By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Phil Spencer - Virtual Reality Not Yet 'A Thing'

JEMC on 09 April 2015
JRPGfan said:
"Well, I care. And I care because unlike the wiimotes, Move controllers or even Kinect, those VR helmets won't be cheap, and I can't see them used in so many genres as those controllers."

Most of them are currently around the 199$ mark.
Once it takes off you ll see those prices drop.

Maybe a 2years form now, the norm will be around 99$ for a VR head set.

That 199$ price (that you take from I don't know where), only includes the headset, and except for the Occulus Rift demos which are made with regular controllers, every other demoed headset has used either Move or another kind of motion based controllers, which have to be added to the price.

And then there's the need of a camera (or a pair of sensors with the Steam /HTC version) that also has to be included in the price.

No, it won't be cheap, and I doubt even Sony bothers to launch a bundle with the console and all the necessary items to make it work, it would be too expensive.

JRPGfan said:
"Even worse is the fact that in every demostration made so far of any of those devices, they have used wired units with the promise that they'll get a wireless version at launch."

Honestly who cares about the wire? Thats like saying you refuse to use a game controller with a wire.
But im sure if they say there will be wireless versions there will be.

Hello? Are we talking about VR? How would you feel if while playing a VR game the wire pulls you back? That would break any kind of immersion. 

And let's not go into "silly" details as is the wire too long or too short, can you pull accidentally pull the wire and get disconnected or even worse, make the console fall, etc.

We are not talking about regular controllers here, we¡re talking about something that wants you to interact and move.

JRPGfan said:
"It's still too early for those devices to reach the masses, because right now they'll be a niche product like a racing wheel or an arcade stick."

Im going to be blunt... I think your wrong.
The time is now.

It's your opinion, and I respect that. We just don't share the same opinion.

JRPGfan said:
I dont think the graphics will matter... make a cartoony Zelda like VR game for all that it matters.
It will sell bonkers because people will want to try it out.

The immersion possible with VR will change gameing.

I never mentioned graphics, and since the very first moment a game like Minecraft is used as an example of what could happen in VR, no one does.

Another thing is if it is technically possible to make it work, because we have only seen bits of what is possible without a single manufacturer having all of them at the same time.

And let's be honest here, VR will only have one chance to succeed, and if it fails like 3D did, it will take years until someone tries it again.



Please excuse my bad English.

Former gaming PC: i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Current gaming PC: R5-7600, 32GB RAM 6000MT/s (CL30) and a RX 9060XT 16GB

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

Around the Network
Dr.Henry_Killinger on 09 April 2015
CladInShadows said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

As If, power is irrelevant if there isn't any content. Who is going to waste money developing a 4k oculus rift game for that niche audience. Granted Morpheus won't have much either if we are honest, its first party support vs 3rd party support. Even if Facebook decided to develop games for it, I've yet to see a facebook game that wouldn't run on a friggen smartwatch let alone a ps4/xb1.

On the PC, there is no difference between development of a 1080p game or a 4K game.  You develop the game, and render it in whatever resolution you want, depending on the power of the PC running it.

And PC isn't THAT niche.

VR is a niche audience, I said nothing about PC. Those having a PC powerful enough to support 4k OR is a niche of that VR audience, and I'm not talking about a game running on OR, a game developed specifically for OR.

Also unless you are upscaling to 4k, then it will cost more, if 4k textures could just materialize when you ran the game at higher resolution settings many artists would be out of a job.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

Vasto on 09 April 2015
GamechaserBE said:
Vasto said:
People have not seen one game yet that makes them want to buy a VR and still they are here trying to say he is wrong. First we have to get games, then we have to get the headsets down to an affordable price. 10 more years before VR is ready.


That is not true, the last year many people got a VR and playing games like Alien Isolation with it and that game is my favourite.

If VR is not a thing why people still got on a waitng list if they purchase a Rift? it is kind of crazy because for DK2 you have to pay 350$ + shipping still people get them and have to wait before they can catch up with demand. The only reason why the waiting list has gone down to maybe 1 month is because the CV (consumer version) is expected to release this year.

Vr is ready now, the only problems are hardware problems especially Xone and Ps4 are a bit underpowered because games have to atleast do a locked 90 FPS. At 60 FPS I get easy sick and I normally never have a issue with FPS rate in games and yes the price is also a big issue. You can better buy a console and it will be probably cheaper than buy VR but if the Rift CV version releases for like 250$ I expect it can do a million first year. The expensive DK kits passed 100.000 sales and would have been more if they could produce them faster.

 


VR is not ready now. If it was it would be popular among gamers now. People would have VR headsets in their homes and playing games now. Not just a minority of people who sign up as testers but a majority. Phil said that he is not saying 5 years away but as of right now its not ready. He is right or we would be playing games in VR now.



Vasto on 09 April 2015
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
Vasto said:


Who said anything about 4K? LOL

OR can run HD but when later versions support 4k, the only games it would have are games that are already 4k but aren't specialized for it.

Obviously you missed the point so let me spell it out for you:

The power benefits are irrelevant, the only benefit of being on PC is also a detriment(in the case of specialized software), being on an open platform.


I did not miss the point.  I never mentiond 4K. Dont spell anything out to me. Spell it out to your self.



JRPGfan on 09 April 2015
shikamaru317 said:
Lafiel said:
Vasto said:
If VR does become popular it will be Oculas Rift because PC actually has the power to make the games. PS4 and Xbox One can forget about it. Cant even get 1080 / 60 FPS but its going to do VR?

the consoles won't be able to offer Witcher 3 graphics in VR, that is correct, but apparently abstract/simplified graphics can work very very well in VR and can offer an extremely compelling experience

Here's the way I see it. We've got console gamers moaning right now when a game hits their console that isn't 1080p (Battlefield Hardline for instance). If those people are that concerned about the gap between 900p and 1080p, what do you think they're going to think of VR when they realize that a 1080p screen a few inches from their face has less like half the PPD (apparent resolution) of what they're used to seeing on their TV? Will the coolness and newness of VR really be enough to get them over their resolution hang-ups?

Eventually VR will be great enough to be mainstream, we'll have powerful enough hardware in both consoles and PC's to output games at 4k resolution, and the price of 4K screens will be low enough to put them into VR headsets, VR will have been out for awhile so the library of supported games will be much larger. That is a future we're moving towards, no doubt about it. But is it really worth it for MS to take a risk by trying to be one of the first few hardware companies to release a VR headset, just to create a product that only appeals to a niche audience at this time?

 

Watch this:

 

This guy usually rants and raves.

Now hes giggleing and going "wow" every other secound.

 

And this is not really even that impressive a demo for VR.



Around the Network
Dr.Henry_Killinger on 09 April 2015

JRPGfan said:
"Well, I care. And I care because unlike the wiimotes, Move controllers or even Kinect, those VR helmets won't be cheap, and I can't see them used in so many genres as those controllers."

Most of them are currently around the 199$ mark.
Once it takes off you ll see those prices drop.

Unfortunately, this is not how things work. Not only do peripherals rarely drop in price, but there is the matter of manufacture. And the fact that motion controls and VR(today) are in entirely different climates, namely smart devices.

Maybe a 2years form now, the norm will be around 99$ for a VR head set.

And even if the price drops it will be from manufacturing not demand.


"Even worse is the fact that in every demostration made so far of any of those devices, they have used wired units with the promise that they'll get a wireless version at launch."

Honestly who cares about the wire? Thats like saying you refuse to use a game controller with a wire.
But im sure if they say there will be wireless versions there will be.

VR is not just a game controller though, you put it on your head, sure it seems frivilous, but it determines how close you are to the console/pc etc, and its a safety hazard, especially when you can't see

"It's still too early for those devices to reach the masses, because right now they'll be a niche product like a racing wheel or an arcade stick."

Im going to be blunt... I think your wrong.
The time is now. 

Actually, you need to look around Smartphones represent one thing that is the very antithesis of VR headsets. Portability. Smartphones and VR cannot coexist, one neccessitates mobility doing that with VR is practically impossible. Even AR, which is basically mobile friendly VR, is facing opposition, and this is Google we are talking about, Sony and Facebook doing better with more antisocial hw is a dream.



I dont think the graphics will matter... make a cartoony Zelda like VR game for all that it matters.
It will sell bonkers because people will want to try it out.

IMO ur right, art style will matter alot more because graphical fidelity will be much harder to impress up close

The immersion possible with VR will change gameing.

Possibly, but it sure as hell isn't going to be where the money is, and money drives the industry.





In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

CladInShadows on 09 April 2015
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
CladInShadows said:

On the PC, there is no difference between development of a 1080p game or a 4K game.  You develop the game, and render it in whatever resolution you want, depending on the power of the PC running it.

And PC isn't THAT niche.

VR is a niche audience, I said nothing about PC. Those having a PC powerful enough to support 4k OR is a niche of that VR audience, and I'm not talking about a game running on OR, a game developed specifically for OR.

Also unless you are upscaling to 4k, then it will cost more, if 4k textures could just materialize when you ran the game at higher resolution settings many artists would be out of a job.

Sorry, misunderstood what you meant by "niche market".

However, onto the 4K thing.  Textures have nothing to do with whether to render a game in 4K or 1080p, or 1440p, or whatever resolution you want.  That's all it is.  Resolution. A texture's dimensions just indicates how detailed an object's surface will look when up close to it.  And that varies from game to game, regardless of resolution, depending on the developer's intentions and their balance between graphics and performance.



Dr.Henry_Killinger on 09 April 2015
Vasto said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

OR can run HD but when later versions support 8k, the only games it would have are games that are already 8k but aren't specialized for it.

Obviously you missed the point so let me spell it out for you:

The power benefits are irrelevant, the only benefit of being on PC is also a detriment(in the case of specialized software), being on an open platform.


I did not miss the point.  I never mentiond 4K. Dont spell anything out to me. Spell it out to your self.

Clearly, you did as you haven't yet realized 4k was simply an example. I can simply replace 4k with 8k, in fact I already did, but hey its a free country go ahead and deliberatly nitpick on two letters if it helps you sleep better at night.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

GamechaserBE on 09 April 2015
Vasto said:
GamechaserBE said:
Vasto said:
People have not seen one game yet that makes them want to buy a VR and still they are here trying to say he is wrong. First we have to get games, then we have to get the headsets down to an affordable price. 10 more years before VR is ready.


That is not true, the last year many people got a VR and playing games like Alien Isolation with it and that game is my favourite.

If VR is not a thing why people still got on a waitng list if they purchase a Rift? it is kind of crazy because for DK2 you have to pay 350$ + shipping still people get them and have to wait before they can catch up with demand. The only reason why the waiting list has gone down to maybe 1 month is because the CV (consumer version) is expected to release this year.

Vr is ready now, the only problems are hardware problems especially Xone and Ps4 are a bit underpowered because games have to atleast do a locked 90 FPS. At 60 FPS I get easy sick and I normally never have a issue with FPS rate in games and yes the price is also a big issue. You can better buy a console and it will be probably cheaper than buy VR but if the Rift CV version releases for like 250$ I expect it can do a million first year. The expensive DK kits passed 100.000 sales and would have been more if they could produce them faster.

 


VR is not ready now. If it was it would be popular among gamers now. People would have VR headsets in their homes and playing games now. Not just a minority of people who sign up as testers but a majority. Phil said that he is not saying 5 years away but as of right now its not ready. He is right or we would be playing games in VR now.

But having sold more than 100K should already proof that their is demand for it and if they launch the CV version I am sure they can reach 1 million this year for a better price. A lot of people want it especially if youtube gamers like Pewdiepie plays a game with it. The last 6 months the number of games that let you play with the rift has increased a lot even games like Euro truck simulator lets you play with the Rift.   To reach 50-100 million sales yeah that will take a long time ...:s.



Vasto on 09 April 2015
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
Vasto said:


I did not miss the point.  I never mentiond 4K. Dont spell anything out to me. Spell it out to your self.

Clearly, you did as you haven't yet realized 4k was simply an example. I can simply replace 4k with 8k, in fact I already did, but hey its a free country go ahead and deliberatly nitpick on two letters if it helps you sleep better at night.


As I said dont worry about me. Make sure you get your sleep at night.