Sony is winning the VR Battle the same way they won the console wars with the PS4
About 12 years ago, when I was studying Japanese economy, I remember having to do a group presentation about one big Japanese corporation. We picked Sony, because we liked electronics. That was back in 2004, and although I don’t remember the actual content of the presentation, it was very tough at the time to find anything positive to say about Sony’s situation. Howard Stringer had just been named as the future CEO of Sony, and I remember we did mention this could bring hope to the company. In hindsight I don’t think it helped much.
Today, although it’s not like Sony is doing great economically, it surely won the console wars of this generation with the PS4.
Remember the Xbox one and PS4 announcements? Sony managed to price the PS4 much cheaper than the Xbox One, to everybody’s surprise. The games lineup was also impressive, including Sony’s great support for Indies. Coupled with several launch announcement mistakes on Microsoft’s side, this quickly projected the PS4 as the clear winner of this generation of consoles.
It seems to me that Sony is using the same strategy with Playstation VR: at $399, PS VR is much cheaper price than the competition (the Oculus Rift is priced at $600), gets strong support from developers, was careful to let the competition show their cards before them, and brings simplicity: All you need is your PS4, a Ps4 camera, and the Playstation VR. No dependency on your computer’s GPU power, or on a complex set up (it’s still a bit unknown how controls will work with the Oculus Rift for example).
Did I mention the HTC Vive or the Samsung Gear? Ha! In my opinion, they’re already out of the race in most people’s minds. It’s going to be Sony vs Facebook, and it feels to me Sony’s already winning.
The PS4 ecosystem is going to dramatically help Playstation VR. With a user base of about 40 million PS4 owners, Playstation VR could sell like hot cakes. Apparently preorders were gone within minutes in the UK, and this will probably be the case in the US as well when preorders come live.
Personally I didn’t care about VR until I saw a demo of EVE:Valkyrie (see video below), and now I can’t wait for it. I’m probably going to go with Playstation VR rather than Oculus rift (I already have the PS4 and the Ps4 camera, I don’t have a recent gaming PC)
I don’t know if Sony as a whole is doing great, but they surely got a lot of things right in the gaming division recently.
I was greatly pleased to hear you can play all ps4 games using the psvr as well as netflix. I hope it has a motion sensor and outward camera to show if someone is coming to stab me while im vulnerable.
Wow, if you’re worried about that, maybe you shouldn’t get one……..or maybe be nicer to people
LOL ^_^
Well, there goes $400 from my pocket
I – I – I’m hunting, looking for a come-up
This is freaking awesome
What about the underpowered gpu and the unexceptional headset (relatively to the competition)?
VR GEAR is pretty good, the better of the phone based options.
Fallout 3 and NV looks a treat using tridef3d and trinus VR, can not get fallout 4 set up right yet but I will.
These guys would need to offer something spectacular over phone based or you may as well not bother.
PlayStation VR at 1080p vs Samsung at 1440p. Already one advantage.
Too early to judge.
First!!
Nope!!
The problem with this is that you’re assuming that, along with other people (the same situation the OR falls in), we own the technology already. While over the long run the VR by Sony would be cheaper, you still have to drop almost 300 dollars on a console, then an additional 400 for the headset and whatever the camera costs.
This stuff doesn’t come cheap, and there’s no telling how well this VR will hold up, especially with the difference in titles being available. OR had years to get this right, with really the only thing holding it back is the cost of a decent computer and the headset price.
I’d definitely like to pick this up when it comes out but I dont have a cold hard cash.
Soft warm cash spends equally well.
I wouldn’t call it winning. It’s more like getting fit in the door. For price difference of just 200$ you get rather ancient hardware (Rift DK1 analogue) tied to underpowered console. How comfortable would be interpolated frames on lower-res screen for vr is also a question.
Personally, I see VR as the next Kinect, just one big fad that will be gone after the novelty wears out.
Totally agree, chuck it on the pile with 3DTVs, the Apple Watch (presumably) and a couple of other dumb fads people were temporarily convinced they needed. It’s a bit stagnant on the innovation front right now, in terms of whats available to consumers.
Sony didn’t win the console wars by putting out an inferior product O_O
Just because PSVR is a little bit cheaper doesn’t make it better… Buyer beware for real. The Oculus Rift DK2 wasn’t good enough for most people to play for prolonged sessions without VR sickness, and PSVR is a fairly similar product only running on weaker hardware. Rather than do budget VR I’d recommend waiting for second or even third gen sets to make the jump… That’s just me though
I wonder if this is going to cause issues. I mean some people are more prone to motion sickness than others, hopefully the motion sickness is not that apparent.
It seems to me that VR sickness was more about consistency in framerates. If that’s the case there’s no more reasons to fear it with PS VR than the others. Sony already stated they won’t allow anything that drop under 60fps for that very reason.
Weaker hardware -> older looking game, that’s how it sounds to me.
VR sickness is mostly due to :
– latency: moving your body but seeing the effect even with a slight delay generate motion sickness (like reading a book in a car).
– low framerate: which generate unatural stuttering.
– afterglow/ghosting: which makes the images blurry while moving (not the same as intended motion blur effect).
60hz is pretty low framerate-wise to ensure there will be no VR sickness.
The PSVR should have the less afterglow considering the specs.
I would say it’s too early to dismiss the HTC Vive. It’s got capabilities that neither the Oculus Rift nor the PS VR have, with the two base stations that allow tracking within a relatively large area.
The Samsung Gear falls into a totally different area altogether, being a headset for mobile devices. It can play games, sure, but its main draw surely is media consumption. And for that it is already widely used in certain niches.
Exactly. He’s acting like the Vive doesn’t even count. Plus it’s sales are doing really well so far too. I wouldn’t write the Vive off so quickly. I’d have a tough time deciding personally though because I am both a die-hard Sony and HTC fan.
The Vive may not be entirely out of the game, remember the power of Steam that is backing it up, and their room-scale solution is the best so far.
I’ve written this elsewhere but more than happy to briefly reiterate it.
There is an underlying drawback with headset-based VR. Simply put, it’s the form factor. It doesn’t matter how light and Apple/WALL•E style futuristic they make them look, the point is you still have to have your field of vision completely obscured by the headset. This precludes second screen usage (how many times have you been stuck in a game and wanted your laptop/tablet open to consult a strategy guide for example) and communication with anyone else in the room. Totally insular, plus cables running everywhere because it’s simply not feasable
Additionally you still need to use a controller, obviously. And the outlay for the equipment itself (the price gap on Rift and PSVR closes a bit if you factor in for the camera and headset, say $499 for examples sake, although of course the advantage of not needing a PC with powerful GPU still gives it an edge there).
The point is, most people these days have a big enough TV that immersion is not an issue, and would rather use the money to buy new games or what have you.
To make it simple, remember how much hype there was over 3DTVs? Now how many people do you see using the 3D function after the novelty wears off. In fact a lot of manufacturers have stopped making them because they didn’t sell in great enough numbers. The barrier to entry on those was a special pair of “sunglasses”, so much lower, but it still didn’t catch on.
Until we get true 3D holographic projection not requiring special headgear, it’s just never going to take off.
Form factor. Simple as that.
That should read “Totally insular, plus cables running everywhere because it’s simply not feasible to broadcast full HDMI HD over WiFi.”
Regarding the HDMI over Wifi, well I know to companies that made it working quite fine.
(excluding the hdmi over Ethernet and wifi *** and all the strange miracast dongle’s)
First is ninty with its proprietary solution with the gamepad (but that one is far away from full HD -> 854 x 480)
Second and by far better is NVidia with it’s gamestream and shield tablet… that one works like a charm with full hd in wifi lan, and reasonable over internet.
I agree, HD video over WiFi is possible, it’s just the viability of making an end-user product that transmits it flawlessly without using any (or at least very little) video compression. I think ones that broadcast a full single stream HDMI cost around $300 so that added to the PSVR initial cost would make it a less attractive option. I would say that with a headset that puts the action about an inch from your eyes any latency or compression artifacts would be completely unacceptable. Hence wires everywhere and a separate breakout box to sit between the PSVR and the PS4. To me another sign that it and by extension other VR products are not viable as a consumer device, potentially leading to poor sales after the gadget obsessed and hardcore gamer types have one. Whoever said it’ll join the Vita (which I love) and the Move (which I don’t) on the obsolescence scrapheap is most likely correct, for my money.
I see this VR run to serve only one purpose… grabbing as much as possible patents to limit any upcoming company and or stop them dead in their tracks. -> Virtual BOY, all the strange nes accessories, cd addons for consoles, hdd addons for consoles,… all that *** for patent only.
There is no other reason, the technology isn’t there.
Full HD via wifi works but these VR sets require double the amount, full hd per eye and the tech simply isn’t there. I wouldn’t want to try out true cinema 4k (4096×2160) or even the “sloppy” 4k (3840×2160) over wifi lan.
I know the shield TV can handle the “sloppy” 4k via Ethernet (yes I got both shield tablet and TV) but this is via a well regulated and clocked connection.
Wifi is not well regulated and clocked, it has to respond to thousands of disturbances and sometime it just can’t keep up.
Sometimes wifi just outright refuses to work well by god knows which reasons.
So until that connection problem with those VR sets isn’t handled, it will only be for gimmick and patent grabing.
FullHD over Wifi exists, but that’s not the same thing as playing remotely.
Display a movie over a wireless connection isn’t that hard because you don’t really care about the time the data has to take to transfert over the display, as long as the time is quite stable.
For example, the “image” could have been read (and re-encoded for transfert) a few tenths of seconds ago on the player’s side, could have taken these few tenths to come to the remote display, but the viewer won’t notice nor will he care, as long as the “flow” is stable, and the image/son is synchronized.
But playing remotely is different. Every actions you make have to be translated immediately on your display. You cannot allow to much of latency for the new computed image resulting from your action, to come from the player (PC/console) to your display (the VR helmet screen).
That’s why I can’t stand Remote Play through the PS4Vita, nor the Steam Link. Some people are able to cope with this latency, but I’m probably too sensitive to it, and I can’t.
And the problem is even more sensitive in VR.
That’s why, wireless Full HD VR is not there yet.
Yeah the latency issue. But ninty got it pretty much ironed out (mind you they don’t utilize full HD so the bandwidth is much less) also with the shield tablet I have not detected mentionable delay between my input and the onscreen action.
I mostly play on my shield borderlands, valkyria chronicles, windward, dynasty warriors 8 xl, sacred citadel and a few others (mind you I play via gamestream since a few of those games are also available via now.)
Borderlands via the shield tablet and controller was quite a refreshing experience since I mostly play via mouse and keyboard, I was quite amazed on how well the game performed with a controller, sacred citadel performs well but needs modification of the game settings otherwise its just blurry since it was not made for full hd.
Windward needed xpadder to work flawless (also the most bandwidth demanding, up to 6MB/s what I could log) and dynasty warriors as well as valkyria chronicles were vanilla experiences, both worked as directly before the pc screen and a standard controller in hand.
Some games don’t want to actually work through remote desktop (galactic battlegrounds) and a few just don’t work with gamestream at all.
Its really still too early to tell if VR as a whole won’t just be another fad. Either way, if the PS VR can’t be used with a PC I wouldn’t even consider one. PC is the master race, just because of multitasking and allowing any application you want to run.
Buying VR for a closed system is a real gamble, it could easily end up ‘feature-poor’, or worse, it could be the next Vita.
I just bought the ps4 camera few weeks ago and thought its not worth it, but saw this news. feels like ps4 camera will be useful after all im a happy person now, 🙂
I’m also on the opinion that the vive shouldn’t be cancelled of the game so soon. It’s by far the best looking and most promising VR set to arrive at the market. Sure the price is high, same was with the ps3 when it launched.
The oculus rift, I just see it as an evaluation study, not as a retail product finalized to hit the open market.
Negative side of the playstation VR will be its absolute and only dependency on a ps4… not reasonable usable on pcs without tinkering of software and or hardware.
Another negative side or an extension of the former is, when sony decides to let it die silently (vita anyone???) you will be rewarded with a strange and rarely usable headset that always only gets side attention until it is completely forgotten. (Move anyone???)
(Where are the 3DTV’s??? Sony had quite a lineup of those.)
So best is to wait how this all plays out. I’m not quite fond of sonys gimmicky hardware extensions. (Move, ds3 keyboard, nas ne, ps2 card reader for ps3, ps3 play tv, ps3 vaio remote play, VITA, PS TV… I could go on all day long). So I have a feeling that this one will end up somewhere in between those gimmicks.
Comparing letting the PSVR die similarly to the VITA is a dumb argument. Granted, they made dumb pricing decisions, if it had sold well, they would have supported it more.
Not getting the PSVR, will leave it exactly where the VITA is left. It needs to be bought to be a success.
P.S.- Just look at the PS4, it still has support, because it sold well. That’s just how it is. If it sells, it will get continued support.
I’m not really on the same page as the author.
Sony did achieve something important with this announcement thanks to being way cheaper than their PC counterpart, but PSVR is only available on PS4, and is still costing more than the console itself. I don’t see how it could become a success, especially when the console already struggling to deliver 1080p/60fps on it’s existing games (the additionnal computing unit will help but won’t make miracles).
Also, lots of naive people finally realize that the VR won’t revolutionize every gaming genres, but is only beneficial to a few specifics genres.
While it is a must buy for spatial and racing simulations (instead of multi-screen display), I don’t see people spending more than what the console cost to play casual games/technical demo.
It’s the cheapest of its kind.
If it could be used as a wearable Monitor I am going to buy it just for that
People are looking at the face value of PSVR not the actual real cost, it’s $399 for the headset, plus another $100-$150 for the camera and move controllers (which will skyrocket in price) making the true cost $500-$550. Which comparing it to a much superior Rift headset your not really saving much at all for a lesser quality product. Sony are facing a double edged sword with VR, they need some killer games to shift the units, and after the novelty wears off they need to keep people using them, if it turns out to be rubbish VR that causes sickness or the games are kinect worthy then Sony have a massively expensive white elephant on their hands that could derail any kind of lead the PS4 has made, customer confidence would be out of the window for being burnt by Sony again. Or it could be successful and a triumph for Sony? Well soon find out.
this is going to be *** compared to the occulous and vive. i dont care what the price differences are, this is inferior hardware, and its not going to be that great.
add $60 and for $40 for the 2 ps move… $100 cheaper than oculus for a downgraded experience… no thanks!
EDIT: the $60 are for the ps camera
Long live the vita o,.,o
*whispering in the corner* …..long live the vita…… one day………the vita shall become more powerful…… than they could possibly imagine….. o,.,o …… when they decide to hand it over to us homebrewers -_-
In my opinion, if VR is going to be a massive investment for your bank, then I suggest just wait and see how VR goes to see if it’s a success and for it’s price to drop.
Sony may win the VR Start, but on long term PC VR is more interesting, because it is not limited to things that on Company give us. On PC I can create my own VR World (Unity, UE4 etc.) and I can do much more with VR beside Games than on the PS4.
And even on Games I have more, can I use my X52 Pro HOTAS on PS4? Not really, but I can use it with my PC on Elite Dangerous (that I have already played with my Rift DK2). On a Console I’m more limited, and VR is much more than playing Games with it. Games are only the from the Companies selected entry into VR.
It is like without VR. If I only want to play and nothing more I buy a Console, if I want to much more and didn’t want limited than I buy a PC. The same on VR. That why Sony win with VR on Consoles, because there are no competitors. And Oculus have a good chance to win on PC. But there is not really a competition between PC VR and Console VR, like there is no on PC and Console.
The Image Quality is Horrible compared to the Oculus DK2.
I got to test it out.
PS VR is what it is. Its Cheap. Nothing else.
Seriously? 25% less pixels (and 33% higher refresh rate) leads to “horribly image quality”?
Are you sure you know what y ou are talking about?
While the PSVR screens are 120Hz, that doesn’t mean the PS4 will be able to deliver 120Hz … far from it.
I had the Chance to try it out at the GameCity in Vienna.
And yes. I know what i talk about. I develop for VR. Refreshrate doesnt make a Good Image. Pixel Density, a high quality Screen and Resolution does.
The Refreshrate of the DK2 is Just Right. 120 is overkill.
399,- is too much for that thing its like buying a second ps4
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-HMZ-T3W-Mounted-Viewer-Model/dp/B00FNJGJN0?tag=wagic-20
sony won?? i really don’t know but if isomething bad happens it could go likew this.. next e3 sony announce the ps4.5 (4k ps4) and psvr requires this new ps4.5… how is the pricetag then?
Hello, Hipster Kira here again. I’ve been following VR off and on for almost 10 years now, and I think its safe to say it’ll be sticking around now we have consumer oriented headsets coming out soon, and the tech will only get better as they figure out things Vuzix figured out back in 2007, like 60hz displays without pixelation (CRTs have their benefits!), integrated audio, and 120 degree viewers made from a lightweight polymer rather than this heavy ABS ***.
This post is horribly misinformed. I’ll give you the fact that PS VR is the most ‘affordable’ and will probably attract the most buyers but when compared to the Oculus or the Vive, but if you do just a minute of research it’s clear that the Vive will give you the best VR experience at the moment. Also whats with grouping the Samsung Gear in with the big boys? First of all, Samsung Gear is a product of Oculus… It is also NOT a gaming headset, the Gear VR is targeted towards casual VR experience.
The cost of the PS VR and Oculus are also misleading:
$399 for the PSVR does not include the required PS4 Camera ($59.99) or optional two move controllers ($24.99 x 2) which add huge amounts of immersion. It also runs at a lower resolution than the competition and graphic settings are lower, but it is cheaper so that’s to be expected.
Total Cost: ~$850 (including cost of PS4)
$599 for the Rift does not include their yet to be released controllers which most likely will run anywhere from $100-200. (That included xbox controller will be trash once they release the Rift controllers.)
Total Cost: $700-$800 + cost of gaming pc (minimum ~$1000)
$799 for the Vive includes lightboxes and the controllers, it is roughly the same price as the Rift will be after buying the (not so) optional controllers, but it has added functionality of positional tracking.
Total Cost: $700-$800 + cost of gaming PC (minimum ~$1000)
tl;dr – While the PS VR is clearly the ‘winner’ in terms of ‘affordable’ VR, this post is misinformed and extremely bias. Barring cost, everyone who has tried PSVR, Rift, and Vive have stated that Vive is the winner by a mile.
Thanks. You’re right on some aspects, but you’re missing the point I’m making: Sony is winning thanks to better marketing, better prices (perceived or actual), and more developer support.
The post is not giving my opinion about which one is better, but about why I think Sony has already won. That’s very different.
“(minimum ~$1000)”? That’s a very high spec, the recommended build is well below that price tag. You could get a PC with TWO of the recommended GPUs for that price and still have enough for a new keyboard and mouse combo.
Anyway, Wololo, there are significantly more games, tech demos, and experiences available to the PC VR head sets -right now- than what Sony’s announced and many of them are free to try, and while it may seem like Sony is pulling ahead in interest I don’t think that’s the case. The adoption rate may be terrible despite the supposed high PS4 install base(which honestly is lower than the high-end PC market) and even if it is somehow hype fueled and high, game support may be slacking which would very much damage consumer interest. From what I can tell by looking at Youtube views and from my own personal experience, the Oculus demands the most attention and that’s mainly to do with *** and niche proof of concepts. The VR buzz’s roots.
Sony is in fact far behind both Oculus and the HTC Vive when it comes to awareness on that stage. I doubt most PS4 owners even know much about it at this point, Sony’s presumed audience seems to be one that may not even exist. The situation kind of reminds me of the Wii U around its launch.. Basically a lack of interest from consumers and misshapen hopes from the developer. Though of course, VR is a lot more captivating so something interesting could happen in regards to adoption.
Another reason I don’t see the PSVR taking off like you say is because it costs more than the console itself, despite just being a gimmick for it. There’s no way the VR game support will surpass the relatively small “killer-app” library of the PS4 itself so why would the mass of hardcore gamers invest into it? I also can’t fathom the casual audiences, the ones buying the big yearly releases, jumping into the very expensive add-on just for the basic games that Sony has announced. At least not en masse. The PC VR head sets are established with the fairly niche sector and it supports a lot of types of games and apps that aren’t available to the console, Sony’s supports games with the equivalent impact of Wii Sports from what I’ve seen. But for roughly $500 just to try your first VR game at home? Those are some extremely expensive sports.
A final thing to note is that the “Summer Lesson” demo is the most popular PSVR app, and last I checked it isn’t even going to be a game. It was just a 20 minute test by Namco. I feel like that’s a very bad sign because VR is most likely to get first adopted by people interested in games like that. Also like that other guy said, the quality just isn’t there either and the head set doesn’t support the extremely deep and immersive gameplay of the Vive(and hopefully Oculus) when it comes to controllers and moving around.
We’ll see though. I’ll probably get the PSVR because it’s cheap and my friends are getting PC HMDs. And I don’t like how the PC sector seems to be wandering towards some exclusive titles nonsensically, I imagine the first models of the Vive and Rift will get replaced soon enough too.
Also man, a lot of people have said in the past that the adoption for VR HMDs will be like DVD over VHS — entirely dependent on the ***!! :^)
~1000$ is is in the ball park.
For example, The MINIMUM GPU the GTX 970. Add the CPU (at least i5), 16 GB of RAM, a SSD disk drive, a decent power supply and the case (plus all the peripherals) and you’re dangerously approching the 1000$ mark.
Vive is the “winner by a mile” in a vacuum of demos curated by Valve themselves. Looking at it from the bigger picture, why would anyone program a game specifically for room sensors when every other headset is based on sitting down and just tilting your vision. You can quote me in 2 years time when you see Vive sales drop off the cliff because of three reasons:
1. No one is going to program specifically for the most expensive headset, leaving the best feature underutilized, less people buying it means less specific support. It’s the typical cut-throat scenario where the more unpopular your thing is means it will continually get more unpopular as you find it hard to get support from developers.
2. PC headsets are still evolving at a rapid rate, what is VIve’s main selling point won’t necessary be it’s unique selling point in a years time. Just look at AMD’s new prototype, it already eclipses the Vive in versatility. Meaning while the ‘low tech’ PSVR will continue gaining support for developers as it get’s cheaper and the audience grows.
3. This is Valve LOL, how well did the Steam Machines go or their new touch controller? Valve are terrible, one of the absolute worst, they’d rather sit on their hands counting free cash come in from F2P games and being the platform admin. Support and pushing of their own headset will be next to non-existent, mark my words.
1. It’s apparently not hard to give support to all the head sets and the Vive offers the same seated experience as the others. From what I’ve heard from both PC VR developers tpp is that the sets are just a means of RND, field ready models to nurture the VR ecosystem. There will be CV2’s and so on. I think only Sony is building the head set for the pure profit with no apparent plans to advance the open nature of VR development.
2. Which again does mean that there will be a Vive 2, no doubt.
3. Do you even know how well they went? I don’t. But I do know they developed them and that OS for people who’d want them and that does deserve props in my mind especially so if they failed. The support in pushing their head set has them currently on top of all the models released this year so I think what you’re saying is fairly baseless.
In the same way that the Rift will probably catch the Vive, technologically-wise, with it’s next version, it could also includes room sensors in the future. The fact that the HTC has an additional feature which isn’t being used often isn’t a disadvantage in itself, the price is.
Valve isn’t the maker of the Vive, HTC is. It’s just that Valve is supporting the Vive now (but they were supporting Oculus before … probably until they learned Oculus wanted their own store). Most of games are sold on Steam and/or use Steamworks (online network, storage capabilities, market, etc), so it makes sense to make games with the Steam VR api.
The 2 disadvantages of the Vive against the Rift are :
1) More expensive. The more advanced technology and the included controllers has its cost. But it will probably go down each year/version.
2) Existing support. The Rift has been available to devs for 3 years now (DK1 release), and it is the obvious reason their is more “in progress” titles for the rift than any other VR helmet. But that won’t be the case forever, especially if the api is standardize like what SteamVR is offering.
Hi, frequently I get a 403 message when I view this webpage. I figured you would want to know.