PSVR2's PC Adapter Available on 7th August, Costs $60

Pricey for an adapter.

@Americansamurai1 Pricey? Sure.
Still cheaper than buying a new VR head-set? Absolutely.

I played Half-Life Alyx using the original Occulus Rift and it was stunning. May have to get a PSVR2 and go through it again.

This whole story about PSVR2 is just so sad.

@get2sammyb Yeah that was my immediate thought as well - otherwise why use that specific image with the headset Seems like we'll never get it on PS5 now which is v disappointing.

Ok good for Sony.. wish it were a little cheaper but ok ill pay for it. Does this also unlock other things other than steam? youtube vr now unlocked? 3d movies?

@Americansamurai1 Apparently the unofficial Bizlink adapter for PSVR2 was $150 so that's not that bad in comparison.

I just used Trinus with the PSVR1. Dolphin VR is hilarious.

I still have hopes that one day VR will be less of a gimmick and more like the standard way to play games.

I think it has the potential to do that eventually.

But first we need smaller and lighter headsets/glasses that are comfortable to use. And I think the optics needs to improve.

I think everyone want's clear super crisp visuals (4k-6k OLED screens with HDR is probably fine) with eye tracking, no screen door effect, or color fringing, full field of view and no ghosting when you turn your head around.

Eventually we'll get there. Apple is doing a pretty good job pushing the limits, but they are also way too pricy.

But we need more players on the market to drive innovation and acceptable prices.

Nice, makes it more attractive to purchase if you don't have one. Just feel they should of doubled down and made astrobot vr2 game or at least mode.

What's the reason given for the need for an adapter?

Hopefully not more fleecing of the Playstation gamers.

The PSVR2 connects to the PS5 via a USB port much like you know, PCs have.

I do hope there is a good technical reason why whatever is going on in the adapter can't be emulated through a software driver for the PC.

Nice! Makes selling my VR2 easier. The thing is collecting dust since day 1.

It's painful, even when leaping to PC, PSVR2 gets poorly treated and underutilized.

This seems pretty consistent with the treatment of PSVR2 as a whole. A $60 adapter, that doesn't even include the cable, to use your $550 headset on PC, with its own separate app, yet "HDR, headset feedback, eye tracking, adaptive triggers, and haptic feedback are not available."

Are they trying to sell PSVR2 to PCVR players, or Is this literally a $60 dongle for PS5+PSVR2 owners to use the PSVR2 for the games Sony won't bother spending money to port to PS5, assuming they also buy a $1500 PC too, but also with its good features missing so that its bad features stand out more?

And if it's there so that PS5+PSVR2 owners go build a big rig so they can play the missing VR games from PSVR2, what makes them think those people will go back to playing pancake games on PS5 now that they have their shiny big rig?

Got to admit, Sony literally advertising Steam is funny though. Let's call it what it is, this is picture of PS6 right here lol.

I'll probably end up buying it because I have the headset, so why not, but between the flaws and limits, the cost, and the fact that you can't even replace the controllers when the sticks fail, buying a Quest 3 might be a wiser purchase if I build the rig.

Pretty sure Sony is trying to get rid of remaining units by selling to PC gamers. With no first party games announced it looks like it will have less support than the vita. Curious to see if horizon call of the mountain gets ported to PC.

Hopefully it will work great with iRacing.

@Americansamurai1
Why would PC gamers splash out on the PSVR2 when cheaper far superior headsets are available?
🤔

@GeeForce I did think that too. I connected PSVR1 to a laptop easily. Does PSVR2 include cables that can’t connect to a PC?

@GeeForce Someone in the thread the other day said it had something to do with PSVR2 using some nvidia tech that never really got off the ground and so has something to do with power delivery. OTOH, weird it's using nvida tech on an AMD console, and it can't be handled in software, which implies the PS5 itself has hardware onboard everyone is paying for to support the poorly supported VR2.

But that picture is a weird thing. There's 3 cables going into the adapter (it's PSVR1 mk.2). What are they for? Two seem to go to the PC. So Displayport, and I assume one is power (and doesn't go to the PC, so it needs external power to power the PSVR2?! Why displayport and not DP over USB?) So...what is that third wire for? Some sort of "control" signal like PSVR1 used on PS4? This is just a weird, ungainly setup that makes PSVR2 look like a joke on PC, and abandoned on PS5.

I suppose I'm grateful it exists, as I'd rather have more options than less for the hardware I own, but..... it's also a reminder of why not to buy Sony where possible.

@nessisonett No, PSVR2 has a single USB-C cable. Yet needs a $60 adapter with 3 cables to work on PC. It's kind of unfathomable.

This is a good solution for someone that has a good PC, the headset and a PS5. Good entry point into the PCVR, which is loads better then the console vr scene.

I still have my Index and it's still working just fine for me.

@dr-gorgo

Lol

Without those features, especially eye tracking, there’s literally no point to buying this for PC. Those features are what make the headset one of the best in the market. Still, if you already have it and also have a decent PC, this just opened a lot more gaming possibilities.

I'm guessing this is specifically for PS5 owners who also have a gaming rig because there's no way a PC player would buy an abandoned headset that's more expensive and has less features than the other options.

Is that because they cannot be bothered to make games for PS5 for PSVR2.
Or get some port deals with the best VR games that are already out there.
Bit of a let PSVR2 and the PS5 is getting that way with games from Sony Studios as well.

Imagine if sometime soon there is only Sony and Nintendo in the console market.
Never mind chilled and relaxed they will be horizontal and a sleep with zero hardware competition.

@NEStalgia
I think the 3rd wire is possibly a standard usb cable (to be plugged into the PC). See picture further down the article.

Though, that would negate the need for a separate power cable... 🤔
(edit - upto 5v)

@NEStalgia PSVR2 is not standard usb-c, it's just has a usb-c connection at the end

Adam Savages Tested reviewed PSVR2 and said the cable is actually a display port or a usb-c with display port alt or Sony's own protocol

@NEStalgia Sony's engineers likely designed it that way for compatibility because PCs have many different USB implementations. Even when they support DisplayPort via USB, they don't always have the same bandwidth, and in many cases they're not able to interface with the GPU properly. So to ensure compatibility with most systems, it was probably best to have a dedicated video connection and a separate USB connection for all other i/o communication.

When you consider these things likely cost a couple of quid to make, and the fact Sony's support has been so poor for PSVR2... I honestly find it a bit shocking they are selling these for so much. I think they should sell them at cost as a good will gesture!

@TrickyDicky99
Good info.

Does that mean the USB-C ports on the PS5 are not standard also and have additional protocols?

Why is the adapter USB-A? At this point in the game it should be USB-C. So now I'll need an adapter to plug in my adapter.

@GeeForce why PC gamers do a lot of things is beyond me.

@GeeForce I think the reason is simply that most desktop PCs don't support video output through USB-C. Many laptops do, but desktop PCs in general connect through Displayport or HDMI.

@ShaneReactions Well, desktop PCs usually have like 8 USB-A ports and one or two USB-C port. Makes sense to use USB-A.

@GeeForce Virtual Link is the name as far as i know and it does power, video and data down one cable. So i assume the adapter is just breaking that down into 2 or 3 cables for PC

@ShaneReactions its only recently that motherboards started including headers for USB C, and even then its limited to the top end boards, and the headers usually connect to a single USB C on the the front of the tower. They do however always have 6-8 USB A / B sockets on the standard back panel board however so makes way more sense using them.

What if I have a crappy pc with just an hdmi port? Can i use a display port to hdmi adapter and use it just to watch youtube vr? 3d movies?

@GeeForce No idea, I'm just quoting what they said in the PSVR2 review

sounds like a last ditch effort before psvr2 goes on life support and disappears.

@Waitinonpsvr2 Just buy a Quest.

It has a built in internet browser for those 3D 'movies' you want to watch (wink wink)

Despite the cheeky price, I was quite excited until I read the bit that says pretty much none of the PSVR2 features are supported. ☹️

If I’m spending alot of money on a beefy pc (as I’d want a top experience) I might as well go for a better pc headset as well. When is the quest 4 due out I wonder….

@GeeForce cheaper far superior? With eye tracking?

A shame cannot use on MacBook as a virtual screen
Thought they may have added that or

@KoopaTheGamer @Ilyn
👍

Quest 3 has no HDR or Eye tracking or Adaptive triggers on PC either. And has no PS5 support at all.

I can consolidate my PC+PS5 VR to one headset for $60... Sold. This should have been out on Day 1.

Also get to use 1 cable out of the box full of Display Port, HDMi and Ethernet cables sitting in my closet.

@Agramonte Quest 3 is a vastly superior device though. None of those features you describe can offset the generational leap in image quality of the Quest 3. It's night and day. The HDR OLED's on PSVR2 are rendered useless by the old fashioned lens tech, such that overall image quality is inferior to Q3.

There is also lots of future META support planned for native apps, /games and of course PC VR titles down the line. They have confidence and are supporting their product into the future.

Meanwhile we know that this adapter coincides with Sony shutting their VR studios, and a total vote of no-confidence with the 2D-only Astrobot announcement.

Smart money would therefore invest in the Quest 3.

Although I suspect that anyone with the money for a decent enough PC to play VR, and an interest in VR, would have purchased a Quest 3 already and have no need for this adapter.

@TrickyDicky99 Of course it is....why would Sony ever use an existing standard when they can invent their own and then try to invent a way to charge the consumer to pay to work around their proprietary format?

But it still begs the question, are they handling it in software on PS5 and could therefore have done the same on PC? Or is there specialty hardware in the PS5 that everyone's paying for to specially support the VR2 they torpedoed on launch? If the latter, every PS5 owner should be upset with PSVR2 considering they bought a piece of it too.

@KoopaTheGamer @xDD90x What you say would kind of make sense, if this were unique uncharted territory and not a problem of Sony's own creation. But every other wired HMD just has a USB-C port and PCVR players don't see to have problems with this. And they sure as heck aren't plugging into laptops. Quest, Index, BSB, HTC, all you do is grab the cable, and stick it in. No weird Displayport problems. I think the "safe" assumption here is if you have a PC powerful enough to run VR at all, you have a PC modern enough to be able to push video over USB.

@thefourfoldroot1 TBF only the HDR and head feedback matter. The eye tracking is used as a cool function in certain games like Legendary Tales that uses it for targeting, and it works wonderfully, but otherwise it's mostly about foveated rendering, and on PC you can just brute force it so you don't need it.

Wish I never bought my psvr 2....not many games worth playing for one...and secondly I just find it a pain to put on and play ....much prefer to just play with a controller normally ...oh well lesson learned.. won't ever get a vr again

@StylesT Don't let it put you off VR forever. PSVR1 was a pain to put on and play because you had to have the whole camera setup and all that. PSVR2 is only a pain to put on because of the ridiculously bad lenses and the infinitesimal sweet spot leaving you minutely moving it around until you get it on "just right." "Normal" VR (that isn't made by Sony) you just put it on, like glasses, and away you go. No sweet spot. No issues. Just put it on and grab the controllers.

Very cool, but maybe too little too late?

I mean it still desperately needs top of the line 1st party software.

Smart move. Hope this is successful for them.

Let’s see what happens before we start singing the funeral bells, besides, companies don’t listen to fanboys

@NEStalgia
Haven’t you sorted the sweet spot thing yet? I literally find it hard to not hit the sweet spot now, hundreds of times putting it on and off have just locked it into muscle memory and “feel”.

If that works on a Steamdeck, I might be down for it.

@thefourfoldroot1 I generally have, and I don't fuss with it so much, but for the majority of people having issues with it, that is the issue they're having.

And even for me who's as settled as anyone ever could be with it, I can't deny there's still that feeling that it's never exactly the same twice or you don't have to keep correcting it a little. It's still not perfect. And it still irritates me how blurry the peripheral vision is - I can see the fresnel rings in the peripheral blur. It's not a show stopper, I don't hate my time with it, but hoping for better, when better exists....and is cheaper......isn't a bad thing

Sony won't make any more PSVR2 games so they released this adapter to let us play Steam games.

No Eye-Tracking and HDR. That sucks. This means PSVR2 will never be able to live up to its full potential on PC.

Granted, games would need to implement support for these features. But Sony is ahead of the competition in this regard . I think the eye-tracked rendering and HDR would have driven many PC VR enthusiasts to buy a >$500 Product even if they didn’t have a PS5.

@Porco "sounds like a last ditch effort before psvr2 goes on life support"

We're past that I think is already dead! this is just Sony trying to get rid of the stock they have as last we heard they aren't currently manufacturing any.

PSVR2 It's currently on its Vita period where a few third party developers are making games here and there but ultimately everyone will abandon it, at least we still have that rumored portable with PS4 specs 😕

@NEStalgia
"every other wired HMD just has a USB-C port and PCVR players don't see to have problems with this".

This is not true. For example, Valve Index, HTC Vive, HP Reverb G2, and Pimax Vision 8K all connect via both USB and display cables. The only VR headsets that connect with a single USB cable that I'm aware of are the Quests. And there are many reports of issues with the connection; so much so that many claim the wireless connection methods are more reliable.

So can we watch p*rn?

@NEStalgia
Yeah, that edge blur can be annoying as all hell. Added to that I have prescription lense inserts that seem to add some extra occlusion if looking to the extreme edge of the view. Still, when I’m immersed in a game I barely any of that thankfully.

Not only do you have to pay £50 for the adapter, but all the unique features are unavailable on PC! I have another PC headset but may have purchased one of these if all the features were available (at least HDR and eye tracking)

@NEStalgia PSVR2 was never meant to be PC compatible, they're only doing this now because it's been a sales flop.

Sony didn't want people buying a PSVR2 for PC because they make no money from game sales on Steam, so it was purposely designed to not work on PC, hence they have now had to make an adapter.

@NEStalgia i been thinking all what you said, i bet you the final product wont have the cable coming out of it, itll be just the dp port.
psvr2 wants 12v over usb3.0 and display port dosnt distribute power so definitely a extra usb 3.0 cable for power.
the 3rd cable im presuming this is video out too the monitor shown

@GeeForce psvr2 wants 12v so it'llbe a usb c 3.1 for sure

@xDD90x exactly, and tbh id prefer seperate power because i dont want no interference from power distribution on the 4 data lines displayport uses

@xDD90x Ahh, you are correct, for some reason I was thinking the Vive and BSB were single USB, but you're correct, they have a similar "linkbox" device as well, so this product isn't as bizarre as it otherwise seemed.

Still. BSB aside those are dinosaur headsets with remote sensor stations and the like in bad need of inside-out tracking refreshes despite their high price tags, the real competitor here is Quest. I believe the USB 3.2/TB requirement is probably where some PC's are faltering with that.

just make sure any extra convertors and cables you buy support dp alt mode or youll be up sh it creak with no paddle.

psvr2 is a dp alt device so everything inbetween must also support dp alt or pc wont recognise it

@gullygamer It's possible it's video out to the monitor. It might also just be a wall-wart power module, and the USB3 is just for data and not power.

@TrickyDicky99 Yeah...though...I'm not sure what they actually designed it for. It's like it was designed in a bubble. Some features that put it ahead of the curve, some features that put it behind the curve, released at a weird cadence, and announced days after Jim basically said they're not interested in VR. Everything about it is weird. Maybe it was supposed to launch with the console, but the whole mfr and chip shortage issues prevented it. It's weird all around how it was handled.

@thefourfoldroot1 Depends on the game how annoying it is. Most games have you looking forward, but games that have a lot of action on the periphery it can get super annoying. Not a show stopper, but enough annoyance that when you take away HDR and the like and can get better optics and higher res, it makes the alternatives appealing. Something like Project Wingman....hoooooboy, when you're looking around in free flight, you need that periphery badly, even NMS, same issues.

@NEStalgia yea i thought that also.
The DP interface is capable of carrying bidirectional USB signals so data carrying shouldnt be a issue over dp port imo...

The interface is also capable of carrying bidirectional USB signals
the job of these boxes for vr in a nutshell is to convert the 3.3v that dp used into a 5v supply for data streaming

the headset has 4 cameras and countless other i/o tech inside it so that usb connection might be handling all that data so yea dp using 4 twisted pairs for video and audio, then a seperate usb3 for power and positional data sounds viable

its basically a dual link dvi adaptor which needs that usb to power it, either way . time will tell

sorry my electrical engineering brain is working overtime with this announcement

Why can't they make psvr2 compatible with ps4 games. really stupid move.

That’s a lot cheaper than I was expecting.

@get2sammyb half life alyx was a true dissapointment.
bought a 1500 dollar pc for it but the game is just to empty.
had more fun playing half life 1 and 2 with dlc in vr.

@Tecinthebrain yup. to be fair, VR is a mess across the board and on every platform. VR demand just isn't there. i think it needs to go away for awhile (maybe 10-15 years to allow the hardware to mature and establish more specialty VR studios to support it) before they try again. and by "they" i mean the entire VR industry. i anticipated growing pains for VR tech, but this has turned out even worse than i imagined.

@Porco definitely anticipated growing pains but I believe it's just a lack of support from AAA's, one solid gta or cod in vr would do the whole platform wonders but innovation isn't the name of the game anymore.. Lets all just pump out the same sh it every year for quik sales innit

@gullygamer it's a classic chicken and egg situation. not a large enough install base for AAA VR software to be profitable, but not enough AAA VR software to entice people and grow the hardware install base. the high cost to entry doesn't help. it is damned from all angles.

@Porco they overestimated consumer interest. They can barely get people to buy 4k content or HDR. Most people not gonna pay $500 to have a screen on their face just for “presence” when it feels bad and makes them look stupid.

Wouldn't it make more sense to support the big headsets like quest on ps5 instead? There's more money to be had with software than with hardware sales for Sony.

And they can't tell me it's not possible because of gimicks like eye tracking, foveat rendering and HDR.

@NEStalgia Three wires: USB-A, DisplayPort and power.

The power provided by USB ports on PC vary widely between setups, and PSVR2 was never designed to work on that. So, having power coming from an outlet was the most reliable and compatible way to design this thing.

Funny how this adapter totally gives me PSVR1 breakout box vibes. Full circle, I guess.

HDR, HEADSET FEEDBACK, EYE TRACKING, ADAPTIVE TRIGGERS AND HAPTIC FEEDBACK WON’T BE SUPPORTED

In another words the PSVR2 on PC will be useless.

That's great but why I can't stop wonder why couldn't Sony just make PSVR2 natively compatible with PCs instead of have people buying this ugly thingie

@NeonPizza why not add to that wishlist a free unicorn ride, gravity rush vr ports, and half life 3 exclusive to quest 3 pro 😂 quest 3 will be well over 1k though so it's in a different arena entirely. Least it's not Apple lol.

It's a rough spot because ps5 and quest tablet are the only market viable headsets. The $1k headsets are a joke! $2k pro, 3k Apple, $1800 gpus.... All of that is unrealistic. That's what high rollers buy. Most of is aren't high rollers, would never spend $2k on a GPU that's obsolete in a few years or $2k on prototype goggle's. That "high end cr rig" including headset is pushing $7000.. toys for the rich. That's not going to help vr, like, at all. We need to see what we can do with a 4060, 4070 (non ti) and a quest 3. If it's not good, then vr remains an exotic curio for the nobility. I figure if I do pc I try to say under 1700, plus a quest. It'll have to be good or it'll just suck and still be a decent pancake rig.

@Art_Vandelay lol psvr1 wiring is the most intense vr horror game available.

@Porco The real problem is no company is willing to actually take the investment into vr other then meta. It'll never take off if everyone's waiting for someone else to make the big investment to push it to market. Imagine if the current ai race was only companies charging $1000 to use it and didn't put productivity value into it. It would be dead tech. Shame. It's great tech but if no one moves to make it mainstream it never will be. Idk about just abandoning it for 15 years either though because the market that does exist will be gone and won't trust it again to come back. Facebook is the only company but too risk adverse to do it. That's just depressing.

I think there's a bit of detail missing from the article. While the PSVR2 haptics won't be functional the controller rumble will still be. A shame but the reality is that none of the PCVR games utilise the headset feature so it's moot.

Likewise about HDR - it's still utilising OLED panels so the blacks will be true blacks and the colours will still look less washed out as a result.

Most of the things missing aren't used by any other games at present. This is still a great option where, if comparing to it's most direct competitor the Quest 3, you're looking at a tradeoff of either standalone use/pankcake lenses vs functionality with PS5/PSVR2 games and OLED.

The PSVR2 versions of games are generally the best versions and their exclusives are still absolute bangers, so it's a decent value proposition for any PS5 owners on the fence about whether they want to try VR and those fortunate enough to have a PS5 and gaming PC. Nearly all the best games (and mods) will be available via PSVR2 now which is a win.

@NeonPizza The problem with Q3Pro is you also need to spend over 2 grand on a PC to properly use it too, so you're at $4k+,and I don't mean resolution.

Not sure the CAD conversion to USD, but I can't imagine what you'd make selling a used Q3 and PSVR2 would make much dent in buying an astronomically priced Pro.

I mean there's enthusiast...but there's also just spending stupidly. Usually those two are synonyms. But as long as it's a few fringe nutjobs with more money than sense buying this stuff, you might as well buy a PSVR2 And call it a day, VR's equally dead, and you're never getting games you want. Spending $2k on a 4090/5090, spending $2k on an imperfect headset as a bridge to a promised future only for it to disappoint because even $2k can't buy a future that doesn't exist yet. And an industry not investing in VR because they're throwing all their cash at AI right now. Eh., I think sense dictates we see what we get for reasonable spend and call it a day. Because whether we spend reasonably or unreasonably, right now we still won't be happy for long. May as well be reasonable and use the left over cash for non-VR retail therapy to diffuse our unhappiness after.

Do they still do monthly fee phones in CA? They stopped that in the US ages ago, it's just hardware bought outright now. Cable boxes/ISP routers are the only "leased" hardware I can think of of now, and that never works out in the customers advantage.

@DaniPooo did you see the bigscreen vr headset? In terms of form factor that thing is crazy

@koffing yup, pretty much. ultimately, if we take away all the problems and just present VR for what it is (in terms of being a new way to play video games), i just don't think there are enough interested people out there who feel the need to complicate their lives for what is essentially a slightly more immersive novelty at this point. i don't think that will ever change. the install base may increase over time, but it will plateau and never become a mainstream way to game due to it fundamentally being a hinderance in so many ways.

@NEStalgia agreed. which begs the question: why did so many manufacturers get into the VR space without a plan or sense of direction beforehand? in sony's case, did it really think 3rd party development would carry the tech on its own? to me, it feels like sony got into the VR space not because its heart was in it and all the projections pointed to a successful future, but merely to cover its bases in case it somehow took off. it did not want to be left behind. if there is one thing microsoft has done right over the past 10 years, it was to evaluate the potential of VR and take a wait and see approach. the way things are going at fb/meta, i won't be surprised if they throw in the towel at some point as well but remains to be seen.

i think VR has the potential to become a niche yet profitable sector. but they need to go back to the drawing board and figure out a business model first. most importantly, the closed wall garden needs to disappear and all VR software needs to be readily available on every VR platform if it has any hope of growing.

@Porco Investors. I remember around that time the investors were haranguing every company when they were getting into VR and what their plan was for VR, because for some reason every investor got the notion that VR was the next big thing and that their investment had to be at the forefront of the wave. It's why Nintendo had that bizarre cardboard VR thing where you look at the 720p switch split between 2 eyes and call it VR. It's the same reason we're getting AI-powered food (not even joking, sadly.)

Valve, HTC, and Occulus (now Meta) were in it for keeps and are series about it still. Everyone else is just messing around. I remember when John Carmack (of id fame) left and went to Occulus back when it was new. They were dead-serious. And Meta for whatever reason still is and is the only one serious enough to spend massive investment into it (and HTC, but they occuply super premium space.)

But you're right about Sony. Jimbo point blank stated days before VR2 was announced that their position was to wait for someone else to someday make it happen and hover just off in the shadows so they can jump out and be there when it happens someday. They never intended to lead in VR or develop its market. They just wanted to be "present" to join a market once someone else makes it grow.

I don't think Meta throws in the towel because their bet on VR only incorporates games, but is largely about business tools. Same with Apple. I think they kind of have to stick with it, because they don't have anywhere else to grow, and they rebranded their whole company around that idea, along with their AI investments. They're looking to make VR something more than an entertainment product but a communication and productivity tool eventaully meshed with AI. Which makes some sense, in an AI driven world you need a way to enter the AI's world, VR's kind of it (other than inevitable neural implants where we can all hallucinate together in what will take trillions of dollars to do what the hippies did in the 60s for a few bucks.)

They do need to figure out a business model though. Sony grew the VR space, ironically, before they abandoned it. VR1 had a big impact accidentally in taking VR more mainstream, and I think Jim is the point of failure in it's halt (why invest in VR when a million mtx driven live services can happen? ) Most of VR feels like the early days of "computers" before the "IBM PC" took hold. A dozen companies all doing different similar incompatible things. I think a VR standards board needs to be established like for USB, HDMI, PCI, etc. Something all the mfrs can work together to build intercompatibility with. Meta is bent on walled garden exclusives though. It's the only way they're selling sub $1k headsets for now. IDK. I don't see VR growing if it takes $5000 rigs for rich guys to get out of their Bimmers into their luxury concept apartments and strap in to play the same 5 games forever. But I also don't see the gimmicky Meta approach in gaming working either.

Really it just needs some company to actually commit to pushing it. Meta does ,but they don't have the scope of a big consumer brand to make that retail footprint happen. People will adopt VR if you give them a reason and chance to adopt it instead of tiptoeing around the yacht club so the polos can flex their status, and then selling weird 1-and-done demos to a drooling mid-tier.

It probably needs a better economy, but they also can't just abandon it now because if they do they blow the chance to bring it back, people won't trust it again.

Sorely tempted, even though I know there aren't enough good VR experiences across both platforms

@NeonPizza meantime as I spec builds I just wonder if I even want to bother. I have 2 consoles on 2 screens to replace, Even if I just do a 4060 to be "slightly better than PS5" build, is like 1500. There's zero chances Id really get even a 4080 and stay on budget. Let alone getting quest. Maaaybe a 7800x3d and 4070 ti super. That still pushes $2k without adding the quest and that $80 cable.

If I budget 500/mo it'll be until like Feb until my builds are done 😂

I'm frustrated with the consoles but 500 vs 2000 is a big difference. Then again the consoles are priced on 2019 standards. Next Gen may not be so affordable. Though that would be the death of consoles.

@NeonPizza We're at a strange point, because for "VR enthusiasts" we're kind of "there" for VR to be our main platform. The problem is from a business angle, VR can't be a main platform for anyone, enthusiast or not. The other problem is, while the few hardware mfrs are improving hardware as compute improves, in terms of software, the VR fad/peak came went during the PSVR1 years. That's when games investment peaked and devs were trying to test the new medium. If you look at Steam, most of the "big" games that exist were from that time period. In a lot of ways PSVR1's boom really pushed VR forward. But the problem was, it had the same problem Virtual Boy did in setting VR back 10 years. It was just so bad, in basically every way, that it came across as an upleasant gimmick that after people tried it were ready to abandon it for the rest of their lives as something not for them.

The other problem is most of the best VR games are old games, that came from that period, and new development has mostly stopped. Worse, PSVR being the most accessible platform means that it got bad versions of good VR games, and then PSVR2, while it gets nearly all new games, including being FIRST for some games (Foundation is PSVR-only, maybe Quest, but it's not on Steam yet for example.) Basically indie is all that exists, while the few BIG hitting games that ever happened (Skyrim VR, Fallout 4 VR, Doom VR, Borderlands 2 VR, Hitman VR) don't exist and never will exist on PSVR2.

Under MS, Bethesda doesn't patch their VR games anymore either. And why should they? They don't make money. Last updates were 2018.

It feels to me like PSVR2 is a decent place to play new indie games, and some of those "indie" games are really establishing as "AAA" games within the VR space. You're never (ever) (ever) going to get a big "AAA" game in VR. Ever. Not going to happen. Not in our lifetime. Ever. Meanwhile PCVR is the best place to play old games that are so big you could live in that game forever (Skyrim, Fallout, Borderlands, NMS (also on PS), believe it or not MS Flight Sim. Most of the "Big" (short, dumbed down blockbuster franchise games) are going to be tied to Meta for the forseeable (Assassin's Creed etc.) Vampire is a very "Meta" experience that's on PS and PC.

But yeah, I think you have to put your technophilia aside, and either embrace that you're a hardware enthusiast, NOT a games enthusiasts, and just enjoy seeing the same old games on ever newer hardware (and, relaly, with all the mod support for Skyrim VR, it's kind of infinite anyway), or embrace the indies, because that's what VR is going to be for a long, long time. If you're waiting for that future of a PS4 level VR experience, you're going to want to be reborn in the next life. It is what it is. It's a hobbyist niche, not a mainstream media. I don't see that changing. Embrace it, or flip the pancakes.

I think if Xbox does go the PC route they seem to be on, and supports third party stores, you'll probably see Meta and the Meta store on it. THey already have a partnership with Meta for using Quest 2 for pancake games, with an actual Xbox branded Quest. I see that happening. Steam? No. No chance. Not unless it's a FULLY open PC, at which point, it'll also be priced like a PC so why not just build a PC?

IDK I keep hearing that anything less than a 4080, and really 4080 is "great for 1440p gaming" and not 4k and thus not VR. OTOH, a $300 4060 is still a touch better than a PS5 and a $600 4070 (not even TI) blows it out of the park. So how is that not good for VR if PS5 is decent? Well, you can't lean on foveated, so I guess the best games like Cyube, NMS, and Legendary Tales do need a ton more power...foveation and eye tracking really does save a lot of power. OTOH how much does it matter when the periphery is always blurry AF with those lenses anyway? But most other games don't even use foveation and GT7 still looks blurry with it. Those few (NMS, Cyube, Legendary are stunning on PS though I have to say.)

I keep going back and forth. It's easy to say "go PC", and there's so much good. OTOH when $1500-2k buys you a "high mid range" build, and you have a world of $700 handhelds. It's daunting. OTOOH, I love my Legion Go....it's just absolutely awesome. (I know, you're not into handheld, but that thing is just awesome. TECHNICALLY I've heard of some people plugging their Quest 3 into it........hmmmmmm....) Z1Extreme uses the same 780M graphics module the Ryzen 7800x3d onboard gfx does, so it's not a slouch at all. Well below a PS5 of course let alone an RTX card .

IDK, That budget, seriously, if I just budget 500 a month for my 1.5 rigs and VR it'll be like 10 months to build it all. Not really a great feeling. And then I replace my little tiny quiet Xbox with an EATX size mid-tower. That's a heck of a footprint. I mean that's nearly PS5 size!

Edit: The other problem for games is, since that time of VR1, games developers have switched from focusing on new ways to sell more games, to focusing on new ways to make less games that trap everyone inside them forever into an mtx pit. In that regard Meta is the best positioned, because their "Metaverse" is exactly what games publishers most want. One world everyone lives in and pays into forever. Why are the MMOs not building VR clients? Seems perfect to me. FFXIV in VR? I would never play any other game....exactly the way they want it to be! VR ironically seems like the perfect fit for the "live service" that you live in. The best VR games area already "endless" games like Skyrim. IDK why devs aren't more interested in VR for this reason alone. You don't need 10 new games a year. You need one massive game with constant updates to pour endless money into, and the starving VR market would do it. And the "I want a console so I can hang out with my friends like Facebook but with guns" I mean...hellooo....Meta......?

@NEStalgia good points. i suppose sony could keep it on life support just to stay in the race but then they are going to have customers to answer and explain to. it's a tough place to be in. i think nintendo and microsoft dodged a bullet with VR. perhaps it was 10 years premature to get into the arms race. that said, while i am not a believer of VR as a communication and productivity device, some people clearly are so it could carve out a niche as you described. as far as i know, the apple vision pro has been quite the disappointment for them, to the point where they greatly cut back on production. i don't know what they were thinking with the asking price to be honest.

@Porco The Apple Vision represents to me the epitome of the most out of touch Silicon Valley thinking imaginable. With VR being where it is and struggling where it has, what would have possessed Apple to launch a VR/AR headset tech prototype thing for over $3000? It's the Tesla Truck of personal computing. It's obviously not a product for mere peasants so I suppose I'm not fit to comment it, as a mere peasant, but it never actually established who it's actually for, what it's supposed to do, or why anyone should buy it. The only thing that was clear about it is it's more than $3000 and basically can't play games. Maybe it's there to make 4090's look budget-friendly?

I think to make VR work, someone has to be the one that's 10 years early, but they can't cut corners, they have to be all in in pushing it as a key product. And I think that necessitates taking huge losses on hardware to do it. If PS2 launched and charged a price that was "realistic for the tech included" at the time, it would have burned out on launch and we'd all be talking about the latest Outrun reboot rumors on MegaSega.com right now. That thing ran circles around top class PC hardware at the time. Ultimately subsidizing hardware with software isn't a viable business model these days anymore. Maybe it never really was. But I think it was instrumental to forcing their way into an industry and growing it.

Meta does understand that, and is actually doing that, but they don't have the consumer product mfr and distribution network to really pull it off, get it in front of people, really push product. It's actually miraculous they're doing as well they are. They're a glorified forum that only makes money selling customer data, somehow leading the pack in loss-leading a whole new hardware paradigm.

I still think PSVR1 was a double-edged sword. VR industry people have talked for a long time that Virtual Boy set VR back 10 years. It was so bad, it ended the VR hype train of the 90's and froze consumer interest, halting the whole industry in its tracks until consumers forgot about it and it was safe to restart. PSVR1 was one of the most successful products at getting people to even try VR, show people what it's like, not at full price, it was a joke, too, at full price. But once they cut prices sales actually soared and a lot of people got a taste of VR. I think it grew the industry and dev interest in it. But like VB, it was also kind of bad. The cable nest, the Move controllers, the horrid optics, the camera I think people were curious to try it but then easily turned off by the gimmicky setup enough to never bother again, not realizing how much better better VR is. PSVR2 was, IMO, a do or die moment for VR. VR1 still had momentum at PS5 launch. Remember instead of the expected PS5 reveal event we got a week of PSVR1 dedication instead? But VR2 launched late, And when it did it launched with a LOLWUT price tag, an awkward, dated design, the same awful optics just less awful, and the rest they copied from Meta. And then they didn't support it. They didn't even bother working to get ports of big games from VR1. Even their own games. They just dropped it and ran and showed they don't believe in it and didn't care if people bought it.

I think that behavior from arguably the consumer-facing leader of VR, rather than the next generation doubling down and making it bigger, basically shrugging and ignoring the market as irrelevant, has done massive harm to the VR industry. VR may have been stronger if Sony bowed out without VR2 existing. I hate to say it as I do love my VR2, it's probably the most fun I've had in gaming in at least a decade. But it hurt VR as a whole.

@NeonPizza Vision Pro is horrendous. It's not even a product without a market. It's a concept model that no company but Apple could get away with actually charging money for. Excellent tech specs with zero actual practical application nor even a corporate concept of what such an application might be. It's like Apple watch everyone laugh at Meta for their whole Metaverse idea, didn't notice Meta pivot to becoming a video game console, and just decided that the only thing the Meta Metaverse was missing was a picture of half eaten fruit and triple the price tag.

I had to laugh at one of those rediculous tech blog articles that showed up in my annoying feed today about how the smart phone era is ending, and that it will be replaced by AR/MR. I had to laugh, here we are daily struggling to figure out how to save the mostly dead VR headset world and why the world seems to hate them, and here's the tech writers claiming they're about to replace smartphones for everyone. I can't take anything any tech writer says seriously anymore.

If Apple launched a headset in the Quest 3 price range, it would be half the power, half the functionality, you could only plug it into a Macbook Air, and the internet would write about it being a "game changer."

But strapping Facebook to your head is literally the reason Meta builds Quest to begin with....That's the only goal they have for it, always was! It's why they bought out Occulus. The only reason they're charging $500, and not $1000 like the other PCVR hobby companies.

I mean for the money is no object crowd, you still have things like the Big Screen Beyond, the HTC models, which are exotically priced, but lovely hardware. BSB's only real flaw is it's limited to 90hz though. But I kind of detest the whole "money is no object" realm of VR in general, it segments VR as an exclusive club for the depressingly monied, and guarantees zerio mainstream growth until it suffocates.

If money wasn't a concern, I think BSB and a 5090 would be lovely, and then throw oot your $1500+ BSB investment for a replacement every time they come out with one. Great way to kill time while sitting around the yacht club waiting for the caviar to arrive.

yeah, if I take the plunge, it's quest 3+....IDK if I'm even going 4080, the pricing is still ghastly, and my whole build including the VR starts running up toward $3k which I'm just not ok with for something that obsoletes. Greed and practicality need to balance. Unless there's an amazing sale, I can't see going past 4070ti super at current pricing. Even that pushes the budget. really, do we REALLY need more than that to play modded Skyrim and a bunch of indies, even in VR? It still blows PS5 away even if it's only by enough to negate foveated rendering missing.

I may actually get the PSVR2 adapter if I go PC though, because warts and all, that'll save me $520 at least on the build for a while vs the Quest 3 + $85 link cable and I can put that into the lowly $650+ 4070 (I still just refuse to spend $1k on a single video card. "Back in my day" that would get you an SLI setup with money left over.)

That's the one thing if you're OCD with PC, is you're compelled to get "the best" when it's often not the most practical approach. For the price of an extreme rig, you could build a modest rig now and a modest rig later and probably end up with a better final build.

@Flurpsel Yeah, when it comes to form-factor those are getting close to where it needs to be at.

Although we need so more breakthroughs before I would say that we got THERE.

I think the field of view needs to expand in such a manner that you don't see any edges at all, I don't know how they will achieve that , perhaps curving the old displays and lenses in a slight dome shape or something so that the edges can get closer to your face perhaps? I don't know if that would even work with the optics. But it's clear that some sort of breakthrough is required there.

I also think that eye tracking needs to do more. I feel like in order to really feel like you're there your eyes should be able to adjust the depth focus in a natural way like in reality.
I know there's research being done in this area so that's something to look forward to.

I also love Sony's approach of putting a fan inside the headset to deal with lenses fogging up, but how do you make that work in a small form-factor headset?

Perhaps some sort of heat pipe that goes from the inside to the outside where there's small fans, so that you get condensation on it rather than foggy lenses? I don't know, just farting out random ideas.

@NEStalgia It's not horrendous, but it is overpriced

@DaniPooo Pimax is doing huge fov like that, but it's extremely expensive, and the problem is no GPU even exists that can properly drive it at the insane 16k resolution to pull it off with clarity. And said gpu won't exist due 10-20 years probably.

@NEStalgia I dunno, with foveated rendering being a thing as well as hardware accelerated upscaling like DLSS I think we could reach that level of clarity within just a few years, If someone is trying to.

I don't know what you got the 16k number from (2x 8k)?
I think 2x6k probably will be good enough?

That being said with foveated rendering I wouldn't be surprised if the best GPU's today are already powerful enough.

@DaniPooo Foveated rendering is a wildcard, but so few headsets support it, it's not always reliable when it is (latency in changing targets), its mostly stand alone headsets that have eye tracking and with it, other problems arise, and a lot of games that implement it only get at 15% or so improvement. I think foveation is an interesting stop gap but I didn't think it's a permanent solution.

You need at least 60 ppd to eliminate screen door totally and match the human eye. Ultra wide fov at 60ppd... Yikes. That'll take 8k per eye. And 16k rendering at 90+ is definitely long away. Pimax really is making a 16k set, is like $7000, but even if you're insane and buy it, what are you going to drive it with unless your have access to a Pixar rendering farm to plug into 😂

It's like buying an FA18. Sure I'll look great in the driveway but how are you going to fuel it?

@NEStalgia I mean the reason why most headsets don't support foveated rendering is because most headsets today do not have the necessary hardware (eye tracking hardware)

This will change, I think eye tracking is going to be in pretty much all headsets in the future together with foveated rendering.

Foveated rendering IS the future of VR, I can see little reason not to use it. Except the cost of including eye tracking hardware.
But prices will drop.

Hmm, the screendoor effect on the PS5 is caused by them using fresnel lenses rather than pancake lenses, that's not related to resolution. I have yet to see 2x4k OLED screens with pancake lenses so I don't know what screendoor effect to expect. also there's MicroLED on the horizon (which should be great for VR)

sure native 16k @+90fps is a long way off, I am not arguing against that. But usually it's easier to render 2 screens stereoscopically over rendering one large screen, that's because the only difference between the two screens is a slight camera angle adjustments. and so that should make it more difficult to render than 8k, but less difficult than native 16k in theory.
Then if we add foveated rendering I assume that the actual render resolution will be closer to 4-6k (depending on how aggressively they cut back the resolution in your peripheral vision), the thing that matter is that what you are looking at is super sharp, if your peripheral vision is running at 720p that's fine.. you probably won't notice it.
The peripheral vision is over 90% of your vision. So 90% of the screens can in theory be running at super low resolution to improve performance and only 10% needs to take advantage of the super fine DPI. But probably better to make some extra headroom so 85+15 is probably not a bad idea.

I own a PSVR2 and I never saw any issue with it's eye tracking and foveated rendering, Also tried the Apple Vision Pro and it's great at foveated rendering too.
It's one of those techniques that just makes a lot of sense for these products. Linus from Linus tech tips tried it as well and seemed really blown away by it.

I absolutely feel like foveated rendering is more than a wildcard, it's more important for VR than VRR or DLSS is in the PC space.

@DaniPooo I'm not sure about eye tracking being on all headsets. I think it's going to be scattershot, and that remains a problem. It's expensive to add, and so far has been mostly used as a differentiator between "business" and "consumer" sets. Pimax's biggest launch yet is the Crystal Lights which REMOVES the eye tracking from the OG crystal ,both to cut costs and because it was tied to the stand-alone Snapdragon setup which is the main feature being removed. It just seems to be a cost item and chicken and egg situation where adding it is a cost that might impede sales, which including it is a benefit that benefits only limited software. Like VR's sales conundrum itself over big games, it's a feature that only has limited use until everyone has the feature so no one has the feature.

And, again, part of that problem remains that the performance gains aren't as great as they seem in most software that's using it such that the money spent on eye tracking and sophisticated processing for it, is better spent on better graphics hardware that doesn't need it. "Fixed foveated rendering" (center only) happens to work for a lot of applications and doesn't need eyetracking as well. Sure, the Crystal Super is going to have eye tracking again, but the Super is $1800-2000. The Light is certainly going to outsell it by quite a lot, and the super with supposedly 60-65 PPD, actual SDE-less human eye resolution, it's going to need Foveated rendering to even stay stable on a theoretical 5090 ,and I suspect will still struggle to hold stable rates at all without just resorting to lower res, meaning not having physical SDE is its main point.

Screendoor is resolution, not lens. PSVR2 has a filter that produces that blurry effect it has, in addition to the issues of fresenels, specifically to mask the screen door. Without that filter the screen door would be much worse, as it is in Quest 2, Quest Pro etc. Even the Moderately high res Crystals (35 PPD vs 25 on PSVR2, though PSVR2 is, really even lower effective res due to the pentile layout) have some amount of SDE, just much lower than almost anything else. Lens choice doesn't affect SDE, and, the inverse is really true. The clearer the lens, the worse the SDE, the blurrier the lens the better the SDE, because it's blurring the fine lines. Fresnel "wins" in that category. At least it wins something.

In the mean-time, we still have an issue where foveated rendering is showing low gains in performance due to other overhead factors. The other elephant in the room is VRAM. Pushing these resolutions far exceeds the available VRAM on even high end cards today, and there's no reason to believe Nvidia will become any less stingy on VRAM in an era where they've also given up on VR. Limiting 24gb to only 4090's, and slapping 12GB on everything under 4080 (or eventually 4070 Ti Super which is technically a crippled 4080) is shameless. Rumors don't portend the Blackwell era will be much better.

As for if eye tracking works, yes, it works, and for the low power level and low VRAM of a console trying to run PCVR games it was an absolute necessity. But again in the PCVR space it can get dodgy, relying on OpenXR and the like, with little support and only modest performance gains where supported. And on the stand-alone space there's the price consideration. It's more hardware, more cameras, more power draw, more processor overhead, so far, anyway, there's a reason why eye tracking has been a segmenting factor between "Pro" and "consumer" headsets.

I may end up picking up a Crystal Light with local dimming at some point. No eye tracking, modest FOV, very good resolution. Performance to price it's a pretty good setup. You can get more for a LOT more money. It'll cost almost double to get something in that caliber with eye tracking.

@NEStalgia We already have hardware capable of decent foveated rendering at high resolution. Not we just need some generational improvements basically.