Support NeoGAF

[ZehDon]

...You're right, no one has ever launched a product at GDC but I just don't see Sony holding a PlayStation meeting kind of event in some city, at some date just to say, here's the price, here's where it'll be available and this is when it's out. We've already seen all the launch games and know all about the product, it would be a very quick media briefing and pretty inconvenient for the worlds gaming media to attend.
However if they were to do it at GDC, or perhaps in the same vicinity and at the same time, it serves as being more worthwhile to everyone involved...

While it might not PS4 hype levels, agreed, I'm afraid we just simply disagree here in our assessments. While you can't see Sony holding a big event, I personally can't see Sony not holding an event. We'll have to agree to disagree, and it'll be interesting to see which of us is right.

Wait, no I was suggesting that anyone that would be interested in E3, an event used to launch products, will also be interested in GDC so writing it off just because its not a consumer friendly event (as in the public can't attend) is silly. You also completely ignored the sentence I made after the bit you highlighted that says about the media blah blah blah...

Sorry, I might have misunderstood... unfortunately, I also don't agree with your clarified point. GDC is interesting for people who are interested in the business and development side of the gaming industry, as its usually focused on either new advancements that are in the pipeline, or about how problems have been solved. People like you myself, we hang on every bit of news. That's why we're here on NeoGAF. E3, however, is interesting because it's wall to wall new games and cool stuff for everybody, with huge blow outs and massive news dumps. I think in the venn diagram, the overlap is significantly smaller than you might be thinking. Not every PS4 wants to listen to Mark Cerny talk about the thinking behind the PS4's APU.

It'll probably just happen at E3 anyway because, well, Soony.

Now this is something I can agree with. I'm getting the feeling PSVR is delayed, and gets its big showing at E3 for launch in late Q3. Makes for a hell of a Soony press conference, though

 

[xenorevlis]

Lol at the 60% more powerful than smiliarly specced PC. What bullshit.

This is actually in line with what Oculus was saying about PS4's VR implementation. It's not about regular game performance.

 

[Oxn]

So i am trading in my xbox one for credit and using that for PSVR'
Woot

 

[Kojirospath]

So i am trading in my xbox one for credit and using that for PSVR'
Woot

MattrickPleaseNo.gif

 

[mrklaw]

MattrickPleaseNo.gif

KazOhYes.gif

 

[dumbo]

Does anyone ever think these rumors are started by Sony to gauge the market?

Whilst it's possible, it's worth remembering that Sony claimed that the PS4 design was always primarily focused on the price-point that they wanted to achieve.

It's possible that Sony approached VR in the same light, and given that they will make a profit on 'everything PS/VR other than the headset itself' they can afford to be aggressive in the pricing.

 

[Dreamwriter]

So i am trading in my xbox one for credit and using that for PSVR'
Woot

Shouldn't you want until we know the PSVR's price? What if that XBox One tradein doesn't even cover half the price? Or can cover two PSVR's?

Whilst it's possible, it's worth remembering that Sony claimed that the PS4 design was always primarily focused on the price-point that they wanted to achieve.

It's possible that Sony approached VR in the same light, and given that they will make a profit on 'everything PS/VR other than the headset itself' they can afford to be aggressive in the pricing.

But don't forget, they actually announced (a year ago) that the PSVR pricing would be similar to a "brand new game platform". So if it's only $300, then they changed their mind or accomplished more than they thought they could.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

Shouldn't you want until we know the PSVR's price? What if that XBox One tradein doesn't even cover half the price? Or can cover two PSVR's?

He'll just have to sell his PS4 to make up the difference.

 

[The Lamonster]

I am hoping for separate SKUs, as I already have the camera.

 

[c0de]

That would be a very cheap way to get a ps4.

 

[Lemondish]

Shouldn't you want until we know the PSVR's price? What if that XBox One tradein doesn't even cover half the price? Or can cover two PSVR's?



But don't forget, they actually announced (a year ago) that the PSVR pricing would be similar to a "brand new game platform". So if it's only $300, then they changed their mind or accomplished more than they thought they could.

$300 is pretty similar to a brand new game platform in price.

 

[Raist]

That would be a very cheap way to get a ps4.

"Bundle" = + camera and controller. Not a PS4.

 

[FlashFlooder]

But don't forget, they actually announced (a year ago) that the PSVR pricing would be similar to a "brand new game platform". So if it's only $300, then they changed their mind or accomplished more than they thought they could.

IMO, this was more to manage expectations than give an actual estimate of the price. So people don't have a meltdown when it doesn't come out priced at $99.

Really all it means (to me, at least) is "expect $200+".

 

[Z3M0G]

The day they confirm the option of a stand-alone unit i run out and buy a camera... i already have two move controllers.

 

[Trogdor1123]

Lol at the 60% more powerful than smiliarly specced PC. What bullshit.

interesting that you know more than some of the most respected people in the industry. Perhaps you should back it up why they are wrong and you are right.

 

[androvsky]

But don't forget, they actually announced (a year ago) that the PSVR pricing would be similar to a "brand new game platform". So if it's only $300, then they changed their mind or accomplished more than they thought they could.

I don't think there's an exact quote, but the best source I can find is Bloomberg's interview with Andrew House.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...than-10-titles-with-first-virtual-reality-set

The unit will be priced as a new gaming platform he said

"Priced as a new gaming platform" can mean many things, only one of which is "Exact same price as a PS4 when it launched". Don't forget the Vita was also a brand new gaming platform and was $249 at launch (but you needed certain accessories to use it hey does that sound familiar). One thing that is highly likely is that Sony will have razor-thin profit margins, if not making a small loss on each unit.

 

[demigod]

"Bundle" = + camera and controller. Not a PS4.

Was that dude serious? If so, i don't even...

The day they confirm the option of a stand-alone unit i run out and buy a camera... i already have two move controllers.

I bought one for $16 mid nov last year from Best Buy.

 

[Raist]

The day they confirm the option of a stand-alone unit i run out and buy a camera... i already have two move controllers.

The camera sold decently so I really doubt they'd only have a PSVR SKU bundled with it.

 

[cakefoo]

I can't stand when people translate that statement as "PSVR will be the same price as a console." Sure, VR headsets cost as much as some consoles, but what's illogical is interpreting the statement as if he was talking about a price-range. In reality he's merely talking about what mentally goes into determining the price of a console. Nothing more.

Shu also drew comparisons to console pricing months before House's statement.

"We are not talking about any specific number, but this is a console business. We try to provide the hardware at the lowest possible cost so that more people can come in. And so that developers can make games on to create the market. So we'll have the same approach."

House obviously meant to echo Shu, but unfortunately his statements weren't interpreted closely enough. Consider that the writer of the House article never used direct quotes:

The PlayStation VR headset is on track for introduction in the first half of next year, Sony Computer Entertainment Chief Executive Officer Andrew House said in an interview at the Tokyo Game Show on Thursday. The unit will be priced as a new gaming platform he said, without giving numbers.

But in true journalistic tradition, other news outlets ran with it as a quote:

Gamespot: Andrew House tells Bloomberg in a new interview that the headset will be priced "as a new gaming platform"

IGN: PlayStation VR, will be priced as a "new gaming platform," according to Sony Computer Entertainment CEO Andrew House.

And many, many more

 

[border]

Don't forget the Vita was also a brand new gaming platform and was $249 at launch (but you needed certain accessories to use it hey does that sound familiar).

It seems way to optimistic too think he was really referring to Vita there, especially considering that the "gouge consumers on accessory pricing" model did not really go over very well.

 

[cakefoo]

It seems way to optimistic too think he was really referring to Vita there, especially considering that the "gouge consumers on accessory pricing" model did not really go over very well.

he wasn't talking about any specific console. Read the relevant post directly above yours.

 

[Dreamwriter]

House obviously meant to echo Shu, but unfortunately his statements weren't interpreted closely enough.

So you are making a big assumption on what he meant, and then assuming Bloomberg did a bad job interpreting the guy. If Shu had just made that statement, I'd say you might be right, but it had been made months earlier, and the Bloomberg piece says nothing about pricing as low as possible, which was the important part of Shu's statement. Without that part, nobody would assume pricing "as a new game platform" would mean "pricing it low as possible". That's not what anybody thinks about when considering the price of new platforms except maybe with Nintendo platforms. Also, other large gaming sites picked up that Bloomberg quote and ran with it, if it had been such a huge misunderstanding Sony would have come out and corrected it.

As for people bringing up Vita, do you really think anyone talking to the press about the costs of new game platforms wouldn't be talking about the most recently released systems, but ones released years before? They would know that the press would assume the most recent new platforms (as they did).

 

[RootCause]

That's a lot of money. Though, it's to be expected.

 

[cakefoo]

So you are making a big assumption on what he meant, and then assuming Bloomberg did a bad job interpreting the guy. If Shu had just made that statement, I'd say you might be right, but it had been made months earlier, and the Bloomberg piece says nothing about pricing as low as possible, which was the important part of Shu's statement. Without that part, nobody would assume pricing "as a new game platform" would mean "pricing it low as possible". That's not what anybody thinks about when considering the price of new platforms except maybe with Nintendo platforms. Also, other large gaming sites picked up that Bloomberg quote and ran with it, if it had been such a huge misunderstanding Sony would have come out and corrected it.

My "big assumption" is just me putting the pieces together from multiple major Sony figureheads. There's a difference between pricing a console and targeting a budget spec. Nintendo generally develops their consoles with a budget spec in mind so they can still price it for profit day one without it being too expensive for consumers. Sony targets their specs as high as they reasonably can, and prices their consoles as low as they can, and expects to turn a profit over time.

People misunderstand things all the time, like the breakout box adding a turbo boost to the PS4 GPU. Sony doesn't go around issuing corrections about that. The "priced as a console" misinterpretation is even less significant, as there's likely nothing wrong with the presumption that PSVR will cost several hundred dollars.

It's just annoying that people continue to cite the Bloomberg article when it wasn't even a direct quote, and then proceed to run with it, making guesses as to which console it will be priced as. The only thing that's clear is that it will be priced as low as possible to move software units. "AS A CONSOLE" would be. That's what Shu already said, and it's really silly that people don't quote Shu more often, considering his statements are much clearer, and are actually directly quotable.

 

[TalonJH]

That's a lot of money. Though, it's to be expected.

It really isn't a lot for what it is.

 

[serversurfer]

So you are making a big assumption on what he meant, and then assuming Bloomberg did a bad job interpreting the guy. If Shu had just made that statement, I'd say you might be right, but it had been made months earlier, and the Bloomberg piece says nothing about pricing as low as possible, which was the important part of Shu's statement. Without that part, nobody would assume pricing "as a new game platform" would mean "pricing it low as possible". That's not what anybody thinks about when considering the price of new platforms except maybe with Nintendo platforms. Also, other large gaming sites picked up that Bloomberg quote and ran with it, if it had been such a huge misunderstanding Sony would have come out and corrected it.

As for people bringing up Vita, do you really think anyone talking to the press about the costs of new game platforms wouldn't be talking about the most recently released systems, but ones released years before? They would know that the press would assume the most recent new platforms (as they did).

Holy fuck, dude! Seriously?? ><

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?p=190255811&highlight=house+shu#post190255811

 

[Dreamwriter]

Holy fuck, dude! Seriously?? ><

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?p=190255811&highlight=house+shu#post190255811

Yeah, and you are making the exact same huge assumptions. Where did you read that House was reiterating Shu's *much* earlier statement? What's your source on that,do you have the exact quote from the interview? Not to mention Shu's statement really was entirely unrelated, because he was basically trying to explain to people that it wouldn't cost the same as their $1000 media player headset.

 

[dumbo]

Without that part, nobody would assume pricing "as a new game platform" would mean "pricing it low as possible". That's not what anybody thinks about when considering the price of new platforms except maybe with Nintendo platforms.

AFAICT the quote was given to "Bloomberg business" who were writing a piece primarily on "Sony the business". The interviewer's focus isn't "will it cost $250 or $500" (consumer-pov) but on "are you going to make money on this device?" (investor-pov).

The other problem with the quote is that $299 was the launch price of the WiiU whereas the PS3 was $499/$599. If you read the quote as 'same as a new console' then anything between at least $299 and $599 is possible - making it essentially meaningless.

 

[Durante]

Lower than John Carmack said.

That's one of the most painfully misunderstood and mis-quoted tweets of all time.

Especially as it pertains to GPU performance, and even more so with the new APIs on PC, there is basically no difference between what you can get out of a console GPU TFLop and out of a PC GPU TFlop. And pretty much every single multi-platform game confirms that.

 

[the-pi-guy]

That's one of the most painfully misunderstood and mis-quoted tweets of all time.

Especially as it pertains to GPU performance, and even more so with the new APIs on PC, there is basically no difference between what you can get out of a console GPU TFLop and out of a PC GPU TFlop. And pretty much every single multi-platform game confirms that.

For the same given paper spec, a console will deliver twice the perf of a PC, and a PC will deliver twice the perf of a mobile part.

Of course, you can get a PC with much more than 2x the power of a console...

isn't optimisation a large part of that in case of consoles? Limit your hardware to 1 set and your software is gonna run perf

yes, that is a large part of it, but practical matters like that make real differences

I'm not seeing where the misunderstanding is.

New API's definitely help.
Do multi-platform games get as well as optimized as exclusives?

Exclusives are usually the games that do a lot more with the hardware.
Some multiplatform games that actually perform worse than similar PC hardware isn't exactly the standard to use, when there are other games that work much better.

 

[serversurfer]

Yeah, and you are making the exact same huge assumptions. Where did you read that House was reiterating Shu's *much* earlier statement? What's your source on that,do you have the exact quote from the interview? Not to mention Shu's statement really was entirely unrelated, because he was basically trying to explain to people that it wouldn't cost the same as their $1000 media player headset.

Also in response to you, from the very same thread:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=190280186&highlight=shu+house#post190280186

The only one "making an assumption" here is you, but what you're actually doing here is completely making shit up. House told Bloomberg that they would be pricing PSVR as new gaming hardware. The phrase "priced as ____" has a very specific meaning in the business world. It means, "Our pricing strategy for $NEWPRODUCT is the same strategy one would use for a product of type $X." In the case of "new gaming hardware," that strategy would be, "Sell it at cost, to maximize adoption, and for below cost if you can afford it and the likely future revenues will justify it." House understands this, Bloomberg understand it, and Shu understands it, and it is exactly what he has been saying consistently and explicitly, from time of the initial announcement.

It most certainly does not mean, "Will have the same MSRP as a newly-launched console," You made that up, and it's horse shit.

 

[ZehDon]

Every time this thread gets bumped, I rush in, thinking "new info!". Every time.

 

[Outtrigger888]

Still concerned about content after the initial launch. Still buying regardless of the price. I'm a sucker for new gimmicky tech.

 

[EdReedFan20]

Sounds like HTC will announce the price of the Vive very soon. If that happens, I think PSVR's price will definitely be announced at GDC, which is next month. PSVR would be the last to reveal a price.

 

[Its Quite Toasty]

Every time this thread gets bumped, I rush in, thinking "new info!". Every time.

How about now?

 

[generic_username]

How about now?

lol. You are cruel.

 

[ZehDon]

How about now?

 

[TheBear]

Every time this thread gets bumped, I rush in, thinking "new info!". Every time.

Fucking tell me about it.

 

[Sidewinder]

Every time this thread gets bumped, I rush in, thinking "new info!". Every time.

http://i.imgur.com/IgMyx.jpg


I'm the same, but we all know if there's some real new info floating around we'll get a new thread.

 

[neemmss]

While it might not PS4 hype levels, agreed, I'm afraid we just simply disagree here in our assessments. While you can't see Sony holding a big event, I personally can't see Sony not holding an event. We'll have to agree to disagree, and it'll be interesting to see which of us is right.

What would really sell it is if they had this event and all the attendees had a PSVR under their seats. By having the press and audience experience the announcement on the headset, I feel like it would sell itself.

 

[Panajev2001a]

It seems way to optimistic too think he was really referring to Vita there, especially considering that the "gouge consumers on accessory pricing" model did not really go over very well.

To be fair they thought "if Apple can gouge customers with accessories' pricing and cost of flash memory in their phone so much, why can't we do the same albeit at a reduced scale?". I do not see people boycotting Apple although they happily talk about striving for 50% profit margins and for the cost per GB of their flash storage (compare options in iPhone models...) being outrageous at times, do you ?

 

[EASTC0AST_GH05T]

I am thinking about using my game budget money I planned to spend on PSVR to build a gaming PC instead. I stepped away from PC gaming in 2004 now I think I am ready to rejoin the master race. Rather then taking a chance on a new gaming experience I am going with the safe move.

 

[Thrakier]

I am thinking about using my game budget money I planned to spend on PSVR to build a gaming PC instead. I stepped away from PC gaming in 2004 now I think I am ready to rejoin the master race. Rather then taking a chance on a new gaming experience I am going with the safe move.

Why not both and then HTC Vive or Rift?

 

[EASTC0AST_GH05T]

Why not both and then HTC Vive or Rift?

Because im not rich so I have to be wiser with my gaming purchase. There was a time when I bought everything game related, I can't do that anymore. If I am dropping 400+ on a gaming platform it has to be something I know I will log a good amount of time into. I barely play the PS4 as much as I would like to and I honestly don't know if would prefer VR gaming over non VR gaming. I actually really enjoy my Sony Bravia tv display but I am sure it will be super cool to be immersed in some VR games.