From the commentary, I can just tell a lot of people have never had any corporate jobs, because you don't understand how decisions are made.
Let's first start with PSVR(2). Sony has not put everything into PSVR2, they put enough resources and focus into it so that if VR blew up, they wouldn't be left behind. That doesn't mean SIE was ever going to overextend themselves into VR.
They had the ability to leverage PS5, but they're not all in like Meta is. If PSVR2 really hit off, you would see a lot of flat games incorporate VR modes to rise on the charts to differentiate themselves from games that didn't have VR modes, i.e. anyone who has a PSVR2 headset is far more likely to buy a game with a VR mode than one without one, but the numbers have to make sense.
You have to reach a point where it's a profitable investment to differentiate yourself.
Let's say Sony sells 1 million headsets. Assuming you guarantee 100% of people with the headset buy your game, does that pay for the resources it cost you to create the VR mode?
That calculation is largely why PSVR2 is struggling.
A lot of people pretend like there are no PSVR2 games. The reality is there are at least 210 released titles on PSVR2 in just over 1 year on the market.
PSVR2 is a hedge on the market so that another Wii situation doesn't happen. A hedge doesn't mean you go all in, but many posters here expect Sony to go all in on every product that they create. Business just doesn't work like that.
The PSVR2 costs 550 dollars and can only sell to an existing userbase of 60 million people. You can buy the Meta Quest 3 for as cheap as 500 dollars and play it completely stand alone. The existing market for it is as a result significantly larger than PSVR2's market combined with the PC market in general, that's an extreme advantage. As a result it makes sense for Meta to fund a significant number of VR titles themselves and develop their own VR titles.
The reality is the same people who are angry that Sony isn't putting more resources into VR would be furious if Santa Monica released a VR only game. And they'd be right to be, it just wouldn't be the best use of their time. VR hasn't taken off.
I still think Sony will triple down on VR and make a wireless PSVR3 when the time comes, because again, they don't want a Wii situation to happen.
The Eyetoy came out well before the Wii. Sony was already looking at motion control, but their implementation was pretty janky. The Wii set the world on fire and Sony responded with the Move, but it was late to market and still had a higher introductory cost than the Wii because you had to buy a PS3.
@Nhomnhom would have you believe that not porting rescue mission shows that they don't care, but he has no idea how many units of rescue mission sold in the first place and whether a port of rescue mission actually made sense or was a good use of time for a really small team.
@Gamernyc78 comparing the Vita and PSVR2 together makes sense on the surface, but their goals would have been entirely different.
PSVR2 costs 1050 as a starting point, the Vita launched at 250. The Vita had the ability to generate its own revenue at a much lower entry point.
@Kokoloko another example of someone not understanding how business works or budgets. Creating a VR team at every studio? What do you think that would accomplish exactly? How much effort do you think Sony would have needed to put in to make PSVR2 a success? Also please define success. How many units sold would have been successful?
How I define success for PSVR2
- Help differentiate the PS5 from the Xbox Series
- Same thing with putting out an access controller before Xbox
- Same thing with the investment in Evo
- Same thing with select exclusivity agreements in particular genres and marketing deals
- Increase and maintain brand loyalty for people who bought PSVR1
- Give Sony the option to pivot if VR took off like the Wii
