Support NeoGAF

[Pops Maellard]

Right now, most of the “games” that are out for VR seem like just tech-demos or 10 minute games.

Yeah, it's going to stay like this if big companies don't enter the space. The reason all the experiences are super tiny is because for the most part, no AAA developers have had any incentive to release a VR game, or even just VR support for a standard game. The Vive went from prototype to dev kit to consumer hardware at an insanely rapid speed, so Valve didn't really have time to put anything out either.

I'm super excited for PSVR, even though I likely won't buy it any time soon. It just means that VR is suddenly going to be a possibility for literally millions of PS4 users, and that's going to be amazing. It's easy to forget that even on GAF, most people have never had the opportunity to try VR (let alone own their own HMD). I remember some poster in the Giant Bomb thread talking about how while they thought VR was neat, the dual lens/display setup it killed it for them.They actually thought that the ()() view being shown on the livestream was how it looked when wearing the headset.

How can it not be a fad? Its absolutely a fad.

Stuff like this is absolute madness. Do you honestly believe that? Have you gotten to spend a reasonable amount of time with the consumer versions of this hardware? It's very, very clearly not a fad. VR is here, and it works. Not only that, but unlike the the gimmick-ridden hardware that came before it (Kinect, wiimotes, etc) that everyone seems so quick to compare it to, VR adds something to every experience. Where motion controls or 3D displays have made gaming experiences arguably worse, VR only benefits the user. If the display hardware was improved, I would want to play everything in VR.

 

[Blanquito]

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?

Didn't you know, that any open source software can run on any platform without any additional effort required? It's just mean old Sony preventing it from running on PS4.

 

[qa_engineer]

Foresight. Foresight to see that it was a forward looking technology and would probably be a cash cow if they got in early.

 

[HandsomeCharles]

They are all trying to build platforms. It's not just about the VR visor product itself.

IMO if they really wanted to build VR as a platform, it would be open. (Though tbh this applies more to the PC solutions). Motorolla made all the patents for GSM public to stimulate growth in the industry, and look where mobile phones are now. The same can't be said for the way in which the current solutions have been developed.

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.

True, it's still not cheap though. If you're not already a PS4 owner you're looking at around a £600 investment to get on-board. I'd be doubtful that it will attract that many new customers to PS4, rather attempt to capitalise on those that are already there. I agree with you though, the success or failure of this product will definitely dictate whether sony takes any additional steps in this direction.

Edit:

And thanks folks, but I'm gonna have to love you and leave you for now. Hope I didn't upset too many people

 

[Ploid 3.0]

I remember the sony head sets popping up in times I still read playstation or EGM magazines. This is pretty old stuff mind you. There was one that had a reflective blue tent rounded eye shield. It looked pretty cool, and I remember sony being labeled on it somewhere.

They do it to sell the products, iirc a sony headset has been in use by doctors for a long time now. It might not be 3d though.

 

[bj00rn_]

we (as a society) are lazy.

According to this logic no one on this planet would be able to enjoy running, diving or traveling.. The problem with your thinking is that you're basically looking at VR through the eyes of someone who play videogames. But VR isn't just another media consumption device, it's first and foremost there to attempt to deliver shaped experiences in ways that are more natural to us (1:1 scale, motion controls, head and positional tracking, low latency, presence etc).

And no; it doesn't even need to be in every home to be successful (like..space suits which much like VR isn't supposed to be quantified in "videogames"). This is where I blame Sony and Oculus for focusing too much on "games, games, games!". One of my favorite experiences on the Vive isn't even a game (theBlu).

 

[TalonJH]

Of course it's an inferior product. It's paired with a console. That wouldn't have been different next gen or any other.

This pretty much. In a few years when PS5 is released, Sony's VR experience will still be inferior because it's attached to a console. That's like saying, why release any games on PS4 when they would benefit from PS5. There is nothing wrong with being inferior as long as there is a place in the market for that product.

..

That's a great graphic.

I'm super excited for PSVR, even though I likely won't buy it any time soon. It just means that VR is suddenly going to be a possibility for literally millions of PS4 users, and that's going to be amazing. It's easy to forget that even on GAF, most people have never had the opportunity to try VR (let alone own their own HMD). I remember some poster in the Giant Bomb thread talking about how while they thought VR was neat, the dual lens/display setup it killed it for them.They actually thought that the ()() view being shown on the livestream was how it looked when wearing the headset.

These kinds of misunderstandings of VR scare me to death. When I show people VR that were interested, they are usually surprised that that it has lenses rather than just a flat screen in front of them. Another misunderstanding is people asking if VR is 3D.

 

[Gormless Noodle]

Well, the poster I replied to, specifically mentioned motion controls.

No, the poster you replied to, which was me, specifically mentioned the PS Move. I'm well aware Sony was first with the Eye Toy, which was a cool innovation at the time.

But I stand by my previous statement and will say that PS VR exists because of Oculus Rift, regardless if they had ideas on VR in R&D earlier. Same goes for the Vita TV which exists because of the Ouya. None of this is a bad thing in any way though, you gotta keep your finger on the market's pulse like that if you wanna stay ahead.

 

[Dazza]

Sony has always been a company at the forefront of technology. It's really as simple as that

 

[Voost Kain]

When Oculus Rift launched the Kickstarter campaign everyone was hyped, people threw money at it until it became a thing and later bought by Facebook.

I can see why Facebook wanted to invest in this new technology, VR can become a huge social phenomenon, BigScreen is a great example of how users can share a “place” to watch movies, shows or just play together.

Later, Valve, in collaboration with HTC with the Vibe. Ok, more competition, nice. Valve is known to invest in crazy things(or not-so-crazy, just new stuff) and try new things, such as the SteamBox, the Steam controller…

VR is a new tech that we still don’t know how it’s going to turn out. It might flop, or it might be the best thing ever, or just become a gimmick. Right now, most of the “games” that are out for VR seem like just tech-demos or 10 minute games.

VR is still on a “what is this” state in the eyes of the general public and it’s a very hard-to-promote device, because you have to try it to know what it’s all about. Oculus and Valve+HTC invested in this, trusted the tech and are willing to take the risk (Oculus with the initial support of the community through Kickstarter). Sony's move of investing in VR seems rushed.

Did Sony really have to make an investment in a product that we still don’t know how it’s going to turn out? Why not wait and see how gamers adopt this tech on PC and then release a PS5 with VR in mind from the beginning?

Money.

Gong all in to double the success of a division that's one of the few keeping them a float would pretty put them in a safe spot.

 

[Melchiah]

No, the poster you replied to, which was me, specifically mentioned the PS Move. I'm well aware Sony was first with the Eye Toy, which was a cool innovation at the time.

But I stand by my previous statement and will say that PS VR exists because of Oculus Rift, regardless if they had ideas on VR in R&D earlier. Same goes for the Vita TV which exists because of the Ouya. None of this is a bad thing in any way though, you gotta keep your finger on the market's pulse like that if you wanna stay ahead.

It's been pointed out several times, that PSVR has been in existence for quite some time. It may be, that they decided to push it more due to OR, but it doesn't mean it would be a copy of it like you claimed.

 

[serversurfer]

What dumb snark

This is like saying it'd be ok for Sony to only support Sony televisions

What hilarious irony. Headsets aren't standardized like televisions, primarily because — contrary to your earlier claim — they are not simply output devices, but input devices as well. But even as output devices, no industry standard yet exists for communication.

But I'll bite. When you plug the OSVR HDK in to the PS4, does tell you to use a Sony-branded headset instead as you imply here, or does it give the same, generic, "Da fuq?" response virtually every other HDMI source in the world would give? What specific steps have Sony taken to block the use of the otherwise-functional OSVR on PS4? What industry standards have they eschewed in their efforts to prevent third parties from making headsets that work on PS4? What do you suggest is their motivation for doing so?

 

[ZOONAMI]

Because everyone and their mum has, or will have a ps4. Here's another device for your ps4 some of you can buy if you want.

They aren't fooling anyone with vita anymore, so they came up with a new scheme.

I dunno actually. Not sure how long psvr has been in development. They probably think vr has a chance to really take off in the next year even though the tech still isn't really there at mainstream prices, just to have a foot in the door in case it does take off.

Eventually it is gonna be a huge deal, and they probably figure it does them no harm to be one of the forerunners. Will help them to learn about and improve the technology going forward.

 

[4Tran]

VR is a technology that futurists have been talking about for many decades. It's pretty obvious to the consumer and industrial electronics companies that it's going to be a key technology for the 21st century. Sony is one of the more forward-thinking of these companies so it isn't a surprise that they're also at the forefront of this technology.

People saying that VR is a fad are both horribly short sighted because VR isn't fundamentally a gaming technology. VR is a multi-faceted technology that has all sorts of applications which cannot be replicated by anything else. As such, it's going to be essential to all sorts of ways - it's just going to be a matter of when not of if. Right now, Sony is using games to gain widespread adoption, but I wouldn't be surprised if Sony VR becomes a bigger part of the Sony empire than their gaming division.

 

[J-Rzez]

VR is the future. So it's understandable they want to stay ahead of the curve, establish early they are a leader in it. They've been messing with visors forever. This is why they're doing it, rightfully so.

 

[pixelpatch]

itll be the next biggest thing in gaming, they want to be leaders in it

 

[Gormless Noodle]

It's been pointed out several times, that PSVR has been in existence for quite some time. It may be, that they decided to push it more due to OR, but it doesn't mean it would be a copy of it like you claimed.

I actually haven't seen any sources on that, is there one? But regardless, I have an extremely hard time believing Sony somehow had the exact same tech, OR pioneered for VR but was just holding it in R&D and only decided to go for it when OR came around. Or did you mean something else?

What's easier to believe though, is looking at the actual timeline of when these things got introduced and I think it's a fair conclusion to say the others followed OR and copied the concept on a general tech level. Which again is not a bad thing, that's just how business goes.

 

[xxracerxx]

nvm

 

[gunslikewhoa]

I actually haven't seen any sources on that, is there one? But regardless, I have an extremely hard time believing Sony somehow had the exact same tech, OR pioneered for VR but was just holding it in R&D and only decided to go for it when OR came around. Or did you mean something else?

What's easier to believe though, is looking at the actual timeline of when these things got introduced and I think it's a fair conclusion to say the others followed OR and copied the concept on a general tech level. Which again is not a bad thing, that's just how business goes.

The actual timeline states the opposite of your conclusion. PSVR has been in the works since 2010-11 and was planned for this gen before the PS4 launched. Read the Polygon article linked earlier itt.

I imagine the people working on VR at Sony probably frequented the same enthusiast forums as Palmer. The DK1 wasn't exactly a top secret project when he was working on it in his parent's garage.

 

[benny_a]

I actually haven't seen any sources on that, is there one?

Yes and it has been posted here. Just like Palmer's confirmation that he knew about Sony working on VR and talking to them.

But as has been said numerous times, let's not get facts in the way of a good story. What you describe sounds really nice.

 

[Rising_Hei]

Nothing good comes for those that wait.

 

[spazchicken]

Was about to post this.

Good job. May as well close this thing now.

 

[{insert code here}]

My guess, they are trying to avoid being complacent. The last time they had a console this successful was PS2 and at that time Sony just kind of sat there and let the money roll in. Meanwhile MS was building Live and Nintendo went off and did motion controls. I think they were probably in board meetings scrambling to find new avenues of investment and VR was an obvious choice as was new hardware (NEO). But I am not a Business Major and have no experience in the economics of a billion dollar corporation so there.

I think they are just trying to avoid their competition getting the jump on them again. Trying to avoid another PS2>PS3 transition and their best solution is VR (casuals) and new hardware (NEO).

 

[juicyfruitas]

Sony as a corporation has all the necessary components (both Hardware and Content) needed to launch and sustain the growth of an emergent platform like VR both short term and over the long haul.

They've got it covered from world class hardware design in terms of functionality and ergonomics and the supply chain know how and global retail distribution that the other players are lacking.

On the content side they're a juggernaut with a steady flow of content produced in house ranging from vidya games, movies, tv shows not to mention that they're the world's biggest music label (or 2nd, it fluctuates between them and Warner Music) with a stable of some of the most popular artists who they'll no doubt tap into for things like virtual concerts and what not.

In many ways VR is the platform that Sony as an entity has been building up to for the past 50 years.