By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Contributor to Forbes : Sony VR to be more than x 3 that of Oculus Rift In 2016

JustBeingReal said:
Normchacho said:
JustBeingReal said:

I really cannot see Playstation VR releasing for anything more than $299/£249, because that's the sweet spot and the components to make that headset aren't really that expensive now.

Oculus is a 4K display, PSVR is 1920X1080, both are 120FPS, so the display on PSVR is substantially cheaper to make, the bandwidth for the connections is much less demanding on hardware.
The volume of production is going to be higher on PSVR, because of the install bases involved in each unit.

As for the games, well with VR it's not just about the games, but Sony does have RIGS, which is a PSVR exclusive, plenty of other games are going to be enhanced through VR, like GT: Sport.
I'm sure there are plenty of other games that Sony's studios are working on to support the platform with.

The cost of entry is going to substantially lower on PSVR and Playstation is generally accepted by the masses as THE console, the place to play video games and that console market doesn't consider the PC. Oculus seems to be the more niche device or maybe more for the technical minded area of the market, possibly for more imaging related tasks, than gaming.

I think saying that PSVR will only get three quarters of the market is being way too conservative, I think it's more likely going to be a 90/10 split in favor of Playstation VR. Now how big of an amount of sales that means in general is difficult to say, but I would be shocked if 5% of the PS4 install base won't buy VR, I think PS4 will easily hit 57-60M by the end of 2016, so 2.85M-3M isn't unrealistic, Oculus maybe 285K-300K, though I think even that figure for Oculus is being generous. I could even end being half those numbers for Oculus.

I don't really know if the displays are THAT far apart on cost. The Rift uses a pair of 1200X1080 pentile displays that run at 90 hz while PSVR uses a single 1920X1080 RGB display that runs at 120 hz.

PSVR will still likely be a lot cheaper since Sony likely didn't have to develop and make each part specifically for VR the way Oculus did.



 

I'm sure I'd read somewhere about Rift being 4K, still it's a big difference in component costs. Not only is the panel more than double the resolution, but the connections are going to require higher bandwidth for data transfer.

Sony had actually engineered the parts they use for their VR, Sony are actually a hardware company, more so than Oculus, which was a start up company not that long ago. Still PSVR will likely be produced in higher volumes, which would definitely reduce the costs significantly.

Wrong on both accounts.

2160x1200 is only 1.25x the resolution of 1920x1080
2160x1200 @ 90 fps is 233 MP per sec, 1920*1080 @ 120 fps is 249 MP per sec.
In data it's even less, 2160x1200 pentile display is 4.94 MB per frame or 445 MB/s at 90 fps, 1920x1080 RGB is 5.93 MB per frame or 712 MB/s at 120 fps
Not a problem, HDMI 1.3 already supports upto 1300 MB/s data transfer.

But yeah, Sony is in a much better position to produce the components a lot cheaper.
Plus OR works with 2 separate 1080x1200 panels, which is by default a lot more costly than one single screen.



Around the Network
JRPGfan said:
Distant Star said:

4) in order for that critical mass adoption, all the guesswork needs to be removed. Confusing system specs and competing products certainly won’t drive VR adoption forward on PC.

VR is still in it's infancy. Sony is aiming for a long lifecycle. We don't need a PS4 and PSVR that will keep the  status quo until 2020. Bad for hardware innovation. 100 VR games for PSVR is really nice for VR in general, because in  a small market most devs would want to go multiplatform. Choice and competition will drive VR. PC + Console + Smartphone. 

Also PC has Nvidia VR Ready, Oculus Ready, SteamVR Ready it's really not that hard, right?

If people spend 600$ you better believe it they expect it to last until 2020.

Asking people to spend that much and have it last less than 4years?

People will sell their Oculus Rift in 2018 for maybe 300 or 400 and buy a second genenration. Just like with games buying a 60 game selling it for 40 so they add 20 for a brand new 60 game. 





kowenicki said:
SWORDF1SH said:

More importantly, do you agree? It might be a blog post but it's a well written piece that provides a lot of facts. Not anybody can blog on Forbes and if it has been published on Forbes then it's endorsed by Forbes.

 

Couldn't  be more wrong. Forbes actually make a point of saying they DON'T endorse blog posts.

is he right? no idea, neither has he.   nobody knows how this is going to fly at this point.



VR won't be mainstream anytime this decade period, just ask 3D displays.

Sony has both the Price and Support Advantage, their priority is software not hardware obviously so they are likely to lower the price to a feasible cost.

The Power Advantage of OR isn't that much of a factor.

The best thing Sony could do is release PS VR on PC later on and completely dominate the market, albiet a niche market.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

JRPGfan said:
Distant Star said:

4) in order for that critical mass adoption, all the guesswork needs to be removed. Confusing system specs and competing products certainly won’t drive VR adoption forward on PC.

VR is still in it's infancy. Sony is aiming for a long lifecycle. We don't need a PS4 and PSVR that will keep the  status quo until 2020. Bad for hardware innovation. 100 VR games for PSVR is really nice for VR in general, because in  a small market most devs would want to go multiplatform. Choice and competition will drive VR. PC + Console + Smartphone. 

Also PC has Nvidia VR Ready, Oculus Ready, SteamVR Ready it's really not that hard, right?

If people spend 600$ you better believe it they expect it to last until 2020.

Asking people to spend that much and have it last less than 4years?

Their will be a cv 2 in two years.  People were spending also money on their DK1/DK2.

I don't really get you, we have a phone market with smartphones that are more than 600$ and people keep them buying so why would it be strange to see it happen with vr devices?





Around the Network
Mummelmann said:
Can't imagine it'll be much cheaper though, which makes the installed base argument near worthless. Out of those 13 million who have a PC capable of proper VR (I happily count myself among them), the percentage of people willing to shell out hundreds of dollars for VR is probably vastly bigger than that of those 36 million PS4 owners.
The average gamer doesn't really spend that much money on gaming and tech; people who have powerful PC's are a lot more likely to.

In short; it's a very simplified argument. As for myself; VR isn't really interesting yet at this point and appears nothing more than a gimmick for now, and I would not pay several hundred dollars for it (the total cost with VATS, taxes and transport fees will go into the 800-850$ ranger here in the Nordic region, which is way beyond ridiculous for a peripheral with almost zero function and impact yet).

Its onyl worthless if your on the other side of the opinion.  Fact is its a fact, not only by the time VR comes there will actually be 40m PS4 in the wild Sony is backing VR with one of their biggest franchises.

PS has a massive advantage, Gran Turismo can push more headsets then all the occulus games combined.  This fanbase is already used to buying expensive add ons for the game.



I do belive sony´s device is going to sell better, however VR is going to become irrelevant pretty fast



                                                                                     

kowenicki said:
I do wish there was a rule on quoting this as Forbes. Its a blog.

Agreed. At the very least it should say something like 'Contributor to Forbes blog' in the title.

Really it should say 'average joe writes stuff on user-generated Forbes website.'

As to the topic itself:

It makes sense that Sony will see some more initial early adopters than Rift if they can price significantly below Rift on a platform with a higher viable userbase. But the whole things reeks of Kinect for both companies. And Sony's no-doubt watered-down version especially.

There will be light years between the capabilities of the Sony version and the Rift version attached to a high-end PC.

As ever, it'll come down to content, and whether or not Sony can create something truly immersive and fun using an underpowered system to generate VR. Microsoft is going to have the same problem.





starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Ttech. said:
Mummelmann said:
Can't imagine it'll be much cheaper though, which makes the installed base argument near worthless. Out of those 13 million who have a PC capable of proper VR (I happily count myself among them), the percentage of people willing to shell out hundreds of dollars for VR is probably vastly bigger than that of those 36 million PS4 owners.
The average gamer doesn't really spend that much money on gaming and tech; people who have powerful PC's are a lot more likely to.

In short; it's a very simplified argument. As for myself; VR isn't really interesting yet at this point and appears nothing more than a gimmick for now, and I would not pay several hundred dollars for it (the total cost with VATS, taxes and transport fees will go into the 800-850$ ranger here in the Nordic region, which is way beyond ridiculous for a peripheral with almost zero function and impact yet).

Its onyl worthless if your on the other side of the opinion.  Fact is its a fact, not only by the time VR comes there will actually be 40m PS4 in the wild Sony is backing VR with one of their biggest franchises.

PS has a massive advantage, Gran Turismo can push more headsets then all the occulus games combined.  This fanbase is already used to buying expensive add ons for the game.

 

Like all those who bought a Logitech G27 for GT5 and GT6? Gran Turismo owners are used to buying expensive add-on's for games? That's news to me, most of my pals who bought one or more of the games didn't own anything besides the disc(s) and the console and the steering wheels didn't really fly off shelves despite the GT games (plus; these steering wheels had support for practically every racing there was and were great value due to that). And they cost quite a bit less as well. Kinect sold around 20 million units or so and was a fraction of the price and had mainstream appeal on top.

Like I said; average gamers don't spend that much on gaming, the attach rates through the generations paints a picture supporting that. People who buy 100+ games for one console for a generation and spend thousands on peripherals are the minority by leaps and bounds.
PS4 probably won't be the platform to spurr VR into something big, the technology is too young, too expensive and has lackluster developer incentive right now and there probably won't be an abundance of good titles with proper VR support.

Wasn't PS4 also supposed to usher in 4k gaming and 60 FPS 1080p gaming? That's what people said last generation, and PS3 was supposed to staple 1080p gaming in the industry. All this has been said before. Look, I'm not saying it's impossible that VR will be a success, on PS4 or otherwise, but I see it as unlikely, the prices are ridiculous and I can see only enthusiasts willing to shell out this kind of money on a peripheral, that doesn't make for a huge market. To expect more casual oriented gamers, which make up the majority of any platform's installed base, to suddenly buy these kits in droves is highly unrealistic no matter how one looks at it and my argument for those 13 million vs those 36 million still very much stands regardless of yours or my personal opinion on the product itself.



Am I the only one who thinks Samsung's VR can potentially beat Sony's?

Think about it. One hundred dollars. All you need is one of the more recent phones(and most likely the next generation, as leaks show sizes will be similar). Considering you most likely have a phone, a lot of people wouldn't mind buying it, even if they use it once every few days.



 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.