Is exclusivity the biggest threat to VR?

It seems to me like the biggest downside to owning a VR set is not being able to play all the VR titles.

Even third party ones:

• Medal of Honor Above And Beyond (GOTY 2020) was announced as being Oculus Rift exclusive
• Hitman 1-2-3 have been announced as PSVR exclusive

Buying the right VR set seems like an impossible task.

You mean people are so fed up with this situation that they throw their VR sets out of open windows?

RE7 VR is still PSVR only.

it isn't helping.

i'm guessing you've got, relative to regular games, a v small userbase. so there's less incentive for game studios to design a game specifically for vr from an economic standpoint. plus, i bet, it's much more difficult. so in most cases the best you can hope for is a vr version of a standard title, but is it really worth the time and effort.

to make it worth the time and effort you've got a ruthless megacorp like facebook, clearly in the monopoly business, with bucket loads of cash who will fund these vr versions but with the catch being they're exclusive to oculus. similarly sony too, but with less to throw at it. so yeah, it's probably a tricky situation for someone trying to figure out which headset to go with based on exclusives.

one of the biggest challenges is wearables being such a notoriously tough tech market to crack. having to fasten something to your head that covers your eyes in order to play is a real barrier to entry

I'd be curious to check out PSVR 2 when it comes out. I already have a PS5, so the barrier to entry is smaller. I also trust Sony to push the medium further than Valve will. Valve made one game and who knows how long until they release another. They haven't been making games in general for a while now.

Yes, I mean I really wonder how much Half Life Alyx sold comparative to Half Life 2, which released on some of the biggest platforms (PC, consoles).

Valve is a third party developer who made one of the arguably highest budget and biggest VR games, for a relatively niche playerbase.

Is there incentive for others to do the same?

Would IO have made this VR game without backing from Sony?

What's PSVR 2? I've never heard of such a thing.

Is it a VR set that's exclusive to PS5? or does it work with older consoles too?

@R4gn4r0k: there is patent leaks of PSVR2 and with index like controller with haptic feedback. I shared once regarding both of these I think, at least I remember posting about the new controller.

Yes, exclusivity is downright anti-consumer, and probably not great for innovation either as it stifles competition. It's as great an offense to gaming and consumers as caging a wild lion is to animals and animal right's activists; it's wrong, corrupt, and unnecessary.

The Suits are getting their research and market data back and they finally see VR for what it is: the next frontier of gaming, and now they're making business-minded decisions about not only getting a piece of the pie, but making sure no one else does. Case in point: Facebook essentially taking their products as exclusive-only.

Thankfully we still have folks like Valve that do the opposite and make sure just about any and all VR headsets--not just their own--work with Steam VR and whatever games they might develop (i.e. Alyx).

But yeah, it's not looking good for the future; I fully expect any hyped or good looking VR games to be snatched up by Sony or Facebook as exclusives. Which sucks because VR is really starting to find it's home in gaming, it should be free to expand where the market naturally wants it to go.

Totally an assumption on my part, but I reckon IO was dabbling with VR in general for Hitman before Sony got a whiff of it. They go and check it out--I am sure IO has folks from Sony, MS, and so on stopping by to see what they're up to--and Sony is like "Hey, this will sell a lot of VR headsets. But it will sell even MORE if we are the only platform it's on" and then they throw a bunch of money at IO to keep it an exclusive.

And IO, being a developer, is not going to say "no" to a guaranteed source of income, given how fickle and unforgiving the game development industry is.

Yes, but also Facebook by keeping their headsets locked behind their data mining site.I rather have Microsoft buy out Oculus at this point. It sucks that quest has no real competition when it comes to good affordable wireless headsets.

Yup, IO is a AA developer (one of the last few), so for sure they will have talks with huge publishers (Sony, MS) a lot of the time.

They went independent after being let go by Square Enix, so I'm sure they'll be pitching all kinds of ideas around.

I'm hoping in the next few years, as VR gains ground, we will see more options. More good options, especially, that offer good performance and modest prices. Might even see some "craft" or "artisan" VR manufacturers, i.e. Pimax (not the best example, but they're independent last time I checked).

I think as the high-end stuff goes into new territory (wireless, hand tracking/controller-free, no tracking stations, etc) the mid-range options will become more affordable. Like building a PC rig, there will be modest entries that are more than up to the task of VR gaming for people that don't want t o spend more than 400 dollars.

Yea, it hasn't been announced yet, but I don't think Sony would give up on it so soon.

So Hitman was announced for the PSVR?

But will be forward compatible with the upcoming PSVR2?

facebook is the tiger king of the vr industry

I would place it at second. I think for many the cost of entry - not just for the headset but the hardware to power it at non-vomit-inducing framerates - is the biggest still. The mass market is much cheaper than the PC enthusiast market. People scuffle here over $300 vs $400 for a console - then the VR companies waltz in with an $800+ headset that demand a $1000+ rig to make it a properly enjoyable experience... it's just not gonna sell that much. You can go cheaper, of course... but perhaps in VR more than any other area of gaming the lower-end visuals and framerates are genuinely crippling. retro-style indies are a non-viable fallback for low-end VR. The best examples of low-end friendly are things like Superhot which creatively use ultra-minimalist graphics to good effect.

However, I definitely agree - there's good VR content now with broad(er) appeal, but it's fragmented on different headsets. BAD idea.

Yep it’s a terrible practice... at least there is software that allow you to play other locked vr games on your index, doesn’t work on psvr exclusives of course!

Jim said PSVR2 is years away.

its certainly not helping.

in fairness (as i understand it at least) its also harder on the developers to do multiplat VR at the moment. there is an initiative called openXR to make it easier so hopefully that gets implemented more and makes life easier for developers to do cross platform VR.

it would be great for someone to also do a more affordable PC headset. Oculus are stopping so there could be some space there for someone like HP, MS or valve to step in. something like a quest in spec but still needs a PC to actually run could be an interesting proposition for many. or hell if sony want to move more PSVR 2 hardware then make it compatible with the PC also and fill in that rift gap.

Hopefully PSVR2 also delivers. i certainly wouldnt be surprised to see Half life Alyx released for the PS5 when it does come.

VR's biggest problem is VR itself as it sucks.

I think the biggest problem is still cost, and the need for wires.

Unfortunately the one headset that appears to mitigate both of these issues requires you sell your soul to facebook, and I can understand why many would not be cool with that.

I was told exclusives are good for gamers and the industry. 😎

Oh, I do. Companies develop and patent stuff that never actually sees the light of day all the time. The new Sony patent was undoubtedly the result of an internal team working on it before the brass realized, hey, VR's not actually going to be that big/important for us.

Not when the medium is still growing VR is in its primal stage.

It not good for anyone but the manufacturer regardless of whether or not an industry is growing. The results are still the same. I can also see an argument that it is not even in the manufacturers benefit.

Sadly it will always be about the money.

Yes! Even when more money can be made.

@warmblur: Please, enough with this primal stage BS with VR, its been around for decades, its shit, has always been shit, and will remain shit.

Atm I just think the price/performance isn’t quite there yet. PSVR2 may be it. Needs to be wireless with good controllers. None of the glowing pingpong ball stuff.

Sony feels like the one company that has all the talent to make a push for AAA VR gaming. My bet is on 2022 😎!

The reasons I do not have VR are simple. First, the technology is very expensive. $600 for a headset alone. Full kits can cost over $1k.

The second issue is that the technology as it stands isn't all that good, with a lot of problems due to your eyes being that close to a screen. Most are 1080P, some are 1440P but the screen door effect can be very fatiguing.

The third reason is that the games just are not there yet. Probably because VR isn't a very large market because it's cost prohibitive for many gamers. But the reason doesn't matter, the reality is most VR games are little more than tech demos. Most of what I would use it for are seated games like racing titles, flying games, or just head tracking for shooters and other stuff.

Now, I didn't even know exclusivity between headsets was actually a thing. That makes me much, much less likely to get into it. It would seem Facebook is doing all they can to ruin VR for everyone so they can make a few more bucks by making titles Oculus exclusives. And Sony, the company who falsely advertises 8K and 4K120 on the body of their most recent console aren't any better. Making VR games exclusive to a specific brand of VR makes the market for VR games even smaller, and makes the idea as a whole less interesting to me. I don't want to invest into VR, and a large portion of the games available for it be unplayable because of the brand.

VR has come along way since the virtual boy. I don't know why you hate it so much.... never mind I know why. You Microsoft fanboys hate it so much because Phil doesn't believe in it.

^

Pretty much.

Notice as well with Facebook, even within their own echo-system they are not releasing their titles on all headsets. MOH may have supported Rift S, but upcoming games it appears, do not. Or at the very least timed exclusives, on their own fucking platform, forcing your ass to sign in "because".

Meanwhile Valve release Alyx, for every headset humanly possible when they very easily could have been cuntish with it.

When they directly contacted Oculus in order to improve their headset usage first hand, they were ignored.

-

Seeing stuff exclusive doesn't make me want to run out and buy another headset, it makes me straight up not want to support a spread thin, growing platform.

Microsoft should make the Series X compatible with PC headsets...

Having VR games come to Game Pass would be pretty awesome.

@warmblur: Oh wow you went the dumb route, as in the cows one 😆

VR sucks, if MS makes it, it will still suck, nothing will change that its shit. You VR nutjobs are 🍌🍌🍌

^So many VR haters in this room that actually never experienced the immersion of using one yet still bashing it! Modern VR hasn't been a fad since the Rift launched. It's always been awesome and there are currently few great games for VR. Beat Saber da best, sorry HL: Alyx. Like I said, VR was never a fad, just highly niche and in need of technology to catch up to potential. We're getting there and now it'll just be highly niche.

We just need more AAA VR games such as HL: Alyx to push VR even further. Surely Beat Saber is amazing but I do hope game developers push VR above and beyond this gen.

One of the reasons I was thinking of buying a 6800XT was to drive a higher resolution next gen VR headset I was looking at that is 2160x2160 per eye. With eyes so close to the screen it's the only situation where I think 4K may have some actual value. That's $650 on top of $600 for a PC powered headset with inside-out tracking. That's a lot of money for something that doesn't have a lot of serious games on it yet, and will likely be an obsolete setup by time VR does.

Yep, it's pretty dumb that haters are so narrow minded with VR it's easiest the biggest jump in gaming since 2-D from 3-D. I still remember playing my Rift for the first time it's one of those gaming memories that you never forget.

I have no doubt VR is a revolutionary experience. I can't wait until it has good enough resolution and frame rates to be used for a long period of time. If they could be used comfortably for long enough, I could see people using them for desktop usage as well. Imagine the productivity when you can put applications you are working on above you or to the side. And what sounded the most interesting to me are driving and flying games where you can actually look over your shoulder as if you were really in the cockpit of a WWII fighter plane.

@davillain-: Ah trying to stealth bash me huh dav, well i see you're one VR nutjobs. I don't need to try something i know sucks, like i don't need to experience a car crash to know it sucks, i don't need to buy a PS4/5 to know it sucks, I just know.

It's definitely a turn-off for anyone wanting to take the (expensive) plunge into VR. I was hoping for some good black friday deals last year but was disappointed the higher end models were only on sale a fraction of their prices.

the biggest problem is that there ain't any real good headsets, there could be , the rift cv1 was a good headset, but the resolution is not good enough anymore.

Al this inside outside bs, and headsets that are way too heavy

@R4gn4r0k: I don't really think it's a threat so much as just slowing it down.

Valve Index is solid. I wish it had a bigger FOV, but other than that it's fine.

Just sprouting my opinion on the VR haters around here. That said, VR's only greatest enemy right now is the pricing entry which can turn consumers away and also go on the hating path.

it's way too heavy, it's 1.8 pound, that's a ridiculous weight for active vr. A headset needs to be light. My cv1 is almost half that.

But even if you can get around that , the knuckles controllers are over the top technology, and not needed but you pay for that. The wands on the other hand are simply crap controllers. The cv1 controllers are ergonomic, light and feel natural for most action needed in games, they are sturdy.

The rift s is light tho, but what's the point if you have sensorless tracking if you need to consider what patterns your room has, what lighting there is, the cv1 works in any condition. Now it has the same flaws wmr headsets have, not that it matters that much, since oculus is now a camera in your house run by facebook, that forces you to agreee to basically use any data from you, even what the camera's see...

In that sense we should be glad facebook doesn't realize which headset vr needs, and hopefully this time around sony does.

Because valve doesn't really get it either, it's a great thing they did with halflife alyx and steam vr in general but how are you gong to bring vr to the masses with 1000$ headsets. I mean the valve index should exists, but 144hz displays are not really necessary, nor perfect finger tracking

and it does make it heavier, and sure you can advocate all day how it is comfortable , for active vr it is not as comfortable as the lightweight headsets like the cv1.

and that comfort is a necessity for longer play sessions, I play skyrim vr for 4 hours straight, I could even do that with psvr, I could not do that with an index.

True there are three important aspects imo:

• Resolution of the screens
• Weight of the headset
• Wires

If the psvr2 is good, I'm buying a ps5 because of it. To me games are not the most important thing, frankly we already have some good games, we just don't have any good headsets, and if there are good headsets more games will come automatically.

and manufactures could make good headsets, they just seem to make all the wrong choices.

they don't seem to realize that they need to find a balance between weight, tracking, resolution, controller/ headset ergonomics, and price . Yeah valve great resolution refresh rate, and controllers are plain futuristic, but the 1.8 pounds and 1000 bucks are crazy , I mean who needed finger tracking anyway, 144 hz really? 90 fps is more than sufficient at the moment.

oculus is just a lost cause, I mean I/O tracking is already a downside as it is, but you're not going to tell me that 6 camera's on a headset and facebooks datamining policy is not going to chase away consumers.

It's a pity because the cv1 just shows how palmer luckey's vision still tops that of any other manufacturers, if the cv1 had better resolution, it would still blow any other headset out of the water.

Sure valve's lighthouse solution is still better for tracking, but oculus sensor tracking is still more than good enough, it's also a breeze to setup,

But indeed the psvr2 is promising, because sony actually made a brilliant headset for the time. Sure the tracking is not that good, especially with the one camera and the shitty controllers. But you gotta realize this was pre 2015 when they made it.

Sony also wanted to use existing tech to keep the price down, so implementing move controllers seemed like a good idea. They also didn't know that they motion controllers would be so important, the rift didn't even have any, vive wasn't even released yet, and a lot of people were just playing elite dangerous with the dk 1 and dk2 headsets. Motion sickness was still a major hurdle.

what makes the psvr so brilliant is the ergonomics of the headsets, the screen and how they made this run on ps4. They managed to migitate the screen door effect way better than any other manufacturer with a lower resolution screen and a lot less powerfull hardware.

So yes, I have major expectations for the psvr2, because sony seems to be our only hope at the moment to make a decent 2nd generation headset.