Playstation VR - $399 with October ship date.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
One thing you are forgetting though is you are using your TV because of the size and immersiveness. Home 3D isn't immersive at all. In contrast, the headsets 'reality' are going to be much larger than most people's big screens or even projectors, plus much more immersive. It isn't going to look like you are staring at a screen (at least no one so far has said that). I do agree getting the average person to drop the money on it might be difficult, but I think we may be on the cusp of something truly new.

Watch the video someone posted of a guys live review of the Vive. It was quite impressive. I do think it will take some time for someone to master the VR scenario, meaning someone needs to build something spectacular built for VR from the ground up. Not tacked on and not just a tech demo.


I also use the tv because I have a dedicated surround sound setup with Dolby Atmos. When you turn your head there is no way for the audio cues to come from the right position any longer. I like using it rather than headphones especially because of my big subwoofer for that powerful bass you can feel. The tv is just one part of it like I said.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
I'm sure there was a time when a lot of people would rather have hard pieces they can feel with their hands and play a board game than have to sit and look at a box in the corner and move a joystick.



How'd that work out again?



Everyone I know is super stoked to try out my Vive when it shows up. And these aren't just "techies," but average joes I work with. Only a few have had any VR experience up to this point at all.



Beyond gaming, the applications for education and passive entertainment are vast. If "I have to put something on my head" is a huge turn off for some, let it be. Valve believes in it enough that they gave away 500 Vives to Epic Games for them to distribute to Unreal devs.



I personally have been finding it hard to go back to 2D gaming after spending some time in VR. It's that impacting.


And again you ruin the audio experience. You gotta rely on headsets that just don't have the impact of a home theater. Why does it seem like nobody cares that a home theater setup would not work well?

I'll be repeating myself but when you turn your head, your center and surrounds will be in the wrong position. There is no software to correct this and even if there is at some point, I don't believe it would work on traditional setup with dedicated speaker positions designed around a movie experience.
 
Last edited:

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
And again you ruin the audio experience. You gotta rely on headsets that just don't have the impact of a home theater.

You aren't married are you Considering all the things you let go in relation to other things just to play mediocre games, I think you are being over critical. Not that I can blame you for not wanting to drop the money on emerging tech, it's a waiting game, if not a complete gamble.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
You aren't married are you


I know married guys with more money in their home theater than I have in my car lol

I know what you mean though. Wife acceptance factor is definitely something that comes into play with this stuff. Now I wanna hear what happens when you can't hear or see them trying to get your attention because you have your eyes and ears covered

I am not against VR I just see real issues for wide acceptance and have decided it isn't for me. Not just the cost of entry but other reasons I mentioned.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
I know married guys with more money in their home theater than I have in my car lol

I know what you mean though. Wife acceptance factor is definitely something that comes into play with this stuff. Now I wanna hear what happens when you can't hear or see them trying to get your attention because you have your eyes and ears covered

I am not against VR I just see real issues for wide acceptance and have decided it isn't for me. Not just the cost of entry but other reasons I mentioned.

Fair enough - and yea, that will be interesting, but as long as she's not blasted with "POW BOOM SMASH" she's usually happy.
 

Sabrewings

Golden Member
Jun 27, 2015
1,942
35
51
I have a 7.1 system with a large subwoofer and game most of the time with headphones. You're right that you won't get directional audio from a home theater setup, so you use headphones. Simple as that. I have a good pair that really rattle my brain when the bass hits, but if you need to feel it in your chest, there's options. It'd be quick to write a piece of software that can mirror the LFE channel to your 7.1 system so you still get the volume filling bass as well as some from your headphones. Another options is something like the Buttkicker on the floor instead of a couch.

It's far from an insurmountable obstacle and is easily fixed with existing products or a little software.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
52,930
5,802
126
my wife LOVES our home theater. i bought my $3k projector without her knowing, then i hooked it up downstairs just on the wall before i had anything else and told her to come downstairs. she tried to be mad but she couldn't be because seeing a 7ft tall image on the wall is so fucking cool. all she could do was smile as she tried to pretend she was mad.

we primarily use it for movies, but i'm with cmdrdredd on this one. sound to me is equal or i'd say even MORE important to me than visuals (both movies and games, more so movies though). i just don't see the sound being immersive at all with the VR stuff (initially).
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
Pretty sure you could out the sound to your stereo, but I don't think I'd want my TV being part of my virtual wall.
 

bguile

Senior member
Nov 30, 2011
529
51
91
I'll probably get it, maybe in November after some reviews come out. Already have the camera, but no move controllers.
 

iluvdeal

Golden Member
Nov 22, 1999
1,975
0
76
i just don't see the sound being immersive at all with the VR stuff (initially).

I do hope they are putting in as much R&D into audio as they are the visuals. For an immersive VR experience, you need both. I have some nice headphones, you can definitely achieve great surround sound with them, headphones are a staples in FPS tournaments after all. I don't know well they perform with the VR systems out there though.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
I have a 7.1 system with a large subwoofer and game most of the time with headphones. You're right that you won't get directional audio from a home theater setup, so you use headphones. Simple as that. I have a good pair that really rattle my brain when the bass hits, but if you need to feel it in your chest, there's options. It'd be quick to write a piece of software that can mirror the LFE channel to your 7.1 system so you still get the volume filling bass as well as some from your headphones. Another options is something like the Buttkicker on the floor instead of a couch.

It's far from an insurmountable obstacle and is easily fixed with existing products or a little software.

Directional audio with headphones is marginal at best for me. I've used it when having to communicate with a team of people and it's never as good. You can sort of tell the direction and distance but little else. On my Atmos setup I can pinpoint everything much better, but it's also got much larger drivers and handles a much greater frequency range. There's ways around it but probably not anything that can work with a traditional setup with a center channel etc. One idea has been a speaker array that surrounds you front back and sides and using that array to deliver the audio to the proper location via movement tracking of some type. The up and down can be easily worked around too via atmos speakers either in the ceiling or the add-on speakers placed on top of the bed layer. That could really work provided someone wanted to dedicate a setup that way. You'd just forgo the center channel. I think the problem with the idea would be a software delay, but that could be minimized to below the visual and input delay with dedicated CPUs for the audio processing.

Pretty sure you could out the sound to your stereo, but I don't think I'd want my TV being part of my virtual wall.

Your TV wouldn't be part of it then, you'd just have audio from your AVR or whatever audio source you output to.
 
Last edited:

clok1966

Golden Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,395
13
76
IMO, this thing will be dead within a year or two unless they expand it into the PC market. Also the price doesn't include the controllers or camera. The bundle price will likely be $100 more.

I thought they already said its sold more units (presale) then HTC or Rift, so it will have the largest install base to start. Numbers don't tell the whole story, but they do draw developers.

Personally I would wait, first gen is where the early adopters pay so it can get better for later adopters and they all complain they should have waited.
 

exar333

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2004
8,518
8
91
Not enough grunt to power this on the PS4. Games are going to look cartoony and be novelty items. Blah.

Give me a OR or Vive on a powerful PC. If anything, the Sony solution will sour users to VR with poor image quality, crappy interpolation and so-so implementation.
 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,752
4,562
136
$400 sounds right. If it were $300, I'd be worried they cut even more corners, this is a good balance. Sony is treating this as a new platform release, not simply just a peripheral. I'd agree as VR could be game changing for gaming.

They basically had to have cut corners as they've said even the initial run of them is netting them a tidy profit right off the bat. That's as opposed to Rift that costs more and is practically being sold for a loss at that higher price point. Clearly the Sony version is grossly watered down.
 

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
I thought they already said its sold more units (presale) then HTC or Rift, so it will have the largest install base to start. Numbers don't tell the whole story, but they do draw developers.

Personally I would wait, first gen is where the early adopters pay so it can get better for later adopters and they all complain they should have waited.

Remember that Sony gets a cut of all those sales. So pure install numbers aren't the only metric a dev has to weigh when developing for a platform. Plus a PC game could support BOTH Vive and Oculus. On PS4, you are limited to the PSVR install base.
 

sweenish

Diamond Member
May 21, 2013
3,656
60
91
I really don't see it.

For those who just want to "try VR" something like the Galaxy VR headset has a much cheaper entry point if you already have a Samsung phone. Hell you can get a blacklist ESN Galaxy and the headset for just the price of a Ps4.

For those who want to be "serious" about VR then they are going to pay the extra to get Occulus/Vive. These are the people that will blow the thousands on gen 1 models, aka the people who make it affordable one day for all of us.

The Sony executive admitting their VR rig won't be as good really killed its potential with anyone serious about VR.

The Samsung phone is a bigger "if" than you give it credit for. But for getting into VR, it is cheaper. I had forgot they were even doing it.

But given the choice of a blacklist or even working Galaxy that's new enough or a PS4 that will at least be good for a couple other things, I think more people would be inclined to get a PS4.

I don't even know if the Galaxy VR set has any kind of other controller. If not, it shouldn't even be classed with Sony/HTC/Oculus. Because then the argument devolves into spending ~$20 on Cardboard.
 

gorcorps

aka Brandon
Jul 18, 2004
30,740
452
126
The Samsung phone is a bigger "if" than you give it credit for. But for getting into VR, it is cheaper. I had forgot they were even doing it.

But given the choice of a blacklist or even working Galaxy that's new enough or a PS4 that will at least be good for a couple other things, I think more people would be inclined to get a PS4.

I don't even know if the Galaxy VR set has any kind of other controller. If not, it shouldn't even be classed with Sony/HTC/Oculus. Because then the argument devolves into spending ~$20 on Cardboard.

AFAIK the phone based VR is mainly just for viewing, not playing. I suppose you could pair a Bluetooth controller to it if certain games were made for it, but it certainly isn't in the same league.
 

clok1966

Golden Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,395
13
76
Remember that Sony gets a cut of all those sales. So pure install numbers aren't the only metric a dev has to weigh when developing for a platform. Plus a PC game could support BOTH Vive and Oculus. On PS4, you are limited to the PSVR install base.

I agree, but the PS4 hardware, while much weaker then high end PC's is pretty close (programming wise), i cant see most game for the Oculus (its closer to the PS4 VR) wont be ported to PS4 too, hardware limitations not withstanding. One cant underestimate console numbers, they simply are much larger then PC's when it comes to sales of units. If the PS4 VR can keep enough interest till a real killer game comes out it might just usher in a VR craze. ViVe is the big hitter, the most complete VR experience, but people simply do not have 10x10 rooms empty in houses, and my bet 90% of all games pc or console are played on couchs/chairs not in big open spaces.. Vive big gimic (the full VR thing) wont get used by most people, so then its just like the Oculus but costs more.

I really think they all will fail, but deep down i hope they dont, I want a good VR thing going. While it never got big and was crude as hell, the old Dactyl Attack VR arcade games from the 90's where something to play.. it was so new and cool it was amazing. Today it looks like a 2600 to a Bone/PS4, but I would have paid big bucks for it back then in a HOME version.

One thing we (well most of us) overlook, you dont need graphics to make a great game. So even with the lesser hardware one killer APP could do it. A Mech game with some average graphics if done right. That new PC shooter that's hot right now (sorry forget name) where its all crude poly's and time stops when you stop moving? that in VR might be killer. It really gets down to the games and how its implemented. SO far I have seen nothing killer, some real cool demos, but nothing "must have" on any of them.
 

sxr7171

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2002
5,079
40
91
I have a 7.1 system with a large subwoofer and game most of the time with headphones. You're right that you won't get directional audio from a home theater setup, so you use headphones. Simple as that. I have a good pair that really rattle my brain when the bass hits, but if you need to feel it in your chest, there's options. It'd be quick to write a piece of software that can mirror the LFE channel to your 7.1 system so you still get the volume filling bass as well as some from your headphones. Another options is something like the Buttkicker on the floor instead of a couch.

It's far from an insurmountable obstacle and is easily fixed with existing products or a little software.

I agree. Since low frequencies are more felt than heard using a good true subwoofer and/or a buttkicker will solve that problem.

Headphones have been the standard in immersive audio before all the buzzwords (quadrophonic, dolby surround, dts, dolby digital, blah blah, atmos). Binaural recordings were first, then Head Related Transfer Functions were used to create immersive headphone audio.

The principle is simple, you have only 2 ears and with those you can perceive height, depth, direction everything. All of that with 2 ears. There used to be a demo in Epcot center decades ago where you put on headphones and it put you right inside a virtual barber appointment hair dryer and all. It sounded exactly like the real thing. The difference being someone mastered that audio for that purpose. With newer 8 channel+ audio formats someone mastered it for that many positions which needs to be converted in real time back to 2 channel binaural.

What people with home surround setups fail to realize is that the room interaction aspects make it nearly impossible to setup correctly in a home. There are primitive room correction techniques in today's receivers but headphone audio obviates the whole thing.

When you listen to something like Dolby Atmos in a theater the level of detail that went into every aspect of that room design and speaker positioning and correction is something only a true professional can do. You need acoustic engineers working for days if not weeks to set up and test that. The room treatments alone cost thousands if not tens of thousands even in a small dedicated home theater. It needs to be designed and built with acoustic engineering from the ground up.

Again headphones can do this perfectly without all this design hassle. Dolby Atmos at home sadly sounds like another buzzword. They slapped the name on a soundbar. So clearly there are levels of delivery at play here.

EDIT: I'm not laughing at Atmos for what it is. It's a new way to mix surround audio from the content creation side. It's just that it piggy backs on existing delivery methods that makes it irrelevant from the content delivery side. It does not define its own room correction or delivery setup beyond having drive units pointing upwards to emulate ceiling height channels. That is a good idea in home setups no doubt. Also it works with any delivery system including soundbars featuring for example YPAO from Yamaha. It's good thing for cinema mastered audio but it has no relevance to VR. The Atmos soundtrack must be custom mastered for each movie. Their attempt to bring that movie theater mix to the home is laudable. They did the best they could. But again surround fields in a home setup involve so much complication that less than 1% of home theaters can get it right. Headphones on the other hand can do it with a purely digital implementation. Room acoustics are taken out of the equation. Room surround is about letting more than one person hear roughly the same thing. Headphones are limited to one person - the person wearing the headphones. But that is an advantage in that two or more people wearing headphones can have the ideal soundfield based on exactly where they are positioned. It just needs to be calculated per individual headphone and user position.

In surround audio the room is everything. If the technology came with it's own defined digital room correction I would be excited. Instead apparently it is to be used with whatever existing room correction of the user's choice such as Audyssey, or YPAO, Dirac etc.

A comprehensive home surround format needs room correction built in. In a real space the room correction is the secret sauce. In a headphone it is the well known HRTF.

Long story short headphones handle directional audio better than speakers except for low bass. That should be intuitive considering you have only 2 ears not 18 or 22 or how ever many speakers the next new system wants to have you buy. But with a standard put into place for VR headphone directional audio it can all be done with headphones.
 
Last edited:

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
52,930
5,802
126
What people with home surround setups fail to realize is that the room interaction aspects make it nearly impossible to setup correctly in a home. There are primitive room correction techniques in today's receivers but headphone audio obviates the whole thing.

When you listen to something like Dolby Atmos in a theater the level of detail that went into every aspect of that room design and speaker positioning and correction is something only a true professional can do. You need acoustic engineers working for days if not weeks to set up and test that. The room treatments alone cost thousands if not tens of thousands even in a small dedicated home theater. It needs to be designed and built with acoustic engineering from the ground up.

while i understand what you are saying, i think you also strongly underestimate home theaters now a days. you do not need to spend "thousands upon thousands" of dollars to get a room to sound good as long as you have the correct equipment. you also don't need a professional to do a thing. with all the knowledge out there (especially over at AVS) you don't have to pay a professional top dollars to get your stuff sounding great.

while i have a nice setup at home, i didn't spend much, if anything at all, on room correction, and movies in my basement sound better than the majority of movie theaters i've ever been to.
 

sxr7171

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2002
5,079
40
91
I agree, but the PS4 hardware, while much weaker then high end PC's is pretty close (programming wise), i cant see most game for the Oculus (its closer to the PS4 VR) wont be ported to PS4 too, hardware limitations not withstanding. One cant underestimate console numbers, they simply are much larger then PC's when it comes to sales of units. If the PS4 VR can keep enough interest till a real killer game comes out it might just usher in a VR craze. ViVe is the big hitter, the most complete VR experience, but people simply do not have 10x10 rooms empty in houses, and my bet 90% of all games pc or console are played on couchs/chairs not in big open spaces.. Vive big gimic (the full VR thing) wont get used by most people, so then its just like the Oculus but costs more.

I really think they all will fail, but deep down i hope they dont, I want a good VR thing going. While it never got big and was crude as hell, the old Dactyl Attack VR arcade games from the 90's where something to play.. it was so new and cool it was amazing. Today it looks like a 2600 to a Bone/PS4, but I would have paid big bucks for it back then in a HOME version.

One thing we (well most of us) overlook, you dont need graphics to make a great game. So even with the lesser hardware one killer APP could do it. A Mech game with some average graphics if done right. That new PC shooter that's hot right now (sorry forget name) where its all crude poly's and time stops when you stop moving? that in VR might be killer. It really gets down to the games and how its implemented. SO far I have seen nothing killer, some real cool demos, but nothing "must have" on any of them.

Even as someone who has a Vive on preorder I can agree the walking around thing is gimmicky. Nobody will do it for more than a 5 minute demo. That contraption where you walk around in hexagonal roller walker setup maybe 30 minutes. It might become the treadmill of the future but unlikely unless the mechanics can get up to excercise machine standards.

Most people will want to sit down and play. Beyond that most people won't want to wear a headset for more than an hour unless they become much lighter and less bulky.

What people would like is something like this: http://www.roadtovr.com/microsoft-illumiroom-immersive-gaming/

It's a great demo and would take a decade to perfect and get down to consumer pricing levels.

There's no doubt in my mind current VR is an early adopter product. But it is far better thought out than any prior implementation. Even what we have this year rests on new technologies like low persistence OLED displays. Technologies that no prior implementation had the luxury of. I'm assuming the players in this market know they need to be in it for the long haul. I can't imagine any of them think they will profit for half a decade.

This is debatable but I think it's a reasonable price point for a well thought out taste of the future. The first DVD player was $1200 and inflation adjusted that would be more like $1800-2000. I think there will be enough content coming out that you could come home from work and play some new game/experience every week for about 30 minutes daily. That's all I expect of it.
 

sxr7171

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2002
5,079
40
91
while i understand what you are saying, i think you also strongly underestimate home theaters now a days. you do not need to spend "thousands upon thousands" of dollars to get a room to sound good as long as you have the correct equipment. you also don't need a professional to do a thing. with all the knowledge out there (especially over at AVS) you don't have to pay a professional top dollars to get your stuff sounding great.

while i have a nice setup at home, i didn't spend much, if anything at all, on room correction, and movies in my basement sound better than the majority of movie theaters i've ever been to.


I think you're right and I'm looking at home multichannel too critically. It's about having fun while watching a movie and being immersed in it.


I'm far from dismissing home theater or new sound techniques. I mean I think even something as primitive as Q sound over 2 channel can sound pretty darn impressive.

As a recovering audiophile (as you spend time at AVS I'm sure you can understand) I'm very focused on the music in a soundtrack sounding accurate. No doubt I can happily limit that sort of thing to my 2 channel setup (and shut up about it) and allow my multichannel setup to do what it does best - positional audio. I'm sure it can be done well cost effectively today. Also that today's room correction techniques built into receivers have largely democratized good multichannel. Still I have to ask how well they can handle bass management without some degree of room treatment. Because standing waves and room modes are really difficult to deal with as I'm sure you've experienced.

I also agree that most movie theaters are set up with bargain basement PA quality equipment. I'm just wondering if Dolby calibrates and tests theaters before they slap their name on it. Maybe, maybe not. But the idea of going object based vs channel based with Atmos is pretty brilliant and allows for even suboptimal setups to sounds more true - as long as bass management is properly accounted for. That's where I think the room correction aspects come into play.

But I think when we suggest that headphones are not capable of providing good positional audio is where I have to disagree. Headphones inherently solve all room related problems and with digital object based HRTF can do better than any room multichannel setup. I hope you would agree.

Edit: Also since you spend time at AVS I have to say that my holy grail of speaker audio involves a future with speakers with individual drivers digitally powered (class D etc.) and digitally crossed over and time and impulse corrected. It would involve a consumer level ecosystem of speakers with individually digitally address drive units and a format that accounts for each of them with real time digital room correction convolution. This can be done today with a Windows PC and custom built speakers.

http://convolver.sourceforge.net/
 
Last edited:

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
I do not agree that headphones are better. They have weak drivers and are too close to your ears to deliver positional audio distance information as accurately as a loudspeaker in a HT setup could. You may only have two ears but that doesn't change the way your ears actually function. You can perceive audio from multiple directions quite easily. Then you have Dolby Atmos. You can't get the same effect from headphones where sounds can come from above. That's why DTS has separated DTS:X and DTS:Headphone X. They know you won't get the same effect. You say Atmos has no relevance but Star Wars battlefront uses it to great effect on the PC. I have the Atmos demo disc with a gameplay demo with Atmos audio and it's pretty impressive. Yes it piggy backs on trueHd for content delivery but it uses metadata to deliver the Atmos effects and not discreet channels meaning the object based audio can come from any combination of speakers in your setup. Atmos also allows for actual speakers in the ceiling not just the enabled setup with speakers positioned to bounce audio off the ceiling. Other formats like DTS:X allow for sound to come from below the listening position which seems bonkers to me but it's something they have considered as a possibility.

As for bass management I haven't experienced it first hand but audyssey xt32 with sub eq is supposed to be able to flatten out the response of the LFE pretty well. I have to use an Anti-Mode EQ for my system because I don't have any built in sub eq in my AVR.
 
Last edited:
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |