Sony to reject any PlaystationVR games that drop below 60fps.

[Tech Enthusiast]

5 hours ago, Sakkura said:

It's more like 2x the price. 

More like 4x in germany actually. Either way: it will be interesting to see for sure if they can get this to work. IF they manage it prices will have to drop considerably,... but i still honestly doubt it. Consoles can't even reach 60fps for ONE screen, let alone 2x60fps or 2x90fps.

 

Still hoping for the magic to happen.

[Tech Enthusiast]

4 hours ago, Sharkyx1 said:

Well PSVR *needs* 60fps,  90 would be better, but we don't know how well the game runs unlocked.

You are missing two very important points there:

 

1. it is 60fps TWICE, you need two screens for VR, not one. So if a game barly hits 60fps, that is about half the minimum for PSVR. Not exactly close.
2. 60fps is not considered enjoyable VR. The 90fps minimum figure does'nt come out of the air. It has been tested for years now and everything below gives you a headache and is not enjoyable at all.

Have you tried on of the earlier VR stuff yourself? Have you "enjoyed" those sub 90FPS tests?

 

Just because PSVR ALLOWS 60FPS does not mean it will be nice for the gamer. And getting that FPS for VR will be more then a huge leap the developer have to take. I don't think the 480p figure is that far off. And i am sure 480p VR is not exactly enjoyable either.

 

To sum it up: VR is extremly demanding and PSVR claims to tackle that with hardware as powerful as a smartphone. It would totally rock the industry IF IT WORKS, but it smells like a big fat pile of fish. Not buying the marketing crap. Show the real thing and we will see. Again: It would be awesome if it works,... if,...

[ShadowCaptain]

4 hours ago, Sharkyx1 said:

So why do people insist that there needs to be forced rules to tell developers how they should make their games. Should something like Heavy Rain, Until Dawn, Quantum Break, or Uncharted be forced to confine by the same standards as Call of Duty, Battlefront, sports games and other stuff that runs at 60 fps

 

I'm just leaving this here, it's an open world game running 1080 60 on ps4 and it didn't drop one time in gameplay in some 80hrs that the game was tested. Obviously this game has a large amount of headroom, I wouldn't think it'd be 90hz head room, but I believe this game in its entirety could be put on PSVR hassle free

I was actually just joking with my post...

but yes console makers SHOULD have standards for their developers to adhere to, that ensures that every games offers a smooth consistent experiance 

uncharted etc would still benefit from 60fps so not sure what you are trying to say

 

(and I am somebody that loves Heavy Rain etc)

[Sakkura]

33 minutes ago, Rattenmann said:

More like 4x in germany actually. Either way: it will be interesting to see for sure if they can get this to work. IF they manage it prices will have to drop considerably,... but i still honestly doubt it. Consoles can't even reach 60fps for ONE screen, let alone 2x60fps or 2x90fps.

 

Still hoping for the magic to happen.

The computer would be around 800€, the Rift is what, 740€ or so? So 1500-1600€ total. You're saying a PS4, camera, and PS VR cost less than 400€ combined?

[Sharkyx1]

6 hours ago, Rattenmann said:

You are missing two very important points there:

 

1. it is 60fps TWICE, you need two screens for VR, not one. So if a game barly hits 60fps, that is about half the minimum for PSVR. Not exactly close.

Let me just stop you here, it's 960x1080 at 60 fps twice, instead of 1920x1080 at 60fps once, this is a common misconception. 

Quote

1. 60fps is not considered enjoyable VR. The 90fps minimum figure does'nt come out of the air. It has been tested for years now and everything below gives you a headache and is not enjoyable at all.

This is why Sony developed reproduction technology to improve the quality of 60fps VR. Sony says standard 60hz VR doesn't cut it either. 

Quote

Have you tried on of the earlier VR stuff yourself? Have you "enjoyed" those sub 90FPS tests?

I've played a couple games with Google cardboard, I couldn't get trinus to stream above 30fps and I still played that ark game for like 2 hours and it didn't bother me. I tried GTA V first person and I felt sick almost immediately. 

Quote

Just because PSVR ALLOWS 60FPS does not mean it will be nice for the gamer. And getting that FPS for VR will be more then a huge leap the developer have to take. I don't think the 480p figure is that far off. And i am sure 480p VR is not exactly enjoyable either.

But the PS4 can run many games at 1080 60 and since that is the maximum output we don't know how much over head some of those games have. 

Quote

To sum it up: VR is extremly demanding and PSVR claims to tackle that with hardware as powerful as a smartphone.

That's simply not true. To say a PS4 is as powerful as a smart phone is a gross misrepresentation of the power at hand. But considering there are full VR games that do run on phones I don't really think this is worth the point. The PSVR has about half the power and it's only powering 75% of the pixels. 

Quote

It would totally rock the industry IF IT WORKS, but it smells like a big fat pile of fish. Not buying the marketing crap. Show the real thing and we will see. Again: It would be awesome if it works,... if,...

I mean I'm a skeptic of all the VR platforms, but I think there's a big difference  in what the people on the forums think it will be and what it actually will. But we'll see in October. 

 

6 hours ago, ShadowCaptain said:

I was actually just joking with my post...

I kinda thought you were, but it's a common sentiment among pc gamers talking about consoles. 

Quote

but yes console makers SHOULD have standards for their developers to adhere to, that ensures that every games offers a smooth consistent experiance 

You say standard, I say limitation. Forcing everyone to make games at 60fps treats all games the same, when different games are affected differently by the jump from 30 to 60. I think it should  be a developer decision to choose between that 30&60

Quote

uncharted etc would still benefit from 60fps so not sure what you are trying to say

 

(and I am somebody that loves Heavy Rain etc)

You can say any game benefits from 60fps, that's obviously true but it doesn't consider the compromises that need to be made to get 60 fps in all these games. Uncharted 4 as you probably know was originally planned to be 60fps as long as it didn't require too many gameplay compromises (smaller levels, less enemies,  etc)  and they ended up splitting it to 60 in MP and 30 in SP

[byalexandr]

So in conclusion, there will be like two titles left that are actually supported.

[Tech Enthusiast]

41 minutes ago, Sharkyx1 said:

Let me just stop you here, it's 960x1080 at 60 fps twice, instead of 1920x1080 at 60fps once, this is a common misconception. 

You are right actually. I did not know that. Looked up a comparison and finally know why the Occulus looked so god damn awful when i tried it.

 

Here is the link i found discussing the resolutions. https://www.reddit.com/r/GearVR/comments/3yta3g/why_do_people_keep_saying_the_gear_vr_has_low/

VERY disheartening for the PSVR. Since i already hated occulus,... and that one has a higher resolution. Did not try the Vive myself tho.

 

41 minutes ago, Sharkyx1 said:

This is why Sony developed reproduction technology to improve the quality of 60fps VR. Sony says standard 60hz VR doesn't cut it either. 

That again is just some marketing crap untill they proove it. From what i saw they plan on injecting filler frames. And we all know how good that works on upscaled pictures.

 

They claim to pull some serious magic here and honestly it would'nt be the first time a console company straight out lied to get some sales going. Not getting my hopes up just yet :-)

[Sharkyx1]

16 minutes ago, Rattenmann said:

You are right actually. I did not know that. Looked up a comparison and finally know why the Occulus looked so god damn awful when i tried it.

Here is the link i found discussing the resolutions.

 https://www.reddit.com/r/GearVR/comments/3yta3g/why_do_people_keep_saying_the_gear_vr_has_low/

VERY disheartening for the PSVR. Since i already hated occulus,... and that one has a higher resolution. Did not try the Vive myself tho.

Well 960x1080 isn't lower resolution that what one would expect, its a 1080p display spanned over two eyes. I mean its not enough, but its usable, there will be aliasing. I've used cardboard with my HTC one at 5.0" at 1080p, thats actually probably higher PPI than Rift now that i googled it, 5" at 1080p is 440 . Overkill says it will deliver a 5k VR headset with 2560x2880 per eye. Until we know the size of the OR or Vive screen we don't know its effective resolution.

 

I think resolution will not be the barrier here as its more about being in the game world than absolute image quality. my biggest issue with Cardboard was dust and hair on my screen getting magnified. you are gonna have a different experience than me, i thought 1080p was enough to play games, but the 30hz lock on Trinus was a real issue.

[Snadzies]

What they say they are doing.

Quote

Sony to reject any PlaystationVR games that drop below 60fps.

 

What they should be doing.

Quote

Sony to reject any Playstation games that drop below 60fps.

 

What they will actually do.

Quote

Sony to reject any PlaystationVR games that drop below 60fps unless developed / published by one of the big name game companies.

 

[Sakkura]

5 hours ago, Sharkyx1 said:

Well 960x1080 isn't lower resolution that what one would expect, its a 1080p display spanned over two eyes. I mean its not enough, but its usable, there will be aliasing. I've used cardboard with my HTC one at 5.0" at 1080p, thats actually probably higher PPI than Rift now that i googled it, 5" at 1080p is 440 . Overkill says it will deliver a 5k VR headset with 2560x2880 per eye. Until we know the size of the OR or Vive screen we don't know its effective resolution.

 

I think resolution will not be the barrier here as its more about being in the game world than absolute image quality. my biggest issue with Cardboard was dust and hair on my screen getting magnified. you are gonna have a different experience than me, i thought 1080p was enough to play games, but the 30hz lock on Trinus was a real issue.

VR headsets use lenses, so PPI numbers are meaningless in isolation. It's better to compare the actual resolution. And then keep in mind there are more important things than resolution. Pixel fill, refresh rate, low persistence and so on. 

[LePawel]

On 3/18/2016 at 5:28 PM, thekeemo said:

should be 90 for VR

And who told you that? Your tingling PCMR senses? PSVR interpolates 60 and 90 for very smooth experience, and actually feels the smoothest of all 3 regardless of internal settings.

On 3/18/2016 at 6:41 PM, Sauron said:

1) Yes. There's no way around it.

2) No, it's not. And almost no developer will produce 90 or 120 fps content, the hardware is too slow and they'll want the game to run on standard mode as well. And that's why I think psvr will be a disaster. VR is not something you can market to the broad masses at this time. Lt. Avg. Joe will go out and buy the headset (for a whopping 400$ plus the external box), read nothing about it other than a single marketing leaflet and put it on, only to realize 60 fps is too low for him and he gets sick. That's when the angry mobs will raid the shop they bought psvr in and demand a refund. Unlike, say, the Oculus, the audience for this is much less informed on the matter and to make things worse, the headset itself is not up to par. I don't know who at Sony thought it was a good idea, but I and convinced it will be a clusterf**k.

Your 2nd point is dumb as hell. How many SteamVR or Oculus titles that have top-notch AAA graphics have you seen so far? 

And how much have you actually read about VR? You do realize that >at the moment< the DPI of all HMD's limits the quality you can get in front of your face anyway? There's no point putting 4K textures and modelling grass straws in full 3D, because most of that detail will be rasterized down to a few pixels? Realistic graphics won't work at all until we hit 4-6k screens inside these headsets as a standard. For now, simpler graphics, with hard, defined edges work work much better in terms of the 3D effect and immersion, sorry to burst your bubble. And how exactly is the headset not up to far? Because I don't see any problems with it.

 

[Sauron]

5 minutes ago, LePawel said:

Your 2nd point is dumb as hell. How many SteamVR or Oculus titles that have top-notch AAA graphics have you seen so far? 

And how much have you actually read about VR? You do realize that >at the moment< the DPI of all HMD's limits the quality you can get in front of your face anyway? There's no point putting 4K textures and modelling grass straws in full 3D, because most of that detail will be rasterized down to a few pixels? Realistic graphics won't work at all until we hit 4-6k screens inside these headsets as a standard. For now, simpler graphics, with hard, defined edges work work much better in terms of the 3D effect and immersion, sorry to burst your bubble. And how exactly is the headset not up to far? Because I don't see any problems with it.

 

 

if you don't see a problem with severely underpowered hardware then I'm not the one who is uninformed about vr.

[dragosudeki]

On 3/19/2016 at 11:02 AM, Sharkyx1 said:

I'm just leaving this here, it's an open world game running 1080 60 on ps4 and it didn't drop one time in gameplay in some 80hrs that the game was tested. Obviously this game has a large amount of headroom, I wouldn't think it'd be 90hz head room, but I believe this game in its entirety could be put on PSVR hassle free

You are missing another important sad truth. Konami has pretty much gotten rid of Kojima and I just don't see them doing any extra work to bring it to PSVR. Yeah, Kojima is now working for a different better company, however (I think) the engine is still Konami's property and required a huge amount of investment. Who knows when we'll see another game of this caliber.

[LukeTim]

I thought VR needed to be 90 fps?

[Sharkyx1]

46 minutes ago, dragosudeki said:

You are missing another important sad truth. Konami has pretty much gotten rid of Kojima and I just don't see them doing any extra work to bring it to PSVR. Yeah, Kojima is now working for a different better company, however (I think) the engine is still Konami's property and required a huge amount of investment. Who knows when we'll see another game of this caliber.

It was more about the theory than the actual implementation. The engine is very much Konami property. But it isn't magic that it gets 60fps,it's just a game that was built around 60fps,carefully managed around it. 

 

40 minutes ago, LukeTim said:

I thought VR needed to be 90 fps?

Sony is saying 60 FPS isn't enough, but this will update the screen at 120fps,but render  game code at 60, if you shift your head a few pixels it will move the screen over and then render  the next frame new. New frame, shifted old frame, new frame, like that. They are saying this is better than 60fps. 

[CTR640]

Lol, this is a dream that has come true for Ubisoft. They finally legitemately can use that lame excuse to downgrade

their shitty games in order to maintain playable framerates and downdgrage shit more.

[LePawel]

On 3/21/2016 at 1:31 PM, Sauron said:

if you don't see a problem with severely underpowered hardware then I'm not the one who is uninformed about vr.

Jesus fucking christ, read about PSVR, how it stacks up vs Vive and Rift, and what sort of requirements it has compared to them.

You are clearly just flat-comparing Rift's 970 requirement, looking at PS4's GPU and going "omg its not gonna do it", and that's simply not how stuff works.

Sure, PS4 is a low-range PC by 2016 standards and needs an upgrade, I'm fully behind that, but PSVR is has been designed for PS4's spec. If you can't understand that there's more to a VR ecosystem (PC+Rift/Vive vs PS4+PSVR) than a couple of numbers, you should read up a bit about development and console vs PC as a platform.

Will it be challenging to get all cross platforms glassy smooth on PS4? Probably, but even good looking demo's I've seen on the Vive recently are keeping a 970 at about 60% of it's power target, clocks at around 900mhz, with the gpu chilling around 60C.

For nth time people, this gen isn't about graphics, but about exposure to public and new ways to game.

Also, you have to face it, regardless of how much your PCMR senses are tingling, PS4 is VR capable.

Lastly, Developers really aren't as stupid as you think, they know the importance of FPS in VR compared to a TV and it's them that get headaches from FPS drops during testing, not you.

[Thony]

On 18/03/2016 at 5:17 PM, Vivilacqua1 said:

Well, they will have a fun time making that not drop below 60 fps with a good looking game like that.

 

I wonder of any games at 120fps will come out for the psvr. Doubt it. I don't think there will be any good chance for console vr untill next generation with Sony's standards.

Maybe not for PS4 but PS4.5 or whatever the more powerful rumoured console is going to be called.

 

Current gen consoles can play darts,pinball,checkers and such games at 60fps...

 

I wonder what resolution. Their headset will be at. 

 

60fps still sound pretty low for VR however.

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, LePawel said:

Sure, PS4 is a low-range PC by 2016 standards and needs an upgrade, I'm fully behind that, but PSVR is has been designed for PS4's spec.

If you think a product being developed for a specific platform can somehow perform magic and provide the same experience with half the processing power you're deluding yourself. A vr headset is just two high refresh screens. Nothing about it can make it easier to run than another set of two screens with similar resolution and refresh rate. And a ps4 is not up to snuff when it comes to that, even if there is an external box handling the part that is not pure rendering.

 

I don't care what this generation "is about", the point is it's certainly not about VR when it struggles to provide 1080p 60fps with drops, even assuming 60fps is enough for vr and won't make one out of two people sick. Say you could run VR on a gtx 470 and they'll call you crazy, but say it will run on a ps4 with about the same power and suddenly there's a swarm of people saying that no, it can actually work well, and it will provide a good experience because it's "designed for the ps4's specs". The "ecosystem" only comes into play if the hardware is capable of providing the base rendering performance - the rest only takes care of motion recognition and adjustments.

 

Developers may not be stupid but they can't do miracles. The game will either have to be severely nerfed to meet the requirements or there will be dips.

[Sharkyx1]

1 hour ago, Thony said:

Current gen consoles can play darts,pinball,checkers and such games at 60fps...

But also, Metro 1&2, Metal Gear Solid V, Wolfenstien, Dark Souls 2, The Last Of Us and Uncharted, Project  Cars, Trine 3, all DICE games, 

Quote

I wonder what resolution. Their headset will be at. 

1080p

Quote

60fps still sound pretty low for VR however.

Yeah 

[That Norwegian Guy]

Looks like stencil shadows are making a comeback.

 

Just watch, PS4 users will be back in 2002 before they know it.

[LePawel]

8 minutes ago, Sauron said:

If you think a product being developed for a specific platform can somehow perform magic and provide the same experience with half the processing power you're deluding yourself. A vr headset is just two high refresh screens. Nothing about it can make it easier to run than another set of two screens with similar resolution and refresh rate. And a ps4 is not up to snuff when it comes to that, even if there is an external box handling the part that is not pure rendering.

 

I don't care what this generation "is about", the point is it's certainly not about VR when it struggles to provide 1080p 60fps with drops, even assuming 60fps is enough for vr and won't make one out of two people sick. Say you could run VR on a gtx 470 and they'll call you crazy, but say it will run on a ps4 with about the same power and suddenly there's a swarm of people saying that no, it can actually work well, and it will provide a good experience because it's "designed for the ps4's specs". The "ecosystem" only comes into play if the hardware is capable of providing the base rendering performance - the rest only takes care of motion recognition and adjustments.

 

Developers may not be stupid but they can't do miracles. The game will either have to be severely nerfed to meet the requirements or there will be dips.

When you only have to process half the shit, you can work well with half processing power, and that's exactly what PSVR does. PS4 it's weaker, so they've made sure the HMD is less demanding, resolution wise and FPS-wise. You can aim for 2 million pixels @ 60Hz instead of 2.5 @ 90Hz, and PSVR re-projects that to 120 anyway, that's more than 40% difference. If you're not going for graphics, you can of course turn up PS4 to 90 or 120.

 

Also, Sony itself said it's not aiming to be the competition to Rift and Vive, they're a mid-range option compared to high-end stuff.

Next, You don't have to care what these HMDs are about (although you should), the industry does, and its priorities are different to your flashy graphics.

Next, 60FPS is enough for VR, GearVR runs at 60 and most of the games there feel smooth, although again, PSVR reprojects to 120, and it feels just as smooth if not smoother than the other two big guys. 

 

Regarding performance, PS4 get a lot more power out of its GPUs because devs talk straight to the metal, you're looking at equivalents a couple models higher as a result, overhead is still a thing for PC. Also, can you not understand that having an HMD connected doesn't mean everything now chugs and stutters unless you have a 970? You've said it yourself: these are just screens and we've had 90+ refresh rate screens for years. You sound ridiculous talking about base rendering performance, when rendering requirements are totally dependent on whatever developers decide to slap into a product.

I can say it now: you can run VR on a 470 - there will be titles that aren't as demanding by nature, or some that can have their settings dropped enough to run on it with an acceptable performance

I'm sorry bu there is enough performance on PS4, it's also on GearVR and even Cardboard, products are simply optimized for each platform, don't act like this isn't happening on PS4 already and it would be some sort of surprise to have some grass or hbao+ missing, which are completely useless in current VR. And devs currently are doing exactly miracles, inventing VR-specific optimization methods to improve performance across all platforms, in case you missed:

 

Also, a question, have you even had any of these VR headsets, in their recent revisions, on your head? You seem like you try and show you know a lot, but none of that is true so far.

[RexinOridle]

VR games running over 60fps on PS4? Well I guess 8 bit graphics it is!!

[Sakkura]

9 hours ago, LePawel said:

When you only have to process half the shit, you can work well with half processing power, and that's exactly what PSVR does. PS4 it's weaker, so they've made sure the HMD is less demanding, resolution wise and FPS-wise. You can aim for 2 million pixels @ 60Hz instead of 2.5 @ 90Hz, and PSVR re-projects that to 120 anyway, that's more than 40% difference. If you're not going for graphics, you can of course turn up PS4 to 90 or 120.

 

Also, Sony itself said it's not aiming to be the competition to Rift and Vive, they're a mid-range option compared to high-end stuff.

Processing half the shit means the game looks twice as shit. Games on the Rift and Vive with a GTX 970 or R9 290 are not going to look amazing. Games on the PSVR will look significantly worse. Sony even admits that they can't compete.

[LePawel]

17 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Processing half the shit means the game looks twice as shit. Games on the Rift and Vive with a GTX 970 or R9 290 are not going to look amazing. Games on the PSVR will look significantly worse. Sony even admits that they can't compete.

It doesn't, processing can also mean something is done more efficiently. This the problem I have with most people talking about VR. They have absolutely no clue what they're talking about and/or they've never head all HMDs in question on their head. Games like The Brookhaven Experiment look good in the HMD, but aren't hard to run at all.