Playstation VR Priced at 44980 yen / $400~

[Remilia]

Japanese sources
http://www.famitsu.com/news/201603/16101460.html
http://www.4gamer.net/games/251/G025118/20160316002/

A lot cheaper than the $600/800 price of the Oculus/Vive. O.o
Kind of want it to try No Man's Sky at that price but not really needed

[Jtbrig7390]

I think they fucked up at $400 personally.

Ill wait for it to be $300 or less now. To get both the system and the VR headset will run you $750+tax. While not as expensive as the other VR setups it is still ALOT of money. $400 for what could be a forgotten gimmick is abit much. Look at the Vita still rocking its $200 pricetag.

Here is the offical Hardware Spec's.

[Deleted]

I think they fucked up at $400 personally. Ill wait for it to be $300 or less now. To get both the system and the VR headset will run you $750+tax.

Their main audience are people who already own the console. And the price is fine compared to the other headsets.

[Tech614]

I think they fucked up at $400 personally.

Any cheaper then $400 and it would be complete trash that gives you nothing but headaches anyways.

As it is, it still feels far to budgety to make VR even half way decent. Hell this is coming from a person who has tried the latest build of OR as of Jan and thinks that is garbage as well and it's assuredly has to be better then this.

I'm just hoping for this to bomb quick to get Sony's funding away from it as I think it's a complete waste to the gaming industry and playstation owners as a whole. I think it will bomb worse then the Vita, my only worry is how long Sony tried to hang on supporting it. While I'm fine with the enthusiast market of OR/Vive for early adopters, Sony wasting PS4 money on a budget solution to things that are already not there is quite sad.

[Deleted]

Their main audience are people who already own the console. And the price is fine compared to the other headsets.

Requires the move camera apparently, it is much lower specced versus the other headsets here, much lower resolution so its priced a bit closer to its specs though I am assuming this is also subsidised.

Also they aren't being specific with the latency here, is that 18ms one way or overall?

This thing comes with an external processing unit, I'm just wondering if this just is just closer to a simple head mounted display then towards a 'VR' experience that the other solutions are closer on paper then this.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, is any one wondering how exactly the transformation from 30 FPS games to 90 FPS will work here, unless they upsample the refresh rate only on the screen it self like some TVs currently do as that must make the experience of the game rather unusual, I wouldn't want to play games where the display is using a different refresh rate then what the game is outputting actually.

[Karuck]

It's actually $400 + the camera that is required. So around $460 if you don't own one already.

[Tech614]

Also, is any one wondering how exactly the transformation from 30 FPS games to 90 FPS will work here, unless they upsample the refresh rate only on the screen it self like some TVs currently do as that must make the experience of the game rather unusual, I wouldn't want to play games where the display is using a different refresh rate then what the game is outputting actually.

PSVR games are not running at 30 fps. These are not graphically demanding games and Sony has a min requirement of 60 but recommends developers do 90 or 120.

[Remilia]

Also they aren't being specific with the latency here, is that 18ms one way or overall?

Overall from what I remember. GCN GPUs don't incur that much issues in latency overall and are very consistent in VR to begin with. Compared to Intel's / Nvidia's.

This thing comes with an external processing unit, I'm just wondering if this just is just closer to a simple head mounted display then towards a 'VR' experience that the other solutions are closer on paper then this.

It's an actual VR. No need to question the hundreds of people that's used it.

[Deleted]

Overall from what I remember. GCN GPUs don't incur that much issues in latency overall and are very consistent in VR to begin with. Compared to Intel's / Nvidia's.
It's an actual VR. No need to question the hundreds of people that's used it.

Then why do the people who are developing OR and VIVE state a requirement on paper that VR requires much high resolution for one?

If you just slap on a screen in front of your face thats still lower then required resolution + maybe FPS here, then how does this meant to differentiate it self from a simple TV?

And yes the GCN does have low latency, but how will that be affected with the extra unit thats involved here, if this was being directly processed just on the APU alone then I wouldn't question it much but it has a second point to process this data.

[Remilia]

Then why do the people who are developing OR and VIVE state a requirement on paper that VR requires much high resolution for one?

If you just slap on a screen in front of your face thats still lower then required resolution + maybe FPS here, then how does this meant to differentiate it self from a simple TV?

Screen resolution is the pixel density, that's it. And remember, when it says 2160x1200 it means 1080x1200, one each eye. Else you'd need something more powerful than a 290/970 to drive the thing.

And yes the GCN does have low latency, but how will that be affected with the extra unit thats involved here, if this was being directly processed just on the APU alone then I wouldn't question it much but it has a second point to process this data.

Don't ask me, all I know is the number given for that.

[Poppincaps]

If VR is going to succeed then it will be Playstation VR that does it. Cheapest setup required as well as being attached to the fastest selling console of all time. I hope it does well. I'm personally not interested until they iron out A LOT of the kinks but I think they were smart to make it at this price point.

[Deleted]

So what I am understanding so far with this device is, games will be low fidelity to start with or made to reduce fidelity when in use with the PSVR as tech614 says the games need to run at those stated FPS, thats a huge urghh in it self.

It comes with much lower specs then the competition but is priced as such to reflect that more, what we need to see is a full on review with people like Digital foundry and Tomshardware + Anandtech to have all the solutions in house and compare the differences here at the same time.

[Remilia]

Would be nice if AT reviewed all devices. They've done impressions of it I believe, so won't surprise me if they did a round up.

[Deleted]

If VR is going to succeed then it will be Playstation VR that does it. Cheapest setup required as well as being attached to the fastest selling console of all time. I hope it does well. I'm personally not interested until they iron out A LOT of the kinks but I think they were smart to make it at this price point.

Eh? the OR and Vive have sold well through pre orders, the Vive in question to quote,

HTC's Shen Ye said in a tweet that 15,000 units were sold in under 10 minutes.

Just because something is expensive, does not mean it won't sell well.

[Remilia]

Eh? the OR and Vive have sold well through pre orders, the Vive in question to quote,

HTC's Shen Ye said in a tweet that 15,000 units were sold in under 10 minutes.

Just because something is expensive, does not mean it won't sell well.

That's actually an issue. For VR in general to do well it needs way more, way way more install base. Doesn't matter what platform but it needs to convince developers / publishers that it is worth investing into. For VR people, they NEED the low mid and high end other wise no one bothers. Doesn't matter what is better or not in early adoption, it needs adoption to begin with so no point in trying to say what's better or not when the ecosystem is nothing.

[Deleted]

That's actually an issue. For VR in general to do well it needs way more, way way more install base. Doesn't matter what platform but it needs to convince developers / publishers that it is worth investing into. For VR people, they NEED the low mid and high end other wise no one bothers. Doesn't matter what is better or not in early adoption, it needs adoption to begin with so no point in trying to say what's better or not when the ecosystem is nothing.

I do agree with that as its just how things work, but 15000 units in less then 10 minutes for a $800 device is nothing to scoff at non the less though obviously that will taper off, however the Vive is targetting a very specific demographic of people that can shell out that kinda of money and above all else, understand that the PC hardware market has expensive parts that go with it.

The PSVR is being targetted to a demographic which most of its users prefer the lower cost associated with consoles, an expensive peripheral that costs more then the console it self is not a strong demographic thats associated with console playerbase.

2 extreme spectrums non the less but be interesting how the sales figures play out here.

[Poppincaps]

Eh? the OR and Vive have sold well through pre orders, the Vive in question to quote,

HTC's Shen Ye said in a tweet that 15,000 units were sold in under 10 minutes.

Just because something is expensive, does not mean it won't sell well.

But will it sell as well when it is more expensive and has a smaller audience to pull from? PSVR has accessibility. I have no doubt that the OR and Vive will do well, but consoles have proven that people will take cheaper and convenient over powerful and expensive.

[Mothhive]

If VR is going to succeed then it will be Playstation VR that does it. Cheapest setup required as well as being attached to the fastest selling console of all time.

Or it could do the opposite and kill it.

I've been hyped for VR since I saw The Lawnmower Man as a kid, and as soon as Oculus Dev Kits were available, I bought one without a second thought. Unfortunately, the experience of low resolution display, latency that was too high, and (at the time) a PC that couldn't output at a high enough FPS, made me extremely motion sick, and I've never experienced motion sickness at any other point in my life. It was so bad that I couldn't bring myself to use it after the first 3 tries, and even thinking back to it now makes me nauseas, so I've remained extremely cautious about VR ever since, so much so that I'm going to a gaming convention next month for the sole purpose of trying out the Vive to see if it can pull off VR without motion sickness.

I know the PSVR is better than the Oculus DK1, but I'm not convinced that the resolution is high enough, the latency is low enough, and that up-scaling 30fps to 90fps is going to cut it. If it's not good enough, and VR becomes synonymous with horrendous motion sickness, it could hold back VR gaming for another decade. I guess time will tell.

[Tech614]

Wow there is a lot of miscommunication going on here with people talking about 30 fps and other non sense. Hell guy above talking about "up scaling 30 fps" as if such a thing even exists.

Let me clear this up for you. A PS4 game is not a PSVR game. Completely different things, albeit a PSVR game requires a PS4 to run. You can watch normal PS4 games on the headset, but that is just a theater mode and is not VR.

The actual VR games for PSVR are not PS4 games that can run outside of it, nor are they up to graphical standards(nor is even high end shit on the OR or Vive yet). These are lower fidelity games meant to run at high frame rates to avoid motion blur sickness.

[Deleted]

But will it sell as well when it is more expensive and has a smaller audience to pull from? PSVR has accessibility. I have no doubt that the OR and Vive will do well, but consoles have proven that people will take cheaper and convenient over powerful and expensive.

To the console demographic, how is a device that is $400 on its own but then requires the move controllers and cameras which add upto another $100 to the price tag actually deemed accessible?

PC gaming is synonymous with high end parts which are expensive but a lot of the time it is reflected in what you get so yes was niche to start with, so honest question here, how is a device of this price tag that is not cheaper, it is not convenient as tech614 has just pointed out that the device requires specific games or current games to be heavily adjusted to have to run it at its full capacity?

People buy consoles cos yes they are cheaper, yes they are more convenient where you just put the game in and thats it, with whats been pointed out with the sony VR, you have to know what games to buy and if they are 'VR' compatible and at an actual price of around $500 to get it running, that isn't cheap.

Expensive stuff can sell well on the PC ecosystem due to the demographic on there, it may sell well on the PS4 but it might not do as well due to its demographic, its a mixed bag.