PlayStation VR review: High-end virtual reality goes mainstream | MobileSyrup

The main question surrounding Sony's PlayStation VR (PS VR) is whether or not the headset has the ability to push high-end VR to the masses.

[tastas21]

This review is the worst. It sounds like he didn't even use the headset.

[2cents]

Hi end?
Oculus and Vive are High end, PSVR is Mid range at best, GearVR and Google Cardboad are low end.

[DeadlyOreo]

Completely disagree. It's practically the same as Oculus, just because it's cheaper doesn't mean is worse.

[2cents]

Just like a Skoda is practically a Ferrari.

[Aenea]

Explain to me why the Rift and Vive are high end and PSVR is not? I really want to know!

[2cents]

Wouldn't matter if I did.
Your mind is made up already, clearly.
The 'facts' are everywhere, google it.

[Aenea]

The facts are everywhere? Please!

The differences:
- Vive/Rift higher resolution but PSVR 3 instead of 2 subpixels per pixel causing less of a screen door effect
- Vive/Rift 90hz, PSVR 90 and 120hz, 60fps games are re-projected to 120fps for 120hz
- Vive/Rift 10 degrees more FOV
- PSVR looks better and is more comfortable

So it's rather debatable why Vive/Rift are on a different scale than PSVR, to me the pros and cons even each other out.

The only reason why people feel PSVR is much worse is because it's priced lower and only uses a PS4 to drive it and they automatically assume it has to be worse without even checking out the specs of each...

[2cents]

Again, you answered exactly why the Rift and Vive are considered premium products.

Things like IPD adjustments, two screens, one for each eye, 4k resolutions, multiple point laser / ir tracking. Extremely accurate motion controls, room scale... Blah blah blah...

PSVR, 1080p screen stuck to your face looking through binoculars, in a sexy case. With a webcam and glow sticks.
Sketchy tracking, sketchy motion controls, low res, lower fov, limited play area... Blah blah blah...

Mid range when compared to the competition.

You get what you pay for.

Crucial point, I never said it was bad, I said it was mid range. If you don't think so then cool. Doesn't matter anyways, ill get roasted for saying what I said, used to it.

I'm off to play Mafia III.

[Errorist76]

4K resolutions?! You're clearly talking out of your ass. The Rift and Vive have a only slightly higher resolution yet a screen which has much worse tech, more screen door effect and lower refresh rate.

[2cents]

My bad, was supposed to type 2k not 4,

I should really learn my lesson from this shouldn't I. I mean, Sony are just too good to be compared with. what chance does anyone have when we have Sony and the PSVR, All must now get on their knees, bow their heads and smoke that pole.

All hail PSVR! The true VR Saviours.

Better? Did I do good? Woof woof.

[Aenea]

LOL, you need to google more buddy, 4k resolutions? Are you crazy?

The Rift (and Vive) is 2160x1200 instead of 1920x1080, that's not 4k and not such a huge difference, especially not since Rift/Vive have 2 subpixels per pixel instead of 3 of the PSVR. Also the Rift/Vive screens are stuck to your face, don't see your point with that.

And I also never said PSVR is bad, you claim it's in another category, a worse category quality wise and I don't really see that.

But hey, go play with your Rift/Vive on you fancy PC, I will be enjoying VR next week!

[Errorist76]

Strangely the PSVRs screen tech and ergonomics are much more high end than Rift and Vive.

[Aenea]

The fact that it's made by Sony, is priced lower and uses a console to drive the VR headset automatically means it can't be as good as the more expensive ones that need a beefy PC...