments
3. Some people just don’t like to do any physical activity
> The experience is 90% novelty and once that wears off you really don’t have much left unless you find a game you really really enjoy
How do you know when you haven’t used modern VR? Google cardboard doesn’t count. That’s my main point
> Most people that own them are probably like me and the person who posted their original opinion. They sit and gather dust.
Which headset do you own?
No. I know VR has a ton of problems, but for the people who have actually tried it extensively, none of those problems are mentioned by people who have near zero experience with modern VR ie not Google Cardboard
> If VR workouts are so fun, why isn’t there a larger adoption of it? If the social interactions are so incredible, why aren’t people living their lives in VR yet?
Several factors:
1. price and complexity for PCVR
2. Facebook’s brand is destroyed for the current working population. Even though it released a technological marvel, no one is even willing to try it just because it’s from Facebook. I write about it in more detail in other comments
3. Some people just don’t like to do any physical activity
> The experience is 90% novelty and once that wears off you really don’t have much left unless you find a game you really really enjoy
How do you know when you haven’t used modern VR? Google cardboard doesn’t count. That’s my main point
> Most people that own them are probably like me and the person who posted their original opinion. They sit and gather dust.
Which headset do you own?
> How do you know when you haven’t used modern VR? Google cardboard doesn’t count. That’s my main point
Weird assumption to make. I’ve tried modern hardware, to me it’s mostly just higher resolution of the same thing.
All of your points do very little to address VR concerns. It’s the lazy people hurting the adoption of VR? Shouldn’t it appeal to someone that’s lazy and doesn’t want to go outside?
Facebook is far from the only player in the game. But their inability to make meaningful content with such a large investment should tell you something.
VR is a niche idea that has performed about as well as you can expect. Very few people want to go and work with a VR headset. I think it’s also fighting the trend of people wanting actual experiences, not virtual reality. If I can spend $1000 on a VR headset that will eventually just gather dust or choose to actually go somewhere, I’d choose the latter. Many people would.
I suspect it’ll end up the way 3D TVs did.
Weird assumption to make. I’ve tried modern hardware, to me it’s mostly just higher resolution of the same thing.
All of your points do very little to address VR concerns. It’s the lazy people hurting the adoption of VR? Shouldn’t it appeal to someone that’s lazy and doesn’t want to go outside?
Facebook is far from the only player in the game. But their inability to make meaningful content with such a large investment should tell you something.
VR is a niche idea that has performed about as well as you can expect. Very few people want to go and work with a VR headset. I think it’s also fighting the trend of people wanting actual experiences, not virtual reality. If I can spend $1000 on a VR headset that will eventually just gather dust or choose to actually go somewhere, I’d choose the latter. Many people would.
I suspect it’ll end up the way 3D TVs did.
> Weird assumption to make. I’ve tried modern hardware, to me it’s mostly just higher resolution if the same thing.
It’s not a bad assumption because you never mentioned an actual problem with VR (and they are many). What you’ve done is simply parrot people who haven’t experienced VR for more than 5 minutes if at all. Like the previous parent commenter, you still haven’t mentioned which modern headset you’ve owned.
> It’s the lazy people hurting the adoption of VR?
I’ve ordered adoption hurdles according to importance and prevalence. It is a factor, but not the biggest one.
> Facebook is far from the only player in the game.
Meta is the only large publicly traded company that’s shipped something worthwhile for the masses at large. Sony and Apple will enter soon, but that won’t happen until next year.
It’s not a bad assumption because you never mentioned an actual problem with VR (and they are many). What you’ve done is simply parrot people who haven’t experienced VR for more than 5 minutes if at all. Like the previous parent commenter, you still haven’t mentioned which modern headset you’ve owned.
> It’s the lazy people hurting the adoption of VR?
I’ve ordered adoption hurdles according to importance and prevalence. It is a factor, but not the biggest one.
> Facebook is far from the only player in the game.
Meta is the only large publicly traded company that’s shipped something worthwhile for the masses at large. Sony and Apple will enter soon, but that won’t happen until next year.
So you have to be a publicly traded company to deliver a product now? A quick search shows several big companies — HP, HTC, Valve, Samsung, for example — that have highly rated equipment.
My point still stands. I’ve tried the HTC and Valve equipment multiple times. If your argument is “oh you gotta own it and dump hours and hours into it before you see the value”, I think you’ve already lost your argument with 99.9% of consumers. This is no demonstrated value of VR, and what it does offer is fairly lackluster once the novelty wears off.
Seems like you’ve fallen for the Meta ads about how this is life changing. In its current form, it’s not even close.
My point still stands. I’ve tried the HTC and Valve equipment multiple times. If your argument is “oh you gotta own it and dump hours and hours into it before you see the value”, I think you’ve already lost your argument with 99.9% of consumers. This is no demonstrated value of VR, and what it does offer is fairly lackluster once the novelty wears off.
Seems like you’ve fallen for the Meta ads about how this is life changing. In its current form, it’s not even close.
> So you have to be a publicly traded company to deliver a product now?
No, but they’re the only ones with enough resources to burn. Of the companies that you’ve named, none of them has made a VR system for the masses when the price for entry is about $3000 for a complete PCVR system. To add insult to injury, they’re not even wireless
> My point still stands. I’ve tried the HTC and Valve equipment multiple times. If your argument is “oh you gotta own it and dump hours and hours into it before you see the value”
Yes, it doesn’t stand because you haven’t used it enough. If your only impression of the internet was Yahoo, I don’t feel that it’s fair or accurate to say that the entire internet sucks. Your complaints are vague and they still reflect that of a person with near 0 experience in VR and that’s why I can’t take you seriously.
> I think you’ve already lost your argument with 99.9% of consumers
I don’t expect the masses to be able to see or understand the future. They don’t have the skill set for that. Conversely, most people on HN have that skill. I’m just asking people here to use it with enough data
No, but they’re the only ones with enough resources to burn. Of the companies that you’ve named, none of them has made a VR system for the masses when the price for entry is about $3000 for a complete PCVR system. To add insult to injury, they’re not even wireless
> My point still stands. I’ve tried the HTC and Valve equipment multiple times. If your argument is “oh you gotta own it and dump hours and hours into it before you see the value”
Yes, it doesn’t stand because you haven’t used it enough. If your only impression of the internet was Yahoo, I don’t feel that it’s fair or accurate to say that the entire internet sucks. Your complaints are vague and they still reflect that of a person with near 0 experience in VR and that’s why I can’t take you seriously.
> I think you’ve already lost your argument with 99.9% of consumers
I don’t expect the masses to be able to see or understand the future. They don’t have the skill set for that. Conversely, most people on HN have that skill. I’m just asking people here to use it with enough data
My experience is identical to yours. I loved the PSVR but sold it 6 months later due to lack of use. Half-Life Alyx was the only game to come out for VR that I wish I could check out. But even that isn’t worth the cost and space investment in a new headset.
That's my biggest fear with PSVR2. There's a few AAA games and then a bunch of indie games and that's it. Until Sony treats VR as a first-class citizen I don't see this changing.
As a Vive owner, this is the first headset to really catch my interest since!
120hz and OLED are exactly what I've been looking for in a "next gen" headset. The inside-out tracking does give me some hesitation, but overall it's sounding like this will be an excellent piece of hardware. The biggest downside (and upside for general consumers, just plug and play) would be platform support limited to Playstation... Which I'm eager to see if community efforts try to bring PC support given the excellent hardware specs/price.
120hz and OLED are exactly what I've been looking for in a "next gen" headset. The inside-out tracking does give me some hesitation, but overall it's sounding like this will be an excellent piece of hardware. The biggest downside (and upside for general consumers, just plug and play) would be platform support limited to Playstation... Which I'm eager to see if community efforts try to bring PC support given the excellent hardware specs/price.
Inside out tracking is great these days. Unless you mean you're worried about Sony's implementation specifically?
My worries aren't specific to Sony's implementation, it's specifically related to the processing latency that's been associated with inside-out tracking. My understanding is inside out typically uses CMOS sensors which generally have inherent latency returning an image that must be processed quickly. Outside-in generally uses photo-diodes with lighter processing.
I have yet to try modern headsets to see for myself, but my hunch is there's some level of latency that isn't present with outside-in. It's also worth noting some individuals may have varied perceptions of latency while their pyshical response of fatigue/etc may be more present than their actual awareness. Anecdotally, I once got in an argument with a professor that I could visibly notice when CRT monitors were set to 50hz (instead of 60hz) and would get headaches. Now it's generally accepted many can discern between much higher refresh rates than that FWIW.
I have yet to try modern headsets to see for myself, but my hunch is there's some level of latency that isn't present with outside-in. It's also worth noting some individuals may have varied perceptions of latency while their pyshical response of fatigue/etc may be more present than their actual awareness. Anecdotally, I once got in an argument with a professor that I could visibly notice when CRT monitors were set to 50hz (instead of 60hz) and would get headaches. Now it's generally accepted many can discern between much higher refresh rates than that FWIW.
Inside out SLAM isn’t solely dependent on optics. It also uses IMUs to fill in the interim.
You can quite easily test this on any phone that supports AR (I’d recommend an iPhone).
You get tracking even if you occlude the camera for a couple frames.
You can quite easily test this on any phone that supports AR (I’d recommend an iPhone).
You get tracking even if you occlude the camera for a couple frames.
I've since learned SteamVR is considered inside-out marker based tracking because of the sensor placement. My general understanding of inside-out tracking was correct and it would more accurately be referred to as markerless inside out tracking.
My concerns are strictly with markerless inside-out tracking, here's an article detailing accuracy issues that have been associated with markerless inside-out tracking: https://www.roadtovr.com/htc-vive-cosmos-accuracy-test-contr...
My concerns are strictly with markerless inside-out tracking, here's an article detailing accuracy issues that have been associated with markerless inside-out tracking: https://www.roadtovr.com/htc-vive-cosmos-accuracy-test-contr...
> I have yet to try modern headsets to see for myself, but my hunch is there's some level of latency that isn't present with outside-in
As someone who's owned both a Vive Pro and Valve Index, if there is any performance issue with inside out tracking it's very negligible. I don't notice it, and this is with playing on Expert Plus with Beat Saber. You'll notice performance issues if you ever start to use wireless. Wirelessly using Oculus while not having your PC wired up to a WiFi 6 router is as terrible as using HTC's wireless add-on but in different ways
As someone who's owned both a Vive Pro and Valve Index, if there is any performance issue with inside out tracking it's very negligible. I don't notice it, and this is with playing on Expert Plus with Beat Saber. You'll notice performance issues if you ever start to use wireless. Wirelessly using Oculus while not having your PC wired up to a WiFi 6 router is as terrible as using HTC's wireless add-on but in different ways
>Outside-in generally uses photo-diodes with lighter processing.
No. There were only 3 consumer headsets to use outside in tracking. They were the Oculus Rift DK2 and CV1 and the PS VR headset. All of those tracking systems used cameras and not photodiodes. Even commercial outside in tracking solutions like optitrack don't use photodiodes.
No. There were only 3 consumer headsets to use outside in tracking. They were the Oculus Rift DK2 and CV1 and the PS VR headset. All of those tracking systems used cameras and not photodiodes. Even commercial outside in tracking solutions like optitrack don't use photodiodes.
No the SteamVR tracking system used by Valve Index, HTC Vive, Pimax and some headsets with extra tracking-plates use IR photo-diodes:
https://triadsemi.com/product/ts4112/
VR users that want full body tracking usually go with outside-in tracking, with tracking devices strapped to their bodies. It is expensive, but the accuracy is very good.
https://triadsemi.com/product/ts4112/
VR users that want full body tracking usually go with outside-in tracking, with tracking devices strapped to their bodies. It is expensive, but the accuracy is very good.
SteamVR tracking does use photodiodes, but it is an inside out tracking system. This is because the photodiodes are on the tracked devices. The base stations project distorted planes of light that sweep through the play space and thef planes quickly flash to communicate information like the orientation of the base station.
Thanks for the clarification!
Does PS5 have enough power to really do 4k120 with ray tracing?
Not really unless they have some programming magic. Some of the stuff the console devs squeeze out is pretty magical sometimes.
That is a surprisingly affordable price point for the technology on offer.
Sony must have really efficient manufacturing, assuming they're not selling at a loss.
A quality 120Hz 4000 x 2040 HDR OLED display alone would likely cost at least half the MSRP.
Sony must have really efficient manufacturing, assuming they're not selling at a loss.
A quality 120Hz 4000 x 2040 HDR OLED display alone would likely cost at least half the MSRP.
Sony has a history of selling hardware at a loss at launch and then recouping via subs/software/late-cycle sales.
Not sure why this is being downvoted... perhaps it is documented somewhere they are not selling this at a loss but ordinarily both Sony and Microsoft sell consoles at a loss indeed.
I think ordinarily peripherals are not sold at a loss, but it would make sense that a pricy VR headset would be the exception.
I think ordinarily peripherals are not sold at a loss, but it would make sense that a pricy VR headset would be the exception.
It's a hard sell. There are cheaper 120hz headsets on the market, and the experience of tethering yourself to another machine is pretty antiquated in 2022. Unless someone's only option for VR gaming is through their PS5, they'd probably be better-suited with anything else.
> the experience of tethering yourself to another machine is pretty antiquated in 2022
What a strange take. 3 of the top performing consumer headsets (Vive Pro 2, HP G2 Reverb, Varjo Aero) are all tetheted, two of which came out this year.
I believe only the Quest 2 has 120hz over wireless, and even that was only added 12 months ago and was still classed as "experimental" until a few months ago.
What a strange take. 3 of the top performing consumer headsets (Vive Pro 2, HP G2 Reverb, Varjo Aero) are all tetheted, two of which came out this year.
I believe only the Quest 2 has 120hz over wireless, and even that was only added 12 months ago and was still classed as "experimental" until a few months ago.
Where is this 120hz headset that doesn't pair to another system for a comparable price?
The META quest is MSRP $1,499 and Zuck says they are shipping THAT at a loss.
The META quest is MSRP $1,499 and Zuck says they are shipping THAT at a loss.
You might not know this but the Meta/Oculus Quest 2 (120Hz) has existed since 2020. I got my Quest 2, 2 years ago, when it was still labeled Oculus on the box, for 350 Euros. I think now it's 450 Euros, inflation and all, but at least the storage is double at 128GB.
Great device, saved my sanity during the winter lockdowns.
Great device, saved my sanity during the winter lockdowns.
I believe the Quest 2 only added support for 120hz last year. And Airlink only became officially supportd a few months ago.
Ok right, but the current Oculus model is $1500.
There is no "current" Oculus, as the newer "Quest Pro" does not replace the older "Quest 2" but both are available being sold in parallel at different price brackets, like iPhone 14 Pro Max and iPhone SE.
And the Quest 2 alone is superior to the PSVR since it has the "gaming console" built in, while being far cheaper than the PSVR whiteout even accounting for the extra cost of the PS5 in the equation.
Pricing aside, Meta had a decent product with the Quest 2, as they went all-in and it was designed form the start as a stand alone cordless platform and focused and polished the entre VR gaming experience around that from the ground up even buying dedicated VR game dev studios, while for Sony, the PSVR is just a corded accessory to the stationary PS5, but not the main product and so it's not their main focus for PS5 gaming, and we'll see this reflected in the amount and quality of VR titles they'll put out.
The PSVR does win in the graphics department thanks to the processing power of the PS5 but that comes at the cost of reduce mobility thanks to the stupid cable keeping your head tied to the PS5 and ruining your immersion. In fact, I'm calling it right now: the cable tether will make it a fail for most users. I expect the return rates to be high followed by low retail sales and people dumping them on ebay after a few months of gathering dust, same like with the last PSVR they made. It will flop as hard as the Quest Pro.
For people wanting to dip their toes in VR and play Beat Sabre and Pistol Whip, 450 Euros is far easier to stomach than invest 1300+ Euros in a PlayStation VR setup and then hate it because you'll always have to take care of not tangling yourself or tripping on the cable. We saw the same with Valve's VR gear. People just didn't want to put up with the hassle of having an expensive and corded setup just to play Half-Life Alyx.
Meta/Oculus moved the goalposts so far with their cordless self-contained devices, that any new VR gear still needing cables and a separate PC/console to function is an instant fail. I expect Apple's VR gear will also be cordless, powered by their excellent mobile Mx chips.
And the Quest 2 alone is superior to the PSVR since it has the "gaming console" built in, while being far cheaper than the PSVR whiteout even accounting for the extra cost of the PS5 in the equation.
Pricing aside, Meta had a decent product with the Quest 2, as they went all-in and it was designed form the start as a stand alone cordless platform and focused and polished the entre VR gaming experience around that from the ground up even buying dedicated VR game dev studios, while for Sony, the PSVR is just a corded accessory to the stationary PS5, but not the main product and so it's not their main focus for PS5 gaming, and we'll see this reflected in the amount and quality of VR titles they'll put out.
The PSVR does win in the graphics department thanks to the processing power of the PS5 but that comes at the cost of reduce mobility thanks to the stupid cable keeping your head tied to the PS5 and ruining your immersion. In fact, I'm calling it right now: the cable tether will make it a fail for most users. I expect the return rates to be high followed by low retail sales and people dumping them on ebay after a few months of gathering dust, same like with the last PSVR they made. It will flop as hard as the Quest Pro.
For people wanting to dip their toes in VR and play Beat Sabre and Pistol Whip, 450 Euros is far easier to stomach than invest 1300+ Euros in a PlayStation VR setup and then hate it because you'll always have to take care of not tangling yourself or tripping on the cable. We saw the same with Valve's VR gear. People just didn't want to put up with the hassle of having an expensive and corded setup just to play Half-Life Alyx.
Meta/Oculus moved the goalposts so far with their cordless self-contained devices, that any new VR gear still needing cables and a separate PC/console to function is an instant fail. I expect Apple's VR gear will also be cordless, powered by their excellent mobile Mx chips.
Stating the obvious but the total cost has to include the PS5, no? To compare it to the META headset at least.
Yes-ish. The mobile hardware in the meta headsets limits the games available on it. If you want to play No Man's Sky VR you're going to need to use Oculus Link (is it called Meta Link now?) and a beefy PC.
If you just want a beat saber device the Quest 2 is definitely way cheaper overall.
If you just want a beat saber device the Quest 2 is definitely way cheaper overall.
This was my first thought too. It's an amazing looking piece of kit. I will not be buying a Playstation, but I do wish the PC VR space had someone continuing to push forward. The Index is nice but they really missed a beat by going with LCD. I haven't used my CV1 recently but I'm under the impression I will need a meta login, which I'm not interested in doing.
The Oculus Quest 2 with Air Link kills most other headsets dead, being both cheap, high-resolution and wireless.
I find Air Link to be finicky enough that I hardly ever use it. Once it's actually working it's pretty great, but the dance I have to do to enable the feature on the headset, enable the feature in Oculus Home (the settings don't persist forever for some reason), then get Steam VR to be happy with it... it's a lot of clicks (both in the real world on mouse/keyboard, then in the headset with the controllers, and back out and in again when something isn't working), often requires rebooting the PC or Quest or both, and is just a UX disaster overall.
That's fair, I have only used it briefly so far (only just bought a decent PC). That is a shame to hear!
Now, I also bought a really long USB-C cable with a 90-degree angle connector to make it fit a bit nicer, and I can use Link instead of Air Link, cutting out a bunch of steps getting it going. That works pretty reliably, and has better video quality. Corded, obviously, but it's still better than the old Vive umbilical cord, and fine for sit-down games like Elite.
https://rarest.org/tech/most-expensive-vr-headsets
From that list, the HP Reverb has been described as better than the Index and Quest 2 due to higher quality screen and FOV (priced well too).
The Primax and Aero are considered to be even more high end.
I am considering making the investment since VR and Space/Flight/Racing sims are an entirely unique experience with VR and all the joysticks/racing wheels.
From that list, the HP Reverb has been described as better than the Index and Quest 2 due to higher quality screen and FOV (priced well too).
The Primax and Aero are considered to be even more high end.
I am considering making the investment since VR and Space/Flight/Racing sims are an entirely unique experience with VR and all the joysticks/racing wheels.
The controller quality and tracking on the HP is worse than Index or Quest 2 which is (rightfully) a big deal for some people. The HP is the perfect VR headset for simracing and flightsim though.
Be careful with simracing though! I started with one of the $300 Logitech setups and am now a few thousand dollars deep into a direct-drive setup. ;)
Be careful with simracing though! I started with one of the $300 Logitech setups and am now a few thousand dollars deep into a direct-drive setup. ;)
Yes, same here. I have just started.
Tried the Reverb and was plagued by basic USB issues that stemmed from having an Asus motherboard. Went through many guides and troubleshooting before saying screw it, and returned it for an Index instead.
(I use VR in Elite Dangerous and Flight Simulator)
(I use VR in Elite Dangerous and Flight Simulator)
Probably more for anyone elses info than yours now, but this issue was resolved some months back with the "v2" version of the Reverb G2. Unfortunately they don't label the box differently.
HP Reverb has been described as better than the Index and Quest 2
Unlikely - unless strictly on hardware specs - the Quest 2 is almost universally regarded (Google will confirm) as the best current headset, simply on bang for buck.
Unlikely - unless strictly on hardware specs - the Quest 2 is almost universally regarded (Google will confirm) as the best current headset, simply on bang for buck.
This conversation doesn't seem to be about bang-for-buck. There's also a difference between strict (on-paper) hardware specs and the actual experience of using it.
Give it a couple of years and I think you’ll have Valve release a Steam Deck with official support for their headset for some kind of super portable VR set up. You can already do it with the current gen (even wirelessly) but it’s not quite ready for prime time. Have a look at this video to see it in action:
https://youtu.be/5FWDSFVp3NM
https://youtu.be/5FWDSFVp3NM
Affordability is one of the major issues of the metaverse. Most people can’t afford a VR ready PC as is and you’re lamenting that the Index doesn’t use more expensive components. I feel that Valve made the right choice with cheaper components since their goal is increased adoption of XR.
Yet the PSVR2 is superior to the Index and costs half as much. Something is driving that it'd be nice if that something was able to propagate to PC VR.
PSVR2 is better than the Index in several ways, but PSVR2 came out 4 years after the Index. PSVR2 is also part of a completely closed platform. PCVR is a much more open platform which tends to mean higher prices. Let's also not forget that the Index uses base stations for tracking, which is much more accurate (and also more expensive) than inside out tracking.
A friend of mine gave me a PSVR1 for my birthday (which I use on my PS5). I'm playing Resident Evil 7 in VR mode and it's the most immersive experience in any horror (or possibly any other genre, really) game I've ever played. I was legitimately terrified and didn't want to sleep the night I played it for the first time. I am not a person that gets easily scared in horror films or games and usually get a laugh out of the absurdity of gore and jump scares but RE7 just hit much different in VR. The dinner table scene at the beginning of the game, and the chase sequences were absolutely horrifying.
If Resident Evil 8 and/or the Resident Evil 4 remakes get VR modes I will buy PSVR2 on day one.
If Resident Evil 8 and/or the Resident Evil 4 remakes get VR modes I will buy PSVR2 on day one.
Great news - Resident Evil 8 will be released have an official PSVR2 version. Full remake and PSVR2 integration.
There are trailers/previews available and it looks pretty darn impressive.
There are trailers/previews available and it looks pretty darn impressive.
Well then I'm sold. Gonna look into it, thanks!
It helps that resident evil 7 is just a good game. The first half at least. It made some very smart decisions to approach horror differently.
I’m not convinced the vr adds much. I heard you aim guns with your head, not your hands and found that stupid.
The resident evil team has been exploring a lot of interesting stuff with their titles. 8 is sort of a celebration of all of it with sections of the game that are clearly designed around the mentality of 4, 7, and 2 each
I’m not convinced the vr adds much. I heard you aim guns with your head, not your hands and found that stupid.
The resident evil team has been exploring a lot of interesting stuff with their titles. 8 is sort of a celebration of all of it with sections of the game that are clearly designed around the mentality of 4, 7, and 2 each
I was a fan of the original Resident Evil on the PS1, and some of the earlier survival horror games like Silent Hill. I felt that Silent Hill in particular crossed the line into unenjoyable territory for me. The game was superb, but the horror was just too unsettling to keep playing. I would get physically ill, with stomach cramps, nightmares, etc., that it took years of forcing myself to actually finish it. Same with SH2 a few years later. Then the RE series took a more action oriented turn, and I lost interest.
Until RE7, which I started playing without VR. I can agree that it's truly horrifying, and a return to their roots. The first-person perspective also adds a lot to the immersion. As much as I'm curious, I couldn't imagine playing it in VR.
If you're looking for a different kind of horror, give Subnautica a try. It's terrifying even without VR. I've played for many hours and still can't get myself to finish it.
Part of me thinks it's a bit silly to intentionally subject yourself to the stress that these games produce, and as I get older, I seek more enjoyable experiences. Yet for some reason, I keep going back to them...
Until RE7, which I started playing without VR. I can agree that it's truly horrifying, and a return to their roots. The first-person perspective also adds a lot to the immersion. As much as I'm curious, I couldn't imagine playing it in VR.
If you're looking for a different kind of horror, give Subnautica a try. It's terrifying even without VR. I've played for many hours and still can't get myself to finish it.
Part of me thinks it's a bit silly to intentionally subject yourself to the stress that these games produce, and as I get older, I seek more enjoyable experiences. Yet for some reason, I keep going back to them...
I have Subnautica on PC and love it, you're right it is very scary because of the way the world is setup and the type of threats you face. I recently moved and my HTC Vive is packed up and haven't had the motivation to hook up the sensors again, so I may hook it up to go back and try the VR mode now that you mention it.
Not backwards compatible with PSVR version 1 games? I’m having a hard time imagining a good reason for this. They claim it’s because it’s a totally new VR experience… whatever that means.
Their claim is complete horseshit. They must have decided that including the previous game library was not worth the development effort of an API translation layer. Hope they're right...
Some games presented the Dual Shock 4 controller visually tracked in game, even if they managed to do a compatibility layer those games still relied on tracking the DS4 controller light via the camera.
But at least some devs have confirmed their psvr games will be patched to support the new version, like No Man’s Sky.
But at least some devs have confirmed their psvr games will be patched to support the new version, like No Man’s Sky.
Unfortunately not everyone is like the folks who work on No Man's Sky. They have released a boatload of fixes, new content, engine updates, VR support, you name it, they keep delivering.
Their support of that game has been very impressive over the years. Launch was rocky, sure, but they recovered and kept pushing ahead.
Their support of that game has been very impressive over the years. Launch was rocky, sure, but they recovered and kept pushing ahead.
Seems trivial then to simulate that.. still seems like a false narrative on Sony's part
The controller is pretty different, and I don't think the original PSVR games were written with an abstraction for that like Steam games are.
VR PC games manage to run on Quest, Vive, you name it - the controllers being different isn’t a very compelling argument why they’ve not given any backwards compatibility support.
As for the software abstraction being poor, that’s also just bad engineering on Sony’s part then.
As for the software abstraction being poor, that’s also just bad engineering on Sony’s part then.
Yeah, I'm a little bummed about this. Maybe it's a combination of the controllers and the increase in resolution/etc. With the gen 1, you had the move controllers and a remote camera. Games were probably developed with that in mind - even if they knew some changes were coming down the pipe, it would be difficult to write the games with the VR2 system in mind.
Whether or not this is all abstracted away, I have no idea... but there really is a pretty huge difference between 1 and 2 if you think about the camera set up and the controller situation. The move controllers were optional - they didn't even come with the system. I think there were bundles that had them. They came out BEFORE the VR system did, and were kind of a gimmick until the PSVR landed.
Now that you have a real high quality headset, that ships with standard, hopefully high quality controllers, the target application should take advantage of those things.
Whether or not this is all abstracted away, I have no idea... but there really is a pretty huge difference between 1 and 2 if you think about the camera set up and the controller situation. The move controllers were optional - they didn't even come with the system. I think there were bundles that had them. They came out BEFORE the VR system did, and were kind of a gimmick until the PSVR landed.
Now that you have a real high quality headset, that ships with standard, hopefully high quality controllers, the target application should take advantage of those things.
I would guess it's because psvr1 depended on an external camera for tracking from both the headset and controllers. The new headset has internal cameras and a completely new control system. I would expect it will be each developer that has to make their old game psvr2 compatible.
Surely the games used a high level API that Sony could support with this. I doubt games had any code related to external camera tracking, the system must've just spit out the position of the headset to the game.
There's so much great (and under-appreciated) content for PSVR, I really hope Sony has some kind of upgrade path tooling for developers to "remaster" existing titles for PSVR 2.
I don't understand the market for a device like this at this cost.
Are there really enough people that would spend this much on a VR system in a closed ecosystem instead of going with one attached to your PC that has access to everything?
I bought the valve index (which is more than this) because I can use it with Steam and any VR games outside of steam. Plus modding.
I feel like Sony should have subsidized the hardware more accounting for the fact that they will get money from every VR game sold for this thing. Otherwise I worry the market for it just won't make sense for developers (which then hurts anyone that bought it).
Also the lack of PSVR1 support would make me seriously question buying this anyways, why invest in a platform if they are just going to make it so you can't play any of your games later (or requires you keep multiple VR's around)
Are there really enough people that would spend this much on a VR system in a closed ecosystem instead of going with one attached to your PC that has access to everything?
I bought the valve index (which is more than this) because I can use it with Steam and any VR games outside of steam. Plus modding.
I feel like Sony should have subsidized the hardware more accounting for the fact that they will get money from every VR game sold for this thing. Otherwise I worry the market for it just won't make sense for developers (which then hurts anyone that bought it).
Also the lack of PSVR1 support would make me seriously question buying this anyways, why invest in a platform if they are just going to make it so you can't play any of your games later (or requires you keep multiple VR's around)
> I don't understand the market for a device like this at this cost.
I am a software engineer and OSS enthusiast, I operate servers and my home automation system, but I gave up on PC gaming years ago. After a long day of fighting distributed systems, I want my gaming rig to just work. That's why I bought the first PSVR: because Sony offers me a system where I don't have to fiddle with drivers and windows updates.
Price is too steep indeed, but it will go down as the production ramps up. PSVR launched at 400€ in 2016, and I bought it at 200€ two years after that.
I am a software engineer and OSS enthusiast, I operate servers and my home automation system, but I gave up on PC gaming years ago. After a long day of fighting distributed systems, I want my gaming rig to just work. That's why I bought the first PSVR: because Sony offers me a system where I don't have to fiddle with drivers and windows updates.
Price is too steep indeed, but it will go down as the production ramps up. PSVR launched at 400€ in 2016, and I bought it at 200€ two years after that.
I would love to go with a console as my main platform, I just always have the feeling that Sony is ripping me off with the cost of games and PS Plus. Do you find it evens out in the long run with the larger upfront cost of a gaming PC?
I have both PS5 and a “gaming pc”. I find myself using PS5 for most of my games except for stuff like Civ and CK3.
Also find PS plus to be fantastic, i barely buy games anymore individually.
Also find PS plus to be fantastic, i barely buy games anymore individually.
The hidden cost of a gaming pc is the time you inevitably spend keeping it working. The older I get the more I get annoyed by things that waste what time I have left. I game exclusively on my PS5 and XBox Series X and have no regrets about doing so. Every time I spend a few bucks more than I would on pc I just think about how much time I'm not wasting getting it to work at all. YMMV.
I only play single-player and couch co-op games, so I don't pay for PS Plus. As for the game prices, sales are less massive than on Steam but still frequent. Just create your watchlist on psprices.com.
The only thing I really miss is modding, especially quality-of-life improvement mods.
The only thing I really miss is modding, especially quality-of-life improvement mods.
Then get a Quest 2.
I could get behind your argument if there was no offering that doesn't require a gaming computer, but it's not the case.
I could get behind your argument if there was no offering that doesn't require a gaming computer, but it's not the case.
This seems like half the price of a comparable PCVR setup, including the PS5 to run it. And there's probably still not much crossover between the console crowd and the PC gamer crowd.
Large contingent of people who don't have a PC strong enough to run VR but do have a PS5. Whether the PS5 will get a lively enough VR ecosystem going on it is still a concern though yeah.
I know there is a market for it, I just question if there is enough of a market given the price point they are going for.
I guess that is what I don't understand. Yeah the tech is great but if its too expensive that enough people can't afford it than is there going to be enough people to justify developers to work on it.
I just worry that this is seeing Sony being cocky again like they were with the PS3. Overestimating the market and putting out products that are more expensive with the justification that they are powerful.
I guess that is what I don't understand. Yeah the tech is great but if its too expensive that enough people can't afford it than is there going to be enough people to justify developers to work on it.
I just worry that this is seeing Sony being cocky again like they were with the PS3. Overestimating the market and putting out products that are more expensive with the justification that they are powerful.
My guess is it's the same reasons that drive people towards gaming consoles in the first place, mostly convenience.
What we know from decades of console industry winners and losers is that content and especially exclusive content is everything.
It really doesn't matter if hardware is open or closed. What matters is whether there is fun compelling games.
PS VR has been a success because the quality games have been there, and others have struggled because of their lack of quality games.
We can expect that given Playstation's deep history in games and exclusive in house studios that they will have content for the platform. It's risky to expect the same of any other hardware maker without inhouse studios and decades old industry relationships and partnerships.
It really doesn't matter if hardware is open or closed. What matters is whether there is fun compelling games.
PS VR has been a success because the quality games have been there, and others have struggled because of their lack of quality games.
We can expect that given Playstation's deep history in games and exclusive in house studios that they will have content for the platform. It's risky to expect the same of any other hardware maker without inhouse studios and decades old industry relationships and partnerships.
> attached to your PC
PC is a closed ecosystem. Not everyone has PC.
PC is a closed ecosystem. Not everyone has PC.
The problem for PSVR2 is that the first one didn't really have any must-play games and the 2nd one's only game of note at launch is Horizon which is notorious for always releasing at the same time as some other action RPG that the mass market goes nuts for (Zelda and that Dark Souls game written by the Game of Thrones guy). It also doesn't help that there's no backward compatibility with PSVR1 games (that would allow devs to easily make cross-gen games and take advantage of the last gen VR install base), that the price is so high or that PS5s still aren't easy to buy. This feels like it could be another PSVR1 or PS Vita where Sony gets bored with it after it doesn't sell huge immediately and gives up.
Even as somebody whose game of the year for this year is Horizon 2, I'm unsure about paying $600 for a Horizon spinoff coming out at the same time as the Harry Potter RPG. I expect it to be sitting on the shelf for MSRP at your local Walmart, Target, GameStop or Best Buy on launch day and basically every day afterwards. The fact that I'm unsure whether or not I'll even bother preordering it or just wait until I'm ready to play Horizon is not a good sign.
Even as somebody whose game of the year for this year is Horizon 2, I'm unsure about paying $600 for a Horizon spinoff coming out at the same time as the Harry Potter RPG. I expect it to be sitting on the shelf for MSRP at your local Walmart, Target, GameStop or Best Buy on launch day and basically every day afterwards. The fact that I'm unsure whether or not I'll even bother preordering it or just wait until I'm ready to play Horizon is not a good sign.
It's an odd coincidence that Horizon Call of the Mountain is the flagship game for PSVR2 and Horizon Worlds is the game Meta is pushing for Oculus. Probably not great for Sony.
>“PSVR games are not compatible with PSVR2, because PSVR2 is designed to deliver a truly next-gen VR experience,” explained Hideaki Nishino, a vice president of platform experience at Sony, in September.
I can't help but facepalm at this.
I can't help but facepalm at this.
Same here.
Q: are there fewer buttons on the wand controllers?
Q: what is the real technical issue here that the VP of a public company publicly is telling us?
Q: are there fewer buttons on the wand controllers?
Q: what is the real technical issue here that the VP of a public company publicly is telling us?
Link to the official blog post: https://blog.playstation.com/2022/11/02/playstation-vr2-laun...
I would be excited for it if it worked on PCs too. Why can't we move the headset between the PS5 and PC? Do they not want to invest in making it work for PCs? That's lost hardware sales. Are they afraid Steam will eat into their own VR game sales? Outside of exclusives, maybe it will? But because it's only on PS5, I have no interest in owning a 2nd VR headset, which I'm sure will be a reaction from most PC gamers. So that's lost hardware and software sales too.
After experiencing how good Oculus Link works over Wi-Fi LAN, I won't purchase any wired VR headset no matter the quality. Wi-Fi is fast enough to stream high quality video to any of these headsets but for some reason it is still not embraced in the circle.
Too much variability in the home networks that people have are likely one of the reasons
I bought the first PSVR.
I wanted to love VR but it made me so sick that I literally get nauseous when I even think about using it.
All my interest in VR finished at that point which is a real pity cause it felt exciting initially.
Anyone want to buy a PSVR? Used for about 2 hours total.
I wanted to love VR but it made me so sick that I literally get nauseous when I even think about using it.
All my interest in VR finished at that point which is a real pity cause it felt exciting initially.
Anyone want to buy a PSVR? Used for about 2 hours total.
Does it have vomit on it?
Minimal. A little eucalyptus oil and a cloth should freshen it up.
Same experience. Bought the PSVR at launch and it gave me a headache. Ended up selling it for 50% of what I paid. Not going to buy PSVR2. Maybe two or three more generations down the line I will reconsider.
As a Vive VR owner going on ~6 years with that setup, yeah I don't know why anyone would spend as much as a PS5 for a VR headset. I really like some aspects of VR gaming, but overall, for me at least, it's pretty clear it's a very niche device.
There are a few genres that translate reasonable well to VR but most of the big categories do not. Things like sports game (Madden, NBA 22/23, NHL 22/23,etc), likely impossible to adapt to VR. Platformers, ditto. Strategy games, why? MMO's? Maybe, but probably not either.
The fast majority of actual, good / fun / successful games in VR are of a few very specific types. Wave shooters (Space Pirate Trainer, Blasters of the Universes — both excellent btw), and some FPS (ideal created specifically for VR - aka Half Life: Alyx is the gold standard). There are very few entirely new play experiences / game mechanics in VR to date; aka Beat Saber, Pistol Whip and... that's all I can think of. Both are great workout games btw. The only other great VR title that I play / played a ton is In Death, and that's a bit of a unique bow shooter, which I guess is another VR genre (bow games). Great game, probably the best of that type.
Speaking of which, I do like the physical nature of VR and for me, I tend to use it as a post-workout way to get in some extra cardio with a nice amount of hand-eye/tracking mixed in. Games like Beat Saber and Space Pirate Trainer, when played non-stop for let's say 30 minutes or so, yeah you actually burn significant calories.
Outside of that you have the sim category and that could be work if you are super into racing games, flight sims, and that sort of thing. I've played with a few race games in VR, mostly it works ok, but not quite as well as I'd of thought (but maybe I need to invest in a proper FF wheel, a gamepad kinda ruins it).
I enjoy VR gaming but I think it's going to remain a niche until we get to some crazy, super advanced state where we can by pass our eyes and 'beam' info right into the brain (however the hell that would work); aka achieving a sort of ST Holodeck level type thing. Or maybe Nintendo in a few generation will embrace VR and then we get some truly unique / new game mechanics. I don't know what else is going to break open this genre, but right now it doesn't feel like it's moving forward at all where it matters most - the software.
There are a few genres that translate reasonable well to VR but most of the big categories do not. Things like sports game (Madden, NBA 22/23, NHL 22/23,etc), likely impossible to adapt to VR. Platformers, ditto. Strategy games, why? MMO's? Maybe, but probably not either.
The fast majority of actual, good / fun / successful games in VR are of a few very specific types. Wave shooters (Space Pirate Trainer, Blasters of the Universes — both excellent btw), and some FPS (ideal created specifically for VR - aka Half Life: Alyx is the gold standard). There are very few entirely new play experiences / game mechanics in VR to date; aka Beat Saber, Pistol Whip and... that's all I can think of. Both are great workout games btw. The only other great VR title that I play / played a ton is In Death, and that's a bit of a unique bow shooter, which I guess is another VR genre (bow games). Great game, probably the best of that type.
Speaking of which, I do like the physical nature of VR and for me, I tend to use it as a post-workout way to get in some extra cardio with a nice amount of hand-eye/tracking mixed in. Games like Beat Saber and Space Pirate Trainer, when played non-stop for let's say 30 minutes or so, yeah you actually burn significant calories.
Outside of that you have the sim category and that could be work if you are super into racing games, flight sims, and that sort of thing. I've played with a few race games in VR, mostly it works ok, but not quite as well as I'd of thought (but maybe I need to invest in a proper FF wheel, a gamepad kinda ruins it).
I enjoy VR gaming but I think it's going to remain a niche until we get to some crazy, super advanced state where we can by pass our eyes and 'beam' info right into the brain (however the hell that would work); aka achieving a sort of ST Holodeck level type thing. Or maybe Nintendo in a few generation will embrace VR and then we get some truly unique / new game mechanics. I don't know what else is going to break open this genre, but right now it doesn't feel like it's moving forward at all where it matters most - the software.
Assetto Corsa in VR is absolutely immersive with a proper driving rig, to the point that even without motion I brace myself.
DCS and MS Flight Sim are similarly immersive if you have a proper cockpit.
Controllers really break the immersion.
DCS and MS Flight Sim are similarly immersive if you have a proper cockpit.
Controllers really break the immersion.
Sports games seem like an immediately obvious one to make work in VR, but it would be a very different model than the "top down, control active player, see whole court at once" thing. Think "actually playing" or "fitness game" more than today's sports games.
You're gonna need plenty of space to turn around in, though, which could be a big challenge for most people. Spinning your player around with just a controller seems like the sort of thing that would be likely to introduce motion sickness.
You're gonna need plenty of space to turn around in, though, which could be a big challenge for most people. Spinning your player around with just a controller seems like the sort of thing that would be likely to introduce motion sickness.
I wouldn't consider Beat Saber an entirely new game mechanics. It seems like pretty standard rhythm game format with notes/beat coming towards you and requiring to activate corresponding input at the right time. Rhythm games have the history of having all kind unique and diverse input methods.Some of them quite physically demanding like Dance Dance Revolution style ones where you have to step on the dance pad.
Vive owner here too.
I understand the sentiment, the price does push this into what I'd call "prosumer" category. But... PSVR2 is the first headset to really catch my interest. The Valve Index sounded nice, but I was disappointed in the lack of OLED especially given the Index's price. The PSVR2 is what I've been looking for in new hardware and I think it's a step in the right direction.
I understand the sentiment, the price does push this into what I'd call "prosumer" category. But... PSVR2 is the first headset to really catch my interest. The Valve Index sounded nice, but I was disappointed in the lack of OLED especially given the Index's price. The PSVR2 is what I've been looking for in new hardware and I think it's a step in the right direction.
I have an Oculus and love it. Blaston, thrill of the fight, superhot, .. The only thing I don't like is it's owned by Meta/FB. I don't have/don't want a Facebook account and don't want to commit to the Meta/Oculus ecosystem.
I already have a ps5, plan to get this headset, and could see it really taking off.
I already have a ps5, plan to get this headset, and could see it really taking off.
It’s pretty clear that games are the entry point into wide household adoption of VR.
The metaverse as is currently being pursued by many is nothing more than an VR mmo.
We should be calling these things games rather than applying an incorrect label or overhyping what they are. Until utility reaches a point which proves otherwise.
Sony/Microsoft are best positioned to capitalize
The metaverse as is currently being pursued by many is nothing more than an VR mmo.
We should be calling these things games rather than applying an incorrect label or overhyping what they are. Until utility reaches a point which proves otherwise.
Sony/Microsoft are best positioned to capitalize
It’s pretty clear that games are the entry point into wide household adoption of VR.
Ironically that's also the thing that will stop them getting widespread support though. They'll always be seen as expensive toys while gaming is the driving force behind adoption.
What's really needed is support from the television and movie industry (immersive programming), music (streaming VR gigs), and collaborative remote socializing (something like Metaverse). The problem with that those is cost - if you want to enjoy a VR gig or a remote social occasion with your family you need to spend thousands of dollars on equipment.
VR might be mainstream in the same sense that a Playstation is, but it'd take a huge shift in thinking for it to ever be mainstream like television is.
Ironically that's also the thing that will stop them getting widespread support though. They'll always be seen as expensive toys while gaming is the driving force behind adoption.
What's really needed is support from the television and movie industry (immersive programming), music (streaming VR gigs), and collaborative remote socializing (something like Metaverse). The problem with that those is cost - if you want to enjoy a VR gig or a remote social occasion with your family you need to spend thousands of dollars on equipment.
VR might be mainstream in the same sense that a Playstation is, but it'd take a huge shift in thinking for it to ever be mainstream like television is.
> huge shift in thinking
There are plenty of visionaries besides Zuckerberg who have made that shift. Some company or consortium will succeed in creating the Metaverse, and then we'll all be gathering there.
There are plenty of visionaries besides Zuckerberg who have made that shift. Some company or consortium will succeed in creating the Metaverse, and then we'll all be gathering there.
> entry point into wide household adoption of VR
The "gateway drug" is how I put it.
What do you mean by "incorrect label"? The "metaverse" label is aspirational for sure at this point - but I don't think anyone would disagree that it's what we are striving towards. So let's keep that label and move towards it.
The "gateway drug" is how I put it.
What do you mean by "incorrect label"? The "metaverse" label is aspirational for sure at this point - but I don't think anyone would disagree that it's what we are striving towards. So let's keep that label and move towards it.
VR is just a new display medium. Metaverse to me implies some common spec with interoperative worlds, or statefulness that persists… not simply a one off VR game
Using the current definition, “Second Life” in VR is also the metaverse
Using the current definition, “Second Life” in VR is also the metaverse
> The "gateway drug" is how I put it.
Now I'm thinking of that TNG episode where everyone on the Enterprise gets addicted to the glasses headset game where you get the discs in the wormholes
Now I'm thinking of that TNG episode where everyone on the Enterprise gets addicted to the glasses headset game where you get the discs in the wormholes
Honestly, I just want to know when I'll be able to walk into any big box store and buy a PS5 on a whim.
Biggest downside here is probably sticking with Fresnel lenses, can't even really call it gen 2 with that decision. Probably had to be made to meet the price point I guess unfortunately.
Should be a pretty clear screen though with the limited FOV and nice contrast. Haven't used PSVR1 myself and just checked resolution and WOW didn't realize how trash it was merely 960 x 1,080 that's lower than CV1! For anyone primarily experienced with PSVR ecosystem this should be a massive step up.
Pimax just announced Crystal yesterday as well so glad to see movement in the VR space.
Should be a pretty clear screen though with the limited FOV and nice contrast. Haven't used PSVR1 myself and just checked resolution and WOW didn't realize how trash it was merely 960 x 1,080 that's lower than CV1! For anyone primarily experienced with PSVR ecosystem this should be a massive step up.
Pimax just announced Crystal yesterday as well so glad to see movement in the VR space.
I have played a multiple times with a PSVR1, and in my opinion, it was one of the best optimized VR systems I have tried. Everything felt smooth, fully optimized, did not feel dizzy. The low resolution was the problem for me, I really loved it. Now waiting to test out PSVR2 when it launches.
I can't believe they are launching a new PS5 peripheral when you can't even get a PS5 without a huge hassle or paying a big premium.
I'm sure it depends on location but I've stumbled upon a few opportunities to buy a PS5 in Canada without explicitly trying.
That said I haven't pulled the trigger because I can't justify a console + a game for $800 when there's really only one exclusive I want to play right now. And it's a remake of a game I already own/played (Demon's Souls)
That said I haven't pulled the trigger because I can't justify a console + a game for $800 when there's really only one exclusive I want to play right now. And it's a remake of a game I already own/played (Demon's Souls)
They have sold 25M units, so it doesn't matter that its still hard to buy one.
i think you’re just a bit unlucky.
try various twitter accounts that post real time ps5 stock updates.
try various twitter accounts that post real time ps5 stock updates.
The PS5 CoD bundle is available on the PlayStation store[1]. It doesn't seem like much of a hassle to click a button.
[1]: https://direct.playstation.com/en-us/consoles/console/playst...
[1]: https://direct.playstation.com/en-us/consoles/console/playst...
It's not widely available in many other countries still.
I've been trying to get one since they came out for a friend and I just looked again: there is one company who has some in stock but they are asking 900€!
I was casually keeping an eye on websites, etc, and never found one. Then earlier this year I decided I really wanted one for Elden Ring, went in person to a games store and talked to them, and had one three weeks later. So that may be worth a shot.
So hyped for this, day one purchase for me.
Do I need a PlayStation 5 to use this?
> PlayStation VR2 is only compatible with a PS5 or PS5 Digital Edition console
yes
It's unclear if there will be a solution (possibly not supported by Sony) to use it as a display for PC.
Now if only I could get my hands on a PS5 that's not being sold for double price.
What games are worth playing in VR on the ps5?
Some of the ones I’m interested in so far:
Horizon: Call of the Mountain, Firewall Ultra, Resident Evil: Village.
I’d love if they add VR support to Gran Turismo 7 but they haven’t announced anything related to this one.
Horizon: Call of the Mountain, Firewall Ultra, Resident Evil: Village.
I’d love if they add VR support to Gran Turismo 7 but they haven’t announced anything related to this one.
Maybe after this spends a few years flopping, they'll make a converter box for PSVR1
> “PSVR games are not compatible with PSVR2, because PSVR2 is designed to deliver a truly next-gen VR experience,” explained Hideaki Nishino, a vice president of platform experience at Sony, in September.
That's just absurd. I don't have any PS equipment but I had mulled over the idea of getting a PS5 and PSVR since I enjoy my Quest 2 and would like better graphics/processing power but I don't want to build a gaming PC for PCVR. Not supporting older games feels very gross.
That's just absurd. I don't have any PS equipment but I had mulled over the idea of getting a PS5 and PSVR since I enjoy my Quest 2 and would like better graphics/processing power but I don't want to build a gaming PC for PCVR. Not supporting older games feels very gross.
[deleted]
$550, no wireless, no backwards compatibility, and no integrated audio forcing you to use your own earbuds linked to the PS5. The displays look great, sure, but the total package is a disappointment. I'm basically wrong at every prediction I make, but this looks like just another novelty toy with little chance of broad adoption.
That's exactly what I came here to say. Buying PSVR2, a PS5 and a single game will easily run you over $1,000 - that's crazy. It doesn't even make sense why it would exist in the market; the $400 Quest 2 probably has a larger game library and better overall experience than the PSVR2. Premium customers have the Valve Index available at the $500-$600 price point, and further down the road it's expected to see Apple compete in the standalone premium headset market. This product makes zero sense in 2022, I sorta wish Sony spent some more time figuring it out.
Yeah, I think the price by itself isn't a dealbreaker, it's all of the context. If I could hook this up to my PC and use it to play Half-Life Alyx, or scoop up a bunch of cheap PSVR1 games on Black Friday to catch up on, it would be a much easier purchase for me.
I think its not going to be compatible with PSVR1 games unless they are patched.
Where are you seeing the Valve Index for $500 (assuming not second hand)? Wouldn't mind picking one up for that price...
MSRP for the standalone headset is $500: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1059530/Valve_Index_Heads...
> another novelty toy with little chance of broad adoption.
...is that the fate of every console accessory? I can't think of any accessories that would clear the "broad adoption" bar. The NES Zapper is the closest to subjective ubiquity in my mind, but even then its library was limited to Duck Hunt and a half dozen forgettable titles.
...is that the fate of every console accessory? I can't think of any accessories that would clear the "broad adoption" bar. The NES Zapper is the closest to subjective ubiquity in my mind, but even then its library was limited to Duck Hunt and a half dozen forgettable titles.
The Microsoft Kinect had pretty wide adoption for a little while.
Analog controllers for the PS1? They were only released later so you could call them accessories.
Though a different situation when they eventually just bundle it with the console, I suppose.
Though a different situation when they eventually just bundle it with the console, I suppose.
I suppose I wasn't thinking of broad adoption just for PSVR, but adoption at levels that feels like it really grows the VR space. I don't think PSVR2 is going to grow the space much, but I really hoped that it would so this is a disappointment.
But again - every prediction I make is likely to be wrong.
But again - every prediction I make is likely to be wrong.
[deleted]
What wireless tech could run 2 x (2000 x 2040) X 120Hz displays?
I think the question is: are those screens worth retaining a tether? Should a wireless experience have been prioritized? Those screen specs aren't a given.
A wired VR headset for one's computer is already asking a lot, but bringing it to your living space is asking even more.
A wired VR headset for one's computer is already asking a lot, but bringing it to your living space is asking even more.
WiFi 7 can. The tech will evolve. I assume the next generation will be wireless.
If VR is successful, can WiFi 7 handle a family of four playing their games in the evening, with neighbors who require the same bandwidth?
Yes
Quest 2 has wifi 6 and does it.
Fair criticism but it does come with headphones you can plug on the headset itself, granted it’s not the same as integrated headphones but they include some in the box.
You can of course use other ones, either plugged to the headset or wireless ones like the Pulse 3D.
You can of course use other ones, either plugged to the headset or wireless ones like the Pulse 3D.
It's better than having integrated headphones I think. If the included ones (however basic they are) are in-ear, then the immersion and sound quality would likely be better than anything that would be attached to the headset.
Onboard audio is just a waste of money for something that neither casuals nor enthusiasts would care about (former by definition, latter because they would prefer to use their own audio gear).
Lack of wireless is a definite minus though.
Onboard audio is just a waste of money for something that neither casuals nor enthusiasts would care about (former by definition, latter because they would prefer to use their own audio gear).
Lack of wireless is a definite minus though.
no wireless
And less space than a Nomad!
And less space than a Nomad!
[deleted]
I don’t know anything about VR, can someone tell me how this compares to the Meta Advertisement Torture Device (MATD) that costs $1500?
Meta Quest 2 which is what this competes with is $400 USD.
Pro version is for businesses.
Pro version is for businesses.
How does it compare to the Quest 2?
What I'll say about the Quest 2 is if it had been marketed as a portable wired or wireless PC headset that can do standalone VR, I wouldn't have thought so poorly of its pre-Meta experience.
Now that the Facebook component has been gutted from it, I can log in again, so I've actually been using it.
My biggest complaints are that it wasn't designed for Asian facial features (I guess I could wear a prosthetic nose), and none of the three IPD settings are sufficient for me or my SO. Other models have a continuous slider for the lenses, but the Quest 2 has only a few discrete positions, and they don't work "in between".
Now that the Facebook component has been gutted from it, I can log in again, so I've actually been using it.
My biggest complaints are that it wasn't designed for Asian facial features (I guess I could wear a prosthetic nose), and none of the three IPD settings are sufficient for me or my SO. Other models have a continuous slider for the lenses, but the Quest 2 has only a few discrete positions, and they don't work "in between".
The IPD really should be adjusted with a rotating wheel while wearing.
I don’t think anybody knows, because there aren’t any reviews of the PSVR2 yet, but generally reviews of the Quest 2 are that it’s a high quality device at a very good price point
PSVR2 needs additional 500-1000 USD device.
Quest 2 is standalone.
If Sony fails to bridge VR/AR to the masses, then it’s all up to Apple to save the industry. Meta built an amazing, affordable product, but their brand is just so toxic that it’ll take a generational change before it can eventually recover its good will and people in developed countries trust it again. Google has a similar brand goodwill problem where they will also be unable sustain any new metaverse related product introductions. Their brand image has just been really damaged by their own internal promotion system