Support NeoGAF

[MacReady13]

Drop the fucking price and release some quality games for it you fucking moronic assholes. You have this incredible tech that (much like the Vita) you hide behind ridiculous prices (Vita was with the stupid memory cards).

 

[Dacvak]

Hi Sony, I know you read GAF (especially six pages deep) so I’ll just give you step-by-step instructions for how to turn this around.

1. Price cut to $399
2. Backwards compatibility on most of the PSVR 1 games
3. Create a usb-C/HDMI adapter and open PSVR 2 to PC play (you can even release your own storefront if you want).
4. Pay Valve any amount of money they want and have them port Half-Life Alyx

Boom. That’s literally it. You don’t even have to make new games. If you follow those steps, it’ll be enough to sell a few extra million units by barely lifting a finger, you lazy shitturds.

 

[Monserrat]

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.

You are right mate, no one should believe numbers thrown away by companies like facebook and even then, one can be pretty sure that most meta vr users were after other things, not gaming, because it is self evident that producers and publishers in general aren't supporting VR gaming... because VR gaming is dead and psvr2 was a mistake, see, no vr game created more noise than Alyx for the Index, and even then it wasn't enough for valve not to abandon it in favor of the steam deck... which is by itself a niche middle age man boutique product with pathetic international distribution.

 

[Omnipunctual Godot]

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

As a Vita owner, this hits home.

 

[REDRZA MWS]

No shit. Anyone thinking this will ever even remotely reach masses is fooling themselves. Its niche. It’s an “add on”, it’s not practical for most gaming, it will never sell wnough on its own merit to pump dev funds into software that won’t sell because the hardware isn’t.

 

[yurinka]

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.

Valve must make a shit ton of money, and particularly profits, with Steam. I assume they don't care if Alyx and Index were profitable, maybe were just pet projects. The PC market is almost as big as the console market, not only PS.

And Steam has most of the PC market. Plus they don't spend money on over two dozen huge AAA games beind developed at the same time, plus selling many millions of consoles at a loss. Valve also doesn't invest in many other things like paid 3rd party exclusives, cloud gaming, game subs, movie adaptations, etc. They must be much more profitable than Sony.

So -unlike the other 99.99% VR game developers, who are normally indies-, Valve has no need to port their game, and don't care if someone else like Sony pays or even makes themselves the port.

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?

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.

PSVR2 has a better price than PSVR1 had when released, and better than all the other somewhat equivalent VR headsets.

Also has that list of 260 games, which may be incomplete, of games announced or released in less than a year. And includings some of the biggest Sony and VR IPs.

Having a very small userbase makes a difficult choice for a company develop a game for VR, even less for single device. If that PSVR2 would be split into two SKUs would mean more cost so even less sustainable.

Sony has a VR headset that runs PSVR1 like games: the PPSVR1. xD

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.



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.

I think we already repeated this many times. Sony released more games than these two, and regarding 3P there's the list with 260 games.

Yes, it would be better adding Final Fantasy, GTA6, Fortnite and Super Mario. But isn't realistic. For the first year Sony had Horizon, GT, Ghostbusters, two RE Village, RE4 Remake, Metro, Beat Saber, Among Us, Pavlov, No Man's Sky and many more.

Regarading second year and beyond? We'll see, Sony has a huge PS5 + PSVR2 catalog and amount of releases, so they focus their marketing of the games being released in the next few months. So will continue announcing stuff when closer to release as they also do with PS5.

 

[UnravelKatharsis]

It needs a permanent price cut

Both it and the PS5. Entry price from nil is too high. If you wanted in to VR last Gen on console and had nothing, you could get a PS4 (even a pro) for under 300 and a headset for 250-300 within a reasonable time of the PSVR1's launch (within a year or so is my guess based on imperfect memory).

$1000 is just too high an ask regardless of how good the platform is. Even a combined cost of around 800 is pushing it for newcomers. I paid full price (I'm a day one whore) enjoyed the fuck out of resident evil 8 and Gran Turismo and basically shelved it for now. It's not worth it.

 

[Wonko_C]

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...


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?

Indies are VR-only because most of them take full advantage of the medium and wouldn't translate well to flat screen and traditional controls. Imagine playing Beat Saber with buttons, that would be boring as fuck.

 

[Jimmy_liv]

It needs fucking games lol.

This! Even if it eas free there is nothing I fancy playing on it.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

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.

TBF, the new leadership might have already made changes to the PC stuff or are in the process of doing so, preferably with much larger windows between console & PC releases of non-GAAS titles, ensuring a good number of those games are always console-exclusive (at least for the duration of that console generation), and streamlining AAA budgets while emphasizing more 1P AA projects that can be much cheaper to produce.

Among other things. But those are the important ones IMO.

Hi Sony, I know you read GAF (especially six pages deep) so I’ll just give you step-by-step instructions for how to turn this around.

1. Price cut to $399
2. Backwards compatibility on most of the PSVR 1 games
3. Create a usb-C/HDMI adapter and open PSVR 2 to PC play (you can even release your own storefront if you want).
4. Pay Valve any amount of money they want and have them port Half-Life Alyx

Boom. That’s literally it. You don’t even have to make new games. If you follow those steps, it’ll be enough to sell a few extra million units by barely lifting a finger, you lazy shitturds.

(3) would basically mean that storefront would have to also support traditional PS games and at that point, the storefront would have to literally offer at least everything PS Store and PS+ already offer on the console so that revenue and, more importantly, profit streams aren't jeopardized.

(4) should be something of Valve's own discretion; if they don't want to port their games to other platforms, that's their own choice. I just wish others would either hold other platform holders like Sony to the same standard, or stop trying to force dumb reasons why Sony should run to PC when they have a perfectly-fine console as-is that could really use their support.

Valve must make a shit ton of money, and particularly profits, with Steam. I assume they don't care if Alyx and Index were profitable, maybe were just pet projects. The PC market is almost as big as the console market, not only PS.

And Steam has most of the PC market. Plus they don't spend money on over two dozen huge AAA games beind developed at the same time, plus selling many millions of consoles at a loss. Valve also doesn't invest in many other things like paid 3rd party exclusives, cloud gaming, game subs, movie adaptations, etc. They must be much more profitable than Sony.

So -unlike the other 99.99% VR game developers, who are normally indies-, Valve has no need to port their game, and don't care if someone else like Sony pays or even makes themselves the port.

I guess then the answer is easy for Sony: just be more like Valve. Why bother with the big-budget AAA releases if they have little profit, when they can just push console hardware, drum up PC & mobile storefronts, offer lucrative services & perks for 3P and collect money off of licensing cuts? Yes I'm being partly facetious.

On a more serious note, when you say PC gaming market is almost as big as console, you have to specify that in terms of splits. What percent is Steam, what percent is GOG, what percent is EGS, what percent is Windows Store, what share is Windows vs. Linux etc. I think as time goes on using "PC" as a catch-all is an obfuscation tactic or at least a poor way of actually describing who has what within that product market, when it comes to market share and the such.

It's also worth noting that for B2P AAA and AA games, consoles are still vastly ahead of PC when it comes to new releases. PC, particularly Steam, has been catching up with catalog/legacy releases which are ports of older titles, but PC is arguably overrepresented in the eSports sector because of games like VALORANT, DOTA 2, CounterStrike 2, League of Legends, World of Warcraft & others that are all exclusive to the platform and are massive GAAS entities.

PSVR2 has a better price than PSVR1 had when released, and better than all the other somewhat equivalent VR headsets.

That's "better" only in a directly comparative sense. It's clear a lot of the market is not perceiving the value to that price to be better, hence they aren't buying the headset at the rates it should be getting purchased.

Also has that list of 260 games, which may be incomplete, of games announced or released in less than a year. And includings some of the biggest Sony and VR IPs.

How many of those 260 games are most people in the market for a $550 VR peripheral actually going to care about? Because if most are just late 3P ports of mobile or PC VR games, that already reduces the number of total viable games a prospective buying for this type of headset are going to care about.

As-is, referencing the 260 games is basically list-bragging. It's not about how many games; it's about what games.

Having a very small userbase makes a difficult choice for a company develop a game for VR, even less for single device. If that PSVR2 would be split into two SKUs would mean more cost so even less sustainable.

Not necessarily. With smart production they'd have flexibility in the pipeline to adjust the rate of which SKU gets produced more as they get sales feedback from the market. By having different-powered SKUs they'd be able to have more options for customers and, as long as the content is there to drive interest, see success with those SKUs.

Plus again, for an additive experience device like a VR headset, different-powered SKUs/models is easier to justify conceptually because that's like having a choice between two different television models, like a 1440p TV or a 4K TV. Like with the TVs, the VR headsets aren't driving the processing of the game visuals or logic; the console is. So this type of multiple-SKU strategy is only in terms of the endpoint, not the starting/main point (the console).

That's why it can work here, unlike with the Series S & Series X (though I'd argue, that approach would've worked for MS if Series were not consoles, but instead gaming-centric mini-PC/NUC type devices that could also function as Windows machines. Something they should seriously be considering with their next generation of Xbox hardware).

Sony has a VR headset that runs PSVR1 like games: the PPSVR1. xD

The PSVR1 isn't even compatible with the PS5. At least not in a straightforward way. You need extra gear to make it work and that is cumbersome.

The bigger problem is Sony are not actively manufacturing the PSVR1; only the PSVR2 and apparently its manufacturing is being halted. So unless you shop around for used or 'like new' PSVR1 headsets, you wouldn't be able to find many that are brand new, warranties & all.

I think we already repeated this many times. Sony released more games than these two, and regarding 3P there's the list with 260 games.

How many of the Sony games were 1P? And how many of the 260 3P games supposedly coming to PSVR2 are new exclusives, vs. new multiplats, vs. ports of older mobile/PC VR games, vs. VR mode updates for current and old traditional multiplats?

And, what does that ratio even look like?

Yes, it would be better adding Final Fantasy, GTA6, Fortnite and Super Mario. But isn't realistic. For the first year Sony had Horizon, GT, Ghostbusters, two RE Village, RE4 Remake, Metro, Beat Saber, Among Us, Pavlov, No Man's Sky and many more.

Only Horizon & GT7 are 1P games. And maybe Ghostbusters, I'm not sure. But the others are all 3P titles.

The degree of 3P support for something like PSVR2 is going to be based directly off what Sony's own support for it is.

Regarading second year and beyond? We'll see, Sony has a huge PS5 + PSVR2 catalog and amount of releases, so they focus their marketing of the games being released in the next few months. So will continue announcing stuff when closer to release as they also do with PS5.

That strategy both makes sense and doesn't make sense simultaneously, IMO.

 

[Silver Wattle]

I knew it would fail once they announced the price, they needed to hit no more than 299 for this to take off, and instead it was double that.

 

[Kokoloko85]

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

Its not an issue when they are making profits from PS sales alone lol. Games like Spiderman, TLOU2, God of War, Ghost of Tsushima all sold more than 10-20 million units

 

[Wulfer]

Sony got it's Kinect! Better to stay in the console space where its safe.

 

[yurinka]

How many of the Sony games were 1P?

All. 1P = Sony published game

And how many of the 260 3P games supposedly coming to PSVR2 are new exclusives, vs. new multiplats, vs. ports of older mobile/PC VR games, vs. VR mode updates for current and old traditional multiplats?

And, what does that ratio even look like?

I have no idea. I assume -for the few dozens of games I know- most of them are multiplatform, some of them timed exclusives for either Meta or Sony, and a few exclusives. Same as in consoles.

Only Horizon & GT7 are 1P games. And maybe Ghostbusters, I'm not sure. But the others are all 3P titles.

Firewall Ultra and Ghostbusters are Sony published games, so first party.

The degree of 3P support for something like PSVR2 is going to be based directly off what Sony's own support for it is.

That strategy both makes sense and doesn't make sense simultaneously, IMO.

The huge 3rd party support for PSVR2 comes from 3 main points:

1. Sony's big effort on signing games for their device, including to pay big names from console and VR
2. PSVR1 being the most successful non-standalone VR device
3. VR market being so small, so 3rd party devs -unless moneyhatted or lacking budget to do so- try to cover all the main VR devices (in 2024 meaning Quest 2, Quest 3, PSVR2 and maybe in the future Apple's one)

 

[T-0800]

As a PSVR1 owner I think VR is amazing and I'd love to buy the PSVR2. It's just too expensive though.

 

[yurinka]

On a more serious note, when you say PC gaming market is almost as big as console, you have to specify that in terms of splits.

When I said that I meant the percent of worlwide game revenue generated by PC gaming (all stores) is similar to the one generated by console gaming (Sony+Xbox+Nintendo). Depending on the recent year or market analysis firm, or if counting or not certain things sometimes PC is bigger, sometimes console is bigger.

I don't remember the proportion regarding amount of users, but as I remember it was bigger in PC.

What percent is Steam, what percent is GOG, what percent is EGS, what percent is Windows Store, what share is Windows vs. Linux etc. I think as time goes on using "PC" as a catch-all is an obfuscation tactic or at least a poor way of actually describing who has what within that product market, when it comes to market share and the such.

I don't have recent numbers, but a few years ago Steam had between 80% and 90% of the PC market (I assume not counting Chinese stores). Regarding OS, even a bigger percentage for Windows, almost the 100%.

It's also worth noting that for B2P AAA and AA games, consoles are still vastly ahead of PC when it comes to new releases. PC, particularly Steam, has been catching up with catalog/legacy releases which are ports of older titles, but PC is arguably overrepresented in the eSports sector because of games like VALORANT, DOTA 2, CounterStrike 2, League of Legends, World of Warcraft & others that are all exclusive to the platform and are massive GAAS entities.

Steam has a way larger yearly amount of game releases than all 3 consoles combined. As a reference, last year 14K games were released on Steam, while recently a folk investigated the amount of PS5 games that had only 30fps and said that there are 3140 PS5 games. Not released last year, but in total.

When they announced the PS4 BC for PS5 they said that there were between 4000 and 5000 PS4 games.

And this is PS, which receives more releases than Switch and Xbox.

You have to consider that many Asian devs only publish on PC, and that many indie devs only publish on PC.

How many of those 260 games are most people in the market for a $550 VR peripheral actually going to care about? Because if most are just late 3P ports of mobile or PC VR games, that already reduces the number of total viable games a prospective buying for this type of headset are going to care about.

I don't know, how many of the 14K+ games released last year on Steam is going to make people to pay >$1000 for a gaming PC?

As-is, referencing the 260 games is basically list-bragging. It's not about how many games; it's about what games.

No, it's just a fact that debunks the myths that it haz no gamez and that Sony didn't make an effort to build a catalog.

only the PSVR2 and apparently its manufacturing is being halted.

For me any Sony bad news with Bloomberg as source, and Mochizuki in particular, is a fake new unless it gets officially confirmed. Because it's more likely to be the case than being confirmed.

 

[Sushi_Combo]

Its not an issue when they are making profits from PS sales alone lol. Games like Spiderman, TLOU2, God of War, Ghost of Tsushima all sold more than 10-20 million units

All Ps4 games though and overtime yes they've sold quite well. Ps5 development has been slow and expensive for a while now. If the profit/revenue is there, they wouldn't have even entertained the idea of launching some of their 1p games on PC.

 

[VargasPaPuM]

I think after PC full support, it will take over

 

[sigmaZ]

As I said in another thread, for this to be successful it needs to do two things:
1. Be useable separate from the console and have PC connectivity.
2. Be pushed as a monitor device to play current PS games who want a more immersive 2D experience or want to watch videos, etc. This could also extend to exclusive 3D2D games like Moss as well that can be played with the normal controller.
I was big on VR gaming as well, but in the end I found that part of the enjoyment of gaming for me is the sitting in a chair and using a controller element. I ended up using my Quest 2 mainly for socializing and watching movies in the end.

 

[DavidGzz]

I'm not wearing a headset to play games. Especially not with a cord attached. Even my Quest collects dust. Super niche.

 

[Kokoloko85]

All Ps4 games though and overtime yes they've sold quite well. Ps5 development has been slow and expensive for a while now. If the profit/revenue is there, they wouldn't have even entertained the idea of launching some of their 1p games on PC.

I think they just want more profit. Doesnt mean the other games havent made profit.
From the insomniac leaks they all made profits. PS5 games too

 

[spookyfish]

If they had released updates to make some (more) of their VR1 games—looking at you, Iron Man—compatible, it would have gotten more use from me.

Guess I’m in the “shame on me” camp.

 

[crackajack]

Indies are VR-only because most of them take full advantage of the medium and wouldn't translate well to flat screen and traditional controls. Imagine playing Beat Saber with buttons, that would be boring as fuck.

I certainly have not played all VR titles on VR1, but imho only Eagle Flight felt hard to convert to flat (without major diffidulty adaptation, so kinda still not impossible at all) while Ace Combat was almost an entirely different game with VR free view instead of the rather clumsy imho just unenjoyable regular mode, hence it is for me the poster child for what VR games should be, VR-too and sometimes being absolutely better as a consequence. But the rest had no actual business in being VR only and limiting their audience.
Beat Saber could and should be a Move (2) game though. Waggle and wii is in the past but I wonder why Sony did not make those new VR controllers also kinda regular controllers, for another Sports Champions3, Move Fitness 2, hell even Wonderbook or whatever (and make those certainly NOT Move2 exclusive either, with motion sensors in the Dualsense it is not really quintessential) and also usable for anything else too as another PS5 compatible controller. The market might not be again huge, but at least the controllers could be again an intermediate step for some, making the headset then an additional bit cheaper final step. A boxing game would be perfectly fine on flat then, like Fight Night with regular controller option, but aimed as a Move2 game, and this same boxing game might be a bit better in VR, but also worse due to actually sweating in the helmet being not really fun. So having both options is always the best solution.
The whole ecosystem should try to be open and not limit itself to some nonsensical VR has to be this and that only and regular can't be included while it almost always can.

 

[ArtHands]

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.

Because if PC players get a taste of those PSVR2 games they will want more, which means they'll buy a PS5. Or something. That's what some people here said for Sony's strategy regarding PC ports.

Personally I am not opposing that idea.

 

[Inanilmaz]

Does psvr2 have even a high quality Team Deathmatch shooter game?

 

[Wonko_C]

I certainly have not played all VR titles on VR1, but imho only Eagle Flight felt hard to convert to flat (without major diffidulty adaptation, so kinda still not impossible at all) while Ace Combat was almost an entirely different game with VR free view instead of the rather clumsy imho just unenjoyable regular mode, hence it is for me the poster child for what VR games should be, VR-too and sometimes being absolutely better as a consequence. But the rest had no actual business in being VR only and limiting their audience.
Beat Saber could and should be a Move (2) game though. Waggle and wii is in the past but I wonder why Sony did not make those new VR controllers also kinda regular controllers, for another Sports Champions3, Move Fitness 2, hell even Wonderbook or whatever (and make those certainly NOT Move2 exclusive either, with motion sensors in the Dualsense it is not really quintessential) and also usable for anything else too as another PS5 compatible controller. The market might not be again huge, but at least the controllers could be again an intermediate step for some, making the headset then an additional bit cheaper final step. A boxing game would be perfectly fine on flat then, like Fight Night with regular controller option, but aimed as a Move2 game, and this same boxing game might be a bit better in VR, but also worse due to actually sweating in the helmet being not really fun. So having both options is always the best solution.
The whole ecosystem should try to be open and not limit itself to some nonsensical VR has to be this and that only and regular can't be included while it almost always can.

I don't think motion controls work on flat screen, though. (At least not without being abstracted/simplified to Wii levels) Beat saber would be way harder without depth perception and without having awareness of the position of your hands in 3D space. In VR you kind of "know" where your hands are without even looking so your moves come out naturally.

I would like to talk about more games and their feasibility of making them non-VR but I'm at work right now.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I have no idea. I assume -for the few dozens of games I know- most of them are multiplatform, some of them timed exclusives for either Meta or Sony, and a few exclusives. Same as in consoles.

Yeah but this already shows a potential problem. If too many of the games are multiplat across different devices, then the differentiating factor comes down to device features.

And if something like the Quest 2 or 3 are selling way more than the PSVR2, then one or more device features (this can include price) on the PSVR2's front isn't faring well compared to alternative offerings.

Firewall Ultra and Ghostbusters are Sony published games, so first party.

Okay then, I'll take those are 1P. Glad for the clearing up.

Because if PC players get a taste of those PSVR2 games they will want more, which means they'll buy a PS5. Or something. That's what some people here said for Sony's strategy regarding PC ports.

Personally I am not opposing that idea.

I'm not against the idea of porting some games to entire PC users to consider getting a PS5, either. But the keyword there is some; Sony's basically ported their whole slate minus a few titles. And even more could likely be coming later this year, like GT7 or even GOW Ragnarok going by the Nvidia leak.

Simply don't think 2 years is enough of a gap to tempt would-be buyers on PC to get the game on console or get a console to play the game, when the number of exclusives to the console are very few and there are so many games coming out these days, they can probably wait out the time for a port and just play other games in the meantime. The port'd end up coming to PC before they even know it, 2 years would probably feel like 1 year or even less to them.

So IMO those are the areas Sony've screwed up with their PC strategy so far: way too many games ported in too little time. So what should've been a strategy to entice people on other platforms like PC to buy a PS5 and buy more 1P & exclusives on the console, has probably turned into making many of them simply stick to their PC since they feel they can count on a PC port in short time, or Day 1 for GAAS titles.

When I said that I meant the percent of worlwide game revenue generated by PC gaming (all stores) is similar to the one generated by console gaming (Sony+Xbox+Nintendo). Depending on the recent year or market analysis firm, or if counting or not certain things sometimes PC is bigger, sometimes console is bigger.

I don't remember the proportion regarding amount of users, but as I remember it was bigger in PC.

Well, there are like 1-2 billion PCs in the world active, I'd imagine, so that's a lot more potential usage and users. Despite that the amount of revenue in PC gaming is at best only marginally higher than the consoles.

And at least one of those console platforms, Xbox, has actively sabotaged its own revenue potential with various business strategies the past 7 years which haven't panned out for the best (for the console).

I don't have recent numbers, but a few years ago Steam had between 80% and 90% of the PC market (I assume not counting Chinese stores). Regarding OS, even a bigger percentage for Windows, almost the 100%.

Yes between Windows and Linux, Windows is like 98%. That's in terms of total application types though, and a lot of that is probably driven by its usage for PC gaming. Which, is where things like the Steam Deck could pose bigger problems for Microsoft & Windows in the future, provided they can scale production of hardware better in the future.

Steam has a way larger yearly amount of game releases than all 3 consoles combined. As a reference, last year 14K games were released on Steam, while recently a folk investigated the amount of PS5 games that had only 30fps and said that there are 3140 PS5 games. Not released last year, but in total.

Yeah but a lot of those 14,000 games are fan mods, free games, not even complete games in some cases, and I'm sure some are updates for existing games as well. We aren't talking anything on the level of 14,000 B2P retail AAA or AA software releases on Steam vs. PS5.

When they announced the PS4 BC for PS5 they said that there were between 4000 and 5000 PS4 games.

And this is PS, which receives more releases than Switch and Xbox.

You have to consider that many Asian devs only publish on PC, and that many indie devs only publish on PC.

None of these are big game dev companies or studios though, and again, the scale of many of those PC exclusives are more along fan games or simple mods. So the equivalency of the game types between PC and consoles is not 1:1 due to the lower barrier of entry for releasing & publishing a game on PC.

I don't know, how many of the 14K+ games released last year on Steam is going to make people to pay >$1000 for a gaming PC?

Probably not that many. But PCs provide other use-cases beyond just gaming, something the PSVR2 as a device can't do. It doesn't even allow for VR viewing of 2D/traditional films or television content, which even cheaper VR headsets like the Quest provide.

No, it's just a fact that debunks the myths that it haz no gamez and that Sony didn't make an effort to build a catalog.

Yeah but most of those games are either small-impact titles or late ports. Historically, those don't do anything to drive sales of a console or peripheral on their own. They only have a benefit if there's also enough high-value exclusive content for that system to pair alongside them.

For me any Sony bad news with Bloomberg as source, and Mochizuki in particular, is a fake new unless it gets officially confirmed. Because it's more likely to be the case than being confirmed.

Hey, I'm definitely not saying this is 100% accurate because the source is an ass with a hateboner for PlayStation. This is well-known.

That said, IF it turns out to be true, and if PSVR2 sales have slowed down considerably, there's probably enough circumstantial evidence around to suggest why that is the case.

 

[Hudo]

Boomberg is a far cooler name than Bloomberg.

I might use this as a name for a character in my next D&D session.

 

[DJ12]

£550 is too much just to make GT7 an even better experience.

 

[yurinka]

And if something like the Quest 2 or 3 are selling way more than the PSVR2, then one or more device features (this can include price) on the PSVR2's front isn't faring well compared to alternative offerings.

Sell way better because they aim for standalone lower quality visuals, which require cheaper costs. And on top of that, Meta has a ton of money and profits so they don't care about losing a lot of money per unit sold. So they can afford to sell the devices way cheaper. Being standalone, not being tied to other device makes it cheaper and more accesible to people.

Sony instead has to care about profits and can't lose a ton with each unit, even if they very likely are selling the devices at a loss. PSVR2's focus is being a PS5 accesory, giving to their console VR games as a differentiator from other consoles. And as usual Sony aims for high end visuals, so required tech requires more expensive components.

They are very different products. But in any case, Sony's goal isn't to make VR mainstream this generation at all, because in the current context and market is impossible and doesn't make sense. Tech needs to evolve, improve and get cheaper, controls and game design must become more intuitive and continue evolving and finding its way. Plus also a more viable monetization way.

VR is only on its 2nd generation. Remember how primitive were consoles and computers on their 2nd generation. VR still has a long road ahead.

I'm not against the idea of porting some games to entire PC users to consider getting a PS5, either. But the keyword there is some; Sony's basically ported their whole slate minus a few titles. And even more could likely be coming later this year, like GT7 or even GOW Ragnarok going by the Nvidia leak.

Yes, and don't forget Scalebound, Bayonetta and New Super Mario.

Simply don't think 2 years is enough of a gap to tempt would-be buyers on PC to get the game on console or get a console to play the game, when the number of exclusives to the console are very few and there are so many games coming out these days, they can probably wait out the time for a port and just play other games in the meantime. The port'd end up coming to PC before they even know it, 2 years would probably feel like 1 year or even less to them.

So IMO those are the areas Sony've screwed up with their PC strategy so far: way too many games ported in too little time. So what should've been a strategy to entice people on other platforms like PC to buy a PS5 and buy more 1P & exclusives on the console, has probably turned into making many of them simply stick to their PC since they feel they can count on a PC port in short time, or Day 1 for GAAS titles.

I'd prefer a minimum of 3 years, around half a generation. But well, Sony has been making different tests and continue doing them. I assume they'll find the right spot for them if already didn't find it.

Well, there are like 1-2 billion PCs in the world active, I'd imagine, so that's a lot more potential usage and users. Despite that the amount of revenue in PC gaming is at best only marginally higher than the consoles.

And at least one of those console platforms, Xbox, has actively sabotaged its own revenue potential with various business strategies the past 7 years which haven't panned out for the best (for the console).

Most of these PCs aren't for gaming. Can't remember the number but the gamer population was way smaller, I think it was a few hundred millions.

Yeah but a lot of those 14,000 games are fan mods, free games, not even complete games in some cases, and I'm sure some are updates for existing games as well. We aren't talking anything on the level of 14,000 B2P retail AAA or AA software releases on Steam vs. PS5.

They are game releases: not mods, not dlcs, not betas. Like in the until now >3000 PS5 games and >4000 PS4 games published until now (not just last year), we talk about game releases (including both F2P and paid games).

Not exactly sure if includes early access releases.

Probably not that many. But PCs provide other use-cases beyond just gaming, something the PSVR2 as a device can't do. It doesn't even allow for VR viewing of 2D/traditional films or television content, which even cheaper VR headsets like the Quest provide.

You can view your PS5 2D content in PSVR2, like Netflix or Youtube. There's an alternative app to do (I don't remember its name) in Quest that is coming to PSVR2.

Yeah but most of those games are either small-impact titles or late ports. Historically, those don't do anything to drive sales of a console or peripheral on their own. They only have a benefit if there's also enough high-value exclusive content for that system to pair alongside them.

It depends on your personal preferences for each niche. And the main reason PS dominated the other consoles almost all the generations has been having a huge library that covered well all niches, more than the sales of the exclusive games.

Hey, I'm definitely not saying this is 100% accurate because the source is an ass with a hateboner for PlayStation. This is well-known.

That said, IF it turns out to be true, and if PSVR2 sales have slowed down considerably, there's probably enough circumstantial evidence around to suggest why that is the case.

If the reports of Sony having paused production are true, can also mean they just paused it for a week or two and that the amount of unsold inventory isn't a big deal.

Or could be something not related to a big inventory of unsold units: could be that tney needed to temporally paused it to increase the production of PS Player or other accessory, or maybe even the PS5 Pro.

 

[THE DUCK]

Hi Sony, I know you read GAF (especially six pages deep) so I’ll just give you step-by-step instructions for how to turn this around.

1. Price cut to $399
2. Backwards compatibility on most of the PSVR 1 games
3. Create a usb-C/HDMI adapter and open PSVR 2 to PC play (you can even release your own storefront if you want).
4. Pay Valve any amount of money they want and have them port Half-Life Alyx

Boom. That’s literally it. You don’t even have to make new games. If you follow those steps, it’ll be enough to sell a few extra million units by barely lifting a finger, you lazy shitturds.

Despite all of the above, this would barely move another million units. Only a small percentage ps ps5 owners are even interested in vr, regardless of price, in its current form factor.
The above would not move the needle for regular gamers at all. (I.E people not like us here on gaf)

 

[R6Rider]

The PSVR1 isn't even compatible with the PS5. At least not in a straightforward way. You need extra gear to make it work and that is cumbersome.

Just a slight note here. The PSVR1 setup is cumbersome as is, making it work with PS5 is only an adapter to one of the cables (from the camera).

 

[SportsFan581]

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.

I don't think they should shelve it or even push for a stand-alone device. Instead I would recommend they just stop trying to provide a best in class experience (which they ultimately fail at anyway because the computer driving it is a console) and go for a good enough approach. It's almost like they overreacted to the response about the quality of the PSVR1 tech. I think sales would be a lot different if they had simply not tried to do as much with the headset from a hardware perspective. Keep it wired (at least for the cheapest model) and try to keep it as simple as possible. Going inside-out was a must, but they should have gone with as basic of a system as they could and still get the job done. Same with the controllers, make them a lot better than the move (shouldn't be hard) but don't worry about being cutting edge. I think with the year this thing launched they could have done something quite workable at $200 or $250. Hell, Acer was doing a $250 Windows VR set years before this one and the tracking on those, while not perfect, was many magnitudes better than PSVR1 as was the resolution.

If they did a more expensive wireless setup, that too should just be streaming from the console. No need for a secondary computer for a console accessory.

That and good software support like thicc_girls_are_teh_best is talking about would have helped them out considerably. They even talked about VR modes for flat games at launch, but we haven't seen much of that. They could have even invested in some flat first person games that would be easier to convert but still be playable without the headset.

They could leverage their media connections as well. Get Taylor Swift or whoever is the most popular under the Sony umbrella these days to shoot a concert special in 360/180 degree VR video, put the user in the front row. Same with films, try and breath some new life into 3D with VR (which works more reliably than the 3D TVs ever did).

Provide content from all angles.

 

[DrFigs]

I don't know if this is now outdated, but I recall before Quest 3, that Meta was saying that they had an issue w/ retention. That people were buying the product, but that they couldn't get people to use it very often. This is basically my perception about VR in general. That it's fun for the first few times you use it, but that it's not something I would use constantly. Idk if Meta has now solved this problem, but this seems like a limitation for VR. Sony could be doing more to sell more units, but is this really something anyone should be invested in at a large scale at all?

 

[sncvsrtoip]

£550 is too much just to make GT7 an even better experience.

no its not

 

[ArtHands]

I'm not against the idea of porting some games to entire PC users to consider getting a PS5, either. But the keyword there is some; Sony's basically ported their whole slate minus a few titles. And even more could likely be coming later this year, like GT7 or even GOW Ragnarok going by the Nvidia leak.

Simply don't think 2 years is enough of a gap to tempt would-be buyers on PC to get the game on console or get a console to play the game, when the number of exclusives to the console are very few and there are so many games coming out these days, they can probably wait out the time for a port and just play other games in the meantime. The port'd end up coming to PC before they even know it, 2 years would probably feel like 1 year or even less to them.

So IMO those are the areas Sony've screwed up with their PC strategy so far: way too many games ported in too little time. So what should've been a strategy to entice people on other platforms like PC to buy a PS5 and buy more 1P & exclusives on the console, has probably turned into making many of them simply stick to their PC since they feel they can count on a PC port in short time, or Day 1 for GAAS titles.

Well, not sure what is the problem that Sony basically ported their whole slate minus a few titles. Gives them more profit revenue to cope with the increasing development cost of games. Besides not all games will be ported anyway like Destruction All Stars and Astro’s Playroom.

I have no idea how this trojan horse strategy works, you’ll have to ask ‘em. I am merely repeating their words.

 

[Audiophile]

I don't know if this is now outdated, but I recall before Quest 3, that Meta was saying that they had an issue w/ retention. That people were buying the product, but that they couldn't get people to use it very often. This is basically my perception about VR in general. That it's fun for the first few times you use it, but that it's not something I would use constantly. Idk if Meta has now solved this problem, but this seems like a limitation for VR. Sony could be doing more to sell more units, but is this really something anyone should be invested in at a large scale at all?

I think it's about crafting or adapting experiences that are fundamentally better in VR to the point there feels like no other way to play it without it being compromised.

I recall playing the Wipeout Omega Collection on PS4 Pro and it was good, then I played it in VR and it was a revelation. It completely changed the game for me and I simply could not play it on a flat screen anymore. The degree to which spatial awareness and reaction times were improved was crazy. Being in the environment made it so much more natural and the immediacy of everything in the space led to me being able to judge everything properly.

It was the ultimate form of the game and there was no going back for me. And I think this can be true for many different game types when executed well.

This video of me here -- when I watch it on a flat display -- I can't comprehend how I'm threading the needle so finely, skimming through small gaps and cutting corners with a couple inches of clearance; and doing so consistently. But, when you're in it, it's second nature (not bigging myself up, only mean relative to flat screen playing ).



It really sucks that there was no patch for this game on PSVR2 or any PSVR1 BC (which I maintain should be possible for the most part, see here).

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Well, not sure what is the problem that Sony basically ported their whole slate minus a few titles. Gives them more profit revenue to cope with the increasing development cost of games. Besides not all games will be ported anyway like Destruction All Stars and Astro’s Playroom.

You're showing the problem as you type this. The revenue from the PC ports hasn't been great, and the actual profits are even lower. There is also the question of opportunity cost, in if the strategy is causing longer-term decrease in console demand. We don't quite have evidence of that yet, but we can maybe see some of that setting in now. For example, the price cut across Europe, which is probably counter to what Totoki would've wanted in order to drive hardware sales to hit the FY target (and even then, they might come up a bit short).

We might see some substantive evidence depending on how PS5 Pro sells; there's a theory that Sony've held back on 1P title reveals to coincide with the Pro. I don't really support that idea, but if it's true then you'd have to ask if the opportunity cost was worth it, delaying reveals of so many games just to stimulate initial PS5 Pro sales. Especially when a good amount of would-be Pro buyers can see the pattern setting in for PC ports, and would still weigh that in when buying a Pro.

And just IMO, a potential reality where the only PS5 1P exclusives by 2025 could be Astro's Playroom, Destruction All-Stars and Spiderman 2 is....well it's just laughable honestly. It's nothing against the games (well, nothing against Astro and Spiderman 2 anyway), and more about realizing "It's been 4 years and I've got a whopping 3 games to show off as content differentiators for my own console hardware!" .

Like imagine you were in the market for a new PS5 now and considering what exclusives are there, then realizing the total number can be counted on one hand. Yes most casual & mainstream customers wouldn't care about this at all, and most of the hardcore & core who would, already bought a PS5 earlier. But you'd still have some hardcore & casuals picking up a system in the latter years, maybe they're hardcore PC, Xbox or Nintendo gamers for example. So the exclusives would matter more to them, and not seeing many genuine 1P exclusives would make them question what other exclusives are there (if any) and if the system would be worth buying when most of the other games are on a platform they already own.

And for sure, hardcore & core who purchased a console at launch or in the first couple of years, some of them are going to look at the porting strategy and remember it for when new hardware releases. If they feel a certain way, they may choose to skip buying the next console if they feel waiting for a port would be worth it instead.

I have no idea how this trojan horse strategy works, you’ll have to ask ‘em. I am merely repeating their words.

We're all kinda wondering the same thing especially after the past couple of years.

 

[ArtHands]

You're showing the problem as you type this. The revenue from the PC ports hasn't been great, and the actual profits are even lower. There is also the question of opportunity cost, in if the strategy is causing longer-term decrease in console demand. We don't quite have evidence of that yet, but we can maybe see some of that setting in now. For example, the price cut across Europe, which is probably counter to what Totoki would've wanted in order to drive hardware sales to hit the FY target (and even then, they might come up a bit short).

We might see some substantive evidence depending on how PS5 Pro sells; there's a theory that Sony've held back on 1P title reveals to coincide with the Pro. I don't really support that idea, but if it's true then you'd have to ask if the opportunity cost was worth it, delaying reveals of so many games just to stimulate initial PS5 Pro sales. Especially when a good amount of would-be Pro buyers can see the pattern setting in for PC ports, and would still weigh that in when buying a Pro.

And just IMO, a potential reality where the only PS5 1P exclusives by 2025 could be Astro's Playroom, Destruction All-Stars and Spiderman 2 is....well it's just laughable honestly. It's nothing against the games (well, nothing against Astro and Spiderman 2 anyway), and more about realizing "It's been 4 years and I've got a whopping 3 games to show off as content differentiators for my own console hardware!" .

Like imagine you were in the market for a new PS5 now and considering what exclusives are there, then realizing the total number can be counted on one hand. Yes most casual & mainstream customers wouldn't care about this at all, and most of the hardcore & core who would, already bought a PS5 earlier. But you'd still have some hardcore & casuals picking up a system in the latter years, maybe they're hardcore PC, Xbox or Nintendo gamers for example. So the exclusives would matter more to them, and not seeing many genuine 1P exclusives would make them question what other exclusives are there (if any) and if the system would be worth buying when most of the other games are on a platform they already own.

And for sure, hardcore & core who purchased a console at launch or in the first couple of years, some of them are going to look at the porting strategy and remember it for when new hardware releases. If they feel a certain way, they may choose to skip buying the next console if they feel waiting for a port would be worth it instead.



We're all kinda wondering the same thing especially after the past couple of years.

Totoki is planning to be more aggressive on improving their margin performance by focusing more on other platforms on PC, so it is safe to say that after crunching the numbers, whatever they do for PC for the past years, is doing well enough for them to double down.

Don’t worry the PSVR2 will sell even better than before. Everything is fine

 

[lordrand11]

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

Sounds just like Nintendo with the Wii U!

On a separate note, the hell did they think was going to happen to a closed source *has to be attached to a console at all times* VR headset.

 

[Audiophile]

I think it needs a price drop to $399/£349 & for a premium "Edge/Pro" sku to come back in at $499/£459 with pancake lenses and wireless. And continue to aggressively price-drop and cut costs wherever possible.

Then a little more first-party support (the lack of Astrobot is nuts), full PC support with VR-only PS-only titles coming over to PC and more patched PSVR1 games or even BC.

I don't think it's the doom gloom everyone is saying. I fully expect them to remain in the space just keeping their foot in the door til it's more viable. The bean counters are just winning out at the mo. It's worth remembering we're only a year in and even Sony's conventional games are thin on the ground.

I don't buy that this thing costs anywhere near the retail price to make, I think said bean counters and shareholders were nervous and decided to recoup costs up front rather than think about long-term building of a platform.

The best approach on a PSVR3 would be a tiered system. Functionally the same but lower quality lenses and screen in one and then cutting-edge in the other. It'd have to be something like $199 & $399 around ~2030 with the higher end unit subsidising the bottom one. And there needs to be full PC support out of the gate, full BC, some very impressive titles to sell it and heavy marketing.

The industry as a whole also needs to work together a little to nurture and build out the VR platform/concept. It's in everyone's interest.

 

[Ozriel]

Typically Mochizuki (or optionally Jason) Bloomberg articles with bad news about Sony are just fake news hit pieces with lies or half lies that get debunked after a few days or weeks when Sony says something about the topic.

you mean like Jason’s reporting on how TLOU Factions was struggling, which was proven right?

I think it’s clear to see that the headset is certainly not selling as fast as Sony would have wanted.

 

[Ozriel]

These VR headsets can only exist on PC, they need the flexibility of modding and access to the wealth of content that only exists on PC.

Go on Steam and see how many VR Only games there are vs the VR library on PlayStation.

Not to mention porn…

 

[yurinka]

you mean like Jason’s reporting on how TLOU Factions was struggling, which was proven right?

I think it’s clear to see that the headset is certainly not selling as fast as Sony would have wanted.

Jason reported it was cancelled when it wasn't (got even publicly debunked by ND), got cancelled way later. He reported Sony was going to befocused in only on a few of their top selling big franchises when around half of their games under development were new IPs and they had more games under development than ever, plus just had opened a new division to support indies.

He claimed Sony were abandoning Japan to focus in the west when they have been growing their three Japanese teams, their 2nd party Japanese new now were also working in more games than ever before and now was also publishing non-Japanese Asian games, Sony was creating the China and India Hero project and signing deals with basically all the main Korean, Chinese and Japanese big companies that didn't already had deals with them.

He made up stuff about Bend like having a bad relationship with ND or Sony or being afraid to be absorved by ND, Sony not being happy with DG and the Days Gone directors also debunked all this.

Cory Barlog or Neil Druckmann also publicly called out him.

When bad news about Sony come from Mochizuki or Jason as the first -and typically only, even if later everybody goes to copy paste it- source normally is a lie. Or a half truth put out of context and exaggerated to make it way worse than really is.