We suspect that there may be a few smiles at Sony HQ today as the game of chicken regarding virtual reality pricing has finally come to an abrupt end. It's felt for a while like each of the major VR manufacturers have been waiting for each other to make the first move, and Oculus has faced the unenviable task of revealing today that its Oculus Rift will retail for $599/£499 without shipping. It's a price point that will be all too familiar to readers of this website, and we all know how it went down.
To be fair, the device is packing some meaty hardware: it has a higher resolution screen and a greater field of view than PlayStation VR, and while the Japanese giant's solution can boast of a better refresh rate, many will question whether the PlayStation 4 is powerful enough to take advantage of that. The retail version of the Oculus Rift – set to ship in March – also includes an Xbox One controller, as well as a copy of EVE: Valkyrie, one of the burgeoning medium's few stand-out experiences thus far.
But even with all of these things considered, it's still a steep asking fee for a technology that was already expected to be expensive. In truth, it's something that we probably should have been better prepared for: first-gen hardware is always extortionate, with the earliest mobile phones and high-definition televisions costing thousands – they're now the norm. But this does still provide a window of opportunity for PlayStation VR, which may end up looking like the cheap option in comparison.
While we don't have any inside information, common sense suggests that Sony is unlikely to sell its own product for anywhere near to $599/£499 – that would be virtually double the price of the hardware being tasked with powering it. But with Oculus – and, one would assume, HTC – going so high, a still-expensive $399/£349 price point for PlayStation VR would look very reasonable in comparison – especially when you consider how much cheaper a PS4 is compared to a high-spec computer.
Of course, it may give the PlayStation maker's peripheral a more "budget" feel, but having experienced PlayStation VR first hand, there's no doubt at this stage in the cycle that it's more than capable of hanging with its supercharged competitors. In fact, the pre-determined specifications of the PS4 may actually benefit developers, who will be able to ensure a one-size-fits-all, consistent experience for all customers on the console. This will be more complicated on the PC due to different configurations.
It's all speculation until Sony clears up its plans, but internally we suspect that it will have had a price in mind for a while now, and we get the sneaking suspicion that it may be looking upon Oculus' pre-orders with a wry smile. If virtual reality is going to enjoy any mainstream success at all, it always looked likely that PlayStation would be the one to unlock it. After today's news, that likelihood just grew.
What do you make of the Oculus Rift's price point? Do you think that Sony will go as high – or will it have the cheaper option? Do you even care? Enter another dimension in the comments section below.
How much would you pay for PlayStation VR? (182 votes)
- $99 or less
- Between $100 and $199
- Between $200 and $299
- Between $300 and $399
- Between $400 and $499
- $500 or more
- Not interested regardless of price
Please login to vote in this poll.
Comments 71
Still not sure about VR overall but I'm certainly not interested at £500 that's for sure!
I said it all the time and I keep saying it, that's about the price that was to be expected, people who thought this would fall into the "sub 200,-" range were delusional. And you know what, I think this is a fair price, if it delivers. It's the kind of money you'd spend on a TV to experience your games on and this peripheral falls into the same category for me, it's a device to experience your games on, it's a new and daring way. If it's possible to play ANY game on it (obviously in 2D just very close up to the screen if it's not a VR game) I see nothing wrong with this price.
@KingofSaiyans How do you mean?
It's kinda sad the price point is so high. Sure the first batch is sold out right now, but so did the WiiU during it's first months. (No consol war opinion here). Anyway, I really hope competition will make it cheaper as time goes or it'll be a flop just like 3D.
Palmer Luckey had said this was going to be premium priced, but I'm not sure what to think about this. On one hand, ok, yes that's a lot of money. But my knowledge is very limited regarding how much the tech costs that's in there, R&D costs, and frankly, the quality tradeoff you could have with a 100-200 bucks cheaper version. We're gonna have to wait and see, PSVR is almost certainly going to be cheaper, but there is a chance that it might not be good enough because of that.
Also, let's not forget business applications for this, unlike PSVR, this isn't strictly a gaming device, and while $600/£500 might seem like a lot for a consumer, it's not as much for a big company/professional (say, architects or mechanics, which VR could be extremely useful in visualising their work). So I can't tell if that tag will ruin the sales potential for it, it's still an unknown field.
Personally, I definitely don't own any pc that could handle the Rift at this stage, and even if I did, I'd want to wait or try it somewhere before commiting that amount of cash.
I will wait till it drops in price a year later like the PSTV and move. If I get it at all
$600 seems reasonable, it's "top-of-the-line" new computer tech, we aren't at the "mass market" price point yet. And they probably did enough market research to know how many they could make and sell at that price. Look at 3D printers, another nascent tech slowly creeping downwards in price. This is the early adopter price point, it will come down. All those hoverboards will get cheaper in price as well.
Also, I read in the paper this morning that only about 1.5% of the worlds PCs will operate this, and you need a newer $300 graphics card. So this is for people willing to spend money on what they want.
Not really sure how this price point helps or hinders Sony VR device. Depends on if they are planning on selling it at a profit or a loss for one, and bundling it or not for another. And how many games will make use of it? I'm not so quick to forget the 24" $500 3D display.
Price aside, Sony must be happy they have 35 million PS4 sold, can you imagine how poorly Sony VR would do if they only sold 10 million like Wii U?
Does the Sony VR need the $50 camera? If that's necessary and sold separartly that's a little savings on the price. And they certainly don't need to package a controller with it like Rift does. $299 is probably the magic Sony number.
I still see it costing as much, if not more than the actual PS4 - even then I expect it to be sod at a 'loss' with Sony trying to make up the cost on Software and maybe even additional console sales. Does it require the camera to track movements? Maybe if it does, that will help reduce costs and help subsidise the VR headset.
As far as the technology itself is concerned, personally I have no real interest in it. I really don't want to strap a box over my eyes and therefore have no peripheral vision for my surroundings. I also think it has a health hazard - not just the potential risk of having a screen that close to the eyes and its pseudo focal points - even 3D hurts my eyes (trying to focus on things in different artificial depths - particularly as they appear out of focus to the part they are expecting you to look at) especially with prolonged and frequent usage, but the risk to yourself and others because you are not able to see your actual environment. Not being aware of your surroundings can cause injury - its natural to move you head for example if something looks like its coming straight at it and you could bang you head into a wall or another person. It also increases the risk of breaking something - if not yourself because you can't see it's there.
I can see an increase in gaming related health issues and accidents as a direct result of VR. I am not (or at least don't think I am) being a pessimist, just a realist!
I have a feeling that all this VR malarkey will turn out to be another '3D TV' or 'PS Move' thing.
But I hope I'm wrong.
I really don't get all this VR stuff. Seems to me that it will fail pretty hard, regardless of price. Are those things suppose to give headaches or dizziness to a fair amount of people anyway? Have we not tried this in the 90's too? I would prefer the resources go to PS4 games
People voted 200-299 $ you are delusional it will be about 500$
and people wonder why VR never takes off
i understand WHY it costs that much but that is well out of the price range of most gamers, most ain't willing to pay that much for an actual console, let alone a peripheral
I'd be interested at £400 but no more, I certainly wouldn't pay £400 day one, I'd pay £300 day one.
Hopefully there are some events or in store demo's to try these out, I won't be buying one until I can test it first. As for price I'd say £300 would be my upper limit so will have to wait and see how much it'll cost.
I won't be buying anything VR until it's been out a year at least and only then if it's any good which I doubt, I certainly won't be spending over £200 on one. Just edited to add I doubt I would even spend £200 on one so I doubt i'll ever be getting one unless they are amazing and I dont mean pretty good, I mean it would have to be AMAZING.
I would spend around £300 not sure what that converts to. The thing with oculus rift is that you also need a really high spec computer with only 1% of PC users will be able to work with it. So pricing it at that point is not a big issue.
What I would be more annoyed at is that this was a kickstarter project that people supported then the guy sold it to facebook.
I think $299 is it's magical price point, but I believe 399 is going to be the price based on previous comments about how we should expect to pay a new console price (if memory is right, ps4 was still 399 when that was said). As I've stated, regardless of price (unless it's 5-600) I'm preordering the moment I can because I will get a ton of use out of it, vr or no vr. The rifts price is not much of a surprise, I mean the systems required to take advantage of it are going to have components in them that are the same price or more. For instance, my $700 rig isn't going to even think about vr. Not happening. Once I drop another 2-300 in it sure, but not until then.
@dryrain dog bites hand that feeds it, dog eats dog, buffoons open wallets
@GameDestroyer Thr question was what you'd be willing to pay, not what you think it'll cost. A lot of us can't see ourselves paying more
than $300-400. I can't even see myself paying that much.
Its not price its longevity that worries me.
@KingofSaiyans No you still need a £1000+ PC to run the rift.
@wagleton right around there. I'm not aware of the exchange rate, but I know your talking something like this just to meet minimum req
$200 cpu i5 minimum
$70 cheap Intel mobo but it's gotta have 3 3.0 usb minimum
$60 12gb ram
Figure hd is cheapest 30-120 depending what you want
Gtx 970 or r9 290 I think is req $300
Your going to want what, a 700 watt psu? $60
That's $660 roughly, but can be oh so much more.
"many will question whether the PlayStation 4 is powerful enough to take advantage of that." It is my understanding that the PlayStation VR comes with a black box which is supposedly some kind of secondary GPU, which connects to the headset and then connects to the console.
If PS VR was about 200, I'd buy it right away. Any more than that becomes a little too much to justify for simply a peripheral.
I'm guessing around 350 for the psvr but I think it will I crude a game, some tech demos and probably move controllers/camera. They may also just sell the headset itself without the camera and controllers a little cheaper.
It's not just the price, it's convincing me the experience is really worth investing my time in. If it's incredible then that will make all the difference. But how to Sony show consumers it's the future?
PSVR is going to be "500 or more", Sony will not sell this any cheaper than that. Anyone thinking its below that doesn't have a clue what VR is about.
I think Kaz Hairi CEO said it best, "Occulus Rift will transport you to fictional worlds, like the ones where people are willing to pay $599 for an Occulus Rift "
@adf86 March pre-orders are already sold out, into April now, so that fictional world is filling up fast.
I think people forget that there is an early adopter market for tech stuff like this. Athletes, entertainers, CEOs, people with too much money that just want to show off the coolest new gadget. Did anybody see that YouTube video of Mike Tyson falling off a hoverboard? You just know he pre-ordered one of these. He probably doesn't even own a PC that can run it. When it shows up in his mailbox he'll just walk into Best Buy and ask someone for the most expensive PC they have. What does he care about money when there are new toys to be had?
More interested in what Microsoft is doing overall tbh. I don't understand VR.
@readyletsgo I must admit the Hololens AR does seem to have a lot more versatility and use - particularly outside of gaming. I also think it will be 'safer' as it doesn't block peripheral vision but I don't know if the small letterbox window that it operates in will be sufficient and I do think it will break the illusion if things .disappear' because they are outside of that letterbox. Regardless though I still think it has more potential and a wider application - not just a gaming peripheral
@KingofSaiyans The Oculus does not do any of that processing, its all done on the PC, which is why you need a pretty high end PC to run it.
@readyletsgo I think what MS is doing is going to be a dud. I dont know if VR is going to take off, but I am pretty sure that AR is DOA. There is only so much you can do with AR games "lets put a fighter on the table!" or "lets cause an explosion to happen in the living room!" or "lets put some mask on the people in the room", in fact, most of what you can do with AR, MS has already done with the Kinect. Granted having stand alone glasses would make AR a bit more interesting, but not by much.
Since I keep bringing up 3D printers as a tech comparison for VR on an almost a weekly basis, here's what going on this year at CES in the 3D printer space. They are getting cheaper as one would expect, down from $500 last year to $300 this year. VR will probably follow suit, will be $200 for the PS5 version, which should be powerful enough to run it. Unless of course it goes the way of 3D displays and PS Move. But I think it will last. Maybe not in gaming, but in general, VR is too much a part of the mainstream subconscious.
http://hackaday.com/2016/01/06/the-3d-printers-of-ces/
If you're a PC gaming enthusiast, that price is about right. Console gamers are generally pretty whiney in comparison "£299?! For a console that will only last 8 years?!?"
@GameDestroyer what's it matter what people voted? The question asks what you would be willing to pay.
I'll stick to the virtual boy thanks.
I think this what Sony was waiting for so that they can look at the reaction of the competitors price and make changes towards there own vrs price
ps4 needs the Camera, works with the ds4, so very unlikely have a controller included, but will have various bundles w/wo camera and additional controller,
oculas is shipped with just the hmd camera and a controller,
whereas psvr will be shipped with the hmd and processor unit as a minimum, which most probably make the price much higher than i expected which was £350 to more like £450, the processing unit wont be cheap, as it does the video splitting, 3d sound, and the reprojection to 120 fps and probably a bit more, hope i am wrong, coz i really looking forward to this day 1, and getting lost in no mans sky.
i think when they said it will cost about the same as a new console, they meant the ps3.
ms hololens looks pretty awesome too, but i read somewhere the dev kit for that was around the $2000 mark.
i wonder how much the vive will retail at as the consist of a hmd, 2 motion controllers and 2 lighthouse lazer unit thingys.
Occulus ouch!!! If PSVR can retail for $299 in US, €250 in Europe, £199 in UK. At this affordable price it can infiltrate households and steal the market. If PS4 £350 with brand new tech came out at similar price of £399 like PS3 (older tech), PS4 at £399 would never had the momentum like it has right now. Gain momentum - get brownie points from gaming community - then watch word of mouth spread PSVR like wildfire .... also greater success if it has at least 3 blockbuster 'must buys' at launch (40+ hour games, single or multiplayer - see SNES, PS1, PS2 or Wii first launch titles as champion consoles of their generation - each had launch games with long legs) and we can use a theatre mode (a backup plan incase VR games sucks in first few months) to play current non-VR ps4 games, movies and browsing web. ^_^ Don't forget new gamers probably can't afford PS4 + PSVR + 2 games in one go. £450 bundle, £600 bundle, £700 bundle... as it goes up and up gf won't buy one for bf. family won't buy one for kids. heck even average adult would think twice a splashing out £500 for fun!!!!!
Considering that Sony is pretty adept at creating hardware and making it consumer and price friendly I am going to be optimistic and say it releases at 399 or less (US). They have the big advantage of probably having near or over 40 million ps4 in the wild when it releases. Does anyone really think that there are 40 million PCs out there able to run Oculus? Sony also has the marketing edge because the ps4 has basically become a cultural phenomenon, that will help. I have high hopes but even if it flops I am all in just for the theater mode, lol.
Plus the ps4 has so much more style and looks the most consumer ready, something Sony is really good at. Example, look how good the ps4 looks compared to the xbox1!
@DarkmarkUnited Well, I mean, you can do all of those things if you want to.
@rjejr Oh I agree, just thought it was a funny tweet.
I think what some people need to realise is that VR is going to be a slow burner, if for example PS VR sales are slow going then we shouldn't be thinking that the tech is dead. If anything it'll probably take upwards of 5 years before reaches close to mainstream audiences but these companies are jumping in first because they will have the knowledge of the tech ahead of others. The fact that Sony are hoping to sell about a million units within the first year tells me they have realistic expectations and we should too.
You get what you pay for.
Either Sony will have to charge an equally large sum to match the qualify and specs of its rival, or they will have to sell an inferior product in the interest of a lower price.
The lower the price the better, but there comes a point where the hardware is simply unimpressive and/or the quality of the experience is noticeably affected. So they'll need to be careful not to cross that line. VR hinges on wowing the consumer. Sacrifice too much and the customer just won't see the experience as something worth buying into- or worse, they'll write off VR entirely.
So ya, I wouldn't go jumping for joy over this price announcement because that's just the reality of the technology. And if Oculus feels a $600 price is the best they can do while still wowing the consumer, Sony better carefully reflect on whether or not their product wil suffice selling for half that amount, assuming they're still shooting for a $300 price point.
@rjejr There's also been a 3 year marketing campaign with oculus more or less talked about everyday on certain sites - palmer lucky this, ID software that, Youtubers going wooahhh, palmer luckys a billionaire, etc etc. Of course its gonna shift. Lets look at the state of play in 6 - 9 months.
VR could, should and will work. But until there's no lag and no wires its too inconvenient to be used every day. Everyone will be wowed, in fact most of us will want, if not buy one. But just like the set of turtle beaches with surround sound, bass boost and super comfy self massaging ear sponges sat in a cupboard sonewhere you wont bother plugging them in.
Will it be a success - yes - relatively, it wont replace your TV. On the contrary, I envisage bigger TVs at higher definition which widen the FOV being popular next gen.
Still have no interest in VR.
@KingofSaiyans
The oculus rift requires a pc to use ...... A powerful pc capable of pushing 2 4k renders at 60 plus fps
So if you don't have a pc already it will be a minimum 1600 dollars jump in point
Wow...$500 is expensive, and will have anyone hard to want to pick it up for that price. As I'm a parent, and my kids play games too, if I knew nothing about gaming (which many parents don't know much), those parents will walk into a store to pick one up, see that price and quickly say 'no' to it. Many people don't have the kind of money to spend like that, especially if they just bought a $300 or more console...it's a lot of money. I'd pay $200, but even after I saw that Lego Dimensions, Rock Band 4 and Guitar Hero Live (priced at $100) had problems selling out (many stores started to mark them down), then I can only imagine how these will sell. I hope I'm wrong about everything, but I see something that won't take off for the outrageous price (even though I see why it's so much money).
Eh? 599 usd to 500 gbp..am I missing something or are the uk getting charged way more?
A $200- 299 price range that comes with the headset, playstation move controllers, and a game would be fine with me, anything else and it would be a very hard sale.
This article's awfully cocky, crowing over Sony's victory before they've even made their opening move.
That said, the one glaring weakness in the Rift's pricing here is the bundled controller - that's a pricing albatross that Sony can, and will, undercut mercilessly. Recall that one of the key reasons Sony secured an early lead over MS this generation was that they were able to advertise their console at $100 under the Xbone, when they were really the same price in an apples-to-apples comparison - Sony just framed its price point without its $100 camera attachment, while MS made theirs mandatory.
I think it can go both ways. On one hand, what the article says is potentially true. On the other hand, if OR doesn't succeed, VR itself will take a massive hit and that may be very bad for PSVR. I think one of the things that Sony do well is come up with new things that become standard rather than things that rapidly become dated or obsolete. You may mention PS Move, but I'd make the argument that it was nowhere near as pointless and shortlived as the Wii Balance Board. Neither are as terrible as R.O.B. or the Power Glove.
They took Nintendo's odd Rumble Pak - which cost about £30 in modern money AND needed batteries - and made the Dual Shock have internal rumble motors. They took the hexagonal gate, weirdly high analogue stick of the N64 and made two analogues per pad, full 360 movement instead of 8-way, sitting lower in the case, and more rubberised than the N64's. Those all became standards - however, it's only a standard when other people do it as well, as MS did with the Xbox controller.
So to wrap up my rather long point, I don't think it's good enough for Sony to be the only ones doing this, even if they make a decent go of it. I think we need other VR headsets having healthy sales for VR to actually be more than a brief fad like the various waggling crap on the Wii.
@JaxonH Sony will likely be selling it at a loss they they and MS do with their consoles in and make it up on software sales. I would expect Sony's VR to cost $350-400 and possibly $450 if they put out a bundle that includes the Playstation camera with it.
@Matroska
"VR headsets having healthy sales for VR to actually be more than a brief fad like the various waggling crap on the Wii"
I know a lot of comparisons are made to the motion control fad any time a new way of gaming is proposed, which has resulted in skepticism toward anything beyond the status quo.
But what a lot of people fail to realize is that motion controls could have caught on and immediately revolutionized the gaming landscape. The only reason it didn't was the vast majority of software used what you refer to as "waggle", forcing as much movement as possible just for the sake of having as much motion integration as possible, as opposed to an intuitive setup that worked, even if the amount of motion used was more subtle.
Games like Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, Pandora's Tower, Call of Duty Zelda Skyward Sword and Pikmin 1 and 2 all used motion controls to their advantage and provided a superior experience. The problem is, for every game like that there were 100 games using cheap waggle as a gimmick for sales, which quickly drowned out the real innovation. This gave the false impression of motion controls having nothing to offer and no place in gaming as a legitimate control scheme.
But we're slowly beginning to see a return of motion in our games this generation- a refined, mature form of motion, particularly with regard to Nintendo but also with Sony and MS. Pikmin 3, Call of Duty Black Ops 2 and Splatoon on Wii U all showcase what can be done when integrating motion correctly. And gamers have overwhelmingly accepted this refined motion integration as superior.
The point I'm getting at, is that motion died out because of the perceived lack of legitimate use. The Wiimote did offer superior controls in select games, but no one took notice. Same for Kinect- there was no substantial contribution if offered over the standard dual analog controller, or even in conjunction with it (but with regard to Kinect, I have yet to see even one game justify its purpose). And for something to last, it has to have a purpose. It has to offer something or do something better.
So the only way VR will flop or die off as a fad is if it truly offers no legitimate advantage over traditional gaming (which I seriously doubt is the case), or if it is perceived to offer no legitimate advantage over traditional gaming. And perception matters. Motion controls have proven to offer a distinct advantage over dual analog in many cases, yet because of perception they were written off and abandoned.
So if we see a bunch of gimmicky VR games that don't really utilize the medium in a legitimate way- games that put an unnatural focus on flaunting the virtual "reality" in the same manner most Wii games put an unnatural focus on flaunting motion, consumers very well may write off VR as a fad that brings nothing to the table.
@thatguyEZ The ps4 has not sold at a loss, even at the release there were reports that it was sold at profit, albeit a small one.
@SonyInfinity I wasn't aware. The last I heard Sony's Vice President claimed that every system was being sold at a loss. Of course this was in 2013 so it most certainly could have changed.
Actually I believe it was the first generation that DIDN'T sell at a loss, I assumed like you did early on. We have to remember that the tech was already well established, some would say out dated, when the ps4 launched. Plus, Sony is very adept at manufacturing tech hardware and bringing down costs, more so than MS or Ninty.
Perfect example of Sony's superiority in producing better hardware, look at the ps4 compared to the One. Slightly more powerful, half the size, and alot nicer on the eyes. They were able to achieve all that in a small compact form, and for cheaper! Granted the one had the kinect tacked on, but we all know how that worked out.
Sony has close to ten years experience in manufacturing headset viewers, this will undoubtedly give them a leg up on manufacturing costs, as well as being able to make money off the software and not just the hardware like oculus is forced to do. I believe turning a decent profit is part of what drove up the price for the oculus, since they won't make any money on software and can't afford to sell the oculus at a break even price and especially not a a small loss.
Not really interested in any of these VR consoles I think it's going to be an expensive fad. If I did get it no more than £200 -£250.
@adf86 "take upwards of 5 years before reaches close to mainstream audiences"
AKA when the PS5 is out with enough power to run it well. Just think of all the VR remasters.
PS3 camera was much better than the PSEye on PS2. I haven't used the PS4 camera yet but I'd assume it's better still. PS4 VR is simply PSEye, AKA the beta VR.
I was willing to pay up to $500 for Oculus, but not $600 plus shipping. For Playstation VR, because of the lower specs, I'll be willing to pay up to $400. VR is super cool, and I know the first generation stuff is going to be expensive, but for lower specs and less versatility (PC compatibility with Oculus opens a lot more options long-term than a PS4-only VR headset), I'll expect a lower price point.
Luckily I already have the camera and the ds4 was built with psvr in mind, so hopefully they will sell a version without all the extra bundling to help the price even more. I'm sure the Move controllers would be nice, but I think I prefer just using the ds4.
I had a go on the occulus rift a couple of weeks ago, Can't say it was a comfortable fit. My main problem with it was down to the fact I wear glasses and the oculus didn't have any kind of way to adapt to my focus, something I imagine they'd sort out by release day. I'm happy to wait for the Playstation VR and give it a try before I buy.
@themcnoisy "no wires"
I think most people will accept wires for a VR headset at this early stage. And having wires now means at some point relatively soon the wired version can drop to $499 when they introduce the $599 wireless version. But if the PS4 version needs a little black box to help with the processing power anyway, it might as well all be wired, if for no other reason than to keep from having to charge the battery every 20 minutes.
And I think there will be a drop off after the initial excitement, but I think this tech will go mainstream. Not smartphone main stream, but more mainstream than 3D tv or Segways. There are too many useful applications for VR. I'm sure in no time real estate agent swill be using them for walk thrus of properties, just as a really boring example. VR wants to be a thing, it's in the collective conscious.
So Oculus is a stand-alone product while VR requires PS4? If that's the case, prices can't even be compared. As interesting as it might be, only the ones crazy about tech who don't mind spending a lot of money are gonna buy VR for anything similar to it; it would be just an accessory after all. After Kinect, Move and the Wii U controller failing to produce lots of games, as creative as the tech was, I'm a little hesitant about VR. Anyway, it's probably gonna cost much more than I can afford in Brazil...
I think it's fair. Oculus Rift is a great piece of technology. But I can see that it is still too high for most gamers. And you also need to have pretty beefy specs to run it. I'm set though because my PC is up to date. But the thing I'm wondering about VR is whether or not the games will be worth it. Playstation VR has potential to be used in some Sony exclusives, so I'll be looking forward to that.
I want the psvr to be the same price as the wii was when it first launched. People wont mind spending that amount of money on a new experience. I know its probably gonna be more than that but heres to wishful thinking.
If it stays under 500 it'll be good, preferable less than 450.
PS VR will be great for tech demos and corridor shooters while PC based VR will be doing what everyone actually wants to do in VR, however obviously much more expensive. The price of the Oculus Rift is completely irrelevant and suggesting that Sony are smiling is ridiculous.
Tap here to load 71 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...