A lot of people are complaining because the Quest 2 was $300 at launch and the specs are comparable, blah, blah, blah.... Let me set a few things straight:
First off - the specs are not the same. Right off the bat, the headsets use different displays, which is probably the most critical component. OLED vs LCD. LCD is cheaper to manufacture, so Sony could have chumped out, but instead went for the superior option. OLED is lighter as it does not require a separate panel, and therefore will be more compact and comfortable (I'm not sure of the weight yet, but given the processing power is coming from the PS5, it should be very comfortable and light), higher refresh rate as each pixel is standalone, has less power consumption, and deeper levels of contrast. OLED is most likely the future for VR -- it just costs more money.
Second off - You can't go by what Quest 2 launched at (or a Quest 3 that isn't even close to releasing), you have to base the comparison by what's available and selling in the current market. The Quest 2, right now, is $400-$500, depending on which model you acquire. Plus, you'll probably need to buy the elite strap and an extra battery (as I've researched this is the standard for most users), so add on an additional $120 to meet the comfort level and playability of the PSVR2 and you're actually right around the same pricepoint. With that in mind, the PSVR2 features a higher resolution (4.1MP vs 3.5MP. Every pixel counts in VR and can make a big difference when your eyes are that close to the lens), eye-tracking WHICH IS HUGE as it means primary processing can fully render what's in focus, making the experience all the more immersive, 20 degrees wider perspective (again: that's nothing to balk at), superior OLED display (already discusssed above), HDR support, and headset and controller haptics (more ways to give the player immersion).
Third off - the Quest Pro, compared with the Quest 2, is heavier, has a lower refresh rate, lower battery life, slightly lower resolution, and also contains an LCD display, yet costs $1500. Obviously, it's not all about the specs on paper.
Fourth - no, it's not wireless. I'd prefer having more power and processing than having a wireless headset, so even if I had a Quest, I would tether it.
Conclusion: The PSVR2 resolution is higher than anything on the regular consumer market and will have the best visuals we've seen in a consumer VR product. The Valve Index (1440 x 1600), which is one of the most elite headsets in terms of visuals, is currently selling for $1,000, and requires a computer that will probably cost more or at least equal to $500. And as stated above, the Quest Pro, which by a spec sheet alone seems inferior or equal to it predecessor, is $1500. So I'm really not sure why so many people are complaining about $550. In this economy and with the specs and tech they used, I think it's priced appropriately. I personally thought they were going to match the US console price at $500, but remember the console price was raised to $600 overseas.
I installed this on GamePass, played for about 20 minutes, then deleted it. It was SOOO boring. I am a huge fan of atmospheric/horror games, and I've done my due diligence of slogging and backtracking through environments and landscapes in games. But in order for me to do that, there must be good gameplay, story, or charm. This just isn't worth my time. With so many good games out there, this one is a pass for GamePass.
That said, I can appreciate that some heart and soul went into creating the art and style, and I know game development is hard. Hopefuly the dev can capitalize on what they did right and fix their shortcomings in the next game.
I agree that there are too many remasters out there but this is something I really want. Even just a compilation, no facelift, of all the mass effects with all the dlc in 1 package on a current gen console and I would be ecstatic
@blueinheaven: Yeah, the guy's a moron. Because he just created the largest procedurally generated universe....in the universe! He must have like no math skills or smarts of any kind. Regardless if the game is good or bad, the guy is not a moron. As for the article, the point isn't more leaves on a tree. He is explaining how NMS is unique because the algorithms determine the textures that are being populated. They aren't predetermined. Therefore, on a more powerful console, the planet's aesthetics could be fundamentally different. Whether or not this falls under spec to how different developers are allowed to make a game,between Neo and ps4 is yet to be seen.
Twalls27's comments