Quantcast
Phil Spencer: VR Is Not Our Focus Because Our Customers Aren't Asking for It

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Phil Spencer: VR Is Not Our Focus Because Our Customers Aren't Asking for It

Is this the right choice for MS?

Yes, VR will never go mainstream. 8 27.59%
 
Right now, yes. VR is still too niche. 13 44.83%
 
No. MS will lose their p... 8 27.59%
 
Total:29
ironmanDX said:
JRPGfan said:

Virtual Boy, doesnt count.... that wasnt VR.
What type of consumer product VR was there out 30 years ago? 
I think "real" vr is in its early stages, before oculus there was basically nothing (imo).

I think 20 years from now, you ll look at VR headsets today vs then, and see the same patern as happend to us now, with TVs.
They will be vastly better, even just this "next gen" (gen2) of vr headsets, are already set to improve the bar alot.

"how have they polled for the rest of the year"

I honestly dont know, I know that sometime early-mid this year there was like 5million units of PSVR.

Is PSVR (on PS4) a failur if it only does like 7million units lifetime?
I dont think so, any start up and first of its kinde, have slow adaption rates, esp if theres still minor kinks to be worked out.

They will improve with time, and prices will drop, and adoption rates will keep growing.

*edit:
Ironman if PSVR does like 7mil on PS4.... do you think PSVR2 will do like 10m+ on PS5?
And how much do you feel like a VR headset needs to sell, before you can justify spending resources & developement on it?

My dad, was born in 53 and he remembers TV's being something not ever house hold owned.
He says they where one of the first on the block he lived to get a colour tv (his mom got one), so they had other children over often to watch stuff there because it was in colour. This was back when production of tv, wasnt all in colour either.

Can you imagine.... and before then there was a time when TV's must have been really rare, like.... few houses owned one.
Today they are everywhere, and many homes have multiple TVs or monitors.

Imagine if they just gave up, back then before critical mass took off, and TVs became what they are today.
Same thing with VR headsets (though I doubt it ll ever be as popular & common as TVs, I expect them to be much more common than now).

You can't use how dreadful an initial product is to excuse it or how poor it was implemented. I'm sure the first TV sucked too but it was still a TV. You can't provide that as an example then change the goalpost after the fact. Virtual Boy may not be VR in your opinion but that doesn't change what the product actually is or does.

TV's have taken off at an unprecedented rate compared to VR. 30 years later, still niche. Amazon numbers posted by LudicrousSpeed don't flatter it like you initially thought. They do the opposite.

>You can't use how dreadful an initial product is to excuse it or how poor it was implemented

Yes you can.  A product like TV, computer, cell phones become successful based off things like usefulness, practicality.  

If computers were never smaller than an entire kitchen, they wouldn't be found in practically every home.  They became successful after they became useful, convenient devices.  

If you don't think VR will ever be successful that's fine.  That's a reasonable opinion to have.

If you think that past failures are somehow indicative of future failures, that's at best conjecture.  

In my opinion, VR is still around 8-10 or so years before the technology will be good enough for a mainstream market. And I say that as someone who loves VR right now.  

>TV's have taken off at an unprecedented rate compared to VR. 30 years later, still niche.

TVs were still niche for a couple decades.  That's despite being a relatively easy technology. And there were even a few people who thought TV would fail.  

Motion controls took 40 years between their first use and when they first because successful.  

If you want to bring in that 'VR headset' from 51 years ago, it'd only be fair to bring up really old computers.  That took several decades from first being invented to just having a reasonable personal computer and then a few more decades before becoming mainstream.  

But yes, VR is a failure because it is lagging behind the TV.  



Around the Network
the-pi-guy said:
ironmanDX said:

You can't use how dreadful an initial product is to excuse it or how poor it was implemented. I'm sure the first TV sucked too but it was still a TV. You can't provide that as an example then change the goalpost after the fact. Virtual Boy may not be VR in your opinion but that doesn't change what the product actually is or does.

TV's have taken off at an unprecedented rate compared to VR. 30 years later, still niche. Amazon numbers posted by LudicrousSpeed don't flatter it like you initially thought. They do the opposite.

>You can't use how dreadful an initial product is to excuse it or how poor it was implemented

Yes you can.  A product like TV, computer, cell phones become successful based off things like usefulness, practicality.  

If computers were never smaller than an entire kitchen, they wouldn't be found in practically every home.  They became successful after they became useful, convenient devices.  

If you don't think VR will ever be successful that's fine.  That's a reasonable opinion to have.

If you think that past failures are somehow indicative of future failures, that's at best conjecture.  

In my opinion, VR is still around 8-10 or so years before the technology will be good enough for a mainstream market. And I say that as someone who loves VR right now.  

>TV's have taken off at an unprecedented rate compared to VR. 30 years later, still niche.

TVs were still niche for a couple decades.  That's despite being a relatively easy technology. And there were even a few people who thought TV would fail.  

Motion controls took 40 years between their first use and when they first because successful.  

If you want to bring in that 'VR headset' from 51 years ago, it'd only be fair to bring up really old computers.  That took several decades from first being invented to just having a reasonable personal computer and then a few more decades before becoming mainstream.  

But yes, VR is a failure because it is lagging behind the TV.  

There was actually a VR device before that but I omitted it because of it's size. It looked more like an 90's arcade game housing that you put your head in so I understand your point about practicality and I'm not omitting the one from 68. Form factor is quite similar.

It's not that I don't think it won't be successful, I just don't think it will be mainstream. You could argue that it is successful now and given what evidence provided, I may agree. Especially when it comes to revenue and profit generated. That's what the VR manufactures are concerned about.

Mobile phones were first handheld in 1973. They then became widely available mid 80's.

TV's came in poor implemented form in late 1920's and hit the mainstream about 15-20 years after that during WW2.

VR simply isn't indicating to me that it's going to take off. I don't see why it gets the concession of yet another 8-10 years to become viable for mainstream.

Edit: Motion controls I don't think really count. Wii did well. WiiU didn't. OG Kinect rode the wave. Kinect 2 bottomed out and smacked it's head on the sand. It happened but it hasn't been continuous like other examples given... Well, that I'm aware of.