This story's not really PlayStation related, but it's relevant to the virtual reality discussion, so we're just putting it out there: HTC's Vive will retail for a cool $799.99 when it starts shipping in April 2016. Assuming that you've got enough kidneys to sell, pre-orders will begin at 10:00AM ET on 29th February. This obviously makes the device significantly more expensive than the already steep Oculus Rift, which costs $599.99.
However, it's worth remembering that the Vive ships with two wireless controllers and room sensors which essentially allow you to move around in virtual space. This is something that neither the Oculus Rift nor PlayStation VR offer in their current guise, and is clearly the reason behind the inflated price point. "The integration of Steam VR into the bundle ensures that all Vive equipment is kept up-to-date with the latest features," the manufacturer said.
Of course, this puts eyes back on PlayStation VR, as Sony's still yet to indicate how much its device will cost. While opinion is split in Push Square Towers, this author reckons that you're looking at a sum much, much slimmer than anticipated – but no matter how low it goes, the reality is that it's unlikely to be "cheap". GameStop indicated this week that the PlayStation 4 peripheral may not launch until the fall, but the official line is still "the first half of 2016".
[source blog.htcvive.com]
Comments 42
Yep, it is considered the premium version as it were. My question though, is how do they intend to turn a profit with this? How many PCs are capable of fully supporting this, and then out of those PCs, how many who own one will actually buy it. Seems like their consumer base is small, and even smaller since they are essentially targeting the same audience as Oculus. These two kits will be for the hardcore pc enthusiast I am afraid, and may end up losing their companies quite a bit in their early iterations. I have said it before and still hold firm to the belief that Sony is best positioned to introduce VR to the mainstream and away from the gaming pc enthusiast. By the time psvr launches there may be close to 50 million ps4s in the wild, and they will not have to worry with fighting for a a third of the consumer pie since they will not be targeting the same audience as the other two. I am sure they are great products, but if VR has a legitimate future in the mainstream gaming and entertainment sector, it will have to be Sony that ushers it in, imo.
Psvr will probably launch at a time when there are close to 50 million ps4s in the wild, and counting. Would be interesting to know for sure, but I kinda doubt there is even close to that many able PCs out there to run Oculus or vive properly, and they have to fight one another for that presumably much smaller pie.
"but the official line is still "the first half of 2016"."
Very Nintendo of them. And as w/ all dates Nintendo, I doubt it.
Well the fact that it is getting close to that mythical June date does give it some credence imo, although deep down I still believe they will push it back a little. From a business standpoint it makes sense to push it back if you can. For one, they get valuable time watching and studying how the market reacts to the other two higher priced devices. Second, it allows cost to come down, even if only a little, as components will undoubtedly get cheaper now that the kits have hit the market. The main reason though that I believe they may push it back is for game development. Their is really only one scenario where i see it releasing in June, that is if NMS is psvr ready by then. If NMS is ready then they have the killer app they would need to go ahead with the launch, especially if it comes packaged with it. Haven't read up on it much lately so I am not even sure if NMS is still rumored to be a possible psvr compatible title, but would be awesome if it was.
That reminds me, the NMS front has been especially quiet as of late. I like it, it felt as if it was a little over saturated at times last year. Definitely best to let it simmer and then showcase it at full force close to launch, IMO.
I feel bad for the people in charge of marketing this stuff. It's got to be a nightmare.
I hope PlayStation VR is less than the cost of a PlayStation 4 otherwise I'm not buying one. (I'd rather get a new beefy PC, which I need, with an Oculus Rift)
@AyeHaley So you would rather spend around £1500 on a PC and Rift, but wouldn't spend around £300 on PSVR.
VR is finally at a consumer level and that really excites me. I always saw potential in the VR medium way back in the 1990's, but also realised it would be some years before I could own one for myself. While it would be great to own the most technically advanced headset, it isn't really realistic at this stage. Developers are only just starting to play around with the technology and as such it's still going to be a few years before they truly start to get to grips with the medium. Taking that into account it makes more sense to go with PSVR over the other devices. PSVR is obviously going to be way cheaper, have the full power of Sony behind it (Sony is a hardware and Entertainment company) and it will probably have way more games too.
Maybe when VR has finally settled into its own stride it will be worth a look at the alternatives, until then I believe PSVR is the way to go.
Unfortunately I think the death warrant for the vive has been sealed.. and this is coming from an enthusiast pc gamer. My pc is worth around 6 grand if including monitor, and I will not be spending a grand after taxes on the vive VR... first of all, they don't have any killer app in any way shape or form at the moment, and oculus has been busy locking down exclusives to their platform (something they promised they wouldn't do) and at that price point, the vive will be lucky to sell 10,000 units worldwide mark my words...
My eggs are in oculus basket at the moment. I've had mine preordered since day one and will be receiving it at the end of March. Eve valkyrie is something I've been super excited for.
As far as Playstation VR, I've expressed many times that I'm extremely skeptical at how such an underpowered console is going to be able to push games at 90 fps and render a resolution of 2160x1200 (I don't know ps vrs actual resolution but it had better be at least that high or there will be an immense "screen door" effect)
All that being said, I haven't given up on PSVR... I'm just waiting to see. If they pull it off I'm going to be amazed and delighted and I will be a day one purchaser of course.
Good look guinea pigs. My eyes are already bad.
In the news during the weekend. 50% of the population will be shortsighted by 2050. Look it up.
Good price. Don't get the ramblings. What are people expecting?
Out of all the VR devices, the Vive is the one I'm intrigued by most. It's the most advanced of the three and it seems to be making more steps in terms of head tracking and movement.
Whilst some may question whether these will turn a profit, who said they actually had that in mind? Why does it always need to be about that?
I think these companies are going in for the long haul and for once are actually concerned with furthering technology - which is a welcome change in this industry. These three companies can all afford to explore something new that might not necessarily bag them as much cash as other endeavours, but it'll be interesting to see the results.
As for the VR discussion - I wonder if Vive will end up being sold more to larger companies or perhaps even VR installations in the future, and perhaps the others will be more suited to home play.
As always with these things, it's all speculation and only time will tell.
Like I say, you get what you pay for.
People may seem happy about a lower price, but that also means lower quality.
Personally, I'd rather see it around $600 than $300, because I don't want a $300 VR experience.
@mitcHELLspawn from what I've read the ps4 outputs at 1080p 60fps to the headset, which with the help of a processing unit in between converts the signal to a VR display. Somewhere along the line the framerate is doubled to 120 fps by creating an extra frame, which is an amalgamation of the previous one sent out and the next one being rendered. The processing unit of the headset likely only deals with audio/visual conversion but this alone could help with what is generally perceived as a cpu bottleneck in the PS4. On the face of it most psvr games look to be much slower paced experiences when compared to their traditional console counterparts which should help them achieve the desired framerate.
I'm only in a position to be able to buy the PSVR any time soon but from what I've seen so far it has intrigued me and I will be saving up for launch just in case some of the software catches the imagination.
I can't see the point in the Vive's room tracking tech, surely most people that want to play VR games want to do so sat down.
@JoeBlogs because I'm familiar with computer hardware and it's limitations ? Lol. The processing unit you're talking about has nothing to do with enhancing the power of the ps4. It does no "heavy lifting" whatsoever. It's there as an upscaling engine and to work on the interpolation... which is unfortunately the only way psvr will work. When it's running at 120 fps in the psvr headset, it's actually only 60 frames per second that are doubled. It creates the illusion of a slightly more smooth experience but it is no subtitution for the real thing.
I just wish every console gamer could once in their life sit down at a 144Hz gaming monitor, preferably with gsync or freesync depending on the gpu being used, and have someone let them try games at 30,60, and finally uncapped at 144 fps so they could see just how much it does in fact matter and make a difference.
The thing is, on a tv with a controller, it's much more acceptable to have the lower framerates, but with a head mounted display where latency is ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, it's much less acceptable.
@JaxonH Yes and no. Vive is undoubtedly the most advanced, but it's not like PlayStation VR is a bad experience. I think PS VR is going to prove "good enough" for phase one of this tech, and it'll definitely be the cheapest. The ball's very much in Sony's court.
Having said that, I really don't think these manufacturers are "competing" with each other in the traditional sense right now.
@get2sammyb
That's a fair point, but consider the Wii.
The IR pointer motion controls were "good enough" for most to buy unto, but ultimately it turned gamers off from motion, which is a shame given that today's motion used intelligently can be a very enjoyable experience.
I fear "good enough" might not be, well, good enough, to keep people hooked in the years to come and impress well enough for word of mouth recommendations to spread like wildfire
I notice that VR has had a bit of TV coverage trying to sell it. BBC3 did a recent documentary on VR - The Virtual Reality Virgin (can be found on iPlayer) although this quickly moved into the sex industry and didn't really feature gaming.
Channel 5's the Gadget Show (returned last Friday) also looked at VR - mainly Oculus and the HTC (it wasn't a long segment). It explained why HTC was the better system but does look like it requires a bit of space to utilise. Maybe more than the original Kinect and Wii Motes. It also has a front facing camera so it can detect obstacles you won't be able to see because of the headset over your eyes - it could prove to be 'safer'.
@adf86 By being stood up and free to move, you get a much greater sense of being in the environment than being sat down. Its very difficult to get a full 360 degree visual as you can't see behind you very easily. The only time being sat down works in a VR sense would be driving/piloting a vehicle (or other activity that is normally seated). In a FPS game (for example) or even the 'walking' games, being stood up allows more immersion and a greater opportunity with things happening behind you and being able to react more naturally.
@JaxonH The tech in Wii Remotes isn't that bad, especially not the Plus version. The problem is that almost nobody knew how to use it, even Nintendo had issues with that. The controls work flawlessly in a handful of games, so I reckon it's a software issue for most games rather than a hardware issue. The same will be true for PSVR, those who know how to use the device will make great games, but I also expect plenty of games that don't work as well as they could.
@JoeBlogs lol I'm sorry I didn't realize it was "boring" to correct someone when they're factually incorrect. Give me a break.
@JaxonH The Wii mote was 'good' enough but as games developed that needed 'finer' control, we ended up with the Wii mote+ and Move. Kinect (another form of motion control) also improved with Kinect 2.0 in terms of what it can track.
The problem with Motion controls though and why its not the 'norm' now is more down to its application and use in a gaming sense. Kinect found its niche in Dance, Fitness and Party games, Wii and Move also found its niche in Dance, certain Sports and party games too. It doesn't matter how responsive these are, certain games are far more complex.Even a driving game is more than steering left and right with throttle and braking. Holding a position without something being 'fixed down' creates its own issues - Holding a Wii mote for example - even if its in a 'wheel', doesn't have the self-centring of a normal steering wheel, difficult to keep in a perfect position because its not 'fixed' and doesn't provide any resistance. This can affect games like Tennis too - not hitting an actual ball.
VR itself seems like it suits a niche genre. Admittedly that genre does seem 'bigger' and more varied. It obviously suits games that are designed more from a First person perspective and I can't see it working as well from the third person. Whilst this opens up FPS, action/adventure, RPG's and even games that require you to control a vehicle (like racing or flying for example) its still limited to the First person perspective.
I can't see any game that wouldn't work on TV but I do think you will get a much more immersive experience.
@BAMozzy
Motion for driving was never ideal.
I was thinking more along the lines of games like Pikmin 3 on Wii U (with the Wiimote- analog control scheme just can't compete), Metroid Prime 3 on Wii (could run one direction while aiming and shooting in another, not to mention the immersion of thrusting nunchuck to throw grapple beam), and FPS like CoD BO2 on Wii U or Splatoon with the gyro integration.
Those games all demonstrated superior control schemes that gave the player more control, unfortunately the stigma of motion killed it.
I'll jump into VR when it gets to £100 entry...
@JoeBlogs no you most definitely were factually incorrect. And as far as the bit about refresh rates and monitors, if you weren't so defensive about your little piece of plastic, you would have realized it was making a point about how pivotal framerate is. I clearly stated that it's much less important on a tv with a controller, but the anecdote was to point out how few console only gamers grasp the importance of framerate especially in a VR setting.
It just sounds to me that anyone who might suggest there are other things in the world aside from your little piece of plastic you get extremely defensive.. and I guess it's typical. So don't worry, I solemnly swear to never educate you on the technologies involved in getting VR to work properly again.
@JaxonH Hmm. Not really sure where you're going with the Wii comparison to be honest. PlayStation VR is comparable to the PC-based headsets - it's a lower resolution, but it still does everything the others can do. I wouldn't worry about it - it even has some advantages over the others.
@JoeBlogs do me a favor and look up the word hyperbole bud. It might come in handy. But hey, what do I know about the English language?
@JoeBlogs something we can agree on! And just to be clear the ps4 is most definitely one of my favorite pieces of plastic as well. I've just never been the one platform kinda guy.. but I've always been a huge fan of Playstation.
So yes, I'm hoping it's going to be something great, but am extremely cautious in my optimism knowing what I do.
@get2sammyb
Guess what I was getting at is if the tech doesn't wow people, they'll move on.
@JaxonH PlayStation VR wowed me to be honest. Haven't tried the latest versions of Oculus Rift or Vive, but I thought PS VR was very good.
I've already made a contingency savings for PS VR. I assumed it was $500, if it's less then I'll have some extra to buy other stuff with it. If it's more, which I doubt I'll pre order it and have enough saved up in time for the launch.
The price for any new and emerging technology is never going to be cheap. Is it that expensive for a new gaming experience?
@rjejr That they said the hardware is ready and is just waiting on the software, its entirely up to the myriad of developers to get their software ready on time. If the software is delayed, or not enough gets complete in a timely fashion, they would be stupid to just keep pushing with some hard date just to say they did.
@dryrain It all depends. There are two major types of gamers (in regards to this), those that have gaming as a hobby and have a disposable income to support that hobby, and those that have to plan for a new game purchase a month or more in advance. To the former, a $500 headset is nothing, to the latter, a $500 headset is a no buy. Many of those latter types have either not made the transition to this generation yet, or have but are in no position to throw more money at the hobby.
The only reason that $500 worries me is because a large percentage of gamers fall closer to the latter type than the former, and that means that it will be difficult to get the critical mass needed for the technology to not be the next Kinect or PS Move.
@thedevilsjester "they would be stupid to just keep pushing with some hard date just to say they did."
Well would it be stupid for them, now that it's the end of Feb, to announce some type of more realistic date? Or shouldn't they at least have a season by now, say spring, summer, or holiday - I don't think companies really use fall or winter, they always just say holiday. It's the end of Feb, they must know if it's the first half of 2016 or not, only 4 months left. And June doesn't really count, b/c they'll know if it's before or after E3, E3 is really it's own cutoff, so either it comes out in May or July - spring or summer, and July and summer are not the 1st half of 2016.
Despite all the who's tech is more powerful or which is cheaper shannigans. It'll be the one which captures the hearts and minds of gamers that'll gain the lead in VR... and my guess is the platform which provides the most entertaining games on a reasonable powered VR. eg. Disney's Frozen movie is a mega gazillion blockbuster which can be watched on a £10 bush DVD player on a 30" screen. PC elitists can brag about power all they like, but without desirable games or the uptake it's got a long long slow uphill climb to attract even an average pc gamer. VIVE ... oh PLZ lol.
800 ? They need to get out of the "virtual" world and back to "reality". lol
PSVR for the w!N
I problem i see is who is gone to stand up using the PSVR for long periods of time, Just like kinect after 5 mins of use all i wanted to do is sit down and play games.
VR gaming will be an interesting product to follow. How well it sells, how it is marketed, ect.
What most interests me is any negative affects with long term use. Gamers often play for hours or all day like i often do. What affects will long play create. Just regular game play can cause problems. Sometimes it is the person while other times it is the game camera and or frame rates. Just long play times can cause other physical problems.
@rjejr There is too much that is out of their hands right now. If they announce a target date, that will either force the developers to push harder (and release lower quality software, which we do NOT want for the initial VR outing), or it will mean that there is a high chance of not hitting that date and having to push it back. By not actually giving a date (and just a very rough target), they give themselves some breathing room. I don't wish for a date right now, because I know that any date they give right now will be just guess work, and won't likely be the date it actually launches.
What I want right now is the PRICE. With the other big players having announced theirs ($600 and $800) I really want to get that part out of the way, and I am sure thats something they can do (since the hardware is finalized).
@thedevilsjester "and I am sure thats something they can do (since the hardware is finalized)."
Except price is probably the last thing they do b/c they want to get it as cheap as they can, and as a global product they need to take into account global economies and currency values. Canada recently had all it's games go up a few bucks, Japan has some issues going on, China deflates it's currency at will. Have Hive and Oculus given currencies in anything other than US $ yet? We will probably get the date w/ the price, but I'd guess they are closer on the time "frame" - which isn't 1st half of 2016 anymore, so they should at least correct that - then on the final price. Though I'm sure they've narrowed it down to either $400 or $500 or something. They probably also want to take into account PS 3D display launched at $500, then quickly fell to $400, even $300, so they probably want to get it as cheap as they can so they don't have to lower the price every 3 months. See also PS TV, which went from $99 to $39 clearance in a few months.
They can always change the date - and by change I mean delay - but really once they announce the price they own it, even if every currency explodes or implodes, they can't announce $400 then raise it to $500, best to wait on that. OK, technically they can, PS4 also went up in price in Canda due to currency issues, but it isn't a good habit to get into.
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/03/14/sonys-playstation-4-going-up-50
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...