Quantcast
Locked: 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 "

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - 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 "

Tagged games:

What do you think

I disagree with Phil 20 35.09%
 
I agree with Phil 21 36.84%
 
I love VR so i am stayed with PS5 or PC 14 24.56%
 
I love VR but II love Xbo... 0 0.00%
 
Cloud gaming is the future not VR 2 3.51%
 
Total:57
Angelus said:
SvennoJ said:

True, consoles come bundled with a tv as well, just like all PCs come with a monitor.

Interchangeability of headsets is what's needed. PSVR will be compatible with ps5 alongside a new headset coming out. What stops MS from supporting their WMR headsets on XBox or strike a deal with Oculus or Vive to have their games and hardware connect to XBox.

Anyway, Scarlett better come bundled with a 4K HDR TV otherwise there's no point in buying one :p

I really hope that you're not actually being serious with this analogy lol

Everyone has a TV. Different quality TVs, sure….some people are still gaming at 720p, but at the end of the day they can all still play their games and have a perfectly good time. Barely anybody has a VR headset. A video game console is an accessory to something that's already in your living room. A VR headset is an accessory to an accessory, that costs almost as much as the first accessory, and has a relatively limited use in comparison.

As of today, is it more important for a console manufacturer to have their own VR headset, as it is to have say….an adaptive controller that allows people with various physical impairments to play? Where exactly is Sony on their commitment to make gaming accessible to those people period? 

Plenty VR headsets cost less nowadays than an XBox One X.

There are ways
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cExA9-5-Zv0

Now try to play FH4 on your PC with a DS4, impossible! At least one isn't actively sabotaging the use of competitor's peripherals ;)

Anyway I wasn't being serious, however a VR headset also has multiple uses. You can watch tv on it, 3D movies, use it on different platforms and play games while someone else is watching tv.



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
HollyGamer said:

It will help in discussion , rather bringing service for the discussion. 

How is it going to help? It's not going to change your mind regarding VR sales. I expect you to continue to hold the opinion that Microsoft would be better off by investing in VR.

That's elaborated on in a later post: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9079309

a thread purpose is not to convince nor change people mind. LOL

Why would make Game Pass bring power to Xbox , if it's not event made any changed until now, nor even proved lifted Xbox One consoles sales. Is not even profitable in short terms and midterms, even it's a bad gamble on long terms. 

Microsoft is a large company with market cap almost as big as Apple, VR is just like a toddler compared to other project , hell even they are invested a lot on Hololens. Which is not even ready to sell. 



PotentHerbs said:
The posters on this site who have played good/great VR games:

What are your thoughts on the innovation VR can bring into gaming?

The ability to be free to investigate and try everything that comes naturally.
No more need for convoluted maps since you are in the 3D space and mapping it in your head comes naturally, thus spend less time getting lost.
Much easier to include vertical gameplay and things coming from the sides thanks to bringing peripheral vision into gaming.
Much easier to judge distances, make jumps, dodge projectiles, catch or hit things coming at you.
No more need for lengthy button map tutorials, simply do things as in real life.
Playfulness with perspective changes, suddenly being bigger or smaller makes a big impact in VR, not so much on a screen.
Game characters feel real, life size standing in front of you.

There's so much you can do in VR without needing any tutorial or button maps. Hide behind things, peer around things, look out of windows, under tables, over walls, throw things, shoot around or over things. Here's a bit of Blood and truth game play.

I'm putting the game to the test, trying everything, a lot still not very successful, but other things already work brilliantly. You can't move around much yet (it's glide to the next point with limited movement at each point, it's really meant to be played sitting, I was standing and moving around) and a lot of objects are inert. However the things that do work are intuitive and work very well. This was my first time playing it.

I'm also playing Borderlands 2 in VR with the aim controller and while that works very well, it's clear that its a screen game ported for use in VR and misses all the interactions that Blood and Truth has. It's x to talk, square to interact etc. It should be look at character and say hi to talk or simply make eye contact, and touch things to interact. Away with buttons.



HollyGamer said:

a thread purpose is not to convince nor change people mind. LOL

Why would make Game Pass bring power to Xbox , if it's not event made any changed until now, nor even proved lifted Xbox One consoles sales. Is not even profitable in short terms and midterms, even it's a bad gamble on long terms. 

Microsoft is a large company with market cap almost as big as Apple, VR is just like a toddler compared to other project , hell even they are invested a lot on Hololens. Which is not even ready to sell. 

What is the purpose of a thread?



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

From a short term market standpoint, I think it's probably the right call for MS's bottom line.  VR is still expensive.  It's getting better and cheaper, but we haven't really reached the right point.  We're getting pretty close to getting rid of the screen door effect, and we're figuring out foveated rendering.  I think we're probably 3 years away from VR being good enough for most people to feel that VR is worth it.  

From a long term market standpoint, it probably won't matter.  Microsoft is working on AR and VR, so it's not likely they'll be behind the curve.  Anymore than they currently are at least.  

My personal hope is that MS does have some kind of support for VR.  (And it would be particularly nice if Sony could open up support and allow cross compatible headsets.)  

>“I have some issues with VR — it’s isolating and I think of games as a communal, kind of together experience."

This here though is very wrong. The headsets and software right now, tends to be isolating, but that's not really something inherent with VR.  I know for a fact that Oculus is working on getting rid of the isolation problem through mixed reality.  They're working on virtual reconstruction of rooms as well as individuals.  So you could share a space with real people and virtual people in a communal way.

I don't know for sure if Sony is working on it, but it makes too much sense for them not to.  And I'm not sure if Valve is working on it.  



Around the Network

Agreed and until a more viable cordless solution to VR can be implemented I have no interest in the platform.



Xbox 360 and Xbox One

Gamertag:  GamertagOz70

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. 



Your updates make even less sense than prioritizing VR in 2020. Of course Ninja Theory said the future of gaming will be VR. I think most people believe that. But the future isn’t next gen. Maybe the gen after that VR will be mainstream.

And it’s known that MS originally planned for VR on Xbox. But I can only assume by their later comments about it that they saw the games and sales and realized it’s not worth it. That update only backs Spencer’s opinions up more.

And afaik it doesn’t rule out VR on Scarlett. Just not from Microsoft. 



Why is this "Update: ...." part in the title?

Spencer said different stuff in 2016.
It seems people can change their opinion on things when they collect more information on the topic.
Almost like it is supposed to be that way.



German YouTuber and Streamer:
StarCraft and Fallout 4 currently.

Me trying to write reviews:
Octopath Traveler

Amazon thread

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).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994