Joey Ravn said:
Let me get this straight:
- PC VR is dead on arrival. (1)
- The PSVR has already won. (2)
- The PSVR is better than either of these devices by virtue of not being as expensive. (3)
- 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). (4)
OK. I've always known that GAF was extremely pro-PS4, but... man...
1) PC VR isn't DOA but you're absolutely fooling yourself if you think the high cost of entry is not going to affect the market. Remember: VR on PC requires expensive machines with a lot of USB ports to work. If there isn't a large installbase after a year,
what will incentivize developers to create stuff for PC VR? Think about what happened with 3D technology or Kinect or (ironically enough) PS Move. There's a great amount of hype for the Rift (and this is why it's selling out) but think beyond the introduction phase.
2) PSVR has no direct competition on console. Microsoft and Nintendo are not making a VR headset (yet). When you take a look at the entire VR landscape (i.e. Console, mobile, and PC), PSVR is
best positioned to capitalize on both the interests of the enthusiast and the interests of the casual. At this point, all Sony has to do is say "PSVR costs less than the Rift and Vive" and they will -- whether you agree with it or not -- be perceived as having the best solution for VR gaming across the entire VR landscape.
3) I haven't seen anyone say that verbatim (might have missed a post), but that's ridiculous. A product isn't better just because it's cheaper. First class in United is not the same as first class in BA.
4) The PSVR is technologically inferior to the Rift and Vive. Unless something has changed on Sony's side, they will not be offering the
most powerful and capable VR headset this year. With that said, based on impressions from hundreds of professional critics and hundreds of average consumers, the PSVR can deliver a comparable experience to the Rift and Vive. It is powerful enough to not look like a last-gen outdated mess when compared to the Rift and Vive. The "PSVR is closer to the Gear VR" claims are horribly misguided attempts at discrediting the former device's capabilities. We've seen the games, read the impressions, heard the claims, and have actual people on here and elsewhere that have used it (extensively) and they've said "Yep, it's not trash". Once you remember that Dr. Richard Marks -- a genius in aeronautics and robotics -- is behind PSVR, you can then realize that it's not out of the realm of possibility that the PSVR is engineered really really well. It's not Jim from accounts payable that's heading this thing. Now here's where things get interesting. If Sony can deliver a VR headset at $500 (or less) that's comparable to a $600 and $800 VR headset, people will be more likely to jump in bed with their VR solution
because VR is new and unproven technology. People are inherently risk-averse, and a result of this,
people want to spend the least amount of money to try something new. PSVR can benefit tremendously if it comes in at a lower pricepoint and with the perception and pre-launch experiences -- from enthusiasts and casuals -- of being on equal footing with the Rift and Vive.
It's really not "pro-PS4" nonsense. It's pro-YeahSonyarenotabouttopullaprojectNatalandgetthefinalproductwrongandbasedonwhattheirindirectcompetitionisdoingtheyareprobablygoingtobethemostpopularVRvendorandhavethemostmarketshare.
