fastest finger
Member
Yeah, this is really accurate...
That's not even PS Move. It's a sponge ball on a stick with a PS2 and Eye Toy. GDC 2003 if memory serves me correctly.
-
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.
Sony: not every PSVR game playable with DS4; some require Move
- Thread starter Neuromancer
- Start date
That's not even PS Move. It's a sponge ball on a stick with a PS2 and Eye Toy. GDC 2003 if memory serves me correctly.
test_account
XP-39C²
I'm not really in favor of anything, i'm more asking what the result from such policy will be. If its such a big hurdle, exceptions can be made. We'll see how things goes. Important thing is that developers say what they feel about the situation.
That's not an exception, that's an accommodation.
Are there any Wii games that can't be controlled with the Wiimote and Nunchuck included in the box (or with any bespoke controllers that came packaged with the game)? Any at all?
If there are, then that would be an exception. That would be a game that says "this simply can't work with the Wiimote and Nunchuck, they need to have the Classic Controller, you need to make an exception for us".
Chezzymann
Member
Do vive or oculus vr games mandate the option of keyboard only use? Or do some games only work with certain peripherals? Cause if the former is true that would have the same limitations. Games that heavily rely on analog input or more precision than what wasd provides would be very limited by mouse and keyboard.
Tripolygon
Banned
Said nobody in this thread. So lets wait till a developer comes out and says "Sony wants us to add DS4 support but we don't and they won't make exceptions so blank game is not coming to PSVR".
Bits N Pieces
Member
I'm sure developers can just pick up the phone and talk to Sony about making an exception.
If Sony are willing to make exceptions.. why on earth bother with this policy in the first place?! If a game could work with both DS4 and Move controllers then a developer would probably prioritise making sure they supported both.. because it's in the developers own interest to address a larger audience. So why does it need enforcing with a policy?
Valkyr1983
Banned
I don't like motion controls so I'm OK with this
No...why would they?
Blackleg-sanji1
Banned
It's probably that simple to be honest. Simple doesn't get the juices flowing tho.
If psvr becomes a success developers will come. Popular pc vr games that are able to come to ps4 will come.
Edit: hmmm I shouldn't say developers will come. Alot of them are already here...you catch my drift
Chezzymann
Member
Because like controllers, mouse and keyboards have limitations too that could hinder gameplay if they have to be catered to. Analog input from things like triggers is lacking with a mouse and keyboard setup, and wasd has much less input options than a joystick.
Certain games lose their luster without 6DOF controllers. How many sales are they going to gain by shoehorning DS4 support? Enough to recoup the additional cost of development?
If Sony willingly hand out exceptions to this policy then I'm sure most if not all of us arguing against this will be happy.
But then you just need to ask the question.. why have this 'mandate' in the first place if you just hand out exceptions to it? Why not just.. not have the mandate?
But then you just need to ask the question.. why have this 'mandate' in the first place if you just hand out exceptions to it? Why not just.. not have the mandate?
Tripolygon
Banned
That is a question you should direct at Sony. But i think its because they are a company and they have to have rules in place, when a problem occurs based on said rule they can then modify it. I also think because PS4 comes with a motion controller and they want developers to make games that support it.
Rain City Gamer
Member
This was my first thought.
Right, so considering the large number of reasons that mouse & keyboard controls would be awful for a VR game, why would Steam make that implementation a requirement?
Sorry, we don't need to belabour this point, I just don't understand your analogy lol.
Yeah, a DS4 can approximate one Move controller pretty well. The argument people are making is that a lot of VR games are designed with two motion controllers in mind (one for each hand). And now those games need to also accommodate a DS4, which is much more limiting in a number of ways.
EventHorizon
Member
There are tons of valid VR experiences with the controller. Every seated cockpit experience for example. Look at how much mileage we get out FPS and driving games. Replace FPS with mechs and driving game can stay the same. That doesn't even count all the other types of games from 3D person platformers to adventure games.
Because Sony doesn't want people hesitating to buy PSVR if they don't have the money for Move too. They don't want potential customers to think they will be buying a flawed product. For proof of the potential negative effect of this look no further than all the posts on Gaf from people saying they were going to drop consoles altogether because Sony and Microsoft were coming out with more advanced consoles. They didn't want to feel like they had the inferior one that would lock them out of future content.
Sony has rightfully combated that attitude by saying that all future games will continue to support the PS4. Sony is doing the same thing here but in the VR space. They are assuring customers that they won't be missing out if they just buy the PSVR without Move. That means more PSVR units sold...which means a larger market for VR games...which means that more and bigger VR games will be made. That is what VR desperately needs right now.
Chezzymann
Member
Whoops, I misinterpreted your response sorry.
Yeah I can understand why types of motion controls work well with vr and requiring other types of input would limit your options. But I think the reasoning is that vr is already expensive as fuck to get into so they dont want the barrier of entry to be even higher. But thar should be up to the developers to decide i think.
fastest finger
Member
Oops. My bad.
Yup, I agree completely.
I have always been on the side of "Sony not including two Move controllers out of the box is a big mistake". But knowing that they aren't even allowing for games that require the two Move controllers I think is limiting to a certain portion of potential VR experiences. Some of the coolest VR experiences, in fact. Not every game designed for two motion tracking points can translate well to a traditional controller setup. Some can, for sure. But not all. So a developer is forced to ask "do I hobble the game experience, redesign from the ground up, or just not release on PSVR at all?"
None of those solutions are great.
You could apply the same logic to the PSVR itself. Maybe people will hesitate buying a PS4 if they can't also afford a PSVR which is a hell of a lot more expensive than a couple of Move controllers.
It could be applied to so many things that Sony go against, why all of a sudden are they going against it for this one particular thing and in the process harming game design? And you know what VR doesn't need right now? Game design being limited by a control method designed for traditional gaming. That'll harm people's perceptions of VR and do more long term damage than a few people feeling a bit inferior because they can't immediately buy a couple of Move controllers for games they don't have to buy.
Spiral Insanity
Banned
Alien Resurrection?
odhiex
Member
Good. Let it be that way, rather than speculating that developers being forced to make games that they aren't happy with.
inpHilltr8r
Member
Guilty.
This. The "choice will hurt game design!" is borderline FUD. Can anyone even give one example of this actually happening with motion controls or is this just people sliding down a slippery slope? Last time I remembered, GG basically shoehorned Move support into Killzone 3 and surprisingly it came out well.
fastest finger
Member
Oh, I agree, which is why I've got a pair of Moves ready to go. I personally wouldn't want to play motion controlled games any other way.
But I also appreciate thst Sony want VR to be a sucess, and part of that is making sure the entry cost is as low as possible. Needing the camera as an extra purchase is already unfortunate, piling on the cost of new controllers to play many of the games as well could be a deal breaker for some.
I totally get that it's not perfect, but I also totally get why they've done it.
The Move has capabilities a DS4 cannot replicate. If you want to design around those capabilities (like having two separate tracked hands as a core mechanic of the game), then you can't if you're required to make your game play on a DS4 too.
Imagine if Microsoft said all games on the Xbox have to be playable with the Kinect only and imagine how much that would limit game design. It'd be similar (read: not the same) here, the DS4 and 2 move controllers are not identical in capability - it's pretty sound logic to say that if you want to design around the unique capabilities of one, then you can't do that if you also have to simultaneously design around the lesser capabilities of the other - without compromising on your design.
it's all theory right now because neither of the other VR ecosystems force a certain type of controller support, but we've seen Job Simulator devs confirming that VR motion controls are a core part of their game (more or less in response to this thread) and so many VR motion controller games so clearly rely on the technology
You can buy the PSVR headset on its own without the move controllers. People will expect it to work when they plug it in. Having all games with at least a bare minimum of controllability using the DS4 makes sense to me. You don't want people buying games and then finding out they can't play them. And you already have issues needing to have 'PSVR required' on the boxes - further fragmenting that message with 'PSVR required and Move too!' is just confusing things.
The simplest option - perhaps not ideal in all situations, but the safest to cover your bases, is what Sony are doing now. Worst case a developer like Owlchemy will need to slap together a relatively basic controller scheme, just so the game works on all PSVRs out there. But they are absolutely free to market the game as focused on move, best with move, show move only in any youtube clips or twitch streams - basically do their best to emphasise that you really should be playing with move controllers. But for those people that they don't reach with that messaging, or those that are not up to speed with everything around PSVR - you at least have a safety net where their game purchases will still work.
The simplest option - perhaps not ideal in all situations, but the safest to cover your bases, is what Sony are doing now. Worst case a developer like Owlchemy will need to slap together a relatively basic controller scheme, just so the game works on all PSVRs out there. But they are absolutely free to market the game as focused on move, best with move, show move only in any youtube clips or twitch streams - basically do their best to emphasise that you really should be playing with move controllers. But for those people that they don't reach with that messaging, or those that are not up to speed with everything around PSVR - you at least have a safety net where their game purchases will still work.
EventHorizon
Member
That is not an accurate comparison. Playstation 4 is already a successful and established product with whole genres of games that have made money on it. The console does not need to entice developers to make games for the PS4. The PSVR has none of that. As I pointed out, third party developers are mostly lagging behind in supporting it. There has been no precedent set yet that a developer can look to for making money supporting PSVR. That needs to happen first before splintering the market. It is business suicide to split a market unnecessarily that you are in the process of creating.
Splitting a market is a potentially dangerous move. If you want to debate that then I suggest you read all the threads of people whining about the Neo splitting the Playstation market, even though Sony is taking great pains to prevent that from happening.
Well said.
EventHorizon
Member
That's not at all how sales work. The more expensive you make something, then less you get of that thing. Sure there will be some games that won't work well with just the DS4, but there will also be games that won't work well without room scale tracking. Just accept the fact that for now the PS4 doesn't support every possible type of VR game. That still leaves a lot of space for great VR games that it does support.
Also remember that there will still be games that make use of the Move controllers. They will just have a DS4 playable mode too.
fastest finger
Member
It's a tricky one. Mandating DS4 lowers some barriers, but making Move totally optional could mean most gamers don't bother with the device, leading to support eventually being dropped. (Again) That would be a huge shame.
odhiex
Member
Let's say (imagine) Sony announcing PS Move 2.0 with a much better tracking technology in 2017, and its games have to support DS4 (and ps move 1.0 in some capacity).
Will that also limiting the developer's desire to design a (ps4 neo+ps move 2.0) only game? If that so, they should expect their games sell to much lower install base then.
Will that also limiting the developer's desire to design a (ps4 neo+ps move 2.0) only game? If that so, they should expect their games sell to much lower install base then.
Yeah, wonder how that is supposed to work. Having games that that are move controller only would probably make a lot things easier for devs
Are we the only ones thinking like this?
I have said many, many times the DS4 is a mash up of the Move and Vita. If PSVR games can be used with a DS4 I would assume they could use the light of the DS4 also...
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Why do you think that?
If the games are made with two in mind then when one gets taken away then yes that is one less positional tracking. Doesn't mean you can't use two move controllers instead to get the full experience.
Hence why they state you'll get a better experience with move over controller in some games.
lol...and you.
I'm sure there are more...I'm just too lazy to read the whole thread right now.
This works fine because it's a genre that lends itself well to both control systems (and others, such as mouse + keyboard). It becomes a different matter entirely if a game needs to accommodate and control system it's fundamentally not suited for. If there were an alternate timeline where the Move controller was the standard, and every game released were expected to be playable with it, then something like Street Fighter would likely be a very different game.
DS4 can't emulate a move well at all.
- it isn't comfortably held in one hand
- because of that, you can't easily wave it around like you would with move.
- even if you could wave it around, the LED light on the front is very flat and directional, so you would lose track of it much more easily than you would with a move.
The LED on the DS4 allows you to play seated, forward facing games with a controller, with that controller generally remaining forward facing - but you can see the controller in the game and move it to some extent.
- it isn't comfortably held in one hand
- because of that, you can't easily wave it around like you would with move.
- even if you could wave it around, the LED light on the front is very flat and directional, so you would lose track of it much more easily than you would with a move.
The LED on the DS4 allows you to play seated, forward facing games with a controller, with that controller generally remaining forward facing - but you can see the controller in the game and move it to some extent.
Ultimadrago
Member
Oh, sweet! I may actually have a reason to buy Rhombus of Ruin.
Because the game was/is well (arguably better) suited to those classic controls. How many people would argue for the inclusion of classic controls in Wii Sports? Wii Fit?
Why do I think what? That it's limiting? Because it's true?
I guess my main thought experiment for the people who are seeing this simply as "Sony offering options" would be this;
Take the following three games; Audioshield, Job Simulator, and The Unspoken, and explain how they can be played on a Dualshock 4 without making massive sacrifices in the core game design (and more than that, how they can still be considered super fun games that someone with just a DS4 would want to play).
Remember, I know people aren't arguing that two motion controllers would be better, but I'm arguing that some games need those two motion controls to maintain what makes them them. And forcing devs to create a DS4 option would mean huge design changes.
EventHorizon
Member
I just tried out using 2 DualShock 4 controllers like Move controllers and that works as an option. For games that need to model 2 hands I suspect that will be the workaround. Sony said that games will be playable with the DualShock 4 controllers. As far as I know they didn't say that they would be playable with only one DS4 controller. That seems like an adequate compromise considering the number of people who already have more than one DS4 controller.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
No design changes are needed it even says as much in the OP.
Same as how some games used one or two move controllers on the PS3.
I don't disagree. I was just remarking upon the complete change in opinion. I remember back then so many did not want anything to do with Mario Kart if it didn't have classic controls.
For the record, I would prefer if Sony didn't have this mandate. Motion controls are the future, IMO, especially in VR, and the regular controller needs to be left behind.