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

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%
 
Cloud gaming is the future not VR 2 3.51%
 
Total:57
DonFerrari on 27 November 2019
RolStoppable said:
HollyGamer said:

It's so funny because your first argument is profit. Because even China has a tiny consoles market it's still profitable. And the prove Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft trying to push consoles in China and Sony with consoles and VR on China. Speak by it self. And then your argument comparing with Wii U is even more funnier. 

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.

They certainly did matched the first party of Sony in PS4.



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
Chazore on 27 November 2019

Considering how little interest I have in VR, the price point and the lacking in polish and depth that VR games are atm, I'm in no real rush to bother with it, so I can see where he's coming from, if not partly. Still a bit of PR bs to me when you read it aloud though.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Loneken on 27 November 2019
DonFerrari 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.

They certainly did matched the first party of Sony in PS4.

Thats is a reason for not suport VR. Microsoft has to offer first party games like Sony did it with the Ps4 before to focus en VR.

The new studios in Xbox has to make quality games in a regular basis before even think about VR. 

We dont need another Kinect only studios...



LudicrousSpeed on 27 November 2019
Loneken said:
DonFerrari said:

They certainly did matched the first party of Sony in PS4.

Thats is a reason for not suport VR. Microsoft has to offer first party games like Sony did it with the Ps4 before to focus en VR.

The new studios in Xbox has to make quality games in a regular basis before even think about VR. 

We dont need another Kinect only studios...

His reply was just console warz. Your logic is dead on, though. Microsoft needs to worry about stabilizing their studios and offering a steady stream of quality first party titles before they worry about niche VR nonsense.



Zoombael on 27 November 2019
RolStoppable said:
HollyGamer said:

It's so funny because your first argument is profit. Because even China has a tiny consoles market it's still profitable. And the prove Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft trying to push consoles in China and Sony with consoles and VR on China. Speak by it self. And then your argument comparing with Wii U is even more funnier. 

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?



Hunting Season is done...

Around the Network
DonFerrari on 27 November 2019
Loneken said:
DonFerrari said:

They certainly did matched the first party of Sony in PS4.

Thats is a reason for not suport VR. Microsoft has to offer first party games like Sony did it with the Ps4 before to focus en VR.

The new studios in Xbox has to make quality games in a regular basis before even think about VR. 

We dont need another Kinect only studios...

Sony isn't lacking focus on their games because of VR though.



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."

DonFerrari on 27 November 2019
RolStoppable said:
HollyGamer said:

Then why are mixing Wii U and PSVr in your argument. and then game pass with PSVR??? Is not even the same. 

Edit : VR is not cheap for PC but it cheap for consoles, hell even Microsoft provide support for Hollo lens and they are supporting for Windows Mixed reality and then there is another patent for VR from Microsoft.

I brought up the Wii U because everyone recognizes it as failure. Since VR headsets (so not only PS VR, but the combination of PS VR, Ocolus Rift and Vive) have sold worse than the Wii U launch-aligned, it should be clear to people around here that VR isn't something that every console needs to have and therefore no VR on Scarlett should be seen as a positive for Xbox rather than a negative, because Microsoft can spend their resources on areas that more gamers are interested in. Game Pass is such an example.

What I see in this thread is that PS fans take it for granted that Xbox will be left in the dust, but new consoles mean a reset on a large scale. While Microsoft did things like backwards compatibility and Game Pass during the Xbox One generation, it didn't change the sales trajectory. But Game Pass in particular can be a selling point once gamers evaluate what their next console will be; as JRPGfan put it, Game Pass is gaming for cheap. The thought that Scarlett can be competitive may seem ridiculous at the moment, but things can change fast with new consoles. Once upon a time both PS and Xbox fans believed that PS can't sell better than Xbox in America anymore, but the tides turned.

In any case, Game Pass plays more to Microsoft's strengths than VR would and Game Pass is one of the few things that differentiates Xbox from PS. Xbox needs at least some identity of its own and it shouldn't be of the sort that the Xbox One had with its non-gaming features. If Microsoft did VR, they'd just be doing the same thing as Sony on top of VR having a very limited reach due to its high price. Don't kid yourself, even $200 is expensive for an add-on, but next gen VR will start at $400 again unless corners are cut.

Sales of a System vs Accessory to determine success is just plain wrong.

But if you want to use not outselling WiiU as metric then Gamepass is also a failure since it have less subs than WiiU sold and revenue is also much smaller than WiiU made.



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."

mutantsushi on 27 November 2019

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.



pokoko on 27 November 2019

This whole, "if a technology isn't highly successful right away then it should be abandoned," line of thinking is kind of silly.  Plenty of commonplace innovations started out as unsuccessful products.  It's that very period of development and experimentation that allowed for growth, refinement, and inspiration.  

crissindahouse said:

He didn't say anything against singleplayer and MS is investing much more in singleplayer campaigns now.

You can also clearly see how Gamepass is used to help singleplayer games which don't live from microtransactions

He just argued about VR and how that is isolating (even though it shouldn't matter what his opinion is and only what people want)

He said, "I think of games as a communal, kind of together experience."  Single-player games aren't usually communal, so either he's making a lame excuse or his philosophy is slanted directly toward "communal" gaming.  If it's the latter, he can screw off.  The head of a gaming division stating that his philosophy on gaming is exclusionary and directly counter to my own is plenty of reason for me to be wary of his product.  

He doesn't have the right to dictate when or if I want to be "isolated" or "social".  That should never be part of his criteria for a gaming decision.  Of course, it probably isn't this time, either, and that's just an excuse, but that is the direction he decided to spin so he's entirely responsible for creating that impression.   



Fei-Hung on 27 November 2019
DonFerrari said:
Fei-Hung said:
My experience from my VR has been it gets people together including parents and children, gamers and non gamers.

My issue has been setting up everytime I want to play due to the hdr pass through and the number of cables. If they can resolve this with the next VR, I'll invest more into it.

They are simply not investing into it since they splashed out buying studios and won't see a return until the games are released and do well... That along with not having sold enough xbox units.

There is nothing wrong if they don't focus first on their first party and then move into VR once they have established their core base, but there is no need for lame excuses.

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.