• 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: .

Three

Member
Oct 26, 2014
6,932
4,864
690
Making games VR compatible is several orders of magnitude less of a commitment than making your own peripheral and platform. The former might make financial sense, while the latter doesn't.
So 2 for 2 on you agreeing with me on this thread then?
The numbers just don't add up for an xbox peripheral but as a publisher MS is already 'taking your finite pancake budget' for VR. 343 just hired a VR mod maker this summer too.
 

IDKFA

Member
Jan 15, 2017
2,898
4,043
600
Don't worry, When meta goes ballistic and that's all anyone does anymore they'll throw a last ditch effort together and pretend they were all for it the whole time.

Like half of GAF tbh lol.

Microsoft are already investing heavily into the Metaverse, as are Facebook (or Meta as they're now known), Epic and as the Metaverse is open source, I'm sure Amazon, Alphabet and Apple will soon throw their hats into the ring and contribute to the Metaverse.

Microsoft are absolutely already working on a VR headset for the Metaverse. I highly doubt they'll make one for the Xbox.

Saying that, they'll need to pull their finger out if they want an early slice of the Metaverse pie. According to reports, Microsoft have already lost over 100 employees to rival companies, most of them going to Facebook/Meta.

 

Kagey K

Member
Dec 18, 2013
12,782
20,033
1,125
I have PSVR and don’t get me wrong some games are awesome with it, wipeout is a stand out but it doesn’t change the game for me. Its still great without VR
Out of everything I've played it was the only game I wanted to play more of.

The rest I was finished with in 10 or 15 mins.

Again I really love horror in it. It's just too bad the best "scary" games are walking simulators that are done in 10 mins, like Disneyland rides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: phil_t98
Aug 5, 2009
2,274
1,889
1,150
UK
What's the attach rate of the PSVR to the PS4 console?

PSVR is like how the SEGA handled the Mega CD' It promised so much but SEGA did very little in-house to show it off and most of the games were Mega Drive games with a little added content.
Very much the same for the VR on the PS4 for me, SONY did so little In-House to really push it. It was left to REZ and RE7 to really show the headset off. I also loved Rush of Blood too

All that said I wish MS would allow or find a way for 3rd party VR headsets to be able to work with the Series X
 

kuncol02

Member
Apr 4, 2020
1,879
2,265
465
VR only games and not hybrid games?
My personal favourite VR only

Half Life Alyx
Astrobot Rescue Mission
Moss
Beat Saber

hybrid games

Resident evil 7
Ace combat
FS2020
Assetto Corsa
Superhot VR
Wipeout
Superhot VR is not hybrid game. It's different game than original Superhot with it's own levels and mechanics that would not work in pancake game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: phil_t98 and Three

phil_t98

Member
Oct 10, 2014
5,239
5,652
735
VR only games and not hybrid games?
My personal favourite VR only

Half Life Alyx
Astrobot Rescue Mission
Moss
Beat Saber
Superhot VR

hybrid games

Resident evil 7
Ace combat
FS2020
Assetto Corsa
Wipeout

Not a big list though, I liked wipeout in VR and gran tourism which was only a bolt on bit to the game, but I still think VR has a long way to go yet. Not essential yet and Xbox needs to do better with core games first befor adding VR
 

Three

Member
Oct 26, 2014
6,932
4,864
690
Not a big list though, I liked wipeout in VR and gran tourism which was only a bolt on bit to the game, but I still think VR has a long way to go yet. Not essential yet and Xbox needs to do better with core games first befor adding VR
Those are my personal favourites. GT Sport VR was such a disappointment and so limited. While playing it though it made me wish for the whole game to be playable like that. The sense of presence and speed felt so much better looking at a car in your window trying to overtake you as you approach a corner. I have high hopes for GT7. 🤞
 

RoyalLaFlame

Member
Oct 22, 2013
3,897
1,321
960
I really hope that VR doesn't become the future. I'm glad Xbox and Nintendo are not wasting money on this, unlike Playstation.
 

Three

Member
Oct 26, 2014
6,932
4,864
690
  • LOL
Reactions: Kokoloko85

phil_t98

Member
Oct 10, 2014
5,239
5,652
735
Those are my personal favourites. GT Sport VR was such a disappointment and so limited. While playing it though it made me wish for the whole game to be playable like that. The sense of presence and speed felt so much better looking at a car in your window trying to overtake you as you approach a corner. I have high hopes for GT7. 🤞

Yeah bit my point is there isn’t much outaside of that list, most of it is experiences. They is no MUST have game that’s on VR for me personally. Maybe that will change with the PSVR2 but at the moment I am happy for Xbox to stay out of it
 

Three

Member
Oct 26, 2014
6,932
4,864
690
Yeah bit my point is there isn’t much outaside of that list, most of it is experiences. They is no MUST have game that’s on VR for me personally. Maybe that will change with the PSVR2 but at the moment I am happy for Xbox to stay out of it
Fair enough, though if every manufacturer thought like that the chances of you finding something you personally like only becomes lower.
 
Last edited:

phil_t98

Member
Oct 10, 2014
5,239
5,652
735
Fair enough, though if every manufacturer thought like that the chances of you finding something you personally like only becomes lower.

Microsoft had their taste with Kinect , when they brought that out the whole focus was on that and core games suffered
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkMage619
Dec 12, 2018
2,469
3,145
465


the thread.

sad, because OP is spot on.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
5,014
6,691
570


the thread.

sad, because OP is spot on.

I think many look at it as a very black & white issue and the Xbox faithful still has nightmares about what Kinect did to Xbox.

In this case though, the Xbox series line are basically standardized PCs and MS already supports VR modes of some titles on PC. Working on OS software/drivers and maybe a cable to duplicate the hdmi/add bluetooth for WMR would hardly be a distracting commitment like Kinect. Taking even a low effort approach now could safe guard Xbox in the future should VR start to take off.
 

Foorbits

Member
Nov 14, 2008
22,413
6,412
1,625
www.foorbits.com
I really hope that VR doesn't become the future. I'm glad Xbox and Nintendo are not wasting money on this, unlike Playstation.
Why? VR is the next logical step for games. VR will most likely begin the take over of traditional AAA gaming in the next decade with non-VR games being relegated to mobile and indie.

Either PS6 or PS7 will literally release as a VR console... not a peripheral.
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Ah. Peace and quiet. #ADayWithoutAWoman
May 24, 2005
48,202
15,519
2,000
Only if you assume the same player wouldn't be playing xbox instead, which is what I suspect the numbers suggest. It doesn't make sense to pull gamers away from a sandbox where you own half the good it's for one that you own none as of today.

The only counter arguement is that you might lose them to other platforms.


YES!!! That's literally my argument. There's going to be gamers that will end up not buying an Xbox Series console at some point because it doesn't support VR. It would cost MS almost no money to allow it. It's almost financially criminal that they DON'T allow it to be honest.

I'm guessing they will by the beginning of next generation though.
 

mckmas8808

Ah. Peace and quiet. #ADayWithoutAWoman
May 24, 2005
48,202
15,519
2,000
Why? VR is the next logical step for games. VR will most likely begin the take over of traditional AAA gaming in the next decade with non-VR games being relegated to mobile and indie.

Either PS6 or PS7 will literally release as a VR console... not a peripheral.

I LOVE VR TO DEATH! But this will never happen in my opinion. And "IF" it does......it'll be like 40 years from now.
 

DonkeyPunchJr

Member
Nov 1, 2020
1,219
2,670
425
Why? VR is the next logical step for games. VR will most likely begin the take over of traditional AAA gaming in the next decade with non-VR games being relegated to mobile and indie.

Either PS6 or PS7 will literally release as a VR console... not a peripheral.
Oh bullshit. Stereoscopic 3D was the “next logical step” for displays. 1:1 lag-free motion controls was the “next logical step” for gaming.

There’s still the question of whether gamers will actually prefer VR over traditional TV + ass-on-couch gaming. That is still very much up for debate.
 

Arachnid

Member
Jan 31, 2019
1,731
2,996
425
I don't really care about VR until someone makes a headset that works on computer and both consoles. The fact that I have to have multiple headsets, not to mention headsets specific to certain programs or companies like Facebook, makes VR feel so anti-consumer and not worth it.
 

RoyalLaFlame

Member
Oct 22, 2013
3,897
1,321
960
Why? VR is the next logical step for games. VR will most likely begin the take over of traditional AAA gaming in the next decade with non-VR games being relegated to mobile and indie.

Either PS6 or PS7 will literally release as a VR console... not a peripheral.
Well, I'll probably be out of gaming by then. Because I really don't want to use an headset to play videogames. I've used it, I've worked with it, and I don't want it.

More power to those who want, but it's a no for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReBurn

dvdvideo

Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,336
3,604
1,690
YES!!! That's literally my argument. There's going to be gamers that will end up not buying an Xbox Series console at some point because it doesn't support VR. It would cost MS almost no money to allow it. It's almost financially criminal that they DON'T allow it to be honest.

I'm guessing they will by the beginning of next generation though.

They probably will, but I think for now the risk of losing gamers and revenue inside their own system/sandbox (playing other companies VR instead of MS non-VR) outweighs the financial rewards of allowing it.
I don't think there too many people that would be picking a PS5 over an Xbox at least at this point due to VR, the reason I say that is the people who bought one already are early adopters who will by things like VR, vs more casual gamers who probably don't care a lot about VR.
But like we both say, over time, this is shifting. They will probably watch PSVR2 sales with great interest.

Personally I think they would be better served to launch a portable, considering the Switch's success.
 
Aug 28, 2019
5,200
10,380
720
www.instagram.com
VR has the advantage



Air Force






Navy and Marines






Yet some random wannabe pilot knows more than all the combined armed forces. Why even bother with VR if it's overrated? Why train the best in the world with it? Casual joyrides. lol.

It really makes you think; if what Abriael_GN Abriael_GN is saying as supposedly being the superior immersive experience for sims over VR is true...why aren't the military, navy, air force, aerospace etc. industries utilizing that to train people? You would think they'd want to provide those people with the most immersive training, so why is VR their choice over and over again?

Dunno, maybe things have changed since then. I wouldn't be too surprised if there's at least some training programs in those spaces using a mix of VR and Track IR in one; I can see some inventive uses for both in tandem, and they can offset each other's shortcomings well. But it seems like IMO if you want the most immersive sim style experience, at the very least you need VR.

Happy for PS to continue with the tech but it won't take off until Nintendo and Xbox get in on it as well.

There's just going to be fuck all market penetration if PS goes it alone.

Thing is though PS aren't alone; Meta is in the mix, you also have Valve, Samsung, HTC and potentially Apple later this year or next year. Sony are just the only one of the traditional platform holders seemingly putting any real skin into the mass-market consumer-level VR game.

There doesn't need to be an excuse if there's a reason.

That reason is because VR isn't a viable platform for them yet.

Once anyone can play Halo in VR without any compromises and/or getting motion sickness is when you'll see them enter the fold.

That's unrealistic; there are people who still get seizures playing traditional games, by this standard traditional gaming should be much smaller until no one can get seizures from photosensitivity issues anymore.

I said in the post you quoted that both stratagies are viable....

The bolded is something we disagree on. You think that sony allocate a seperate budget for VR which has no repercussions on there pancake game budget. I disagree, not that imtrying to convince you (I now know thats not possible) but I think development of VR games will mean less pancake games.
Please Dont waste your time trying to convince me otherwise I find your reasonings very poor.

The concern with VR budgets eating into traditional game budgets IMO should be focused on if the former eats into the latter's floor in terms of budget. Companies earmark a certain minimum of budget for various initiatives and divisions. It's when that minimum is cut short when problems occur.

I strongly doubt Sony's budget for PSVR2 or VR software is cutting into the minimum floor of PS5 non-software budgets. That stuff has already been earmarked and is essentially guaranteed barring any massively disruptive financial troubles, which seem highly unlikely. So basically, any additional funds Sony wants to throw to VR software won't affect the budgets for non-VR software because in the case of the latter, their budgets have already been allocated and earmarked.

Making games VR compatible is several orders of magnitude less of a commitment than making your own peripheral and platform. The former might make financial sense, while the latter doesn't.

That's true, but for those of us who are just asking for MS to whitelist a 3P VR device for compatibility on Xbox consoles, that option becomes magnitudes less risky from a finance POV for them. Relatively speaking it's free in comparison to the production costs for a 1P VR headset, they would just probably need to cover costs (in terms of resources) for any API compatibility and integration if additional work is required there of any significance by the VR headset provider.

Beat Sabre.

That's pretty much it

Nah there's also Half-Life: Alyx which many argue is the best VR game on the market.
 

Sosokrates

Founder of western console warring.
Feb 22, 2017
4,946
4,953
665
It really makes you think; if what Abriael_GN Abriael_GN is saying as supposedly being the superior immersive experience for sims over VR is true...why aren't the military, navy, air force, aerospace etc. industries utilizing that to train people? You would think they'd want to provide those people with the most immersive training, so why is VR their choice over and over again?

Dunno, maybe things have changed since then. I wouldn't be too surprised if there's at least some training programs in those spaces using a mix of VR and Track IR in one; I can see some inventive uses for both in tandem, and they can offset each other's shortcomings well. But it seems like IMO if you want the most immersive sim style experience, at the very least you need VR.



Thing is though PS aren't alone; Meta is in the mix, you also have Valve, Samsung, HTC and potentially Apple later this year or next year. Sony are just the only one of the traditional platform holders seemingly putting any real skin into the mass-market consumer-level VR game.



That's unrealistic; there are people who still get seizures playing traditional games, by this standard traditional gaming should be much smaller until no one can get seizures from photosensitivity issues anymore.



The concern with VR budgets eating into traditional game budgets IMO should be focused on if the former eats into the latter's floor in terms of budget. Companies earmark a certain minimum of budget for various initiatives and divisions. It's when that minimum is cut short when problems occur.

I strongly doubt Sony's budget for PSVR2 or VR software is cutting into the minimum floor of PS5 non-software budgets. That stuff has already been earmarked and is essentially guaranteed barring any massively disruptive financial troubles, which seem highly unlikely. So basically, any additional funds Sony wants to throw to VR software won't affect the budgets for non-VR software because in the case of the latter, their budgets have already been allocated and earmarked.



That's true, but for those of us who are just asking for MS to whitelist a 3P VR device for compatibility on Xbox consoles, that option becomes magnitudes less risky from a finance POV for them. Relatively speaking it's free in comparison to the production costs for a 1P VR headset, they would just probably need to cover costs (in terms of resources) for any API compatibility and integration if additional work is required there of any significance by the VR headset provider.



Nah there's also Half-Life: Alyx which many argue is the best VR game on the market.

I dont know why you quote me and tell me this, when I clearly dont agree. Just seems antagonising at this point. We dont have to agree.
 
Aug 28, 2019
5,200
10,380
720
www.instagram.com
Microsoft had their taste with Kinect , when they brought that out the whole focus was on that and core games suffered

Difference is the wrong people were in charge back then. You've seen the Power On doc, right? Well they clearly show a shift in business pursuit once Mattrick took over the Xbox division. He was the biggest push for Kinect in 360's late life and he pushed for it with XBO (as well as focusing on multimedia with XBO).

The tech could've persevered with someone more in-tune with the market running the show, but it didn't.

I think many look at it as a very black & white issue and the Xbox faithful still has nightmares about what Kinect did to Xbox.

In this case though, the Xbox series line are basically standardized PCs and MS already supports VR modes of some titles on PC. Working on OS software/drivers and maybe a cable to duplicate the hdmi/add bluetooth for WMR would hardly be a distracting commitment like Kinect. Taking even a low effort approach now could safe guard Xbox in the future should VR start to take off.

100%. Some of it definitely feels like post-Kinect trauma. But things are different this time: Phil Spencer is not Don Mattrick.

At least having support for a 3P VR headset solution on console gives that element of protection for the platform as you've mentioned. It's always better to take those measures ahead of time instead of being caught reacting to a change in the market, since the latter always puts you at some disadvantage.

Why? VR is the next logical step for games. VR will most likely begin the take over of traditional AAA gaming in the next decade with non-VR games being relegated to mobile and indie.

Either PS6 or PS7 will literally release as a VR console... not a peripheral.

I honestly think (well, hope) PS6 includes an entry-level VR headset by default in a singular SKU. IMO one of the biggest reasons VR has yet to have mass-market adoption is because it's still stuck at peripheral status. The Quest 2 is the first big attempt (at least that I know) which is trying to break out of that and it's clearly a success for doing so.

A future console with VR support included by default would offer all the advantages of both and by the point such would happen the total cost of production shouldn't be much higher than what it's turned out to be for 9th gen systems of today.

YES!!! That's literally my argument. There's going to be gamers that will end up not buying an Xbox Series console at some point because it doesn't support VR. It would cost MS almost no money to allow it. It's almost financially criminal that they DON'T allow it to be honest.

I'm guessing they will by the beginning of next generation though.

Yep; most people who want VR are looking at platform purchases/investments based on the totality of what they can provide, and as long as those platforms also support VR, they will consider them.

If the platform has no support for VR, then for these sorts of people it is automatically not in the running, regardless of what else it provides, and in the case of Xbox this is exacerbated further considering all of its 1P games come to PC Day 1. Due to that it's also lost the potential allure of full exclusive games to draw people into the console side of the ecosystem, lack of VR support just stacks on top of it for certain folks.

And in spite of their strong sales on storefronts like Steam, I'm still sure MS would prefer driving as many people to the console as possible, since that means retaining 100% of the money made on 1P digital sales, and getting 30% cut on all 3P sales. Not to mention, people getting Series S probably default to signing up for GamePass, which means more recurring revenue from subscriptions. That isn't guaranteed on the PC side and in fact from what's usually said GamePass on PC is a bit of a mess.

But anyway, back on topic...yes. I hope MS open up to allowing a 3P VR headset or two as compatible on Xbox Series systems, feels like a natural next step.

They probably will, but I think for now the risk of losing gamers and revenue inside their own system/sandbox (playing other companies VR instead of MS non-VR) outweighs the financial rewards of allowing it.
I don't think there too many people that would be picking a PS5 over an Xbox at least at this point due to VR, the reason I say that is the people who bought one already are early adopters who will by things like VR, vs more casual gamers who probably don't care a lot about VR.
But like we both say, over time, this is shifting. They will probably watch PSVR2 sales with great interest.

It's not really about them losing sales to PS5 due to potentially going a long time without VR support...it's about losing sales to PC.

If that sounds ridiculous (considering MS being one of Steam's top publishers, for example), think of it like this....most of MS's GamePass subscriptions come from consoles being sold. The vast majority of the Xbox's revenue comes from 3P software sales...those 3P software sales obviously come from the consoles. Most of their GamePass subscription revenue comes from the console audience.

Their 1P games being Day-and-Date on PC already provides a very strong incentive for some people to stick to PC compared to buying an Xbox, but that is something Microsoft are seemingly okay with not just because they still generate lots of revenue from 1P software sales/DLC/IAP etc. but also because they are still generating lots of Xbox division revenue from 3P sales and GamePass subscriptions...the former 100% coming from Xbox and the latter the majority of which are coming from Xbox.

If things like VR continue to gain ground, and especially if more 1P games continue to support VR on the PC side, while Xbox itself continues to offer no VR support...that means Microsoft risking more players going from Xbox to PC, meaning potentially one less GamePass subscriber (unless PC GamePass is revamped; there's an issue with installs and encryption on the drive that keeps some people from using it over there), one less person buying 3P games on Xbox (less of that 30% cut for Microsoft on 3P sales), etc.

They would need an exponential growth of 1P game sales on Steam to offset that loss in revenue from people potentially leaving Xbox for PC, but if recent revenue reports are anything to go by then 1P revenue is not at that point to make up the difference. Realistically, it would probably never reach that level, but this would apply to any other platform holder in the same position, i.e Sony and Nintendo, if they had an exactly similar strategy.

This is why MS need to get ahead on stuff like this, like providing VR support on Xbox with a 3P headset, so that they aren't left reacting in what could be considered a scattershot response if things like VR become bigger factors for more people in deciding what platforms they invest in, including if that leads them to choosing PC over Xbox. Which, again, might sound ridiculous since MS are obviously entrenched on the PC platform, they're practically ubiquitous with it. But that ubiquity doesn't extend to PC gaming in terms of a platform holder: that belongs to Valve, meaning only a fraction of Microsoft's advantages of being a platform holder on the Xbox side, translate to them being a publisher (a top publisher, even) on the PC side, since they're dependent on Steam for that, and Valve are going to treat Microsoft (just like how they treat Sony) as another publisher on a storefront platform Valve themselves own.

Personally I think they would be better served to launch a portable, considering the Switch's success.

Possibly, though with them going for expanded xCloud support and stuff like the SteamDeck coming along, if MS's approach to mobile is anything like it is with VR then they will want to rather support hardware already on the market.

I think there's a stronger argument for Sony to make a portable, but that's a completely different discussion and would end up going off-topic.

I dont know why you quote me and tell me this, when I clearly dont agree. Just seems antagonising at this point. We dont have to agree.

That wasn't my intent and I apologize if you feel that way. It was just an idea I had a different opinion on, and expressed that. Just as a means of showing that budgets for one type of game might not necessarily eat into budgets for another type of game.
 
Last edited:

Sosokrates

Founder of western console warring.
Feb 22, 2017
4,946
4,953
665
Difference is the wrong people were in charge back then. You've seen the Power On doc, right? Well they clearly show a shift in business pursuit once Mattrick took over the Xbox division. He was the biggest push for Kinect in 360's late life and he pushed for it with XBO (as well as focusing on multimedia with XBO).

The tech could've persevered with someone more in-tune with the market running the show, but it didn't.



100%. Some of it definitely feels like post-Kinect trauma. But things are different this time: Phil Spencer is not Don Mattrick.

At least having support for a 3P VR headset solution on console gives that element of protection for the platform as you've mentioned. It's always better to take those measures ahead of time instead of being caught reacting to a change in the market, since the latter always puts you at some disadvantage.



I honestly think (well, hope) PS6 includes an entry-level VR headset by default in a singular SKU. IMO one of the biggest reasons VR has yet to have mass-market adoption is because it's still stuck at peripheral status. The Quest 2 is the first big attempt (at least that I know) which is trying to break out of that and it's clearly a success for doing so.

A future console with VR support included by default would offer all the advantages of both and by the point such would happen the total cost of production shouldn't be much higher than what it's turned out to be for 9th gen systems of today.



Yep; most people who want VR are looking at platform purchases/investments based on the totality of what they can provide, and as long as those platforms also support VR, they will consider them.

If the platform has no support for VR, then for these sorts of people it is automatically not in the running, regardless of what else it provides, and in the case of Xbox this is exacerbated further considering all of its 1P games come to PC Day 1. Due to that it's also lost the potential allure of full exclusive games to draw people into the console side of the ecosystem, lack of VR support just stacks on top of it for certain folks.

And in spite of their strong sales on storefronts like Steam, I'm still sure MS would prefer driving as many people to the console as possible, since that means retaining 100% of the money made on 1P digital sales, and getting 30% cut on all 3P sales. Not to mention, people getting Series S probably default to signing up for GamePass, which means more recurring revenue from subscriptions. That isn't guaranteed on the PC side and in fact from what's usually said GamePass on PC is a bit of a mess.

But anyway, back on topic...yes. I hope MS open up to allowing a 3P VR headset or two as compatible on Xbox Series systems, feels like a natural next step.



It's not really about them losing sales to PS5 due to potentially going a long time without VR support...it's about losing sales to PC.

If that sounds ridiculous (considering MS being one of Steam's top publishers, for example), think of it like this....most of MS's GamePass subscriptions come from consoles being sold. The vast majority of the Xbox's revenue comes from 3P software sales...those 3P software sales obviously come from the consoles. Most of their GamePass subscription revenue comes from the console audience.

Their 1P games being Day-and-Date on PC already provides a very strong incentive for some people to stick to PC compared to buying an Xbox, but that is something Microsoft are seemingly okay with not just because they still generate lots of revenue from 1P software sales/DLC/IAP etc. but also because they are still generating lots of Xbox division revenue from 3P sales and GamePass subscriptions...the former 100% coming from Xbox and the latter the majority of which are coming from Xbox.

If things like VR continue to gain ground, and especially if more 1P games continue to support VR on the PC side, while Xbox itself continues to offer no VR support...that means Microsoft risking more players going from Xbox to PC, meaning potentially one less GamePass subscriber (unless PC GamePass is revamped; there's an issue with installs and encryption on the drive that keeps some people from using it over there), one less person buying 3P games on Xbox (less of that 30% cut for Microsoft on 3P sales), etc.

They would need an exponential growth of 1P game sales on Steam to offset that loss in revenue from people potentially leaving Xbox for PC, but if recent revenue reports are anything to go by then 1P revenue is not at that point to make up the difference. Realistically, it would probably never reach that level, but this would apply to any other platform holder in the same position, i.e Sony and Nintendo, if they had an exactly similar strategy.

This is why MS need to get ahead on stuff like this, like providing VR support on Xbox with a 3P headset, so that they aren't left reacting in what could be considered a scattershot response if things like VR become bigger factors for more people in deciding what platforms they invest in, including if that leads them to choosing PC over Xbox. Which, again, might sound ridiculous since MS are obviously entrenched on the PC platform, they're practically ubiquitous with it. But that ubiquity doesn't extend to PC gaming in terms of a platform holder: that belongs to Valve, meaning only a fraction of Microsoft's advantages of being a platform holder on the Xbox side, translate to them being a publisher (a top publisher, even) on the PC side, since they're dependent on Steam for that, and Valve are going to treat Microsoft (just like how they treat Sony) as another publisher on a storefront platform Valve themselves own.



Possibly, though with them going for expanded xCloud support and stuff like the SteamDeck coming along, if MS's approach to mobile is anything like it is with VR then they will want to rather support hardware already on the market.

I think there's a stronger argument for Sony to make a portable, but that's a completely different discussion and would end up going off-topic.



That wasn't my intent and I apologize if you feel that way. It was just an idea I had a different opinion on, and expressed that. Just as a means of showing that budgets for one type of game might not necessarily eat into budgets for another type of game.
It doesn't show anything factual (not sure if you meant this or not).

But if its just stating an opinion a quote is not necessary.

I mean for you to be correct I have to be wrong. Because you dont think your incorrect do you...
 

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
7,298
8,524
555
It really makes you think; if what Abriael_GN Abriael_GN is saying as supposedly being the superior immersive experience for sims over VR is true...why aren't the military, navy, air force, aerospace etc. industries utilizing that to train people? You would think they'd want to provide those people with the most immersive training, so why is VR their choice over and over again?

Dunno, maybe things have changed since then. I wouldn't be too surprised if there's at least some training programs in those spaces using a mix of VR and Track IR in one; I can see some inventive uses for both in tandem, and they can offset each other's shortcomings well. But it seems like IMO if you want the most immersive sim style experience, at the very least you need VR.


Vive signed another contract with the air force just a few months ago. So this has literally been going on for years and they train several different aircraft, not just fighters. So, yeah, I guess they need to consult sim gamers about their training because they apparently have it all wrong, the navy and marines are wrong too.

And my favorite aircraft too just happens to be another one they use. A-10. These guys are literally using a commercially available Quest.

"VR has proven to be a tremendous tool for showing specific sight pictures that would otherwise be impossible to show via 2D pictures and traditional academic material," a spokesperson for the 355th Wing told The War Zone

No 2D screen can show the same level of depth perception required to accurately fly these types of close formations."

Indisputable. And this is from guys that use ultra-expensive 2d simulators too, not home rigs.
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Ah. Peace and quiet. #ADayWithoutAWoman
May 24, 2005
48,202
15,519
2,000
Quest 2 sales suggest otherwise. Maybe 10 years is soon be no way are we 40 years away.

You are assuming that most people that like playing VR games, want to do it there "INSTEAD OF" on a TV. That's a horrible assumption to make. VR is there to "ADD" to what we have, not replace. In the same way the Nintendo Switch exist. We want both, not one or the other.
 
Last edited:

DarthBuzzer

Member
Jul 9, 2018
1,290
887
365
You are assuming that most people that like playing VR games, want to do it there "INSTEAD OF" on a TV. That's a horrible assumption to make. VR is there to "ADD" to what we have, not replace. In the same way the Nintendo Switch exist. We want both, not one or the other.
I guess it really depends on the timeline and the wording.

This is how I see it playing out:
  • In 7-8 years, VR becomes mainstream at the turn of the decade.
  • In 15-20 years, VR and AR together become the main screen interface for gaming and media in general instead of TVs/Monitors/Phones.
  • In 20-30 years, VR/AR games become the dominant type of game people choose to play.
And traditional games will still continue to coexist, even 30 years from now, but I do see them being the minority by that point because of how dominant VR/AR devices will be and how enticing fully immersive virtual worlds will be to people.
 
Last edited:

Foorbits

Member
Nov 14, 2008
22,413
6,412
1,625
www.foorbits.com
You are assuming that most people that like playing VR games, want to do it there "INSTEAD OF" on a TV. That's a horrible assumption to make. VR is there to "ADD" to what we have, not replace. In the same way the Nintendo Switch exist. We want both, not one or the other.
I never said TV gaming was going away, but development resources are finite and eventually the tide will turn towards VR as adoption continues to pick up. And anecdotally I've read and personally know people who don't own a gaming system but bought a Quest 2. These VR devices are going to reach beyond the gamer that wants to own a console, VR helmet and Nintendo Switch.

Personally I feel like Sony is nearly ready to take the risk with PlayStation. With either PS6 or a spin-off console they will release an all-on-one VR package that is affordable to the mainstream. I fully expect most of PlayStation Studios to release at least one full or spin-off title for PSVR2 to better learn how to make games in VR.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: darthvargi

mckmas8808

Ah. Peace and quiet. #ADayWithoutAWoman
May 24, 2005
48,202
15,519
2,000
I guess it really depends on the timeline and the wording.

This is how I see it playing out:
  • In 7-8 years, VR becomes mainstream at the turn of the decade.
  • In 15-20 years, VR and AR together become the main screen interface for gaming and media in general instead of TVs/Monitors/Phones.
  • In 20-30 years, VR/AR games become the dominant type of game people choose to play.
And traditional games will still continue to coexist, even 30 years from now, but I do see them being the minority by that point because of how dominant VR/AR devices will be and how enticing fully immersive virtual worlds will be to people.

That timeline makes more sense to me. I'd bump everything up by 10 years though. And even then, I think techy\nerdy people like us need to account more for the "social" reasons people watch TV. VR\AR would ruin that.
 

mckmas8808

Ah. Peace and quiet. #ADayWithoutAWoman
May 24, 2005
48,202
15,519
2,000
I never said TV gaming was going away, but development resources are finite and eventually the tide will turn towards VR as adoption continues to pick up. And anecdotally I've read and personally know people who don't own a gaming system but bought a Quest 2. These VR devices are going to reach beyond the gamer that wants to own a console, VR helmet and Nintendo Switch.

Personally I feel like Sony is nearly ready to take the risk with PlayStation. With either PS6 or a spin-off console they will release an all-on-one VR package that is affordable to the mainstream.

If they did this, they'd never have the best VR hardware. It'd cost to much. I think with the PS7 in the year 2032 maybe an all in one package is possible (if the cost for everything just gets super cheap).
 

DarthBuzzer

Member
Jul 9, 2018
1,290
887
365
That timeline makes more sense to me. I'd bump everything up by 10 years though. And even then, I think techy\nerdy people like us need to account more for the "social" reasons people watch TV. VR\AR would ruin that.
TVs will definitely stick around for a long time just for their easy communal nature, but the more people get used to networked VR/AR spaces for that communal aspect, the less society will care about TVs. The moment where several billion people are using AR or VR devices most of the day is the moment where virtual displays become the main viewing method, as you'd just spawn a virtual TV instantly and could transport yourself or someone else to each other's TV/house etc.
 
Last edited:

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
7,298
8,524
555
Nintendo is not actively pursuing VR like Playstation is.

I don't think they could even if they wanted to. They have to keep their handheld market happy and VR requires high framerates. 60fps is a bare minimum. I doubt their willingness to pony up and invest in mobile cheapsets like facebook has that are designed for VR. Even if the market for VR continues to skyrocket.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: mckmas8808

Tripolygon

Member
May 6, 2012
5,070
8,315
1,170
NYC
Lots of takes in here make no sense. Microsoft is already heavily invested into VR. Just not for Xbox, yet and like OP says, they have no excuse not to just like they do for windows.

Going by some of the responses in this thread a lot of you are fooling yourselves into thinking Microsoft is not heavily invested into VR because of the market is too small or the funding is not there. There windows operating systems has VR mode that is how heavily they are invested in it. They bought studios who have experience creating VR content not just flat screen games. The flagship flight simulator has VR mode. Imagine if Forza 8 releases with VR mode for PC and not Xbox.
 

ksdixon

Member
Jul 31, 2010
3,718
1,958
1,155
I seem to remember some xbox affiliated blue acer vr or mr headset? Guess that didnt end up hapening.

Didnt MS stop hollow lense development, and sell off illumiroom too?
 

coffinbirth

Member
Apr 13, 2021
436
539
305
It really makes you think; if what Abriael_GN Abriael_GN is saying as supposedly being the superior immersive experience for sims over VR is true...why aren't the military, navy, air force, aerospace etc. industries utilizing that to train people? You would think they'd want to provide those people with the most immersive training, so why is VR their choice over and over again?

Dunno, maybe things have changed since then. I wouldn't be too surprised if there's at least some training programs in those spaces using a mix of VR and Track IR in one; I can see some inventive uses for both in tandem, and they can offset each other's shortcomings well. But it seems like IMO if you want the most immersive sim style experience, at the very least you need VR.



Thing is though PS aren't alone; Meta is in the mix, you also have Valve, Samsung, HTC and potentially Apple later this year or next year. Sony are just the only one of the traditional platform holders seemingly putting any real skin into the mass-market consumer-level VR game.



That's unrealistic; there are people who still get seizures playing traditional games, by this standard traditional gaming should be much smaller until no one can get seizures from photosensitivity issues anymore.



The concern with VR budgets eating into traditional game budgets IMO should be focused on if the former eats into the latter's floor in terms of budget. Companies earmark a certain minimum of budget for various initiatives and divisions. It's when that minimum is cut short when problems occur.

I strongly doubt Sony's budget for PSVR2 or VR software is cutting into the minimum floor of PS5 non-software budgets. That stuff has already been earmarked and is essentially guaranteed barring any massively disruptive financial troubles, which seem highly unlikely. So basically, any additional funds Sony wants to throw to VR software won't affect the budgets for non-VR software because in the case of the latter, their budgets have already been allocated and earmarked.



That's true, but for those of us who are just asking for MS to whitelist a 3P VR device for compatibility on Xbox consoles, that option becomes magnitudes less risky from a finance POV for them. Relatively speaking it's free in comparison to the production costs for a 1P VR headset, they would just probably need to cover costs (in terms of resources) for any API compatibility and integration if additional work is required there of any significance by the VR headset provider.



Nah there's also Half-Life: Alyx which many argue is the best VR game on the market.
Apples and oranges. The % of people that get motion sickness in VR vs. seizures in normal games isn't even comparable.
 

Jigsaah

Member
Jan 31, 2018
6,739
7,083
740
I think Xbox is keeping an eye on it. Seeing how Sony does with next gen VR should influence things a bit. I'm not personally into VR, if I was I'd just buy one for my PC.

If they are going into it, I would see them just taking on some third party partnership rather than developing their own. I just don't think they are trying to innovate in that direction right now.
 

DrCheese

Member
Jul 15, 2013
123
138
610
VR has it's place, but those saying that it'll replace normal gaming in the next ten years are on some strong drugs. 3DTV failed because people couldn't be bothered to put on a pair of glasses and be taken out of the room they're in. Why on earth would VR work? It's a fad (Again like 3D) that comes around in waves every few years.
 
  • Like
  • LOL
Reactions: ZywyPL and Romulus

nikolino840

Member
Dec 30, 2018
4,613
5,435
675
37
Whats stopping them from just supporting generic VR headsets, like you can connect any model from HTC/Oculus/Valve/HO like a regular TV?
Becouse need devs to do the port for Xbox . The only way that MS have Is to buy them 😂
So will be the same as usual ... Psvr,Oculus,quest and not Xbox VR Just like many games that they are out in every platform but not on Xbox
 

DarthBuzzer

Member
Jul 9, 2018
1,290
887
365
DarthBuzzer and Romulus 🤔

If you think the masses won't be attracted, even addicted, to hyper realistic virtual worlds and holograms with the a pair of sunglasses that can also project infinite virtual TVs that are better than anything the physical world could provide, and also act as the next step in communication for things like discord/xbox live, and act as everyone's gateway to attending industry events like E3/Gamescom/PSX/Game Awards/ESports venues - then you would be the one in a fantasy.

Drop that on someone and they'll almost certainly want it, use it, and probably become addicted.