To be fair, this thing does bring one advantage, one real advantage to the ball

To be fair, this thing does bring one advantage, one real advantage to the ball.
When the frame rate drops, you feel motion sickness.
So developers making games for this WILL have to run the game at 60 fps, or feel physically ill for their failure at doing so.

You know that wouldn't deter devs from going for the muh graphix crowd. Fortunately you don't need to rely on the common sense of devs as Sony will deny certification if the framerate ever dips below 60fps. That means a VR mode will be a seal of quality even for those not interested in VR. If it has a VR mode, it has decent framerate. What strange times we live in.

Isn't Final Fantasy XV 30fps?

I don't know. But it doesn't have a VR mode, it has a seperate "experience". Big warning sign.

It's not a question of common sense, its a question of having to have a bucket close if the game frequently dips under 60.
The developers will be literally tortured by the vr glases to keep the frame rate up.

...

That is actually most likely why the mode is there.
60 fps only during the "experience mode", that will obviously be just some mini game bullshit you unlock after watching chocobos fuck for 100 times in a row or something.

That's a good point.

I'm quite sure the corporate higher ups breathing down their necks if their multimillion dollaridoo investment is in danger of being unreleasable is a better detergent.

In those cases i think they would pull the "emergency graphical downgrade" lever.

That only helps if the limiting factor is the GPU, not if it's the CPU. But yes, that's a lever that will see regular use. That's a lever we used to celebrate, way back when we called it optimization.

I'm not talking about the "carefully trimming and rewriting routines to get the most out of the engine while keeping the frame rate stable" lever, i'm talking about the "remove half of the shit" lever.

Studios and publishers are so shit, that motion sickness wouldn't even be the worst "known shippable" they've pulled.

Lazy devs and retarded executives will kill VR before it even starts to walk.
It's no wonder that any gimmick that wasn't a shortcut to ripoff customers has never stuck in years.

If kinect is any indication, they will stick with some awful third party library that promise (but fail) in delivering a way to make regular games work with it with no much effort and this will give VR a bad fame.

But i still like the idea of developers feeling physically ill for not using 60 fps.

Or maybe they'll make more David Cage bullshit that's all 60 fps cutscenes.

With ballooning budgets and almost everything being on almost every device, the first lever you mentioned has been almost dead since gen7. You can be happy enough once almost all platform specific bugs are sorted out, performance tuning then is settings tuning. You don't have to like it but that's the way it is.

Modern graphic whore AAA games are rarely limited by CPU anymore. Even most modern RTS's have such simple AI that GPU gets exerted more by your CPU.

CPU limiting only really happens in heavy simulation games like Cities:Skylines or the horrendously optimized sims 3, and of that set only the super-autist games like dwarf fortress can max a high-end CPU

Cutscenes ironically can make you nauseous as well.
VR have one simple rule for not turning it into the vomit fun ride:
The head tracking must ALWAYS work as fast as possible.

You have gyros on your ears, and the brain know what direction is down by it, but it compares with what you see constantly, and if they don't match? motion sickness, dizzyness, headaches…

Lag, low frame rate, using a shitty camera, fixing the camera, all can make you sick.

You need 90+ fps to make VR smooth though.

I'm aware of that, but 60 with a really, really fast response rate sony is getting from well designing the thing to run with the PS4 its probably "good enough for australia", even if not ideal.

There's buyer's remorse by the wheelbarrow on the PC side of VR, are console kids actually excited to make what is now an obvious mistake?

PSVR creates intermediate frames based on head rotational data, so a native 60fps game ends up sending 120fps to the headset.

Is the buyer's remorse due to lack of games?
Because that could be resolved potentially.
I'd like to at least rent some hardware (if I could) to play that Serious Sam VR game.

I actually think consoles are a decent platform for VR. Unlike PCs, where you get a higher hardware ceiling but without any guarantee of uniformity, consoles can provide the kind of stability and reliable testing that you want for a VR game, to make sure nobody gets motion-sick. This depends on developers, testers, and publishers actually doing their jobs, though, so it's kind of a crapshoot.

You've flipped it upside down, user. You need 90, not 60.

It's a mix. They realize existing games aren't fun to play with it which means it will take an undiscovered genre to get VR to really work, which puts us back in the same territory we were in with kinect. Dance games did eventually make kinect not a total loss but not enough so to save it. I didn't see any undiscovered genres on display at E3 for VR.

They're not undiscovered, there's just not a high enough supply of cockpit perspective games. Time for a new version of pic related.

60fps with vr is the 30fps of normal games
The absolute bare minimum to be somewhat playable

What said
Flight/space sims, racing, vehicle combat, mech games, etc. are perfect fits for VR. Anything where you're in a cockpit, driver's seat, or other stationary position, basically. They also have the benefit of frequently coming with customized controllers, so you feel more immersed.

...

Just in the unlikely case this isn't shitposting:
Sit farther away from the display or use a smaller one. Filling your FOV with conventional displays has a similar though weaker effect as using a VR HMD. Lowering the FOV filled by the game lowers the discomfort from low framerate.