Forums

Topic: Will Future PSVR Games Improve in the Length Department?

Posts 1 to 20 of 20

Kogorn733

I just got Playstation VR for my birthday and am currently exploring what games to get, but it seems like most of the games are designed to be pretty short. Is this something that is going to change in the future hopefully? Will we be getting some longer, more narrative-driven PSVR games?

Kogorn733

Arash1996

I assume there will be more games that fully support VR in general like RE 7, but I don't think there will be many long games made exclusively for VR in years to come.

Edited on by Arash1996

Arash1996

Rudy_Manchego

I mean, I've always been hoping for an improvement in the length department.

Aaaanyways, I think the answer is yes and no. At the moment, I think we are seeing a lot of tech demos and smaller indie games. I am sure they will continue. There are some bigger releases planned - Skyrim and Doom in VR will be larger full scale releases (we assume) which I think will include it.

At the moment, it is a new technology and that brings with it development costs. Therefore, I think that developers are not going to spend a huge amount of time on the games until they can see a clear return on investment.

There is always the nature of VR games as well. It is really recommended that you play in shorter bursts so I think that means that games are designed to play in smaller sessions.

Now I may be an idiot, but there's one thing I am not sir, and that sir, is an idiot

PSN: Rudy_Manchego | Twitter:

JLPick

Even though I don't own a VR (would love to get one, but the price is stopping me at the moment), it seems to be games like came out for the Move at the time (very short or semi-short games...with an occasional few AA titles that would support it). As long as the VR stays around (longer than the Move did), I could see it taking off with longer games during probably the PS5's era. I'm sure if MOVE stuck around for the PS4, there would be better and bigger games for it, but it all comes down to Sony and if they are going to keep it around.

JLPick

PSN: JLpick

MadchesterManc

@Rudy_Manchego oh you

Game length in VR is a tricky one. As someone who spent hours on end playing games in 3D, it hasn't been something I've been able to replicate in VR. RE7 I think I've only managed an hour tops, and the more intense stuff like RIGS even less in one sitting. I don't think we'll see longer games in VR till developers have a better grip on the tech and can maximise comfort

http://www.otakugamers.uk
https://twitter.com/OtakuGamersUK

"Love is a device invented by bank managers to make us overdrawn" AJ Rimmer

PSN: MadchesterManc | Twitter:

get2sammyb

I like the shorter experiences personally. I think VR is a different medium to traditional games, and I don't necessarily want to be sat working through an 80 hour RPG with the headset on.

That doesn't mean the VR experience is not fulfilling, it's just more active and intense, and thus I think it suits shorter games.

Rudy_Manchego

@MadchesterManc @get2sammyb I'm on the fence about length of games. I am not sure I want TW3 in VR but I was left wanting more with FarPoint. I think I could have happily had a ten hour or so campaign.

I'd like more storytelling in my VR games, I really got into Farpoint because it had a neat little story and I think that is harder on smaller experiences. However, even if longer, I think the actual levels/stages should be short and pick up and play so that you can stop when you need to drop.

Now I may be an idiot, but there's one thing I am not sir, and that sir, is an idiot

PSN: Rudy_Manchego | Twitter:

BAMozzy

@get2sammyb I really think that VR games shouldn't be 'shorter' or lacking in 'content' - not if they are charging the same price as a non-VR game. I have no interest in buying a game 'just' because its VR and lacking the depth, content etc that a non-VR game offers.

I can understand that mission length for example, could be 'shorter' to allow people to take more breaks if needed, but I disagree that if you are paying for a AAA game (price wise) that you get a budget quality game and the main selling point is VR rather than the game itself. Its this attitude that will more likely cause VR to fail. It needs to have those games that are sold because of the game itself rather than the 'novelty' of VR - its the same thing that happened with Kinect in essence - the games themselves lacked the same depth, the same quality and so people gave up and ended up returning to 'controller' based gameplay because that's where the better games are.

If you have a choice of paying say £45 for a 'Farpoint' type game or CoD:WW2, SW:BF2 or Destiny 2, Which are the majority going to favour - the one that's just selling itself because of the novelty of VR or the one with the better story, the more content, the better visuals, the MP with friends etc etc?

Maybe you won't have hour or two long missions in VR, but they could be broken down into 30min checkpoints. In a RPG, you often have smaller side quests that can take 30mins at most, even just free roaming, gathering resources etc with no time limit - just have a auto save every 5mins as well as the option to manual save at any point and carry on exactly where you are - even mid-quest. Its not unusual to find this option in games - like the Witcher 3 for example.

At the end of the day, I really don't agree that games should be significantly less (in story, content, quality etc) than a non-VR game at the same 'price-point' just because they are 'VR' games. I can see the need to break them down into 'smaller sections or more check-points along the way - to give people a chance to take a break, but I don't think they should be significantly shorter or over-priced just because they are VR - that's more likely going to see it fail...

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

get2sammyb

@BAMozzy I don't necessarily think they should be the same price TBF, so I agree with you. There's a definite VR Tax and I think most of the games are a few pounds too expensive.

The games should be priced appropriately, but I wouldn't want something like SUPERHOT VR to be much longer, because it's such a physically demanding and intense game that the three or so hours felt fulfilling to me.

Rudy_Manchego

@get2sammyb Price is becoming a barrier point for me taking a punt on new VR titles. There are a lot of great looking VR games with some good reviews but if replayability is low, I'm not sure I can afford it.

Now I may be an idiot, but there's one thing I am not sir, and that sir, is an idiot

PSN: Rudy_Manchego | Twitter:

BAMozzy

@get2sammyb I don't know how much Superhot in VR is but it shouldn't be priced above the non-VR version. The game may well be physically demanding but I still think it should be the same length, same quality and same price as the non-VR version. It should maybe state that its best to take regular breaks but the point is that the non-VR version set the standard and price point and that's what the VR version should also deliver - not stripped back and/or more expensive.

I wouldn't expect to buy Skyrim VR and find half the game missing or have to pay more just because its now in VR - same goes with Doom too.

I couldn't care less if VR is 'more' intense and 3hrs felt sufficient just because it was VR, I would want Superhot to be the same Superhot, same length, same content, same price. If the Original is 8hrs worth then the VR should be. I would rather take breaks if its that intense than feel short changed because its now in VR.

I wouldn't pay more than a PS4 Pro console for nothing more than a peripheral to play basic and 'budget' feeling games (content, visually etc), that the biggest selling point is VR and have to pay a 'premium' price for the software.

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

Rudy_Manchego

@get2sammyb Yep - some of the sales have been pretty good (I just got Thumper half price).

It is one of those vicious circle things - Devs need the small install base to buy VR games but they need to charge higher prices to recoup dev costs which might stop the install base from adopting.

I'm pretty much expecting some promotions on hardware and software as it runs up to Christmas and we get past the VR 1 year anniversary. This and releases like Doom and Skyrim have the chance to open up VR to more users.

Now I may be an idiot, but there's one thing I am not sir, and that sir, is an idiot

PSN: Rudy_Manchego | Twitter:

BAMozzy

@get2sammyb I can't speak of Superhot as I don't have a VR headset - but I would still expect that Superhot VR would be little different in content - whether its exactly the same content or not - I would expect it to be the same 'generally' and charge the same. If they are charging more, I would expect 'more' from the game and 'NOT' just the VR aspect.

As far as I know, the whole of RE7 can be played in VR and costs the same whether you play it in VR or not, whether you buy it on PS4 or XB1 (proving you are NOT paying a 'premium' for VR). It was reviewed first and foremost as a 'game' not a VR experience. The change to a first person perspective to facilitate VR was a good indication it was designed with VR in mind. I see a 'similar' score across multiple platforms which indicates to me that the PS4 version is assessed as a game and has the 'added' bonus to VR headset owners. I see this as fair. Its maybe 'enhanced' by playing in VR but you are NOT charged a premium just because its VR.

This is my issue. VR may 'enhance' an experience but then so can playing a game with 4k HDR visuals and Atmos surround sound, maybe even a 60fps and I wouldn't expect to pay a 'premium' over the 900/1080p non-HDR console owners with at best 5.1 surround sound at 30fps for essentially the same content - thinking of the Pro and Xbox X in particular and games.

Of course VR is a 'new' experience, a 'new' way to play but so was 'Kinect' and 'Move' - even 3D games all offered some 'new' way to experience games. Kinect, by making your 'whole ' body a controller offering a new way to play, be more 'involved' and essentially put you 'into' the game. before VR with its motion tracking and the fact the Headset being fixed to your face helping that 'little' bit more to put you 'into' the game and mimic your body actions - ok so just your hands and head anyway where as Kinect had your head, arms, hands, torso and legs to track and knew exactly how 'precise' your dance moves were for example - not just that a 'controller' or two were in the right place - like Move offered.

Point I am making is that VR is 'just' a peripheral that is designed to enhance a game. It has more 'limitations' than a normal or non-VR game as it only tracks Head position and hand position and 'movement' within a 3D area can lead to motion sickness as your 'body' isn't moving when you 'brain' is receiving movement information via the eyes. In non-VR games, movement on the screen is offset by the static information from peripheral information. Therefore, games should still be reviewed, priced and considered first and foremost as a 'game' before adding in the VR experience on top. Its no different than reviewing say Killzone 3 as a 'game' first and foremost then with what Move and 3D adds to the experience. A game like Farpoint, should still be considered in the same you would any other game at that price point offers and then assessed on what VR brings to it, the difference say a controller, move and then Aim make.

I totally disagree that VR is and should be the primary aspect of these. If the fact that VR is primary reason to buy because the game itself is 'forgettable', lacking the depth, content etc that its non-VR peers have then that should be said. Its not going to improve the quality, its not going to help push VR to people like myself and the 50+ million of other PS4 owners to investing if the games do not improve and continue to be 'over-priced' for what they offer. I would rather have a 'quality' and 'lengthy' non-VR game experience than buy an over-priced and short-lived VR experience. I would be much more likely to invest in PSVR if games like RE7 (which I believe is no different in length in VR but enhanced as a result) were releasing. If GT Sport, for example, had a 'separate' VR release and charged more for it but had half the tracks, a fraction of the cars and a much shorter SP season/race etc then where is the incentive to buy it? I certainly wouldn't buy the much smaller but more expensive version - even if I owned VR because I would want the 'full' package.

I know its a catch-22 situation where devs are unlikely to get their money back if they make a big budget AAA game solely for PSVR with so few headset owners out there. One method is the RE7 approach where the game can also be played without the headset but again there is no main incentive to invest if you can play it in a standard format. That's where people like yourself who run a website can use your reviews to good effect. Like for example - RE7 and stating its 'benefits' to VR owners - even saying its much better to play in VR on your first playthrough for the 'best' experience. Things like that are more likely to entice people to buy into PSVR. Also, being honest about games that may not live up to the price-point and its peers within that and scoring it based on that - you can still add that as a VR experience, its say one of the 'better' experiences but as a game its not as 'strong' or content rich as its peers in this price point. I think that is much fairer than getting carried away by VR and also lets devs/publishers know that they are over-pricing their VR games, putting a VR super-Tax etc on these. If RE7 can make a full length game playable in VR and not charge a VR tax on it, then so can everyone else!

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

SoulChimera

Price is a difficult one as that is more a reflection on the persons financial situation.

While one person may think £20 is a lot for 3 hours of great fun. Another may think it's a bargain.

I always look at it as how much I would spend entertaining myself elsewhere for the same money.

£20 would get me 2 pints. So that's 45 minutes to an hour and I'm done, I'm sure I wouldn't have anywhere near as much fun as I would playing Superhot.

As for game length. I've got about 30+ PSVR games at the moment. Some are short, some are long. I don't think I've been upset that some have been short (although Batman left me wanting a sequel straight away haha). Likewise I haven't been upset that some have lasted for some time (still making my way through Driveclub and loved Resident Evil 7).

On reflection, my opinion is a useless addition to this thread haha.

SoulChimera

BAMozzy

@SoulChimera "While one person may think £20 is a lot for 3 hours of great fun. Another may think it's a bargain. I always look at it as how much I would spend entertaining myself elsewhere for the same money."

I always look and see how much 'gaming' I can get for the same money. £20 for 3hrs or £20 for an older AAA game with much more substantial content. £20 for 3hrs works out at £6.66 per hour and people complained at Destiny for a Lack of content that worked out at less than 5p per hour for me and proved to be the 'best' value per hour game this gen so far - a game that I bought the Ltd Edition at launch and then all the subsequent Expansions at launch still worked out at the 'best' cost per hour of any game. A game like the Uncharted 4 worked out at less than £2 per hour (one of my most 'expensive' games per hour) but could have been far better value if I enjoyed the MP. A game like Horizon:ZD worked out at less than a £1 per hour - even though I bought the more expensive Steel Book Ltd Edition version and recently bought the DLC so that should drop further below the £1 per hour as I play through the DLC - and yet to start a 'new game +' which I intend to do when the DLC launches - so that should cut my costs per hour in half or more.

I could go on and break down every game I have bought into a 'cost' per hour but 95% of my games would be at £1 or less per hour. Only 1 or 2 would be over that figure - either because I only enjoy 'half' of the game or the game failed to grab my attention and remains incomplete. It would need to be an 'incredible' game to justify me spending more than £2 p/hr on it and £6.66per hour can forget it. I don't care if going to a Cinema or having a few pints with your mates costs more. I can happily wait for those films to come to Sky and watch them as part of my Subscription at no extra cost and don't drink alcohol anyway.

I bet if one pub is charging £10 a pint, and another similar pub a bit further down the Road is charging £1 a pint, you wouldn't go to most expensive...

Edited on by BAMozzy

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

SoulChimera

BAMozzy wrote:

I bet if one pub is charging £10 a pint, and another similar pub a bit further down the Road is charging £1 a pint, you wouldn't go to most expensive...

The happy hour prices are around £8 a pint. £10 is pretty average. It goes to about £12.50.

So yeah, £20 on 3 hours is great entertainment value for me. Haha.

SoulChimera

BAMozzy

@SoulChimera All I can say is 'OUCH!!'. I haven't been to a pub for 8-10yrs now so I can't comment on current prices but that sounds steep.

The point I was making though is that I compare like for like. If the majority of games I buy were offering £5-10 per hour, I would not be buying many games - certainly not 'new'. I am not going to compare a 'game' with a night out with mates. I would compare the price of 'X' game compared to price of 'Y' game and the respective cost per hour.

If I have say £40 a month to buy a 'game', I wouldn't buy the one that lasts a wet afternoon if I can buy a game that lasts me the whole month (or more). I wouldn't spend £20 on a 3hr game when I could buy a game like the Witcher 3 for the same money and get 150hrs + for that money. If that 3hr game is 'fantastic' for those '3hrs' I still wouldn't buy until it drops down in price to a point I am willing to pay. Chances are that a 3hr game, with little replay value, will be available in the 2nd hand market very soon after release. Now I prefer to buy 'new' but I wouldn't pay £20 to support devs/publishers who are not making substantial games. If the 2nd hand market does become flooded, chances are you will see the new copies dropping quickly in price so I would wait until its in a bargain bin and spend my £20 on a game that keeps me entertained and happy for the foreseeable future.

If Sony want PSVR to succeed, they can't just keep releasing over-priced tech demo's or 'mini' versions of a game. Its no different from Sony just releasing 'indie' games but charging AAA prices for the PS5. I know that people would still buy the new console in the hope that things improve and/or just because its Sony but a lot will hold off until they start making and selling AAA games at AAA prices.

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

SoulChimera

Yeah, I get what you are saying. That's what I was trying to get across in my original post. Price is hard to comment on as it depends on each persons views of value or financial position.

SoulChimera

  • Page 1 of 1

This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.