Javthusiast
Banned
I am gonna say it. VR is a niche fad that won't catch on like regular games for decades so why waste money on it. Best use for it so far is porn.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Time To Say It: There's No Excuse For Microsoft Not Supporting VR on Xbox
- Thread starter thicc_girls_are_teh_best
- Start date
- Opinion Hardware Platform
Romulus
Member
DarthBuzzer and Romulus
I went back to your posts in this thread. Of course, you're not even saying anything. Took the time to look up a jpeg but can't even have a real discussion. I mean even the other people in this thread I disagree with have some solid points. You got nothing.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Well there's no way I can prove what I'm saying on that point as being true, without having access to their numbers. It's just an educated guess, so we're both in the same boat on that regard. Like you said we just have a differing opinion on this topic and that's cool
Vive signed another contract with the air force just a few months ago. So this has literally been going on for years and they train several different aircraft, not just fighters. So, yeah, I guess they need to consult sim gamers about their training because they apparently have it all wrong, the navy and marines are wrong too.
And my favorite aircraft too just happens to be another one they use. A-10. These guys are literally using a commercially available Quest.
A-10 Warthog Pilots Are Using The Digital Combat Simulator Video Game To Train In VR
The publicly available extreme-fidelity air combat video game is so accurate that actual A-10 pilots are now using it to train.www.thedrive.com
Indisputable. And this is from guys that use ultra-expensive 2d simulators too, not home rigs.
Yep, that pretty much seals the deal. I did take a look at Track IR a bit more, and again I can see its uses. I can even see how it can possibly make some parts of VR more affordable/cheaper. It also could be useful for a mixed VR/AR type of setup.
That said, actual VR is always going to surpass it as the best way to get that sort of immersion. I can see if some have a preference for Track IR over VR for sims, but the best training and immersion tool out of the two is easily VR, if you have people in the aerospace, military, air force etc. fields using that primarily. They would know a thing or two about immersive tech, going all the way back to the '90s with Lockheed-Martin/Sega (and maybe even earlier than that).
By package, do you mean an all-in-one VR device, or a default SKU that includes a cheap VR headset as standard?
The former, IMO, that won't be possible for next gen because of increased power/processing capabilities still requiring a dedicated box (the Quest 2's specs processing-wise are nothing in comparison to Series X or PS5, or Series S for that matter). You just can't pack that type of performance into a comfortable headset that won't cause injuries and accidents, let alone be safety hazards.
But a standardized SKU that has a cheap VR headset as part of the deal? I personally strongly think that's going to be the case. I'm sure companies like Sony have to know that's what it'll truly take to get mass-market adoption of VR at a performance level that won't compromise traditional games. The problem is currently, for good-enough VR headsets the tech still eats a lot of BOM compared to, say, a controller (standard/regular controller); there's no way Sony, Microsoft etc. are going to justify $200+ of a console's BOM towards the headset, unless they are either willing to lose $200+ on each system (Sony's never doing that again; neither would Microsoft), or console prices increase by at least $100.
TBH I think 10th-gen consoles are going to increase in price anyway, if it means cutting down on some of the scalping. But that also could help cover slightly increased BOM for including a cheap VR helmet. Which IMO would be more than worth it; there's tons of QoL and OS feature integration that Sony, Microsoft, even Nintendo, could do by making a standardized default VR helmet included with every system.
Plus that will incentivize more developers to build VR features into their games, knowing that every console owner technically has a headset.
Maybe VR, AR might be less so. AR headsets don't cut you off from the surrounding world, so you can still see other people's reactions.
You'd just also see them wearing the AR headset, which may or may not look goofy xD.
Yeah, that would be some super-weird optics right there. A lot of things might point to them crafting some kind of solution for Xbox, be it a 1P headset or 3P headset compatibility.
It's just hard to get a gauge on where they're at on it considering not long ago Phil Spencer came out and basically said:
Which TBF could be read as them supporting VR through software content which is a good move IMO, it just doesn't say anything about if they're going to allow a way for Xbox players to play that content on Xbox consoles. Which at the very least would mean supporting a 3P headset currently available or on the way.
Are there any studies on this?
Becouse need devs to do the port for Xbox . The only way that MS have Is to buy them
So will be the same as usual ... Psvr,Oculus,quest and not Xbox VR Just like many games that they are out in every platform but not on Xbox
Unfortunately if there's no VR support provided on Xbox for the longer haul then it will mean more games simply not getting ported over since the platform wouldn't have a means of letting people play it in the first place.
DrCheese
Member
This is rubbish. If VR was going to be as big as you say it'll be then it would already be that big, as pretty much everything you say already exists. It's not hilariously expensive either & if people cared enough they'd find the money anyway, like they already do for luxury items they want. It's not taking off because people don't want to clear out half their living rooms to sit completely out of the physical world.
REDRZA MWS
Member
VR is a fad just like motion, kinects, move sticks, wiimotes etc. These things are add ons to the gaming experience, will never be meat and potatoes. Sony is wasting their time and money, and I’m glad MS isn’t getting involved at all.
Menzies
Banned
Minecraft is a bit of an oddity, no doubt. In that, I can't recall any other IP purchased by a platform owner remain platform-agnostic. I know it is a massive revenue driver and helps subsidize Game Pass in its' growth phase. I don't believe anyone is expecting much new or exclusive experiences from Mojang over 'whoring-out' Minecraft in any way they can.
Most businesses would separate out their budgets for capital expenditures for things like M&A and defensive maneuvering, not wanting to add consistent operational expenses.
Fair to say, I'm jaded about the whole notion of console peripherals and accessories, where they fork the user base. Maybe Sony has much more shrewd business heads and can execute on the perfect plan to support both, whilst leaving no-one behind or feeling uncatered towards. There's a lot of loyal followers in this space, but even more people prepared to move away if the other side delivers more experiences they want.
More than likely though, they don't want to over-expose their risk and take the likes of Naughty Dog and Insomniac away from their 'traditional' ventures, which may mean a sub-10% attach rate again and no meaningful market penetration. It will exist and return a small profit, but meander through mostly AA support and listless consumer interest as it doesn't have the full backing of developer support.
I think from what you mentioned about 360 core support dying earlier in the thread you are jaded by Kinect but it's unwarranted IMO to then think of the same for VR. We've seen support for a peripheral like the PSVR and it worked out fine for PS4 pancake games support.
It's not about losing focus because MS are doing both that causes a company to abandon a group but about finding a bigger audience and higher revenue. Here though people are arguing that VR is both low sales and revenue AND a threat to MS making traditional games. I just don't see that at all the same way it was for Kinect.
I think it's this risk aversion by MS to not cater to smaller core audiences that has you jaded to begin with as it's one and the same issue. MS had a hit with Kinect and really caught the mainstream crowd with games like Dance Central, Kinect Sports, etc. The best selling game ever on 360 isn't Halo or Gears it's Kinect Adventures. Kinect pretty much pulled xbox out of the red.
MS supporting only what caters to the mainstream and makes the most revenue is the same reason why VR isn't supported now and it's the same reason why people complained at the end of the 360s life about lack of games outside Halo, Forza, Gears. MS never took risks with smaller new IPs. If it wasn't selling millions it was not worth pursuing. Kinect was selling millions, more than anything in that period. Gears Judgment and Halo Reach's expensive campaign modes paled to what you could make with some cheap to develop party game and Kinect.
It's the same now with VR.
Kinect was the mainstream and traditional games was the hardcore.
Traditional games are the more mainstream and VR is the more hardcore. So it isn't the peripheral and MS not being able to multitask with budgets it's that traditional games almost became 'niche' to them just as VR is now. They had Wii like success and concentrated on mainstream only.
That hurt you on 360 in the past and now it's hurting VR users.
You go back and look at interviews of Phil from the 360 era when people complained about the output he made that clear, you'd get quotes like this:
This has changed somewhat now. It's not about quality and impact it's about number of releases in a year since there is a monthly subscription to upkeep and that was why they went out buying a lot of smaller studios too, a lot of them making AA games to pump out.
I don't think Insomniac will make VR only games unless Oculus allows the 4 VR games that Insomniac has already made to be released on PSVR. AAA VR games by these type of studios will be hybrid VR games.
Last edited:
mcjmetroid
Member
Again why would they do these when they tried the gimmicky stuff before.. like kinect. They've learnt their lesson.
DarthBuzzer
Member
No. This isn't how technology adoption works. Even if we had such a product today, you need time to educate the masses - most people don't know what VR is yet, and they won't know until they try it.
There is no pair of VR sunglasses, or anything close. The avatars are not realistic, the telepresence capabilities are limited by the headset specs and other limitations, the overall comfort isn't good enough for average people. Need I go on?
DarthBuzzer
Member
It's more successfully sustainable than all of those.
If you actually looked into the industry, you'd realize it's not a fad. Expecting gaf users to do their research is asking too much though.
fastest finger
Member
Xbox will never do VR.
Because if your wearing a headset, how can you see how pretty your fingernails look?
Because if your wearing a headset, how can you see how pretty your fingernails look?
Imru’ al-Qays
Member
This. It's not gonna happen guys.
Romulus
Member
The previous bestselling VR feat was like 1.8 million psvrs in 1 year. Last year it was 10 million quest 2s. Thats a colossal improvement and better numbers than every console except ps2. I'd say your post is untimely at best. Maybe it could have been argued 2 years ago.
Last edited:
arealhumanbean
Banned
lol @ naysayers, you really think that 20 years from now you will be still playing on your basic 8K 95 inch micro LED instead of playing inside a game in retina quality?
it's obvious that the only thing that's keeping VR under the radar are technological limitations and even if VR will be not mainstream in 5 years from now, it will be some time in the future
it's obvious that the only thing that's keeping VR under the radar are technological limitations and even if VR will be not mainstream in 5 years from now, it will be some time in the future
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
That was absolutely a problem with old Xbox and if you're looking at it from the perspective of lacking certain Japanese and VR games, then one can argue some of those mistakes are repeating themselves. However, also have to give credit where it's due: the current Xbox has been doing very well with getting AA and indie content for the platform to balance out the schedules between the bigger releases. I'd say last year was a near-perfect demonstration of that.
It's worth making the correlation to some extent, but to be perfectly fair the market for core-orientated traditional games is and will continue to be magnitudes larger than the market for VR games. That said, the latter being a lot smaller doesn't mean it should be considered insignificant, or that providing support or investment into it in the consumer mass-market space.
It might be a niche, but it's a growing niche, and something worth supporting at least on some level. I think it's something Microsoft (and Nintendo) could take a page from Sony on, even if that means opening up support for 3P headsets. That at the very least would enable ports of more games to their systems, adding to the software catalogues.
Again, while I see the general point here and agree with the idea, it's important to keep in mind that, at this point, a company ignoring the core traditional gaming market is going to hurt magnitudes more than if they neglect the VR market. So in terms of scale I don't think the two scenarios are of the same weight or anywhere near it.
All the same, if I were a platform holder I wouldn't want to be caught with zero support for VR on my console devices if things pick up at a larger scale sooner than expected, then have to spend lots of time and resources reacting to a change in the market that leaves me scrambling (which could cause other things to become disorganized as a result). Then there's just the business argument that regardless how niche VR might be, doing the bare minimum of support for it via whitelisting 3P headsets for compatibility opens up chances for more revenue within that console ecosystem, and more content for that ecosystem as well.
That is guaranteed to bring in some extra revenue and profit, and doesn't compromise the product ecosystem. In fact it adds to it. One of the only reasons I could picture a platform holder not wanting to open up that support is in not wanting to enable a potential competitor device if they in fact do have plans at a later date to enter that specific space with their own similar offering.
Absolutely agree with everything you mentioned there. I'm not suggesting that MS ignoring VR will be catastrophic though. Only that they ignore the smaller markets just the same as those asking for more games output (MS never invested in low selling new games outside of their big 3) at the end of the 360 gen were ignored because Kinect was the big seller and the smaller traditional games market not worth pursuing.
The only reason I mentioned it is that people are worried that VR will do what Kinect did to 360 (lower traditional games output) while at the same time saying it is a low selling fad. It won't do what Kinect did to 360 unless VR becomes the bigger market and then you can bet they will do it.
Regarding MS' indie and smaller games output now, this has only changed due to the gamepass subscription model that is their mainstream now. They need to maintain subscribers monthly and not try and sell millions of copies. so now yearly output and smaller 'low impact' indie/AA games make economical sense for them. As long as the subscriber has something new to check out even if it isn't a huge blockbuster game they will remain subscribed every month.
Last edited:
magnumpy
Member
I think the hololens was their answer to VR. but that didn't work out, I mean it's a matter of history what happened with that. I speculate, and this is just speculation so don't sue me if it's incorrect, but my speculation is they are waiting to see what happens with VR in the future before they make another move.
Menzies
Banned
Therein lies the rub.
Ironically, I keep referring back to Kinect for my evidence to prove my point. Whereas, you consistently refer back to PSVR. One was the 'fastest-selling consumer electronics device' on the planet, the other...well, fairly luke-warm reception so far.
Was the PS4 'saved' by the PSVR's lower attach-rate, meaning less of a mandate from executives with dollar-signs behind their eyes forcing all their studios support it?
What happens if PSVR2 takes off similarly to Kinect?
Will that lead to an eventual back-lash from the core gaming crowd?
True, Kinect handicapped gameplay mechanics in ways that VR does not, but surely at the very least, adds to development time further slowing down output. I'm sure it's just as easy to tell when the gameplay has been designed around VR, versus tacked-on as a 'value-add extra'.
To be honest I'm not sure what your point is. Mine is that it's up to the company to cater to smaller markets and that it's possible to do as is evidenced by my example. My other point is that Kinect being an issue for you in terms of lower traditional games output wasn't that they couldn't cater to the smaller traditional market. it's the same issue that they chose not to due to market size. Not because they only can do one thing at a time or that money to invest in both is not there.
If PSVR takes off and Sony decide to abandon the traditional games market then yeah I can see a backlash but considering that they have supported smaller market peripherals since the EyeToy on PS2 it's clear that they have no problem supporting smaller markets concurrently thereby going against the idea that you can only do one at a time and the smaller market must die ( whatever that happens to be).
Last edited:
Menzies
Banned
I guess my point is this; - it is possible for a company to get swept up in the hype around an add-on accessory, so much so that it ultimately negatively impacts the market that exists before it. And that this venture is not devoid of risk with losing your original audience.
VR also handicaps gameplay, as you can't do everything with VR without making the player vomit.
One big problem with VR is still, it is an additional headset
- this alone is a problem for some/many people as the addition weight on the head isn't always comfortable at least not for longer sessions
- not every stomache likes it (e.g. mine) which can lead to really negative impressions and a limited audience
- also it is a "single player" thing ... you can't use it (like e.g. eye toy or kinect) with multiple family members at the same time
Than there are the additional costs. Eye-toy was really cheap. Kinect a bit more expensive but still affordable for most. PSVR more than doubled the price (yes, it was cheap for a VR headset but not for a console peripheral)
It is what it is. Still a niche product. And nothing really changed that since the first appearance on the market. Yes it offers some unique possibilities but doesn't change that much for the market.
To answer the question of the topic: No MS does not need to invest into VR for gaming at this point. They should concentrate all they can to make games for PC & xbox all players can play.
Btw, MS does invest into niche products, as they are the only console-manufacturer which also offers adaptive controllers, so even people that can't hold a controller can play games on their consoles. This is what gaming consoles should do, allow more people to use their products.
Last edited:
ZywyPL
Banned
I'd say the complete opposite - all the motion controllers - Kinect, PS Move and Wii had fantastic games, made specifically for their respective capabilities, there was no "handicap", the devs just knew exactly what was suited for them and what wasn't from the get-go, hence they skyrocket in popularity so much, as oppose to a whole decade of "you just wait! VR is the future!"...
Which speaking of, VR is what's handicapped, hence why it has so much issue with penetrating the market (among other problems) - no one has figured what's a decent, let alone good VR experience is, after all those years everything feels like the devs are still testing the waters. There's Saber Beat but that's essentially a PS Move game in disguise. Now, I see a lot of comments in the PSVR2/Horizon thread that hopefully it won't be an on-rail experience, but that's exactly the best VR experience, because it perfectly reflects how you're playing VR games - with your ass glued to the chair/couch with nothing but the head and arms moving, this is the real-life handicap no one will ever be able to surpass, that's why all those racing, flying, rollercoaster sims etc. are sooo much better in VR than on a flat display, but everything else that involves player movement fells short
It won't because of one simple aspect - it's not a shared experience. That's why a flat TV panel is and always will be there in every household, because the whole family and guests can use it at the same time, that's why it's the primary device in every living room while everything else is just an add-on. Because no one will hold a dozen of VR headsets in case friends show up and you'll want to have some friendly Fifa competition going on. Just showing off a game is impossible with VR because it's a selfish experience.
REDRZA MWS
Member
I don’t have to do research for such a trivial topic. VR has applications in other uses than gaming that are more useful. As it pertains to gaming, it’s a niche thing. An expensive headset (and the expense is only one part, how many people want to wear a damn headset?) and niche game experiences here and there won’t ever be mainstream. This OP is about MS ( I assume they mean Xbox because you can get VR on a windows PC obviously) and VR. After Sony’s try MS knows exactly what they are doing. I applaud Sony for trying, but they should have canned this experiment after their initial try.
DarthBuzzer
Member
You need to do research if you want to make predictions, otherwise your guesses are as good as a random businessman off the street.
Headsets don't have to be more expensive than any console, and Sony knows that the first iteration of [insert any technology] never goes mainstream. With your mindset, the console industry wouldn't even exist, because they would have canned it all long before the NES and Playstation/Xbox.
DarthBuzzer
Member
You are biased to the point of fabricating lies and rewriting history.
As someone who has actually used VR, develops for VR, and knows the reception of VR games, I can definitively speak for the VR industry by saying that there are absolutely amazing VR-exclusive games that tap into the medium. Anyone saying otherwise is purposefully burying their head in the sand.
Astro Bot, Lone Echo, Half Life Alyx are all high-calibre games that could compete with some of the best traditional games in their respective years and don't fall into this on-rails experience that you keep bringing up.
So let's not pretend that devs have no idea what makes a good VR game. Source: dev
Last edited:
CeeJay
Member
Hololens is still alive and well with a third iteration currently in the works. In fact Microsoft just last month announced a collaboration with Samsung for Hololens 3. Apart from an E3 presentation a few years ago Hololens has not been pitched at the consumer market, instead they have been having a lot of success in the enterprise sector.
The AR tech in Hololens is way too expensive and way to restrictive for the consumer market but once the tech advances enough it doesn't take a genius to see that it will trickle down and become available as a solid and viable gaming device.
REDRZA MWS
Member
No. I move been involved in this hobby for a very long time. The gaming experience is pretty much demented and perfected in terms of dedicated box, good controller, and good games. As I’ve stated before, almost everything g else has been a peripheral, an add on experience. Most of which never really catch on. I put VR in this category. Even more so because as I’ve stated, needing a headset which many people don’t even want to wear, to be immersed in an experience that’s not even like a traditional gaming experience, which most people who buy consoles are in for. We can agree to disagree.
VR won't replace the TV because a TV is more than a gaming device but VR is suited for games because shared experiences when playing are not really that popular anymore. Couch coop is so low nowadays and most people just play by themselves online.
Last edited:
ZywyPL
Banned
People don't need to be educated a.k.a. being forced to finally like VR, it has been widely tested already and the devastating majority of the audience agreed:
If people didn't want to put on those:
What makes you believe/hope people will all of a sudden want to use these:
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/16200453/akrales_190429_3371_0087.jpg)
Many people just see VR goggles and are right away like "nah man, there's no way I'm gonna put that stupid helmet to play games" and there's just nothing anyone can't do with it. Sort of like when Blackberry desperately tried to convince people they still need/want phones with buttons, because it's so much faster and more convenient to type, or when Apple desperately wanted to convince people that 3.5-4" is the best screen size because it fits your pocket so well and can be operated with one hand/finger. Or the already mentioned 3D. People just know well when they don't want something, no matter how hard the companies try to market it. And even when people do give VR a try in all those stations in stores, shopping malls etc. and they do have fun, once they finish they just turn around and go away and never bother, because it's not THAT fun after all, and certainly not something people will want to suddenly blow out a thousand bucks or more on it.
Then why bother? Why the premature launch just like the infamous Virtual Boy? It's been already a decade since VR is poorly trying to take off, the adoption is close to none (sorry but in times where almost half of the planet plays video games in one form and another and VR is having serious issues to hit a double-digit, the results just speaks for themselves), by the time VR will indeed reach an actual usable/enjoyable/affordable state it'll be already long time dead, the comments in this very thread show well more than enough what people think of VR already after all those years of hit and miss, in another 10 years nobody will care because of the bad taste all those years will leave, and it'll be impossible to convince those people back later on that "nooo, this time it's really good, I promise!". Someone thought he'll be clever and will salvage two flopped products (motion controls and 3D), duck tape it together, sell under new fancy name, and off you go, the future of gaming! Nope.
DarthBuzzer
Member
Because they are totally different concepts. One just adds depth cues to existing TVs and therefore acts only as an addition, a small addition, to what people already know. VR is a full medium with it's own input/output and is a large addition to media, not just some small additive thing like 3D TVs.
Your examples with Blackberry and Apple are laughable, because that has literally nothing to do with the topic. VR is a completely different paradigm. It is not the same as Blackberry or Apple trying to cling onto outdated values. VR is making new value for itself, more and more every year, and that value is not widely tested at all. The vast majority of people have never tried VR and don't know what it even is - yet.
No company manufacturing VR headsets ever expected the masses would adopt current VR headsets. Their goal was always 10+ years down the road when headsets reached something very comfortable and compact. Do I have to bring up quotes from each company? You should have researched this yourself. https://www.roadtovr.com/what-vr-he...-have-actually-said-about-sales-expectations/
How do you get people to adopt VR down the line when 3D wasn't? It will be more comfortable, work for more people, and have lots of genuine value.
You really, and I mean really need to brush up on your history of the tech industry, because this is market adoption 101 for everything, ever. You don't sit there in a lab for 10-15 years trying to improve a device intended for consumers just so it can reach a point of mass adoption upon releasing it. No one has ever done this, and no one ever will, because you gain no real world experience with the product outside your lab, and most importantly, you gain no money or ecosystem, making you bleed money and opportunity for well over a decade. Then you have to educate everyone on something they can't comprehend without trying, so that stops it being a mass market success out of the gate anyway.
It hasn't been a decade by the way. It's been 6 years, and as you can see above, companies always knew it was going to take 10+ years. Every new tech platform takes 10+ years, and usually it's around 15.
VR is never going to die. You can't kill a concept like VR indefinitely, because there is no replacement now or ever. The medium of VR is unique and always will be.
It's used in too many industries, has too much investment, and is backed by too many sub-communities to even die in this wave of VR, let alone the concept entirely dying out.
Neogaf comments have no relation to the success or failure of any gaming product. This is a bubble community. The same community that overwhelmingly thought Switch wouldn't be a success.
Get educated.
Last edited:
DarthBuzzer
Member
You cannot put VR in this category, because it literally isn't a peripheral unless you go with PSVR. Your entire argument falls apart here.
VR is rising in popularity as it's own medium, which also crosses over into games, therefore making VR gaming more popular over time.
Heed the statistics. Don't ignore them.
Romulus
Member
We have to ask though. How is a motion sickness prone, obtrusive headset rivaling ps2 sales? That speaks volumes. And to be fair, the Quest 2 isn't even that comfortable without 3rd party straps, yet despite all that its still outselling basically every console ever.
ZywyPL
Banned
Of course it won't completely die, the very same way Kinect is still up and running, but as a gaming device (because keep in mind this is a gaming forum and we're talking about games here) - yeah, it most likely will, unless some miracle happens like a 100-150$ price tag or something, because like I said, people will be sick and tired of it already before it gets "good enough".
NickFire
Member
I disagree with OP. VR is gaining some traction, but investing huge sums into VR hardware and software right now would still be risky. MS has chosen to take risks in other areas, and by all accounts it seems they are succeeding (GP). I'd much rather see these companies continue to pursue their own visions, rather than someone else's. Plus, once it becomes truly mass market with MS target audience, it seems virtually certain they will jump in anyway.
DarthBuzzer
Member
Who would be sick and tired exactly? The people that bought headsets? Well great, most people haven't bought headsets, so there's plenty more people who haven't gotten sick and tired of it to market towards.
The people who get sick and tired from it would also have the same attitude towards any early technology. This is just the nature of early tech, where the inconveniences and growing pains put people off.
Nothing here is unique to VR's situation. Do you know how many consoles and PCs used to collect dust in their early days? A large percentage.
Last edited:
nosferatu93
Banned
idgaf
TheUndeadGamer
Member
I think the only thing they should do is allow third party ones and allow devs to release patches for VR and/or VR only games.
Though I don’t know what incentive MS would have to do that besides goodwill.
Well I suppose the VR only games on Xbox would still give the 30% to Xbox.
Though I don’t know what incentive MS would have to do that besides goodwill.
Well I suppose the VR only games on Xbox would still give the 30% to Xbox.
D
Deleted member 471617
Unconfirmed Member
No thanks to Microsoft having a VR add-on that would then require their studios to make exclusive games for it. Allowing Oculus Rift on Xbox would be the far better and far smarter decision. Microsoft finally having over 20 first party studios and then having to develop exclusive VR games is the last thing they need.
Deputy Moonman
Member
Kudos to Sony for doing their thing. I can't see Nintendo going that route as it is expensive and seems to go against their philosophy of less expensive easy approach to video games focus. Microsoft is a company I can see delving into vr should it ever actually take off. However, right now they are simply trying to turn the corner and vr doesn't make a lot of sense financially. For example, what are the statistics on playstation owners also buying into psvr? I suspect it's no more than 25% at best and likely less than that. And for Sony, who for whatever reason doesn't have the negative stigma globally that xbox has, they can still sell enough psvr sets to make it financially worthwhile. Do you think MS investors and execs are really wanting to jump into another kinect-like peripheral right now when xbox is only just getting back on its feet?
SportsFan581
Member
MS makes a lot of first person games that would probably be quite popular with a vr mode. They could support something like this without needing to make VR specific games. The funny thing is that VR modes like Skyrim and RE4 are just as popular/well received as most of the VR specific software.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Oh for sure. It's weird seeing the takes equating it to Kinect; the technologies are pretty different even if they have a few things in common. Not just that, but Kinect itself was never a bad product IMHO, which should be obvious given the support it's gotten from the developer community over the years.
The problem was the leadership and them putting way too much emphasis on Kinect. Mattrick pushed Kinect harder than anyone else at Xbox, he was paramount to it being the center of their strategy with XBO. He just placed way too much a focus on Kinect and the rest of the Xbox division did as well.
I highly doubt Microsoft would make the same mistake again if they decided to adopt VR into their ecosystem, given the current management.
The Oculus Quest 2 happened, last year
This is a good point but you bringing up the adaptive controllers actually works against one of the biggest arguments some people ITT are using against VR: it's too niche. Because those adaptive controllers - good a purpose they indeed serve - are a LOT more niche than VR and yet Microsoft provide adaptive controller products with no issue.
Considering some of us are just asking they open up the Xbox platform to 3P VR solutions via 3P whitelisted compatibility, it makes those using it being a niche market as an argument...well it makes that argument look even less relevant.
Man where to even begin with this x3...
First like a couple others replied with, there are absolutely VR experiences that are not only good, but amazing. Half-Life Alyx is usually at the top of many people's lists, for some it's probably their favorite FPS in years, VR or traditional.
You're selling VR quite short here; if it's mainly an additive to traditional gaming, why does it need to require the player to completely forego using a controller or sitting down in order to justify its experience? Arcade games like Outrun and Daytona more or less provided the same sit-down experience you'd of gotten at home, even while in the cabinet, but those systems justified themselves by having their haptic feedback controls ADD to the experience.
It's kind of ridiculous to try saying VR needs to replace traditional in order to have a reason worth existing, in fact that's no different than the equally flawed argument that services like GamePass will completely replace the traditional delivery model. And the reason I think that argument comes up is because those people feel that in order for something like GamePass to exist, it MUST replace the traditional model. It's a very binary way of looking at the market, and it's the same with people who think VR has to do something completely different that doesn't involve anything of the traditional gaming setup, in order to justify existing.
This is 100% incorrect; it's a very home console-orientated concept you're speaking of, when console gaming isn't even the biggest segment of the gaming market! Not to mention, there's been plenty of times throughout gaming when it wasn't consoles that were the bedrock of the industry, but the arcade, or microcomputers, especially in certain territories.
As for the idea that the console model as-is, is perfected...well that's up to questioning. If that's the case wouldn't it extend to other aspects of gaming such as...graphics? If the model's perfected now, then we shouldn't need a 10th generation of consoles, right? Because why so when graphics have already reach their supposed perfect state?
Headsets will continue to improve and get smaller & lighter, and production of VR headsets will continue to get cheaper. So, these are concern that IMO become less and less an issue with every new device.
People don't need to be educated a.k.a. being forced to finally like VR, it has been widely tested already and the devastating majority of the audience agreed:
If people didn't want to put on those:
What makes you believe/hope people will all of a sudden want to use these:
Many people just see VR goggles and are right away like "nah man, there's no way I'm gonna put that stupid helmet to play games" and there's just nothing anyone can't do with it. Sort of like when Blackberry desperately tried to convince people they still need/want phones with buttons, because it's so much faster and more convenient to type, or when Apple desperately wanted to convince people that 3.5-4" is the best screen size because it fits your pocket so well and can be operated with one hand/finger. Or the already mentioned 3D. People just know well when they don't want something, no matter how hard the companies try to market it. And even when people do give VR a try in all those stations in stores, shopping malls etc. and they do have fun, once they finish they just turn around and go away and never bother, because it's not THAT fun after all, and certainly not something people will want to suddenly blow out a thousand bucks or more on it.
Then why bother? Why the premature launch just like the infamous Virtual Boy? It's been already a decade since VR is poorly trying to take off, the adoption is close to none (sorry but in times where almost half of the planet plays video games in one form and another and VR is having serious issues to hit a double-digit, the results just speaks for themselves), by the time VR will indeed reach an actual usable/enjoyable/affordable state it'll be already long time dead, the comments in this very thread show well more than enough what people think of VR already after all those years of hit and miss, in another 10 years nobody will care because of the bad taste all those years will leave, and it'll be impossible to convince those people back later on that "nooo, this time it's really good, I promise!". Someone thought he'll be clever and will salvage two flopped products (motion controls and 3D), duck tape it together, sell under new fancy name, and off you go, the future of gaming! Nope.
Wow that was quite a read. Pretty entertaining one, but there's just one tiny problem...
Oculus Quest 2 just sold 10 million units last year. In other words, virtually every single point you just made is more or less invalidated via sales data
Well definitely, the platform holders shouldn't feel the need to do something just because someone else is doing it, that much I agree with. But, considering two of these companies (Microsoft and Sony) tend to go after a lot of the same things (albeit in their own ways), then I don't see how Microsoft putting some effort into VR on the console side violates the idea for platform holders to pursue their own visions and what business strategies work for them.
Supporting VR on Xbox doesn't have to mean a 1P headset, or even 1P VR software. Just as little as opening the platform up to 3P headsets would be enough. That opens up the chance for more ports, which means more games, which means more potential subscriptions and revenue from 3P software sales, which essentially means more money.
And, since these companies are ultimately after money, a small-time thing like whitelisting a 3P headset for Xbox is one of the safest options Microsoft could take.
DonkeyPunchJr
World’s Biggest Weeb
The Kinect comparison isn’t because it’s literally the same thing. It’s because it follows a similar pattern:
- new tech comes out that many people thought would be the “next logical step” for gaming
- v1.0 is limited in lots of ways. Geeks fantasize about how great it will be when the technology advances and removes those limitations
- despite the technological advancement, it turns out that people realized they generally prefer regular old ass-on-couch TV gaming over “immersive pantomiming” once the novelty factor wore off
- new tech comes out that many people thought would be the “next logical step” for gaming
- v1.0 is limited in lots of ways. Geeks fantasize about how great it will be when the technology advances and removes those limitations
- despite the technological advancement, it turns out that people realized they generally prefer regular old ass-on-couch TV gaming over “immersive pantomiming” once the novelty factor wore off
SportsFan581
Member
Quest 2 is showing that the tech is starting to mature. I wouldn't bet the farm on it, or upset the apple cart if you will, but sticking your head in the sand isn't always a good approach either.
DarthBuzzer
Member
That would be all fine and dandy if that scenario actually, you know, played out. It didn't.
VR didn't stop advancing; it continues and has barely scratched the surface. No making VR headsets today would say it's a mass market applicable product; they know there are advances left to get it there.
The masses do not decide if they prefer the old way until a product is mature, because they don't even try it until it's mature.
Last edited:
But still, this didn't change much. Yes it sells quite good, but I would guess, most of them sell well to people who already had a first-gen VR headset. It doesn't change the other things that are negative about VR (e.g. it is still a headset)The Oculus Quest 2 happened, last year
There is a big difference there. The Adaptive controllers add more people to the existing systems. VR splits the userbase into 2 groups. Adaptive controllers are there for people that can play games "the normal" way. VR is pointless in this regard. VR is just another gimmik.
Ironically this was the marketing line for Kinect. That there was no need for a controller that was apparently a barrier for 'ordinary people'. It's a headset and those who use it get use to it, just like a controller.