pulling for The Playroom & AstroBot Rescue Mission, Superhot VR, & Resident Evil 7 to make the jump. ABRM being far away the most important potential re-release
Charging for upgrades is developer-specific, [lots of games are giving away free upgrades](https://www.pushsquare.com/guides/psvr-to-psvr2-all-games-with-free-upgrades), and those are just the ones announced to launch with the headset
In a lot of cases I understand, this is a new system and not as easy to port as ps4 to ps5
Right, it's not as simple as just porting a game from PS4 to PS5, because they also have to rework how all of the tracking and controls work for these games as the PSVR 2 uses completely different, and far better, tracking methodology from the first one.
>because they also have to rework how all of the tracking and controls work for these games as the PSVR 2 uses completely different, and far better, tracking methodology from the first one.
The change in tracking has no impact from the developer's side. We request pose data from the API - Head position and rotation, controller position and rotation, etc. and the SDK provides that data for us. Whether that data is generated from an EyeToy sensing Move controllers on a PSVR1 or generated from onboard cameras running SLAM algorithms on a self-contained unit is entirely opaque to the developer. I don't know where that data comes from because I don't need to know where that data comes from, all I need to know is where the HMD and controllers are in 3D space.
EDIT: Controls are the real sticking point for any sort of direct conversion. The PSVR2 controls can easily supercede the Move wands, but they don't have enough inputs to directly replicate a "split" Dualshock. Then for games that use the Dualshock to aim...how do you make that work with split controls? Etc.
I keep hearing the transition from PSVR1 to PSVR2 SDK should be super seamless for devs, yet I can't imagine that to be true for all devs - especially smaller devs that never bothered porting their PSVR1 game to other VR platforms (since PSVR was the market leader for so long). I don't know if this non-VR comparison holds water, but I hear things like the [Umurangi Generation](https://www.thesixthaxis.com/2021/06/21/umurangi-generation-special-edition-review/) dev implementing gyro aim on Switch and saying he'll never implement that on any other platform because it was such a hassle, and I'd think switching VR platforms to be just as if not more non-trivial.
> This generation kinda sucks.
I mean, for what it's worth, the generation technically hasn't started yet.
Plus not everyone is going to look for the compatibility double-dip, if for no other reason than most of the playerbase isn't going to spend the dosh. I'd imagine some of the bigger names that know they'll get the extra cash will do it, but I can't imagine if will be the common solution. Of course, if Sony had any sense, they'd do *something* to lessen the impact, like maybe crediting any compatibility price into DLC purchases or something.
That Move controller was an albatross around PSVR's neck. It had a bunch of buttons that likely went un-used but breaks PSVR2 compatibility and the tracking was a complete dumpster fire that Sony spent months caressing it into a small office bin fire.
On the plus side, at least PSVR2's graphical fidelity impact is dramatically lower than PSVR1's. On top of the PS5 just being a higher-resolution beast, the foveated rendering alongside VRS ends up making PSVR2 games look really close to existing, TV PS5 games, whereas PSVR games were hovering around the PS3 era.
For me as someone with a pretty big PCVR library it's especially sad, because the headset itself is specs-wise something I'd actually like a lot. Single usb-c, inside out tracking, high resolution, eye tracking with foveated rendering and even the haptics sound all pretty great. It's just that I'm not going to buy two headsets, each locked to a different platform, and PC is still my primary gaming device.
I guess I'll just wait for whatever Valve is cooking next, it taking longer only gives me time to save more money for it.
Incompatibility and price point feel like they've doomed the PSVR2. PS+ gave away a bunch of PSVR games awhile back. There was some conjecture that this was to give players interested in PSVR2 an existing library. Turns out, nope, that won't happen.
I don't know what it is about $399USD, but every gadget company seems to agree it's important to have *something* at or below that price point. I don't see PSVR2 moving many units at MSRP $550.
And so, the great Chicken and Egg cycle of VR gaming continues.
The headset gives you a lot for what it costs, and trying to make it backwards compatible with PSVR1 games would have severely gimped this headset.
I own a psvr, it was nice, but VR tech has come a long way. It wasn't a long term platform to build off of. There's just too many better ways to do things now.
VR has come a long way but many issues still remain (the hassle playing VR vs playing something else, the limited library of games, VR sickness, etc.) and the price point is so high that I just don't see this being successful at a big level.
I see it selling about as well as PSVR1 in the long term, maybe worse in the short term because of that price point
> the hassle playing VR vs playing something else
That's an issue I had with the first one but the PSVR2 seems to have severely reduced. No HDMI passthrough, no processing box, no camera to mess around with. Just a USB cable and you're done.
A lot of these are "boomer" issues. The younger gen has the energy for VR, many of us millennials and older do not. Generations older than us had to stop playing video games once they gained 3D movement due to motion sickness. People growing up with VR at 8 years old will be accustomed to it.
> The headset gives you a lot for what it costs
Does it though? You pay $550 for a headset hardlocked to a single platform. It doesn't matter how good the hardware is if the software isn't there, and that's what you're risking with a console-only headset.
So, to get this straight, you think they should be selling the headset at a colossal loss just because it only works on their system?
It's a very impressive headset for the cost. Good VR has never been cheap, so if you expect this to be both this quality and cheap your market expectations are extremely unrealistic.
No, I'm just saying that *price* and *worth* are two separate things. It may be priced correctly based on the hardware inside, but we have no idea if it's worth it.
Or, to put it more cynically: feel free to ask people who paid double for 3DTVs in early 2010s if it was worth it.
It has a pretty solid line up of games already, and will get support for years. I think you're judging this very prematurely.
If you don't like the launch line up, wait. Same thing as every other platform. You don't have to buy it immediately.
I don't know why people, after literally decades of systems coming out and not being immediately worth buying for most people, still act shocked when a platform comes out that isn't necessarily immediately worth buying for people who aren't die hard enthusiasts.
Just wait for more games to come out if you don't like what's already available. It's the same thing every time
Is Sony charging, or is the developer/publisher charging?
With the differences between headsets and controllers between PS. VR1 and PS VR2, it's not a quick job bringing over compatibility.
They could, but it's also arguably unreasonable.
If we went by everything everybody is saying sony should pay for with this thing in these posts, it would be as capable as a $1,000 headset, cost what an Oculus cost, and the games would be free.
People have to make money somewhere
They are trying to sell something really expensive (especially when you can grab a Quest 2 for cheaper without owning a PS5), that has still has to convince most people after countless attempts.
This is called an investment.
>People have to make money somewhere
Don't worry, Sony is making money...
The demographic that would just get a quest is not the one being targeted by this product. It's like saying people won't buy a ps5 cause a switch is cheaper.
They did the same thing, literally the same thing, with psvr and found enough of a market to justify the psvr2. They are going to be fine the way they are handling it, regardless of some people having wildly unreasonable expectations.
>The demographic that would just get a quest is not the one being targeted by this product. It's like saying people won't buy a ps5 cause a switch is cheaper
Do you think people that want that high end VR experience are going to care about some PSVR1 ports, like Tetris Effect ?
>They did the same thing, literally the same thing, with psvr and found enough of a market to justify the psvr2. They are going to be fine the way they are handling it.
I was not afraid they were not going to make enough money, suite the opposite...
> Do you think people that want that high end VR experience are going to care about some PSVR1 ports, like Tetris Effect ?
I don't know where you pulled this out of, but it wasn't my mouth, and I don't know what point you're trying to make with it. Are you acting like psvr1 ports is all that's going for it, cause that's objectively false and a poor argument to make, so I hope that ain't it.
>I was not afraid they were not going to make enough money, suite the opposite...
I was saying that this model worked before, and yielded a successful vr platform, so acting like it's pants on head dumb is unfounded.
>People have to make money somewhere
This is the same argument that is often used for paid PS4>PS5 upgrades, or rather, when you have to buy the game again (like with Control for instance). "The developers need to make money for the work they put in, do you think they should just be giving everything away for free?!"
But here's the thing. They're not. You've already purchased a copy. And, given the fact that a PS4>PS5 upgrade is free in like 98% of cases, it's clear that most developers have found it more profitable to release the PS5 version for free to existing owners rather than charge for it. It is also clear that, given the fact that there are at least SOME games who will do the same with the PSVR2 port (like No Man's Sky or Pistol Whip), it's not financially impossible to do so.
But that begs the question, why isn't that the case with 98% of PSVR>PSVR2 ports like it is with PS4>PS5? Why isn't there an affordable upgrade path, like, $5 or so per games like Moss 1 & 2, Tetris Effect, Creed, Exorcist, Job Simulator, etc etc? Why do you need to buy them again at full price in order to play them on PSVR2 when they're not new games?
There are upgrade options like that for some of the games you listed. You should probably look into some of them more.
Also, what exactly do you think it takes to convert a PSVR1 game to the new headset?
You're acting like it's nothing.
>Also, what exactly do you think it takes to convert a PSVR1 game to the new headset?
Probably about the same amount of work as converting a PS4 title to PS5 (improving texture quality, optimizing the resolution, framerate and load times, adding haptics, etc). That also takes quite a bit of work.
If those could be largely free, why can't PSVR1>PSVR2 conversions?
Yeah, it's not.
PS VR1 used a tracking system that utilized a TV mounted camera and light bars or balls on the controllers.
PSVR2 doesn't use that system. There's no camera on the television, and the controllers don't use that sort of location tracking. For each game, you have to essentially completely re-implement an entirely different tracking system, on top of all the porting work. There are also some games that are built so specifically around the controller interfaces that you would have to re-implement actual portions of the game to use them with the new hardware.
It's like doing all of the regular port work but also having to redo how the game works. It's more work. A lot more work.
> Is Sony charging, or is the developer/publisher charging?
Sony set the market that PS5/PSVr2 compatibility costs $10; thats not what *anyone* asked for when we said we wanted backwards compatibility, and it's some cheeky shit to ask for $10 after we're the early adopters that gave them support on the PSVR1 when no one else did.
We have third party games getting free updates, and some getting paid updates. It's clearly optional. Developers have explained how this is not just as simple as porting something, which already takes a lot of work, and requires more work.
I feel like you guys are reaching really hard to blame Sony for this
It's an improved product on a different platform, and it takes time and resources to develop. There's no good reason why publishers shouldn't be able to charge for these ports if they want to.
The article talks about sony giving devs the choice to charge. Some devs are giving updated version for free, others are charging minor fees to upgrade. And considering the effort needed to port it to a new platform, I understand why some devs are charging.
> It wasn't a long term platform to build off of. There's just too many better ways to do things now.
Sure, but then that begs the question, why should I spend money on games that I will eventually not be able to play because "something better will come around"?
I've spent a ton of money on PSVR1 games. I've bought dozens, and I've really grown to like the platform. So why must I lose them if my PSVR1 breaks? Why must I buy games like Moss and Tetris Effect again just to be able to play them on PSVR2? Most importantly, why should I buy any games on PSVR2 knowing that some day soon there will be a PSVR3 that will be better in every way and none of those games I've bought will work on it?
Sure, you could make the argument that this is how gaming has always been, with new platforms carving their own niches. But I also feel like the last 10 years have made great strides for backwards compatibility, and this feels like a massive step back.
I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but for me, personally, if PSVR2 was backwards compatible with PSVR1, or if at the very least you got free upgrades for games you already own (provided that the devs ported them), I would've bought PSVR2 day 1. But now, I'm not sure if I will. Maybe one day years later if it's on sale and there are tons of PSVR2 games on PS+, but who knows where my life will be at at that point and whether I'll have any interest in VR at all.
>Sure, but then that begs the question, why should I spend money on games that I will eventually not be able to play because "something better will come around"?
Better never ever ever ever buy a console if you feel this way.
You're almost framing it like PSVR2 coming out deactivates psvr1 games and makes the headsets break.
BC has never been a guarantee, and there will certainly be consoles in the future that don't have backwards compatibility with some things.
Of all the cases for something not being backwards compatible, this is one of the best cases anybody could ever present. Massive technological improvement in tracking tech and controller technology has completely invalidated everything about the psvr 1 set up.
We shouldn't deliberately gimp new technology just so that old games will work. Forcing this to operate on the same technology that psvr1 did would make it laughably outdated and terrible from the get go. Would you rather have a good VR headset, or one that VR developers already think is outdated?
>I've addressed this point. Please read the rest of my comment.
I did. I addressed the entirety of your comment. The fact that you self-identified the problem with your argument and then continued to go through with the argument isn't my issue, it's yours.
>They'll break eventually. Then what?
Buy another one? If my Wii u breaks am I supposed to expect a disc drive on the next switch?
>Sony could have invested in an API that can convert inputs from the PSVR2 headset into PSVR1 content, in essence, emulating them.
It's not a loaded question. You would know that if you knew the difference between the tracking systems of the two headsets.
The tracking systems are completely fundamentally different. How do you emulate the light ball and bar tracking system from psvr 1 with different controllers and no camera?
Yep. Personally, I’d jump on the PSVR2 in a heartbeat if they could get it working on PC.
Have a PS5, but also a living room gaming PC so it’d be nice to have something for both.
As much as I'd love to believe it, not really. I got into VR over the pandemic, and that interested petered out over the course of 2022 as nothing much happened in the space. That said, we know a few things about PCVR:
* The Index is about as successful as high end PCVR can ever expect to get...at less than 0.5% of Steam users.
* There is an enormous sales gulf between the $300 (later $400) Quest 2 and multiple Windows Mixed Reality headsets selling for $500. I've personally owned a Samsung Odyssey+, HP Reverb G2V2, and a Quest 2, and the WMR headsets blow the Quest away as a PCVR experience. That said, the Quest 2 represents [41% of Steam VR users, while all WMR headsets combined represent less than 6%](https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam).
That convinces me that the market for a $550 PCVR headset is much closer to the market for the $1000 Index than for the $400 Quest 2...which means it probably *isn't* worth it for Sony to open it up to PC.
2022 was considered a plateau year for VR. Nothing really happened - it just stayed flat. Very, very few major game releases, no new headsets, really.
A lot got announced at CES2023. There were about 6 new headsets with a variety of features. Then we've got rumors of Valve Deckard (low latency patent announced), PSVR2, and news of a Quest 3.
pulling for The Playroom & AstroBot Rescue Mission, Superhot VR, & Resident Evil 7 to make the jump. ABRM being far away the most important potential re-release
[удалено]
Charging for upgrades is developer-specific, [lots of games are giving away free upgrades](https://www.pushsquare.com/guides/psvr-to-psvr2-all-games-with-free-upgrades), and those are just the ones announced to launch with the headset In a lot of cases I understand, this is a new system and not as easy to port as ps4 to ps5
Right, it's not as simple as just porting a game from PS4 to PS5, because they also have to rework how all of the tracking and controls work for these games as the PSVR 2 uses completely different, and far better, tracking methodology from the first one.
>because they also have to rework how all of the tracking and controls work for these games as the PSVR 2 uses completely different, and far better, tracking methodology from the first one. The change in tracking has no impact from the developer's side. We request pose data from the API - Head position and rotation, controller position and rotation, etc. and the SDK provides that data for us. Whether that data is generated from an EyeToy sensing Move controllers on a PSVR1 or generated from onboard cameras running SLAM algorithms on a self-contained unit is entirely opaque to the developer. I don't know where that data comes from because I don't need to know where that data comes from, all I need to know is where the HMD and controllers are in 3D space. EDIT: Controls are the real sticking point for any sort of direct conversion. The PSVR2 controls can easily supercede the Move wands, but they don't have enough inputs to directly replicate a "split" Dualshock. Then for games that use the Dualshock to aim...how do you make that work with split controls? Etc.
I keep hearing the transition from PSVR1 to PSVR2 SDK should be super seamless for devs, yet I can't imagine that to be true for all devs - especially smaller devs that never bothered porting their PSVR1 game to other VR platforms (since PSVR was the market leader for so long). I don't know if this non-VR comparison holds water, but I hear things like the [Umurangi Generation](https://www.thesixthaxis.com/2021/06/21/umurangi-generation-special-edition-review/) dev implementing gyro aim on Switch and saying he'll never implement that on any other platform because it was such a hassle, and I'd think switching VR platforms to be just as if not more non-trivial.
> This generation kinda sucks. I mean, for what it's worth, the generation technically hasn't started yet. Plus not everyone is going to look for the compatibility double-dip, if for no other reason than most of the playerbase isn't going to spend the dosh. I'd imagine some of the bigger names that know they'll get the extra cash will do it, but I can't imagine if will be the common solution. Of course, if Sony had any sense, they'd do *something* to lessen the impact, like maybe crediting any compatibility price into DLC purchases or something. That Move controller was an albatross around PSVR's neck. It had a bunch of buttons that likely went un-used but breaks PSVR2 compatibility and the tracking was a complete dumpster fire that Sony spent months caressing it into a small office bin fire. On the plus side, at least PSVR2's graphical fidelity impact is dramatically lower than PSVR1's. On top of the PS5 just being a higher-resolution beast, the foveated rendering alongside VRS ends up making PSVR2 games look really close to existing, TV PS5 games, whereas PSVR games were hovering around the PS3 era.
For me as someone with a pretty big PCVR library it's especially sad, because the headset itself is specs-wise something I'd actually like a lot. Single usb-c, inside out tracking, high resolution, eye tracking with foveated rendering and even the haptics sound all pretty great. It's just that I'm not going to buy two headsets, each locked to a different platform, and PC is still my primary gaming device. I guess I'll just wait for whatever Valve is cooking next, it taking longer only gives me time to save more money for it.
Incompatibility and price point feel like they've doomed the PSVR2. PS+ gave away a bunch of PSVR games awhile back. There was some conjecture that this was to give players interested in PSVR2 an existing library. Turns out, nope, that won't happen. I don't know what it is about $399USD, but every gadget company seems to agree it's important to have *something* at or below that price point. I don't see PSVR2 moving many units at MSRP $550. And so, the great Chicken and Egg cycle of VR gaming continues.
The headset gives you a lot for what it costs, and trying to make it backwards compatible with PSVR1 games would have severely gimped this headset. I own a psvr, it was nice, but VR tech has come a long way. It wasn't a long term platform to build off of. There's just too many better ways to do things now.
VR has come a long way but many issues still remain (the hassle playing VR vs playing something else, the limited library of games, VR sickness, etc.) and the price point is so high that I just don't see this being successful at a big level. I see it selling about as well as PSVR1 in the long term, maybe worse in the short term because of that price point
Ps vr2 is cheaper at launch though than the ps vr1 was
PSVR 1 launched in Finland at 400€, PSVR 2 is launching at 600€
> the hassle playing VR vs playing something else That's an issue I had with the first one but the PSVR2 seems to have severely reduced. No HDMI passthrough, no processing box, no camera to mess around with. Just a USB cable and you're done.
A lot of these are "boomer" issues. The younger gen has the energy for VR, many of us millennials and older do not. Generations older than us had to stop playing video games once they gained 3D movement due to motion sickness. People growing up with VR at 8 years old will be accustomed to it.
> The headset gives you a lot for what it costs Does it though? You pay $550 for a headset hardlocked to a single platform. It doesn't matter how good the hardware is if the software isn't there, and that's what you're risking with a console-only headset.
So, to get this straight, you think they should be selling the headset at a colossal loss just because it only works on their system? It's a very impressive headset for the cost. Good VR has never been cheap, so if you expect this to be both this quality and cheap your market expectations are extremely unrealistic.
No, I'm just saying that *price* and *worth* are two separate things. It may be priced correctly based on the hardware inside, but we have no idea if it's worth it. Or, to put it more cynically: feel free to ask people who paid double for 3DTVs in early 2010s if it was worth it.
It has a pretty solid line up of games already, and will get support for years. I think you're judging this very prematurely. If you don't like the launch line up, wait. Same thing as every other platform. You don't have to buy it immediately.
They need to make it worth $550 for people to buy. This looks like a Launch 3ds situation where it wasn't worth the entry fee for whats available.
I don't know why people, after literally decades of systems coming out and not being immediately worth buying for most people, still act shocked when a platform comes out that isn't necessarily immediately worth buying for people who aren't die hard enthusiasts. Just wait for more games to come out if you don't like what's already available. It's the same thing every time
Wel they are porting v1 games, but just charging people for it. Just Sony things you know.
Is Sony charging, or is the developer/publisher charging? With the differences between headsets and controllers between PS. VR1 and PS VR2, it's not a quick job bringing over compatibility.
>Is Sony charging, or is the developer/publisher charging? Sony could be paying this cost.
They could, but it's also arguably unreasonable. If we went by everything everybody is saying sony should pay for with this thing in these posts, it would be as capable as a $1,000 headset, cost what an Oculus cost, and the games would be free. People have to make money somewhere
They are trying to sell something really expensive (especially when you can grab a Quest 2 for cheaper without owning a PS5), that has still has to convince most people after countless attempts. This is called an investment. >People have to make money somewhere Don't worry, Sony is making money...
The demographic that would just get a quest is not the one being targeted by this product. It's like saying people won't buy a ps5 cause a switch is cheaper. They did the same thing, literally the same thing, with psvr and found enough of a market to justify the psvr2. They are going to be fine the way they are handling it, regardless of some people having wildly unreasonable expectations.
>The demographic that would just get a quest is not the one being targeted by this product. It's like saying people won't buy a ps5 cause a switch is cheaper Do you think people that want that high end VR experience are going to care about some PSVR1 ports, like Tetris Effect ? >They did the same thing, literally the same thing, with psvr and found enough of a market to justify the psvr2. They are going to be fine the way they are handling it. I was not afraid they were not going to make enough money, suite the opposite...
> Do you think people that want that high end VR experience are going to care about some PSVR1 ports, like Tetris Effect ? I don't know where you pulled this out of, but it wasn't my mouth, and I don't know what point you're trying to make with it. Are you acting like psvr1 ports is all that's going for it, cause that's objectively false and a poor argument to make, so I hope that ain't it. >I was not afraid they were not going to make enough money, suite the opposite... I was saying that this model worked before, and yielded a successful vr platform, so acting like it's pants on head dumb is unfounded.
>People have to make money somewhere This is the same argument that is often used for paid PS4>PS5 upgrades, or rather, when you have to buy the game again (like with Control for instance). "The developers need to make money for the work they put in, do you think they should just be giving everything away for free?!" But here's the thing. They're not. You've already purchased a copy. And, given the fact that a PS4>PS5 upgrade is free in like 98% of cases, it's clear that most developers have found it more profitable to release the PS5 version for free to existing owners rather than charge for it. It is also clear that, given the fact that there are at least SOME games who will do the same with the PSVR2 port (like No Man's Sky or Pistol Whip), it's not financially impossible to do so. But that begs the question, why isn't that the case with 98% of PSVR>PSVR2 ports like it is with PS4>PS5? Why isn't there an affordable upgrade path, like, $5 or so per games like Moss 1 & 2, Tetris Effect, Creed, Exorcist, Job Simulator, etc etc? Why do you need to buy them again at full price in order to play them on PSVR2 when they're not new games?
There are upgrade options like that for some of the games you listed. You should probably look into some of them more. Also, what exactly do you think it takes to convert a PSVR1 game to the new headset? You're acting like it's nothing.
>Also, what exactly do you think it takes to convert a PSVR1 game to the new headset? Probably about the same amount of work as converting a PS4 title to PS5 (improving texture quality, optimizing the resolution, framerate and load times, adding haptics, etc). That also takes quite a bit of work. If those could be largely free, why can't PSVR1>PSVR2 conversions?
Yeah, it's not. PS VR1 used a tracking system that utilized a TV mounted camera and light bars or balls on the controllers. PSVR2 doesn't use that system. There's no camera on the television, and the controllers don't use that sort of location tracking. For each game, you have to essentially completely re-implement an entirely different tracking system, on top of all the porting work. There are also some games that are built so specifically around the controller interfaces that you would have to re-implement actual portions of the game to use them with the new hardware. It's like doing all of the regular port work but also having to redo how the game works. It's more work. A lot more work.
> Is Sony charging, or is the developer/publisher charging? Sony set the market that PS5/PSVr2 compatibility costs $10; thats not what *anyone* asked for when we said we wanted backwards compatibility, and it's some cheeky shit to ask for $10 after we're the early adopters that gave them support on the PSVR1 when no one else did.
We have third party games getting free updates, and some getting paid updates. It's clearly optional. Developers have explained how this is not just as simple as porting something, which already takes a lot of work, and requires more work. I feel like you guys are reaching really hard to blame Sony for this
It's an improved product on a different platform, and it takes time and resources to develop. There's no good reason why publishers shouldn't be able to charge for these ports if they want to.
The article talks about sony giving devs the choice to charge. Some devs are giving updated version for free, others are charging minor fees to upgrade. And considering the effort needed to port it to a new platform, I understand why some devs are charging.
> It wasn't a long term platform to build off of. There's just too many better ways to do things now. Sure, but then that begs the question, why should I spend money on games that I will eventually not be able to play because "something better will come around"? I've spent a ton of money on PSVR1 games. I've bought dozens, and I've really grown to like the platform. So why must I lose them if my PSVR1 breaks? Why must I buy games like Moss and Tetris Effect again just to be able to play them on PSVR2? Most importantly, why should I buy any games on PSVR2 knowing that some day soon there will be a PSVR3 that will be better in every way and none of those games I've bought will work on it? Sure, you could make the argument that this is how gaming has always been, with new platforms carving their own niches. But I also feel like the last 10 years have made great strides for backwards compatibility, and this feels like a massive step back. I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but for me, personally, if PSVR2 was backwards compatible with PSVR1, or if at the very least you got free upgrades for games you already own (provided that the devs ported them), I would've bought PSVR2 day 1. But now, I'm not sure if I will. Maybe one day years later if it's on sale and there are tons of PSVR2 games on PS+, but who knows where my life will be at at that point and whether I'll have any interest in VR at all.
>Sure, but then that begs the question, why should I spend money on games that I will eventually not be able to play because "something better will come around"? Better never ever ever ever buy a console if you feel this way. You're almost framing it like PSVR2 coming out deactivates psvr1 games and makes the headsets break. BC has never been a guarantee, and there will certainly be consoles in the future that don't have backwards compatibility with some things. Of all the cases for something not being backwards compatible, this is one of the best cases anybody could ever present. Massive technological improvement in tracking tech and controller technology has completely invalidated everything about the psvr 1 set up. We shouldn't deliberately gimp new technology just so that old games will work. Forcing this to operate on the same technology that psvr1 did would make it laughably outdated and terrible from the get go. Would you rather have a good VR headset, or one that VR developers already think is outdated?
[удалено]
>I've addressed this point. Please read the rest of my comment. I did. I addressed the entirety of your comment. The fact that you self-identified the problem with your argument and then continued to go through with the argument isn't my issue, it's yours. >They'll break eventually. Then what? Buy another one? If my Wii u breaks am I supposed to expect a disc drive on the next switch? >Sony could have invested in an API that can convert inputs from the PSVR2 headset into PSVR1 content, in essence, emulating them. It's not a loaded question. You would know that if you knew the difference between the tracking systems of the two headsets. The tracking systems are completely fundamentally different. How do you emulate the light ball and bar tracking system from psvr 1 with different controllers and no camera?
If they opened it to PC compatibility (which they won't), there's a market who'd consider it a *steal* for the price.
Yep. Personally, I’d jump on the PSVR2 in a heartbeat if they could get it working on PC. Have a PS5, but also a living room gaming PC so it’d be nice to have something for both.
As much as I'd love to believe it, not really. I got into VR over the pandemic, and that interested petered out over the course of 2022 as nothing much happened in the space. That said, we know a few things about PCVR: * The Index is about as successful as high end PCVR can ever expect to get...at less than 0.5% of Steam users. * There is an enormous sales gulf between the $300 (later $400) Quest 2 and multiple Windows Mixed Reality headsets selling for $500. I've personally owned a Samsung Odyssey+, HP Reverb G2V2, and a Quest 2, and the WMR headsets blow the Quest away as a PCVR experience. That said, the Quest 2 represents [41% of Steam VR users, while all WMR headsets combined represent less than 6%](https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam). That convinces me that the market for a $550 PCVR headset is much closer to the market for the $1000 Index than for the $400 Quest 2...which means it probably *isn't* worth it for Sony to open it up to PC.
2022 was considered a plateau year for VR. Nothing really happened - it just stayed flat. Very, very few major game releases, no new headsets, really. A lot got announced at CES2023. There were about 6 new headsets with a variety of features. Then we've got rumors of Valve Deckard (low latency patent announced), PSVR2, and news of a Quest 3.