PSVR Sells Through 3 Million Units

[potato_hamster]

Soundwave said:

potato_hamster said:

No, I claimed the NX wasn't going to be more than one device (it isn't) and I said the PS4 Pro and XB1X would never happen unless they created the ability to play regular PS4/X1 games without patching and required developers to put in minimal effort, and thus neutering the potential of such a hardware upgrade (they did). I said third party developers would never support them as extra development platforms (they didn't). When I said both of these things I actually had seen and used development kits for both the Switch, and had seen the first documentation for the PS4 Pro. I can assure you that the policy Sony had in place or PS4 Pro support and the policy they had in place when the PS4 Pro had changed dramatically, since, you know, developers refused to support these consoles the way Sony wanted them to.

I was right about both.

How much longer is VR going to take "baby steps"? Is thirty years of baby steps not enough? Is 30 years of hearing "the next generation is going to be the one that breaks through" enough? And your Dreamcast example is piss poor, since the Dreamcast's demise had nothing to do with its online service.

Like I get it. You love VR. You think it's a "legit experience". Sure it's going to get cheaper and better, the same way that racing wheels have gotten cheaper and better over the years. Yet, I bet racing wheels aren't going to be anything more than a niche product ever. Why is that?

Sure, MS might give it a college try, they have done AR tech demos at E3 regularly. But it's never translated into anything great, and I don't think Sony's numbers with VR are exactly encouraging. Also, what makes you think Nintendo is going to get in on VR? What are the chances they're looking at what Sony is doing with VR and having a good chuckle? Nintendo is not exactly known for its powerful hardware. What are the odds they can offer a VR experience that can even go head to head with the PSVR before we see a Switch successor?

I don't agree you were right about your predictions there, but agree to disagree. I remember telling you straight up developers wouldn't have a big problem with it because they already do different settings for different PC graphics cards. 

VR can take as long as it wants. Is it a race? The VR on PS5 will be a large step up from the VR that exists today, the VR 10-12 years now will be light years ahead. The visuals will be getting closer to photorealism, the headsets will be far lighter, cheaper, and without fewer or no wires at all. 

Every company can contribute to the progression of VR. Nintendo and Apple likely would bring user ease/user friendliness to the table because that's how they design products first and foremost from that POV. I don't think a Switch neccessarily needs a successor to get there, it will have its own Pro model in a few years IMO. 

For Nintendo what I suspect has happened is they are working on VR for their Universal Studios theme park attractions. Miyamoto said they would like to try to use the tech for amusement parks. I'm guessing whatever they have come up with is probably pretty impressive because in the last little while they've eased their comments on VR from a "no we're not doing that" to "uh ... maybe but nothing to announce now". We also know flat out they basically patented a Switch VR visor.

Some people may not like it but VR also has another killer app -- porn and VR sex. That industry is also just taking its early steps, in 10-15 years where that could be ... well use your imagination a little bit. You'll have light/discreet headsets that can display visuals and a FOV/resolution waaaaaaay past what exists today but I think you are also going to get into (ahem) physical feedback devices.

There's no doubt porn was a driving force behind the internet and home video becoming standardized, gaming doesn't have to do all the heavy lifting. 

Yeah, you were kinda right, but for the wrong reasons. Developers do not have a big problem with it, not because it's anything like doing different settings for PC graphics cards (because it isn't) but because all they have to do is take a couple devs, give them a couple weeks,and build in PS4 Pro support into their games. They don't have to build in fully fleshed out modes. They don't need to create higher poly count models, or higher quality testures, or more fluid animations. All they need to do is make the game run on the PS4 Pro. That's it. To be clear, this does make every PS4 game perform slightly worse because the PS4 exists. This was not what Sony expected of developers when they told them of the PS4 Pro at first. Developers refused to do it and pushed back. I was 100% right there.

VR Can take as it wants? Okay. Well then why are kicking up a stink when I say the technology, price and experience isn't there yet? If it's still taking it's time, then the VR experience isn't ready for mainstream, and won't be for some time, if ever, correct?   If this technology is 10-15-20 years away from maybe having a chance at becoming mainstream, then you are in agreement with me.

You do realize people are arguing with me because I said that VR as it is today is still niche and will be for the forseeable future, right?