• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

I worry for Sony's commitment to PSVR2.

Wonko_C

Member
As a PSVR1 and Quest 2/PCVR user for 5 years, and after seeing the launch lineup, I feel pretty underwhelmed, but not surprised: Almost everything is already available on PSVR1/Quest/PC. The standouts are obviously Sony's first party stuff like Horizon, GT7's VR update and Village, which if not for Sony's funding it wouldn't even exist.

What worries me is that, aside the aforementioned GT7 and Village, it seems that the hybrid game talk was just that. To be fair, Sony never officially has talked about that, it just was something some of us heard from PSVR Without Parole where some devs talked to them about Sony's PSVR2 plans. But porting existing games, and making their future games playable in VR would bolster the library and give us AAA VR games without much relative effort. It sounded plausible.

I seriously believed the reason GTAV was ported to PS5 was because it would have a VR mode ready for PSVR2's launch, same thing with The Last of Us Part 1 remake,

There's tons of stuff ready for that like Returnal, Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart, Destiny 2... Not to mention upcoming games like Spider-Man 2. If that last one isn't a hybrid game I'll lose all faith.

We have seen this every time: Third parties are not going to bother if they don't see Sony putting in their A game, I wanna see Sega, Namco, Capcom, Platinum Games, Square-Enix really on board or else it's going to be indies all over again. Don't get me wrong I love indies, but I recognize most only play the big, popular stuff, and if that stuff isn't coming, the market is not going to expand.
 

Mowcno

Member
It's a $550 device that needs a $500 console to work. Obviously they're not going to throw all their resources at it and make VR modes for all the games you listed.

PSVR2 has a good selection of launch window titles.

You might want to see "Sega, Namco, Capcom, Platinum Games, Square-Enix really on board" but that time isn't yet for VR and it doesn't matter what Sony does it won't change that.

We're still a while off most developers putting real effort into releasing VR content. Focusing more on VR at the expense of traditional gaming would be foolish.
 

Nankatsu

Gold Member
PSVR2 launch is all fun and games on the first months but if Sony doesn't output a solid catalogue of games more down the road, their VR product will stagger exactly like PSVR.

Not everyone has 600$ to spend on the device... specially if the main device to use the PSVR2 costs almost the same.
 
Last edited:

X-Wing

Member
What...? Spider-Man 2 as a VR game? Do you wanna be throwing your guts out every 2 minutes? I think the concern is not justified, more than 30 games on launch is extremely good. Several first party studios have VR games as main projects which shows already a huge commitment from Sony on this.
But if you are unsure are you not forced to buy on launch and you can wait a year and evaluate after.
 

Perrott

Gold Member
I seriously believed the reason GTAV was ported to PS5 was because it would have a VR mode ready for PSVR2's launch, same thing with The Last of Us Part 1 remake,

There's tons of stuff ready for that like Returnal, Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart, Destiny 2... Not to mention upcoming games like Spider-Man 2. If that last one isn't a hybrid game I'll lose all faith.
Minus GTA V, none of the other games you've listed (Destiny 2 and even full-on third-person games such as TLOU, Returnal, R&C and fucking Spider-Man) would've been possible to be ported to PSVR2 due to their incredibly fast-pace or their game design reliance on a third-person camera. If you expected any of those games, especially Spider-Man, to make the jump to VR... I'm sorry, but you are at fault here, not Sony.

Be grateful if Dreams, Death Stranding, the next Astro-Bot or any of Sony's upcoming horror, racing and perhaps FPS (if they're even making some of those) games do end up featuring hybrid releases.
 

Skyfox

Member
Virtua cop, Vampire nights, House of the dead, Gunblade, Alyx, Time crisis...

Light gun games should be ported to VR. Sony should pay Valve for Alyx. Jim Ryan has no insight.

I've cancelled my psvr2 preorder until there's something an actual gamer might want to play. Complete waste of time.
 
Last edited:

Crayon

Member
What...? Spider-Man 2 as a VR game? Do you wanna be throwing your guts out every 2 minutes? I think the concern is not justified, more than 30 games on launch is extremely good. Several first party studios have VR games as main projects which shows already a huge commitment from Sony on this.
But if you are unsure are you not forced to buy on launch and you can wait a year and evaluate after.

I can take it. Bring on the vomit comets and let god sort us out.
 

ZoukGalaxy

Member
I have no worries personally, VR is still at baby step, we need more iteration to see tech improved and refined to the point where people doesn't look you as an nerd when you say you are committed to VR.

Spider-Man 2. If that last one isn't a hybrid game I'll lose all faith.
Don't count on it, and I say this as ultra PSVR fan, I would be surprised to see it. The PSVR2 needs dedicated games to show its true potential, games made with all capabilities in mind, hybrid games are most of the time not ideal except for First Person View like RE7.

Sony keep supporting VR and that's the most important thing for VR gaming, and we need constant big releases, I really hope they will achieve this. It's truely amazing what PSVR achieved if you look into, I have hopes to see the PSVR2 pushed the formula even further.
 
Last edited:

ABnormal

Member
People whine about lack of back compatibility. Developers do proper upgrades of PSVR titles, most of times for free. People whine about PSVR 2 having the same titles of PSVR 1.

People whine about PSVR 2 being into the closed console environment and being not open to the vast catalogue of (mostly mediocre) titles on PC. Developers do PSVR 2 versions of PC titles, often with significant improvements. People whine that many PSVR 2 titles are already avaliable on PC.

People whine that there's no GT7 VR mode, and that they would order it if announched. GT7 VR mode is announced, and now they will order it when Alyx will be announced (which they have never played, but people say it's the best VR game, so they repeat it like retards). After Alyx will be announched, I'm curious to see what will be the next whining.

VR is a niche market which is not able to be significantly profitable (or even at a loss), and yet there are several developers who are trying to be the pioneers building the market, instead of some who are simply able to buy the work done by others. To call "underwelming" a launch which has more titles that many console launches, big and small, is very disrespectful towards all those are betting much, and some everything, on the titles coming out. That's acting like a spoiled brat.
We have never known in advance which titles would come out during a generation of a console. It's no different here. But at least it's clear that there have been lots of study, refinements and investments on PSVR 2 hardware, to make possible to have a "future proof" VR on console that matches high end PC VR, and for a MUCH lower price. Do you ever realize how impressive this is compared to what usually is needed to have the same quality elsewhere? People don't realize that the reason foveated rendering only works on PSVR 2 at the moment is because it requires a pipeline of input and rendering with VERY strict time windows (to be able to use foveated rendering with a frame rate of 120 fps, AT LEAST 240 eye samples per second are needed, in order to send the position of the eye ALWAYS before the GPU starts to render the frame - the latency is very small), and PS5 was engineered to be able to do so with PSVR 2 from the start. Who else did something like that? Nobody. It seems like a serious commitment, to me. Let's hope Jimbo doesn't ruin everything (the project was not his own).

I'm also looking forward to know if the story of "hybrid games" will turn out to be true and to be applied to at least the majority of the games. To me, that would make the difference from a huge success to a moderate success. One day, VR will have its own big games developed around it, but for now, VR to shine the most needs hybrid games like RE8, GT7 or others, capable to offer unparalleled immersion and interaction in high quality games. So I'm also worried in waiting.
But please, enough with this "underwelming" story: from hardware to software, nobody else in the market showed as much commitment and real investment than Sony, on high end VR. What's the point to have a 5000 dollars headset, if there's no proper software to take advantage from it? Or to need thousands of dollars of GPU to be able to run a game with high detail on it? Making the number of geared gamers so small that basically no single developer would spoend time and money to develop something at that level?
What's the point of hoping that VR games will evolve with standalone VR units, if they push the market towards casual gaming and low end engines?

PSVR 2 is not a safe bet: it's a serious attempt for high end VR gaming to rise again, after the diffusion of standalone Quest 2 pushed the market towards low specs casual motion gaming (the VR Wii counterpart, in short).


So, is it possible to stop the useless whining and just wait and see? If money is a problem, just don't buy it and wait. To me, there are already several games in the first year that could last years for me, and I suspect that Behemoth will be my kind of game, after seeing the work of Skydance on The Saint and Sinners series. Even if the dream of big hybrid games will not come to reality, I'm more than sure that there will be plenty of wonder. So, why the fuck should we look to what could not be, instead to what we already know will be? Could we just enjoy the wonders we have, instead of whining on what we don't even know we will not have?
 
Last edited:
People whine about lack of back compatibility. Developers do proper upgrades of PSVR titles, most of times for free. People whine about PSVR 2 having the same titles of PSVR 1.

People whine about PSVR 2 being into the close console environment and being not open to the vast catalogue of (mostly mediocre) titles on PC. Developers do PSVR 2 versions of PC titles, often with significant improvements. People whine that many PSVR 2 titles are already avaliable on PC.

People whine that there's no GT7 VR mode, and that they would order it if announched. GT7 VR mode is announced, and now they will order it when Alyx will be announced (which they have never played, but people say it's the best VR game, so they repeat it like retards). After Alyx will be announched, I'm curious to see what will be the next whining.

VR is a niche market which is not able to be significantly profitable (or even at a loss), and yet there are several developers who are trying to be the pioneers building the market, instead of some who are simply able to buy the work done by others. To call "underwelming" a launch which has more titles that many console launches, big and small, is very disrespectful towards all those are betting much, and some everithing, on the titles coming out. That's acting like a spoiled brat.
We have never known in advance which titles would come out during a generation of a console. It's no different here. But at least it's clear that there have been lots of study, refinements and investments on PSVR 2 hardware, to make possible to have a "future proof" VR on console that matches high end PC VR, and for a MUCH lower price. Do you ever realize how impressive this is compared to what usually is needed to have the same quality elsewhere? People don't realize that the reason foveated rendering only works on PSVR 2 at the moment because it requires a pipeline of input and rendering with VERY strict time windows (to be able to use foveated rendering with a frame rate of 120 fps, AT LEAST 240 eye samples are needed, in order to send the position of the eye ALWAYS before the GPU starts to render the frame - the latency is very small), and PS5 was engineered to be able to do so with PSVR 2 from the start. Who else did something like that? Nobody. It seems like a serious commitment, to me. Let's hope Jimbo doesn't ruin everything (the project was not his own).

I'm also looking forward to know if the story of "hybrid games" will turn out to be true and to be applied to at least the majority of the games. To me, that would make the difference from a huge success to a moderate success. One day, VR will have its own big games developed around it, but for now, VR to shine the most needs hybrid games like RE8, GT7 or others, capable to offer unparalleled immersion and interaction in high quality games. So I'm also worried in waiting.
But please, enough with this "underwelming" story: from hardware to software, nobody else in the market showed as much commitment and real investment than Sony, on high end VR. What's the point to have a 5000 dollars headset, if there's no proper software to take advantage from it? Or to need thousands of dollars of GPU to be able to run a game with high detail on it? Making the number of geared gamers so small that basically no single developer would spoend time and money to develop something at that level?
What's the point of hoping that VR games will evolve with standalone VR units, if they push the market towards casual gaming and low end engines?

PSVR 2 is not a safe bet: it's a serious attempt for high end VR gaming to rise again, after the diffusion of standalone Quest 2 pushed the market towards low specs casual motion gaming (the VR Wii counterpart, for those gamers).


So, is it possible to stop the useless whining and just wait and see? If money is a problem, just don't buy it and wait. To me, there are already several games in the first year that could last years for me, and I suspect that Behemoth will be my kind of game, after seeing the work of Skydance on The Saint and Sinners series. Even if the dream of big hybrid games will not come to reality, I'm more than sure that there will be plenty of wonder. So, why the fuck should we look to what could not be, instead to what we already know will be? Could we just enjoy the wonders we have, instead of whining on what we don't even know we will not have?

Its just sour grapes from the people that know they don’t have the money for it.
 

Crayon

Member
People whine about lack of back compatibility. Developers do proper upgrades of PSVR titles, most of times for free. People whine about PSVR 2 having the same titles of PSVR 1.

People whine about PSVR 2 being into the closed console environment and being not open to the vast catalogue of (mostly mediocre) titles on PC. Developers do PSVR 2 versions of PC titles, often with significant improvements. People whine that many PSVR 2 titles are already avaliable on PC.

People whine that there's no GT7 VR mode, and that they would order it if announched. GT7 VR mode is announced, and now they will order it when Alyx will be announced (which they have never played, but people say it's the best VR game, so they repeat it like retards). After Alyx will be announched, I'm curious to see what will be the next whining.

VR is a niche market which is not able to be significantly profitable (or even at a loss), and yet there are several developers who are trying to be the pioneers building the market, instead of some who are simply able to buy the work done by others. To call "underwelming" a launch which has more titles that many console launches, big and small, is very disrespectful towards all those are betting much, and some everithing, on the titles coming out. That's acting like a spoiled brat.
We have never known in advance which titles would come out during a generation of a console. It's no different here. But at least it's clear that there have been lots of study, refinements and investments on PSVR 2 hardware, to make possible to have a "future proof" VR on console that matches high end PC VR, and for a MUCH lower price. Do you ever realize how impressive this is compared to what usually is needed to have the same quality elsewhere? People don't realize that the reason foveated rendering only works on PSVR 2 at the moment because it requires a pipeline of input and rendering with VERY strict time windows (to be able to use foveated rendering with a frame rate of 120 fps, AT LEAST 240 eye samples are needed, in order to send the position of the eye ALWAYS before the GPU starts to render the frame - the latency is very small), and PS5 was engineered to be able to do so with PSVR 2 from the start. Who else did something like that? Nobody. It seems like a serious commitment, to me. Let's hope Jimbo doesn't ruin everything (the project was not his own).

I'm also looking forward to know if the story of "hybrid games" will turn out to be true and to be applied to at least the majority of the games. To me, that would make the difference from a huge success to a moderate success. One day, VR will have its own big games developed around it, but for now, VR to shine the most needs hybrid games like RE8, GT7 or others, capable to offer unparalleled immersion and interaction in high quality games. So I'm also worried in waiting.
But please, enough with this "underwelming" story: from hardware to software, nobody else in the market showed as much commitment and real investment than Sony, on high end VR. What's the point to have a 5000 dollars headset, if there's no proper software to take advantage from it? Or to need thousands of dollars of GPU to be able to run a game with high detail on it? Making the number of geared gamers so small that basically no single developer would spoend time and money to develop something at that level?
What's the point of hoping that VR games will evolve with standalone VR units, if they push the market towards casual gaming and low end engines?

PSVR 2 is not a safe bet: it's a serious attempt for high end VR gaming to rise again, after the diffusion of standalone Quest 2 pushed the market towards low specs casual motion gaming (the VR Wii counterpart, for those gamers).


So, is it possible to stop the useless whining and just wait and see? If money is a problem, just don't buy it and wait. To me, there are already several games in the first year that could last years for me, and I suspect that Behemoth will be my kind of game, after seeing the work of Skydance on The Saint and Sinners series. Even if the dream of big hybrid games will not come to reality, I'm more than sure that there will be plenty of wonder. So, why the fuck should we look to what could not be, instead to what we already know will be? Could we just enjoy the wonders we have, instead of whining on what we don't even know we will not have?

This thing was destined to be a salt mine from the very start thanks to having no real competition and locked to one platform.
 

ABnormal

Member
This thing was destined to be a salt mine from the very start thanks to having no real competition and locked to one platform.
The stance of the OP is understandable. Fears are understandable. But not the whining, and less so the downplaying of all the work and efforts demonstrated by Sony and VR developers to make PSVR 2 launch very solid. People expetations are simply unrealistic, they seem to be incapable to understand reality. If they would, they would be impressed by what has been accomplished.
 

Markio128

Member
Sony seem committed enough to have developed a great looking VR headset, which in the console space is a massive risk, for which they should be commended. I have a feeling that a few of Sony’s 1st party studios will have VR games in the pipeline. We already have GT7 and Horizon on launch day, so I have no doubt that more games will be in the works from their own studios.

I reckon we’ll have some cool announcements at some point this year.
 

ZehDon

Member
hdinI-Zd9xSg9cZMFwt0X9Xvxb-OdoYaP2v65pwQkOxbFQ7CKotfqsePJNt0EVO_k9o=s0-d
 

Crayon

Member
The stance of the OP is understandable. Fears are understandable. But not the whining, and less so the downplaying of all the work and efforts demonstrated by Sony and VR developers to make PSVR 2 launch very solid. People expetations are simply unrealistic, they seem to be incapable to understand reality. If they would, they would be impressed by what has been accomplished.

Completely understandable but in a no shit sherlock kind of way. Nobody has delivered on a steady stream of great vr games. Never. And a stellar launch lineup is not a gurantee of a steady stream of releases down the line. But if someone is worried about this, they must be terrified about any other headset.
 

ZehDon

Member
Sometimes Vita is used as an example of something...
The Vita is used as an example of a device requiring specific support in order to survive long enough to justify its own existence. The PSVR did well enough, but the first party support waned as time drew on - however, it still ended up with a solid library. PSVR2's launch line up doesn't fill me with confidence. Sony opened the pocket book to get the PS5 some decent titles for its launch period. Given the number of high-quality VR titles available on other platforms, Sony could've easily money-hatted a few ports to get their new VR device off to a strong start. They've clearly elected not to do that. With no backwards compatibility, a high cost barrier, and no confirmed PC support, PSVR2 will now require dedicated and specific support in order to survive. Just like the Vita did. Hence the frowny face.
 
Last edited:

phaedrus

Member
People whine about lack of back compatibility. Developers do proper upgrades of PSVR titles, most of times for free. People whine about PSVR 2 having the same titles of PSVR 1.

People whine about PSVR 2 being into the closed console environment and being not open to the vast catalogue of (mostly mediocre) titles on PC. Developers do PSVR 2 versions of PC titles, often with significant improvements. People whine that many PSVR 2 titles are already avaliable on PC.

People whine that there's no GT7 VR mode, and that they would order it if announched. GT7 VR mode is announced, and now they will order it when Alyx will be announced (which they have never played, but people say it's the best VR game, so they repeat it like retards). After Alyx will be announched, I'm curious to see what will be the next whining.

VR is a niche market which is not able to be significantly profitable (or even at a loss), and yet there are several developers who are trying to be the pioneers building the market, instead of some who are simply able to buy the work done by others. To call "underwelming" a launch which has more titles that many console launches, big and small, is very disrespectful towards all those are betting much, and some everything, on the titles coming out. That's acting like a spoiled brat.
We have never known in advance which titles would come out during a generation of a console. It's no different here. But at least it's clear that there have been lots of study, refinements and investments on PSVR 2 hardware, to make possible to have a "future proof" VR on console that matches high end PC VR, and for a MUCH lower price. Do you ever realize how impressive this is compared to what usually is needed to have the same quality elsewhere? People don't realize that the reason foveated rendering only works on PSVR 2 at the moment because it requires a pipeline of input and rendering with VERY strict time windows (to be able to use foveated rendering with a frame rate of 120 fps, AT LEAST 240 eye samples are needed, in order to send the position of the eye ALWAYS before the GPU starts to render the frame - the latency is very small), and PS5 was engineered to be able to do so with PSVR 2 from the start. Who else did something like that? Nobody. It seems like a serious commitment, to me. Let's hope Jimbo doesn't ruin everything (the project was not his own).

I'm also looking forward to know if the story of "hybrid games" will turn out to be true and to be applied to at least the majority of the games. To me, that would make the difference from a huge success to a moderate success. One day, VR will have its own big games developed around it, but for now, VR to shine the most needs hybrid games like RE8, GT7 or others, capable to offer unparalleled immersion and interaction in high quality games. So I'm also worried in waiting.
But please, enough with this "underwelming" story: from hardware to software, nobody else in the market showed as much commitment and real investment than Sony, on high end VR. What's the point to have a 5000 dollars headset, if there's no proper software to take advantage from it? Or to need thousands of dollars of GPU to be able to run a game with high detail on it? Making the number of geared gamers so small that basically no single developer would spoend time and money to develop something at that level?
What's the point of hoping that VR games will evolve with standalone VR units, if they push the market towards casual gaming and low end engines?

PSVR 2 is not a safe bet: it's a serious attempt for high end VR gaming to rise again, after the diffusion of standalone Quest 2 pushed the market towards low specs casual motion gaming (the VR Wii counterpart, in short).


So, is it possible to stop the useless whining and just wait and see? If money is a problem, just don't buy it and wait. To me, there are already several games in the first year that could last years for me, and I suspect that Behemoth will be my kind of game, after seeing the work of Skydance on The Saint and Sinners series. Even if the dream of big hybrid games will not come to reality, I'm more than sure that there will be plenty of wonder. So, why the fuck should we look to what could not be, instead to what we already know will be? Could we just enjoy the wonders we have, instead of whining on what we don't even know we will not have?
The Rock Clapping GIF
 

Crayon

Member
The Vita is used as an example of a device requiring specific support in order to survive long enough to justify its own existence. The PSVR did well enough, but the first party support waned as time drew on - however, it still ended up with a solid library. PSVR2's launch line up doesn't fill me with confidence. Sony opened the pocket book to get the PS5 some decent titles for its launch period. Given the number of high-quality VR titles available on other platforms, Sony could've easily money-hatted a few ports to get their new VR device off to a strong start. They've clearly elected not to do that. With no backwards compatibility, a high cost barrier, and no confirmed PC support, PSVR2 will now require dedicated and specific support in order to survive. Just like the Vita did. Hence the frowny face.

What ports in particular do you think they should have moneyhatted? Everyone knows alyx but for all we know they already did. It would be the obvious one but I don't know what else.
 

ABnormal

Member
Means the early adopters have one option if they want it to succeed:

BUY. EVERYTHING.
No, just the hardware. On the software side, it would be wrong to support those developers who produce garbage just to try to exploit a relatively free market. When I see Saints and Sinners and its complex and refined phisics based combat, created for VR, and impossible to do on conventional flat gaming, I feel the duty to support them. While when I see the countless VR horror games, made by putting together all the imaginable mediocrity, with cheap jumpscares and trite contents, I just hope they will change job. Most of them have no vision, no goal of quality: just trying to exploit a market selling to gamers purchasing generic genres without much investigation.
Good selection of titles will be important as well for market growth. Few native titles will lead the way.
 

ZehDon

Member
What ports in particular do you think they should have moneyhatted? Everyone knows alyx but for all we know they already did. It would be the obvious one but I don't know what else.
People cherry pick elements of the Quest 2 when discussing the PSVR2, ignoring that it's a standalone device. If I connect it to my PC, it delivers damn-near the highest quality VR around. The best of both worlds. If my PSVR2 requires a PS5, ok no problem - but Sony need to justify that limitation. Apart from Horizon and RE: Village, Sony hasn't really seemed to have bothered - and some money-hats could've done that.
  • Half-life: Alyx
  • Boneworks
  • Bonelabs
  • Compound
  • Into the Radius
  • Subnautica
  • Phasmaphohia
  • The Forest
  • Green Hell
Drop some money and get some bloody games on day one to justify your high-end device. Bonelabs on PSVR2 would be fucking magical. Green Hell VR multiplayer would be incredible. Instead, we get a port of Pistol Whip... which is also on Quest 2 standalone and PSVR. And Beat Sabre... which is also on Quest 2 standalone and PSVR. PSVR2 should've been a home run given the tech at play, but right now, it's a "wait and see".
 
Last edited:
No, just the hardware. On the software side, it would be wrong to support those developers who produce garbage just to try to exploit a relatively free market. When I see Saints and Sinners and its complex and refined phisics based combat, created for VR, and impossible to do on conventional flat gaming, I feel the duty to support them. While when I see the countless VR horror games, made by putting together all the imaginable mediocrity, with cheap jumpscares and trite contents, I just hope they will change job. Most of them have no vision, no goal of quality: just trying to exploit a market selling to gamers purchasing generic genres without much investigation.
Good selection of titles will be important as well for market growth. Few native titles will lead the way.
everything-annie-edison.gif
 

Gamerguy84

Member
Well your an invested user or VR headsets and have already experienced a lot of these.

Their big hitters are enough for me for a while. GT, Horizon, etc..

Sure I'm a little skeptical as well but am taking the leap, I actually love the launch lineup.

Yes Sony is going to have to support this thing which is going to take a lot of money. VR is a great unique experience. A new way of digesting video games, one that's worthwhile for me.

First they gotta get it in peoples hands. It's a pretty tall order but I'm glad they're taking a shot at it.
 

aclar00

Member
Get used to it, because Sony always seems to go half in on a peripheral and are never really willing to make the safrifices necessary to make a certifiable hit.

They're like someone who's trying to lose weight but has 5 cheat days a week...not going to work, only setting themselves up to pull the plug entirely down the road. Then say "look, i tried" to make themselves look good, even though they half-assed it.
 

Tams

Gold Member
PSVR2 launch is all fun and games on the first months but if Sony doesn't output a solid catalogue of games more down the road, their VR product will stagger exactly like PSVR.

Not everyone has 600$ to spend on the device... specially if the main device to use the PSVR2 costs almost the same.

Look, if Xbox can stagger on year after year of game drought, then so can PSVR2.
 

Hexxus

Banned
Sony has NEVER supported their peripheral devices. They release them, do a few things here and there and just let them die. I wouldn't invest a dime into this headset unless it also worked on PC.

Support will be middling across the board. Most VR devs are indie and can't afford platform fees, they can't afford porting costs nor can most spare the staff to do so. There's no possibility of lewd, community or unofficial licensed content.

It's just not a conducive environment for VR to thrive. It will survive two years and be dying the last 6 months of that time.
 

ABnormal

Member
The Vita is used as an example of a device requiring specific support in order to survive long enough to justify its own existence. The PSVR did well enough, but the first party support waned as time drew on - however, it still ended up with a solid library. PSVR2's launch line up doesn't fill me with confidence. Sony opened the pocket book to get the PS5 some decent titles for its launch period. Given the number of high-quality VR titles available on other platforms, Sony could've easily money-hatted a few ports to get their new VR device off to a strong start. They've clearly elected not to do that. With no backwards compatibility, a high cost barrier, and no confirmed PC support, PSVR2 will now require dedicated and specific support in order to survive. Just like the Vita did. Hence the frowny face.
The first PSVR, even being so clunky, was the biggest VR success aside Quest 2 (for obvious reasons: standalone not requiring an external processing unit, no cables at all allowing unrestricted motion control, inside out tracking instead of limiting camera tracking, good controllers included, vast cheap pc library), and even so it's still supported even now. PSVR 2 now has no restrictions to development on tech and controls, and it's even future proofed thanks to foveated rendering, so long term third and first party support is a logical given.
Launch lineup doesn't fill you with confidence? Don't buy it. I don't know what could be a suitable launch lineup, but it's already beyond what will be sustainable, for such a small number of gamers. That's part of being incapable of understanding reality. Expectations are simply beyond what is sustainable, at the moment.
And aside Alyx, which are those number of high-quality games? I personally hope they will do a VR version of Sons of the Forest, and a couple of other titles.
The final "cons" that you list are just things that you spun negatively, they are not an absolute. Backwards compatibility? Developers are already doing ports, usually for free, to bring PSVR 1 games to PSVR2. Would you really buy PSVR 2, in theory because you want to play next gen VR, to play titles that appear two generations behind? Without proper upgrade and control patches, they would be just horrible.
High cost barrier? To reduce price, for a headset which already outspecs in many aspects high end headsets which cost two or three times more, they would have to cut, for example, the oled screens, or eye tracking, or something else. Anyway it would come out already old. But the goal of Sony is to bring Next gen VR, not low end one. For many people it's a steep price? That's obvious, and that's true for anything, depending by the purchaser assets. That's the goal and that's the bet. Surely I would not be interested in some low end VR, even if the lower price would allow more installed base. For what would be, that installed base, if then the games would result to be one gen behind PS5 like happened to PSVR1?
PC support? For what? Sony probably doesn't make any gain from the headset, and Sony gains only from the games sold on PS5.
And if the clunky PSVR 1 survived till now, with even enthusiasts like me dissing it for the nuisance and the crude graphic quality, PSVR 2 will surely last at least the entire Gen with plenty of games. And that's enough, for a technology which evolve very rapidly. That's obviously a luxury item, and it's perfectly understandable if some are unsure to make a "risky" investment.
But please don't try to spin to the negative everything. Like that time you insisted that if PSVR 2 had real foveated rendering, they would have told it "clearly" (they had, but, you had just to create some negative out of nothing).
It's like I said above: it's a bet, nothing is certain. But all that it's possible and sustainable (and probably more than that) is being done. Contrary to ALL the other producers. So, what we are talking about? Who is doing more?
 

Crayon

Member
People cherry pick elements of the Quest 2 when discussing the PSVR2, ignoring that it's a standalone device. If I connect it to my PC, it delivers damn-near the highest quality VR around. The best of both worlds. If my PSVR2 requires a PS5, ok no problem - but Sony need to justify that limitation. Apart from Horizon and RE: Village, Sony hasn't really seemed to have bothered - and some money-hats could've done that.
  • Half-life: Alyx
  • Boneworks
  • Bonelabs
  • Compound
  • Into the Radius
  • Subnautica
  • Phasmaphohia
  • The Forest
  • Green Hell
Drop some money and get some bloody games on day one to justify your high-end device. Bonelabs on PSVR2 would be fucking magical. Green Hell VR multiplayer would be incredible. Instead, we get a port of Pistol Whip... which is also on Quest 2 standalone and PSVR. And Beat Sabre... which is also on Quest 2 standalone and PSVR. PSVR2 should've been a home run given the tech at play, but right now, it's a "wait and see".

That is a good list. I don't know how I forgot about bonelab but the rest of those weren't on my mind at all and at least some should have been. Surely some will come but we don't know which. The big ont there is Bonelab, by far. That's the one that I would consider in the Alyx/GT7 tier as far as system-sellers. I would add VR Chat, too.
 

ABnormal

Member
People cherry pick elements of the Quest 2 when discussing the PSVR2, ignoring that it's a standalone device. If I connect it to my PC, it delivers damn-near the highest quality VR around. The best of both worlds. If my PSVR2 requires a PS5, ok no problem - but Sony need to justify that limitation. Apart from Horizon and RE: Village, Sony hasn't really seemed to have bothered - and some money-hats could've done that.
  • Half-life: Alyx
  • Boneworks
  • Bonelabs
  • Compound
  • Into the Radius
  • Subnautica
  • Phasmaphohia
  • The Forest
  • Green Hell
Drop some money and get some bloody games on day one to justify your high-end device. Bonelabs on PSVR2 would be fucking magical. Green Hell VR multiplayer would be incredible. Instead, we get a port of Pistol Whip... which is also on Quest 2 standalone and PSVR. And Beat Sabre... which is also on Quest 2 standalone and PSVR. PSVR2 should've been a home run given the tech at play, but right now, it's a "wait and see".
But then there will be the caaaaable! And anyway the screen quality would be anyway well below that of PSVR 2. And to render a game without foveated rendering at the same quality full screen, you need a very expensive GPU.
Justify that "limitation"? I have never heard about this thing when people speak abput Valve, or Vario, or Pimax. Why is it a limitation for Sony?
And those games are surely great, but hardly a system seller (aside Alyx). Also, they could easily arrive in the future. From a marketing standpoint, having an infinite number of titles launching together, even more on a niche product, means low sales.
And Green Hell is already coming for PSVR 2.
 

Gamerguy84

Member
I like to believe they have learned a few things from PSVR1. The hardware was the limiting factor on 1. Let's not forget that headset didn't do bad numbers at all.

Getting pretty hyped as ill own this thing in a few weeks.
 

ZehDon

Member
That is a good list. I don't know how I forgot about bonelab but the rest of those weren't on my mind at all and at least some should have been. Surely some will come but we don't know which. The big ont there is Bonelab, by far. That's the one that I would consider in the Alyx/GT7 tier as far as system-sellers. I would add VR Chat, too.
Sony could very well have all those titles and more lined up in the year ahead, so it's very easy for them to turn around and prove me wrong. I loved PSVR1, and it landed with some pretty great games. Until Dawn: Rush of Blood remains one of my favourite VR games ever. PSVR2? I'm just not seeing it. In my mind, they needed to show their commitment on launch day.
Side note: my personal favourite on that list is "Into The Radius". If you enjoy high immersion VR, I cannot recommend it enough. An absolute hidden gem just waiting to be discovered.
But then there will be the caaaaable! And anyway the screen quality would be anyway well below that of PSVR 2. And to render a game without foveated rendering at the same quality full screen, you need a very expensive GPU.
Justify that "limitation"? I have never heard about this thing when people speak abput Valve, or Vario, or Pimax. Why is it a limitation for Sony?
And those games are surely great, but hardly a system seller (aside Alyx). Also, they could easily arrive in the future. From a marketing standpoint, having an infinite number of titles launching together, even more on a niche product, means low sales.
And Green Hell is already coming for PSVR 2.
What a strange post. Owning a PS5 for PSVR2 is absolutely a limitation, because you don't need a PS5, or even a PC, for the Quest 2 and some of the games on my list. In fact, Quest 2 is actually cheaper than the PSVR2 despite it having a built-in computer. So, if Sony want to charge AUD$799.00 for the headset, and AUD$799.00 for the console that powers it, they better have some titles on day one that says "this right here is what you're AUD$1600 got you". As I said, apart from Horizon (speaking graphically) and RE: Village, they really didn't bother to. It's not up to gamers to justify Sony's expensive peripheral, it's up to Sony. And right now, they're just not doing that in my eyes. So, PSVR2 lands in the "wait and see" category. And sure, Green Hell is coming to PSVR2 - but not at launch, and there's no release date on it. So, we're still at "wait and see".
The concern I have is simple: it appears Sony it at "wait and see" to gauge demand before they commit to big titles. VR enthusiasts, like me, are at "wait and see" to gauge Sony's support before we commit to a purchase. And we've been here before with Sony - with the PS Vita.
 

K2D

Banned
It'll die out just like PSVR1 did. They'll bring out a few decent "experiences" and ports but it'll dwindle just like the first one did. Its a really hard sell at the price it is just now.
It will outlive the PS5, and if it takes off I don't see a reason why it wouldn't be compatible with PS7 even. Super sampling, native 120 fps, etc. PSVR2 (versions xyz) will have legs..!
 

ABnormal

Member
What a strange post. Owning a PS5 for PSVR2 is absolutely a limitation, because you don't need a PS5, or even a PC, for the Quest 2 and some of the games on my list. In fact, Quest 2 is actually cheaper than the PSVR2 despite it having a built-in computer. So, if Sony want to charge AUD$799.00 for the headset, and AUD$799.00 for the console that powers it, they better have some titles on day one that says "this right here is what you're AUD$1600 got you". As I said, apart from Horizon (speaking graphically) and RE: Village, they really didn't bother to. It's not up to gamers to justify Sony's expensive peripheral, it's up to Sony. And right now, they're just not doing that in my eyes. So, PSVR2 lands in the "wait and see" category. And sure, Green Hell is coming to PSVR2 - but not at launch, and there's no release date on it. So, we're still at "wait and see".
The concern I have is simple: it appears Sony it at "wait and see" to gauge demand before they commit to big titles. VR enthusiasts, like me, are at "wait and see" to gauge Sony's support before we commit to a purchase. And we've been here before with Sony - with the PS Vita.
Please read before writing. All the Valve, Vario, Pimax headsets out till now have always needed a (beefy) PC to work, and I have never heard people talk about that like a "limitation". Limitation for what? Quest 2 is aimed to small games, and THAT is a limitation. If you want to play Alyx, you have to use a PC. Is it not a limitation when it's a PC?
And regarding the costs, the same could be said for all the high end headsets out there, with the exception that PSVR 2 price is MUCH more affordable than their. What do you think you know about the cost of the tech inside it? The eye tracker alone is sold on Amazon for 250 dollars. Please, like that time with foveated rendering, you are again trying to start some negative from nothing, basing that on something that it's "not yet there". So, since we don't know if it will arrive, let's whine like it will not arrive for sure. What a waste of human life time.
VR enthusiast are, like you, waiting and see? Are you seriously trying to appear like you are part of some elite of "people who know better"? Seriously? If you bothered to watch all the hands on from five months ago till now, you would have seen that "VR enthusiasts" are for the most really excited for PSVR 2, and already preordered one. Don't try to make your argument stronger faking some imaginary "enthusiasts support". It makes it look weak. You lost respect with your comment about Green Hell. You could have have welcomed it as the very good news that it is (since, by you own words, Green Hell VR multiplayer would be incredible), but no, you HAD to try to spin it negatively, even at the cost of appear ridicule. It will officially come out, but eh! We don't know the release date! It could release ten years from now! Really, if you are one of those folks who NEED to be negative, go ahead and enjoy. i was willing to discuss while I thought you were interested to discuss.
It would be a good thing to wait and see as you wrote. But it seems that it's more "wait and whine uselessly".
 
Last edited:

ABnormal

Member
I like to believe they have learned a few things from PSVR1. The hardware was the limiting factor on 1. Let's not forget that headset didn't do bad numbers at all.

Getting pretty hyped as ill own this thing in a few weeks.
Luckily there's no need to believe anything: we know the specs and the features. All that was refinable has been refined. Now we will see how much software support there will be.
 

Gamerguy84

Member
They've already had psvr1 (which was limited by shifty hardware)

Surely they have to commit to this for a while. They've spent millions in RandD. Why go through with all the plans and spending money to "wait and see"

They can make their money back on software. If they want they can take a 300 dollar loss for every one sold. Remember they sold every ps3 at 270 loss and they were in bad shape financially. Well they are in good shape now they could take the loss easily.

But they have to get it in people's hands. Well see there level of commitment.

It should be even greater than psvr1 if only because the hardware is better
 
Last edited:
People cherry pick elements of the Quest 2 when discussing the PSVR2, ignoring that it's a standalone device. If I connect it to my PC, it delivers damn-near the highest quality VR around. The best of both worlds. If my PSVR2 requires a PS5, ok no problem - but Sony need to justify that limitation. Apart from Horizon and RE: Village, Sony hasn't really seemed to have bothered - and some money-hats could've done that.
  • Half-life: Alyx
  • Boneworks
  • Bonelabs
  • Compound
  • Into the Radius
  • Subnautica
  • Phasmaphohia
  • The Forest
  • Green Hell
Drop some money and get some bloody games on day one to justify your high-end device. Bonelabs on PSVR2 would be fucking magical. Green Hell VR multiplayer would be incredible. Instead, we get a port of Pistol Whip... which is also on Quest 2 standalone and PSVR. And Beat Sabre... which is also on Quest 2 standalone and PSVR. PSVR2 should've been a home run given the tech at play, but right now, it's a "wait and see".

And you're cherry picking the fact that you need a high end PC to experience "damn-near the highest quality VR around". So that's going to set you back another $1500 minimum in addition to the $400 for a Quest 2.

Nearly double the cost of PS5 +PSVR2.

Sony doesn't need to justify squat. Their PSVR2 headset is aimed specifically for PS5 owners mostly, with VR inquisitive people being an exception. But certainly those that are only interested in High End VR (and not PS5) it's STILL CHEAPER than PC to go with Sony
 
Top Bottom