1) the screens . 1080p 120hz full rgb oled low persistence screens are not your typical cell phone screens
2) high BOM , I don't think sony will go for a profit on them at first.
Sony VR Headset/Project Morpheus/PlayStation VR
1) the screens . 1080p 120hz full rgb oled low persistence screens are not your typical cell phone screens
2) high BOM , I don't think sony will go for a profit on them at first.
How much do you think the screen costs?
prob $75 to $100 maybe a little bit more depending on how many they can make without problems
So from what MrFox said earlier, what else do you disagree with to make BOM high because I make your total $195 to $220?
Display $50
Optics $20
Processor $25
Memory $5
Misc IC, tranceivers, pcb $15
LEDs $10
Assembly, plastic, cabling, connectors $40
Power supply $5
Total $170
I don't disagree, it depends how serious/agressive Sony are...as I've already said they (technically) have a chance to get their foot in the door and estabilish themselves - they could release at 'near cost' (small profit) and keep that price for a while (while the manufaturing prices drop) not forgetting they will make profit on software. If they replicate PS4 launch (which I expect) they will go in with a good price.
Last edited:
be good price, be bought by lots of people, be lively new market for new game experience innovations 
It's certainly a possibility. But they said multiple times they'd price it for maximum sales volume, at the lowest possible price, using the game console pricing model. It would be weird if they'd turn up with a $399 headset with 50% to 100% mark up.
I am not convinced about the idea of supply problems. They said the hardware is already finished, and they are waiting for the software which is the reason given for the fuzzy H1 2016 target. So in order to have low volume at launch, there would need to have problems with a supplier for the next 6 months or more. This would be also weird considering there's nothing in there as complex as the PS4, which was neither supply limited, nor overpriced for early adopters.
Last edited:
PS4 was incredibly supply limited... outside of US, UK and Japan. Rest of the world got the short end of the stick. Hell, in France situation was semi-bad even in April 2014 when users who wanted to buy PS4 had to wait few weeks for May shipments to arrive. May was the first month when shipments in continental Europe finally caught with demand [Watch Dogs release month].
According to rumors Sony initially purchased a year of ~1.5M PS4 production per month. PSVR will be much more easier to manufacture at high scale, but we cannot predict what will be be a launch shipment. Sony will probably adjust their orders when PSVR preorders start, maybe at PSX who knows. [PS4 preorders broke all records at E3 2014 so they knew that they have to whip Chinese children a lot]
Imagine the outrage when they get their PSVR home and discover they need an internet connection to update the VR game they just purchased! Or worse need to buy games for the headset to work and that its not backwards compatible with all their all old crappy PS4 games.
I am not sure about Sony but retailers will and as an accessory I think most will expect margins typical for an accessory.
IMagine in 2015 someone who doesn't have the internet
$400 seems like a pretty reasonable guess for an HMD + some goodies - I believe that's the ballpark that Oculus is looking at for their HMD + camera + gamepad. I don't think anyone can really justify refusing to make some profit on hardware sales as long as there's a large enough hype train to keep units moving irrespective of cost during the first few months. If they need to they can chop a $100 off by the end of 2016 if their install base isn't large enough to self-sustain further 3rd party dev interest.
I'll be curious to see what the second hand market will end up doing to hardware sales though after the initial novelty wears off and/or people have chewed through most of the good content. At some point people will have to revert back to their TVs for the premium/AAA big releases regardless, and those long dry spells of disuse always seem to have a way of relegating peripherals to the closet.
I'll be curious to see what the second hand market will end up doing to hardware sales though after the initial novelty wears off and/or people have chewed through most of the good content. At some point people will have to revert back to their TVs for the premium/AAA big releases regardless, and those long dry spells of disuse always seem to have a way of relegating peripherals to the closet.
"Why would I want to live there?" (tm)
It's written on the box. People buying stuff look on the box for what it requires and what it contains.
This loosk surprisingly close to the Crytek announced for the PS VR http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-11-18-cryteks-back-to-dinosaur-island-vr-game-is-on-steam
The requirements are pretty hefty. Not sure how can the PS4 reach a similar level of quality with VR
The requirements are pretty hefty. Not sure how can the PS4 reach a similar level of quality with VR
GTX 980 and i7-2600K as the minimum specs, otherwise it can't keep the 75Hz frame rate consistent. On DK2 which is 1080p.
PC gamers who recently upgraded their rig based on oculus recommended specs of a mid-range i5 and a 970 will be angry when they see this. Oculus can claim low specs requirement to sell hardware, but it's painfully obvious that game companies will still do whatever the fuck they want.
Nobody expects PSVR to compete in IQ with the single or dual Titan X that were used at trade shows, and journalists who compared said as much. But if the minimum target keeps moving up, the already small market shrinks even more.
This shows the advantages of PSVR having a distribution model which enforces TCRs on a fixed platform, it will allow a wider adoption, consistent experience, and more importantly gamers can be confident of getting all titles for a few years without falling below the minimum specs after a few months.
GTX 980 and i7-2600K as the minimum specs, otherwise it can't keep the 75Hz frame rate consistent. On DK2 which is 1080p.
PC gamers who recently upgraded their rig based on oculus recommended specs of a mid-range i5 and a 970 will be angry when they see this. Oculus can claim low specs requirement to sell hardware, but it's painfully obvious that game companies will still do whatever the fuck they want.
Nobody expects PSVR to compete in IQ with the single or dual Titan X that were used at trade shows, and journalists who compared said as much. But if the minimum target keeps moving up, the already small market shrinks even more.
This shows the advantages of PSVR having a distribution model which enforces TCRs on a fixed platform, it will allow a wider adoption, consistent experience, and more importantly gamers can be confident of getting all titles for a few years without falling below the minimum specs after a few months.
It's a tech demo (almost certainly unoptimised) being released for the pre-consumer Oculus dev kit for free. Why are you equating this to a consumer game launch? Oculus have already stated they won;t allow anything on their store that doesn't run well on the minimum spec, and this demo was likely made before that spec was even announced.
Oculus have committed to a minimum spec for their store, not the device. They have stated that the content on their store will be curated to maintain their minimum spec for the life cycle of the product in order to ensure a good consumer experience/confidence. Despite the fact that the 970 has been a minimum spec for Oculus for some time, they've still been using the best available hardware for all their demo systems just as anyone would. In 2014 it was 980, and now it's predominantly 980ti. When Epic eventually released their Showdown demo they also recommended 980 simply because that was what the target was when they initially produced the demo back in 2014. Despite the high minimum specs for either of these demos they run just fine on my 5 year old CPU and my 970.
The only concern regarding specs are going to be for those games that don't rely on VR sales and Oculus's store front to make their money. Games like Elite Dangerous, Star Citizen, and the variety of racing sims that will predominantly still be played on monitors will continue to march to the beat of their own drum regarding system specs and will undoubtedly push well beyond the rather tame 970 spec by the end of 2016. I would be shocked if Elite Dangerous (and all of its expansions) by that time doesn't make a compelling case for 980ti SLI or pascal SLI and it's something that everyone should be prepared to budget for if they want to play those games to their fullest.
Oculus store would need to become quite a dominant force over steam to make a difference. The best solution would be an industry consortium. I would assume AMD and Nvidia don't like the idea of minimum specs being kept low for years, just a guess.
What is interesting is that successors will be higher res and higher frame rate, so targets should be higher for them while oculus could still keep the original Rift at the same low spec requirement. It should scale naturally in tandem with new devices. You'd upgrade the headset at the same time as the GPU.
What is interesting is that successors will be higher res and higher frame rate, so targets should be higher for them while oculus could still keep the original Rift at the same low spec requirement. It should scale naturally in tandem with new devices. You'd upgrade the headset at the same time as the GPU.
Similar threads
