Power was never an argument. You guys brught that in cuz you thought it somehow was impportant, while history keeps prooving devs will adjust to the biggest installbase and lowest power all the time.

Games are not cheaper, thats the biggest lie I heard And I used to be a cosntant steam player. But as long as games are not on sale, they tend to be more expensive than a retail copy of a console game. I have checked manny games. And I dont like waiting for sales that might never happen and the majority of the arket does not as well, as games sell most of their lifetime in the first months, over half in the first weeks.

I cant say anythin about payed online, I always hated that and mainly disliike xbox cuz they started that trend. But there are pros now, I get 4 free games every month and a few f them have been AAA. But I rather have a steddy $50 a year, then having to one day have to upgrade anything on a pc that could cost hundreds then soon have to  upgrde soething else.

diablo released over  year ahead on pc. minecraft years before and was free on pc, o rpirated I dont know also $20 on consoles. half life never releassed in consoles. I have no idea about payday 2.

I f you have keept reading the thread, that power argument was already debunked. We might get ps3 level graphics but for $1000 less, I am happy to have it. Plus others have stated how sony plans to cut around some isssud like reprojectin to get that 2x framerate, and better pixles with sub rgb to not need 4k screans, and having a single screen. 

Mods alter games they dont create, devs create games and sonny have a lot of studios full of them who have pumped out some of the best games in history.

Sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Game prices are cheaper on PC right from the start and they also fall faster after release. Especially if you have no problem to wait a few months (there are no game droughts on PC, so waiting is no hassle), you get the reduced PC version for a fraction of the reduced console version in most cases.

And you don't have to wait for the next Steam sale... there is always a sale in one of the many digital and retail stores.

You don't like upgrading PC's? My 3930K rig is almost 5 years old, if I kept the GPU's I would still be playing games better than a PS4. Don't act like you have to upgrade every year because you don't.
There are still plenty of Core 2 Quads around that are still gaming decently despite being 9+ years old.

The online essentially helps offset any upgrade costs.

But if you also wish to pay a small fee and subscribe to games on a monthly basis, Humble Bundle has you covered there... And you actually get to keep the games without renewing your subscription, go figure.

Now. You probably just "upraded" your consoles too, right? I mean you would have gone from the 360/PS3 to the One/PS4 right? That's an upgrade.
And if you are anything like me, you have bought new hard drives too, 3.5Tb on my Xbox One, 50% space used already.

If you buy a PC game at full price, then you are doing it wrong, there is always a sale on, somewhere.
You have: Gog.com, Steam, Humble Bundle, Green Man Gaming, Gamersgate, Origin, uPlay and many many many more.
There is even a website to help you out to see what deals are where.
https://isthereanydeal.com

Minecraft was never free.
You had Minecraft: Classic which is still playable to this day via various clients for free, but it is more like a demo, it has limited blocks, no survival and limited sized game worlds. - It's numbers aren't included in the copies sold, the version of Minecraft that resemble the current game were all paid and included in the copies sold.

Half life was released on consoles. Wow. I think other than Diablo, your entire opinions have been destroyed. Haha

Whatever the Playstation can do, the PC can also do.

Killing Floor, The Stanley Parable, Red Orchestra, Natural Selection, Defense of the Ancients (DOTA), Counter-Strike and many more started life as a mod and became full retail games, don't say that mods don't become games, they can and sometimes do.

PC VR requires this lot of power. For several reasons. You're not aware of the differences between PC VR and PS VR. With Oculus and Vive the graphics card has to cope with a two display solution. The missing reprojection feature. The PU box is a little helper (3D sound). Sony developed PS VR in conjunction with the PS4 hardware. Efficiency, tweaks and tricks. PC VR has to rely on raw insufficient used power and the non-unified hardware makes it a must to set minimum requirements high. So no one with a 'subpar rig' can complain.

Mods are mods. Nothing to brag about. In particular when it comes to VR. Games can't be simply patched up. Especially not by amateurs. It doesn't work that way. Otherwise every other publisher/developer would say "oh sure, let's support VR, put it in our games... *pulling switch, turning knob, pushing button* ... 1 2 3 and done."

But you got nothing to base your numbers on. Therefore my question remains unanswered. "5% of what?"

Oh yes you do. Ok. Maybe if you only want to use applications like tilt brush and don't plan to play any games coming in the near future.

Lower the fidelity... you're such a kidder. :D

Of course not. Because the PS4 doesn't really need the horsepower. But the PC does evidently.

"It generates 120 frames per second, taking into account the movement of the head, even when the game fails to achieve 60 frames per second. Which means that there is no jittering at all. You can play Megaton Rainfall for 1 hour and won’t see any frame out of sync. I can’t say the same for the VR experiences on my PC. Megaton Rainfallwill work at 60 fps in PSVR (120 with reprojection)."

http://vrfocus.com/archives/30770/megaton-rainfall-dev-psvr-will-ship-millions/

You might object that he doesn't even mention what GPU/CPU. Not necessary and who'd believe a developer not having a notion of hardware needed to power a high end VR HMD? It proves even with small undemanding games problems occur. With whatever hardware. Issues the like not being found on PS4VR.  And if it doesn't work the way as expected, then you have a problem. Lower the "fidelity" is an option that works reliably in case of conventional gaming. It's not recommended when the aim is to have a smooth, not motion sickness inducing VR experience.

Nope. The support will be relative to the success of VR. Let's use Kinect as reference in the right way for a change. It was introduced in 2010. Well into the 7th gen. 10 million units sold within a few month. Fasted selling device. Abysmal Support. Fast decline. Kinect 2.0 chained to Xbox One, even less support, flopped hard. The End.

According to some the PS4 is underpowered in general. But as we can all see ... it is doing more than just well. Record breaking would be a fitting term. So where is the reasoning for this claim? Slow clap indeed.

If you think the PS4 has some "untapped" hardware that the PC doesn't have in order to pull of "reprojection" then you are highly misinformed.

Reprojection is not a miracle technique, it can cause artifacts if not delt with correctly... The PC implementation of going with 90hz avoids some of the issues that reprojection brings.
If Oculus, HTC wish to use reprojection on the PC, then they have the capability to do so, I wouldn't also be surprised to see Sony's VR end up on the PC, you would be surprised how thrifty modders get. ;)
Running at 120fps instead of using reprojection to fake 120fps is easily more preferred, the PS4 doesn't have the power to do so unfortunately.

But no, the PC version doesn't require a ton of hardware, plenty of people have gotten it functioning perfectly fine on moderate hardware, you are telling "furfies".

Also, do not underestimate the power of mods. They have become entirely new gaming franchises, do you keep an eye on the moddb at all? You might just walk away not only more educated, but maybe more surprised by the ability of modders. (And why development company's sometimes snatch them up. Talent.)

Uh... You seriously asking that? After I told you? Wow. Incredible.

Not everyone wishes to game at 1440P with everything set to 11, unlike the PS4 where a developer will sometimes force 900P+30fps... You actually have the option to lower the graphics slightly to do 1080P or 60fps or both.

You are proving my point, Kinect was actually a massive success intially.
With VR headsets though... Chances are they will be more expensive than Kinect or other Motion control schemes, which means less casuals will be inclined to purchase it.
It would have more guarenteed support if it was introduced and sold with every single console sold.

Let's take the expansion pack in the Nintendo 64 as another example, the functionality was always there... But it wasn't released straight away... And wasn't with every console sold, thus by extension it didn't get significant game support, just a few notable titles.

The Playstation 4 is built from 4 year old, mid-range PC graphics hardware, backed by a CPU that belongs in a tablet with barely adequate amounts of bandwidth.
It is underpowered and archaic, technologocially it's already half an extended generation old.
Sales doesn't equate to technical capability, thought you would have known better than that with the PS2 and Wii's success.

Not interested in VR.

I see Sony getting more support because they're dominating the video game market. Hard Facts.

They might even get better quality VR due to thier first party studios.

Jeez where do we begin. Please don't ban me for the savagery ahead.

If you think the PS4 has some "untapped" hardware that the PC doesn't have in order to pull of "reprojection" then you are highly misinformed.

Well actually they use gpgpu compute to get the reprojection which means it doesn't touch the GPU budget even though it is running on the GPU. Watch the talk from Dr. Richard Marks from the latest Unity event.

If Oculus, HTC wish to use reprojection on the PC, then they have the capability to do so, I wouldn't also be surprised to see Sony's VR end up on the PC, you would be surprised how thrifty modders get. ;)

Well actually reprojection is a classified technology from Sony. What you are talking about is asynchronous timewarp which is just a similar thing but not the same.

Sony's vr will never end up on PC for the same reason that PS3/PS4 exclusives never end up on PC. They are not called modders in this case, its called "crackers".

Running at 120fps instead of using reprojection to fake 120fps is easily more preferred, the PS4 doesn't have the power to do so unfortunately.

Actually Sony has multiple demos running 120fps native. You are just lying when you say the ps4 doesn't have enough power. Why bother? The japan studio VR demos are all running 120fps and some of them have 30fps 720 additionally on the social screen (not splitter image, for multiplayer purposes).

But no, the PC version doesn't require a ton of hardware, plenty of people have gotten it functioning perfectly fine on moderate hardware, you are telling "furfies".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQrXlfn7tJA Watch this video. They go into detail why it is you need to spend approx $1k to get medium VR working. Anything below will make you sick.

The Playstation 4 is built from 4 year old, mid-range PC graphics hardware, backed by a CPU that belongs in a tablet with barely adequate amounts of bandwidth.

Is this not flamebait? Anyway.. PC paper specs =/= console paper specs

For the same given paper spec, a console will deliver twice the perf of a PC, and a PC will deliver twice the perf of a mobile part.

— John Carmack (@ID_AA_Carmack) February 19, 2014

I don't want to keep posting this. All i intend to show with this tweet is that even Oculus CTO John Carmack says that consoles are much better than initially thought.

It is underpowered and archaic, technologocially it's already half an extended generation old.
Sales doesn't equate to technical capability, thought you would have known better than that with the PS2 and Wii's success.

You sure this is not flamebait? I mean God of war 2 looked really freaking good compared to all other games that came out at the time. Same for The Last of Us on ps3.

It is undeniable that the last games of a console gen are significantly more impressive from a graphical perspective.

Obviously PC.

Please, let's be honest for once. Not only is the PS4 too weak to show VR in satisfying quality when you have normal HD games as reference, but there's just so many PC gamers all over the world who invest in high-end hardware.

The enthusiasm, the talk, the wows, nearly all of that has so far surrounded the VR experience on PC. Meanwhile the atmosphere around Playstation VR has been cautious, hesitant if not even doubtful. Also, when there are polls on VGC forums, the large majority of Sony fans say a clear no to getting VR anytime soon and some are even hostile towards it.

Just to make it clear, in february 2016 Nvidia said that there are 13 million VR-ready PCs in the world right now.

13 million is a huge number when you realize that we're talking about the most motivated and passionate gamers when it comes to powerful hardware and modern technology. These people already own expensive hardware which in itself proves that they're willing to spend on high-end gear. Roughly a third of these will be early adopters of VR (buying during first year). That's over 4 million gamers.

Now with the 14nm graphics cards just around the corner the 13 million VR-ready guys will double this year when all of a sudden you can purchase a VR-ready GPU for only $150. Out of those extra 13 million PC gamers 1/5th will be early adopters, over 2.5 million.

So in the near future we'll have almost 7 million PC gamers who own a VR device.

Meanwhile we're going to see a cautious reaction towards PSVR among PS4 owners and a trend that reminds of the Playstation Move adoption among PS3-owners. Out of the estimated 60 million PS4 owners in early 2017, less than 5% will be early adopters of PSVR, 3 million.

So one year from now there will be 7 million VR-devices sold for PC, while the PSVR install base is less than 3 million.

You are making a lot of guesstimations here. 

PSVR is not the playstation move. There is nothing that links the two to be even slightly similar in market.

13 million VR-ready PC's doesn't exactly equate to 13 million VR users. If you look at a couple of polls as of late around 49% of pc gamers responded with yes they were interested in VR whereas that number was bigger when they asked console gamers to about 72%. 

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-03-21-survey-playstation-xbox-gamers-more-interested-in-vr-than-pc-players

13 million VR-ready pc's compared to the already more than 36 million vr ready ps4's. When you say:

Here you are making even more baseless assumptions.

According to this poll on VGC: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=214750&page=1#

47% said they are absoloutely in, 23% said maybe and only 29% said no, so i would say there is still way more people who are up for PSVR than not.

So either you are lying or you are talking about a poll that i just can't find.

Not only this but pretty much all places that are talking about VR can't really stump the PSVR as being bad for anything. They all say that its great. Sure it might not be better than oculus or HTC vive but its still a great VR experience, which is all that should matter.

"Not only is the PS4 too weak to show VR in satisfying quality when you have normal HD games as reference, but there's just so many PC gamers all over the world who invest in high-end hardware."

This type of baseless assumption is totally bringing my piss to a boil when we have plenty of games that run flawlessly at really good graphics fidelity. All the Playstation VR worlds demo's + Until dawn + Rigs + Eve Valkyrie etc. they look just fine on PSVR. I am really struggeling with finding the huge graphics leaps that PC VR supposedly should have. I wish someone would link me to something that blows them out of the water but i have yet to find anything.

When people say PS4 is too weak for VR all i can think of is how The playroom VR runs 120fps native + 720p 30fps social screen in most minigames.