Report: PlayStation Cutting PS VR2 Funding, Only 2 First-Party Games in Development - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 03 August 2024 / 5,419 Views
Sony Interactive Entertainment is reportedly cutting funding for the PlayStation VR2, according to sources who spoke with Android Central.
One source said going forward there will be few opportunities for first-party games to develop games for the VR headset, while another source said there are currently only two PS VR2 in development from first-party studios.
Firesprite, the developer behind the launch PS VR2 title Horizon Call of the Mountain developer, had seen layoffs earlier this year. PlayStation's support for PS VR2 has already been limited.
There was a Bloomberg report back in March that Sony has paused the production of the PlayStation VR2 due to unsold stock.
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can contact the author on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
Barrier to entry was too much for most, price was too high in addition to needing a PS5 until just recently, not backwards compatible with the PSVR1, and few first party games.
They really screwed up when PSVR1 didn't work on PS5. Lots of early PS5 adopters had the PSVR1. The PSVR2 should just be an optional upgrade...
They offered an adaptor on their website. I assume you mean multiple headset support in PS5 games then it being restricted to only PS4 games right?
Overpriced which hurt sales, and software support already drying up considerably. Seems like it flopped.
That still two more first party games than I would have predicted.
I don't even think the Vita had this little first party support. Sony has only published 2 games for PSVR2, excluding the GT7 update. 1 of which failed so hard it put the studio out of business.
I honestly think Sony is spreading themselves too thin. They have their studios making the $300 million+ blockbusters, and then over the past several years, they've put a bunch of studios making live service games, and then they expected to be able to properly support a VR ecosystem?
Most PSVR1 games from Sony weren't internally developed to begin with. They were developed by non-first party studios.
Granted, investment from Sony is clearly down on PSVR2, but there is still a ton of software support overall compared to the first VR.
I definitely agree, but I think they will cancel them
There aren't as many psvr 2 exclusives as last year so far. WIth only Aces of THunder in the near-future. But it's still getting major multiplatform vr releases.
Pathetic investment from Sony. They have no one to blame but themselves for this mess. They could have at least pushed for more hybrid VR first party games, Astro Bot, Until Dawn, Concord would have been good candidates.
No doubt its a great VR set... but the price, is just too much for most. I feel like makeing a adapter and software, so it also runs on pc, should have been a day1 thing. Playstation platform, might not be big enough to carry VR on its own (same would be true, if nintendo or xbox tried).
i want my money back!!
Sell yours used. You should get some of it back...
I don't think Sony gave it a fair shot. Their lack of investment means they really just sent it out to die. It needs a few big, AAA, must-play games, and some serious marketing money. VR in general needs these things, and I had hoped that Sony might be the company to do it. It is clear that Meta is taking a much longer term view of VR, so I don't expect it from them (though they actually have the most to gain by VR catching fire). Unfortunately, there's nobody else that has the incentive to invest in VR in that way.
PSVR2 does have big games. it had the msot exclsuive vr games in 2023 and dominated the the game awards vr category. but because they aren't internally sony-developed people act like it has no games at all.
Winning VR categories at the the game awards is not relevant. That's just comparing it to other VR platforms. The issue is the entire field of virtual reality has not caught on. VR needs games that every gamer wants to play. It doesn't have those. No VR system does. Half-Life Alyx is the closest thing we've seen, and it still isn't on that level.
i had more fun with the X1 kinect
Meta Quest 2 seems to be ranking very highly on Amazon. I was not expecting to see that...
Yes. Because of its price point, it has managed to sell pretty well into the casual gaming market.
need to cut the price of the device itself it shouldn't cost as much as the console its running on
Let’s just all be honest here the thing is an amazing piece of kit but the price killed it before realise n then needing a ps5 to use it. Comparing it to meta quest which is almost 200 cheaper n easy to access without needed any other equipment. casuals will always chose the cheaper option when it comes to niece products
Quest is also self-contained. No wires. Wires really ruin the immersion.
They do this after announcing PC adapter?!? Seriously Sony, just wait and test the waters from PC ecosystem before doing stupid funds cuts FFS!!
Can't believe they launched it without making a deal with valve to get half life Alyx on it. Who's going to pay all that to not even have access to what is arguably the best and must have VR title
Valve has historically not liked PlayStation. In fact, the only time Valve ported a game to PlayStation themselves was Portal 2 and it came as a shock to the industry. All previous PlayStation ports were outsourced. But since then, Valve hasn't bothered with consoles at all anymore, which has now been 13 years.
I don't doubt Sony tried to get Valve to port Alyx, but either they didn't make an enticing enough offer or Valve just weren't interested. Majority of the company have been focusing on the Steam Deck the past few years.
I've said it before: VR is the Sega CD of the modern era. Back in the day, I had Sega CD. I loved it then, and I love it now. But it was just too far ahead of its time and expensive for what it was for the general public to get on board... and I feel like VR is in the exact same boat. It's an awesome experience, but not quite right for prime time. In time, however, just like Sega CD, it will prove itself. We just have to wait awhile longer.
Problem is that 30 years later Sega CD is still not a success. The fact that you and I (and probably a bunch of other people in this forum) loved it does not make it a successful product. It was a failure, and it killed the idea of expensive peripherals all the way up until psvr.
Yes, peripherals didn't take off. But I was referring more to the medium it used. Optical media was the future, so Sega CD was on the right track in that department.
VR gaming has such untouched potential. It’s a shame Sony didn’t fully commit to the system.
That's more than i thought if there are literally any in development. It seemed clear that after horizon call of the mountain that was it and they never had any intention of putting first party resources into vr at allafter that. From their point of view securing things like resident evil vr modes as exclusive was the better investment.
I think while the pricing was high for console standards not other VR standards as many are higher priced then PSVR2 but not as cheap as others more underpowered headsets. It's a submarket but the efforts made in it haven't been very good either.
Prices or games, the ambition like Remote Play was it taking 10+ years is just annoying to me we have to wait that long or another attempt like 3D 3 times in movies and gaming. Or still given up.
They couldn't be as cheap as Move/Eye Toy because of the complexity VR offers and in comparison to PC VR with different options, the portable or PC cable of Meta's headsets and more the range of VR shows when people want particular IPs or support that appeals, the price is lower then others but not for console audiences or just the PS5 price in parts of the world and only certain stores discounts of the console I don't know about the headset.
if we had VR applications sure it may go the way of Kinect and reused use cases, I mean HoloLens or others fit for business only use cases well. Kinect got used well in other ways then gaming.
If we got more VR modes or smaller games even then sure but if very few were offered, ports were offered of course I'm aware of that, the adaptor for PS5 was there of PSVR1, the tech had to evolve to what the others did not stay as the light tracking of PSVR1 forever it couldn't. Sure they could try to make PSVR1 work on PS5 games but it was tied to PS4 for a reason not just to upgrade but the APIs and tech I assume very heavily.
Control schemes weren't better pushed too far and too Wii 2006 bad again of look realism but are too clunky and over compensating then balance of buttons/motion uses then the learning done by Wii 2009 of some games back then. Some Wii/Move games made it easy to understand VR besides the differences and see how far devs are incorrectly pushing the tech. Pushing immersion, people just treating it as a party trick with some experience games anyway. The nausea and people not getting used to it which I'm surprised is that hard to convince.
But Indies were struggling then yeah its unfortunate. They didn't want to contribute third parties and when it was Meta they went nah not good enough sales what do they expect mobile phone sales numbers the idiots have high expectations of sales. Vita got more games in it's 3-4 1st party contribution besides the Japanese third parties doing a great job besides Indies offerings for 10 years.
But VR is very different so not surprised. It's unfortunate but audiences to me also have been the issue I find for just games in general I find many I'm excited for flop. Partly it's because I seek other things in games but makes it hard to support something if full price or little support makes no difference with 1 person.
The other sources I've seen with more details are a joke. Tangent
https://gameranx.com/updates/id/501928/article/rumor-sony-making-deep-cuts-to-funding-for-psvr-2-games/
Insomniac having VR experience what a waste they weren't used for it and instead Marvel games. Why?
Even then London or others why not?
Better ideas of Master System 3D with arcade games with 3D like aspects aka making it more than just racing and shoot em ups as NES/Famicom did. That person is saying the same as NES 3D so I find it a load of garbage. Yes 3D and VR are different but same point can be made. If Sega got Genesis VR or Atari Jaguar VR besides Nintendo Virtual Boy or the Vectrex also had it's limits too of Vectors besides time it came out may have gotten it with effort yet we hear excuses from VR Devs being just as unimaginative or ambitious with the tech or saying it can't be done what of safe games, safe camera or other design work around that then. Just at the truth
you can't be bothered and want other things and aren't creative enough to do it because games are as generic as they are and these same people making the same mistakes in VR and under ambitious. They just don't care to find a solution not just sales.
If they can offer Dioramas or better third person cameras almost like walking a dog of floating and not having to be human just any sort of objects/other being or just a camera or other things for how a camera can act and can't perform it they are useless.
If their tools suck why not just make their own or make plugins on existing ones. Make tweaks where it counts. Actually think about the situations the player is in, ignore reality and actually think while avoiding the nausea and still make it safe not overly crazy. Not everything has to be REAL. People get nausea from just awkward lighting or set pieces outside of VR, as if that wasn't obvious in other games of old.
They can add VR modes they are lazy. Third person games can work as if Astro, Tethered or Townmen VR which has bad controls but is a city builder those 2 games besides Astro being a platformer making the camera a focus with the platforming then why are these idiots saying third person can't work.
Make the view of the camera/screen and view of the world if like i've seen how Minecraft of view to load besides the actual generation (but not visually in view because of detail and the depth of that vision and interaction the player will do that the game can't predict till the player moves or interacts) or some others may do it work well enough. Stop with garbage visuals pushing of the hardware and make the camera work to view things well, avoid nausea and have good enough mechanics not realism level nonsense no one asked for because they aren't creative enough to think outside the box. I've played many experimental, shovelware or reasonable that still get the job done. Why can't they do it. That's from current gen and old gens but mostly old gens when we had better experimentation regardless of sales.
The history learned from GDC Wii/Move is just not in their minds because they are stupid. Gaming even in the experimental field is dead because they can't think things up better for how to go nuts and branch out of design at all, treat it as new, actually think about what to problem, solve and play in the worlds without realistic rules at first because nowadays real rules make things as boring as they are not just for oh nausea level crazy either, have eh budgets because of the risk and yet we get bad games and bad experimental ones because things are too safe nowadays. What a sad state of the world. Imagination in gaming is dead for some studios or people. Some studios can still pull it offer but others just can't. They can code/animate probably well enough of skilled or not but they don't have creativity at all and it's like how did you even get here.
It's like with eh stories, too much family/emotional garbage to get some pathetic reaction out of a player/viewer when I came for a video game. Give me a video game not some garbage fan fiction wannabe movie trash.
Only works in first person uh not every VR game that's good is a racing or cockpit style game they are third person cameras. Any idiot knows they can put a camera in third person games as such and have the character move around so the player is a camera not the lack of 1st person with less of the character model. We don't need everything for VR to be overly immersive just because they don't have the skill, imagination or brain power to devise such solutions and only see what they want or THINK audiences will accept or only think on basic real terms, it's a video game think outside the box you idiots. It's software, many things can be worked around if they think hard enough no matter how cryptic or archaic. It took how long for analogue sticks to get used to, same with motion/rumble handhelds or consoles. Same with 3D TV or 3D cameras or backgrounds with 2D games. Also good examples of many things tried but nowadays people are too stupid and think real logic when making games and I'm like but movies/tv series have dramatised or romantised worlds no problem and it still works. How can games not be treated the same way? It's it's own world with it's own rules to create not recreating the real ones because they can't think outside the box. Idiots with no creativity or no effort to try hard enough.
When they adapt and put effort into many other solutions if they tried hard enough in their games. I get even SNES or PS2 eras had awkward things about them but they also had a lot of good mix in with the awkward not just oh we4 only do that same we have seen 8th gen be is boring movesets so standardised and boring I went back to old gen because the experimental touches don't actually bother me and because what was tried is gone because the studios went too realistic and too brain dead to try and find GAMEY solutions not real solutions. I swear some people aren't creative enough to go beyond to find a solution and it annoys me a lot.
They work well enough if approached the right way like Astro or Moss. Any idiot with a brain can find the solutions. The same way making sure the arms for core mechanics translate well instead of over using the hardware for bad motion controls when they worked fine in the past but they go oh we can do more yet bad Wii motion comes in when good ones with better balance can make VR games possible. Stop the whole pull to reload or pull off back a weapon and the tracking being garbage. Just keep it simple. How hard is that. Idiots over engineering software solutions to things I swear.
You did not have to go this hard.
I know. Just too passionate about the hardware and ambitious projects being killed off, 10+ years waiting for it to finally happen or killed off and gone or idiot staff being to blame let alone the unfortunate factors of ambitious projects and audiences can't due to fair reasons (price) or won't.
Also I hate saying tweet or text character level responses. There is so much I think or want to say they end up as a video level script. Can't help it. Small responses isn't how I roll.
I think, I really wanted So y to at least port over their existing VR1 library (even if the only update was VR2 support).
I find that most disappointing about the whole situation.
IMHO the first mistake was not developing and promoting it on PC from day 1. Sure, that would be in competition with other offerings, but it still could have carved out an audience that serves to grow the install base for the headset as developer target. Talk of promoting AAA games is nonsense IMHO, there is already plenty of data on how these are problematic for classic 2d consoles/PC, and implementing the same budgets on micro install base is just nuts. Especially when the counter to that problem of AAA developers is how AA games are popular and engaging in that conventional space. AA or A or BBB games in VR space can provide engaging experience and is much more possible in terms of economics. Selling to PC market from day 1 would have made that all more possible. At this point it seems Sony has not been moving closer to Epic (which was the situation when PSVR2 was launched), but IMHO that would have made sense as locus for PC distribution, as the better developer economics (lower store cut) is probably most critical for small VR game market... Sony fully backing that (possibly thru JV for VR submarket, assuming they didn´t want to fully buy Epic or half of it to make it a JV) could have made that the nexus for PC VR and thus optimally situate their VR offering there. At this point, I don´t think there is much realistic prospects for major upside with the reduction in their already low level of game development.
The budget for Horizon VR was absolutely a fraction of the budget for the Sony's other games.
But I think it would have been smarter of them to have put their eggs into more baskets. Rather than trying to make a relatively big VR title, they should have made 10 smaller titles.
I think the opposite is true. VR needs a few, big time, must play games that every gamer wants to play. There are thousands of low budget, and hundreds of mid budget games. But there are none that I'm aware of that have AAA budgets.
Some AAA budgets are good for getting people through the door, but I think you generally need smaller titles to keep people invested.
I think there is value for Sony to put out a couple of Astro Bot Rescue Mission tier titles every year, even if the AAA games aren't there, and even if there are plenty of games with similar budgets. Sony's own titles would get more marketing and would probably be higher quality despite similar budgets.
It's currently outpacing PSVR in the same time frame, but that probably will not last.
PS4 and PSVR were cheaper, even when adjusted for inflation.
A peripheral, even VR, should not be more expensive than the console you need in order to play it.
It seems like Nintendo and even Microsoft Gaming are smart enough to realize the market isn't there, at least not on consoles.
Isn't that why they are opening up the units to be accessible on PC VR? There is a market even if niche but Meta, Valve and THC seem to seem prospects as well as Sony but these companies need to support it more than I think they are. There are some great games on it but it still needs proper killer apps to get people to want to buy. Meta is the only one that is affordable as others need PCs to run.
It just needs more promotion about around it and the games on offer, the system is only just over a year old and Firesprite, who seem to be specialising it VR are probably working on something but it shouldn't just be up to Sony to provide games.
Well that sucks for sure. My Play Station VR 3 headsets has been sitting on the shelve since I finished the Horizon VR game… Was hoping for more…
Oh well
You and me both. I was hoping for more VR games from Sony and at least one or 2 big efforts but its looking like its not going to happen. I guess there is always beat saber.
This is ... not surprising. I do hope though, as a huge Horizon fan and non-owner of PSVR2, that Sony will consider making a "flat" version of Horizon: Call of the Mountain for release on PS5.
Should have released day and date with PC. This was expected to happened. Too little to late now unfortunately for fans of PSVR.
Damn, I was really rooting for this headset to take off. VR in general has been needing an adrenaline shot, but not even Sony can get VR over the hump. With how expensive the setup is and the lack of major titles to push hardware sales, became a Vita 2.0. I'm sure it'll still have a deeply devoted community as time goes on. Also like the Vita.
VR is niche but needs killer apps to get people in, it shouldn't just be Sony trying and if anything Meta, Sony, HTC and Valve need to team up. Get some real great games on their stuff.
Yeah. If those four could fund a few true AAA ($100mm budget) must play games, that might do the trick.
I was thinking, while these companies do what it to succeed, it doesn't help the biggest publishers with the most "game backing" don't. EA, Ubisoft, Activision, they don't care because the devices are niche. Now Activision is MS even less. You are never going to get CoD VR or FIFA VR becuase they won't see it as worth it unless it becomes big from something else.
I was hoping it would have been a big success to further advance newer iterations. Last gens and current gen still give me motion sickness but I still want to jump in to it in the future when the technology is better.
Sony basically Vita’d the PSVR2 shortly after it released. I wish I would have just gotten a Quest instead.
I think Sony wants to focus on PlayStation Portal instead as far as peripherals go...
And from what can you assume this? They did not really updated the portal that much since the launch either.
Granted the thing works flawlessly (it is actually really surprising) but I do not see anything pointing in that direction
I recall announcements saying The Portal was selling well ( https://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2024/02/27/playstation-portal-sales-exceed-sony-expectations/ ). Looking at their respective Amazon rankings, The PS Portal is ranking significantly higher than PSVR2.
Okay, well I do not think it means that Sony is putting more focus on it; just more appealing I guess. I think they are both at the same level, on a shelve somewhere and I really think Sony has no plan for both of them at this point.
Sucks in both cases if you ask me :D
Great news. VR is no where near close to being good enough. There's a massive difference the "immersion" of what you see - and the gigantic disconnect where you don't physically feel anything while using VR. It's the worse case of "Uncanny Vally" in digital existence.
Now Sony can spend that money on making more 1st party games and making an actual Portable that everyone wants.
Essay Pro