Support NeoGAF

[THE DUCK]

Sony can’t support PS5 with enough releases. They can’t have anything they would require ports.

Either the portable needs to play existing PS4 and PS5 games or it’s going to be DoA as well because Sony will drop software support after initial launch.

It would play ports of ps4 and ps5 games day and date with very little time and effort required, as long as it has enough ram.
The whole idea would be like series S in.terms of releases.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

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.

Agreed. The people calling for them to abandon VR altogether just because PSVR2 isn't a commercial smash hit are being very shortsighted. Sony should be taking the feedback, good and bad, as learning so they can improve things with PSVR3.

They should know by now that lack of pricing options and new software are key reasons for tepid PSVR2 adoption. They should know by now that making a scalable headset platform at good modularity at the production level (to allow for cheaper headsets) is a big key for making that happen. That among other things.

There is too much potential with VR and, specifically, derivatives (like AR or MR) to just up and quit. Like you said, it's a long game.

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.

Oh definitely. Getting rid of most of their internal AA teams is rearing its head right now, especially since the aggressive GAAS push has been culled back. Most of their publisher & studio acquisitions the past few years though were geared towards GAAS, which just goes to show what Sony's priorities for growth were.

Now they're having to readjust and the question is how do they do it the right way?

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

How many of these are old ports vs. how many are new exclusives (full or timed) vs. how many are new releases coming Day 1 to PSVR2?

Because if you don't have a good ratio across those three, you don't have a commercially viable product. At least, that's how I see it.
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.

Yeah sure, but the issue is there isn't enough on the 1P front actually doing this. The only AAA 1P game with PSVR2 support is GT7. Including Call of the Mountain, they only have two 1P releases leveraging the headset so far.

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.

Okay, but again, go back to what I mentioned earlier. How many of those 180 3P games are new releases vs. ports of older games? Or VR updates to much older games? How many are exclusives?

These are important questions.

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.

I understand that. However there are right and wrong ways to do that and as gaming customers, we shouldn't have to compromise on what we want out of our gaming devices & experience just to placate the bottom line of these corporations. What we want should matter just as much as what the shareholders want, particularly in markets like gaming.

Also with these companies, especially a platform holder like Sony, I think they have a responsibility to balance increasing profit margins with still delivering on innovations in the gaming space, both for software and hardware. Asking Sony to support their platforms like PSVR2 with more 1P compatible software shouldn't be a big ask.

 

[StereoVsn]

It would play ports of ps4 and ps5 games day and date with very little time and effort required, as long as it has enough ram.
The whole idea would be like series S in.terms of releases.

Ports mean Sony would drop it. Basically if there is any sort of modicum of effort on Sony’s part I wouldn’t trust them to keep up.

It would need to use native PS4 games and better yet PS5 at lower fidelity.

 

[Nydius]

Niche market + locked to a single hardware device + shitting on your previous early adopters (no backcompat with PSVR1) + lack of support + high price point + shitty economy = dead device.

Doesn't take a graduate level mathematician to figure that equation.

 

[ShaiKhulud1989]

Wouldn't the Vision Pro need to be a "huge success" for that to be true? But I'd guess even Apple can't train people to work with cell phones strapped on their face.

avin

The money is paid already nonentheless.

What exactly did they use tobii for? There were articles leading up to psvr2 launch citing sony was using tobii for it's eye tracking.

Tobii is software, Sony is supplying hardware.

 

[semiconscious]

wow! never saw this coming!...

 

[Rac3r]

I love my PSVR2. Played a ton of GT7 and Pavlov on it, and there's still plenty I haven't tried yet. The problem is I just don't have much time to play video games in general, and lengthy breaks between VR sessions means that motion sickness is likely to set back in (I'm prone to it). Life has been really busy for me lately, and I can't risk feeling crappy (sometimes through the next day) if I ever have a spare moment to game.

 

[teokrazia]

Just wait* Half-Life: Alyx.
It will sell gangbusters.

*forever

 

[Bernardougf]

$550 accessory is crazy.

I really wanted for playing gt7.... for this price ? Hell no.

 

[Shut0wen]

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.

Sony supported the eyetoy with absolute shovelware, even there own games were bargin bin games sony just doesnt give a flying shit and does these things to make a quick buck, if psvr2 actually did well sales wise there is still 0 first party games, thr exact same thing with ps move

 

[HarryKS]

Too expensive.

 

[FrankWza]

$550 accessory is crazy.

 

[Wonko_C]

Sony is not killing PSVR2, it's the media's constant hate-boner of it and people parroting it all until it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[FrankWza]

Sony is not killing PSVR2, it's the media's constant hate-boner of it and people parroting it until it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I think this same guy was trying to float this during launch. It triggers so many people. Portal too. It's embarrassing.
It's never had a price drop or sale, even during the holidays. It will sell in line with vr1 against another 100 million selling console.

 

[R6Rider]

Sony is not killing PSVR2, it's the media's constant hate-boner of it and people parroting it all until it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You can see the misinformation all over this topic too.

 

[//DEVIL//]

hardware doesnt sell when you dont support it with good games.

what a shocking news.

Sony. ill take one off your unwanted stock for 100$ CAD. if you don't like it then keep it in your warehouse and keep paying for inventory. this is my last offer. take it or leave it LoL

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

I hate to think how much money was wasted on PSVR 1 & 2 by Sony.

 

[UltimaKilo]

In my opinion, Gabe Newell is part of the problem too. Just look at the Half Life situation, had Valve committed back then the fans (not the fanboys) would be at a way better place today; Videogame budgets are so massive today that it’s probably too late to take on the Half Life franchise. Again, this is my personal opinion.

Valve runs on Valve time.

 

[nemiroff]

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

It doesn't quite work like that. Eye tracked FR doesn't affect physical lense flaws which is what is causing peripheral blur/sweet spot in the first place.

The blur is there with or without both ETFR and fixed foveated rendering (pancake lenses generally have bigger sweet spots vs fresnel lenses though).

Which is exactly why it's described in the Meta developer guidelines to use the right amount of FFR, to match the lense configuration. Thus in theory it shouldn't cause more blur.

In short, FFR reduces the resolution where there's already lower perceived resolution. Eye tracked FR kinda does the the same, but is still different because ETFR focuses on the "flaws" of our eyes instead of the flaws of the lense hardware, hence the eye tracking.

 

[C2brixx]

True, but it would have been worth it if it had stand alone capabilities like a Quest 2. Sould have been the successor to the Vita with the ability to connect to PS5 for higher fidelity experiences.

 

[THE DUCK]

Ports mean Sony would drop it. Basically if there is any sort of modicum of effort on Sony’s part I wouldn’t trust them to keep up.

It would need to use native PS4 games and better yet PS5 at lower fidelity.

That's exactly what I meant, downscaled ports of ps5 games, mandatory release with ps5 versions. Not much effort required.
Ps4 games would be just a bonus.

 

[UltimaKilo]

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.

Hardware margins are so small for these products that what really drives profit, is selling at scale and/or software.

Sony has almost no software to drive sales, and the install base is too small to justify investing a lot in software.

Opening PSVR to PC is smart, and will temporarily boost sales, but the PSVR2 will likely be out of date within 2 years, which is why the cheaper, higher volume model like Quest works. Apple has enough money to start at the top of the market and move down, so it’s a non-issue for them.

VR has so many bottlenecks at the moment that if I were working at Sony, I would push to shelve VR a few years and release a stand-alone device.

 

[DrFigs]

Hardware margins are so small for these products that what really drives profit, is selling at scale and/or software.

Sony has almost no software to drive sales, and the install base is too small to justify investing a lot in software.

Opening PSVR to PC is smart, and will temporarily boost sales, but the PSVR2 will likely be out of date within 2 years, which is why the cheaper, higher volume model like Quest works. Apple has enough money to start at the top of the market and move down, so it’s a non-issue for them.

VR has so many bottlenecks at the moment that if I were working at Sony, I would push to shelve VR a few years and release a stand-alone device.

How would opening up to the pc market help sony? i guess it can move some of these units out of storage, but they dont have a store on pc and they're not making money on the hardware.

 

[Success]

Prior to release, the majority of users on GAF said they were buying the PSVR 2:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/are-you-getting-a-psvr-2-poll.1649217/

Just a reminder that the consensus of various gaming topics on these boards does not remotely reflect the general public.

What a nonsense statement.

36.8% said yes.

Go troll somewhere else.

 

[Solarstrike]

 

[UltimaKilo]

How would opening up to the pc market help sony? i guess it can move some of these units out of storage, but they dont have a store on pc and they're not making money on the hardware.

That’s exactly it, just move some units. Honestly, not worth spending millions trying to make much exclusive PSVR content right now while they’re struggling to push out PS5 titles.

 

[ProtoByte]

Step 1: Release a new platform
Step 2: don't support or advertise it at all
Step 3: Pikachu face when it doesn't sell

They advertised it more than enough. You don't remember it sucking up time from every State of Play and Showcase?

People just ignored it because the average gamer doesn't care about VR.

 

[yurinka]

How many of these are old ports vs. how many are new exclusives (full or timed) vs. how many are new releases coming Day 1 to PSVR2?

Because if you don't have a good ratio across those three, you don't have a commercially viable product. At least, that's how I see it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_VR2_games

Yeah sure, but the issue is there isn't enough on the 1P front actually doing this. The only AAA 1P game with PSVR2 support is GT7. Including Call of the Mountain, they only have two 1P releases leveraging the headset so far.

Okay, but again, go back to what I mentioned earlier. How many of those 180 3P games are new releases vs. ports of older games? Or VR updates to much older games? How many are exclusives?

I have no idea, I didn't count them / don't know all the over 250 games. Regarding exclusivities, VR normally has a small amount because being a small market the games need to be (sometimes after a paid exclusive) in as much devices as possible.

Also, it's important to have the key games from the past. People continues port begging Alyx and some PSVR1 game.

I understand that. However there are right and wrong ways to do that and as gaming customers, we shouldn't have to compromise on what we want out of our gaming devices & experience just to placate the bottom line of these corporations. What we want should matter just as much as what the shareholders want, particularly in markets like gaming.

Also with these companies, especially a platform holder like Sony, I think they have a responsibility to balance increasing profit margins with still delivering on innovations in the gaming space, both for software and hardware. Asking Sony to support their platforms like PSVR2 with more 1P compatible software shouldn't be a big ask.

I know, it's fair to ask for more or better games, or better pricing. But when asking for things I think it's important to be realistic on what we can ask for.

Sure, a $99 price for the device, but with components costs increasing they need to improve profitability so won't have margin to reduce prices.

Regarding support, in the first months they already put there some of the biggest IPs on their console and VR via both 1st and 3rd party and signed a gazillion games more. Which is more than the ones they had for the first year of PSVR1.

We know they had over two dozen games under development at PS Studios plus minimum 3 in Bungie. Very likely they have over 30 first party games under development, not counting ports or mobile. Plus a gazillion 3rd party exclusives and deals. Games that cost a ton of money and require many years of development. Yes, it would be great to have more, but again they have to be conservative with profitability at least for a year or two.

 

[Synless]

 

[MarkMe2525]

Friendly reminder that PSVR2 is still a huge success for Sony because its tech was essentially licensed for Vision Pro. Sony is the main vendor for all the vital tech there, including the eye tracking.

I can't find a source corroborating this. Are you sure this is the case? As I mentioned earlier, eye tracking has been in headsets that preceded the PSVR2, so I'm curious if what you are saying is true or you are just speculating.

Edit: after reading your comment for a third time, I realize I was misinterpreting your comment. You are talking about the individual components and not licensing the patent. Anyhow, I don't believe this to be the case, as that information seems to not have been disclosed. Only info I can find is that Luxshare manufactures the headset. Feel free to point me to any info that disputes my claim.

 

[DonkeyPunchJr]

Agreed. The people calling for them to abandon VR altogether just because PSVR2 isn't a commercial smash hit are being very shortsighted. Sony should be taking the feedback, good and bad, as learning so they can improve things with PSVR3.

They should know by now that lack of pricing options and new software are key reasons for tepid PSVR2 adoption. They should know by now that making a scalable headset platform at good modularity at the production level (to allow for cheaper headsets) is a big key for making that happen. That among other things.

There is too much potential with VR and, specifically, derivatives (like AR or MR) to just up and quit. Like you said, it's a long game.



Oh definitely. Getting rid of most of their internal AA teams is rearing its head right now, especially since the aggressive GAAS push has been culled back. Most of their publisher & studio acquisitions the past few years though were geared towards GAAS, which just goes to show what Sony's priorities for growth were.

Now they're having to readjust and the question is how do they do it the right way?



How many of these are old ports vs. how many are new exclusives (full or timed) vs. how many are new releases coming Day 1 to PSVR2?

Because if you don't have a good ratio across those three, you don't have a commercially viable product. At least, that's how I see it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_VR2_games


Yeah sure, but the issue is there isn't enough on the 1P front actually doing this. The only AAA 1P game with PSVR2 support is GT7. Including Call of the Mountain, they only have two 1P releases leveraging the headset so far.



Okay, but again, go back to what I mentioned earlier. How many of those 180 3P games are new releases vs. ports of older games? Or VR updates to much older games? How many are exclusives?

These are important questions.



I understand that. However there are right and wrong ways to do that and as gaming customers, we shouldn't have to compromise on what we want out of our gaming devices & experience just to placate the bottom line of these corporations. What we want should matter just as much as what the shareholders want, particularly in markets like gaming.

Also with these companies, especially a platform holder like Sony, I think they have a responsibility to balance increasing profit margins with still delivering on innovations in the gaming space, both for software and hardware. Asking Sony to support their platforms like PSVR2 with more 1P compatible software shouldn't be a big ask.

Why? Sure, MAYBE they could make a semi-successful VR platform if they really went all-in. But why would they?

Sony needed PSVR to hedge their bets, in case VR turned out to be the Next Big Thing and threatened to eat PlayStation’s lunch. It exists so that Sony wouldn’t have to spend years playing catch up, just in case.

Obviously that didn’t happen. The demand isn’t there, and Sony isn’t going to keep dumping money into it to try and manufacture demand. They have way more important things to spend that money & effort on. They can barely release enough console games, why would they divert money away from that in order to make riskier games for a nonexistent player base? It makes no sense.

 

[Jibran#one]

550 for an accessory with bad support is bound to fail.
No psvr1.pc support will change it.
Unless Sony makes every first party release mandatory for psvr

 

[ArtHands]

How would opening up to the pc market help sony? i guess it can move some of these units out of storage, but they dont have a store on pc and they're not making money on the hardware.

Opening up to the PC market will encourage PCVR users to buy a PS5 and jump into the console VR ecosystem. that trojan horse strategy thing

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Yeah, it's pretty obvious it's not doing big numbers. If they do make a PSVR 3, it won't be for quite a while imho

 

[drganon]

"according to people familiar with its plans" - another mamoushki baboushki banger of an article

I'm convinced someone from Sony screwed his gf, and he's been on a revenge quest ever since.

 

[GHG]

If they discount it and get it supported on PC as well then I'll buy one.

But as it stands it's a no for me. They really fucked up by not having BC with the original PSVR titles, that was the nail in the coffin as far as my interest went.

 

[ArtHands]

Astro Bot is rumored for this year. Could be for PSVR2. Who knows maybe there will be other hybrid AAA VR games this year

 

[crackajack]

This is false. Plenty of third party games have and still are releasing for it.

Plenty of unimportant games no one cares for. Beside the REs pretty much nothing of relevance from the major third parties. I am convinced that Sony thought Capcom and Bethesda would provide enough games, I assume Deathloop and Ghostwire should have been perfectly fit for VR, together with new ports of Skyrim, Doom3, maybe also the Wolfensteins and recent Dooms. When MS bought Bethesda I believe it killed Sony's lazy VR plans alltogether since their whole over the shoulder games lineup seems not to be the best fit for VR for some reason, even though you could just make most of them first person...

It probably wouldn't have made a difference to sales, but i'm still waiting for all those VR hybrid games being hyped up.

That's something I don't get at all. Why develop VR exlusives if you can have VR as a sort of addon to some regular game development. Ace Combat had some nice VR mode for VR1, for VR2 with a longer planning phase pretty much every game should have had at least something like that. One limited mode, still a tech demo of sorts. Ideally though the entire game in VR, as an optional other way of playing and just produced in one go with the regular game. Mind boggling not to do it that way. Instead VR is shouldered by Indies that do exclusives, which is also stupid since they miss out on regular flat sales. If their game is worth it anyway, many VR games seem to only exist and succeed to some extent due to lack of other options.
Also insane that Sony did not make a deal with EA for F1 and WRC having VR modes. Sure it would kinda be in competition with their own GT, but come on. Also where is Assetto VR?

 

[cyberheater]

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.

That sounds bad. User review I’ve read when it came out was quite complimentary and positive.

 

[Dick Jones]

I'm convinced someone from Sony screwed his gf, and he's been on a revenge quest ever since.

The only flaw in your logic is Taka would need a girlfriend before she could cheat.

 

[avin]

Although I have minimal interest in VR, I had thought Sony deserved props for taking a risk on it, it was one gutsy thing they did this gen. But the industry contraction seems to have led to belt tightening, and VR is a - hopefully only temporary - casualty.

avin

 

[CuteFaceJay]

PC support won’t save it, it needs to be completely disconnected from any platform in order to compete with Meta Quest. PC is just another anchor.

Pretty much, My index has been chilling in the box for a few years now. I really don't see VR peaking beyond it's past highs low level AR / MR might be the move but that'll be a while till the tech gets cheap enough.

 

[YOU PC BRO?!]

Sony should have to explain why they bothered to release the PSVR2 with barely any software support. Serious question, why not wait and launch the PSVR2 alongside PS5 Pro with a more robust catalogue of games including PC support? It would have been an infinitely more attractive and better value proposition.

 

[SlimySnake]

lol As always, timed proved me right. I called it this as soon as they started begging me to pre-order the thing after sending emails asking me to reserve a spot before it sells out.

I took so much shit for simply stating this fact. I always take shit for stating the obvious. Like when i said sony first party didnt have anything next gen slated between ratchet and spiderman 2. Or when i said Sony first party wont have much for 2024. It's like people hate me for being the bearer of bad news. Dont shoot the messenger. Blame herman, jimbo and the other cunts for fucking up wasting billions of Bungie instead of investing in software for their $550 hardware.

PSVR2 needed great next gen only experiences. There is no point upgrading the screen and underlying tech if you are just going to be making mini games. They needed multiple half life alyx caliber titles. Horizon needed to be a truly visionary title. not a watered down version of the base game. VR is the future but stripped down versions of the games are not going to convince anyone of that.

Exclusives and AAA software sells hardware. MS found this out the hard way. Now Sony has with PSVR2. Hope they learn from their mistakes and dont let the same thing happen to the PS5. They are laying off people when they should be investing MORE into first party games that give people a reason to buy your console.

 

[Kokoloko85]

They first have to figure out how to not spend 200M on developing games lol.

Until said games stop making profit it isnt an issue

 

[Sushi_Combo]

Until said games stop making profit it isnt an issue

It's been an issue already, hence why games are now being released on another platform.

 

[Reallink]

That sounds bad. User review I’ve read when it came out was quite complimentary and positive.

Beause most people (end users and journalists) have too little regular experience with VR to make a critical assessment of hardware. The novelty is blinding. And among the few who do, most lack the knowledge to do so. For example your Grandma may watch TV all day, but you wouldn't refer to her for TV reviews.

 

[CLW]

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

How would opening up to the pc market help sony? i guess it can move some of these units out of storage, but they dont have a store on pc and they're not making money on the hardware.

Not just that, but also: what does PSVR2 being on PC do for console owners who have the headset?

That should be the first question anyone's asking and if the answer is "nothing", then that PC compatibility is not worth doing.

I have no idea, I didn't count them / don't know all the over 250 games. Regarding exclusivities, VR normally has a small amount because being a small market the games need to be (sometimes after a paid exclusive) in as much devices as possible.

Also, it's important to have the key games from the past. People continues port begging Alyx and some PSVR1 game.

You would think Valve would want more revenue for a game like Half-Life: Alyx, especially if it could leverage the tech of PSVR2. You can call it port-begging to an extent but there are also very solid reasons for why a port would've made sense for them, and yet nothing has ever happened.

It also shows the imbalance between Valve and Sony when it comes to one supporting the other's platform for revenue, profits & growth. And, highlights the hypocrisy of people saying Sony "need" to bring this stuff to PC to grow revenue & profits, but for whatever reason companies like Valve are seemingly exempt from this same need, even if they are private enterprises.

There's just a few loaded subtexts in pushing the dynamic one way but thinking the other way around is somehow now feasible.

I know, it's fair to ask for more or better games, or better pricing. But when asking for things I think it's important to be realistic on what we can ask for.

All of those are things I feel are realistic to ask for, honestly. These are basic expectations a platform holder should be able to provide, and historically, Sony have had no issue doing that for their consoles or the PSP. Why should PSVR2 be exempt from this expectation?

Sure, a $99 price for the device, but with components costs increasing they need to improve profitability so won't have margin to reduce prices.

I'm not saying a $99 PSVR2 with the PSVR2's specs should happen, that is unrealistic. However, scaling down the hardware so you can do PSVR1-level performance for a cheaper model headset that's say $199 or $249 should've been something Sony did with the PSVR2 line.

That type of dual SKU approach where there are performance differences, doesn't work for a console (i.e Series S & Series X), but it can work with peripherals like VR.

Regarding support, in the first months they already put there some of the biggest IPs on their console and VR via both 1st and 3rd party and signed a gazillion games more. Which is more than the ones they had for the first year of PSVR1.

Eh, let's be fair here. It was two 1P IP: Horizon and GT7. 3P-wise it was a handful of games with VR support like RE Village, but what about since then? I know RE4 got a PSVR2 mode, but among big games that list is extremely small.

We know they had over two dozen games under development at PS Studios plus minimum 3 in Bungie. Very likely they have over 30 first party games under development, not counting ports or mobile. Plus a gazillion 3rd party exclusives and deals. Games that cost a ton of money and require many years of development. Yes, it would be great to have more, but again they have to be conservative with profitability at least for a year or two.

Some of those 2+ dozen 1P games were GAAS that are at least some, are now cancelled. They don't really have as many 3P exclusivity deals as you make it out to sound: among big 3P AAA releases, you mainly have Final Fantasy, Rise of the Ronin and a couple of other games here and there. Most of the 3P exclusives are either non-franchise game and/or games from smaller 3P studios; Stellar Blade for example would fall into that type of description.

Most of the other 3P exclusives are from unproven studios (in the console space) like the majority of China Hero, India Hero & Africa Hero projects. This is no judgement on their quality; just the fact they aren't the big 3P IP like Persona, Street Fighter, Dead Space etc. At most Sony only have marketing deals for those types of games, and it's a far cry from the (bogus) rumors in 2020 from Imran Kahn saying Sony were locking up 3P exclusives with all the big 3P devs/pubs. Because it's been four years now and among the big 3P who are well-known, the number of exclusives Sony've gotten from them or especially in well-known AAA IP is very little.

Look, I know Sony want to focus on profitability. But, if I see means they attempt at growing profitability that don't gel with what I'd of personally liked to see, I'm going to voice some dissent about it. I can accept something being the way it is, without being in agreement with it.

Why? Sure, MAYBE they could make a semi-successful VR platform if they really went all-in. But why would they?

Sony needed PSVR to hedge their bets, in case VR turned out to be the Next Big Thing and threatened to eat PlayStation’s lunch. It exists so that Sony wouldn’t have to spend years playing catch up, just in case.

Obviously that didn’t happen. The demand isn’t there, and Sony isn’t going to keep dumping money into it to try and manufacture demand. They have way more important things to spend that money & effort on. They can barely release enough console games, why would they divert money away from that in order to make riskier games for a nonexistent player base? It makes no sense.

The demand is there; Meta Quest sold 20 million headsets in 2 years. Launch-aligned they've sold more Quest headsets than Microsoft have sold Xbox Series consoles. I know Xbox consoles are declining in demand, clearly, but they're still mainstream consoles. So Quest selling better than them launch-aligned means there is some demand.

However, the price needs to be right, there needs to be a wireless option, and the headset can't be an expensive optional peripheral for a console that itself costs almost as much. PSVR2 resolved a lot of the technological shortcomings with PSVR1 (the breakout box, latency, etc.) but completely ignored others (no way to replace broken controllers without buying a whole new headset, no wireless option, no modularity to scale design for competent lower-performance headset options).

Eliminating VR isn't going to magically result in more 1P games for the console. Eliminating redundancies in the AAA game dev pipeline, and having a better mix of AAA & AA games, would help with getting more games for the console. And that does not necessarily mean VR needs to be cut altogether. I mean, in terms of pushing PSVR2? Yeah, maybe it is best to sideline it now, clear out what inventory there is.

But they have great tech and potential here, so I feel it is worth putting more investment in to resolve PSVR2's shortcomings. What were the shortcomings? I just mentioned them. How do you solve those? It doesn't take much to determine the solutions when you know the problems.

Opening up to the PC market will encourage PCVR users to buy a PS5 and jump into the console VR ecosystem. that trojan horse strategy thing

What? Why would they buy a PS5 to get console VR when 1: most of PSVR2's games are ports from PC and mobile and, 2: the one big 1P game on PS5 that supports VR, GT7, is likely getting ported to PC this year or next year if the Nvidia list is accurate?

PC compatibility for PSVR2 will just ensure PC VR users stay on PC for VR, but they might use a PSVR2 headset. Meanwhile what are the console owners with PSVR2 getting out of that? I doubt PC VR devs will start porting en masse to PS5, they'd have no incentive to. And what few 3P traditional games with VR modes there are, would already be getting PS5 ports with PSVR2 support because the non-VR content would justify a PS5 version in the first place.

 

[DrFigs]

Not just that, but also: what does PSVR2 being on PC do for console owners who have the headset?

That should be the first question anyone's asking and if the answer is "nothing", then that PC compatibility is not worth doing.

I'm w/ you that it doesn't make sense for Playstation owners to want this (let alone for Playstation). But sony really doesn't care at all about what maximizes value for PS5 owners as evidenced by everything else they've been putting on PC.