Because the ps4 isn't an open development platform specifically because of Sony. Osvr can run on literally anything, provided an open platform.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
What drove Sony to invest in VR?
- Thread starter Galava
- Start date
Because the ps4 isn't an open development platform specifically because of Sony. Osvr can run on literally anything, provided an open platform.
HandsomeCharles
Member
Sorry, seems my initial reply was a bit too blunt. IMO (And I want to stress, opinion) that R&D probably wouldn't have become PSVR (at least at this point in time) if it weren't for the public hype that had been generated by Occulus. PSVR (by comparison) just doesn't seem that great when sat next to the other options, and that to me feels like they wanted to get their VR solution out there before they were beaten to the punch.
Ah, sorry if you're misunderstanding me. I don't mean that those games would be better in a "traditional gaming" setting (Hover Junkers looks really cool btw) I mean that I don't feel that what they (collectively) bring to the table is enough to justify the investment in VR. I think for VR to be a sustainable platform it needs to get beyond the "That looks cool" reactions and get to the "This is the replacement for my current media device", otherwise it's just going to remain a peripheral.
Oh. I must have misread your statement, because nothing about this is unique to the PS4 or Sony.
Sony and PS4 could be interchanged with tens of different companies and hundreds of different products.
Yes, it's a shame that PlayStation (and every other device in existence that isn't) is not a free hardware platform.
What dumb snark
This is like saying it'd be ok for Sony to only support Sony televisions
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
There are so many damn impressions/analyses of VR and what it brings to the table, yet some GAFfers still willfully ignore it and attempt to shoot it down with a single word
. I mean, if you want people to think you have no idea what you're talking about in these threads, you should be impressed with yourself.
There's even a sticky on the main gaming page of GAF, basically saying those of you that are calling VR a fad have no idea what you're talking about.
This isn't a slight on the OP, just some of the responses. What brought Sony to invest in VR? Forward thinking, innovation, trying to keep up with trends in gaming in order to maintain their place as a leader in the market, natural advancement in the complex relationship and between humans and computers and an attempt to bridge the gap between the two.
fad
There's even a sticky on the main gaming page of GAF, basically saying those of you that are calling VR a fad have no idea what you're talking about.
This isn't a slight on the OP, just some of the responses. What brought Sony to invest in VR? Forward thinking, innovation, trying to keep up with trends in gaming in order to maintain their place as a leader in the market, natural advancement in the complex relationship and between humans and computers and an attempt to bridge the gap between the two.
What? How is saying that I wish every product was fully free somehow either snark or an endorsement of the exact opposite?
Did I miss a triple negative somewhere?
gunslikewhoa
Member
Again, Sony has stated that the lightbar on the DS4 only exists because they were planning on releasing PSVR this gen all along. The fact that they had not yet announced Project Morpheus was the reason why they could not give a legit response to all of the bitching about the lightbar being always-on.
The PSVR was part of Sony's plan for PS4 prior to it's launch.
HandsomeCharles
Member
To be fair either side of the fence is predicting a future that hasn't happened yet. Fad may be a strong word. The better question is will it break out of a niche (at least for gaming).
gunslikewhoa
Member
I'll accept that they said that, but I'm afraid I won't believe it
Like I said, I'm not going to debate someone who is going to willfully ignore the facts. I should have known better than to bother with another attempt at engaging you.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Sony has been at optics development far longer than gaming. Gaming is not the center of the universe, just the 'Trojan Horse' for tech ever since they helped/pioneered gaming into the mainstream.
This will be the next step. Hope everyone is ready for the CMR technology like the show Continuum.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/sony-smart-contact-lens/
https://youtu.be/0zG90gPynNY
This will be the next step. Hope everyone is ready for the CMR technology like the show Continuum.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/sony-smart-contact-lens/
https://youtu.be/0zG90gPynNY
backbreaker65
Banned
Just in case people think sony was trying to fit those pics into a narrative. Here is the VR Datura trailer from 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l1Bq-9zWvc
HandsomeCharles
Member
Hey, you don't need to be rude. I'm not ignoring the fact. I'll accept that they said that as their reason, what I'm contesting is the truth in what they said. Quite simply, I don't believe them. (As for why: If it was intended for VR, why can't you turn it off when you're not using VR?)
gunslikewhoa
Member
Who knows why they chose always-on. Jed Ashforth said it was his department that requested it. Shu said it was for VR. I see no reason why they would lie. I also can't think of another reason for the lightbars that I have never used in any of the games I've played on the PS4 to be there. It's not like other controllers have lightbars. Try a little Occam's Razor here, perhaps.
Have you read the Polygon article? Maybe take a look at the post above yours. Look at the picture. Watch the video. Project Morpheus was announced for PS4 just four months after the PS4 launched. How much evidence do you require to accept the simple fact that this was planned all along?
Tripolygon
Banned
PSVR is not Sony's first VR Headset. They had 1 that worked with PS2.
PulseONE
Member
If he's just going to say "I accept that, but I won't believe it" then there's nothing you can say that'll convince him. Leave it be for now.
You can always quote him once VR takes off xD
I want Sony to invent a time machine and send me back to the meeting where it took place. Everything else can be faked. Trust no one. The earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese.
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
There are strong indicators that it will break out of the niche level adoption in gaming and beyond. Presence and motion controls allows for advanced and intuitive interaction within a digital world. Nothing is more intuitive than doing the same thing you would in the real world and having it be translated digitally. The lines between games and "experiences" will be blurred and the stigma associated with gaming will begin to dissolve within the general populace. You're no longer wasting your time pressing buttons and looking at cartoons on a screen, now you're experiencing digitized realms that reflect your personal preferences. Most people that shit on gaming are those that can't bridge the gap between pressing buttons and the satisfaction that results on screen. Replace buttons with gestures/movement and then replace a small window (screen) with the illusion of a physical environment and the potential is incalculable.
gunslikewhoa
Member
I was going to say that I wonder what other sort of conspiracies he has milling around in his head, but I didn't want to be rude.
I'm sure they included lightbars so that we could all enjoy ten minutes of knocking little robots around on camera.
Not upset, not at all. It was just a concern I had, a question. About why Sony dived into the VR market when consoles still aren't there in terms of power and how new as a technology today's VR is. You could also include the fact that only enthusiasts see VR as an evolution at this very moment.
As many pointed out and I didn't know (sorry about that) was that Sony was working on it since as early as 2010-11.
I'm not sure if this is true in practice. What you're describing requires more effort/engagement from the user than most other forms of popular media, which creates more of a barrier. Plus there are still a lot of hurdles like eye-strain from long play sessions, social isolation from wearing a headset and requiring external hardware to even make VR work. Sure, some or all of those problems will be ironed out in time, but I don't think massive VR adoption is as inevitable as some are saying.
To answer the OP, Sony has been working in the VR space for a while. Occulus making a big push toward VR probably prompted Sony to release a VR headset that's actually palatable for the mainstream, unlike their previous efforts.
HandsomeCharles
Member
Having read some articles from this thread that I hadn't previously seen, I will now retract what I said about the light bar.
There is enough evidence to suggest they had been working on PSVR prior to other VR announcements, so I won't debate that. What I'm trying to say is that from my perspective it seems as though the hype surrounding the other VR solutions forced their hand, and that without their appearance PSVR would not have surfaced until another generation. Beyond the camera stuff, the light bar would have just sat there as a mystery, something like expansion ports on consoles of old. There as a contingency rather than an intended feature.
My reason for thinking this is that the PS4 is woefully underpowered compared to its competition (The PC). The previews of the various games that have been shown just don't look all that great when compared with the things that have been backed by Occulus. Visually, too many sacrifices have to be made in order to get them to a "playable" state.
If it does, please do. I also didn't think Angry birds was going to be successful.
gunslikewhoa
Member
Then you just haven't been paying attention to hands-on impressions. There are over two years worth of them out there, and they are overwhelmingly positive. Of course, it's not going to be on the level of high end PC VR, but the PS4 is far from woefully underpowered for providing a quality VR experience.
https://youtu.be/s4b8dq8nSzY
Not with their current pricing, no.
even with the current pricing, if they offer compelling experiences it's definitely possible to tap into the casual market.
I say that as someone who has no interest and probably can't even see VR.
Its simple. They're smart. Console gaming is slowly receding. The market is losing more regular gamers than it's adding. 10 years ago gaming forum would be plagued by 10 year olds screaming nonsense. Today its 40 year old bronie types. Sony's looking to the next big thing. We've been rehashing COD-like games for nearly 10 years now. They realize it can't go on forever, and wont.
family_guy
Member
Best to be at the forefront and get your name embedded in people's minds. I think when the masses think of VR, it will be PSVR, not the Rift or Vive. The latter while offering better experiences are in a niche of a niche market.
HandsomeCharles
Member
I become sceptical of "hands-on"s because I wonder how many people are just caught up in the hype, so I've made my judgements based on the videos that I have seen.
Either way, like I said before I don't want it to fail, I just don't think it will be all that successful. Let's see how it's doing towards the end of 2017.
Unless they provide that compelling experience with a price structure that can attract people, I don't really see it really selling to anyone but enthusiasts.
Part of the reason Wii sold so well was it was easy to pop in/pop out, easy to understand/play, and was a reasonable price. To have someone consider PSVR they would have to make at least an $800 investment (assuming no PS4). That is not an easy pill to swallow unless you take notes from wireless carriers and either subsidize (probably not) the price with a multi year contract, or set up payment plans with digestible monthly payments. Plopping down 800 dollars turns off many people.
potatohead
Member
So OP is saying basically........ Sony should not be doing VR, but Valve/HTC and Facebook/Oculus it seems reasonable?
Why is Sony excluded here? lol
You're saying there is clear evidence now that PS VR was being worked on for years, and the DS4 lightbar is clear evidence it was planned for this generation.
But then in the same post, same paragraph, you're going back to saying you think PS VR was planned for next generation, even though the DS4 lightbar pretty much guarantees that VR was always intended for PS4.
And then something about the PC being more powerful than PS4 means that competing VR forced Sony's hand?
But you've just said and reneged on the point that obviously VR from Sony has been planned for years as well.
I guess at least it' not as bad as the OP logic of "I can see why Facebook and Valve are making VR, but why should Sony be able to?"
Why is Sony excluded here? lol
I'm not quite understanding your thought process here.
You're saying there is clear evidence now that PS VR was being worked on for years, and the DS4 lightbar is clear evidence it was planned for this generation.
But then in the same post, same paragraph, you're going back to saying you think PS VR was planned for next generation, even though the DS4 lightbar pretty much guarantees that VR was always intended for PS4.
And then something about the PC being more powerful than PS4 means that competing VR forced Sony's hand?
But you've just said and reneged on the point that obviously VR from Sony has been planned for years as well.
I guess at least it' not as bad as the OP logic of "I can see why Facebook and Valve are making VR, but why should Sony be able to?"
Honestly, it sounds more like concern that PSVR is going to overshadow his preferred VR platforms, which would be silly for anyone to feel since PSVR being successful would probably lead to more sales for OR/Vive
potatohead
Member
Because he basically said he can understand that Valve/HTC and Facebook/Oculus have "legitimate reasons to get into the VR game."
But Sony apparently can't, and it seems tacky, because... raisins.
All these companies have probably poured tons of resources into making VR happen for their platforms. Discounting one off the bat seems extremely strange.
Shuhei made a great point earlier in one of his interviews: all these guys working on VR to launch the platform of VR itself, not just any individual brand, at the beginning they are all working to build the VR brand together.
Competing on software and hardware, but the concept of VR is being built together through their competing products.
HandsomeCharles
Member
I'll try and be more clear. I think it may have been the case that they were developing PSVR with the contingency that they could release it with the PS4, rather than it being their desired platform of release (With their desired platform being the successor to PS4, or some further iteration of it). With the announcement of other VR platforms, they felt compelled to release on the current PS4 so that they weren't left in the dust, and relegated to what appeared to be a "copycat" role.
My reasons for thinking this is because when you line up PSVR next to Vive and Occulus, it's clearly the inferior product. (Not talking about games btw). Unless you were taking a "budget" approach (Which whilst cheaper, at £300+ it is certainly not budget) I can't understand why you would willingly do this, if not to just "get your foot in the door".
Croatoan
They/Them A-10 Warthog
I don't know if you got the memo in the giant stickied thread but VR headsets are not peripherals they are platforms and are to be treated as such. How can you know if you can justify the investment if you haven't tried Room Scale VR?
Also, until you have tried Room Scale VR you cannot possibly understand it.
The current devices wont replace 2d methods because the optics are still very first gen. Once we get 4k per eye or something like lasers drawing on our retinas (aka perfect IQ) traditional screens wont stand a chance. By that point devs will have worked out the kinks in locomotion and "3rd person games".
Sony peripherals and support have a terrible reputation so skepticism/cynicism is more than earned for PSVR.
Sony needs to gamble on hits for their financials, and everyone else is also rushing VR despite the content drought. Whale-hunting season came early
Sony needs to gamble on hits for their financials, and everyone else is also rushing VR despite the content drought. Whale-hunting season came early
In a nutshell, this.
Can anyone think of another path for the evolution of video games to take using cost effective (for the most part), readily-available tech?
potatohead
Member
That's possible, as a contingency, but I don't think it's very likely. Just based on what we know, it seems one of the most unlikely scenarios, that's all.
It also may be the cheapest, but that's not a bad thing. PS4 itself was very "cheap" too. And yet it has 35+ million sales.
They are all trying to build platforms. It's not just about the VR visor product itself.
A good price never hurt anyone. Every product has to fit somewhere in a place where people are actually going to buy it. The console audience is not trying to buy a Titan X or Fury Nano.
gunslikewhoa
Member
Of course it's an inferior product. It's paired with a console. That wouldn't have been different next gen or any other.
Nocturno999
Member
"What were they thinking?" Should be the question.
staticneuron
Member
The budget part is the point. When you look at the other solutions, and see the specs needed to run them, they aren't cheap and not everyone has that tech. Besides Sony isn't competing with the PC space on this one so that train of though is irrelevant. Their hand wasn't forced at all.
What this does though is allow them to provide the entry level and budget experience to the gamers that have PS4. It's success or failure will most likely influence Sony's decisions on this tech.
But again, the amount of stuff Sony patents and brings to the market, one would think people understood Sony seems to like bringing experimental stuff out all the time and are not forced to do so.
HandsomeCharles
Member
Want me to rephrase that so I can fit the prerequisite criteria?
"I think for VR to be a sustainable platform it needs to get beyond the "That looks cool" reactions and get to the "This is the replacement for my current media device", otherwise it's just going to become a peripheral."
As for why I know I can't justify it (in that particular example), because my floorspace is incredibly limited. If it provided me with something truly revolutionary then I'd find a way to make it work, but everything I have seen thus far in now way convinces me that I need to get one of these.
I also have no doubt that next-gen VR devices will provide better experiences, but what I doubt is whether we would ever get to see such devices (in the relatively near future) because the initial generation doesn't gain enough traction (For the reasons previously stated)
KatamariOnTheRocks
Member
Sony invested in VR because they have common sense and aren't as stupid as all the idiots that are dumb enough to call it a gimmick.
Once all those dumb asses try it for themselves they'll see how stupid/wrong they've been.
Once all those dumb asses try it for themselves they'll see how stupid/wrong they've been.