Oh ok i thought HDR was 4k but guess not. He wasnt oh right guess i didnt detect the sarcasm lol

Sure, wireless VR is more convenient. Is it a convenience that people are willing to pay for in terms of sacrificing performance or paying hundreds extra for? It appears not. Again, most of the complaints about wired VR isn't based on the wire going to the headset. It has to do with how that wire is positioned with the headset, the wire's length, how there's no solution for minimizing it's impact on using the headset. It has to do with the extra VR processing box that has its own power requirements, and own cables,. It has to do with the camera and other sensors you may have to place in your gaming space. It's a complicated mess that's tedious to set up. Many of those issues aren't solved just by removing the data tether of the headset, and a wireless solution abandons the requirements of those sensors, then it severely limits the motion tracking capabilities of the device itself down to Gear VR territory. Which means many of the convenience issues are fundamental to VR solutions themselves that has little to nothing to do with whether the headset is wireless or not. let 's put it this way. Let's assume that wireless pack works just as well as the tether for the Oculus Rift. Does that really make the device that much more convenient to use to justfy the $400 price tag?

I bet if you gave two VR buyers a $500 budget, and they could get a wired VR headset like Oculus Rift for $200, and then spend the other $300 in games and accessories, or they could get a wireless VR headset again, similar to Oculus Rift with no wired thether, for $400, and spend the other $100 in games and accessories, buyers would choose the wired headset over 90% of the time. I think you're grossly overestimating the value of removing that tether completely.

Using a work around to get around digital locks is akin to saying that DRM isn't an issue for a game because hey look you can get this tool that removes all the DRM, or that the Switch is backwards compatible with old Nintendo titles because look how easy it is to hack a Switch with custom firmware and play emulators. It certainly wasn't Oculus's intent to permit HTC Vive owners to play these Oculus Exclusive games, and hat's the point.

Just because the PSVR has been sold art $200 doesn't mean it can be sold at $50 or even $100 without a loss in the future. Again, look at the Wii U. That saw minimal price drops because it was so expensive to make and Nintendo just couldn't lower the Bill of Materials to a point where they could lower the price by even $50 more without taking a loss. You're assuming that Sony can make the PSVR headset for $50-$100 in the years they come. Maybe they can, but perhaps not. Let's not assume.

So what is it? Are people not buying VR Headsets because of the price? Or are people not buying VR headsets because of the lack of marketing? They can't know that VR headsets are too expensive if they don't know that these VR Headsets exist. If there's a $150 VR Headset that outperforms a HTC Vive, why are people still paying 2-3 times as much for Rifts and Vives? Nintendo sold tens of millions of Wiis through word of mouth, one first hand experience, and a $200 price tag. What's VR's excuse? If lack of knowledge of the games library is the reason headsets aren't selling, and you think  they would sell if people only knew about these great system selling games that no one has heard of,  I can't help but find that laughable. You have arguably the biggest player in video games for the past two decades,  Sony, pushing PSVR very strongly for years, created TV commercials for it, created ads for major gaming sites, featured it prominently at every major conference including E3, and even started giving out free PSVR games with PS+. What more could VR ever ask for? Furthermore, I get Oculus Rift ads popup in my facebook all the time. What more does VR need? The Initial marketing push has not paid off, and it appears that the Sony has decided to stop investing and market a technology that isn't performing as expected.

Look, If creating a $150 solution that's capable of out-performing a top-of-the-line $800 headset in just two years then price is no longer a constraint for VR success. Since that hasn't even that hasn't made a notable blip in the market, it's safe to assume VR is beyond fucked, and will never be more than a niche product. If it turns out that $150 solution is the Oculus Go, and is only better than the HTC Vive in the sense that it has higher resolution screens, then that was incredibly disingenuous of you.

The Oculus Quest tracks as well as the Oculus Rift with no need for external sensors? I know it has a sensor-less solution, but I also know there are severe limitations in terms of maintaining orientation without fixed reference points. I suspect this solution will suffer from every other sensor-less solution - low fidelity, less accurate motion tracking, and the need the need to recalibrate often. The Rift, Vive and PSVR don't use fixed references for fun - they're far more expensive to produce - they do so because they're magnitudes better than sensorless solutions. In the Case of the Oculus go, it's only going to be able to read the controllers when they're within direct line of sight of the sensors, and that's going to lead to more issues. So like I said, Samsung Gear VR territory, this won't be much better than using an internal gyroscope of a cell phone.

Okay, so you're going to make ridiculous claims. A $400 wireless VR headset will never perform as well as a $400 tethered headset made developed during the same time period. Going with a wireless solution means sacrificing everything else, since you know, a VR device that's totally self-contained has to make sacrifices in order to be self-contained vs something that delegates the processing to another device. To be clear, you think most prospective VR buyers would prefer a wireless VR headset over one that does everything else VR related better? Because if not, that means people are going to have to pay extra to get that same quality of VR experience on a wireless headset. There's no two ways about it.

Well i mean, it kinda is an unreasonable assumption... the Wii U is now 6 years old. I would hope that after 16 years that tech would advance enough that you could make a wii u-like device for cheaper than the Wii U? But using the Wii U's BOM? It might actually be more expensive to make as there may be critical components inside it like processors that are no longer produced in 10 years since you know, no one has a use for them any more, meaning that some components might cost most to produce in 10 years than they do today. Perhaps you should look into instances where companies try to resurrect and start re-making 10-15-20 year old electronics and find out they actually cost more to make today than they did 20 years ago. it's not as simple as you're making it out to be. Let me give you a realistic example. let's take the PS1 classic. That undoubtedly shares almost zero components in common with the original PS1, but also doesn't play the same discs, use the same memory cards, or use the same controllers. But let's say Sony wanted to actually re-release the PS1 in all of it's classic glory, with 100% compatibility with all old PS1 games, which likely means exact replication. There are a pile of custom chips in that PS1, along with controller ports, memory card ports etc that are no longer made, and that might mean that fabricating them today means creating them at today's rates, that may require old fabrication processes that are actually more expensive to employ today than it was i decades ago. it could mean that producing a PS1 today using the same technology that the original PS1 used costs more today than it did in 1998.

You think the only reason that poople are buying Oculus Rift or HTC Vive over other headsets is brand awareness and marketing, and not because, you know, they're better VR headsets and better ecosystems with better games libraries? If you say so. I'm not sure how you think devices that are pretty much not stocked at retail stores are getting sales off of brand awareness, as if HTC and Oculus are recognizable brands to the average consumer. I'd say most VR buyers are people that have done their homework, which means they're probablly looking up reviews, most all of which put HTC Vive and Oculus Rift at the top of the PC VR pile by far.

Another big reason for not buying VR: People prefer to game on televisions with gamepads, and don't think VR adds to that in a meaningful way
Another big reason: Motion sickness. Some people flat out can't use VR.

And again, if people have to use a product in order to get the experience necessary to want to buy one, you're never going to sell very many.

... you do realize that your phones accelerometer is "an actual tracking system", right? Sure it's very basic, and not very reliable or accurate, but it is "an actual tracking system".

It can map the environment all it wants, it still needs to know where it is in that environment, and without fixed points to determine that, it means it's going to have to re calibrate itself constantly or else suffer from all the other issues devices suffer from in every other non-fixed point solution. This is something that has been explored a variety of different ways in robotics, and the Quest's solution isn't exactly a novel concept, and the limitations of it are very well understood.  The Rift and HTC Vive use fixed points because decades of research has proven its the cheapest and most effective solution for positional tracking. The Wii uses a very basic version of it in Wii Remotes.

Wired headsets will almost definitely not go away any time soon. Its by far the easiest way to shave cost of of a VR headset. A wired headset will always be cheaper than a wireless headset with the same capabilities.

It doesn't matter if certain aspects of PSVR drops in price if the critical components don't.

Yes I know the HTC Vive works through steam. I said it was Oculus that had exclusive titles that they decided to abandon for the greater good of VR. You can bet if 30 million Oculus Rifts were sold at this point all of those totals would still be exclusive. The only advantage they have is "somewhat superior tracking"? So anyone who buys a HTC Vive or a Oculus Rift in 2018 is esentially wasting their money in your eyes, I assume?

People have been trying to figure out how to cure motion sickness for decades now. That doesn't mean they're going to.

It's the strangest thing. It's pretty clear you more or less agree with my points overall, but continue to argue back and forth over the minutia.

So how do you play 5k videos (5160x2880 = 14.9 MegaPixels) on your PS4 Pro?

As far as I know the limits of the PS4 Pro are 8.3 MegaPixels, so 3840x2160 with 16:9 aspect or 4080x2040 with 2:1 aspect.

I got a Vive a few years ago and its pretty awesome. But the set up is so complicated that I haven’t been using it much lately. And for the most part, it’s games are more arcade experiences and tech demos then deep games you want to spend hours playing.

Honestly, I think games like Space Pirate Simular demonstrate that VR is a much better fit for the arcades then a home experience. There’s a Star Wars VR experience I got to check out earlier this year that is WAY beyond anything that could be done at home that shows just how far it can go, even with today’s tech. You can hold real guns, you can feel actual feat from the lava around you, you get a little jolt when lasers hit you...stuff like that is what VR ought to be aiming for, period. It doesn’t need to all be as elebaorate as Star Wars, but smaller arcade experiences like SPS are simply what the tech’s best suited for right now, and that’s not worth the high price tag.

For anyone who is interested: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tondYxB9Vo

Game development for VR is in the 80's atm. Indeed more arcade compatible experiences, shorter games with small development teams. Games will get bigger when the install base grows but it will be a while before we see a large openworld game for VR unless something like GTA San Andreas gets modified for VR.

Astro bot had my jaw hitting the floor again last night. The quality is consistently amazing. I was playing world 5 last night and somehow they got away with using proper black level despite Sony advising to keep it grey for comfort sake. Finally perfect use of the OLED screen capabilities, looks so good.

Please, don't turn this into another one of those "only console can save X" type threads. PC VR has been going before console VR entered this gen and it will still go on, as well as being sold in various unit types.

I don't see MS VR blowing all of PC well away on just Xbox either.

If you wanna aim for casuals, look no further than the biggest pool out there, the mobile space, which dwarfs consoles in users and general profits. If you want the biggest pool out there, it's going to be mobile gaming.

I think we will see it taking off, because if it wasn't worth the venture, it would have been dropped a long time ago.

I don't see how Xbox VR will outsell everyone combined (because let's imply that for the sake of being "blown away". 

"PC six degrees of freedom"?, You're expecting all strengths and zero weaknesses of console VR, but with all of PC's strengths on a closed platform?.

"sorry it hurts your master race feelings", mate, if you wanna play the toss insult game, go for it, but on this site, it's not going to roll.

The reality is, is that your platform isn't going to lord over everything like you imply it will, not when there is a far bigger market and far bigger audience out there, that still shows no signs of evaporating or slowing down. 

lol, that last part, you're definitely looking to jab