By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
BeardofZeus said:

Perhaps I should have qualified. I mean really good games -as in over 90 (or at least 80) on metacritic. The switch has a lot of those - PSVR has very few. As far as I'm aware almost all of them are 50s, 60s and 70s at best. 

perhaps you need a bigger truck to move the goalpost

flashfire926 said:
DonFerrari said:

Nope I never would buy Skyrim, still I bought DC VR, Rush of Blood, Batman VR, RE7, GTS talking about a handfull of VR games. Not to forget that it is much more likely that someone that have VR have played Skyrim before than someone with Switch.

But you trying to find several reasons to justify PSVR version outselling Switch won't make Switch number better... now imagine if for when to do a port someone can see that even a VR version outsell Switch version... for me that is good also.

"you" isnt everyone. The plain and simple truth is, skyrim is the most well known and most critically acclaimed out of the games you listed, and will easily be the best-selling psvr game yet.

And to the bolded, people are willing to jump into a game they previously played because TV screen --> VR is a much, much, bigger change TV screen ---> handheld, and so its much more justifiable to buy the game again because of the drastic difference. 

Lets face it, Switch has way, way more quality games skyrim has to compete with than psvr ever will.

I aint everyone... your fault that you put "someone", that "someone" could be me... and since Skyrim didn't sold 2M on PSVR it is clear it isn't everyone buying it... so there seems to be a lot of "not everyone" not buying Skyrim... and RE7 and GTS are leagues better than Skyrim for me.

Sure I would prefer a new experience of VR than portable since I don't even care about portability... but since a lot here say one of the main reason for the success of Switch is it being portable, and looking at the Skyrim Switch thread there were a lot of people saying how much value was it being portable... but I do agree that there is more value on paying extra 300 to play it on VR than play it portably.

Let's face it, Nintendo userbase will more than anything buy something made by nintendo than a multiplat... but they will surely complain and bash 3rd parties for lack of support.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."