VR vs. Features - Community's opinion (Poll)

  • Thread starter MenocidiX
  • 55 comments
  • 3,520 views

Preference?


  • Total voters
    108
  • Poll closed .
Having used VR for the past few months I know, in its first generation, it's not worth limiting the none VR experience to be able to include the VR experience.
 
hard to tell if you dont know how good gts vr will be!
If the vr experience turns out to be a huge improvement for racing and the immersion i´ll go with vr, if the vr experience is far less exiting as expectet or if motion sickness kills the fun after couple of minutes i can totally resign on the vr part!
But alomst everyone who tried vr racing is freaking out about it and is telling how awesome it is, so im confident that the vr route will be much more exiting than weather or day and night transition! *fingers crossed*
 
I haven't been fortunate enough to test VR on PC (lack of a gaming pc, all I have is my MacBook Pro with Retina display) so I say VR all the way! This year will be an expensive one, all these cool games coming out, especially GT if it isn't delayed (jinxed it, didn't I? :lol:). Gotta grab that fancy new Thrustmaster wheel and PSVR :cheers:
 
Noz
hard to tell if you dont know how good gts vr will be!
If the vr experience turns out to be a huge improvement for racing and the immersion i´ll go with vr, if the vr experience is far less exiting as expectet or if motion sickness kills the fun after couple of minutes i can totally resign on the vr part!
But alomst everyone who tried vr racing is freaking out about it and is telling how awesome it is, so im confident that the vr route will be much more exiting than weather or day and night transition! *fingers crossed*
VR is indeed amazing and immersive. However, it's only that if you can put up with all of the trade offs you have to accept as a result of the limits of what the current technology is capable of. Right now I think the vast majority will not think the trade offs are worth it.
 
VR is indeed amazing and immersive. However, it's only that if you can put up with all of the trade offs you have to accept as a result of the limits of what the current technology is capable of. Right now I think the vast majority will not think the trade offs are worth it.

because the majority haven´t got the chance to try propper vr!
Most people who played on the oc the htc or even the latest psvr are more optimistic than people who did not try vr!
Let´s wait until next year, let´s wait until 90% tried or even own a vr headset, and than we´ll see what people think!
I only tried the oculus rift dk1, and that was garbage in terms of display quality, but even though the technological aspect was bad, the immersion was already there, so i cant imagine how superb a gran turismo in cockpit view with a propper vr headset will be!
 
Last edited:
Noz
because the majority haven´t got the chance to try propper vr!
Most people who played on the oc the htc or even the latest psvr are more optimistic than people who did not try vr!
Let´s wait until next year, let´s wait until 90% tried or even own a vr headset, and than we´ll see what people think!
I only tried the oculus rift dk1, and that was garbage in terms of display quality, but even though the technological aspect was bad, the immersion was already there, so i cant imagine how superb a gran turismo in cockpit view with a propper vr headset will be!
I own an HTC Vive and have been playing Assetto Corsa and P Cars in VR for the past two months. I know exactly what to expect and the PS4 and PSVR is not of the same standard in terms of hardware as my Vive and über PC. It's really not worth limiting the none VR experience to include the VR experience.
 
I own an HTC Vive and have been playing Assetto Corsa and P Cars in VR for the past two months. I know exactly what to expect and the PS4 and PSVR is not of the same standard in terms of hardware as my Vive and über PC. It's really not worth limiting the none VR experience to include the VR experience.

have you tried the psvr in its cv state?
 
I own an HTC Vive and have been playing Assetto Corsa and P Cars in VR for the past two months. I know exactly what to expect and the PS4 and PSVR is not of the same standard in terms of hardware as my Vive and über PC. It's really not worth limiting the none VR experience to include the VR experience.
You can keep saying this as much as you like, but saying it three, five or twenty times - it's still just one opinion.

I believe otherwise. I also think that PSVR is going to be a lot closer to your Vive than you think in terms of fidelity.

I'm also with Noz - people cant answer this properly without having actually tried VR. Specifically - tried VR in a racing game like GT. Most of them just will not 'get it' until they see themselves sitting in a cockpit of a car and looking to their right and seeing the passenger seat and not a dirty pile of clothes in their bedroom. Until they take they take one of the hairpins at Tsukuba while actually being able to look into the corner rather than just waiting for the forward view to come around. Until you can look to your left and see a competitor beside you as if they are there.

And lord, if GT can get the directional audio right.....I know, I know....insert joke about poor audio, but I'm not talking about sample quality, but simply locating the sound sources properly.

I dont think everyone would be a convert, but I think a huge amount will be. It is like the difference between using a controller and using a quality FFB wheel, if not more.

It's arguable that enough people wont be able to take advantage of the VR aspect, so it's helping the minority at the expense of the majority, but this is something that I'd have to give kudos to Polyphony for. All the talk about how PD are behind-the-times, not forward thinking enough, aren't shaking up the formula any - well this is their chance. VR can do that. And if it comes at the expense of dynamic time change? No question in my mind. You can still use different times of day. Weather? Weather is constantly overrated in sims. Especially since nobody can ever do it right anyways. VR brings something crazy and incredible to the formula. It would be a crying shame to miss out on it and have to wait another 5+ years or whatever til a next-gen GT came out.
 
You can keep saying this as much as you like, but saying it three, five or twenty times - it's still just one opinion.

I believe otherwise. I also think that PSVR is going to be a lot closer to your Vive than you think in terms of fidelity.

I'm also with Noz - people cant answer this properly without having actually tried VR. Specifically - tried VR in a racing game like GT. Most of them just will not 'get it' until they see themselves sitting in a cockpit of a car and looking to their right and seeing the passenger seat and not a dirty pile of clothes in their bedroom. Until they take they take one of the hairpins at Tsukuba while actually being able to look into the corner rather than just waiting for the forward view to come around. Until you can look to your left and see a competitor beside you as if they are there.

And lord, if GT can get the directional audio right.....I know, I know....insert joke about poor audio, but I'm not talking about sample quality, but simply locating the sound sources properly.

I dont think everyone would be a convert, but I think a huge amount will be. It is like the difference between using a controller and using a quality FFB wheel, if not more.

It's arguable that enough people wont be able to take advantage of the VR aspect, so it's helping the minority at the expense of the majority, but this is something that I'd have to give kudos to Polyphony for. All the talk about how PD are behind-the-times, not forward thinking enough, aren't shaking up the formula any - well this is their chance. VR can do that. And if it comes at the expense of dynamic time change? No question in my mind. You can still use different times of day. Weather? Weather is constantly overrated in sims. Especially since nobody can ever do it right anyways. VR brings something crazy and incredible to the formula. It would be a crying shame to miss out on it and have to wait another 5+ years or whatever til a next-gen GT came out.
I don't disagree with anything you have said in terms of immersion or the experience. It's mind blowingly fantastic, I can easily put up with the drawbacks as a result of the tech just not being there yet but I just don't think the vast majority will. All of the vids you see around in regard to VR, don't do it justice in terms of immersion and the experience, it's not possible to do so. However, they also don't give a true representation of what it's like visually, the vids are much much better visually than what you see in the headset. Believe me I'm a fully paid up member of the VR fan club, it is the future of sim racing, without a shadow of a doubt. However, I'm not blind enough to realize it's limitations and that it'll be second or third generation when processing power and screen tech catches up with the vision of the VR pioneers. And right now for me reducing the quality of the game to enable VR just isn't worth it.
 
I don't care even the slightest bit about VR, for me it's as if it doesn't even exist. When GT:S launches it will be compared here to Forza 6, Project CARS, Dirt:Rally, Assetto Corsa and F1 2016 on a 50" plasma TV with home theatre.
 
I don't care even the slightest bit about VR, for me it's as if it doesn't even exist. When GT:S launches it will be compared here to Forza 6, Project CARS, Dirt:Rally, Assetto Corsa and F1 2016 on a 50" plasma TV with home theatre.
That's going to be the case for the vast majority of people and if GTS is in anyway lacking then people are going to hate on the decision to include it. And that's why I say that I don't think it's right to include it at the expense of the none VR experience. I think a VR mode within the game or a separate spin off VR focused game/prologue would have been better.
 
Sony themselves have admitted it's not going to match the PC headsets, albeit with the caveat that it requires a PC far more powerful than a PS4.

http://www.engadget.com/2016/03/10/sony-playstation-vr-oculus-rift/

I still think its the best alternative to take a look into the "all new" vr world, i also have a powerfull pc but im not going to invest almost 1000€ (htc is so expensive in austria) into a device i dont even know if i like it or not!
that said, if the vr experience is as good as i expect it to be and if the good games come along i´m totally buy a rift or a htc for my pc! and its very brave from sony and from PD to jump ahead and try to push the vr technology with gts!
and as always, at the beginning its hard, it starts slow and its expensive, but im pretty sure, vr is gona be here to stay!
 
Noz
I still think its the best alternative to take a look into the "all new" vr world, i also have a powerfull pc but im not going to invest almost 1000€ (htc is so expensive in austria) into a device i dont even know if i like it or not!
that said, if the vr experience is as good as i expect it to be and if the good games come along i´m totally buy a rift or a htc for my pc! and its very brave from sony and from PD to jump ahead and try to push the vr technology with gts!
and as always, at the beginning its hard, it starts slow and its expensive, but im pretty sure, vr is gona be here to stay!
I agree with you, VR is going to be fantastic and PSVR is a fantastic way for a huge number of people to experience VR in a relatively inexpensive way. However, the question the OP posed was 'is it worth including VR to the detriment of other features'.
 
I don't disagree with anything you have said in terms of immersion or the experience. It's mind blowingly fantastic, I can easily put up with the drawbacks as a result of the tech just not being there yet but I just don't think the vast majority will. All of the vids you see around in regard to VR, don't do it justice in terms of immersion and the experience, it's not possible to do so. However, they also don't give a true representation of what it's like visually, the vids are much much better visually than what you see in the headset. Believe me I'm a fully paid up member of the VR fan club, it is the future of sim racing, without a shadow of a doubt. However, I'm not blind enough to realize it's limitations and that it'll be second or third generation when processing power and screen tech catches up with the vision of the VR pioneers. And right now for me reducing the quality of the game to enable VR just isn't worth it.
Yes, resolution is not what many people are going to expect/be happy about, but again, I think the compromises are going to be worth it.

And until super fast and inexpensive eye tracking and highly optimized foveated rendering become a thing - then VR will *always* constitute heavy compromises. If you can do 'x' without VR, you'll only be able to do 'x minus y' in VR. Regardless of hardware.

It's going to be too long of a wait before VR becomes a no-compromise sort of situation and I really, really dont want to have to sit out that wait to get the revolution started.

Sony themselves have admitted it's not going to match the PC headsets, albeit with the caveat that it requires a PC far more powerful than a PS4.

http://www.engadget.com/2016/03/10/sony-playstation-vr-oculus-rift/
I didn't say it was going to match it. I just said it was probably going to be closer than he realized. 1920x1080 RGB is actually comparable or even preferable to 2160x1200 pentile. Plus reprojection allows devs to only need to hit 60fps rather than 90fps. A great PC will always be able to outmatch what a PS4 can do, but the gap wont be nearly what it is for normal 2D gaming.
 
Some incorrect information in their about refresh rate as well. Rift and Vive have a 50% better refresh rate compared to PSVR. And refresh rate is a big deal when talking about presence and immersion.
The PSVR has a 120hz display refresh. The Vive and Rift have a 90hz display refresh rate.
I think PSVR will be a lot better experience for VR racing than the Vive and Rift.
 
The PSVR has a 120hz display refresh. The Vive and Rift have a 90hz display refresh rate.
I think PSVR will be a lot better experience for VR racing than the Vive and Rift.
As long as both are smooth I doubt anyone is going to be able to tell the difference in frame rates. It all comes down to resolution and features at that point.
 
As long as both are smooth I doubt anyone is going to be able to tell the difference in frame rates. It all comes down to resolution and features at that point.
According to AMD, 144hz with 16K resolution per eye is the target they are looking for with VR. They have been testing current VR kit with 120hz and 4k per eye.
We have a lot to look forward to, but we are nearly there with refresh at 120hz.
I think Sony will bring out PSVR 2 quite quickly too, they have said their VR hardware is not fixed into console like life cycles, though it seems the PS4 isn't fixed either.
 
The day's of fixed consoles are over just look at the rumours about the new Xbox and it being vr ready.When Forza launches next year with vr a lot of people are gonna have to do a lot of backtracking.Vr is the future it does suck that concessions had to be made in Gtsport but I will live with it if vr is implemented in a meaningfull way.
 
I voted for Features.

I've seen people say that PD made the wrong choice in reducing features in favour of VR. PD did what SCE told them to do as Sony has made significant investment in VR tech and need a flagship title like Gran Turismo to lead the line in demonstrating the technology's capability.

Like many others I am disappointed in not getting dynamic weather and time and even more so since VR doesn't interest me. But it is what it is and we are going to get used to not having certain features. All the boycott threads and moaning will change nothing at this stage.
 
Last edited:
I think it's still way too early for companies to be investing this much into VR experiences. At least wait until the PS5 where you can get PS4 visuals with high frame rates and high fps to get VR on top of it. I don't think it's alright to be taking a step back like this but if it means a future where you can get both good VR and not impacting the game's production then I'll be happy to wait. I just wish it won't be another 5 years until then
 
The PSVR has a 120hz display refresh. The Vive and Rift have a 90hz display refresh rate.
I think PSVR will be a lot better experience for VR racing than the Vive and Rift.
So your expecting GTP to run at 120 fps? Reprojection is a great feature and does work well when needed. However, it's not as good as maintaining the refresh rate of the screens themselves. And the difference between 90 hz & 120 hz is not so great as to make a difference. The difference in screen resolution will be a greater difference between the headsets.

As I said above, I'm more than happy to put up with the compromises of VR because I know how fantastic it is but I doubt that the majority of people will. I also think there will be a backlash from those who have no interest in VR which once again will be the majority.

AFAIK the only concession to PSVR is the fixed 60fps, which some consider a benefit worth having regardless.
The problem is you're not just trying to hit 60fps on one screen. A VR headset has two screens and therefore you need to push more pixels at 60fps in VR than you do in none VR. And this ultimately means you can't run the none VR experience at it's best because of the extra pixels you need to push at 60 fps in the headset.

Yes, resolution is not what many people are going to expect/be happy about, but again, I think the compromises are going to be worth it.

And until super fast and inexpensive eye tracking and highly optimized foveated rendering become a thing - then VR will *always* constitute heavy compromises. If you can do 'x' without VR, you'll only be able to do 'x minus y' in VR. Regardless of hardware.

It's going to be too long of a wait before VR becomes a no-compromise sort of situation and I really, really dont want to have to sit out that wait to get the revolution started.

Once again I don't disagree with anything you say. However, I'm looking at this from a none personal view. My opinion is the vast majority of people are not going to buy into PSVR at this stage and for them the compromises that need to be made will not be worth the benefits to the relative few who do buy into it. Until y gets down to an acceptable level for those who aren't interested in VR then I think it would be better for all if they gave us a VR experience separate to the game than the whole game in VR. PC games are able to do this by offering scaleable graphics settings. The none VR experience doesn't suffer because graphics options can be scaled back to allow the game to run in VR. Now I realise that PC games have done this forever to account for different hardware but it may have been prudent for PDI to allow this with GTS so as to not affect the none VR experience.
 
Last edited:
So your expecting GTP to run at 120 fps? Reprojection is a great feature and does work well when needed. However, it's not as good as maintaining the refresh rate of the screens themselves. And the difference between 90 hz & 120 hz is not so great as to make a difference.

All PSVR software displays a 120hz refresh rate. You said it was 60hz, and that it was less than Rift/Vive, you were incorrect.
Have you played GTS at 120hz and 90hz to know it makes no difference?
What do you mean reprojection works well but not as good as maintaining refresh rate of screen itself?

Sony have said it is better to show an artificial frame in the headset than a real rendered one if the headset decides it's best for perception after calculating head tracking. So much so that even if the PS4 has a rendered frame ready, it may drop that real frame and use an artificial one as a priority.
With tracking not an issue then native fps is better, and Sony have said they have some titles running 120fps natively. GTS will be 120hz refresh, whichever way it is rendered.
In terms of immersion and pleasantness of the experience I find it hard to accept that 90hz will be better than a 120hz refresh rate, incorporating the head tracking response.
 
Back