I can't in this case.

VR is too small of a market to support a AAA VR-exclusive game.

most vr games will be indie level and therefore ps4's "lack of power" won't matter because the game won't be all that advanced to begin with. i think most games will target ps4 and then ported to pc because i don't think any developer is brave enough to be exclusive to either platform.

...except sony. sony will bring a few exclusives to their platform making it the defacto better supported platform.

I disagree that it will be indie level. But i think it will at most be AA and the few AAA sony exclusives.

i would counter that today's AA is entirely comprised of indies.

the witness.  firewatch.  everybody's gone to rapture.  no man's sky.  (can you tell i pay ps4 xD).   all indies.  the big guys are all doing the AAA mega hit or huge loss model and all backed out of the middel teir and the middel teir is being filled by the better indie studios.

5% of the entire Steam userbase. That's the context, I did cite the numbers for that.

Then you missed my entire point completely. It is comparible in the way that games will support the peripheral.

Will the support be in every single AAA game? No. It won't. Just like Motion controls were never supported in every single AAA game.
We would need a new generation for that, with the peripheral included with every console sold.

There will not be a good game that you cannot play on PS4? ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?
The PC has the most exclusives of any platform, thanks to decades-large games library.

Star Citizen, StarCraft, WarCraft, Settlers, Civilization, Red Orchestra, Company of Heroe's, Fortnite, Survarium, Grim Dawn, Unreal Tournament, Dreadnought, Homeworld, Arma, Descent: Underground, Master of Orion, System Shock... And more, only the exclusive games worth playing are on Playstation though, right? Please. Pull the other one.

Again. Crysis 3. - The PC version, not the console, try playing it at 5k or in eyefinity sometime.
The Order 1886 was 1920x800, roughly 1.5 million pixels or a 25% reduction from full 1080P resolution. On PC it could have been full 1080P, 1440P, 4k, 5k, 7680x1440, 5760x1080, 11520x2160.
It was also 30fps.

Thanks to the low resolution and horrible framerate (I won't even touch on the gameplay, which was average at best...) it was not a pleasant feast on the eyes.

I have to ask you though. Are you trying to troll? Usually when a console gamer claims that their console has better graphics than PC... They are laughed at from all angles.

Uncharted and the Last of US, whilst looking good on console, could never compete with a PC title, even remastered.

The main difference with the PC is that the "little details" get an upgrade.

Yes they are.
Crysis 3 makes full use of the Direct X 11 featureset on PC, we have super high textures, fantastic shadows, amazing lighting, tessellation, you name it. On console it was a flat, blurry and dull mess in comparison, the PC version is better looking than the majority of next-gen titles that haven't even been released.

Z-Buffer effects? Hahaha. Crysis 3 has them in spades.
In-fact Screen-Space Ambient Occolusion is also a Z-Buffer effect (Z-Buffer is a depth buffer.) which was actually first used by Crystek in Crysis on the PC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_space_ambient_occlusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-buffering
I suggest you do some light reading and learn what graphics techniques are.

Shader effects? You mean... Like Reflective dynamic water surfaces? Woops.

Here is what the ORIGINAL Crysis could look like with a couple of mods. (Of course, only on PC.)


Here you can see modern techniques such as your Z-buffer effects, pixel shader effects (Rain and water and how it alters the lens.) as well as subsurface scattering, dynamic lighting etc'. - It can even look better than this.




Here, have some free complimentary StarCitizen to go with that:






As for resolution and framerates... Framerates affect gameplay, it allows for greater fluidity.

Resolution is part of the "Graphics fidelity" equation that you cling to. - Increasing the resolution reduces jagged edges, it allows for finer details to pop, resolution *is* important, Playstation 4 gamers lauding their 1080P superiority over Xbox Gamers on this very forum is a testament to that, PC takes it to the next level and suddenly it's irrellevent? Please. It's not. It's perfectly relevent. Stop shifting the goal posts.

Games aren't built to the metal anymore (I.E. Machine Code). PC games (That support Direct X 12 and Vulkan) will now be built closer to the metal, just like a console.
I bet 3rd party devs weren't thinking of PC's Direct X 12, Mantle and thus Vulkan when they made that statement did they?
With Direct X 11 and prior API's that would have certainly held true, unless you can find a source that says the contrary? ;)

PC has exclusives. Some of which are bigger than console exclusives.
There are PC games that outsell their console counterparts.

You should really do some research of other platforms, you might just be pleasantly surprised.

Person A: well those graphics were on pc many years ago!

Person B: really? can you list some examples?

Person A: yeah here starcitizen a game from 2016 (that doesn't even look better than the screenshots from the order in my opinion and is a game that still isn't released yet).

Person C: ähh....What?

Why would I or anyone ever buy a a pc for over twice the price of a console to play 20 year old games? Do you really think that is a pluss in consumers eyes? If thats the case, then why not get any old cheap ass laptop to play thouse games? I would love for you to tell me wich are thouse pc exclusives that do beetr than console exclusives. I know you are probably gona show me the only 2 or 3 that exist and show me a ton of games on consoles that dint sell well, but I would still like to see. ANd the real question here is, what the hell does that have to do with VR? Thouse decade old games will not be playeble on vr so your response is not even addressing the issue here. 

But I see how it is with you and a couple of others. For you vr is not even the discussion topic, Its ps4 vs pc. If your going to devate reasons why a pc is better then do it somewhere else. None of the reasons you have given are any reason why VR will have support. If you are going to tell us cuz you can have 2x the power for 4x the price, then please dont bother. Devs have shown that they dont care and will always develope for the lowest comon denominator with the highest installbase. So please, bring a real point to the conversation.

Because you can't win a power argument you move it over to a price-argument? Fantastic.
1) Games are Cheaper.
2) Free online.
If you have a massive games library, the PC will offset the hardware cost with cheaper software, simple as that, but that doesn't apply to everyone.
You also don't have to spend $800 on a PC. You could spend $400, you have choice.


Okay. Games that sold better on PC than any single console: Diablo 3, Minecraft, Half Life, Counterstrike, Payday 2 and many more.
Valve stated that Portal sold better on PC than console.
http://kotaku.com/5835654/portal-2-sold-better-on-pc-than-on-console
And this is also an interesting read: http://www.dsogaming.com/news/report-a-vast-number-of-multi-platform-games-sell-better-on-the-pc-than-on-xbox-one/

I would be surprised if franchises like Skyrim sold better on PC thanks to the PC's longer legs. (Give the game a sale, it shifts 10/100's of thousands of more copies and hit the top of the sales charts on Steam, console it's fallen into obscurity as far as sales is concerned.)

The point is that VR requires power. Allot of power. Most think only a tiny amount of PC's are capable of that extra hardware demand, but if you had bothered to keep up with the thread you would know this.

VR will have support on PC because it's an open platform. Mods. Mods and more Mods, I wonder how many developers on console will patch their games to bring in VR support? Probably not many.

No, this is not the context. Steam survey participants are not the entire Steam Userbase. It's only those who participate in the survey. The purpose of those hardware surveys is...

"...to collect data about what kinds of computer hardware and software our customers are using. Participation in the survey is optional, and anonymous. The information gathered is incredibly helpful to us as we make decisions about what kinds of technology investments to make and products to offer."

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

Not to determine the exact percentages of graphics cards in usage. I repeat, apart from the GPU there are various other things required to meet minimum requirements. No, steam survey are not a reliable source to prove how many PC users have ascended to master race status. There are certainly not 10s and 10s of 100s of millions of VR ready machines out there.

The estimation provided by nvidia is far more realistic. Even though i think its still very optimistic.

"Gaming hardware company Nvidia, which makes many of those graphics cards, recently estimated that only 13 million PCs will fit the bill next year."

http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/8/10723082/nvidia-vr-ready-pcs-bullet-train-everest-ces-2016

http://wccftech.com/steam-hardware-survey-shows-1080p-majority-intel-hd-4000-gpu/

Why do i think it's optimistic? Because a graphics card isn't a console. There aren't just 2-3 different kinds out there in a time span of over half a decade. 280, 480, 580, 680, 780, 680ti, 780ti, 580ti, aaaaand so on and so forth. There are the ATIs too. 970 is minimum, there isn't much above it.

I understood. Completely. Some people just don't understand VR and it's long range. And this...

...is prove to that. It doesn't need to be in every sinlge AAA game. It's evident you haven't grasped what this is about. The key difference between VR and mere motion control peripheral like WiiMote, Kinect and PS Move it isn't restricted to a small number of genres and concepts. I'm not saying all of those concepts will be super awesome. Of course there are going to be bad ideas and crappy games. I'm not sure if VR support in Tekken 7 is a good idea. However, it is further proof to the wide range of possibilities. An important crucial aspect, the big contrast to "Kinect": Gameplay mechanics and don't need to be mutilated and input peripherals can still be utizlized. So Tekken 7 will be a Tekken and not a Fighter Within. And Lucky's Tale is a standard 3D jump n run that could also be 1:1 a normal game on a 2D flat screen.

It was mentioned many VR apps will be multiplatform. With WiiMote/Kinect/PS Move there was no multiplatforming. Developers will make games for several VR headsets and you can bet your behind PSVR will have a lot of 'em. Sony is a major player, responsible for pushing VR and making it accessible, in combination with a thriving globally known brand.

No, we wouldn't. It is not the prime objective to implement VR into every AAA game. VR will simply be a new form of entertainment.

Your view on VR is very shrouded. 

That is the context, it is what I was basing my numbers around.

You are right that Steam doesn't poll every single user, but it also doesn't need to, you have the power of mathematics and the law of averages.

VR isn't GPU dependent. You could run it on an Intel IGP. Steam also doesn't recognize Multi-GPU systems, thus a system which has a single GPU under the needed hardware for VR will likely exceed the requirements with Crossfire/SLI enabled.
Converesly, Steam also doesn't recognize systems with Switchable graphics, a large chunk of systems which are polled to have Intel graphics might be running nVidia or AMD too.

But that is getting into semantics, it's irrellevant.

For those do not wish to have a high-end GPU, you could just lower the fidelity for acceptable performance.
You do not need a Geforce 970, it isn't the minimum.

VR needs roughly 3x - 3.5x the rendering power of 1080p 60FPS, if you are happy with 720P and 30FPS, then that significantly reduces the amount of hardware you will need, it is going to impact your experience though.
If you think the PS4 is going to have equavalent Geforce 970 VR quality, then you will sadly be mistaken, it doesn't have the horsepower to do so.

nVidia and AMD have also been working on VR SLI/Crossfire, where one GPU renders the left, the other GPU renders the right, meaning a couple of cheap mid-range cards is all you will need.
Oculous state that you need a GTX 650 / AMD 7750 GPU or better as minimum, majority of Gaming PC's exceed that my dear friend. Majority.

https://www.oculus.com/en-us/blog/powering-the-rift/

If you want it to have the widest game support, you will need a new generation, same goes for any peripheral, the more consoles that have the hardware, the more financial sense that it makes for developers to include such support in their games.
There will likely be games that would fit VR and never be supported on the PS4.

Converesly... A new generation is needed because the PS4 struggles to do 1080P, 60fps. How is it going to handle double that? With a reduction in graphics quality. *slow clap*