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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Sony and MS VR headset? How much will you pay?

Tagged games:

 

How much would you pay for a console VR headset?

Don't want it! 60 16.13%
 
up to $100 36 9.68%
 
up to $150 45 12.10%
 
up to $200 61 16.40%
 
up to $250 34 9.14%
 
up to $300 44 11.83%
 
up to $350 7 1.88%
 
up to $400 22 5.91%
 
more then $400 34 9.14%
 
see results 27 7.26%
 
Total:370
shikamaru317 said:
Definitely no more than $200. I'd rather MS make Illumiroom though, I'd be willing to pay $300 for it.


What's Illumiroom ? Sorry for my ignorance  :D



Around the Network

I wouldn't buy one unless the resolution per eye was at least 40% more than that of the Oculus rift devkit, the grid effect is very obvious with the oculus rift, and using it for actual games (played a lot of metro last light with it) gets gradually more and more nausiating because of the disconnect between a camera rotating in a fixed point in space, and the actual movements of the neck which would normally shift that point around with it, if the headset does not at the very least emulate head shift / pan, i would not buy one even if the resolution was higher.



ICStats said:
Pibituh said:

If they do a massive production of it, they can make it cheaper than Rift. I'll pay up to 100$ not more.

It's just stupid to price a gimmick gadget for more than half the console price --''  So 200$+ it would be stupid.

Just Pulse headsets sold for up to $150.

Rockband sets were $170.

There's no way a VR headset will be $100.  I expect $250/300.  At least I expect it'll be totally optional, not some albatross Kinect or Game Pad.

Exactly. Even the PlayStation Camera was sold at $60 and is currently being sold at $100 on Amazon. I agree with you that a VR headset would at least be $250.



shikamaru317 said:
Definitely no more than $200. I'd rather MS make Illumiroom though, I'd be willing to pay $300 for it.

How much are video projectors in your part of the world? Here they are too expensive to be a realistic peripheral. Besides which a lot of people have their TVs placed where illumiroon would not work all that well.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

I have to know if works with my glasses and astigmatic eyes, then I'll think about price.



Around the Network
binary solo said:
SvennoJ said:

Yes, but the biggest complaint is resolution. And most of the cool demos use stylized graphics, for example this latest batch:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-03-07-see-how-classic-nintendo-games-look-with-the-oculus-rift

It's fine by me (wipeout please) but people expecting to be fully immersed in the next gta or the witcher 3 will be disappointed. The poll isn't looking good either, $300 is most likely a mimimum for a responsive headtracking version. Only 30% of the people frequenting this forum seem to be prepared to spend that kind of money.

Could the headset itself have some sort of upscaler? Or would upscaled resolution look too bad that close to the eye?

The problem with VR is that the individual pixels are visible. I'm exaggerating a lot, but it makes games look like the 8 bit era. Upscaling them wouldn't really affect the blur, but it'd greatly help overall.

@shikamaru317

Why would you prefer illumniroom over VR?



shikamaru317 said:
Pibituh said:
shikamaru317 said:
Definitely no more than $200. I'd rather MS make Illumiroom though, I'd be willing to pay $300 for it.


What's Illumiroom ? Sorry for my ignorance  :D

It's a protype they made that projects images around your tv. However, they suggested that it would be too expensive to market to consumers currently, so it might not happen for awhile, if ever. 

 


That looks awesome ! 



binary solo said:
SvennoJ said:
 

Yes, but the biggest complaint is resolution. And most of the cool demos use stylized graphics, for example this latest batch: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-03-07-see-how-classic-nintendo-games-look-with-the-oculus-rift

It's fine by me (wipeout please) but people expecting to be fully immersed in the next gta or the witcher 3 will be disappointed. The poll isn't looking good either, $300 is most likely a mimimum for a responsive headtracking version. Only 30% of the people frequenting this forum seem to be prepared to spend that kind of money.

Could the headset itself have some sort of upscaler? Or would upscaled resolution look too bad that close to the eye?

That would imply that the headset has higher res screens, I think a dual 1080p version would already be north of $500. You can project the image slightly out of focus so you don't see the individual pixels as clearly, but with such a low resolution it would be very uncomfortable to look at.

The Oculus rift already does a lens trick which concentrates more pixels in the center (the image is rectangular when looking at it in the Occulus rift)

Disadvantage, it doesn't even use the full 1280x800, and when you look at the edges the resolution gets really low.
Here is a good explanation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7qrgrrHry0

If Sony or MS are going to use dual 720p screens, then they're already a twice the horizontal resolution of the Occulus rift, and 33% above an OR with a single 1080p screen. Maybe that's enough for a decent experience, although it makes the Wii look hi-def. The first 3D games also succeeded despite a huge initial step back in image quality. VR blown up to field of view filling sizes on 720p screens is comparable to 240p image quality.



shikamaru317 said:
I think the biggest concern with VR headsets right now is that the resolution is simply too low. Even with a single 1080p screen you're going to be looking at maybe half the pixels per degree of the HD TV's we've grown use to gaming on, and only a high-end PC could power dual 1080p screens, neither console could hope to pull it off.

I also feel like having a screen that close to your eyes is going to give many people headaches, including myself, but maybe I'm wrong.

I personally would prefer Illumiroom, and would pay more for it than I would a VR headset, but Microsoft has suggested that it would cost too much to market it to consumers.

That's still optimistic for resolution, with a single 1080p screen, or 960x1080 per eye, you get a horizontal resolution of less than 10 pixels per degree. For 1080p the recommended seating distance is at 60 pixels per degree. (At 1.6x the diagonal screen size)

The screen close to your eyes is not a problem, the lenses make it appear far away, you can relax your eyes.

Ms has said that Illumiroom would cost thousands of dollars, you need a high power projector to project a huge image on walls and furniture while competing with the light output of the average tv. Plus all the extra effects on a second screen for projection need to be programmed in separately. Plus placement of the projector is not practical for the average home. In the end Illumiroom looks cool on a you tube video, VR is way more interesting to use.

A VR mode is far easier to support too, it's 3D output with a distortion filter. Hence all the games being transfromed for Oculus rift use. I haven't seen the pc community do a single illumiroom demo yet.

It's still a bit too early for VR though. The worst they can do is launch cheap $150 low res glasses, hype it up as the next big thing, and by the time the tech catches up everyone has already moved on as with Kinect. It's probably better to keep it a niche product for enthusiasts this gen.

Adjustable dual 1080p glasses would be cool. Switch between wide field of view VR mode, and more comfortable cinema size screen for watching 3D blu-ray. Combining the 2 markets should help with the costs.