Playstation VR2
theverge.com
theverge.com
If Sony fails to bridge VR/AR to the masses, then it’s all up to Apple to save the industry. Meta built an amazing, affordable product, but their brand is just so toxic that it’ll take a generational change before it can eventually recover its good will and people in developed countries trust it again. Google has a similar brand goodwill problem where they will also be unable sustain any new metaverse related product introductions. Their brand image has just been really damaged by their own internal promotion system
See: Zune.
My eyesight is _just_ able to play without glasses inserts, so I marginally feel your pain. I wish I could use my glasses. Maybe it's time I pulled out contacts again.
I really want a serious FPS with spaceships .
It’s been almost 3 years since Half Life Alyx and nothing in the Vr space has come even remotely close.
It’s the killer app problem. There are a few very cool experiences in VR, but overall it a sad environment.
I have no doubt it’ll be big. Just curious on HOW SLOWLY it’s going.
Every single person with whom I have shared my Quest 2 has said something to the effect of “is it supposed to be so blurry?” and “this thing is uncomfortable”.
The tech is really cool - and the experiences are not totally there (as you say) - but it’s not developed enough as a product.
We can hand wave away the poor resolution because the whole package is kind of amazing, but it undercuts the argument that ‘this is the future!’ when first impressions are that it looks like the past.
Graphics and visual fidelity can be solved easily. PCVR works well with the Quest 2
I got it on VR and it was awesome. It was so much more intense and fucking cool and extra flexible (I can hold a knife and a shotgun at the same time???? fucking amazing).
The main thing is that I don't want to just play video games. I like to jump around a bit and do other things. Switching apps is just really annoying in VR, usually it's not even possible.
Probably a better example is Netflix. I usually have TV shows on throughout the day, pausing them constantly for seconds, minutes, or hours, as I do something else, or often letting them play in the background. Can't do that on my Quest 2, it's either "sit in front of a TV and do nothing else" or don't.
To me, these issues are really more OS level/ platform level. The VR UX is out of whack with how I want to use it. Individually though, I can say that my experience is that a VR version of something can be way cooler.
Also, I'd like to have a keyboard interface. If I could wear something like fingerless gloves + have a keyboard hooked up and I just sit at my desk with N virtual monitors that would be amazing. But again, that's not really an "app" problem, it's the OS/platform/UX.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SteamVR/comments/manbp4/how_do_i_ge...
It’s not really possible on Quest 2 for the hardware intensive apps because it doesn’t have enough RAM and the Qualcomm XR2 is still a really weak processor compared to either Apple Silicon or anything AMD or Intel paired with an Nvidia GPU
It'll happen eventually, that projects like HL-A won't seem sooo risky and not require an entity like Valve that seems to have done it mostly for bragging rights - or something.
I think given the size and cost of games like this, it's going to be a very slow crawl... and not an explosion like iPhone was.
agreed. it's unfortunate that FB decided to just coin "Metaverse" since it's all encompassing. to your later point, it's as if Yahoo decided to launch a product called "Internet" and have it be an awful piece of software turning off everyone from the concept of the internet and pushing it back another decade simply due to terrible branding
I'll bet that once someone puts out a super polished platform with a handful of killer apps, it'll take off anyway. Right now even if you gave away preconfigured VR headsets to everyone for free they wouldn't use them
> Not enough people are even willing to give it a try due to a combination of FB’s broken brand and the intimidating giant box that you have to put on your face
I'm not willing to give it a try because it doesn't interest me, it has nothing to do with FB or being 'intimidated' buy a box. I just don't want to play things in VR, especially games that I've already played and the only new feature is '3 inches from face'
You should quit repeating "3 inches from face" though since it's misleading and pointless. There's this thing called a "lens" which can make something appear farther away than it really is, and they use this bold technology to make stuff in VR appear far enough away that it actually tricks your brain into thinking it's really there in 3D space
The hype is real, and mirthless smart people are just looking to cash in on Meta's billion dollar branding moves.
I don't see much of a difference between the two. I can understand the non-techie masses doing this, but not what seems like the majority of HN users.
If Zuck was smart, he could have a partnership with Sony and push out a launch title for this.
If that were true, the work features would have shipped already, but they were busy with gaming which is why they bought several game studios. Games were a major focus for meta because it’s one of the traditional vectors for new technology adoption. Well, that and pornography.
Let’s hope that you’re right now assuming meta is changing course, and I’m wrong because I’ve been waiting to use the work features. So far, the 3rd party options and the resolution for reading text still isn’t good enough
Facebook may be 'toxic' but the Meta is cheap, amazing, supports Air Link for PC, even has cross-play (buy a Quest game, play it on PC at better graphics). Privacy options, they -removed- Facebook login, you can sideload apps. Tacit support for modding games like Beat Saber.
Apple would turn their headset into a walled garden with no ability to run custom apps and definitely no Air Link. Try to mod a game and get banned.
Like meta, I also agree that Apple will be a double edged sword for XR. On the positive side, Apple will help the masses understand the potential of XR beyond gaming, and the M chips blow everything away. On the negative side, only we’ll be able to afford a $3000 XR Apple headset which will save meta’s XR related effort since they’re the affordable option. They’re scared of if, but whether or not Meta realizes it, meta needs that Apple headset to release
Are we talking about the same Meta company that owns Facebook?
> they -removed- Facebook login
Which they added in the first place, much to the dismay of literally everyone.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2020/01/21/appl...
Like they were for MP3 players, Smartphones, expensive headphones and Smartwatches?
Yes, I use Android.
Google is one-off $25 to publish on their store, but running your own code via sideload is free.
They called it something else, they make you use different credentials, but it’s all Facebook on the backend.
I'm sick of people criticizing Apple's walled garden. It's the primary feature of Apple products. It's what makes them what they are. If you don't like it, just buy something else. No one is forcing you to buy Apple if you don't like the walled garden. Many people like it and I'm amazed that there are so many people that don't understand that.
Apple will lock down the hardware and increase prices, and that doesn't benefit consumers if other companies follow suit.
It's not their brand per se that's the issue, but the fact that their headsets were bricks unless you had signed up for a Facebook account with all the issues that come with that, from privacy concerns to getting locked out seemingly on a whim: https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest/comments/j22lmx/im_out_...
The response from Meta still leaves a lot to be desired: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/07/quest-vr-has-traded-f...
Less important than Meta rehabbing their brand image would be them actually putting a stop to their user hostile behavior.
Source: never had Facebook, but have had Quests
To answer some of the siblings. Yes a Meta account is not a Facebook account. Facebook = A product. Just like an Instagram account isn't a Facebook account either. But they are both 'meta'.
Meta essentially end-of-lifed oculus accounts but transitioned them to Meta. I think (myself included) people would not have liked being forced into another product.
signed, 1 of 2,000,000,000 monthly active users across Messenger, Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram
Their users are trending older now, and the brunt of ad revenue will be destroyed eventually. Why do you think Mark pivoted the company?
I don't disagree. HackerNews comments + Reddit insist the Meta is the worst thing ever.
Why? I don't know? Because HackerNews comments + Reddit sentiment said so? I'd love to learn why the company is so hated.
It can't be ignored that tons of people still "trust them enough" (begrudginly?) to use their products. Sure, a very vocal minority will say "I'm Meta free/use none of their products!" but that's not what their earnings shows trend wise.
> Meta's standard user metrics also show continuing stability and growth during Q3. Both Daily Active People ("DAP") and Monthly Active People ("MAP"), users of Meta's Family of Apps, grew sequentially by just over 1.5% in Q3, while Monthly Active Users ("MAU") and Daily Active Users ("DAU"), users of Facebook only, both grew 0.8%:
The marketing solution to the PSVR1 being boring is "its got more pixels and no backwards compatibility". That message is just not going to sell to upgraders like me. "It costs more" is not going to sell to people who couldn't/wouldn't pay for the PSVR1. So who's supposed to buy this, exactly? People who collect VR headsets is not a large enough market.
The technology reminds me of the wii fit balance board. If you can't have 20 hours of fun with that, there's something wrong with you. Likewise, if you're having more than 20 hours of fun, I have to ask "how?" Its about as many hours of fun as a VR headset, but costs less. The balance board is just a few years older than VR headsets and nobody sells that type of tech anymore. That is the future of VR headsets.
I think this is a valid HN story in the sense of being an object lesson in how not to sell something technological. Your marketing message needs to be aimed at a market and has to have a message, you can't just leave those two parts out and expect product success.
1. Fitness - It's just a lot more fun to do when you're boxing in a Mike Tyson's Punch Out clone or slicing blocks with lightsabers. There are also VR specific fitness apps have a lot more variety than normal cardio exercises. In my case, I've lost 20 lbs to date... playing VR video games
2. Social - For friends and family who are hundreds or thousands of miles away, XR becomes a platform for hanging out with them while doing activities like ping pong, bowling, table top games, mini golf, and more. It has way more immersion and presence than a Zoom, Facetime, or normal phone call.
I would try it out again one day before rushing to judgement. At least you tried it the first time though unlike everyone else.
(I have a recent headset and associated hardware, FWIW.)
If all you've experienced is PSVR1, the visual fidelity has gotten much better on newer platforms and so have the controls and tracking which all greatly affect the experience. Wireless is also a big game changer.
> And the social experiences (I'm assuming you mean VRChat and such) are... just fine, in my opinion? And I definitely have long-distance relationships where it makes sense. The novelty wears off quick
How can the novelty for social wear off when you haven't actually tried the social portion? That didn't exist on PSVR. (and no, I wasn't talking about VRChat)
Working out in VR also handily beats working out without it. In many cases, the novelty does not wear off since working out without VR tends to be very repetitive and dull.
> I have a recent headset and associated hardware, FWIW.
Which one? If so, why don't you discuss that "recent headset" instead of ancient 6 year old hardware that no one really uses anymore?
The answer is pretty simple… because it’s really not. The experience is 90% novelty and once that wears off you really don’t have much left unless you find a game you really really enjoy.
VR has had enough time to see adoption numbers reach critical mass. They just haven’t. Most people that own them are probably like me and the person who posted their original opinion. They sit and gather dust.
No. I know VR has a ton of problems, but for the people who have actually tried it extensively, none of those problems are mentioned by people who have near zero experience with modern VR ie not Google Cardboard
> If VR workouts are so fun, why isn’t there a larger adoption of it? If the social interactions are so incredible, why aren’t people living their lives in VR yet?
Several factors:
1. price and complexity for PCVR
2. Facebook’s brand is destroyed for the current working population. Even though it released a technological marvel, no one is even willing to try it just because it’s from Facebook. I write about it in more detail in other comments
3. Some people just don’t like to do any physical activity
> The experience is 90% novelty and once that wears off you really don’t have much left unless you find a game you really really enjoy
How do you know when you haven’t used modern VR? Google cardboard doesn’t count. That’s my main point
> Most people that own them are probably like me and the person who posted their original opinion. They sit and gather dust.
Which headset do you own?
Weird assumption to make. I’ve tried modern hardware, to me it’s mostly just higher resolution of the same thing.
All of your points do very little to address VR concerns. It’s the lazy people hurting the adoption of VR? Shouldn’t it appeal to someone that’s lazy and doesn’t want to go outside?
Facebook is far from the only player in the game. But their inability to make meaningful content with such a large investment should tell you something.
VR is a niche idea that has performed about as well as you can expect. Very few people want to go and work with a VR headset. I think it’s also fighting the trend of people wanting actual experiences, not virtual reality. If I can spend $1000 on a VR headset that will eventually just gather dust or choose to actually go somewhere, I’d choose the latter. Many people would.
I suspect it’ll end up the way 3D TVs did.
It’s not a bad assumption because you never mentioned an actual problem with VR (and they are many). What you’ve done is simply parrot people who haven’t experienced VR for more than 5 minutes if at all. Like the previous parent commenter, you still haven’t mentioned which modern headset you’ve owned.
> It’s the lazy people hurting the adoption of VR?
I’ve ordered adoption hurdles according to importance and prevalence. It is a factor, but not the biggest one.
> Facebook is far from the only player in the game.
Meta is the only large publicly traded company that’s shipped something worthwhile for the masses at large. Sony and Apple will enter soon, but that won’t happen until next year.
My point still stands. I’ve tried the HTC and Valve equipment multiple times. If your argument is “oh you gotta own it and dump hours and hours into it before you see the value”, I think you’ve already lost your argument with 99.9% of consumers. This is no demonstrated value of VR, and what it does offer is fairly lackluster once the novelty wears off.
Seems like you’ve fallen for the Meta ads about how this is life changing. In its current form, it’s not even close.
No, but they’re the only ones with enough resources to burn. Of the companies that you’ve named, none of them has made a VR system for the masses when the price for entry is about $3000 for a complete PCVR system. To add insult to injury, they’re not even wireless
> My point still stands. I’ve tried the HTC and Valve equipment multiple times. If your argument is “oh you gotta own it and dump hours and hours into it before you see the value”
Yes, it doesn’t stand because you haven’t used it enough. If your only impression of the internet was Yahoo, I don’t feel that it’s fair or accurate to say that the entire internet sucks. Your complaints are vague and they still reflect that of a person with near 0 experience in VR and that’s why I can’t take you seriously.
> I think you’ve already lost your argument with 99.9% of consumers
I don’t expect the masses to be able to see or understand the future. They don’t have the skill set for that. Conversely, most people on HN have that skill. I’m just asking people here to use it with enough data
120hz and OLED are exactly what I've been looking for in a "next gen" headset. The inside-out tracking does give me some hesitation, but overall it's sounding like this will be an excellent piece of hardware. The biggest downside (and upside for general consumers, just plug and play) would be platform support limited to Playstation... Which I'm eager to see if community efforts try to bring PC support given the excellent hardware specs/price.
I have yet to try modern headsets to see for myself, but my hunch is there's some level of latency that isn't present with outside-in. It's also worth noting some individuals may have varied perceptions of latency while their pyshical response of fatigue/etc may be more present than their actual awareness. Anecdotally, I once got in an argument with a professor that I could visibly notice when CRT monitors were set to 50hz (instead of 60hz) and would get headaches. Now it's generally accepted many can discern between much higher refresh rates than that FWIW.
You can quite easily test this on any phone that supports AR (I’d recommend an iPhone).
You get tracking even if you occlude the camera for a couple frames.
No. There were only 3 consumer headsets to use outside in tracking. They were the Oculus Rift DK2 and CV1 and the PS VR headset. All of those tracking systems used cameras and not photodiodes. Even commercial outside in tracking solutions like optitrack don't use photodiodes.
https://triadsemi.com/product/ts4112/
VR users that want full body tracking usually go with outside-in tracking, with tracking devices strapped to their bodies. It is expensive, but the accuracy is very good.
As someone who's owned both a Vive Pro and Valve Index, if there is any performance issue with inside out tracking it's very negligible. I don't notice it, and this is with playing on Expert Plus with Beat Saber. You'll notice performance issues if you ever start to use wireless. Wirelessly using Oculus while not having your PC wired up to a WiFi 6 router is as terrible as using HTC's wireless add-on but in different ways
My concerns are strictly with markerless inside-out tracking, here's an article detailing accuracy issues that have been associated with markerless inside-out tracking: https://www.roadtovr.com/htc-vive-cosmos-accuracy-test-contr...
Sony must have really efficient manufacturing, assuming they're not selling at a loss.
A quality 120Hz 4000 x 2040 HDR OLED display alone would likely cost at least half the MSRP.
From that list, the HP Reverb has been described as better than the Index and Quest 2 due to higher quality screen and FOV (priced well too).
The Primax and Aero are considered to be even more high end.
I am considering making the investment since VR and Space/Flight/Racing sims are an entirely unique experience with VR and all the joysticks/racing wheels.
Be careful with simracing though! I started with one of the $300 Logitech setups and am now a few thousand dollars deep into a direct-drive setup. ;)
(I use VR in Elite Dangerous and Flight Simulator)
Unlikely - unless strictly on hardware specs - the Quest 2 is almost universally regarded (Google will confirm) as the best current headset, simply on bang for buck.
I think ordinarily peripherals are not sold at a loss, but it would make sense that a pricy VR headset would be the exception.
The META quest is MSRP $1,499 and Zuck says they are shipping THAT at a loss.
Great device, saved my sanity during the winter lockdowns.
And the Quest 2 alone is superior to the PSVR since it has the "gaming console" built in, while being far cheaper than the PSVR whiteout even accounting for the extra cost of the PS5 in the equation.
Pricing aside, Meta had a decent product with the Quest 2, as they went all-in and it was designed form the start as a stand alone cordless platform and focused and polished the entre VR gaming experience around that from the ground up even buying dedicated VR game dev studios, while for Sony, the PSVR is just a corded accessory to the stationary PS5, but not the main product and so it's not their main focus for PS5 gaming, and we'll see this reflected in the amount and quality of VR titles they'll put out.
The PSVR does win in the graphics department thanks to the processing power of the PS5 but that comes at the cost of reduce mobility thanks to the stupid cable keeping your head tied to the PS5 and ruining your immersion. In fact, I'm calling it right now: the cable tether will make it a fail for most users. I expect the return rates to be high followed by low retail sales and people dumping them on ebay after a few months of gathering dust, same like with the last PSVR they made. It will flop as hard as the Quest Pro.
For people wanting to dip their toes in VR and play Beat Sabre and Pistol Whip, 450 Euros is far easier to stomach than invest 1300+ Euros in a PlayStation VR setup and then hate it because you'll always have to take care of not tangling yourself or tripping on the cable. We saw the same with Valve's VR gear. People just didn't want to put up with the hassle of having an expensive and corded setup just to play Half-Life Alyx.
Meta/Oculus moved the goalposts so far with their cordless self-contained devices, that any new VR gear still needing cables and a separate PC/console to function is an instant fail. I expect Apple's VR gear will also be cordless, powered by their excellent mobile Mx chips.
What a strange take. 3 of the top performing consumer headsets (Vive Pro 2, HP G2 Reverb, Varjo Aero) are all tetheted, two of which came out this year.
I believe only the Quest 2 has 120hz over wireless, and even that was only added 12 months ago and was still classed as "experimental" until a few months ago.
If you just want a beat saber device the Quest 2 is definitely way cheaper overall.
If Resident Evil 8 and/or the Resident Evil 4 remakes get VR modes I will buy PSVR2 on day one.
There are trailers/previews available and it looks pretty darn impressive.
Until RE7, which I started playing without VR. I can agree that it's truly horrifying, and a return to their roots. The first-person perspective also adds a lot to the immersion. As much as I'm curious, I couldn't imagine playing it in VR.
If you're looking for a different kind of horror, give Subnautica a try. It's terrifying even without VR. I've played for many hours and still can't get myself to finish it.
Part of me thinks it's a bit silly to intentionally subject yourself to the stress that these games produce, and as I get older, I seek more enjoyable experiences. Yet for some reason, I keep going back to them...
I’m not convinced the vr adds much. I heard you aim guns with your head, not your hands and found that stupid.
The resident evil team has been exploring a lot of interesting stuff with their titles. 8 is sort of a celebration of all of it with sections of the game that are clearly designed around the mentality of 4, 7, and 2 each
Whether or not this is all abstracted away, I have no idea... but there really is a pretty huge difference between 1 and 2 if you think about the camera set up and the controller situation. The move controllers were optional - they didn't even come with the system. I think there were bundles that had them. They came out BEFORE the VR system did, and were kind of a gimmick until the PSVR landed.
Now that you have a real high quality headset, that ships with standard, hopefully high quality controllers, the target application should take advantage of those things.
But at least some devs have confirmed their psvr games will be patched to support the new version, like No Man’s Sky.
Their support of that game has been very impressive over the years. Launch was rocky, sure, but they recovered and kept pushing ahead.
As for the software abstraction being poor, that’s also just bad engineering on Sony’s part then.
Are there really enough people that would spend this much on a VR system in a closed ecosystem instead of going with one attached to your PC that has access to everything?
I bought the valve index (which is more than this) because I can use it with Steam and any VR games outside of steam. Plus modding.
I feel like Sony should have subsidized the hardware more accounting for the fact that they will get money from every VR game sold for this thing. Otherwise I worry the market for it just won't make sense for developers (which then hurts anyone that bought it).
Also the lack of PSVR1 support would make me seriously question buying this anyways, why invest in a platform if they are just going to make it so you can't play any of your games later (or requires you keep multiple VR's around)
I am a software engineer and OSS enthusiast, I operate servers and my home automation system, but I gave up on PC gaming years ago. After a long day of fighting distributed systems, I want my gaming rig to just work. That's why I bought the first PSVR: because Sony offers me a system where I don't have to fiddle with drivers and windows updates.
Price is too steep indeed, but it will go down as the production ramps up. PSVR launched at 400€ in 2016, and I bought it at 200€ two years after that.
Also find PS plus to be fantastic, i barely buy games anymore individually.
The only thing I really miss is modding, especially quality-of-life improvement mods.
I could get behind your argument if there was no offering that doesn't require a gaming computer, but it's not the case.
I guess that is what I don't understand. Yeah the tech is great but if its too expensive that enough people can't afford it than is there going to be enough people to justify developers to work on it.
I just worry that this is seeing Sony being cocky again like they were with the PS3. Overestimating the market and putting out products that are more expensive with the justification that they are powerful.
PC is a closed ecosystem. Not everyone has PC.
It really doesn't matter if hardware is open or closed. What matters is whether there is fun compelling games.
PS VR has been a success because the quality games have been there, and others have struggled because of their lack of quality games.
We can expect that given Playstation's deep history in games and exclusive in house studios that they will have content for the platform. It's risky to expect the same of any other hardware maker without inhouse studios and decades old industry relationships and partnerships.
Even as somebody whose game of the year for this year is Horizon 2, I'm unsure about paying $600 for a Horizon spinoff coming out at the same time as the Harry Potter RPG. I expect it to be sitting on the shelf for MSRP at your local Walmart, Target, GameStop or Best Buy on launch day and basically every day afterwards. The fact that I'm unsure whether or not I'll even bother preordering it or just wait until I'm ready to play Horizon is not a good sign.
I can't help but facepalm at this.
Q: are there fewer buttons on the wand controllers?
Q: what is the real technical issue here that the VP of a public company publicly is telling us?
I wanted to love VR but it made me so sick that I literally get nauseous when I even think about using it.
All my interest in VR finished at that point which is a real pity cause it felt exciting initially.
Anyone want to buy a PSVR? Used for about 2 hours total.
There are a few genres that translate reasonable well to VR but most of the big categories do not. Things like sports game (Madden, NBA 22/23, NHL 22/23,etc), likely impossible to adapt to VR. Platformers, ditto. Strategy games, why? MMO's? Maybe, but probably not either.
The fast majority of actual, good / fun / successful games in VR are of a few very specific types. Wave shooters (Space Pirate Trainer, Blasters of the Universes — both excellent btw), and some FPS (ideal created specifically for VR - aka Half Life: Alyx is the gold standard). There are very few entirely new play experiences / game mechanics in VR to date; aka Beat Saber, Pistol Whip and... that's all I can think of. Both are great workout games btw. The only other great VR title that I play / played a ton is In Death, and that's a bit of a unique bow shooter, which I guess is another VR genre (bow games). Great game, probably the best of that type.
Speaking of which, I do like the physical nature of VR and for me, I tend to use it as a post-workout way to get in some extra cardio with a nice amount of hand-eye/tracking mixed in. Games like Beat Saber and Space Pirate Trainer, when played non-stop for let's say 30 minutes or so, yeah you actually burn significant calories.
Outside of that you have the sim category and that could be work if you are super into racing games, flight sims, and that sort of thing. I've played with a few race games in VR, mostly it works ok, but not quite as well as I'd of thought (but maybe I need to invest in a proper FF wheel, a gamepad kinda ruins it).
I enjoy VR gaming but I think it's going to remain a niche until we get to some crazy, super advanced state where we can by pass our eyes and 'beam' info right into the brain (however the hell that would work); aka achieving a sort of ST Holodeck level type thing. Or maybe Nintendo in a few generation will embrace VR and then we get some truly unique / new game mechanics. I don't know what else is going to break open this genre, but right now it doesn't feel like it's moving forward at all where it matters most - the software.
DCS and MS Flight Sim are similarly immersive if you have a proper cockpit.
Controllers really break the immersion.
You're gonna need plenty of space to turn around in, though, which could be a big challenge for most people. Spinning your player around with just a controller seems like the sort of thing that would be likely to introduce motion sickness.
I understand the sentiment, the price does push this into what I'd call "prosumer" category. But... PSVR2 is the first headset to really catch my interest. The Valve Index sounded nice, but I was disappointed in the lack of OLED especially given the Index's price. The PSVR2 is what I've been looking for in new hardware and I think it's a step in the right direction.
I already have a ps5, plan to get this headset, and could see it really taking off.
The metaverse as is currently being pursued by many is nothing more than an VR mmo.
We should be calling these things games rather than applying an incorrect label or overhyping what they are. Until utility reaches a point which proves otherwise.
Sony/Microsoft are best positioned to capitalize
Ironically that's also the thing that will stop them getting widespread support though. They'll always be seen as expensive toys while gaming is the driving force behind adoption.
What's really needed is support from the television and movie industry (immersive programming), music (streaming VR gigs), and collaborative remote socializing (something like Metaverse). The problem with that those is cost - if you want to enjoy a VR gig or a remote social occasion with your family you need to spend thousands of dollars on equipment.
VR might be mainstream in the same sense that a Playstation is, but it'd take a huge shift in thinking for it to ever be mainstream like television is.
There are plenty of visionaries besides Zuckerberg who have made that shift. Some company or consortium will succeed in creating the Metaverse, and then we'll all be gathering there.
The "gateway drug" is how I put it.
What do you mean by "incorrect label"? The "metaverse" label is aspirational for sure at this point - but I don't think anyone would disagree that it's what we are striving towards. So let's keep that label and move towards it.
Using the current definition, “Second Life” in VR is also the metaverse
Now I'm thinking of that TNG episode where everyone on the Enterprise gets addicted to the glasses headset game where you get the discs in the wormholes
Should be a pretty clear screen though with the limited FOV and nice contrast. Haven't used PSVR1 myself and just checked resolution and WOW didn't realize how trash it was merely 960 x 1,080 that's lower than CV1! For anyone primarily experienced with PSVR ecosystem this should be a massive step up.
Pimax just announced Crystal yesterday as well so glad to see movement in the VR space.
[1]: https://direct.playstation.com/en-us/consoles/console/playst...
try various twitter accounts that post real time ps5 stock updates.
That said I haven't pulled the trigger because I can't justify a console + a game for $800 when there's really only one exclusive I want to play right now. And it's a remake of a game I already own/played (Demon's Souls)
Horizon: Call of the Mountain, Firewall Ultra, Resident Evil: Village.
I’d love if they add VR support to Gran Turismo 7 but they haven’t announced anything related to this one.
That's just absurd. I don't have any PS equipment but I had mulled over the idea of getting a PS5 and PSVR since I enjoy my Quest 2 and would like better graphics/processing power but I don't want to build a gaming PC for PCVR. Not supporting older games feels very gross.
You can of course use other ones, either plugged to the headset or wireless ones like the Pulse 3D.
Onboard audio is just a waste of money for something that neither casuals nor enthusiasts would care about (former by definition, latter because they would prefer to use their own audio gear).
Lack of wireless is a definite minus though.
...is that the fate of every console accessory? I can't think of any accessories that would clear the "broad adoption" bar. The NES Zapper is the closest to subjective ubiquity in my mind, but even then its library was limited to Duck Hunt and a half dozen forgettable titles.
Though a different situation when they eventually just bundle it with the console, I suppose.
But again - every prediction I make is likely to be wrong.
And less space than a Nomad!
A wired VR headset for one's computer is already asking a lot, but bringing it to your living space is asking even more.
Pro version is for businesses.
Now that the Facebook component has been gutted from it, I can log in again, so I've actually been using it.
My biggest complaints are that it wasn't designed for Asian facial features (I guess I could wear a prosthetic nose), and none of the three IPD settings are sufficient for me or my SO. Other models have a continuous slider for the lenses, but the Quest 2 has only a few discrete positions, and they don't work "in between".