Playstation VR Gets Head start in Cost & PS5 4K

Many of us are looking forward to showing virtual reality (VR) to our friends and family for the first time next year. While enthusiasts have been impressed with early development kits they’ve also embraced their shortcomings, safe in the knowledge that the tech will one day be ready for those that are less understanding. With the impending arrival of the HTC Vive and the Oculus Rift with its Oculus Touch motion controllers, that day is coming, but it brings with it a whole new set of problems.

[DonkeyDoner]

5 times stronger?make it 10 so it wont outdated on launch

[uth11]

Because price.. They want a repeat of the ps3 launch

[DonkeyDoner]

600 bucks and worst on multiplat games than 360 thats f***ed up

[Neonridr]

@kudostoyou - in all fairness that was due to the high price of the bluray player at the time.

[Loktai]

The PS3 launched pretty well considering you couldnt find one anywhere. And also @kudo.

It was 499 not 599, the 499 one had everything
the 399 xbox had plus bluray, the same size
hard drive, bluetooth, wireless networking.
For 599 you got a hard drive 3x as big as what
was available on xbox at the time, and an array of
Memory card connections.

PS3 did fine considering it launched a year after its competition and at a higher price. I would even say it did great. This time shows what happens if it launches at the same time without a price disadvantage.

[bmf7364]

@Neonridr It wasn't just that. Sony was part of a team with IBM and Toshiba that developed the CELL CPU as a future for microprocessing, with Sony being the largest investor(Sony was also the largest investor of the Blu-Ray Group).

It's questionable whether or not the investment in Blu-Ray was successful given how movies and games are moving towards downloading/streaming as the price of players and discs have NOW become reasonable.

As for CELL, the biggest use for the processor has obviously been the Playstation 3. However, even though the launch price was high, Sony was still taking a huge loss per unit sold due to development costs still being over $100 over the sale price, and Sony has reportedly lost over $400 million to CELL's development alone.

Commercially, the Playstation 3 has seen success as it eventually outsold the Xbox 360 before the turn of the new generation AND has had a memorable lineup of exclusive titles. However, it still can be seen as a financial mess whether you're seeing it as a system coming off of the Playstation 2's historical success or Sony's questionable investment into CELL.

[someOnecalled]

Yeah bluray players cost $1000 when ps3 launched. PS fanboys seem to forget in their attempt to blindlessly defend sony. Sony always takes risk when introducing new tech that's attached to other branches of their company. Plus they invested in the cell chip. Didn't they still outsold Xbox in the end.

Smh don't worry just disagree and bash if something goes against sony of today

[Captain_TomAN94]

The PS4 is 12x stronger than the PS3, and even the X1 was 6x stronger.

IMO 8x or GTFO! It would be worth waiting an extra year and making it use 250w instead of 150w.

They just can't use some stupidly complicated CELL-like arch again with a bunch of useless features that drive up price (Why did I need 4 flash card slots?!?!).

[MicrosoftMackin]

@loktai

Also had HDMI(which Xbox didn't have for a while lol),touch sensitive buttons nice design definitely a much more premium console than the 360 at launch.

Side note...anyone notice that the 360S models adopted everything the ps3 had besides blu Ray with the glossy black and chrome trim as well as touch sensitive buttons and built in wifi nothing bad at all actually its awesome cuz the Xbox improved on itself unlike ps3 slim and super slim lol.that's why I'm holding out on a XONE till there Slim model is released

[Iceman X]

@ Loktai - The PS3 launched with 2 units 20gb HDD $499 and 60gb $599. I still have my original 60gb and my receipt.

[Sevir]

It was High on cost because of HDMI, having Actual PS2 hardware on the motherboard, the Bluray player Diodes and bluesy players... The Cell was somewhat cheap, but the RSX at the time was cutting egde, NVidia was charging an arm and a leg and even now they're still changing a lot...

[BallsEye]

I'd pay even $1000 if I know the machine will outshine PC for next 2 years. I remember when first xbox came out. High end PC's couldn't match the graphics and new technologies used there for quite a while. Now current consoles struggle with 30 fps and medium pc settings.

[JMyers]

600 dollars... but it was the cheapest bluray player, came with built in WIFI, Free online, built in HDMI and backwards compatibility. A high cost for all these features. Plus it worked at launch.

The cell processor was great, but it was completely different from anything else out there, hence the multi plat disparities. When optimizedm the games performed and looked exceptional. UC3, GOW3, Beyond Two Souls, etc. were some of the best looking games last gen. But it was all 1st and 2nd party games. Good ideas, but too costly.

The 360 eventually adopted all of these design decisions and additions, even the look of the PS3.

[traumadisaster]

Extremely poorly written article, full of typos and conjecture. Interesting title but sadly clickbait.

[frostypants]

"Outdated"? That would imply that there is a more powerful console on the market. Or, if you want to talk PCs, that would mean that a more powerful PC was available at the same price point. Neither is or was the case.

As for 4K, it all depends on how far in the future we're talking. Today, a GPU capable of running a game smoothly at 4K is insanely expensive. As in, launch PS3 expensive. And that's before you buy the rest of the PC to go with it. I'm not sure people appreciate how much more power it takes to push 4K.

[GUTZnPAPERCUTZ]

For real, MS too, they need to BOTH come out with $600 minimum consoles!

[illAmpThunder]

Or Sony make a new fuking controller ds4 ruins the experience 4 me the close analog stiks mess up my hand joints i dont think ur hands are supposed 2 go inwardness alot, seriously the controller 's been the same 4 20years it was ok w/ ps1 and ps2 but now the ergonomics design of ds4 are outdated instead of adding touch pad bs sony engineers should should redesign the ds hopefully switch the dpad w/ the left analog stiks save future generations from carpool tunnels syndrome lol. Seriously its been 20years make a controller that isnt built for a four year olds hands

[jerethdagryphon]

5x faster with 4 k means zen 16 or 24 core at 2.0 ghz or faster and gcn 2 with hbm 2 memory

[Neonridr]

The real question is how well with the PS4 be able to render these games. At least with the Oculus you can modify your rig to increase performance. The only way to increase performance with the PSVR is to downgrade the game to accommodate accordingly.

[Rimeskeem]

I also see this as a slight problem.

Off Topic: Did psvr really use justin bieber as the picture?

[Wallstreet37]

You do know there are demos of games and prototypes people have played right? Tons of ppl have previewed it and said its the real deal. You act like there isn't software out there for ppl to play. Hell Rigs is like a full game already.

On consoles it's about optimization and that's a plus for devs as its set in terms of hardware so they know what to work with, no variables or wondering what kind of rigs they have to optimize and set up things for.

Software and graphics will be the least of PSVR issues. They won't be ps4 graphics but they'll be better than Wii and that's good enough for me in regards to VR.

[Neonridr]

of course I know that. But you think 90% of what we have seen being played is considered a full fledged title? Or is the PSVR going to be filled with Kinect style games. Games that are snippets because of how complex they are with the PSVR headset?

I was merely pointing out that PSVR is finite because it is tied to a console that can't really be "upgraded". Oculus has the advantage of being tied to a more fluid environment because one can change parts of it to increase the performance side.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure excited for PSVR, I will be a day one adopter. But I am curious how they expect to overcome these challenges. I mean don't expect games like Until Dawn, The Order or The Witcher 3 in terms of graphics and complexity when we are dealing with PSVR games. I doubt the PS4 could handle it.

[nitus10]

@Neonridr

It would be stupid and dangerous for PSVR games to have the player moving around too much.

Think about it, would you actually trust a game that required you to actually move around the room?

Basically within days of a VR games release that encouraged the player to actually move around the room you would see litigation just because someone bumped their knees on the coffee table or tripped on the throw rug because they could not see it due to the visor.

Even doing simple on the spot exercises will be risky since you will be wearing a headset which while not that heavy could contribute to neck injury.

I would think that most VR games will require the player to sit and on rare occasions stand without moving from the spot.

[_-EDMIX-_]

PSVR also has 3 CPUs to assist in such things. From what I've seen on the games supporting it, its not really an issue.

[Qrphe]

Most if not all the games they've shown for PSVR looks way better than what I've seen done in Occulus. Then again PSVR games have actual budgets backing them up unlike the Oculus' indie devs.

[alti]

Or just being a better developer. Many devs working with PCs just annihilate the system, while console devs use many tricks the average consumer does not notice.

You can get $10 at the beginning of the day, but how long that $10 lasts is dependent on how you choose to spend it.

PC devs analogously would spend it all on super sampling or anti-aliasing, while Console devs will dig into the scripting backend, or create atlases of all their textures to reduce draw calls.

It's unfair to say stronger hardware means better looking games, because it's factually & demonstrably wrong. What matters are devs, and Sony happens to curate the best in the industry. Fact.

[Neonridr]

yeah I think some people are misreading my comment. I was in no way trying to say the Oculus is better. I am as psyched as any PS4 owner for the PSVR. I was merely pointing out that Oculus has a little bit of an advantage in that the hardware can change.

And with static hardware, you can only do so much. Especially when you need to maintain extremely high framerates.

[frostypants]

@alti: Smartest post I've seen in a while. Of course you got downvoted for it.

[alti]

@frosty things must've turned around by the time I got back to checking responses here. The ratio isn't terrible.

I think down-votes come my way because of my douche bag tone, rather than the essence of my comment. But I'm not running for president, and this isn't church.

Either that, or people are generally deliberately ignorant when it comes to game development. They think graphics are entirely dependent on how good the artist on the team are, when it really falls on the shoulders of the coder who writes all the shaders and logic to make the game look and run beautifully.

[Death]

What an ignorant article. The author is giving Sony a headstart since there are over 30 million PS4's sold. I see nothing wrong with this statement, but the statement prior to this speculates there are no PC's out in the wild that can run VR so PC users will need to spend $1500 on a rig capable of using Rift on. I'm impressed the author doesn't believe there are more than 30 million PC gamers playing on capable hardware.

The next assumption is the cost of PSVR will be much lower than many think. The author backs this up by saying it's a sound strategy for Sony to keep the low price a secret to pleasantly surprise PS4 owners. This is "glass is half full" thinking by someone that doesn't even have a glass. If PSVR is going to be "cheap", the best time to announce this shockingly low price is before the holidays so more people will jump in and get a PS4.

The closing paragraph is the best. They talk about the PS5 being in development and will play 4K content. This is an advantage for Sony while a $1500 PC that is needed to play Rift is already capable of playing 4K games. Since there is no 4K VR solution, PC gamers should save their money for the next VR headset?

It would have been so much easier and more honest for the author just to write "I like PS4 PSVR more and don't think PC gamers should buy Rift". I'm honestly surprised they didn't include the additional weight a PC has or the disadvantage PC's have in the fact they can do much more than games.

[ArchangelMike]

I think the author was just trying to say that the cost of entry into VR would be cheaper on a Playstation 4 than on a PC.

Firstly, the PS4 is cheaper than a standard PC required to run VR. Secondly, the PSVR headset is likely to be cheaper than both the Oculus and HTC. Also it will very likely be the most 'plug and play' ready device when it launches.

Sony have already hinted that PSVR will be priced similarly to a new console, and I doubt it'll be much higher. Also Sony know how many PS4's have been sold, and therefore they have a good idea of the install base for the PSVR. While there are certainly many more PC's out in the wild, it is anyone's guess how many consumer units (as opposed to business units) are capable of runing VR smoothly.

[Death]

If you already have a PS4 or current gaming PC, the cost will be whatever the PSVR or consumer version of Rift retail for. If you have neither a PC capable of using Rift or a PS4, chances are you aren't looking at VR anyway. The GPU recommended for the "full" Rift experience isn't top of the line or new. The recommended GPU's can be had for less than the cost of a PS4 as long as you have a gaming rig bought the last few years.

[Neonridr]

but if we are talking about cost of entry, then there is no 30 million headstart because then you are talking about starting at zero for both.

If you can bring up the fact that 30 million people own PS4's then you can certainly bring up X million people have PC rigs strong enough to run Oculus games.

The author fails to acknowledge that.

But yes, if you are talking about overall costs associated with each, then the PSVR will come under by quite a bit.

[Death]

PC and console gamers look at costs differently. The TitanX is going for $999 right now and PC gamers are actually buying them at that price. Console gamers gripe at consoles that cost $399 and use a mid-level GPU. If a VR solution is released for $399 on both platforms, who do you think will see that as more of a cost barrier? Console gamers look at $1500 as being a reason PC gamers will buy less Rifts when in reality PC gamers are accustomed to spending much more on hardware.

If Sony comes out at a console friendly price point and proactively announce PSVR support for the next generation Playstation they have a much better chance of being successful with PSVR. If it has a max lifespan of 2-3 years then it will be an incredible uphill battle since we won't really start seeing quality games that take advantage of the platform until the end of the PS4's lifecycle. Launching 3 years after this console generation started was a huge mistake unless it will last longer than this generation.

[Taero]

@3.1.1 Death - I think it's naive to say that if you don't currently own the equipment you're not interested in VR. What if I just didn't want the PS4/1.5k on a gaming pc but, since google cardboard, samsung gear etc. I'm really frothing at the bit to get into it?

Look at the reviews for GearVR, and that's really just 'ok', they're mostly singing it's praises. These are the people who might want to join, and the article is saying that it's easier to pay headet+400 than headset+1.5k

[freshslicepizza]

the author then goes on to say it will be a $1000 savings going the psvr route compared to oculus. how can you price the pc and oculus for $1500 and then conclude psvr will be $1000 cheaper? do they expect psvr to only be $150?

you also don't need to spend over $1000 to run oculus and and if you did spend a $1000 it would be way way more powerful than the ps4.

the ps4 has the sales and dedicated hardware going for it but oculus has something better, facebook. they have the money to make sure this gets out there. psvr has time against it since psvr will come out midway through the ps4 cycle. it will also lack decent software since psvr is a peripheral. that means if there are lets say 50 million ps4 systems how many will actually buy psvr? 5 million? maybe 10 million? that's not very much to green light big games for psvr. instead we will see psvr support, not psvr exclusive games. which means people won't be pushed to buy psvr just like how consumers didn't have to get playstation move. not a great selling feature if games are not developed strictly for psvr. otherwise it comes off as gimmicky if it's just psvr supported.

the ps5 will have the power to handle big aaa psvr games and having it come out when it launches means the chances of being supported by third party greatly increases.

[Outthink_The_Room]

Agreed. That $1500 price tag was INCLUDING the Rift.

If Morpheus is $300, you need a camera and move controllers, we'll add $100. So you're looking at $400 + console, which would be close to $750.

So for, AT MOST, double the price, you're looking at a rig that would already be running 4K without the need for a new generation.

This article is straight up nut hugging. Nothing more, nothing less.

[kaizokuspy]

From my understanding the majority of psvr games will not be dependent on using move as a controller. I'm not interested in flailing about in my living room without being able to see what I could potentially break. That being said it's just a whole different level of immersion. I'd love to use psvr to explore witcher 3 or fallout 4, even if I still use my controller. Those 2 games alone if they ended up being psvr compatible just to look around are enough for me to buy it if it's theoretically possible. However I'd even love for rocket league to have have psvr support. No longer will I get screwed by the camera angle when playing goalie on slow moving close shots! At any rate, we gamers are in positioned to be in the perfect timeline for all the goodies in 2016.

Side note: bubble up for funny. I laughed too hard when I read "nut hugging"

[someOnecalled]

This is the same o bs article we always get plagued with on this site. It's disinformation at its finest. That's why a lot of us pc gamers be pissed. They try so hard to downplay pc and make ps4 seem godly.

People also seem to forget next gen gpus that's tailored for vr is launching next yr. And the will be leaps and bounds over consoles even without vr. It'd so much downplaying it isn't even funny. When games are played at 4k and vr with ease we will be hearing gfx don't matter and I don't see the difference even when they're doing things that's not even possible on consoles like people was saying last gen.

Remember it took the to rerelease pc ports on next gen consoles for people to admit the difference that was going on last gen. Pathetic

[nitus10]

@kaizokuspy

I am currently building a desktop and even using quite a few configurators both in Australia and the US I am fairly hard pressed to get a US$1500 desktop that will come close to playing 4K games.

Of course I have decided on a i7-6400, a decent motherboard with 16GB DDR4 ram a 4K capable graphics card, 1 SSD and a 2TB or 3TB 7200 rpm disk as well as a decent 4K monitor. I have not even factored in a mechanical keyboard, gaming mouse and case as well as a good power supply. Oh! and some thing most people seem to forget the Microsoft OS if they want to play "Games for Windows".

Sure you can cheap out with an i3 or i5 and even get 8GB of DDR3 and a cheaper motherboard, but if you are serious you want something that is going to be reasonably current for a few years and considering 8k is due out next year graphics cards that can handle 8k are definitely going to be more expensive.

[ThanatosDMC]

Yeah people seem to always forget the OS with their builds.

[IamTylerDurden1]

You do realize by the time PSVR comes out PS4 will be at 40 million, not 30. PS4 has many advantages and price of entry is a huge one considering you can buy a PS4 for $299 this month and PSVR is expected to be a lower price than Oculus. When you buy PSVR you will be able to play every PSVR game that comes out at optimal performance. Very few PC owners will be able to say that about Oculus.

Sony does have a stable of the best 1st party developers in the industry as well as a deep manufacturing background. These are advantages.

[Death]

40 million PS4's is a pretty impressive feat for a console. That number is stacked against how many hundred million gaming PC's? The optimal specs for Rift are what people are using to come up with their $1500 number for a new build. An AMD Radeon 290 which is recommended for the "best Rift experience" costs a whopping $219 on Newegg right now. That's what a PC gamer would need to spend to upgrade to the recommended GPU if they haven't already done it. Since we are looking at future or predicted numbers, how much do you think that card will cost in 7 months? This card released just before the Xbox One and PS4, so it's not exactly new to the market or cutting edge. There are a lot more PC owners running comparable or better hardware today let alone next year.

As for Sony's stable of first party devs and deep manufacturing background, neither of those helped with PSTV or Vita. Both were left to die when they didn't hit the numbers Sony expected. What assurance do we have that PSVR will be treated any different if it doesn't pull in PS4 like numbers?

[IamTylerDurden1]

The difference with the products that failed and PSVR is investment and developers. Look how many devs are jumping in on VR, look at how many PSVR games are getting announced weekly. There is a groundswell of support for PSVR and it's connected to the hottest console of all-time ( arguably). PSTV was connected to the Vita which never took off, it's apples and oranges my friend and it's a pretty absurd comparison.

Oculus will be a niche product while PSVR will be more mainstream, price of entry dictates this.

Sure there are more PC owners than PS4 but the vast majority are not beastly gaming rigs. How many ppl played Witcher 3 in 4k with hair fx on? How many at 1080 or 1440 60fps with hair fx?

Ultimately it's price point and games that will sell VR and Sony has the advantage in both with exclusive games like Gran Turismo Sport, The London Heist, Rapture, Robinson: The Journey, The Deep, and Rigs. If No Man's Sky has PSVR exclusivity that would only add to the lineup.

Really, Oculus and PSVR are not head to head competing bc they're on 2 entirely different platforms...now if xbone had the power to support native VR and decided to make VR product then it would be head to head competition. Plenty of room for PSVR AND Oculus.

[dcbronco]

PSVR will be more mainstream in what universe? It appeals to gamers. Sony has a very successful console. Forty million by VR launch, great. Forty million is not remotely close to mainstream on this planet. A few hundred million PC gamers much more mainstream. Add one billion Facebook users and you have mainstream.

PlayStation is a niche product compared to Facebook. You have to understand Sony sees gaming, at least what we've seen. Facebook sees social interaction. Gaming, touring, sports and other things. Gamers forget though we are a growing number we are still niche. Oculus has far more mainstream potential because it isn't tied to a device most don't and won't have. AMDs new architecture for APUs is said to bring console power to netbook and tablets around a a year and a half from now.

A lot more of them than consoles.

[psvr]

In my time before the PlayStation we only had PCs to play games and it wasnt networked. My favourite game ever was one on a PC titled "Ultima Underworld". It was a 3D role playing game that at its time was the peak in the industry. But then we had a flurry of games like Doom, Duke Nukem, Wolfenstein. The Playstation did take a chunk of the PC market when it was released and I have NEVER been able games properly on a PS controller and can only play these games on a mouse. So inventions keep changing. Who knows, the PSVR may even get hacked so it can get played on the PC.

[Loktai]

The PSVR doesnt need to be hacked to play on PC , there are plenty of headsets for PC already. The real issue is hooking up that breakout box- you wouldnt need that if you just got a rift or similar.

[Death]

To be fair, a PSVR that worked natively for PC or PS4 would have a much broader appeal. I'm surprised Sony hasn't already made this happen and announced it as well as an announcement that PSVR will work on PS5. Not announcing the price before the Holidays is also disappointing because many people are under the impression that PSVR will be cheap. If it is indeed $300-$400 then people could make a much more informed decision this Christmas. If it does turn out to be expensive, many people will be left disappointed and may regret buying a console now.

[wellard]

Man I used to love the ultimate games, now you got me thinking about all the classic oldies. Can't wait for another descent as well.

[marioJP87]

Wasnt it said that PS4 would be 10 times stronger than PS3?...

[Loktai]

well, it does have 16x the memory and the memory is ridiculously faster, so there is that. It also launched with 10x the HDD space. . . . I dont recall seeing any specific mention of how much more powerful but it IS much more powerful.

[ABizzel1]

PS4s CPU is about equal with PS3 now that PS4 has it's 7th core.

PS4s GPU is 8x more powerful than PS3.

PS4s RAM is 16x more and significantly faster than PS3.

[marioJP87]

Do you guys see a "10 times more powerful" difference? I don't ... from the games i played on my PS4 in accordance to it being that much more powerful. I mean, PS3 would max out at 720P/30 FPS when graphically demanding. PS4 so far is hitting 1080P/30 FPS on graphically demanding games (Uncharted MP 900P/60 FPS, The order - 1920 x 800P/30 FPS)
You'd think that 10 times stronger than the PS3 upon PS4's release would render what a mid range PC would upon PS4's release. Oh well. I still like my PS4.

[PhucSeeker]

10x is an overstatement. But games with Ps4's graphics cost lots of time and money to the point where they can't go by 60$ anymore and have to result in microtransaction. What would had happened if they made games for a 600$(or more) Ps4 ?

[marioJP87]

@Phuc
Then we would experience true power.

[mochachino]

PS4s 1080p/30FPS(ish) is also with mostly mid to mid-high settings.

The same game on PS3 is sub 720p/20-25FPS and low settings, if the setting is even on at all.

Compare BF3 on PS3 to Battlefront on PS4 and the game will look 10 times better, although I doubt PS4 is 10 times more powerful. Couldn't even render GTA5 at 60 FPS

[IamTylerDurden1]

Stop lying, Uncharted 4 is 1080p only the mp is 900p bc they wanted it 60fps bc of the frenetic nature.

So 2 years ago inFAMOUS 2nd Son didn't look equivalent to what a mediocre PC could do? Mind you inFAMOUS was gorgeous, 1080p, and over 30fps without the 7th core/flexible memory. Particle fx and lighting were stunning. They started developing it with a PS4 dev kit.

Funny thing is Driveclub and The Order 1886 are jaw dropping and extremely smooth. They are the best 30fps i've seen this gen, compare their 30 to many of Bethesda's 30fps games. Sony doesn't harp on numbers they make beautiful products and no one can argue that The Order wasn't a visual stunner.

[RamRokoO]

Oh trust me I see a huge difference everything is just alot better on the ps4

[someOnecalled]

It's more powerful but devs have been using this tech for the longest. Remember metro was a last gen game, hell the witcher 2 came out during last gen and still look better than most games this gen. Console gamers just eat up whatever these companies tell them without thinking.

[RamRokoO]

Why are we still comparing pc to consoles like seriously. We all KNOW that pc has the most power and best graphics. It's a worn out topic, We Get It. But we also know the consoles have the best exclusives. So.there's that

[someOnecalled]

Cause y'all act like its new tech devs developed on more than one platform they're not going to magically act like this tech didn't exist. Like this is my profession but I don't know how to code or make games using this tech from gens ago. It's a slap in their face to think so.

[noext]

4k 120fps , stop reading this shit , just a clikbait , down vote

[nitus10]

4K 120fps or even 120Hz monitors where? Last time I looked (about 2 minutes ago) there aren't any.

[kenwonobi]

Ps5 only 5 times stronger than PS4? Hmmm. I hope it's on the higher end of 5 times stronger. Not on the low end only technically 5 times stronger. 5 times is exponential seeing how powerful each iteration of console is always times a few numbers. So 5 is pretty decent but modern PC are probably already 10 times as powerful on the higher end.

[Loktai]

Well if you count things like just the graphics card. the PCs memory is not 10 x more powerful than a PS4, the CPUs are not 10x, not even 5x as powerful as a PS4 (7 cores running at... what would the low estimate place that at, 16+ghz) or at least 16 cores running at 8ghz, that would be 10x as powerful and we are not there yet. There are def GPUs with probably 5x the power by now though... overall system power no way though. Maybe on the enterprise level like servers like a 580G9 with 4X 16 core procs running at 4ghz or something and then of course those would have a shitload of memory at least 128gb, then you're talking 10x but..... I dont think youd want a DL580 G9 in your livingroom. The power bill alone would make you cry blood.

[kenwonobi]

Oh ok. Thank you. I'm not a PC enthusiast. I was speculating from a general knowledge of PC'S. That does sound right. I guess put in that context 5 times more power is pretty acceptable.

[TheOnlyMastrx]

PS5, five times faster than the PS1 because its number 5!

All joking aside I hope we get 4k game support next console gen, but we will see.

[FlexLuger]

I dont see 4K gaming becoming the standard, next gen...not on AAA games anyway. We waited nearly 10 years only to end up with two console that cant even run battlefield at 1080P AND a steady 60FPS. I expect next gen we will have 1080P everything..60FPS will still NOT be standard...and the only games we see in 4K will be remasters and indie games that are not pushing AAA level graphical features. I just dont see 4K gaming being the standard next gen. MS and sony will still be looking at performance:cost ratios.

EDIT:@Chameleon77

They will go with profits (again). sub $399 price tags and whatever they can get away with. even with that said, I dont think MS will allow themselves the less the powerful console next time around.

[FlexLuger]

"But what if Microsoft comes out first?"

So what if they do? the xbox 360 had the more powerful GPU, and it launched earlier. Google it. its been well documented:

http://www.redgamingtech.co...

I think Ms have been so burned by this whole resolution thing, this gen, that we will see them go the route of the OG xbox...that console had the most powerful CPU and GPU of its generation, with a 700MHz intel P3 and a 233MHZ NV2A GPU vs a 300Mhz emotion engine and a 150HZ 'graphics synthesizer' as sony called it.

http://www.anandtech.com/sh...

This has been the first gen, where MS had the weaker console, outright. And I dont think they will repeat that. Especially if they end up buying AMD. We will see a beast of a machine in that case because Ms wont have to pay licensing (for X86..they will own a licence if they buy AMD..or will need to renew that licence during purchase) and developmet costs will be drastically reduced, because they would own the chip maker...which enables them to build a more powerful console at that "new console" price point. Even if they dont buy AMD, I dont see them allowing themselves to have the less powerful console next time. This gen has been brutal for them...they wont forget...

[IIFloodyII]

I doubt Sony will let them know what the PS5 will have, MS didn't know exactly what the PS4 would have, and probably wouldn't go off any leaks, due to them potentially being inaccurate, like the PS4 one was.

Both will probably have very similar machines again though, unless one jumps the gun and gives the other time to adjust their machine, but release it later.

I do wonder if Sony would go with AMD or Nvidia if MS bought AMD, I don't think MS would try and screw them or anything (they aren't that stupid), but Sony might just want to keep it a secret.

[ABizzel1]

@Flex

I agree, except we'll have a resolution boost up to 1440p / 1620p for AAA games, while lower-end games, PS4 remasters, PSN games run at 4k.

If PS5 is 5x more powerful than PS4 (same as 360 -> XBO), that puts it at 9.2 TFLOPS. We already have +8 TFLOP GPUs, and not all current-gen games run at locked 4k @ 30fps on those GPUs (generally it's just open world games that struggle, which can be forgiven to an extent).

The problem is developers put a lot of emphasis on graphics, and moving up to 4k gaming with a GPU a tad more powerful than the best we have today isn't going to be able to provide the jump in graphics devs want with a resolution of 4k.

It can however, happen with at 1440p / 1620p resolution where less resources are used trying to high a resolution goal, and can be put back into the games graphic / compute / post processing resources.

If they want to offer the best they can then they need to be at least 6x more powerful than PS4 (11 - 12 TFLOP console), and stay at 1440p / 1620p for AAA gaming, and find a way to sell it for $499 or less by 2020.

Although I think we're much more likely to see something around 8 - 9 TFLOPS at $399, between 2019 - 2020.

[ABizzel1]

@Chameleon77

That's the whole potential craziness of next-gen.

Sony's in no rush to launch PS5, because PS4 is making plenty of money for them.

Nintendo is already starting early, and it would be wise for them to get up and out by holiday 2016.

MS could simply call this a 5 year gen and be done by 2018 and launch a new console which would force Sony to either react or wait and drop the more powerful console.

If MS launches in 2018, I think we're looking at something on par with today's high / top end GPUs around 6 - 7 TFLOPS at $399 (once again 5x more powerful than their last console).

Sony could try to rush into, but IMO that would be silly. Just give MS the 1 year headstart again, and drop a $399 PS5 with an 8 - 9 TFLOP GPU the following year.

The headstart wasn't what really helped 360 against PS3. It was the bad media for PS3, the $100 - $300 price difference, and superior multiplats on 360.

@Flex

"So what if they do? the xbox 360 had the more powerful GPU, and it launched earlier. Google it. its been well documented:"

That was because Sony had no money left on budget for PS3 to get a better GPU. Cell, Blu Ray, and shockingly HDDs took up too much money at the time. Either Cell / Blu Ray needed to be cutback in order for PS3 to have had a better GPU than 360, and IMO as much as it ended up helping PS3 later Cell should have been scraped in favor of a lower cost CPU.

Cell helped later, but PS3 would have never had the $600 launch price (maybe $400 and $500, which it was selling well at), it wouldn't have had any of the performance issues at launch due to the difficult architecture, and it would have had parity in games and been more powerful than 360 Day 1 eliminating all the bad media and prevent 360 from getting nearly as much momentum that it did.

Drop Cell for a more modest CPU, and swap out the RSX for a 7900 GS, and that generation would have ended up very different IMO.

[ScorpiusX]

I dont think MS will allow themselves the less powerful console next time around.

I don't think so either

For them to release a more powerful system, it would require them to inform no one , show no one .
speak to nobody from any outlet, fire and sue those who would leak any kind of info about it .JMO (SORRY DOUBLE POST)

[ScorpiusX]

I dont think MS will allow themselves the less powerful console next time around.

I don't think so either

For them to release a more powerful system it would require them to inform no one , show no one.
speak to nobody from any outlet, fire and sue those who would leak any kind of info about it .JMO

[Death]

@Abizzle,

The fact PS4 is selling so well will be the incentive Microsoft needs to launch their next console earlier. If the perception the PS4 is much stronger than the Xbox One is maintained this generation and sales keep going the way they have, the only answer will be to launch a more powerful console sooner rather than later. If an Xbox Two launched that was twice as powerful, Sony would have to respond or fall behind like they did at the start of last gen. We still have to see how Nintendo's new console affects sales of both the Xbox One and PS4 when it launches. As unlikely as it seems now, that could also force a response from both companies if it sees Wii like results.

[dRanzer]

If we will pay again 400$ for console,you guys can forget from names like 4K and 120fps...

[Ck1x]

Yeah that's what I'm saying! People have this assumption that Sony is going to give them a 8-9tflop console for $399. So whose eating the bulk of that extra cost? Today a card with that much power is an extremely high end gpu for $650-$850.

Unless people are expecting some fairly quick turnaround of the Finfet manufacturing process to yield higher end gpu's at a reduced cost soon. It's going to be awhile before AMD or Nvidia rolls out super strong gpu's that blow the current enthusiasts cards out of the water.

Even when they do roll these gpu's out, most certainly these chips aren't going into consoles first for $399. It's pretty much 2016 already and Sony would have to iron out their specs in 2017 for a 2018 launch. How quickly do people expect these 8-9tflop gpu's to drop in price?

[psvr]

It clearly going to happen, Sony released the first 4K screen phone - the Z5 Premium (not to confuse with the LG G3 that was QHD), it makes sense for them to use the same "components" to get into 4K Gamaing ASAP. Simple fact is, that when Oculus Rift, the HTC Rive and all other VR competitors enter the game officialy, Sony will be long into releasing 4K content. It will dominate the 4K industry with ease and will be the clear winner.

[dcbronco]

Dude, the PS4 is not capable of rendering a game in 4k for standard play. 4K VR is definitely not coming to PSVR on PS4.

[Ck1x]

See at this point your fanboy is showing right now...

[S2Killinit]

A lot of speculation. And that justine bieber and taylor swift but was so random lol.

The only new info in there was the picture of the PSVR box.

Op: PSVR is a day one for me, i dont care how much it is as long as its below $450.

[dcbronco]

The required specs for oculus may seem high today, but by the time the device releases it will be less so. Graphics cards with real power are about to become much more price friendly. Graphics cards are about to receive major price saving because of die shrinks and new architectures next year will bring major boost in power. The author's assumptions that psvr has some sort of head start are shortsighted. There are millions of machines already out there that hit the Oculus specs and the needed power will become more common over the next few years. The PlayStation is a locked spec and won't be able to keep up with Oculus. There are cards available now for PC that have four times the power of current consoles and that increases another 50% next year. Fury launched at $650, we should see it's successor launch for under $600. If it remains above that price it will be due to increases in the amount of HBM.

In this battle PlayStation is the low specs machine that will have a hard time keeping up. With it's power deficiencies it won't give users the same experience. It's biggest chance is Sony subsidizing it. But even there Facebook could do the same. Another thing the author misses is Oculus' built-in audience with Facebook. A billion people already open to VR experiences if handled properly. There is more to VR than games. That is where Oculus has a huge advantage.

[kenwonobi]

This is what want in the PS5. 5 times powerful is great. I want a full 5 times the power though. Not just on paper. I want this next generation CPU to be a big upgrade over the current generations weak CPU. I want even more cores. Like say? 12 CPU cores. I want a truly next-generation GPU. I want a separate physics card if possible. In fact I want the first ever dual GPU console. This should be cheaper to do seeing as using same parts pc parts company and by then cheaper bluray. I want it to be made so that the GPU is built to make VR graphics easily. I want 4k. Even if only in a few games at first. At least as a upconvert option to games and movies. I want a return of the track pad on the new controller. Improved triggers and rumble. Improved battery life. Get rid of the controller lighting color scheme. I want Virtual Reality body sensors full body next generation similar to a green screen set up in Hollywood.

[kenwonobi]

When a say 12 cores for the CPU? I mean a full 12 cores. 2 seperate cores reserved and completely seperate for the OS and Virtual Reality. The other 12 cores strictly for gaming.

[mzupeman]

The assumption that the PSVR is going to be a cheap add-on is just flat out wrong, unless the writer is comparing the possible PSVR price point to the headsets that will sell for well over $1000 for PC.

Sony are already preparing us for a steep price. They mentioned it will likely be priced like a console, and to make us feel better about this, they iterated they won't be selling these things for a profit, at least not at first.

$400. If they go less, they won't just be breaking even, but selling at a considerable loss just to get it sold and hopefully get a large enough install base.

[Death]

The consumer version of Rift was originally slated to be between $200-$400 last year. Since then they invested more into the tech used in the Rift and have said it will be "at least $300" with more recent reports of between $300 to $500. My guess is there will be multiple SKU's. PSVR will likely follow a similar price model with either multiple SKU's with a base model and a bundle with camera or they will sell everything separate which would be a shame since it will drive the price up.

[mzupeman]

Exactly. Between needing a PS4, its camera, and probably some motion controllers, as well as the PSVR unit itself... That's one hell of an investment.

[acemonkey]

until sony announce everything why click on this guys post?

[daynnight365]

My God no. If you want VR to take off successfully you don't want the biebster anywhere near it

[daynnight365]

Slightly off topic but does anyone have anything to report on the ps4 camera? Outside of broadcasting, calling plays in 2k and the demo for it. I bought one on release and I feel like it was totally not worth it. Wheres the games?

[MCTJim]

The PSVR will be at least 400 bucks when its released. Move controllers, camera and a game.

[voltron420170]

This will be the Kinect for Sony.. who the heck wants to wear that thing on their head and use move controllers, until there is a real holodeck count me out..

[psvr]

Kinect = Augmented Reality - a novelty.
PSVR = True Virtual Reality - a breakthrough in gaming entertainment - purely immersive and has similar effects to watching movies. If in the wrong please let me know.