Time Magazine names PSVR as one of the best inventions of 2016

Aug 13, 2009
930
0
650
UK
www.youtube.com
#1
Do you agree? Sure it has some flaws, but I think it deserves to be in there.

In order to access the most cutting-edge virtual reality, people typically have to shell out thousands of dollars—not just for a headset (like the $800 HTC Vive), but for a computer that’s powerful enough to support it. Sony’s PlayStation VR, by contrast, is designed to work with a console that millions of people already own: the PlayStation 4. That’s a boon for gamers in search of what Sony engineer Richard Marks calls “the most intense, most extreme” action, as well as casual consumers, who now have an easier way to experience VR.
http://time.com/4572079/best-inventions-2016/
 
May 11, 2010
21,954
0
700
UK
#2
Dat lack of HDR passthrough is such a joke. I will wait for revision 2 of PSVR which innevitably fixes this.

As for it being named as a best invention, sure, why not, it seems like a well priced and well made VR headset (besides the above point).
 
Aug 21, 2013
17,883
0
0
Los Angeles
#9
I agree with their explanation. It's VR that works (for the most part) at a much more reasonable price.

It's no Vive, and roomscale is a generation ahead of sitting/standing VR but that comes at a much higher price and with extra space needed. PSVR is the mainstream consumer VR.

Oculus can just go away lol.
 
Aug 26, 2015
8,679
0
0
#15
It's not an invention though, it's technology pioneered by others and sold before at a higher price made more affordable through the usual cutting of costs and lower quality. Even the controllers are just re purposed ones from years ago. It's admirable that they're wanting to make VR slightly more affordable but this definitely doesn't deserve to be on the list. Maybe one of best innovations, or simply just best tech, but definitely not best inventions; that implies something entirely new of which very few parts of the PSVR actually are.
 
May 11, 2010
21,954
0
700
UK
#16
But my Vive also worked for a computer I already own. And actually has impressive features that push the boundaries. Almost a year before the PSVR came out.
A lot of these kinds of lists favor things that are affordable and offer ease of access to wider markets via "plug and play".

They don't necessarily list the most technically superior and first to market devices.

Just saying. This isn't saying PSVR is the best, it isn't, PC VR headsets are better than a console VR headset.
 
Jan 12, 2012
18,258
8
465
BC Canada
#20
There are a lot of weird things on that list.
It is quite bizarre. The Levitating Light Bulb? I have never heard of that one before. A fit anywhere soccer field? There are also a few interesting things as well.

Eagle 360 spinning tires? I swear the Eagle 360 tires are still in a concept stage, and there are no cars that can use them in existence. Did Goodyear slip Time Magazine money to put them on this list? Because they have been trying to make these tires a thing in reality, but no vehicle manufacturers have jumped on board.

It is really hard for me to call the PSVR headset innovative. What it can do, it does really well. But I would hardly call that innovative.
 
Dec 6, 2008
880
0
0
#21
I agree with their explanation. It's VR that works (for the most part) at a much more reasonable price.

It's no Vive, and roomscale is a generation ahead of sitting/standing VR but that comes at a much higher price and with extra space needed. PSVR is the mainstream consumer VR.

Oculus can just go away lol.
pretty much lol

isn't the IQ of the PSVR with PS4 Pro similar to Rift/Vive?
 
Apr 21, 2013
8,017
0
0
#31
I mean sure.

It's just an expensive one here in Canada so Pro was much more worthwhile (ever game support going forward instead of a guessing game of support)
 
Jun 1, 2013
15,211
1
480
#36
Disagree honestly. To get everything that you need for proper VR on PS it would probably cost $700. Camera and motion controls the PSVR is $500 bundled, more if you didn't. Then they don't even have a proper tracking solution and if they did I'm guessing it would cost upwards of $200 if not more.

By coming in without proper tracking solutions they've made it significantly harder to add it in the future too. They've set out a VR experience that is very middling in terms of actual engagement because the tools are seriously lacking. Future iterations may have it, but it means the first gen users will be left in the dust or have the bitter taste of having to buy expensive peripherals to add on to get a really solid experience. You then have a fracture user base many of whom don't want to shell out even more money on hardware and developers who are debating using the base PSVR as a standard or using the one with full motion tracking as a standard.
 
Dec 4, 2013
5,587
0
0
27
Australia
#38
Congratulations, Sony!

I predict there will be some salty-ass posts in this thread.
And they will be tight. The PSVR isn't innovative, Vive is with roomscale. What the PSVR does well is appeal to the masses by keeping costs low and being an excellent beginner VR headset that will push the market across into new bounds. Vive alone can't do it because right now it is an ehtusiast device, but together with PSVR the virtual reality world is going to be absolutely amazing.
 
Aug 21, 2013
17,883
0
0
Los Angeles
#39
Disagree honestly. To get everything that you need for proper VR on PS it would probably cost $700. Camera and motion controls the PSVR is $500 bundled, more if you didn't. Then they don't even have a proper tracking solution and if they did I'm guessing it would cost upwards of $200 if not more.

By coming in without proper tracking solutions they've made it significantly harder to add it in the future too. They've set out a VR experience that is very middling in terms of actual engagement because the tools are seriously lacking. Future iterations may have it, but it means the first gen users will be left in the dust or have the bitter taste of having to buy expensive peripherals to add on to get a really solid experience. You then have a fracture user base many of whom don't want to shell out even more money on hardware and developers who are debating using the base PSVR as a standard or using the one with full motion tracking as a standard.
No one here is denying that the PSVR isn't the inferior of the big 3.

And while it's still expensive, compared to getting a Vive and a VR-ready PC, it's much much cheaper.

Which is Time's reason as to why it's there in the first place.
 
Aug 26, 2015
8,679
0
0
#41
No one here is denying that the PSVR isn't the inferior of the big 3.

And while it's still expensive, compared to getting a Vive and a VR-ready PC, it's much much cheaper.

Which is Time's reason as to why it's there in the first place.
"Cheaper" is not an invention. Sony creating some new technology to allow Vive or OR-quality VR at a much cheaper price would definitely be an invention, but neither the tracking nor the headset in the PSVR is new and there already is cheap VR out there. The PSVR is well designed, yes, but not new.
 
Jun 1, 2013
15,211
1
480
#42
No one here is denying that the PSVR isn't the inferior of the big 3.

And while it's still expensive, compared to getting a Vive and a VR-ready PC, it's much much cheaper.

Which is Time's reason as to why it's there in the first place.
Let's say after all is said and done we're left with a few scenarios

PS4 (slim) ($300 || Pro $400) + PSVR solution ($500 || $700 w/proper tracking).

Total Cost

PSVR Light: $800

PSVR full experience: $1100

PC (Entry PS4 comparative $500 || Pro+ comparitive $600 simply because you'd want at least a $200 GPU) + Oculus (Vive $800).

PC near or above the light experience: $1300

PC at or above full experience PSVR: $1400

It's certainly great that there's more options, I'm all for options. However, when you haven't set a solid standard for an experience that doesn't require users to have radial ratchet turning and movement, motion sickness from weak tracking and generally lacking features we should expect for gaming in VR. Well... it may be a better thing to have a stricter standard. As I've put it can also have longer term detriments because they could fragment the market should they try to catch up in terms of experience.

At the Pro and Vive price range with people shelling out that much money, it would just be hard to recommend the full PSVR experience vs the one provided by even an entry level PC with Vive.

There's obviously other Pro's and cons, but you get my point.
 
Jun 26, 2014
2,255
0
295
#44
Weird list. A levitating light bulb for $350. A folding helmet which for some reason sounds incredibly dangerous to me (I always wear my helmet during commutes, I get that they're a pain to store, but I'd rather one not fold on impact and pop my head like a grape). Chemically engineered pot vape, no thanks.

Is the PSVR even an invention? It's doing the same thing others do just for a little cheaper. Not sure I'd rank it next to Tesla's solar roof, or dishes that allow those with serious health issues to eat easier and enjoy life fuller.
 
Jul 31, 2006
7,377
3
1,080
#47
didn't know about the hyperadapts, but with a >$700 pricetag they're only for the rich and stupid. Hopefully that price comes down soon.
 
May 11, 2009
5,767
0
0
#49
I've bought both a PSVR and a Vive, and really all I want to do is use the PSVR headset for Vive applications. Roomscale is absolutely the kind of innovation that can't be replicated on any conventional gaming setup, even though it's a huge pain in the ass to set up, but the screen and lenses on the Vive headset are both so much worse. For people who are considering the two right now I'd recommend the PSVR over the Vive, easily.