PlayStation VR Will Dominate Space if Less Than $500, Says Pachter

£300/$400 is what I expect. And I'd gladly spend it, if the quality and support is there.

Even if it means they have to delay it 6 months or so, I believe they will do whatever it takes to get the price point right. I would say around 400 for the base kit, with more expensive bundles available with varying degrees of additional hardware/software.
Sony is fully aware what a 100 dollar price difference can do for you. They have certainly not forgotten the debacle of the ps3 release (being to high priced) and the overall good will of the ps4 release. Give the consumer a great, quality piece of tech that looks and feels good at a decent price and you got em.
The biggest thing for Sony though will be the sheer number of ps4s in homes already once the psvr releases. Oculus and Vive are fighting over a decidedly smaller pie when it comes to vr ready PCs in the wild and those with those PCs being willing to buy a kit instead of spending that money on further advancing their pc.

Michael Pachter has a terrible track record in the gaming industry. He either states the stupidly obvious, or stupidly obscene. This is one of those really obvious predictions. How he remains a relevant name in gaming news is just beyond me!

Maybe sony will take a lost on the vr hardware since the ps4 doing so well. I try one while in Tokyo, and its amazing.
If there enough games support for the hardware, i would get one at 499$.

Most likely price is the PS4 launch price

Versatility plays a part in how successful a device can be as well as the features and price. Morpheus, I expect, only works on Playstation and has approx 40m (Max) potential customers. Working on PC's the other headsets have a bigger market and if they find a use outside of just pure gaming, then these others could be more successful. Maybe if they have some educational software that opens up schools and colleges and no doubt with VR Porn, that could well sell headsets too...

@Neolit
My point exactly! I've been saying for months now that looks most certainly matter. Where Oculus and HTC bring enhanced ski goggles on the market, Sony is giving us a piece of tech that could've come straight out of Star Trek. There's one other big plus: the immersion isn't as great as with the other 2. Is that a plus I hear people say? Yes it is is! The first few years people will feel uncomfortable "trapped in VR" or want to multitask and visit the actual world regularly while playing, Sony's wonderful design has got you covered! By design you can easily get out of the experience, where the oculus demands you to take those God awful goggles off.

VR isn't even about who's cheapest, although that is a huge factor, but accesibility is far more important. And I don't even mean accesibility in a way that there are more ps4s than VR ready PCs, I mean that the kit itself shouldn't scare people away. People who are less tech savvy should want to put it on if the see it instead of being forced to.

I still wonder why people are so outraged over the price of VR: I remember back in the days that spending the equivalent of $2000 on a TV wasn't a big deal, and although we have cheaper options now we mostly still spend more than $1000. New and exciting tech just comes at a price and if these companies start telling consumers it isn't all about gaming, but show everyone it's about watching movies, sports and concerts, about traveling, skypecalls and most importantly porn, then people will understand why they want to cough up the money for it.

With these prices I can only assume that VR manufacturers have enough funding to sell limited quantities and get through to version 2 or 3, which will be the true retail versions.

If Playstation VR launches at $500 I recon its not going beyond a curiosity this generation.

I think looking at it price-wise is just too simplistic. It depends on differing factors including the library of games available on each device, how fun/immersive the tech allows gaming to be, how easy it is to use, and also how many people it can accommodate (e.g. how much variation the customisation options allow for different people). We don't know the full answer to these yet so we've got to wait and see.

However, I'm fairly sure it'll cost under 500 of those US dollars.

@BAMozzy a report I read suggested only around 13 million pc's currently can support VR, that will increase but at the moment PSVR will have the bigger market. I agree that ultimately this tech will reach out beyond gaming into cinema and perhaps education, hopefully some of this will come to Playstation too.

I'm saving up for launch and it's just down to what games are available (No Man's Sky) as to if I get one straight away.

If it receives NMS compatibility, it's on!

@carlos82 I saw that report from Nvidia too but the point is that PC's tend to have a more wider application beyond gaming. It could be used for education at all levels - surgeons to practice procedures, kids to go to museums/galleries etc that perhaps would be a logistical nightmare etc and like I said the porn industry (allegedly the biggest use of PC's) could utilise VR too. Until recently, we didn't know the specs required but I wonder how many schools/colleges/universities etc as well as personal users will now be looking at upgrading their PC's to the level required - not just from a gaming perspective. Watching BBC3's 'The Virtual Reality Virgin' (on iPlayer), it focussed a lot on the sex industry - more so than gaming as well socialising.

Whilst there may be 13m currently compatible PC's, the potential is a LOT higher - some with minimal upgrades, others requiring a bit more or maybe even a new system, the potential market place is a lot higher and like I said, PC tends to have a much broader application.

Playstation users are more likely to be looking at VR from a purely gaming perspective and software will almost certainly determine its success. It may well end up being the cheapest option but that doesn't necessarily mean it will end up being the most popular.

I assume it needs the camera to work (for head tracking) and if so, how many PS4's currently have the camera? It may be a 'small' additional cost but it starts to push the price up a bit more. Unless its released with a decent amount of varied software, uptake could be slow. We also don't know how it compares with the other 2 big names in terms of functionality and versatility. By this I also refer to the peripherals - HTC and Oculus both come with the two controllers (1 for each hand) and we know HTC's will come with a room camera to give you 'freedom' in a 'space' and has a front fitted camera for safety - although this could also limit its use as people may not have enough space in their homes to get the best out of it.

My whole point though was more about saying 'price' alone does not necessarily mean it will dominate. Being the cheapest is no guarantee of dominating the market space. I am sure a lot of people still need convincing that the outlay is worth the investment and part of that will of course come down to the software available.

From my perspective, the software so far hasn't grabbed me. Rigs (for example) wouldn't be a game I would buy if it was playable on TV's. Ace Combat isn't a franchise I particularly enjoy either, I don't like 'walking simulators' and whilst I don't know a lot about the majority of games that will be compatible, ultimately it will be those that eventually dictate whether I (or others) opt to invest. If the software is 'average' at best, then regardless of cost, its unlikely to sell many units. Even with 1-2 must haves, its very difficult to justify the cost - even at £100 (that could be over £200 if you also factor in the cost of games and maybe the camera too). Obviously software affects the other headsets but they could have a wider application (like education, social etc) and so have other audiences to target.

Born like a star, will die like a gimmick.
No, VR will dominate the market with prices so high. The world economy is on crisis, and the cherry on the cake is that no companies will risky great franchises or games in a gimmick that so few people own.
Fail concept, that will die like Kinect. Maybe in 10 years they will try again.

@BAMozzy Thanks for bringing up the camera, I've asked 2 or 3 times if it will be required and/or bundled but nobody ever answers. Requiring it and selling it separately gives Sony a few extra $ while keeping the PSVR price down.

@Boerewors How do you do Skype calls in a VR helmet? If the camera is inside the helmet all you would probably see is a forehead or a nose. If you hold up a camera outside of the headset all the other person will see is the headset, not your face, so what's the point? I know it always works in sci-fi movies, but I'm not sure that translates into real life.

@rjejr I can only assume it is required for head tracking. I believe the other 2 VR systems have some form of external tracking devices - HTC's I believe utilises IR.

Skype itself maybe doesn't work with VR but VR can be utilised for shared social experiences. You could all be in a virtual coffee shop/pub etc and spend time socialising in that virtual environment. You can also use VR to go to a virtual event or venue together without physically meeting and share that experience. For example you could go to a 'virtual E3' with friends, have discussions about the things you 'see' together etc without leaving the house. Whether PSVR has this capability is unknown as it seems its more focussed on the gaming side.

@BAMozzy I can se how sharing an exprince like E3 would work, but I htink you are getting a little ahead of yourself in the sci-fi. You and your friends could only explore what other real cameras have filmed, you can't just virtually walk around a real E3, and you and your friends aren't going to be there unless you were there. And the coffee shop scenario is even worse, you can't see any of your friends in a coffee shop, even a fake one like PS Home, unless you are only seeing their avatars.

VR has a lot of uses, but I'm not sure how it would work as a social experience yet. (Oh gawd, I think I just agreed w/ Reggie and I really hate it when that happens.)

@BAMozzy @rjejr the camera is definitely required as it's the only way to correct the errors which build up in the motion sensors. I can only assume it'll be bundled with one, I've seen no confirmation on this but it's the only logical solution.

This VR socialising idea sounds like fun even if it is just avatars. I can imagine something along the lines of ps home, chatting and maybe some virtual bowling with move controllers or perhaps even turn it into some kind of virtual theme park for games. There really is a lot of potential for VR and as you said earlier most of it seems to be outside of gaming and it'll be interesting to see if Sony incorporate some of these ideas into their system.

@rjejr Of course you can't visit a virtual E3 in the same way that you can in Real Life. However you could go to venue and be part of the 'audience' at the briefings - even live - we already can watch these on our console. With a mic its basically just a 'party' type communication and you are all watching the same view. Its just a bit more immersive than having it shown on the TV.

Who said anything about actually seeing your friends?? Meeting up in a 'virtual' coffee shop obviously requires you to have an 'Avatar' and you socialise with other avatars except instead of being 3rd Person like 'Home' you get the 1st person view. You can choose to sit and chat with other friends (although you will see their Avatars), its still a more immersive social experience. These things ALREADY exist - I suggest you watch that BBC3 documentary. In one scenario in that, the presenter was scanned so his Avatar was a lifelike representation but its not necessary. You don't have to have a real and lifelike avatar of your friends to share a virtual social space together, to chat, interact and share that experience.

In the 'coffee shop' scenario, for example, you could play a game of chess with a friend. They (or at least their Avatar) would appear to be sat opposite you with the Chess Set between you, their moves would appear in real time, with their hands moving the pieces, you can still chat etc. You can look around the virtual Coffee Shop as if you were there and see other friends (avatars), go over and chat to them if you want - all without having to leave the house - great if some friends live too far away to socialise in real life

We already have virtual tours of museums, galleries etc. With a VR headset, you can still go on these Virtual tours and look at the exhibits. You could also do this with other people socially and discuss the exhibits as if you went there together. If you both happen to be looking at the same exhibit through your VR headset and connected via party chat, you are sharing the same virtual world socially - just because you see their Avatar and not necessarily their actual physical body is immaterial.

@BAMozzy I'm sorry, but I've never used a VR headset before, but I just don't see how playing chess w/ a VR headset on in a make believe place like home is any different w or w/o the headset? Honestly, wouldn't it just be better to use the PS camera to play virtual chess w/ your friend so the 2 of you could see the actual 2 of you and you wouldn't have to spend all that money on VR and wear the headsets? (I really wish and waited Nintneod did this w/ the camera in the Gamepad so my parents could play chess w/ their grandkids but they never did.)

I swear I'm not baiting you, I really just don't get how the social aspect of using an expensive headset is in any way better than just using the PS camera to really see each other and play a virtual chess game, maybe w/ Move like those Wonderbook games. And I really really really do NOT want to bowl w/ Move in my living room in front of my 52" TV while I'm wearing a headset and am unable to see how close I am to the TV in front of me. I've had enough near accidents in my house w/ Wiimotes - and we didn't have eye covering googles on while we were playing. Sounds like a really bad idea.

I'm not opposed to VR, I think it has some great applications - Endless Ocean Blue World on Wii was sold w/ a mic for 2 player online - still waiting for an HD sequel - but playing a game online while sitting on a couch isn't the same as just hanging out in a coffee shop socializing w/ real people. That space station game looked great, but I wouldn't call up a friend to just "hang out" in VR, I'd rather see a real face.

Maybe when I try it, but that's the big catch 22 isn't it, can't do a home demo w/o the $500 headset to sell the $500 headset. Tough sell me thinks.

@BAMozzy This game, for one, looks like it was ready made for VR, and I coudlnt imagine playing it any other way. I really don't like FP view though, which I'm well aware is part of my problem w/ the VR headsets for gaming. This looks fun though, and maybe NMS would work if I ever felt so inclined. Maybe on my invalid death bed.

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2016/02/video_soul_axioms_launch_trailer_is_part_tron_part_lawnmower_man#reply

I'll be definitely waiting until Xmas and the New year to see if this takes off....or if it becomes another playstation move/tv

@rjejr The whole point of VR is to put you in a 'virtual' space. From a gaming perspective this puts you in the cockpit of a racing car, on the frontlines of battle or in the haunted mansion of a horror game. It takes away all the peripheral clutter of your 'room' where you game - you look up and see the Sky or ceiling of the 'virtual' area you are in, you look left or right and see just your virtual surroundings. In effect its no different from looking around in game but just seeing these things portrayed on TV.

Being a surrounded though by this virtual environment has a much more immersive feel. If someone throws something at your head (for example), you get the sense that it will hit unless you duck. It all feels so much closer and because you don't have the reality of the gap between you and a TV screen, the reality of the surroundings of your room, these feel 'real' (to a degree). Obviously you don't get all the physical feedback that would accompany these in reality - you don't get the g-force of driving a F1 car but you get a much more realistic sense of being in an F1 car with VR compared to playing it on TV. You have to move your head to look in mirrors. In the case of flying (like Ace Combat) you actually have to move your head to look out of the cockpit and look down to see the instruments. VR isn't necessary to play these games at all but can enhance the experience. It can make Horror games seem much more atmospheric, claustrophobic and scary.

As far as socialising, I doubt you would buy a headset purely for that. Its just one aspect in which it could be used. Like I said its not always easy to arrange for all your friends to get to a single venue for a meet up. From a gaming sense, I only know 3-4 people personally - mainly as they are family. I have friends in the US and so arranging a meet up is practically impossible. I game socially with a lot of these and have no idea what they look like but that doesn't mean I can't have a 'chat' and often have non-game related conversations - similar to chats I would have with them in a pub or coffee house. The point is not necessarily the environment or 'playing chess' but sharing a social experience together. I know you could play chess (or other game) over your console and chat via the party but its not as immersive.

It could be something like going to the cinema, going to the theatre, visiting a museum/gallery, watch a sporting event etc. You can't necessarily do all these things with some friends in reality but you could in a virtual sense. You could also visit things that don't exist in reality, like the Star Wars cantina, look over and see the band playing etc, It could be an underwater city (like Rapture) or a medieval fantasy castle with Dragons flying overhead, in fact the possibilities are endless - it doesn't have to be a 'real' coffee shop/pub or museum/gallery but the point is sharing the same virtual space at the same time. Its difficult to say 'come and have a look at this 'picture/exhibit etc' if you are not with someone and its easier than sending links over the internet.

You could also have social experiences - like a murder/mystery event with friends, look for clues, discuss your ideas, work together to find the solutions. These friends wouldn't need to be local or book travel arrangements - its no different to playing a game together over your console but its much more immersive and can allow you to socialise with people that you can't in reality.

These are just some examples. VR is more than just about what it can bring to gaming although PSVR so far seems to be focussed a lot on that aspect. The possibilities of it extends far beyond gaming alone. Whilst you may not want to spend that much on the social side, it is one possibility and potential use. Socialising is NOT just about spending time together in a 'real' environment. It's about spending time together in any capacity. This can be over the phone, via text based chat or in a virtual world. You can socialise in a MP game online - all VR does is make that a much more immersive experience.

@BAMozzy I think my dislike for 1st person games - I really only play 3D platformers and JRPGs - makes me a very un-likely candidate for VR gaming. Also, my original comment was aimed at the other guy who said "...about traveling, skypecalls and most importantly porn,..." and I still don't think making a "Skype" call is what VR is good for. I'm still on the fence about porn, but I think as a teen I'd rather be busted watching it on a big screen than fapping inside a headset when I don't know who might be watching me.

@rjejr VR could work for RPG's as long as they are in the First Person. You get to explore the world and feel like you are actually a part of it and within it.

From a 'Porn' perspective, imagine going to a 'virtual' lap dance club. Instead of that dance appearing to be a distance from you, it would be a much more personal experience - as if she is really dancing just for you. She would feel like she is literally inches from you as if you could reach out and touch her. She would appear lifelike in every way, including size and where ever you want to look, you can - not controlled by the cameraman. Like I said, it creates the illusion that you are actually there and she is dancing purely for you and giving you a very personal performance.

This is yet another example of how VR enhances an experience that you could have on a standard screen - less personal, close and immersive of course - but still possible. Its not just the potential it can have in gaming.

I personally can't justify the expense and have concerns about VR myself but I can still the attraction and advantages it can have. I am physically disabled and unable to get out and socialise. I can't very easily visit a gallery, museum or other venue and I certainly couldn't cope with going to a busy expo. I could though do a lot of this in a virtual sense. Have you seen the film 'Avatar'?? I feel a bit like the lead actor (Sam Worthington) who is paralyzed but although my Avatar wouldn't exist in a real sense, I can experience a sense of freedom that reality denies me. In a virtual world you can be 'normal', not restricted by disability and free to do the same as everyone else can. I could 'walk' round a virtual shop, look around virtual items getting a sense of size, appearance etc, see how they fit into a virtual presentation of your house, try on virtual clothing and look in virtual mirrors, make a real payment and have the items delivered in a day or so.

Until the software and technology reaches a significant level and quality, I am not that interested though. I also want to see if there are any negatives (health, psychological etc) from long term and/or prolonged use. From a social aspect, it also requires friends too have the same software - maybe even hardware too if the software isn't multi-platform.

Gaming is likely to be the starting point in VR for many but it does have much wider application and 'social' is just one. Skype doesn't seem to require VR but it could be used for communication and sharing a 'social' experience whilst away from family - I used 'Chess' and 'Friend' but that could very easily be replaced by 'snooker/pool, cinema, museum etc' and 'child/partner etc' if you happen to be away working. Although you maybe miles away, you could still take your child to a virtual cinema together.

It may not be of any benefit to you at the moment, from a gaming aspect and maybe doesn't fit into your social or personal circumstances yet but it could very quickly as people develop and expand its uses.

@BAMozzy " but it could very quickly as people develop and expand its uses."

I think VR in the future will be very real. Not Avatar real, but a part of everyday life like tablets. There may even be pants and shirts and gloves that let us move inside of the world - or maybe just putting a couple of Moves in a holster belt. I'm sure my kids will be involved someday. 20 years from now they'll all be jacking in. That's a Neuromancer reference, not porn.

I think Sony will do their usual, try and keep the price down on the hardware and make profit on the games. They want to make it affordable or there won't be enough buyers for word of mouth to spread.

@Frank90 very well said...this is just a gimmick, I don't see VR as a part of our immediate gaming future.

@DrClayman I was of the same mind set before Vive released their price but now I'm in the $500-$600 price range. Seems like these VR devices are much more expensive than everyone expected.