Sony invests 1 billion into Epic Games Metaverse Development

[DaivRules]

Sony leaders would have been dumb not to jump in on this specific opportunity with these particular partners at this time. This is a huge hedge that will pay dividends for generations and would have been a significant, possibly insurmountable setback if they would have lost out on getting in when they did, in the position they did. 
 

 

[Slava]

I don't know what Epic' Metaverse is going to look like in 5-10 years. But I can say that the current idea of a “new social entertainment exploring the connection between digital and physical worlds" doesn't sound appealing to me at all. 

[DaveMcDamage]

This Metaverse thing is very odd. It does indeed remind me of the old Playstation Home feature. That could have indeed been awesome had they put decent content into it. I get where they want to take it kind of thing, much like a video game gives you the opportunity to try bizarre things beyond your real life accessibility/abilities, the Metaverse wants to expand on that. 

 

But much like Playstation home and any VR fads, it will be just that... a fad. I remember when those chatroom things first appeared. People got to talk to people from around the world and stuff, but even then people quit out to actually go socialise in the real world as the limitations of text on screen held no real connection or experience. The reason Forums have stood the test of time, is because you can say what you want then go off and do something for days on end before coming back to get back involved in the conversation. I saw one of those Youtubers doing a Metaverse video and it just looked like Playstation Home but with much less content but the ability to move your avatar and have limb movements. 

 

As a gamer, I would have much preferred SONY to invest that money into actual gaming companies like Microsoft have and maybe buy some licences etc. 

[VigilantCrow]

A fool and his money are easily parted.

[Alayaes]

A billion dollars is "test the waters" money. Not a massive commitment.

 

Better to be on the boat even if it sinks as opposed to being left at the dock when the boat ends up sailing.

Edited April 12, 2022 by Alayaes

[Cryogenicide_X]

1 billion to Epic but can't invest in getting PS3 backwards compatibility with PS5 which wouldn't cost in the billions by the way. 

[DaivRules]

10 minutes ago, Cryogenicide_X said:

1 billion to Epic but can't invest in getting PS3 backwards compatibility with PS5 which wouldn't cost in the billions by the way. 

 

Sony can afford to do both. $1 billion to have a deciding position on a project with Epic and Lego to create something that's going to pay them billions back and the ~$50-100 million it would take to implement some PS3 backward compatibility with many* PS3 games that's going to pay them back "good feelings".

 

 

 

*but certainly not all, and definitely not all the most popular AAA titles people would expect.

[JourneySilvers]

I'm not familiar with Epics Metaverse, or really any metaverse other than what Facebook showed off. 

But even without the obviously concerning bits like NFT possibilities... it just... looks really lame, tbh? What FB showed off looked awful and cringey as hell. I dont get why this is being pushed so much. It's also not exactly a new concept... plenty of websites have focused on chat rooms where you get clothing/house decorations/etc forms of customization. I dont think using VR is going to revolutionize that concept nearly as much as companies are advertising it to. 

[Eispan]

Has anyone in here have heard or have played Second Life? It was one of the pioneers who kinda perfected this Metaverse concept during its time.  It's still up and running though not as popular as when CSI: New York featured it in one of its episodes.  Playstation HOME came a few years after it, though it had good graphics it tremendously lacked the freedom to create, build products and sell them in-game compared to Second Life. All this virtual classrooms we see now were already being done back then.  There were contests where we can win prizes, collectibles and even virtual cash that can be converted back into real money through LindeX - this was even way before Bitcoin was even a thing.  When people back then talk about virtual currency they meant Linden Dollars (L$).

 

This idea of a virtual world has great potential. If you have seen the anime Summer Wars then this is what the idea of the modern Metaverse is gearing up to.  Having internet that's in gigabit speeds as standard helps realise this and it can be a lot bigger than what we've seen and known before. Back in the Second Life days copyright infringement was a huge problem with companies that own the IPs issuing cease-and-desist orders left and right, but now that the rules on this sort of thing has been laid out clear making creators more aware.  Big companies such as Ferrari, Lamborghini, Mercedes Benz etc can have their own sims and sell their own (officially branded) virtual items - a thing that seems to be easily accepted and digested nowadays, just think about those freaking NFTs that people buy.

 

Even big named fashion brands can have their own 24/7 virtual catwalk showcasing their apparel lineup and accessories, which users can then put on their avatars (that resembles the actual person more or less) so they can virtually fit the clothes and see how it would look on them...

 

... or fast food joints big and small joining in the trend where our smartphone apps will now be virtually animated (as if actually in the store) so we can order food that feels more personal and have them delivered to our home via the existing food delivery services...

 

As for education, in any case the pandemic has also shown us the importance and significance of virtual/remote/distant learning.

 

So yeah this could really blow up and I see why Sony has invested in this idea so quickly. The high streets are dying and everything is shifting online.  Just think of visiting a Playstation sim, walk into a virtual arcade and play Playstation Exclusive games on your TV, console or handheld device... a virtual showroom that showcases Sony (tech) products where we can have a three-dimensional  look at it before we make a purchase... or a virtual cinema and watch any of Sony Pictures movies - freshly premiered or even old films without having to subscribe to a streaming service while actually being in a virtual picture house with other people... or music featuring Sony Music's growing catalogue that doesn't need a Spotify account. 

 

All these that I have mentioned is just the tip of the iceberg. So yeah I believe it is a wise move by Sony to invest in this and the argument here is that it was never just about Playstation on why Sony plans to invest a $Billion into this idea - but the potential to benefit the whole company.

 

This is surely going to improve and look far much better than what we currently have simply because of the power and capabilities of Epic's Unreal Engine can offer. No one can argue with that, even Hollywood cannot escape the lure of UE5+. It's a wise move on what Sony did here if you ask me.

 

If the news was that PLAYSTATION had invested US$1B into this then THAT IS INDEED A VERY STUPID MOVE.... but it is SONY as a company who is investing so in my opinion and I am sure most of us in here would agree that this is well within a sensible business decision made.

 

Let us put this all into a simplier context. Who among us in here initially thought that it was STUPID of Google to have bought YouTube for US$1.65 billion? Aye count me in, I thought Google was crazy for doing that BUT look at YouTube now, worth many times more than what they paid for and the money is still raking in for the company... I'm sure the crazy ones here were probabably Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim because they could have sold it for a lot more - with hindsight that is.

 

 

Edited April 13, 2022 by Eispan

[starcrunch061]

10 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

I get what you're saying (don't agree, but get the gist).... but by-the-by, Dante's Inferno seems a really weird example to include on that list....

 

It's a shameless God of War clone, laid over a brainless Dude-Bro's interpretation of a book written in the year 1320... 

 

...so about as "original" as an Ikea bookshelf. 

 

 

Hey, now. Dante's Inferno wasn't great by any means, but it was a perfectly fine game. 

[DrBloodmoney]

13 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

 

Hey, now. Dante's Inferno wasn't great by any means, but it was a perfectly fine game. 

 

Of course - perfectly fine game... just not much in narrative or originality stakes.

A fun enough romp nonetheless, though 

[TJ_Solo]

Quote

Ah yes, the ability to have real ownership of a URL linking to an image. Truly awe inspiring. Now you can help destroy the environment to do something that TF2 let you do ten years ago without piggybacking off of crypto. Something something technological revolution.

 

 

I said "maybe" on the ability to use an item between games and/or other metaverses.

 

Real ownership to me is the ability to use, modify, and/or sell an item after I bought it. We don't have the ability to sell or modify digital content in games for real money. A few games have auction houses for in-game currency though. NFTs would mean being able for us to sell digital items for real money, which is no more offensive than me selling my car or selling some old games my basement or selling rocks if someone is interested enough to buy them.

 

You people cry about some NFTs being sold for milllions, and? Some paintings sell for millions. Some cars in Jay Leno's collections were bought for millions. That doesn't mean all cars and paintings can only be owned if you are a millionare. You people don't understand NFTs and clearly aren't being logic by poisoning the well because there is a capacity to make money. That is business. You people wouldn't have a gaming industry without business.

 

This news and the metaverse aren't even connected to NFTs but you people leap to the hate and "promote' all the dumb responses. PS Home was no different. Lots of digital content to be bought just no trading or selling. You robots have just been trained what to cry about.

Edited April 12, 2022 by TJ_Solo

[Darling Baphomet]

10 hours ago, Slava said:

I don't know what Epic' Metaverse is going to look like in 5-10 years. But I can say that the current idea of a “new social entertainment exploring the connection between digital and physical worlds" doesn't sound appealing to me at all. 

 

Well, yeah, because it's corporate bullshit meant to give investors stiffies. I doubt they even know what they're making except that it needs to be able to print money. As far as I can tell none of the current "metaverses" have done anything you couldn't do in VRChat, Second Life, etc, except maybe sell you NFTs.

 

3 minutes ago, TJ_Solo said:

You people cry about some NFTs being sold for milllions, and? Some paintings sell for millions.

 

Last I checked, you can't copy paste a physical painting. I would also argue that most paintings aren't part of pyramid schemes. Have fun finding your bigger fool.

Edited April 12, 2022 by Darling Baphomet

[JourneySilvers]

20 minutes ago, TJ_Solo said:

 

 

I said "maybe" on the ability to use an item between games and/or other metaverses.

 

Real ownership to me is the ability to use, modify, and/or sell an item after I bought it. We don't have the ability to sell or modify digital content in games for real money. A few games have auction houses for in-game currency though. NFTs would mean being able for us to sell digital items for real money, which is no more offensive than me selling my car or selling some old games my basement or selling rocks if someone is interested enough to buy them.

 

You people cry about some NFTs being sold for milllions, and? Some paintings sell for millions. Some cars in Jay Leno's collections were bought for millions. That doesn't mean all cars and paintings can only be owned if you are a millionare. You people don't understand NFTs and clearly aren't being logic by poisoning the well because there is a capacity to make money. That is business. You people wouldn't have a gaming industry without business.

 

This news and the metaverse aren't even connected to NFTs but you people leap to the hate and "promote' all the dumb responses. PS Home was no different. Lots of digital content to be bought just no trading or selling. You robots have just been trained what to cry about.

Ah yes, someone must have a very trusted opinion if anyone disagreeing with them A.) Clearly doesn't know anything about the subject at hand, B.) Is a mindless robot, and C.) Is just "crying". 

 

If you were an intellectual human being, you would just mindlessly agree with this guy instead of sharing your own thoughts ? 

[TJ_Solo]

Quote

Last I checked, you can't copy paste a physical painting. I would also argue that most paintings aren't part of pyramid schemes. Have fun finding your bigger fool.

 

The word "copy" isn't limited to computers. Having the rights to a painting means having the right to replicate/photocopy said painting to stuff like T-shirts, coffee mugs, psoters, etc...you can even re-sell a copy of the painting. 

Buying royalities to the owner/creator of an item isn't a pyramid scheme. 

You're having enough fun being a fool for both of us.

2 minutes ago, JourneySilvers said:

Ah yes, someone must have a very trusted opinion if anyone disagreeing with them A.) Clearly doesn't know anything about the subject at hand, B.) Is a mindless robot, and C.) Is just "crying". 

 

The prove it. Make an arguement instead of pointing your finger and saying nothing.

 

 

2 minutes ago, JourneySilvers said:

If you were an intellectual human being, you would just mindlessly agree with this guy instead of sharing your own thoughts ? 

 

No one said or implied that. 

 

However, don't confuse just being able to share a thought with that thought being correct or that thought being unable to be questioned. 

 

 

 

 

[JourneySilvers]

7 minutes ago, TJ_Solo said:

 

The word "copy" isn't limited to computers. Having the rights to a painting means having the right to replicate/photocopy said painting to stuff like T-shirts, coffee mugs, psoters, etc...you can even re-sell a copy of the painting. 

Buying royalities to the owner/creator of an item isn't a pyramid scheme. 

You're having enough fun being a fool for both of us.

 

The prove it. Make an arguement instead of pointing your finger and saying nothing.

 

 

 

No one said or implied that. 

 

However, don't confuse just being able to share a thought with that thought being correct or that thought being unable to be questioned. 

 

 

 

 

I dont have an argument to make, I dont really care about adding to the NFT business. I was interested in the points you were making until you immediately started throwing out insults and saying that anyone disagreeing with you just wasn't intelligent enough/was crying because they criticized something/was a robot. 

 

It's hard to take someone seriously when they're so aggressively condescending about other people having different opinions. You can point out things you don't agree with in other people's statements without labeling anyone who disagrees with you. 

[TJ_Solo]

15 minutes ago, JourneySilvers said:

I dont have an argument to make, I dont really care about adding to the NFT business. I was interested in the points you were making until you immediately started throwing out insults and saying that anyone disagreeing with you just wasn't intelligent enough/was crying because they criticized something/was a robot. 

 

My points were that is strange to toss in complaints about NFTs for a news event that has nothing to do with them. It as if the commentor is a trained monkey and was told to find ways to bring up those arguments.

 

 

Quote

It's hard to take someone seriously when they're so aggressively condescending about other people having different opinions. You can point out things you don't agree with in other people's statements without labeling anyone who disagrees with you. 

 

You can take me as seriously or as comically as you like, those are your emotional reaction....but let's questions my emotional reactions because you don't share them or want me to be kinder. I cannot and will not post in a way that doesn't work for what I want to say or how I want to say it

But you are also trying to take some logica high ground without proving what I say to be wrong

It is all just "I can't believe you are being rude". 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2022 by TJ_Solo

[JourneySilvers]

4 minutes ago, TJ_Solo said:

 

My points were that is strange to toss in complaints about NFTs for a news event that has nothing to do with them. It as if the commentor is a trained monkey and was told to find ways to bring up those arguments.

 

 

 

You can take me as seriously or as comically as you like, those are your emotional reaction....but let's questions my emotional reactions because you don't share them or want me to be kinder. I cannot and will not post in a way that doesn't work for what I want to say or how I want to say it

But you are also trying to take some logica high ground without proving what I say to be wrong

It is all just "I can't believe you are being rude". 

 

 

I mean, yeah. My emotional reaction was that you were being unnecessarily rude and I was irritated enough to snip back at you for that. 

 

But even I can realize that's a bit pointless on a forum site. My bad for wasting people's time here. 

 

 

[BrandedBerserk]

16 hours ago, AJ_Radio said:

 

I never said originality died out completely. It's that the big companies aren't putting out original content anymore. Even Elden Ring, as great as it looks and as fun as it looks to play, basically borrow the blueprint of the original Demon's Souls and the first Dark Souls, from 2009 and 2011 respectively.

 

The same thing can be said about a lot of older games too this is not something that's unique to current gen almost every single game borrows In one way or another. 

 

How much more original do you think the content would be today if all they did was follow the formula from 2 console generations ago? 

 

[AJ_Radio]

2 minutes ago, BrandedBerserk said:

 

The same thing can be said about a lot of older games too this is not something that's unique to current gen almost every single game borrows In one way or another. 

 

How much more original do you think the content would be today if all they did was follow the formula from 2 console generations ago? 

 

 

Back in 2009, Demon's Souls was basically niche. It was different from a lot of other games of its time. You can definitely argue that Dark Souls 1 had a cult following.

 

I honestly can't say the SoulsBorne games just have a cult following or are more niche than franchises like Call of Duty, because they have caught the attention of the mainstream.

 

Very few games get very successful and thereby lay the blueprint for future games. History will tell you that the games that laid the blueprint were highly superior. After Super Mario Bros made history on the NES, there were a bunch of knockoff wannabe 2-D platformer games trying to be like Mario. If you watch some old Angry Video Game Nerd episodes you will see the gameplay in a couple of them. When Grand Theft Auto III became hugely successful, a lot of developers tried to emulate the open world experience. Some did okay, others failed. I remember picking up Saints Row 1 at a retail store and then thinking it was essentially a GTA clone. It borrowed a lot from GTA, and the franchise wouldn't really start to branch into its own thing until the sequel.

 

If Demon's Souls laid down the blueprint and Dark Souls refined it and help make the blueprint popular, you can say the same thing regarding first person shooters in Wolfenstein 3-D and Doom respectively.

 

Every Metroidvania borrows heavily from Super Metroid, a SNES game from 1994. Indies in the past decade have gone on to perfect the formula if not do better than Super Metroid did.

 

All this to say, it's much easier to borrow from other games than it is to be a trailblazer. Being a trailblazer requires taking risks, which many AAA gaming publishers refuse to do. That's why I think a lot of first party Sony titles are getting boring and monotonous. Horizon Forbidden West looks great, is highly polished and has some of the best visuals in any open world game. But it's not really original, and it does nothing that 100 open world games before it haven't already done.

[Zid960]

So sony wasted 1 bill on a doomed project. All the this meta ver crud will fail. We have 2nd life. A vr version will all it will become.