Katie from Gamerscore Whores writes "Is the Sony camp nervous? Rumours are that Xbox will reveal project Scorpio, an amped up version of the Xbox One with hardware specs greater than that of the PS4 NEO. Are Sony waiting for Microsoft to reveal their hand?."
Shaz from GL: "Where Sony is ramping down support for PSVR2, and Apple are reconsidering their future with the Vision Pro, Meta and the Quest 3 continue to shine."
I'll admit that Facebook is doing more for VR than others. But they also have blown over 50 billion dollars so far and growing in R&D, building the meta verse, buying up exclusives and underpricing their products below build price, to kill competition in the stand alone space. Sony and Valve aren't willing to go into the red at an unheard level to capture the market. We know Sony could build a stand alone device that beats Quest just by the features in PS VR 2 and the new stand alone headset they built. But the new Sony would rather build a device they can profit from day one.
But, Sony so far has profited on hardware and on software. They just don't seem willing to spend the money on marketing, selling under build price or spending millions on making in-house VR exclusives for PS VR 2. Which sucks big time. They're just letting 3rd parties and indies run the show.
Article also doesn't mention that Apple's headset is more a developers product than a mass market item. To say they are looking into making a cheaper one for the next iteration is speaking the obvious. Duh. That was always the case. Build something the public sees as quality not can't afford, then make another that the masses can afford. TVs, cars, cellphones etc all were once expensive. Now, they're cheap to buy with many options to choose from. And Apple isn't even selling VP as a VR headset. I'm well aware that Apple's true intentions is to build a device that pushes AR with VR as an option. Not build a VR device. Because they know eventually that they want to replace the cellphone with AR glasses or an AR headset. If they cared about games, they would have launched as a gaming device.
Lastly, Facebook launched Quest 3 last year. But has not mentioned how many they sold up to this point. Why is that? Besides Quest 2 selling more by being cheap, the market can't move forward until they start selling more Quest 3 headsets than 2. Maybe the new exclusive Batman and Hitman games will help. But we'll see.
Not dead, but definitely on life support from the third party devs and PC crowd who may just purchase the headset.
Although I saw someone say that the module adapter will no allow haptics and adaptive triggers to work, but I don’t know if any of that is true.
Nope. Not yet.
It’s tough to say what its future will bring. There is still decent support. It seems to have sold decently too. Sony seems absent in a direct way though.
The issues Meta have is they are Meta. I'll never buy a Meta product, Every Quest headset they release is always a case of it's not quite there from a hardware perspective and the game content is mostly from indie devs. Selling what should be a AAA experience with C tier games is a non starter.
Meta is also Billions and billions in the hole in regards to VR. If Sony were to do what Meta has done, they'd be bankrupt
Meta is losing billions on a business that theh will probably walk away from like they did the Facebook phone. Temper your expectations of your investments in Meta’s hardware.
I do wish Sony would release more for PSVR. It’s a neat product, but they don’t support it much. It may have the same fate as the Vita.
I know it’s two completely separate products as Vita was stand alone, and PSVR is a companion to PS consoles. More 1st party support would really boost it though.
They are done supporting it. They're relying on pc to do it for them. Sony even paused production because it's not selling
They paused production to get rid of inventory, doesn’t mean the headset isn’t selling, it’s just not selling as fast as Sony thought it would. But with their half assed approach to the headset and lack of first party games, it’s not surprising, saddening, but not surprising.
Meta out here buying up all the exclusives, this is the only part of the gaming market where I feel exclusives should not be a thing since the market is “still in its infancy”.
That's exactly what it means... you think people are buying a headset with min support for the price of the console? It's done man. Sadly because like the vita the tech is good and deserved better
I own PS VR 1, and it is packed with tons of games to pick from in nearly every genre you could think of. While the technology may be rudimentary compared to newer headsets, it still works, and is fun to play, which is what matters most.
Its a shame that PS VR 2 is having such a slow start, because the tech behind it is brilliant. Its currently on sale for $100 USD off, that needs to be a permanent price drop.
We need more first party games on PS VR 2, the fact that Jim Ryan shut down Sony London Studios right before he left was moronic, they should have been upgrading their hit game Blood & Truth for PS VR 2! What a stupid decision.
Recently Gareth at Skewed and Reviewed spoke with Soham Jaiswal, CEO, SD Games about the pending Eternal Damnation game. The game is a hybrid of RPG and RTS and cast players as a Spider.
By putting Black Ops 6 on Game Pass, Microsoft plans to gauge its growth, pricing, and monetization changes, at the cost of less game sales.
If they have follow up games that are bangers, then this strategy will work. But if it’s Call of Duty followed another dead period then it won’t last.
From MS financial perspective I think it may be the opposite.
A year of GamePass on PC is less than the price of two full price games. For all the people that would have bought COD for $70 but instead started subbing for GP, MS will get an extra $50/year which is good.
However, for each banger that MS puts out, that's lost potential revenue because the GP sub won't need to buy it.
So it only makes sense where the new GP customers would have otherwise not spent more money with MS... Which is the case if MS puts out low quality shovelware.
If you’re looking at the short term you are correct. But if Xbox can have multiple bangers then subscriptions should increase. Which is what they want, recurring revenue.
I think this is more about microtransactions. MS wants to see if the upfront losses will be offset by more people login into the “free” game and buying more microtransactions to justify not selling as much COD games.
I honestly not sure. I feel like everyone who likes COD is already playing/buying it so I’m not sure how much more engagement they can get by putting it on gamepass. On the other hand, I also feel a lot of COD players are casual gamers, and they are the type to click on anything that is “free” ex: mobile gaming style
I don't see it working if Call of Duty makes less money and profits over time from gamepass 🤔
I dont understand why have it on it when we all know it sells with the name alone. Seems stupid to lose so much sales and $ just to have it on game pass. They basically shooting themselves in the foot with a already injured foot from all the other times they shoot themselves in the foot.
@blackblades, that's my exact point, even on xbox where most software sells poorly CoD still sells millions, but the thing is, if you don't put it on GP you kinda shatter the whole idea they've build GP up to be, they've dug this hole themselves.
I think it might tick up subscribers a bit, but warzone is already free and gets millions of players regardless of GP. But where will those extra subs come from? Xbox sales are dropping like a rock, PC gamers are very firmly rooted in Steam and will just buy it there.
@black
If they don't include it on Game Pass, they lose the claim of First-Party Day-One on Game Pass, and thus would begin the slippery slope of what's-ok-to-not-include and the devaluing of the service, and further sinking Microsoft/Xbox's already tarnished reputation.
Stuck between a rock and a hard place and this move buys them time to work out more future-math.
I still expect a price increase in GP to compensate but who knows. With all the factors in play like COD points there are too many variables for someone on the outside to predict what will happen. I assume they have a forecast model where this all looks peachy.
When the game does not hit 1 Billion in revenue in under two weeks they will wonder why and the next thing you know; Season Updates will no longer be free.
Yeah I expect paid DLC and season pass in your face, now you are buying for a game you are renting
That's where they're relying on PC and PlayStation gamers to pick up the slack. They know their business model isn't lasting so in order to give it away "free" for Xbox, they're banking on PC and PS5 customers to make up for the sales loss on Xbox, otherwise they wouldn't be able to pull this off like they want to. Xbots don't see it but, it's their gaming brethren that'll keep their console manufacturer afloat a little longer because the service they hold so dear isn't viable anymore. So, it's by the good graces of their fellow gamers they live to fight another day.
Consumers don't understand how Xbox Game Pass really works. It's not about the volume, and maybe Xbox doesn't want them to know. It's not about how many games you play. Developers don't make money by how many people play their game, it's HOW LONG you play. How many hours to put in.
Customers like David Jaffe that only like to sample don't help the service succed. Jaffe is a cheapskate stoner who spends all his money on Diet Coke, Jolly Ranchers, and weed to fry his brains (it's medically proven, sorry to disappoint) but Jaffe wants as much as he can get for as little so, he's not much of an advocate. But he also plays games for a little while and then gives up, it's just his personality, maybe A.D.D. or something, but Game Pass is dependent on how long a gamer sinks hours in. Why do you think Phil Spencer wants Helldivers 2? Because gamers don't put it down. Hellblade II, they'll play the campaign and then be done. Games like that sink to the bottom of the pile, they disappear. Xbox LIKES Games as a Service business models because it sells their service, but that model doesn't work for Sony, Helldivers was a stroke a luck, lightning that won't hit twice because PS fans don't want that. But that's how Xbox keeps it's games at the top of the list and on their service. The longer you play a single game, that's how devs make money
subscribers go up, execs celebrate win, get bonus, price goes up, subscribers go down,
execs dont care, got their bonus,
If it works CEOs and shareholders get a payday and if it doesn't even more studios get closed by MS so CEOs and shareholders get a payday.
It will sell on PC & PS but as long as COD is for rent on Gamepass it will not sell well on the XB platform. Most folks such as myself that like COD just for the campaign would rather rent it for that month instead of paying $70 plus tax for the game.
Your smart.
its 70 for base plus 10 to 20 for a season pass plus another 30 for there better season pass,
...now you are finally getting how to use GP. No commitments, just play what is offered. if you like it so much and want to keep a copy for yourself... you can buy it when you want to. I used to buy games based on if they looked appealing and have been burned many times on things. With this, I can try before I buy. And I have actually bought several games after having rented them in the service. It literally is like the old days of renting only you get the whole store instead of pay per rental.
I've been knowing how to use Gamepass. I sub the service yearly & I play games on the service that I don't have to pay the full price for such as Persona 3:Reload. I mostly play & pay for games on my PS5 but if a game lands on GP that I'm interested in playing & I don't have to buy a copy for the PS5 I'll definitely play it on Gamepass.
And there you have it, it's like you actively want to destroy the industry. Just rent the games and then buy them, knowing that doesn't happen and the actual cost of pushing a rental service is studios closures and firings.
So far MS has done nothing with Bethesda and Activision except limit where they sell, close successful studies, fire thousands and mass industry consolidation. No new games are being made that weren't already coming and some like Tangos future titles that they were working on we will never get to see now because of MS and their greed.
Massive industry consultation benefits only the company doing it, consumers and the workforce always lose out because of it. What MS is doing leads to cuts and a lesser end product. If MS had spent the money on making games instead of taking them away we would have a far healthier industry, instead we have the same games but with restrictions and a service that has cannibalised sales.
Sony is going to wait and see what Microsoft do first lol. I just don't see Sony making big adjustments if they already started to manufacture the Neo. One thing I will say is that Sony is in no rush to reveal the Neo since they're already making profit and sold over 40 million consoles. I guess they can afford to do the wait and see approach.
I don't think it has anything to do with waiting to see what they have.
Sony, and other consoles manufacturer haven't really used e3 as their event to reveal new hardware. Both the ps4 and ps vr were announced at their own events.
I think they aren't showing the Neo for 2 primary reasons.
One they don't want to dilute their conference by focusing too much on hardware at their conference (PS4, PsNeo, and PSVR) at the expense of showing games.
Secondly, I think they want to get the messaging/marketing piece right for Neo, since they know people have their doubts and concerns about how Neo will affect the Playstation ecosystem now and in the future. Saving Neo for another event where they can give it proper attention and explanation is important.
"Is the Sony camp nervous?"
https://media3.giphy.com/me...
"No PS4 NEO at E3, Sony Waits for Microsoft to Reveal Hand" tales from my ass @gamerscorewhores.com