-
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
No one is arguing that no games should be compatible with both. We're just arguing that if a developer has an awesome idea for a game that requires two separate tracking points, they should be able to make it (since that's kind of been one of the core selling points of VR since the very beginning)
It's not "concern" - it's knowing the limitations of the technology.
Sure... I'm not really seeing your point though? I'm not arguing some percentage value of games that may be impacted... just that there are games that may/will be impacted, and they shouldn't need to be.
You guys are really beating the horses here lol.
In reality, both options are viable. It's just the matter of which type controller will handle the game better for these type of games. Of course it would be the Move controller. The point I am trying to make here is are developers being froced? No.
GuitarAtomik
Member
I think you're totally not grasping the point.
You can still get 2 track points with the DS4 like I said earlier, with L3 and R3.
Except, they are 100% being forced. As a developer, am I allowed to make a game that requires Move controllers?
No? Then I'm being forced to implement DS4 compatibility.
Like I said earlier, no you cant, since moving a thumb stick around a fixed pivot doesn't give the same range of motion as moving your hand around (up down, side to side, forward, backward, twisting). So obviously it might not always work.
in an inaccurate and 2D manner, which removes some scoring mechanics (among many others) from Audioshield.
Developers are forced to decide between 1) a shitty controller implementation and 2) spending time/resources on reworking the game for a possibly better controller implementation.
GuitarAtomik
Member
How are analog sticks two motion tracked points? How would they even be an acceptable approximation of them in 3D space?
CarbonFire
Member
At the higher levels in Vive Audio Shield has you almost literally reaching as far as you can in both directions to hit "notes" on either side of you. That would be impossible in a DS4-designed setup.
The only semi-viable solution is one DS4 as a single paddle having to switch between the colors with a button press. It would make the game a lot less fun or demanding as the game would have to be redesigned with only one paddle and a much more limited range of motion in mind.
My point is that developers are able to make games for the PSVR and have the option using either type of controller without any issue.
There will be games that will play better on the Move controller. Sony is giving us options.
Zalusithix
Member
Actually, nevermind, I'm on board with this decision. Additionally I think they should mandate that all PSVR games also optionally work without PSVR. Then everybody can be happy! Options are good right?
Totally sarcasm.
Tripolygon
Banned
Or you could look at it this way.
1. Developers are being asked to provide alternate control schemes for their games.
s/asked/forced
Good point. I don't want to play these games with a stupid screen strapped to my face, why doesn't Sony mandate all PSVR games must also work without the headset?
GuitarAtomik
Member
They have that option without having it mandated they account for both. Now they just don't have the option of focusing on motion.
fastest finger
Member
Yes, but those limitations aren't as severe as some people are making out.
The way I see it, if a game is designed with PS Move in mind, then PS Move is clearly the best control method for that particular game. Anybody that's serious about their VR gaming experience is going to have a pair of them.
However, Sony are offering a workable (even if it isn't perfect) solution that ensures people can still buy all the games even if they don't own PS Move(s)
Anything that reduces cost of entry must be a good thing, right?
No, Sony is working with what they have when they decided to release a version of PSVR without two Move controllers, thus making them not required. If they just did what they should have done, and bundled Move controllers with each unit, this wouldn't have happened. But Sony needed to release at a cheaper cost, even if it was completely disingenuous since it still doesn't include all the required hardware (the camera).
Of course it will not be perfect, that's why you can also buy Move controllers. The DS4 is just an option.
What choice? Developers can't make games designed around using two motion controllers. All the choice has been taken away. The game that could've been done with DS4 only would have DS4 support anyways. This is just a shitty policy.
Why not let developers decide to limit their market if they want to? Why is that up to Sony? They're allowing them to do that with regular Move games, they're allowing them to do that with VR games (why aren't PSVR games also playable without PSVR?).
They don't though. They have the option of using BOTH, or using DS4. Having the option to use EITHER would allow them to make a game that only works with the Move controllers.
Sony's giving you options, by taking options away from the developers. But the developers are making stuff for us, so it doesn't really benefit us either. If a game cannot be played with a DualShock, then it won't arrive on PSVR... that's not a very effective way of giving you options. If the game can be played with a DS4, then the developer probably would have let you play it that way regardless, because they'd like to also sell to people that don't own Move controllers.
Spiral Insanity
Banned
Is this parody?
VR games are not the same as non-VR games. The last thing VR gaming needs is for all games to NOT be designed exclusively for VR experiences. What you are asking is silly.
We aren't giving you reasons why it won't be perfect, we're giving you reasons why it won't work.
I've played that Audioshield game, a lot. It literally won't work without the motion tracking. The accuracy of the tracking is literally tied to the mechanics of the game.
Surely developers are smart enough to make all VR games work on both?
Yep. I'm joking to prove a point - same arguments made in favour of mandating DS4 support can be applied to mandating nonVR support for PSVR games.
Tripolygon
Banned
Asked, forced, mandated, required, label it what you want. This is my platform and these are the rules to develop for my platform.
I fully support this requirement even though I've sure its not really a requirement. There is always exceptions. Headmaster, VR Luge, Danger Ball for example.
Why are there exceptions? Why aren't they forced to include DS4 support?
Lol those are games that don't require a controller at all, those aren't exceptions
test_account
XP-39C²
Are there any examples where controller option makes thing worse in VR? Or just speculation that it might be worse?
Tripolygon
Banned
I have always maintained that there will always be exceptions.
They are exceptions to the title of this thread or does exception mean something else?
Not right now, and probably not ever, because now it's a case of "if this game won't work with a controller, we simply won't bring it to PSVR at all". And that's the core issue.
You didn't answer my question.
Why are there exceptions? Why aren't they forced to include DS4 support?
fastest finger
Member
It's about cost of entry for the system. Nobody is forced to spend on new controllers if they don't want to.
EventHorizon
Member
That's not seeing the big picture. The biggest problem VR faces right now is the small install base. That's why we see limited third party AAA development. Getting that install base a large as possible instead of fracturing it boosts the entire VR industry and will hasten the day when more large scale projects get greenlit.
That is what is good for VR. The novelty of VR will wear off soon enough and not be sustainable by small VR 'experiences'. With game development time measured in years we need to kick start AAA VR game development as soon as possible. That isn't going to happen targeting VR hardware configurations that only a small subset has.
In SteamVR there haven't been any games built for motion controls that have also had traditional controls added retroactively. Presumably because the developers feel that hand-tracking is a core mechanic, like in the response Qassim got here: https://twitter.com/OwlchemyLabs/status/752959336087822337
Valve doesn't have any rules about VR games supporting keyboard and mouse in order to be sold on Steam, so no, we can't point to any VR games that have been clearly hampered by following a requirement to implement two notably different control schemes.
If I open a restaurant and say "each menu item must have a vegan option, no exceptions", the examples you listed are basically green salads that are inherently vegan, thus they don't need the option.
Those aren't exceptions, they're just moot because they never needed a control method beyond head tracking in the first place.
test_account
XP-39C²
Any examples where controller wont work at all? It might be crappy, kinda like using a controller to play a light gun game, but it will work and be serviceable enough.
Tripolygon
Banned
Why are you asking me a question i never argued in the first place?. I don't know why there wouldn't be an exception, there is always an exception especially when it comes to games development as it applies to this thread.
It's going to wear off a whole lot sooner if the majority of experiences are just traditional controller-based games that you can now look around inside.
I feel I've made a pretty stong case as to why a game like Audioshield won't work with a controller. Job Simulator is another one. At some point you have to ask yourself "okay, at what point in my retooling this game to work with a controller am I losing the core of what makes the game unique and fun?"
Nobody would be forced to buy games that only support the Move.. just like it is now. No one is forced to buy games that are only on PSVR, or only support Move on the PS3. Why is it different now? For some stupid short-sighted business decision - not for the good of games development.
Ok, that's fine. But why aren't developers allowed to decide for themselves what audience they target? They didn't do that for the Move on the PS3 and they're not doing it for the PSVR itself (why aren't all PSVR games playable without the PSVR?).
The big picture is you limit games design for a short term business decision. I'd say enforcing this mandate is not seeing the bigger picture and the harm it could do to VR games.
test_account
XP-39C²
I see. I cant really see this being a huge issue to be honest. If some developer feels that its impossible to come up with some solution, exceptions can be made.
inpHilltr8r
Member
So yeah. That. We made an FPS on PS1 that played great with twin sticks. Trouble is that that controller wasn't universally available (and not being 1st party, we couldn't just bundle a controller with it), so we had to support the original pad too. You m/k purists think controllers suck? Now remove the sticks. Digital only baby! Game was still playable, but it was a damn sight more fun with sticks. (edit, I played Doom without a mouse the first time around)
Life finds a way.
Tripolygon
Banned
You are not opening a restaurant and this is game development. There is always an exception, Nintendo developed a console that seemed to rely mostly on Wii mote but they gave alternate controllers. There are always exception, these games have not been released so we can't tell which are the exceptions.
Developers can't be reasonably expected to develop games in the hope they get the exception, what if they don't, then they have to redesign their game, spending a lot of money for a game that may not be as good as it could have been.
I don't know why suddenly people are all in favour of taking control over what types of games developers make away from developers.
odhiex
Member
Platform holders always make mandatory/standard requirements for all the developers to meet with their games i.e support trophies / achievements, use camera/kinect or not, support screen shots, support Wiiu gamepad etc.
Now tell me how they feel of being forced by those? cause, to be honest, I don't care.
If they are not happy, they should choose another platform that suits their visions (thats more important to me, happiness). I would buy games when they looks interesting to me anyway.
Now tell me how they feel of being forced by those? cause, to be honest, I don't care.
If they are not happy, they should choose another platform that suits their visions (thats more important to me, happiness). I would buy games when they looks interesting to me anyway.
Most of those things change how a game is designed. They're system level things that add things to existing games, often not even really interacting with the game itself. It's not a valid comparison whatsoever.
Other ones aren't mandatory (like WiiU Gamepad and Kinect).