Support NeoGAF

[Esppiral]

If they are smart, and I think they are, they will whitelist third parties headsets and save the costs of developing one.

 

[Excess]

If they are smart, and I think they are, they will whitelist third parties headsets and save the costs of developing one.

Yeah, Microsoft tends be more third-party agnostic when developing something in-house if it doesn't yield some benefit to their core businesses. They seem to be more interested in AR, and there's just no application of that in console gaming right now.

Sony on the other hand, I can only imagine they're developing VR because they'd like to keep as much hardware under their ecosystem as humanly possible. And it may be part of some broader strategy involving consumption of entertainment, given that Columbia Pictures is still a core business asset. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[sinnergy]

It’s. Not convenient yet.. most sets need wires .. until it’s wireless it will be perfect for the masses.

 

[DarkMage619]

Peripheral add-ons never get the mass adoption rate of a feature that is standard with every system. MS just recently set their focus entirely on games and gaming services. VR would be a distraction from that in a similar way Kinect was a distraction from the core gaming business on X360 & X1.

Did PSVR even hit 25% adoption rate with the PS4 installation base? MS would be much better suited focusing on games specifically and as others have mentioned pick up VR if/when an affordable, wireless solution that can easily used with all games comes along. It's just not worth it currently.

 

[Humdinger]

There is (an excuse). They need to focus on getting their first- and second-party studios up and running, delivering regularly. It's been really spotty the past 7 or 8 years. They need to get their exclusive (normal) game catalog beefed up first. Then VR later, maybe. First, the games.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Peripheral add-ons never get the mass adoption rate of a feature that is standard with every system. MS just recently set their focus entirely on games and gaming services. VR would be a distraction from that in a similar way Kinect was a distraction from the core gaming business on X360 & X1.

If they were building an in-house headset and trying to build a first-party library of titles to sell the device, I can see it potentially being a distraction or derailing things. On the other hand, if we are talking more of a software feature to make Xbox compatible with 3rd party headsets already available and allowing a VR store on Xbox mostly powered by 3rd parties and 1st party VR modes that would have been made available on PC anyway, I don't think that risks anything.

 

[Stare-Bear]

Whatever happened to HoloLens? They brought it out every E3 in the 2010s as the next big thing but it’s gone silent

 

[mejin]

I think MS is pursuing streaming and the adoption is probably even worse than VR. I think they'll jump in sooner or later.

 

[oldergamer]

Im yet to care about vr

 

[ReBurn]

Whatever happened to HoloLens? They brought it out every E3 in the 2010s as the next big thing but it’s gone silent

Didn't they only bring it to E3 2015? That thing cost thousands when it released. It was never going to make it for gaming.

 

[oldergamer]

Whatever happened to HoloLens? They brought it out every E3 in the 2010s as the next big thing but it’s gone silent

Hololens works. It just needed a better field of view

 

[cireza]

I don't see why every company should do everything. I think that scattering resources is a mistake.

 

[The_Mike]

I'd rather have MS focus on their first party games rather than invest tons into technology that 1% of Xbox players will use.

VR at this stage is a complete gimmick and a waste of time. The games are extremely limited in terms of actual gameplay and not even close to being worth the price of admission. The only game that was close to being a "system seller" was Half Life: Alyx and barely anyone even played that.

 

[dorkimoe]

I know 1 person with VR and never heard them mention it once. It still is a gimmick. Sorry to the people who think it’s the goat

 

[Romulus]

I was really excited about VR until I tried it and realised it’s decades away from being any good.

Still keeping an eye on it, but the whole thing felt completely unnatural as opposed to being more immersive.

I do think they should partner with someone though, just to make it available, but definitely not make exclusive Xbox hardware.

Im still waiting to find one of you guys. Ive been demoing VR since 2015 and demoed it to hundreds of people(400-500). Haven't found a single person that wasn't blown away by the immersion, yet online its like this alternate reality where i constantly see people say VR isn't immersive. Ive had people get motion sick but thats it.

 

[Naked Lunch]

VR will always be extremely niche and for the ultra nerd only.
Personally, no way im sitting in my house with that headset on, ever.

Its a waste of resources and dev time away from "real games" for Playstation, and would be the same for Xbox or Nintendo.

 

[Romulus]

I know 1 person with VR and never heard them mention it once. It still is a gimmick. Sorry to the people who think it’s the goat

I mean there are alots of people that don't use their consoles. My brother hss an xbox series x but never plays it or talks about. Still plays his ps4 more often. Doesnt mean anything.

 

[dorkimoe]

I mean there are alots of people that don't use their consoles. My brother hss an xbox series x but never plays it or talks about. Still plays his ps4 more often. Doesnt mean anything.

Yes it does. Means he prefers his PlayStation. In turn it Means people prefer playing without vr

 

[93xfan]

No interest in VR. So glad they aren’t using talent and resources on it

 

[Romulus]

Yes it does. Means he prefers his PlayStation. In turn it Means people prefer playing without vr

That doesn't make any sense. Even if you had 5 friends with vr collecting dust, it means nothing because you're a small sample size compared to the bigger picture of millions. Quest 2 has outsold every xbox console ever comparing their first years. Even outsold ps1 and ps4. VR is dead.

 

[sinnergy]

Whatever happened to HoloLens? They brought it out every E3 in the 2010s as the next big thing but it’s gone silent

Holo lens is used it B2B and healthcare .

 

[rickybooby87]

I know 1 person with VR and never heard them mention it once. It still is a gimmick. Sorry to the people who think it’s the goat

I know 6 people who have VR headsets, not really a useful metric lol. VR is here. It’s only going to grow.

 

[dorkimoe]

That doesn't make any sense. Even if you had 5 friends with vr collecting dust, it means nothing because you're a small sample size compared to the bigger picture of millions. Quest 2 has outsold every xbox console ever comparing their first years. Even outsold ps1 and ps4. VR is dead.

I swear vr people are the most overly sensitive group. Like you live and die by it.
It’s my opinion it’s a fad until it’s done without wires and a headset even

It’s just my opinion. I’m sure I’m wrong

 

[DenchDeckard]

I can totally see them supporting it when it makes sense.

Tbh I want them to just support the quest 2 or whatever comes next but tbh I can see the major issue with that because people don't like Facebook.

 

[Romulus]

I swear vr people are the most overly sensitive group. Like you live and die by it.
It’s my opinion it’s a fad until it’s done without wires and a headset even

I bring up facts and that means im sensitive. Lol Theres literally no wires with quest 2 now so clearly youre not up to date. I guess me pointing that means im sensitive lol

 

[Zug]

I would have liked to see MS on the AR segment, I believe they are one of the world-leaders with this tech.
A RTS, strategy game, or even a plateformer in AR on my coffee table ? Gimme !

 

[Decontamination Silo]

Nah we're still not there. Nearly half the VR sets sold this holiday will never be properly played. The people I know who bought them for their kids were all very young. It might get hooked up for a week or two, but none are gonna be long term gaming devices. Microsoft is smart to continue waiting and let other people foot the bill for R&D.

 

[MonarchJT]

still no reason to put VR on console. when VR will be mainstream the yes

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

You don’t become that big company with all that money by recklessly investing in stuff that isn’t profitable. You aren’t making any sense from a business perspective.
Apple could lead VR too and they aren’t even really pushing it either.

Again, we can just swap out VR with GamePass. We know GamePass is sustainable, but we also know it's nowhere near as profitable (yet) as the rest of the Xbox division. Yet MS are investing lots of money into it, so they must think it makes business sense (and for their cloud strategy, it does).

What they could do would be to include PC VR games on PC Gamepass and their game store to be played on 3rd party PC VR hardware. If PSVR2 and Quest 3 become super popular (I think this generation the VR market will grow but won't be something mainstream, will continue being a niche) then they could get a deal with some 3rd party manufacturer to support in Series X some 3rd party headset that would run ports of PC VR games.

That's all most of us are asking for right now: just whitelist support for a 3P VR solution on Xbox consoles, and let things go from there. Requires no VR hardware from MS nor even 1P games with VR modes or support. The 3P devs will have fun with it, though.

PSVR 2 is looking like big success based on... What?

You don't know price. You could see teaser for one game and you don't know price for that game.And you don't know if it will be any good. I mean PSVR had excellent game in form of Astro Bot and it did not made a difference

And you are coming out of PSVR with pathetic 4% attach rate

Looking at it from attach rate isn't the right way to see it, since it was always an additional peripheral you had to buy separately. It was never going to be 100% attach rate. But 5+ million units sold isn't terrible for a peripheral.

Look at the studio power Sony puts into VR. I know it’s not much but that could go into traditional games that I enjoy. That’s why me personally don’t want VR.

They didn't have a problem with traditional games from 2016 - 2020 despite introducing PSVR 1. What suddenly changes now to where they'll have a myriad of problems getting out traditional software and support VR simultaneously for the next four or so years?

How on earth can you look at psvr one and say that Ms “has” to do that? It’s only maybe viable.

Not "make their own 1P headset and VR software", really. I mean at least open up VR support on Xbox with whitelisted 3P headsets. Some people are saying the Quest 2 for example; that could potentially work, though Facebook might be a barrier there.

VR won't take off until it's 99$ just like Kinect/PS Move. The numbers speak for themselves, the attach rate of the hardware alone is already pathetic, and from there you have to take the attach rate for the games themselves, which is where the actual profit is being made.

I agree to the extent that VR solutions need to be cheaper. I'll go a step further and say that until a console bundles in an affordable VR headset by default, it won't become truly mainstream at least outside of the space of something like the Quest 2 (which if you think about it is bundling the hardware components into the VR headset itself).

By 10th-gen that should be readily possible more or less, as long as you aren't talking top-of-the-line resolution and framerates for such a default headset. Save those as options.

Simply put VR is a waste of everyone's time and money. Especially given MS' strategy to be available on everything that has a flat screen with GP/xCloud, that's their endgame, and there's no room for VR in it, once they establish their main goal they can expand the services with VR, but not earlier.

Now this I don't agree with; VR is clearly worth a lot of people's time and money, that's why the Quest 2 sold 10 million last year. That's why big companies are investing into the tech with consumer products today.

MS's push with GP and xCloud don't have to exclude VR. In fact, it's arguable that utilizing offloaded cloud streaming for wireless VR solutions would be BETTER in terms of a costs perspective since the headset would only need hardware for receive the wireless data and doing some video/audio decoding for frame data (and at most, MAYBE a very small embedded APU with small GPU grunt and a decompression block to decompress and process packaged video/audio data, to help with the bandwidth issue).

They don't need to wait until they've fully satisfied their goals with GP/xCloud before starting with VR, either, because what if they never accomplish all of their goals with GP/xCloud? What then? That's why it would help to put at least a bare minimum into the VR basket sooner rather than later, and that can start with whitelisting a 3P VR headset or two for their consoles.

Your exames were the next generaton of iterations that solved existing issues: Catridges were expanding memory over the time, but were expensive, the CD made a huge jump at the cost of pennies, analog sticks were actually the standard for the Atari, they returned in because of 3D.

VR does solve existing issues though in terms of gyroscopic immersion, and general overall immersion, at least to a decent subset of gamers. Technologies from the motion control era went on to benefit VR (same with ones from the 3D era moving on to benefit VR), and the advent of motion controls were answering the problem of game control types for games where the traditional gamepad wasn't suitable enough for capturing the intended feel from game designers.

Some of those advances were then incorporated down into traditional controller designs, creating a general improvement in generational controllers, and at the very least the various advancements of VR will also funnel down to benefiting traditional controllers and therefore traditional non-VR game designs, IMO.

 

[Vasto]

No thanks

 

[Kagey K]

Im still waiting to find one of you guys. Ive been demoing VR since 2015 and demoed it to hundreds of people(400-500). Haven't found a single person that wasn't blown away by the immersion, yet online its like this alternate reality where i constantly see people say VR isn't immersive. Ive had people get motion sick but thats it.

The thing is you are demoing it. The initial reaction will always be wow, it's after a few hours the novelty wears off.

I have used the quest (v1), Rift and Vive and the only thing I want to go back to is Beat Sabre and the occasional horror "game" (Horror is where I think VR really shines, and helps the experience.)

There's nothing there for longevity yet and feels like a bunch of tiny tech demos stretched out into full games.

The first 15 minutes is always going to have that wow factor for newcomers.

 

[Andodalf]

Why on earth would you make a Vr exclusive game? You’re limiting how many people can play it by a ton. That makes sense if you’re selling a VR headset, but that’s the only way that really makes sense for a huge company to do anything other than experiment.

 

[Ezquimacore]

There's not one single game on any console that's worth a VR headset. Zero, none.

 

[Banjo64]

VR is just pish IMO. I don’t even think it necessarily appeals to the hardcore or the casuals, just the small number of people with a pre-existing interest in VR. Sony are never going to make one of their tent pole exclusives VR only, because they’ll never alienate 96-7% of their install base.

Feels like VR gets a disproportionate amount of love on GAF. In reality it will always be niche due to the cost, lack of tent pole games and mess of wires.

 

[isoRhythm]

Someone never tried RE7. Sure, there’s not a lot of games with that level of quality but as a horror fan playing that in VR was a fucking revolution.

I played AFFECTED: The Manor, the game is extremely mediocre when I first played it on a flatscreen and I got bored of it within 30 mins. Then they released a full VR version of the game and I was like ok I'll give it a try again and it turned out to be an amazing & fun experience. My score for the game went from a 5/10 to an 8/10 just over a quick and dirty VR implementation.

 

[VolticArchangel]

Kinect 1 sold 25 million + units, standalone, at $150, and was a huge success for peripheral.

Kinect 2 was bundled with Xbox One and was one of the many missteps they took that led to a very bad PR, and eventually losing half their installed base to Sony last gen (which in turn is billions of dollars per quarter), and many executives quitting and some even fired.

I think they would be very VERY careful about secondary accessories going forward in the Xbox business, and would never EVER force the customer in a bundled package of the accessory and the console again.

However, I completely believe that Microsoft will bring some solution to power VR titles for the new consoles, and I mostly think of allowing 3rd party compatibility, rather than themselves investing billions into R&D'ing a new device. IIRC, Phil was very clear on this, saying somewhere in the lines of "we're aware of the players in the market, and respect what they do, but right now that space is too small to invest in, so we're just staying away and watching it grow".

Personally, I think they could just let third party HMD's from companies whom they are cozy with, be compatible. HP, Razer, HTC, Pimax, Valve and the others, but not Oculus (I'll explain why, in the ahead paragragh).

Besides all these trillion/billion dollar big tech giants are pursuing this hot new trend of "metaverse" concept of this personality based avatar in a virtual space/world that we as gaming enthusiasts know and are used to for decades, but with VR/AR now, which may blow up into something big and mainstream, and is one of the reasons to not allow a direct competitor's device like the Oculus (even though they have been cozy with Facebook during the Mixer days).

 

[Sony]

There is: VR is overrated. But hey I guess MS could support 3rd party devices.

 

[Godot25]

Looking at it from attach rate isn't the right way to see it, since it was always an additional peripheral you had to buy separately. It was never going to be 100% attach rate. But 5+ million units sold isn't terrible for a peripheral.

That's true, but I doubt it will be higher with PSVR2, mainly because i think that PSVR2 will loose one of the main point of attraction and that's price.

But mainly, if you translate this attach rate to Xbox (aprox. 50 million consoles sold last gen) it would get you 2 millions headsets sold. That's pretty bad.

 

[TwiztidElf]

No excuse? What?
The only excuse that matters to a company. Return on Investment.

As soon as the ROI is there, expect MS to get on board.
Do you think MS has nothing in this space? They have plans ready to move as soon as its in their interest to do so.

 

[Romulus]

The thing is you are demoing it. The initial reaction will always be wow, it's after a few hours the novelty wears off.

I have used the quest (v1), Rift and Vive and the only thing I want to go back to is Beat Sabre and the occasional horror "game" (Horror is where I think VR really shines, and helps the experience.)

There's nothing there for longevity yet and feels like a bunch of tiny tech demos stretched out into full games.

The first 15 minutes is always going to have that wow factor for newcomers.

You missed the point of my quote. He said he had the opportunity to try VR and it wasn't immersive. I'm still waiting to find one of those people after 6 years of demoing it but only on Neogaf is the initial reaction "meh" constantly here.

Novelty is another point. But there are plenty of people that disagree with you. Every time me, my wife, or anyone that plays VR in our house they're still blown away. And, you could argue novelty for anything. PS5 graphics for example.
Tech demos? You definitely haven't played real VR then. No one would say that had. There is literally so much to play that I don't have time. Beat Saber lol. No wonder, that's a casual game

 

[Romulus]

Feels like VR gets a disproportionate amount of love on GAF. In reality it will always be niche due to the cost, lack of tent pole games and mess of wires.

Resetera gives WAY more love for VR than Neogaf. But I would argue all gaming forums do now. So I guess everyone that likes is wrong and the fact that it's outselling every console except PS2 is also a fad. Quest 2 has zero wires.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Yeah, Microsoft tends be more third-party agnostic when developing something in-house if it doesn't yield some benefit to their core businesses. They seem to be more interested in AR, and there's just no application of that in console gaming right now.

Sony on the other hand, I can only imagine they're developing VR because they'd like to keep as much hardware under their ecosystem as humanly possible. And it may be part of some broader strategy involving consumption of entertainment, given that Columbia Pictures is still a core business asset. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Oh that's definitely a part of it, and it's pretty smart on their part. Film etc. are going to continue losing ground to video games in terms of the size of their market by comparison, as more people choose gaming to spend their dollars and time on. Sony obviously don't want to shut down their film, television etc. divisions so it's best to try innovating that type of content with VR-friendly features.

Just think of the next blockbuster Spider-man movie where the viewer can put themselves in Spiderman's POV when he's swinging through an action sequence, and switch out to a more "normal" view at will. Or viewers being able to take on the viewpoints of NPCs/extras on the set of a film scene to see from their POV. Adding some interactivity to the film experience....you can do this without VR of course but if you can scale that up to VR use then why not take that on?

Peripheral add-ons never get the mass adoption rate of a feature that is standard with every system. MS just recently set their focus entirely on games and gaming services. VR would be a distraction from that in a similar way Kinect was a distraction from the core gaming business on X360 & X1.

Did PSVR even hit 25% adoption rate with the PS4 installation base? MS would be much better suited focusing on games specifically and as others have mentioned pick up VR if/when an affordable, wireless solution that can easily used with all games comes along. It's just not worth it currently.

I don't think VR would be a distraction similar to Kinect because for starters, a focus on VR in the gaming space would be specifically on gaming (Kinect XBO was focused on almost everything BUT games). Secondly, thanks to other solutions already available Microsoft doesn't even have to do a 1P VR headset, they can just extend support to 3P headsets instead.

There is (an excuse). They need to focus on getting their first- and second-party studios up and running, delivering regularly. It's been really spotty the past 7 or 8 years. They need to get their exclusive (normal) game catalog beefed up first. Then VR later, maybe. First, the games.

But their 1P are already delivering. Deathloop, Forza Horizon 5, Halo Infinite, Psychonauts 2, Flight Simulator...those are all games that've been very well-received, certainly critically. The upcoming games are looking like they're coming along well, too.

If they need every single 1P game to hit 90+ MC and be a GOTY contender before it's deemed they're "ready" to move on to supporting VR with content, then they'll never be at that point. It's an unrealistic expectation.

Whatever happened to HoloLens? They brought it out every E3 in the 2010s as the next big thing but it’s gone silent

Still used in medical, military fields. Nothing for consumer electronics though.

That doesn't make any sense. Even if you had 5 friends with vr collecting dust, it means nothing because you're a small sample size compared to the bigger picture of millions. Quest 2 has outsold every xbox console ever comparing their first years. Even outsold ps1 and ps4. VR is dead.

Lol, exactly this. Quest 2's sold more in one year than all of the consoles you mention did in 1 year (or at least sold within their ballpark), but since other VR devices haven't had those numbers the market is niche?

I mean relatively speaking you can say it's niche compared to consoles, but in terms of absolutes? There's arguably, collectively, more support for VR on the customer end (as in, more monies from customers) than there is collectively on the game subscription/streaming service end. In both cases the standouts may have a heavy lopsided share in their favor (Oculus Quest 2, GamePass), but still.

That isn't too much different from console sales marketshares of many prior generations. You'd have systems like PS1 at 100 million and N64 with 35, Saturn with 10, and others like Jaguar or 3D0 at 2 million or even less. Do we look at the collective number of gaming platforms and say that console gaming was niche just because only one or two of those systems saw healthy sales? I don't see why people want to do that with VR, besides it's still the early phase for VR adoption into the mainstream.

The thing is you are demoing it. The initial reaction will always be wow, it's after a few hours the novelty wears off.

I have used the quest (v1), Rift and Vive and the only thing I want to go back to is Beat Sabre and the occasional horror "game" (Horror is where I think VR really shines, and helps the experience.)

There's nothing there for longevity yet and feels like a bunch of tiny tech demos stretched out into full games.

The first 15 minutes is always going to have that wow factor for newcomers.

Why does VR need to have a persistent "wow" factor in order to justify its existence? Traditional gaming has had ever-decreasing "wow" moments each generation, as diminishing returns have kicked in. Most big games are firmly entrench in certain game design templates, so there's less game design innovation happening there. Yet, traditional gaming is perfectly fine and continues to be.

I dunno, this expectation that VR gaming has to hold onto having an everlasting novelty factor to be impressive and therefore be worth investing into, that doesn't sit right with me. I think if it can justify itself in terms of providing greater convenience and engagement options to players, then that makes it worth the money. As long as it's entertaining and satisfying to use while providing an overall benefit in the QoL for the user, it's worth keeping around. And it doesn't need to rely on a "wow" factor or novelty of it being new in order to do those things.

 

[Romulus]

Why does VR need to have a persistent "wow" factor in order to justify its existence? Traditional gaming has had ever-decreasing "wow" moments each generation, as diminishing returns have kicked in. Most big games are firmly entrench in certain game design templates, so there's less game design innovation happening there. Yet, traditional gaming is perfectly fine and continues to be.

This too. No console game or PC game has wowed me more than 30 minutes in the last 15 years. Your brain adjusts to it almost instantly. I'll take VR games that wow me every time I put on the headset, even if does sort of wear off after 2 hours of playing. By that time, I'm usually readying to turn it off already.

 

[Kagey K]

Why does VR need to have a persistent "wow" factor in order to justify its existence? Traditional gaming has had ever-decreasing "wow" moments each generation, as diminishing returns have kicked in. Most big games are firmly entrench in certain game design templates, so there's less game design innovation happening there. Yet, traditional gaming is perfectly fine and continues to be.

I dunno, this expectation that VR gaming has to hold onto having an everlasting novelty factor to be impressive and therefore be worth investing into, that doesn't sit right with me. I think if it can justify itself in terms of providing greater convenience and engagement options to players, then that makes it worth the money. As long as it's entertaining and satisfying to use while providing an overall benefit in the QoL for the user, it's worth keeping around. And it doesn't need to rely on a "wow" factor or novelty of it being new in order to do those things.

It doesn't need to have a persistent wow factor, if the games have great gameplay to back it up.

Unfortunately that isn't the case for most of the VR software, and the gimmick wears off quickly.

 

[Romulus]

It doesn't need to have a persistent wow factor, if the games have great gameplay to back it up.

Unfortunately that isn't the case for most of the VR software, and the gimmick wears off quickly.

The thing is there are already so many solid VR games that people getting in now will have a ton of good stuff to play. So that's not really a good argument unless you're just comparing it to total shovelware, but people aren't searching for shovelware when they get on youtube and look for best VR games. Just like they're not searching for shit games to play on PS5.

But the argument I hear from alot of VR players is the wow is every time they put on the headset. Myself included. That's actually a common thing if not more so. But you're arguing it's still a bad thing for all those millions? At that point, its not a gimmick at all. I have a theory that some people are less sensitive to stereoscopic 3d, which could be a reason for the "novelty" thing.

 

[Sleepwalker]

They don't need to produce a headset, they can and should license one for xbox (or even better add support for most existing headsets) and make VR games for PC/xbox.

Pretty sure flight sim is VR compatible, do the same for the forza series and some of bethesdas RPGs then call it a day. Can even add a VR tier to gamepass and have it be cross save save and seamless between xbox and PC like the rest.


No need for XBVR, just let people use their quests and their indexes as a means of gauging interest.

 

[K2D]

Xbox will definetly have a VR available by the time TES VI hits us. By in-house brand or 3rd party. Because demand - and business sense. It's a perfect marriage with their most popular IP's as well, old or newly acquired..

 

[Banjo64]

Resetera gives WAY more love for VR than Neogaf. But I would argue all gaming forums do now. So I guess everyone that likes is wrong and the fact that it's outselling every console except PS2 is also a fad. Quest 2 has zero wires.

No, not wrong. It is niche though, I’m not sure what you mean when you say it’s outselling every console but the PS2. Do you mean total sales, sales in a certain time period? What?

The fact that Facebook can sell a headset to people is great. I’m not well versed on the hardware, but I imagine there’s some compromises with the Oculus which is why Valve and Sony (actual gaming companies) use wires.

The Wii and Kinect sold insanely well and set new records also. They did nothing for gaming though.

 

[Romulus]

No, not wrong. It is niche though, I’m not sure what you mean when you say it’s outselling every console but the PS2. Do you mean total sales, sales in a certain time period? What?

The fact that Facebook can sell a headset to people is great. I’m not well versed on the hardware, but I imagine there’s some compromises with the Oculus which is why Valve and Sony (actual gaming companies) use wires.

The Wii and Kinect sold insanely well and set new records also. They did nothing for gaming though.

First-year sales are higher than every console but ps2. Like for like, and it's not slowing down. Quest 2 doesn't use wires but it can, and play every maxed out PCVR game there is. It's also portable like Switch and can be played most anywhere.

Kinect and Wii were very different. Far less expensive and most of Kinect's sales were dirt cheap or pack in. The reason they did nothing for gaming is they were limited to casual games. VR can do casual better than both and hardcore better than most non-VR games. Especially sims and a lot of fps games. Even 3rd person is objectively better.

I can tell by your verbiage you're not very knowledgeable on the subject and that's not bad or wrong either but VR is very different than wii or Kinect.

 

[Aguero9320]

Im still waiting to find one of you guys. Ive been demoing VR since 2015 and demoed it to hundreds of people(400-500). Haven't found a single person that wasn't blown away by the immersion, yet online its like this alternate reality where i constantly see people say VR isn't immersive. Ive had people get motion sick but thats it.

Not sure what you’re saying here? Are you saying I haven’t tried it? Because if so I won’t waste my time with you.

If I’m misunderstanding your point though I’ll add some detail. I hated the plastic headset of the Quest 2 - it was hot, and it was blurry inside. I hated that I could see the edge of the display. I hated that I had to turn my head to look - the most unnatural, immersion breaking part for me. Felt like I was in a neck brace. The controllers just felt weird and I didn’t feel in control of my virtual ‘arms’ - it also felt weird to move my arms around and have these things in my hands that I couldn’t see but relied on to move myself around like I’m in an electric wheelchair. Those are just my top of the head thoughts - the games I tried (mostly demos admittedly) were also uniformly terrible.

I see the potential, but the reality right now, virtual and otherwise for me at least was a complete turn off. I really hope it works in my lifetime, but I’m far from convinced. I remember as a kid being super excited by those in arcade virtual reality machines, so it’s not like I was against the idea of the technology from the start, it just failed to impress.