Quantcast
Professional game dev explains why Sony's Morpheus won't get much backing from developers.

Forums - Sony Discussion - Professional game dev explains why Sony's Morpheus won't get much backing from developers.

I lol at peoples who have a doubt with VR said they never try VR, so why the hell they doubt it if they haven't try yet?

On topic, the problem with Morpheus is not the game but how it marketed to normal people, seeing some people (core gamer) in this thread already doubt it, SONY need a lot of marketing effort to advertised this.



Around the Network
HollyGamer said:
I lol at peoples who have a doubt with VR said they never try VR, so why the hell they doubt it if they haven't try yet?

On topic, the problem with Morpheus is not the game but how it marketed to normal people, seeing some people (core gamer) in this thread already doubt it, SONY need a lot of marketing effort to advertised this.

Sony really only needs to focus on the content. VR is a kinda tech that will sell itself. It's the kinda thing that if down right, you want into a best buy and see a PS4 kiosk with Morpheus attached. You try it on, okay 10 mins of something and walk away with a PS4. its the type of thing that you out on, watch a movie trailer based on a movie shot in 360 VR tech, look around during the trailer as if you were in the scene and that's it... every other type of movie just becomes obsolete.

Its that moment when playing an FPS that you realize you can shoot at one guy while running in one direction and looking at the other. when u notice that you can literally blind fire at a door while looking above you. 

Sony can't market more imagination. VR will have to be experienced. And what's funny about it, is that its one of those things that nearly every single naysayers of the tech, just haven't ever experienced it before. 



as someone who tried one of the early versions of the oculus rift i am all aboard this train!, i do not expect Naughty Dog big budget game for this, BUT i at least expect some quality games compatible with it like Outlast (which is already compatible with the Oculus Rift) and stuff like that will be more than enough to get my moneys worth of the purchase.



Intrinsic said:
HollyGamer said:
I lol at peoples who have a doubt with VR said they never try VR, so why the hell they doubt it if they haven't try yet?

On topic, the problem with Morpheus is not the game but how it marketed to normal people, seeing some people (core gamer) in this thread already doubt it, SONY need a lot of marketing effort to advertised this.

Sony really only needs to focus on the content. VR is a kinda tech that will sell itself. It's the kinda thing that if down right, you want into a best buy and see a PS4 kiosk with Morpheus attached. You try it on, okay 10 mins of something and walk away with a PS4. its the type of thing that you out on, watch a movie trailer based on a movie shot in 360 VR tech, look around during the trailer as if you were in the scene and that's it... every other type of movie just becomes obsolete.

Its that moment when playing an FPS that you realize you can shoot at one guy while running in one direction and looking at the other. when u notice that you can literally blind fire at a door while looking above you. 

Sony can't market more imagination. VR will have to be experienced. And what's funny about it, is that its one of those things that nearly every single naysayers of the tech, just haven't ever experienced it before. 

Yup bringing a good content like what they did with all of previous PS platform, they have their biggest loyal gamer back them up. they have their  first party studio, 50% market share on console, and all the experience from good and bad when releasing a product. what they need to repeat is focusing the content first for the loyal fan base and influential gamer like blogger, you tuber, Gafer and Reddit or other gaming site, and their loyal fan base then the casual will follow later on. off course lend some sample on PS kiosk or held some event in big city like NY, LA, or Las Vegas like with E3 etc is also one of many strategies.



Scoobes said:
bigtakilla said:
Scoobes said:

Have you ever tried VR?

Never in the state it is in now. Yet does it do something that interests me enough to drop $200? Not in the least. 

Wait until you've tried it. The word of mouth on this thing once it's properly released is going to be big. This is nothing like the gimmicks of '3D' or even motion controls. VR adds a whole new dimension. It's like the difference between colour TV vs black and white.

You might not jump in with this first gen, but I have no doubt you'll be purchasing some form of VR in the next 3-4 years.

They said the same about 3D, and aside from a 3DS, never got a TV, and still don't care to. 



Around the Network
Scoobes said:
bigtakilla said:
Scoobes said:

Have you ever tried VR?

Never in the state it is in now. Yet does it do something that interests me enough to drop $200? Not in the least. 

Wait until you've tried it. The word of mouth on this thing once it's properly released is going to be big. This is nothing like the gimmicks of '3D' or even motion controls. VR adds a whole new dimension. It's like the difference between colour TV vs black and white.

You might not jump in with this first gen, but I have no doubt you'll be purchasing some form of VR in the next 3-4 years.

But I have tried VR. Just not in the state it is in now. Have you?



Scoobes said:
TheSpindler said:
Yeah I've been seeing the VR hype-train for a while now, and I still don't get why people think this will be successful anytime soon.

VR being successful needs to be taken up by the masses and there are too many roadblocks to that atm. Sony coming in wont really help as Sony has a checklist approach to tech like this. It exists but they wont go full steam ahead with it for it to be successful. A few games will come out from them, they'll fund a few more through third parties and some indies will jump on, and maybe some of the bigger companies will have a VR mode or something, and that'll be it.

How it looks, its graphics really don't matter, its success depends on developer support(which it seems will be a pain, along with the fact that most developers wont be supporting VR anyway) and it being cheap enough to afford and appealing enough for the consumer to pick up, which again comes down to games and how much games and which high profile or good games will have them.

There's also stuff like aesthetics(while wearing them) and awkwardness for the average consumer, but i don't think that its that much of a problem for most.

Really? Considering there's not a full blown commercial product out and there are an increasingly large list of developers on board with different VR projects:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_Oculus_Rift_support

With only the Occulus Rift dev kit, there are already nearing 200 games with native VR support plus others with unofficial mod support. That list is obviously not including studios involved with Sony and we don't know if any additional studios are involved with Valve and HTC's project.

The other factor that sceptics are completely ignoring is the fact that VR is also becoming a great medium for showing movies:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/facebook-oculus-story-studio-virtual-reality-films

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/534791/a-film-studio-for-the-age-of-virtual-reality/

So I very much doubt content will be a major hurdle.

The last problem for VR I see is cost, but we don't know how much these devices will cost yet. Obviously, costs will come down as time goes on though. 


 I think I should clarify a bit to make sure my point is coming across.  When I said development is going to be apain, I meant withthe Morpheus, as the developer in his comments as said.

Now the key points of what I said, which you have in bold, are that high profile games(no, not just high profile games with a VR mode, but built around and made for VR and done well) and the hardware being cheap enough to adopt for the veryday consumer are vital to its success.  Currently it is niche, adn will be niche for the forseeable future until those two things and others have been solved.

I'm not sure why you mentioned that VR film thing, as that's niche as can possibly be.  Just to be sure, I'm taliing about mainstream adoption of the tech for it to be successful, not small projects, or hardware selling in the thousands.  Sony would need to go far beyond setting up one studio for VR.  I doubt they can go further right now though.

Funny to think, if Microsoft had their way with always online they might be in the best position to push this whole VR thing with movie content streamed on Xbox consoles day one with theatre release with VR enabled.  But that's just a theory about their plans anyway.



Intrinsic said:
TheSpindler said:
Yeah I've been seeing the VR hype-train for a while now, and I still don't get why people think this will be successful anytime soon.

VR being successful needs to be taken up by the masses and there are too many roadblocks to that atm. Sony coming in wont really help as Sony has a checklist approach to tech like this. It exists but they wont go full steam ahead with it for it to be successful. A few games will come out from them, they'll fund a few more through third parties and some indies will jump on, and maybe some of the bigger companies will have a VR mode or something, and that'll be it.

How it looks, its graphics really don't matter, its success depends on developer support(which it seems will be a pain, along with the fact that most developers wont be supporting VR anyway) and it being cheap enough to afford and appealing enough for the consumer to pick up, which again comes down to games and how much games and which high profile or good games will have them.

There's also stuff like aesthetics(while wearing them) and awkwardness for the average consumer, but i don't think that its that much of a problem for most.

Here is the problem I have with arguments like these. While if looked at in of itself they seem sound they really are completely flawed cause they are based on theories that simply don't work or apply. I'll try and explain. 

 

  1. Aesthetics, awkwardness....these are arguments based on past VR examples. At a time when things like 6" smart phones didn't even exist. Fact is that the world over is more tech inclined than ever before and as long as VR today works and can create unique experiences that people like they will try it out. 
  2. Then there are those that talks about there not being a market for it or how small the market is. What I ask is how can anyone know how small or big the market is when VR has not even hit the mainstream yet?
  3. And all this talk about Sony and what kinds support Sony would have to do to make it work. How can some just seem to not notice that unlike every other proprietary tech Sony has pushed and abandoned, this is one thing that they aren't the only ones doing. As it stabds , there are a total of five VR solutions pending release. 3 for home and Two for mobile. The whole fate of VR doesn't solely rest on Sony's hands. And any dev trying to make VR content will naturally try and support as many platforms as possible. 
  4. Lastly, its being extremely narrow minded if people think the fate of VR is tied to gaming. I think gaming is just a small part of it. Just for the early adopters. The way VR will take the mainstream will probably not have a lot to do with games. 

 


1)  No, I based that on the current model of Morpheusand all the other VR headsets.  It's a cumbersome thing attached to your head.  If it were something simple or more discreet then fine but as it is now then no.  But mileage may vary among people.  I'd like to see some surveys done on what people think of the hdeadsets though.  That'd be interesting.  And the world is more tech inclined to discreet and less intrusive hardware, thanks partly to Apple I guess.

2)That argument cuts both ways.  Neither of us know how big the argument is, except that argument is more in my favour due to the history and cost barriers.  Unless you can see you widescale adoption of this tech from the mainstream of a device this costly with no basis in neccessitiy(need to own)?

3)  Just because other people have adopted and pushing the tech doesn't mean it'll take off and it doesn't mean if it does take off that Sony wont have to sell their own hardware as well.  What works for the goose may not work for the gander.

4)  I never said it was tied to gaming, but all my other arguments apply to other industries(industries that involve mainstream adoption of the tech) as well.   Ironically enough I think VR has its best bet on videogames.  That or in dentists offices.



Intrinsic said:

Here is the problem I have with arguments like these. While if looked at in of itself they seem sound they really are completely flawed cause they are based on theories that simply don't work or apply. I'll try and explain. 

 

  1. Aesthetics, awkwardness....these are arguments based on past VR examples. At a time when things like 6" smart phones didn't even exist. Fact is that the world over is more tech inclined than ever before and as long as VR today works and can create unique experiences that people like they will try it out. 

You can still add to your argument that aesthetics don't matter simply because you are going to use it on your private home, not on public like a fool (funny is that with all the Nintendo comparisons, they were the one that tought that everybody would love to use the Virtual Boy all over the city).



I honestly think VR is the future the more and more it gets developed the more impressed people are by it. This "no one is going to make games for it" doesn't work. Someone will take the risk someone always does and all they have do is make one good game and that game will make tons of money. Then everybody is going to want a piece of that pie.