HTC Vive Will Cost $799, Ships Early April

DPI said:
I wouldn't be surprised if GameStop has demo setups. In any case it doesnt need "the masses" to take off. Guaranteed they'll remain sold out for a while.
Click to expand...


I agree that it will sell out initially. I guess when I said take-off, I really meant become widely adopted. How many units does Valve need to move for this experiment to become successful? Even if they are making a profit on these, I'm sure it's slim, and they probably have a lot of R&D costs to recoup. If they treat this anything like the consoles, they want to sell software to get back the money invested in hardware. If that is their intention, the more hardware out there, the more customers to sell software to, and the more lucrative it becomes for developers to support VR. That means sustained sales, not just an early sellout. I'm not saying they can't do that at $800, but it's an uphill battle, especially if people cannot try the thing first.

I think the tricky part with setting up demo setups with this VR stuff is that it would probably have to be supervised. It's not like having an Xbox kiosk where the console is locked up and all you get to touch is a hard-mounted controller. The entire unit needs to be out and accessible, and able to freely move. How do you secure an $800 piece of hardware well enough that it won't walk without impeding someones ability to move their head a full 360 degrees, and also use a motion controller in each hand? I don't see a way, other than having a person dedicated to setting it up and watching the entire time it's in use. And to do that on a large scale presents a problem.
 
As Deadpool said during a scene, which an activity takes place much like HTC's pricing:

"Nope, nooope, nope!"
 
Count me in!

It's funny how people think this is a HD-DVD vs BluRay type discussion. We are able to choose from multiple monitors to view content being generated by our PC. Why shouldn't we have different options to view VR content? We are fortunate to have choices in this very fledgling market.

The only protectionist practice going on right now are the Oculus "Exclusive" games because they are being offered trough the Oculus storefront. They aren't exclusive for hardware reasons. I wouldn't be surprised to see cracked versions at some point show up for use on a Vive. And because the market share will be relatively small, you will see Devs build for both devices and tell Oculus to shut their pie hole on exclusivity unless Oculus gives them a massive incentive.

One reason for the higher prices, unlike Msoft v Sony v Nintendo, first party game development and accessories are not going to subsidize the hardware. Valve is involved in the development of the Vive via SteamVR, but HTC is producing the Vive. Last I checked, HTC does not have a development studio. Everyone wants to compare this to consoles, but it's just not. We are in uncharted territory with a lot of $$ on the line.

And lets not be so narcissistic so as to think that VR and HMDs will be exclusively for games. There are a number of industry applications where VR has very practical applications. So even if VR fails as a gaming device, it should stand to succeed as a marketable product to a number of industries.
 
You are all insane.

I'm going to wait it out, until VR is tossed aside, AGAIN, as a gimmick like 3D.

Even with major price-cutting or subsidizing, VR will never take off and get the support it needs to be 'mainstream'. What a joke.
 
mavrocket said:
You are all insane.

I'm going to wait it out, until VR is tossed aside, AGAIN, as a gimmick like 3D.

Even with major price-cutting or subsidizing, VR will never take off and get the support it needs to be 'mainstream'. What a joke.
Click to expand...
Won't happen. The experience simply adds too much compared to traditional gaming for it to be completely abandoned. At worst, VR will become a niche market, but likely more popular than things like steering wheels or multi-monitor setups. Whether it will ever be adopted by the mainstream (it won't at the current prices) is unknown, but it's no more a gimmick than 3D accelerators are.
 
tetris42 said:
but likely more popular than things like steering wheels or multi-monitor setups.
Click to expand...

Cost of a steering wheel/Mult-Monitor setup: $50-$300
Cost of VR: $1000+ depending on the hardware you currently have.

This stays a niche for awhile until the price comes way down.
 
Viper87227 said:
Way to much to be an early adopter. Not with the potential risks of motion sickness and whatnot. I'm not saying it's an unreasonable price for what is included, but it makes for a steep gamble. Someone needs to find a way to let the masses demo these things. I can't imagine demo kiosks in Wal-Mart to be a viable option... but something has to be figured out if anyone wants hardware this expensive to take off.
Click to expand...

I believe Oculus has some sort of agreement with Best Buy for store demos. No it's not gonna be a game console kiosk like Sony/Microsoft have, there will have to be someone there to guide and introduce people to the tech. Not like that's gonna be a difficult role that some part-time teen can't handle.


simland said:
The only protectionist practice going on right now are the Oculus "Exclusive" games because they are being offered trough the Oculus storefront. They aren't exclusive for hardware reasons. I wouldn't be surprised to see cracked versions at some point show up for use on a Vive. And because the market share will be relatively small, you will see Devs build for both devices and tell Oculus to shut their pie hole on exclusivity unless Oculus gives them a massive incentive.
Click to expand...

I actually wouldn't call what Oculus is doing as any kind of protectionist practice. They're developing an ecosystem and making it readily available to the consumer, who wants to buy the hardware and then have to hunt for content? Those of us at [H] may not mind, but it's a potential barrier. Also, the Rift isn't limited only to content that's in the store, Oculus just cannot guarantee a solid experience on software not running in their store. The last thing we need is someone's first experience causing them to vomit everywhere.
 
mavrocket said:
You are all insane.

I'm going to wait it out, until VR is tossed aside, AGAIN, as a gimmick like 3D.

Even with major price-cutting or subsidizing, VR will never take off and get the support it needs to be 'mainstream'. What a joke.
Click to expand...
Why do you believe we are insane?
Why do you think VR will be tossed aside again as a gimmick?
Why do you believe it won't make it to mainstream this time?
 
USMCGrunt said:
Why do you believe we are insane?
Click to expand...

For spending so much money on something that cuts you off from the real world, but more for buying into the hype.

USMCGrunt said:
Why do you think VR will be tossed aside again as a gimmick?
Why do you believe it won't make it to mainstream this time?
Click to expand...

1. Consumer Cost
2. Social Isolation
3. Development Cost (in man-hours). If something isn't created expressly for VR, it is a 'side-project', which can (and will) be cut or not fully supported
4. 1, 2 and 3 will prove it's not worth spending the time, money and effort on, and once it's novelty is worn off, it will be abandoned.
 
I am actually rather surprised that folks around here expect cutting edge tech to be cheap. Mind you, I am not interested in VR myself but, I did buy a 980 Ti to game better at 4k. (This is after saying I would never spend $650 on a single card but, it is 2 x faster than the 290x I had.) I am sure there will be plenty of folks that buy this tech now instead of waiting. If they do not, you will not have anything to buy later since there would be no money to invest in it.
 
mavrocket said:
For spending so much money on something that cuts you off from the real world, but more for buying into the hype.


1. Consumer Cost
2. Social Isolation
3. Development Cost (in man-hours). If something isn't created expressly for VR, it is a 'side-project', which can (and will) be cut or not fully supported
4. 1, 2 and 3 will prove it's not worth spending the time, money and effort on, and once it's novelty is worn off, it will be abandoned.
Click to expand...

I think the Social Isolation is definitely an issue...being locked into your game with a giant headset will not be something that most mainstream people will want to do in this age of multi-tasking...3D failed in large part due to the glasses, so now they think VR will succeed with an even bigger device planted over your entire face?...the motion sickness and other potential health issues also can't be overlooked...of course there will always be hard core fans but in the long run I see this having even less of a shelf life then 3D (which lasted 6 years or so)
 
USMCGrunt said:
I actually wouldn't call what Oculus is doing as any kind of protectionist practice. They're developing an ecosystem and making it readily available to the consumer, who wants to buy the hardware and then have to hunt for content? Those of us at [H] may not mind, but it's a potential barrier. Also, the Rift isn't limited only to content that's in the store, Oculus just cannot guarantee a solid experience on software not running in their store. The last thing we need is someone's first experience causing them to vomit everywhere.
Click to expand...

Totally. I was trying to point out that from the industry side, the only thing limiting running games on one device versus another (aside from the room scale + Vive controllers) is ecosystem practices. It is really healthy for VR to have at least 2 hardware creators. They will want to 1 up each other, but at the same time keep similar inputs/outputs to attract developers. So exciting.
 
mavrocket said:
For spending so much money on something that cuts you off from the real world, but more for buying into the hype.



1. Consumer Cost
2. Social Isolation
3. Development Cost (in man-hours). If something isn't created expressly for VR, it is a 'side-project', which can (and will) be cut or not fully supported
4. 1, 2 and 3 will prove it's not worth spending the time, money and effort on, and once it's novelty is worn off, it will be abandoned.
Click to expand...

I think the social isolation aspect is a hard read. I get what you're saying and agree it could be a limitation for those that game physically together in groups but, there are games like Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes that caters to the party games aspect. Also, if you look on YouTube, there's lots of hilarious videos of people not in the Rift enjoying how people act inside the Rift. Maybe that's got limited novelty value, maybe not. Additionally, for people that don't have real life friends to game with, VR could allow you to connect with others that you commonly game with. For example, instead of sitting at a matchmaking screen waiting for a pairing up, you could have a "lobby" that your character walks around in and you can converse with anyone there to meet other players while you wait for the matchmaking.

Oculus has its own game studio and has been aggressively working for AAA devs to support VR and obviously put out the devkits to create easy access for content creators of all sizes.


simland said:
Totally. I was trying to point out that from the industry side, the only thing limiting running games on one device versus another (aside from the room scale + Vive controllers) is ecosystem practices. It is really healthy for VR to have at least 2 hardware creators. They will want to 1 up each other, but at the same time keep similar inputs/outputs to attract developers. So exciting.
Click to expand...

I think I misread your comment or something, lol. Regardless I agree and we have existing industry comparisons with Nvidia/AMD in the GPU market or AMD/Intel in the CPU market. Granted these are really mature and stable markets now, things were a lot more crazy only ten years ago with 6 month product cycles.
 
Guys, you know sony is coming out with a HMD for the ps4 right? Thats going to be the mass market version made for the mainstream. The ones for PC are for early adopters, look at any new PC tech that comes out. First its expensive then they release the cheaper stuff in about 6 months to a year.

Also OSVR (from razer) is about $300 and its upgradeable so that will be for the people wanting a cheaper HMD. People who say its a fad, haven't played anything in VR yet. Its truly amazing and uncomparable to 3d movies/nvidia 3d glasses. Now that we have powerful PC's, its going to take off in the next few years. I know that I will have to buy a whole new headset in that time when they figure out more but I DONT CARE, this is going to change the landscape of gaming in the next 5 years.

Remember the first computers? There weren't 300+ games on it from the beginning, and they were charging crazy prices

page-7-386-prices-768788.jpg
 
Kueller said:
I don't know what you're driving, but all of my cars have been pretty modular and upgradeable. Those components Exavior listed do all come off, how much more modularity do you want?
Click to expand...

The point was you generally have to buy a new car with all of those things - like the VIVE's included peripherals. If you were going to put new seats or wheels or whatever in your new car immediately after buying it anyhow, wouldn't you prefer if you could buy the car a little cheaper without those things?
 
mavrocket said:
3. Development Cost (in man-hours). If something isn't created expressly for VR, it is a 'side-project', which can (and will) be cut or not fully supported
Click to expand...
Here's what you may not get: While a game developed specifically for VR will of course be better, just being able to use VR with an existing but semi-compatible game is still an amazing experience. That's because it's like actually being inside the game world. VR is the closest thing we're going to have to a holodeck. The experience is THAT much more impressive. I'm not saying it doesn't have obstacles to mainstream adoption, but it's not like a game has to be designed for VR from the ground-up or it's no good at all. There are tons of existing games that are still good candidates for the VR experience.


polonyc2 said:
I think the Social Isolation is definitely an issue...being locked into your game with a giant headset will not be something that most mainstream people will want to do in this age of multi-tasking...3D failed in large part due to the glasses, so now they think VR will succeed with an even bigger device planted over your entire face?...the motion sickness and other potential health issues also can't be overlooked...of course there will always be hard core fans but in the long run I see this having even less of a shelf life then 3D (which lasted 6 years or so)
Click to expand...
3D failed because they were taking this tame one size fits everyone approach and didn't try to push it enough to make it an immersive experience. Instead, 3D movies are just annoying. While motion sickness and social isolation is a legitimate obstacle to mainstream adoption (VR simply won't be for everyone), if you think it's going to have a shorter life than 3D movies, that's simply naive (or someone who doesn't understand how different an experience this is).
 
I've seen demo setups out there but no way in hell I'm strapping that thing to my face after a horde of fat sweaty kids and that one guy that doesn't bath has tried it out... BestBuy and Gamestop both with no cleaning options after use. Gross!
 
PC VR is a very, very different experience than that of 3D television. It's going to start slow this year, with perhaps a couple million or so early adopters by year's end. As the tech matures both in the HMD'S, tracking and graphics hardware advances, it's going to skyrocket in 2017. By 2020, I expect it will start supplanting normal monitors as the perferred high end display solution for computing. By 2030, perhaps we'll make the next jump to jacking in with direct neural interfacing pheripherals... I'll take the red pill please!
 
Supercharged_Z06 said:
PC VR is a very, very different experience than that of 3D television. It's going to start slow this year, with perhaps a couple million or so early adopters by year's end. As the tech matures both in the HMD'S, tracking and graphics hardware advances, it's going to skyrocket in 2017. By 2020, I expect it will start supplanting normal monitors as the perferred high end display solution for computing. By 2030, perhaps we'll make the next jump to jacking in with direct neural interfacing pheripherals... I'll take the red pill please!
Click to expand...
Well I agree with the first part of what you said, but it is a valid complaint that not everyone wants the device strapped to their head, motion sickness concerns, plus it's alienating to people around you. I mean look at 3D graphics, there are plenty of computer users still have no use for those. You don't need a Geforce 980 to check your stocks, write email, listen to music, or do research. VR has a lot to offer, but it's not for everyone. And yeah, I don't think we'll be seeing neurological interfaces in 2030 either.
 
Neural interfaces are a long long way off, I think the intermediary will be contact lenses with displays built-in for VR/AR. Most of the technology is already here, with the notable exception of wireless power. I give it 2050 for contact displays.
 
tetris42 said:
3D failed because they were taking this tame one size fits everyone approach and didn't try to push it enough to make it an immersive experience. Instead, 3D movies are just annoying. While motion sickness and social isolation is a legitimate obstacle to mainstream adoption (VR simply won't be for everyone), if you think it's going to have a shorter life than 3D movies, that's simply naive (or someone who doesn't understand how different an experience this is).
Click to expand...

you're letting your own personal opinion about 3D cloud your judgment...just because you find it annoying doesn't mean everyone does...a lot of people were big on 3D when it first came out, including big time directors such as James Cameron, Martin Scorsese etc...and it had the backing of big time display manufacturers such as Panasonic, Samsung etc...3D and VR are very similar you're just not seeing it because you don't want to...a lot of the same things VR is touted as being today 3D was also touted as being...and yes I think VR will fail within 6 years...everything is great when it's first announced and it's all shiny and new...VR has more noticeable flaws then 3D although it does have more upside...who's going to back VR in the same way 3D was?...Hollywood?...are there going to be VR movies in my local theater?...are TV's going to come with VR headsets?...it won't succeed based on a bunch of hard core fanboys...is gaming going to push VR?...we'll see but I doubt it...SLI, 3D Vision gaming, multi-monitor setups etc all are still a very niche segment and they will be the people that jump on VR...the best hope honestly lies with the PlayStation VR implementation and even then it's going to be an uphill climb

and you're wrong about 3D adopting a one size fits all implementation...there was active and passive 3D...and when implemented correctly was very immersive...there's a reason Avatar was the highest grossing movie of all time for 6 years
 
polonyc2 said:
you're letting your own personal opinion about 3D cloud your judgment...just because you find it annoying doesn't mean everyone does...a lot of people were big on 3D when it first came out, including big time directors such as James Cameron, Martin Scorsese etc...and it had the backing of big time display manufacturers such as Panasonic, Samsung etc...3D and VR are very similar you're just not seeing it because you don't want to...a lot of the same things VR is touted as being today 3D was also touted as being...and yes I think VR will fail within 6 years...everything is great when it's first announced and it's all shiny and new...VR has more noticeable flaws then 3D although it does have more upside...who's going to back VR in the same way 3D was?...Hollywood?...are there going to be VR movies in my local theater?...are TV's going to come with VR headsets?...it won't succeed based on a bunch of hard core fanboys...is gaming going to push VR?...we'll see but I doubt it...SLI, 3D Vision gaming, multi-monitor setups etc all are still a very niche segment and they will be the people that jump on VR...the best hope honestly lies with the PlayStation VR implementation and even then it's going to be an uphill climb

and you're wrong about 3D adopting a one size fits all implementation...there was active and passive 3D
Click to expand...
VR will succeed where 3D failed because it's not a feature evolution in an existing market requiring a significant investment with no/little immediate content. There's already demand for this tech in medical, industrial, and military industries. Gaming, to paraphrase Palmer Luckey, is not going to be the market where VR reaches ubiquity, it's just the entry point. When the Rift launches, there will be eight AAA titles launching, 100 available by year's end, and an additional 50+ available now from indie/other. When the first 3DTVs were put in stores, how much 3D content was there? I honestly don't recall but I'm willing to bet it was about as common as HD content when HD hit the shelves or 4k content now (and 4k TVs are over a year old on the shelves).

I definitely understand the skepticism, especially with VR's history, but I think the tech is ready this time.
 
polonyc2 said:
you're letting your own personal opinion about 3D cloud your judgment...just because you find it annoying doesn't mean everyone does...a lot of people were big on 3D when it first came out, including big time directors such as James Cameron, Martin Scorsese etc...and it had the backing of big time display manufacturers such as Panasonic, Samsung etc...3D and VR are very similar you're just not seeing it because you don't want to...a lot of the same things VR is touted as being today 3D was also touted as being...and yes I think VR will fail within 6 years...everything is great when it's first announced and it's all shiny and new...VR has more noticeable flaws then 3D although it does have more upside...who's going to back VR in the same way 3D was?...Hollywood?...are there going to be VR movies in my local theater?...are TV's going to come with VR headsets?...it won't succeed based on a bunch of hard core fanboys...is gaming going to push VR?...we'll see but I doubt it...SLI, 3D Vision gaming, multi-monitor setups etc all are still a very niche segment and they will be the people that jump on VR...the best hope honestly lies with the PlayStation VR implementation and even then it's going to be an uphill climb

and you're wrong about 3D adopting a one size fits all implementation...there was active and passive 3D...and when implemented correctly was very immersive...there's a reason Avatar was the highest grossing movie of all time for 6 years
Click to expand...
Fine, I'm letting my judgment blind me. I say this as someone who was NEVER impressed by the new batch of 3D movies and 3D television, they just felt like a minor trick, nothing particularly impressive. They were mostly just blurrier with only one scene in a movie having anything resembling a "wow" factor for me. I have never been impressed by modern 3D movies (some amusement park ones from the 90s were good though), I thought Hollywood was making a big mistake the way they were implementing it, the benefits were dubious and were not outweighing the drawbacks. I am not surprised one bit they are failing.

VR, on the other hand, has the "wow" factor immediately and it holds it there. It seriously makes current games without it look hollow in comparison, there's just nothing else remotely like it. It's the closest thing we have to a holodeck and is something people have been seeking for decades. Yes, it currently is expensive, yes, it won't be a good fit for everyone, hell, it may never enter true mainstream, but to dismiss it the same as 3D television shows you don't know what you're talking about. It could depend on our definition of "failing" however. I see failing as something like HD-DVD, it's just dead. Whereas something like SLI and multi-monitor setups are not "failing", they're just niche, but they're an important enough segment, most game makers cater to and support them. VR in its worst case scenario is going to see a similar fate. So if you think SLI and multi-monitor setups are failing, then fair enough, I'll concede that VR could "fail" in the same way. They could also be even bigger however.

I have to ask, were you naysaying 3D accelerators back in 1995? Because a lot of your arguments against VR feel the same. They were expensive, has technical barriers to entry, a lack of software for them, FPSs made some people dizzy, etc. They DID offer something incomparable to other technology however, like VR. I think it's safe to say 3D graphics ended up not being a failure, even if not all companies survived along the way.
 
While I don't believe VR headsets as we currently know them will last forever, VR itself won't "fail" because ultimately it's a gateway to AR, and widespread AR is absolutely inevitable as a ubiquitous technology. Once we (or our children, or the cyborgs that take over from them) have digital contact lenses, brain implants, or whatever it takes to be an unobtrusive, practical way of augmenting what we see around us with digital information, then you just have to turn off the real world and you're back to what VR does right now.
As for the "social" aspect, I don't see the problem. Plenty of people play games in (physical) isolation right now, and VR is no threat to conventional screen-based gaming anyway. I don't know why some people think it's an "all or nothing" proposition.
 
crusty_juggler said:
Augmented contact lenses, neural implants and cyborgs? You guys are living on the moon.
Click to expand...
Shaddup and pass me your oxygen bottle. Sounds like you don't need yours anymore... ;)

Seriously though, ya none of that is going to materialize anytime soon... however, VR is going to make a pretty big splash by this summer and really start taking off going into 2017. It'll be slow at first, but give it a year to mature and it will really start taking off as the enabling tech gets faster/cheaper and more accessible to the general public. And HMD's are going to shrink and become much more ergonomic. We'll all look back on these first gen products and laugh 5 years from now while wearing something that looks like a pair of swim goggles or enhanced glasses that project images directly to the back of our retinas using retinal laser projection tech. Once VR is something everyone has had a chance to experience and want, the tech will grow to fill any existing gaps and make VR ubiquitous.
 
Viper87227 said:
Way to much to be an early adopter. Not with the potential risks of motion sickness and whatnot. I'm not saying it's an unreasonable price for what is included, but it makes for a steep gamble. Someone needs to find a way to let the masses demo these things. I can't imagine demo kiosks in Wal-Mart to be a viable option... but something has to be figured out if anyone wants hardware this expensive to take off.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think this is the kind of thing you really need to experience yourself to see the value in it. Good VR is something almost no one has ever experienced, so it's too easy for people to dismiss it as too expensive/not worth the money if they can't actually try it themselves.

They really need to do some in-store demos for it to take off in a big way, at least until it reaches enough "critical mass" that a lot of people will have friends with VR so they can try it out there.
 
Sony can honestly "win" this whole VR thing if they can actually deliver on their "similar to the price of a console" statement. Considering how many people own PS4s already, there's a very large market of people that would only need to pony up $400ish to experience VR instead of spending $2k+ on a good PC and Oculus/Vive. The PSVR has actually been getting good press when it's been shown, too. I recall more than one site saying it may have actually been the best VR device at the shows.
 
bpizzle1 said:
Sony can honestly "win" this whole VR thing if they can actually deliver on their "similar to the price of a console" statement. Considering how many people own PS4s already, there's a very large market of people that would only need to pony up $400ish to experience VR instead of spending $2k+ on a good PC and Oculus/Vive. The PSVR has actually been getting good press when it's been shown, too. I recall more than one site saying it may have actually been the best VR device at the shows.
Click to expand...

End of the day, Morpheus is still a sandboxed console peripheral. It's not going to "win" anything.
 
USMCGrunt said:
Pre-cursor tech isn't too far off. As I said earlier, the biggest obstacle at the moment is wireless power.
Click to expand...
You just linked to a two year-old article about a technology that never materialized, from a company that has since dropped off the face of the earth and declared it to be evidence of a coming revolution in augmented reality contact lenses.

VR is cool and all, but you guys need to come back to reality. Seriously, I think y'all played a little too much Deus Ex back in the day.
Supercharged_Z06 said:
We'll all look back on these first gen products and laugh 5 years from now while wearing something that looks like a pair of swim goggles or enhanced glasses that project images directly to the back of our retinas using retinal laser projection tech.
Click to expand...
What's life like on the lunar surface?
 
I think what will hurt VR the most is closed systems.

VR should have been a completely open system that developers could easily make a VR capable game and have it work across multiple headsets rather than having to develop directly for one headset or another.

Hopefully more developers use the open vr/Steam SDK ( IIRC it supports both rift/vive).
 
crusty_juggler said:
You just linked to a two year-old article about a technology that never materialized, from a company that has since dropped off the face of the earth and declared it to be evidence of a coming revolution in augmented reality contact lenses.

VR is cool and all, but you guys need to come back to reality. Seriously, I think y'all played a little too much Deus Ex back in the day.
What's life like on the lunar surface?
Click to expand...
Since you quoted my entire post, it makes this easy to prove. I NEVER said or implied that there was a "coming revolution in augmented reality contact lenses." I said pre-cursor tech. Precursor technology to the jet engine, for example, was the first manned flight in 1903 with jets making it into production by the mid-late 1940s. AGAIN, the only thing limiting the technology from being feasible is wireless power transmission....and possibly FDA approval.

Never played Deus Ex
Don't live anywhere near the moon...unfortunately.

bpizzle1 said:
Sony can honestly "win" this whole VR thing if they can actually deliver on their "similar to the price of a console" statement. Considering how many people own PS4s already, there's a very large market of people that would only need to pony up $400ish to experience VR instead of spending $2k+ on a good PC and Oculus/Vive. The PSVR has actually been getting good press when it's been shown, too. I recall more than one site saying it may have actually been the best VR device at the shows.
Click to expand...

Not a fair comparison. A fair comparison is those already owning the platform and buying the peripheral, in which PCVR is ~800 and the console is (estimated) $400. If you're starting from scratch, PCVR is ~$2000 and console is ~$800. I don't disagree that it will be cheaper, and by extension a less compelling experience, but the cost gap isn't as wide as you make it in your post.
 
USMCGrunt said:
Not a fair comparison. A fair comparison is those already owning the platform and buying the peripheral, in which PCVR is ~800 and the console is (estimated) $400. If you're starting from scratch, PCVR is ~$2000 and console is ~$800. I don't disagree that it will be cheaper, and by extension a less compelling experience, but the cost gap isn't as wide as you make it in your post.
Click to expand...

I think it is a fair comparison. There are millions more PS4s out there than PCs capable of driving a solid VR experience. As far as being less compelling, that remains to be seen. Like I said, there have been plenty of reports about PSVR that say it is every bit as good as the competition. I'm not saying it's going to be better, but if it's in the same ballpark, and priced noticeably cheaper, Sony has a chance to sell a lot more than Oculus and Valve/HTC.
 
bpizzle1 said:
I think it is a fair comparison. There are millions more PS4s out there than PCs capable of driving a solid VR experience. As far as being less compelling, that remains to be seen. Like I said, there have been plenty of reports about PSVR that say it is every bit as good as the competition. I'm not saying it's going to be better, but if it's in the same ballpark, and priced noticeably cheaper, Sony has a chance to sell a lot more than Oculus and Valve/HTC.
Click to expand...
I have a hard time believing that solely based on the hardware that's in the console. I know there's supposed to be a breakout box that adds the performance required but I just don't see it being able to deliver at the same level as PCVR but we will definitely see. I agree there is potential for Sony to outsell PCVR but that could be a double edged sword for the industry if Sony doesn't get it right.
 
in for one for sure, way better than oculous (yes, I've used both)
 
polonyc2 said:
HD-DVD vs Blu-ray all over again...
Click to expand...
It doesn't really compared to a format war. Better to compare them to consoles or cellphones/tablets...

I think there will always be games/apps that are better controller via game-pad, and Vive will only be at an advantage for a little while before Touch catches up. Lighthouse and room-scale are nice though, but then again Oculus is working on positional tracking for GearVR which is completely wireless. Whatever happens, it'll be interesting to watch and experience it unfold.
 
USMCGrunt said:
Neural interfaces are a long long way off, I think the intermediary will be contact lenses with displays built-in for VR/AR. Most of the technology is already here, with the notable exception of wireless power. I give it 2050 for contact displays.
Click to expand...

Also keep an eye on retinal projection technology, it may win over LCD/Lense setups at some point. I could be wrong, but it seems a much more logical/simpler approach and reviews seem to suggest a great leap forward in clarity and comfort...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top