"I'd be happy to play this as a PS+ title for $30, but not for $80." That was a reflection on The Order: 1886, a game largely panned on multiple levels. But amongst the pacing, black borders, reliance on quicktime events and general mechanics, the biggest complaints were levelled at the length.
Six to seven hours. For $80, that wasn't enough. And whether it's fair or not, that's going to be the biggest problem facing PlayStation VR.
Whether you pre-ordered beforehand, or you're getting the second round of PSVR shipments that arrive just before Christmas, make no mistake: you are an early adopter. This year might not be the first crack the industry has had at consumer-grade virtual reality headsets, but it is still first generation tech in many ways.
And that comes with risks. But perhaps the biggest hurdle facing VR isn't the technology.
It's the games themselves -- or rather, the value people think they will get from the games.
Say you walk into EB Games or JB Hi-Fi later this week. You've heard PSVR is a thing, and want to check it out. You'll see big stands for the headset; probably a screen showing glitzy trailers with people doing funky shit in virtual reality.
And then you'll the games. More specifically, you'll see three tiers of games: $25, around $50-60, and then the full priced $80 games.
The problem for Sony here isn't so much what they're offering at that price point, but how it compares to what you can currently buy for $80.
This week, for instance, you could pick up Gears of War 4 for $80 from JB. Or FIFA 17. Forza Horizon 3 is selling for the same amount. Want to spend slightly less and pick up something newer? Mafia 3's available for $70. So is XCOM 2. Want something with a thriving multiplayer community? There's Destiny with all the expansions for $80, and if you want something with more of a narrative bent there's the remastered pack for BioShock.
On the PSVR side of the equation, you've got EVE Valkyrie, a game that was bundled with the Oculus Rift later this year. It's gotten plenty of updates since then, but it's also a multiplayer-focused title.
Which needs a thriving PSVR community -- and no-one knows how large that will be. It's not like PSVR is the launch of a new console, something that will sell X amount of units no matter what.
Virtual reality is a different beast entirely. There are users that physically can't play games in VR. There are users whose living environment isn't suitable for VR; Sony themselves warn that bright lights, mirrors and other shiny surfaces can mess with the tracking capabilities of the PlayStation camera.
Disabled gamers aren't going to have a great time. And then there's the fact that there's no guarantee that games might make you feel nauseous or ill -- and unlike the comfort rating on the Oculus Store, Sony doesn't offer any warning or indicator as to whether a game might put your lunch at risk.
So games like Battlezone and Thumper are a safer bet in that regard. They're singleplayer games first, games that don't rely on a thriving community.
But, people will ask, how many hours will I get for my money?
And this is the real problem for VR.
Say you went to the cinema. You buy a movie ticket. You sit down, watch a film, and walk out three hours later. You've paid $20 for the experience, not including extras for drinks, choc tops, and so on.
That's typically considered "good" value. Even if a movie is on the shorter side -- say, just under two hours -- that's not necessarily a bad thing.
But games don't always get the benefit of that framing. The experience is sometimes forgotten in the quest for "value".
Put another way: say you spend $20 for that same movie. But instead of two or three hours, you're now in the cinema for five.
Is that good value for money? If you consider the dollar to hour ratio, sure. It's great.
But is it a great experience? Probably not.
And that's the same hurdle VR has to get over.
More than anything so far, Thumper is being hailed as one of the few "must plays" for VR. On the surface it looks like a psychedelic Audiosurf, although its developers -- and everyone who has talked about their experience -- say it's a much more visceral, almost violent, experience.
It's also intense as fuck. Kirk said it was ferocious, so much so that his thumb started "blistering after 20 minutes".
Even if you wanted to, you couldn't sit down and play Thumper for hours on end. You'd need a break, for your body more than anything else. And that's the nature of VR -- your gaming sessions, no matter what, will be shorter.
And they have to be. PSVR might be the most comfortable of all of the headsets launched this year, but it's still a massive headset strapped to your skull, pressed up against your eyeballs. It has weight, which induces fatigue.
Sure, there will be people who do marathon VR sessions just because they can. Humans are like that.
But it doesn't mean it makes for a good experience -- and it doesn't mean it's good value, either.
The other side of the coin is the part the cheaper VR experiences, the games that are more akin to tech demos and on-rail shooters. Something like Until Dawn: Rush of Blood, an on-rails shooter in a rollercoaster cart with several levels that only last between five and 15 minutes each, will set you back $25.
And take PSVR Worlds. $55 gets you five VR experiences, including the minute-long races of VR Luge, the Shufflepuck Cafe-esque gameplay of Danger Ball, a scripted dive with a shark and an inferior port of Job Simulator.
Games like those are fine, but you're not going to spend, say, four or five hours practising your VR Luge times. There's only so many times you can see the same jump scares. And while it's nice for introducing VR to people, it's also the kind of thing that you do once or twice and then never touch again.
So, people will rightly ask: what am I really getting for my money? And the comparison will come back to what else you can buy for the same price.
And VR, regardless of whether it's PSVR, the Oculus Rift, HTC Vive, or another headset, is always going to lose that argument in 2016.
Just for fun, I decided to see what it'd be like to play normal games in VR. One of the best parts of PSVR is that you can pop the headset on and play games like you normally would on your PS4.
So I figured: why not try Destiny? A fast-paced competitive shooter isn't something I'd normally want to play in VR, but if Sony are going to make it possible, I'll give it a go.
Good news: Destiny plays just fine! There's a definite lack of sharpness, and the radial nature of the focus point on the PSVR means all of the UI elements on the side are slightly blurred.
But you can get through games without trouble. I played a few rounds of Crucible (Control and Supremacy) without any after-effects. But perhaps the biggest impact I found was that I began moving my head more than normal just to sharpen the focus on the radar, my ammo, or other HUD elements, when they appeared.
That's not something you'd normally do, since those elements are always in focus. But those increased movements slowly take their toll. And while I wasn't physically incapable of playing more faux-Destiny VR, it was nice to take the headset off and relax.
By comparison, I got up on the weekend and played six hours straight of strikes and Crucible matches. And after an hour under PSVR, I knew. Even if I wanted to, there's no way I could do that in VR.
That's just playing while looking at a virtual screen. Now imagine being immersed in a world, regularly looking around a 3D environment for objects, clues, rotating your arms, neck and head.
It all adds up to an environment that means the dollar-to-hour value, something too many gamers uphold as some barometer of quality, will drop. That's not necessarily a negative: gamers, after all, have less time in their lives. A tighter, more curated, experience is often better than something that overstays its welcome.
But $550, along with the $200 you'll need for a brand new PlayStation Camera and Move controllers (unless you get the Move controllers for a song), is an awful lot of money.
And people will rightly ask: how much play time am I going to get for that? Even John Carmack, one of the pioneers of the current VR wave, challenged developers at the Oculus Connect conference to offer more to players.
"We are coasting on novelty, and the initial wonder of being something people have never seen before," the Oculus chief technology officer argued. "But we need to start judging ourselves ... can you do something in VR that has the same value, or more value, than what these other [non-VR] things have done?"
The PSVR is an incredible piece of engineering; it's more comfortable and more smartly designed than its more expensive VR cousins, and what Sony has achieved is nothing short of incredible given some of the ageing tech being leveraged.
But right now, PSVR has a tough mountain to climb. Gamers will want to know why they should $80 on something that might last 10 hours or less, when another game that costs the same might keep them, my partner, my brother, my sister, or my child busy for 30, 40, 50 or more hours?
PSVR's problem isn't the hardware. And it's not necessarily the quality of the games that are coming out either.
It's a value proposition. It's an argument that says you are trading time for a better experience. It's an argument that bets on the power of immersion.
But immersion is a bloody hard thing to sell -- and it's not something you can sell by the numbers.