hph6203

Just a sanity reminder that this is a console reveal trailer and all footage of games in the trailer was purely to facilitate that. Given that 90-100% of them were super-imposed actiony/trailer shots. We can't infer docked/undocked performance either.

"Screwing developers." Who exactly are they screwing? Third party developers that are already creating assets for PC gamers? First party developers who are now required to create a Windows 10 version of the game (thus releasing them to create assets for the highest end GPUs)? Or indie developers that are probably already making PC versions of their games anyway.
 
 
Sony will ultimately be the platform holder that is screwing developers, as they're going to be requiring their first party developers to create versions of games that will only see viability on a very small install base.
 
 
As for the cost vs. performance. You can make the argument that you can build a PC that matches or beats a console, but you're ignoring key items. There's no operating system ($100, if you're legit), HDMI cables that are included in the box ($5), peripherals (Game controller: call it $30), not to mention the lack of need to build and maintain the device, which for a large portion of the consumer market is worth a lot. Your box is realistically $500, yes it has additional functionality over a console, but to be fair that computer doesn't really provide much.
 
If anything Microsoft and Sony made an error by not refreshing their consoles sooner.

I guarantee you that Kickstarter is encouraging them to use their platform to launch these devices. It's a symbiotic marketing push for both Kickstarter and Pebble. Kickstarter puts them on the front page and promotes their device as one of the biggest Kickstarter successes and Kickstarter gets free advertising from tech sites.
 
If anything it would be nice if more companies used Kickstarter/a Kickstarter style system to gauge interest in devices and crowd source information on desired features that may not actually get put into a final consumer device due to profit margin targets. A sort of "you've requested these features, put your money where your mouth is". Not for every device, but for fringe devices with smaller initial markets.

Dude is 100% against the upgraded PS4 without any context of what it will actually do/be required to do. The only requirement for the upgraded console that I've seen is that the upgraded console has to maintain the same FPS as the original console. He's going to go with one source to support his stance, and we don't even know what that source is other than it is "trusted". Until developers themselves actually have the system, and requirements for development, in their hands I'm gonna say any opinions they have are worthless.
 
These teams, if they're developing for PC, are already building assets that can be used to enhance the experience for the PS Neo. Just seems like its a lot of whining, for something they're already doing other than optimizing for the new hardware, which seems like a small part in the process in comparison to developing the engine, developing the graphical assets, debugging the engine to make sure its coded correctly.
 
 
And it would be truly shocking if the PSVR requires the PS4.5. So shocking that I can guarantee that's not the case, as it would absolutely kill that market. If anything the PS4.5 will allow you to purchase a PSVR headset as a standalone, without the post-processing box.

You all realize that this design is an outsiders vision of what the Apple Car looks like, right? That's why it looks awful, its essentially a spoof of Apple's designs for mobile devices. They're not going to make their car look like an iPhone. This is news like I drew a stick figure in MS Paint is news.

Original article written by MotorTrend explaining their design process and discussion.
 
http://www.motortrend.com/news/apple-car-exclusive/

You all realize that this design is an outsiders vision of what the Apple Car looks like, right? That's why it looks awful, its essentially a spoof of Apple's designs for mobile devices. They're not going to make their car look like an iPhone. This is news like I drew a stick figure in MS Paint is news.

Designed by Motor Trend.... Not Apple.

Designed by Motor Trend.... Not Apple.

Designed by Motor Trend.... Not Apple.

Designed by Motor Trend.... Not Apple.

You all realize that this design is an outsiders vision of what the Apple Car looks like, right? That's why it looks awful, its essentially a spoof of Apple's designs for mobile devices. They're not going to make their car look like an iPhone. This is news like I drew a stick figure in MS Paint is news.

Designed by Motor Trend.... Not Apple.

Yeah, but if you review this thread, 90% of people have taken "Apple Concept" to mean "Apple Designed Concept" and have pulled out their Apple Whack Bats and its turned into a negative and irritating "discussion". I say "discussion", because its people that haven't read the article, don't understand what they're looking at, and just take the opportunity to snipe at Apple because their products don't cater to their needs.

Designed by Motor Trend.... Not Apple.

What's better, ending the day with 30% battery life and sticking your phone on the charger, or trying to squeeze 2 days out of a battery and having it die the second day? Is the average consumer going to remember to plug their phone in every other day, or are they more likely to plug it in every day before bed?
 
The answers are: never have the battery die, and plug it in every day.
 
My iPhone 6S Plus has been off the charger all day, for 10 hours, with 7 hours of on screen time (I "watch" movies as I work), and I still have 71% battery life left. This after a year and a half of battling a Galaxy S5 for battery life (I'd hit lunch at it would be at 30%, even with power saving mode on). That's a 2750 mAh battery in the iPhone 6s Plus vs. Samsung's 2800 mAh. That is largely due to the difference in how Android and iOS deal with apps in standby and the functionality they can provide, iOS allows limited functionality, while Android allows far more.
 
 
Either way, this news is exciting not because of what it might do for phone battery life, but rather what it could do for the rest of our lives. Lithium-ion isn't good enough to reasonably get the world off burning fossil fuels, battery tech has to progress for that to become a reality.

What's better, ending the day with 30% battery life and sticking your phone on the charger, or trying to squeeze 2 days out of a battery and having it die the second day? Is the average consumer going to remember to plug their phone in every other day, or are they more likely to plug it in every day before bed?
 
The answers are: never have the battery die, and plug it in every day.
 
My iPhone 6S Plus has been off the charger all day, for 10 hours, with 7 hours of on screen time (I "watch" movies as I work), and I still have 71% battery life left. This after a year and a half of battling a Galaxy S5 for battery life (I'd hit lunch at it would be at 30%, even with power saving mode on). That's a 2750 mAh battery in the iPhone 6s Plus vs. Samsung's 2800 mAh. That is largely due to the difference in how Android and iOS deal with apps in standby and the functionality they can provide, iOS allows limited functionality, while Android allows far more.
 
 
Either way, this news is exciting not because of what it might do for phone battery life, but rather what it could do for the rest of our lives. Lithium-ion isn't good enough to reasonably get the world off burning fossil fuels, battery tech has to progress for that to become a reality.

Imagine you're have those two screens really really close to your face. Now imagine moving your head quickly to the left and then back to the right, if there is any lag in that transition between left and right your brain is going to have a huge problem. You're quickly going to feel sick, and no one is going to buy a product that makes them sick. R&D costs are not strictly hardware development; they are also software development.
 
It's also not just two screens, it's accelerometers, IR (Oculus) or laser (Vive) tracking with an external sensor, motion tracking of handheld controllers to match them in space and orientation. There's a whole hell of a lot more going on than you're giving them credit for.
 
Its also not that they know they can be successful at $800 (or $600), but that they know they can't be successful selling at a loss. HTC is bleeding money, and Valve is a baby company in comparison to the likes of Sony and certainly Microsoft. Facebook is a large corporation, but they're entering the consumer electronics space for the very first, in a brand new market segment. You can't bet big like Microsoft and Sony did with the PlayStation 3 (which in the end bit Sony in the ass) or Xbox 360 (which paid off), because they have models that can closely predict their successes based upon previous console launches and sales. These VR headsets have nothing like that.
 
Look at these products like the first generation home PCs rather than the 9th generation gaming console and you'll understand why they're so expensive and lack major subsidies. By gen two when they can dictate to suppliers that they can support larger orders and get the parts they actually want, and when companies like Apple and Alphabet release their own systems, then you can expect the prices to fall or subsidies to exist.

Sony and Microsoft didn't launch their most recent boxes at a launch, because they determined that the video Game market isn't strong enough to support a launch like that.
 
It took Sony 4 years to turn a profit on each PS3 sold, and Microsoft a year and a half. That's in a mature product space, where R&D costs are likely negligible in comparison to what VR is facing right now. It's unlikely that Oculus and Vive are turning a profit as it is currently, and if they are its negligible in comparison to sunk costs. Make no mistake the VR headsets as they sit right now are likely already at their subsidized costs.
 
I have not yet used a VR headset, but the industry wide perception is that they are amazing and nothing like 3D television. I've seen it first hand as co-workers used something as primitive in comparison as the Samsung Gear VR. This is only the first wave of consumer devices to be released and with massive players like Alphabet (Google), Apple and Samsung already releasing or working on VR headsets it would be a shock if this is just a passing fad.
 
However the only way that the gaming centric headsets are going to survive is if they either reduce their price over time as they achieve economies of scale, or they show utility in the business sector (architecture, landscape design, robotic surgical procedures etc.) that cannot be achieved on the lower end offerings.

You don't understand the technology in the system, which is why you continually refer to it as two screens close to your face and nothing more, nor the term emerging product, the Famicon (NES if you're not familiar with that name) in Japan launched with three games: Donkey Kong (the barrel throwing one), Donkey Kong Jr. and Popeye (no Tetris, no Super Mario Brothers), the Apple 1 had very rudimentary software as well. The dev kits for VR haven't been out there, with major content creator interest. Products don't launch finished.
 
You're the type of person that saw the iPhone and said it would be a massive failure (there's no software! Why do I want to type on a touch screen when I can type on a keyboard!). The HDTV in your eyes would be a failure (There's no movies in HD!). Stuff typically doesn't launch finished, the initial consumer products typically aren't polished because parts suppliers can't be asked to alter their production lines for products that haven't even proven they're viable yet (see: original iPhone, it used off the shelf processors for the initial iPhone, before designing their own custom chip).
 
Look at these headsets as the premiere in the VR space, and whatever Apple, Alphabet and Samsungs Gear VR as the entry level. The premium models may fall away, they may get cheaper, or they may show their value, but you can't judge their viability without giving them a chance to succeed. You're better off saying "right now this doesn't have mass market appeal" than saying they'll fail, because you'd be right, but you can't say they'll certainly fail before seeing all the cards.

Sony and Microsoft didn't launch their most recent boxes at a launch, because they determined that the video Game market isn't strong enough to support a launch like that.
 
It took Sony 4 years to turn a profit on each PS3 sold, and Microsoft a year and a half. That's in a mature product space, where R&D costs are likely negligible in comparison to what VR is facing right now. It's unlikely that Oculus and Vive are turning a profit as it is currently, and if they are its negligible in comparison to sunk costs. Make no mistake the VR headsets as they sit right now are likely already at their subsidized costs.
 
I have not yet used a VR headset, but the industry wide perception is that they are amazing and nothing like 3D television. I've seen it first hand as co-workers used something as primitive in comparison as the Samsung Gear VR. This is only the first wave of consumer devices to be released and with massive players like Alphabet (Google), Apple and Samsung already releasing or working on VR headsets it would be a shock if this is just a passing fad.
 
However the only way that the gaming centric headsets are going to survive is if they either reduce their price over time as they achieve economies of scale, or they show utility in the business sector (architecture, landscape design, robotic surgical procedures etc.) that cannot be achieved on the lower end offerings.

You don't understand the technology in the system, which is why you continually refer to it as two screens close to your face and nothing more, nor the term emerging product, the Famicon (NES if you're not familiar with that name) in Japan launched with three games: Donkey Kong (the barrel throwing one), Donkey Kong Jr. and Popeye (no Tetris, no Super Mario Brothers), the Apple 1 had very rudimentary software as well. The dev kits for VR haven't been out there, with major content creator interest. Products don't launch finished.
 
You're the type of person that saw the iPhone and said it would be a massive failure (there's no software! Why do I want to type on a touch screen when I can type on a keyboard!). The HDTV in your eyes would be a failure (There's no movies in HD!). Stuff typically doesn't launch finished, the initial consumer products typically aren't polished because parts suppliers can't be asked to alter their production lines for products that haven't even proven they're viable yet (see: original iPhone, it used off the shelf processors for the initial iPhone, before designing their own custom chip).
 
Look at these headsets as the premiere in the VR space, and whatever Apple, Alphabet and Samsungs Gear VR as the entry level. The premium models may fall away, they may get cheaper, or they may show their value, but you can't judge their viability without giving them a chance to succeed. You're better off saying "right now this doesn't have mass market appeal" than saying they'll fail, because you'd be right, but you can't say they'll certainly fail before seeing all the cards.

Imagine you're have those two screens really really close to your face. Now imagine moving your head quickly to the left and then back to the right, if there is any lag in that transition between left and right your brain is going to have a huge problem. You're quickly going to feel sick, and no one is going to buy a product that makes them sick. R&D costs are not strictly hardware development; they are also software development.
 
It's also not just two screens, it's accelerometers, IR (Oculus) or laser (Vive) tracking with an external sensor, motion tracking of handheld controllers to match them in space and orientation. There's a whole hell of a lot more going on than you're giving them credit for.
 
Its also not that they know they can be successful at $800 (or $600), but that they know they can't be successful selling at a loss. HTC is bleeding money, and Valve is a baby company in comparison to the likes of Sony and certainly Microsoft. Facebook is a large corporation, but they're entering the consumer electronics space for the very first, in a brand new market segment. You can't bet big like Microsoft and Sony did with the PlayStation 3 (which in the end bit Sony in the ass) or Xbox 360 (which paid off), because they have models that can closely predict their successes based upon previous console launches and sales. These VR headsets have nothing like that.
 
Look at these products like the first generation home PCs rather than the 9th generation gaming console and you'll understand why they're so expensive and lack major subsidies. By gen two when they can dictate to suppliers that they can support larger orders and get the parts they actually want, and when companies like Apple and Alphabet release their own systems, then you can expect the prices to fall or subsidies to exist.

Imagine you're have those two screens really really close to your face. Now imagine moving your head quickly to the left and then back to the right, if there is any lag in that transition between left and right your brain is going to have a huge problem. You're quickly going to feel sick, and no one is going to buy a product that makes them sick. R&D costs are not strictly hardware development; they are also software development.
 
It's also not just two screens, it's accelerometers, IR (Oculus) or laser (Vive) tracking with an external sensor, motion tracking of handheld controllers to match them in space and orientation. There's a whole hell of a lot more going on than you're giving them credit for.
 
Its also not that they know they can be successful at $800 (or $600), but that they know they can't be successful selling at a loss. HTC is bleeding money, and Valve is a baby company in comparison to the likes of Sony and certainly Microsoft. Facebook is a large corporation, but they're entering the consumer electronics space for the very first, in a brand new market segment. You can't bet big like Microsoft and Sony did with the PlayStation 3 (which in the end bit Sony in the ass) or Xbox 360 (which paid off), because they have models that can closely predict their successes based upon previous console launches and sales. These VR headsets have nothing like that.
 
Look at these products like the first generation home PCs rather than the 9th generation gaming console and you'll understand why they're so expensive and lack major subsidies. By gen two when they can dictate to suppliers that they can support larger orders and get the parts they actually want, and when companies like Apple and Alphabet release their own systems, then you can expect the prices to fall or subsidies to exist.

You don't understand the technology in the system, which is why you continually refer to it as two screens close to your face and nothing more, nor the term emerging product, the Famicon (NES if you're not familiar with that name) in Japan launched with three games: Donkey Kong (the barrel throwing one), Donkey Kong Jr. and Popeye (no Tetris, no Super Mario Brothers), the Apple 1 had very rudimentary software as well. The dev kits for VR haven't been out there, with major content creator interest. Products don't launch finished.
 
You're the type of person that saw the iPhone and said it would be a massive failure (there's no software! Why do I want to type on a touch screen when I can type on a keyboard!). The HDTV in your eyes would be a failure (There's no movies in HD!). Stuff typically doesn't launch finished, the initial consumer products typically aren't polished because parts suppliers can't be asked to alter their production lines for products that haven't even proven they're viable yet (see: original iPhone, it used off the shelf processors for the initial iPhone, before designing their own custom chip).
 
Look at these headsets as the premiere in the VR space, and whatever Apple, Alphabet and Samsungs Gear VR as the entry level. The premium models may fall away, they may get cheaper, or they may show their value, but you can't judge their viability without giving them a chance to succeed. You're better off saying "right now this doesn't have mass market appeal" than saying they'll fail, because you'd be right, but you can't say they'll certainly fail before seeing all the cards.