Second Hit Piece about PSVR2 in a row
- Thread starter Gediminas
- Start date
My biggest issue with PSVR2 is the price and lack of backwards of compatability. The rest I don't really care about. Hence why I am gonna wait a bit before diving in.
D
Deleted member 417
Guest
I'm glad Sony didn't cheap out with a crap piece of hardware. Going expensive to deliver the premium experience is the way forward. Bonus that they've decoupled themselves from the previous iteration.
A big loss as gamers has come over the past few generations where new hardware is tied to old hardware and there is no cut-off point to buy a premium piece of kit that does everything new. Buying an Xbox 360, for example, you knew it was a top of the range bit of kit with brand new software to offer.
I miss those days
A big loss as gamers has come over the past few generations where new hardware is tied to old hardware and there is no cut-off point to buy a premium piece of kit that does everything new. Buying an Xbox 360, for example, you knew it was a top of the range bit of kit with brand new software to offer.
I miss those days
While i agree with them wanting to release a hugh quality product, but it costing as much as the console (or even more if you bought the $399 PS5) I find it a hard sell for most consumers. Most likely only enthusiasts will buy the device as is day 1.
What they should have done is waited another year or 2 to offer a cheaper device with same specs as it is now. And it would have had more games. I am honestly surprised PSVR2 coming out so soon.
D
Deleted member 417
Guest
Good. I am an enthusiast who remembers gaming when it was only enthusiasts. To pay extra to have those premium experiences again is nothing for me. I am looking forward to a return, albeit inevitably short, to a time when multiplayer experiences were amongst enthusiasts and not little Timmy blasting rap and racism down the microphone
They are releasing 35+ games on launch. Isn't that enough games? Besides, according to this article, there are devices out there for people who can't afford £550 quid and it's called a Meta Quest.
A lot of the games already exist on Steam/Current VR devices. The only ones that grab my attention are Resident Evil Village VR, After The Fall and Horizon Call of the Mountain. And maybe Zenith, the MMO game. Everything else is just there and doesn't really grab my attention. 35 games is a good number for a product launch, but I am a bit more picky with what I play than most people.
They aren't, they don't even have an equivalent VR component in any of their services, gaming or otherwise, to benefit from it.
Some people are just way too sensitive about criticism of their preferred plastic box.
What? Microsoft doesn't even have a direct competitor for VR, what are you talking about? They never said a word about it.
I hope the regulatory investigations take a look into some of these media outlets and if there are certain monies being exchanged (even under the table) to facilitate some of these..."conveniently timed" op-eds and false reports on new Sony product releases.
Because it certainly seems like there's something going on there, then you have guys like Jez Corden who literally get official word on Xbox events right before they get revealed/announced, people like Colteastwood who basically do advertising for Xbox 50% of the time and attack PlayStation the other 50% of the time, how Phil Spencer, Aaron Greenberg etc. have known ties to him, DealerGaming, TimDog etc. playing with them online and being on their podcasts multiple times.
It wouldn't take a lot to see if there's some BTS stuff going on enabling a lot of this crap.
That actually would provide a motive if you think about it. Why would they want to see products in a market they are not involved in, and are behind in, to find success, and potentially force Microsoft into an awkward place where they have to play catch-up (which costs money)?
I'm not saying for certain they ARE involved in some of these articles, false reports etc. But they're a massive company, have a history of paying for advertising that was not disclosed by sponsors (I think this was the case with a few Youtube people they did work with back years ago), and have their hands in a LOT of pots online.
If the criticism makes sense, then most won't take issue. The problem is articles like this are stupid and don't seem to pay attention to the market. They're basically arguing that price is most important, but we just SAW a few months ago that price means little if the perception of quality is there. Otherwise, we would have seen the Series S console sell better in the holiday period than it actually did.
The closest that article gets to about such a factor is when they talk about the launch lineup, but they only focus on the quantity of the launch library and lack of native BC. None of that has to do with a perceived value quality, and we have examples of systems and peripherals in the past that didn't need BC or a large launch library to find success.
Could Sony do more to advertise PSVR2 in terms of the specific games coming at launch? I think so, yes. But it's pretty tricky to effectively show off VR games on non-VR display devices.
EDIT: Damn, and it's Paul Tassi writing this? <sigh> C'mon, dude. I understand being slightly cautious but at least wait until the thing's been available on the market for a month before doing these types of write-ups. So many of these journalists aren't even trying to give the device a fair chance, that's my bigger issue here.
Because it certainly seems like there's something going on there, then you have guys like Jez Corden who literally get official word on Xbox events right before they get revealed/announced, people like Colteastwood who basically do advertising for Xbox 50% of the time and attack PlayStation the other 50% of the time, how Phil Spencer, Aaron Greenberg etc. have known ties to him, DealerGaming, TimDog etc. playing with them online and being on their podcasts multiple times.
It wouldn't take a lot to see if there's some BTS stuff going on enabling a lot of this crap.
That actually would provide a motive if you think about it. Why would they want to see products in a market they are not involved in, and are behind in, to find success, and potentially force Microsoft into an awkward place where they have to play catch-up (which costs money)?
I'm not saying for certain they ARE involved in some of these articles, false reports etc. But they're a massive company, have a history of paying for advertising that was not disclosed by sponsors (I think this was the case with a few Youtube people they did work with back years ago), and have their hands in a LOT of pots online.
If the criticism makes sense, then most won't take issue. The problem is articles like this are stupid and don't seem to pay attention to the market. They're basically arguing that price is most important, but we just SAW a few months ago that price means little if the perception of quality is there. Otherwise, we would have seen the Series S console sell better in the holiday period than it actually did.
The closest that article gets to about such a factor is when they talk about the launch lineup, but they only focus on the quantity of the launch library and lack of native BC. None of that has to do with a perceived value quality, and we have examples of systems and peripherals in the past that didn't need BC or a large launch library to find success.
Could Sony do more to advertise PSVR2 in terms of the specific games coming at launch? I think so, yes. But it's pretty tricky to effectively show off VR games on non-VR display devices.
EDIT: Damn, and it's Paul Tassi writing this? <sigh> C'mon, dude. I understand being slightly cautious but at least wait until the thing's been available on the market for a month before doing these types of write-ups. So many of these journalists aren't even trying to give the device a fair chance, that's my bigger issue here.
Last edited:
They promised VR back in 2017 for One X, then abandoned that. The past year or so they've said they have no plans for VR, called it a niche market, and very recently just fired their whole VR/Hololens group and disbanded it.
Considering they're seemingly pacing behind Sony, Apple, Meta, Valve etc. in meaningful VR for the consumer market, I can understand if there's a feeling among some at MS to have an anti-VR/AR narrative propagate and gain traction. Why have gamers & customers adapt to competitor VR/AR tech before you're able to get your own shit together in that space?
sony's up against some pretty evil competition this time, even more so than MS. You have Facebook running smear campaigns for one, and all the other VR knockoffs to boot.
Love how i keep seeing 'It doesn't work on PC' as a negative.
PC guys are so jealous of this thing, lol.
Know what? I didn't even consider Meta's involvement in this. And we KNOW Meta/Facebook have done some slimy stuff in the past in terms of advertising on their own platform, with their own customers/users.
Hell, some of the odd critical (almost hostile) PSVR2 sentiment could have Meta connections. But I think without hard proof companies like Meta or Microsoft are involved, at most we can say these companies have at least incidentally cultivated a segment of fandom which turns into a bit of cult of personality, and I guess some people just end up forming a need to reenact those SNES/Genesis playground wars in a more subtle way. In a more grown-up, professional space, with a bit more nuance.
At least, that may be another way to see it.
Last edited:
You are over thinking this. All Bloomberg/forbes is doing is simply creating console war baiting headlines to stir the pot. They know EXACTLY what they are doing. It's all well calculated strategy.
Also, a lot of topics are being written based on current trends and hype. Right now PSVR2 is around the corner and nothing gets around faster and dirtier than a hit piece aboutt a product that's coming out soon. So they're are simply trying to capitalize in Google search trends to maximize profits and traffic as high as possible.
These websites don't actually have their own real opinion. If it was a small fan site then they would most likely be much more genuine. You have to realize these sites are owned by bigger corporations and all they are doing is figuring out a way to boost social media engagements for the sake of maximum profit.
I am speaking from experience here, cause we have done it too. We've written hit pieces on everyone as well when it was most convenient including MS, Sony and Nintendo. Everyone does it dude, others just seem louder simply because they are a far more popular website than someone like us.
You do have to have a balance though, if you write a hit piece on same brand at all times you might start getting really bad rep and get called a X or Y fanboy site.
Right now it would be most convention to talk bad about Microsoft, because they're not having a good time. As soon as something bad happens with Sony, then we'd be switching the tables and same goes for Nintendo, or any game developer/publisher for that matter.
Forbes is going the extra mile here and trying to stir the pot with drama and piss off a certain camp while making the other camp happy. Those 2 camps then colide in their twitter posts and theur comments section on the website which converts over too $$$.
Welcome to the world of - its always about $$$ and traffic at the end of the day. This is just the raw truth.
They promised VR at Xbox One X and after Xbox Series X reveal.
But MS promised so many things that didn't turned true that I can't take their works on anything.
They never promised anything. They said Xbox One X is capable of doing high fidelity VR as far as its capabilities go. They never introduced or advertised an actual product/head device in the first place, so that is not true.
And later Phil said current VR enabling is good, but they prefer to wait until it scales better.
Here is the quote -
"I think that the hardware innovation that’s happening is great and it’s an important enabler, [but] right now, I’m deciding to stay more in the software side of that enablement,” Spencer said during the Wall Street Journal Tech Live event, as reported by Video Games Chronicle. “I believe it will scale better in the long run.”
While there are guys that try to find a way to defend their lies and false promises they will continue doing the good job
Last edited:
OP
OP
I appreciate that insight and, yeah, I guess in some capacity these articles are just to manipulate eyeballs and drive traffic & ad revenue through clicks. But personally, it's that inauthenticity that makes so many articles from the big sites feel soulless and manipulative these days, for a long time even.
It's probably the biggest reason I just don't read the IGNs, Gamespots, Gamerants, Kotakus etc. anymore. Or even a lot of the bigger gaming content creators on Youtube because some of them fall in that same category or have ties to the big sites (Destin Legarie is a very obvious example).
Eh, I'll be fair and say he has a point. There's DEFINITELY an insincerity with a lot of these articles involved, by nature just to drive traffic and get clicks. So they try being controversial just for the attention.
But I do think at least for some who do it, there is some semblance of their viewpoint which aligns to that slant or editorial purpose, which is why they write these kinds of articles. They might already lean a bit into believing this stuff even if they're being ridiculously exaggerative in the articles themselves.
Last edited:
Isn't it funny that we see such a glut of articles about why all of Sony's products/content isn't as good as people think, while on the other side of the aisle we just see constant excuses about Microsoft not needing content? And then when something finally drops it's the new secret GotY?
It's so transparent, and the people engaging on that level on this board look like complete clowns.
It's so transparent, and the people engaging on that level on this board look like complete clowns.
Last edited:
Yeah, it's very annoying although expected. They get something mediocre or semi good and all of a sudden it's a godsend lol. A game like Days Gone (which BTW I loved and would rate a 90) on another console would be their goty or 95 meta at least, easily.
Waiting a year or two would put them behind the competition in terms of specs. Having a first mover advantage on some features like integrated headset haptics, affordable eye tracking, foveated rendering - it gives them mindshare and makes sure the hardware's appeal isn't diluted by competing products. If you don't like the price you can always wait for them to go on sale in a couple years, when you would have had it come out anyway. But having it come out now allows the enthusiasts to buy in, and spread word-of-mouth, allows companies time to see adoption rates to see if they have a viable market to jump into making products for, and now that the ps5 shortage is over, there's no reason to delay it. As for the games argument...it has plenty of games right now. A tiny fraction of the people buying this thing are involved with the PCVR scene.