I believe they've lost because they managed to embarass themselves on stage so much that no amount of PR can dig them out of that disaster.

What you're saying about virtual rooms with multiple displays is probably true, but you don't need XOne for that. MS tried to shoehorn in their console to the market it does not belong to, and just managed to show that it is a completely marginal player in the VR game. Sort of like Micheal Jordan in baseball - it's nice that he put in an effort, but he was just a minor league player.

All I said was rather than jump the gun on VR tech, why not wait and see the yield of what the other person does. The only thing worth copying (if it has to be done) is the sure thing. Sony tends to take more risk than Microsoft, but what Microsoft made that they copied was a sure thing nevertheless. Motion gaming is fleeting, but online is going to be around for a good long while. Sony as a business is known for making hardware so they will be doing these things quite naturally and with ease. Microsoft doesnt have to meet them halfway everytime. We're still some time away from VR being the in thing.

I am trying to talk about the rational thing to do, not the most cut throat.

What is embarssing is how gamers react to any information.  Only looking at the now and missing everything else.  Focusing on small implementations as if they are huge reveals or game changing situations.  This goes on both sides of the equation and I am only talking about fanboys.  OR is not MS show, how this simple announcement has anything to do with their own presentation eludes me.  They showed a small implementation with OR and talked about right now a partnership with Facebook/OR.  Nothing really big but fanboys on both sides went mental.  Your own post shows that you only looked at the surface of the announcement but totally did not read about some of the advances MS has made on the software end for VR and how this will help OR improve performance.  I do understand that people forget that MS is more a software company then retail like Sony or even Apple but a lot of things they do start on the OS level.  Its not glamorous and thus miss the mark with a lot of gamers but those aspect are very important in making hardware shine.

As for virtual rooms, or course you do not need an X1, but if you so happen to have a OR and an X1 then things could be interesting with Halo 5 for example.  You could have the main screen as your game.  Another screen with the map, and maybe another that feeds data to you or have the other 3 characters pop up like they will within the game take up that view.  The VR rooms can probably be leverage pretty well if developers take advantage of it so I am interested to see how this develop.  Another example would be Forza 6.  If you ware in cockpit view, each side mirror can be a screen on the left and right.

VR is a nice device but it will be very expensive for entry and probably will get the 3D TV reception where cost is way to much before it become mainstream.  MS is alredy invested in AR and the device has a much wider implementationthan VR and so is the better bet if you are a company that does not want to be tied down to just one implementation.

MS will also be present in the PC presentation on Tuesday since they have a hand in those situations as well.

Why do you believe this partnership is MS jumping the gun on VR.  If anything its the opposite since MS can continue to do what they do without creating a device.  MS is going the AR route and for good reason.  It has a much wider application for other industries then VR.  Its smart business for MS to support OR since they want VR to be used with their OS.  The X1 implementation is probably not the biggest goal for MS right now but instead getting Win 10, and VR working tightly together so that Windows is the platform for VR devices.

The ideal that Sony takes more risk I have to disagree.  If anything Sony would be the last company I would say is a risk taker.  They sat on their motion tech until Nintendo showed them it was viable.  When I think about it, could you shed some light on exactly Sony has done in the console space that was risky before another company did it first.  The only thing I can think of is add a DVD player to the PS1 but even then that was not risky, it fueld their tech as well.

Sony always took the ideas and made it better like with trophies. And most of the stuff MS and Nintendo inveted was copied from some other companies as well. And the pic has many things wrong

- how the hell is sony copying the xbox 360 controller? both have a complete different form. The ps4 buttons didnt changed. In fact they improved both flaws of the ps3 and 360 controller, like having an even surface on the button and digipad layout. No one did that before.

- ps2 had always a slot for upgrading a harddrive and lan connection, before xbox was even released.

- remote play was even on the ps3 possible with the psp before the wiiu was out.

- the ps2 had online before the xbox. 

we already seen demo's on the PS4 at 1080p and 120 FPS.

Come now, can we keep in context.  I believe we are talking about real games at 1080P not some limited demos.  When we seem First party real games like Uncharted running on Morp at 1080P 120FPS, then we can hail Sony but until then, the PS4 has not demostrated an ability to perform such work.

Almost everyone has had nothing but bad things to say about this. It actually my turn future xbox buyers towards the ps4 that actually works with VR ava l and just setup a VR studio.

niether has the PS5 or 9th gen xbox. bucause hey, if we even arent waiting for PM to release on PS4 and see how it peforms and how games perform on it, then why not downplay other consoles that didnt even come out yet too? 

no VR game on PS4 will have the level of detail that Uncharted 4 or games of that calibure have. however it can run good looking games at 60 fps or even 120 fps where we have a very good VR experience. 

I think Eve Valkarie (sp) is a perfect example of where VR is going to knock it out of the park.