Support NeoGAF

[Heisenberg007]

I’m not sure you got the context for my response.

I made that comment in response to claims that you can’t do high end VR wirelessly. And that’s not factual

It IS highly dependent on your router, so it’s clear why Sony went with wired so they can at least guarantee user experience. But they could ideally sell standardized wireless conversion kits with a dedicated router

Because Crayon 's comment was, "High end headsets are either tethered or have pricey wireless options."

He wasn't saying it's not possible. A wireless option just becomes very expensive. An inexpensive way is to tether it.

In the current market, a wireless, high-end, inexpensive option just isn't available.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Surely this isn't what you should be talking about before your new device launches.

Just stick to your guns, that you feel a wired option delivers the best combo of performance and quality etc and don't say anything else. That's totally a true statement, really.

Now, I just think your sending this out to die and will look to improve it later becuase of the money pit you've thrown into VR.

 

[vivftp]

Surely this isn't what you should be talking about before your new device launches.

Just stick to your guns, that you feel a wired option delivers the best combo of performance and quality etc and don't say anything else. That's totally a true statement, really.

Now, I just think your sending this out to die and will look to improve it later becuase of the money pit you've thrown into VR.

Companies can talk about the future while also preparing for an imminent launch. They didn't choose wired because they feel it's the absolute best option and always will be, they chose it because that was the current best option for price and providing a consistent user experience.

Nishino was directly asked about this and plainly stated that while wireless can offer a different type of user experience and wireless tech is improving, it currently can't offer the same uncompromising performance that wired can offer.

Why you're twisting that to mean they're not confident in their product, I don't know. Nishino's statements in the OP are quite clear.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Why you're twisting that to mean they're not confident in their product, I don't know.

We do know, he certainly does .

My reaction was … then I looked a bit more and went:

Seriously, happens the same with Cerny presentations. It feels like some people DO want the used car salesman that will just tell each audience just what they want to hear while giving confidence boosting talking points anything else is showing weakness apparently.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

But unless the Sony store supports other VR hardware, or their hardware works with other stores no-one on PC is going to lock themselves in to specific hardware locked to a specific store. Some people who already own playstations care about trophies - but there are steam achievements or card packs or whatever for people who are in to that kind of thing on PC already.

If that VR store has all the 3rd party games AND Sony first party games and these games are best in class... then yeah... I think they will...

The lack of trophy support is a constant complaint against Steam, but I'm sure I made that up...

 

[yurinka]

Seriously, happens the same with Cerny presentations. It feels like some people DO want the used car salesman that will just tell each audience just what they want to hear while giving confidence boosting talking points anything else is showing weakness apparently.

Well, the Cerny talk was aimed to devs to explain them the PS5 hardware architecture and what it allows to do. It wasn't a talk for players who wouldn't understand most of what he said or see the potential on what he was showing.

Everything he said was real, even if some things need a lot of work to make full advantage of it but we already saw it working either on UE5 early stuff, or super fast loading in the first next gen Kraken/Oodle compression implementations to take full advantage of the SSD & I/O speed.

Some of these changes, plus the recent big advances related to AI applied to animations, image creation or procedural environment creation to name a few, mean the biggest paradigm shift in gamedev workflow, how engines work or how levels can be structured, loaded or populated since the movement from 2D to 3D.

So first would need years of game engine development and tests plus adapting their teams to the new workflow and learning the new design and figure out how to take full advantage of it. Longer than the usual next gen update of game engines that barely only add higher textures or resolution and a few new tweaks or tricks to lighting or shadowing.

These things are coming and are real but they'll need time. Until then, we get crossgen games or next gen only games that are made using previous gen tools and workflows that don't take advantage of the next gen stuff and are basically last gen games with minor tweaks.

 

[aclar00]

Question for those in the know about Wi-Fi and other wireless technology.

What's the deal with wireless devices often needing to be connected to a Wi-Fi network to communicate with another device as opposed to being directly connected? The only upside i see is a possibly a longer connection distance but other than that wouldnt for instance PSVR3 connected directly with the PS6 (either Wi-Fi or other wireless tech) be much more efficient than having the PSVR3 connected to the router and then the router to PS6?

 

[DeepEnigma]

No, but you can walk around a 6x6 area. Wireless VR is basically holodeck.

Goofy bastards can barely stand still,

 

[Crayon]

People are VERY happily using the $35 Tplink archer A6 for Oculus Quest 2 Airlink.

Okay here it goes: Quest 2 is not high end.

 

[ManaByte]

Okay here it goes: Quest 2 is not high end.

But the PC you can use it wirelessly with is.

 

[Dream-Knife]

That's right. Steam is a competitor to PS5 as a platform just as much as Xbox is.

We don't see that being the case right now, but as Sony's plans evolve, that will become more evident.

Alyx will never be ported to PSVR2 under the current circumstances. That sucks for Sony in the short term, but in the long term, they're going to make plenty of AAA grade VR games of their own. I just can't envision those sandboxed on PS5 alone.

The meaning of PlayStation is going to change dramatically within the next 5 years. PlayStation is going to be a storefront across a multitude of devices. But every time Sony makes exclusive deals for games to come out on PS5 and PC (Steam, EGS), I can only envision they'd evolve those deals to be exclusive on their PC storefront/launcher as well.

People don't use EGS and they give people free games. I think for whatever reason Sony fans want this to be a thing, but no one on PC does.

Playstation is just another third party on PC. It doesn't hold the prestige that it does on console. Capcom is a bigger deal, and they'd be effectively non-existent on PC without Steam.

It’s about signal not really really doing that internally

PS5 has wifi 6 though. It should absolutely be able to do it no problem. Wifi 5 can do it fine.

 

[Crayon]

But the PC you can use it wirelessly with is.

High end headsets are either tethered or have pricey wireless options.

 

[rofif]

People don't use EGS and they give people free games. I think for whatever reason Sony fans want this to be a thing, but no one on PC does.

Playstation is just another third party on PC. It doesn't hold the prestige that it does on console. Capcom is a bigger deal, and they'd be effectively non-existent on PC without Steam.

PS5 has wifi 6 though. It should absolutely be able to do it no problem. Wifi 5 can do it fine.

It can't. It can in theory but oculus quest 2 proves that it is barely able to send very compressed image without hdr.
There is no lag but it looks like compression in the headset

 

[Dream-Knife]

If that VR store has all the 3rd party games AND Sony first party games and these games are best in class... then yeah... I think they will...

The lack of trophy support is a constant complaint against Steam, but I'm sure I made that up...

Steam has achievements and badges for those that care. The more badges you have, the higher your level.

It can't. It can in theory but oculus quest 2 proves that it is barely able to send very compressed image without hdr.
There is no lag but it looks like compression in the headset

That's because they capped the bitrate at 200 mbps. Sony could do much more with using wifi 6. Even 5 would be fine, as wifi 6 routers are still expensive.


Maybe we will see Deckard this year.

 

[rofif]

Steam has achievements and badges for those that care. The more badges you have, the higher your level.

That's because they capped the bitrate at 200 mbps. Sony could do much more with using wifi 6. Even 5 would be fine, as wifi 6 routers are still expensive.


Maybe we will see Deckard this year.

yeah but then battery will drain like crazy probably... And we don't want the thing to be too heavy.
so 1 cable, usb c front of the console is fine for now

 

[Crayon]

Maybe we will see Deckard this year.

I don't want to get all hype for the next headset before the last one even comes out but it's hard not to.

 

[poppabk]

If that VR store has all the 3rd party games AND Sony first party games and these games are best in class... then yeah... I think they will...

The lack of trophy support is a constant complaint against Steam, but I'm sure I made that up...

I would consider buying a PSVR2 if it was compatible with my steam library and gamepass VR games. I would invest in games from a Sony VR store if it allowed me to use other headsets.
I would never buy a PSVR2 to only use with games from a Sony store, just like I won't buy any games from the Meta PC store. I am pretty sure most PC gamers would feel the same.

 

[Dream-Knife]

yeah but then battery will drain like crazy probably... And we don't want the thing to be too heavy.
so 1 cable, usb c front of the console is fine for now

It wouldn't have to drain the battery quickly, plus you could always fall back on the wire if needed.

Weight wouldn't be too much of an issue. The key is balancing it.

 

[rofif]

It wouldn't have to drain the battery quickly, plus you could always fall back on the wire if needed.

Weight wouldn't be too much of an issue. The key is balancing it.

maybe but so far the only headset that was not too heavy for me was oculus cv1... and maybe hp g2 but it was uncomfortable otherwise.
Quest 1 and 2 are too heavy. balancing or not

 

[Mibu no ookami]

People don't use EGS and they give people free games. I think for whatever reason Sony fans want this to be a thing, but no one on PC does.

Playstation is just another third party on PC. It doesn't hold the prestige that it does on console. Capcom is a bigger deal, and they'd be effectively non-existent on PC without Steam.

I mean this is pretty much the same argument people had against Sony getting into the console business.

What is now, isn't necessarily what is tomorrow. Your lack of vision is astounding.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I would consider buying a PSVR2 if it was compatible with my steam library and gamepass VR games. I would invest in games from a Sony VR store if it allowed me to use other headsets.
I would never buy a PSVR2 to only use with games from a Sony store, just like I won't buy any games from the Meta PC store. I am pretty sure most PC gamers would feel the same.

Not much co-signing on your post...

 

[Dream-Knife]

maybe but so far the only headset that was not too heavy for me was oculus cv1... and maybe hp g2 but it was uncomfortable otherwise.
Quest 1 and 2 are too heavy. balancing or not

CV1 was a great headset.

Shrugs will strengthen your neck.

I mean this is pretty much the same argument people had against Sony getting into the console business.

What is now, isn't necessarily what is tomorrow. Your lack of vision is astounding.

No, not really.

The only thing a sony PC store will do is bring their hardcore fanbase to PC. That idea is a new one that came out last year as a coping mechanism for the PC ports. (The previous one was the ports were to entice pc players to buy a PS5)

 

[Ozriel]

What is this decent set up and how much it costs? Here there is no decent set up that powers the psvr2 but the playstation. Is this decent set up that will power and provide good quality games cost 450/550€ or your decent set up only to press power on you need over 1000€? Some people are very bad at mathematics and common sense.

By ‘decent setup’ he’s referring to your networking setup. Some people are getting great results with $35 routers.

I have absolutely no idea why you’re talking about the hardware running the VR game itself.

 

[fastest finger]

A wired connection is necessary right now to provide the bandwidth and latency to enable PSVR2’s foveated rendering.

The result? Talking to Edge magazine about the quality of their forthcoming PSVR2 version of Song In The Smoke, the developers have said "It stands alone, even compared to the highest-end version possible on PC VR - it's honestly not even close.”

Sounds like a worthy compromise to me.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

No, not really.

The only thing a sony PC store will do is bring their hardcore fanbase to PC. That idea is a new one that came out last year as a coping mechanism for the PC ports. (The previous one was the ports were to entice pc players to buy a PS5)

I mean you're clearly a PC/Steam Fanboy.

Whether a PS Store brings PS fans to PC or PC fans to PlayStation doesn't really matter.

The reality is that most people thought Sony was dumb for getting into the console space after so many others had failed Atari, Panasonic, Neo-Geo, HudsonSoft/NEC... and Nintendo and Sega were dominant.

And the reality is that Sony has a much stronger hand in getting into the PC market than they did getting into the console market.

 

[poppabk]

I mean you're clearly a PC/Steam Fanboy.

Whether a PS Store brings PS fans to PC or PC fans to PlayStation doesn't really matter.

The reality is that most people thought Sony was dumb for getting into the console space after so many others had failed Atari, Panasonic, Neo-Geo, HudsonSoft/NEC... and Nintendo and Sega were dominant.

And the reality is that Sony has a much stronger hand in getting into the PC market than they did getting into the console market.

MS literally own the operating system that 99% of games are played on, can bundle their store, release their first party titles day and date on a reduced price gamepass - and they still can barely make inroads. EA, Ubisoft, Activision, Epic have all tried to force PC gamers hands and have all had to fave the harsh reality of how PC gaming works.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

MS literally own the operating system that 99% of games are played on, can bundle their store, release their first party titles day and date on a reduced price gamepass - and they still can barely make inroads. EA, Ubisoft, Activision, Epic have all tried to force PC gamers hands and have all had to fave the harsh reality of how PC gaming works.

How many Microsoft concepts failed when they should have succeded? Zune, Windows Phone? I think you look at companies like Google and Microsoft who are so big that they largely throw darts at the board.

Microsoft's execution has been poor on PC and their first party games are probably 4th or 5th best historically and they've gotten worse since the early 2000s.

EA, Ubi-Soft, Activision, and Epic are no more qualified to take market share from Steam as they are qualified to put out their own console.

Again, get familiar with history. How many consoles came out in the 90s to challenge Nintendo and Sega and how many failed and why did they fail. What allowed Sony to be successful?

The idea that Steam is this untouchable element in PC gaming is a joke, rather its the benefit of 20 years of essentially no competition until epic (underqualified) came into the arena just 4 years ago.

 

[Mediocre Arachno-Lad]

How many Microsoft concepts failed when they should have succeded?

How many Sony concepts failed when they should have succeded?
This is another one of those, and you have to be very far up Sony's ass not to see it.

 

[Dream-Knife]

I mean you're clearly a PC/Steam Fanboy.

Whether a PS Store brings PS fans to PC or PC fans to PlayStation doesn't really matter.

The reality is that most people thought Sony was dumb for getting into the console space after so many others had failed Atari, Panasonic, Neo-Geo, HudsonSoft/NEC... and Nintendo and Sega were dominant.

And the reality is that Sony has a much stronger hand in getting into the PC market than they did getting into the console market.

This might be a foreign concept to you, but you can use something without being a fanboy.

PC is much more different than the mid 90s console space. You have to be delusional to think otherwise. The PS succeeded because cheap games on risk free for publishers CDs, with a healthy Japanese backing.

Those publishers are now on steam.

How many Microsoft concepts failed when they should have succeded? Zune, Windows Phone? I think you look at companies like Google and Microsoft who are so big that they largely throw darts at the board.

Microsoft's execution has been poor on PC and their first party games are probably 4th or 5th best historically and they've gotten worse since the early 2000s.

EA, Ubi-Soft, Activision, and Epic are no more qualified to take market share from Steam as they are qualified to put out their own console.

Again, get familiar with history. How many consoles came out in the 90s to challenge Nintendo and Sega and how many failed and why did they fail. What allowed Sony to be successful?

The idea that Steam is this untouchable element in PC gaming is a joke, rather its the benefit of 20 years of essentially no competition until epic (underqualified) came into the arena just 4 years ago.

You continue to forget that PC users aren't console users. Why would we start using some game publishers personal client? We stopped buying ubisoft games when they left steam. We quit buying call of duty games when they left steam. Those companies learned their lesson and came back.

Few, if any, people are going to use a dedicated launcher for some third person cinematic game. Sony on PC isn't what they are to console people.

 

[Fafalada]

That said, the idea of a belt-held wireless accessory (a few people mentioned that idea) seems doable, I think?

Yes, it's been done already by Vive (on multiple HMDs - though Cosmos was my preferred design).
MSRP was around 400$ just for the WiGig add-on (receiver, transmitter, battery pack) though, and battery was limited to like 2hrs IIRC (though I admit I didn't test it extensively, and you could swap in a more powerful bank if you put it on the belt).
Also WiGig (which actually has the bandwidth/latency to make this useable) is LoS only, so it was a bit restrictive to where you can use it (only marginally better than a wire, and can potentially lose connectivity in really weird ways - small rooms work better).

I could see that being possible even with the current PSVR2 setup (though I'm not sure how the cabling works out, and how much extra line you would need to stuff in your pockets.) Price seems iffy though, since a 4K mmWave router looks to be over $200 right now and I'm not sure what only a 6GHz router (without the full WiFi 6 spectrum) would come out to.

WiFi based would only work if the headset has its own GPU to do latency compensation on-board - which is how Quest makes it work too (but in this case you lose out most/a lot of the Foveated benefits - it's literally trading wireless latency for longer frame-rendering times).

Lots of peoole are playing high end PCVR experiences wirelessly on the Quest 2.

Sure - but that's basically a real-word version of:

Not that different from Rift users using Space-Warp when their PC couldn't keep up and being 'happy' with it. It works - but there's quality concessions made, as well as actual technical/performance ones (see above).
It does pose an interesting question though - how do 'actual' silicon costs compare (embedding a WiGig chipset vs. embedding a full GPU and WiFi6) for a company making the HMD. If the latter is more cost efficient, maybe that's just the way - all headsets (standalone or not) need to embed graphics processing hw before long?

 

[Panajev2001a]

Yes, it's been done already by Vive (on multiple HMDs - though Cosmos was my preferred design).
MSRP was around 400$ just for the WiGig add-on (receiver, transmitter, battery pack) though, and battery was limited to like 2hrs IIRC (though I admit I didn't test it extensively, and you could swap in a more powerful bank if you put it on the belt).
Also WiGig (which actually has the bandwidth/latency to make this useable) is LoS only, so it was a bit restrictive to where you can use it (only marginally better than a wire, and can potentially lose connectivity in really weird ways - small rooms work better).


WiFi based would only work if the headset has its own GPU to do latency compensation on-board - which is how Quest makes it work too (but in this case you lose out most/a lot of the Foveated benefits - it's literally trading wireless latency for longer frame-rendering times).


Sure - but that's basically a real-word version of:

Not that different from Rift users using Space-Warp when their PC couldn't keep up and being 'happy' with it. It works - but there's quality concessions made, as well as actual technical/performance ones (see above).
It does pose an interesting question though - how do 'actual' silicon costs compare (embedding a WiGig chipset vs. embedding a full GPU and WiFi6) for a company making the HMD. If the latter is more cost efficient, maybe that's just the way - all headsets (standalone or not) need to embed graphics processing hw before long?

Embedding a GPU and losing foveated rendering benefits means you now need an even stronger GPU than before… it seems like quite a loss.

 

[poppabk]

Embedding a GPU and losing foveated rendering benefits means you now need an even stronger GPU than before… it seems like quite a loss.

The performance difference between fixed versus eye tracking foveated rendering is pretty small from what I remember seeing.

 

[Panajev2001a]

The performance difference between fixed versus eye tracking foveated rendering is pretty small from what I remember seeing.

I think it is about 25-35% so not small. Edit: sorry I was wrong it is a much bigger gain.

PSVR 2 Foveated Rendering Provides 3.6x Faster Performance - Unity

As reported by Michael Hicks of Android Central, a Unity panel at GDC last week revealed new details about PSVR 2, including ways developers will be able to harness eye tracking in their experiences and the performance benefits gained from doing so. There was no full PSVR 2 reveal at

uploadvr.com

 

[poppabk]

I think it is about 25-35% so not small. Edit: sorry I was wrong it is a much bigger gain.

PSVR 2 Foveated Rendering Provides 3.6x Faster Performance - Unity

As reported by Michael Hicks of Android Central, a Unity panel at GDC last week revealed new details about PSVR 2, including ways developers will be able to harness eye tracking in their experiences and the performance benefits gained from doing so. There was no full PSVR 2 reveal at

uploadvr.com

The numbers Sony are claiming here are pretty hard to follow - a 3.6 improvement in frametime means what exactly? That frametime is 3.6 times shorter? But then the examples don't show that at all. I mean 40% improvement would be great but it seems unlikely in real world scenarios considering quest pro is seeing single digit improvements.

 

[Panajev2001a]

The numbers Sony are claiming here are pretty hard to follow - a 3.6 improvement in frametime means what exactly? That frametime is 3.6 times shorter? But then the examples don't show that at all. I mean 40% improvement would be great but it seems unlikely in real world scenarios considering quest pro is seeing single digit improvements.

That was not Sony claiming it, it was Unity. Earlier Ouculus demos found between 30-50+% savings (more depending on how high the display resolution is for each eye). Frame time as time it takes the PC/host machine to generate a frame (essentially if you target 90 FPS and you can lower the frame time by 50% it means you can spend that amount of saved time on more complex graphics for example).

Depending on the demo they had smaller and higher savings from the tech: https://www.androidcentral.com/gami...ded-a-glimpse-into-the-future-of-ps-vr2-games

As Fafalada was pointing out, the lower the latency the smaller the safe area around the areas of the display the user’s eyes are focused on… you want to avoid doing reprojection on the display unit if the time the image was generated and the time it gets displayed (and adjusted via reprojection using the latest headset data when it is rendered on the headset’s screens).

It makes sense that, with a very very lose latency solution, a dev might be bolder and use a far less conservative safe area and thus have a much lower average resolution.

 

[poppabk]

That was not Sony claiming it, it was Unity. Earlier Ouculus demos found between 30-50+% savings (more depending on how high the display resolution is for each eye). Frame time as time it takes the PC/host machine to generate a frame (essentially if you target 90 FPS and you can lower the frame time by 50% it means you can spend that amount of saved time on more complex graphics for example).

As Fafalada was pointing out, the lower the latency the smaller the safe area around the areas of the display the user’s eyes are focused on… you want to avoid doing reprojection on the display unit if the time the image was generated and the time it gets displayed (and adjusted via reprojection using the latest headset data when it is rendered on the headset’s screens).

It makes sense that, with a very very lose latency solution, a dev might be bolder and use a far less conservative safe area and thus have a much lower average resolution.

We are talking about improvement over fixed foveated rendering. The Meta pro is seeing approx 50% improvement over no foveated rendering, but fixed foveated rendering sees an approx 40% improvement. It all depends on resolution etc so the 3.6x versus 2.5x improvement is no doubt best case scenario, as the examples given in the article don't even show a 2.5x improvement.

 

[Crayon]

I have some lofty expectations for the iq in this headset. That's what made it seem like a good deal at the price. Hope that works out for me lol.

 

[Panajev2001a]

We are talking about improvement over fixed foveated rendering. The Meta pro is seeing approx 50% improvement over no foveated rendering, but fixed foveated rendering sees an approx 40% improvement. It all depends on resolution etc so the 3.6x versus 2.5x improvement is no doubt best case scenario, as the examples given in the article don't even show a 2.5x improvement.

It still is neither insignificant and it’s effectiveness is inversely proportional to the host machine to headset latency… and the variability which is a killer in WiFi scenarios and you will be better assuming higher rather than conservative latency estimates (even 10 ms fixed latency is close to a full frame at 90 Hz).
The higher the latency the lower the benefits of foveated rendering (fixed or not).

Fixed foveated rendering is also a bit more difficult to use as you are not in control of what the user focuses on this potentially risking to destroy immersion (another factor that would push a dev to widen the safety area around the ideal focus centre).

 

[Mibu no ookami]

How many Sony concepts failed when they should have succeded?
This is another one of those, and you have to be very far up Sony's ass not to see it.

Sony or PlayStation? PlayStation's been pretty successful with most of its endeavors. I'd say the Vita is probably their biggest failure and that's because they weren't all in on it.

This might be a foreign concept to you, but you can use something without being a fanboy.

PC is much more different than the mid 90s console space. You have to be delusional to think otherwise. The PS succeeded because cheap games on risk free for publishers CDs, with a healthy Japanese backing.

Those publishers are now on steam.

You continue to forget that PC users aren't console users. Why would we start using some game publishers personal client? We stopped buying ubisoft games when they left steam. We quit buying call of duty games when they left steam. Those companies learned their lesson and came back.

Few, if any, people are going to use a dedicated launcher for some third person cinematic game. Sony on PC isn't what they are to console people.

You can be, but that's not you. You're absolutely a fanboy.

PS succeeded because of cheap games on CD? Were they the only console manufacturer using CDs?

3DO, Jaguar CD, CDi, Neo Geo CD, Saturn, Sega CD, turbografx16, AmigaCD32... I love how Sony's success with the PlayStation becomes this inevitable situation because it certainly wasn't. They got Japanese backing because they produced a great product and created a market for 3rd party publishers outside of the monopoly of Nintendo.

Those publishers all have relationships with Sony.

Look, I'm not here to convince you to jump to what is an inevitable Sony PC Storefront, my argument here is that 1) they'll make it and 2) that it'll be successful. Whether that has anything to do with fanboys like yourself, is irrelevant.

The fact that you continue to compare Sony with companies like Activision says a lot. Activision had their own storefront, EA had their own storefront. They didn't sell games from other publishers, nor did their storefronts/launchers extend any significant features.

Not going to continue to go round robin with you when you fail to recognize these differences.

 

[poppabk]

Sony or PlayStation? PlayStation's been pretty successful with most of its endeavors. I'd say the Vita is probably their biggest failure and that's because they weren't all in on it.



You can be, but that's not you. You're absolutely a fanboy.

PS succeeded because of cheap games on CD? Were they the only console manufacturer using CDs?

3DO, Jaguar CD, CDi, Neo Geo CD, Saturn, Sega CD, turbografx16, AmigaCD32... I love how Sony's success with the PlayStation becomes this inevitable situation because it certainly wasn't. They got Japanese backing because they produced a great product and created a market for 3rd party publishers outside of the monopoly of Nintendo.

Those publishers all have relationships with Sony.

Look, I'm not here to convince you to jump to what is an inevitable Sony PC Storefront, my argument here is that 1) they'll make it and 2) that it'll be successful. Whether that has anything to do with fanboys like yourself, is irrelevant.

The fact that you continue to compare Sony with companies like Activision says a lot. Activision had their own storefront, EA had their own storefront. They didn't sell games from other publishers, nor did their storefronts/launchers extend any significant features.

Not going to continue to go round robin with you when you fail to recognize these differences.

But you don't game on PC, so you are not a very good predictor of what will or won't be succesful.
Using what happened close to 30 years ago as evidence for or against what will happen is a giant reach especially as you keep on focusing on hardware when the hardware is out of Sonys hands here.
As for failures playstation just launched Sackboy on PC and maybe a week after launch it had lower concurrent player numbers on Steam than Dawn of War 2, a 13 year old game.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

But you don't game on PC, so you are not a very good predictor of what will or won't be succesful.
Using what happened close to 30 years ago as evidence for or against what will happen is a giant reach especially as you keep on focusing on hardware when the hardware is out of Sonys hands here.
As for failures playstation just launched Sackboy on PC and maybe a week after launch it had lower concurrent player numbers on Steam than Dawn of War 2, a 13 year old game.

How many units of Sackboy sold on PS5? How many units did Sony expect to sell on PC?

Sony is stretching their legs here. Sackboy was not a big hit on PS5 and probably wasn't expected to be, which is why it was made by Sumo Digital rather than Media Molecule.

You don't need to even compare it with gaming. Look at streaming as a great example. Netflix was a huge monopoly in streaming and within just a very small amount of time, you've seen a slew of competitors come up while others have failed historically.

What was the difference between HBO and Disney compared to say SeeSo.

What I'm telling you is you can't compare Epic, EA, Activision, UbiSoft, or even Microsoft to PlayStation.

 

[poppabk]

How many units of Sackboy sold on PS5? How many units did Sony expect to sell on PC?

Sony is stretching their legs here. Sackboy was not a big hit on PS5 and probably wasn't expected to be, which is why it was made by Sumo Digital rather than Media Molecule.

You don't need to even compare it with gaming. Look at streaming as a great example. Netflix was a huge monopoly in streaming and within just a very small amount of time, you've seen a slew of competitors come up while others have failed historically.

What was the difference between HBO and Disney compared to say SeeSo.

What I'm telling you is you can't compare Epic, EA, Activision, UbiSoft, or even Microsoft to PlayStation.

HBO and Disney had a shit load of exclusive legacy content, a shit ton of money to burn, plus a pandemic. But the streaming market isn't analogous to the PC market anyway there is a significant inertia to overcome - game libraries, community, goodwill, loyalty, and sheer laziness. And Sony has nothing to offer to compensate.

 

[Sleepwalker]

Sony or PlayStation? PlayStation's been pretty successful with most of its endeavors. I'd say the Vita is probably their biggest failure and that's because they weren't all in on it.



You can be, but that's not you. You're absolutely a fanboy.

PS succeeded because of cheap games on CD? Were they the only console manufacturer using CDs?

3DO, Jaguar CD, CDi, Neo Geo CD, Saturn, Sega CD, turbografx16, AmigaCD32... I love how Sony's success with the PlayStation becomes this inevitable situation because it certainly wasn't. They got Japanese backing because they produced a great product and created a market for 3rd party publishers outside of the monopoly of Nintendo.

Those publishers all have relationships with Sony.

Look, I'm not here to convince you to jump to what is an inevitable Sony PC Storefront, my argument here is that 1) they'll make it and 2) that it'll be successful. Whether that has anything to do with fanboys like yourself, is irrelevant.

The fact that you continue to compare Sony with companies like Activision says a lot. Activision had their own storefront, EA had their own storefront. They didn't sell games from other publishers, nor did their storefronts/launchers extend any significant features.

Not going to continue to go round robin with you when you fail to recognize these differences.

If and (big if) this Sony storefront gives me copies of both PS and PC games bundled in 1 purchase, I'm dropping steam. If I have to rebuy the games there's 0 incentive to switch platforms.

 

[Crayon]

Whether or not sony could pull off their own launcher/storefront on pc, idk. I don't see why they'd want to, though. Seems like loads of benefits just for throwing the games up on steam.

 

[Dream-Knife]

Sony or PlayStation? PlayStation's been pretty successful with most of its endeavors. I'd say the Vita is probably their biggest failure and that's because they weren't all in on it.



You can be, but that's not you. You're absolutely a fanboy.

PS succeeded because of cheap games on CD? Were they the only console manufacturer using CDs?

3DO, Jaguar CD, CDi, Neo Geo CD, Saturn, Sega CD, turbografx16, AmigaCD32... I love how Sony's success with the PlayStation becomes this inevitable situation because it certainly wasn't. They got Japanese backing because they produced a great product and created a market for 3rd party publishers outside of the monopoly of Nintendo.

Those publishers all have relationships with Sony.

Look, I'm not here to convince you to jump to what is an inevitable Sony PC Storefront, my argument here is that 1) they'll make it and 2) that it'll be successful. Whether that has anything to do with fanboys like yourself, is irrelevant.

The fact that you continue to compare Sony with companies like Activision says a lot. Activision had their own storefront, EA had their own storefront. They didn't sell games from other publishers, nor did their storefronts/launchers extend any significant features.

Not going to continue to go round robin with you when you fail to recognize these differences.

A fanboy of what? Things that work? A company that actually cares about it's customers?

You still haven't said why it would be successful, or why PC gamers would want to even use it. Are you even a PC gamer? If not, then why do you speak like you know anything?

 

[Mediocre Arachno-Lad]

PlayStation's been pretty successful with most of its endeavors.

So was Microsoft.
You think PSP Go was successful?
PS move?
Eye toy?
Everything that isn't a home console gets dropped by them like an ugly baby.
Now they're venturing into VR hardware. An enthusiast space, where every normie that wanted to hop onto VR already did with Quest 2, the cheapest, most consumer-friendly standalone headset, also compatible with SteamVR and backwards-compatible with old Oculus games, thus having the biggest VR game library in existance. And it's still turned out to be a rather small userbase, not enough to warrant AAA development for.
Now you're dividing that already small audience by imposing platform limits? Down to one single console? Yeah, dead on arrival, fam. I'm sorry for anyone who can't see it.
Mark my words, there won't be ANY first party exclusives for PSVR2 next year. This will be much worse than Vita. You better enjoy that Horizon game, because, like with HL Alyx, you won't see anything like it in terms of production ever again on PSVR2. Bar maybe an Alyx port down the line.
And you'll be here blaming Sony for "lack of commitment" because they don't develop AAA games for an install base of 1 million people total.

 

[RJMacready73]

So was Microsoft.
You think PSP Go was successful?
PS move?
Eye toy?
Everything that isn't a home console gets dropped by them like an ugly baby.
Now they're venturing into VR hardware. An enthusiast space, where every normie that wanted to hop onto VR already did with Quest 2, the cheapest, most consumer-friendly standalone headset, also compatible with SteamVR and backwards-compatible with old Oculus games, thus having the biggest VR game library in existance. And it's still turned out to be a rather small userbase, not enough to warrant AAA development for.
Now you're dividing that already small audience by imposing platform limits? Down to one single console? Yeah, dead on arrival, fam. I'm sorry for anyone who can't see it.
Mark my words, there won't be ANY first party exclusives for PSVR2 next year. This will be much worse than Vita. You better enjoy that Horizon game, because, like with HL Alyx, you won't see anything like it in terms of production ever again on PSVR2. Bar maybe an Alyx port down the line.
And you'll be here blaming Sony for "lack of commitment" because they don't develop AAA games for an install base of 1 million people total.

Er.. Resi Evil 8 was developed for the old 2D flatties and I daresay not that difficult/costly to convert to VR, Sony has a huge amount of Dev teams to throw at the occasional AA/AAA game.

It's not about making a constant supply of AAA VR game (Alyx is a legit outlier) it's about taking existing 2D First Person AAA games and easily converting them to VR with minimal loss in quality but 10x the immersion factor, I don't need a huge library of VR games, I'm not gonna be doing 100% of my gaming in VR what I want and what Sony is going for is a device that compliments it's current console and gives me additional choice.

The sheer amount of tech that Sony have threw into this headset tells me they're in it for the long haul, my biggest gripe with PSVR was the sub PS3 graphics and don't get me started on those shit mobile graphics on Quest2, PSVR2 blows everything away, the graphics on Horizon & Resi8 look incredible and leagues better than anything I've seen on Quest wired/wireless to a top end PC, what else do they have in store?

 

[Mibu no ookami]

So was Microsoft.
You think PSP Go was successful?
PS move?
Eye toy?
Everything that isn't a home console gets dropped by them like an ugly baby.
Now they're venturing into VR hardware. An enthusiast space, where every normie that wanted to hop onto VR already did with Quest 2, the cheapest, most consumer-friendly standalone headset, also compatible with SteamVR and backwards-compatible with old Oculus games, thus having the biggest VR game library in existance. And it's still turned out to be a rather small userbase, not enough to warrant AAA development for.
Now you're dividing that already small audience by imposing platform limits? Down to one single console? Yeah, dead on arrival, fam. I'm sorry for anyone who can't see it.
Mark my words, there won't be ANY first party exclusives for PSVR2 next year. This will be much worse than Vita. You better enjoy that Horizon game, because, like with HL Alyx, you won't see anything like it in terms of production ever again on PSVR2. Bar maybe an Alyx port down the line.
And you'll be here blaming Sony for "lack of commitment" because they don't develop AAA games for an install base of 1 million people total.

For the amount of money Microsoft has thrown into the console space, I'd hardly call this a success for them. Their most successful product was the Xbox 360, and much of its success was based on Sony's failure. If you look at the Xbox and the Xbox One, they weren't nearly as adopted. Beyond hardware, they've also struggled with maintaining and developing their IP.

I think it's a bit granular to look at PSP-Go specifically. It came 4 years after the PSP, something that overall was very successful. I'd call the Vita a larger failure than the PSP-Go.

PS Move/EyeToy were I think very successful for what they were. Were they fully backed peripherals for Sony? No, they weren't, and I don't think they ever were supposed to be. It was Sony being experimental, which #1 lead to industry wide innovation. Not sure the Wii exists without the EyeToy, maybe it does anyways. But I think that is kind of where people make serious mistakes in judging success vs failure. From EyeToy, to Move, to PSVR, to PSVR2... Sony has taken an iterative approach to innovation, which is really similar to what Apple does right now.

Since the Gamecube and PS2, Nintendo and Sony have been in very different positions. Which reminds me a lot of Android and iPhone. You'll see a lot of different Android phones come out with their own little quirks, but iPhones are generally more iterative. Apple has to protect its consumer base, which is significant on its own. Sony is in the same position. You compare original playstation controller (which Sony modeled after the SNES controller) and if you put it side by side with a Dual Sense, you can see the design has barely changed after 26 years. Sony can't afford to change the design of the controller.

Similarly, with the EyeToy and PS Move, Sony couldn't put either as their primary focus. I think with PSVR2, Sony has put more effort into a polished product than they've ever put towards EyeToy, PS Move, and PSVR combined, but it still won't be their primary focus, but it's clear that they've iterated their way from EyeToy to this. So the product you think were failures, certainly weren't.

You admitted yourself there isn't a large AAA space in the VR Market right now, yet that is exactly what it seems like Sony is creating on PSVR2. Which is a change in the very nature of the market. Horizon Call of the Mountain looks like it might be the biggest AAA VR game ever made. So the question you have to ask yourself is what is MOST important a library of catalog titles or the biggest most immersive games of the future?

Things you should consider wrt Horizon and future AAA VR games

#1 They're already in production
#2 Guerrilla isn't even making it at least not by themselves

Are we going to see Naughty Dog put all their resources to a VR game? Probably not, but this is just the beginning of VR AAA.

So not looking at just first party, you have Horizon AND RE4 coming out on PSVR2 in year 1... already that is probably better than anything that has come before it. I mean you kind of give it away when you recognize how epic of a game Horizon will be by saying, "I'm sure they won't do more like that."

 

[RJMacready73]

I'd really love to see a remastered Wipeout VR

 

[Zug]

Sony probably did not expect the wireless Quest 2 when they started making the PSVR2, and did not want to delay it's launch for another year. Instead we'll have a wireless PSVR2v2 in 2024.