Support NeoGAF

[Tagyhag]

GPU's are well understood and directly comparable. So are monitors. VR is a new field that requires a leap of faith with new products. 200 more than oculus? Room based field rather than couch / controller?

I don't see many apart from some enthusiasts jumping.

Well that's the thing, it IS an enthusiast market.

The mainstream isn't buying GPU's that are over $200 and the market is still incredibly healthy.

One thing that Valve does have to do better though, is inform consumers that their headset isn't just room-based only, but it's just an option. Because I'm seeing a lot of misinformed users in this thread.

 

[jmga]

If PSVR costs 500$ like I'm estimating, I can see more enthusiast PC gamers buying a 800$ periferic than PS4 consumers buying a 500$ one.

 

[kennyamr]

I don't see what is the big deal here, isn't this just like the PC vs Consoles narrative?

If you want top notch graphics and stuff, then you buy a high-end PC and play games there.
It will cost you way more than a console but you will have better technology to enjoy gaming.

On the other side, people who want an affordable and simple (and cool) machine for gaming will choose a console.
It is way cheaper than a high-end PC and of course you know that the overall experience will not be as "beautiful" as with a PC.

There are 2 submarkets here, the Vive/Rift and PSVR are focusing on different markets. No one will win just because of price differences, just like PC gaming or Console gaming hasn't died yet.

Maybe there will be a winner between the Vive and the Rift but that's not happening anytime soon so please, don't mix the PC market and the Console market, they are not the same and I don't see how one can win over the other. It's like saying the PS4 won because it's cheaper than a PC, well.... let me tell you, the PC market is healthier than ever and the same goes for the PS4.

On a side note, I've always preferred the Sony brand over the others but I have to be fair, the discussions here comparing VR for PC and VR for the PS4 are useless. There is no winner because they are two different things for two different markets. If the discussion were about the Vive vs the Rift, then you may have a point but consoles and PCs are just different. I think it's a pretty obvious observation.

 

[Seiru]

Cheap accessible consumer VR was the entire point of the Rift kickstarter, then Facebook happened.

This is cheap VR. At least with the Rift, the price is super low compared to what you're getting in the box, and it's fraction of what "VR" experiences cost back in the 90s.

Also, I'm not even sure what you mean with "then Facebook happened", because Facebook is what is allowing Oculus to sell the Rift at cost.

Maybe you just wanted to sound smart.

 

[Tagyhag]

While its obvious people are willing to spend on their pc tech, a graphics card applies itself to all games. A VR headset must be supported...Valve is going to have to pay developers to develop with VR in mind if the if the headset count is low enough(Not that they can't do that).

Does a developer really want to spend the time to incorporate VR if there are less than 100,000 of the headsets(seems extremely likely). Better yet wouldn't a developer want to capture the largest section of people if they are developing for VR?

My money is on developers developing for the lowest common denominator of the 3 headsets(PS VR) and then releasing it to the other two. If this does happen is there a point to buying an $800 Vive? Will it ever be fully utilized/developed specifically towards other than by Valve?

Perhaps I'm neglecting some aspect/running with an assumption too far, but I just don't see it grabbing a good market share or support unless Valve just funnels money into it at which point why not just take the loss on each headset by under pricing it instead of putting that money into paying for support?

If the Vive flops on the software-side, then you are right, it's just a downhill slope from there.

But I'm talking about it being purely dead on arrival due to it being $800, which I don't believe will happen. People will pre-order it, people will buy it.

 

[MUnited83]

While its obvious people are willing to spend on their pc tech, a graphics card applies itself to all games. A VR headset must be supported...Valve is going to have to pay developers to develop with VR in mind if the if the headset count is low enough(Not that they can't do that).

Does a developer really want to spend the time to incorporate VR if there are less than 100,000 of the headsets(seems extremely likely). Better yet wouldn't a developer want to capture the largest section of people if they are developing for VR?

My money is on developers developing for the lowest common denominator of the 3 headsets(PS VR) and then releasing it to the other two. If this does happen is there a point to buying an $800 Vive? Will it ever be fully utilized/developed specifically towards other than by Valve?

Perhaps I'm neglecting some aspect/running with an assumption too far, but I just don't see it grabbing a good market share or support unless Valve just funnels money into it at which point why not just take the loss on each headset by under pricing it instead of putting that money into paying for support?

It doesn't take all that much support different headsets. If you have it running on one of them, you're already done the heavy lifting.
That, and consider that Valve is pushing SteamVR/OpenVR API, which by definition if used makes supporting different headsets a lot more trivial.

 

[plagiarize]

While its obvious people are willing to spend on their pc tech, a graphics card applies itself to all games. A VR headset must be supported...Valve is going to have to pay developers to develop with VR in mind if the if the headset count is low enough(Not that they can't do that).

Does a developer really want to spend the time to incorporate VR if there are less than 100,000 of the headsets(seems extremely likely). Better yet wouldn't a developer want to capture the largest section of people if they are developing for VR?

My money is on developers developing for the lowest common denominator of the 3 headsets(PS VR) and then releasing it to the other two. If this does happen is there a point to buying an $800 Vive? Will it ever be fully utilized/developed specifically towards other than by Valve?

Perhaps I'm neglecting some aspect/running with an assumption too far, but I just don't see it grabbing a good market share or support unless Valve just funnels money into it at which point why not just take the loss on each headset by under pricing it instead of putting that money into paying for support?

Developers have shown significant interest in making VR games, or adding VR support to their existing games. If your game is still work in progress, in many cases adding VR support isn't anything like as expensive or difficult as some people think.

People hear 'the game has to be designed for VR' and think it's an either or thing, but it's not. When designing a game that you want to have VR support for you have to keep certain things about VR in mind... but it doesn't really increase the man hours or cost of development by much at all.

You'll need to make a HUD that works in VR. You'll need to make sure everything is built 1:1 in scale. You'll need to keep movement speeds down if it's a first person experience without a cockpit. Etc.

Support isn't going to be a problem.

 

[teiresias]

Too rich for my blood given the question of software support. I think Valve/HTC and Occulus are both handing the VR crown to Sony fairly easily.

 

[Spaghetti]

Seems reasonable, considering they were aiming for the super enthusiast market.

 

[MikeE21286]

Our last hope is PSVR

 

[Peltz]

VR mindshare for the general populace if priced reasonable?

So instead of new adopters for VR for the PC realm, the mainstream will just flock to the more affordable PS4 option. Hell, a lot of PC gamers may just get a PS4 and VR if priced well.

VR on the PC will remain mostly enthusiast only, and not gain the same traction or software love?

But all this would have happened regardless (the mindshare and marketing), just by the dominance the PS4 is doing worldwide and the power of their brand I suppose.

This type of product lives and dies by the market saturation and mindshare. It is not the same as an HDTV, since you are not buying them for the 'Big Game/Super Bowl', and to watch another Kardashians.

And trust me, I am all hype on the VR train.





PlayStation VR Will Cost As Much As A Console

So take it for what was said I suppose. PS4 launched at $400. Camera does not mean a thing when packed in, since I seen them on sale every other month for $20-$30 at major retailers. And by now the cost is minimal.

The exact quote is that "it will be priced as a new gaming platform."

I don't interpret that as saying "it will cost the same as the existing consoles on the market". It may very well end up costing $399, but I do feel like most people have a very misleading interpretation of the actual quote which merely confirms that it won't be priced like an accessory to an existing platform.

"New gaming platforms" don't have standard prices, and I think that was what the quote was actually trying to convey.

 

[Blackleg-sanji1]

Let me get this straight:

- PC VR is dead on arrival.
- The PSVR has already won.
- The PSVR is better than either of these devices by virtue of not being as expensive.
- Sony is somehow packing its VR headset with equal or better technology than both HTC and Oculus, yet manages to charge way less (allegedly, but almost assumed to be true).

OK. I've always known that GAF was extremely pro-PS4, but... man...

O ffs go in a psvr thread its the same shit you see here just flipped.

 

[plagiarize]

Our last hope is PSVR

If you hoped Vive was going to be cheaper than Oculus, you weren't paying attention.

If you think VR's success hinges on a mainstream price point happening in 2016... you're wrong.

 

[rje]

I was expecting $1k, so this is a pleasant surprise. I'm in.

 

[RoboPlato]

I knew Vive would be expensive but FUCK

 

[DeepEnigma]

The exact quote is that "it will be priced as a new gaming platform."

I don't interpret that as saying "it will cost the same as the existing consoles on the market". It may very well end up costing $399, but I do feel like most people have a very misleading interpretation of the actual quote.

Their new gaming platform was the PS4. The PS4 launched at $400, so it is all we can safely go by. They also mentioned it will not be priced for profit (the PS4 was), that software will make up for that.

We will see, however.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

E3 is too late if they're sticking with the 1H 2016 date, best bet right now is GDC mid-March.

Unless they pull a surprise 'PS4 announcement' soon or GDC. I still expect Fall, just for the sake of spending trends and more time in the oven for the software.

Ah true, thnx

 

[Murder. She Wrote]

Oh man PSVR will be so successful given the fact there will be no one else on the market with a price point near theirs.

 

[Geist-]

I gotta say, if VR is going to be hundreds of dollars, I think I'll be holding off until the 2nd or 3rd generation when the tech is perfected and there's an actual library of games to play.

 

[Gunmonkey36]

Developers have shown significant interest in making VR games, or adding VR support to their existing games. If your game is still work in progress, in many cases adding VR support isn't anything like as expensive or difficult as some people think.

People hear 'the game has to be designed for VR' and think it's an either or thing, but it's not. When designing a game that you want to have VR support for you have to keep certain things about VR in mind... but it doesn't really increase the man hours or cost of development by much at all.

You'll need to make a HUD that works in VR. You'll need to make sure everything is built 1:1 in scale. You'll need to keep movement speeds down if it's a first person experience without a cockpit. Etc.

Support isn't going to be a problem.

I haven't taken any look into the SteamVR api but I will say as a software developer I can't imagine that its just throwing some api calls in, going down the checklist of items you listed and calling it good...if that's the case Valve is truly the god of creating a useable VR API. Adding simple support even with a well done API can truly be a nightmare especially with newly released hardware platforms.

Just from my experience(average software developer/no video game experience) you are oversimplifying the simplicity. Basically you sound like my Project Managers when the business comes back with a scope change at the eleventh hour ^____^.

 

[UnrealEck]

Too rich for my blood given the question of software support. I think Valve/HTC and Occulus are both handing the VR crown to Sony fairly easily.

Is Sony's headset on-par or superior than the Rift or Vive?

 

[Chû Totoro]

HTC Vive is $799, Ships ‘Early April’ And You Can Answer Phone Calls In VR

wow, so bought !

Spoiler

wow, so not for my budget... knowing what VR is for now.

 

[Tagyhag]

I gotta say, if VR is going to be hundreds of dollars, I think I'll be holding off until the 2nd or 3rd generation when the tech is perfected and there's an actual library of games to play.

To be honest, this is what everyone should be doing if they're not sure.

2nd and 3rd generation will be big upgrades.

But don't expect to ever pay <$200 for stuff like this.

 

[Dreamwriter]

E3 is too late if they're sticking with the 1H 2016 date, best bet right now is GDC mid-March.

Some news sites assume they were talking about their fiscal year, and the first half of Sony's fiscal year ends in October.

 

[tearsintherain]

So glad I got in on first Rift preorder wave, everything about the Vive feels off. Random location to announce the price - Mobile World Congress, really? Even that got botched with a leaked early press release. Job simulator as an included game? Ummmm... ok. $799 price point, final straw that broke the camels back for me.

So disappointed in Valve. They had the chance to build up hypes to insane levels - announce at a gaming focused conference, $599 or lower PP, and casually announce Half Life 3 as the included game. People would have gone crazy and their servers would have melted from preorder frenzy. Instead everyone is just kinda looking at each other going "huh..."

 

[poodaddy]

Seems legitimately fair for the value and quality, and the price is actually somewhat of a relief. It makes me think the Vive is going to be as "premium" as they were claiming it was gonna be. Don't understand how someone can say it's overpriced when they'll drop 1200 bucks on a 4k g sync monitor. I'll wait till it's a couple hundred bucks off, somewhere around 4 to 500, and pick it up then as I think this looks like a more interesting product than the Occulus.

 

[lifa-cobex]

If PSVR costs 500$ like I'm estimating, I can see more enthusiast PC gamers buying a 800$ periferic than PS4 consumers buying a 500$ one.

Not sure about that.
I think it will be a loose loose scenario where only the very well off can afford and buy.
I think it's just too early for the majority of people to put money down on one or the other.

It's hard to advertise other than ppl saying "wow you must try".
I don't think it will bomb like 3d Tv's and Sony. But I do think we will have a cold period where people will just wait until the price drops.

 

[Skyfireblaze]

So honest question, apart from OSVR there is nothing that just gives me a experience like the following?

A "simple" VR headset that immerses me visually while I sit at my desk control my games via keyboard/mouse or my existing Xinput controller while I can use it with my current headset for audio and maybe have basic headtracking so I can look around my Elite Dangerous spaceship.

For the longest time I hope that PSVR will be able to be used as a "viewport" for PC games with a little tinkering.

 

[kennyamr]

I gotta say, if VR is going to be hundreds of dollars, I think I'll be holding off until the 2nd or 3rd generation when the tech is perfected and there's an actual library of games to play.

yea, these discussions are mainly for early adopters, but you are right, everyone has the right to choose when (if) to buy a new technology.

 

[Elandyll]

The entry point for VR is solutions like Google cardboard, then GearVR and other mobile solutions. Then PSVR. It will cost more than $399 for the controllers, VR headset and camera.

No, we are talking full featured VR here. And while there are obviously feature differences between Occulus, Vive and PSVR, stuff like Gear VR or Google cardboard are more gadgets made to test feasibility and impulse buy, rather than be a full in-home VR experience.

Imo, for all intent and purposes, Gear VR or Google cardboard are not essentially any different than something like a ViewMaster VR.

At a possible $299-$399 for whoever already has a PS4, PSVR looks to be a definite doorway into VR, and if Sony can pull off a complete "just connect to your TV" set for $599 eventually (I don't expect it in 2016) then VR is potentially looking at a far more widespread adoption than a $1000 PC + $599-$799 VR gear option.

That is, again, -IF- the VR experiences are appealing and well designed. We could also be looking at widespread motion sickness and/ or truckloads of trash shovel-ware titles with few worthwhile experiences that would kill whatever momentum there might be...

 

[border]

Is HTC still going to be in business in 3 years?

While their headset is not that much more expensive than Oculus, I would have serious concerns about an $800 product that might not be serviced or supported down the line because its parent company has been sold off or gone bankrupt.

 

[Deleted member 22576]

800$ is the price with the lighthouse and wands?
Bet it's cheaper or exactly the same price as the Occulus with its wands.

 

[Tagyhag]

So glad I got in on first Rift preorder wave, everything about the Vive feels off. Random location to announce the price - Mobile World Congress, really? Even that got botched with a leaked early press release. Job simulator as an included game? Ummmm... ok. $799 price point, final straw that broke the camels back for me.

So disappointed in Valve. They had the chance to build up hypes to insane levels - announce at a gaming focused conference, $599 or lower PP, and casually announce Half Life 3 as the included game. People would have gone crazy and their servers would have melted from preorder frenzy. Instead everyone is just kinda looking at each other going "huh..."

Why do you assume that VR headsets are so cheap to produce? You wanted them to include the controllers and lighthouse at the same price as the single headset of Oculus?

You would have been laughed out of the building if you proposed this to them.

 

[dark10x]

That's cheaper than expected. Not bad. I was seriously anticipating over $1000.

 

[Blackleg-sanji1]

Honestly if you've been following all these headsets this price is actually pretty cheap. At the very least valve always said they were going for a premium vr experience so there should be no shock here. I understand oculus shock tho they did kind of do a 180 a month before pre orders opened.

So now im expecting
Oculus-600.00
Vive-800.00
Psvr-400.00(plz sony)

Now heres my question how much am i looking at if i go vive plu still need to build a pc.

 

[KingSnake]

Oh man PSVR will be so successful given the fact there will be no one else on the market with a price point near theirs.

There is nobody else on PSVR's market. Not cheaper and not more expensive. Nobody else.

 

[Koutsoubas]

Hahahaha! Yeah........................................ No!

 

[Dreamwriter]

Is Sony's headset on-par or superior than the Rift or Vive?

The PSVR headset has 20% fewer pixels and only a single screen (so even fewer pixels making up the image), but otherwise is pretty much on-par. It does offer a superior screen refresh of 120hz, where the PC headsets both refresh at 90hz. The PS4 hardware of course isn't nearly as powerful as the minimums/recommended PC for Vive and Rift, so expect games to look more like PS3 games and expect few PSVR games to support greater than 60fps (there is a fake "upconvert" to 120fps, though).

 

[ArtHands]

Is Sony's headset on-par or superior than the Rift or Vive?

Not at all. Its the most inferior headset compared to Rift and Vive.

 

[Deleted member 22576]

So glad I got in on first Rift preorder wave, everything about the Vive feels off. Random location to announce the price - Mobile World Congress, really? Even that got botched with a leaked early press release. Job simulator as an included game? Ummmm... ok. $799 price point, final straw that broke the camels back for me.

So disappointed in Valve. They had the chance to build up hypes to insane levels - announce at a gaming focused conference, $599 or lower PP, and casually announce Half Life 3 as the included game. People would have gone crazy and their servers would have melted from preorder frenzy. Instead everyone is just kinda looking at each other going "huh..."

you think mwc is a random place for HTC to announce something???? lol &#9995;&#127996;

 

[nubbe]

Ironically, Vive is best value

 

[plagiarize]

I haven't taken any look into the SteamVR api but I will say as a software developer I can't imagine that its just throwing some api calls in, going down the checklist of items you listed and calling it good...if that's the case Valve is truly the god of creating a useable VR API. Adding simple support even with a well done API can truly be a nightmare especially with newly released hardware platforms.

Just from my experience(average software developer/no video game experience) you are oversimplifying the simplicity. Basically you sound like my Project Managers when the business comes back with a scope change at the eleventh hour ^____^.

I'm not saying adding support after the fact is easy. I'm saying that if you are still in active development it's not as hard as most people think. I can't speak to the APIs because the game I'm building is using an engine that already has built in support. If you're building your own engine, absolutely it's going to take more work, but if you are already using UE4 or Unity, or if you haven't selected an engine yet... again... it's incredibly easy to get going.

I know it's not a push button scenario, but I'm pretty confident that the APIs are far from a nightmare given that they've had years of development already... and given that both Oculus and Valve are trying to make it as simple as possible for game developers. This isn't something that just dropped now.

 

[NintendoRev]

$800? Nah, I'm good thanks. The justification that this is better than Oculus/PSVR is fine and all, but those were still too expensive (oculus at least) to start with, this is just Silly.

 

[wutwutwut]

The price is what I expected, but I'm really not in the market for it -- money isn't an issue, but we live in a tiny apartment in a big city and simply do not have enough space for room scale tracking.

 

[habithipster]

So glad I got in on first Rift preorder wave, everything about the Vive feels off. Random location to announce the price - Mobile World Congress, really? Even that got botched with a leaked early press release. Job simulator as an included game? Ummmm... ok. $799 price point, final straw that broke the camels back for me.

So disappointed in Valve. They had the chance to build up hypes to insane levels - announce at a gaming focused conference, $599 or lower PP, and casually announce Half Life 3 as the included game. People would have gone crazy and their servers would have melted from preorder frenzy. Instead everyone is just kinda looking at each other going "huh..."

Everything about this post feels off.

 

[murgo]

Well, fuck.. my VR dream is dead for now. I can't justify spending 800€+ on this

 

[Sciz]

Room scale is cool, as a distinguishing factor, but I still don't see where the practical market for it is going to come from. For the niche of the niche that can actually spare the space, it'll be like nothing else - and then the rest of the VR enthusiasts can pick up a Rift for less, even after the cost of extra controllers.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Not sure about that.
I think it will be a loose loose scenario where only the very well off can afford and buy.
I think it's just too early for the majority of people to put money down on one or the other.

It's hard to advertise other than ppl saying "wow you must try".
I don't think it will bomb like 3d Tv's and Sony. But I do think we will have a cold period where people will just wait until the price drops.

3D-TV's technically did not bomb, since the majority of high end sets are all have 3D features. It is pretty mainstream now, like BluRay is. Now wether people use it or not, is another scenario. I still know people who use progressive scan DVD players on their nice sets, lol.

 

[tokkun]

While its obvious people are willing to spend on their pc tech, a graphics card applies itself to all games. A VR headset must be supported...Valve is going to have to pay developers to develop with VR in mind if the if the headset count is low enough(Not that they can't do that).

Does a developer really want to spend the time to incorporate VR if there are less than 100,000 of the headsets(seems extremely likely). Better yet wouldn't a developer want to capture the largest section of people if they are developing for VR?

My money is on developers developing for the lowest common denominator of the 3 headsets(PS VR) and then releasing it to the other two. If this does happen is there a point to buying an $800 Vive? Will it ever be fully utilized/developed specifically towards other than by Valve?

Perhaps I'm neglecting some aspect/running with an assumption too far, but I just don't see it grabbing a good market share or support unless Valve just funnels money into it at which point why not just take the loss on each headset by under pricing it instead of putting that money into paying for support?

I think they will aim for the lowest common denominator in terms of gameplay features, so I agree that I don't see a lot of support for room-scale in the near term.

Having said that, I do think you will get the benefit of higher resolution (compared to PSVR) and larger field-of-view in most if not all games. Ease-of-use features like the camera and phone integration will matter, too.

I really have two points of hesitation about the Vive:
1. In comparing the Oculus and latest Vive dev kit, people say the Oculus is more comfortable. HTC says they are improving ergonomics with the consumer edition, but that is yet to be seen.
2. We don't know yet how much third-party content will be Oculus-exclusive on PC.

If I had satisfactory answers to both of those questions, I would be willing to go with the Vive.

 

[silvermember]

If PSVR costs 500$ like I'm estimating, I can see more enthusiast PC gamers buying a 800$ periferic than PS4 consumers buying a 500$ one.

Enthusiast are a very small market compared to the masses.