Support NeoGAF

[Minsc]

Wii waggle doesn't compare to VR motion controls. I owned one and I was seriously disappointed that everything was too abstracted, you literally flailed your arms randomly and shit happened on screen, VR though is 1:1 controls, it's having your hands in game. Don't dismiss it without trying it for yourself, you might find it more fun than you think.
And nothing is more precise than aiming the gun yourself. I played FPS games on PC and consoles for decades, but once I played in VR I instantly became faster, deadlier and accurate, and I don't mean slow VR-only shooters like Pavlov and shit, I mean Quest ports like Quake 3 Arena or Doom. Rocket jumping has never been easier.

I definitely agree VR has way more to offer than Wii waggle ever did, but Wii still had a few cases where you could use the remote as a light gun like with RE4:Wii Edition, and that felt amazing. I was shooting knives out of the air by instinct alone, and aiming for the zombies by pointing the wiimote at the zombies really felt like something better to me. VR is a whole other level beyond that though.

And yes, shooting in VR is even more enjoyable and accurate than M+K. I'm not sure it's necessarily faster as M+KB is tied to a small wrist motion where VR is life-like you hold a gun and point and shoot so you need to move your entire arm, but that in turn makes it more precise.

 

[Aaron Olive]

I definitely agree VR has way more to offer than Wii waggle ever did, but Wii still had a few cases where you could use the remote as a light gun like with RE4:Wii Edition, and that felt amazing. I was shooting knives out of the air by instinct alone, and aiming for the zombies by pointing the wiimote at the zombies really felt like something better to me. VR is a whole other level beyond that though.

And yes, shooting in VR is even more enjoyable and accurate than M+K. I'm not sure it's necessarily faster as M+KB is tied to a small wrist motion where VR is life-like you hold a gun and point and shoot so you need to move your entire arm, but that in turn makes it more precise.

Exactly, outside the headset the controls are nonexistent. The end goal would be awesome if I can just use the wands plus the useless camera that they sold at launch for tracking to play COD aiming and shooting.

So many possibilities untapped.

 

[mckmas8808]

You know you don't know if the PSVR2 is a soft launch either, you're speculating.

100% speculation. But I think it's a reasonable assumption. I've never seen even one PSVR2 commercial on TV yet.

 

[Icymanipulator]

I would love one to play GT7 in VR, but it’s more then I paid for the PS5… so ya…

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

100% speculation. But I think it's a reasonable assumption. I've never seen even one PSVR2 commercial on TV yet.

The marketing has been a mystery, some countries have them in stores, some even have demos while some don't, but then in others like here, you have to buy direct.

It makes me wonder if they are being inconsistent with marketing and selling the headset, OR maybe they are prioritizing based on which regions brough PSVR1 the most, or at the highest rate.

 

[Aaron Olive]

The marketing has been a mystery, some countries have them in stores, some even have demos while some don't, but then in others like here, you have to buy direct.

It makes me wonder if they are being inconsistent with marketing and selling the headset, OR maybe they are prioritizing based on which regions brough PSVR1 the most, or at the highest rate.

At this point I feel like Sony is pushing VR like 3D TV’s, which we all know how that turned out.

Sony revs up the 3D TV sales pitch with millions of demos​

3D TV is officially dead as Sony and LG stop making sets​

 

[rofif]

There's nothing unreasonable about my expectations, the PS VR2 hardware shouldn't cost $550-6 with tax for 2 wands and a headset I would accept $350 but they are price gouging killing the adoption.

BTW your analogy is way off and sounds ridiculous.
RTX4090
4 controllers
3 games
$200

My ask were simply a headset and 2 wands anywhere from $250 to $350-4 with tax.
The other innovations will come with time which I'm willing to wait for.

720 usd in Poland. We pay tax up right. Ooof.
So yeah I returned it. Too meant drawbacks like sweet spot, comfort and so on. Quest is 300$ cheaper here and offers some worse but many better aspects too

 

[Aaron Olive]

720 usd in Poland. We pay tax up right. Ooof.
So yeah I returned it. Too meant drawbacks like sweet spot, comfort and so on. Quest is 300$ cheaper here and offers some worse but many better aspects too

Yeah the catalog isn’t there yet and the price too high. The best thing to do is wait till next year and see what the plans are for it.

Plus the missing color

 

[93xfan]

I am not interested in it, but if say GT7 is your favorite game, then yes there is a reason to get it.

The thing with PSVR2, and VR in general, is that it’s a whole new platform. Sony basically just launched another console and now needs to market and support it, like they did with PSP and PS2/3 simultaneously. But like all platforms, different people have different standards so some will be happy with it now, some want more, some will never be interested.

I could see someone with disposable income going for that experience in GT7.

And at $600, that maybe should be a pack in

 

[Vblad88]

Well, there was this Facebook fairy tale about everyone going to wear goggles sold to them with a loss.

Then reality called. Apart from price, in general buying VR set is convenient for a household like setting up own gym set. It won't be another smartphone in terms of popularity - ever. But they could revive beefed up arcades because of them...

 

[Ozriel]

You know what a soft launch is. Stop playing dumb. Minimizing the marketing, makes it easier to make a profit. Companies do it all the time.

They had a focus on PSVR 2 at their CES 2023 conference. Had a PSVR 2 focused State of Play. Review units sent to every press publication. Launched with a large slate of titles and launched with their biggest VR AAA titles.

There’s no ‘soft launch’.

 

[Ozriel]

The marketing has been a mystery, some countries have them in stores, some even have demos while some don't, but then in others like here, you have to buy direct.

It makes me wonder if they are being inconsistent with marketing and selling the headset, OR maybe they are prioritizing based on which regions brough PSVR1 the most, or at the highest rate.

100% speculation. But I think it's a reasonable assumption. I've never seen even one PSVR2 commercial on TV yet.

You don’t realize the VR State of Play is marketing? The blog posts, the press preview events?
Paying a Ozzy Osbourne to make ads for the headset?

In a post pandemic world, I’m not sure how many stores will have headsets set out for demos.

 

[Fess]

Since I got mine on the day after launch, I've struggled to find ambition to play anything flat, and even when I've played flat I've done it in my headset on a monster screen. I love it, and I haven't been this blown away and excited about a generational leap in over a decade. It's incredible. If you get a chance to try it, try it. Don't read someone's opinion on it and decide. Put one on and play.

VR honeymoon is over for me but I would still like to try PSVR2, see if the supposedly narrow sweet spot is a problem and if I can wear glasses etc.
But I don’t know a single person who has one and there are no demo stations.

The talk has made me return to Quest 2 though, playing Moss 2 and I’m about to jump into Assetto Corsa right now, interested in Bone Labs and Red Matter 2 as well.

 

[Henry Panic]

I'm seeing excuses in here.

There was more presence of VR at retail in late 2020 and Q1 2021 than any time since in general (not just quest) that show people are just not interested. Many people got burned or had their experiences 6 to 8 years ago, and 3 to 4 years ago some of what remained did the same with the quest headsets.

Station VR2 is not offering anything to those customers other than a marginally more powerful, but less convenient and more expensive iteration of a headset they can get for $399 or less right now.

We have a mountain climbing game that's 90% staring at a mountain and a racing game that may make good use of the headset but not enough to spend $549 or over that if the owner doesn't have a PS5.

If you brought into the quest 2 phase and didn't leave VR before that, there's no reason for you, even if you also have a PS5, to put away your quest 2 and get Sony's unit without the gap in performance for the price, and new inconveniences that you don't deal with on Metas wireless standalone.

Most of it's library is also on the quest 2 and the differences are no where near enough for users to upgrade to the VR 2.

You would arguably across the list check more boxes in relation to benefit and convenience buying a Quest Pro than a VR2, which is also not worth it. But with it being $500 off some may be tempted.

 

[Danknugz]

he

At this point I feel like Sony is pushing VR like 3D TV’s, which we all know how that turned out.

Sony revs up the 3D TV sales pitch with millions of demos​

3D TV is officially dead as Sony and LG stop making sets​

first link is eerily reminiscent and similar in tone/style as a lot of the fluff psvr2 articles in everyone's face a couple weeks back.

 

[Pasta la Vista]

At this point I feel like Sony is pushing VR like 3D TV’s, which we all know how that turned out.

Sony revs up the 3D TV sales pitch with millions of demos​

3D TV is officially dead as Sony and LG stop making sets​

I still own this TV, love it! Works great to this day. They ended up selling them on clearance for like $100, wish I bought a bunch of em. I actually miss 3D.

 

[RyRy93]

I am not interested in it, but if say GT7 is your favorite game, then yes there is a reason to get it.

The thing with PSVR2, and VR in general, is that it’s a whole new platform. Sony basically just launched another console and now needs to market and support it, like they did with PSP and PS2/3 simultaneously. But like all platforms, different people have different standards so some will be happy with it now, some want more, some will never be interested.

While GT7 seems like an amazing implementation of the tech you really need a wheel and pedals to make the most of it so all of a sudden $550 won’t cut it, I love GT7 but no way am I spending another $1000 and I expect most people are in the same boat.

 

[Henry Panic]

he

first link is eerily reminiscent and similar in tone/style as a lot of the fluff psvr2 articles in everyone's face a couple weeks back.

VR and 3D both died and came back twice in the last 40 years so they are seasonal fads but they aren't likely to ever hit a point of becoming a permanent mainstay.

But in defense of 3D TV, it would have lasted longer as a niche if the home experience wasn't tied to the failed blu-ray project.

Since blu-ray never took off and it was the only format for a long time stores sold with 3D compatibility, generally exclusively which didn't help, the slow down of people buying those players was linked to 3D TVs death.

Two failed formats for the price of one.

DVD still outselling UHD blu-ray and standard Blu-ray combined 17 years later:

 

[StreetsofBeige]

VR and 3D both died and came back twice in the last 40 years so they are seasonal fads but they aren't likely to ever hit a point of becoming a permanent mainstay.

But in defense of 3D TV, it would have lasted longer as a niche if the home experience wasn't tied to the failed blu-ray project.

Since blu-ray never took off and it was the only format for a long time stores sold with 3D compatibility, generally exclusively which didn't help, the slow down of people buying those players was linked to 3D TVs death.

Two failed formats for the price of one.

DVD still outselling UHD blu-ray and standard Blu-ray combined 17 years later:

Shit thats nuts. I thought for disc buyers DVD was basically dead. BR buying at minimum. Guess not. DVD has surprisingly held steady in your chart for 5 years!

 

[Ozriel]

I do think some of Sony’s decisions have been really strange. Easy to understand how they won’t want to take losses on VR hardware, but I can’t see any reason why one year old GT 7 is still $70. A hard pill to swallow, especially for those who’ve either bought the Horizon COTM bundle or paid for it as the most marketed AAA PSVR 2 exclusive.

They should have had some software bundled in. Something like VR worlds. Also discounts for the likes of GT7 at launch.

 

[Minsc]

I'm seeing excuses in here.

There was more presence of VR at retail in late 2020 and Q1 2021 than any time since in general (not just quest) that show people are just not interested. Many people got burned or had their experiences 6 to 8 years ago, and 3 to 4 years ago some of what remained did the same with the quest headsets.

Station VR2 is not offering anything to those customers other than a marginally more powerful, but less convenient and more expensive iteration of a headset they can get for $399 or less right now.

We have a mountain climbing game that's 90% staring at a mountain and a racing game that may make good use of the headset but not enough to spend $549 or over that if the owner doesn't have a PS5.

If you brought into the quest 2 phase and didn't leave VR before that, there's no reason for you, even if you also have a PS5, to put away your quest 2 and get Sony's unit without the gap in performance for the price, and new inconveniences that you don't deal with on Metas wireless standalone.

Most of it's library is also on the quest 2 and the differences are no where near enough for users to upgrade to the VR 2.

You would arguably across the list check more boxes in relation to benefit and convenience buying a Quest Pro than a VR2, which is also not worth it. But with it being $500 off some may be tempted.

I don't know if you can really say "many people got burned or had their first experience" when the VR market is so tiny. If anything a fraction of the potential audience had their first experience already.

For anyone new to VR like myself, the PSVR2's launch window has a good 15-20 games worth playing. With a handful being VR experiences unlike anything you'd ever have experienced in flat gaming. That's really not bad for a launch window. Now sure, if 4 years from now, nothing has changed that will suck, and I'll get bored of it, but I'll still have gotten my money's worth. I know what it costs, and what I expect to get out of it, and I have no doubt I will get what I expect. Maybe if I had gone in expecting to get 50 AAA games over the 5 years I'd be disappointed, or whatever, but I see clearly that isn't the reality of VR which I'm buying in to now.

 

[Pasta la Vista]

I will get this for GT7 alone at some point but i'm in no rush. Are they not selling the headset standalone this time?

 

[Henry Panic]

I do think some of Sony’s decisions have been really strange. Easy to understand how they won’t want to take losses on VR hardware, but I can’t see any reason why one year old GT 7 is still $70. A hard pill to swallow, especially for those who’ve either bought the Horizon COTM bundle or paid for it as the most marketed AAA PSVR 2 exclusive.

They should have had some software bundled in. Something like VR worlds. Also discounts for the likes of GT7 at launch.

I would argue bundling call of mountain was a mistake since it's not a very good experience and is basically a pretty version of that fad climbing VR game from before with a poor story and 5% fights.

 

[Minsc]

I would argue bundling call of mountain was a mistake since it's not a very good experience and is basically a pretty version of that fad climbing VR game from before with a poor story and 5% fights.

Did you play it fully?

I'm not all the way through it yet, but I've gotten the climbing tools, and the climbing is fairly fun for me, new to VR. Horizon has a lot of object interactivity though (Music, Painting, clay shooting, finding things hidden around), so in that regard it makes a decent pack in. The archery is pretty fun too, and there's the arena if you need more fighting. But RE8 is much more immersive for me at the moment, though that might be a tough game to pack in for people too haha, but I love it. I doubt Alyx will be more memorable to me than RE8, but we'll see. I do plan on getting a PC VR set eventually, if Alyx isn't ported, because well even if Alyx is the be-all and end-all of VR, there's still a ton more stuff not on PS2 worth trying. And not /everyone/ is captivated by Alyx anyway.

 

[Danknugz]

I would argue bundling call of mountain was a mistake since it's not a very good experience and is basically a pretty version of that fad climbing VR game from before with a poor story and 5% fights.

i haven't really seen that horizon VR game but the snippets here and there just looked like "The Climb" to me (oculus rift 1 launch game from 7 years ago) where you kind of hold your hands in front of you and pull in a downward motion to try and simulate "climbing" and it got old and stale after playing it 3 or 4 times.

 

[Fess]

While GT7 seems like an amazing implementation of the tech you really need a wheel and pedals to make the most of it so all of a sudden $550 won’t cut it, I love GT7 but no way am I spending another $1000 and I expect most people are in the same boat.

I didn’t realize how important this was until today. Tried Assetto Corsa in VR today and just used the controller at first. Instant immersion killer. It’s just head tracking. Then I plugged in an old Thrustmaster TX and oh wow now where’re talking! Turning the wheel and seeing the ingame wheel perfectly synced with driver arms and all is just perfect. I’m pleasantly surprised that I didn’t have any motion sickness, I wonder if the FFB helps there, by physically let you feel the bumps.

 

[Dr. Claus]

At this point I feel like Sony is pushing VR like 3D TV’s, which we all know how that turned out.

Sony revs up the 3D TV sales pitch with millions of demos​

3D TV is officially dead as Sony and LG stop making sets​

The TV was super cool. Need to find one second hand soon.

 

[Minsc]

i haven't really seen that horizon VR game but the snippets here and there just looked like "The Climb" to me (oculus rift 1 launch game from 7 years ago) where you kind of hold your hands in front of you and pull in a downward motion to try and simulate "climbing" and it got old and stale after playing it 3 or 4 times.

I assume Horizon has the additional draw of being in the Horizon world created with a much higher budget than The Climb had, the climbing sequences are really not the focus to the point 90% of your time is climbing, I mean there's all the machines you encounter, you do a good amount of fighting/archery, there's boss fights, there's a town hub with crafting and people who have little bits to say, there's exploring to some extent, there's the incredibly detailed jungles and environments. It is titled "Call of the Mountain" for a reason, yes it's got climbing, but it's not all you do, and most climbing sequences are only 15-30 seconds long, with the occasional bigger climbs. All-in-all it's a graphical showpiece that uses most of what the headset has to offer along with the power in the PS5 to put you into the world of Horizon.

Maybe if it was more RPG/open world action game it would have scored a lot better, but we got what we got I guess. Not perfect, but definitely pretty and fun enough, depending on if you're one of those only Alyx level AAA type games are good enough or not.

 

[Henry Panic]

the climbing is fairly fun for me, new to VR.

Which is why you don't see the issue with it.

i haven't really seen that horizon VR game but the snippets here and there just looked like "The Climb" to me (oculus rift 1 launch game from 7 years ago) where you kind of hold your hands in front of you and pull in a downward motion to try and simulate "climbing" and it got old and stale after playing it 3 or 4 times.

That's basically what this is, with some small breaks of poorly executed mini games, and a plot though not well written.

What your climbing looks better at least, but it's not really a system seller.

I assume Horizon has the additional draw of being in the Horizon world created with a much higher budget than The Climb had, the climbing sequences are really not the focus to the point 90% of your time is climbing, I mean there's all the machines you encounter, you do a good amount of fighting/archery, there's boss fights, there's a town hub with crafting and people who have little bits to say, there's exploring to some extent, there's the incredibly detailed jungles and environments. It is titled "Call of the Mountain" for a reason, yes it's got climbing, but it's not all you do, and most climbing sequences are only 15-30 seconds long, with the occasional bigger climbs. All-in-all it's a graphical showpiece that uses most of what the headset has to offer along with the power in the PS5 to put you into the world of Horizon.

Maybe if it was more RPG/open world action game it would have scored a lot better, but we got what we got I guess. Not perfect, but definitely pretty and fun enough, depending on if you're one of those only Alyx level AAA type games are good enough or not.

Almost everything you said is about 15% of the game outside of climbing.

The issue is your exaggerating when people point out the problem, and pretend people are saying that's all you do

 

[Minsc]

Almost everything you said is about 15% of the game outside of climbing.

The issue is your exaggerating when people point out the problem, and pretend people are saying that's all you do

I can only describe the Horizon CotM I played, and to me it is not climbing and climbing and climbing and climbing. I'd say it's under 50% climbing, and even less in the beginning areas.

But I don't play games and just run forward to the next area, so I actually look around and interact between climbs. If you just run by everything as fast as possible, then not enjoy it, I guess that's up to you.

The whole time you're climbing you're presented with nice views and different scenery and they do mix up the climbing/jumping. So I don't know. Maybe some people just don't enjoy the mechanics, and that's fine, but just because that is the case doesn't mean it's a bad VR game. Plenty of people had a great time with Horizon.

 

[Crayon]

I still think there should have been gt and re bundles as well, but horizon grew on me a bit. After playing more I started to notice there's actually some subtly to the climbing that made it more fun. You can go quite fast if you pull just right to get a little jump and skip 1 or 2 handholds at a time.

 

[midnightAI]

I can only describe the Horizon CotM I played, and to me it is not climbing and climbing and climbing and climbing. I'd say it's under 50% climbing, and even less in the beginning areas.

But I don't play games and just run forward to the next area, so I actually look around and interact between climbs. If you just run by everything as fast as possible, then not enjoy it, I guess that's up to you.

The whole time you're climbing you're presented with nice views and different scenery and they do mix up the climbing/jumping. So I don't know. Maybe some people just don't enjoy the mechanics, and that's fine, but just because that is the case doesn't mean it's a bad VR game. Plenty of people had a great time with Horizon.

Just have fun playing your game and don't let other people tell you that you are wrong to enjoy it.

 

[DeepEnigma]

*shuffles deck*

"3D TV"

Never fails to disappoint in FUD threads.

 

[ABnormal]

*shuffles deck*

"3D TV"

Never fails to disappoint in FUD threads.

It's quite disconcerting. Whoever compares 3D TVs and VR has to be pretty confused or straight dumb. Like those who used as an example the Virtual Boy (which is just a mini 3D TV and has NOTHING to do with VR - but dumb people are not able to go beyond the surface of words). One is just a passive visualization of the same passive content; the other is a mean of immerion and direct interaction in the virtual world, and that opens possibilities of interaction that would be impossible otherwise.
All in all it shows that many love to talk without having a clue of what they are talking about.

 

[DeepEnigma]

It's quite disconcerting. Whoever compares 3D TVs and VR has to be pretty confused or straight dumb. Like those who used as an example the Virtual Boy (which is just a mini 3D TV and has NOTHING to do with VR - but dumb people are not able to go beyond the surface of words). One is just a passive visualization of the same passive content; the other is a mean of immerion and direct interaction in the virtual world, and that opens possibilities of interaction that would be impossible otherwise.
All in all it shows that many love to talk without having a clue of what they are talking about.

It's intellectually dishonest in their hate campaign.

 

[Eotheod]

When it isn't $879 dollarydoos, which is $10 cheaper then the console you need to buy it, then let me know. People saying price isn't the problem, well yeah if you live in America but even then it's still a niche product with the supposed "not that bad" price tag.

There can be all the games in the world for VR, but price is going to be the biggest factor for uptake, and people saying otherwise are bubbling themselves for console warrior nonsense.

 

[Danknugz]

It's quite disconcerting. Whoever compares 3D TVs and VR has to be pretty confused or straight dumb. Like those who used as an example the Virtual Boy (which is just a mini 3D TV and has NOTHING to do with VR - but dumb people are not able to go beyond the surface of words). One is just a passive visualization of the same passive content; the other is a mean of immerion and direct interaction in the virtual world, and that opens possibilities of interaction that would be impossible otherwise.
All in all it shows that many love to talk without having a clue of what they are talking about.

not necessarily i don't think. i never brought up 3d tvs and i never paid attention to that debate, but i can see the parallels to VR with respect to how certain ideas can grow within the confines of a company to the point where greed overcomes innovation or even standard engineering practices.

 

[ABnormal]

not necessarily i don't think. i never brought up 3d tvs and i never paid attention to that debate, but i can see the parallels to VR with respect to how certain ideas can grow within the confines of a company to the point where greed overcomes innovation or even standard engineering practices.

That would become a generalization that could be applied to anything, making it pointless.

I don't understand the greed part in this discussion. My english is not good and I could lose some implied meanings.

Here we are seeing an actual application of a technology which is able to open new and wider gaming and interaction possibilities, and that allows a level of immersion which is simply impossible otherwise, and that is rapidly evolving in the tech side. The primary obstacle is motion sickness, more than any other consideration on specs, price or form factor, and it greatly limitates the freedom of development and at the same time adoption from mass. It's a vicious cycle, that will be broken only when some tech capable to completely suppress motion sickness will be produced. Until then, VR will continue to be relatively niche, but still there anyway. For those who can stomach it, it's just too great to leave it. And they are enough to justify the investment (even more since PSVR1 was already profitable).

 

[Danknugz]

That would become a generalization that could be applied to anything, making it pointless.

I don't understand the greed part in this discussion. My english is not good and I could lose some implied meanings.

Here we are seeing an actual application of a technology which is able to open new and wider gaming and interaction possibilities, and that allows a level of immersion which is simply impossible otherwise, and that is rapidly evolving in the tech side. The primary obstacle is motion sickness, more than any other consideration on specs, price or form factor, and it greatly limitates the freedom of development and at the same time adoption from mass. It's a vicious cycle, that will be broken only when some tech capable to completely suppress motion sickness will be produced. Until then, VR will continue to be relatively niche, but still there anyway. For those who can stomach it, it's just too great to leave it. And they are enough to justify the investment (even more since PSVR1 was already profitable).

again, like i said, i never got into that debate and i'm not about to now. just saying i can see the parallels to VR in that basically, greed and money can overcome the original product vision, "marketing creep" if you will, causing companies to spend development and resources in ways which might be contrary to reality or what is in the best interests of the product itself. 3dtv has parallels to VR in this regard in that a lot of resources were spent on marketing/hyping and producing those tvs, just as some believe a lot is wasted producing lower quality headsets with inferior lenses or that it's too early for VR in general and that companies should be refining the technology better instead of putting the cart before the horse so to speak.

 

[ABnormal]

again, like i said, i never got into that debate and i'm not about to now. just saying i can see the parallels to VR in that basically, greed and money can overcome the original product vision, "marketing creep" if you will, causing companies to spend development and resources in ways which might be contrary to reality or what is in the best interests of the product itself. 3dtv has parallels to VR in this regard in that a lot of resources were spent on marketing/hyping and producing those tvs, just as some believe a lot is wasted producing lower quality headsets with inferior lenses or that it's too early for VR in general and that companies should be refining the technology better instead of putting the cart before the horse so to speak.

Ah, I understood now. 3D TVs have been ruined also by those low cash grabs with non-3D movies "adapted" to 3D (with horrid results, obviously), and things like that. Trying to push and hype things like that harms the sector in the long run, creating distrust in adopters.
VR has been subjected to similar things (things like carboard VR), making many think that it's something like that. But luckily there have been many honest efforts to produce serious tech for headsets and for games, and it continues to be, because the niche is big enough to make producers and developer wanting to win it. But it will remain a niche until the primary obstacles will be solved.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

That would become a generalization that could be applied to anything, making it pointless.

I don't understand the greed part in this discussion. My english is not good and I could lose some implied meanings.

Here we are seeing an actual application of a technology which is able to open new and wider gaming and interaction possibilities, and that allows a level of immersion which is simply impossible otherwise, and that is rapidly evolving in the tech side. The primary obstacle is motion sickness, more than any other consideration on specs, price or form factor, and it greatly limitates the freedom of development and at the same time adoption from mass. It's a vicious cycle, that will be broken only when some tech capable to completely suppress motion sickness will be produced. Until then, VR will continue to be relatively niche, but still there anyway. For those who can stomach it, it's just too great to leave it. And they are enough to justify the investment (even more since PSVR1 was already profitable).

I dont think motion sickness is an issue at all. Unless it's proven lots of existing VR users stop using it or dont bother with a new VR set due to it.

Most people dont buy VR because it costs too much and the games are mostly first person indie quality games. A lot of gamers also dont want something on their face Wii waggling slashing swords. There's million of gamers willing to pay $500+ to give a try, but there's also 100Ms of gamers who wont. They wouldnt even understand the concept of motion sickness because they never even bought it to begin with to know.

 

[ABnormal]

I dont think motion sickness is an issue at all. Unless it's proven lots of existing VR users stop using it or dont bother with a new VR set due to it.

Most people dont buy VR because it costs too much and the games are mostly first person indie quality games. A lot of gamers also dont want something on their face Wii waggling slashing swords. There's million of gamers willing to pay $500+ to give a try, but there's also 100Ms of gamers who wont. They wouldnt even understand the concept of motion sickness because they never even bought it to begin with to know.

You are wrong in that and that's only the popular idea around it. People just are not aware of the fundamentals of it. I have been into the development of VR since 2013, even exchanging communications with Sony for the specs of the first PSVR1, before even it was announched (I started to work on it from ideas born from the move demonstration in 2010) and still the big limiting factor is that. It don't just make impossible to enjoy it for a big percentage of gamers, but forces developers to severely limit the scope and freedom of movement to allow at least a good percentage of players to be able to play it (games have to sell, after all). That's not an opinion: this it behind the scenes problem solving on the actual field even now. Nearly all the gameplay structure of a VR game is developed around motion limitations, which is a pity, since the level of possible movement and interaction that would be possible to have control on in VR is elevated at cubic potency, compared to flat screen controls. But that's just as things are now. Valve declared that a technology to completely suppress motion sickness already exist, but it's not yet registered and usable on a product yet. So there's hope that it will in a near future, but we don't know when.
Adoption from unaware users is just a matter of word of mouth, friends, or local stores. But that can't be effective if the games don't allow it to be used freely and on a unhindered gameplay structure. Obviously after that come various limits that will require time, like smaller form factors, price, and so on. But as it is for consoles, if there are games that captivate AND that can be stomached, people will spend for it like they do for consoles or anything else. But as I said, it's a vicious cycle: great games are required to captivate gamers, but great games require high development costs and freedom of development, wich is hampered by motion sickness (the risk of it), and that causes in turn slow adoption, so low installed base.
So, while technology evolves and obstacles are solved step by step (approaching a configuration able to free development, form factor and price), some are investing and growing in know-how. Some others aren't.
In the current limits, if anything, those who can stomach it have already the chance to experience games on a level unreachable otherways.
It's enough that the niche is happy and that it's profitable. If there are no losses, it will always be an added value to that niche of gamers, and to PS image in general.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

You are wrong in that and that's only the popular idea around it. People just are not aware of the fundamentals of it. I have been into the development of VR since 2013, even exchanging communications with Sony for the specs of the first PSVR1, before even it was announched (I started to work on it from ideas born from the move demonstration in 2010) and still the big limiting factor is that. It don't just make impossible to enjoy it for a big percentage of gamers, but forces developers to severely limit the scope and freedom of movement to allow at least a good percentage of players to be able to play it (games have to sell, after all). That's not an opinion: this it behind the scenes problem solving on the actual field even now. Nearly all the gameplay structure of a VR game is developed around motion limitations, which is a pity, since the level of possible movement and interaction that would be possible to have control on in VR is elevated at cubic potency, compared to flat screen controls. But that's just as things are now. Valve declared that a technology to completely suppress motion sickness already exist, but it's not yet registered and usable on a product yet. So there's hope that it will in a near future, but we don't know when.
Adoption from unaware users is just a matter of word of mouth, friends, or local stores. But that can't be effective if the games don't allow it to be used freely and on a unhindered gameplay structure. Obviously after that come various limits that will require time, like smaller form factors, price, and so on. But as it is for consoles, if there are games that captivate AND that can be stomached, people will spend for it like they do for consoles or anything else. But as I said, it's a vicious cycle: great games are required to captivate gamers, but great games require high development costs and freedom of development, wich is hampered by motion sickness (the risk of it), and that causes in turn slow adoption, so low installed base.
So, while technology evolves and obstacles are solved step by step (approaching a configuration able to free development, form factor and price), some are investing and growing in know-how. Some others aren't.
In the current limits, if anything, those who can stomach it have already the chance to experience games on a level unreachable otherways.
It's enough that the niche is happy and that it's profitable. If there are no losses, it will always be an added value to that niche of gamers, and to PS image in general.

We can agree to disagree.

I've tried PC VR trying two popular games (Creed and Job Simulator). Absolute shit. If this is the kind of junk that are the showcase popular games, VR is in trouble. Motion sickness had nothing to do with it because I was fine. Even my brother's kids who tried some VR games thought it was crap, even though I thought they'd be wowed at it since they never tried it before. They'd rather go back to watching YT and playing Switch.

But I'd never get it even though $500 for a decent VR set is chump change. The lure of $20 games makes zero difference to me because if Beat Saber and Job Sim are the peak games available on VR, forget it.

VR has a very limited scope of appeal. The gamer has to fit this kind of criteria to make it tempting enough to buy it:

- $500 or more is no problem (on top of paying for a console or PC)
- They dont get motion sickness
- They enjoy buying mostly all indie budget quality games
- They enjoy first person camera games
- They want to put a brick on their head
- They want to hold wrist controllers and Wii waggle, duck, aim like a gun and any other body motion moves
- They got room to play and dont mind a cord possibly getting in the way (if they got a corded VR set)

Add it up, and that's a lot of obstacles vs. traditional console or PC gaming sitting on a couch or computer chair using a gamepad or m/kb.

 

[Spokker]

I can go on the most extreme roller coasters and show zero emotion or effects, but any type of racing and first person movement in VR makes me feel hot and uncomfortable. My ears are the first to heat up and it cascades from there. And it takes hours to recover. Hell, even watching some recent Digital Foundry videos on PSVR2 brought back a tinge of that feeling.

Stationary games don't bother me obviously, and games like Astrobot with slow movement can be played for a good half an hour before I get uncomfortable with the help of a fan. I'm just glad I got PSVR1 with a Black Friday deal. It was very impressive despite the limitations, but I cannot justify spending full price on something I cannot fully enjoy.

 

[ABnormal]

We can agree to disagree.

I've tried PC VR trying two popular games (Creed and Job Simulator). Absolute shit. If this is the kind of junk that are the showcase popular games, VR is in trouble. Motion sickness had nothing to do with it because I was fine. Even my brother's kids who tried some VR games thought it was crap, even though I thought they'd be wowed at it since they never tried it before. They'd rather go back to watching YT and playing Switch.

Well, It's not a matter of disagreeing or not: that's what is going on in the development pipeline in soft houses.

Regarding the quote, I absolutely agree and I for first hate that kind of games, but they are a different thing altogether. They are just the result of the switch towards standalone gaming due to Quest 2 spread. They just appeal to casual gamers who are nor high spending gamers neither Unfortunately, since Quest 2 took the majority of the market, developers switched to that, and now VR is that: casual motion gaming. But that's not really a problem. Hardcore gamers who are interested in high end consoles are always there and they will always be interested on games that push the boundaries, regardless of the platform. So they will be always there, it's just a matter of time. Obstacles are others.
The list is a mix of wrongs and commonplaces on VR, some real, some just commonplaces that are just temporary and that are not peculiar of VR, but just of VR as it is now. They are all limits, but they will be inevitably solved with the evolution of tech.
First person, need for space and body controls are nonsense, since there's no need at all to be forced in them in VR: it's just a choice of developers. Unless you think too that VR is sinonimus of body control. VR is primarily a tool for full immersion. From there, you can decide the controls as you prefer. Even with the pad, but it's simply less fun or precise than proper VR controllers and real aiming.
Also, comparison with what you can do with pad or m/k are nonsense too, since you can say the very same thing for all the things that you can't do with them and you can do in VR only (take Saints and sinners or Alyx, for example, but even they are still scratching the surface within the present constraints).

 

[Fess]

When it isn't $879 dollarydoos, which is $10 cheaper then the console you need to buy it, then let me know. People saying price isn't the problem, well yeah if you live in America but even then it's still a niche product with the supposed "not that bad" price tag.

There can be all the games in the world for VR, but price is going to be the biggest factor for uptake, and people saying otherwise are bubbling themselves for console warrior nonsense.

Woah, where is this?

The ”not that bad” price in Sweden is $700, not as bad as where you’re at but still too much imo. Then again the 4090 was $2400 so I’m used to get ripped off.

Biggest issue for me is the games library.
Plus, I already have a Quest 2 and I honestly don’t think VR is big enough for walled gardens.
The whole industry needs to rip down the walls and let the small group of people who actually invest in a headset play the games with whatever headset they have.

Why can’t VR be like TVs or AVRs where the competition besides image/sound quality is about having the widest support for new techs?
Seriously. Why?

Imagine seeing a label like that on a VR headset but with all the console logos and PC and mobile phones. I think that’s how VR can get big. Few are going to invest in multiple VR headsets on top of investing in multiple consoles. It’s bad enough as it is with steering wheels, I just realized that my Thrustmaster TX only work on PC and Xbox

 

[StreetsofBeige]

When it isn't $879 dollarydoos, which is $10 cheaper then the console you need to buy it, then let me know. People saying price isn't the problem, well yeah if you live in America but even then it's still a niche product with the supposed "not that bad" price tag.

There can be all the games in the world for VR, but price is going to be the biggest factor for uptake, and people saying otherwise are bubbling themselves for console warrior nonsense.

In Canada, PSVR2 is $100 more than PS5. Figure that one out. $750 vs $650.

 

[Fess]

In Canada, PSVR2 is $100 more than PS5. Figure that one out. $750 vs $650.

$700 (PSVR2) vs $650 (PS5 in Sweden.
PS5 digital is $610..
RTX 4090 is $2400…

But Xbox Series S is only $310!

 

[midnightAI]

We can agree to disagree.

I've tried PC VR trying two popular games (Creed and Job Simulator). Absolute shit. If this is the kind of junk that are the showcase popular games, VR is in trouble. Motion sickness had nothing to do with it because I was fine. Even my brother's kids who tried some VR games thought it was crap, even though I thought they'd be wowed at it since they never tried it before. They'd rather go back to watching YT and playing Switch.

But I'd never get it even though $500 for a decent VR set is chump change. The lure of $20 games makes zero difference to me because if Beat Saber and Job Sim are the peak games available on VR, forget it.

VR has a very limited scope of appeal. The gamer has to fit this kind of criteria to make it tempting enough to buy it:

- $500 or more is no problem (on top of paying for a console or PC)
- They dont get motion sickness
- They enjoy buying mostly all indie budget quality games
- They enjoy first person camera games
- They want to put a brick on their head
- They want to hold wrist controllers and Wii waggle, duck, aim like a gun and any other body motion moves
- They got room to play and dont mind a cord possibly getting in the way (if they got a corded VR set)

Add it up, and that's a lot of obstacles vs. traditional console or PC gaming sitting on a couch or computer chair using a gamepad or m/kb.

What I'd like to know is, for someone who has zero interest in VR (you said you'll never get one), why are you fighting so hard to tell people it is bad (and you are telling people who own it and enjoying it that it is bad), you are in every VR thread spooling off the same nonsense. It's not just you, there are others, but I'd just like to know why?

Are you concerned for your fellow GAFfers that they may struggle with bills after this purchase?
Are you concerned for your fellow GAFfers that they may get neck ache because of that huge 'brick' attached to their face?
Are you concerned for your fellow GAFfers look silly in the privacy of their own homes because they move their arms around while playing?
Is it because you feel it may threaten regular flat screen gaming at some point in the future?
Are you afraid that there may one day be an absolute must-have game and then it 'forces' you to buy into VR?
Is it because Microsoft and Nintendo hasn't yet entered into the VR space?

But also, tell me why it bothers 'you' so much if you aren't interested in it? (this isn't an attack, I'm genuinely curious)

 

[Ar¢tos]

What I'd like to know is, for someone who has zero interest in VR (you said you'll never get one), why are you fighting so hard to tell people it is bad (and you are telling people who own it and enjoying it that it is bad), you are in every VR thread spooling off the same nonsense. It's not just you, there are others, but I'd just like to know why?

Are you concerned for your fellow GAFfers that they may struggle with bills after this purchase?
Are you concerned for your fellow GAFfers that they may get neck ache because of that huge 'brick' attached to their face?
Are you concerned for your fellow GAFfers look silly in the privacy of their own homes because they move their arms around while playing?
Is it because you feel it may threaten regular flat screen gaming at some point in the future?
Are you afraid that there may one day be an absolute must-have game and then it 'forces' you to buy into VR?
Is it because Microsoft and Nintendo hasn't yet entered into the VR space?

But also, tell me why it bothers 'you' so much if you aren't interested in it? (this isn't an attack, I'm genuinely curious)

A VR Headset probably touched him inappropriately when he was a kid, or killed his parents.