Playstation VR Priced at 44980 yen / $400~

[Poppincaps]

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.

Move controllers aren't required but you do make a valid point. Really it can go either way, but I feel that consoles will be the future of VR. I think the PC market will latch on early for the reasons that you listed, but once it's proven it will be biggest on consoles like most things.

[Jtbrig7390]

Move controllers aren't required but you do make a valid point. Really it can go either way, but I feel that consoles will be the future of VR. I think the PC market will latch on early for the reasons that you listed, but once it's proven it will be biggest on consoles like most things.

I didn't expect it to be cheap to be clear. But the price of $400 is a massive turnoff for me. My Playstation 4 cost me $400 and it does a hell of alot more then the PSVR will.

On top of that needing to spend another $60 for the cam adds to the negtives. I hope it does well I really do. But spending $400 on it just isn't going to happen for me. I rather spend $400 on more games or hell even a XB1,Wii-U or the NX.

[Deleted]

Can the playstation suck your dick too?

[SoulSoBreezy]

I didn't expect it to be cheap to be clear. But the price of $400 is a massive turnoff for me. My Playstation 4 cost me $400 and it does a hell of alot more then the PSVR will.

On top of that needing to spend another $60 for the cam adds to the negtives. I hope it does well I really do. But spending $400 on it just isn't going to happen for me. I rather spend $400 on more games or hell even a XB1,Wii-U or the NX.

The camera tends to go on sale a lot. Like on amazon, right now. And going a la carte allows retailers to bundle as they see fit (they probably insisted that Sony did this).
Of course the PS4 will do more. It's the base system. the VR is a platform of its own but still essentially an accessory, just like all the other systems.
Then there's the lifetime value of the VR experience; let's pretend it's five years. How likely is it that PCVR will advance, necessitating upgrades to the user's PC? There's a certain value in knowing that the PSVR investment will remain consistent on a console, while PCVR can alienate users who can't afford to keep up with advancements.

[Mothhive]

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.

I don't blame you for not thinking updcaling framerate exists, but that's exactly what the external processor does for PSVR to get framerates of 90-120. The correct term is asynchronous time warp, but it has been described as upsvaling framerate to make what it is clearer.

Anyway, even if some games are going to be lower fidelity, the PS4 still needs help and technical trickery to reach high enough framerates, and I'm not convinced that will make it a smooth enough experience to make it comfortable, especially since Oculus experimented with it in the past and realised the intermediate frames being generated were almost as jarring as skipping frames.

[Tech614]

I don't blame you for not thinking updcaling framerate exists, but that's exactly what the external processor does for PSVR to get framerates of 90-120. The correct term is asynchronous time warp, but it has been described as upsvaling framerate to make what it is clearer.

Anyway, even if some games are going to be lower fidelity, the PS4 still needs help and technical trickery to reach high enough framerates, and I'm not convinced that will make it a smooth enough experience to make it comfortable, especially since Oculus experimented with it in the past and realised the intermediate frames being generated were almost as jarring as skipping frames.

Actually the extra processor is doing just that... processing. There is literally no such thing as "up scaling" frame rate.

You can have a game/video running at a higher refresh rate then the framerate but that's not "up scaling" anything, and these games are all running at 90/120 fps native. There is no intermediate frames happening like you see with shit model 240 hz TVs.

MGSV can run at 60 fps on the PS4 but apparently you think the VR games Sony has shown(which look like PS2 games in comparison) aren't capable of 90 fps LMAO.

I don't blame you for trying to sound like you know what you're talking about... but you don't. Sony is not trying to run Uncharted 4 in VR, they are running bare bones graphical games at high frame rates.

[Mothhive]

Actually the extra processor is doing just that... processing. There is literally no such thing as "up scaling" frame rate.

You can have a game/video running at a higher refresh rate then the framerate but that's not "up scaling" anything, and these games are all running at 90/120 fps native. There is no intermediate frames happening like you see with shit model 240 hz TVs.

MGSV can run at 60 fps on the PS4 but apparently you think the VR games Sony has shown(which look like PS2 games in comparison) aren't capable of 90 fps LMAO.

I don't blame you for trying to sound like you know what you're talking about... but you don't. Sony is not trying to run Uncharted 4 in VR, they are running bare bones graphical games at high frame rates.

Googling is hard. Let me help you.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=psvr+upscale+framerate

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ps+vr+asynchronous+time+warp

If your sticking point is the terminology, call it whatever you want other than upscaling, that's just the term the press has been using, but the result is the same.

As for PSVR games looking like PS2 games, while some may look like that and be easy to run, there are many others that won't be natively run at more than 30fps. Look at games like Adrift, Ark: Survival Evolved, Eve: Valkyrie, etc, all among the games listed for PSVR, and games which the PS4 will never come close to being able to display at an acceptable framerate for VR.

[Jtbrig7390]

The camera tends to go on sale a lot. Like on amazon, right now. And going a la carte allows retailers to bundle as they see fit (they probably insisted that Sony did this).
Of course the PS4 will do more. It's the base system. the VR is a platform of its own but still essentially an accessory, just like all the other systems.
Then there's the lifetime value of the VR experience; let's pretend it's five years. How likely is it that PCVR will advance, necessitating upgrades to the user's PC? There's a certain value in knowing that the PSVR investment will remain consistent on a console, while PCVR can alienate users who can't afford to keep up with advancements.

As I said IMO there is pros and cons. With how Sony treated the Vita, I just don't want to risk $400 on something that will be forgotten in two years. I really want one I really do. But that $400 can go to so much other stuff.

[Rotted]

Except you need the PS4,

Here in the uk, Its going to cost pretty much the same as the console, I'd love to get one, but I'd be looking at 600+ gbp,

The rift on its own is estimated for 350 in the uk. So I'll probably get that instead

[Darkpoison324]

Except you need the PS4,

Here in the uk, Its going to cost pretty much the same as the console, I'd love to get one, but I'd be looking at 600+ gbp,

The rift on its own is estimated for 350 in the uk. So I'll probably get that instead

the rift in the uk is 700 350 is the dev kit

[Remilia]

Yeah... I forgot that OLED comes in Pentile form. Sony's Display is a RGB subpixel tile, where as Vive and Oculus are pentile, which is actually a bad thing in for VR since it's viewed so close. Pentile is a way to 'artificially' increase resolution while using less sub pixel. An RGB subpixel tile is simple, RGB strips to make up one pixel. Pentile however is has 2 large red / blue sub pixel and 4 green sub pixel to make up 4 pixels, so it's using 1/2 a red / blue and 1 green to make 1 'pixel'. And pentile is quite honestly, shit. In all technicality Sony VR has actual more pixels.
It's not strange that Sony has an RGB lay out though since they've already delved into and developed OLED technology before. Where as HTC and Oculus have to go through Samsung or LG for the tech. Samsung being the more prominent in small form factor displays with pretty much all of em being pentile at this point iirc.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10149/...-oculus-rift/2

[Rotted]

the rift in the uk is 700 350 is the dev kit

Well fuck, will be waiting a couple of years then

[Jtbrig7390]

Based on a comment in this Gamespot video about there going to be a Bundle that has everything you need. It seems that the PSVR is being sold at a profit and not a loss.



Sooo IMO they could have sold it abit cheaper and took the loss if that was the case. But whatever if the bundle for everything is cheap enough I may consider getting it.

[Tech614]

Googling is hard. Let me help you.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=psvr+upscale+framerate

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ps+vr+asynchronous+time+warp

If your sticking point is the terminology, call it whatever you want other than upscaling, that's just the term the press has been using, but the result is the same.

As for PSVR games looking like PS2 games, while some may look like that and be easy to run, there are many others that won't be natively run at more than 30fps. Look at games like Adrift, Ark: Survival Evolved, Eve: Valkyrie, etc, all among the games listed for PSVR, and games which the PS4 will never come close to being able to display at an acceptable framerate for VR.

http://www.roadtovr.com/gdc-2016-son...blog-11am-pst/

19:09 by Ben Lang
"Reprojection is now required. You can't drop under 60 FPS ever. If you submit a game to us dropping down to 30 FPS, you'll probably get rejected. There's no excuse for not hitting framerate. We'll help you do this of course."

19:10 by Ben Lang
"Having a high framerate and dropping down is not acceptable. 60Hz minimum required."

Once again acting like you know what you're talking about, there will be no 30 fps PSVR games period, 60 is the minimum or Sony will deny the game.

You again keep making foolish assumptions that games like Ark are going to look like their non VR counterparts on PSVR when they won't.

[Iamanerd]

Anyone know when pre-orders go up for the US? I figured for $400 it's cheap and I'll grab it.

[Poppincaps]

Based on a comment in this Gamespot video about there going to be a Bundle that has everything you need. It seems that the PSVR is being sold at a profit and not a loss.


Sooo IMO they could have sold it abit cheaper and took the loss if that was the case. But whatever if the bundle for everything is cheap enough I may consider getting it.

....You're joking right? You want them to sell PSVR at a loss just because you're too cheap to buy it at what it is currently? That's absolutely ridiculous. Companies don't sell things at a loss unless they have to and especially not Sony since they are just now recovering from major financial troubles and the Playstation division is their most profitable platform.

That is the epitome of entitlement right there.

[Mothhive]

http://www.roadtovr.com/gdc-2016-son...blog-11am-pst/



Once again acting like you know what you're talking about, there will be no 30 fps PSVR games period, 60 is the minimum or Sony will deny the game.

You again keep making foolish assumptions that games like Ark are going to look like their non VR counterparts on PSVR when they won't.

Fair enough, I can admit when I'm wrong. I never even considered that Sony would force devs to have a 60fps minimum at the expense of graphical fidelity, as that's usually a big selling point. Still not convinced the reprojection from 60 to 120 will give a smooth enough experience, especially since Oculus experimented with it but abandoned it because of judder and artifacts, but I guess we'll see in October. If it does work, I wouldn't be surprised to see Oculus or Valve making it an option for people who don't meet the hardware requirements.

So will games that aren't VR only have a normal and VR mode, switching to lower fidelity when VR is engaged? If so, I wonder if they'd allow people to choose between high fidelity or high frame rate when not using VR too.

[Remilia]

Sony would have less issue with it considering they have the tech and knowledge just from TVs and not have to start from scratch, so to speak. Which I imagine is also one reason why they didn't have to resort to pentile crap (as a display nut I dislike pentile).

[Jtbrig7390]

....You're joking right? You want them to sell PSVR at a loss just because you're too cheap to buy it at what it is currently? That's absolutely ridiculous. Companies don't sell things at a loss unless they have to and especially not Sony since they are just now recovering from major financial troubles and the Playstation division is their most profitable platform.

That is the epitome of entitlement right there.

You must be new to the gaming indrusty. Each non-nintendo system has sold at a loss besides the ps4. So yes i think they should sell it cheaper and at a loss so it gets into more hands not just my own. They can make more then enough back off of software sells. I am not getting the vita 2.0 unless its cheaper. Evem more so since I would need to buy the bundle.

If not enough people buy it then its going to be doa.

Personally I would pay $300 for the headset and $350-$400 for the bundle depending on what one I needed.

[Tech614]

You must be new to the gaming indrusty. Each non-nintendo system has sold at a loss besides the ps4. So yes i think they should sell it cheaper and at a loss so it gets into more hands not just my own. They can make more then enough back off of software sells. I am not getting the vita 2.0 unless its cheaper. Evem more so since I would need to buy the bundle.

If not enough people buy it then its going to be doa.

Personally I would pay $300 for the headset and $350-$400 for the bundle depending on what one I needed.

There is a reason the PS4 and Xbox One where sold at cost and not at loss. PS3 and 360 both lost Sony and MS their asses, and took a long ass time to be profitable. That is no longer a sustainable business model.

Let alone the fact you expect that to happen with an experimental trip into new technology that may very well amount to nothing and has no proven market... lulz. Sony should lose money on a product that is not guaranteed to be a success? What weed are you smoking? Sounds like some good shit.