170°

Virtual reality: Sony’s thoughts on Oculus Rift, not needing triple-A, and similarities to Wii U

A new interview with Yoshida's thoughts on Project Morpheus.

Read Full Story >>
venturebeat.com
deantak4081d ago

Shu is pretty confident to be so straight.

Sadie21004081d ago

That's pretty cool that he thinks the Oculus could help Sony out.

randomass1714081d ago

Competition is always helpful. Without Nintendo and Microsoft, Sony probably wouldn't have turned out as great with video games as they are now.

JOEgolferG4081d ago

Even though they have been in the console gaming industry a lot longer than Microsoft?

randomass1714080d ago

@JOEgolferG Well, sure. A number of decisions for the PS4 were made after Microsoft announced certain things about Xbox One. The 360 obviously helped Sony achieve something better after PS3. Competition, even newer competition, can definitely be a good thing.

darkronin2294081d ago

You missed a golden opportunity to call this "Shoe on Shu."

ColManischewitz4081d ago

It's weird to see one big company like Sony say a potential competitor could actually help it. Weird, weird, weird.

randomass1714081d ago (Edited 4081d ago )

Not surprising to me. Yoshida is all about the industry as a whole, not just Sony. Wouldn't surprise me at all if Sony has more people like that.

OtakuDJK1NG-Rory4081d ago

it just Yoshida who acknowledge them. When Jack Tretton was there he downplay competition and gets cocky a lot.

aliengmr4081d ago

Makes perfect sense.

VR is a special case in that its a tech that has already failed to connect to any market once before.

Its an engineering problem, and under those conditions "competition" would only do more harm than good right now. In the future, sure, but not now.

Its not like the consoles themselves which were just refining tech in an existing market. In that way competition is fine. There was already a very large market to compete for.

VR doesn't have that market and still needs still has to over come a big engineering hurdles. Sony and OVR need VR to succeed first before worrying about which will be better.

"We’re not making a new product for an existing market. We’re trying to break into something that doesn't exist yet."

VR is a challenge far bigger than any one company. It may be too big for both parties involved, we'll have to wait and see.

wonderfulmonkeyman4081d ago

I don't think that oculus rift or morpheus are going to make any sort of big permanent splash in the gaming community.
Not until gamers are comfortable ditching tv's for them, which isn't likely to happen any year soon.

BoneBone4081d ago

3D TVs never took off because no one wants to sit there wearing glasses. I can see even fewer people wanting to sit around wearing big goggles.

KwietStorm_BLM4081d ago

No, that's not why 3D didn't take off.

AceBlazer134081d ago

3d never took off because it was flatout a pain in the ass. The strain a majority of people got after a while of 3d just wasn't worth it.

randomass1714081d ago

It also costs extra money and the glasses do factor in as a negative. It hurts your eyes and the extra payoff isn't worth it.

Joe9134081d ago

I have no clue what any of you are talking about have you even played a game in 3d lol I can sit and play KZ3 for hours and hours the bullets feel like they coming out of the screen and I think VR killed 3d in games but as far as saying a 3d tv never took off your crazy every movie that comes out is in 3d and Netflix streams in 3d if it was dead why put the money in that.

zeuanimals4078d ago

Yeah, prices of $2000+ for a 3DTV compared to a regular HDTV priced at $500-1000 had nothing to do with it... And the fact that most people are completely fine with their current TVs and hardly ever upgrade unless there's something wrong with their current one, which leads to low TV sales also had nothing to do with it.

It was because people didn't like wearing glasses, that's why you never see people wearing reading glasses, sunglasses, or even tacky Real 3D glasses with the lenses taken out.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4078d ago
hamburgerhill4081d ago

I hope you're wrong because VR is bigger than most people at this time seem to realize. It's nothing like 3d or bs kinect and will be a game changer like I said if you're wrong.

randomass1714081d ago

We'll see how it is as far as the next big thing is concerned. If they want it to catch on, it needs to be affordable and it needs to work with people's everyday devices.

wonderfulmonkeyman4081d ago (Edited 4081d ago )

Well, think about this, then...
if moving their heads down a bit, or holding their controller aloft a bit, is enough for some people to hate the wii u's controller, then why would these same people like a device that puts extra weight on their heads, makes them swivel their head in many different directions, works best with first person but loses effect with third person, is far less portable, and may require batteries on top of all of that?

The writing is on the wall already, my friend; gamers prefer tv's over vr headsets for their everyday gaming sessions, as a majority rule.

Death4080d ago

VR requires the PS4 camera for head tracking. If you used bs Kinect with it, you could track more than just your head. It's incredible you can see the potential benefitof VR, but not see the benefit of body tracking and voice commands.

Show all comments (27)
320°

Former PlayStation Boss Says $80 Games Are Amazingly Affordable

PlayStation boss believes that $80 games are affordable due to the value they provide. Using Mario Kart as an example, he noted that it offers numerous hours of gameplay with just one purchase.

Read Full Story >>
tech4gamers.com
jambola2d ago

value inside the product does not have any impact on how afforable they are

Eonjay1d 7h ago

He never said anything about affordability at all. He only commented about the perceived value that a game can have to a player that gets many hours out of it.

Again, as with many other forms of we are disrespected and lied to.

Title says Yoshida said $80 games are amazingly affordable. This is a lie.

CrimsonWing691d 7h ago

Perceived value is subjective, so how do you even argue for it? If one person says $500 was worth it because they played a game for six months, what does that mean to someone who didn’t share that experience or see that value?

This is exactly where corporate thinking falls apart. The value is defined by them, and then they twist the logic to defend it from a purely internal, out-of-touch perspective.

I’ve never based the price of a game on how long I’ve played it. There’s a standard price range that consumers feel is fair. If it were truly based on time or value, Resident Evil 2 Remake would cost $20, and Final Fantasy VII Rebirth would be $1,000.

Eonjay1d 4h ago

@Crimson

"Perceived value is subjective, so how do you even argue for it?Perceived value is subjective, so how do you even argue for it?"

I think his point is that it is subjective.

thorstein1d 2h ago

Why is tech4gamers allowed to publish here. The lying is constant with them.

FACTUAL evidence11h ago

Honestly, expedition 33 is a prime example of quality for the low. Expedition 33 launched at 50$, and that game gave me more fun than most 60-70$ games I’ve purchased within the last decade.

8839h ago(Edited 9h ago)

Clearly, they want to increase prices. They need to convince people that it’s not so bad. As long as they can do that, they can do whatever they want. You gave an outstanding example of the direction things could go if creators were focused primarily on The community and quality. If that example or a few others like it didn’t exist, it might be hard to convey to many how it is even possible.

pwnmaster30002d ago

I get the concept.
People buy movies for $20-$30 dollars that offers only a couple of hours of enjoyment.
While games offers 3-10+ times the amount of hours and content.
So in theory yeah I get it.

But I will never accept it and would rather keep the price now or even better PS360 price lol

isarai1d 23h ago

On the surface ye that makes sense, but when you realize the budgets are very comparable, you realize it's kinda stupid and overpriced especially when it common for it to be released unfinished

Extermin8or3_1d 2h ago

Not really, movies that have similar budgets have the box office where if they arent a flop- they typically make all their money back or a profit. Movies have a much wider audience. Games however just have that release and have a smaller market.

PapaBop1d 1h ago

Are many people buying movies for $20-$30? Outside of the more dedicated movie goers who have a physical collection, I imagine most rather scoff at that and stick to things like Netflix instead.

DivineHand1251d ago

You also have to take into consideration that most games are enjoyed by one or two people, while movies can be enjoyed by a group of people who are either friends or family.

Another thing is that the value of an entertainment product cannot be judged based on its length, but how it makes the user feel when it is all done.
An example of this is Ubisoft games. They can last close to or exceed 100 hours, yet many people hate on them for doing things to pad the length of the game, while Uncharted 4 and other Naughty Dog games average about 15 hours in length and are hailed as some of the best games of all time.

gold_drake1d 12h ago

said by the guy who probably had a high 6 figure income

Eonjay22h ago

He never made the comment. Welcome to the internet.

gold_drake21h ago

..have u watched the video at all?

welcome to the internet indeed.

Petebloodyonion1d 7h ago

The value of an $80 all-you-can-eat buffet is undeniable, making it curious why some people choose a $20 restaurant for a single, standard meal.

In a similar vein, movies, despite their higher production costs for a two-hour experience, outperform video games in revenue while also being priced around $20. Suggesting that video games need 100 hours of diluted gameplay to compete seems like a misdirection. The real solution might lie in re-evaluating how their core offering is valued.

Extermin8or3_1d 2h ago

Individual movies yes, the movie industry as a whole? No, the movie industry is dwarfed by the behemoth in terms of revenue that gaming is.

DoubleYourDose18h ago

The $80 buffet and the $20 meal both come out the same end.

FACTUAL evidence1d 7h ago

Lol so rich people want to speak for my wallet now? I still haven’t adapted to 70$ yet, and not planing on to. I don’t mind waiting on sales.

Show all comments (58)
140°

Sony Faces Class Action in the Netherlands Over Allegedly Inflated PlayStation Store Prices

Mass Damage & Consumer Foundation in the Netherlands has filed a class action against Sony for inflating PlayStation Store prices.

dveio7d ago (Edited 7d ago )

My personal opinion:

Manufacturers and publishers have indeed inflated the industry.

From $700 million development costs for games like Call of Duty, to digital (store) prices for games and DLCs, online multiplayer fees on consoles (why can you play Helldivers 2 online for free on PC but not consoles?) or still preventing sell/lend digitally purchased games.

Sometime in the future, this bubble will collapse.

They should know better, but they just can't help themselves and suck even the last penny out of our wallets.

BeHunted7d ago

Because Sony knows people will be forced to pay those prices for single player and multiplayer games, not everyone prefers PC gaming. Sony also has a monopoly on PlayStation digital games. In 2019, they stopped allowing retailers and game key sellers to sell PlayStation digital games, making them available only through the official PlayStation Store

anast7d ago

The Dutch gov. wants a piece of the pie.

Eonjay7d ago

They should be suing the individual publishers increasing the prices to $80 instead of suing the store. There are plenty of publishers still selling game for like $50 with much success (like E33). But this proves that the publishers are the ones setting the prices.... so again nothing changes because they aren't even going after the main offender. How is suing Sony going to make Microsoft not charge $80 for the next COD? Sony being the number one store in the market doesn't mean that publisher have to charge us an arm and a leg. Again the industry is laughing at us because consumers never get real representation. Just these fake platitudes that are meaningless.

BeHunted7d ago

"How is suing Sony going to make Microsoft not charge $80 for the next COD"

Because Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly, I can purchase Call of Duty at a huge discount from CDKeys or other gaming retailers. The only way to purchase digital PlayStation games is through the PlayStation Store.

djl34857d ago

Weird, I swore GoW, Stellar Blade, Horizon Zero Dawn, TLoU, etc. were on the steam store....uh.....

BeHunted6d ago (Edited 6d ago )

@djI3485

I'm talking about PlayStation games that you can only purchase on PlayStation. I can purchase Steam and Epic games from 3rd party retailers and key stores.

"Sony to stop selling full-game download codes at retailers"

https://www.videogamer.com/...

Killer2020UK7d ago

About time. There is zero fair reason why digitally distributed products that you cannot recoup any value when you want to dispose of them, should be priced higher than that of physical copies that entail all of the costs and the benefits of owning.

Show all comments (12)
100°

The 7 Most Violent VR Games That Push the Limits of Virtual Combat

Looking to release some of that anger? Here's the 7 most violent VR games you can play on your headset today!

Read Full Story >>
xrsource.net
OtterX9d ago

Lol, maybe I'm becoming an old fart, but excessive violence in VR seems to bother me more than in flat games. Feels more visceral when you're looking a person in the eyes before mutilating them.

By no means am I trying to be a prude and saying these games shouldn't exist. I just play them more sparingly, need more breaks. I need some beautiful, refreshing & relaxing VR experiences too to balance them out so I don't feel so heavy.

Babadook78d ago

I’m an old fart too. I couldn’t believe how violent saints and sinners was.