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.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.
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.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.
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 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.
Nope but I've read enough from people who have been able to try all three to know the relative merits of each.have you tried the psvr in its cv state?
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.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.
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.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 believe otherwise. I also think that PSVR is going to be a lot closer to your Vive than you think in terms of fidelity.
Sony admits Oculus Rift is technically better than PlayStation VR
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.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/
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 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 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!
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.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 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.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/
The PSVR has a 120hz display refresh. The Vive and Rift have a 90hz display refresh rate.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Curious if PD has made the right decision.
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.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 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.AFAIK the only concession to PSVR is the fixed 60fps, which some consider a benefit worth having regardless.
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.
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.