Have you tried it? When and where?

I tried it at E3 earlier this year. Its pretty sweet... BUT... i honestly don't think VR will take hold in a way many think. I still believe the technology has a ways to go before its viable.

Yes, I have. At the PSX in San Francisco.

I am adopting a wait and see attitude with a definitely must try before I buy and I do mean allot more than a few minutes.

VR is one tech that you really do need to have an extended try since it may be possible that you have issues such as but not limited to motion sickness. Also to be safe each member of your family or friends who might use your headset should also try as well.

Keep in mind that if you invite a friend to use your VR headset the onus is on you to make sure that they don't suffer any issues. Sounds a bit silly but people have been sued for less than that.

So your solution is pay $100 and get a Galaxy VR headset but I would also need to buy a Note 5 or Galaxy 6 phone to play since I don't own one of those devices. Your solution will run about $600 or $700 end of the day. That is supposed to be cheaper?

I think the main point everyone should understand is VR is not going to be a cheap technology to dive into. Anyone hoping for $200 or $300 is just wishful thinking at this point as the tech needs some beefy processing to run. Whether its two different devices working together or just a beast of a PC rig the cost of entry is not small.

Umm...its a fact the PS4 on its own is not powerful enough to run VR. Many thought it was just going to have the PS VR plug into it directly and you could do VR. Their work around is to actually have another processor that will help the PS4 have enough process power to do it. Not sure how that is spinning anything?

@Dlacy13g

The processor in the PSVR doesn't aid the PS4 processor. It just processes the signals sent by the PS4 to be used in the display. Actually, any kind of modern display needs a processor. The HMZ-T1 works the same way, and has a similar box with a processor connected to it. It'll display the 3D image sent by the ps3/ps4 in the same way that it'll display an image from a dvd. It doesn' mean that it's helping the dvd player process the data. Similar to my HMZ-T1, the box has a power cable and a HDMI cable that connects to a ps3/ps4/blu-ray player. I don't know how you'd send gigs of data (non audio/video signals) through the HDMI to be offloaded from the ps4.

PS4 isn't powerful enough. If it were, it wouldn't need a separate processor for the VR. Graphics chips are very expensive to manufacture since they use the most cutting edge silicon available, so don't expect this to be any cheaper than a mid-high level PC graphics card ($400-500)

I disagree. For ever person that thinks 500 is too high, there is one willing to pay because it's new tech - tech that has never been available to consumers before. People were paying over a thousand dollars for ps4s when they weren't available in stores and that's just an evolutionary step of the PS3 so there are definitely those out there who will spend. People were spending 3x msrp for iPhones etc. new tech always has people willing to pay. My guess is psvr will be $399-499. For a fully capable vr solution that's pretty reasonable to an early adopter... Especially if you throw in the ps4 hype factor. Let's also not forget that the ps3 launch price was $599 and it did fine. That was also 10 yrs ago so that's even more expensive if calculated to today's equivalent inflation.

@u4one - A person willing for each unwilling? Really? Tell that to the kinect and PS move LOL

@thisgamer503

Bad example. Kinect sold in the millions and therefore was pretty successful. Doesn't change the fact MS screwed up supporting it.

It's not really a peripheral though. It's a new platform entirely. It's misleading as it runs from the ps4 but it's doing a lot. It's more like giving your car the ability to fly rather than say getting a better radio do it.

Success will be based on the expectation Sony sets for itself. They've already said they don't plan on selling millions of these things. To me that says they will do small runs and see how they perform as well as general feedback and critical reviews. If it creates buzz, hype and good news all around then that makes the product easier to sell after the fact and move more into the mainstream.

That gets both devs and consumers invested and ultimately that will drive the price down. It's easy to forget that this is completely new tech and a completely new platform. The rules are uncharted, there are no best practices or other devices to compare with historically. It's really a big test. It might not be successful, which is why I think Sony will keep the runs low initially and not lose tons of money on costs. I think even at $399 their margin will still be razor thin if there's even a margin at all.

@u4one: If it can't exist independent of the PS4 then it's a peripheral, or at least best described as an "add-on". A new platform entirely wouldn't need to be attached to the PS4. It's like calling the 32X a new platform when it needed to be plugged into the Genesis. The Virtual Boy on the other hand was a new platform because it didn't need the SNES or N64 or Gameboy to be attached to.

I agree it's new tech and something pretty different to try to compare to past things... it seems like it would be in their interest to make it compatible with PCs or even Xboxes, so that there would be more buyers than just PS4 owners. On the other hand, if it takes off, it means more PS4 buyers in general.

I hope that some developers will come up with ideas that will really feel like a different experience that can only be had in VR. When the vaporware products in the 90s ( https://www.youtube.com/wat... were starting to get promoted we didn't really have many games that even had 3D worlds, but now we've been used to that for 20 years and we control the head movement in first person with the right analog stick or mouse, and I don't know if VR will really provide a hugely different experience. At the time of stuff like Virtuality and Lawnmower Man, etc. (around 1994) games like Doom were relatively fresh, we were still figuring out things like camera controls. You couldn't look in Doom (no mouselook). Even by default in Quake (1996) you couldn't look and had at add "+mouselook" to the config file to look around with the mouse easily, but the maps were designed mainly for horizontal gameplay and shots still auto-aimed on the vertical axis. I just mean the novelty of "fully 3D worlds" may have lost a lot of its oomph since then when the VR tech fizzled out and never came out really except for a few computer enthusiasts who bought into it... Oculus Rift is also strangely absent despite being expected to be out for over a year now.

@u4one

It's peripheral\add-on because it still requires the PS4 to function. Just because it's more expensive than the PS4 itself, doesn't make it any less of a peripheral\add-on.

Example: Those of you who remember the TurboGrafx-16 would probably also remember how it was the very first console made to have major product "add-on" components such as the first ever CD-Rom drive. Even though the console cost $199, the CD-Rom component was an additional $399. Sounds like a lot of money, but at the time a CD-Rom drive for your PC cost easily that much. I remember when the first CD burners came out and they cost over $1200 and half the time you'd burn a disc it ended up as a drink coaster.

I worry for the same reason. It's already hard enough to run 60 fps and this thing is gonna need 90-120fps. Visuals will take a hit. I'm hoping the experience overall is enough to compensate for slighlty less fantastic graphics.

It might be early, but you always need beta testers ;)