Playstation VR outsells Vive and Rift COMBINED (Maybe)

[Shepanator]

According to Gfk's consumer survey the Playstation VR is set to outsell both the Vive and Rift combined, in the UK.

 

Quote

“Early UK sales of PlayStation VR indicate it is already approaching the combined installed base of HTC Vive and Oculus Rift. Initial PlayStation VR game sales are also positive with eight or nine boxed releases featuring in the Official UK Top 40 games chart (week ending Saturday 15th October 2016).”   

He continued: “Early adopters weren’t certain what to expect from a VR gaming experience. The Sony PlayStation branding eradicated many concerns and led to high expectations. Our survey shows that initial reactions from owners of PlayStation VR are positive. Some told us that the experience surpasses expectations, and for many it is a talking point with their friends. Others believe the VR gaming experience to be a solitary one, but have been pleasantly surprised by social elements of VR gaming.

Source: MCV

 

This is great news for VR, and great news for sony. I think the way they managed to integrate more social features and even games where people can play on the screen against somebody wearing the headset really came through and helped them here.

 

I'd be interested to see how psvr stacks up against the other headsets in other markets. I would imagine the picture is broadly the same as the uk.

[Sniperfox47]

I don't really find this that surprising. It's a much cheaper system that works with much cheaper systems that more people own.

 

I'm pretty sure that once more phones come out supporting it, Daydream headsets will probably massively outsell the Rift and Vive as well.

 

That being said, I'm still not sure how I feel about their policy of "Oh just async reproject everything! All you PC gamers think you're all that with your 90hz? Well well just render at 60hz and reproject to get it up to 120!"

 

IMO, Async should be an absolute last resort that you only use if you absolutely require it. At least with Daydream the system tries to render fast enough and only reprojects if it needs to. 

[Thony]

Ofcourse it does. Console market doesnt know anything (mostly even about existencr) about PC VR and price is very attractive for them since they are cheap customers anyways

 

Not to mention there is more console owners than gaming pc owners.

 

Consoles are mostly aimed at kids and PCs are for adults is how I see it. No kid goes "mom can i have i7-6700k with GTX 1080 for Birthday ?" 

 

Clueless or avarage Joe parent rather spends $300 than $500-800.

[Shepanator]

1 minute ago, Sniperfox47 said:

I don't really find this that surprising. It's a much cheaper system that works with much cheaper systems that more people own.

 

I'm pretty sure that once more phones come out supporting it, Daydream headsets will probably massively outsell the Rift and Vive as well.

 

That being said, I'm still not sure how I feel about their policy of "Oh just async reproject everything! All you PC gamers think you're all that with your 90hz? Well well just render at 60hz and reproject to get it up to 120!"

 

IMO, Async should be an absolute last resort that you only use if you absolutely require it. At least with Daydream the system tries to render fast enough and only reprojects if it needs to. 

 

I've used a couple of the different headsets but I haven't seen the reprojection system in person yet.

To be honest though it sounds like it should be a standard feature, even for high end users.

Of course better native performance is preferred but quite frankly that's not possible on ps4, and not even possible on most people's 'gaming PCs', so making slow game performance independent from the players head movement is a great feature. A lot of people already get motion sick just from lateral movement in VR, I can't imagine the motion sickness if your head movements didn't line up with what the screen is displaying too.

[Shepanator]

2 minutes ago, Thony said:

Ofcourse it does. Console market doesnt know anything (mostly even about existencr) about PC VR and price is very attractive for them since they are cheap customers anyways

 

Not to mention there is more console owners than gaming pc owners.

 

Consokes are mostly aimed at kids and PCs are for adults is how I see it. No kid goes "mom can i have i7-6700k with GTX 1080 for Birthday ?" 

 

More adults own consoles than own gaming PCs. In fact if you look at any demographic there are almost always going to be more console owners.

The simple fact is that better graphics don't make a game more fun, and the average console player doesn't care that a mouse would be more accurate to play shooters.

 

Being elitist is just stupid, in the end everybody plays games to have fun, do you think you're having more fun because you can get better graphics?

[2FA]

As far as any VR system is currently, they are all basically a tech demo. Not really worth buying into for the majority of people until the technologies advance and we start having normal games that are also VR friendly. Yes there are few games right now but those are tacked on features and not thought about from the very beginning.

[Sniperfox47]

32 minutes ago, Shepanator said:

 

I've used a couple of the different headsets but I haven't seen the reprojection system in person yet.

To be honest though it sounds like it should be a standard feature, even for high end users.

Of course better native performance is preferred but quite frankly that's not possible on ps4, and not even possible on most people's 'gaming PCs', so making slow game performance independent from the players head movement is a great feature. A lot of people already get motion sick just from lateral movement in VR, I can't imagine the motion sickness if your head movements didn't line up with what the screen is displaying too.

The PSVR's use of reprojection has little to do with head movement, it has to do purely with frame rate (which also affects motion sickness).

 

At 90fps single buffered you wind up with ~11ms of latency. 11ms latency, 90fps, and <2ms persistence is enough for the vast majority of people to avoid motion sickness.

 

As long as you can consistently hit that target your headset will be fine.

 

If you miss a frame your latency jumps up to ~22ms, which still isn't terrible, but the inconsistency is noticeable and can cause nausea.

 

What the PSVR has is the standard async reprojection. What this does, is if the headset is about to miss a frame it reuses 99% of the stuff from the previous frame and warps it for a second frame. Because the reprojected frame is updated(ish) for the new perspective it keeps your latency down while still looking decent(ish). But the PSVR doesn't just do this if it's about to miss a frame. It does this to every frame to double the perceived frame rate and lower latency in a trade for accuracy. This has issues such as causing some misinterpretation of fluid motion. If you have an object moving across your view during a reprojected frame it will appear frozen in space for that one frame, but then just ahead in space by two frames during the next one for example.

 

Asynchronous Space Warp (the new thing by Occulus and AMD) is a little bit different in that it gives itself more wiggle room on every second frame and if the frame looks like it will be late, it extrapolates geometry from previous frames and then reshades a new frame and reprojects that extrapolation rather than the previous frame. In layman's terms, it's a lot more accurate in most cases, and makes reprojected frames far harder to notice. As far as I know, the PSVR doesn't do any interpolation though, it just does the warp on the previous frame.

 

Space Warp is something I hope comes to PSVR sooner rather than later.

 

Reprojection/Time Warp I think should be there as a safety net, but that developers should just live withing a 90fps frame time budget. I'd much rather just have developers hit the 11ms frame limit but it's better than dropping frames

[Shepanator]

4 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Reprojection has nothing to do with head movement, it has to do purely with frame rate (which also affects motion sickness).

 

At 90fps single buffered you wind up with ~11ms of latency. 11ms latency, 90fps, and <2ms persistence is enough for the vast majority of people to avoid motion sickness.

 

As long as you can consistently hit that target your headset will be fine.

 

If you miss a frame your latency jumps up to ~22ms, which still isn't terrible, but the inconsistency is noticeable and can cause nausea.

 

What the PSVR has is the standard async reprojection. What this does, is if the headset is about to miss a frame it reuses 99% of the stuff from the previous frame and warps it for a second frame. Because the reprojected frame is updated(ish) for the new perspective it keeps your latency down while still looking decent(ish). But the PSVR doesn't just do this if it's about to miss a frame. It does this to every frame to double the perceived frame rate and lower latency in a trade for accuracy. This has issues such as causing some misinterpretation of fluid motion. If you have an object moving across your view during a reprojected frame it will appear frozen in space for that one frame, but then just ahead in space by two frames during the next one for example.

 

Asynchronous Space Warp (the new thing by Occulus and AMD) is a little bit different in that it gives itself more wiggle room on every second frame and if the frame looks like it will be late, it extrapolates geometry from previous frames and then reshades a new frame and reprojects that extrapolation rather than the previous frame. In layman's terms, it's a lot more accurate in most cases, and makes reprojected frames far harder to notice. As far as I know, the PSVR doesn't do any interpolation though, it just does the warp on the previous frame.

 

Space Warp is something I hope comes to PSVR sooner rather than later.

 

Reprojection/Time Warp I think should be there as a safety net, but that developers should just live withing a 90fps frame time budget. I'd much rather just have developers hit the 11ms frame limit but it's better than dropping frames

 

Reprojection has everything to do with head movement, you even said it in your post.

They take the last frame, warp it using data from your head movement, and display it. So in effect the camera movement (your head movement) refreshes somewhat independently of the game's refresh rate, hopefully improving the game's perceived fluidity and reducing motion sickness.

Asynchronous space warp is just a fancier version of the same concept. Like FXAA vs MSAA in antialiasing. Different technologies for the same purpose.

[Sniperfox47]

1 minute ago, Shepanator said:

 

Reprojection has everything to do with head movement, you even said it in your post.

They take the last frame, warp it using data from your head movement, and display it. So in effect the camera movement (your head movement) refreshes somewhat independently of the game's refresh rate.

Asynchronous space warp is just a fancier version of the same concept. Like FXAA vs MSAA in antialiasing. Different technologies for the same purpose.

I corrected my statement right after I posted it but apparently also after you read it.

 

It's not that reprojection has nothing to do with head motion, but rather the way the PSVR uses it doesn't. The only reason it has to reproject is because it can't consistently hit a 90fps frame budget (11ms). If it did it wouldn't need to frame double, especially since the PlayStation Camera's latency would limit it to about that anyways.

 

Also it's not really comparable to the difference between FXAA and MSAA, since both of those improve image quality. It would be more like the difference between applying a blur filter to your screen or using FXAA.

 

 

[Thony]

46 minutes ago, Shepanator said:

 

More adults own consoles than own gaming PCs. In fact if you look at any demographic there are almost always going to be more console owners.

The simple fact is that better graphics don't make a game more fun, and the average console player doesn't care that a mouse would be more accurate to play shooters.

 

Being elitist is just stupid, in the end everybody plays games to have fun, do you think you're having more fun because you can get better graphics?

When its display stuck to my face, then pixel count matters a lot. Graphics dont matter, the experience combined does (fps + graphics + options).

Its 2016 and console people are hardly getting any 60fps games. I as PC owner grew up on 60Hz+ gaming and just last year I experienced 144Hz and oh man, my gaming experience has improved !

[-BirdiE-]

41 minutes ago, Shepanator said:

Being elitist is just stupid, in the end everybody plays games to have fun, do you think you're having more fun because you can get better graphics?

I think entirely writing off any added value of improved aesthetics in games is equally as stupid.

 

Does it play nearly as large a role as gameplay? Absolutely not... But you're bashing people for being one extreme, while being the other extreme...

[Shepanator]

1 minute ago, -BirdiE- said:

I think entirely writing off any added value of improved aesthetics in games is equally as stupid.

 

Does it play nearly as large a role as gameplay? Absolutely not... But you're bashing people for being one extreme, while being the other extreme...

I didn't write off any added value, I just said that better graphics don't make a game more fun, which is a perfectly reasonable statement.

Sure it can improve the """experience""", if you're playing a game for a reason other than to enjoy the gameplay.

[-BirdiE-]

2 minutes ago, Shepanator said:

I didn't write off any added value, I just said that better graphics don't make a game more fun, which is a perfectly reasonable statement.

Sure it can improve the """experience""", if you're playing a game for a reason other than to enjoy the gameplay.

Any you don't think the immersion or quality of the experience is in any way related to the enjoyment you get from playing a game?

 

Obviously good graphics aren't going to make a crappy game fun, but they can very much improve your enjoyment of a good game.

[Arri]

Good news. Consoles control most of the gaming market and so having VR see success there is only beneficial for PC gaming too.

[Sniperfox47]

Depends on how you define good graphics. For example some of my favorite and most immersive VR experiences have been "low poly" stylized works that create a really strong "virtual world" feel.

[Shepanator]

4 minutes ago, -BirdiE- said:

Any you don't think the immersion or quality of the experience is in any way related to the enjoyment you get from playing a game?

 

Obviously good graphics aren't going to make a crappy game fun, but they can very much improve your enjoyment of a good game.

Deus Ex and System Shock are incredibly immersive games but the graphics suck by today's standards.

Sure, great visuals are nice, especially for the technically minded. But for the layman it won't improve the experience.

Think about any really great, immersive game from the last ten years. Now imagine it with shitty graphics. It would still be just as immersive and just as fun.

[-BirdiE-]

1 minute ago, Shepanator said:

Deus Ex and System Shock are incredibly immersive games but the graphics suck by today's standards.

Sure, great visuals are nice, especially for the technically minded. But for the layman it won't improve the experience.

Think about any really great, immersive game from the last ten years. Now imagine it with shitty graphics. It would still be just as immersive and just as fun.

Well I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

I think that the games would still be very fun, but I wouldn't enjoy them quite as much. Beautiful environments can do wonders for a game.

Can't speak for others, but my immersion in a game has a lot to do with my enjoyment. The more believable the characters and environment, the more I am emotionally attached to the game and the story. Little touches like shadows and edge smoothing can make a big difference. Less things to remind you it's not real, and make it feel "off".

[Shepanator]

1 minute ago, -BirdiE- said:

Well I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

I think that the games would still be very fun, but I wouldn't enjoy them quite as much. Beautiful environments can do wonders for a game.

Can't speak for others, but my immersion in a game has a lot to do with my enjoyment. The more believable the characters and environment, the more I am emotionally attached to the game and the story. Little touches like shadows and edge smoothing can make a big difference. Less things to remind you it's not real, and make it feel "off".

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy beautiful vista's and like being amazed by new rendering technologies, but once those wear off a bad game is still a bad game. Crysis 3 is a case in point. Incredible graphics when it came out, average gameplay. I was entertained by the graphics for a while, but I never finished it because it just wasn't fun.

[-BirdiE-]

1 minute ago, Shepanator said:

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy beautiful vista's and like being amazed by new rendering technologies, but once those wear off a bad game is still a bad game. Crysis 3 is a case in point. Incredible graphics when it came out, average gameplay. I was entertained by the graphics for a while, but I never finished it because it just wasn't fun.

Yep. They're never going to make a bad game good... 

I think they can make a good game even better though... But obviously gameplay is king.

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, Thony said:

Ofcourse it does. Console market doesnt know anything (mostly even about existencr) about PC VR and price is very attractive for them since they are cheap customers anyways

 

Not to mention there is more console owners than gaming pc owners.

 

Consoles are mostly aimed at kids and PCs are for adults is how I see it. No kid goes "mom can i have i7-6700k with GTX 1080 for Birthday ?" 

 

Clueless or avarage Joe parent rather spends $300 than $500-800.

That part is not true: PC gaming is the biggest market (The only caviat here is that this takes into account the huge market for mmos, mobas and casual games, but still technically "PC gaming")

 

But other than that yeah: cheaper pricing will be key regardless of what a tiny minority of enthusiasts on these parts hope comes true it remains more of an idealization than something grounded on reality (see also, Star Citizen)

 

 

[BurstSMG]

We're outnumbered, guys. 

[RagnarokDel]

a PS4 and a PSVR are almost the same price as the Vive alone.

[Prysin]

3 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

I don't really find this that surprising. It's a much cheaper system that works with much cheaper systems that more people own.

 

I'm pretty sure that once more phones come out supporting it, Daydream headsets will probably massively outsell the Rift and Vive as well.

 

That being said, I'm still not sure how I feel about their policy of "Oh just async reproject everything! All you PC gamers think you're all that with your 90hz? Well well just render at 60hz and reproject to get it up to 120!"

 

IMO, Async should be an absolute last resort that you only use if you absolutely require it. At least with Daydream the system tries to render fast enough and only reprojects if it needs to. 

Rift is doing Async reprojecting too... your point is?

[AxelRantila]

1 hour ago, RagnarokDel said:

a PS4 and a PSVR are almost the same price as the Vive alone.

Yeah, this is the big reason why I can understand that console-based VR might be more appealing to a wider audience compared to the Vive

 

Personally I am more excited for HoloLens right now. One very simple HoloLens demo made me a lot more interested in it than all other VR demos combined that I've tried. (both on the Rift and Vive).

[Sky Daddy]

39 minutes ago, AxelRantila said:

Yeah, this is the big reason why I can understand that console-based VR might be more appealing to a wider audience compared to the Vive

 

Personally I am more excited for HoloLens right now. One very simple HoloLens demo made me a lot more interested in it than all other VR demos combined that I've tried. (both on the Rift and Vive).

Hololens has a very big shortcoming though, and that's FOV

 

Also AR/VR are very different beasts, at least in these growing stages

 

I'm still waiting for Magic Leap to go completely public