Placeholder pricing or a sign of things to come?
I would be happy with that price. although its probably just a place holder along with the 30th june release date.
I think it's going to come in below that price judging by Sony's past pricing tactics. Just think about it! When placeholders of past Sony products were put out there they all released at lower prices. Examples;The PS4, PS3, The Move Controllers, even the PS Vita's placeholder price was higher than the actual release price. All this is IMO is Sony gauging the market for a comfortable release price as well as a leveragable sales price gap against the other VR competitors. If done right, it's a Win/Win for Sony.
I believe $399 to $429 here in America.
so the ps3 place holder was over $599 U.S dollars?
@jstark Actually it was. The first placeholders had the PS3 as high as $800 because at the time Blu Ray players were new.
I paid £270 for my DK2, so £350 is a very good price, especially with the better tech inside the PSVR.
Except it's going to be inferior in technical aspects compared to Oculus CV1 and Vive
If any are going to succeed, It will be PSVR.
Double post, sorry. Erasing this one as the second better reflects my position.
Unspoken, Considering it's been noted by a few outlets that none of them suck (yes, go ahead and look up impressions), what matters is price. Power is cool and all, but how often does the most powerful hardware have the best adoption rate? PS4 and SNES are the only generations that come to mind. None of them are bad, thus, I argue power is irrelevant and price and content is everything.
@Prince-Ali "better experience " how so?
@Unspoken PSVR's screen can update faster than Oculus CV1, so it can achieve faster frame rates (120hz vs 90hz). This, when coupled with the frame reprojection hardware (able to upscale 60fps driveclub VR to 120fps), can possibly lead to fewer people experiencing motion sickness with PSVR vs. Oculus. The additional resolution of Oculus is a good advantage, but when comparing frame rate vs. resolution, we all know which we all prefer.
fr0sty: Faster frame rate is kind of useless if the system can only output half the frame, and re-projection produces artifacts. On top of this, the resolution is significantly less on PS VR. Frame re-projection can cause jarring images, which can induce VR sickness. So the actual fix might actually be part of the cause! So yeah, it's not a silver bullet. VR as is, is a gimmick right now. It remains to be seen if it can get out of gimmick status, but I have hope with the legions of creative people working on PC.
@Unspoken I might get PSVR first, because of it being cheaper.Then if I like VR I will def look to get Oculus.
@Prince Ali Hmm...maybe every person who advises to buy a PS4 over an Xbox because of the higher resolution, frame rate, or better detail in 3rd party games? This isn't your first comment here...is it? If we are talking about technology, technical aspects do matter. Otherwise the PS4 and XB1 would be even in sales right now. But as we continue to see on this and other sites, the PS4's "vastly superior" hardware is constantly brought up as the main reason to buy one over the other, exclusives second, and personal preference dead last. Of course it should be the other way around but people do appreciate the higher resolutions or higher frame rates as they are directly measurable and may translate into a better experience. @DarXsyde It doesn't necessarily need to be the most powerful, as few consoles in the past have had such disparity, though marginal, as we are seeing today. I think more so than price is value. Are the technical specifications providing the experience worth the price stamped on the side of the box? A single core phone chugging and stuttering away on a low resolution screen might be cheaper, but the amount of frustration and stressed caused when compared to a dual or quad core phone on a screen which provides more fluid information, might not be worth the experience. @frosty Frame rate will trump resolution only when there is enough graphical fidelity to satisfy the end user, ie playing a phone game at 120 fps vs enjoying a AAA title at 30 fps. Additionally, the amount of FPS we are able to discern is logarithmic as it increases. Meaning the jump from 30 fps to 60 fps is much more noticeable than say the jump from 90 fps to 120 fps. Temporal reprojection will cause an already low resolution to become even blurrier, with the possibility of introducing artifacts on screen and will impact newer graphical effects. Not to mention the dreaded input latency which needs to be minimized in a VR environment. Think motion interpolation on a TV but not as severe. I'd hate to think what that would do to VR users.
if sony were to released psvr at $399 than it would catch on(most companies lose money on hardware and make it back on software) for VR to be successful a lot of people have to buy it. more will buy it at $399 than $599(plus a $1500 pc so actual cost is over $2100) either way psvr will sell better than oculus but at the end of the day this vr gimmick will die down just like all the gimmicks before this
vr is no gimmick. not comparable to whatever gimmicks you have in mind and certainly wont die off. since its to find far beyond the boundaries of videogames. even before it got started. in every single imaginable. sports, art, healthcare, astronomy, architecture, automobile, military, tourism, journalism, movies, education, engineering. you name it.
not only will the widespread and various usability accelerate advancements of VRAR, also the beneficial character of the technology will add to its significance. yes. there is no doubt in my mind. it will have a tremendous influence.
Well, i dont believe gimmick. This will have its place in the entertainment industry till the day you die dude. For one pornography junkies this will be a must have. And ive heard cooler ideas like spectating events such as sports and whatever else like you have best seat in the house. Not to mention GAMES.._nuff said
well we will see than won't we. the best chance for these VR's will be porn. at $599 plus needing a $1500 pc i just don't see it taking off. it will be one of those devices which are exciting but than will just disappear now i am only talking about video games. VR can and most likely will exist in other forms of media. But gaming has and always will be a controller/keyboard based experience also reports of these devices hurting people's eyes and giving severe headaches won't be positive PR
Come on people, do you really think Facebook would have shelled out $2 Billion for Occulus if it was just a gimmick? And if $500 is too much then why is the thing so much in demand (see pre-orders)? I already own the PC needed for Rift and hopefully Vive just like a lot of other PC gamers out there. I don't however own a PS4, so PSVR is more expensive for me. Personally I like the look of PSVR, it looks more like a consumer product and if the price is right, it will sell very well. We should be rooting for all of them to succeed, no fanboyism...yet.
I call HOAX...
Sounds about right
If that price will be anything to go by, it would be around 500 USD. This thing will be a very hard sell at $500 IMO. Only a small sliver of the PS4 install base will buy into VR tops. The majority of customers don't have that kind of money to throw onto some gimmick. @decrypt Sony really needs to roll out the kind of games that justify a $400-500 price point, otherwise it will not take off.
Exactly what i have been saying, Sony couldnt sell a console at 600usd. How do people ever expect an accessory to take of at 500usd. This will just join the ranks with Move & 3D just gimmicks. I bought into the whole 3D thing with the PC. PC the best platform to have 3D on since it has over 600 titles supported and performance to back it up @ 1080p+. Yet at the end of the day I never used 3D much was just a gimmick.
Its so cute when the both of you show so much concern over Sony's future... OT: 350 euros means it will be 400 dollars tops. For the sake of the argument, lets say that will be the actual price, is that a standalone unit or a move+camera bundle? If its a bundle then I think the price is good.
Im pretty sure the ps3 outsold the xbox 360 in the long run despite the hefty price tag... Just saying
more immersion isnt a gimmick, you only have to try VR to understand its power and how it is in fact what we can call a REAL game changer, got nothing to do with 3d mode.
@UltraNova "OT: 350 euros means it will be 400 dollars tops." From the article... "A Swiss online retailer has listed Sony's VR headset, PlayStation VR, for 498 Swiss francs (that's around €455 / £347)." @PeaSFor PS Move and 3D were "game changers" how did that go? :)
I stand corrected! That said I bet the price will be lower than the place holder as is usually the case and $400 or 350 euro is the obvious possibility.
@magiciandude move is just a different control input, got nothing to do with immersion unlike vr, 3d is already included with vr, sorry blatant hater.
we (in EU) get shafted by VAT, deduct 20% off that price to get the real world price.
Never said a thing about immersion thanks for the laugh dude LOL. And if Sony's expectations are only about 1 million like Princekai13 said somewhere down there, then no way is PS VR a "REAL game changer" for the masses.
@MIKE The PS3 saw 3 big official price reductions in less than a year. In the end you could buy either console for the same money.
First so off on your estimate. Then pretend fear for virtual reality future. The truth is Oculus Rift is actually doing great at 600 dollars. I don't think you're estimate is accurate. More like 400 to 450 which is just fine. I've seen so many games on Oculus lately. I was wrong about that machine. Not only can it survive but it'll give PSVR lots of competition. PSVR perhaps can do well enough for there to be two coexisting virtual reality standards. This may actually be a bigger deal than even I predicted.
Move probably would have been more successful, and Sony may have reveled in the casuals, had it been a fresh idea when they released it, and particularly if they released it as mandatory for the console. Unfortunately, by the time it released, most people were already moving on, and the hardcore gamer already became disillusioned with the idea...mostly due to lack of compelling content from any of the competition's offerings. Not saying Sony would have offered up more compelling content, just people would have been more open minded about it. 3D...dunno if that would have ever caught on. 3D was rather expensive when it was touted, and most people weren't sold in general on the idea due to preconceptions of the 3D that came before. 3D movies are now becoming a regular thing though, and I'd imagine as time goes on, and more people upgrade to 4K TV's which support it across the board, it could see new life in the future. That being said, VR will have a stigma similar to 3D in that it will be thought of by those not in the know as the same lackluster tech of days gone by. It may or may not become a product which see's some sunny days, only to be delegated to the closet like the motion controls. The former is a given, that latter is just something that's too soon to tell, and it depends entirely on implementation, support, and people's excitement/experience with the device.
True they do, but again imagine if the user base is initially to small, imagine the extra development cost just to cater to VR. That imo will be a problem. It just depends how much is the user base, historically accessories just dont sell well. @ultra Learn to read currencies this gbp not euro. 350gbp is closer to 500usd. Which I think is quite a hefty price for a console accessory.
Missed that, my bad :) But still, you need to stop worrying about Sony so much ;-)
@ultra Lol i am the last person to worry about Sony. In fact i couldnt careless about consoles check my post history. However i am just expressing my opinion that i think VR will be a dud, not just on console but even so on the PC. Lastly please remember the US doesnt account for the entire world a mere 300 million people stay in the US. Rest of us are not in the US. So yea it might be lower than 500usd in the US, however for the rest of us it may even by way beyond 500usd.
@decrypt I didn't use the word 'worry' literally ;-) Genuine questions: Did you try any VR device? Why are you so sure of its demise? EDIT: I'm not from the US, but I do understand, unfortunately, that most decisions are taken after considering what's the best choice for the US market.
@ultra For the same exact reasons i knew Move and 3D wouldnt work. @ near 500usd i believe its a hard sell even in the PC world where gamers are willing to dish out even more moeny for their entertainment. I just think the price will be a barrier specially in the bad economy we have these days.
@decrypt I disagree, with the economic downturn the US experienced you saw more gamers emerge. Families began entertaining themselves at home with consoles for themselves and the kids, to offset other activitites. Surely some of the category will be just as excited for VR.
Dont listen to this guy, his negativity towards consoles is imbeded in his predictions 'Console gaming is dying with many of the casuals stuck on smart phones. ' Yeah bro, sony and ms are feeling the pinch
@decrypt "For the same exact reasons i knew Move and 3D wouldnt work." Ok Mr Pachter whatever you say...and I'll take that you didnt even try VR and no I'm not talking about Virtual Boy...
Two years ago the PS4 was $575.35 USD in Switzerland. Many overseas areas these products cost more according to our dollar, different taxes for the customer, and different taxes for them to ship products there. If a PS4 was around $575 USD in Switzerland while it was $400 here.. Well. You guess where I'm going with this. After you convert this to USD you guessed it to be around the same price in the US from that alone. But, from direct comparison it most likely will be substantially cheaper here because shipping costs and taxes are far different. My guess stands firm at $400. It might even be around $350. I expect there to be a base model without the camera and accessories for those that already own them, but this would be sold online most likely. And, then a version with the camera and Move controllers. I've heard $60 US games are around $85 over there. So, if you want the basic idea of what I'm saying. Swiss products tend to be 25% more expensive at least.
@UltraNova + 5m ago Bubble vote added @decrypt I didn't use the word 'worry' literally ;-) Genuine questions: Did you try any VR device? Why are you so sure of its demise? EDIT: I'm not from the US, but I do understand, unfortunately, that most decisions are taken after considering what's the best choice for the US market :-) 100% agreement What many like decrypt do not seem to understand is VR is not relying only on the higher end headsets in order to become a successful viable product in the market. Its really at this point only a matter of time for adoption not if. Due to the entry point for VR is the technology inside smartphones. The headsets Optics are all pretty much across board near to each other that the difference in how they operate in Quality is not such a huge gap that it would make that much difference. Entry level VR despite many on here who think otherwise is already pushing VR. All the three largest Mobile smartphone Operating systems support VR already IOS Android Windows Phone OS All three digital distribution stores all have VR application & games already. With $100.00 or less the majority of smart phones are already today VR compliance enabled. Development, publishers and application game development can cross port many such games and apps to more expensive VR headsets or use such to build Games & Applications for more expensive headsets. And since the Base adoption for VR is smartphone base the hardware shares commonality tool chains and SDK midfleware that porting to more expensive headsets is not really going to be out of reach. The thing about this is the reason for the excitement now is many factors lined up now in order to make VR really feasible as a marketable product, namely the smartphone being now advanced as it is. Its not high end going to lower end, that matters right Now its Adoption rate that matters, and the vector for Adoption rate for VR is through smartphone technology, not through PC or game console's. Because PC and game console for VR is pretty well set now for VR we have today, that adoption of smartphone VR will only help the higher end VR headsets, not hinder them.
"The thing about this is the reason for the excitement now is many factors lined up now in order to make VR really feasible as a marketable product, namely the smartphone being now advanced as it is." This is a great comment here. So true, and I think some people don't realize just what those factors are. On the technical side, LED and display technology on the scale needed for VR to be effective and pleasant has come down to a price where it's affordable, and even widely available, thus making it cheaper as well. Even low end GPU's are now more capable of rending two separate images for the display with sufficient speed, thus making it more affordable because special processors aren't needed. On the business/marketing side, we have several major players going hard into the marker to try and force adoption. In the past, it's typically been assigned to one manufacturer who couldn't make it viable. Basically, the market just became a whole lot bigger because it's not proprietary. Beyond this, the back end of the industry, NVidia, AMD, MS, Apple, etc, are all on board for providing the things necessary to make development much easier, thus meaning more content, which only helps to entice people to buy the device. VR isn't being approached anymore as a gimmick to an already existing market, but rather as a whole new platform on which to develop games. It's foraging it's own market on the back of the current gaming market, and if it succeeds, it will trickle into the mainstream...not unlike how the consoles got to where they are today.
@joeorc "The thing about this is the reason for the excitement now is many factors lined up now in order to make VR really feasible as a marketable product, namely the smartphone being now advanced as it is. " Yes that's exactly what I've been saying. So many big Companies are in this VR round now that its literally (almost) to big to fail... ...and as @rainslacker puts it "On the business/marketing side, we have several major players going hard into the marker to try and force adoption. In the past, it's typically been assigned to one manufacturer who couldn't make it viable. Basically, the market just became a whole lot bigger because it's not proprietary. " That said its support and AAA experiences that will allow VR to stick around, price is only but a small cog in the machine that is currently running at full steam. + bubbles for both of you for laying down some educated facts.
Well they're only expecting to sell about a million of them and there are 30+ million PS4's out there. So I'd say they have their expectations at a reasonable amount.
@Princekai13 + 5m ago Well they're only expecting to sell about a million of them and there are 30+ million PS4's out there. So I'd say they have their expectations at a reasonable amount. 100% exactly, the start of establishing VR now vs' several decades ago, is not like trying to establish it so long ago. VR today is not like it was starting out way back in the late 70's to 80's & 90's today the best reason to reestablish VR now is because it is indeed really Viable for mass market level of consumer entry point into VR and the best part is most consumers already have the key part to make it viably work without having to purchase the most expensive HMD units in order to successfully establish a VR market. Before in the 80's & 90's this was in blunt terms out of reach for a majority of consumers today its well within reach. Many here seem to think its all or nothing about establishing the VR market based on how well Oculus Rift, PlayStation VR or HTC & Valve Vive does in the market will determine the successful establishment of VR in the market. & that is just not in my opinion going to be the real factor in establishing VR. Its the smartphone Market that is not an if..its an already moving toward establishing a VR market already. It's off to a very well wide industry support already.
Only 1 million? Not a sign of a game changer in my opinion.
^ @Mag, who said it has to be 'a game changer'? Why can it just be a fun way to game for those of us that want it?
No dummy it would be around 349 in the US cause the exchange rate don't factor in when you sell it domestic. In UK you can buy a Big Mac for 4 pounds and its 4 dollars in US so if the VR is 350 then it will be 349.99 in the States
How about a PSVR patch for GTAV?It already has a first person view, that would get some mainstream attention
Well, it's definitely going to be a lot lower than the Oculus Rift headset, which makes sense, ofcourse. Sony can sell this stuff at a loss too, like consoles, so they might sell it at a really low price. Who knows though.
we all expect it to be lower than the rift, sure. But if this price is anything to go by, we are talking about $100 cheaper. Then factor in a camera ($50) and then you start getting dangerously close to the same price. Obviously this price isn't concrete, I am merely basing it off of this example. I feel Sony can't really afford to launch it for more than $400 otherwise not many console owners are going to buy it.
449USD would be a fair price for psvr+camera+no mans sky bundle.
@PeaSFor - yeah bundle pricing is different, because then you can see value in that. But if the headset launched for that alone, yikes.
I honestly CANNOT see them announcing a price without it immediately being the bundle as the 1st price announced. They KNOW not everyone has a camera or move controllers, so as to avoid confusion they'll announce the bundle, them perhaps later announce a standalone kit for those wanting cheaper. In the same way that oculus announced its price.
bundles will be the default price, since the camera is mandatory and they need content to sell it, so they would simply never announce it with a "stand alone" kit first.
Sounds about right, it's a good price, Sony isn't doing no Oculus!
That is almost exactly $500. Not MUCH cheaper than Oculus. Curious to see consumer reaction to a $500 accessory from beloved Sony.
With today exchange rates 350 pounds = around 470$
?? This price sounds about right? $100 cheaper than the Rift? Is the headset going to come with any accessory you need to use it? Does a PS4 Camera come with it? If not, tack on an extra $50. Does it come with games? That would be a terrible starting price for the PSVR..
It has to come with everything and a selection of games or demos at that price. I'm sure they will have a $500 SKU. But, for the base model? Highly doubtful. I'm still thinking $400 for the headset and camera, possibly including Move controllers.
£350? Good luck selling it at that price to the general consumer, that's more expensive than the consoles and almost all the games announced look more like small quirky tech demos than system sellers. At that price, I expect it to at least come bundled with 4+ smaller games.
It is good price. I will be happy if stay on £350. Day one buy for me with this price.
Same here. I'd be happy enough to pay that.
So you claim. We'll see.
Unfair comparison, the consoles have only recently had a price drop, it's actually the same price as the PS4 when it launched which is spot on for what Shu said about how VR would be priced as a new platform. It's not a horrible price if it's real, it's a brand new piece of technology so what did you expect? If it's too cheap then what good will the technology inside be?