You can't sell, say, earbuds at cost and make all your money on "earbud games."
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PlayStation VR will be priced "not to make money from it " - Shuhei Yoshida
- Thread starter Danlord
- Start date
Well played good sir. Well played.
I wouldn't be surprised if some people find PSVR to be too expensive for them, but I don't think they'll be justified in criticizing Sony for tacking on needlessly expensive components that make VR less affordable than it should have been.
Considering the tech required to make a consumer-grade VR headset, I think PSVR will be priced fairly.
IAmRandom31
Banned
And they still were losing $300 per unit
Danlord
Member
My conjecture is based upon looking into similar components found in Samsung smartphones and making guesses as to what it would cost to build the device with other components, combined with the fact that Sony would likely have sold this at cost or at a very small margin of loss. I also think that Sony wouldn't sell this more than the PS4 itself and given there is only 2 components that are the biggest cost sinks(Screen and the CPU in the PU), I think I'm might be reasonably accurate to a degree with what price range I've suggested PlayStation VR could be sold at.
I feel my conjecture is based on some sound logic. I could be wrong, but I am far from being delusional.
foolishoptimist
Member
People shouldn't state their estimate/acceptable price range without stating what should be included. It makes it extra difficult to assess how realistic/unrealistic some peoples guesses are.
Personally, I already have the Camera, and a couple of Move controllers.
So I don't need anything other than the headset/breakout box.
Other people might be needing the camera as well. And lots of people seem to think the Moves will be bundled also.(They probably should be, but I don't think they will be)
Sony have a bit of a task determining the appropriate bundles, and communicating the requirements of PSVR in marketing.
Danlord
Member
That's true, and fair. I put my estimates based solely on the PSVR device which comes with the breakout box but I can see why it can be considered really low if you don't factor in the £40-50 camera and second=hand hand £7 Move Controllers (I saw that price in GAME) which I don't in my £199-£249.99 conjecture.
foolishoptimist
Member
Out of curiosity, how do you see that price converting to USD?
Typically there's a Eurotax which leads to 1USD == 1 Pound, even though that's not remotely close to the exchange rate.
Applying that, I look at that and see a US$200 pricetag, which does seem low.
£249 = 299 = $299 would be my guess. Eurotax these days is $1=1 - GBP then applies a rough exchange rate based on the euro price
Danlord
Member
I think it works like if it's $299 it's £249 even though that works out at £198. I don't understand how any of this works but I know that games are $59.99 in the US which works out at £39 but new games are usually £42-49.99 which works out to $75. I don't know about Euro but I imagine it's just as bad
I am a bit concerned about how Sony is going to dedicate PlayStation resources going forward. Oculus only has to worry about evangelizing VR so, they've got one market. Valve/HTC is the same with Vive, they've got one piece of hardware, and only have to worry about the software.
Sony on the other hand still has all those consumers on the PS4 that won't be making the jump to VR, so they can't go "all in" the way Facebook and Valve can, they still have to make traditional AAA games, and they have to court traditional third party game developers. Is the fact that Sony has one foot in the traditional gaming world while the other steps into VR going to mean their resources devoted to one or the other would suffer.
I'm not saying that they're going to go to Naughty Dog and force them to downgrade The Last of Us II to make sure it's VR compatible, but I'm also not sure how intensive their efforts in VR can be if they don't want to leave their traditional audience behind.
Sony on the other hand still has all those consumers on the PS4 that won't be making the jump to VR, so they can't go "all in" the way Facebook and Valve can, they still have to make traditional AAA games, and they have to court traditional third party game developers. Is the fact that Sony has one foot in the traditional gaming world while the other steps into VR going to mean their resources devoted to one or the other would suffer.
I'm not saying that they're going to go to Naughty Dog and force them to downgrade The Last of Us II to make sure it's VR compatible, but I'm also not sure how intensive their efforts in VR can be if they don't want to leave their traditional audience behind.
I think it can exist side by side happily enough, and Sony / Third parties have resources aplenty to cater for both sides, just like how both last gen and current hardware has still been catered for all this time.
They've got a multitude of developers and they've put a small number of smaller teams to work on VR projects. Stuff like Gran Turismo kind of comes for free on VR and will only need a relatively small amount of extra input to make it happen. Sony has a ton of third party devs bringing their VR stuff to the platform, which just like with the PS4, will help pad out the roster of games very nicely. Right now I don't see VR gaming taking much if anything away from regular old PS4 games.
If the headset sells, as I expect it will, and remember there will be 40 million potential PS4's next year, then they'll have all the justification they need to put extra money towards VR development and I don't see it taking away from anything else. Remember even if 10-20% of PS4 owners next year seriously consider or do indeed buy PSVR, it'll have an instant install base of millions, which would be a strong showing and firm up support, in the knowledge that the market and more money will be there for it.
In all these discussion I keep seeing people forgetting how impressive VR is, and will be to the vast majority of people who get a taste of it. If you can believe in it that much at least, that it isn't just a gimmick like 3DTV, then you can start to see how successful a device it could be. The market will grow up and expand around it, not be leeching from "traditional" avenues as your thoughts might be fearful of. If VR has anything like a Wii style overnight success and mass market penetration there will be no worries for Sony, or anyone else.
Build it and they will come! And frankly who DOESN'T want to know what it feels like to be IN a game, IN a different world yadda yadda. It's powerful stuff, it will sell.
Well, it's possible that all the Vita resources were redirected to VR.
Moon_frogger
Member
all I heard from that statement was 'we are taking the same approach as we have with every other peripheral device we've released, crossing our fingers and hoping it doesn't horribly fail again.'
seriously, I know I'm going to be called a troll for this but I genuinely do not understand why people think VR will be successful.
hahaha after reading the thread most people are saying $299 price point? and still thinking it will be a success???? oh dear lord.
seriously, I know I'm going to be called a troll for this but I genuinely do not understand why people think VR will be successful.
hahaha after reading the thread most people are saying $299 price point? and still thinking it will be a success???? oh dear lord.
Neuromancer
Member
Have you tried it?
Raven Prime
Member
You should read this thread - New VR Survey, 20% 2,282 Americans surveyed $400 to $500 is their price point
serversurfer
Member
So, you think they're gonna sell it at cost, and that it will be $299 just for the headset and breakout box? You said you looked at cell phone component pricing; can I ask what you found? Seems like the display shouldn't cost them more than $50-60, maybe $20 tops for lenses, and the breakout box shouldn't cost more than maybe $15 to put together; it's just a DSP. Add some inertial sensors and some plastic to hold it all together, and you're done. I wouldn't think their build costs would be much over $100 for the headset. At least, I'm not sure what else they would spend money on; it doesn't have very many parts.
or read the article, or any of the thread? =/
gunslikewhoa
Member
Of course that's all you heard. That's all that you've chosen to hear from day one.
Regardless of pricing I still don't think people wanna wear something on their face. This is the biggest hurdle for VR to overcome and I just don't see it overcoming it. Most people are genuinely averse to wearing shit on their faces if they dont need to especially when said thing obstructs your vision.
PetriP-TNT
Member
It could be 599 dollars too, that's one way not to make any money from it
gunslikewhoa
Member
I would love to see statistics that support this opinion.
Danlord
Member
My conjecture isn't based from professional analysis and such, I've looked into costs for some phones and just guessed about known parts with what I think these parts would cost.
IHS reckon the price estimate for the screen on the Samsung Galaxy S5 to be around $70 which is a 1080p OLED which is a start but not completely accurate to Sony's PSVR screen. Add a few extra inches, and with customisation to allow 120hz, denser pixel arrangement at the center of the screen where both eyes meet, and an RGB subpixel arrangement versus Pentile and I'm expecting that to add a lot more to the cost, as well as the cost of manufacturing at a lesser scale than smartphones. I really don't know what to think with the exact cost of the screen but I wouldn't be surprised to see over $100 for each screen manufactured.
The Processing Unit box has a small CPU and it could be a small mobile chip, if we use the CPU and memory chip inside the Samsung S5 as a starting point from the same it's like $100. The power requirements for what the PU requires looks to be very much doable by a mobile chipset so I think that's in the region for what the box would cost to manufacture and if we add in the few extra components like manufacturing the board itself with it and the plastic shell, can add a little extra to the cost, perhaps $120 or something.
Then there's the cost of the lenses which I don't know what to think, hence the rest is pretty much uninformed guesses but I'm thinking about the cost of lenses from Sony's camera's being a factor in the price. It would only cost them to manufacture since it's their own tech but I still believe they'd be quite premium priced, given Sony's expertise in the DSLR tech and such. Could be $20, could be $50.
There's miscellaneous sensors and LED's which won't cost a lot individually but will still add up to a bit. 9 LED's, small sensors, and a lot of plastic, a small IR sensor for detecting a user is wearing the headset or not.
Add that all up, adding on manufacturing and shipping costs, and retailer cuts and I think it's close to the $299 conjecture.
I don't claim to be highly knowledgeable on these matters, but I am allowed to give my opinion that I think is fair. I can be wrong and perhaps completely off base but I like to think my discussion isn't just reactionary jokes about $599 or be too uninformed to think its costing $100-150.
If it's less then I am very happy to be completely wrong about it and if it's more, I think that the success of the device may not be as big initially and will need a very strong positive reception with very strong word of mouth marketing with quality software titles on launch. Sony is hoping all of that happens regardless of price but if they choose a higher price I think the battle for consumer-level VR will be a very steep uphill struggle.
serversurfer
Member
That actually says $63, not $70, and that price will be two years old by the time PSVR launches. Yes, the screen in PSVR is a bit bigger at 5.7', but the 5.7' 1080p AMOLED in the Note 3 only cost $61 back in 2013. I'd also point out that your link claims it only costs $256.52 to build an entire S5, so it's hard for me to imagine it costs 17% more to use only the display and the inertial sensors.
Another thing to consider is the prices you see for a "smartphone display" also include the cost of the cover glass and the touchscreen matrix, neither of which is needed for PSVR. IHS estimate the 5.5" LCD in the iPhone 6S Plus costs $52.50, and about $10 of that goes to supporting the 3D Touch tech. Subtract another couple bucks for a nice slab of Gorilla Glass, and you can see these displays really don't cost all that much. Certainly not over $100. I'd be pretty surprised if it even cost $70. $50-$60 seems more likely, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were less.
Err, I don't think the breakout box is nearly as powerful as you imagine. First, it has a fraction of the guts that a DS4 would have, for collecting data from the inertial sensors in the headset. Let's spend big and figure $2 for that board and related circuitry. You need an HDMI splitter, which costs less than $4 in lots of 5, so maybe a buck and a half in the quantity Sony will be buying. Add a similar DSP to flatten the image going to the TV, and a third, super fancy DSP to process the 3D sound. We'll say $3 for that chip.
So, you have about $8 in circuitry, maybe another $5-$6 in connectors and stuff, and a box to enclose it all. So I can't really see how it would cost more than $25 to build, tops.
$50 seems like a lot. Aren't they made out of plastic? They may be finicky to build, but they shouldn't cost much in the way of materials, at least. FakeEdit: Fuck me, they can be injection molded; they probably won't cost more than $10, and likely much cheaper in volume. (Depends mostly on the cost of optical plastic, and how many times they can re-use a mold.)
But all of that stuff together probably won't cost more than $10. Maybe $15, if the inertial sensors turn out to be ridiculously expensive. Here is a sensor that combines a 3-axis gyro and a 3-axis accelerometer in a single chip for $2.53 each in 10-lots. Not as nice as the sensor Sony will use, but yeah, not expensive.
So, you're saying I'm uninformed?
<3Dreamwriter
Member
Sony Walkman? That thing'll flop, nobody wants to wear something on their ears. Most people are genuinely averse to wearing shit on their ears if they don't need to, especially when said thing obstructs your hearing.
That was a good one!
Not Spaceghost
Spaceghost
Sony has a really bad history with supporting playstation peripherals / getting them to be widely accepted enough to warrant supporting them so I think they've really gotta hit the sweet spot on the price and entry games for it.
Basically VR on consoles is a total gamble, on PC you can hack in support for VR to almost anything, but on console you're pretty much set at only getting VR on the things that it's compatible with.
Basically VR on consoles is a total gamble, on PC you can hack in support for VR to almost anything, but on console you're pretty much set at only getting VR on the things that it's compatible with.
Danlord
Member
...............................
LOTS
...............................
So, you're saying I'm uninformed?
Well that's a lot more in-depth look into it than what I gave. I briefly looked into it, not done a lot of serious analysis hence why I can be miles off with the PU. The screen I was just rounding up I don't know how much differential there is to the cost of building screens compared to other manufacturers and I don't know how quick prices drop for OLED. But I like what I'm reading on your post with regards to the screen, although I am maintaining it will be the most expensive component of the headset still, just not as much as I originally thought.
The DSP for the PU box I am surprised that it could cost so less, I thought something like a mobile CPU would be needed but if it's not then that's pretty damn cool I think. Injection moulding and LED's are pretty much inexpensive overall and Sony's manufacturing capability is definitely a strong feature they have for the overall construction.
...
So, you're saying I'm uninformed?
-_- Sorry man, definitely changing my stance on what to think of how much it would cost to build a PlayStation VR headset and estimates of ~$199 I no longer consider terrible.
Was there ever a BOM for the PS4 Camera? Because now with such a lower price estimate for the headset and PU box, it stands a higher chance of getting a camera bundled in without inflating the cost too much for Sony (and those without a camera). I have one so buying the headset individually I am looking forward to possibly paying <£150 for PSVR when I was expecting £199-249 as you know.
From first-hand experience, it's very good. Unfortunately I only tried the shark tank one and not the heist one (which I wanted to try because driving) but despite wearing glasses, it was a great experience. Not disorienting at all.
That interpolation thing did work quite well. It sounds weird, but the visuals kind of looked like they were a lower framerate (possibly even 30, but I suspect it's harder to judge with a head-mounted device) but the head tracking was as smooth as you'd want it. I can't wait to play driving games with the thing.Games can target 60, 90 or 120fps.
For 60fps games: The framerate gets converted to 120fps by drawing a fake frame in-between each real frame, doubling the smoothness. The only reason people don't like this on their TVs is because it makes movies look more like live TV, and has noticeable glitches because it has to draw 4 extra frames for every 1 native frame, whereas PSVR only has to draw 1.
Headtracking data will report back at the full 120hz by digitally panning the view every other frame.
Sounds iffy on paper but I've yet to hear a negative impression about the responsiveness and fluidity.
serversurfer
Member
Oh, without question, but the second most expensive component will probably be the lens, at $10 tops, and then it'll be a race between the inertial sensor and the fancy sound chip at the sub-$5 mark. The rest of the components are cheaper still.
A DSP is basically a purpose-built chip, and they're super cheap and fast. Like the H.264 encoder they put in the PS4, for example. Oh, and I was saying Sony probably have a $1.50 splitter and a $1.50 flattener. It's actually far more likely they'll have a $1.70 chip that splits and flattens in a single step. So, yeah, cheap stuff.
It's all good; I was just messin' with ya. <3
No, but Rigby was saying the sensor is actually pretty slick, and with two of them, Sony likely went with the proprietary plug because they were selling the Camera near cost (so people didn't snap them up as cheap, awesome webcams for their PC, basically). Of course, that was a couple of years ago as well, and $60 probably wasn't actually their BOM; just a much smaller margin than you'd typically see on a webcam. The cost was non-negligible though, at least at launch, because the only reason they didn't bundle it was to help hit the $400 price point. /shrug
Nikodemos
Member
Except, so far, Sony don't seem to be treating PSVR as a peripheral, but rather as a completely separate platform, which just so happens to need a PS4 to function.
A VR HMD is exactly as much a peripheral as your TV or monitor is.
Also, Sony was just in a bad position with Move: after 4 years of Wii, motion control in your hand was waning. Add to that the Kinect launching alongside it, making it look even more outdated. And core PS3 owners were pretty turned off by motion controls from the get-go.
Sony is working quickly on VR and they're releasing it right inside the same window as the other VR headsets, and theirs will be the least expensive to buy from scratch, at roughly half the price of PC VR.
Also, look at all the support PSVR is getting, without Sony having to bear the burden of developing all the software. Things are actually looking pretty healthy for it. This is a stark contrast to Move, where Sony pretty much singlehandedly had to make the games to show off its capabilities, because developers were barely enthusiastic for it.
I'm hoping against hope we get a PSVR version of Child of Eden. It has 3D support already (only TV 3D, but still) *and* supports Move. Should be a doddle to port it over, plus the 3D was actually quite good, so a Rez-like game for VR would be killer.
Neuromancer
Member
I don't think you would need it but it's more fun if other people can see what you're looking at and doing.
Raven Prime
Member
It's unclear since we still don't know how the general PSVR UI support for the PS4 will look, but I think it's a reasonable assumption that in principle you wouldn't need your TV. This would only be true for games that support PSVR however, unless there is also a theater mode for non VR games.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Yoshida already said that there is a mode for non-VR stuff.
The longer earbuds are made the lower the cost to make the earbuds would cost.
So the cost is set at a no profit to boost early adopters as much as possible, hardware becomes cheaper over time and they let it slowly enter into the profitable area while keeping price mostly the same unless they want another boost to Playstation VR then letting the price decrease more.
This is sort of the reason Playstation 3 did better long term because it was a powerful machine at first but became much cheaper to renew interest then struck it hard software titles to make up for lost money and build up a profit again once they re-established an audience.
Sony knows what they've been doing for 4 generations now. The problem is that they have a hard time supporting anything that's not the home console platform.
Raven Prime
Member
Danlord
Member
There's this thread but although the video has gone private, this is Sony's uploaded stream of it, it's from after Paris Games Week I think it was and the relevant quote is in the OP, specifically mentioning "Non-gaming VR experience" but there isn't anything in regards to Non-VR stuff, specifically handling the OS through VR.
I hope it's similar to Steam's big picture mode in VR, essentially just like looking at an ultra wide homescreen.
serversurfer
Member
They said you will be able to navigate the OS in VR, so you don't need to flip up the faceplate every time you flip back. (This also implies you'll be able to launch and play VR games without a TV at all, which will be nice for additional rigs, LAN parties, etc.)
"Non-gaming VR" refers to movies and exploring Mars. They'll have lots of support for that stuff, but I doubt they'll have a "virtual TV" option like Oculus and MS have; there's nothing to power it. It's kind of a silly feature anyway though. /shrug
"Non-gaming VR" refers to movies and exploring Mars. They'll have lots of support for that stuff, but I doubt they'll have a "virtual TV" option like Oculus and MS have; there's nothing to power it. It's kind of a silly feature anyway though. /shrug
That's what I was saying. I just used earbuds as a contrast, not as a similarity.
Raven Prime
Member
This was my understanding too. I'm unsure if there is going to be a virtual theater, if there is it might be limited to movies. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Fingers crossed they could make a virtual Vita, PSP or PS1. You look down at your hands where the controller is (roughly) and you see either an old-school Dualshock, Vita or PSP.