Reasonable expectations for the PSVR2

Alucardx23 · Sep 25, 2020

ffvorax said:
Well I hope so then! :D
Loved my PSVR until I had time to use it! Every time I find some time to play with it I am amazed by VR! <3

The Quest has shown how much better things are without having cables in the way. You put the headset on and instantly you are in VR. It might not look like it right now, but I really think that one of the reasons Sony went so hard with the SSD is because of VR. Loading times in VR suck a lot more than on traditional games.

Osiris397 · Sep 25, 2020

Peltz said:
I imagine that having a wire significantly impacts the types of controls you could have...

As it turns out from a sales perspective wired/wireless doesn't matter much as the best selling wireless competitor still has barely reached half the annual sales of year of sales of the best selling wired VR HMD. Eye tracking, primarily for foveated rendering, will be a HUGE feature for added value in the form of dramatically higher fidelity graphics.

Ringten · Sep 25, 2020

Low-key forgot about VR....

Gonna be great this gen. I am glad we saw PSVR, since I am sure they learned a lot from it and we got some decent games out of it (Super hot).

I had a base PS4 and tried a few VR games, but ultimately returned it as I realised I would not use it that much. The whole setup + resolution was a tad bit subpar.

Now, gotta figure out why the hell I ordered an Xbox because I don't have time for 3 platforms in my life 😂

Osiris397 · Sep 25, 2020

Digging through some Sony documents a couple of years ago regarding their mobile phones that don't sell, like at all, was a tech oriented statement where they stated that 5G which wasn't available then but is now and for WiFi in the form of WiFi6 was important to the phone business, but more important to other areas of the company. I have to assume this primarily for Playstation/PSVR since Playstation is the biggest part of the company right now.

ffvorax · Sep 27, 2020

Alucardx23 said:
The Quest has shown how much better things are without having cables in the way. You put the headset on and instantly you are in VR. It might not look like it right now, but I really think that one of the reasons Sony went so hard with the SSD is because of VR. Loading times in VR suck a lot more than on traditional games.

Yes my father has the Go, that has no space tracking so I dont really like it, but he plans to upgrade to the Quest 2, so I cant wait to try it!

Yasuke · Sep 27, 2020

Honestly? I think I'm copping regardless. I regret I was always too broke to get the first iteration, up until the point it made more sense to wait, so I'm jumping on this one early.

Useyourfist · Sep 27, 2020

Wireless would be ideal for me, don't think I would buy it otherwise unless there was some really killer game such as AAA full rpg experience. I have the psvr but find myself not really using often due to all the faff of setting it up (yes a bit lazy but also my set up adds more effort in sorting it out)

theAllseeingEYE · Sep 27, 2020

Great OP Alucard!

It sounds like PSVR2 will be way better than PSVR1. I'm seeing a lot of potentially smart inclusions here, like inside-out tracking, foveated rendering and eye tracking, some potentially neat new controllers.

If they keep the price low like PSVR, and have a suitably higher-res display, it will be a very attractive headset for PS5 gamers. The only thing I didn't notice was mention of mixed reality, or playspace awareness, unless I missed it.

Ewaan · Sep 27, 2020

Great thread.

What's the thoughts on the rumour that with Sony going 'all-in' on VR that the hardware required to make it wireless is located in the PS5 itself? This would make the cost for the system a little more impressive than it already is and perhaps give reason for why the console is that size other than cooling.

Just a thought anyway - something I've heard people mention previously.

Alucardx23 · Sep 27, 2020

Ewaan said:
Great thread.

What's the thoughts on the rumour that with Sony going 'all-in' on VR that the hardware required to make it wireless is located in the PS5 itself? This would make the cost for the system a little more impressive than it already is and perhaps give reason for why the console is that size other than cooling.

Just a thought anyway - something I've heard people mention previously.

It has already been confirmed that the PS5 will support Wifi 6, this will reduce latency a lot, but like you said, they might go with having a direct connection to the PSVR2 and bypass the router completely.

Osiris397 · Oct 1, 2020

Alucardx23 said:
The Quest...

Not really sure why you would post this here and not in a Quest thread. Even then it seems antagonistic.

Just as a general opinion, I disagree with you.

The concessions that have to be made to get games running on a mobile processor at that resolution that it is have left a lot of Quest games looking like 3D cardboard cut out versions of the original games, which is probably fine for some people, but it erodes away too much immersion for me. Arizona Sunshine and then Moss killed all the Quest love I had.

Alucardx23 · Oct 1, 2020

Osiris397 said:
Not really sure why you would post this here and not in a Quest thread. Even then it seems antagonistic.

Just as a general opinion, I disagree with you.

The concessions that have to be made to get games running on a mobile processor at that resolution that it is have left a lot of Quest games looking like 3D cardboard cut out versions of the original games, which is probably fine for some people, but it erodes away too much immersion for me. Arizona Sunshine and then Moss killed all the Quest love I had.

Don't understand where you're coming from and I recommend for you to look the definition for antagonistic. You are free to disagree with anything of course, but you should represent the other side correctly, if you are going to say that you disagree with something. If you read the OP you will see that I expect for the PSVR2 to be a wireless headset. This means playing PS5 quality VR games, transmitted wirelessly to the PSVR2. I would also like to see for the PSVR2 to be a stand alone headset, just like the Quest. It would be good for Sony to at least offer 2 versions of the PSVR2. As a Quest owner, that device has incredible value and by the time the PSVR2 comes out Sony should be able to do something better than even the Quest 2.

1-D_FE · Oct 1, 2020

Alucardx23 said:
Don't understand where you're coming from and I recommend for you to look the definition for antagonistic. You are free to disagree with anything of course, but you should represent the other side correctly, if you are going to say that you disagree with something. If you read the OP you will see that I expect for the PSVR2 to be a wireless headset. This means playing PS5 quality VR games, transmitted wirelessly to the PSVR2. I would also like to see for the PSVR2 to be a stand alone headset, just like the Quest. It would be good for Sony to at least offer 2 versions of the PSVR2. As a Quest owner, that device has incredible value and by the time the PSVR2 comes out Sony should be able to do something better than even the Quest 2.

I was going to write up something in your defense, then said "what's the point". It was actually antagonistic on the other posters part. One person states they didn't use their HMD because of how annoying setup is (a common complaint among almost all VR users). You respond how Quest has proven to yourself (and almost anyone who owns a wireless HMD) how true this is. And then you get quoted and accused of being antagonistic? Huh? Cables suck. I find it extremely disappointing that we're still getting new HMDs released in 2020 that are tether based. The cord needs to go. Pronto. It's not like it's even that difficult to solve at this point. If Oculus Quest with Virtual Desktop can do as well as it does, surely the hardware companies can have kickass solutions that solve the few remaining complaints.

Alucardx23 · Oct 1, 2020

1-D_FE said:
I was going to write up something in your defense, then said "what's the point". It was actually antagonistic on the other posters part. One person states they didn't use their HMD because of how annoying setup is (a common complaint among almost all VR users). You respond how Quest has proven to yourself (and almost anyone who owns a wireless HMD) how true this is. And then you get quoted and accused of being antagonistic? Huh? Cables suck. I find it extremely disappointing that we're still getting new HMDs released in 2020 that are tether based. The cord needs to go. Pronto. It's not like it's even that difficult to solve at this point. If Oculus Quest with Virtual Desktop can do as well as it does, surely the hardware companies can have kickass solutions that solve the few remaining complaints.

Yeah, wireless VR needs to come fast. I have used Virtual Desktop several times and it's incredible what an independent developer can do with a 5ghz wifi signal on a 72hz VR headset. John Carmack is a big proponent of taking this further and making it even better, since there are optimization they can do to make it even more efficient. The higher refresh screen on the Quest 2 and wifi 6 support should do wonders as well.

"We still haven't announced a full wireless connection system for Link and we have these interminable arguments internally about this — about quality bars — and I…can say right this very minute someone is using a wireless VR streaming system and getting value from it…we should have some kind of an Air Link." — 00:31:29

Osiris397 · Oct 3, 2020

Alucardx23 said:
If you read the OP you will see that I expect for the PSVR2...

Perhaps I misread but it seemed like PSVR 2 had nothing do with your post. You took the time to comment on the higher resolution of the Quest being "better" then PSVR 1.0, which is subjective and antagonistic in a PSVR thread. I just responded by essentially pointing out the already present negatives of increasing resolution while having decreased processing with a mobile phone CPU. For my money PSVR 1.0 is a better VR option then Quest by a significant margin.

The whole wireless discussion is weird as far as how much value some people put into it. To me it's similar to the whole "but Switch is portable!" discussion where after about 2 years most of us are joking about the fact that most of our switches' travel duties consist of going with us to make a daily deposit in the bathroom and going with us into the bed.

I like the portability of Quest and I thought that it would be enough to compensate for the graphical downgrade...I liked it initially, but the wireless is not enough to accept the muddy textures and flat assets for me. Fortunately there's Oculus Link, but I have doubts about that as a long term solution since it's not a simple HDMI pass through. As games get more complex and crazy ass features like foveated rendering come into play that are going to require blistering fast processing I doubt Oculus link will be able to keep up. Maybe more compression will happen or some other artifacting, but we'll have to see. Hopefully PSVR 2.0 on PS5 wireless doesn't take the encode and stream path.

Alucardx23 · Oct 4, 2020

Osiris397 said:
Perhaps I misread but it seemed like PSVR 2 had nothing do with your post. You took the time to comment on the higher resolution of the Quest being "better" then PSVR 1.0, which is subjective and antagonistic in a PSVR thread. I just responded by essentially pointing out the already present negatives of increasing resolution while having decreased processing with a mobile phone CPU. For my money PSVR 1.0 is a better VR option then Quest by a significant margin.

Yes, the screen resolution on the Quest 2 and even Quest 1 is higher than the PSVR resolution. That is an objective fact, there is nothing subjective or antagonistic about that comment.

Necron · Oct 4, 2020

Going to play some PSVR today.

I just hope all the peripherals still work on PS5 (e.g. the Aim controller).

Planet · Oct 4, 2020

Necron said:
Going to play some PSVR today.

I just hope all the peripherals still work on PS5 (e.g. the Aim controller).

Yes, it will work for PS4 games that run on PS5, which should be almost all of them.

Zool · Oct 4, 2020

I expect them to support the old one and don't invest in a new psvr.

Osiris397 · Oct 4, 2020

Alucardx23 said:
Yes, the screen resolution...

While that is true it's also a fact that the Quests' little mobile processors have to have a significant amount of their resources if not the majority diverted from processing polygons, loading textures, and running physics operations to drive those higher resolution screens with fresh new pixels leaving the compute pool for actual game asset processing quite shallow. For me and for a lot of other people I'm finding that's not the best compromise currently and we wouldn't want those kinds of compromises for PSVR going forward.

Alucardx23 · Oct 4, 2020

Osiris397 said:
While that is true it's also a fact that the Quests' little mobile processors have to have a significant amount of their resources if not the majority diverted from processing polygons, loading textures, and running physics operations to drive those higher resolution screens with fresh new pixels leaving the compute pool for actual game asset processing quite shallow. For me and for a lot of other people I'm finding that's not the best compromise currently and we wouldn't want those kinds of compromises for PSVR going forward.

Yeah, that's besides the point. You can connect the Quest 1 and 2 to the PC and play PCVR games. Games running on the Quest 1 and 2 will display on a higher resolution screen, regardless if they are running on the Quest mobile processor or connected to the PC. Even if games are running at the same resolution as the PSVR games, having the increased pixel density will reduce the screen door effect and that will increase the image quality in general.

RedOnePunch · Oct 4, 2020

Just want better tracking. You don't know how bad the tracking is until you use a Proper vive Or oculus and they feel solid.

Philippo · Oct 4, 2020

Just give me a wireless headset and decent library support and I'm golden.

ViewtifulJC · Oct 4, 2020

bro just let me play half life alyx

I KILL PXLS · Oct 4, 2020

Osiris397 said:
While that is true it's also a fact that the Quests' little mobile processors have to have a significant amount of their resources if not the majority diverted from processing polygons, loading textures, and running physics operations to drive those higher resolution screens with fresh new pixels leaving the compute pool for actual game asset processing quite shallow. For me and for a lot of other people I'm finding that's not the best compromise currently and we wouldn't want those kinds of compromises for PSVR going forward.

Though I agree that I don't want the PSVR2 to be a Quest like device ala the Switch, I think you're misunderstanding what's being said. You can have a wireless headset without running off an onboard system and instead stream from the PC (or PS). I had a wireless setup with my Vive and it was great. Quest even has capability via Virtual Desktop.

Osiris397 · Oct 5, 2020

Alucardx23 said:
... pixel density will reduce the screen door effect and that will increase the image quality in general.

It will increase how well we can see that the textures are muddy, it does not magically transform the low fidelity textures into actual higher fidelity textures and that's the problem with the choice. That's the main reason I'm not buying a Quest 2, aside from the fact that I feel like I just bought a Quest and after a year they're already trying to obsolete the purchase I made last year without really resolving the main problems or clarifying the bs.

As far as Oculus Link, if there were an HDMI pass through so that it worked like every other VR HMD, as I already described like twice, I would agree.

The problem is that the VR content for Quest is compressed into video and streamed back to the Quest, so that your PC is basically more like a local cloud game streaming server and all the potential problems with that method, while reduced since it's local, still exist.

Right now a lot of games currently are still simple and more walking simulator then game so Link is fine, but as games get more asset rich have heavier texture loads and become more action centric in the next 1 1/2 to 2 years I can already foresee there being input lag problems, artifacting problems, frame dropping, excessive pop-in etc. At that point they'll build yet anther Quest with an HDMI pass through or something similar and if you bought 1,2, 3 or more iterations of Quest before that you'll just be SOL because a lot of games won't run on your 18 or so month old portable VR system.

Skulldead · Oct 5, 2020

Give me , better resolution, camera integrate into the helmet. Finger tracking..... and good exclusive ! Done.

Pai Pai Master · Oct 5, 2020

ViewtifulJC said:
bro just let me play half life alyx

I think (hope) this is a given. Sony would be stupid to not be working with Valve on having Alyx ready for PSVR2 launch. More people need to play it.

And I think a PSVR2 version could do 1440p 120fps

Osiris397 · Oct 5, 2020

I KILL PXLS said:
You can have a wireless headset without running off an onboard system and instead stream from the PC (or PS). I had a wireless setup with my Vive and it was great.

Right, as long as you don't get your head burned, lol. I actually think they fixed that. A streamlined version of this is what I'm looking for that doesn't add additional processing that can ruin a VR experience or act as an obstacle between the player and some games. This is the point I'm trying to make, some people are trying to make Oculus Link out to be the same thing as any other wired VR HMD and that's not what it is at all. These are critical technical points to bring up once one starts comparing VR HMDs.

Alucardx23 · Oct 5, 2020

Osiris397 said:
It will increase how well we can see that the textures are muddy, it does not magically transform the low fidelity textures into actual higher fidelity textures and that's the problem with the choice. That's the main reason I'm not buying a Quest 2, aside from the fact that I feel like I just bought a Quest and after a year they're already trying to obsolete the purchase I made last year without really resolving the main problems or clarifying the bs.

As far as Oculus Link, if there were an HDMI pass through so that it worked like every other VR HMD, as I already described like twice, I would agree.

The problem is that the VR content for Quest is compressed into video and streamed back to the Quest, so that your PC is basically more like a local cloud game streaming server and all the potential problems with that method, while reduced since it's local, still exist.

Right now a lot of games currently are still simple and more walking simulator then game so Link is fine, but as games get more asset rich have heavier texture loads and become more action centric in the next 1 1/2 to 2 years I can already foresee there being input lag problems, artifacting problems, frame dropping, excessive pop-in etc. At that point they'll build yet anther Quest with an HDMI pass through or something similar and if you bought 1,2, 3 or more iterations of Quest before that you'll just be SOL because a lot of games won't run on your 18 or so month old portable VR system.

I already said on the previous post that the observations you are making are besides the point. You are mixing in a lot of things I'm not talking about. On regards to the Oculus Link image quality, I personally think that it's already good enough. With the 90hz screen and higher resolution on the Quest 2, it should be even better. It is also expected for the bandwidth to be increased at some point, increasing the image quality even more.

Oculus Link Now Works With Almost Any USB Cable

, Leak, Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Mixed Reality, VR, AR, MR, film, 360, festival, info, new, HTC Vive, Oculus Rift, Oculus Go, Windows MR, Samsung Gear, PSVR, entertainment, games, trends, tech, business

vrroom.buzz

Osiris397 · Oct 5, 2020

Alucardx23 said:
increasing the image quality...

Resolution and Image quality/fidelity are two completely separate things. God of War and Hyperlight Drifter can both run at 4k resolution it doesn't mean that they have the same Image "quality" profiles. Hyperlight Drifter can be made to run on the Switch probably even at 4K if Switch allowed it in software (another mobile processing unit) God of War can not.

It comes down just having more options of the types of games you want to play and have them look the way they're supposed to look. Mobile processor VR isn't going to give players the most options for a wide variety of technical reasons. Sony shouldn't consider that a viable path forward at this point for PSVR2 and I doubt that they are or ever were.

Alucardx23 · Oct 5, 2020

Osiris397 said:
Resolution and Image quality/fidelity are two completely separate things. God of War and Hyperlight Drifter can both run at 4k resolution it doesn't mean that they have the same Image fidelity profiles. Hyperlight Drifter can be made to run on the Switch probably even at 4K if Switch allowed it in software (another mobile processing unit) God of War can not.

It comes down just having more options of the types of games you want to play and have them look the way they're supposed to look. Mobile processor VR isn't going to give players the most options for a wide variety of technical reasons. Sony shouldn't consider that a viable path forward at this point for PSVR2 and I doubt that they are or ever were.

I will ask you again to stop miss representing what I'm saying. If you go again and read what I wrote, I never said that image quality and resolution are the same thing. What I did said was that increasing the pixel density will reduce the screen door effect and increase the image quality in general.

Osiris397 · Oct 6, 2020

How, in your mind, is it possible to increase image quality with low res textures on like everything?

cakefoo · Oct 7, 2020

^ IQ isn't about a wide array of visually pleasing graphical aspects- it's specifically about the density and clarity of pixel-level detals.

And if this were a PS5 speculation thread, wouldn't you WANT to hear much more powerful PC GPU's/CPU's are over the launch PS4, because of the implications of what's possible for PS5? So I don't see how bringing up the Quest is "antagonizing" to you. Quest's resolution, tracking, controllers, physical IPD- they're superior to PSVR. So you can pretty safely assume PSVR 2 can avoid the caveats of a standalone Quest by either foregoing standalone entirely, or by using better components for connectivity.

Alucardx23 · Oct 7, 2020

cakefoo said:
^ IQ isn't about a wide array of visually pleasing graphical aspects- it's specifically about the density and clarity of pixel-level detals.

And if this were a PS5 speculation thread, wouldn't you WANT to hear much more powerful PC GPU's/CPU's are over the launch PS4, because of the implications of what's possible for PS5? So I don't see how bringing up the Quest is "antagonizing" to you. Quest's resolution, tracking, controllers, physical IPD- they're superior to PSVR. So you can pretty safely assume PSVR 2 can avoid the caveats of a standalone Quest by either foregoing standalone entirely, or by using better components for connectivity.

Yeah, thank you caring about what words mean.

HiLife · Oct 7, 2020

I'd invest in another headset if PSVR2 was tetherless. Then I can finally play some AAA games like RE.

Dreamwriter · Oct 7, 2020

I think a reasonable expectation for PSVR2 would be higher resolution displays, inside-out tracking, much better controllers with actual analogue sticks and buttons with a better shape to represent hands, and perhaps finger tracking if enough developers ask for it since Oculus and Valve headsets currently do that. *Maybe* built-in headphones, and I would kill for that, but considering Oculus has proved it's "good enough" to have super cheap speakers in your face, I think it would be likely Sony would go for that to lower the cost.

Anything else is being optimistic, because of the cost and effort involved in making a mass market product at a consumer-friendly pricepoint. For example, eye tracking - sure it helps with performance (though not to the extent yet that all the hype is about), but eye trackers are expensive, require an extra calibration step, and tend to not work well with prescription lenses (unless the prescription lenses are manufactured specifically for that headset).

Sure, that one R&D guy talked about a lot of cool stuff, but he was talking about what he thinks second-generation VR will be, not necessarily next-generation PSVR. He does have access to all their early research so can clearly talk about how cool the future could be :) But listen to John Carmack from Oculus, he rants about the same things all the time - and how much he has failed convincing them to do things like add wireless PCVR support to the Quest 2, which is plainly capable of it, but the people in charge don't want it until it is perfect.

Osiris397 · Oct 13, 2020

cakefoo said:
IQ isn't about a wide array of visually pleasing graphical aspects- it's specifically about the density and clarity of pixel-level detals.

You are WRONG. What you just described is resolution, which is a completely objective measurement...you're welcome.

Image Quality is more subjective then that, but most of us can agree on certain image quality standards for certain genres, games etc., etc. hopefully without starting flamewars

However:

Higher resolution displays do NOT inherently resolve images with higher OVERALL IMAGE QUALITY, that's simply a false claim.

Images from the far left to right are PC>Quest2>Quest. The Quest and Quest 2 have higher resolution displays then the Rift, but lower overall image quality.

The reduced image quality doesn't change the overall immersion x-factor of VR, but the texture disparity gap is even more apparent in the goggles then looking at it here when comparing. People and companies need to just stop lying to people.

Quest 2 represents next gen for Oculus VR while current PCVR quality on high spec'd PC's is likely what tethered PS5/PSVR content will look like. The mobile processing is still a problem for image quality despite the inclusion of higher resolution displays or maybe even more likely because of the higher resolution displays. Again, the streamed video of Oculus Link tech is good for now, but has some long term limitations.

It may be a moot point now that I know from the PS5 tear down that a Wi-Fi 6 chipset is in the PS5, which is a super high speed, broadband 5G based wireless data transfer protocol. The only reason Sony would have likely incorporated this specific high spec wireless protocol would be for tetherless PSVR 2. Ideally PSVR owners get the best of both worlds.

Alucardx23 · Oct 13, 2020

Osiris397 said:
You are WRONG. What you just described is resolution, which is a completely objective measurement...you're welcome.

Image Quality is more subjective then that, but most of us can agree on certain image quality standards for certain genres, games etc., etc. hopefully without starting flamewars

However:

Higher resolution displays do NOT inherently resolve images with higher OVERALL IMAGE QUALITY, that's simply a false claim.

Images from the far left to right are PC>Quest2>Quest. The Quest and Quest 2 have higher resolution displays then the Rift, but lower overall image quality.

The reduced image quality doesn't change the overall immersion x-factor of VR, but the texture disparity gap is even more apparent in the goggles then looking at it here when comparing. People and companies need to just stop lying to people.

Quest 2 represents next gen for Oculus VR while current PCVR quality on high spec'd PC's is likely what tethered PS5/PSVR content will look like. The mobile processing is still a problem for image quality despite the inclusion of higher resolution displays or maybe even more likely because of the higher resolution displays. Again, the streamed video of Oculus Link tech is good for now, but has some long term limitations.

It may be a moot point now that I know from the PS5 tear down that a Wi-Fi 6 chipset is in the PS5, which is a super high speed, broadband 5G based wireless data transfer protocol. The only reason Sony would have likely incorporated this specific high spec wireless protocol would be for tetherless PSVR 2. Ideally PSVR owners get the best of both worlds.

I don't understand where is the confusion on your part. The resolution a game has is one of the factors that is taken into consideration when talking about image quality. Anti aliasing, texture filtering, texture resolution, etc. All of them affect the image quality of a game. If you read Digital Foundry this should be obvious. If you compare two games where the only difference is that one is 720P and the other is 1440P, you can definitely say that the 1440P one has better image quality.

"Put simply, in Control at least, the new DLSS can give a 'better than 4K' level of image quality - but it's not a match for the look of native rendering at 'full fat' 8K."

Does Nvidia ultra performance DLSS make 8K gaming viable?

Is 8K gaming actually viable with Nvidia's latest Ampere-based GPUs? While a small selection of triple-A titles stand a…

www.eurogamer.net

"The largest improvement stems from image quality. On Switch, Isolation uses a mix of dynamic resolution scaling, contrast adaptive sharpening and TAA. In docked mode, the game maintains a resolution near 1080p most of the time but drops to resolutions such as 1026p, 900p, 882p and as low as 756p in the worst case."

Alien Isolation on Switch looks better than PlayStation 4

Since the arrival of the Doom 2016 port for Switch, we've been continually impressed by developers' efforts to bring ga…

www.eurogamer.net

Osiris397 · Oct 14, 2020

Alucardx23 said:
I don't understand..

Clearly you don't.

The IMAGE FIDELITY difference between the Quest and Quest 2 asset scenes appear to be quite marginal in the grand scheme of things.

I have been VFX professional for multiple decades and a now also a games professional (surprisingly for almost ten years now without me realizing it, where does the time go?) All of this to basically say that I'm a well seasoned practitioner that's worked in various digital mediums for a long ass time. I don't need PC hardware jockeys to tell me what they're opinion of the differences between "Image Resolution" and "Image Quality" since I already know and fully understand it from both sides of the content.

Texture size/quality and geometry account for the largest part of the pipeline and determine the overall Image quality where Anti-Aliasing/DLSS/texture filtering are primarily post-render or tertiary processes and have a fairly minimal effect on the overall image quality so ultimately they are part of an image resolution/image fidelity discussion and not an "Overall Image Quality" discussion.

As an example Zelda from BOTW and Alloy from HZD could theoretically be rendered at the same resolution have the same AA settings, the same texture filtering method and DLSS or a similar method could be applied and even though all of the PC jockey hardware crutch terms are there you can't have an overall image quality discussion because, aesthetic preferences aside, the overall image quality is dictated by the meat and potatoes of the pipeline (the geometry/textures) and those two games are on the opposite sides of spectrum in that area.

The Alien Isolation comparison is pretty much non-sequitur relative to this topic for several reasons. The first is that the game includes tons of pre-rendered/pre-baked textures on both versions of the games which really works well for corridor based games. In a lot of cases on the Switch version there's a whole room of assets in the PS4 version simplified down to a couple of matte painted flat planes or cleverly modeled planes to add some depth. Without getting much further into the weeds on this AA solutions, textures/texture filtering is far simpler for 1 or 10 assets vs. 100 assets for the same scene in the same game and not really comparable rather then "better."

Moving this back into the VR discussion those kinds of drastic scene simplifying techniques simply aren't nearly as effective in VR because the immersed user can look at scenes from perspectives the flat objects simply can't account for because they're designed to be effective from one single, flat on, 2d viewing point, but this is kind of where the Quest sits. Better resolution, worse image quality between the same games on different VR platforms.

The point of all of this for me is to say that I like the idea of wireless as long as PSVR 2.0 doesn't have to make the same kind of compromises as the Quest has had to make and then make it more problematic by upping the resolution processing the with an already strained mobile processor. Wireless is valuable, but no that valuable to me. It appears this is isn't going to happen since with the help of WiFi6/5G tech PSVR 2.0 will likley be phyically tethered or wirelessly tethered to the PS5.

Alucardx23 · Oct 14, 2020

Osiris397 said:
Clearly you don't.

The IMAGE FIDELITY difference between the Quest and Quest 2 asset scenes appear to be quite marginal in the grand scheme of things.

I have been VFX professional for multiple decades and a now also a games professional (surprisingly for almost ten years now without me realizing it, where does the time go?) All of this to basically say that I'm a well seasoned practitioner that's worked in various digital mediums for a long ass time. I don't need PC hardware jockeys to tell me what they're opinion of the differences between "Image Resolution" and "Image Quality" since I already know and fully understand it from both sides of the content.

Texture size/quality and geometry account for the largest part of the pipeline and determine the overall Image quality where Anti-Aliasing/DLSS/texture filtering are primarily post-render or tertiary processes and have a fairly minimal effect on the overall image quality so ultimately they are part of an image resolution/image fidelity discussion and not an "Overall Image Quality" discussion.

As an example Zelda from BOTW and Alloy from HZD could theoretically be rendered at the same resolution have the same AA settings, the same texture filtering method and DLSS or a similar method could be applied and even though all of the PC jockey hardware crutch terms are there you can't have an overall image quality discussion because, aesthetic preferences aside, the overall image quality is dictated by the meat and potatoes of the pipeline (the geometry/textures) and those two games are on the opposite sides of spectrum in that area.

The Alien Isolation comparison is pretty much non-sequitur relative to this topic for several reasons. The first is that the game includes tons of pre-rendered/pre-baked textures on both versions of the games which really works well for corridor based games. In a lot of cases on the Switch version there's a whole room of assets in the PS4 version simplified down to a couple of matte painted flat planes or cleverly modeled planes to add some depth. Without getting much further into the weeds on this AA solutions, textures/texture filtering is far simpler for 1 or 10 assets vs. 100 assets for the same scene in the same game and not really comparable rather then "better."

Moving this back into the VR discussion those kinds of drastic scene simplifying techniques simply aren't nearly as effective in VR because the immersed user can look at scenes from perspectives the flat objects simply can't account for because they're designed to be effective from one single, flat on, 2d viewing point, but this is kind of where the Quest sits. Better resolution, worse image quality between the same games on different VR platforms.

The point of all of this for me is to say that I like the idea of wireless as long as PSVR 2.0 doesn't have to make the same kind of compromises as the Quest has had to make and then make it more problematic by upping the resolution processing the with an already strained mobile processor. Wireless is valuable, but no that valuable to me. It appears this is isn't going to happen since with the help of WiFi6/5G tech PSVR 2.0 will likley be phyically tethered or wirelessly tethered to the PS5.

This is not a Digital Foundry thing. Across the board you will see people talking about resolution as one of the components that affects image quality. You must be some kind of troll at this point, after saying things like "Resolution and Image quality/fidelity are two completely separate things.". I will ask you to stop derailing the thread and stop harassing other users with things that don't make any sense.

Osiris397 · Oct 14, 2020

Alucardx23 said:
This is not a Digital Foundry thing. Across the board ...

It's plainly evident in comparing the the image quality of the Quest 2 to the last gen Rift with lower resolution that Quest 2 image quality doesn't stand up and you still want to act like that's a non-factor in this conversation when it's possibly the difference between VR, as a medium, moving forward or sliding back since PSVR has the largest VR userbase and Quest has the second largest.

Fortunately, as I posted a couple of times now, it doesn't look like PSVR is going the Quest technical direction.

It's somewhat frustrating to have people that don't know what they're talking about take things out of context that others said and when you call them on the fact that they probably misunderstood the actual content of what was communicated because they don't have a proper technical context to begin they start casting all kinds of offensive aspersions at you.

I would ask that you stop misleading people on subjects you're out of your depth on but feel compelled to regurgitate a superficial understanding of the information you "heard" anyway.

It's fine to not know, it's not fine to not know and mislead people based on your personal preferences mixed in with some jargon.

Alucardx23 · Oct 14, 2020

Osiris397 said:
It's plainly evident in comparing the the image quality of the Quest 2 to the last gen Rift with lower resolution that Quest 2 image quality doesn't stand up and you still want to act like that's a non-factor in this conversation when it's possibly the difference between VR, as a medium, moving forward or sliding back since PSVR has the largest VR userbase and Quest has the second largest.

Fortunately, as I posted a couple of times now, it doesn't look like PSVR is going the Quest technical direction.

It's somewhat frustrating to have people that don't know what they're talking about take things out of context that others said and when you call them on the fact that they probably misunderstood the actual content of what was communicated because they don't have a proper technical context to begin they start casting all kinds of offensive aspersions at you.

I would ask that you stop misleading people on subjects you're out of your depth on but feel compelled to regurgitate a superficial understanding of the information you "heard" anyway.

It's fine to not know, it's not fine to not know and mislead people based on your personal preferences mixed in with some jargon.

Again, you are purely talking about comparing games graphics settings. No one here is saying that because the Quest 2 has a higher resolution, it surpasses the same game on PC running with much higher graphics settings. That's strawman argument on your part and a really bad one at that. Like I said, resolution is only one factor taken into consideration to evaluate image quality. I will remind you that I was the one that mentioned how increasing the resolution also increases image quality, because it reduces the screen door effect. I also talked about how you can have two games with the same graphics settings, but one has a higher resolution, the one with the higher resolution has the higher image quality. This is an accepted observation across the board and this is why I shared the Digital Foundry articles, but there are a lot more examples than that. Stop pretending you are correcting some stupid argument no one is making. You are the one that is wrong here, by pretending that resolution doesn't have anything to do with image quality.

Osiris397 · Oct 14, 2020

Alucardx23 said:
Again, you are purely talking about comparing games graphics settings.

Again, you're wrong.

The fencing being a completely different model with different textures in the PC build, in the comparison images I posted, has absolutely nothing to due with settings.

The devs could crank the PC settings beyond the Max of what the Quest 2 could display of the actual Quest build of the game on their development workstations and the fences would not look the same as the PC build fence, because the Quest asset is a simpler, dumbed down version of the original asset to help game run on a mobile processor.

The mountain range in the background is also not the same asset between builds. Most likely the mountain, fence and virtually every other asset in the Quest build are the lowest LOD assets from the PC build of the game.

I assumed you would have picked that up, my mistake. Hopefully some other people did.

Actually, sub-pixel density has more of an effect on SDE and VR image fidelity then resolution alone, which is one of the reasons why HTC discontinued the Vive Pro and replaced it with the Vive Cosmos that only has 100 pixel resolution increase. With the PSVR, Sony was the first manufacturer to prioritize higher sub-pixel density over resolution for VR and there's basically no SDE in PSVR content...for anyone that doesn't already know the PSVR displays game content with way less resolution then the other VR HMDs.

Now the VR manufacturers left are adopting similar dense sub-pixel resolution display approaches with more modest resolution increases then what they were planning for with their Gen2 HMDs.

The Pimax 5K displays content at a much higher resolution then all other VR HMDs. The SDE on the Pimax 5K is absolutely atrocious and is not ideal for most VR games as the resolution requirements on top of the game requirements bring even the most powerful workstations to their knees and produce content with headache inducing abysmally low framerates.

Ultimately there have been a lot of mistakes made and companies like facebook are out here making like 5-7 revisions of essentially the same product to correct the mistakes they made with an expectation that consumers are going to pay for constant error corrections and minimal improvements. Hopefully, Sony will keep PSVR far, far away from that path.

Alucardx23 · Oct 14, 2020

Osiris397 said:
Again, you're wrong.

The fencing being a completely different model with different textures in the PC build, in the comparison images I posted, has absolutely nothing to due with settings.

The devs could crank the PC settings beyond the Max of what the Quest 2 could display of the actual Quest build of the game on their development workstations and the fences would not look the same as the PC build fence, because the Quest asset is a simpler, dumbed down version of the original asset to help game run on a mobile processor.

The mountain range in the background is also not the same asset between builds. Most likely the mountain, fence and virtually every other asset in the Quest build are the lowest LOD assets from the PC build of the game.

I assumed you would have picked that up, my mistake. Hopefully some other people did.

Actually, sub-pixel density has more of an effect on SDE and VR image fidelity then resolution alone, which is one of the reasons why HTC discontinued the Vive Pro and replaced it with the Vive Cosmos that only has 100 pixel resolution increase. With the PSVR, Sony was the first manufacturer to prioritize higher sub-pixel density over resolution for VR and there's basically no SDE in PSVR content...for anyone that doesn't already know the PSVR displays game content with way less resolution then the other VR HMDs.

Now the VR manufacturers left are adopting similar dense sub-pixel resolution display approaches with more modest resolution increases then what they were planning for with their Gen2 HMDs.

The Pimax 5K displays content at a much higher resolution then all other VR HMDs. The SDE on the Pimax 5K is absolutely atrocious and is not ideal for most VR games as the resolution requirements on top of the game requirements bring even the most powerful workstations to their knees and produce content with headache inducing abysmally low framerates.

Ultimately there have been a lot of mistakes made and companies like facebook are out here making like 5-7 revisions of essentially the same product to correct the mistakes they made with an expectation that consumers are going to pay for constant error corrections and minimal improvements. Hopefully, Sony will keep PSVR far, far away from that path.

You are either willfully or unknowingly missing the point. I gave an extremely simple example where two games are exactly the same but one has a higher resolution. In that example we can say that the one with the higher resolution has a higher image quality. It doesn't matter how many blocks of text you write trying to change the subject. You were wrong by saying that image quality is not affected by resolution.

Gitaroo · Oct 14, 2020

It should be wireless since ps5 has WiFi 6 out of the box right?

ShutterMunster · Oct 14, 2020

I have absolutely zero insight into the PSVR2 stuff, but I would love a tether-free experience or at least the ability to play some games untethered. I can't support the Quest 2 but I really dig the setup.

WhtR88t · Oct 14, 2020

Part of me thinks adding wifi + a battery into the headset will increase costs too much and also the USB-C port on the front of the PS5 is another indicator that we'll probably get a wired headset.

I think we'll get something like this–

Single USB-C connection (no more breakout box or thick ass cable)
Inside out tracking (like Rift S– no more PS Camera requirement)
Higher fidelity screens/slightly wider FoV (like Quest 2)
Index-like controllers with hand tracking and analog sticks (no more dumb Move controllers)
Cheap– like $199

WhtR88t · Oct 14, 2020

ShutterMunster said:
I have absolutely zero insight into the PSVR2 stuff, but I would love a tether-free experience or at least the ability to play some games untethered. I can't support the Quest 2 but I really dig the setup.

I think there is a small possibility that PlayStation's next "portable" is a portable VR headset like the Quest.

I think they're one of the only companies that could pull it off and get developers to support creating a large ecosystem of games/apps. Also imagine if it could support non-VR games on a large VR floating screen instead of staring at a tiny handheld screen.

Shark · Oct 14, 2020

If it's wireless it will become my most anticipated consumer electronic product since the first iPhone.

Reasonable expectations for the PSVR2

Corrupted by Vengeance

▲ Legend ▲

Developer

Art Manager