By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ironmanDX on 28 November 2019
Edit Thread
Zoombael said:
RolStoppable said:

You are mixing a lot of things together that don't belong together. Nintendo launching Switch in China has nothing to do with the profitability of VR. Neither has the Xbox One anything to do with it.

The history of the competition between Sony and Microsoft has been that they try to match each other in the things they offer, provided something is deemed successful enough to necessitate matching. Be it certain game types, online services, overarching achievement systems or third party support.

VR was supposed to be such a thing, hence why in the past Microsoft talked about their VR solution for the Xbox One. But then it turned out that VR sales are anemic and since VR isn't exactly cheap to provide, Microsoft decided that Scarlett doesn't need it. The demand for VR doesn't justify its costs.

The waning demand for Xbox consoles, their uncertain future and Microsofts inabilty to succesfully gain an unwavering foothold in hardware doesn't justify Xbox to go VR. But hey, the future for AR looks so much closer and brighter, right?

Yes. Actually. 

Pokemon go, an augmented reality game reached over 3 billion dollars at the beginning of 2019. Reasonble to assume it's at closer to 4 now. A method of gaming you mock for being in its infancy has generated more revenue than psvr. If not more revenue, certainly more profit. No hardware overhead. R&D would have been next to nothing as most of the games framework lies in a previously developed game, ingress. 

Run away success? Yeah, maybe. It is only 1 game though. Simply doesn't have the library that psvr offers even if it's based on a massive ip. How many big ip's does psvr have access to?

If I was a betting man and I simply had to choose one? It would go on ar in spite of me actually believing that there is a place for both.

Please don't tell me that they're incomparable either. You bought ar to the table.