rolltide101x said:
SvennoJ said:
It's not VR that makes it a mediocre shooter. Comparing it to extremely high budget shooters isn't "insert random fps"...
Some things work much better in FarPoint.
Aiming through the sights is very natural and easy to do.
It's much easier to quickly aim between multiple targets or shoot one way while checking another direction, some of the boss encounters will be much harder without VR plus AIM as well as the timed challenges.
Hiding behind cover is completely natural, no problem with sticky or auto cover as in traditional shooters.
It's also much easier to shoot from cover, around the side, over the top, through cracks. You can peer through a crack while holding the gun over your head to shoot.
The walking speed is indeed dumbed down, hopefully devs will come over the fear of motion sickness and stop limiting movement for those that are accustomed to VR. Yet what you get extra in complete control over the gun and usage of cover already makes it a much better way to play shooters. AZ Sunshine with the AIM controller is pretty good already.
|
I am saying IF you took VR functions of Farpoint away it would be considered a "bad" FPS. I know its not fair to do that to the game because that is the point. But the point I am making is it is/would be considered to be a subpar shooter.
With all of this said I do own Farpoint with the Aim controller and it probably is my favorite VR game to date. But in no way does it compare to any of the other games I have mentioned. (Same goes for Rigs)
Just as one last bit, I think you guys are throwing me under an anti-VR bus. I am not. If you enjoy it that is fine. But I am making a prediciton that the mass market will never be deeply appealed by it.
|
If you remove all graphical from UC4 to make it look like a PS1 game it would be very boring as well ¬¬"
You can't remove the main feature of something and say that it isn't good without it and call that a good point. That exactly proves why that feature is good.
rolltide101x said:
SvennoJ said:
You are aware that PSVR has already sold about 5x as much as the Magnavox Odyssey in its entire lifetime (first home console with Pong). While even after inflation PSVR + base PS4 is still significantly more expensive than the Magnavox Odyssey was...
AR is not very suited for gaming, but as a mobile phone add-on, sure.
|
Pong had more of an impact on the industry then VR has, that much is for sure and that is my point. The gaming industry is vastly larger than it was back then.
With this said I do not think it is even fair to compare VR to Pong as Pong was the very beginning of video games and VR is well past the "very beginning" companies have been doing it in one way or another for quite a while.
|
There have been gaming before pong for quite some time, even the first game on cathode ray.
Machiavellian said:
DonFerrari said:
We all no it isn't the same thing, if it was Vivister wouldn't say Sony didn't release PSVR to PC. All Sony PR on PSVR and PS4Pro have been very positive and I see no reason to think they are taking a loss on a add-on, accessory is usually the piece of HW console makers make money off.
|
The only reason anyone believe they could be taking a loss was due to the President saying that this could occur. This still does not mean the actual device is selling at a profit because then when asked a direct question the Sony rep only said they are in the black. This could be the entire eco system behind PSVR including game sales, services etc. depending on how Sony value the product internally.
Going to PC still has cost and this could result in the PSVR going into the red. You cannot ignore support, QA and what ever development they must do to make the PSVR work officially in the PC space. Even just training your people to support the PC market, including marketing, infrastructure have cost. Its not so simple as just turning on a switch and now you support the PC.
|
So you are basically assuming that since he said they could take a loss on the HW a year later they are still taking because he didn't explicitly said they are profiting on the HW? That is quite the reach to not conceed that they could have kept the same price and launch on PC and be a lot cheaper than competitors.. you do know that producing even more would help prices drop faster right?
I'm not ignoring it. Sure selling PSVR at 400 in PC could mean a loss on the HW since we don't know the cost structure. But that is an assumption that you would have to prove, even if acceptable, which is quite different than your first stance that they couldn't and wouldn't sell for the same price because they would lose money without data to back it up.
Also even selling at loss on PC on the start could still work out as a first on Market to win marketshare and better position themselves as brand, on a second iteration or having more presence and allowing for cheaper manufacturing.
rolltide101x said:
SvennoJ said:
Can you see into the future? It took quite a while for home video gaming to become big after Pong. Heck for some anacdotal evidence, my aunt got a magnavox odyssey in 1979. (I guess the successor) It was this magic new thing, yet me and my sister though it was quite boring, nothing like the pinball machine my grandfather had in his attic. It took until nes and c64 to get into video games.
Btw video games were around before 1972 as well, first videogame was invented in 1958. VR has been around since the 90's, not in a commercially viable way though. Actually the first VR 'game' was made in 1968.
Yet the start of commercially viable home VR is 2016.
|
So VR in arcades do not count? Those were a thing in the early to mid 90s. Do not even get me started on the Virtual Boy lol. There really never were any video games before Pong that had any type of a chance. With all of this said I think the Pong analogy that someone made is deeply flawed as Atari/Nintendo were creating a brand new audience where VR headsets have the massive advantage of an already established base and a much easier time of advertising to that base
Also I never claimed to be able to see into the future. I said I do not THINK that VR will ever be anything other than a niche which so far is being supported pretty well. Now what the future holds exactly none of us know but acting like it is anything but a niche at this point is absurd
|
They count, there is enough VR demand from public that they have had it in arcades in some way for quite sometime, yet you claim it's niche.
My earlier "absurd" point is just that at the time of Pong you couldn't guess what would be of the industry later, and today you can't be sure of what will be of VR, you done a lot of spin to try and avoid admiting you were terribly wrong.
