PlayStation VR2 Is Selling Well Enough to Keep Sony in the Game

By bridging flatscreen and headset gaming, the newest device is helping prove the technology isn't just a passing fad

115d ago Replies(6)
shadowT115d ago

Price cut and more games needed. PSVR2 itself is a great step ahead.

115d ago
specialguest115d ago

That's a bad sign if it needs a price cut this early. Sony makes great hardware, but they don't do enough for support

Eonjay115d ago

Naw the tech is just expensive. Its a fact of reality. Its a good sign that the tech is selling even though the investment is steeper than most would like. The Quest 3 is starting at 499 with 128 GB. The higher models are probably more expensive than the PSVR2. As long as Sony/Meta and other can stay in the game, they can work on the technology. By the time mass market prices become a reality, the tech will be even better.

SullysCigar115d ago

Obviously we'd all like a price cut, but it certainly doesn't need one given the tech you're getting. It would make it sell faster, for sure, but it's a great deal for the specifications. Even the Quest 3 supports the pricing.

I get that Quest 3 will be standalone like Quest 2, but it starts just $50 shy of PSVR2. If you want more than a few games available at once, you need to spend another $100 on the larger (still WAY too small) memory. If you want it comfortable and lasting longer than a couple of hours, you'll want the Bobo strap and battery kit (which was practically essential for Quest 2 unless you're a masochist).

If you opt for pro controllers as well, you're now up over $1,000 for a lesser product than the PSVR2 (albeit with wireless option) and the chances are you'll want a decent PC if you're looking for non-mobile tier games.

Wait until the Apple headset price is widely known. All these headsets (and the Meta Pro, which launched at £1,500!) show that the price is great, just not great for mass market. If you can't afford it, fine, but the value is there and there are already over 100 games on the store just 3 months in, wit more dropping all the time.

blackblades115d ago

They aint gonna price cut unless they can make a profit and not eat the cost

potedude114d ago

I'll buy one eventually, just need to convince my wife it's a good investment...

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 114d ago
peppeaccardo115d ago

As an early adopter of everytihg VR it is a good thing that SONY is investing in this space. IMHO this is the entartainment of the future. I did build a custom PC specifically for VR (rtx 4090, Ryzen 9, Pico 4) and what I get out of it is unmatched. I did purchase PSVR1 and now PSVR2 and for the price the offering is still a bit undecoocked especially on the exclusive games front. Don't get me wrong, GT7, RE VIII, RE IV, Horizon are great starting point to bring VR to a more mature audience. 600 euros is a steep price to pay to get into VR on PS5 but if you factor in its potential these are money well spent in the long run. Not a huge fan of ports to PSVR2 as I already have plaied everything else on PC so hopefully the software house will start making games that will take full advantage of the fantastic hardware.
It is a good time to be a gamer.

I_am_Batman115d ago (Edited 115d ago )

It's probably gonna play a role in entertainment, but considering it's still a niche market more than 10 years in, I wouldn't call it "the entertainment of the future" unless we're talking far future, in which case I wouldn't be confident making any predictions personally. The tech simply isn't there yet to be truly convincing and the trade-offs in game design freedom for added immersion is only worth it for specific types of games in my opinion.

Of course technological advancements will continue improving aspects of the experience. Light-field displays might increase the simulation accuracy of depth perception in the coming years for example, but that in turn will most likely also increase VR sickness, because the discrepancy between the visual motion stimulus and the lack of it coming from the other senses will increase. There's almost another uncanny valley effect, where the improvements in visual simulation quality only accentuate other shortcomings of the technology.

The current solution for these issues often involves limiting freedom of motion to slow speeds or even making the player character teleport from one spot to another. That's just too much of a compromise in my opinion.

anast115d ago

It will be the future of gaming.

I_am_Batman115d ago

@anast: The VR market will certainly grow, but I don't see any indication that gaming as a whole will converge into the VR space. There are some games that naturally synergize with VR, but most don't.

If anything I believe that VR will become even less core-gaming centered and instead slowly shift towards immersive experiences and virtual spaces for social networks for example. If it's gonna play a major role in gaming, developers have to start rethinking game-design from first principles, because simply adapting existing genres into VR is always gonna leave it with a smaller subset of gaming experiences.

Since you seem very bullish on VR in gaming, what do you think needs to happen for it to become mainstream?

ApocalypseShadow115d ago (Edited 115d ago )

It just needs time. Something certain individuals can't seem to fathom. What do all these things have in common:

Cellphones, TVs, cars, consoles, DVD players, etc.

They all took time to grow because at one time they were niche markets. Not everyone had them and they were expensive for some to buy. Some people don't want VR to grow as a platform. They immediately jump to mainstream mass market as if it's supposed to sell billions right away. That's not how it works for many products. It takes time.

All those previous predicts I mentioned had something that made them useful. VR is useful. You can train employees on a job, you can give educational instruction, you can build cars and buildings and walk through them before even the first brick is laid. You can give sick individuals in a hospital somewhere else to be instead of the hospital bed. You can preview houses before even walking into a for sale house. And so on. VR has uses. That's why it won't die like Wii motion or Kinect. Both of those were dropped instead of growing their markets even more.

Sony knows and has always said it's a marathon. Not a sprint. But some gamers want Sony to run as fast as they can head long into fad territory. That's not a great idea.

Quest has sold well because of PREDATORY PRICING to keep others from competing. Then raised the price. But the problem is that there isn't anything compelling for it. Indies make money on cheap games. But the masses want more than what they see. And Horizon Worlds looks too basic for the masses to ever want to put a headset on.

But in about 30 more years. Just like consoles took over 40 to get where it is, VR will be used in so many places that it will be just a standard every day thing. But it needs TIME.

I_am_Batman115d ago (Edited 115d ago )

@ApocalypseShadow: I agree with most of what you said. VR technology has a lot of potential and if we're talking on a timescale of 30-40 years a lot will obviously change between now and then. To get to the point of mass market appeal it needs to be a viable business model, which is why I think it would benefit from branching out more into areas unrelated to gaming. You've brought up a lot of interesting examples of how VR technology can be useful outside of the entertainment segment and there are undoubtedly others within it that could be interesting for consumers.

I agree that most people underestimate the time required for technologies to mature. What people tend to overestimate on the other hand is the degree to which a new technology will make previously existing technologies obsolete. It wasn't so long ago that the majority of industry analysts predicted mobile gaming to replace consoles. While mobile gaming did become huge, the console market is as healthy as ever. The onset of radio did not replace newspapers and contrary to the lyrics of a popular song, video did not kill the radio star.

For a technology to supercede another it needs to encompasses whatever was useful and valuable about the previous technology. Just like mobile gaming, VR is just a subset of gaming as a whole and a subset can't replace the superset which is why I'm sceptical about statements like "VR is the future of gaming" at least when taken literally.

ApocalypseShadow115d ago (Edited 115d ago )

VR is definitely a part of gaming too. Besides the other uses I mentioned that are happening as I speak. I mentioned them because they are outside of gaming. Every day, there's another use for VR.

No one knows what today's children will be into when they grow up. But it's definitely not going to be the exact things we do and use every day.

They are living in an era of driverless cars, AI, drones, VR, AR, high definition, Bluetooth, wireless streaming, etc.

They walk around with phones that have so many uses, that they've replaced for many the GPS, cameras, calculators, PCs, televisions, paper calendars, MP3 players and so on. Hell, we got people like that French guy Frank flying around on hover boards at over 80 mph.

But I refuse to believe gamers will still be sitting in front of a huge television playing games like I did with Pinball Machines, Pong, Atari and game consoles up into today.

They will be playing VR games, AR games. And if they do play flat games, that light, flat, pancake lense headset will put a huge 200 in screen or any size screen in their face without a huge TV on the wall. It won't replace all gaming as there are people today that still use records for music listening. I still have them and they still sell them.

But for many, VR will be their standard way of playing. It's like the guy with his horse and carriage saying the horseless carriage will never catch on. But now, there's more cars today than probably all the horses on this planet.

I_am_Batman114d ago (Edited 114d ago )

@ApocalypseShadow: I don't have a crystal ball, but I highly doubt people will ever prefer a head mounted display over a stationary screen for non-vr games. It's less comfortable, constricting, potentially much more hazardous for your eyesight and most importantly completely pointless. There is no alternative to it in vr games, but why would anyone want to wear it for no upside at all?

The issue I have with some of your analogies is that they're not analogous. Whether the music you listen to comes from a vinyl record, a cassette tape, a CD or a server doesn't matter, because it has little to no impact on the way musicians compose, perform and record their work.

Developing a VR game is completely different from developing a "flat game" as you call them. Theoretically you can add some VR mode to everything, but if it's just an added gimmick that isn't synergizing with the game design goals of the developer, nobody will play it. I'm currently playing Street Fighter 6 and I can't think of anything VR could do for a game like this and as long as VR can't encompass all aspects that people enjoy about traditional games, it will not supersede it. That's also why the car and horse analogy doesn't work for me.

ApocalypseShadow112d ago

You forget that VR can create a small screen or a 200 inch screen on the fly. No need of a television. That's even with glasses AR that we'll get to.

You're also assuming kids today will be watching TV and sitting in front of this huge screen. Most don't as they watch content on their phones or tablets. It's why old media had to branch out to streaming or buy others as today's youth don't care what's playing on TV.

Who thought people of today would be carrying around portable computers in their pockets? Who thought that there would be flying cars? Or artificial intelligence?

You say VR is different than programming for today's games. 3D games were different than 2D games and different than basic cursors on a screen. They LEARNED. It's not rocket science. And a lot of developers are learning today to create content for tomorrow. Programming doesn't stop. It has continued to grow and expand.

Thinking people of today will be using the same products the same way for the next hundreds years is not getting the picture. You are but a snapshot in history. Just as a guy 100 years ago was only a snapshot thinking about the products he used and how advanced he thought they were at the time.

If we live long enough, we'll see who's right. Won't take long though.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 112d ago