• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Official Playstation 5 thread

Page 87 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
sze5003 said:
Depends, I have the reverb G2 and that was a $600 headset. Resolution is almost 4k though so I'm not sure what the ps VR headset resolution and frame time is set to. I doubt it's anything close to that as even with top of the line components running the G2 can be taxing depending on the game.
Click to expand...

It's 2000x2040 per eye and up to 120 hz, from the spec list I found.
 
There are official specs out there so it's easy to find the information. Scroll down on this page:

blog.playstation.com

PlayStation VR2 launches in February at $549.99

Pre-orders for the PS VR2 headset, games, and PS VR2 Sense Controller charging station are underway starting today.
blog.playstation.com blog.playstation.com

I am getting one at launch 100%. I loved PSVR and the only gripe I had about it was basically the controller wasn't great for some games, the resolution was low, and the graphics. All of that has been addressed and then a lot more as well. So I am all in.

Here is some more information about titles upcoming on it as well.

blog.playstation.com

11 new PS VR2 games announced: The Dark Pictures: Switchback VR, Cities VR – Enhanced Edition, Crossfire: Sierra Squad and more

Developers introduce their new titles, coming to PS VR2 in 2023.
blog.playstation.com blog.playstation.com
 
God of War Ragnarok comes out in 1 week. I'll have to decide whether to just get it for the PS4 or wait until I either get a PS5 or the PC version comes out. Decisions, decisions.
 
jpiniero said:
Ouch, the PSVR2 is $549. I have no interest in VR but that seems steep.
Click to expand...

I think the biggest problem is that the (originally priced) $299 Meta Quest 2 really set a bar for VR pricing. Even with that, I don't think that $549 is bad considering that while you are tethered, the experience should be better than on the aforementioned Quest 2 (apart from dealing with a cable). That's especially considering that the original PSVR had rather lackluster tracking and controls that relied heavily on somewhat outdated technology. That hurt the original a bit as the Move wands were never really designed for VR. It's sort of like how Apple shoehorned their AppleTV remote into being a game "controller".

I'm not sure if I'll consider one. The games line-up at launch doesn't look too enticing simply by name.
 
igor_kavinski said:
Make sure to get the refresh:

www.resetera.com

Angstromomics - PS5 Refresh: Oberon Plus, 6nm shrink exclusive leak Rumor

https://www.angstronomics.com/p/ps5-refresh-oberon-plus 6nm Oberon Plus as leaked Vs 7nm Oberon:
www.resetera.com www.resetera.com
Click to expand...
I don't think there is a way you can guarantee you will get a model number with the new refresh changes unless maybe you can order direct from Sony. Stores would not specifically know what model they are carrying but I honestly don't think it's a big deal.
 
Wtf is this "target" stuff? That means it's not locked but they are hoping it is 60fps? Or is that basically their way of saying locked but in a CYA kind of way?
 
It's time they started offering more graphics customization so if anyone is not satisfied with the available modes, they can create one of their own with whatever compromises they want to get the best mix of performance and quality. It would kinda defeat the purpose of having a console that you can just jump into games with without wasting time but then the developers are no longer doing a good job.

This whole problem started when they introduced the Pro and X consoles.
 
Would be a good time to announce Half Life Alyx for the system if the rumors are true. I absolutely will not buy a VR headset that can't play Half Life Alyx.
 
igor_kavinski said:
It's time they started offering more graphics customization so if anyone is not satisfied with the available modes, they can create one of their own with whatever compromises they want to get the best mix of performance and quality. It would kinda defeat the purpose of having a console that you can just jump into games with without wasting time but then the developers are no longer doing a good job.

This whole problem started when they introduced the Pro and X consoles.
Click to expand...
I wish consoles never started going this route but here we are. I personally hate the way consoles have gone in this regard but I mean I do get it just due to how tech has evolved.

I firmly believe it's why the graphics and stuff are being held back. Devs now have to account for all these different hardware/resolutions/features and make sure everything works perfectly fine in all modes, which will just lead to more dev time/work, which in the end usually means harder to maintain code. I've experienced this myself with developing web/mobile apps and the different resolutions and hardware that can be had and even that is a pain in the ass. I can't imagine an entire game having to be developed this way and the work required to balance everything so it works in all scenarios, especially with how large and complex these games have become. Sure they have tools that help with all of this but still, it's gotta be a pain in the ass.

I liked it more when no matter where or when I played a game, I knew exactly what the performance and graphics would look like. It created a more polished product as well. But that time has long passed. I'm just glad, for now, Nintendo is at least keeping it real in that regard.
 
purbeast0 said:
Wtf is this "target" stuff? That means it's not locked but they are hoping it is 60fps? Or is that basically their way of saying locked but in a CYA kind of way?
Click to expand...

It makes a bit more sense for most of the settings because they include resolution ranges, which makes me think they have been tuned for automated render resolution adjustments that attempt to keep the game at the denoted framerate. Although, there's the one lone outlier with the base PS4 that has no resolution range and denotes a target framerate.

SteveGrabowski said:
That's because you're the product with Facebook. Once they removed the Facebook account requirement the thing shot up $100 immediately.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that there isn't a reason why Facebook/Meta marketed the Quest 2 at a low price, but more that it helped cement an expectation in people. Although, I think the Facebook account requirement removal has nothing to do with the price change as I would be shocked if that affected Meta's ability to track you at all.

For me, I'll need to see how premium the product feels... especially in regard to fitment and visuals.
 
Multi resolution is a solved problem if PC is any indication. Devs even only really have to support 720p, 1080p and 4k (output) on console. Now the actual game itself, yes that could be problematic, but Ragnarok looks like it's just a PS4 game with minor changes on the PS5 version.
 
The reviews so far for God of war Ragnarok are really good so far. Basically everything from the first game was expanded on and improved.

One down side I heard about is the side content and quests often are behind a boss so you can't leave until you beat that boss which kind of sucks to hear that.
 
SteveGrabowski said:
The price went up $100 literally the day the Facebook requirement was dropped.
Click to expand...
Those are unrelated. We already have an idea what Facebook values advertising at, since they had a business version of the Quest 2 with no Facebook requirement for $800 long before any price hike.
 
So I see what people are talking about with the frame drops. But it doesn't seem like it's that problematic.

Oh and I tried stopping the PS5 from installing the PS4 version. It won't take no for an answer though. Even pausing it will continue it trying to install once the PS5 is turned back on. I think I am just going to give in and let it install.
 
igor_kavinski said:
It's time they started offering more graphics customization so if anyone is not satisfied with the available modes, they can create one of their own with whatever compromises they want to get the best mix of performance and quality. It would kinda defeat the purpose of having a console that you can just jump into games with without wasting time but then the developers are no longer doing a good job.

This whole problem started when they introduced the Pro and X consoles.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree here. X360 ruined consoles for me. There were many reason why, but one of them was crap performance and also constant lies about visual quality capabilities. It was okay, when games ran at 720p60, but then some stupid developers decided that it's okay to change the target to 720p30, then some games like GTA 4 only ran at sub 720p res and around 20 fps average and the absolute bottom was almost 480p at around 20 fps. Some games behaved even worse, TDU 1 literally halted for 1-2 seconds when HDD couldn't keep up and that happened mostly when driving fast on highways. It was unpredictable and if you were taking a corner, it was an anyone's guess where you car will end up once console finally unchokes. Even in better cases, 30 fps even if consistent is simply too low for anything I would ever call enjoyable. For me 45 fps is the minimum. And it was game after game ruined by shit fps, zero performance, terrible controls, which were even worse with low fps. So many games were literally not fun at all, meanwhile on PC even if you had no money, you at least could tune them to suit your most important needs. If it was my will, I would do what Sega did with Dreamcast and basically make 60 fps mandatory, but that wouldn't fly today. So performance mode is the next best thing and it's far better than being stuck with crappy performance. Considering all that, those cheap "lite" versions of full consoles were just silly as they have to drastically reduce visual quality to pre 2010 levels to pump out all those frames and I heard that some games don't even have performance mode option. So those weak models can't truly handle games adequately well, which makes them pointless. I understand that they are meant for budget buyers, but 720p30 is beyond low. Another pointless thing is that consoles were advertising 4k gaming. Well they can handle some games at that resolution, but it's pushing them too far and the longer console lives the bigger sacrifices will have to be made for 4k. Sony and MS have serious problem with setting adequate goals for what they can realistically make, so current performance mode is just merely a solution to stupid developers and stupidly high expectations that can't be met and nothing more. It's not like performance mode is really silly and tries to achieve 144 fps or even 240 fps. Full console versions are also a necessity to achieve reasonable quality and performance goals, "lite" versions are nothing more than profiting from those who have no idea what fps or resolution even is.
 
The red spirit said:
X360 ruined consoles for me.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I have that console but bought it near the end of its lifecycle for exactly one game that wasn't available anywhere else: Alan Wake. I completed maybe half of it but got sidetracked. One thing I remember is that it was much louder than PS3. It was also touted as being able to do "free" anti-aliasing. Not sure how true that was.
 
igor_kavinski said:
Interesting. I have that console but bought it near the end of its lifecycle for exactly one game that wasn't available anywhere else: Alan Wake. I completed maybe half of it but got sidetracked. One thing I remember is that it was much louder than PS3. It was also touted as being able to do "free" anti-aliasing. Not sure how true that was.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure Alan Wake was on PC too. Looking back, the only reason to get X360 was if you wanted to play exclusives, which I did a lot. Forza games were great and Kinect was kinda cool too. But as cheap gaming system it barely made sense, since if you spent 20% more, you could build a cheap Anthlon X4 PC with at least HD 7770, basically a hardware capabale of 2 times if not more than X360 itself and if you wanted something even cheaper, then used HW was where it's at. And PCs even then had cheaper games, no need to insert a disc ever, more games too. I never heard anything about supposed "free anti-aliasing". I think it was possible in VooDoo era on fixed function HW dedicated to AA only, but X360 used Terascale 0.5 chip (basically reheated 1800 XT with Terascale features + some custom parts like dedicated eDRAM chip), which had nothing like that.
 
That is the first time I've ever heard someone say Xbox 360 ruined console gaming.

Xbox 360 is probably the last "great" console there was. Since then it's kind of been downhill IMO.

They also pioneered the way for a lot of the online "normals" we have now a days like digital store fronts, indie game access, online gaming and matchmaking, as well as other things like wireless controllers being standard, dashboards, storage, and then some.

The Xbox 360 was peak gaming time for me personally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top