I’m hoping with the PSVR2 launch that people will finally realize that the metaverse consists of way more than just meta and Horizon. The current complaints on how the metaverse sucks are like if people only visited Yahoo’s homepage and decided that it was the entire internet and that the entire internet was terrible. It’s a ridiculous way to evaluate an entire ecosystem, but in their defense at least they took 5 minutes to actually try it compared to nearly everyone else making terrible assumptions on the metaverse based on 0 experience.
If Sony fails to bridge VR/AR to the masses, then it’s all up to Apple to save the industry. Meta built an amazing, affordable product, but their brand is just so toxic that it’ll take a generational change before it can eventually recover its good will and people in developed countries trust it again. Google has a similar brand goodwill problem where they will also be unable sustain any new metaverse related product introductions. Their brand image has just been really damaged by their own internal promotion system
> I'm hoping with the PSVR2 launch that people will finally realize that the metaverse consists of way more than just meta and Horizon.
agreed. it's unfortunate that FB decided to just coin "Metaverse" since it's all encompassing. to your later point, it's as if Yahoo decided to launch a product called "Internet" and have it be an awful piece of software turning off everyone from the concept of the internet and pushing it back another decade simply due to terrible branding
Yes, this what drives me crazy. I don’t understand how so many smart and educated people fell for meta’s ad and marketing campaign. I guess the campaign was just so amazing for that many people to be mislead. Someone should rename their company into Internet and maybe enough people will believe that this new company is the sole owner and developer of the Internet
Multiplayer VR games are part of the metaverse… the metaverse is just XR with a network connection over the internet. That’s all it is which one reason I don’t understand all the hate for such a neutral medium from fellow techies
You miss the point that video games are not a top priority for meta, they are betting on work and casual users that will hang out all day long in their metaverse VR world with their goggles on, much like people use their phones nowadays, and then consume their ads.
If Zuck was smart, he could have a partnership with Sony and push out a launch title for this.
> You miss the point that video games are not a top priority for meta
If that were true, the work features would have shipped already, but they were busy with gaming which is why they bought several game studios. Games were a major focus for meta because it’s one of the traditional vectors for new technology adoption. Well, that and pornography.
Let’s hope that you’re right now assuming meta is changing course, and I’m wrong because I’ve been waiting to use the work features. So far, the 3rd party options and the resolution for reading text still isn’t good enough
The WMR headsets are all pretty good, but the ecosystem suffers from the typical MSFT, "Oh yeah, we should build one of those too!" dynamic. Pretty good hardware, but a variety of factors which just end up failing to attract people to the platform in the long term.
That’s why I didn’t mention them. They’re like Rolls Royce where they build expensive toys for people with discretionary cash. Most normal people outside of Silicon Valley do not have the resources to justify spending about $3,000 on a complete PCVR setup
Facebook may be 'toxic' but the Meta is cheap, amazing, supports Air Link for PC, even has cross-play (buy a Quest game, play it on PC at better graphics). Privacy options, they -removed- Facebook login, you can sideload apps. Tacit support for modding games like Beat Saber.
Apple would turn their headset into a walled garden with no ability to run custom apps and definitely no Air Link. Try to mod a game and get banned.
It’s ironic, but I like and support meta so I agree with your points.
Like meta, I also agree that Apple will be a double edged sword for XR. On the positive side, Apple will help the masses understand the potential of XR beyond gaming, and the M chips blow everything away. On the negative side, only we’ll be able to afford a $3000 XR Apple headset which will save meta’s XR related effort since they’re the affordable option. They’re scared of if, but whether or not Meta realizes it, meta needs that Apple headset to release
An Apple headset and marketing dollars would galvanize the industry. Meta will still release their headsets and probably be better off for it because Apple will have primed consumers to what the experience is. Apple doesn't usually pay for exclusives so apps will make it to other platforms.
Removed the Facebook login? Lol, now it prompts me every-time I use it to create a Horizon's account. I personally couldn't care less about the facebook login, and really never saw what the big deal was. I created a facebook account which I only use for the quest 2. You're going to need an account, what does it matter which platform it is from?
I'm sick of people criticizing Apple's walled garden. It's the primary feature of Apple products. It's what makes them what they are. If you don't like it, just buy something else. No one is forcing you to buy Apple if you don't like the walled garden. Many people like it and I'm amazed that there are so many people that don't understand that.
Meta built an amazing, affordable product, but their brand is just so toxic that it’ll take a generational change before it can eventually recover its good will and people in developed countries trust it again.
It's not their brand per se that's the issue, but the fact that their headsets were bricks unless you had signed up for a Facebook account with all the issues that come with that, from privacy concerns to getting locked out seemingly on a whim: https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest/comments/j22lmx/im_out_...
This isn’t true. You’ve always been able to use a headset with an oculus account. More recently you had to switch to a Meta account. Neither of those are Facebook accounts.
The problem I see is my PSVR1 is dusty because I'm bored with it. It was a cool experience and battlezone was fun but maybe 20 hours in and I'm done and its dusty.
The marketing solution to the PSVR1 being boring is "its got more pixels and no backwards compatibility". That message is just not going to sell to upgraders like me. "It costs more" is not going to sell to people who couldn't/wouldn't pay for the PSVR1. So who's supposed to buy this, exactly? People who collect VR headsets is not a large enough market.
The technology reminds me of the wii fit balance board. If you can't have 20 hours of fun with that, there's something wrong with you. Likewise, if you're having more than 20 hours of fun, I have to ask "how?" Its about as many hours of fun as a VR headset, but costs less.
The balance board is just a few years older than VR headsets and nobody sells that type of tech anymore. That is the future of VR headsets.
I think this is a valid HN story in the sense of being an object lesson in how not to sell something technological. Your marketing message needs to be aimed at a market and has to have a message, you can't just leave those two parts out and expect product success.
6 years is a lifetime in technology and a lot has changed. There are new use cases for VR since you last tried it.
1. Fitness - It's just a lot more fun to do when you're boxing in a Mike Tyson's Punch Out clone or slicing blocks with lightsabers. There are also VR specific fitness apps have a lot more variety than normal cardio exercises. In my case, I've lost 20 lbs to date... playing VR video games
2. Social - For friends and family who are hundreds or thousands of miles away, XR becomes a platform for hanging out with them while doing activities like ping pong, bowling, table top games, mini golf, and more. It has way more immersion and presence than a Zoom, Facetime, or normal phone call.
I would try it out again one day before rushing to judgement. At least you tried it the first time though unlike everyone else.
I respectfully disagree. I think VR is about in the same place experience-wise. PSVR has Beat Saber. And the social experiences (I'm assuming you mean VRChat and such) are... just fine, in my opinion? And I definitely have long-distance relationships where it makes sense. The novelty wears off quick and being isolated and with an uncomfortable headset on is a non-negligible cost vs video/voice/text.
(I have a recent headset and associated hardware, FWIW.)
My experience is identical to yours. I loved the PSVR but sold it 6 months later due to lack of use. Half-Life Alyx was the only game to come out for VR that I wish I could check out. But even that isn’t worth the cost and space investment in a new headset.
That's my biggest fear with PSVR2. There's a few AAA games and then a bunch of indie games and that's it. Until Sony treats VR as a first-class citizen I don't see this changing.
As a Vive owner, this is the first headset to really catch my interest since!
120hz and OLED are exactly what I've been looking for in a "next gen" headset. The inside-out tracking does give me some hesitation, but overall it's sounding like this will be an excellent piece of hardware. The biggest downside (and upside for general consumers, just plug and play) would be platform support limited to Playstation... Which I'm eager to see if community efforts try to bring PC support given the excellent hardware specs/price.
My worries aren't specific to Sony's implementation, it's specifically related to the processing latency that's been associated with inside-out tracking. My understanding is inside out typically uses CMOS sensors which generally have inherent latency returning an image that must be processed quickly. Outside-in generally uses photo-diodes with lighter processing.
I have yet to try modern headsets to see for myself, but my hunch is there's some level of latency that isn't present with outside-in. It's also worth noting some individuals may have varied perceptions of latency while their pyshical response of fatigue/etc may be more present than their actual awareness. Anecdotally, I once got in an argument with a professor that I could visibly notice when CRT monitors were set to 50hz (instead of 60hz) and would get headaches. Now it's generally accepted many can discern between much higher refresh rates than that FWIW.
Yes and no. I believe it's called foveated rendering where eye tracking is used for adaptive rendering, which allows for high performance without any perception of degradation.
Not sure why this is being downvoted... perhaps it is documented somewhere they are not selling this at a loss but ordinarily both Sony and Microsoft sell consoles at a loss indeed.
I think ordinarily peripherals are not sold at a loss, but it would make sense that a pricy VR headset would be the exception.
Yes-ish. The mobile hardware in the meta headsets limits the games available on it. If you want to play No Man's Sky VR you're going to need to use Oculus Link (is it called Meta Link now?) and a beefy PC.
If you just want a beat saber device the Quest 2 is definitely way cheaper overall.
This was my first thought too. It's an amazing looking piece of kit. I will not be buying a Playstation, but I do wish the PC VR space had someone continuing to push forward. The Index is nice but they really missed a beat by going with LCD. I haven't used my CV1 recently but I'm under the impression I will need a meta login, which I'm not interested in doing.
From that list, the HP Reverb has been described as better than the Index and Quest 2 due to higher quality screen and FOV (priced well too).
The Primax and Aero are considered to be even more high end.
I am considering making the investment since VR and Space/Flight/Racing sims are an entirely unique experience with VR and all the joysticks/racing wheels.
Give it a couple of years and I think you’ll have Valve release a Steam Deck with official support for their headset for some kind of super portable VR set up. You can already do it with the current gen (even wirelessly) but it’s not quite ready for prime time. Have a look at this video to see it in action:
Affordability is one of the major issues of the metaverse. Most people can’t afford a VR ready PC as is and you’re lamenting that the Index doesn’t use more expensive components. I feel that Valve made the right choice with cheaper components since their goal is increased adoption of XR.
A friend of mine gave me a PSVR1 for my birthday (which I use on my PS5). I'm playing Resident Evil 7 in VR mode and it's the most immersive experience in any horror (or possibly any other genre, really) game I've ever played. I was legitimately terrified and didn't want to sleep the night I played it for the first time. I am not a person that gets easily scared in horror films or games and usually get a laugh out of the absurdity of gore and jump scares but RE7 just hit much different in VR. The dinner table scene at the beginning of the game, and the chase sequences were absolutely horrifying.
If Resident Evil 8 and/or the Resident Evil 4 remakes get VR modes I will buy PSVR2 on day one.
It helps that resident evil 7 is just a good game. The first half at least. It made some very smart decisions to approach horror differently.
I’m not convinced the vr adds much. I heard you aim guns with your head, not your hands and found that stupid.
The resident evil team has been exploring a lot of interesting stuff with their titles. 8 is sort of a celebration of all of it with sections of the game that are clearly designed around the mentality of 4, 7, and 2 each
I was a fan of the original Resident Evil on the PS1, and some of the earlier survival horror games like Silent Hill. I felt that Silent Hill in particular crossed the line into unenjoyable territory for me. The game was superb, but the horror was just too unsettling to keep playing. I would get physically ill, with stomach cramps, nightmares, etc., that it took years of forcing myself to actually finish it. Same with SH2 a few years later. Then the RE series took a more action oriented turn, and I lost interest.
Until RE7, which I started playing without VR. I can agree that it's truly horrifying, and a return to their roots. The first-person perspective also adds a lot to the immersion. As much as I'm curious, I couldn't imagine playing it in VR.
If you're looking for a different kind of horror, give Subnautica a try. It's terrifying even without VR. I've played for many hours and still can't get myself to finish it.
Part of me thinks it's a bit silly to intentionally subject yourself to the stress that these games produce, and as I get older, I seek more enjoyable experiences. Yet for some reason, I keep going back to them...
I have Subnautica on PC and love it, you're right it is very scary because of the way the world is setup and the type of threats you face. I recently moved and my HTC Vive is packed up and haven't had the motivation to hook up the sensors again, so I may hook it up to go back and try the VR mode now that you mention it.
Not backwards compatible with PSVR version 1 games? I’m having a hard time imagining a good reason for this. They claim it’s because it’s a totally new VR experience… whatever that means.
Their claim is complete horseshit. They must have decided that including the previous game library was not worth the development effort of an API translation layer. Hope they're right...
Some games presented the Dual Shock 4 controller visually tracked in game, even if they managed to do a compatibility layer those games still relied on tracking the DS4 controller light via the camera.
But at least some devs have confirmed their psvr games will be patched to support the new version, like No Man’s Sky.
It's not complete horseshit.
The old controllers have more buttons on them and the new controllers have thumbsticks, so the controls for PSVR games won't map to PSVR2 hardware.
VR PC games manage to run on Quest, Vive, you name it - the controllers being different isn’t a very compelling argument why they’ve not given any backwards compatibility support.
As for the software abstraction being poor, that’s also just bad engineering on Sony’s part then.
Yeah, I'm a little bummed about this. Maybe it's a combination of the controllers and the increase in resolution/etc. With the gen 1, you had the move controllers and a remote camera. Games were probably developed with that in mind - even if they knew some changes were coming down the pipe, it would be difficult to write the games with the VR2 system in mind.
Whether or not this is all abstracted away, I have no idea... but there really is a pretty huge difference between 1 and 2 if you think about the camera set up and the controller situation. The move controllers were optional - they didn't even come with the system. I think there were bundles that had them. They came out BEFORE the VR system did, and were kind of a gimmick until the PSVR landed.
Now that you have a real high quality headset, that ships with standard, hopefully high quality controllers, the target application should take advantage of those things.
I would guess it's because psvr1 depended on an external camera for tracking from both the headset and controllers. The new headset has internal cameras and a completely new control system. I would expect it will be each developer that has to make their old game psvr2 compatible.
Surely the games used a high level API that Sony could support with this. I doubt games had any code related to external camera tracking, the system must've just spit out the position of the headset to the game.
There's so much great (and under-appreciated) content for PSVR, I really hope Sony has some kind of upgrade path tooling for developers to "remaster" existing titles for PSVR 2.
I don't understand the market for a device like this at this cost.
Are there really enough people that would spend this much on a VR system in a closed ecosystem instead of going with one attached to your PC that has access to everything?
I bought the valve index (which is more than this) because I can use it with Steam and any VR games outside of steam. Plus modding.
I feel like Sony should have subsidized the hardware more accounting for the fact that they will get money from every VR game sold for this thing. Otherwise I worry the market for it just won't make sense for developers (which then hurts anyone that bought it).
Also the lack of PSVR1 support would make me seriously question buying this anyways, why invest in a platform if they are just going to make it so you can't play any of your games later (or requires you keep multiple VR's around)
> I don't understand the market for a device like this at this cost.
I am a software engineer and OSS enthusiast, I operate servers and my home automation system, but I gave up on PC gaming years ago. After a long day of fighting distributed systems, I want my gaming rig to just work. That's why I bought the first PSVR: because Sony offers me a system where I don't have to fiddle with drivers and windows updates.
Price is too steep indeed, but it will go down as the production ramps up. PSVR launched at 400€ in 2016, and I bought it at 200€ two years after that.
I would love to go with a console as my main platform, I just always have the feeling that Sony is ripping me off with the cost of games and PS Plus. Do you find it evens out in the long run with the larger upfront cost of a gaming PC?
This seems like half the price of a comparable PCVR setup, including the PS5 to run it. And there's probably still not much crossover between the console crowd and the PC gamer crowd.
Large contingent of people who don't have a PC strong enough to run VR but do have a PS5. Whether the PS5 will get a lively enough VR ecosystem going on it is still a concern though yeah.
I know there is a market for it, I just question if there is enough of a market given the price point they are going for.
I guess that is what I don't understand. Yeah the tech is great but if its too expensive that enough people can't afford it than is there going to be enough people to justify developers to work on it.
I just worry that this is seeing Sony being cocky again like they were with the PS3. Overestimating the market and putting out products that are more expensive with the justification that they are powerful.
What we know from decades of console industry winners and losers is that content and especially exclusive content is everything.
It really doesn't matter if hardware is open or closed. What matters is whether there is fun compelling games.
PS VR has been a success because the quality games have been there, and others have struggled because of their lack of quality games.
We can expect that given Playstation's deep history in games and exclusive in house studios that they will have content for the platform. It's risky to expect the same of any other hardware maker without inhouse studios and decades old industry relationships and partnerships.
The problem for PSVR2 is that the first one didn't really have any must-play games and the 2nd one's only game of note at launch is Horizon which is notorious for always releasing at the same time as some other action RPG that the mass market goes nuts for (Zelda and that Dark Souls game written by the Game of Thrones guy). It also doesn't help that there's no backward compatibility with PSVR1 games (that would allow devs to easily make cross-gen games and take advantage of the last gen VR install base), that the price is so high or that PS5s still aren't easy to buy. This feels like it could be another PSVR1 or PS Vita where Sony gets bored with it after it doesn't sell huge immediately and gives up.
Even as somebody whose game of the year for this year is Horizon 2, I'm unsure about paying $600 for a Horizon spinoff coming out at the same time as the Harry Potter RPG. I expect it to be sitting on the shelf for MSRP at your local Walmart, Target, GameStop or Best Buy on launch day and basically every day afterwards. The fact that I'm unsure whether or not I'll even bother preordering it or just wait until I'm ready to play Horizon is not a good sign.
It's an odd coincidence that Horizon Call of the Mountain is the flagship game for PSVR2 and Horizon Worlds is the game Meta is pushing for Oculus. Probably not great for Sony.
Readit News
If Sony fails to bridge VR/AR to the masses, then it’s all up to Apple to save the industry. Meta built an amazing, affordable product, but their brand is just so toxic that it’ll take a generational change before it can eventually recover its good will and people in developed countries trust it again. Google has a similar brand goodwill problem where they will also be unable sustain any new metaverse related product introductions. Their brand image has just been really damaged by their own internal promotion system
agreed. it's unfortunate that FB decided to just coin "Metaverse" since it's all encompassing. to your later point, it's as if Yahoo decided to launch a product called "Internet" and have it be an awful piece of software turning off everyone from the concept of the internet and pushing it back another decade simply due to terrible branding
It’s been almost 3 years since Half Life Alyx and nothing in the Vr space has come even remotely close.
It’s the killer app problem. There are a few very cool experiences in VR, but overall it a sad environment.
I have no doubt it’ll be big. Just curious on HOW SLOWLY it’s going.
If Zuck was smart, he could have a partnership with Sony and push out a launch title for this.
If that were true, the work features would have shipped already, but they were busy with gaming which is why they bought several game studios. Games were a major focus for meta because it’s one of the traditional vectors for new technology adoption. Well, that and pornography.
Let’s hope that you’re right now assuming meta is changing course, and I’m wrong because I’ve been waiting to use the work features. So far, the 3rd party options and the resolution for reading text still isn’t good enough
See: Zune.
signed, 1 of 2,000,000,000 monthly active users across Messenger, Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram
Their users are trending older now, and the brunt of ad revenue will be destroyed eventually. Why do you think Mark pivoted the company?
Facebook may be 'toxic' but the Meta is cheap, amazing, supports Air Link for PC, even has cross-play (buy a Quest game, play it on PC at better graphics). Privacy options, they -removed- Facebook login, you can sideload apps. Tacit support for modding games like Beat Saber.
Apple would turn their headset into a walled garden with no ability to run custom apps and definitely no Air Link. Try to mod a game and get banned.
Like meta, I also agree that Apple will be a double edged sword for XR. On the positive side, Apple will help the masses understand the potential of XR beyond gaming, and the M chips blow everything away. On the negative side, only we’ll be able to afford a $3000 XR Apple headset which will save meta’s XR related effort since they’re the affordable option. They’re scared of if, but whether or not Meta realizes it, meta needs that Apple headset to release
Are we talking about the same Meta company that owns Facebook?
> they -removed- Facebook login
Which they added in the first place, much to the dismay of literally everyone.
I'm sick of people criticizing Apple's walled garden. It's the primary feature of Apple products. It's what makes them what they are. If you don't like it, just buy something else. No one is forcing you to buy Apple if you don't like the walled garden. Many people like it and I'm amazed that there are so many people that don't understand that.
They called it something else, they make you use different credentials, but it’s all Facebook on the backend.
Like they were for MP3 players, Smartphones, expensive headphones and Smartwatches?
Deleted Comment
It's not their brand per se that's the issue, but the fact that their headsets were bricks unless you had signed up for a Facebook account with all the issues that come with that, from privacy concerns to getting locked out seemingly on a whim: https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest/comments/j22lmx/im_out_...
The response from Meta still leaves a lot to be desired: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/07/quest-vr-has-traded-f...
Less important than Meta rehabbing their brand image would be them actually putting a stop to their user hostile behavior.
Source: never had Facebook, but have had Quests
The marketing solution to the PSVR1 being boring is "its got more pixels and no backwards compatibility". That message is just not going to sell to upgraders like me. "It costs more" is not going to sell to people who couldn't/wouldn't pay for the PSVR1. So who's supposed to buy this, exactly? People who collect VR headsets is not a large enough market.
The technology reminds me of the wii fit balance board. If you can't have 20 hours of fun with that, there's something wrong with you. Likewise, if you're having more than 20 hours of fun, I have to ask "how?" Its about as many hours of fun as a VR headset, but costs less. The balance board is just a few years older than VR headsets and nobody sells that type of tech anymore. That is the future of VR headsets.
I think this is a valid HN story in the sense of being an object lesson in how not to sell something technological. Your marketing message needs to be aimed at a market and has to have a message, you can't just leave those two parts out and expect product success.
1. Fitness - It's just a lot more fun to do when you're boxing in a Mike Tyson's Punch Out clone or slicing blocks with lightsabers. There are also VR specific fitness apps have a lot more variety than normal cardio exercises. In my case, I've lost 20 lbs to date... playing VR video games
2. Social - For friends and family who are hundreds or thousands of miles away, XR becomes a platform for hanging out with them while doing activities like ping pong, bowling, table top games, mini golf, and more. It has way more immersion and presence than a Zoom, Facetime, or normal phone call.
I would try it out again one day before rushing to judgement. At least you tried it the first time though unlike everyone else.
(I have a recent headset and associated hardware, FWIW.)
120hz and OLED are exactly what I've been looking for in a "next gen" headset. The inside-out tracking does give me some hesitation, but overall it's sounding like this will be an excellent piece of hardware. The biggest downside (and upside for general consumers, just plug and play) would be platform support limited to Playstation... Which I'm eager to see if community efforts try to bring PC support given the excellent hardware specs/price.
I have yet to try modern headsets to see for myself, but my hunch is there's some level of latency that isn't present with outside-in. It's also worth noting some individuals may have varied perceptions of latency while their pyshical response of fatigue/etc may be more present than their actual awareness. Anecdotally, I once got in an argument with a professor that I could visibly notice when CRT monitors were set to 50hz (instead of 60hz) and would get headaches. Now it's generally accepted many can discern between much higher refresh rates than that FWIW.
Sony must have really efficient manufacturing, assuming they're not selling at a loss.
A quality 120Hz 4000 x 2040 HDR OLED display alone would likely cost at least half the MSRP.
I think ordinarily peripherals are not sold at a loss, but it would make sense that a pricy VR headset would be the exception.
If you just want a beat saber device the Quest 2 is definitely way cheaper overall.
From that list, the HP Reverb has been described as better than the Index and Quest 2 due to higher quality screen and FOV (priced well too).
The Primax and Aero are considered to be even more high end.
I am considering making the investment since VR and Space/Flight/Racing sims are an entirely unique experience with VR and all the joysticks/racing wheels.
https://youtu.be/5FWDSFVp3NM
If Resident Evil 8 and/or the Resident Evil 4 remakes get VR modes I will buy PSVR2 on day one.
There are trailers/previews available and it looks pretty darn impressive.
I’m not convinced the vr adds much. I heard you aim guns with your head, not your hands and found that stupid.
The resident evil team has been exploring a lot of interesting stuff with their titles. 8 is sort of a celebration of all of it with sections of the game that are clearly designed around the mentality of 4, 7, and 2 each
Until RE7, which I started playing without VR. I can agree that it's truly horrifying, and a return to their roots. The first-person perspective also adds a lot to the immersion. As much as I'm curious, I couldn't imagine playing it in VR.
If you're looking for a different kind of horror, give Subnautica a try. It's terrifying even without VR. I've played for many hours and still can't get myself to finish it.
Part of me thinks it's a bit silly to intentionally subject yourself to the stress that these games produce, and as I get older, I seek more enjoyable experiences. Yet for some reason, I keep going back to them...
But at least some devs have confirmed their psvr games will be patched to support the new version, like No Man’s Sky.
As for the software abstraction being poor, that’s also just bad engineering on Sony’s part then.
Whether or not this is all abstracted away, I have no idea... but there really is a pretty huge difference between 1 and 2 if you think about the camera set up and the controller situation. The move controllers were optional - they didn't even come with the system. I think there were bundles that had them. They came out BEFORE the VR system did, and were kind of a gimmick until the PSVR landed.
Now that you have a real high quality headset, that ships with standard, hopefully high quality controllers, the target application should take advantage of those things.
Dead Comment
Are there really enough people that would spend this much on a VR system in a closed ecosystem instead of going with one attached to your PC that has access to everything?
I bought the valve index (which is more than this) because I can use it with Steam and any VR games outside of steam. Plus modding.
I feel like Sony should have subsidized the hardware more accounting for the fact that they will get money from every VR game sold for this thing. Otherwise I worry the market for it just won't make sense for developers (which then hurts anyone that bought it).
Also the lack of PSVR1 support would make me seriously question buying this anyways, why invest in a platform if they are just going to make it so you can't play any of your games later (or requires you keep multiple VR's around)
I am a software engineer and OSS enthusiast, I operate servers and my home automation system, but I gave up on PC gaming years ago. After a long day of fighting distributed systems, I want my gaming rig to just work. That's why I bought the first PSVR: because Sony offers me a system where I don't have to fiddle with drivers and windows updates.
Price is too steep indeed, but it will go down as the production ramps up. PSVR launched at 400€ in 2016, and I bought it at 200€ two years after that.
I could get behind your argument if there was no offering that doesn't require a gaming computer, but it's not the case.
I guess that is what I don't understand. Yeah the tech is great but if its too expensive that enough people can't afford it than is there going to be enough people to justify developers to work on it.
I just worry that this is seeing Sony being cocky again like they were with the PS3. Overestimating the market and putting out products that are more expensive with the justification that they are powerful.
It really doesn't matter if hardware is open or closed. What matters is whether there is fun compelling games.
PS VR has been a success because the quality games have been there, and others have struggled because of their lack of quality games.
We can expect that given Playstation's deep history in games and exclusive in house studios that they will have content for the platform. It's risky to expect the same of any other hardware maker without inhouse studios and decades old industry relationships and partnerships.
PC is a closed ecosystem. Not everyone has PC.
Even as somebody whose game of the year for this year is Horizon 2, I'm unsure about paying $600 for a Horizon spinoff coming out at the same time as the Harry Potter RPG. I expect it to be sitting on the shelf for MSRP at your local Walmart, Target, GameStop or Best Buy on launch day and basically every day afterwards. The fact that I'm unsure whether or not I'll even bother preordering it or just wait until I'm ready to play Horizon is not a good sign.