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

Forums - Microsoft - 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%
 
Cloud gaming is the future not VR 2 3.51%
 
Total:57
DonFerrari on 29 November 2019
JRPGfan said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
Exactly, not fantastic numbers. And yeah theyll get better. But it’s not worth them investing in right now.

The problem is by the time they invest it in, the entire market will have 2-3 gens more experiance than MS at it.
When they do enter, their version will probably be more flawed, not funktion as well, and games for it, from them wont be as advanced ect.

If you only jump in, when something suddenly appears to be a gigantic behemonth, your usually not the only one.
And by then, the guys that "helped" it get where it is, are usually the leaders of the pack, both in terms of experiance but also in brand awareness ect.

If say next gen again (not scarlet but what comes after, if Xbox even does a physical box then) they jump in with a new VR headset.
As a consumer, you might have had 2 gens of PSVR already, and heard all these rumors about how much improved the 3rd gen PSVR is.
At that point MS has probably already lost that consumer.

On market, even more when you have resources and safety, it is much better to lead the pack than to be stuck behind the but of the leader.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
Pyro as Bill on 29 November 2019

MS should sit back and let Facebook crush Sony.

$399 for Zuckerberg's portable, wirefree, fingertracking VR puts it in the same price bracket as Kinect+360 and Wii+BB. Low-end graphics and casual software shouldn't be an excuse for it to fail.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Echo_Djinn on 29 November 2019

I can understand Microsoft not wanting to compete in the VR market, but most of the reasons Phil gives seem bogus. "it’s isolating," "We’re responding to what our customers are asking for," and "we might get there [eventually]" are false or poor practice.

1.) VR is not isolating, it can bring people together even _more_ than typical games, as seen by the "VRchat" social game.

2.) When it comes to new hardware, you don't always respond to what customers want, you give them what they never knew they needed. Easier said than done, but Nintendo's thrived off of that strategy for years, and the the original VR pioneers did the same.

3.) "we might get there eventually"? Have they forgotten the windows phone? You don't step into an established technology market without meeting a lot of resistance from what people are used to, and playing catch up with the features the big names are putting out. Technology is a cutting edge market. If you're not driving changes/the market, you'll permanently stay the small fry.



LudicrousSpeed on 29 November 2019
vivster said:
Can't have customers asking for it if there are no customers.



LudicrousSpeed on 29 November 2019
JRPGfan said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
Exactly, not fantastic numbers. And yeah theyll get better. But it’s not worth them investing in right now.

The problem is by the time they invest it in, the entire market will have 2-3 gens more experiance than MS at it.
When they do enter, their version will probably be more flawed, not funktion as well, and games for it, from them wont be as advanced ect.

If you only jump in, when something suddenly appears to be a gigantic behemonth, your usually not the only one.
And by then, the guys that "helped" it get where it is, are usually the leaders of the pack, both in terms of experiance but also in brand awareness ect.

If say next gen again (not scarlet but what comes after, if Xbox even does a physical box then) they jump in with a new VR headset.
As a consumer, you might have had 2 gens of PSVR already, and heard all these rumors about how much improved the 3rd gen PSVR is.
At that point MS has probably already lost that consumer.

That's not really how it works, they can hire people who will have been making VR games for those 2-3 gens you're referencing. When they entered the console market they didn't hire a bunch of people who had never made games before. Their games were just fine and just as advanced as the others.

Your hypothetical is mostly irrelevant. If someone is basing their purchase based off of VR then they'd probably do a bit more research than "oh i heard psvr is good". If you're saying Sony will have a couple gens worth of VR fans built up by the time Microsoft does theirs, that's cool. Again, dozens of us.

And per usual people are trying to extrapolate what Papa Phil is implying or saying based on their own hopes and bias. For all we know, Scarlett will support VR. It just won't be from Microsoft. Or if VR really takes off, it can be from Microsoft. The good thing is business plans and focuses can always change. Look at last gen when rumble was supposedly a dead technology according to Sony, until that lawsuit was done, then oh hey rumble is back baby.



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 29 November 2019
LudicrousSpeed said:
JRPGfan said:

The problem is by the time they invest it in, the entire market will have 2-3 gens more experiance than MS at it.
When they do enter, their version will probably be more flawed, not funktion as well, and games for it, from them wont be as advanced ect.

If you only jump in, when something suddenly appears to be a gigantic behemonth, your usually not the only one.
And by then, the guys that "helped" it get where it is, are usually the leaders of the pack, both in terms of experiance but also in brand awareness ect.

If say next gen again (not scarlet but what comes after, if Xbox even does a physical box then) they jump in with a new VR headset.
As a consumer, you might have had 2 gens of PSVR already, and heard all these rumors about how much improved the 3rd gen PSVR is.
At that point MS has probably already lost that consumer.

That's not really how it works, they can hire people who will have been making VR games for those 2-3 gens you're referencing. When they entered the console market they didn't hire a bunch of people who had never made games before. Their games were just fine and just as advanced as the others.

Your hypothetical is mostly irrelevant. If someone is basing their purchase based off of VR then they'd probably do a bit more research than "oh i heard psvr is good". If you're saying Sony will have a couple gens worth of VR fans built up by the time Microsoft does theirs, that's cool. Again, dozens of us.

And per usual people are trying to extrapolate what Papa Phil is implying or saying based on their own hopes and bias. For all we know, Scarlett will support VR. It just won't be from Microsoft. Or if VR really takes off, it can be from Microsoft. The good thing is business plans and focuses can always change. Look at last gen when rumble was supposedly a dead technology according to Sony, until that lawsuit was done, then oh hey rumble is back baby.

Yes and MS have really attained the lead of the pack with coming late right?



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

LudicrousSpeed on 29 November 2019

Uh, what? Can you tone down the console warz and use better sentence structure so the post is readable?



crissindahouse on 29 November 2019
DonFerrari said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

That's not really how it works, they can hire people who will have been making VR games for those 2-3 gens you're referencing. When they entered the console market they didn't hire a bunch of people who had never made games before. Their games were just fine and just as advanced as the others.

Your hypothetical is mostly irrelevant. If someone is basing their purchase based off of VR then they'd probably do a bit more research than "oh i heard psvr is good". If you're saying Sony will have a couple gens worth of VR fans built up by the time Microsoft does theirs, that's cool. Again, dozens of us.

And per usual people are trying to extrapolate what Papa Phil is implying or saying based on their own hopes and bias. For all we know, Scarlett will support VR. It just won't be from Microsoft. Or if VR really takes off, it can be from Microsoft. The good thing is business plans and focuses can always change. Look at last gen when rumble was supposedly a dead technology according to Sony, until that lawsuit was done, then oh hey rumble is back baby.

Yes and MS have really attained the lead of the pack with coming late right?

Some guys in this forum are also late with their console war this late in the gen. Well, or they are too early and should simply wait until the console manufacturers reveal what they have to offer next gen.

Some things just never change, right?



DonFerrari on 29 November 2019
crissindahouse said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes and MS have really attained the lead of the pack with coming late right?

Some guys in this forum are also late with their console war this late in the gen. Well, or they are too early and should simply wait until the console manufacturers reveal what they have to offer next gen.

Some things just never change, right?

Ludicrous is trying to say there is no issue with being late on the market, like MS would just hire developers and engineers from other companies that had been participating on VR so they could jump development phase so they wouldn't be left behind.

And he was the one that also put that MS when entering console space gone and hired people in the industry.

Put both together and show that they coming later to the market and hiring from the other companies didn't left them behind. Can you? Nope. Because in the 3 gens they weren't able to lead the market and much of it have to do with strength of brand of other companies for being longer in the market.

So opting out of a market to them come later copying what is established by hiring people from those companies don't take care of not participating in the evolution of the market or creation of it.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Immersiveunreality on 29 November 2019

Microsoft needs to focus on exclusives for the biggest pool of gamers they have,it is good that VR exist and is progressing but atm it is not convenient enough for Microsoft to invest a lot of resources in so let them grow in studios and the needed talent first.
It is also not succesfull enough to consider without high risk for the platform that lost a lot of ground this gen.