GT7 and Virtual Reality Headsets

Assuming it's in the $300-$500 range and available on GT7, what is your interest level?

  • Love it, need it, gotta have it!

    Votes: 82 42.5%

  • Love it, but it's a little too expensive to justify for me.

    Votes: 36 18.7%

  • Skeptical but I'll keep an open mind and wait for the reviews.

    Votes: 47 24.4%

  • Not my thing, not interested.

    Votes: 28 14.5%
  • Total voters
    193
Boxout
I'm already losing all of my hope in GT7. Seems like once again they're investing in useless gimmicks that 2% of the players will use just like the GPS Visualizer instead of putting the game back on track with actual features that the players want.

Really don't want to admit it but seems like GT lost it's touch.
It's cool though, can't wait for that sweet VR on my standard car's blacked out interior.
Click to expand...

It's not that bad really. VR should be available in any region where you can buy PS4 so it has a chance to be popular.

It's got another upside. Standard cars simply can't be in a game with VR.

CarreraGT
Great, VR = repeat of the 3D debacle. I just wish they would focus on the game itself and bring it out in the near future rather than wasting development time on gimmicky features that only 5% of people will actually use.

If they have been wasting time developing VR instead of improving the sound and AI I will be pissed
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges mate. 3DTV was an obvious false step that most people could see straight through. VR is focused on gaming. It will succeed on that basis if it is good enough. All indications I've seen so far of any VR system are extremely promising.
 
Yeah, that's undercutting the price. $349 for the PS4, at least $250 for the PS VR. That's $600 right there. There's no way they'd put a bundle like that together for a loss of $160 with a game included.
 
Boxout
I'm already losing all of my hope in GT7. Seems like once again they're investing in useless gimmicks that 2% of the players will use just like the GPS Visualizer instead of putting the game back on track with actual features that the players want.

Really don't want to admit it but seems like GT lost it's touch.
It's cool though, can't wait for that sweet VR on my standard car's blacked out interior.
Click to expand...
I think you're overestimating just how hard it is to make a game support VR.
 
AudiMan2011
VR related in a way:
http://gamerant.com/pc-gamers-wont-upgrade-vr-101/

If those results by Valve are anything to go by, if the majority of PC gamers aren't interested in VR, then what hope is there for VR on consoles?
Click to expand...
The poll isn't asking how many people want to use VR, it's asking how many will upgrade their hardware to accomodate the higher demands of VR. That's a different kettle of fish altogether as the hardware upgrade will at least involve spending $350 on a new videocard and likely some other hardware as well, and that's on top of the cost of the OR itself. This hardware upgrade isn't necessary for the PS system because Morpheus uses a frame interpolation system to double the framerates from a native 60fps on the PS4 to 120 on the Morpheus. PS games also tend to be better optimized because they are on one single piece of hardware, vs. pc where you can an infinite number of combinations. I have the GTX970 mentioned as minimum spec for OR but the PS can accomplish the same thing with far less GPU power due to optimization.

In fact, just taking the results and extrapolating, if GT sells 10million units and 20% of buyers buy a VR headset to use with it at say $400, that's $800Million in VR headset sales alone. I don't believe that extrapolation is valid however, it's just for demonstration purposes. I'm guessing Sony would be pretty happy with only 10% market penetration on all PS sales. That's around $1Billion last time I checked PS4 unit sales.
 
Last edited:
I won't be upgrading, I'm having fun eking out an old LGA 775 system, including swapping in a 771 Xeon just for giggles. GPU hardware isn't necessarily geared up for the unique (balance of) stresses of VR yet, either. So upgrading later is a good idea on that front, if not based on Moore's Law alone.

Bear in mind that what Oculus describe as the minimum is really for providing "decent" quality; that means most of us will just turn the settings down a touch so we get solid framerates. The interactive experience will be worth the quality drop, and I expect most people interested in VR are running newer rigs than I anyway. And that's not to mention the likely quality issue (compared to 2D) with Morpheus on PS4.
 
I would save up and buy Morpheus, but I'm a little worried because I have a cataract in my right eye, not sure how I'd go with stereoscopic
 
It's an interesting position really, because obviously VR is the buzzword at the moment, so the console manufacturers have to produce a VR option. The graphics hardware in the consoles isn't really up to the task, but they're stuck with this hardware for their VR product, so the pressure must really be on the developers to make some magic happen.

The 1080p resolution for Morpheus sounds a little low, although that's only based on a colleague's experience with his Oculus DK2. The framerate is also going to need to be at least a solid 60, and from his experience if it drops much below 75 you start to lose the immersion (this is playing Elite: Dangerous, which by most accounts is the best implemented VR game available at the moment).

I just don't see how the PS4 will maintain this sort of performance, unless the graphics drop significantly. To be honest though, I'd be absolutely fine with that. Personally, if they could make GT6 level graphics work in VR, I think the extra immersion alone would be more than enough to get people very excited. I would be anyway. The graphics in GT6 are fine, sure better is great and all, but other than crappy shadows, I don't look at GT6 and think that it's unacceptable.

Hopefully if they are using this adaptive tessellation to allow for finely controlled level of detail adjustments to maintain performance, then they can get the results that marketing demands (i.e. amazing graphics for the box art / trailers and VR support) as well as making a playable experience in VR.

I'm very excited about the prospect of VR for driving games. I'll be interested to see how they cope with the arm flailing issue though. The reason Elite is so immersive is because your character is sat in a chair with their arms in front of them holding a joystick and throttle. So if you have a joystick and throttle controller, your brain will accept that those arms it can see are your own as they move in the same way etc. The problem with driving is although you will also have a wheel and gearstick / paddles etc. the virtual arms will be moving and these movements won't match your own arm movements (or not 100% consistently) and I can only assume that that will produce some strange sensations.

Either way, naturally looking out of the side window as the car goes sideways is something I can't wait to experience :D
 
The graphics quality has to give, there really is no other way. And that's fine with me, too!

The benefits will more than make up for it and it's been shown that even very basic graphics can be immersive. PD will have been planning for it for some time, so they'll be able to accommodate 3D, VR and standard 2D displays through different renderer configurations, I should think.

The multi-display output feature with Morpheus / PS4 seems like it could be a big winner, too; that will help VR be a more social experience than it otherwise might.
 
letdown427
I'm very excited about the prospect of VR for driving games. I'll be interested to see how they cope with the arm flailing issue though. The reason Elite is so immersive is because your character is sat in a chair with their arms in front of them holding a joystick and throttle. So if you have a joystick and throttle controller, your brain will accept that those arms it can see are your own as they move in the same way etc. The problem with driving is although you will also have a wheel and gearstick / paddles etc. the virtual arms will be moving and these movements won't match your own arm movements (or not 100% consistently) and I can only assume that that will produce some strange sensations.

Either way, naturally looking out of the side window as the car goes sideways is something I can't wait to experience :D
Click to expand...
If it's anything like PC sims, you will be able to turn the animations off. You will always have a small amount of input lag. Most large screen tvs are at least 30 ms and many are much more. Hopefully you can just turn it off.
 
I've tried VR with Project CARS (perks of a fun University), if you don't have a wheel its extremely disorienting, if you do its worth a try but I have no idea how they will be able to get a PS4 to run at 90 fps.
 
Myles Prower
I've tried VR with Project CARS (perks of a fun University), if you don't have a wheel its extremely disorienting, if you do its worth a try but I have no idea how they will be able to get a PS4 to run at 90 fps.
Click to expand...
I don't think the lack of a wheel would bother me. I don't use it now and never notice it at all. Morpheus comes equipped with it's own frame doubling. They only need a solid 60 fps to get an effective 120fps.
 
Johnnypenso
I don't think the lack of a wheel would bother me. I don't use it now and never notice it at all. Morpheus comes equipped with it's own frame doubling. They only need a solid 60 fps to get an effective 120fps.
Click to expand...
That's still not true 120fps just a form of motion blur, you'll see what I mean if they have the hands and wheel in game rendered.
 
Myles Prower
That's still not true 120fps just a form of motion blur, you'll see what I mean if they have the hands and wheel in game rendered.
Click to expand...
Not everyone will have that deficiency, er, I mean, problem. :P
All it takes is for the animations to be disabled as an option.

The 120 fps upscaling is a little more involved than that and, whilst it's not as good as 120 new frames every second, the effect of reprojecting the previous frame to suit the new viewpoint halfway between frames is reportedly enough to make it feel smoother than it should at only 60 new frames every second.

Motion blur only uses old information, this uses the latest positional information available (after the frame had first began to be rendered) to effect the warp (on old information). It works even without interpolation: taking the positional info after the frame is rendered, but before sending it to the display to warp it helps lessen the perception of latency. So it does work, but only to a point.

It won't work at lower render rates, because the necessarily simplified image warping used to effect the "reprojection" will make itself visually obvious once it occupies more of the screen more of the time, and will cease to fool our 3D perception as a result. This technique could be used to good effect for 2D rendering to prevent (the impression of) dropped frames, too.
 
Myles Prower
That's still not true 120fps just a form of motion blur, you'll see what I mean if they have the hands and wheel in game rendered.
Click to expand...
No it's not true 120fps that's true, but it's also not motion blur as explained above^^. It's creating a frame between the frames that is a hybrid between the two. It also introduces some small amount of lag, as you can't interpolate the middle frame until you have the two on the outside if I understand it correctly.
 
Johnnypenso
No it's not true 120fps that's true, but it's also not motion blur as explained above^^. It's creating a frame between the frames that is a hybrid between the two. It also introduces some small amount of lag, as you can't interpolate the middle frame until you have the two on the outside if I understand it correctly.
Click to expand...
I personally believe that latter point is a misunderstanding in either the press or the marketing (or both). I think it comes from the fact that Sony used a similar technique in "3D movies" - that was likely performed at their studios, though.

In the case of Morpheus, they specifically talk about reducing latency by using the reprojection to warp images even without "upsampling", this is described as being performed after rendering but before displaying. So it could be assumed to be analogous to the "asynchronous time-warping" (the '95 paper calls it "image warping") used by everyone else this time around. The "asynchronous" part effectively just means it interrupts the usual render pipeline by warping the image post-render but pre-scan-out, just the same as Sony's method is described as doing.

It is also impossible to reach the 18 ms input-output latency figure they quote with a whole 60 Hz frame delay extra (16.6... ms) required for such full-frame interpolation.


It might be wrong of us, therefore, to call the 120 Hz output "interpolated", and I don't think Sony ever did. It is kind of interpolated, by applying the effects of recent viewpoint motion to an old image, but it doesn't require a known future end point in order to be effective.
 
CarreraGT
Great, VR = repeat of the 3D debacle. I just wish they would focus on the game itself and bring it out in the near future rather than wasting development time on gimmicky features that only 5% of people will actually use.

If they have been wasting time developing VR instead of improving the sound and AI I will be pissed
Click to expand...

My issues are like your concerns but to be fair many people miss the advances made by this studio.
I do not recall buying more hardware over the years for any other game/franchise just to experience it the best way(s) they made possible.

Yes whatever graphical quality can be mustered for standard 2D pad/wheel gaming this cannot be sustained for 3D and it will be even worse for VR. Hold on though, cause if ANY company has shown it is technically very capable it is Polyphony Digital.

Personal Experienced Examples
GT4 supported 1080i on PS2 back in SD times (Not PAL/NTSC only)
GT5 Prologue 1080p 60FPS
GT5 Triple Screens @1080p (5 Possible)
GT5 3DTV
GT5 PS Eye
GT5 7.1 PCM (okay yes hairdryer engines)
GT6 Map Maker (3rd party device incorporation)

3x 3D
Bringing back happy memories as in the past I even experimented with GT5 in triple 3D mode via triple 3D GT750 Projectors. Now that looked cool with ZERO borders but their was issues with all 3 trying to sync with 3D Active Glasses.
OddOy.jpg


Nitl7.jpg


TEf4N.jpg


HDTV 3D Gaming was limited to NATIVE 720p for 60FPS. (HDMI specifications at the time)

Texture/detail also I think took a hit with GT5 not just the same as 1080p 2D with lower resolution and of course the lower framerate.

So like 3D yes VR is going to give more immersion but at a cost in fidelity/graphical shine, unless they can get 30FPS on the VR at double render. Alternatively they run with 60FPS at double render and with big reduction in graphical quality. The VR can use motion processing (like TVs do) to generate the 120Hz refresh and smooth possible judder.

I do expect CAR models could look rather amazing with high textures and lighting on PS4.
Would not be surprised if they also offer more than gaming features with the hardware.
Perhaps a "limited car" experience like "Forza Vista" but using REAL CARS in VR or on-board VR experiences of various FIA motorsports.

Samsung GEAR VR has done quite a bit in the VR Video possibilities the technology can do, including with Lamborghini in the past.
 
Last edited:
PlayStation currently has 57 planned titles for VR support as of PGW. PS Move only had 37 total. It's safe to assume they're going all in on VR. It's just a matter of the public latching on to it.

 
Buying PSV day one, it will be an experience that's for sure. And with GTsport vr support, its a no brainier really. Tsukuba in vr, the Ring maybe or my god Pikes peak. The potential is hard to even fathom.

I also hope i can use it as a regular viewer and watch movies and play non vr games on it, really would make it worth it them.
 
I voted the first one but I'll wait and see which of the headsets I'll buy, since they'll all be huge money investments and I play on PC as well.
 
Not really GT related specifically, but may give some idea of the costs of VR hardware in general. Oculus Rift went on pre-order today and here is the pricing for what it's worth:

United States: $599 USD(not incl. shipping / tax)
United Kingdom: £529 GBP (incl. shipping / tax)
Canada: ~$914 CAD (incl. shipping / tax)
Europe: ~€750 EUR(incl. shipping / tax)
Australia: ~$1100 AUD (incl. shipping / tax)

Note: I scooped this info from the Assetto Corsa official forum, not from Oculus.
 
Woah. 750 euros for the Oculus Rift? I will then politely say no thank you. If it was around 200, sure. There goes my PC sim plans.. :P And if the PSVR price tag comes anything near that, I'm going to bury my head in the sand like an ostrich. Meh. I really wanted to buy it if GT Sport / 7 supports it.

MKVSupra
Buying PSV day one, it will be an experience that's for sure. And with GTsport vr support, its a no brainier really. Tsukuba in vr, the Ring maybe or my god Pikes peak. The potential is hard to even fathom.

I also hope i can use it as a regular viewer and watch movies and play non vr games on it, really would make it worth it them.
Click to expand...
Kinda like how they said in the beginning of Project Morpheus, right? When someone is watching TV and you still want to play and you share the TV with them, you just put on the VR headset and play while they watch TV. Or do I remember it all wrong? I do remember something about multitasking on the same TV..
 
Johnnypenso
Not really GT related specifically, but may give some idea of the costs of VR hardware in general. Oculus Rift went on pre-order today and here is the pricing for what it's worth:

United States: $599 USD(not incl. shipping / tax)
United Kingdom: £529 GBP (incl. shipping / tax)
Canada: ~$914 CAD (incl. shipping / tax)
Europe: ~€750 EUR(incl. shipping / tax)
Australia: ~$1100 AUD (incl. shipping / tax)

Note: I scooped this info from the Assetto Corsa official forum, not from Oculus.
Click to expand...

Considering the amount of tech that goes into making believable VR headsets that's a bargain. Just wish they didn't force you to buy it with an xbox controller and two games.
 
If Sony VR is near that it will still be worth it. Consider the cost of two more PS4's and two more screens for a three screen driving experience and then the price looks like a good deal.
 
Tired Tyres
If Sony VR is near that it will still be worth it. Consider the cost of two more PS4's and two more screens for a three screen driving experience and then the price looks like a good deal.
Click to expand...

It's not so much that it's not a good deal. It's that it's flat out not in the realm of possibility for a lot of people. That's a lot of money, especially when on top of a console, a game and a wheel. I suspect that's just too much money to be putting into a hobby for a lot of gamers.

Not that it should be cheaper, it costs what it costs. It's a fancy piece of tech. But it doesn't make it any more affordable. I'll be surprised if this gets much more headway than 3D did in GT5.
 

Similar threads

sheruken
  • Poll
GT7 + PSVR2 successful! But no other Racing Games on PSVR2 announced?
2
Replies
31
Views
13K
Meythia
Meythia
A
Gran Turismo Sport acquits itself well in VR - Eurogamer
Replies
1
Views
636
PzR Slim
PzR Slim
F
Gran turismo Virtual reality is epic
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
first place
F
R
Valve Index or Rift S (and motion sickness)
Replies
4
Views
3K
Mad1723
Mad1723
syntex123
Gran Turismo 4: Project Reality
Replies
5
Views
1K
syntex123
syntex123

Latest Posts

Back