• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Take an early look at PlayStation VR2’s user experience, including see-through view, broadcasting options, and more.

ABnormal

Member
Media content is 1080p? ? ?

If I've stuck in a 4K disc of a movie how does this work? Downscale?
Using a VR headset to watch media content has no sense by itself. Since the image has to be scaled in any frame due to the free movement of the view, it can never be native in any way, even if you use 4k resolution for the media too. I'm curious to know why it's set to 1080p, since it's even easier to manage.
 

iHaunter

Member
‘Headset vibration’ = Off! Sod that, I don’t want my head vibrating!

I’m excited for this to drop. I really want to know if this will be compatible with PC. If it is, I’ll grab one.
I'm sure it's subtle and not like a giant vibrator. It's haptic feedback.
 

TLZ

Member
Yeah, I'm not shelling out $400+ to look like this. Sorry Sony.

You will. And I'll be on the couch frowning at you.
 

BadBurger

Gold Member
So far it looks to be an almost 1:1 experience with the Quest 2, and the resolution is slightly higher, so's already encouraging.
 

BadBurger

Gold Member
Like clockwork ;).

To be fair it's a valid criticism / request. Going from the cumbersome cabling of the first PS VR to the controllable wifi connection of the Quest 2 improved the experience dramatically for me personally. Especially in a home office environment, which may not be as spacious or affording as a spacious living room setting (mine certainly isn't - my office isn't small, but it's not organized in a manner conducive to tethered VR gaming).

For those that don't know, with the Quest 2 one can opt for a wifi connection rather than a 5 gbps cable, choosing how much bandwidth they want the Quest 2 to throttle itself at. Most games and applications do not need anywhere near 5 gbps, though high-end ones like Alyx may limit the refresh rate when playing over wifi (I want to say I was limited to 90Hz, but that may have just been a beta limitation with the Quest 2 software / firmware or something I fucked up as I was hastily setting up my brand new Quest like an eager kid on Christmas morning a year-or-more ago).
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
To be fair it's a valid criticism / request. Going from the cumbersome cabling of the first PS VR to the controllable wifi connection of the Quest 2 improved the experience dramatically for me personally. Especially in a home office environment, which may not be as spacious or affording as a spacious living room setting (mine certainly isn't - my office isn't small, but it's not organized in a manner conducive to tethered VR gaming).

For those that don't know, with the Quest 2 one can opt for a wifi connection rather than a 5 gbps cable, choosing how much bandwidth they want the Quest 2 to throttle itself at. Most games and applications do not need anywhere near 5 gbps, though high-end ones like Alyx may limit the refresh rate when playing over wifi (I want to say I was limited to 90Hz, but that may have just been a beta limitation with the Quest 2 software / firmware or something I fucked up as I was hastily setting up my brand new Quest like an eager kid on Christmas morning a year-or-more ago).

Right now you go from a mess of cables plus an external box to a single cable. In the future it might be wireless if they can get no compromises: 120 Hz at high resolution and HDR has a price (4K HDR at 120 Hz and surround sound audio will saturate your 48 Gbps HDMI 2.1 cable, sure you can drop to lower fidelity YUV encoding but there is a limit… you need this guaranteed which with home WIFi is not as easy as it sounds and PS5 only has WIFi 6 not 6E so it may need an additional dongle or something). Quest 2 is also sold way below cost and now just increasing of price by $100 on every model so there is that too.

It is valid, but also getting to be a pointless pot shot at every thread. It has a single wire and not the mess it has before, in the future it may lose the wire, but only when heavy compromises (cost being an issue of course) can be addressed.
 
Last edited:

BadBurger

Gold Member
Right now you go from a mess of cables plus an external box to a single cable. In the future it might be wireless if they can get no compromises: 120 Hz at high resolution and HDR has a price (4K HDR at 120 Hz and surround sound audio will saturate your 48 Gbps HDMI 2.1 cable, sure you can drop to lower fidelity YUV encoding but there is a limit… you need this guaranteed which with home WIFi is not as easy as it sounds and PS5 only has WIFi 6 not 6E so it may need an additional dongle or something). Quest 2 is also sold way below cost and now just increasing of price by $100 on every model so there is that too.

It is valid, but also getting to be a pointless pot shot at every thread. It has a single wire and not the mess it has before, in the future it may lose the wire, but only when heavy compromises (cost being an issue of course) can be addressed.

Right, but 802.11ax equipment has been a thing since about 2019(?) in the consumer grade space (edit: and even under ideal conditions ac could achieve the required speeds as well). Even my cheap-o rebranded Verizon fios router (pretty sure it's just a repackaged Netgear only sold in my area) supports it. As do most popular consumer electronics these days - as clients. So it's not like leveraging wifi is some kind of milestone that needs to be mapped out for 2024 or 2025 or something - they can achieve the throughput needed to support 120Hz and HDR over wifi right now.

But I guess consoles right? Play it safe, make it as easy as possible for the consumer at first. I get that.


It makes perfect sense and with the increased resolution of the screen it might actually produce decent results. Not being native resolution was never an issue for videos.

Agree: I watched a bunch of educational and travel related things on my Quest 2 and loved it. Like a trip to a famous museum or something. If the PS VR2 can hit those promised resolutions, with 120 Hz and HDR, then people are going to be in for a treat. The VR experience of viewing movies and other cinematic content is nothing like it was when VR first went mainstream. It has improved leaps and bounds.
 
Last edited:
When you put together all these improvements and QoL features, it's going to be a huge upgrade for console VR.

Using a VR headset to watch media content has no sense by itself. Since the image has to be scaled in any frame due to the free movement of the view, it can never be native in any way, even if you use 4k resolution for the media too. I'm curious to know why it's set to 1080p, since it's even easier to manage.
It makes perfect sense and with the increased resolution of the screen it might actually produce decent results. Not being native resolution was never an issue for videos.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Right, but 802.11ax equipment has been a thing since about 2019(?) in the consumer grade space (edit: and even under ideal conditions ac could achieve the required speeds as well). Even my cheap-o rebranded Verizon fios router (pretty sure it's just a repackaged Netgear only sold in my area) supports it. As do most popular consumer electronics these days - as clients. So it's not like leveraging wifi is some kind of milestone that needs to be mapped out for 2024 or 2025 or something - they can achieve the throughput needed to support 120Hz and HDR over wifi right now.

But I guess consoles right? Play it safe, make it as easy as possible for the consumer at first. I get that.
You want to have a direct connection to the console not go through the home router and vomit due to latency spikes, at least Sony wants to guard their asses from that.

802.11ax hits, in lab conditions, a max of 10-11 Gbps and less in real world scenarios: a far cry from the 36-48 Gbps HDMI 2.1 is rated at and would be needed for 30 bits RGB HDR uncompressed 4K@120 Hz).



PSVR2 resolution (per eye, so you need to double that):


4K is 3840 x 2160 pixels, PSVR2 is 4000x2040 so similar (98.4% of full 4K).
 
Last edited:

BadBurger

Gold Member
You want to have a direct connection to the console not go through the home router and vomit due to latency spikes, at least Sony wants to guard their asses from that.

802.11ax hits, in lab conditions, a max of 10-11 Gbps and less in real world scenarios: a far cry from the 36-48 Gbps HDMI 2.1 is rated at and would be needed for 30 bits RGB HDR uncompressed 4K @ 120 HZ).


I thought the theoretical limits of ax were still in the high 9 Gbps range, but if it's hitting 10 or 11 all the better. But we're not talking uncompressed data. Also the data requirements of your source is really off. The latest, greatest 4K video at whatever framerate once can imagine with the best HDR only requires about 25 Mbps, or 0.024 Gbps. Why are the requirements so astronomical in that chart? What am I missing?
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
I thought the theoretical limits of ax were still in the high 9 Gbps range, but if it's hitting 10 or 11 all the better. But we're not talking uncompressed data. Also the data requirements of your source is really off. The latest, greatest 4K video at whatever framerate once can imagine with the best HDR only requires about 25 Mbps, or 0.024 Gbps. Why are the requirements so astronomical in that chart? What am I missing?
Not sure if you are talking about Netflix streaming rates, but to beat UHD Blu-Ray at 4K content you need to go in the 80 Mbps per second and anyway that is a highly compressed video stream while here we are talking about the display bandwidth you need to render those pixels on the actual display hence why the HDMI specs are so astronomical.

The PSVR headset is not send a highly compressed stream that needs powerful SoC decoding it on the headset. It is being treated more similar to a smart display than a Blu-Ray or Netflix reader: you get the raw frames and the headset can choose how to display them, interpolate them, etc… the video setup adds some latency too, but sure it might be something they overcome… at a cost :).
 
Last edited:

BadBurger

Gold Member
Not sure if you are talking about Netflix streaming rates, but to beat UHD Blu-Ray at 4K content you need to go in the 80 Mbps per second and anyway that is a highly compressed video stream while here we are talking about the display bandwidth you need to render those pixels on the actual display hence why the HDMI specs are so astronomical.

The PSVR headset is not send a highly compressed stream that needs powerful SoC decoding it on the headset. It is being treated more similar to a smart display than a Blu-Ray or Netflix reader: you get the raw frames and the headset can choose how to display them, interpolate them, etc…

Ok, I see.

And my 25 Mbps figure is just the generally accepted minimum to stream 4K w/ HDR 60 Hz or greater from one point to another. Not sure if that's something Netflix or some technology group they're affiliated came up with, but it's never done me wrong - 25 Mbps or greater? Stream all the 4K, HDR, Dolby-whatever content you want, it's plenty.
 

Thaedolus

Gold Member
Hopefully they have a TRIP warning for that stupid tether they require.
I’ve never had a problem tripping on the index tether except when trying to play 360 beat saber, which seemingly requires some sort of pulley system or a wireless headset. Otherwise the tether is pretty much barely there, it’s the furniture/TV you gotta worry about
 
Not sure if you are talking about Netflix streaming rates, but to beat UHD Blu-Ray at 4K content you need to go in the 80 Mbps per second and anyway that is a highly compressed video stream while here we are talking about the display bandwidth you need to render those pixels on the actual display hence why the HDMI specs are so astronomical.

The PSVR headset is not send a highly compressed stream that needs powerful SoC decoding it on the headset. It is being treated more similar to a smart display than a Blu-Ray or Netflix reader: you get the raw frames and the headset can choose how to display them, interpolate them, etc… the video setup adds some latency too, but sure it might be something they overcome… at a cost :).
Some movies I have enjoy sections of well over 100mbps. They require some effort to stream.
 

drezz

Member
I would really like too know about the connectivity of the controllers.
PS5 has 4 blutooth connecitions for 4 controllers, does the PS VR2 controller(s)... take up 2 slots, out of thoose 4?
If so, we will get 2x Controllers VS 1 VR-User Which is just... Fine, but I would hope for : 4x Controllers VS 1 VR-User.
Hoping the controllers are connected to the headsett it self, but that would drive up the price I guess. But It would be worth it IMO.
 

Metnut

Member
I’m a newb with VR.

Does this thing have separate games designed for VR or do you just play normal PS5 games with it?
 
I’ve never had a problem tripping on the index tether except when trying to play 360 beat saber, which seemingly requires some sort of pulley system or a wireless headset. Otherwise the tether is pretty much barely there, it’s the furniture/TV you gotta worry about
30$and 5 minutes work

I’m a newb with VR.

Does this thing have separate games designed for VR or do you just play normal PS5 games with it?
Seperate games. PC VR people make mods for flat games though.
 

drezz

Member
I’m a newb with VR.

Does this thing have separate games designed for VR or do you just play normal PS5 games with it?
Yes, but normal games (Typical FPS games) can be modded to support VR; not flawlessly mind you, enough to fill in a craving until a more dedicated VR game comes around.

What they did announce in the blogpost was a "Cinimatic Mode" where you see a "Fake" TV infront of you that you can play games on 1080p@120hz, probably with a Duelsense™ .

So anygame you normaly play with a normal controller, you can play Normaly, while the family is using the TV, you can use VR headset to play your stuff while sitting and chilling.

Or just play some silly VR game:
 
Sick Vomit GIF by CBS


Wow, that's something, it's ingenuity no doubt but at the cost of it looking like that.

Good work! But boy that's an eyesore.
It comes down and goes up in under 2 minutes. Literally can't tell anything is there when it's away.
Edit.
If you zoom in the only thing that remains is the little clear patch with the fold up hook. I set it up Friday and take down Sunday night. Don't have much time for gaming thru the week.
 
Last edited:

drezz

Member
please have PC support and be under 400. fight facebook, i wanna see some competition!
We already spoofed the PSVR1 and have that working on PC

My bet we have it working on PC within 24hours of release.

Not with the haptic feedback and trigger resistance doh, but at least working as a spoofed Quest 2
 

Gamerguy84

Member
Not sure if it's been mentioned/s but there is nothing exciting here. Nothing groundbreaking or new. Just a copy of what's already been available for years. WTF Sony?

Oh no anyway.

Personally can't wait to get it.
 

drezz

Member
Yeah but always requiring a tether and apparently no ability to hook it up to your PC for Steam.
No offical support from Sony announced so far.
But as I said a couple post above, we will most likely have it spoofed as a Quest 2 within the first 24 hours.

As for wireless, we might see a PSVR2 - Pro variant with wireless, unlikely but it is what it is.
If not we might have to wait for some third party to develop some USB dongle workaround and a powerbank attachment with a speed enough to power the headsett as well as feeding the data it needs to not run empty.
 
As for wireless, we might see a PSVR2 - Pro variant with wireless, unlikely but it is what it is.
If not we might have to wait for some third party to develop some USB dongle workaround and a powerbank attachment with a speed enough to power the headsett as well as feeding the data it needs to not run empty.
For 3-400$
 

ABnormal

Member
When you put together all these improvements and QoL features, it's going to be a huge upgrade for console VR.


It makes perfect sense and with the increased resolution of the screen it might actually produce decent results. Not being native resolution was never an issue for videos.
I didn't express myself well. What I meant is that you will ALWAYS see a movie or a similar thing better in their native form, in a native screen (for example, a 4k movie on a 4k screen). On the headset you will always see a scaled version. So, unless you don't have a decent tv, VR cinema mode will always be lower in quality.
Obviously, if one is not interested in quality and play movies on smarthphone, a good VR headset (oled, HDR, Hi Res) will be surely better.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom