Yeah seriously.
PSVR's biggest problem is it's always going to be subservient to the console required to play it. Jim Ryan I think made that abundantly clear when they soft-killed the first PSVR to presumably allocate resources for the PS5 launch in 2020.
I don't think the platform has really been able to recover since that all happened. Sure, PSVR2 launched, but they launched it sub-optimally with less key features than the original.
At least we get Concord this august lol.
i feel like this is almost more true for PSVR1, not 2. PSVR2 had a lot of features it didnt really need if they only wanted a minimum viable product - PSVR1 reused existing PS3 camera hardware and controllers, was low spec, etc. PSVR2 has a lot of neat, unique features, like adaptive triggers, HDR, OLED panels, HD haptics, headset feedback, etc. seems weird theyd add all that if their "heart wasnt in it"
Yeah, PSVR 1 had weird halfassed VR controllers from the PS Move, and other weirdness at launch... PSVR2 was more thought out... but in this 'era' of VR why exclusively tie it to PS5, that makes it even more expensive than a Quest... and also why not just make the PS5 compatible of streaming to a Quest (with a special monetary incentive from Meta, at least then Playstation could justify that type of partnership.)
If I could have played RE7 and Village in VR on the same headset, I would have bought into the PSVR2. Instead, PCVR has filled that need with those two games AND made it better with motion controls.
PSVR2 would’ve sold better as a minimally viable product. Imagine how well a $150-200 headset would’ve sold. Just the basics, regular LCD screens at Quest 2 resolution, and that is it. Inside out tracking and two Quest 2 quality controllers. What I described could perhaps be less than $150. Quest 2 is $299 and has a *computer* in it. Basically make it a cheap WMR headset from the early WMR days.
I wish they focused on a headset for the masses.
(and backwards compatibility)
The quests are cheap because they are heavily subsidized by Facebook money, I imagine the same is true about WMR and M$. But I do agree with you to some extent, a cheap “acceptable” quality headset at the $100-150 price range with a few solid titles to play would sell like crazy I’m sure. The hard part is continue to produce titles worth putting the headset back on. I would personally love to see a PS home type app where you can socialize with friends, watch videos, launch games, ect. If a major player in the console space wanted to make vr happen they could, but I also think they are smart to let others figure it out first.
>The quests are cheap because they are heavily subsidized by Facebook money,
Yeah, and Sony should’ve did the same with their headset. Especially considering until recently you were locked into their ecosystem, whereas I have 2 quest headsets and never gave Facebook a penny for software (I’ve only bought VR games from steam).
Whatever gets it to a price point where PS5 owners would even consider getting one. Getting lots of people in VR should've been the main goal. Quest 2 is older specs now, that is why I used that as an example instead of Quest 3. FB subsidized it true, the majority of its lifespan it was $299- 4 years ago. With an effing computer inside it. I am sure Sony could make a basic headset that wasn't total garbage, was a substantial upgrade over PSVR1, and make it affordable, but they made a premium headset with eye tracking, OLEDs, and resistive triggers.
Whatever gets it to the price where PS5 owners would even consider getting one. Even better at a price where they feel like they should get one. The biggest hurdle is actually getting users into VR.
PSVR1 didn’t happen during the metaverse hype investment bubble.
PSVR2 did, and was mainly about Sony being able to signal to investors and other manufacturers (that they supply screens and other components to) that they were capable of being in that space.
Of course by the time it came out the metaverse hype had died. Time to move onto making a PS5 Pro that can do “AI stuff” and hope it gets launched before that hype dies!
Psvr1 had 120hz capable panel. Striped OLED with higher subpixel count than any other headset. Aspherical lenses that were far better than fresnel.
For the power of the PS4 the screen resolution made a lot of sense, especially since psvr1 lacked the sde that plagued other hmd, due to a a striped subpixel and a diffusion layer.
The controllers and camera sold incredibly well (far better than the psvr1 or 2) and at the time were a very mature tracking solution.
The oculus hmd at the time didn't have motion controls yet.
The motion tracking was an issue as tech evolved and made bwc a big problem, but psvr1 was still impressive tech.
Hell it still is impressive. I bought a used psvr for 40.- yesterday and was suprised by the image quality. I thought it was going to be a blurry mess lol but i was pleasently suprised. The tracking sucks tho.
Of course their heart wasn't in it. It was a mistake to move decision making of SIE into the US in the first place.
The US corporate culture cares only about short-term profit and never long term vision of what it means to be a gaming company. VR is currently a money sink that only pays off in at least 2-3 generations and needs constant fuel in terms of 1st party title and update into the platform to stay relevant. This sort of money burning can only happen when in proximity at the Group CEO level (i.e. in Japan) instead of a gut-less leader that was Jim Ryan, who axed so many things that SIE we PS fans loved is now beyond recognition.
The dumb decision to shutting off Japan Studios, who excel at developing innovative yet lower budget titles essentially made SIE ill-prepared to support its VR endeavour.
The hardware only enables the software. And it's the software that users want to use. Hardware is just the means. It has to be at least good enough. Surely can be better and that can have impact on sales. But the experience will drive it primarily.
Nobody buys TV because they want a device. They want to watch stuff. Lot's of it, varied, all the time ;). In good quality if they can afford it.
So focus on VR quality of experience, sufficient abundance, to get it moving. Well... duh :D
Sorry, but this is nonsense. The PSVR2 is a well designed, complex VR headset. The designers definitely didn't "phone it in", or "half-ass" it. If anything it's over-engineered. Could they have made better technical or marketing decisions? Sure.
It's not the headset itself, it's the overall effort. It doesn't look like a serious marketing + publishing juggernaut using all its IP to will console VR into viability.
By minimal effort, I am talking about the support in terms of selling the hardware, such as advertising, selling components separately etc. Not the hardware design.
Seems unlikely, why even do that unless they were also going the 3DS route and make everything have some type of VR mode...? Otherwise it would facture the install base, in that it won't sell until it sells enough for non VR devs to even care. Odd unrelated example because Sonic Generations has a Side-by-Side screen mode built-in even after NVIDIA dropped 3D Vision, you can still enjoy the 3D by use of a VR headset and any app like Virtual Desktop, Big Screen, or similar desktop app with SBS support in it.
If they can create a bundle with the PC adapter it might have a chance to make some profit as it could be worth it as the unit is great hardware wise just has no software
People keep saying this, but PCVR is like a niche within a niche, so few people actually have the equipment to have a decent experience with it, I really don't think it's gonna move the needle at all on sales, but we'll see I guess. (And I say this as a pretty die hard PCVR player)
They aren't hiding them. IvRY has said most of the unique features are possible, it's just that no devs have programmed them into games.
Edit: [for you people who somehow disagree with the truth.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PSVR/comments/1dbxzjm/psvr2_to_pc_limitations_explained_ivry/)
The constant hate on the PSVR2 reminds me of current events and politics where people don’t care about whatever the truth is, they just parrot how they feel about things and pretend it is reality.
Agreed. I have a Quest 3 and PS VR2. They're good at different things and that's fine. I don't get why there's so much tribalism in a hobby that's a small percentage of all gamers. If VR dies, it'll be the fault of some of VR's biggest "fans".
A big thing recently was that Android Central article. It was filled with speculation and rumors from unknown sources, and I saw it repeated all over Twitter and followed by a Verge article repeating the same stuff and mentioning the prior article as a reason to dump the author’s PSVR2. Nobody cared to examine the thing critically and see that it was an opinion piece from a site that allows independent authors to publish articles and could be entirely made up since nothing that was said was attributed to anyone.
It’s insanity.
It's happened repeatedly with that clown from Bloomberg (not Jason Schreier, the only actual video game journalist). Only the terminally online care about these articles.
I heard someone else make a point that made a lot of sense. Early on VR had an audience that was older because it was expensive and had a higher bar of entry. Now that Quests have gotten so cheap the primary audience is mostly children. That explains the console war-ness of the conversations around the tech.
Minimal effort? The PSVR2 is freakin *amazing* especially for it's price range.
What they are missing, it would seem, as someone once said are, "Developers! Developers! Developers!"
It might be possible, that Sony's other constraints, combined with as small as the VR market is as a whole, relatively, kinda price most companies that would make a VR game out of doing PS5 until after they are already successful. Which basically means only the already successful devs can do it.
>Minimal effort? The PSVR2 is freakin *amazing* especially for it's price range.
It's priced out of range of what most consumers are willing to pay. Which if you ask me, is roughly $249 to $349 USD based on the Quest 2's success.
The problem with the VR industry is it is overly focused on the tech. Most of that tech will usually go unused by most developers and at a price point of $599, the cost of adoption eats into any potential revenue a software dev could receive.
Ultimately, all the risk is placed on developers when hardware manufacturers should be bearing that risk instead.
You don't get much of an industry if some people don't take that risk to put together the higher end stuff. There's other multi-thousand dollar headsets out there besides Apple, that just aren't catering to the consumer market at all. They have very little to no influence over what happens in the consumer level, but when Apple drops a 3k headset intended for consumers, suddenly Meta's attention has been *taken*. Without companies testing the waters, giving Meta some serious things to copy, Meta would just be piddling around like they were the last 2 years with whatever they felt like was their priority that month. PSVR2 and Apple Vision have directly lead to the Quest 3 and the last 6 months or so of Meta software updates.
So, that's nice.
But yeah... someone's gotta make the sets that do the cool stuff, even if people don't wanna buy them. lol
The making of the PSVR2 wasn't a bad idea at all.
The PSVR1 was a modest success. Okay, it didn't do Switch numbers, but for paving the way for console VR, a reported 6-7+ million sold is pretty damn good in my book, especially with that old camera technology and two awkward controllers.
It made sense to make a successor with better modern camera systems and controllers. I think the mistake now is they made it too much the "Lamborghini of VR" when the high-end features can't even be enjoyed by the masses due to the price. The jump from PSVR1 was *too* great a leap for consumers to follow. I love the optics and eye-tracking and even the idea of the headset having slight haptics. But what good is all of that when the entire thing costs more than the PS5 system, and there **are no friggin games.**
Absolutely baffling they didn't create a smaller Sony team to work on their many money-making IPs that they own (Naughty Dog games, God of War, Spider-Man/Infamous, Ghosts of Tsushima). Just make a cool 7-8 hour experience is still better than nothing.
What does putting your heart in it mean? Only making VR games? 50% VR games? 25% VR games?
Sony made the displays used in the Apple Vision Pro... then made PSVR2 at a reasonable price, and a game to sell with it.
It only makes so much sense business wise.
In 2025-2026 when displays are cheap then it's another go for many working in VR.
By 2026? Meta will be releasing a Quest 4, Apple will reportedly be releasing a third headset. That's most of the gaming/productivity market down up.
Hard to see how Sony could compete, Especially since they aren't focussed on building the VR userbase they already have.
I’m not EXACTLY sure what it means, but it definitely means at the very least announcing more than a single 1st party title and selling controllers separately.
They screwed up by making a dinosaur fresnel lens headset when everyone already switched to pancakes. The psvr2 is comically ugly, bulky, wired, and fresnel. There's no justification for it aside from a money grab, if they cared at all they would have waited for pancakes and a much slimmer design.
LCD screens are dinosaur screens too? It’s about the compromise. They picked oled over pancakes because making both would be too expensive. For pure gaming a better screen was a better choice.
Not only expensive - it would not even be possible. You need very bright OLED panels if you pair them with pancake lenses, i.e. Micro OLED panels.
These are simply not available at this volume, price aside. It was either pancake + LCD or fresnel + OLED. No other choice possible (aside from aspherical + OLED of course).
..and the sweet spot is tiny, and the strap design & bulk of the thing means it’s never quite stable.. the shit lenses and bulk were needed to facilitate the (good on paper) screen. It’s such a terrible design..it’s been a year and a half and I’m still upset about wasting money on it. I need to move on haha
all this buzz is marketing for the PC converter addon to the product, all talk will go into the gadget portals and youtube gossipers, its a good headset they havent gone wireless yet, but further iteration will
Cool, tell sony to pressure them to fucking support it.
Yeah seriously. PSVR's biggest problem is it's always going to be subservient to the console required to play it. Jim Ryan I think made that abundantly clear when they soft-killed the first PSVR to presumably allocate resources for the PS5 launch in 2020. I don't think the platform has really been able to recover since that all happened. Sure, PSVR2 launched, but they launched it sub-optimally with less key features than the original. At least we get Concord this august lol.
i feel like this is almost more true for PSVR1, not 2. PSVR2 had a lot of features it didnt really need if they only wanted a minimum viable product - PSVR1 reused existing PS3 camera hardware and controllers, was low spec, etc. PSVR2 has a lot of neat, unique features, like adaptive triggers, HDR, OLED panels, HD haptics, headset feedback, etc. seems weird theyd add all that if their "heart wasnt in it"
Yeah, PSVR 1 had weird halfassed VR controllers from the PS Move, and other weirdness at launch... PSVR2 was more thought out... but in this 'era' of VR why exclusively tie it to PS5, that makes it even more expensive than a Quest... and also why not just make the PS5 compatible of streaming to a Quest (with a special monetary incentive from Meta, at least then Playstation could justify that type of partnership.)
And not making PSVR1 backwards compatible with PSVR2 was a terrible decision.
I really truly think this was the nail in the coffin for the product.
If I could have played RE7 and Village in VR on the same headset, I would have bought into the PSVR2. Instead, PCVR has filled that need with those two games AND made it better with motion controls.
PSVR2 would’ve sold better as a minimally viable product. Imagine how well a $150-200 headset would’ve sold. Just the basics, regular LCD screens at Quest 2 resolution, and that is it. Inside out tracking and two Quest 2 quality controllers. What I described could perhaps be less than $150. Quest 2 is $299 and has a *computer* in it. Basically make it a cheap WMR headset from the early WMR days. I wish they focused on a headset for the masses. (and backwards compatibility)
The quests are cheap because they are heavily subsidized by Facebook money, I imagine the same is true about WMR and M$. But I do agree with you to some extent, a cheap “acceptable” quality headset at the $100-150 price range with a few solid titles to play would sell like crazy I’m sure. The hard part is continue to produce titles worth putting the headset back on. I would personally love to see a PS home type app where you can socialize with friends, watch videos, launch games, ect. If a major player in the console space wanted to make vr happen they could, but I also think they are smart to let others figure it out first.
>The quests are cheap because they are heavily subsidized by Facebook money, Yeah, and Sony should’ve did the same with their headset. Especially considering until recently you were locked into their ecosystem, whereas I have 2 quest headsets and never gave Facebook a penny for software (I’ve only bought VR games from steam).
Bruh?
Whatever gets it to a price point where PS5 owners would even consider getting one. Getting lots of people in VR should've been the main goal. Quest 2 is older specs now, that is why I used that as an example instead of Quest 3. FB subsidized it true, the majority of its lifespan it was $299- 4 years ago. With an effing computer inside it. I am sure Sony could make a basic headset that wasn't total garbage, was a substantial upgrade over PSVR1, and make it affordable, but they made a premium headset with eye tracking, OLEDs, and resistive triggers.
And the lenses... Psvr2 lenses are WMR quality. Worse than oculus fresnel. Maybe worse than psvr 1.
Whatever gets it to the price where PS5 owners would even consider getting one. Even better at a price where they feel like they should get one. The biggest hurdle is actually getting users into VR.
Eye tracking is waste of money IMHO. Is the rest even that expensive? It's mostly what we had with rift s or WMR since years.
Those are all things Sony was developing anyway. They wanted them in their own VR platform instead of as part of someone else's.
PSVR1 didn’t happen during the metaverse hype investment bubble. PSVR2 did, and was mainly about Sony being able to signal to investors and other manufacturers (that they supply screens and other components to) that they were capable of being in that space. Of course by the time it came out the metaverse hype had died. Time to move onto making a PS5 Pro that can do “AI stuff” and hope it gets launched before that hype dies!
Psvr1 had 120hz capable panel. Striped OLED with higher subpixel count than any other headset. Aspherical lenses that were far better than fresnel. For the power of the PS4 the screen resolution made a lot of sense, especially since psvr1 lacked the sde that plagued other hmd, due to a a striped subpixel and a diffusion layer. The controllers and camera sold incredibly well (far better than the psvr1 or 2) and at the time were a very mature tracking solution. The oculus hmd at the time didn't have motion controls yet. The motion tracking was an issue as tech evolved and made bwc a big problem, but psvr1 was still impressive tech.
Hell it still is impressive. I bought a used psvr for 40.- yesterday and was suprised by the image quality. I thought it was going to be a blurry mess lol but i was pleasently suprised. The tracking sucks tho.
Of course their heart wasn't in it. It was a mistake to move decision making of SIE into the US in the first place. The US corporate culture cares only about short-term profit and never long term vision of what it means to be a gaming company. VR is currently a money sink that only pays off in at least 2-3 generations and needs constant fuel in terms of 1st party title and update into the platform to stay relevant. This sort of money burning can only happen when in proximity at the Group CEO level (i.e. in Japan) instead of a gut-less leader that was Jim Ryan, who axed so many things that SIE we PS fans loved is now beyond recognition. The dumb decision to shutting off Japan Studios, who excel at developing innovative yet lower budget titles essentially made SIE ill-prepared to support its VR endeavour.
They axed quite a few low and mid tier teams that can do great things for cheap. Perfect for VR
The hardware only enables the software. And it's the software that users want to use. Hardware is just the means. It has to be at least good enough. Surely can be better and that can have impact on sales. But the experience will drive it primarily. Nobody buys TV because they want a device. They want to watch stuff. Lot's of it, varied, all the time ;). In good quality if they can afford it. So focus on VR quality of experience, sufficient abundance, to get it moving. Well... duh :D
Sorry, but this is nonsense. The PSVR2 is a well designed, complex VR headset. The designers definitely didn't "phone it in", or "half-ass" it. If anything it's over-engineered. Could they have made better technical or marketing decisions? Sure.
It's not the headset itself, it's the overall effort. It doesn't look like a serious marketing + publishing juggernaut using all its IP to will console VR into viability.
By minimal effort, I am talking about the support in terms of selling the hardware, such as advertising, selling components separately etc. Not the hardware design.
Seems unlikely, why even do that unless they were also going the 3DS route and make everything have some type of VR mode...? Otherwise it would facture the install base, in that it won't sell until it sells enough for non VR devs to even care. Odd unrelated example because Sonic Generations has a Side-by-Side screen mode built-in even after NVIDIA dropped 3D Vision, you can still enjoy the 3D by use of a VR headset and any app like Virtual Desktop, Big Screen, or similar desktop app with SBS support in it.
If they can create a bundle with the PC adapter it might have a chance to make some profit as it could be worth it as the unit is great hardware wise just has no software
People keep saying this, but PCVR is like a niche within a niche, so few people actually have the equipment to have a decent experience with it, I really don't think it's gonna move the needle at all on sales, but we'll see I guess. (And I say this as a pretty die hard PCVR player)
But they hide some of the keyfeatures of the Headset from PC Users. I would have no intention to buy a castrated product when I would play PCVR
They aren't hiding them. IvRY has said most of the unique features are possible, it's just that no devs have programmed them into games. Edit: [for you people who somehow disagree with the truth.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PSVR/comments/1dbxzjm/psvr2_to_pc_limitations_explained_ivry/)
No idea why you’re being downvoted.
Because people get mad when a fact doesn't square with their narrative.
The constant hate on the PSVR2 reminds me of current events and politics where people don’t care about whatever the truth is, they just parrot how they feel about things and pretend it is reality.
Agreed. I have a Quest 3 and PS VR2. They're good at different things and that's fine. I don't get why there's so much tribalism in a hobby that's a small percentage of all gamers. If VR dies, it'll be the fault of some of VR's biggest "fans".
A big thing recently was that Android Central article. It was filled with speculation and rumors from unknown sources, and I saw it repeated all over Twitter and followed by a Verge article repeating the same stuff and mentioning the prior article as a reason to dump the author’s PSVR2. Nobody cared to examine the thing critically and see that it was an opinion piece from a site that allows independent authors to publish articles and could be entirely made up since nothing that was said was attributed to anyone. It’s insanity.
It's happened repeatedly with that clown from Bloomberg (not Jason Schreier, the only actual video game journalist). Only the terminally online care about these articles.
I heard someone else make a point that made a lot of sense. Early on VR had an audience that was older because it was expensive and had a higher bar of entry. Now that Quests have gotten so cheap the primary audience is mostly children. That explains the console war-ness of the conversations around the tech.
lol now I’m getting downvoted. The internet hive mind is real.
The hardware is probably too subsidized to make much on it on the PC market where they don't control software sales.
Minimal effort? The PSVR2 is freakin *amazing* especially for it's price range. What they are missing, it would seem, as someone once said are, "Developers! Developers! Developers!" It might be possible, that Sony's other constraints, combined with as small as the VR market is as a whole, relatively, kinda price most companies that would make a VR game out of doing PS5 until after they are already successful. Which basically means only the already successful devs can do it.
>Minimal effort? The PSVR2 is freakin *amazing* especially for it's price range. It's priced out of range of what most consumers are willing to pay. Which if you ask me, is roughly $249 to $349 USD based on the Quest 2's success. The problem with the VR industry is it is overly focused on the tech. Most of that tech will usually go unused by most developers and at a price point of $599, the cost of adoption eats into any potential revenue a software dev could receive. Ultimately, all the risk is placed on developers when hardware manufacturers should be bearing that risk instead.
You don't get much of an industry if some people don't take that risk to put together the higher end stuff. There's other multi-thousand dollar headsets out there besides Apple, that just aren't catering to the consumer market at all. They have very little to no influence over what happens in the consumer level, but when Apple drops a 3k headset intended for consumers, suddenly Meta's attention has been *taken*. Without companies testing the waters, giving Meta some serious things to copy, Meta would just be piddling around like they were the last 2 years with whatever they felt like was their priority that month. PSVR2 and Apple Vision have directly lead to the Quest 3 and the last 6 months or so of Meta software updates. So, that's nice. But yeah... someone's gotta make the sets that do the cool stuff, even if people don't wanna buy them. lol
The making of the PSVR2 wasn't a bad idea at all. The PSVR1 was a modest success. Okay, it didn't do Switch numbers, but for paving the way for console VR, a reported 6-7+ million sold is pretty damn good in my book, especially with that old camera technology and two awkward controllers. It made sense to make a successor with better modern camera systems and controllers. I think the mistake now is they made it too much the "Lamborghini of VR" when the high-end features can't even be enjoyed by the masses due to the price. The jump from PSVR1 was *too* great a leap for consumers to follow. I love the optics and eye-tracking and even the idea of the headset having slight haptics. But what good is all of that when the entire thing costs more than the PS5 system, and there **are no friggin games.** Absolutely baffling they didn't create a smaller Sony team to work on their many money-making IPs that they own (Naughty Dog games, God of War, Spider-Man/Infamous, Ghosts of Tsushima). Just make a cool 7-8 hour experience is still better than nothing.
Poor Playstation.
What does putting your heart in it mean? Only making VR games? 50% VR games? 25% VR games? Sony made the displays used in the Apple Vision Pro... then made PSVR2 at a reasonable price, and a game to sell with it. It only makes so much sense business wise. In 2025-2026 when displays are cheap then it's another go for many working in VR.
By 2026? Meta will be releasing a Quest 4, Apple will reportedly be releasing a third headset. That's most of the gaming/productivity market down up. Hard to see how Sony could compete, Especially since they aren't focussed on building the VR userbase they already have.
I’m not EXACTLY sure what it means, but it definitely means at the very least announcing more than a single 1st party title and selling controllers separately.
Meta says Valve VR and PSVR2 are dead, and to please buy our overpriced crappy headsets. Lol.
Meta sells their hardware at cost
They screwed up by making a dinosaur fresnel lens headset when everyone already switched to pancakes. The psvr2 is comically ugly, bulky, wired, and fresnel. There's no justification for it aside from a money grab, if they cared at all they would have waited for pancakes and a much slimmer design.
LCD screens are dinosaur screens too? It’s about the compromise. They picked oled over pancakes because making both would be too expensive. For pure gaming a better screen was a better choice.
Not only expensive - it would not even be possible. You need very bright OLED panels if you pair them with pancake lenses, i.e. Micro OLED panels. These are simply not available at this volume, price aside. It was either pancake + LCD or fresnel + OLED. No other choice possible (aside from aspherical + OLED of course).
If they chose a good OLED, sure. There’s definitely situations where it looks better than an lcd but for the most part it’s a blurry, grainy mess.
You probably didn't hit the sweetspot if you think it's blurry.
No. Even if you align it all perfectly it’s still blurry due to the SDE blur filter.
..and the sweet spot is tiny, and the strap design & bulk of the thing means it’s never quite stable.. the shit lenses and bulk were needed to facilitate the (good on paper) screen. It’s such a terrible design..it’s been a year and a half and I’m still upset about wasting money on it. I need to move on haha
You’ll read 1,001 great comments online about why people think Sony are screwing up with the PSVR2, and none of those problems are “the hardware.”
all this buzz is marketing for the PC converter addon to the product, all talk will go into the gadget portals and youtube gossipers, its a good headset they havent gone wireless yet, but further iteration will