You can count 60fps PS3 games on the one of your hands. Killzone - 30fps (in singleplayer), BF3 - 30fps, and those are shooter games. PS3 have NVIDIA 7800 with half the ROPS. Initially they made graphics with second CELL processor, but due to high manufacturing cost switched to half baked NVIDIA GPU.
"Torkemada" wrote: You can count 60fps PS3 games on the one of your hands. Killzone - 30fps (in singleplayer), BF3 - 30fps, and those are shooter games. PS3 have NVIDIA 7800 with half the ROPS. Initially they made graphics with second CELL processor, but due to high manufacturing cost switched to half baked NVIDIA GPU.
And the ps4 has much more power than th ps3 with many 1080p 60hz titles so whats your point. The PS4 has about 10 times the GPU power as the PS3 so the PS4 should be able to do PS3 level games that where 720p30hz in 1080p VR 90hz.
"Gizmotweak" wrote: That shark is just not scaring me...maybe when i view this demo with a rift it will be more impressive.
You would not get the same immersive experience with the Rift without 360º headmovement and in a seated experience with a mouse and keyboard.
All of you other guys in this thread, lets keep it real guys, i have been into gaming for 30+ years and i have been through most of the AAA games on pc's and consoles and i know this is a though one to swollow for the pc elites with high end computers BUT gameplay, story and one thing i forgot to mention in my earlyer post, voice acting are the most important factors in gaming today + i would like to add motioncapture, motioncontrollers as other more important factors for VR.
Graphics and fps are more than good enough on all new platforms these days exept Nintendo maybe? The Rift on a pc will offcourse have better graphics and fps i have never denied that but for me at least when comparing the prize and performance between a high end $ 1400 pc + $450 stem system and a ps4 im going for the way cheaper option with not to far away when it comes to performance and also a safe bet when it comes to the gamemaking business. With developers like NaughtyDog and Konami making games for Sony i just can not miss out on The Morpheus.
I will get a rift in the future though, it looks great no denying in that and no hard feelings here btw:) i can see some of you overreact a little bit and i can see some narrowminded people in here as well, im just glad to see VR finally take off after being a VR enthusiast since i first tested it out in a shopingmall back in the 90's.
"Torkemada" wrote: You can count 60fps PS3 games on the one of your hands. Killzone - 30fps (in singleplayer), BF3 - 30fps, and those are shooter games. PS3 have NVIDIA 7800 with half the ROPS. Initially they made graphics with second CELL processor, but due to high manufacturing cost switched to half baked NVIDIA GPU.
And the ps4 has much more power than th ps3 with many 1080p 60hz titles so whats your point. The PS4 has about 10 times the GPU power as the PS3 so the PS4 should be able to do PS3 level games that where 720p30hz in 1080p VR 90hz.
Yeah PS3 level games may be, but again PS4 is two year old mid range PC. For the moment most of the games are 30fps locked. Infamous (PS4 exclusive) dips below 30. Check this DigitalFoundry PS4 Frame-Rate Tests. This test in particular FX-6300/GTX 760 vs. PS4/Xbox One Multi-Game Frame-Rate shows how fast consoles are outdated. Morpheus will never be on the level of Oculus Rift due to console limitaions.
"...voice acting are the most important factors in gaming today"
ugh :cry:
This is VR not traditional gaming.
You are thinking of 'gaming' wrong in relation to VR, it's more an experience with the possibility to add game like elements on that will make VR great, not the old (and increasingly tired) way of thinking of games as linear story led/character driven/wannabe novels.
And no, for VR specs count more than any icing. Sorry. Without specs, without power your VR falls apart and it's just a jerky stereo vision game with a bit of head interaction making you feel sick.
For 'normal' gaming, yeah Playstation rocks and has some of the best games on the planet regardless of graphics, I know because I've spent as many hours on the consoles (outside of online multiplayer shooters which I always prefer on PC) as I have on the PC gaming. Just because someone says you *NEED* 90fps, a fast system and better than 1080p doesn't make them "PC elitists" it makes them VR Realists. If PS4 could do it then fine, it can't, so it's VR will be limited and eventually held back by what it can do graphically to meet it's required performance in VR.
No such rules on PC when Pascal etc arrive in 2016 (and then each year and a half after that). 5 years from now PS4 won't be cutting it for VR vs what PCs are doing - and VR will NOT be about who has the slickest story, voice actors, mo-cap and budgets it will be about how it makes the player feel, moreso than ever, not about showcasing linear BS that passes as games these days. Stories are great but in many ways they hold the core interaction of gaming back, too many are using story as the lead focus on a game these days and it's a vast under-utilisation of even traditional gaming let alone what's possible in VR.
EX DK2/VIVE/PSVR/CV1/Q2/PSVR2 | Currently Quest Pro (PCVR) | VR developer RTX 3080 FE / 12900k / Windows 11 Pro
"Torkemada" wrote: PS4 is two year old mid range PC.
From the article linked in the video : "Right now, nothing is going to beat the power offered by PlayStation 4 at £350, so we've increased the budget".
If a $600 PC from today can't beat the PS4 which costs $400, a two years old mid range PC certainly won't. The PC they compared the PS4 to costs $850, that's more than twice the price.
