-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Borderlands 2 VR timed exclusive to PSVR for 5 months
- Thread starter Deleted member 8408
- Start date
A cursory Google search suggests no, but it just seems highly unlikely to me that Sony went to the trouble of securing temporary exclusivity without first doing its due diligence and ascertaining whether it actually needed to.
Last edited:
Then why on earth would Sony have paid for an exclusivity deal?
Probably what happened, it's also a matter of resource too unless they outsource it. There's also how niche VR users are and how many didn't buy RE7 when it was on sale dirt cheap a couple of times already.
Add it to the list of RE7, Batman VR, Nioh, Nier Automata, etc that Sony have paid to keep off PC or make invisible long enough that people buy the PS4 version instead. I wonder why they don't get as much flak for this practice as Microsoft did when they paid to keep Tomb Raider off the PS4.
I'd hazard a guess its more the expectation a year on for PC users to get a free VR version (which would be the expectation given PSVR). That Capcom wouldn't invest the resources to do it. RE7 VR for PC won't happen unless VR explodes, and then Capcom will do a VR version and charge as an individual product.
I'm strangely ok with VR timed exclusivity deals if it encourages devs to develop more VR games asduming Sony/Oculus help a bit financially. Tho it sucks in cases like RE7 if they don't bother to release it after the exclusivity ends.
Sony doesn't care about VR, they care about PSVR and Playstation as a whole.
Personally, while bought timed exclusivity is always a bit shitty, in this particular case, i don't see the big deal. We're talking about Borderlands 2 - a game with a possibly larger install base than Skyrim that's been released ages ago, re released / ported on several platforms, a game that pretty much everyone has in their Steam library.
So - in this particular case - i guess people will survive the wait.
On the other hand, i welcome Sony actually putting some effort / money behind their Platform.
I recently moved apartment, which gave me more space for roomy TV furniture but also more space to do VR shit in front of the TV. I just bought Beat Saber and SuperHot a few days ago and those are some fantastic experiences. So, personally, I appreciate Sony 'stimulating' the PSVR library of games.
In the end, we don't know the exact nature of those deals. Who knows - maybe Sony's incentive was what made the whole port "Borderlands 2 to VR endeavour" even viable / attractive in the first place and they wouldn't have done it if Sony didn't chip in for some temporary exclusivity.
Neither do we really know sales figures of games on these platforms, do we? Like - has there been any VR game that has been released on all platforms at the same time where a sales breakdown was shared?
Last edited:
You're both coming from the position that RE7 would've supported VR no matter what when I don't think that's the case. Like Kalentan said, I don't think RE7 would've supported VR at all if Sony hadn't helped fund it. Sony needed to attract third party support to try and get PSVR off the ground in Japan and I think games like RE7, Ace Combat, FFXV Monster of the Deep, KH VR and so on are the result of those efforts.
You would be surprised. VR is an enthusiast market at this point and enthusiasts tend to buy more than one platform.
Because they know people react differently when it's Sony securing them.
this, the demanded price and the fact that it has no DLCs baked in makes this game a no buy for me anyways...what are they thinking?
And we didnt knew until 2 weeks before release.
Let's be honest real, Sony gets a pass here where others got flack.
Where is the source that says it's a 5-month timed exclusive ?
Edit : found this tweet: https://twitter.com/Borderlands/status/1049642944192438272 and small prints in the trailer
Edit : found this tweet: https://twitter.com/Borderlands/status/1049642944192438272 and small prints in the trailer
I think it's very possible Sony contributed to development, but even assuming that was the case, it just brings us back around to "Why was there temporary exclusivity?", and I would submit the logical reason is that Capcom had intended on releasing the VR mode on PC (the only other platform RE7 is on that is capable of supporting VR).
I am really disappointed with the lack of DLC. Especially if it ends up like Skyrim, where the DLC was not only not included, but never released for VR. I have read that you can simply manually add them to the folder on the PC and they work, but I am not sure if it is true.
I played Borderlands to completion 2 times but I never gotten into the DLC, so I was hoping to experience something fresh in VR...
I played Borderlands to completion 2 times but I never gotten into the DLC, so I was hoping to experience something fresh in VR...
See the second part about making them invisible. Nier was announced as coming to PC and then Square immediately went dark about the PC version for months until very shortly before release. They even said they could not talk about a version of the game they were releasing.
Well, you answered yourself. Because VR is so niche, it's very risky to launch a VR game. It's better if you have a financial backing from someone before the game is launched. Sony, in this case.
In other words, I don't think they are doing because Gearbox just love Sony, but because they were paid by Sony.
VR is a bit different to 'normal' content production. Independent VR production seems to be struggling at the moment. I'm not sure this content would exist without partnering from platform holders.
In terms of broader VR promotion, would people prefer if platform holders sat on their hands while independent VR development disappeared? It's precisely because VR is in its infancy, and adoption slower than expected, that deals like this might be required to materialize content at all. It may be a question of better late than never, and for VR as a whole, it's better this content is coming on a staggered scheduled than not at all.
Now if it was coming anyway, and Sony swooped in, then there might be cause for complaint. But with the environment around the VR business right now, I wouldn't be sure that was the case at all.
I'll go a little further and say, Sony has been doing a lot to keep VR 'relevant' as of late, and away from a slow roll to irrelevance. This idea that they're hurting VR as a whole... nah, that doesn't wash. They're probably the best single promoter of the technology right now.
In terms of broader VR promotion, would people prefer if platform holders sat on their hands while independent VR development disappeared? It's precisely because VR is in its infancy, and adoption slower than expected, that deals like this might be required to materialize content at all. It may be a question of better late than never, and for VR as a whole, it's better this content is coming on a staggered scheduled than not at all.
Now if it was coming anyway, and Sony swooped in, then there might be cause for complaint. But with the environment around the VR business right now, I wouldn't be sure that was the case at all.
I'll go a little further and say, Sony has been doing a lot to keep VR 'relevant' as of late, and away from a slow roll to irrelevance. This idea that they're hurting VR as a whole... nah, that doesn't wash. They're probably the best single promoter of the technology right now.
Save for buying exclusive content, what did they do ?
Because for mass adoption, I see something like Oculus Quest being a far better initiative.
As a whole, Valve is doing more with SteamVR and their input Api.
I think there are two main reasons. First, there are more ps4 owners out there than xb1 owners, so a period of exclusivity in favor of the ps4 affects less people negatively. Second, they are pretty sly about making those deals in a way that doesn't attract as much attention. In many cases of potential moneyhatting we never learn the details of the arrangement or if a deal was ever made in the first place.
Sony presumably didn't pay enough for full exclusivity but just because they didn't, doesn't necessarily mean Capcom had immediate plans to bring it to PC, it just means they're keeping the door open. And based on the lack of Oculus/Vive support so far, over 10 months since the exclusivity deal ended, or even an official statement about, I doubt they're interested in doing it. I do think that would change if Oculus or Vive suddenly blew up in popularity though.
My underlying point is that there must have been a reason exclusivity was a concern for Sony, and the only one that makes sense to me is that Capcom envisioned the VR mode as multiplatform.
Last edited:
The vast majority of VR games are multiplatform across Steam, the Oculus Store, PSN, the Windows store and smaller places like Itch.io. The majority of PSN PSVR titles can also be found on Steam and the Oculus store, there are only a handful PS4 exclusive VR titles (including otherwise multiplat Aim titles), easily dwarfed by the number of exclusives on the OS and Steam each. New smaller scale VR games just kinda drop in all the time on PC.
The only difference is that the PSN exclusives are more likely be 'AAA'-esque experiences with all of the marketing thrown at them.
Not sure if you know how the world works OP, but it's probably so Sony can sell more hardware units. Just like with everything else that is exclusive? And maybe they helped with funding/marketing?
When the quality is very good, I have no problem with the price.
No DLC is a bummer but when I remember right, the game has a lot of content.
Maybe the DLC is coming later...
OP
OP
I don't know how the world works because I dare to question a C tier console exclusivity deal?
Alrighty then.
Then surely its even more risky to release the game on just one platform?
Used to work at Oculus and Sony collaborates and shares with Oculus and others on VR.
They have done a lot to move VR to mainstream and admitted they were uncomfortable leading with sales. I was actually shocked how low Oculus sales were in comparison as I assumed they would be much higher.
Sony most likely paid to help get development greenlit as they have made huge investments in VR for years, just because other companies don't share the state of internal research they are doing doesn't mean they haven't invested millions in helping forward a medium.
The time between ports would likely exist anyway for better quality as PSVR requires specific work compared to PC VR. Job Sim developers did a talk on the changes they made for PSVR as well as other developers. You have to remember VR is still new and only a few developers actually have multi platform VR experience making these projects a huge risk. Sony also has internal studios who have years of PSVR experience that can assist 3rd party developers, this type of help is priceless, Oculus would do the same.
As far as the newer Oculus device, I was part of a team working on content for that and watched 3rd party developers struggle along with us to port experiences as we shared knowledge and helped iterate as the final hardware specs were decided. I personally felt depending on the game and what quality level the developers valued not everything made sense to port given effort required, sacrifices which had to be made from a full on oculus version and the questionable install base.
They have done a lot to move VR to mainstream and admitted they were uncomfortable leading with sales. I was actually shocked how low Oculus sales were in comparison as I assumed they would be much higher.
Sony most likely paid to help get development greenlit as they have made huge investments in VR for years, just because other companies don't share the state of internal research they are doing doesn't mean they haven't invested millions in helping forward a medium.
The time between ports would likely exist anyway for better quality as PSVR requires specific work compared to PC VR. Job Sim developers did a talk on the changes they made for PSVR as well as other developers. You have to remember VR is still new and only a few developers actually have multi platform VR experience making these projects a huge risk. Sony also has internal studios who have years of PSVR experience that can assist 3rd party developers, this type of help is priceless, Oculus would do the same.
As far as the newer Oculus device, I was part of a team working on content for that and watched 3rd party developers struggle along with us to port experiences as we shared knowledge and helped iterate as the final hardware specs were decided. I personally felt depending on the game and what quality level the developers valued not everything made sense to port given effort required, sacrifices which had to be made from a full on oculus version and the questionable install base.
who gives a crap about an old game in VR enough to push for timed exclusivity? Sony, your decisions in VR literally dont make any sense
Dunno. I killed my VR project after Oculus made the Rift a Windows exclusive. The DK2 worked fine on Linux, then nope fuck you we're Windows only now. It was around that time all the VR solutions suddenly decided to play cold war with various amounts of exclusivity and platform support after being a generally cross-platform target.
Hate the stupid attempts at exclusivity.
Last edited:
Maybe it's the circles we swim in, but in terms of general chat here and elsewhere, recently, with AstroBot, Tetris Effect, it feels like the most interest I've seen around VR in a while. (And while we can talk about things like that as 'bought content' - investing in appealing content is doing something pretty important!). I see mass media ads for PSVR. It feels like a second push, just when things seemed to be going off the radar a bit for VR. But again, that's a subjective experience.
However it's an adjunct to the point about VR content - this is fertile ground for platform-holder-subsidised content. They're not necessarily all poached after the fact.
They're not quite doing that, it will sell on more platforms later - but it can be worth going into a deal, and it can take the risk out of a project, if you're being advanced $ for it. It would not surprise me if some of these modes and projects were being subsidised.
Didn't they do a 'weird' Vita Borderlands deal too? They probably just have a good existing relationship there, and sometimes that's all it takes.
Honestly I don't see a reason for doing this in the VR space. Sony's only VR competition is on PC, not Xbox.
Is this the same case with Tetris?
Is this the same case with Tetris?
New low? What if this deal is the only thing that enabled the game to be made in the first place?
Microsoft announcing High Fidelity VR for Xbox months before the launch of PSVR—despite not having concrete plans to execute it beyond rolling out Todd Howard in a stage video—in order to slow or torpedo Sony's own VR plans, and by extension VR adoption rates in general, is a true low point for the industry GHG.
Timed exclusivity by comparison is a standard industry practice embraced by all platform holders. It's a risk chiefly to the two parties who make those deals.
Maybe it's time we revisited this topic and offered Sony some praise for a change, since they are the only ones attempting to advance the technology in the console space while their main competitor pooh-poohs from the sidelines.
Last edited:
Is this only for PC?
Because I played Skyrim VR on PSVR and all the DLC was included (Dawnguard etc).
psvr is competing against pcvr, not everybody wants to spend a combined total of $600+ for both headsets
for what it's worth i own a psvr simply because i wanted to play skyrim over last year's holiday break
My point is I don't think that was ever the case, that the exclusivity was the result of Sony helping to fund the game. The lack of Oculus/Vive support after the exclusive deal ended is probably down to Capcom not being interested in supporting them, in the same way a lot of Japanese publishers used to not be interested in supporting the PC in general. I also think Capcom would change their minds if Oculus/Vive had larger install bases (or if Oculus made a deal with them to fund the port).
Source? Cause that's not true from what I understand. VR was obviously taken into account at an early stage but the devs made it clear RE7 was a first person game before VR entered the frame.
This is a really interesting post, thanks for the insight.
When all VR gaming devices (obviously not counting phones) reach a couple million units sold in total after years of crazy hype, what this tech definitely needs is exclusivity deals on full-priced VR versions of last-gen games with less content than before. I even like Borderlands 2, bought it day one back in the day, but I can't imagine people rushing out buying PSVRs just to be able to play it again in VR, especially when they even have to rebuy the game.
OP
OP
Thank you for the insight. This is the kind of information I was looking for.
Seems like Sony is using borderlands as extra incentive. They have new psvr bundle with borderlands vr and beatsaber. Similar strategy with Moss/Astrobot bundle and Creed/Superhot bundle.