PlayStation 5's PSVR will be wireless, have eye/head-tracking tech, start at $250

midian182

TechSpot Editor
Staff member

Sony’s PSVR for the PlayStation 4 has been a relative success in the world of virtual reality headsets, having shifted 4.2 million units worldwide as of March 3, 2019. That’s more than the estimated sales of the HTC Vive and Oculus Rift, which, through the end of 2018, have moved 1.3 million and 0.99 million units, respectively.

That means Sony wants to carry its virtual reality endeavors onto the next-generation machine. The current PSVR will work with the PS5, but it seems that the firm is developing a new, more advanced platform to compliment its upcoming console.

Inverse writes that leaked specs suggest the new PSVR will carry a $250 price tag and be completely wireless. The headset will reportedly feature a 2560 x 1440 resolution, 120Hz refresh rate, 220-degree field of view, and work for five hours before needing a recharge. A patent application published by the USPTO, meanwhile, confirms that Sony is working on a headset that can track head position and eye movements.

The headset may also use foveated rendering, which means only the part of an image that a user is looking at gets rendered at a high quality, thereby improving the loading times and the overall experience.

No word on whether the next PSVR will arrive alongside the PS5 or arrive after its launch, which is expected in late 2020, though the latter seems more likely.

Permalink to story.

 

m4a4

TS Evangelist
And what? Be released 2-5 years after the PS5 when the tech catches up to be cheap enough?

Good, convenient wireless (battery powered) tech that can handle those stats aren't ready yet. The Vive has it's wireless option (not including headset) for $300, and it doesn't have close to a 5hr battery life.

Unless they're selling these at a big loss, I don't see it having this good of tech/stats on launch.
 

Squid Surprise

TS Evangelist
And what? Be released 2-5 years after the PS5 when the tech catches up to be cheap enough?

Good, convenient wireless (battery powered) tech that can handle those stats aren't ready yet. The Vive has it's wireless option (not including headset) for $300, and it doesn't have close to a 5hr battery life.

Unless they're selling these at a big loss, I don't see it having this good of tech/stats on launch.
They will have less processing power than HTC and Oculus - much like the current ones do now.

And if released in 2021, there's no reason to believe they won't be able to do so... they don't actually have to sell these for much of a profit, as they profit from the consoles/games that this will help sell more of...

That's the benefit of owning the whole ecosystem - you can sell parts for little to no profit in order to profit more from the rest :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: pencea

Evernessince

TS Evangelist
And what? Be released 2-5 years after the PS5 when the tech catches up to be cheap enough?

Good, convenient wireless (battery powered) tech that can handle those stats aren't ready yet. The Vive has it's wireless option (not including headset) for $300, and it doesn't have close to a 5hr battery life.

Unless they're selling these at a big loss, I don't see it having this good of tech/stats on launch.
They will have less processing power than HTC and Oculus - much like the current ones do now.

And if released in 2021, there's no reason to believe they won't be able to do so... they don't actually have to sell these for much of a profit, as they profit from the consoles/games that this will help sell more of...

That's the benefit of owning the whole ecosystem - you can sell parts for little to no profit in order to profit more from the rest :)
At $250 there's every reason to believe they won't be able to do so. Those specs put it clearly in the high end. Valve sells the Index at $500 USD and has a slim margin. That's not counting the cost of wireless, which there is none for higher resolution headsets because the tech doesn't exist yet. Even if it did you'd be looking at $250 - $300 for the wireless. Foveated rendering is also unlikely.

I express extreme doubt that Sony will be able to sell this HMDs at a fraction of the manufacturing cost, each player would have to buy hundreds of games before they even make their money back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m4a4

texasrattler

TS Evangelist
$250 wireless VR headset, so what they did is put a Quest in it? So if that's anything to go by, it'll suck. It will be a downgrade not a upgrade. So unless they are going to be better than the Quest, I doubt it for the $250 price, it wont be worth it.
 

Hardware Geek

TS Addict
I'm surprised by the skepticism on here. I'll be impressed if the PS5 launches with it, but give it two years and I have little doubt they will be able to offer this for $250 at or near enough to cost to make it worth it to Sony. I seriously doubt that will come with (insert fancy new wireless controller) which will be another $100-150 and that will be profitable, plus it's all worthless without games, and considering they have sold over 4 million units, I have no doubt they are saving money on production due to economies of scale far beyond the far smaller quantities of hardware ordered and produced by the competition. PSVR was the first real accessable VR to the average user who didn't need to understand what parts they needed to make VR work on their computer. It's appeal was and is that it's guaranteed to work with your hardware. Make it backwards compatible with all first gen PSVR games and you have an instant catalog of games ready to be played, with the potential for improved graphics for older games to boost sales.
 

Cryoburner

TS Rookie
The headset may also use foveated rendering, which means only the part of an image that a user is looking at gets rendered at a high quality, thereby improving the loading times and the overall experience.
Foveated rendering has nothing to do with loading times. Rather, it improves frame rates, since only the part of the scene that the user is directly looking at needs to get rendered at full detail, while the periphery can be rendered at a lower resolution.

If these specs end up being true, then that would be a true second-generation consumer VR headset, not just these bumps in resolution and other minor additions that have been trickling.out since the Rift and Vive launched a few years back. They may not be offering such hardware by the end of next year though, and such features might already be commonplace in PC VR before this headset comes out, though perhaps not at that price. Manufacturers still seem to be price-gouging most PC VR hardware.

The only thing that makes the specs seem questionable to me is that "220 degree" viewing angle with a 2560x1440 resolution. If you stretched that resolution over that field of view, you would end up with much lower pixel density than even the existing PSVR. Perhaps they mean a 1440p display for each eye though.
 

Daniel C

TS Rookie
I don´t have big hopes for next gen consoles. I was always a big fan of them, but I think they start to make less and less sense. Limited input options, limited markets for price competition, limited performance. They will have to change something to remain competitive imo because a lot of young kids are buying PCs now to play their fortnite or other online games...
 

DukeJukem

TS Booster
I don´t have big hopes for next gen consoles. I was always a big fan of them, but I think they start to make less and less sense. Limited input options, limited markets for price competition, limited performance. They will have to change something to remain competitive imo because a lot of young kids are buying PCs now to play their fortnite or other online games...
exclusives and that's all they have now vs a pc. that's all a console has ever had over a pc.
 

Daniel C

TS Rookie
I don´t have big hopes for next gen consoles. I was always a big fan of them, but I think they start to make less and less sense. Limited input options, limited markets for price competition, limited performance. They will have to change something to remain competitive imo because a lot of young kids are buying PCs now to play their fortnite or other online games...
exclusives and that's all they have now vs a pc. that's all a console has ever had over a pc.
I don´t agree. Consoles had other good areas.

Main one being the cheating, wich is now normal on every console and was still one of the reasons why I played a lot of games on consoles, to run away from PC hackers.

They also had a great service for free (Xbox 360) wich included not only games and discounts, but also free multiplayer (wich again, is now all on PC...)

Previously, consoles would launch with top notch hardware that was "ahead" of its time. I remember when N64 or PS3 launched, we couldn´t have nothing close/similar on PC. Now they are basically mainstream/lowish end PCs, wich makes them really underperforming 2 years after release. I prefered when consoles had their own arch.

With them being basically PCs with closed down software, it is less appealing as we can get almost the same on a DIY PC with a lot more customization.

I still remember around the mid 2000s, how PC gaming struggled a bit.. we had few ports and they were all very bad, it wasn´t as trendy as it is now with the market growing every month and with new generations asking a PC to their partents to play their favourite online games that they see their favourite streamers playing.
 

Morris Minor

TS Addict
Vive's wireless adapter is $300 and runs at 60ghz due to the large amount of information it has to push and even then it struggles to hit the 90hz refresh rate. that's the reason valve's new high end vr isn't wireless at 120/144hz.