Why PlayStation VR Has the Advantage in the Impending VR War

After using all three major VR systems, Editor In Chief Mark looks at why he thinks Sony is poised for success in the upcoming race for the living room.

[SaveMeJebus]

Because it will be the cheapest and doesn't focus on hyper realistic graphics. Heard it before, but I don't disagree. I just want to try it already.

[himdeel]

Install base is highest after PC. It might be cheapest VR after PC VR. There isn't another console equivalent. It should be the most accessible out of the box, plug and play.

I just want to know the price.

[balth99]

I agree, at this point I'm wondering if they wait until E3 and announce it's available today. I would make an educated guess of $350 for the unit and $450 with the camera and two move wands. Possibly as high as $499 for the bundle. I don't see how they will gain much traction beyond that.

[Unspoken]

When did not focusing on better graphics give an advantage? Wouldn't the XB1 be more popular if that were the case? I don't get the double standards here which somehow removes all rationality.

[zeuanimals]

You missed the point. Lower end graphics isn't a plus and it doesn't mean more people would want it, it simply means that it'd be more affordable. Of course people want something better, but it's all cost-benefit analysis. If you want something more powerful, pay more for it. The PS4 wasn't like that, it was cheaper and more powerful.

[Unspoken]

Until Microsoft cut Kinect. Then the price advantage disappeared and the XB1 became cheaper, especially when you looked at bundles, than the PS4. Again, in this scenario it's more than just seeing value in the lower graphic setting that would increase sales and popularity.

We also don't know the price of the PSVR and whether it will be in a similar ball park as the Oculus.

[zeuanimals]

No, we don't know how much PSVR will cost, but it won't need a $1000+ machine to run it, which is my point. I also doubt it's going to cost as much as the Oculus Rift as it's using a much lower resolution screen.

And the Kinectless Xbox One was the same price as the PS4. It wasn't until Holiday 2014 that they actually had it cheaper than the PS4 and I'm pretty sure you remember how the Xbox One outsold the PS4 during that time in the US due to this.

And it's not seeing value in lower graphics, it's seeing what people are okay with at what price. Lower graphics is pretty irrelevant and can be replaced with any other metric.

[Unspoken]

A $1000 for the full experience? What if I want less than that like the PSVR? Can I just upgrade a PC for $400? Or spend $600-700 for near full experience?

It isn't so cut and dry considering PC graphic settings are configurable which will allow you to adjust fps on the fly.

I think we agree with each other on the rest concerning value.

[masterfox]

Playstation VR needs to win, cause is the only serious VR aimed for all consumers and not specific groups, if does win the market for VR will open hence the people will look for more VR products(Oculus, Vive, cardboxes, etc) to buy.

[Neonridr]

actually PSVR casts the narrowest net in terms of consumers. You are capturing gamers. That's about it.

Rift and Vive have so many uses outside of the gaming world that cannot be done via the console. Medicine and Science alone have so many uses for these machines..

[jwillj2k4]

NASA says hello

http://www.roadtovr.com/nas...

[G20WLY]

Medicine and science can be done on consoles. Just look at Folding at Home on PS3. Technology has moved forwards, not backwards, so I expect VR to be no different.

As for uses outside of gaming, do you really think that Sony - more specifically Sony Pictures - won't look to incorporate movie viewing and even potentially VR movies?

Even if it was just for gaming, PS4 will have sold at least 40 million units by the time PSVR is released. That's a pretty big install base and you have the benefit of consistent hardware creating consistent experiences. Dev's are all over the PSVR for those very reasons, so the platform selling games will surely follow.

[Neonridr]

@jwilj2k4 - cool, I didn't know that. It says Sony collaborated with them, so hard to say who approached who in regards to that.

I am merely suggesting that PC platforms are a little more open and offer so many alternatives. Yes, some of this stuff can be done on a PS4, but it isn't necessarily practical to be tied to a console vs a PC that could at least be mobile / portable.

oh and NASA works with Oculus too..

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

[Neonridr]

@G20WLY - regardless of how many PS4 owners there are, that does not mean you have that size of an install base. It means you have that large of a potential customer base. Let's face it, I would be surprised if 5% of PS4 owners jump on VR.

[DashArrivals]

You're forgetting the 'plug and play' aspect. Just say a normal person wants VR. It will be so easy for them to buy a PS4 and a PSVR and just start playing within 15 minutes easily.

If the experience it great, and we hear it most certainly is, then casuals will jump on and want the experience. REmember the Wii, that grabbed loads of gamers, but also casuals as well. The Wii tech is dead now, but it had nowhere to go. VR is just at the beginning. I really feel you're wrong with your predictions.

When I first turned on my PS4 I was surprised at just how easy it was to set up and how fast. A moron could get the thing working and start playing games. A moron couldn't just decide to start playing VR on a PC.

[Neonridr]

regardless if you share my opinion or not, I feel they all need to be successful in order to survive. If Rift/Vive fail, a significant portion of potential PSVR customers will think that it's simply a fad and won't pay the steep entry fees.

Besides, people on computers are more willing to spend money on accessories and peripherals. You think a console casual gamer is going to be told that they have to spend the same price they paid for the console for a headset that they may use once and a while?

[Thatguy-310]

The thing is consoles are more mainstream. All you have to look at is how the wii pushed motion controls to mainstream. PSVR is to the PS4 similar to what motion controls was to the wii. If Sony nails it with a cheap price and good marketing then VR will be big.

[kayoss]

@g20wly
"As for uses outside of gaming, do you really think that Sony - more specifically Sony Pictures - won't look to incorporate movie viewing and even potentially VR movies? "

This is a good point. Movies will benefit from VR, its like you're in the movie. However do i want a damn heart attack watching the Ring?

[UnHoly_One]

I'm a big naysayer of VR, I'll be honest.

So maybe I'm not the best example of a potential customer, but here is how I feel.

I only see it being useful for 1 very specific type of game, and that's a game that is in first person view. I see absolutely no reason to play anything with a VR headset if you aren't seeing through your character's eyes. It's pointless.

This goes double for movies. I can't think of anything I'd be LESS likely to do with a VR headset than watch a movie, that just sounds terribly stupid to me.

I don't ever WANT any new tech to fail, so don't think I'm wishing for this to go south. I just don't think it has a chance in hell of becoming a mainstream and long lasting success, and an almost zero chance of being "the future of gaming".

[joeorc]

Like jwillj2k4 posted,PlayStation VR is being used outside of just gaming, but also Sony has concentrated on VR multiplayer gaming in VR. Which that is one if the things Sony has put front and center.

They have taken a aspect if VR being seen as isolated to be , not being that instead of being that with VR many see it as it Isolates the person

Sony instead has geared PlayStation VR as also a multiplayer VR inclusive to standard gaming.

[balth99]

I think it has the most chance at widespread traction, but I just got back from a VR symposium where there were developers on the Oculus and Vive that were using VR to treat phobias via fear exposure, a second developer using it to remedy and treat lazy eye and a third for travel experiences.

I think the high end, really interesting development will occur with the Vive, because they will have a standardized launch hardware profile, whereas both the PSVR and Oculus will be a headset plus other things if you want it.

[stuna1]

I think because it'll have asynchronous gameplay while one player can use the VR headset with either a controller or, 2 move controllers. Another player can use another controller or, 2 move controllers as well just without the headset. All the while the PlayStation camera can effectively capture and track all the components all at once.

If I remember correctly Sony did touch on the possibility of more than 2 VR headsets being able to work in conjunction with each other on one TV/Console. Plus in comparison with the other VR systems, Sony are the only entrant entering the VR space who have openly touched on the issue of releasing their VR set on the market and said that will be taking a financial loss. That to me is like Sony saying that they are willing to take a financial hit to ensure VR is able to penetrate onto the market as well as do so at a lower buyin price than their competitors. It's not beyond reason that they wouldn't be up to taking a hit on price, because they also took a sizable hit with the PS3 as well.

[BitbyDeath]

Probably a pipe dream but if this revives local multiplayer then I'm all in.

[Volkama]

Disconnecting yourself from the local environment by sticking on a headset is not conducive to local multiplayer. When you can't see or hear each other you might as well be thousands of miles apart.

[IamTylerDurden1]

Local mp can thrive with PSVRs asynchronous mp. Asynchronous mp is aimed at multiple people on the couch playing on the tv against the 1 VR player. It'll be terrific for 2-4 people and help bring VR into the living room.

[Volkama]

Yeah OK that sounds brilliant :thumbs up:

[Neonridr]

until you whack your friend in the face with a move controller.. XD

[G20WLY]

I do that when I'm gaming without VR!

I don't like to lose.. X^/

[Neonridr]

@G20WLY - haha.. XD

[balth99]

Which is something I still don't know how they are going to reconcile. Or how they can accommodate for people who need to shed it fast for an emergency/child/etc.

[nitus10]

That is assuming you have a VR game that is designed for the player to physically move their whole body. Doing that invites litigation especially if the player trips or hits someone.

When using the PSMove on the PS3 you can actually move your whole body, however you can still see your surroundings. Putting a VR headset on can be very dangerous if the game allows the person to move their whole body more than one meter since you normally will not be able to see what is in the front, back or side of you.

[jwillj2k4]

I want PSVR to succeed as much as the next person, but we all saw what happened when two headsets were paired with one another at the PS Experience VR demo. I know I know, its not fair to criticize the hardware based on the software... but still that demo was shit. I am still upset that Sony allowed that to be the first world wide showing of PSVR...

[balth99]

I have not had the opportunity to participate in the VR portion of the monster attack game you are referring to that features the asynchronous gameplay, but I have been on the controller side of it, and while not something I'd play for four hours, is pretty fun.

My concern is how much of a hit can they actually afford, seeing as their entire company infrastructure (other than gaming) has been hit pretty hard.

[Volkama]

It is in all parties best interests for VR to be successful, they're essentially on the same team. Even direct competitors like Oculus and Vive will benefit from overall growth of the VR sector, more so than they'd benefit from beating out their supposed rivals.

It'll be some years before they start jossling for market share. They have to create and nurture the market first.

[Neonridr]

absolutely. If Rift and Vive fail, it will make it very difficult for PSVR to be socially adopted. However if they all succeed, it will naturally feed a healthy growth cycle to the VR industry.

[masterfox]

lol what ? "If Rift and Vive fail, it will make it very difficult for PSVR to be socially adopted", is actually the opposite. ;)

[Neonridr]

@masterfox - if those VR headsets fail and the public don't see the need, how exactly will that help PSVR if the public already has a negative view on VR as a whole?

[specialguest]

It's silly how the article title mentions VR war. If anyone of these VR gear is successful, it actually helps the industry as a whole. PSVR, Oculus, and Vive are not at war, but are actually united by a common goal to get VR launched into the mainstream and thrive as an industry.

[Relientk77]

The support of many developers, large PS4 install base, and (hopefully lower) price really help

[MasterCornholio]

I believe PSVR will be the cheapest option for a quality VR experience.

However, if it will be cheap enough or convince gamers to buy it due to its content is a different story.

Its a very interesting device and I'm pretty sure it will offer gamers a new way to experience games. And there will be games that will warrant its purchase.

But will it be successful?

I honestly don't know until its out however I will say that it has a good chance of being a successful product.

[bleedsoe9mm]

no porn on a closed platform

[Guyfamily999]

PSVR will do much better if by its launch the PS4 has a real media player, and it supports the videos in VR (either a virtual screen, virtual room, or just the image at max size with no head tracking). It would be nice if Blu-rays had that too. I really hope Sony doesn't cheap out on features like that (which wouldn't be incredibly expensive to implement) which would make the device so much more versatile.

[balth99]

I'm in complete agreement that Sony really needs to take a long-term worldview with launch of the PSVR -- if they don't support versatile features to incorporate the features we can expect with the PC-based systems for movie watching; it could be something that over time erodes their marketshare dramatically. I have been wondering if web browser access may be possible with the PSVR, which could be a way around bleedsoe9mm's comment; as the closed system would not promote it, but also would not stop users from seeking out whatever content they desire.

[joeorc]

@bleedsoe9mm + 9h ago
"no porn on a closed platform"

Yes, because PSPUMD's had no Porn pressed to UND's..

LMAO, just check out Japan if UMD's had porn...so what you stated is absolutely wrong.

[Eonjay]

Vs NO pussy on an overpriced platform.

[JasonKCK]

How is that even possible? It's VR, none of it is real.

[IamTylerDurden1]

Lower price of entry. It will be half the price to get aPSVR setup.

PSVR roughly $450 + PS4 $350 = $800

PC to run VR $1000 + Rift $600 = $1600

The PS4 will be around 45m install base when PSVR launches. 45m new and eager VR-ready people. Popularity of the PS4 will help PSVR immensely.

Games, Sony is the only VR company that has an abundance of in-house studios. There is already an impressive list of games for PSVR.

Rigs
London Heist
Ace Combat 7
Robinson The Journey (timed i think)
Dreams
Psychonauts
Eagle Flight
Driveclub VR
Gran Turismo Sport
Golem
The Deep
Until Dawn
Tekken 7 (exclusive to PSVR for VR)
Godling
Modern Zombie
Volume (timed)

All of the above are PSVR exclusives and there are more.

Sony's expertise in development and hardware manufacturing will make PSVR the most comfortable, most wearable, and most efficient VR hmd on the market. Their technical prowess has already shown through with PSVR performing at a comparable level to more expensive sets with higher specs.

Sony has all the parts to make VR successful from game development to electronic and hardware manufacturing expertise.

They are willing to take a loss in order to grow. Oculus wasn't willing to take a loss.

[Neonridr]

45 million people will not buy PSVR, you would be lucky if 5% would be interested.

Your numbers about the cost of entry only make sense for casuals who don't currently own the hardware. You think most of the people who preordered the Rift don't have a VR capable machine already or at least close? Just like the majority of PSVR adopters will already have a PS4.

So really you compare just the price of the headsets so in your case $600 (fact) vs $450 (speculation).

I love how only Sony has studios working on VR.. I would have to imagine the number of studios working on PC dwarf the number working on consoles..

[DashArrivals]

Lots of Games that are being made for Occulus will get ported to PSVR. I think your 5% adoption rate is way off, but we'll see. I'm sure a nintendo fan like yourself really thought the Wii U was going to sell gang-busters before it launched and look how that turned out.

[Guyfamily999]

A point to be made is that there might be people out there that want a rift but don't have a $1000+ PC. There isn't anyone getting excited for PSVR that doesn't have a PS4. You can spew out all the ignorance you want, 600+ extra dollars is a lot for some people.

[Neonridr]

@Guyfamily999 - and $400-450 is a lot to ask of a console gamer.

"Here, spend more than what you spent on your console on an accessory."

Yes, I will concede that if someone wants VR and has zero access to anything, then the console way is definitely more affordable.

But I believe that the early adopters of Rift are PC enthusiasts who probably spend a few hundred dollars minimum every year or two on upgrading components.

Tell Mom and Dad who bought a $400 PS4 for their son to spend another $400 on an optional piece of hardware.

[SteamPowered]

Neon,

You make very good points, but you are trying to sway the wrong people. PS gamers are convinced PSVR is the best, and PC gamers are convinced Vive/Rift is the best. Unlikely anyone with a PS4 is going to invest in a PC for VR.
Lets just enjoy VR on whatever platform we play it on. VR is incredible and will gain popularity very quickly whether you game on console or PC.

[IamTylerDurden1]

Neonridr

Out of the major VR companies making HMDs Sony is the only one with an abundance of in-house studios. Read what i said. Sony has a pedigree in games and hardware development, it's a massive advantage.

Your 5% estimate is off, it's at least 10-15%. That's just people who already own a PS4, many people will buy a PS4 for PSVR and we all know PS4 is selling like hotcakes. Obviously the growing PS4 install base will translate into higher PSVR sales. 45m will soon be 70m and 70m will become 100m.

The majority of PC gamers play in 1080p or less, not everyone has a grfx card that costs the same price (or more) as a PS4. The difference is, people are willing to pay $299-350 for a PS4, but not many people are willing to cough up $1000 or more to build a premium VR rig. If you are a normal person with a notebook and a tablet or two, you're screwed when it comes to Oculus. Desktop PCs are becoming less prevalent anyway, the % of people with Oculus ready PCs is incredibly low. Even if you just compare the hmd price you're looking at over 100-$200 less for PSVR (estimated). PSVR is more accessible, more attainable, and thus, less niche.

You think only parents are buying PS4s for their kids? PlayStation is the most adult of the 3 major consoles. This isn't 1993, more adults are gaming than kids.

Greed is already hurting PC VR. These guys don't understand the industry and are looking at profits rather than strategy. Sony has a huge advantage.

[kayoss]

The type of people
-People who want a VR but dont have PC may end up buying a PS4 with the PSVR since its a cheaper alternative
-People who already have a PC most likely will buy Rift
-People who already have a PS4 most likely will buy PSVR

[Unspoken]

IamTylerDurden1

I don't believe you can completely throw out the install base of PC's in both the consumer and business market, compare it to the PS4's current install base, and honestly say Sony has an advantage here.

Last year Intel was claiming over 1 billion PC's world wide were over three years old. Windows 10 is already on 150+ million devices and Microsoft is planning to have it up to 1 billion in over a 3 year period, not to mention any other operating system or how many PC's out in the market which are less than 3 years old.

Out of those PC's, how many only need an upgrade in hardware to use it? Also, the $1000 number that continues to be thrown around is recommended specs for the "full experience". If the PS4 is a low-mid range gaming machine, couldn't the settings for Oculus also be turned down and still have a comparable experience? In turn, just because PC gamers play at lower resolutions doesn't necessarily mean they don't have the hardware to use VR. Other factors come into play here, such as native resolution and desired frame rate.

Another note on accessibility, notebook manufactures are adding GPU add-on kits that can take a graphics card and allow you to dock with it. This is a viable setup for the normal person who already is investing in a laptop but doesn't want to spend more on a console plus accessories.

"Sony has a pedigree in games and hardware development, it's a massive advantage."

But how does it compare to the PC industry as a whole? According to the last survey more than 50% of developers were programming for PC, mobile 2nd, and consoles last. Also, Oculus/Vive have much better flexibility in the business sector where money isn't an issue like it is for console gamers. I don't see companies going and buying PS4 in droves to begin development of their applications when they have PC's better suited for the task.

Your point concerning the amount of adult gamer's now also means there is more disposable income and likely technical know how to purchase or upgrade their machine to have access to VR. I see more and more people online building their very own custom machines from build logs and how to's. It's typically the next step after they want to free themselves from only gaming and have access to everything else a PC has to offer, which in turn means a wider variety of applications for Oculus. Personal computers are integrated into our society and culture more so than gaming consoles. I don't see that changing any time soon either.

The PSVR is going to be niche. Why? Because the PS4 is a gaming machine first, and pretty much only. We all know by now Sony made sure to let gamers know that it's gaming machine is specifically for that and not much more. Sony isn't even marketing it in other areas.

The simplicity, if you can really call it that with all the components needed, behind the PSVR setup will be its saving grace, but price is ultimately going to be the determining factor on whether the adoption rate is as you claim.

[94jdh]

Until Sony release prices, this is only speculation. They need to push this harder than anything they have released before, be very aggressive with the pricing ( and advertising) to get it into as many homes as possible. It will live or die by the quality of the experience.

[Scatpants]

I'll probably buy both, but I'll be getting the Oculus first just because it is far more versatile.

[ScorpiusX]

Screw VR , i want my augmented reality (AR).

[kayoss]

PSvita and Ivizamal is for you my friend

[ScorpiusX]

Not the AR am looking for .

[DigitalRaptor]

Do you want powerful immersive gaming (VR), gimmicky gaming (AR)...

or are you simply looking forward to AR because of HoloLens and the infinite more applications that it will have for non-gaming productivity apps than gaming itself?

[ScorpiusX]

This part right here ......

"looking forward to AR because of HoloLens and the infinite more applications that it will have for non-gaming productivity apps than gaming itself"

[DigitalRaptor]

Cool. If I had thousands of dollar, then I too would like to give it a go.

Looks great for productivity. That tiny FOV doesn't spell good things for the first-round, though. It's gonna be a LONG time until you get affordable, consumer grade HoloLens with a more than adequate form factor. It's the definition of future tech.

[balth99]

DigitalRaptor, I am actually hitting another VR conference in about 3 weeks that will have Magic Leap in attendance. It's actually one of the things I am most intrigued to see at the show, as it is the least defined. I think HoloLens will most likely be a non-starter due to the cost of the equipment and the fact that it seems like it is still multiple years away from consumer launch. Magic Leap, however, has some really interesting stuff, and is ramping up their timelines to get to market faster. Once I've managed to get some hands on time, expect another article dedicated to the AR players.

What's interesting is that I don't think that it's an analog either/or proposition. If VR becomes popular, I think that actually helps pave the way for higher AR adoption in the workplace/social settings.

[JasonKCK]

Did you just say AR is gimmicky but VR isn't?

Both are freaking gimmicks.

[DigitalRaptor]

@ JasonKCK

Prove it. Explain to me how VR is a gimmick. It works, there is no smoke and mirrors, and there are already some amazingly convincing, immersive and endearing VR experiences out there blowing minds. There is no deceit involved in selling this to a consumer, like was involved with Kinect. When people tell me they tried VR and came away unimpressed, the only realistic possibility is that they tried an awful experience, or they are lying.

AR is gimmicky within the realm of gaming because it doesn't represent why we all game. There hasn't been a truly endearing AR gaming experience that has come away as more than a gimmick. It's just adding a layer to the existing world, which is largely shallow for the gaming experiences we come to expect. And there is barely any growth involved. HoloLens, will be just like Kinect - more useful and relevant for non-gaming application, which is fine. What is not fine, is that Microsoft is going to try and convince you that HoloLens is some kind of future of Xbox and gaming, and the fanboys will get excited (just like they did when they found out Microsoft showed TRULY gimmicky Oculus VR on their console), but it's really not.

It's productivity future-tech. VR represents immersive gaming with the real potential for the core experiences we come to expect due to traditional and non-traditional input and amazing feedback. I'm not saying that there won't be gimmicky VR experiences, but VR is still going places for entertainment as a whole.

[specialguest]

AR will be awesome in its own way. For example, story time before bed for a kid could mean the entire bedroom could be transformed into any interactive storybook scene. It's just sad that we wont have it for probably another 5 yrs when it's cconsumer ready.

[ScorpiusX]

Shouldn't be that far out it already being in Development for 5 years and Microsoft HoloLens Development Edition going out to Application developers this year we should have something in two years . Can't wait

[FN4GM]

It does have the best chance do to pricing, but VR will fail overall regardless.

[Goldby]

VR won't fail, no matter how many times you repeat that sentence.

VR for Medical training alone will keep it going, why practice on a dead kadavar when you can do VR training that will be able to give you more realistic situations. Playstation and Oculus are working with NASA (may have heard of them) for training for Astronauts. Sony is also investing alot into the Movie side of VR, first touch was with The Walk, where you were able to experience walking the tight rope.

I'm also guessing you're one of the people who says vinyl is dead too

[frankiebeans]

Because you need to spend more than double for a vr ready pc and headset as opposed to the 600-700 dollars you will spend total on a ps4 and psvr...

[S2Killinit]

not sure if these are traditional "competitors". the success of one can help the other and vice versa.