cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
It might be a great headset but the price point killed it.
-
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.
Boomberg: Sony Hits Pause on PSVR2 Production as Unsold Inventory Piles Up
- Thread starter adamsapple
- Start date
AREYOUOKAY?
Member
Huge discount + The announced PC support will be the only thing that can maybe save it.
I was joking when I compared it to an overpriced Sega Genesis add-on before but this is ridiculous.
I was joking when I compared it to an overpriced Sega Genesis add-on before but this is ridiculous.
dragonyeuw
Member
I would have thought, with Playstation's growing presence on PC, that they would have at least ported over some of their legacy VR titles. Stuff like Astrobot, Blood and Truth, Until Dawn ROB, Farpoint, Wipeout Omega....that stuff is all marooned on the original headset ecosystem. They would have had to update the controllers and tracking to current standards, but that would have allowed both PSVR2 and PC ecosystems access to those ports.
Last edited:
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
I think it’s beyond saving. Those two things will just delay the inevitable.
Sorcerer
Member
It's okay everybody, Just wait for PSVR3 for Playstation 6 and for Sony not to support that one as well.
Can't wait for the handheld that Sony has no intention of supporting either...
It's strange, Sony being so dominant they literally think they can throw devices out to the market with no support and have them sell because they are Playstation branded.
Can't wait for the handheld that Sony has no intention of supporting either...
It's strange, Sony being so dominant they literally think they can throw devices out to the market with no support and have them sell because they are Playstation branded.
Last edited:
MISTER INVEIGLER
Member
PSVR2 not being able to play PSVR1 games and having a wired connection really pushed me towards the Quest 3.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
dragonyeuw
Member
TrebleShot
Member
its over
From what I understand its quite a bit of effort to upgrade games from psvr1 to vr2, some of those studios no longer exist, or are downsized, or reassigned, and it may or may not be worth the cost. I know some smaller non Sony studios has explicitly said its not worth the effort.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
THIS! And a little bit more support. It needed to be $400. $550 was only going to be good for the first year.
Guerilla Munch
Member
It's not just Playstation, tethered VR is dead and buried in general, especially with mixed reality/AR starting to gain popularity. Quest has pulled so far ahead of the competition it's absurd
Orbital2060
Member
Sony should have quit the whole VR business before launching the PS5. It boggles my mind how they thought this was a good idea, with the state VR is in. Its not going to miraculously bounce back in popularity, most people dont want it.
The best thing Sony could do is cut the VR business out, and use the resources on games and services. Like they should have from the start of the PS5. Maybe then they wouldnt find themselves with such a shortage of 1p games.
The best thing Sony could do is cut the VR business out, and use the resources on games and services. Like they should have from the start of the PS5. Maybe then they wouldnt find themselves with such a shortage of 1p games.
MarkMe2525
Member
Direct wifi 6 connection, so you aren't limitied to playing directly in front of your TV, would have opened up the market a bit. Not everyone's console gaming set up is conducive to free roam vr. There is no way I could enjoy VR in my game room.
Last edited:
John Wick
Member
They should have stopped at the first one end of. If they had to release a 2nd one then PC should have been there day 1. It's just spread Sony resources too thin. Sony are sometimes their worst own enemy.
iHaunter
Member
Not supporting PSVR1 games was the DUMBEST decision they could've made. I don't know how these headsets are designed, but I fail to see why they wouldn't be compatible?
Romulus
Member
I agree to an extent, I just think they went the wrong way about it. PSVR2 should have easily been able to double PSVR1 sales and while that's still not setting the market on fire, it could be an incremental thing with each gen that improved.
I think of it more of a long term thing. For example Quest 2 was able to keep pace with both Series X consoles in sales for 2 years. Then they fucked up and did a price hike of $100.
MarkMe2525
Member
This isn't a knock on PSVR2, but even with its eye tracking, it doesn't hold a candle to the edge to edge clarity that the Quest 3 displays. Eye tracking would unlock a marginal performance boost, but IMO it is in no way is a game changer if your UI isn't built around its attributes (such as the PSVR2 and Q3). Point being, eye tracking is a great feature, but Meta was able to produce a fantastic headset without it.
Last edited:
sncvsrtoip
Member
nope, for example dev of Cyube VR said dynamic foveated rendering boos performance by at least 2x and without it game wouldnt be possible on psvr2
MarkMe2525
Member
This is being taken out of context. This would hold true for the Quest if the Quest did not support foveated rendering. The Quest has implemented foveated rendering since Q1, it just isn't eyetracked. Eye tracked foveated rendering is better than static foveated rendering, but I believe the 2x number is in comparison to running the game without the feature at all.
Edit: I would also caution that your also quoting a dev that is attempting to draw attention to their new game on a new platform. We have heard similiar "this game can only run on console x" to then see the game running on other platforms. Ratchet and Clank comes to mind, when the devs proclaimed the game could only run on the PS5 custom SSD. It was later shown to be able to run on SSD's that didn't even meet the PS5 minimum spec.
The Meta Quest Pro released with eye tracking in 2022. Does Meta source the components from Sony?
Last edited:
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
Xbox players will tell you that’s not needed.
Psvr2 is a clear example of the opposite.
Although to be frank, the device itself is subpar. Bad lenses, glare, bad comfort and sweet spot among the smallest I’ve seen.
It’s a fine device but not what so hoped so I sent it back
justiceiro
Marlboro: Other M
Rereading this thread now is hilarious:
www.neogaf.com
Hopefully, the drivers that make compatible with PC also come with a big discount. Psvr was so good, what happened?
IGN: A Year Since Its Release, Sony Seems to Have Abandoned PlayStation VR2
https://www.ign.com/articles/a-year-since-its-release-sony-seems-to-have-abandoned-playstation-vr2 In 2021, Sony announced it was working on a next-generation headset it described as “a next-gen VR system that enhances everything from resolution and field of view to tracking and input.”...
Hopefully, the drivers that make compatible with PC also come with a big discount. Psvr was so good, what happened?
Team Andromeda
Member
Shocking, The 32X had better games for it and that's saying something as it was utter shit
sncvsrtoip
Member
yes without enabling dynamic foveated rendering, static foveated rendering is terrible with blur everywhere if you dont keep your yes looking in the center all the time like robot ;d
MarkMe2525
Member
I edited my post and added some context after you started your reply so I'll add that here. "I would also caution that your also quoting a dev that is attempting to draw attention to their new game on a new platform. We have heard similiar "this game can only run on console x" to then see the game running on other platforms. Ratchet and Clank comes to mind, when the devs proclaimed the game could only run on the PS5 custom SSD. It was later shown to be able to run on SSD's that didn't even meet the PS5 minimum spec."
I have extensive experience with static foveated rendering on Q3 and I don't agree with your impression of it at all. It was pretty bad on Q1 and Q2, but it is rarely noticed on Q3 and never as bad as you describe. I never feel compelled to look straight ahead.
Last edited:
Salty Popsicle
Banned
Why would any sane person opt to partake in VR pron experiences with video game models when you can already do this today with real life pron stars?Has anyone else had the idea of getting this solely for GTA VI?
Those chicks on the beach won't eat themselves.
Orbital2060
Member
It was so obvious at the end of PS4 gen that VR wasnt working out. < 5 % of PS4 owners bought it. I dont understand how anyone can see that and think: yeah lets do that one more time. Even a doubling of the VR install base wouldnt suffice to cover the costs of developing exclusive AA-AAA games for it. They would need a much higher attachment rate for it to be lucrative, Id say at least 30 % but its probably higher. Then you could start hoping for VR games to sell 1 million +.
All the while they should have focussed on diversifying their IP portfolio, in particular with regards to their legacy IPs. Its both sad and funny that Sega now are much better at mining their past to make modern versions of classic games. That video with a bunch of remakes of Shinobi, Golden Axe, Jet Set Radio etc? That should have been Sony. Leaving VR behind would free up more resources to do just that.
{insert code here}
Member
Its a hard sell for a developer to invest tens, or hundreds of millions of dollars for an install base under a million. If it's around 500k, then assuming you sold to every psvr2 owner you are capped at 35M revenue on a 70$ game. Even if your base is closer to 1M your max revenue is 70M on one game. Anything other than indie games doesn't make sense financially on this device.
This thing had no business being put on the market. The math just doesn't make sense.
This thing had no business being put on the market. The math just doesn't make sense.
Last edited:
Lunarorbit
Member
It's insane that we are a year into this thing and all Sony has done is put out a horizon game.
I see people ask all the time if there are games for the machine; 3rd party support is good but without any Sony tentpoles regular gamers don't know about it, don't care about it,or think the system doesn't receive any support.
Between all the gaas cancelations and this no wonder we see articles every week about the collapse of the industry
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Gold Member
The Eye Toy actually had exclusives and 1P support though. Maybe not a lot of the games we would've cared about, but it had the support.
PSVR2 wished it had even half of that amount of software support.
Leaving PC ports out of the picture would've done what you're suggesting, not dropping VR. Because it's the PC ports that eat up resources and also lead to longer dev times for console owners to even get the games in the first place.
At least with VR the idea is there to spark innovation with legacy IP you're mentioning. Where was Jumping Flash Remake for PSVR or PSVR2? Sure one game alone wouldn't do much but it'd of made an effect combined with other offerings.
Also I dispose of the idea that Sony couldn't multitask. They could've been beefing up 1P with a better focus on legacy IP and simultaneously supported VR better. I am still kind of surprised there was no plan for PSVR2 to include a more modern version of the PSVR1 headset spec-wise at a much cheaper price, just to have a more affordable option on the market. That wouldn't create issues with game development & scaling the way it would if they were consoles.
I just find it short-sighted to say VR was the distraction when the excessive PC ports & overzealous internal GAAS push are much more obvious sources of blame to what you feel distracted Sony's attention and resources for IP portfolio diversification.
VR-only games aren't the only ways devs could make money off VR. Many traditional games could include VR-compatible modes, so they are basically games appealing to people who want either or both types of experiences.
And I figured that was the idea for PSVR2 adoption growth; lean into having traditional games offer hearty VR modes, and over time with the peripheral install base growing, you'd get more devs making VR-centric or even VR-exclusive games to bring to the platform. However the fact it's a $550 peripheral for a $400/$500 console means you were never going to get many VR-only games to begin with and that is perfectly fine IMO.
The bigger problem is you can count the number of 1P games with PSVR2 support on less than one hand. And that number doesn't leap forward by a ton when you throw in 3P games, especially the big ones, either. Like where are the PSVR2 modes in games like SF6, Elden Ring, Tekken 8, Baldur's Gate 3, FFV Rebith & XVI, etc? They're completely MIA and I don't really blame 3P for that when most of Sony's own teams act like the headset doesn't exist, outside of Firesprite (lay-offs), London Studio (closed) and Polyphony Digital (the sole MVP for PSVR2 support among 1P).
Expecting 3P to go out of their and support an expensive optional peripheral was just never gonna happen when most of SIE's own 1P aren't supporting the device themselves. They should've taken one or more cues from Nintendo on this. Hopefully they do with the next generation of PSVR devices.
And yes I mean devices as in plural. Another cue they could learn from Nintendo: make something cheap enough so you can include it by default with your console. That's how you drive adoption both commercially and creatively for new(ish) standards. See: Wiimotes, analog stick (N64). Or hell, Sony can look at themselves for this; see: DVD in the PS2.
Romulus
Member
5% sort of made sense though. PSVR1 was bottom of the barrel tech. The controllers were laughably bad and it was a mess of cables, so from Sony's perspective perhaps trying again with a more med tier option could work. The problem is they botch PSVR2 in different ways. Despite the PSVR1's tech, it had some decent game, and we can't play them.
Quest doesn't have many AAA games and sold on par with xbox series consoles combined, so its doable without a AAA catalog. It actually survives on mostly AA games. I get that Quest is a standalone device also.
Lastly, most of sony's heavy hitter VR games don't need to be built with new assets, GT7 and RE8 for example. Cost is reduced compared to a completely new game. So the impact of costs isn't 1to1.
Having said all that, the long game is something that can be played, you just have to do it right. It's not about doubling the install base gen 2, its about doing that again and again until you get to a comfortable point.
Last edited:
{insert code here}
Member
Sony don't have a good history of supporting their secondary devices which is a shame because they've always made great hardware. The PSP had a really good library both 1P and 3P. The Move had decent support initially but after that launch lineup Sony faded it. Vita had a decent first year but that too got faded.
I think the rising costs of AAA games for sure factors in but, they should have been looking for smaller indie/AA studios to acquire and put them on PSVR2 instead of dumping all of their resources into a handful of AAA blockbusters.
Last edited:
yurinka
Member
PSVR2 has several times more games announced for its first year (and probably already released) than Eye Toy had for its whole life.
According to this wikipeda page of now it has 260 games announced:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_VR2_games
I think to make a non-VR version is a good option to help VR games be more profitable, or profitable. To adapt them, if controls are somewhat classical requires low effort but may be worth it because opens them the door to a way bigger market.
Regarding non-VR games, particularly the big ones, they already have too high costs. Adapting them to VR may need too much changes in controls, camera and visual quality downgrade to achieve the FPS needed. Isn't easy and may not be worth it unless first party or moneyhated by first party because compared to non-VR, VR is a small market.
For the first year Sony had around half a dozen 1P releases and signed over 180 3P games including big games like a couple Resident Evil, No Man's Sky, Metro, etc. Which is better than in PSVR1 or than any headset had at launch.
Sony doesn't have infinite money and they have to improve their profitability. So have to cut costs, not to increase their costs even more.
Last edited:
bumpkin
Member
Fixed.
I appreciate indie developers and smaller studios stepping up to the plate, but I want more of Sony’s IPs on the headset. Horizon: COTM was awesome. Gimme something in the Uncharted world, or maybe a fun jaunt in Ratchet & Clank’s galaxy. I’m tired of the dozens of random FPS games with generic characters and worlds.
Last edited:
Reallink
Member
Problem is it's not a great headset. It has the worst display mura, the worst persistence blur, and the smallest lens sweetspot of any modern consumer VR headset, including the nearly decade old OG Vive and Rift. The headstrap is also overweight, oversized, and hugely uncomfortable for a large portion of users, by nature of putting all the weight on a 1 square inch area of the forehead. It's very clearly the product of a small, insulated, stubborn team of Japanese salarymen.
Last edited:
OGM_Madness
Member
The biggest fail was no backwards compatibility with PSVR1 games.
Having skipped the PSVR1, I looked forward to playing those game with the new hardware. The moment they said no backwards compatibility, it was the moment I decided I wasn’t going to buy it. I rather they focus on regular PS5 games.
Having skipped the PSVR1, I looked forward to playing those game with the new hardware. The moment they said no backwards compatibility, it was the moment I decided I wasn’t going to buy it. I rather they focus on regular PS5 games.
DonkeyPunchJr
World’s Biggest Weeb
They probably decided they already sunk too much R&D into PSVR2, so they figured they’d release it and at least recoup some of their investment.
Orbital2060
Member
Backwards compatibility would have helped sell it to the PS5 gen, both for more games being available and to know that it was a platform worth investing in for the future.
Remember Xbox were trying to sell a kinect with every console, because you need that high attachment rate in order to have an audience that can reliably buy enough games to make develeopers enough ROI.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
You think? Its tech and price-point seemed quite competitive last I read. Its also got the USP that it also works on PS5, which especially with the Pro model coming out allegedly later this year might prove appealing to hardcore VR fans.
Spyxos
Gold Member
If it costs 300-350 and has a few games. I'll get it. But like this... nah. I have zero interest in Horizon. Even though Gran Turismo looks great, I don't play that kind of game, I prefer Burnout and older Need for Speed games. That leaves me with Resident Evil Vr updates. And buying a headset for that alone is too expensive.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked