EverydayBeast
ChatGPT 0.001
Never mind the price but would virtual reality included have made it a commercial success?
-
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.
Would bundling VR with consoles have made it a success?
- Thread starter EverydayBeast
- Start date
joeygreco1985
Member
Bundling Kinect with Xbox didn't help
vaibhavpisal
Member
Only if it was given away for free.
At $1000 bundle price it would have destroyed console sales.
At $1000 bundle price it would have destroyed console sales.
Romulus
Member
Probably not, but a console can't replicate the successful VR business model that has proven to work. Wireless standalone. The chipsets are getting very powerful. People talked about the switch being a little powerhouse at its release, but VR games are pushing 90fps at high resolutions. I think this fall people will be very surprised what Quest 3 games can do without being anchored to Quest 2.
Not to mention the added PCVR option. Works with any gaming rig for high end visuals too.
Not to mention the added PCVR option. Works with any gaming rig for high end visuals too.
Last edited:
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
Quest is the best approach, period. Standalone device with modest graphics that will be fine for 90% of casual gamers with any interest in it at all. But works easily wired or wireless with a PC if you want to use it for high end stuff.
Magic Carpet
Gold Member
Quest 3 is a console VR. It's a standalone VR device.
Everything you need for VR.
It even has a couple of Exclusives. Just like a console.
Everything you need for VR.
It even has a couple of Exclusives. Just like a console.
Fbh
Member
Doubt it.
One of the main appeal of consoles for a lot of people is the price. Even if the bundle was a bit cheaper than buying both separately you'd still be looking at like $900 which isn't going to appeal to most people. And if that's the only option available for purchase it will basically be DOA.
I still think the best chance for VR is for all (or most) manufacturers to unify their designs and compatibility, treat it more like a TV or projector than a console. Make a quest 4 that's compatible day 1 with PC, Ps5, Standalone and whatever other platform that supports VR, make a PSVR3 (if they even bother) that's compatile day 1 with Ps5, Ps6(?), PC, etc.
One of the main appeal of consoles for a lot of people is the price. Even if the bundle was a bit cheaper than buying both separately you'd still be looking at like $900 which isn't going to appeal to most people. And if that's the only option available for purchase it will basically be DOA.
I still think the best chance for VR is for all (or most) manufacturers to unify their designs and compatibility, treat it more like a TV or projector than a console. Make a quest 4 that's compatible day 1 with PC, Ps5, Standalone and whatever other platform that supports VR, make a PSVR3 (if they even bother) that's compatile day 1 with Ps5, Ps6(?), PC, etc.
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
History has shown us that bundling accessories with a console only works if the accessory is as cheap as $15 otherwise people wonder if the accessory is stealing money and processing power. I'd like a light gun with a realistic look, but many countries have laws that restrict this.
Last edited:
Dacvak
No one shall be brought before our LORD David Bowie without the true and secret knowledge of the Photoshop. For in that time, so shall He appear.
Only if you're Nintendo. And the cost to include it is neglible.
I’ve been thinking about this for a couple years, but I think it would be cool if the Switch 2 was VR-compatible, but not in the way you’re thinking
I think it would be awesome if Nintendo utilized the low-latency P2P streaming tech of the Wii U with the next Switch, and offered a “dumb” wireless headset peripheral for $99-$199. The only thing the headset would have are screens and sensors, but all of the processing would still be done on the Switch 2 device (whether docked, or sitting your backpack/pocket).
You’d use the new JoyCons as controllers, and maybe there’d be a better strap thing you could connect to them. This way, the Switch 2 could be an optional VR system with an ULTRA-light headset sold for super cheap.
That’s my dream.
SportsFan581
Member
The success of VR will be all about the software + low cost headset options.
I wish the studios would roll the dice more on third-person VR as that could be more easily integrated into existing games. Hitman VR would have been more interesting if they had gone with a camera more like Hellblade VR.
I wish the studios would roll the dice more on third-person VR as that could be more easily integrated into existing games. Hitman VR would have been more interesting if they had gone with a camera more like Hellblade VR.
Last edited:
Isn't this what PC VR headsets and PSVR2 essentially does already but with a PC or PS? I think you're severely underestimating the cost of such devices.
DonkeyPunchJr
World’s Biggest Weeb
No, I still firmly believe that console gamers want to spend the vast majority of their gaming time sitting on their couch with a gamepad, looking at a normal ass screen.
Yes, but those are wired. The Vive had a wireless adapter, and the Quests can do wireless, but they are all also standalone.
The drawback of wireless is you need a battery and some level of processing to receive and display the picture. That adds heat and weight. Maybe the future of VR are more sunglass size devices like the XReal, but they have a wired connection to a battery and processing you can easily hang from your waist rather than from your face. Would that make the future of VR be the gaming fanny pack?
Wouldn't that be even more expensive though? I'm not trying to say it wouldn't be cool to have but to me the "just sensors and a screen with processing done on another machine" wouldn't amount to $199 since that's what PC and PS VR is already but costs a lot more.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Nope. The issue is that VR requires games built for it. VR should be like the portal, Inexpensive hardware (relatively speaking) to enhance the immersion of "flat games".
Banjo64
cumsessed
No.
The 20m PS5 users who only play CoD and FIFA every year have no interest in playing video games with a big white brick strapped to their head. Nor do I, and most other people. That’s just a fact.
The games will not come, because developers’ time is better served to the 200m regular console players plus PC market.
The 20m PS5 users who only play CoD and FIFA every year have no interest in playing video games with a big white brick strapped to their head. Nor do I, and most other people. That’s just a fact.
The games will not come, because developers’ time is better served to the 200m regular console players plus PC market.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Wouldn’t work. Kinect bombed and that was only an extra $100.
Just imagine Sony trying to promote PS5 and VR2 for $1000 US or $1300 CDN.
Even if the content was better it’s still be niche. A lot of people just don’t want a brick on the face gaming. The vast majority of people using tech and PC and console just want a straightforward way to use it at a budget price. There’s only so many people who want to stand there in the middle of their living room waving their arms and pretending to shoot like a wii game.
I bet almost all of you use a normal flat keyboard and mouse. Some will have better ones than others but hardly any of you will have th use neon light ultra ergonomic peripherals which look crazy, but fully featured and $200+. How many people have $150-200 elite console gamepads? Not that many.
Just imagine Sony trying to promote PS5 and VR2 for $1000 US or $1300 CDN.
Even if the content was better it’s still be niche. A lot of people just don’t want a brick on the face gaming. The vast majority of people using tech and PC and console just want a straightforward way to use it at a budget price. There’s only so many people who want to stand there in the middle of their living room waving their arms and pretending to shoot like a wii game.
I bet almost all of you use a normal flat keyboard and mouse. Some will have better ones than others but hardly any of you will have th use neon light ultra ergonomic peripherals which look crazy, but fully featured and $200+. How many people have $150-200 elite console gamepads? Not that many.
Last edited:
nemiroff
Gold Member
Bundling a banana with a bee also wouldn't help. But idk what any of it has to do with VR.
And to op: No it wouldn't really do much difference for the PSVR2. The challenges goes deeper than that. It's more of a timing, form factor and maturity issue. The honeymoon factor was already in place after the PSVR1 was released.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
How many people bought Sony move back in the day to play killzone shooting it like an assault rifle? Hardly anyone.
joeygreco1985
Member
Bundling supplementary hardware at an increased price won't help with uptake. It's a relevant comparison.
LimanimaPT
Member
Supporting the device with software would make it a success.
MrRenegade
Banned
VR will only take off once brain/nerve stimulation is already solved. Watch Strange Days. Something like that tech would suffice.
starfire1978
Neo Member
I buy all of it that's video games. Superscope snes for two games. Yoshi Safari and metal falcon or something. Hours of odd fun. Move on days later.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
No, it would have increased the base console price too much out of most general buyers zone.
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
It is a success. With Quest and its ilk it's down to comfortable consumer prices with increasing market reach while providing fans more great content than they can consume (great as in something that feels polished and fun rather than a struggling against the tech prototype, granted it will naturally improve with time just like other mediums did but we are far from something like 80s vidya gaems vs modern stuff and more on par with modern stuff we know are gonna improve, that phase did come in the actual 80s and 90s for VR too but the tech was definitely not there and wasn't enough for compelling, comfortable experiences with bulky CRT helmets, limited controls and more limited tech under the hood that could barely drive standard games). That it's not the most successful medium or on par with the heavy hitters yet doesn't mean much. That it's not the matrix or whatever sci fi scenario doesn't mean it's not there yet (as trolls say) any more than previous/current consoles you've enjoyed (and can revisit) more than enough and didn't find them shit just because they haven't reached photo realism or whatever is next in tech. VR is great/got there since ~2016 (yes, pre-Alyx).
Last edited:
april6e
Member
No, because people aren't going to pay $800-900 for a bundled console. The solution, as it always has been, is to release good games. If you release an incredible game, people will pay any price to experience it.
Halo 1 singlehandedly sold the original xbox like gangbusters, despite the fact that the console barely had any other good games. If they release multiple games on PSVR2 that get 90+ metacritic, more people will believe in VR. At the moment, there is no "Halo 1" for any VR system, PC or console.
Halo 1 singlehandedly sold the original xbox like gangbusters, despite the fact that the console barely had any other good games. If they release multiple games on PSVR2 that get 90+ metacritic, more people will believe in VR. At the moment, there is no "Halo 1" for any VR system, PC or console.
Last edited:
TransTrender
Gold Member
Nope.
Kabelly
Member
one dev will just need to really suck it up and put their money where there mouth. the problem with VR is there is no system sellers. There can't just be Half Life Alyx. Don't get me wrong I'm sure there's a lot of fun games and fun experiences on VR right now but there needs to be more.
Last edited:
But then you're back to the problem of having to get customers to buy that extra peripheral which historically has never worked out. And something approaching $200 gets into Quest 2 pricepoint territory which only makes it a tougher sell.
The beauty of it in the box is VR sneaks into every Switch 2 household. And voila, you have a massive VR install base via a trojan horse.
Labo VR was the proof of concept.
Icymanipulator
Member
It might be the only way to get VR into enough homes.
Wonko_C
Member
Being $100 more than the PS4 and marketed as "TV TV TV" while also having the "brilliant" idea to make ownership checks for physical media every 24h hours (thank goodness that didn't end up happening, but the damage was done) buried it. If those things didn't happen Kinect would've probably done better.
I wonder how many of those would change their minds after experiencing games on that brick. I know changed my tune once I tried it. Now I can't go back to TV gaming.
I keep wondering what the hell is wrong with the rest of people who don't want to do that.
Then it will no longer be VR but something else. And no thanks, I don't want to lie down in bed like a vegetable while everything happens in my imagination. I am already sedentary enough when I play video games. (including sit-down VR games.)
Last edited:
recursive
Member
No. Not without games to support it.
coffinbirth
Member
I bought that, AND this fucking thing.
I also bought the PSVR Aim gun peripheral, which was actually quite sweet, but also disgustingly underutilized. PSVR2 needs one of these, honestly.
Had the Menacer as a kid too, haha. Love that shit.
kungfuian
Member
If it's not wireless and stand alone it's dead in the water based on their last x2 attempts. The Meta Quest model is the way. Make a stand alone device that is not reliant on external hardware but can pair to a PS5/6 for certain games for that extra umph, and it has to be wireless or no go.
Plus they really need to have their big games with VR modes out of the box. Don't care if they are native VR experiences or not. If they are unable to leverage the strength of their IP what's the point. Get some VR port studios to make it happen or don't even bother.
Plus they really need to have their big games with VR modes out of the box. Don't care if they are native VR experiences or not. If they are unable to leverage the strength of their IP what's the point. Get some VR port studios to make it happen or don't even bother.
squeakywheel
Member
Nope. Wired, bulky, built for isolation gameplay and VERY expensive. I say that as a VR2/Quest 2/3 owner plus older PCVR headsets. Once it's glasses size, wireless (or at least wired to a belt pack) and <$250, then I think normal folks will start to give it a try.
digital_ghost
Gold Member
Tonight on dateline news:
Thousands of lucky charm cereal boxes have been stolen nationwide from grocery stores. Cops are confounded as to why thief's would steal a $4 cereal box.
Today Lucky the Leprechaun came forward to say this. "They after me lucky charms."
ZehDon
Member
VR is already successful, just not in the console space. After the success of PSVR, Sony effectively offloaded support for PSVR2 on to third party developers and walked away. No PSVR backward compatibility, no PC platform support, virtually no first party support. Add in the enormous cost for the tethered device against the market-dominant stand-alone devices, and it's clear Sony either expected it to fail, or, expected it to sell on the PlayStation name alone. Sony's strategy this gen has been to charge more, give less. They want to establish themselves as an Apple-esque brand, where its cost more because its "premium". Given this approach, Sony wouldn't have offered much of a discount for a PSVR2 bundle. AUD$850.00 for the console, AUD$850.00 for the headset is already AUD$1700.00. Sony probably would've thrown in that Horizon game no one gives a shit about and slapped AUD$1650.00 on it and called it a day. In that context, no, the bundle wouldn't have done shit.
Step away from PlayStation, and you'll find that VR is slowly chugging along as a pretty successful platform. It's niche, sure, but strapping a computer to one's face was always going to be a niche prospect. VR is doing just fine.
Step away from PlayStation, and you'll find that VR is slowly chugging along as a pretty successful platform. It's niche, sure, but strapping a computer to one's face was always going to be a niche prospect. VR is doing just fine.
Last edited:
Fess
Member
Maybe a little but the main problem is still that AAA devs don’t care about VR. All we get is lower budget experimental titles instead of the next big budget mainline Elder Scrolls and GTA and COD in VR. And nobody can do multiple platforms. It’ll just result in lower tier B teams working on the smaller platform and gamers want the A teams.
Randall365
Member
No because most people do not want to put on a vr headset when gaming. Gaming can be awkward enough as a hobby, without looking like Darth Vader having a fit.
If a headset was bundled in, there would be costs cut in the console itself. I want 4k 120hz not VR.
If a headset was bundled in, there would be costs cut in the console itself. I want 4k 120hz not VR.