-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Sony: not every PSVR game playable with DS4; some require Move
- Thread starter Neuromancer
- Start date
fastest finger
Member
Move compatibility will still be there. Games can have more than one control method.
Why is there so much resistance to the idea of a better form of control, especially that for a new medium, and to unshackle its bonds with the outdated? It's especially ironic that it's analog sticks that are being defended here, in your case for aiming. In the group of input devices used for aiming, from a mouse, the Steam controller's trackpad, to VR tracked controllers, the analog stick represents the worst form of aim control out there.
Zalusithix
Member
Even with a game where it is possible to decently map the controls to the DS4 sticks, unless it's also redesigned/balanced for it, you'll wish you were able to aim with your hand. Analog sticks are horribly slow and inaccurate compared to natural aiming with your hand. The same game would have the stick user failing horribly.
And it can't cope with half of the movements in that example. The tracker for the camera is on a single plane of the controller. Turn it away, and the tracker is occluded - tracking will become increasingly inaccurate extremely quickly till the tracker can be detected again. Depending on what you are doing, on many occasions your hand movements will lead to the tracker pointing away from the camera and being obscured. PS Move escapes this with a spherical tracker. It too will fail if facing away from the camera or occluded by your body if facing the opposite direction, which is why most PSVR games will be forward facing for the sake of the hand controllers since the only camera is in front of the player.
This is beside the point though. The case and point is the huge limitation of playing with a controller without tracking in Surgeon Simulator which was designed as a QWOP like ridiculous thing to control, and is more of a meta-joke in it's VR form as is Job Simulator, where the fun of the game is in the finesse of the controls and interactivity they give.
My biggest frustration is when people think we're arguing against options, when instead we're arguing that forcing options will limit the kinds of games we see.
It's like if the Wii was forced to also accommodate a standard controller. Sure some people would like it, but it also means that some of the best Wii games simply couldn't exist.
Tripolygon
Banned
The bold(ed) is a non argument and i can do you one better. Disabled gamers cant use PS Move so developer should be mandated to support DS4 and support alternate control schemes.
Are there any VR games where you aim with your thumb? In a traditional FPS your right thumb turns your head. I've played games like Time Rifters where you turn with your thumb but aim with your head (worked well for me at the time and was fun) but I don't think I've played a VR game that straight up controlled like a regular FPS with a controller. Or maybe I did and I'm just not remembering it.
GuitarAtomik
Member
Agreed. People arguing this isn't a big deal are arguing for the player's options, while not realizing this limits the developer's options.
So all those Move only games that already exist should not be allowed to sold? The Wii and all of its standing, Wiimote only games shouldn't either? What about Kinect games on the Xbox, should fitness or dance games not be allowed because some people can't play them? What about people who have no hands or little to no capability in their hands? Stop making games that require physical input all together?
This is utterly absurd.
Neuromancer
Member
This is a really good point, actually.
lol I literally don't know how to respond to this, it's like you've given a moral ultimatum of "just try and disagree, you monster"
Tripolygon
Banned
Yes it is absurd as it should be pretty clear i was being facetious. Developers are not forced to do anything. Heck you have no idea if developer are complaining or have issues with this "mandate". You are just engaging in armchair developing.
Ok, since this point is going to be difficult to argue without coming across like a bit of a dick.. I may as well do it, because nobody likes me anyway.
Would you also suggest that you shouldn't be able to create a game where sight is an absolute requirement to play it, because some people are blind? Or where sound is required, because some people are deaf?
Obviously, it's a great thing to take into consideration where possible, and accommodating for it has no negative effect on anyone else playing it (such as the steps taken to help make Killer Instinct playable to blind players), but I don't think it should be a requirement that all games released be inclusive to all people. Some people are going to feel nauseous playing many VR games... but that doesn't mean Oculus should remove any game that fails it's highest comfort rating.
EDIT: Or Qassim. Nobody likes him either.
GuitarAtomik
Member
At best, all I could call that is an "On the bright side!" result.
I'll plead guilty to playing the silly analogy game, but I was accounting for the DS4 having a very limited form of tracking when making that comparison, lol.
Easy solution... These 2 hand use mechanics WILL be in the game for the move controller players. You can also use a DS4 to play the game just like how you normally play COD, Battlefield. Sony is giving us options, I don't see how they are limiting developers.
univariate
Banned
Good. Now the PSVR won't be limited to simple control schemes ––which means more complex games.
Zalusithix
Member
It's actually worse than the hypothetical Wii situation. Mapping a Wii game to a standard controller is far easier and more intuitive than attempting the same with VR. At least in the case of the Wii, everything was on a traditional screen, and the motions were more of an abstraction. In VR tracked controllers remove an entire layer of abstraction. Controls become straight real-life intuitive with all the nuances that provides. Reverting back to a standard controller in those cases, if even possible, can (and will) severely impact the game play.
I wonder what their definition of 'will work with' is?
Eg if your game really really benefits from move - something like job simulator for instance - is it acceptable if the dualshock 4 can technically carry out all functions in the game, even if it is horrible to use and nobody in their right mind would do that?
Eg if your game really really benefits from move - something like job simulator for instance - is it acceptable if the dualshock 4 can technically carry out all functions in the game, even if it is horrible to use and nobody in their right mind would do that?
Your going to limit your audience either way, either with a controller or with any other peripheral. So who really cares whether they give people the option to play VR games with dualshock 4?
Most VR games are just regular games with a headset on anyway. Its like saying you can only design games waving your arms around or on a rotary or else it 'limits creativity'. Its completely pointless as a new technology to start.
Most VR games are just regular games with a headset on anyway. Its like saying you can only design games waving your arms around or on a rotary or else it 'limits creativity'. Its completely pointless as a new technology to start.
GuitarAtomik
Member
Does someone want to test the DS4's tracking ability for us so we can find out if that's even close to a viable alternative to a Move controller or not? I might hook up my PS4 camera tonight to see myself.
We already knew the PSVR supported gamepad play, though. It never was limited to Move.
LordRaptor
Member
I'm honestly getting the feeling that the social engineering of "Playstation for the real gamers, none of that waggle shit" has worked a little too well.
I'd like to know, too. Battlezone's implementation is awful.
Someone write a SteamVR driver for this thing and we'll see how I do in Space Pirate Trainer.
Tripolygon
Banned
Since you've decided to address a pretty obvious facetious comment by me (i started with calling it a non argument), I will answer your question. Developers should be mandated to create an option when possible. And i'm not surprised why you think people don't like you judging by the above.
There is a huge difference between developing control schemes for people with limited mobility and developing games for blind or deaf people
Edit: Oh and developers can create whatever game they want. But a platform holder as has always been has the right to have requirements and rules for developing on their platform. I like this requirement even though i don't think there is one seeing as there are games that already make use of either, both or non at all.
If you see the list where it says "MOVE ONLY" section, tell me why PSVR game developers can't make games that uses both types of controllers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_Move_games
Having played this demo, I'd argue that it in fact isn't heavily dependant on motion controls. The main act I recall requiring two hands in the demo was the reloading of the gun. Otherwise you only had one prominent hand shooting the uzi, and were simply afforded the option of which hand it would be. It wasn't vastly removed from something like Eve Gunjack on Gear VR which doesn't require any form of controller at all. It's a pretty poor example compared to numerous Vive games.. and I guess it makes sense that it is... afterall it needs to be playable with a controller.
Or it will be limited to simple control schemes, which means less complex games. If Move were being mandated, then what you are saying may make some sense, for the exact same reason DS4 being mandated is an issue. You have to cater to what the other controller can't do. Nothing is gained, as a traditional game could always have supported the DS4.
Zalusithix
Member
Yeah, no. The vast majority of the stuff I've played on the Vive is nothing like a regular game. Which is really why it's as captivating as it is. I could just as easily play a regular game if I wanted to completely trash that.
Of course with a mandate like this, that statement will certainly be the case for PSVR...
Neuromancer
Member
I imagine that will be the case for a good deal of PSVR games, like Far Point or The Heist for example. What that doesn't tell us is how upset Owlchemy is over having to implement DS4 controls, or whether the game itself has been hampered by it.
No one is saying developers can't make games that work on both. They're saying they shouldn't be forced to comrpomise on their vision. I'm sure lots of developers won't want to design games that are designed principally around motion controls and that's fine - but why would you try and limit those that want to?
The point is it'll be a different game and why is it right that we suddenly start telling developers how to design their games? When even 'games shouldn't be political' Apple realises forcing game developers to use certain control inputs they may not want to use isn't a good idea.. you know it's not a good idea.
Option 1: use 2 DS4 controllers.
Option 2: use 1 DS4 controllers and both the analog sticks.
Problem solve!! Again, of course it will be more enjoyable to use the Move controllers. But like I've said it's also possible to develop a game like this the PSVR.
could you explain why your line of "possible" is between those that can use a gamepad and those that can use a motion controller rather than between those that can hear and those that cannot or those that can see and those that cannot?
See my above post/solution. Developers are not being forced.
For PSVR they are (if this thread is true). The fact Sony allows non PSVR Move games to be exclusive to Move only further highlights the stupidity of this policy (if it is actually the case). This is motivated by their own business reasons and not what is good for games.
Eh, i think that's kind of easier for developers who are pumping out products in addition to their regular titles as opposed to having the freedom to explore conceptual ideas with hit or miss results.
Sony wants this thing to eventually sell on its own, and it makes sense for them i think, to start out with traditional game mechanics until it catches on.
Lol, that might be technically true from a numbers standpoint, but that's absolutely not true of the best VR games.
Look at a game like The Unspoken. On the surface this looks like an FPS hat should be able to work with a DS4. But the hand tracking is so fundamental to the core of the game, that it would turn it from a genuinely cool VR experience to a standard FPS where you can look around in VR.
And that's when you get into the dangerous territory of actually hurting VR as a medium. When you limit the possibilities of what you're allowed to do with it, you inherently make it less impressive than it could be.
It would always be possible (no game ever has to be what it is). It's more about where its reasonable. In most situations where there alternative (in this case at least) is reasonable, the developers would likely opt for it regardless because it's in their interest to be able to sell to more people. If they opt to make a game that cannot be sold to a large portion of the otherwise potential audience (much like making a VR game in the first place), then it's very likely to be because support for the alternative isn't reasonable with the vision of what they're trying to create.
Apologies for not catching that you weren't serious. Since you're arguing the point with me now anyway, I guess that doesn't matter too much. Plus, I was joking too... people love me.
Yes, that's because the Move on PS3 didn't require every game being playable with a DualShock. If it had, there would be no "MOVE ONLY" section, and some of the games in it may not even exist.
Audioshield would not work with two analog sticks without losing notable mechanical complexity. Same with VR gun aiming games.
In the sense that they don't have to release games on PSVR, sure.
In the sense that they don't have to release games on PSVR, sure.
I'm still just baffled at how people are defending this on the face of what VR is.
Is it people that assume when FPS games were made for controllers they weren't changed design-wise had they only been for mouse and keyboard? Is it people who think Hover Junkers would be the exact same game had it also been designed to use a controller as an alternative?
I just don't understand.
This is not just as simple as a game being made just for Move controllers and then hitting a "Make the game work with a DualShock" button. If the game was only going to use motion controllers, changes will have to be made, sacrifices or limitations will have to be introduced.
Yes, more options are generally good, and yes it's good if disabled people who can only use a controller get to enjoy more VR games. But those won't be the same games had they only been built for motion controls, and it shouldn't be this difficult for people, especially people in GAF who are supposed to be more knowledgeable regarding gaming than a casual gamer, to comprehend that.
At the end of the day, I can see why Sony is going this route. This is supposed to be the mainstream headset, it doesn't have to offer the best experiences but as long as any regular Joe can just pick up a controller and play a game it'll be enough. But as someone who wanted both a PC headset and a console one, this is seriously making me consider just sticking to one.
Is it people that assume when FPS games were made for controllers they weren't changed design-wise had they only been for mouse and keyboard? Is it people who think Hover Junkers would be the exact same game had it also been designed to use a controller as an alternative?
I just don't understand.
This is not just as simple as a game being made just for Move controllers and then hitting a "Make the game work with a DualShock" button. If the game was only going to use motion controllers, changes will have to be made, sacrifices or limitations will have to be introduced.
Yes, more options are generally good, and yes it's good if disabled people who can only use a controller get to enjoy more VR games. But those won't be the same games had they only been built for motion controls, and it shouldn't be this difficult for people, especially people in GAF who are supposed to be more knowledgeable regarding gaming than a casual gamer, to comprehend that.
At the end of the day, I can see why Sony is going this route. This is supposed to be the mainstream headset, it doesn't have to offer the best experiences but as long as any regular Joe can just pick up a controller and play a game it'll be enough. But as someone who wanted both a PC headset and a console one, this is seriously making me consider just sticking to one.
fastest finger
Member
Lots of people are "concerned" DualShock 4 won't be trackable if the light bar is obscured.
DualShock 4 contains movement sensors which work in tandem with the lightbar. So even if the light is obscured for a short time, the system can still extrapolate the positioning. Once the light is visible again, any drift can be corrected.
PS Move has always been capable of this, and the SixAxis sensors in DualShock 4 are even more capable than the ones inside PS Move.
DualShock 4 contains movement sensors which work in tandem with the lightbar. So even if the light is obscured for a short time, the system can still extrapolate the positioning. Once the light is visible again, any drift can be corrected.
PS Move has always been capable of this, and the SixAxis sensors in DualShock 4 are even more capable than the ones inside PS Move.
Tripolygon
Banned
We are veering off topic based on a facetious comment i made, but i'll entertain anyway.
This is what i think is doable when it comes games in general as it applies to supporting gamers with disabilities.
1. Color blindess
2. Limited mobility
Those that have limited hearing can use hearing aids. As for the blind, i have no idea.
Does that answer your question?
How is that "problem solve" - the controller would get occluded the moment you turn your hand to an angle where the light is no longer visible. PS Move has a spherical tracker on top to prevent that. With your idea, I attempt to pick something from the ground and lose tracking, I attempt to reach attempt to reach above me and lose tracking. I'm cherry picking examples here since we could be here an absurdly long time trying to discuss how many hand motions are prevented in such a scheme. Translating them all to a button combination isn't very realistic
"Problem not solve"
Option 1 is a no go, since it still assumes people have hardware that they may not with a second DS4 (the whole reason Sony created this limitation is so that consumers can buy a PSVR and a PS4 and play everything.)
Option 2 is a no go because the game requires a range of movement that would be damn near impossible with two sticks. Maybe not literally impossible, but damn near, to the point where anyone playing it would straight up say "this just isn't fun, and releasing this knowing a large portion of your audience will use this control method will only hurt the game"