• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Opinion Hardware Platform Time To Say It: There's No Excuse For Microsoft Not Supporting VR on Xbox

What do you think MS's near-term to long-term move(s) for VR on Xbox are (Choose All That Apply)?

  • 3P VR whitelisted compatibility

    Votes: 76 38.2%
  • 1P VR hardware (9th gen)

    Votes: 8 4.0%
  • 1P VR software (9th gen)

    Votes: 12 6.0%
  • 1P VR hardware (10th gen)

    Votes: 18 9.0%
  • 1P VR software (10th gen)

    Votes: 16 8.0%
  • 1P AR (Augmented Reality/Mixed Reality) hardware (10th gen)

    Votes: 19 9.5%
  • 1P AR (Augmented Reality/Mixed Reality) software (10th gen)

    Votes: 15 7.5%
  • None of the above (MS will never support VR or AR/MR)

    Votes: 106 53.3%

  • Total voters
    199
  • This poll will close: .

dvdvideo

Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,336
3,604
1,690
MS do support VR though...well moreso AR and mixed reality...just not in the consumer gaming space. So apparently they think there's enough money to support it in those areas at least.

The question is why does it need to be a massive moneymaker in the gaming space before they'll willing to jump in with even opening up support on console to specific 3P headsets?



Exactly. Minimum financial risk, less work on their end vs. building a 1P headset, and opens up more options for players and developers on their platform. Also can open up more content to secure for GamePass. It's a win-win all around.



Yeah, that be our @Shmunter alright


The pro area is so much different, and it does still allow them to dabble a bit.

Opening up to oculus and or vive so that you can play non ms games doesn't make sense to me, every extra player you have playing vr right now while you have zero games is bad for xbox gaming. (Gamers playing other vr games instead of forza or halo)

Now if they had gamepass and a good chunk of the revenue on those existing vr games......maybe. But it would need to be large since they don't have any of thiet own vr ip.
 

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Mar 31, 2011
6,979
5,731
1,130
There isn’t an excuse… because no excuse is needed.

Glad they’re focusing on core games.

Exactly
They dont want to do that and are instead focusing on core gamers.....no need to excuse that...it is what it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkMage619

phil_t98

Member
Oct 10, 2014
5,239
5,652
735
I have PSVR and love it but there is nothing essential on it. Maybe this will change with PSVR2 but there is no need to own one at this point in time. My personal opinion
 

DenchDeckard

Member
Feb 28, 2021
2,917
5,201
430
Actually, thinking about it. There’s absolutely a clear excuse for Microsoft to not support it. The number one excuse. The TAM for console VR headsets isn’t big enough to make it viable, which I believe PSVR has proven with its first attempt. Let’s see how round two goes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 93xfan and kuncol02

Fredrik

Member
Jun 27, 2005
11,436
6,286
1,720
I have PSVR and love it but there is nothing essential on it. Maybe this will change with PSVR2 but there is no need to own one at this point in time. My personal opinion
That’s why they should support Quest 2 instead, then you have the Quest library, PC VR library and possible future Xbox VR library.
 

phil_t98

Member
Oct 10, 2014
5,239
5,652
735
That’s why they should support Quest 2 instead, then you have the Quest library, PC VR library and possible future Xbox VR library.

As somebody pointed out earlier they should continue to grow the core gaming market first. I remember when Kinnect came out and the shift to that wasn’t great. Yeah would be nice to have VR on Xbox but as I say at this minute in time I personally dont think its esstential to have. Bonus if it does in the future
 
  • Like
Reactions: Concern

Three

Member
Oct 26, 2014
6,932
4,864
690
Or the reason is that 95% of console players don't care enough for VR to actually buy into it.
5% of ~50M = 2.5M. You're arguing the same thing. It's not viable for them as a business due to the amount of actual VR games they would be able to sell i.e. very little. They chose to make a cheap console to gain console sales instead.
Not matter what mental gymnastics and deflections you try and do its a fact that the more exclusive VR games a company makes means less pancake games.

Microsoft could do VR. But they choose not too.

Theres pros and cons to both stratagies.
"They choose not to"
Why would they choose not to? Think about that for a minute, you say that like they are there thinking 'yeah I just don't feel like it'. The reason is that it is not a viable business for them. Your idea that expansion of the business into new markets means money away from another business is flawed. More VR games doesn't mean less pancake games. It's more money, not a zero sum game. If they could make money from it they would get other studios. It just means more games. It didn't mean less games for PS4 when there were PSVR games being developed.
PSVR2 detracts from what made the PS4 such a huge success, however imo sony are still doing enough of what made the PS4 a success to ensure PS5 will have similar success as the PS4.
You say this as if the PS4 didn't have PSVR. If the PS4 was great and PSVR didn't detract from it why would VR detract from other consoles?

Maybe the 95% of PS4 users, seemingly with no interest in VR, aren't too excited about even fewer games against the competition?

Name one studio that didn't make a pancake game because they were busy making a VR game. Why are some of you trying to think of this as a zero sum game between pancake games and VR games. You can hire people you know. The market can expand. Otherwise unsuccessful devs can find success in VR. The PS4 had a good library of pancake games, better than the competition even yet they still put out a good amount of VR games on PSVR. Plus a lot of them were hybrid so you still got your pancake game but with VR support.
 
Last edited:

Menzies

Member
Mar 31, 2021
108
172
250
Name one studio that didn't make a pancake game because they were busy making a VR game. Why are some of you trying to think of this as a zero sum game between pancake games and VR games. You can hire people you know. The market can expand. Otherwise unsuccessful devs can find success in VR. The PS4 had a good library of pancake games, better than the competition even yet they still put out a good amount of VR games on PSVR. Plus a lot of them were hybrid so you still got your pancake game but with VR support.
The overwhelming majority of console gamers have voted with their wallets. It's easy to say that they would prefer the platform owners not to make content that they won't enjoy. For these people, this market expansion is merely 'wasted efforts' that they don't care about.

Sony enjoyed more first party studio's last generation by far, so it didn't hurt them to diversify their efforts as they were making more traditional exclusive experiences and VR games on top of that. The same can't be said for this gen. They now have fewer studios and have to support a specialised accessory with (as evidenced) niche appeal. Just saying that maybe it won't be as easy for them to have their fingers in so many pies now.
 

Three

Member
Oct 26, 2014
6,932
4,864
690
As is PS5. So your argument doesn't make much sense either way.
If you say so but you forget that this is about more than just PS5 and you know it. Even your lord and saviour Phil knows that you can't ignore xbox one sales. It's about platforms and ecosystems.

What's your argument exactly? That they don't do VR because Phil is not in the mood for it? You say it's only 5% of the market then throw a fit when somebody tells you that 5% of xbox' current market share is what doesn't make it viable for them.

The only reason PSVR2 is happening so early is that it will have a library from PS4 VR to maintain sales from. Otherwise those VR games will see a drop in revenue as people shift into the new gen. This is about maintaining those sales and devs can make PS4/PS5 VR games too which I assume the majority of them will. most would actually be aiming for Quest 2 support and port to PS4/PS5 VR I'd imagine. Most high end PSVR2 games would be hybrid PS5 games.

I just can't wait until a couple/few years down the line when MS do finally support VR we would get the same people saying VR is great now. How it doesn't affect pancake games being made and that xbox VR games are the best around. Just like how everyone was saying streaming games is stupid until MS actually did xCloud. We can finally put all this behind us then.
 

Bernd Lauert

Banned
Apr 15, 2018
7,071
21,211
770
If you say so but you forget that this is about more than just PS5 and you know it. Even your lord and saviour Phil knows that you can't ignore xbox one sales. It's about platforms and ecosystems.

What's your argument exactly? That they don't do VR because Phil is not in the mood for it? You say it's only 5% of the market then throw a fit when somebody tells you that 5% of xbox' current market share is what doesn't make it viable for them.

The only reason PSVR2 is happening so early is that it will have a library from PS4 VR to maintain sales from. Otherwise those VR games will see a drop in revenue as people shift into the new gen. This is about maintaining those sales and devs can make PS4/PS5 VR games too which I assume the majority of them will. most would actually be aiming for Quest 2 support and port to PS4/PS5 VR I'd imagine. Most high end PSVR2 games would be hybrid PS5 games.

I just can't wait until a couple/few years down the line when MS do finally support VR we would get the same people saying VR is great now. How it doesn't affect pancake games being made and that xbox VR games are the best around. Just like how everyone was saying streaming games is stupid until MS actually did xCloud. We can finally put all this behind us then.
You're in console warrior mode, so you're making several assumptions that simply aren't true.

First of all, I'd like Xbox to have VR support, because I enjoy VR (I still use my Quest 1 from time to time). I also realize that it likely isn't worth it from a business standpoint. While we don't have any real numbers, I think that's also true for PSVR, but I'm glad that despite of this, Sony keeps investing in VR.

Secondly, "everyone" was saying streaming is stupid because it didn't work well for most people. Nowadays, it's getting better and better and becoming a viable alternative. Tech improves over time, who would've thought.

With regards to your point about a cross-gen strategy, I'd be surprised if that's the calculation Sony and VR game devs are doing. Console players are known for dropping last-gen like a hot potato once they get their hands on new-gen. PSVR1 carrying PSVR2 software sales is a bold prediction imo.
 

Three

Member
Oct 26, 2014
6,932
4,864
690
Sony enjoyed more first party studio's last generation by far, so it didn't hurt them to diversify their efforts as they were making more traditional exclusive experiences and VR games on top of that. The same can't be said for this gen. They now have fewer studios and have to support a specialised accessory with (as evidenced) niche appeal. Just saying that maybe it won't be as easy for them to have their fingers in so many pies now.
I don't see why it would be different this gen. They bought studios instead. Firesprite is one of them. If you look at who developed first party VR games on the PS4 it didn't take away from their studios making pancake games back then. It was in addition to rather than instead of.

Sony published VR games like
Blood and truth, Astrobot, Dreams, Farpoint, Bravo team, Wipeout, Firewall: Zero hour, Iron man, GT Sport etc
Weren't made by the likes of Insomniac, Naughty dog, or Sucker Punch. It was Sony studios like London Studios or it was them hiring devs like supermassive games etc. In other cases it was hybrid games where it was a pancake game with VR support. I think you will see a lot of that this gen. Hybrid games like GT7. If they wanted to they could literally support it with no studios at all and still get VR games like Resident evil 7, Ace combat, No mans sky etc. A platform holder supporting VR doesn't mean less pancake games it just means more games.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
Oct 26, 2014
6,932
4,864
690
You're in console warrior mode, so you're making several assumptions that simply aren't true.
I was thinking the same for you when your only argument was you getting upset that I used xbox one numbers to show it isn't viable for MS when you used PS4 PSVR numbers to show how small the market is.

With regards to your point about a cross-gen strategy, I'd be surprised if that's the calculation Sony and VR game devs are doing. Console players are known for dropping last-gen like a hot potato once they get their hands on new-gen. PSVR1 carrying PSVR2 software sales is a bold prediction imo.
Exactly, the hardcore enthusiasts drop last gen and move to the new gen fast. VR owners are a part of that enthusiast group. What would happen to the current PSVR games out now if PS5 didn't have VR support? VR game sales currently in the store will plummet. So PS5 has VR support even before PSVR2 through an adaptor. PSVR2 has the benefit that it has an ecosystem in place already. It's what makes it viable. It's selling a new higher spec version of hardware to an ecosystem that already exists and games already developed will do 'enhancement' patches like xbox/ps5 does with games. As for newly released games I'm not so sure but considering the low specs of the Quest 2 standalone that games are developed for I don't see why devs wouldn't also aim for PS4 VR support if there is any market still remaining there (referring to new games akin to beat saber, tetris effect, super hot, etc) . The big AAA PSVR2 exclusives will be hybrid games like GT7 I'd imagine.
 
Last edited:

Connxtion

Member
May 30, 2014
330
352
530
Scotland
Just let me use my Oculus Quest 2 and am good. Port over some PC VR games and we are all sorted.

1 usb cable to rule them all 😂 or if possible let us use WiFi for streaming to the headset.

Imagine xbox cloud VR games 🙌
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2017
1,182
2,134
475
Microsoft have already had to split first and third party investments between core games and niche titles that don't really sell well with Kinect, they aren't going to do it again with VR where, lets face it, only a handful of good games have come to fruition over a decade of development.
 

Sosokrates

Founder of western console warring.
Feb 22, 2017
4,947
4,953
665
5% of ~50M = 2.5M. You're arguing the same thing. It's not viable for them as a business due to the amount of actual VR games they would be able to sell i.e. very little. They chose to make a cheap console to gain console sales instead.

"They choose not to"
Why would they choose not to? Think about that for a minute, you say that like they are there thinking 'yeah I just don't feel like it'. The reason is that it is not a viable business for them. Your idea that expansion of the business into new markets means money away from another business is flawed. More VR games doesn't mean less pancake games. It's more money, not a zero sum game. If they could make money from it they would get other studios. It just means more games. It didn't mean less games for PS4 when there were PSVR games being developed.

You say this as if the PS4 didn't have PSVR. If the PS4 was great and PSVR didn't detract from it why would VR detract from other consoles?



Name one studio that didn't make a pancake game because they were busy making a VR game. Why are some of you trying to think of this as a zero sum game between pancake games and VR games. You can hire people you know. The market can expand. Otherwise unsuccessful devs can find success in VR. The PS4 had a good library of pancake games, better than the competition even yet they still put out a good amount of VR games on PSVR. Plus a lot of them were hybrid so you still got your pancake game but with VR support.

More VR games means less pancake games because the game budget sony has is finite.



VR is not just a unviable business for Microsoft, at the moment its not a very viable business full stop.
Jumping into VR at the moment is by no guarantee the smartest move. Its more of a bet on the future.
But waiting until better tech is viable might be the better play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkMage619

Boss Mog

Member
Dec 12, 2013
9,347
15,133
1,140
I'm honestly surprised how MS kind of closed the door on VR. I think even if they didn't want to invest in the tech themselves they could have partnered with Oculus or Valve to make their headset work on Series X.
 

Helghan

Member
Apr 15, 2021
192
248
225
Microsoft is waiting until the tech is far enough so they can build games that become system sellers. That's not the case at the moment. There isn't a single VR game for which I would buy such a system. They are all nice to have's.
 

ChuckeRearmed

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,705
2,733
450
I think even if they didn't want to invest in the tech themselves they could have partnered with Oculus or Valve to make their headset work on Series X.
Facebook will want their own login rather than Xbox Live. There might some Game Pass app in Oculus in the future though.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
Oct 26, 2014
6,932
4,864
690
More VR games means less pancake games because the game budget sony has is finite.



VR is not just a unviable business for Microsoft, at the moment its not a very viable business full stop.
Jumping into VR at the moment is by no guarantee the smartest move. Its more of a bet on the future.
But waiting until better tech is viable might be the better play.
If VR games are profitable why would it be finite? Expansion means budget for both with profit from both. It's not a zero sum game. By that logic MS really shouldn't even make the xbox console. Resources are finite and it's making way more money from other services to invest in niche consoles.

What 'better tech' exactly should they be waiting for? What would you say if MS add VR support in the very near future with tech that currently exists?
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
Jan 19, 2007
14,617
6,774
1,895
Barcelona, Spain
www.capcom-town.es
Again, we can just swap out VR with GamePass.
I don't want to derail the thread, but PSVR has been profitable since day one. Sony said it performed above there expectations multiple times: during launch campaign or after the first year.

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.
Specially for a $399 peripheral.

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?
A global pandemic and the release of both their next gen console and next gen PSVR temporally reduced their output. But they kept releasing 3rd party PSVR games, as I remember Moss II is coming this year.

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.
As I remember, there was an E3 where Phil mentioned that Oculus was coming to Xbox. But some time later Facebook bought them, so maybe FB blocked these plans. But recently they Phil said they aren't interested on VR (he specifically talks about hardware, which doesn't only include VR headsets), at least for now. Who knows, his opinion may change again in a few years.

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.
Just because it's a profitable market doesn't mean that they have to enter. Mobile gaming is a bigger market than console and PC and they don't seem to be interested to make mobile games. To sell pankakes may be profitable too.

The thing is, MS did a huge investment to have a big 1st party line-up to compete in the same league than Sony regarding the amount of big AAA 1st party games released per year/generation and also invested hard to build Gamepass and fill it with games. They are still adapting their team, workflow, business model and catalog, so maybe they want to complete these parts and get some ROI before investing hard somewhere else.
 
Last edited:

Stuart360

Member
Sep 9, 2018
10,760
26,385
770
I'm honestly surprised how MS kind of closed the door on VR. I think even if they didn't want to invest in the tech themselves they could have partnered with Oculus or Valve to make their headset work on Series X.
I think if PSVR had sold like 30mil, or like 30-40% of PS4 userbase, they would of been all in this gen.
When you are talking about this headset selling a few million, that headset selling a few million, over multiple years, they obviously dont feel its worth it yet, or mainstream enough yet.
 
Mar 7, 2017
3,234
6,700
520
MS's efforts in the gaming space have always seemed to have been predicated on the premise of gaming as a social activity. For the longest time, they cared mostly about MP games and content and only backed SP stuff as a means to fill gaps in their FP portfolio to compete with Sony.

VR gaming is inherently SP (well, mostly), which I think is at odds with the mindset of the people running Xbox.

It also isn't likely going to sell them more GamePass subscriptions or XBL subs, which is the service-focused business MS as an entire organisation focusses on strongly.

If metaverse takes off, and MS finds some way to monetize VR through it with subscription-based services, you bet your ass they'll jump on board. Otherwise, MS simply doesn't care.
 

DarthBuzzer

Member
Jul 9, 2018
1,290
887
365
MS's efforts in the gaming space have always seemed to have been predicated on the premise of gaming as a social activity. For the longest time, they cared mostly about MP games and content and only backed SP stuff as a means to fill gaps in their FP portfolio to compete with Sony.

VR gaming is inherently SP (well, mostly), which I think is at odds with the mindset of the people running Xbox.

It also isn't likely going to sell them more GamePass subscriptions or XBL subs, which is the service-focused business MS as an entire organisation focusses on strongly.

If metaverse takes off, and MS finds some way to monetize VR through it with subscription-based services, you bet your ass they'll jump on board. Otherwise, MS simply doesn't care.
VR is the pinnacle of online social gaming, so if anything this only works for Microsoft, not against them.
 
Last edited:

Sosokrates

Founder of western console warring.
Feb 22, 2017
4,947
4,953
665
If VR games are profitable why would it be finite? Expansion means budget for both with profit from both. It's not a zero sum game. By that logic MS really shouldn't even make the xbox console. Resources are finite and it's making way more money from other services to invest in niche consoles.

What 'better tech' exactly should they be waiting for? What would you say if MS add VR support in the very near future with tech that currently exists?

Its incredibly simple if sony has a yearly budget of say $600 million for exclusive content and they decide to fund 4 VR games for $150million thats $150 million less for pancake games.

And lol at you comparing the current VR market to the console market. When xbox entered the gaming industry it was an established market where large profits is possible. This has not yet be proven in the VR market.

The tech MS could wait for, better screens, better lenses, better haptics, better sensors and as time goes on they will become cheaper.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DarkMage619

Three

Member
Oct 26, 2014
6,932
4,864
690
Its incredibly simple if sony has a yearly budget of say $600 million for exclusive content and they decide to fund 4 VR games for $150million thats $150 million less for pancake games.

And lol at you comparing the current VR market to the console market. When xbox entered the gaming industry it was an established market where large profits is possible. This has not yet be proven in the VR market.

The tech MS could wait for, better screens, better lenses, better haptics, better sensors and as time goes on they will become cheaper.
What is Sony's budget for exclusive games based on?
If hypothetically a budget of $600M resulted in $1.2 B in revenue but a budget of $700 resulted in $1.4B why would they not invest the extra $100M?

This is what I mean when I say you don't understand that it's not a zero sum game and its actually expansion into a profitable market.

Are you trying to say VR is not profitable? It is. MS lost a lot of money in the console space initially. Why did they invest when it was chump change compared to the Windows market? Expanding into consoles must have meant lower Windows budget so windows could have been better if they didn't invest in consoles due to finite resources and budget. Or maybe, just maybe, expansion is not a zero sum game.

Technology is always improving but what about the technology currently makes it something not worth doing. This would be like me saying I will never buy a graphics card until the technology improves then listing things that can improve like processing power.
 
Last edited:

Sosokrates

Founder of western console warring.
Feb 22, 2017
4,947
4,953
665
What is Sony's budget for exclusive games based on?
If hypothetically a budget of $600M resulted in $1.2 B in revenue but a budget of $700 resulted in $1.4B why would they not invest the extra $100M?

This is what I mean when I say you don't understand that it's not a zero sum game and its actually expansion into a profitable market.

Are you trying to say VR is not profitable? It is. MS lost a lot of money in the console space initially. Why did they invest when it was chump change compared to the Windows market? Expanding into consoles must have meant lower Windows budget so windows could have been better if they didn't invest in consoles due to finite resources and budget. Or maybe, just maybe, expansion is not a zero sum game.

Technology is always improving but what about the technology currently makes it something not worth doing. This would be like me saying I will never buy a graphics card until the technology improves then listing things that can improve like processing power.

Why stop there? Why not invest all there money on games.... If profit just infinitely scales with investment?


Vr is profitable? I never said its impossible to make a profit from VR, but I very much doubt PSVR made a profit. They sold hardware at a loss or at cost and VR games sold very small numbers.

The installbase of VR tells us that the product is not worth doing now, because its only attracking a niche audience.
When its wirefree, limited sickness, better control scheme, lighter etc etc then a bigger install should be possible.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DarkMage619
Jul 2, 2014
954
776
600
I’d much rather ms focuses on improving the pc experience and making good proper games.

VR is still shit for me. It’s not an experience I’m interested in and I don’t see why ms need to get involved when so many other companies are already in the field.
 

Three

Member
Oct 26, 2014
6,932
4,864
690
Vr is profitable? I never said its impossible to make a profit from VR, but I very much doubt PSVR made a profit. They sold hardware at a loss or at cost and VR games sold very small numbers.
You're completely wrong they didn't sell at a loss


Your idea that they should infinitely scale games output is wrong too. If somebody is looking for a VR experience they don't get it on xbox. They will go PC or PS. This is not catering to an additional market you can expand into. Not the same as cannibalising your games by trying to infinitely scale your output of pancake games. Releasing VR games doesn't affect your pancake games.
 
Last edited:

Sosokrates

Founder of western console warring.
Feb 22, 2017
4,947
4,953
665
You're completely wrong they didn't sell at a loss


Your idea that they should infinitely scale games output is wrong too. If somebody is looking for a VR experience they don't get it on xbox. They will go PC or PS. This is not catering to an additional market you can expand into. Not the same as cannibalising your games by trying to infinitely scale your output of pancake games. Releasing VR games doesn't affect your pancake games.
What about R + D and game development?
If it did make a profit it could not of been a good one.

It wasn't my idea that profit scales indefinitely with investment it was yours, you were the one that suggested why not invest more and this make more profit.

But only a fool would not not know there is a limit on these things.

Sony will have an amount which it can spend on content. It cant keep on scaling up and up there are many factors preventing this, for example they need the talent which does not grow on trees and it has to make business sense, theres a reason why MS aquired a publisher and sony hasn't.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DarkMage619

Three

Member
Oct 26, 2014
6,932
4,864
690
What about R + D and game development?
If it did make a profit it could of been a good one.

It wasn't my idea that profit scales indefinitely with investment it was yours, you were the one that suggested why not invest more and this make more profit.

But only a fool would not not know there is a limit on these things.

Sony will have an amount which it can spend on content. It cant keep on scaling up and up there are many factors preventing this, for example they need the talent which does not grow on trees and it has to make business sense, theres a reason why MS aquired a publisher and sony hasn't.

You failed to get what I was saying. What you're saying about infinitely scaling up pancake games isn't the same as increasing budget by expanding into VR since in the latter you are catering to a new market for revenue and not cannabalising.

In the same way that MS by spending RnD and losing money on consoles doesn't take away from Windows sales because there is a separate market looking for consoles just as there is a separate market looking for VR games which MS is not catering to currently.
 
Last edited:

Sosokrates

Founder of western console warring.
Feb 22, 2017
4,947
4,953
665
You failed to get what I was saying. What you're saying about infinitely scaling up pancake games isn't the same as increasing budget by expanding into VR since in the latter you are catering to a new market for revenue and not cannabalising.

In the same way that MS by spending RnD and losing money on consoles doesn't take away from Windows sales because there is a separate market looking for consoles just as there is a separate market looking for VR games which MS is not catering to currently.

Regardless if its pancake games or VR games they still both cost money, its does matter matter how the budget is spent, theres still a budget.

Anyway sony and ms have a budget for games, its a fact, so go ahead and continue to deny it, just makes u look 🤪

Also, windows and xbox were completely separate divisions with seperate budgets.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DarkMage619

RyRy93

Member
Oct 15, 2020
225
277
300
It needs to be affordable to take off IMO, until then focusing on traditional gaming is probably the right option
 

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
7,298
8,524
555
What about R + D and game development?
If it did make a profit it could of been a good one.

It wasn't my idea that profit scales indefinitely with investment it was yours, you were the one that suggested why not invest more and this make more profit.

But only a fool would not not know there is a limit on these things.

Sony will have an amount which it can spend on content. It cant keep on scaling up and up there are many factors preventing this, for example they need the talent which does not grow on trees and it has to make business sense, theres a reason why MS aquired a publisher and sony hasn't.

I like how the guy provides at least some info to oppose your point. Then you muddy the waters with unattainable evidence like r&d and software cost(ignoring sales of course). Then you basically call him a fool.


You can't even acknowledge that you might have been wrong or have the foresight that they used ps3 move controllers and sold them for ridiculous prices or packed in. Or that software attach rate was high. No, sales don't matter its all about cost. Youre literally just skewing everything to maintain your original position.
 

IDKFA

Member
Jan 15, 2017
2,898
4,043
600
I mean tbh we won't even really need xbox or consoles anymore. We'll all be lost and enthralled in the metaverse.... right? 😏🤭

Kidding asside. I totally agree. We need more VR options and variety

You joke, but I could absolutely see the Metaverse making a huge dent in the gaming landscape. There is a reason Microsoft are investing a lot of money into the Metaverse.

To be honest, I actually think MS won't bother with a Xbox VR headset and will just release a Metaverse device.
 
Feb 24, 2015
7,820
7,160
810
I think that VR has certainly reached more avenues that it hadn't in the past year and some change with all the Oculus marketing, purchases, etc.

But I still don't think it's quite at THE level that makes everyone feel like they need to jump onboard. MS has "fuck you" money, sure, but after everything with the Kinect, I don't think I blame them for being hesitant.

VR is a really neat thing, truly. But the reality of it all is that it isn't for everyone. People get sick, uncomfortable, etc. I think they'd rather focus their money and resources on other things rather than VR, and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing.

If VR was BOOMING and they were neglecting it, it'd be a huge misstep on their part, but we're not there yet. I don't know if we ever will be. The VR community is all about it, as expected. But there's an even larger group that just has no interest in it whatsoever, and I don't think that's going to change.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: Sosokrates
Mar 7, 2017
3,234
6,700
520
It is more socially engaging.

You get body language, you feel the presence of others due to the immersion of VR, you can perform more actions and express yourself more.

In other words, it's a net gain.

Well, this is true in theory, but only for online interaction. VR gaming simply isn't able to provide an engaging local social gaming experience, and for many gamers, the idea of sitting down together on a sofa with friends watching one person ambulate around in a virtual world totally closed off from their friends isn't their idea of a good time.

Practically speaking, however, even online, VR gaming is totally not a dominant social gaming activity the way popular online MP games are. So there's currently far less opportunity for MS to monetize it the way they can with for example Halo MP or Gears 5 online MP. So I'm sorry I just don't think your claim about VR being the "pinnacle of social gaming" holds up to any meaningful scrutiny at all, especially as we're talking about the business of videogames (and not the ability to convey mechanical interaction virtually on a theoretical basis).
 

Sosokrates

Founder of western console warring.
Feb 22, 2017
4,947
4,953
665
I like how the guy provides at least some info to oppose your point. Then you muddy the waters with unattainable evidence like r&d and software cost(ignoring sales of course). Then you basically call him a fool.


You can't even acknowledge that you might have been wrong or have the foresight that they used ps3 move controllers and sold them for ridiculous prices or packed in. Or that software attach rate was high. No, sales don't matter its all about cost. Youre literally just skewing everything to maintain your original position.

Anyone who cant aknoledge that sony will have a budget for games is a fool.

Im sorry but when people ignore reality there not much else to really say.

Layden said PSVR hardware makes a profit. Ok great.

But you say I have no evidence, well your wrong here, the obvious Fact that PSVR only sold 5 million units is pretty daming evidence that it was not a platform which would make great profits, especially for smaller games or games with less media coverage.
 

Sosokrates

Founder of western console warring.
Feb 22, 2017
4,947
4,953
665
I think that VR has certainly reached more avenues that it hadn't in the past year and some change with all the Oculus marketing, purchases, etc.

But I still don't think it's quite at THE level that makes everyone feel like they need to jump onboard. MS has "fuck you" money, sure, but after everything with the Kinect, I don't think I blame them for being hesitant.

VR is a really neat thing, truly. But the reality of it all is that it isn't for everyone. People get sick, uncomfortable, etc. I think they'd rather focus their money and resources on other things rather than VR, and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing.

If VR was BOOMING and they were neglecting it, it'd be a huge misstep on their part, but we're not there yet. I don't know if we ever will be. The VR community is all about it, as expected. But there's an even larger group that just has no interest in it whatsoever, and I don't think that's going to change.
Nope, sorry common sense is not allowed here!