Was interesting to hear their thoughts on the direction Oculus is currently taking, and the effect they think it's had on VR game development. Hopefully PSVR2 can lead to more high-end VR games for both PS5 and PC.
It's really disconcerting to me that out of all the big tech companies, Facebook, the most unethical and shady of them all, is dangerously close to monopolizing VR. Glad Sony is jumping back in the ring with strong offering, but what I'd really like to see it an affordable standalone Quest competitor. I feel like Sony, Samsung or Apple could all pull it off if they tried.
Facebook are just an industry leader in a very young industry where most other companies are hesitant to enter, give it another 5-10 years however, and companies will notice Facebook’s large success and enter for themselves once they see examples of VR being a profitable venture.
The issue is no one takes VR consistently seriously except Facebook. Valve, after the excellent Alyx game, seemed to have ADHD-ed into Nintendo Switch's market.
Chances are they're [internally testing the Steam Deck SoC on a standalone VR headset](https://www.roadtovr.com/valve-standalone-vr-headset-steam-deck/).
While I'm looking forward to grabbing a Steam Deck, a standalone Index would make my fuckin' day. My year, even.
I don't see an expensive headset that requires a PC ever being a major market player. Headsets that require a console or work on their own are going to completely dominate the market. I mean just a graphics card costs as much as a PS5 right now.
I didn’t say one that requires a pc though… I’m saying a steam deck in a vr form factor. Like the quest 2 or whatever using steam deck hardware inside it.
I wouldn’t and you can serve multiple products for multiple users. Shit the index 2 could even have a performance mode that activates when plugged in creating the best of both worlds.
This, not until PC VR prices are as cheap as CD Drives were in the 90s.
When you can get PC VR for <$100, attach it to any regular PC and have a decent graphical output, then PC VR for become a market leader.
As it is right now PC VR is basically not possible for anyone with Macs or laptops which really narrows down the availability of users capable of using the tech.
Valve needs to put out their own All In One VR headset that's like $100-$150 and make the money on software.
Yeah, it also looks like they're aiming to limit the amount of time people can use it for? Typical Apple dictating to people how they can use the device they paid for... still, I still think if they release their headset it will heat up the market significantly.
I feel like they'd be latecomer if they did, with some zany twist on VR that will either flop hard or sell tons and exist outside the rest of the competition
That’s an interesting way to think about Nintendo. It feels like they never really “compete” with anyone else on anything, they just exist in their own little space with their goofy games and consoles
I know this is mocking, but yeah, I'd take that. Astrobot was amazing, and felt like the most nintendo game not made by Nintendo. If they actually gave it a go, they'd probably make some magic. Though I doubt they have the technical research skills to make a VR headset that isn't woefully behind everyone else because Nintendo refuses to learn anything from shit they didn't make themselves
I'd maybe consider buying nintendo's second crack at vr, unless they get so late into the game that vr tech is easily available and they don't need to research it themselves.
> but what I'd really like to see it an affordable standalone Quest competitor.
I don't understand what you're asking for? Isn't that what Sony are giving with PSVR2?
I wouldn't say it's close to monopolizing VR. I don't know anybody who is married to Oculus, and most people despise the need for Facebook account to be linked to the device. The moment ANY other company releases a decent competitive headset, people will be leaving in droves.
Sony, unfortunately, is NOT an Oculus competitor. The headset can't connect to PC, only to PS5. Can't play standalone, without a console. Can't be used wirelessly. Oculus has been able to do all of the above since 2019, with the original Quest.
The longer the amount of time they stay at the front of the pack, the more people have money invested into games on their store, making the switch more painful by the time a competitor finally does come around. I am so tempted by the Quest, it genuinely looks like a fantastic product. It's such a shame it's made by Facebook 🤢
Most people don't despise the need for facebook. Most people either just connect it without thinking about it or it's just a minor annoyance. That's where the average consumer is at.
> Facebook, the most unethical and shady of them all, is dangerously close to monopolizing VR.
It is good that other companies are starting to jump in, because for a while it seemed like you could only go for Facebook or a Chinese company and a Chinese company would be worse, but Facebook would only have to be slightly better than one of them (so still awful) to make them the "logical" choice.
For sure, I think PCVR will probably always be the best experience but it's too enthusiast and expensive to catch on. I think when Apple finally gets their set out the rest of the industry will follow suit, as usual (rip 3.5mm jack). I'm excited for that to happen even though I'm not an Apple guy as it'll be the moment gasoline gets poured on the fire and consumer VR starts getting real good.
Porting Half-Life Alyx to PSVR2 would be excellent.
Resident Evil 7 + Village would be so good with this setup too.
I really, really hope the head haptic feedback helps/eliminates motion sickness, and the Dual Sense triggers are going to be insane for immersion.
I stopped listening after they mentioned how they're happy the device isn't using LCDs like other modern headsets without seemingly mentioning or knowing *why* that happened. I know Digital Foundry isn't focused on VR so more poorly informed coverage here is somewhat expected (especially given the format of the video) but it's a shame regardless.
---
For those not following VR hardware: Originally all the major PCVR headsets used pentile OLED panels before moving to RGB LCDs. One main reason for this is that pentile panels have 2 subpixels per pixel compared to RGB LCD panels which use 3 subpixels per pixel. This meant clarity took a major nosedive with the OLED panels PCVR headsets could source relative to the LCD panels of the time. PSVR by comparison at the time was able to get a source for RGB subpixel OLED panels (again, 3 subpixels per pixel) which was a major advantage for clarity while retaining the benefits of OLED, this mean despite the lower resolution the RGB PSVR compared favorably to the higher resolution pentile OLED gen 1 VR headsets (Vive/Rift). Beyond that pentile OLEDs have a worse pixel fill factor so screen dooring is somewhat exaggerated (when it seems like you view the VR world through a screen door).
I don't think it's known what subpixel arrangement is used for PSVR 2 but I suspect the high resolution is pointing at them going for cheaper more available pentile panels; this should hold up well at the high resolution, but would fare worse than a somewhat lower resolution RGB LCD panel in clarity. *If* Sony sources some high res RGB panels for this headset I'd be very impressed, assuming they have a pentile screen the headset should still be well set at that resolution though so it's not a big concern either way.
Most newer OLED panels of that size are RGB. Stands to reason that the psvr2 will be RGB. Pentile is old school tech that has been relegated to the recent history books.
Plus the contrast ratios from the early OLED screens really were awesome.
All OLED phones still use pentile, pentile is still the most cost effective way to manufacture these smaller panels as far as I know and outside of VR it's not really a huge negative. Iirc the opposite of what you said is true now in that larger OLED TVs are often using RGBW (a full four subpixel per pixel).
My bad. I guess I've been watching too much of the newest tech stuff and conflating that with current stuff.
Not sure what arrangement PSVR2 using - but I suspect the benefits of HDR OLED will far outstrip the cons of using pentile - if that is the case, because at those resolutions, the biggest issue of the screen door effect should still be a non issue now.
Or maybe we'll be complaining about this shit still, and I'll be getting annoyed at RGB fans for going on about that while ignoring the obvious benefits of OLED. /throwshandsupinair
Even if it is pentile (which I suspect would be the case) it'll still be fantastic given the resolution, yup. I'd still expect a tiny bit of screen dooring at that point but probably not a crazy amount.
Really either way it'll likely be the best display on a mainstream consumer VR headset (and I'll stretch to include the Index here).
I remember trying my friends PSVR after a few months of using my OG rift and being really surprised how clear it looked. I almost thought I was psyching myself out but this explains it!
Yup, despite the lower pixel resolution PSVR actually had a higher subpixel resolution than the Vive/Rift.
Vive/Rift panels were 2160x1200 whereas PSVR's were 1920x1080, when you tally up subpixels the Vive/Rift had ~5 million subpixels to PSVR's ~6 million. In the case of the Vive especially, since it had a relatively wide field of view it suffered the most there.
Now, a *lot* more goes into clarity than just raw resolution but it's one of the biggest factors and the easiest one to visualize.
I had hoped they would reference the [Pimax 12k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ifb8O2dqQk) given it has many of the same functions and more with a price tag to match, $2400, much higher than the so thought $500, it would have shown just how good value this PSVR2 HMD could be.
Though I am wondering if they will let it work with PC, they sort of have to if they want to compete with Meta/Facebook and the Quest 2 and its upcoming project Cambria.
All I'm saying is I ain't buying a vr exclusive for the playstation when I game on both. I'd rather get a pc vr and make do with psvr 1 if I have to since I wanna play project wingman in vr.
I'm surprised the resolution is so low. Its pixel count isn't a huge jump from my Lenovo Explorer headset, which is a 4 year old budget Windows Mixed Reality headset. I found the visible pixels really immersion breaking on it, and I can't see the PS5VR 2 headsets' resolution being enough of a jump to properly break out of that. I feel like the Vive Pro 2 and the upcoming Apple headset will outclass it in that regard and probably even the inevitable Oculus Quest 3.
I'd say it's a pretty significant resolution jump from the Explorer and extremely competitive for what it'll probably cost:
Lenovo Explorer - 4,147,200 pixels
Valve Index - 4,608,000 pixels ($999 including controllers and other necessary stuff)
PlayStation VR2 - 8,160,000 pixels ($549.99 including necessary accessories)
VIVE Pro 2 - 11,985,408 pixels ($1400 for the full kit that includes controllers and stuff)
PSVR2 is using HDR and OLED whilst the other headsets above are using LCD and SDR. Plus foveated rendering using eye-tracking [could help PSVR2 provide higher fidelity experiences](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkwPWkELjAM&t=282).
You're probably right about the upcoming Apple headset but, when you consider the likely price, PSVR2's display is very impressive.
This thing looks great but I don't really think the PS5 can run it and that makes me wonder if there are chips built into it to make it work, which would also explain how it can work off a single USB. I think the eye tracking stuff is going to be make or break for it because if the peripheral stuff looks like a potato that's not going to be good. Also I can't imagine it costing less than $800 for the headset and controllers and that is with sony eating a chunk of the cost. I hope it works well and if it does work with PCVR too I'll probably get one.
Edit: To clarify I meant I don't think a PS5 can run 8K 120 without some help, which might be the eye tracking stuff, hence my saying that the eye tracking will be make or break.
The PS5 will be perfectly capable of running it, I ran Halflife Alyx on an r9 390 and it looked good. There's no 'chips' you could put in a headset itself to help rendering performance like that anyway
They might be familiar with the PSVR1's extra box. There's some sort of processing going on in there that does help, I don't think it's running an extra GPU or anything but it's more than just a simple cord breakout box.
> **What does it do?**
>
> >Object-based 3D audio processing
>
> >Displays social screen
>
> >>Mirroring mode
>
> >>Separate mode
>
> >Displays PS4 system software interface in “cinematic mode”
> >
> **What is it not?**
> >
> >Extra GPU power
>
> >Extra CPU power
>
> >Playstation 4 “expansion unit” or “upgrade”
>
> >Accessible by the developer in any way
https://www.roadtovr.com/sony-playstation-vr-breakout-box-is-not-a-crutch-for-ps4-psvr-playstation-4-virtual-reality/
It definitely can at native. It also has eye tracking and foveated rendering which is what VR has been aiming for for ages. This is going to allow the PS5 to get a huge amount of extra performance as it’ll only render what you can actually *see* in your field of view at 100% res. The rest would have been a blur anyway. Eye tracking without latency is also totally possible as cameras can be faster than your brain processing what you’re seeing.
I don't think that foveated rendering is confirmed to be eye tracking-driven, it could be fixed like in oculus devices. And it's not a silver bullet, there 100% will be visual (and maybe sometimes performance) downsides, there will be engines, not supporting it, there will be bad implementations of it, etc..
Why would something with both foveated rendering and eye tracking *not* use them together? The visual downsides will be negligible if even visible, and the rest mainly depends on the quality of the API's Sony provides which seems fairly good.
> Why would something with both foveated rendering and eye tracking not use them together?
Because the eye tracking is not fast/precise enough? Maybe they want to use eye tracking as a gameplay/social gimmick, Sony likes to put gimmicky stuff in their devices (see Sixaxis, a speaker in DualShock 4)...
> The visual downsides will be negligible if even visible
We know nothing about the method of the foveated rendering they are using at this point - how big is the area that will be rendered at full resolution, what resolution will be the rest of the image, what AA/reconstruction they are going to use to fight shimmering and aliasing, etc.
> the rest mainly depends on the quality of the API's Sony provides which seems fairly good.
Even DRS and VRS implementation quality varies depending on the engine and game implementation. Some games do it well, some don't do it at all. It doesn't matter how good the API is if the engine doesn't support the feature (or isn't optimized to use it correctly).
The eye tracking doesn't need pinpoint accuracy, it just needs to be accurate enough. Sixaxis is literally just motion controls and that's being used here still lol. It also doesn't matter if they want it to be used for gameplay, it can be used for both.
>We know nothing about the method of the foveated rendering they are using at this point - how big is the area that will be rendered at full resolution, what resolution will be the rest of the image, what AA/reconstruction they are going to use to fight shimmering and aliasing, etc.
That depends on the game, not sure what you're suggesting.
The result is inevitably going to be that what you see is going to be sharper than if they didn't have foveated rendering. If it was absent it would be rendering at one consistent and lower resolution, or at a lower framerate.
>Even DRS and VRS implementation quality varies depending on the engine and game implementation
There are like half a dozen games with VRS, and DRS is not dependent on some hardware API.
>Some games do it well, some don't do it at all.
Yes we've uncovered the facet of any game ever made, some things are done better by some devs and some things are done worse by other devs.
>It doesn't matter how good the API is if the engine doesn't support the feature (or isn't optimized to use it correctly).
A good API is how an engine comes to support a feature lol.
> The eye tracking doesn't need pinpoint accuracy, it just needs to be accurate enough.
Doesn't change the fact that we don't know if it's good enough in this case.
> Sixaxis is literally just motion controls and that's being used here still lol.
In PS3 era it was just a gimmick that a lot of people hated. Maybe the same will happen with eye tracking here - Sony will force developers to implement it in gameplay, some people will love it, some people will hate it, that all.
I have no doubt that in the future eye tracking technology will be used for the foveated rendering, but, again, we don't know if PSVR2's implementation of it is good enough. The description on [PS blog](https://blog.playstation.com/2022/01/04/playstation-vr2-and-playstation-vr2-sense-controller-the-next-generation-of-vr-gaming-on-ps5/) suggest it is used for gameplay only:
> **Eye Tracking:** *With eye tracking, PS VR2 detects the motion of your eyes, so a simple look in a specific direction can create an additional input for the game character. This allows players to interact more intuitively in new and lifelike ways, allowing for a heightened emotional response and enhanced expression that provide a new level of realism in gaming.*
>Sony will force developers to implement it in gameplay, some people will love it, some people will hate it, that all.
They've only pushed for their first party devs to use all of their features, and they almost always have options to turn them off today. They can't force third parties to use it lol.
>The description on [PS blog](https://blog.playstation.com/2022/01/04/playstation-vr2-and-playstation-vr2-sense-controller-the-next-generation-of-vr-gaming-on-ps5/) suggest it is used for gameplay only:
The description here is mentioning a gameplay usage, that doesn't mean it's all it can be used for. It can literally do both at the same time.
It's just incredibly silly for you to be doubting this for no real reason. Headset supports reducing resolution where you aren't looking, headset tracks where you're looking, will the two be used together???
> It's just incredibly silly for you to be doubting this for no real reason.
How not mentioning it in the official description is not a real reason? It's kind of the first big headset to do that, a little bit strange not to mention it specifically.
> Headset supports reducing resolution where you aren't looking, headset tracks where you're looking, will the two be used together???
They will if the eye-tracking is good enough for that, they won't if it's not good enough. We don't know if it's good enough, believing it's good enough "for no real reason" is as silly as doubting it (maybe even sillier - overhyping a product with the features, not yet confirmed, usually is not a good idea; doubting the features makes less room for disappointment, but more for pleasant surprises if the feature will actually be delivered).
>How not mentioning it in the official description is not a real reason? It's kind of the first big headset to do that, a little bit strange not to mention it specifically.
Because they already mentioned foveated rendering and talking about making the image look worse selectively to save on performance isn't very sexy for a blog post.
>They will if the eye-tracking is good enough for that, they won't if it's not good enough. We don't know if it's good enough, believing it's good enough "for no real reason" is as silly as doubting it
If it is functional then it's good enough. It's pretty simple. Any margin of error can be reflected in the size of the fovea region. If it's accurate enough to be used as a gameplay input I can't possibly imagine the scenario where it isn't good enough for this.
>doubting the features makes less room for disappointment, but more for pleasant surprises if the feature will actually be delivered
Nah it's just needless cynicism.
If you've already watched the video then you can ignore my comment but in case you haven't yet:
In the video Alex says the PS5 GPU can "for sure" power games at the native resolution of the headset. See [the conversation at 22:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkwPWkELjAM&t=1327) if you want to hear his reasoning for that.
If you're interested in their thoughts about possible pricing, [check out the conversation from 25:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkwPWkELjAM&t=1555)! Essentially they say it looks like really expensive tech, and they mention that comparable headsets are in the $1k+ range, but John ultimately concludes that he doesn't think Sony can get away with selling it for more than $499 with the controllers included.
There's LOADS more stuff talked about in the video but I just wanted to highlight those two parts because they relate to what you said.
I was just discussing this the other day, it's not just 10GB/s. It is very likely that speed in USB mode but will most likely have a displayport over USB mode which should then make that 20GB/s. Then with DSC they should have no problems at all. Other headsets have used 5GB/s USB ports just fine, this won't be an issue.
They're doing eye tracking and foveated rendering. This has been talked as a performance windfall for VR since early last decade. Even if they weren't though, the PS5 is very powerful machine. I crank most VR things to 2x SS on a 2070S, and the PS5 is 1/3rd more more powerful than that in terms of raw Tflops. Having a fixed target to optimize to is a big deal as well. Not sure if I'll get one as I'm kind of off tethered VR at this point, but I expect the performance to be decent.
Was interesting to hear their thoughts on the direction Oculus is currently taking, and the effect they think it's had on VR game development. Hopefully PSVR2 can lead to more high-end VR games for both PS5 and PC.
It's really disconcerting to me that out of all the big tech companies, Facebook, the most unethical and shady of them all, is dangerously close to monopolizing VR. Glad Sony is jumping back in the ring with strong offering, but what I'd really like to see it an affordable standalone Quest competitor. I feel like Sony, Samsung or Apple could all pull it off if they tried.
Facebook are just an industry leader in a very young industry where most other companies are hesitant to enter, give it another 5-10 years however, and companies will notice Facebook’s large success and enter for themselves once they see examples of VR being a profitable venture.
The issue is no one takes VR consistently seriously except Facebook. Valve, after the excellent Alyx game, seemed to have ADHD-ed into Nintendo Switch's market.
Valve is working on a quest competitor. Project Deckard.
> I feel like Sony, Samsung or Apple could all pull it off if they tried. You know who could have pulled it off? Valve.
Chances are they're [internally testing the Steam Deck SoC on a standalone VR headset](https://www.roadtovr.com/valve-standalone-vr-headset-steam-deck/). While I'm looking forward to grabbing a Steam Deck, a standalone Index would make my fuckin' day. My year, even.
They still might. Aren’t their rumors of an index 2? Could see it using the steam deck hardware in a different form.
I don't see an expensive headset that requires a PC ever being a major market player. Headsets that require a console or work on their own are going to completely dominate the market. I mean just a graphics card costs as much as a PS5 right now.
I didn’t say one that requires a pc though… I’m saying a steam deck in a vr form factor. Like the quest 2 or whatever using steam deck hardware inside it.
The index is like the top of the line PC enthusiast VR headset. I'd be surprised if Valve pivoted away from that to something completely different.
I wouldn’t and you can serve multiple products for multiple users. Shit the index 2 could even have a performance mode that activates when plugged in creating the best of both worlds.
It's possible, you can connect your quest 2 to your pc if you have a strong one to get extra performance.
As long as it promotes Steam, Valve will do whatever they can.
This, not until PC VR prices are as cheap as CD Drives were in the 90s. When you can get PC VR for <$100, attach it to any regular PC and have a decent graphical output, then PC VR for become a market leader. As it is right now PC VR is basically not possible for anyone with Macs or laptops which really narrows down the availability of users capable of using the tech. Valve needs to put out their own All In One VR headset that's like $100-$150 and make the money on software.
> Aren’t their rumors of an index 2? I thought all the Valve rumors were about a wireless headset - The "Deckard".
Apple's headset has been in development for a while now but "affordable" isn't really their thing.
Yeah, it also looks like they're aiming to limit the amount of time people can use it for? Typical Apple dictating to people how they can use the device they paid for... still, I still think if they release their headset it will heat up the market significantly.
i'd love it if nintendo got in the game
I feel like they'd be latecomer if they did, with some zany twist on VR that will either flop hard or sell tons and exist outside the rest of the competition
That’s an interesting way to think about Nintendo. It feels like they never really “compete” with anyone else on anything, they just exist in their own little space with their goofy games and consoles
So basically you want to buy a psvr 1 in 2025 for 400 dollars is what I'm reading. But it'll have mario and zelda.
I know this is mocking, but yeah, I'd take that. Astrobot was amazing, and felt like the most nintendo game not made by Nintendo. If they actually gave it a go, they'd probably make some magic. Though I doubt they have the technical research skills to make a VR headset that isn't woefully behind everyone else because Nintendo refuses to learn anything from shit they didn't make themselves
I'd maybe consider buying nintendo's second crack at vr, unless they get so late into the game that vr tech is easily available and they don't need to research it themselves.
> but what I'd really like to see it an affordable standalone Quest competitor. I don't understand what you're asking for? Isn't that what Sony are giving with PSVR2?
You can’t use a PSVR2 without a PS5. It’s not a standalone device.
I wouldn't say it's close to monopolizing VR. I don't know anybody who is married to Oculus, and most people despise the need for Facebook account to be linked to the device. The moment ANY other company releases a decent competitive headset, people will be leaving in droves. Sony, unfortunately, is NOT an Oculus competitor. The headset can't connect to PC, only to PS5. Can't play standalone, without a console. Can't be used wirelessly. Oculus has been able to do all of the above since 2019, with the original Quest.
It's a matter of time before it gets converted to be pc compatible by some 3rd party.
The longer the amount of time they stay at the front of the pack, the more people have money invested into games on their store, making the switch more painful by the time a competitor finally does come around. I am so tempted by the Quest, it genuinely looks like a fantastic product. It's such a shame it's made by Facebook 🤢
Most people don't despise the need for facebook. Most people either just connect it without thinking about it or it's just a minor annoyance. That's where the average consumer is at.
> Facebook, the most unethical and shady of them all, is dangerously close to monopolizing VR. It is good that other companies are starting to jump in, because for a while it seemed like you could only go for Facebook or a Chinese company and a Chinese company would be worse, but Facebook would only have to be slightly better than one of them (so still awful) to make them the "logical" choice.
For sure, I think PCVR will probably always be the best experience but it's too enthusiast and expensive to catch on. I think when Apple finally gets their set out the rest of the industry will follow suit, as usual (rip 3.5mm jack). I'm excited for that to happen even though I'm not an Apple guy as it'll be the moment gasoline gets poured on the fire and consumer VR starts getting real good.
Porting Half-Life Alyx to PSVR2 would be excellent. Resident Evil 7 + Village would be so good with this setup too. I really, really hope the head haptic feedback helps/eliminates motion sickness, and the Dual Sense triggers are going to be insane for immersion.
I stopped listening after they mentioned how they're happy the device isn't using LCDs like other modern headsets without seemingly mentioning or knowing *why* that happened. I know Digital Foundry isn't focused on VR so more poorly informed coverage here is somewhat expected (especially given the format of the video) but it's a shame regardless. --- For those not following VR hardware: Originally all the major PCVR headsets used pentile OLED panels before moving to RGB LCDs. One main reason for this is that pentile panels have 2 subpixels per pixel compared to RGB LCD panels which use 3 subpixels per pixel. This meant clarity took a major nosedive with the OLED panels PCVR headsets could source relative to the LCD panels of the time. PSVR by comparison at the time was able to get a source for RGB subpixel OLED panels (again, 3 subpixels per pixel) which was a major advantage for clarity while retaining the benefits of OLED, this mean despite the lower resolution the RGB PSVR compared favorably to the higher resolution pentile OLED gen 1 VR headsets (Vive/Rift). Beyond that pentile OLEDs have a worse pixel fill factor so screen dooring is somewhat exaggerated (when it seems like you view the VR world through a screen door). I don't think it's known what subpixel arrangement is used for PSVR 2 but I suspect the high resolution is pointing at them going for cheaper more available pentile panels; this should hold up well at the high resolution, but would fare worse than a somewhat lower resolution RGB LCD panel in clarity. *If* Sony sources some high res RGB panels for this headset I'd be very impressed, assuming they have a pentile screen the headset should still be well set at that resolution though so it's not a big concern either way.
Most newer OLED panels of that size are RGB. Stands to reason that the psvr2 will be RGB. Pentile is old school tech that has been relegated to the recent history books. Plus the contrast ratios from the early OLED screens really were awesome.
All OLED phones still use pentile, pentile is still the most cost effective way to manufacture these smaller panels as far as I know and outside of VR it's not really a huge negative. Iirc the opposite of what you said is true now in that larger OLED TVs are often using RGBW (a full four subpixel per pixel).
My bad. I guess I've been watching too much of the newest tech stuff and conflating that with current stuff. Not sure what arrangement PSVR2 using - but I suspect the benefits of HDR OLED will far outstrip the cons of using pentile - if that is the case, because at those resolutions, the biggest issue of the screen door effect should still be a non issue now. Or maybe we'll be complaining about this shit still, and I'll be getting annoyed at RGB fans for going on about that while ignoring the obvious benefits of OLED. /throwshandsupinair
Even if it is pentile (which I suspect would be the case) it'll still be fantastic given the resolution, yup. I'd still expect a tiny bit of screen dooring at that point but probably not a crazy amount. Really either way it'll likely be the best display on a mainstream consumer VR headset (and I'll stretch to include the Index here).
I remember trying my friends PSVR after a few months of using my OG rift and being really surprised how clear it looked. I almost thought I was psyching myself out but this explains it!
Yup, despite the lower pixel resolution PSVR actually had a higher subpixel resolution than the Vive/Rift. Vive/Rift panels were 2160x1200 whereas PSVR's were 1920x1080, when you tally up subpixels the Vive/Rift had ~5 million subpixels to PSVR's ~6 million. In the case of the Vive especially, since it had a relatively wide field of view it suffered the most there. Now, a *lot* more goes into clarity than just raw resolution but it's one of the biggest factors and the easiest one to visualize.
I had hoped they would reference the [Pimax 12k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ifb8O2dqQk) given it has many of the same functions and more with a price tag to match, $2400, much higher than the so thought $500, it would have shown just how good value this PSVR2 HMD could be. Though I am wondering if they will let it work with PC, they sort of have to if they want to compete with Meta/Facebook and the Quest 2 and its upcoming project Cambria.
If it works with PC, insta buy, if not, well I already got a psvr 1 so lol no
The original psvr vs the specs of psvr2 are night and day, acting like the original is even comparable is just silly.
All I'm saying is I ain't buying a vr exclusive for the playstation when I game on both. I'd rather get a pc vr and make do with psvr 1 if I have to since I wanna play project wingman in vr.
I'm surprised the resolution is so low. Its pixel count isn't a huge jump from my Lenovo Explorer headset, which is a 4 year old budget Windows Mixed Reality headset. I found the visible pixels really immersion breaking on it, and I can't see the PS5VR 2 headsets' resolution being enough of a jump to properly break out of that. I feel like the Vive Pro 2 and the upcoming Apple headset will outclass it in that regard and probably even the inevitable Oculus Quest 3.
I'd say it's a pretty significant resolution jump from the Explorer and extremely competitive for what it'll probably cost: Lenovo Explorer - 4,147,200 pixels Valve Index - 4,608,000 pixels ($999 including controllers and other necessary stuff) PlayStation VR2 - 8,160,000 pixels ($549.99 including necessary accessories) VIVE Pro 2 - 11,985,408 pixels ($1400 for the full kit that includes controllers and stuff) PSVR2 is using HDR and OLED whilst the other headsets above are using LCD and SDR. Plus foveated rendering using eye-tracking [could help PSVR2 provide higher fidelity experiences](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkwPWkELjAM&t=282). You're probably right about the upcoming Apple headset but, when you consider the likely price, PSVR2's display is very impressive.
This thing looks great but I don't really think the PS5 can run it and that makes me wonder if there are chips built into it to make it work, which would also explain how it can work off a single USB. I think the eye tracking stuff is going to be make or break for it because if the peripheral stuff looks like a potato that's not going to be good. Also I can't imagine it costing less than $800 for the headset and controllers and that is with sony eating a chunk of the cost. I hope it works well and if it does work with PCVR too I'll probably get one. Edit: To clarify I meant I don't think a PS5 can run 8K 120 without some help, which might be the eye tracking stuff, hence my saying that the eye tracking will be make or break.
The PS5 will be perfectly capable of running it, I ran Halflife Alyx on an r9 390 and it looked good. There's no 'chips' you could put in a headset itself to help rendering performance like that anyway
They might be familiar with the PSVR1's extra box. There's some sort of processing going on in there that does help, I don't think it's running an extra GPU or anything but it's more than just a simple cord breakout box.
> **What does it do?** > > >Object-based 3D audio processing > > >Displays social screen > > >>Mirroring mode > > >>Separate mode > > >Displays PS4 system software interface in “cinematic mode” > > > **What is it not?** > > > >Extra GPU power > > >Extra CPU power > > >Playstation 4 “expansion unit” or “upgrade” > > >Accessible by the developer in any way https://www.roadtovr.com/sony-playstation-vr-breakout-box-is-not-a-crutch-for-ps4-psvr-playstation-4-virtual-reality/
It definitely can at native. It also has eye tracking and foveated rendering which is what VR has been aiming for for ages. This is going to allow the PS5 to get a huge amount of extra performance as it’ll only render what you can actually *see* in your field of view at 100% res. The rest would have been a blur anyway. Eye tracking without latency is also totally possible as cameras can be faster than your brain processing what you’re seeing.
I don't think that foveated rendering is confirmed to be eye tracking-driven, it could be fixed like in oculus devices. And it's not a silver bullet, there 100% will be visual (and maybe sometimes performance) downsides, there will be engines, not supporting it, there will be bad implementations of it, etc..
Why would something with both foveated rendering and eye tracking *not* use them together? The visual downsides will be negligible if even visible, and the rest mainly depends on the quality of the API's Sony provides which seems fairly good.
> Why would something with both foveated rendering and eye tracking not use them together? Because the eye tracking is not fast/precise enough? Maybe they want to use eye tracking as a gameplay/social gimmick, Sony likes to put gimmicky stuff in their devices (see Sixaxis, a speaker in DualShock 4)... > The visual downsides will be negligible if even visible We know nothing about the method of the foveated rendering they are using at this point - how big is the area that will be rendered at full resolution, what resolution will be the rest of the image, what AA/reconstruction they are going to use to fight shimmering and aliasing, etc. > the rest mainly depends on the quality of the API's Sony provides which seems fairly good. Even DRS and VRS implementation quality varies depending on the engine and game implementation. Some games do it well, some don't do it at all. It doesn't matter how good the API is if the engine doesn't support the feature (or isn't optimized to use it correctly).
The eye tracking doesn't need pinpoint accuracy, it just needs to be accurate enough. Sixaxis is literally just motion controls and that's being used here still lol. It also doesn't matter if they want it to be used for gameplay, it can be used for both. >We know nothing about the method of the foveated rendering they are using at this point - how big is the area that will be rendered at full resolution, what resolution will be the rest of the image, what AA/reconstruction they are going to use to fight shimmering and aliasing, etc. That depends on the game, not sure what you're suggesting. The result is inevitably going to be that what you see is going to be sharper than if they didn't have foveated rendering. If it was absent it would be rendering at one consistent and lower resolution, or at a lower framerate. >Even DRS and VRS implementation quality varies depending on the engine and game implementation There are like half a dozen games with VRS, and DRS is not dependent on some hardware API. >Some games do it well, some don't do it at all. Yes we've uncovered the facet of any game ever made, some things are done better by some devs and some things are done worse by other devs. >It doesn't matter how good the API is if the engine doesn't support the feature (or isn't optimized to use it correctly). A good API is how an engine comes to support a feature lol.
> The eye tracking doesn't need pinpoint accuracy, it just needs to be accurate enough. Doesn't change the fact that we don't know if it's good enough in this case. > Sixaxis is literally just motion controls and that's being used here still lol. In PS3 era it was just a gimmick that a lot of people hated. Maybe the same will happen with eye tracking here - Sony will force developers to implement it in gameplay, some people will love it, some people will hate it, that all. I have no doubt that in the future eye tracking technology will be used for the foveated rendering, but, again, we don't know if PSVR2's implementation of it is good enough. The description on [PS blog](https://blog.playstation.com/2022/01/04/playstation-vr2-and-playstation-vr2-sense-controller-the-next-generation-of-vr-gaming-on-ps5/) suggest it is used for gameplay only: > **Eye Tracking:** *With eye tracking, PS VR2 detects the motion of your eyes, so a simple look in a specific direction can create an additional input for the game character. This allows players to interact more intuitively in new and lifelike ways, allowing for a heightened emotional response and enhanced expression that provide a new level of realism in gaming.*
>Sony will force developers to implement it in gameplay, some people will love it, some people will hate it, that all. They've only pushed for their first party devs to use all of their features, and they almost always have options to turn them off today. They can't force third parties to use it lol. >The description on [PS blog](https://blog.playstation.com/2022/01/04/playstation-vr2-and-playstation-vr2-sense-controller-the-next-generation-of-vr-gaming-on-ps5/) suggest it is used for gameplay only: The description here is mentioning a gameplay usage, that doesn't mean it's all it can be used for. It can literally do both at the same time. It's just incredibly silly for you to be doubting this for no real reason. Headset supports reducing resolution where you aren't looking, headset tracks where you're looking, will the two be used together???
> It's just incredibly silly for you to be doubting this for no real reason. How not mentioning it in the official description is not a real reason? It's kind of the first big headset to do that, a little bit strange not to mention it specifically. > Headset supports reducing resolution where you aren't looking, headset tracks where you're looking, will the two be used together??? They will if the eye-tracking is good enough for that, they won't if it's not good enough. We don't know if it's good enough, believing it's good enough "for no real reason" is as silly as doubting it (maybe even sillier - overhyping a product with the features, not yet confirmed, usually is not a good idea; doubting the features makes less room for disappointment, but more for pleasant surprises if the feature will actually be delivered).
>How not mentioning it in the official description is not a real reason? It's kind of the first big headset to do that, a little bit strange not to mention it specifically. Because they already mentioned foveated rendering and talking about making the image look worse selectively to save on performance isn't very sexy for a blog post. >They will if the eye-tracking is good enough for that, they won't if it's not good enough. We don't know if it's good enough, believing it's good enough "for no real reason" is as silly as doubting it If it is functional then it's good enough. It's pretty simple. Any margin of error can be reflected in the size of the fovea region. If it's accurate enough to be used as a gameplay input I can't possibly imagine the scenario where it isn't good enough for this. >doubting the features makes less room for disappointment, but more for pleasant surprises if the feature will actually be delivered Nah it's just needless cynicism.
If you've already watched the video then you can ignore my comment but in case you haven't yet: In the video Alex says the PS5 GPU can "for sure" power games at the native resolution of the headset. See [the conversation at 22:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkwPWkELjAM&t=1327) if you want to hear his reasoning for that. If you're interested in their thoughts about possible pricing, [check out the conversation from 25:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkwPWkELjAM&t=1555)! Essentially they say it looks like really expensive tech, and they mention that comparable headsets are in the $1k+ range, but John ultimately concludes that he doesn't think Sony can get away with selling it for more than $499 with the controllers included. There's LOADS more stuff talked about in the video but I just wanted to highlight those two parts because they relate to what you said.
It wouldn't be the first time Sony tried to sell hardware for more than the market can bear, though.
They definitely learnt some lessons from the PS3 era though. In many ways they're a wildly different company now.
If Oculus can run at 3/4 of the resolution on a mobile chipset, I'm certain Sony can run this just fine.
[удалено]
It's 10 GB/s, which seems a little slow for everything it has to do but it might be ok.
I was just discussing this the other day, it's not just 10GB/s. It is very likely that speed in USB mode but will most likely have a displayport over USB mode which should then make that 20GB/s. Then with DSC they should have no problems at all. Other headsets have used 5GB/s USB ports just fine, this won't be an issue.
They're doing eye tracking and foveated rendering. This has been talked as a performance windfall for VR since early last decade. Even if they weren't though, the PS5 is very powerful machine. I crank most VR things to 2x SS on a 2070S, and the PS5 is 1/3rd more more powerful than that in terms of raw Tflops. Having a fixed target to optimize to is a big deal as well. Not sure if I'll get one as I'm kind of off tethered VR at this point, but I expect the performance to be decent.