Sony VR Headset/Project Morpheus/PlayStation VR
Didn't you read my post? Or the article you posted? Let me re-play...
I already said: "Between, the slides and the article, price points of $400, $500 and $600 are all mentioned in relation to the percentage of users unwilling to spend more than that so it's difficult to judge exactly what they are trying to say. However I see the situation as follows:"
And this is from the article:
"The conclusion? About 60% of all respondents said they will not pay more than $400 for a VR headset."
"The largest group, 31%, said they would pay between $200 and $399."
"Not surprisingly, millennials and generation-Xers are willing to pay significantly more—a maximum of $524 and $526 on average—than baby boomers, who don’t want to pay more than $400."
"Men are willing to pay an average highest price of $564,"
"while women top out at $411,"
""Price point thresholds indicate that 20% of consumers will be willing to spend between $400 to $500, boding well for Playstation VR and possibly the HTC Vive,"
So probably a good idea to read the articles you link to before accusing me of "sleights of hand" and presenting arbitrary numbers in future. If anything by choosing the $600 price point which only showed up in the infographic, it's you that is attempting to skew the results towards a particular side. And even then, unless PSVR sells for $250, which few predict that it will, then at current prices a PS4+PSVR still wouldn't fall into that price band.
Just saw The Martian and after having seen some VR shorts I couldn't help wonder how awesome movies like that would be when shot and viewed in 360 VR Format. Wow.
Also watched some more VRse vids and noticed that resolution needs to go up a bit more, as others have said.
Also watched some more VRse vids and noticed that resolution needs to go up a bit more, as others have said.
How are you drawing that conclusion? The graph is labelled "The First Wave of High-End VR HMD's". Perhaps it does refer to total system value rather than pure headset value but there's no-where in the article that states that conclusively while other areas of the article do specifically refer to the cost of headsets.
Further if it is talking about total system value, then given that an earlier part of the article referred to 60% of people being unwilling to spend more than $400 on a headset, that would have to assume the console itself would only cost $199. Which is clearly wrong.
And further again, another quote from the report states "Price point thresholds indicate that 20% of consumers will be willing to spend between $400 to $500, boding well for Playstation VR and possibly the HTC Vive,". So are we talking headset price now or total system cost? Because in either case it makes no sense to include the Vive in the "bodes well" category while excluding the OR.
Perhaps respondents were asked 2 questions. 1. How much would you spend on a headset? and 2. How much would you spend on a complete system? And 40% of people answered $400 and $599 respectively. But it would be pretty remiss of the article not to point that out if it were the case. As per my original point, the report seems a little all over the place in some respects, although perhaps it's just the way the data has been presented in snippet form in the article that's confusing the matter.
If you toned down the insinuations of dishonesty it may help.
This threshold is completely arbitrary. The higher the price, the lower the sales. You equated OR+PC as the same thing as PS4+PSVR by using this 500 number, while it's more than twice the price, and very few will buy a new PC for VR. The PS4+PSVR is in the 40% bracket, or at least somewhere around it.
I don't think the prices are really all that important when contrasting the PS4 with the PC market for VR. I'd be shocked if PSVR doesn't outsell Rift+Vive combined by at least a 2:1 margin. A hundred dollars here or there isn't going to offset the visibility and convenience factors that go along with mainstream consoles - something that never seems to be addressed by market research. Until we see evidence to the contrary, we really can't assume that the PC VR user experience will be appreciably easier than it is currently, and currently it's firmly in the domain of enthusiast PC gamers that are willing to accept technical headaches, jump through some hoops to troubleshoot and tinker with settings to ensure a positive experience. If you look at the frequent reviews/reflections of those in the VR community that have visited HTC's Vive demo campaign over the last couple months, you'll see that it's hardly bullet proof to get a new user up and running for a 30 minute demo without any quirks and problems - and that's for a computer and room environment that has been specifically built for demoing their own product. The folks that will end up buying Rift/Vive will largely limited to the existing pool of people that are already able to justify doling out $400+ every year for a new video card and any attempt to reach beyond that community would be a PR liability imo.
Every time I see a demo with an employee constantly holding the cable and putting his hand on the shoulder to prevent an accident, I think there will be much more VR related injuries than the Wii ever had. It will be much worse than smashed TVs or a black eye. They really need proximity sensors with visual feedback.
I wasn't equating the two with that comparison, I was attempting to illustrate the flaw in the article in that it seems to be equating the cost of a PSVR headset alone to the cost of an OR + PC. The statement of "$400-$500 (where I got my comparison figure) being good for PSVR but bad for OR" is direct evidence of that since if it's headset only then it's good for both and if it's total system cost it's bad for both.
I also very specifically pointed out in an ealier post that PSVR has a big cost advantage if buying the total system from scratch.
I also very specifically pointed out in an ealier post that PSVR has a big cost advantage if buying the total system from scratch.
There are with the Vive, but it still won't be enough to make the device literally fool proof. At the very least I'm sure Nvidia and AMD are licking their chops at the prospect of all the replacement video cards they'll sell due to broken HDMI ports. We'll probably also see a global uptick in the amount of infants getting stepped on and dogs being kicked.
For my buddy I ran the OR DK2 wire up to the celling and then back down to a desk. The cable was held by a hook.
Our other plan is just to make a small square around us with yarn so we can feel when we are pushing against the yarn. We will see what happens.
I don't believe that will be a common occurrence, especially with oculus which also has a small standalone video/sensor processing box. [I don't know what approach does Vive use]
https://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/rJxj4HJ4tKBqvcvW
If user pulls the cable hard, chances are much higher that this processing box will die [or headset cable will be yanked out] , while PC GPU will remain intact.
edit - yup Vive also uses small breakout box [1min 12sec mark]
A year from now PSVR will have been out 6 months and have a nice foot-hold.
As ever you can spin data however you want, I read the underlined as 'most people happy to pay ~$300' - I personally think that is a sweet-spot that Sony should (and hopefully are) aim(ing) for. So a $600 bundle is a real possability (I can imagine it being $700 though with eye & move etc) which I cannot see PC hitting unless you already have a half-decent system already and require a minor upgrade (how much are GTX970s and the required CPU?).
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
And much of that will depend on the quality of the software available. I've very interested in VR but when (or if) I jump in depends on the software. More so than a basic console where you're know what you're getting
Except neither PSVR or the 16nm GPU's have confirmed release dates yet but both have been rumoured around Q2. So there's every possibility that GPU prices will fall significantly before the PSVR launch. I wouldn't even be surprised to see instances of the new "VR ready" 16nm GPU's being bundled with Oculus in a similar way to how we'll see PS4+PSVR bundled.
$300 for what? A headset of a full system? Because if it's for a headset then that's good for both Oculus and PSVR, i.e. the question hasn't even taken the full system price into account. And if it's for the full system then it's bad for both since neither Playstation or PC can provide both at that cost.
So as I said before, both the results and the article about it seem quite confused in their conclusions. This quote proves that perfectly (as I've already said): "Price point thresholds indicate that 20% of consumers will be willing to spend between $400 to $500, boding well for Playstation VR and possibly the HTC Vive," In order for a $500 price point to bode well for PSVR then they'd have to be talking about headset alone, which would obviously be good for Oculus too. If they're assuming that a PS4+PSVR can be pruchased for between $400 to $500 then it's very likely the conclusions have been drawn on a flawed premise.
The 970 is ~$330 and a 290 can currently be had for $225 on newegg but is being phased out for the ~$300 390. So a GPU upgrade for less than the cost of a PS4 is easily done, especially given those prices will drop drastically next year when the 16nm GPU's launch.
The CPU side is less clear. A 4590 costs $200, an equivalent Skylake a little less. However given the small variability in modern Intel CPU performance it's unlikely that anyone with a 3Ghz + i5/i7 since the Sandybridge generation will see any major issues. The specs that OR have quoted aren't the "minimum or it won't run" specs. They're the minimum target for a "just works" experience. Presumably than means full resolution and perfect 90fps frame rate. As with pretty much all modern games, in very graphics intensive situations (which VR clearly is) it generally doesn't matter what CPU you're running as long as it's an i5 or above. It's also worth noting that the majority of Oculus games will be available on PSVR too and thus designed to achieve 60fps on the PS4's Jaguar CPU. 50% more frames than that on any decent i5 is easily achievable, even without DX12 which by the time Oculus launches should be starting to establish itself in the VR space.
I was quoting DrEvil who stated 'a year from now' PSVR is confirmed for the first half of 2016, so it's fair to say that in a year from now it will have been out ~6mths.
As per my quote which clearly states the underlined, which clearly states for the VR headset.
I don't see the confusion, to me they're talking about just the headset, as fair as I can see 60% will pay up to $400, that can't be the whole experience because the PS4 is $350 alone. It could be that some people who took the survey were confused or maybe the point was 'I don't care about price' so they just ticked the biggest figure? I mean, 10% didn't know much about VR.
So it'd be fair to say the best price to upgrade both CPU and GPU to OR 'required' specs is roughly the same price as a PS4 console.
The problem with all these price predictions is that - unsurprisingly - they are purely speculative. And not just speculative, but in this instance we don't even have any sort of comparison as there is, effectively, no market. At least with consoles we can have an idea as the market has been pretty much the same for decades. The VR market will only really start to exist when OR/PSVR are released, and only then we will see what price the market is prepared to pay for them.
If Sony (I say Sony because I have a feeling they will release first) releases PSVR at a higher price than the market is prepared to pay - and subsequently sell far less of these things than everyone expected - we will see OR probably launching at a lower price point than they might have prepared for.
All you boys can do for now is state what YOU are prepared to pay for PSVR. Keep it low just in case Sony checks these pages
If Sony (I say Sony because I have a feeling they will release first) releases PSVR at a higher price than the market is prepared to pay - and subsequently sell far less of these things than everyone expected - we will see OR probably launching at a lower price point than they might have prepared for.
All you boys can do for now is state what YOU are prepared to pay for PSVR. Keep it low just in case Sony checks these pages
Similar threads
