It's the Playstation VR. Sony has sold 40m of the things (the PS4) world wide and each one is capable of doing VR if you buy the headset.
Something wireless is almost certainly the ideal way to do VR but until we get WAY more power and efficiency that won't work.
In the mean time the PS VR will have lots of industry support (best push we've got) and doesn't need a $900-$2000 computer.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-3180987/ps4-pro-equ...
The GPU in the PS4 pro will be the RX480 desktop-equivalent graphics card. This has a slight lower passmark than the Nvidia GTX 970, which is the minimum spec for the HTC Vive.
Of course, it's not like and like - you can't just compare cards like that, and Playstation have the advantage of controlling the hardware and software configurations (which has always been an advantage for consoles), but saying it easily has the resolution and framerate sounds suspect - I expect it will just about have the resolution and framerate.
I'll find out in a week - I'm going to the Playstation Future of Gaming Tour, and I'll be able to compare it to the Vive with a 970.
I've noticed on benchmarks that the relationship between resolution and framerate is exponential - so a lower resolution will go a long way to a higher framerate.
The bigger issue seems to be game design. There are some things you just can't ever do without causing a huge chunk of people to get sick.
I heard of one hack, for minecraft or something, that snapped view angle increments to 30degrees or something like that, and it was helpful. That would simulate saccading.
Expect a lower point of view frame rate (vs animations that don't change point of view) would be helpful. i.e. smoothly move whatever is in your hand, or that pig on the landscape, but turning your head triggers saccade emulation.
Why would your eyes not saccade when wearing a VR headset? The screen isn't the source of saccades. Your eyes are.
You can dart around within that narrow window, but mostly you are looking around by turning your head. You are subjected to more visual motion than you would in real life.
Some examples: strafing side to side (try it), going up stairs, any sort of sudden acceleration.
Vive avoids this in room scale VR since you receive the feedback since you're really doing the action.
I think it's a great way to demo the limits that motion sickness places on experiences for the vast majority of people. It's more than just being in control, and there are other effects at work, just like hand-held video footage without image stabilization is painful to look at. But my pet theory is that the big one is working with your body - if your body sits in a chair, your avatar should too (ie: drive a car, fly a spaceship is ok, walking around an art gallery at a leisure pace, not so much).
People still get sick with Oculus because many of the games involve moving while you're sitting still.
That's why Vive does "room scale" games where it doesn't involve moving the world around you.
It's way way way bigger than the number that have custom built ultra-high end PCs.
Phones that will be powerful enough to provide a good experience for more than a short amount of time (due to battery, etc.) and with the abilities of other VR systems (hand controllers, positional tracking, etc) are going to be a fair ways off.
Yes all gamers (including phones) is a bigger group than console gamers, but there are still a TON of console gaming households who have proven willing to throw down real money to buy hardware to play specific games.
It remains to be seen how many of these will buy a VR headset. Peripherals have always been a very marginal aspect even on dedicated gaming hardware. If there's an actual killer application (i.e. a must have game) I could see myself buying into it, but as long as the VR "games" are either glorified demos or badly converted regular games that are worse than their non-VR counterpart, I won't spend a cent on it.
I'm not a big fan of "console/PC or it's fake" attitudes towards games. Some of the best games I've played in years were on iPhone/iPad.
With some exceptions like Game of War, Candy crush and Pokemon Go the average mobile user doesn't play that much. They just need a quick 5 minute distraction. That's the wrong mindset for VR.
The Daydream is likely going to work with most top tier Android phones in the coming year or two and will likely start working with mid tier phones soon after. You'll be able to use it anywhere you want and bring it with you to friends and family. And it's only $79 with the included controller.
While I have no doubt the PS VR will have similar success to the HTC Vive and Occulus, I think VR with a phone as a base will likely have a wider market due to economics and market penetration.