Phil Spencer: " I have Issues with VR, VR is non communal, non social " , Focus of Project Scarlett Because Our Customers Aren't Asking for It , Update : Phil Spencer : " Half Life Alix is amazing "

[DonFerrari]

mutantsushi said:
I think what it comes down to is as Playstation is more than 2x as big as MS' , Playstation is able to more profitably serve "niches" including VR.
Even if VR was equally well recieved on MS' platform, it's smaller base would mean less than 1/2 the sales for what is the same effort. No surprise.
So VR can be perfectly successful from Sony's perspective, but MS doesn't see rationale in competing there when it doesn't have platform reach.

I do think it raises interesting questions about philosophy of VR gaming. Right now VR can only really do multiplayer over network, not locally.
The console doesn't really have power to "drive" multiple VR headsets. PC is mostly normalized to local singleplayer anyways, so it's less noticed.
But part of draw of living room console is gaming WITH your friends sitting next to you. And VR can't do that, besides isolating from other people.
Even if it wasn't a question of console power to drive 2 VR headsets, possibly with low-fi graphics that could work, it would still need 2 VR headsets.
Which are still fairly expensive, and hardly any developer is going to make games that are dependent on consumers owning dual VR headsets.
It's not just a 2nd game controller, after all. Even if that could be solved there is chicken-and-egg situation regarding dual(or more) VR headsets.

I can perfectly understand MS not caring about PSVR. The problem pointed on OP is their excuse.

If they said they are focusing in improving their HW and SW at the time being so they aren't involved in developing a VR solution to Scarlet that is fine (although if they don't plan for VR while making the HW that may put some issues when they try to implement VR, like extra input ports on console). But saying they aren't making it because VR alienate people and no one wants are two very bad excuses and wrong to a core.

There are plenty of party games with VR, there are plenty of MP online games with VR. Probably more than there are couch CO-OP first party by MS on X1.

Fei-Hung said:

DonFerrari said:

The lack of passthrough was a real issue for me as well (a revision solved the problem), but right now my biggest problem is a 1y old daughter that likes to touch and pull all she can reach, so I had to store the VR for the moment.

Yeah the pass through is a real pain the butt, but having a child that likes ukling on cords is a whole new expense if it goes wrong. 

They need to also release games that work both with and without vr so the games can get higher sales. 

RE7 made it wonderfully, Ace 7 is great and GTS was okayish. But yes I would like more games to support VR as option (most FPS style games could have it easily).

Loneken said:

DonFerrari said:

Sony isn't lacking focus on their games because of VR though.

Microsoft has lacked focus in their games all this generation without VR. 

im a xbox player. i want solid first party output of games in Scarlett before any focus to VR from Microsoft.

Sorry for my bad english.

People developing HW aren't the same people developing SW. So MS working on VR wouldn't take away time from their first party games.

Again, as put, PSVR didn't get in the way of Sony games. Japan Studio have made some games, third parties have made some, plenty of indies, some games added VR mode, etc.

OTBWY said:
I'm gonna weigh in on the comparison of PSVR and Gamepass, cause this is a bit silly.

The argument here needs to be made on one simple thing: Value.

While VR is certainly being without a doubt held back because of pricing, being a barrier to many, the cheapest option of them is more or less the PSVR (there is a newer VR headset that is also about 299 dollar euros, but PSVR can be bought cheaper than that now). The value proposition here is a headset that needs the PS4, a console that almost costs the same, with a library that only works with that device on that particular platform. The library consists of not much interesting games, outliers are there like Astrobot, but nothing that really super stands out. On the whole, it is an investment in a device that may get good games eventually (we've only waited some years already but okay) and that is probably also going to require another console purchase as I am sure the PS4 VR title development will move on to that newer system. However, Gamepass, is of a different value, because it is a subscription that is not bound to one particular platform, has a much more appealing library and is way way way cheaper. The only thing that might bother someone is the fact that it is basically a rental. However, I can play a game like Outer Worlds, a game that is 60 dollar euros on day one, having paid only 5 euros. Hell, MS is practically giving me free Gamepass as I sit.

With all this in mind, why in the hell are these two things even mentioned? I understand that VR needs to grow, but on the other hand we stand at the beginning of another important moment in gaming in which games are going to be much more accessible to many more people. I think that Gamepass is just something that MS has done right, because it just makes sense in terms of value.

You aren't making yourself much of a favor.

If PSVR costing 300 USD and without games or value sell 5M it paint a bad picture on Gamepass costing 60USD a year (and many have signed for the 1USD for the month deal) and having many great games haven't reach double the number in subscription.

The value actually comes from an experience you can't get otherwise (VR) versus a sub for games you can play otherwise (Gamepass).