Popularity of Sony’s PlayStation VR Surprises Even the Company(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Popularity of Sony’s PlayStation VR Surprises Even the Company
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/26/business/sony-playstation-vr-sales.html
167 comments
VR needs a GoldenEye moment. VR needs the kind of revolutionary blockbuster that Doom was, to make people sit up and take notice. Something that really pushes the possibilities of the technology, and pushes us into a new era of gaming, the way FarCry pushed the limits of video technology.
Instead, it's not quite getting dumped in the sand the way Atari dumped ET in 1982, but it's not far off - major supporters are giving half-hearted statements, and the biggest application I've heard about receiving VR investment is a desktop replacement - not exactly something from which I'd expect a compelling VR experience. So far, my most mind-blowing VR experience has merely been Google Earth.
Where are the Wii-game clones? Where are the DDR-clones and, like, retro arcades? Where are the games that have co-op in the same space? Why can't you invite your friends into your Google Earth, to look at the same scenes?
We're roughly a year out, with multiple platforms, and almost every game is still a tech demo. Where are the news reports of people breaking their TV with their Vive-mote? - Nobody has been so preoccupied with a VR game that that they flung the controller into the TV yet. I'm worried that investors were so preoccupied with whether or not they could make money off of this, that they didn't stop to think if they should make it fun. How many consoles have successfully gone their first year without a compelling release, and later recovered?
Instead, it's not quite getting dumped in the sand the way Atari dumped ET in 1982, but it's not far off - major supporters are giving half-hearted statements, and the biggest application I've heard about receiving VR investment is a desktop replacement - not exactly something from which I'd expect a compelling VR experience. So far, my most mind-blowing VR experience has merely been Google Earth.
Where are the Wii-game clones? Where are the DDR-clones and, like, retro arcades? Where are the games that have co-op in the same space? Why can't you invite your friends into your Google Earth, to look at the same scenes?
We're roughly a year out, with multiple platforms, and almost every game is still a tech demo. Where are the news reports of people breaking their TV with their Vive-mote? - Nobody has been so preoccupied with a VR game that that they flung the controller into the TV yet. I'm worried that investors were so preoccupied with whether or not they could make money off of this, that they didn't stop to think if they should make it fun. How many consoles have successfully gone their first year without a compelling release, and later recovered?
>We're roughly a year out, with multiple platforms, and almost every game is still a tech demo.
Making a game with a really solid experience, to my knowledge, usually takes a few years to make. And that's true even when you're not trying to build entirely novel modes of interaction from the ground up.
> Where are the news reports of people breaking their TV with their Vive-mote?
Wii's were way, way cheaper, and not nearly so niche, leading to sales of 600,000 units in the very first week, you probably would have heard this about the Vive if it had that kind of market penetration that fast, because it definitely does happen to people.
> Where are the Wii-game clones? Where are the DDR-clones and, like, retro arcades?
I'd say multiple examples of all three are on Steam.
> Where are the games that have co-op in the same space?
Like local co-op? Probably waiting for the release of hardware that has more robust tracking because with multiple individuals in the same tracking space, the problem of occlusion crops up a lot more. Those improvements are planned, at least for the Vive, but they're not available yet to my knowledge.
> Why can't you invite your friends into your Google Earth, to look at the same scenes?
I'd guess licensing the imagery and data, although there are a handful of things like this for singleplayer (Including Google Earth VR), so it might have to do with the complexity of building a networked experience over a purely singleplayer one.
Making a game with a really solid experience, to my knowledge, usually takes a few years to make. And that's true even when you're not trying to build entirely novel modes of interaction from the ground up.
> Where are the news reports of people breaking their TV with their Vive-mote?
Wii's were way, way cheaper, and not nearly so niche, leading to sales of 600,000 units in the very first week, you probably would have heard this about the Vive if it had that kind of market penetration that fast, because it definitely does happen to people.
> Where are the Wii-game clones? Where are the DDR-clones and, like, retro arcades?
I'd say multiple examples of all three are on Steam.
> Where are the games that have co-op in the same space?
Like local co-op? Probably waiting for the release of hardware that has more robust tracking because with multiple individuals in the same tracking space, the problem of occlusion crops up a lot more. Those improvements are planned, at least for the Vive, but they're not available yet to my knowledge.
> Why can't you invite your friends into your Google Earth, to look at the same scenes?
I'd guess licensing the imagery and data, although there are a handful of things like this for singleplayer (Including Google Earth VR), so it might have to do with the complexity of building a networked experience over a purely singleplayer one.
> Making a game with a really solid experience, to my knowledge, usually takes a few years to make. And that's true even when you're not trying to build entirely novel modes of interaction from the ground up.
Fair point, but don't developers usually have significant lead time, so games are released soon after a new console or other hardware? Or is VR simply that much more complicated to develop for?
> Like local co-op? Probably waiting for the release of hardware that has more robust tracking because with multiple individuals in the same tracking space, the problem of occlusion crops up a lot more. Those improvements are planned, at least for the Vive, but they're not available yet to my knowledge.
So essentially, the technology isn't ready yet, and we're all using the Early Access version of the hardware?
> I'd guess licensing the imagery and data, although there are a handful of things like this for singleplayer (Including Google Earth VR), so it might have to do with the complexity of building a networked experience over a purely singleplayer one.
How much more network data is needed to coordinate a VR experience over another type of 3D game - is there usually more collision data, from all of the extra motion tracking? Will VR require gamers have 1 Gbps home internet connections?
Fair point, but don't developers usually have significant lead time, so games are released soon after a new console or other hardware? Or is VR simply that much more complicated to develop for?
> Like local co-op? Probably waiting for the release of hardware that has more robust tracking because with multiple individuals in the same tracking space, the problem of occlusion crops up a lot more. Those improvements are planned, at least for the Vive, but they're not available yet to my knowledge.
So essentially, the technology isn't ready yet, and we're all using the Early Access version of the hardware?
> I'd guess licensing the imagery and data, although there are a handful of things like this for singleplayer (Including Google Earth VR), so it might have to do with the complexity of building a networked experience over a purely singleplayer one.
How much more network data is needed to coordinate a VR experience over another type of 3D game - is there usually more collision data, from all of the extra motion tracking? Will VR require gamers have 1 Gbps home internet connections?
>> So essentially, the technology isn't ready yet, and we're all using the Early Access version of the hardware?
I would say this is really close to being a stupid comment. The technology does exactly what it's supposed to do, and does it quite well. Just because it doesn't support features you want doesn't mean the tech isn't "ready".
I would say this is really close to being a stupid comment. The technology does exactly what it's supposed to do, and does it quite well. Just because it doesn't support features you want doesn't mean the tech isn't "ready".
So, you would say smart watches are "ready"? Despite the abominable battery life the Apple Watch gets, even though it isn't Always On? Would you say the Internet Of Shit is ready? Even though you can't get a decent cup of coffee before a firmware upgrade? After all, "the technology does exactly what it's supposed to"?
In the same vein, the low-resolution, headache and nausea inspiring VR headsets of modern day aren't really ready, even though engineers are making the best of what they have.
In the same vein, the low-resolution, headache and nausea inspiring VR headsets of modern day aren't really ready, even though engineers are making the best of what they have.
I would say yes to every question you just posed. Again, just because the tech doesn't work to your expectations doesn't mean it is not ready for market. You're just being stupidly picky.
>> Even though you can't get a decent cup of coffee before a firmware upgrade?
I don't even know what this means.
>> Even though you can't get a decent cup of coffee before a firmware upgrade?
I don't even know what this means.
I easily get two days worth of battery from my Apple Watch and I'm completely satisfied with the experience of the HTC Vive. I dunno what you're on about.
Big developers are mostly taking a wait and see approach. Indies are piling on like it's a gold rush. If VR turns out to have staying power, it will take a while for the AAA sector to get in gear.
Are indies piling on because there is so little money to be made else where in gaming, at present?
As someone peripherally involved with certain VR indie communities, I'd say it's simply that indies do what they want, and there are a lot of people who are extremely passionate about VR. As far as money goes, VR users are very hungry for apps right now, so it's a small but vigorous market.
Platform launches are always a good opportunity for niche games and new IPs because early adopters want to justify their purchase and with a limited library are more open to buying games they wouldn't buy otherwise.
It's not any more complicated to develop for than an equivalent 3d-space game, but almost none of the tropes and techniques that work for a flat experience like playing Counter Strike translate. People are figuring out basics like how to make picking something up feel good/right, really basic gestures and actions take on a lot more importance when you're supposed to feel them as a natural part of yourself. It used to be "press A to open door", now you actually have to open the door, and getting that right takes a lot of trial and error.
It is really a chicken and egg problem. We need more affordable hardware to create a market for the software, but to create the software we need that market to already exist.
The only real solution is for the VR hardware manufacturers to invest in development of software until they get something good.
I own a vive and there are some really cool experiences, but in my library of games there is not really anything that i'm itching to come back to. It mostly just sits put away till something new releases, or I want to show it to a friend.
Further complicating the issue is the hardware split. Vive/Oculus can somewhat share things if you are dedicated and willing to accept poor control schemes, but PSVR is out on its own. Then you get into the whole seated/roomscale issue, and things like motion sickness from locomotion and you find that it is really hard to develop something that can apply to a large population right now.
The only real solution is for the VR hardware manufacturers to invest in development of software until they get something good.
I own a vive and there are some really cool experiences, but in my library of games there is not really anything that i'm itching to come back to. It mostly just sits put away till something new releases, or I want to show it to a friend.
Further complicating the issue is the hardware split. Vive/Oculus can somewhat share things if you are dedicated and willing to accept poor control schemes, but PSVR is out on its own. Then you get into the whole seated/roomscale issue, and things like motion sickness from locomotion and you find that it is really hard to develop something that can apply to a large population right now.
I don't think that this is purely a chicken and egg problem. A major part of total VR expense is GPU capacity; there is a certain level of computing performance that must be met for "good feeling" VR - but GPUs are and will be getting investment and improvements in price/performance even without VR; so the software/content folks can simply wait for the hardware to become more affordable, so that many more (most?) people would already have the required computing gear and would just need some peripherals.
> the biggest application I've heard about receiving VR investment is a desktop replacement - not exactly something from which I'd expect a compelling VR experience.
I completely disagree with this. A good desktop replacement is exactly what you'd want from a compelling VR experience.
1. It's a literal virtual reality that users would use to replace actual reality.
2. If you can make a compelling, usable desktop replacement, then you've successfully made a reason for many VR users to be happy with never taking off their headsets. Tired of a game? Go back to the desktop environment. Want to look up some tips? Go back to the desktop environment. Want to look at links from friends? Go back to the desktop environment.
3. A compelling desktop environment is probably far more technically greedy than an actual game since you need to have a high resolution headset to simulate the desktop with at least the fidelity of a real screen... and most people are going to want at least two of those high-resolution virtual screens in their field of vision.
I completely disagree with this. A good desktop replacement is exactly what you'd want from a compelling VR experience.
1. It's a literal virtual reality that users would use to replace actual reality.
2. If you can make a compelling, usable desktop replacement, then you've successfully made a reason for many VR users to be happy with never taking off their headsets. Tired of a game? Go back to the desktop environment. Want to look up some tips? Go back to the desktop environment. Want to look at links from friends? Go back to the desktop environment.
3. A compelling desktop environment is probably far more technically greedy than an actual game since you need to have a high resolution headset to simulate the desktop with at least the fidelity of a real screen... and most people are going to want at least two of those high-resolution virtual screens in their field of vision.
Except the part about getting sick to your stomach? How many people do not know they have VR induced motion sickness? I know I didn't until I strapped up a cardboard. I do not get sick in less than 13-15 foot seas, but sick as hell with cardboard.
A big part of this is due to mobile-grade hardware and no positional tracking. These things are neat little toys and I have both a Cardboard and a Daydream that I mess with from time to time.
But even my old (in VR-industry terms) Oculus dev unit from a couple years ago works much better. The mobile VR setups only track head orientation but the Rift, Vive, and similar devices also track your position in xyz space. This has a huge impact on how well your movements are mirrored in the virtual environment. Ultimately, getting as close to 1:1 mirroring is how you avoid motion sickness.
The other part of that is overall body position so a lot of the attempts to shoehorn traditional FPS games into VR are iffy because even if your head is tracked, your brain knows you're not running around even if your visual input tells you that you are.
It's a big part of why I don't think games (or at least many styles of games that work on 2D screens) are the end goal for VR. They seem obvious since they're already using complex and realistic environments but the VR applications that really work are the ones where your viewpoint matches your actual physical orientation (including the rest of your body).
I also think the big jump will come when someone sorts out how to get a few cheap depth cameras set up around a room to generate a real-time 3d model with video data used to texture the mesh. Send that data over networks and display in a VR headset and you're on your way to 3d/VR telepresence. The hardware still needs to improve and the software developed, but it reminds me of using early smartphones more than anything else.
When I had a Treo or an old Pocket PC I knew that technically these things could be as fluid and smooth as a desktop or laptop of the time. It just wasn't feasible to cram it into a tiny handset for a price anyone could pay. But now 10-15 years later you can spend a few hundred bucks and get something better than your old Playstation or laptop in your pocket.
But even my old (in VR-industry terms) Oculus dev unit from a couple years ago works much better. The mobile VR setups only track head orientation but the Rift, Vive, and similar devices also track your position in xyz space. This has a huge impact on how well your movements are mirrored in the virtual environment. Ultimately, getting as close to 1:1 mirroring is how you avoid motion sickness.
The other part of that is overall body position so a lot of the attempts to shoehorn traditional FPS games into VR are iffy because even if your head is tracked, your brain knows you're not running around even if your visual input tells you that you are.
It's a big part of why I don't think games (or at least many styles of games that work on 2D screens) are the end goal for VR. They seem obvious since they're already using complex and realistic environments but the VR applications that really work are the ones where your viewpoint matches your actual physical orientation (including the rest of your body).
I also think the big jump will come when someone sorts out how to get a few cheap depth cameras set up around a room to generate a real-time 3d model with video data used to texture the mesh. Send that data over networks and display in a VR headset and you're on your way to 3d/VR telepresence. The hardware still needs to improve and the software developed, but it reminds me of using early smartphones more than anything else.
When I had a Treo or an old Pocket PC I knew that technically these things could be as fluid and smooth as a desktop or laptop of the time. It just wasn't feasible to cram it into a tiny handset for a price anyone could pay. But now 10-15 years later you can spend a few hundred bucks and get something better than your old Playstation or laptop in your pocket.
You are actually comparing a cheap cardboard box with a run of the mill mobile phone to specialized hardware with optimized firmware? Cardboard is the lowest end you can get and has all the latency and fps issues that actual VR hardware had to fix. High latency and low fps are killers for people with low tolerance, for VR milliseconds count.
Cardboard being a set of lenses in a box has tracking latency issues with most mobile hardware. The GearVR gets round this with better hardware in the headset and Google now have the Daydream standard for VR capable phones. Both make an enormous difference and this isn't an issue in the high end headsets either.
the sickness happens because your brain cannot correlate what you see and what you feel, it more or less happens when there's actual movement involved in games (that is why most games by default do not let you turn with the analogue stick, but rather move in X degree increments while blanking out the screen for a moment. It would not be the case when you're basically just looking around, but not moving. I recommend SuperBunnyhop's video on YouTube about the issue!
>VR needs a GoldenEye moment
It really doesn't. Anyone who has used VR knows how amazing it is. The main issue for games is getting the controls right.
The way I see it, sticking to a controller or keyboard/mouse and using the VR as a kind of stationary surround monitor is the best way to go for gaming.
Dual controllers and physically moving around in a room have too many issues and don't feel natural for games. It's great for tech demos, but I can't imagine playing through an 80-hour game like that. It's like the Nintendo Wii controllers that are only good for party games.
It really doesn't. Anyone who has used VR knows how amazing it is. The main issue for games is getting the controls right.
The way I see it, sticking to a controller or keyboard/mouse and using the VR as a kind of stationary surround monitor is the best way to go for gaming.
Dual controllers and physically moving around in a room have too many issues and don't feel natural for games. It's great for tech demos, but I can't imagine playing through an 80-hour game like that. It's like the Nintendo Wii controllers that are only good for party games.
> It's great for tech demos, but I can't imagine playing through an 80-hour game like that.
I'm not a gamer - not in the sense of today. But I do like to play games occasionally.
Back in the 90s, I remember playing Dactyl Nightmare - stand up, single controller, crappy (by today's standards - back then, it was different) HMD/res - but I loved it. Five minutes for 5 dollars - expensive, but I always liked that at the end of the game, I had gotten a great bit of exercise that was fun (I wasn't one of those "players" that just "derped" and looked around - I played the game).
Dodging, ducking, aiming and shooting - all of that "action" translated into a pretty good workout!
My future fantasy would be playing and exploring the Cyberpunk 2077 world (assuming its released); today, I would love to do the same with GTAV, but apparently it isn't something supported by default in the game (there are hacks to somewhat allow for it in the "freeform" or "single-player" mode (?) - but even those hacks don't work perfectly, from what I gather).
I'm one of those kinds of people who hates exercise - but has no problem getting it from a game or other "active" activities (I dislike competitive sports as well - but I love hiking).
I'm not a gamer - not in the sense of today. But I do like to play games occasionally.
Back in the 90s, I remember playing Dactyl Nightmare - stand up, single controller, crappy (by today's standards - back then, it was different) HMD/res - but I loved it. Five minutes for 5 dollars - expensive, but I always liked that at the end of the game, I had gotten a great bit of exercise that was fun (I wasn't one of those "players" that just "derped" and looked around - I played the game).
Dodging, ducking, aiming and shooting - all of that "action" translated into a pretty good workout!
My future fantasy would be playing and exploring the Cyberpunk 2077 world (assuming its released); today, I would love to do the same with GTAV, but apparently it isn't something supported by default in the game (there are hacks to somewhat allow for it in the "freeform" or "single-player" mode (?) - but even those hacks don't work perfectly, from what I gather).
I'm one of those kinds of people who hates exercise - but has no problem getting it from a game or other "active" activities (I dislike competitive sports as well - but I love hiking).
[deleted]
I think this sounds a lot like a "back in my day" kinda comment you'd hear from someone that's really averse to something different. Arizona Sunshine is one of the coolest games I've ever played and, even though it's not 80 hours long, is amazing for something running on 1st gen hardware. I can't wait to see what happens with VR in the future and would gladly play games with dual controllers and standing.
It's a comment and personal opinion from someone who works with the technology and has first hand experience. Make of that what you will.
I'd like a completely immersive experience, but current VR simply can't offer that.
To get there, full body tracking is required so that controllers are not needed anymore, and some kind of treadmill that allows you to walk in VR while physically staying in the same position, to avoid running into walls, having to re-adjust the connectors etc.
And even then, holding an object in VR when your hands are really empty or holding a controller feels weird.
I'd like a completely immersive experience, but current VR simply can't offer that.
To get there, full body tracking is required so that controllers are not needed anymore, and some kind of treadmill that allows you to walk in VR while physically staying in the same position, to avoid running into walls, having to re-adjust the connectors etc.
And even then, holding an object in VR when your hands are really empty or holding a controller feels weird.
agreed.
plus that's more accessible for ppl with mobility or fatigue related chronic illnesses which is nice.
2x games: SuperHot and Onward. Both just totally blew my mind! Google them if you've never heard of them before. And Onward really shows the power of an Indie Dev.
The GoldenEye moment was Capcom's Resident Evil Biohazard. That game is ridiculously scary in a VR world.
Yeah, probably we will see progressively cases of people having anxiety and panics attacks because VR experiences, of course also the opposite, the "this is not my kind of game" will become a more serious statement.
A year out? Oculus touch dropped in December and PSVR in October. It's barely been three months.
As an industry I think it's very fair to say we are a year out. Vive launched (with motion controllers!) in April 2016. The Rift launched in March 2016, albeit we waited longer for Touch. The Samsung Gear VR, which has a surprisingly impressive install base now thanks to the various free promotions Samsung ran, was November 2015.
The issues VR faces, especially around the lack of compelling content, aren't really specific to a headset model or brand. I agree with the previous post - VR as a consumer industry is pretty much a year old at this point.
It's increasingly my opinion that Valve/Facebook will need to lead by example to get the content off the ground to solve the 'chicken and egg' problems, and that leading is going to involve throwing good money into projects that simply won't make money, for the greater long term good of VR. Thankfully it looks like this is finally starting to happen, with Facebook stumping up 250 million dollars for original content and Valve's recently announced in house projects. This industry and install base isn't going to grow fast enough without this investment, especially if the past 12 months are anything to go by.
The issues VR faces, especially around the lack of compelling content, aren't really specific to a headset model or brand. I agree with the previous post - VR as a consumer industry is pretty much a year old at this point.
It's increasingly my opinion that Valve/Facebook will need to lead by example to get the content off the ground to solve the 'chicken and egg' problems, and that leading is going to involve throwing good money into projects that simply won't make money, for the greater long term good of VR. Thankfully it looks like this is finally starting to happen, with Facebook stumping up 250 million dollars for original content and Valve's recently announced in house projects. This industry and install base isn't going to grow fast enough without this investment, especially if the past 12 months are anything to go by.
I forget my basement ceilings are low and end up hitting them all the time. Plenty of us are damaging our equipment and bodies with VR. News may not be covering it but you can find plenty of war stories on Reddit.
But yes, software support is nowhere near where it needs to be to ensure the future of these platforms.
But yes, software support is nowhere near where it needs to be to ensure the future of these platforms.
Still, it's probably safer than skateboarding IRL ;)
> Where are the Wii-game clones? Where are the DDR-clones and, like, retro arcades?
If you watch the Gabe interview, he points out that cloning experiences is the wrong approach. The problem with VR is that nobody knows what its DOOM would look like. Elite: Dangerous gives a glimpse into what that could be, but it's not conclusive and is on the more expensive platforms.
> Nobody has been so preoccupied with a VR game that that they flung the controller into the TV yet.
With Leap Motion Orion, I've flung my hand into a wall - if that counts. The term is "presence," and Leap takes it to another level. Sadly, Leap consists of tech demos right now.
If you watch the Gabe interview, he points out that cloning experiences is the wrong approach. The problem with VR is that nobody knows what its DOOM would look like. Elite: Dangerous gives a glimpse into what that could be, but it's not conclusive and is on the more expensive platforms.
> Nobody has been so preoccupied with a VR game that that they flung the controller into the TV yet.
With Leap Motion Orion, I've flung my hand into a wall - if that counts. The term is "presence," and Leap takes it to another level. Sadly, Leap consists of tech demos right now.
Nobody has been so preoccupied with a VR game that that they flung the controller into the TV yet.
My retired dad tried the Vive tutorial where you can blow balloons using the controller, then hit them with your hands. He was so excited he tried to kick the balloons... And almost broke a chair. (Kicking doesn't work since there are no trackers on your feet, but the immersion was so strong he didn't realize that.)
My retired dad tried the Vive tutorial where you can blow balloons using the controller, then hit them with your hands. He was so excited he tried to kick the balloons... And almost broke a chair. (Kicking doesn't work since there are no trackers on your feet, but the immersion was so strong he didn't realize that.)
I almost knocked my macbook off my table playing DriveClub VR, multiple times
Half Life 3 for Steam VR would be the killer-app for me, if done correctly
Valve did make a "Portal" game, but without any portals. Instead, you have a teleport gun and a gravity gun. It felt half-hearted, another tech demo, and ends without any hint of more levels or player-driven maps.
Portal Stories: VR was made by a modding team, not by Valve.
Valve, with their Portal 3 VR teaser, already hinted that something would be coming.
What's the historical significance of goldneye? I know it's well loved, but I don't really know the context.
The first successful console FPS. I guess it's notable for creating a mostly usable gamepad control scheme for that type of game.
The first FPS with a usable console control scheme was the first Halo on the original Xbox.
Except that's a lie, goldeneye had a control setting for two controllers meaning dual analog, same as we have today.
Goldeneye had the same controls, it just wasn't the default.
C-Pad was used like WASD and the stick to look.
C-Pad was used like WASD and the stick to look.
I'm playing the gorgeous Elite Dangerous these days on a Broadwell-E PC with a curved 95hz 3440x1440 34" monitor, utilising TrackIR for head tracking, with full HOTAS (Thrustmaster Warthog + rudders). Coupled with a wonderfully detailed sound track, it is an incredibly immersive experience as it stands even in 2D.
This is a title that has VR people raving about it, and I can picture why - the immersion would be full and complete. Now, I haven't jumped on the bandwagon yet, as I like the resolution of my monitor too much - which is a factor especially in titles like DCS World that I'd also like to play.
Having said that I can't wait for the 2nd generation of Oculus Rift to come out with 4k screens or thereabouts. I'll be preordering.
This is a title that has VR people raving about it, and I can picture why - the immersion would be full and complete. Now, I haven't jumped on the bandwagon yet, as I like the resolution of my monitor too much - which is a factor especially in titles like DCS World that I'd also like to play.
Having said that I can't wait for the 2nd generation of Oculus Rift to come out with 4k screens or thereabouts. I'll be preordering.
I bought Occulus just for this game. I love Elite. Was tons of fun with Occulus. Unfortunately, the physical pressure of the Occulus hurt - caused too much pressure on my face, causing discomfort after about 20min. Additionally, resolution way too low for distant battles. Returned the Occulus, but it certainly was a great experience.
Thanks, that's good to know - I probably didn't realise the resolution would also affect Elite but it makes sense - glad you got to experience it!
The game certainly has a learning curve ... yet manages to provide perfect escapism at the end of the day.
The game certainly has a learning curve ... yet manages to provide perfect escapism at the end of the day.
You're missing the biggest issue above all of them, comfort. VR headsets are not something you can wear for long gaming sessions. They get uncomfortable, sweaty, and your eyes absolutely need a break after a while.
It's only the first generation, akin to those giant blocky cellphones in the 90s. I manage one or two 2 hour sessions per day though. My wife and I just got out of a 2.5 hour one (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/125324129).
I've spent hours on Vive without a break screensharing in Bigscreen desktop with friends in other states or countries, and today I was playing paintball with people from Europe in Rec Room and went on a quest with a team from Dublin fighting dragons and an hour past without noticing. Vive is very comfortable for me when set up correctly.
Breaks really are important mostly because VR can be really taxing for your brain most certainly so for longer periods of play. With regards to comfort: I actually prefer the PSVR in that regard, for my anatomy the most comfortable headset so far.
> 1. VR costs a lot
Yep, it costs $2k minimum currently for decent VR, its like buying a computer in the 1990s. The cost to do VR will decrease as hardware improves and software is rewritten for better APIs like Vulkan that are more efficient.
> 2. The technology needs to be better (higher resolution)
Sure, on the low end Samsung VR and others could use a resolution bump (mainly GPU constrained there currently), but room scale VR with the Vive is high res enough that it is acceptable and fully immersive in most cases.
> 3. There's not a lot of VR content available yet.
Definitely, more content and a broader ecosystem would be great. But today you can go into a Microsoft store and try VR and have a great experience, and there are quite a few high quality, immersive games that you can blow 10+hrs playing.
Yep, it costs $2k minimum currently for decent VR, its like buying a computer in the 1990s. The cost to do VR will decrease as hardware improves and software is rewritten for better APIs like Vulkan that are more efficient.
> 2. The technology needs to be better (higher resolution)
Sure, on the low end Samsung VR and others could use a resolution bump (mainly GPU constrained there currently), but room scale VR with the Vive is high res enough that it is acceptable and fully immersive in most cases.
> 3. There's not a lot of VR content available yet.
Definitely, more content and a broader ecosystem would be great. But today you can go into a Microsoft store and try VR and have a great experience, and there are quite a few high quality, immersive games that you can blow 10+hrs playing.
Vive and Oculus would both need to multiply their pixel density several times to be able to accurately display an image of an HD monitor on a desk in front of you. That's pretty low-res.
Sure it's "good enough" for many games, but it's also not something I'm going to spend a large chunk of money on. I'd much rather wait a generation or two.
Sure it's "good enough" for many games, but it's also not something I'm going to spend a large chunk of money on. I'd much rather wait a generation or two.
VR native UIs will overcome this. You can lean in to see more detail if you need to. Or move things closer to your face. Of course this is just an annoyance if you're just putting everything on a fixed 24 inch rectangle, but why would you do that in VR? You can put things closer and farther, and move them in and out and all around. There are no limits.
I know it's hard to conceptualize because we're so used to 2D controls, but there will be new control schemes. There's nothing particularly inevitable or natural about WIMP.
I know it's hard to conceptualize because we're so used to 2D controls, but there will be new control schemes. There's nothing particularly inevitable or natural about WIMP.
I ask this in all seriousness: how is this any different from a regular computer monitor? There are a set number of pixels, and you have to decide how you take up the real estate by zooming in/out with certain applications. I don't see how this is better than having multiple smaller windows on a regular monitor and just zooming into one of them when you want to use it. What am I missing?
> What am I missing?
Head tracking as input.
Right now I have my SMS window peeking out from behind this browser window. I have it so that I can just barely see if there's a new message.
In VR, I could just move my head slightly and see the whole message. As it is, I have to Alt+Tab.
The other thing that I think will be big is permanent placement of data in 3D space. Right now some people do this with virtual desktops... laying out windows and files in different workspaces so you have different places for different tasks.
A lot of people don't get that far for two reasons:
1) the virtual workspace navigation tools aren't great. This could be improved in 2D, but I believe there will be a strong incentive to solve these problems in VR
2) many digital objects don't currently have very good spatializable 2d representations. For example, I just bookmarked that article about good programmers. It's currently represented as a DIV on pinboard, but it has no generalized 2D or 3D representation. In a VR desktop, things will need to have bounded 3D representations just to exist in the UI. Once it has a representation, it's a lot easier to arrange spatially. I could put a collection of links in the same place as my code, which is currently awkward.
That all said, I do think there is a core idea you are suggesting which is fully correct: Once VR takes off, and we see how things work in VR, we will "backport" a lot of those interactions into 2D. I think interest in headsets will surge, but we'll eventually settle into a balance of 2D and 3D and the 3D will mostly be for things which are spatially intensive.
So, in that sense you're right the monitor will do everything. But VR is still interesting because it will be the source of a lot of inventions.
Also consider: dogs and cats can't use mouse and keyboard, but they can do head tracking. The first game platform that lets people play video games with their pets will be massive. In that sense, VR isn't about letting pro users do more, it's about expanding capabilities to a wider audience.
Head tracking as input.
Right now I have my SMS window peeking out from behind this browser window. I have it so that I can just barely see if there's a new message.
In VR, I could just move my head slightly and see the whole message. As it is, I have to Alt+Tab.
The other thing that I think will be big is permanent placement of data in 3D space. Right now some people do this with virtual desktops... laying out windows and files in different workspaces so you have different places for different tasks.
A lot of people don't get that far for two reasons:
1) the virtual workspace navigation tools aren't great. This could be improved in 2D, but I believe there will be a strong incentive to solve these problems in VR
2) many digital objects don't currently have very good spatializable 2d representations. For example, I just bookmarked that article about good programmers. It's currently represented as a DIV on pinboard, but it has no generalized 2D or 3D representation. In a VR desktop, things will need to have bounded 3D representations just to exist in the UI. Once it has a representation, it's a lot easier to arrange spatially. I could put a collection of links in the same place as my code, which is currently awkward.
That all said, I do think there is a core idea you are suggesting which is fully correct: Once VR takes off, and we see how things work in VR, we will "backport" a lot of those interactions into 2D. I think interest in headsets will surge, but we'll eventually settle into a balance of 2D and 3D and the 3D will mostly be for things which are spatially intensive.
So, in that sense you're right the monitor will do everything. But VR is still interesting because it will be the source of a lot of inventions.
Also consider: dogs and cats can't use mouse and keyboard, but they can do head tracking. The first game platform that lets people play video games with their pets will be massive. In that sense, VR isn't about letting pro users do more, it's about expanding capabilities to a wider audience.
I'm not sold that it's much better than doing something similar with a mouse (admittedly I don't know any software that exists that does that, I'm guessing it's because nobody wants it). I'm happy to try it when it comes out though.
> Also consider: dogs and cats can't use mouse and keyboard, but they can do head tracking. The first game platform that lets people play video games with their pets will be massive. In that sense, VR isn't about letting pro users do more, it's about expanding capabilities to a wider audience.
Please tell me you know someone working on something like this, because I would love to learn more.
> Also consider: dogs and cats can't use mouse and keyboard, but they can do head tracking. The first game platform that lets people play video games with their pets will be massive. In that sense, VR isn't about letting pro users do more, it's about expanding capabilities to a wider audience.
Please tell me you know someone working on something like this, because I would love to learn more.
I've only tried the Playstation VR and its resolution is so low that I find it too low even for games, it just isn't a compelling experience for me because of how obviously pixelated everything is. I couldn't imagine for one moment to use it as a desktop replacement.
Perhaps that is due to a lack of GPU/CPU grunt? The HTC Vive is a compelling experience from my testing, as compared to the Oculus dev kit I tried. Just so immersive with being able to walk around, grab things, go for a hike, etc. Perhaps its having 25% pixels as compared to the Playstation VR that gets it there.
Yeah I believe the display resolution required to have a full-quality 1080p display in VR was something along the lines of 8k per eye?
There's a formula to work it out but I don't remember it.
There's a formula to work it out but I don't remember it.
I believe the gear VR has a higher resolution than either the vive or the rift. FOV and rendering quality are another topic though.
It's more like $600 rig + $800 headset minimum for room scale today. We know hardware gets cheap fast.
Great points. I'd modify (3) to say it's not about quantity but instead quality. There are plenty of VR games and apps (much more than most console launches) but the quality is still lacking, as is to be expected from a new medium.
> "The price will go down and the tech will become better. He said VR will be a new reason for CPU/GPU manufacturers to up their game again"
Interesting. I just upgraded my video card because my old card (Geforce GTX 780) was not quite enough for some games. The new one, a GTX 1080 should last through this generation of VR headsets, but assuming the next ones are more of 4k at 90hz type of spec, it will need to be upgraded for that.
Interesting. I just upgraded my video card because my old card (Geforce GTX 780) was not quite enough for some games. The new one, a GTX 1080 should last through this generation of VR headsets, but assuming the next ones are more of 4k at 90hz type of spec, it will need to be upgraded for that.
Biggest issue I've had is on the PC side you are still in driver-stability hell. (remember the bad old days of peripherals?) I'm not surprised VR is popular on consoles, as it sidesteps this whole issue.
I got the PSVR as a day one pre-order. I was so excited, I preordered months before its release (when they first announced it). I had it for 2.5 months and then I sold it. It was cool at first, but the technology just isn't quite there. The limiting depth of field, limited choice of decent games (Rush of Blood was great) and Wii style graphics for a few of the experiences (especially Playstation VR Worlds).
It's a fun platform, but it definitely has the gimick aspect to it. I've experienced Oculus Rift, HTC Vive, Gear VR and PSVR. In all honesty, nothing has really wowed me just yet. I believe we'll need 4k VR for the technology to truly take it up a notch, it's getting there. My favourite is definitely the Vive, just peripherials and the resolution is great.
No doubt, the PSVR 2.0 is going to be amazing and I will buy that again.
It's a fun platform, but it definitely has the gimick aspect to it. I've experienced Oculus Rift, HTC Vive, Gear VR and PSVR. In all honesty, nothing has really wowed me just yet. I believe we'll need 4k VR for the technology to truly take it up a notch, it's getting there. My favourite is definitely the Vive, just peripherials and the resolution is great.
No doubt, the PSVR 2.0 is going to be amazing and I will buy that again.
Rez Infinite -- alone -- easily justified the multi-hectobuck asking price of PSVR. If you didn't try it, man did you miss out.
One of the things about Rez is that it's an update of a 2001 Dreamcast and PS2 game. The simpler graphics mean that head tracking in the VR version is very close to perfect, even on a first-gen PS4. I noticed judder in the head tracking when I was at the system menu in "virtual screen in front of you" mode; there was none in Rez Infinite, even in full VR in Area X.
One of the things about Rez is that it's an update of a 2001 Dreamcast and PS2 game. The simpler graphics mean that head tracking in the VR version is very close to perfect, even on a first-gen PS4. I noticed judder in the head tracking when I was at the system menu in "virtual screen in front of you" mode; there was none in Rez Infinite, even in full VR in Area X.
I have a PSVR and I think it's simply amazing. Room scale and better visuals will be great, sure. But PSVR as it is today is already what I've been waiting 25 years for.
Same here :) I've extended experience with all major VR headsets and I actually prefer the PSVR because of Sony's top-notch vertical integration.
That said, I get the general criticism for the current state in VR ("low" resolution yadda yadda) and PSVR in particular (lack of full room control / limited motion tracking yadda yadda). I really don't mind as presence works across the board today and I actually love the "subtractive" design and simple controller based experiences of most PSVR titles.
In any case, even with the most high-end graphics card on a 4K+ display and the most ambitious titles, games still look very far from photo realistic (ask any non gamer to watch you play and evaluate).
It will take us still a very long time to get to that somewhat questionable goal, especially in VR where all those "shortcomings" get even more pronounced. We will probably need completely new paradigms in game development as well as whole new classes of technology in general.
So, it's still called "playing" right? Let's continue using our imagination while enjoying the most creative efforts of our time in ever more engaging ways.
REZ and BattleZone VR alone.. my 14 year old me still can't believe that this exists and is available for normal people for essentially a summer holiday amount of work :O
All that considered, VR clearly is not for everyone. Many people can't get used to it for lots of reasons. One should also always get enough sleep and take breaks even when accustomed to VR – it is taxing. Another reason why I prefer more "simple" arcade style experiences actually, 20 min bouts of highly enjoyable escapism after which I get back to real life yay ;)
That said, I get the general criticism for the current state in VR ("low" resolution yadda yadda) and PSVR in particular (lack of full room control / limited motion tracking yadda yadda). I really don't mind as presence works across the board today and I actually love the "subtractive" design and simple controller based experiences of most PSVR titles.
In any case, even with the most high-end graphics card on a 4K+ display and the most ambitious titles, games still look very far from photo realistic (ask any non gamer to watch you play and evaluate).
It will take us still a very long time to get to that somewhat questionable goal, especially in VR where all those "shortcomings" get even more pronounced. We will probably need completely new paradigms in game development as well as whole new classes of technology in general.
So, it's still called "playing" right? Let's continue using our imagination while enjoying the most creative efforts of our time in ever more engaging ways.
REZ and BattleZone VR alone.. my 14 year old me still can't believe that this exists and is available for normal people for essentially a summer holiday amount of work :O
All that considered, VR clearly is not for everyone. Many people can't get used to it for lots of reasons. One should also always get enough sleep and take breaks even when accustomed to VR – it is taxing. Another reason why I prefer more "simple" arcade style experiences actually, 20 min bouts of highly enjoyable escapism after which I get back to real life yay ;)
Same here. More is more but this for me definitely is wow enough for a while to come. I have the Oculus as well but on the psvr stuff just works and as much as I like messing around with hardware and software; that is my job. When I want to relax things should just work immediately and the psvr delivers. I have no issues with the resolution or lagging, but then again, I have a very vivid conscious and unconscious imagination; for my brain things 'are real' pretty quick. The 'wii like' games of vr worlds someone mentioned have me walking over ledges with sweat in my hands and it does not take more than a few minutes to forget I am not a big monster or a dude shooting evil clowns.
I dunno, the games get better every week with the PSVR. Sure they were a bit thin on the ground to start with, but now there's something new to play quite regularly .
I worked on a project in which we worked with Samsung to create VR Experiences with the GearVR. Marketing was hyping to our customers before we even wrote a single spec with Samsung so the expectations for the end result were stupidly high and unreasonable.
There is a known strategy in politics to intentionally book rooms for speeches that are too small for the number of people who will show up. That way the next day the newspapers will talk about how people were standing in the aisles just to see the politician.
You have to wonder whether Sony is using the same strategy to generate more long term interest in a product that was "sold out" and "scarce".
You have to wonder whether Sony is using the same strategy to generate more long term interest in a product that was "sold out" and "scarce".
There is a known strategy in business to underestimate and test demand in new markets. That way you're not stuck with excess inventory, excess manufacturing capacity, and angry shareholders.
Any related marketing buzz is a bonus, of course. ;)
Any related marketing buzz is a bonus, of course. ;)
So, what do you want them to do? Scale up their manufacturing to fulfill the projected initial demand peak, hope they got it right, and scale it down afterwards, or pile up a few weeks or months of production before starting selling it, increasing the amount of money they need to invest before getting money from sales?
Scaling production up and down may be easier than it used to be, but it still can be fairly costly.
I think the advertising of 'we sold more than we can make' is just a nice extra.
Scaling production up and down may be easier than it used to be, but it still can be fairly costly.
I think the advertising of 'we sold more than we can make' is just a nice extra.
A million sold is a lot for a $300 peripheral.
$400 actually. Also most(?) people probably had to buy the $500 bundle as PSVR requires a Sony Playstation camera to function and many games utilize the bundled Move controllers as input devices.
Sheer quantity shipped is not a guarantee that a platform will be viable.
The Kinect sold ten or twelve million in the first couple of months. (That may have been the number manufactured, but it still sold in the many-millions on launch).
That didn't help it succeed. There are a bunch of reasons why it didn't, and why it was eventually all but deprecated from the Xbox One. I believe that user interaction design driven by management-imposed ideology, rather than user testing, was a big factor.
The Kinect sold ten or twelve million in the first couple of months. (That may have been the number manufactured, but it still sold in the many-millions on launch).
That didn't help it succeed. There are a bunch of reasons why it didn't, and why it was eventually all but deprecated from the Xbox One. I believe that user interaction design driven by management-imposed ideology, rather than user testing, was a big factor.
As you say, Kinect was dumb for a whole host of reasons, PSVR on the otherhand is broadly compatible with Oculus and Vive in the sense that the games made for one can be adapted to the other that means the potential market isn't just limited to PSVR only. I think that fact moves it firmly out of kinect territory.
I also agree and said at the time, adding $100+ to the price of the xbox one for a peripheral which most people wouldn't use was incredibly fucking dumb.
I also agree and said at the time, adding $100+ to the price of the xbox one for a peripheral which most people wouldn't use was incredibly fucking dumb.
> PSVR on the otherhand is broadly compatible with Oculus and Vive in the sense that the games made for one can be adapted to the other
This is actually one of the big problems in developing content for VR, because it's not true. There are different levels of immersion in VR, and you cannot take a game that is full immersion which includes 360 roomscale tracking with hands, to the most limited VR which is front facing tracking without hands. One is being able to walk around and touch things with your hand, the other is sitting in a chair and not being to touch things. Yes, you can use the most basic immersion on any VR system, but my understanding is most people don't want to bother with it because it's boring. One thing the Vive did correctly in my opinion is offering the highest immersion to every buyer - there were no optional wands, they were included (whereas you have to buy them separately for the Rift). 360 tracking is out of the box, whereas with the Rift you need to buy a 3rd sensor for that to work (and they're still having so many problems Facebook has even admitted it's not working properly). The PSVR does not support 360 tracking at all right now, it's intended as a sit down experience.
I see a lot of potential in VR, but I'd say it's 2 generations away from becoming "mainstream" in the sense that there is an active community for it and it's profitable, but it's always going to be a subset of the gaming market (talking solely about VR for gaming, the focus with Facebook is clearly to focus on mobile). Right now it's way too expensive, the resolution is bad, it requires high end video cards to just barely eke out 90 fps when you want 120 fps, and most importantly there is a serious lack of content.
Like another commenter said, VR right now is in the Palm Pilot stages. It's cool and there are early adopters, but it has a long way to go before we're in the iPhone era.
This is actually one of the big problems in developing content for VR, because it's not true. There are different levels of immersion in VR, and you cannot take a game that is full immersion which includes 360 roomscale tracking with hands, to the most limited VR which is front facing tracking without hands. One is being able to walk around and touch things with your hand, the other is sitting in a chair and not being to touch things. Yes, you can use the most basic immersion on any VR system, but my understanding is most people don't want to bother with it because it's boring. One thing the Vive did correctly in my opinion is offering the highest immersion to every buyer - there were no optional wands, they were included (whereas you have to buy them separately for the Rift). 360 tracking is out of the box, whereas with the Rift you need to buy a 3rd sensor for that to work (and they're still having so many problems Facebook has even admitted it's not working properly). The PSVR does not support 360 tracking at all right now, it's intended as a sit down experience.
I see a lot of potential in VR, but I'd say it's 2 generations away from becoming "mainstream" in the sense that there is an active community for it and it's profitable, but it's always going to be a subset of the gaming market (talking solely about VR for gaming, the focus with Facebook is clearly to focus on mobile). Right now it's way too expensive, the resolution is bad, it requires high end video cards to just barely eke out 90 fps when you want 120 fps, and most importantly there is a serious lack of content.
Like another commenter said, VR right now is in the Palm Pilot stages. It's cool and there are early adopters, but it has a long way to go before we're in the iPhone era.
This is actually one of the big problems in developing content for VR, because it's not true.
What isn't true? There are absolutely games on the market that have been ported between PSVR, Occulus and Vive platforms.
What isn't true? There are absolutely games on the market that have been ported between PSVR, Occulus and Vive platforms.
If you make a game that's designed around 360 tracking and utilizing your hands, you can port it to the Rift but only a small fraction of the users would have the necessary hardware and setup for it to work, and you fundamentally could not port it to the PSVR. Right now there are so few VR games that everybody is mostly making tech demos, and it's a bit of a crapshoot how well they work on each piece of hardware as a lot of stuff gets figured out. As more developers commit to the Vive (which polls show is the case) it seems likely that the full experience games won't be ported at all. I foresee a lot of forks within VR gaming, which is bad considering it's seeing much slower growth than many had hoped.
What I suspect will happen is the Vive will dominate for PC gaming (which I suspect will be a niche market), Oculus will dominate mobile (I think this will take 5-10 years and they will be heavily competing with Apple who is leapfrogging VR entirely for AR which I think will be a far bigger market and the true next computing platform), and the PSVR will slowly fade into oblivion the same way that nobody uses a Kinect anymore.
What I suspect will happen is the Vive will dominate for PC gaming (which I suspect will be a niche market), Oculus will dominate mobile (I think this will take 5-10 years and they will be heavily competing with Apple who is leapfrogging VR entirely for AR which I think will be a far bigger market and the true next computing platform), and the PSVR will slowly fade into oblivion the same way that nobody uses a Kinect anymore.
Would you be willing to clarify what your exact position on this is, so that I don't respond to the wrong statement and we end up talking past one another (because I think we're in agreement to an extent):
Is it untrue that PSVR games can be ported to other VR platforms (this is what I was responding to initially and asked for clarification on) or that there are legitimate technical and market hurdles involved in porting from PSVR to other VR platforms?
My initial comment was that it is true because that exact phenomenon is happening, there are multiple titles out that exist across all three major VR platforms and we're about to have more (Good lord almighty will Elite Dangerous hurry up and come out for PS4 already...); so my disagreement starts and about ends there because I thought that's what you were arguing?
Is that no longer the case as you're now talking about demos, and market split between Vive vs PC vs VR and the technical challenges needed to port games among platforms? If this is the case, I-in fact-agree with you.
Again, I just want to make sure I know exactly what I'm responding to.
As more developers commit to the Vive (which polls show is the case)
Would you mind sharing those polls? This is something I'm very interested in as the whole VR space right now has really got me wanting to get back into game development-which was a hobby in high school making 2D platformers-so I'm curious what about the Vive is so attractive to other developers.
Is it untrue that PSVR games can be ported to other VR platforms (this is what I was responding to initially and asked for clarification on) or that there are legitimate technical and market hurdles involved in porting from PSVR to other VR platforms?
My initial comment was that it is true because that exact phenomenon is happening, there are multiple titles out that exist across all three major VR platforms and we're about to have more (Good lord almighty will Elite Dangerous hurry up and come out for PS4 already...); so my disagreement starts and about ends there because I thought that's what you were arguing?
Is that no longer the case as you're now talking about demos, and market split between Vive vs PC vs VR and the technical challenges needed to port games among platforms? If this is the case, I-in fact-agree with you.
Again, I just want to make sure I know exactly what I'm responding to.
As more developers commit to the Vive (which polls show is the case)
Would you mind sharing those polls? This is something I'm very interested in as the whole VR space right now has really got me wanting to get back into game development-which was a hobby in high school making 2D platformers-so I'm curious what about the Vive is so attractive to other developers.
More developers are interested in working with the Vive from polls - https://uploadvr.com/htc-vive-gdc-state-of-the-industry-2017... - and admittedly it's anecdotal but everyone I know is exclusively interested in the Vive (ignoring my friends that work at Facebook, but they're not game developers).
Yes, games made for PSVR can be ported to the Rift and Vive. However games designed for the Vive that take advantage of its capabilities probably cannot be ported to the other systems. Basically, the Vive can do more stuff, and if you design you game around that it doesn't port well (or potentially at all) to the other headsets.
Yes, games made for PSVR can be ported to the Rift and Vive. However games designed for the Vive that take advantage of its capabilities probably cannot be ported to the other systems. Basically, the Vive can do more stuff, and if you design you game around that it doesn't port well (or potentially at all) to the other headsets.
A million sold is a lot for a $300 gen 1 peripheral without a proven content lineup.
It's enough to make me think it could go either way, but I still think VR will grow slowly over a period of several years before finding its niche in the market. To put things in perspective, Microsoft sold tens of millions of Kinect devices before abandoning it - within the first 60 days they had sold 8 million.
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-microsoft-xbox-kinect-did...
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-microsoft-xbox-kinect-did...
Nintendo does this to drive up demand - Sonys problem is even 1mil peripherals is only going to drive 200-400k sales of a big title - not big enough for the investment of any third party to do a real AAA game, which could get big momentum for the platform. So you have to invest a lot in first party games to sell the platform on a relatively tight budget. Thankfully they have the money to throw around now, unlike the PS3 days.
Sometimes. Sometimes Nintendo just can't actually deliver. Missing holiday season with your NES Classic is definitely not to drive up demand.
So I wonder how often their inability to deliver is mislabelled as an intentional move.
So I wonder how often their inability to deliver is mislabelled as an intentional move.
This might make sense if we were talking about actual exclusives, and if we're talking about VR-only games, you're absolutely right.
But AAA studios can approach VR as something of a hybrid experience. It requires some development, but can be retroactively applied to a lot of existing games and engines without a huge amount of additional effort. They can budget VR more like a port, and less like an entirely new game from scratch. The PC community is helping out a lot with this by retroactively patching older games with VR support, and in the process very rapidly iterating on control schemes and camera parameters to make it "work" in games that weren't originally planned for the platform. Games which support VR can also support traditional controls and regular televisions, which expands the market for those who just want to play the game, and don't want to pay for the immersive headset.
It's an interesting space to be sure. I definitely think Sony was wise not to over-produce headsets initially for such a new, untested platform, but at this point it's pretty clear that VR is going to continue to be a thing. I don't know if it will ever hit actual mainstream / casual gamers, but there's enough passion in the product from the hardcore customer base to keep the momentum going.
But AAA studios can approach VR as something of a hybrid experience. It requires some development, but can be retroactively applied to a lot of existing games and engines without a huge amount of additional effort. They can budget VR more like a port, and less like an entirely new game from scratch. The PC community is helping out a lot with this by retroactively patching older games with VR support, and in the process very rapidly iterating on control schemes and camera parameters to make it "work" in games that weren't originally planned for the platform. Games which support VR can also support traditional controls and regular televisions, which expands the market for those who just want to play the game, and don't want to pay for the immersive headset.
It's an interesting space to be sure. I definitely think Sony was wise not to over-produce headsets initially for such a new, untested platform, but at this point it's pretty clear that VR is going to continue to be a thing. I don't know if it will ever hit actual mainstream / casual gamers, but there's enough passion in the product from the hardcore customer base to keep the momentum going.
Yes, you can do that, just like adding support for say the PlayStation Move or 3D TVs. That doesn't equal a good experience though necessarily. So many game experiences suffer in VR if you're not designed for it at the start, and jutter/motion sickness is a real concern in VR.
VR generally wants you to have a slower paced first person view, if the player isn't in a cockpit of some sort and in a "natural sitting" position. Racing and flying games have this and are naturally good VR experiences if the engine will allow for it (not all do). But all 3rd person games are out. Most FPSes are out. Thats a good chunk of the industry.
VR generally wants you to have a slower paced first person view, if the player isn't in a cockpit of some sort and in a "natural sitting" position. Racing and flying games have this and are naturally good VR experiences if the engine will allow for it (not all do). But all 3rd person games are out. Most FPSes are out. Thats a good chunk of the industry.
VR definitely needs to be developed for intentionally. Not least because the performance requirements are significantly higher.
However VR isn't really restricted to a first person view, you definitely need to respect motion sickness and avoid it as much as possible but there are plenty of good games that use a third person viewpoint on the action. What you really shouldn't do is take control of the camera and when you do (e.g. for locomotion) avoid styles that cause nausea.
However VR isn't really restricted to a first person view, you definitely need to respect motion sickness and avoid it as much as possible but there are plenty of good games that use a third person viewpoint on the action. What you really shouldn't do is take control of the camera and when you do (e.g. for locomotion) avoid styles that cause nausea.
There are a lot of 3rd person VR titles.
Not disagreeing that under delivering is a tactic, but in this case I don't think that is at plat. The company is outselling all other VR units combined. I think it was a legitimate calculation to forecast on 1 million units over six months (and even that would be 'best VR product sales of any brand'.)
They aren't. No business mass-producing consumer electronics is deliberately going to turn away people wanting to give them $300 just so they can make an impression on someone else who might want to give them $300. There's advertising and marketing for that and it's costly enough without not-selling product.
You have to wonder whether Sony is using the same strategy to generate more long term interest in a product that was "sold out" and "scarce".
How do you mean? When I went to buy my PSVR there were four store trips (Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and two GameStops), all sold out before I finally came home and just ordered one online-and even on Amazon I saw a notice that supplies were limited.
How do you mean? When I went to buy my PSVR there were four store trips (Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and two GameStops), all sold out before I finally came home and just ordered one online-and even on Amazon I saw a notice that supplies were limited.
And it's ridiculous because I want to buy a PSVR now and the longer this artificial shortage continues the less interested I grow and may settle for a Daydream to get my fix.
Check out Amazon Prime Now if it's available in your area. All other stores were sold out but Prime Now had inventory so I was able to get a PSVR bundle delivered to my door within an hour.
That was what I resorted to, exactly how it played out. Every store nearby was out, went home, put in an order, had it 58 minutes later to the second.
And it wasn't just the PlayStation VR. For example the Echo was sold out on Amazon right before the holidays but you could get it within an hour on Prime Now.
I suspect Amazon is doing this on purpose to get people to try Prime Now. That was probably the first purchase I made on Prime Now and I've since made quite a few purchases. When I used to need something right away I would drive to Best Buy or a nearby store. Now I first check Prime Now before going anywhere else.
I suspect Amazon is doing this on purpose to get people to try Prime Now. That was probably the first purchase I made on Prime Now and I've since made quite a few purchases. When I used to need something right away I would drive to Best Buy or a nearby store. Now I first check Prime Now before going anywhere else.
That's exactly the point!
You, and the media, perceive all these stores being sold out as implying that the product is super-popular and special. Someone who didn't plan to buy the product will see this scarcity and think that it's incredibly popular, and maybe want to jump on the bandwagon.
However, there's not necessarily a scarcity at the source - they could have a large number of units in Sony warehouses. Then, a week after they sold out on initial launch, and people are hearing stories from their friend iamdave and from the Times that the PSVR is incredibly popular and hard to find, they can ship those warehouse units to the stores and suddenly even more people can purchase a PSVR.
You, and the media, perceive all these stores being sold out as implying that the product is super-popular and special. Someone who didn't plan to buy the product will see this scarcity and think that it's incredibly popular, and maybe want to jump on the bandwagon.
However, there's not necessarily a scarcity at the source - they could have a large number of units in Sony warehouses. Then, a week after they sold out on initial launch, and people are hearing stories from their friend iamdave and from the Times that the PSVR is incredibly popular and hard to find, they can ship those warehouse units to the stores and suddenly even more people can purchase a PSVR.
You, and the media, perceive all these stores being sold out as implying that the product is super-popular and special.
I can only speak for myself here, so take it however you want to, but going to four stores and all of them being sold out-honest to God my only thought was-oh okay, they're out, on to the next store.
Legitimately the "hype" factor for me was playing a space dogfighting game at a friend's house, falling in love with the experience (as I'm a longtime fan of the EVE Online series, and Valkyrie was made by the same production team) and deciding "Hey, I want one of these for myself".
So I somewhat get your point, but I'm not entirely sure I'm convinced enough of how true it is to agree with it. And even if that's what Sony did...it appears to be working for them. The appeal to PSVR is that it doesn't require the investment of some PC-oriented gaming rigs necessary to render games twice for a functioning VR experience; the PS4 is already a successful and popular platform; Sony rolled the dice and got lucky 7's with PSVR.
I can only speak for myself here, so take it however you want to, but going to four stores and all of them being sold out-honest to God my only thought was-oh okay, they're out, on to the next store.
Legitimately the "hype" factor for me was playing a space dogfighting game at a friend's house, falling in love with the experience (as I'm a longtime fan of the EVE Online series, and Valkyrie was made by the same production team) and deciding "Hey, I want one of these for myself".
So I somewhat get your point, but I'm not entirely sure I'm convinced enough of how true it is to agree with it. And even if that's what Sony did...it appears to be working for them. The appeal to PSVR is that it doesn't require the investment of some PC-oriented gaming rigs necessary to render games twice for a functioning VR experience; the PS4 is already a successful and popular platform; Sony rolled the dice and got lucky 7's with PSVR.
That assumes that consumers respond solely to availability signals. In reality people also talk to each other online a lot, so if a product was actually mediocre then artificial scarcity wouldn't provide that great of a boost to sales.
It could be the case. And if so, hey, if it's working to sell more, kudos to their PR department.
But as someone else posted, selling a million in a short time frame certainly seems like success. Whether there's artificial pent-up demand or not, they've sold quite a few considering the price of it all.
But as someone else posted, selling a million in a short time frame certainly seems like success. Whether there's artificial pent-up demand or not, they've sold quite a few considering the price of it all.
Apparently people have managed to get PSVR to work with Windows and OSX even going so far as to get a few Oculus games to run
http://vrheads.com/do-you-really-need-ps4-playstation-vr
I've been trying to get one since they shipped in October. I'm in Japan. They have a raffle every 2 weeks or so to decide who gets to buy them at list price.
http://vrheads.com/do-you-really-need-ps4-playstation-vr
I've been trying to get one since they shipped in October. I'm in Japan. They have a raffle every 2 weeks or so to decide who gets to buy them at list price.
I bought PSVR last year and have purchased most of the games that have come out since. I've never used the other VR systems so don't know how PSVR compares, nor have I ever owned a HD TV (I play off a monitor) so the low-res doesn't deeply bother me. But the truth is is that while there are great experiences, there aren't many great games.
By great experiences, I mean, games that make you go "Wow" for the first 10 minutes, but after you've completed the game, there's not much reason to go back. The VR games aren't often designed with replayability or player freedom in mind. This coupled with the fact that putting on the headset is substantially more work than just picking up a controller means I've barely used the VR setup compared to just playing regular PS4 games.
Maybe things will change after the popular success of Resident Evil 7. But the problem with RE7 is that a pants-shitting experience is not the gaming for everyone. I don't blame developers in general for not putting the effort in making great, polished VR games -- the audience just isn't there in comparison to the 50 million PS4 systems in general. For PSVR to become truly successful, Sony had to throw money at developers to make games that will be loss leaders at first.
Right now, PSVR is mostly shovelware and ports from other VR platforms. One of only developers to build a AAA-game for PSVR, RIGS, was supported by and then shut down by Sony [0]. I don't have a lot of faith that VR won't go down the route of PSMove, PS Camera, Xbox's Kinect, and other such unsupported peripherals.
edit: A couple of other things to point out. I haven't used Rift or Vive but the general consensus is that PSVR tracking is inferior. That has to be another disincentive for developers to make distinctive, polished games. Right now, the most fun VR game is Fruit Ninja, but that allows for sloppy tracking and is a fairly simple game. The challenge of translating player gestures, and also not making the player super-sick, are the kind of challenges that require first-party support/investment by Sony...third-party indie developers can't do it on their own.
All that said, for games that can be played fully as either VR or non-VR -- this includes RE7, Rez, and Bound -- the VR experience is so much more superior that you can't imagine playing the non-VR versions.
[0] http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/12/sony-shuts-down-rigs-developer...
By great experiences, I mean, games that make you go "Wow" for the first 10 minutes, but after you've completed the game, there's not much reason to go back. The VR games aren't often designed with replayability or player freedom in mind. This coupled with the fact that putting on the headset is substantially more work than just picking up a controller means I've barely used the VR setup compared to just playing regular PS4 games.
Maybe things will change after the popular success of Resident Evil 7. But the problem with RE7 is that a pants-shitting experience is not the gaming for everyone. I don't blame developers in general for not putting the effort in making great, polished VR games -- the audience just isn't there in comparison to the 50 million PS4 systems in general. For PSVR to become truly successful, Sony had to throw money at developers to make games that will be loss leaders at first.
Right now, PSVR is mostly shovelware and ports from other VR platforms. One of only developers to build a AAA-game for PSVR, RIGS, was supported by and then shut down by Sony [0]. I don't have a lot of faith that VR won't go down the route of PSMove, PS Camera, Xbox's Kinect, and other such unsupported peripherals.
edit: A couple of other things to point out. I haven't used Rift or Vive but the general consensus is that PSVR tracking is inferior. That has to be another disincentive for developers to make distinctive, polished games. Right now, the most fun VR game is Fruit Ninja, but that allows for sloppy tracking and is a fairly simple game. The challenge of translating player gestures, and also not making the player super-sick, are the kind of challenges that require first-party support/investment by Sony...third-party indie developers can't do it on their own.
All that said, for games that can be played fully as either VR or non-VR -- this includes RE7, Rez, and Bound -- the VR experience is so much more superior that you can't imagine playing the non-VR versions.
[0] http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/12/sony-shuts-down-rigs-developer...
At a recent earnings announcement Capcom said that RE7 was a big VR success and they were going to focus more on VR in the future. Hopefully other large games companies have noticed how well RE7 VR is doing and will give the platform a deeper look.
Personally I've been very impressed with RE7 in VR and it does feel like the "killer app" that VR has needed to create consumer excitement for the medium, at least for hardcore gamers. You're right that horror isn't going to appeal to everyone, though Capcom has a deep library of IPs and constantly creates new IPs. I think they have the ability to create a deep, AAA, VR experience for a wider hardcore gamer audience.
Personally I've been very impressed with RE7 in VR and it does feel like the "killer app" that VR has needed to create consumer excitement for the medium, at least for hardcore gamers. You're right that horror isn't going to appeal to everyone, though Capcom has a deep library of IPs and constantly creates new IPs. I think they have the ability to create a deep, AAA, VR experience for a wider hardcore gamer audience.
I have to be honest: Vive (which is the most advanced consumer VR tech available right now) is about the same. My mate and I bought a VR setup (we didn't have a PC before this) around Christmas of last year.
It's mostly a lot of things that feel like demos. Nothing that I could see myself losing hours into, like skyrim[1].
The one game that feels really close is Arizona Sunshine. It is a zombie fighting game, and there is a minigame on it called "horde mode", where progressively more zombies come at you from all directions and you have to shoot them.
Essentially that game is a really good[2] combat simulator.
That said, I don't regret the purchase at all. VR is an incredible gift to share with people.
[1]Time enjoyed isn't time lost. Skyrim is a beautiful world to explore.
[2]Arizona Sunshine feels like you are actually developing a shooting skill while you are using it. Not exactly the skill that I would have set out to develop, but definitely interesting.
It's mostly a lot of things that feel like demos. Nothing that I could see myself losing hours into, like skyrim[1].
The one game that feels really close is Arizona Sunshine. It is a zombie fighting game, and there is a minigame on it called "horde mode", where progressively more zombies come at you from all directions and you have to shoot them.
Essentially that game is a really good[2] combat simulator.
That said, I don't regret the purchase at all. VR is an incredible gift to share with people.
[1]Time enjoyed isn't time lost. Skyrim is a beautiful world to explore.
[2]Arizona Sunshine feels like you are actually developing a shooting skill while you are using it. Not exactly the skill that I would have set out to develop, but definitely interesting.
The demos can be so compelling sometimes that they make me believe in VR as a product. The content needs to catch up however. I think when Fallout 4 VR is released is when VR will begin to be worth the cost of entry.
If you like the shooting in AS, join us in Rec Room playing paintball. Its simple enough mechanics and free so it has the largest community with people always playing.
Yours is not an isolated experience. The games I've played which felt like full VR games were Superhot, Asseto Corsa, Chronos, and Elite Dangerous. Hopefully one day you'll be able to connect a PSVR to a PC or those games are ported to PS4 because each and every one was fantastic. God knows, it'd be great to get Rez and Psychonauts on PC.
Oh my REZ <3 but the mentioned "Bound" is also amazing. I still like BattleZone VR and Thumper a lot too! PSVR is solid!
The reason I'm not buying the PSRV is that it's really hard to figure out if it'll even work for me vis-a-vis the tracking camera.
I have a projector setup, so the PSRV camera has some propriterary cable running to it that I'd need to buy a third-party extension cord for, and who knows if that'll work.
Even if I have that I can't find any information on Sony's site about where it's acceptable to mount the camera relative to where you're standing. Is it only OK if it's directly in front of you, how about at a 45° incline etc?
Then, if I get all of that right I don't have a lot of floor space in front of the projector (maybe 2x2 meters), they don't say how far you're expected to move around in the games you can buy.
I have a projector setup, so the PSRV camera has some propriterary cable running to it that I'd need to buy a third-party extension cord for, and who knows if that'll work.
Even if I have that I can't find any information on Sony's site about where it's acceptable to mount the camera relative to where you're standing. Is it only OK if it's directly in front of you, how about at a 45° incline etc?
Then, if I get all of that right I don't have a lot of floor space in front of the projector (maybe 2x2 meters), they don't say how far you're expected to move around in the games you can buy.
how about at a 45° incline etc?
It works. I have mine on my mounted tv, which sits roughly at that angle from where my seat is. The PS Camera can tilt and swivel down so it doesn't need directly parallel vision.
Edit: The biggest knock I have (and this might be a problem with Occulus and Vive but I don't own either to know) is the issue of screen drift. Some games - like Eve Valkyrie - switch from a 2D/flat loading screen to fully rendered 3D environments.In those loading areas I may pull off the headset to check my phone or take a sip of water, put it back on and have to reorient the screen.
It's not a burdensome task to adjust, just press and hold options and it pops back into place. It's also not a terrible amount of drift that it impacts gameplay, but it is something I've noticed occurring with a frequency that's a little nagging.
It works. I have mine on my mounted tv, which sits roughly at that angle from where my seat is. The PS Camera can tilt and swivel down so it doesn't need directly parallel vision.
Edit: The biggest knock I have (and this might be a problem with Occulus and Vive but I don't own either to know) is the issue of screen drift. Some games - like Eve Valkyrie - switch from a 2D/flat loading screen to fully rendered 3D environments.In those loading areas I may pull off the headset to check my phone or take a sip of water, put it back on and have to reorient the screen.
It's not a burdensome task to adjust, just press and hold options and it pops back into place. It's also not a terrible amount of drift that it impacts gameplay, but it is something I've noticed occurring with a frequency that's a little nagging.
Well, in order for VR to be successful you ACTUALLY need good VR games. It seems Resident Evil 7 got a fair amount of positive reviews. I believe the VR mode for that game is currently supported only on PS4.
Eve Valkyrie is also a full game worth talking about. Well, kind-of full. You don't get that "here's 30 minutes of an experience, now back to the start you go"; the multiplayer aspect of the game is amazing, but single player could have used a bit more attention.
Overall though, the immersion, the unique control scheme for space dogfighting, upgrading and improving your ships, it's doing a VERY good job holding me over until the PS4 port of Elite Dangerous comes out.
Overall though, the immersion, the unique control scheme for space dogfighting, upgrading and improving your ships, it's doing a VERY good job holding me over until the PS4 port of Elite Dangerous comes out.
Eve Valkyrie is good but without supersampling it is hard to see ships at a great distance away due to the screen-door effect. Alas, I've got only a GTX 970 graphics card, so supersampling is out for me.
Yes, there's a 1 year exclusive until it goes to PC.
VR must be wireless in order to be successful.
This is solved and will start being implemented in headsets in the next few years, this year as an add-on.
See the first to market here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-CWz8nAFgs
See the first to market here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-CWz8nAFgs
I had trouble taking the article seriously when it repeatedly called the PSVR premium, coming off like a PR piece. It's strictly on the mainstream/low-end. Also, it didn't mention how much of the sales were in Japan other than to say 'especially', which doesn't often reflect reception elsewhere.
Premium when compared to those stupid bits of cardboard you put your phone in.
Personally, I think the biggest problem with VR is that it's downright dangerous. I tried a professionally setup and monitored demo of HTC vive inside of a Microsoft store, and walked into the wall. They needed somebody with you to help make sure you didn't get tangled in the wires - during a 15 minute demo! And people still did, repeatedly. Until there aren't cords and something like the Omni treadmill comes around to handle movement without physically moving - I just think it's not practical or safe as a technology for games other then flight and driving simulators.
If you walked into a wall, they must not have had the chaperone settings setup properly, either miscalibrated or not appearing brightly enough.
I have a 2.5m x 2.5m space, with walls an inch or so past the edge of the space on two sides. There's only been a small handful of hits, and those were mostly at the beginning. My experience, both for myself and watching my friends try things out, is that the wire is annoying, but it's not dangerous. I think part of the problem here could be that it's best to play without shoes on - it's easier to tell when you are standing on the cord, which is when you can get the most tangled up. Obviously people are not taking their shoes off for store demos.
Wireless is definitely going to be a massive improvement, but I think saying it is dangerous is a bit of a stretch.
I have a 2.5m x 2.5m space, with walls an inch or so past the edge of the space on two sides. There's only been a small handful of hits, and those were mostly at the beginning. My experience, both for myself and watching my friends try things out, is that the wire is annoying, but it's not dangerous. I think part of the problem here could be that it's best to play without shoes on - it's easier to tell when you are standing on the cord, which is when you can get the most tangled up. Obviously people are not taking their shoes off for store demos.
Wireless is definitely going to be a massive improvement, but I think saying it is dangerous is a bit of a stretch.
I could def see being shoeless helping things out. However, by definition most of these VR systems are wired into a computer on or near desk. I could easily see someone tangle and then trip over the wire and then hit their head on the desk.
In fact, just google "VR Injuries" and you'll see way more examples then say happened with the nintendo wii, pre strap, a change they made because they concluded without it the wii was too dangerous and lawsuit prone. The original wii has nothing on current state VR. If it became any where near as widespread as the wii did with it's current implementation, there would certainly be a few more entries to the Darwin awards...
Is it just me or is VR involves a lot unnecessary effort for the user?
ie: I don't want to walk around. I want to sit comfortably without straining my arm or walking into walls.
ie: I don't want to walk around. I want to sit comfortably without straining my arm or walking into walls.
For non-games I agree. I'm working on a VR design tool and I've given myself the constraint that user are sitting in a swivel chair with elbows on armrests most of the time. I'm hoping that it'll give enough room to do interesting stuff without straying too far from keyboard-level laziness.
For games, I've been playing VR archery since I got the Vive almost a year ago and I still love it. It is tiring but so are traditional sports and people do those.
For games, I've been playing VR archery since I got the Vive almost a year ago and I still love it. It is tiring but so are traditional sports and people do those.
That's actually why I love the PSVR – I prefer the haptics and general setup of traditional video/computer gaming. Still, I also love the VIVE for what it could do in terms of creativity / productivity applications.
Are you saying there's no hope for my gardening simulator?
I have it , it's awesome BUT...it's pretty exhausting to use - like once a week. Resolution is low but then again there are these holy cow this is amazing get lost in what your seeing because of the depth of certain things and the awesome head tracking. Definitely needs more content I check every week for some new experience no matter how small.
They compare sales to the iPhone's first three months which they call a huge feat, but at the time iPhone sales were actually considered somewhat lackluster until Apple switched to standard subsidy pricing. Only then did the iPhone become a phenomenon. A million units in four months is still impressive, but please get the historical references right.
[deleted]
The iPhone was a general "internet" device and a "phone" and the PSVR is a "video game" — nytimes is comparing apples with oranges ;)
[deleted]
I remember the 3D VFX in the 1990s and thinking that in a few years it will be cheap and everywhere. Nope.
That actually surprises me as well. I would have thought that VR was going to be like 3D-TV: hyped very much for a certain amount of time but then mostly forgotten again. And I'm still not sure VR won't go down the same route.
I thought that till I tried it. The experience is impressive, not at all like the gimmicky 3D TV.
My skepticism mostly comes from reflecting on how I'm currently experiencing video games most of the time: together with a friend, sitting on the couch in front of the TV in the living room. This is a social setting: when we play a game together, we don't just look at the screen, we talk to each, look at each other, get up and get a drink from the kitchen, etc. And most often, we spend a few hours doing exactly that.
I know that not everyone shares my feeling, but somehow I have troubles imagining doing the same with VR headsets on. I don't really want to be completely removed from this social setting, completely emerged in the VR environment -- I want both, plus the ability to switch between them quickly.
Don't get me wrong, I think VR is a super cool technology. My point is that I just don't think it plays well with the social setting of a bunch of buddies hanging out together.
I know that not everyone shares my feeling, but somehow I have troubles imagining doing the same with VR headsets on. I don't really want to be completely removed from this social setting, completely emerged in the VR environment -- I want both, plus the ability to switch between them quickly.
Don't get me wrong, I think VR is a super cool technology. My point is that I just don't think it plays well with the social setting of a bunch of buddies hanging out together.
I'd like to see the usage numbers. Ownership is great for Sony, this generation, but on the next? I'm thinking of Kinect when I hear this. Kinect broke records on the 360 for sales. Once the Xbox One was launched, with the Kinect bundled (which was reasonable seeing as the Kinect v1 sales were amazing), people scoffed. I honestly don't think VR is going to be where it needs to be for a while. It's going to be great for therapeutic uses, but for general consumers, I am just not convinced that it's more than a gimmick item you show to your friends but never really use much. There will be exceptions, but I think usage numbers would back me up.
Have you tried PSVR yourself? If so, which games?
Humans finally get inexpensive VR and what's the first popular VR experience? A game where you kill other humans with guns. Oh we're going to be fine, just fine.
I am too poor to access a rift or htc, the PSVR seems like it would soil my experience. Like those 720 HD ready TVs.
How do HN people feel about VR?
How do HN people feel about VR?
I love my vive but VR isn't quite ready for prime time yet. It's clunky and overpriced and there's a limited library.
It feels like we're in the "Palm pilot" stage of the technology. Eventually an "iPhone" will come out, but there are technical and UI hurdles to overcome before that can happen.
That being said, it's also an exciting time to get involved. VR owners get to experiment with different play styles and UIs and be part of a small dedicated community. Game devs hang out on /r/vive and accept feedback and ideas. And if you already know how to code, getting started in VR development is pretty easy.
It feels like we're in the "Palm pilot" stage of the technology. Eventually an "iPhone" will come out, but there are technical and UI hurdles to overcome before that can happen.
That being said, it's also an exciting time to get involved. VR owners get to experiment with different play styles and UIs and be part of a small dedicated community. Game devs hang out on /r/vive and accept feedback and ideas. And if you already know how to code, getting started in VR development is pretty easy.
Yep. If you've got an ounce of "early adopter" in you then it's a fantastic time to be involved. There's tons of great content if you're prepared for the odd rough edge and the lack of decent curation.
That sounds more like the Newton. The Palm pilot was a massive success - a smaller, cheaper PDA that wasn't just for gadget nerds.
The VR technology is honestly very good right now, if we are talking about the actual hardware.
What we don't have yet is content. We need 1 company to put out a triple A game, and it will hit mainstream.
What we don't have yet is content. We need 1 company to put out a triple A game, and it will hit mainstream.
PlayStation VR (and ordinary PS4) is currently the only platform on which Rez Infinite is available. Playing Rez Infinite in VR has been the most intense gaming experience of my life -- I'm not shitting you.
+1 to this. Rez Infinite was close to the best few hours I have ever spent with a computer. That said, most of my coworkers didn't seem to get the same thing out of it that I did.
Die-hard Rez fan here as well :) so damn sweet, total flow state for me (surely not for everyone unfortunately).
I have tried almost every iteration of consumer VR from the last few years. Oculus DK1, DK2, and CV1, Vive, PSVR, and cardboard.
I want to say that Vive is by far the best experience, but I don't think that you're going to get ruined by trying the PSVR first, especially not if you have a bit of imagination/ability to dream about what the technology will become.
Even back in the DK1 days, it was very very clear that this was going to be an incredible technology, and I think the PSVR is better than that was.
I want to say that Vive is by far the best experience, but I don't think that you're going to get ruined by trying the PSVR first, especially not if you have a bit of imagination/ability to dream about what the technology will become.
Even back in the DK1 days, it was very very clear that this was going to be an incredible technology, and I think the PSVR is better than that was.
I have both the Rift and PSVR. I'm happy to have both. Of the two, Rift is technically superior, but not enough that I feel like the PSVR is a let down. In fact, the PSVR is much more comfortable than the Rift, hands down. If you already have a PS4, and want to get into VR, the PSVR is a solid choice.
If you don't have the money for rift or vive, PSVR is a solid choice. Doesn't have quite the content (yet), but what is there is high quality. The form factor is much more comfortable than the rift or vive...
How is Sony with regards to indie developers? I haven't been following that, but I gather that Steam / Sony / Microsoft have all been trying to lower barriers to entry.
Barring a major publisher (e.g. Capcom from the article) taking a leap of faith, I think that's where a lot of the quality first gen content is going to come from.
Barring a major publisher (e.g. Capcom from the article) taking a leap of faith, I think that's where a lot of the quality first gen content is going to come from.
For PSVR, Sony seems to be rather lenient. I say this because there's a high amount of shovelware on PSVR from indie developers, like this walking screensaver: http://pureplaystation.com/review-perfect-ps4psvr/2016/12/
I think it's good to have high-quality ports to help advance the platform (Arizona Sunshine, Fruit Ninja), but given the substantial technical challenges of VR and its relatively small audience, I think quality titles are going to require committed funding by Sony.
I think it's good to have high-quality ports to help advance the platform (Arizona Sunshine, Fruit Ninja), but given the substantial technical challenges of VR and its relatively small audience, I think quality titles are going to require committed funding by Sony.
Some would argue that they're too nice, as the Life of Black Tiger incident showed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM523jjrvf4
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-life-o...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM523jjrvf4
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-life-o...
Typically Sony has been the best place to find indie games outside of Steam and I'm hoping to see a lot more indie games going forward.
Super Hypercube is an indie game for PSVR that is considered to be quite good.
Super Hypercube is an indie game for PSVR that is considered to be quite good.
It does not have an early access program though. Which means it is missing out on a bunch of things. For VR, Subnautica comes to mind.
There is so much free and cheap content for the Vive that has provided me endless entertainment I have a feeling that you'll end up spending the same amount you'd save on PSVR buying content.
It's similar to the PC vs console economics. I almost never buy games at full price. The money I spent over the cost a console is definitely cancelled out by the money I've saved with Steam sales, Humble Bundles etc.
It's similar to the PC vs console economics. I almost never buy games at full price. The money I spent over the cost a console is definitely cancelled out by the money I've saved with Steam sales, Humble Bundles etc.
I would be happy if we [USA] never bought another drop of oil from the middle east until they learn a few lessons about human rights. And actually, exploitation of domestic resources has dramatically reduced our dependency on foreign oil.
/Firey opinion off, apologies
/Firey opinion off, apologies
I believe you are in the wrong thread :)
Yes, I was replying to Saudi oil? How on earth
[deleted]
1. VR costs a lot
2. The technology needs to be better (higher resolution)
3. There's not a lot of VR content available yet.
Two weeks ago, Gabe Newell and his SteamVR team talked openly about these issues in an interview. [1]
They say:
- The price will go down and the tech will become better. He said VR will be a new reason for CPU/GPU manufacturers to up their game again. (2018/2019)
- Valve is currently making three different full VR games (2017/2018)
- There should be an open VR standard
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMpQWSqQFK0