Sony VR Headset/Project Morpheus/PlayStation VR

[Sigfried1977]

... and lose all the best artists. I hope you're not managing employees.

Besides the fact that people tend come and go anyways, why of all times would they leave when they got the chance to work with exciting new tech and possibly not on something that's another sequel to a franchise that's been kicking around since the PS3, or in the case of God of War, the PS2 days for a change. ND has made 5 Uncharted games so far. Do you honestly believe Sony had no say in the matter whatsoever? What about the last multiplayer focused God of War game on the PS3? I'm hard pressed to think of a more creatively bankrupt and cynical sequel than that. Not really something a creative person with all the freedom in the world would love to slave away on I'd imagine.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

... and lose all the best artists. I hope you're not managing employees.

Except we know Sony can and do boss their studios. Uncharted only exists because Head Office demanded a shooter from ND. I think the reason it works is Sony and generally hands-off and let studios do their thing, but they aren't against dictating policy which they really ought to be allowed. Is there any business in the world where its employees are in total control and will flatly refuse to do what Head Office wants if they don't like it??

 

[Sigfried1977]

Most people depend on their jobs. And in my experience, the more technically minded people in particular don't really care that much about what they are working on as long as it's something fancy and interesting. The artists just want to work on cool characters, environments, vehicles or what have you. It's usually the writers and designers who'll get fed up and leave. Judging by the fact that we're about to have the fifth God of War with almost as many different directors, Sony's big inhouse studios are no strangers to that phenomenon.

 

[Karamazov]

seeing how they treated the VR part of GTS, it's a bit worrying yes, but i still have hope.

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

Certainly, their biggest studios aren't creating content for PSVR, and I agree that it's concerning.

If they have utilised the popularity of the PS4 to test the waters with a potentially costly accessory - and they've held off on investing a large amount into its software, I don't think it matters too much, as long as they hit the ground running come the PS5.

A simple mandate of "games must at least have a 3D theatre-screen mode" would be enough to provide something of merit to every PSVR owner. And since every developer would have to implement a rendering mode with similar overhead to a full VR mode, it may be enough to encourage a more fully featured use of VR.

 

[Picao84]

I guess this is the feeling here because this is Beyond 3D. Go out of here and look at Reddit for example and see how much love PSVR is getting from.. you know.. actual gamers who want to have fun. You are being excessively harsh IMO.

I have full confidence on PSVR, especially after meeting a dev from London Studio working on Blood and Truth and getting some insider impressions. Why do you believe that Sony is not pushing their studios by the way? PSVR is barely one year old. Sony studios are still exploring "how to do VR" you know? It's not like VR is a known quantity, they are still pretty much learning how to do good quality games with it. Have faith

TLDR - Sony studios are not as idle in VR as you think.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I guess this is the feeling here because this is Beyond 3D. Go out of here and look at Reddit for example and see how much love PSVR is getting from.. you know.. actual gamers who want to have fun. You are being excessively harsh IMO.

That's great...if you don't want the platform to grow and to just remain a niche accessory that may or may not die if it doesn't pick up.

It doesn't bode well when sales for an accessory drop off after launch. Even when sales take off after launch (Kinect), that's no guarantee of success, but at least then it has a much better chance. Right now it's been over a year and PSVR has yet to come remotely close to selling as much per month as it did at launch. November's BF/CM deal and Skyrim's VR release got it to briefly spike up, but it then promptly almost disappeared again.

It also doesn't help that Sony doesn't believe in the platform enough to try to get some of its first studios to focus on it, instead relying on outside developers to push their hardware.

Take a look at Microsoft with Kinect. While many people weren't happy that they tasked Rare with trying to make something for the Kinect, they at least tried to push the hardware by devoting one of their prime (at the time) 1st party studios with trying to leverage it.

With PSVR, we're getting a bunch of demos and side projects from Sony studios.

And it certainly doesn't help that in terms of gameplay time per dollar spent, VR continues to be absolutely horrible value for money (this applies to PC VR as well) in general.

Non-VR indie developers do well because their titles generally cost in the 10-15 USD range and occasionally above that. VR indie titles generally cost significantly more for significantly less gameplay. The exception being shovelware in which you get something that doesn't cost much but also doesn't offer anything really.

It's a problem that VR, in general, needs to address if it wants to become something that wasn't just another failed attempt to bring VR to the masses.

In other words, you wouldn't have formerly die hard VR fans losing interest in VR if there was at least a consistent drip of competent full featured titles (indie or otherwise). But there's a lot of fatigue amongst people I know that were once super hyped for VR due to the lack of compelling titles that offered more than small bite sized chunks of gameplay at full game prices.

Some of them remain hopeful that the next big VR title will be the one, but some others have given up (I'm currently using an Oculus Rift from a friend who has basically given up on VR, his PSVR has been gathering dust for a few months now). And of course, there's the small contingent that continues to be vocal about how great VR is. And it might be great, but it can't sustain interest if there isn't any significant content available outside of niches (Escape Room VR experiences being a great example of a great niche that not everyone is into).

Myself, I'm still in the camp that thinks VR is neat, but see no signs of it being anything but a niche product at best with a fair chance to fail still.

I think what many people wanted see is Sony trying to push PSVR by devoting one or more of their first party studios to making compelling VR content, but it doesn't appear that is going to happen. Instead, we just have the occasional VR experience tacked onto a non-VR game or a VR experience that has about as much content as a DLC but with a price tag as if it was a full game.

To say it's been disappointing to many fans of VR is an understatement (I get to hear about it from friends of mine who were greatly invested in VR). That said, there's been some gems that keep some people at least interested in the potential for VR.

What has been surprising me is how Oculus Rift is selling better now than both PSVR and Vive in the US. PSVR and Vive being stronger in Japan.

On more interesting phenomena that I've witnessed. When VR is done so well that people can't play it in VR. I'm talking about Resident Evil 7. So much praise from a lot of people with how well it was done. Unfortunately, for many of them, after a few minutes it scares them so much that they never touch VR for the game ever again after that and instead finish the game without VR.

Regards,
SB

 

[Picao84]

We will have to agree to disagree then. But I would be open to wager about whether or not PSVR will be growing in strength and whether PSVR will be front and center for the next generation PlayStation.

What has been surprising me is how Oculus Rift is selling better now than both PSVR and Vive in the US. PSVR and Vive being stronger in Japan.

Do you have a source for this though?

A recent report shows a very different picture:

https://vrodo.de/bericht-oculus-rift-schlaegt-htc-vive-playstation-vr-weiter-vorne/

I know you are saying that Rift sells better in US, not the whole world, but given the size of the US market and the figures in that report, it is really hard to believe. The only way it would make sense is if the Rift would only be sold in the US and nowhere else.

My personal prediction is that by the end of 2018 there will be 4.5 to 5 Million PSVR headsets in homes.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I guess this is the feeling here because this is Beyond 3D. Go out of here and look at Reddit for example and see how much love PSVR is getting from.. you know.. actual gamers who want to have fun. You are being excessively harsh IMO.

Loving something doesn't mean it has a future. Look on the internet how much people love the Dreamcast. Or "I love my Vita but where are the games?" The important thing is how well Sony can grow and retain VR users. How many people who love VR don't use it much? How many PSVR headsets are sat in drawers next to the Wii that was played 5 times and the PSEye that only saw a few hours of Eye Of Judgment before being consigned to oblivion? I'm not going to claim to have any idea what proportion there are, but I will assert that even with the existence of thousands of positive comments about VR from owners on the internet, there could easily be half the market that's no longer active for all we know.

Why do you believe that Sony is not pushing their studios by the way?

Studios can only produce so many titles, at best one a year if concurrently produced. Sony's studios are occupied with non-VR games as have been described (if they are going to include VR, that's being kept secret). God of War, Last of Us 2, Concrete Genie, MLB...there are 3 confirmed Sony funded VR titles? Most importantly, Sony has prior on ditching their children. Every single time. "Here's a great hardware feature. Here's a few games for it. We'll release two more over the next 3 years and that's your lot." Having shown time and again they don't support their creations with software, it's down to Sony to show this time will be different, which they're not doing.

Thus the onus is on you (and Sony) to show why you believe they are pushing their studios to create VR despite little evidence and against their track record.

 

[Picao84]

Thus the onus is on you (and Sony) to show why you believe they are pushing their studios to create VR despite little evidence and against their track record.

Have you read my post fully? I met a guy (and will probably meet again since he frequents meetups of a game dev network I'm part of - if you think I'm lying I can post a picture from his Business Card and/or you can check my LinkedIn profile to see if I have a connection or not with him, or you can find my profile on Reddit, with same name as here, and see the thread I created there from speaking with him) from London Studios and discussed VR and what Sony is doing with it. His perspective was very clear: Sony is betting heavily on VR. They have teams exploring use cases for VR gaming. Sony apparently does not believe that you can or should develop for VR in the same manner you develop a non-VR game. They want for their games to give the best experience possible in terms of user interaction. Look, if they intended for PSVR to go the way of the Vita, why would they bother to have teams exploring VR user interaction at all?

EDIT - Question: How many PSVR games have you (as in everyone on this conversation, not just you Shifty) actually bought? I would say that if your answer is anywhere under 10, then I question your ability to have a full perspective on it. Because VR is not something you can evaluate by looking at screenshots/videos, you have to try it. That is the only way of evaluating if a game is shovelware or not to be honest...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Have you read my post fully? I met a guy (and will probably meet again since he frequents meetups of a game dev network I'm part of - if you think I'm lying I can post a picture from his Business Card and/or you can check my LinkedIn profile to see if I have a connection or not with him, or you can find my profile on Reddit, with same name as here, and see the thread I created there from speaking with him) from London Studios and discussed VR and what Sony is doing with it. His perspective was very clear: Sony is betting heavily on VR. They have teams exploring use cases for VR gaming. Sony apparently does not believe that you can or should develop for VR in the same manner you develop a non-VR game. They want for their games to give the best experience possible in terms of user interaction. Look, if they intended for PSVR to go the way of the Vita, why would they bother to have teams exploring VR user interaction at all?

They do R&D. Do you not remember the Next-gen EyeToy concept video, of stuff they had working for cameras? Loads of potential, sold the PSEye on the promise, yet none of it materialised in games. Also, Sony didn't plan Vita to die - they just didn't plan to support it with heavy investment. Of course a guy you met working on Sony's VR game is working on VR, but that doesn't mean Sony are ploughing hundreds of millions into AAA games the same as they do conventional console games.

EDIT - Question: How many PSVR games have you (as in everyone on this conversation, not just you Shifty) actually bought? I would say that if your answer is anywhere under 10, then I question your ability to have a full perspective on it. Because VR is not something you can evaluate by looking at screenshots/videos, you have to try it. That is the only way of evaluating if a game is shovelware or not to be honest...

That shows you're missing the point entirely! Sony can't expect consumers to go out and try a dozen VR games before making their minds up. It's their job to produce the content that attracts people to the platform. They also can't expect PSVR owners to buy a dozen titles to decide whether PSVR is going back in the drawer or not. It's Sony's job to give them compelling reasons to keep playing PSVR.

PSVR is effectively like a new console. It isn't being supported with the same investment as a console. Do you disagree with that?

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

That's promising, but we also saw Sony's teams exploring novel uses of the Vita, so that's no guarantee.

This isn't directly comparable to the Vita though, since that was its own, independent platform. With PSVR, growing the install base of PS4 owners is also expanding the potential owners of PSVR. As long as they aren't taking a loss on headsets sold, it's a platform that can just tick along, especially in the age of digital distribution.

--VR games having to be some bespoke VR experience--
I disagree. It's lovely when VR games offer you something that no other medium can, but it's also enjoyable to just play a traditional game in VR. Case in point: Skyrim VR.

It's also quite awe inspiring to play No Man's Sky in giant screen mode - if only it was in 3D, the lack of a full VR mode wouldn't be an issue.

--On the lack of high profile/AAA games--
This is why I say the PS5 needs some VR-specific mandate, so that every PS5 game is a PSVR game. It needn't be a fully featured VR mode, but being able to play, for example, Uncharted on a giant cinema screen in 3D would provide every PSVR owner with a satisfying, VR-exclusive experience.

This would ensure a constant stream of content, without developers having to rethink their entire game as a VR game.

 

[Picao84]

That shows you're missing the point entirely! Sony can't expect consumers to go out and try a dozen VR games before making their minds up. It's their job to produce the content that attracts people to the platform. They also can't expect PSVR owners to buy a dozen titles to decide whether PSVR is going back in the drawer or not. It's Sony's job to give them compelling reasons to keep playing PSVR.

I'm not missing any point. My point is just different than yours. What I'm saying is that VR is hard to market and that good graphics do not a good VR game do. Case in point: Doom VFR, highly anticipated, great graphics.. plays like shit!!!! I'm talking about graphics because that is usually the number one or close by factor for people to buy a game, it looks good! On the other hand, In order for the people to know what games they want in VR, they have to experience it and voice their opinion. It is a catch 22 situation, as expected from a whole new media. Since I've recently watched Jurassic Park again, I'm going to "paraphrase" Dr. Alan's words: Games and VR, two species separated by more than 20 years of failed VR experiments, are suddenly put together into the mix. How do we know what we can possibly expect?

In short, if you, as gamer, do not help Sony understanding what works and does not work in VR by actually buying games and creating your own opinion with an open mind (and sustain what you buy or not in the future), without branding some games as shovelware without actually trying them out, how do you want PSVR to succeed? You are blaming Sony for not doing enough, but at the same time you are not giving them any reason to do anything but drop PSVR.

You seem to think that VR can be done and promoted like another non-VR game. I say it cannot. Let me illustrate. Imagine that Sony announces a VR Uncharted game, everyone is happy. Now imagine that people start playing the said Uncharted game and it plays exactly like the non-VR game with environments where you can barely do anything, except what the game is scripted to do (because that is what Uncharted is and why I'm not a big fan!). Do you think that VR added anything at all to the already familiar experience? VR is at its best when you can go out of your way and do whatever you want (that is why games like Job Simulator are so popular!!!). If you pick up your run of the mill Sony Studios AAA games and just slap VR on top of it, I guarantee that it will not be fun at all as a VR game. VR in that situation will be just a gimmick!

PSVR is effectively like a new console. It isn't being supported with the same investment as a console. Do you disagree with that?

Yes, I disagree. It is a peripheral that lets you play games in whole new ways. Especially when you have games like RE7, Bound and Dirt VR where the same software package can be played in VR and non-VR.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Who said anything about creating run-of-the-mill AAA games and slapping VR on top? We're talking about spending $50-100M and 2-3 years per title for multiple titles and keeping them coming. Or at the very least keeping a big slew of simpler, cheaper games if that's what VR is all about. It's about getting behind their product and pushing it. Even if you consider PSVR a peripheral and not a new console, look at all Sony's other peripherals and how they died when Sony didn't keep the software coming for them.

PSVR is like PSEye and Move and Sixaxis - peripherals that let you play games in whole new ways. It is being supported with the same lack-lustre investment as Sony's other peripherals that all fizzled out. Do you disagree with that?

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

 Imagine that Sony announces a VR Uncharted game, everyone is happy. Now imagine that people start playing the said Uncharted game and it plays exactly like the non-VR game with environments where you can barely do anything, except what the game is scripted to do (because that is what Uncharted is and why I'm not a big fan!). Do you think that VR added anything at all to the already familiar experience?

It would add depth to the image and a greater sense of scale. That, in a series which already portrays scale magnificently.

I agree that VR's at its best when you can just interact with the environment in ways that traditional gaming doesn't allow, but it's not the only worthwhile use.

 

[Picao84]

it

Who said anything about creating run-of-the-mill AAA games and slapping VR on top? We're talking about spending $50-100M and 2-3 years per title for multiple titles and keeping them coming. Or at the very least keeping a big slew of simpler, cheaper games if that's what VR is all about. It's about getting behind their product and pushing it. Even if you consider PSVR a peripheral and not a new console, look at all Sony's other peripherals and how they died when Sony didn't keep the software coming for them.

PSVR is like PSEye and Move and Sixaxis - peripherals that let you play games in whole new ways. It is being supported with the same lack-lustre investment as Sony's other peripherals that all fizzled out. Do you disagree with that?

Well, your first sentence does not agree with your state of mind then. You are saying for them to spend 2-3 years per title. PSVR is barely one year old and you are already crying foul

You talk like there is not plenty of VR content, first party or not, on the PSN Store. At the end of 2017 there were around 150 titles and Sony has announced 130 more for 2018 so far? What is your problem exactly? Vita did not die solely for lack of first party titles, it died because third parties were not interested at all to develop for it! That is clearly not the case with PSVR. You are pulling a mole out of a mountain just because you have not yet seen many first party titles, really? On a market that is barely one year old?

EDIT - Yes I disagree that PSVR support is on the level of the Eye Toy. For example, Sony paid Bethesda for the timed exclusive of Skyrim VR. There are many ways to promote a platform without being exclusively through first party titles. Hell, before PS3 first party titles were not the bread and butter of consoles. Sony had to go that way because PS3 got off to such a bad start!

EDIT 2 - Curiously, thinking about it I don't own a single non-VR first party game for PS4 lol! I got Uncharted and The Last of Us for PS3 because of all the hype and did not really like them. I did finish them in the end but they were far from my top priority games.... I never ever bought PlayStation consoles or accessories because of first party titles.

 

[Picao84]

It would add depth to the image and a greater sense of scale. That, in a series which already portrays scale magnificently.

I agree that VR's at its best when you can just interact with the environment in ways that traditional gaming doesn't allow, but it's not the only worthwhile use.

But its the latter direction that Sony is taking and I agree with them. If all VR does is add sense of scale and depth then it is no more than a gimmick, the same way 3D TVs were a gimmick.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Well, your first sentence does not agree with your state of mind then. You are saying for them to spend 2-3 years per title. PSVR is barely one year old and you are already crying foul

When a new console or peripheral releases, you don't wait three years for games to appear. The company coordinates software to launch with their hardware. That's where they need a plan, and a software drought can be a problem. If Sony didn't start making games until after the thing released, that proves they aren't properly supporting it.

You talk like there is not plenty of VR content, first party or not, on the PSN Store. Atthe end of 2017 there were around 150 titles and Sony has announced 130 more for 2018 so far? What is your problem exactly?

What are Sony doing to ensure the content is the content needed to keep the platform growing? You don't need 130 games (I expect plenty to get cancelled; we're forever getting lists of loads of games for new consoles etc.and never that many release!) - you need the games people are talking about and get excited over and will buy hardware for.

Vita did not die solely for lack of first party titles, it died because third parties were not interested at all to develop for it!

Loads of third parties developed for Vita, with something like 1500 titles over six years. An average of 250 games a year didn't stop hardware sales falling off a cliff and the platform dying.

That is clearly not the case with PSVR. You are pulling a mole out of a mountain just because you have not yet seen many first party titles, really? On a market that is barely one year old?

EDIT 2 - Curiously, thinking about it I don't own a single non-VR first party game for PS4 lol! I got Uncharted and The Last of Us for PS3 because of all the hype and did not really like them. I did finish them in the end but they were far from my top priority games.... I never ever bought PlayStation consoles or accessories because of first party titles.

I think that shows you're really too prejudiced in favour of the platform to notice the more objective concerns about its long-term future, like those Wii U enthusiasts who repeated how much potential the Wuublet had and how awesome the games on it were...

Whether a console or peripheral, gaming hardware needs the software to drive adoption to critical mass, and then, if it's a good piece of design, it'll sustain itself. Sales of products have a life-cycle that sees increasing sales per year until the midpoint, and then sales start to reduce until the product dies. Typical bell curve. We had great early sales of PSVR to 2 million, but seemingly it's gone quiet. Unless it can have a second growth spurt, pretty unprecedented, it's already over its peak and is on the downward slope. The only thing that could stop that realistically is Sony. Potentially some third party could rush in and spend a couple billion on games to become the saviour of VR, but that's not really going to happen. And with a sense of, "uh...is that it? Is it over?" Even if there's plenty on the horizon that people could enjoy, a lack of consumer confidence will bury any product. PSVR needs to be seen as vibrant and relevant and a must-have, and not just something its fans rave over but which the rest of the world doesn't care about. Dreamcast, again.

You should be genuinely concerned, because it's for the sake of the platform and those who love it that positive vibes and popularity are important. For all your love of the platform, don't let that deafen you to what feedback we are getting from some users - it's a great experience, and then it runs out and goes in the drawer. There are people asking where are the games they want, just as they did Vita. And because VR is such a high-cost, high-risk thing, it really needs super solid backing from somebody. That's where Sony should be stepping up, with multiple must-have VR experiences and generating momentum. It's too late for Sony to start investing now - if they really believed in VR then they should have had a plan with multiple big-ticket items in the works for the next five-years. Chances are if they are investing big now but hardware sales plummet, they'll pull the plug. That is, after all , Sony's modus operandi.

 

[Picao84]

When a new console or peripheral releases, you don't wait three years for games to appear. The company coordinates software to launch with their hardware. That's where they need a plan, and a software drought can be a problem. If Sony didn't start making games until after the thing released, that proves they aren't properly supporting it.

What are Sony doing to ensure the content is the content needed to keep the platform growing? You don't need 130 games (I expect plenty to get cancelled; we're forever getting lists of loads of games for new consoles etc.and never that many release!) - you need the games people are talking about and get excited over and will buy hardware for.
Loads of third parties developed for Vita, with something like 1500 titles over six years. An average of 250 games a year didn't stop hardware sales falling off a cliff and the platform dying.

I think that shows you're really too prejudiced in favour of the platform to notice the more objective concerns about its long-term future, like those Wii U enthusiasts who repeated how much potential the Wuublet had and how awesome the games on it were...

Whether a console or peripheral, gaming hardware needs the software to drive adoption to critical mass, and then, if it's a good piece of design, it'll sustain itself. Sales of products have a life-cycle that sees increasing sales per year until the midpoint, and then sales start to reduce until the product dies. Typical bell curve. We had great early sales of PSVR to 2 million, but seemingly it's gone quiet. Unless it can have a second growth spurt, pretty unprecedented, it's already over its peak and is on the downward slope. The only thing that could stop that realistically is Sony. Potentially some third party could rush in and spend a couple billion on games to become the saviour of VR, but that's not really going to happen. And with a sense of, "uh...is that it? Is it over?" Even if there's plenty on the horizon that people could enjoy, a lack of consumer confidence will bury any product. PSVR needs to be seen as vibrant and relevant and a must-have, and not just something its fans rave over but which the rest of the world doesn't care about. Dreamcast, again.

You should be genuinely concerned, because it's for the sake of the platform and those who love it that positive vibes and popularity are important. For all your love of the platform, don't let that deafen you to what feedback we are getting from some users - it's a great experience, and then it runs out and goes in the drawer. There are people asking where are the games they want, just as they did Vita. And because VR is such a high-cost, high-risk thing, it really needs super solid backing from somebody. That's where Sony should be stepping up, with multiple must-have VR experiences and generating momentum. It's too late for Sony to start investing now - if they really believed in VR then they should have had a plan with multiple big-ticket items in the works for the next five-years. Chances are if they are investing big now but hardware sales plummet, they'll pull the plug. That is, after all , Sony's modus operandi.

I understand your worry about the long term future. I'm simply not worried at all. We defer on our expectations. I never expected PSVR to sell immediately 10 million units in a year. I went fully conscious that it is a platform (not only PSVR but all VR) that will take 5 to 10 years to reach maturity. Sony itself is conscious about it, to the point that 2 Million units in pretty much the first year exceeded their expectations. No matter how many first party games Sony could push for it, it would not be enough to make it grow quickly. Why? Cost and Supply. Now, I don't agree with your apocalyptic vision at all. I don't see it going the way of the Vita at all. Vita was always going against the incumbent: Nintendo. PSVR on the other hand does not have competition at all on the console market so far. There is no reason at all for Sony to drop PSVR. It's such a different media that comparing it to Vita, Eye Toy, whatever is pointless, really. I don't agree you, you don't agree with me, fine, let's leave it at that.

 

[Sigfried1977]

But its the latter direction that Sony is taking and I agree with them. If all VR does is add sense of scale and depth then it is no more than a gimmick, the same way 3D TVs were a gimmick.

I don't think so. RE7 in VR is exactly the same game. So is Skyrim. And so are just about any and all racing games. All of them benefit from the headset tremendously, and unlike the games using the wobbly and often inadequate Move wands, they work without a hitch too. These games also don't need to be VR exclusive, which I think is key to getting the platfrom off the ground without taking too much of hit financially. That's why it's so disappointing when Sony of all publsihers releases its own marquee racing title with nothing but a pathetic little VR demo mode.