Support NeoGAF

[semiconscious]

There is no doubt that the technology is extremely compelling and will be the future. Microsoft risks being left behind if they don't participate at all.

oh, you mean that future full of 3d tvs & self-driving cars?...

sometimes, compelling just isn't enough. whether because of cost, lack of demand, mechanical issues, or some other obstacle, some tech, as cool as it might be, will simply never become mainstream/widespread. vr, imo, may very well always be there as 'a' thing, but it'll never become 'the' thing...

i've owned playstations since the original, & ,regarding vr, i think ms made the right decision...

 

[casablanca]

I would say no since I’m a gamer and I like new shiny things that can bring new gaming ideas etc.
From MS pov I don’t really know or care.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Ultimately, it's too early to say.

If VR eventually becomes a big thing and like with single-player AAA games if Microsoft Game Studios starts off very behind the curve not just in software but in hardware as well, I think ultimately they'd regret it.

I think you also have to ask about opportunity costs as well. What else could Sony do if they DIDN'T do VR. Could they have bought a major studio and positioned themselves better in the WRPG space or MMORPG space? Would that have suited them better in the long run? Look at what Microsoft has done with Bethesda in lieu of investment in VR.

You can't do everything or at least you can't do everything well.

PSP/Vita probably cost us Sony Japan and maybe even Zipper Interactive and didn't help Sony Bend. Would Sony Bend be a more established AAA player in the market if their Syphon Filter games had come out for PS2 right away instead of PSP?

VR is a gamble and we don't know the value of the gamble yet or the opportunity cost.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

I've had PC VR through the Oculus Rift since 2017.

Got a Quest 2 a month ago, and Quest 2 blows the Rift out of the water. I'm a graphics snob, and I prefer the graphics hit you get by using native hardware (Quest 2) to process the graphics because what you get in return is so much better.

There is no competition: Wireless pick-up and play with inside out tracking is the future. If they can get the weight down, the FOV and resolution up, and get rid of the controllers altogether (i.e., full hand-tracking), that's the future right there.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

I've had PC VR through the Oculus Rift since 2017.

Got a Quest 2 a month ago, and Quest 2 blows the Rift out of the water. I'm a graphics snob, and I prefer the graphics hit you get by using native hardware (Quest 2) to process the graphics because what you get in return is so much better.

There is no competition: Wireless pick-up and play with inside out tracking is the future. If they can get the weight down, the FOV and resolution up, and get rid of the controllers altogether (i.e., full hand-tracking), that's the future right there.

It's crazy how much a fully realised Kinect 3 or 4 solution could drive a number of those requirements e.g. object mapping, hand/finger tracking, muscle tracking etc. A hybrid Kinect/Hololens/VR deal is what I see in the future. The ability for passthrough AR and solid block VR all in the same helmet and all without the cables, sensors and that to set up. Even when you take that uber vision of local hardware you wear it's still not something most want to play when talking about FPS controller based competitive Apex or Halo games for example. The horror jump type games, space sims, flight sims and experience-based VR similar to that kayak VR game are the sweet spot for now.

When you think about a digital projection in terms of automatic character movements, orientation, inertia, muscles, eye tracking and also voice recognition for facial/speech animation are going to be a big deal. Think of metaverse or just general gaming and imagine being in a VR chat with your party where each have an avatar that real time does their character mouth/chin etc for voice patterns and head/eye/motion tracking for whom you're facing/talking with etc while Kinect handles the environment and character body/spatial/forces tracking. Now when you layer in the ability to real time track that all in high resolution your pushing easy setup, high levels of in game automation/representation and engaging content features that aren't just for gaming. All of it hella useful for corpo world, social interactions or gaming and running a virtual world while you remain in the physical. Real time environment sync or hybrid modes of AR/VR make a lot of sense e.g. collision of real world objects in your living room while you play. Fine if you want all that off and have a blank room to get your VR game on. It's not so great when you have friends or grandma wanting a go and they do an ankle flying over the couch in their first VR experience.

That sort of point is very far off, much of the tech exists but after Kinect's failure for an "inclusive default out of the box" system, not a separate purchase, it's going to be a long time before the technology and in game experiences become as easy as pushing "on" for your console, clicking a button and just enjoying some social/gaming activities with your friends, family or co-workers.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

oh, you mean that future full of 3d tvs & self-driving cars?...

sometimes, compelling just isn't enough. whether because of cost, lack of demand, mechanical issues, or some other obstacle, some tech, as cool as it might be, will simply never become mainstream/widespread. vr, imo, may very well always be there as 'a' thing, but it'll never become 'the' thing...

i've owned playstations since the original, & ,regarding vr, i think ms made the right decision...

I don't see why not. You're not going to be able to tangibly improve TVs with more resolution, but you will with VR. Eventually processing won't be a large limitation, and so by default VR will be far more immersive.

Games don't even need to really take advantage of all VR has to offer, they can be the same 2D games, just in a 3D headset that you can look around at the margins with and it's still better than staring at a TV thats 12 feet away

 

[Torrent of Pork]

When the tech is good enough for the right price it costs MS nothing to partner with Valve or Meta to do higher-end VR. I just don't see MS ever putting out their own hardware.

 

[KXVXII9X]

No support from major studios? Valve released a Half Life game on vr.

Honestly, the state of gamers today.

They constantly go on about gaming becoming dull and reject every single new idea. Even experimental AAA games like The Last Guardian don't sell well. People quickly dismissed Death Stranding due to it not being pure action. Everything is labeled a gimmick.

PlayStation is also supporting VR with games. And Resident Evil 4 VR was supported by both Capcom and Meta with GTA and Assassin's coming in the future.

 

[Foilz]

I can see why they didn't want to invent the billions of r&d into VR for their console but they could have just enebaled the Xbox to work with the quest 2/pro. Streaming from Xbox to the quest would be great. The quest already has millions of headsets out there and Xbox is much cheaper than a gaming PC with VR support

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

Yes. I think not focusing on VR was the right move. Microsoft has bigger things to concentrate on like building up their first party, creating quality exclusives and finally getting those high profile games out.

 

[RJMacready73]

definitely an oversight, i know some of aren’t big fans of VR but from my experiences with PSVR1 I absolutely cannot wait to get my hands on PSVR2, I don’t thinks words or video can properly convey how much of a game changer it is to be in the actual world and look around it in proper fully immersive 3D, not the 3DTV type 3D but actual you’re in the world and those mountains way over there are fucking huge type 3D and with the tech in this one being state of the art… sign me right the fuck up, I don’t give a shit if it dies a death or is poorly supported it’s a bloody revelation to play and imo as big a leap in gaming when we went from SNES to PS1.. and MS should at least offer up their base the ability to play some VR games via Quest or Vive, I mean how hard can it be cause y’all are missing out… Resident Evil 8 VR.. oh my

 

[Business]

I've had PC VR through the Oculus Rift since 2017.

Got a Quest 2 a month ago, and Quest 2 blows the Rift out of the water. I'm a graphics snob, and I prefer the graphics hit you get by using native hardware (Quest 2) to process the graphics because what you get in return is so much better.

There is no competition: Wireless pick-up and play with inside out tracking is the future. If they can get the weight down, the FOV and resolution up, and get rid of the controllers altogether (i.e., full hand-tracking), that's the future right there.

That's the future but today I'll take an wired Index anyday instead of a Quest 2.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

I think 2023 will be the deciding factor for this question given the influx of new headsets coming out within the first months of the year and later this year, HTC, Sony, TCL DPLS, RVG, Several china manus, Samsung, Apple, and more.

If we end up similar or worse with these headsets in their first months, then i would say that MS avoided a costly entry into a market that's not really there, with losses all over and without a ROI from an audience that isn't retained, which would impact MAU.

If we see a resurgence of VR, money comes in, games improve, and more investment follows, than one could say they missed out by not jumping in early.

But so far it's looking like it was a smart move. This is the year will be interesting.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

But so far it's looking like it was a smart move. This is the year will be interesting.

Just because it's smart for Microsoft doesn't make it a smart move in general.

Reality is that Microsoft has enough trouble as it is being able to support their console with content. They can't fight two fronts at once. But it positions them terribly if they are just in constant catch up mode while Sony is able to profitably explore new frontiers.

 

[delirium trigger]

I definitely think VR is the future but we're not there yet. Still a niche.

 

[THE DUCK]

I don't think it was a mistake especially considering sales figures to date, however I am still shocked that they didn't partner with a company like meta to at least support it.
I mean how hard would it really have been to have Series X support the quest 2 and allow developers to make vr games?

 

[Three]

I don't think it was a mistake especially considering sales figures to date, however I am still shocked that they didn't partner with a company like meta to at least support it.
I mean how hard would it really have been to have Series X support the quest 2 and allow developers to make vr games?

Considering they are pushing Series S, very difficult.

 

[THE DUCK]

Considering they are pushing Series S, very difficult.

Wouldn't have been a huge deal to say the X only supports vr, I bet there are 10 times more series X owners that own or would consider quest 2 vs series S. Series S tends to lean more towards an extra room, kids, seconday console, or to get on gamepass than would be bought for vr.

 

[Three]

Wouldn't have been a huge deal to say the X only supports vr, I bet there are 10 times more series X owners that own or would consider quest 2 vs series S. Series S tends to lean more towards an extra room, kids, seconday console, or to get on gamepass than would be bought for vr.

It's difficult to gauge how many would buy a VR headset but we are talking about a fraction of a fraction if we relegate it to Series X only and that might not be enough to warrant longterm development support on the platform.

 

[FoxMcChief]

I’m sure I’ve replied to this already, but I’ll say it again, YES.

VR is cool, but not worth the price of admission, at this point.

 

[bluecowboys]

If MSFT wants to get into the VR space, they should work with Meta at this point.
Same thing with handheld, work with Valve on the Steam deck.

 

[Crayon]

They were never going to do it. Full stop.

 

[Cheezewizz]

Just because it's smart for Microsoft doesn't make it a smart move in general.

Reality is that Microsoft has enough trouble as it is being able to support their console with content. They can't fight two fronts at once. But it positions them terribly if they are just in constant catch up mode while Sony is able to profitably explore new frontiers.

Pretty impressive to be fair. Never wasting an opportunity to criticize MS. Despite it being pretty evident that MS made the right call, along with VR adoption being pretty lackluster... You still almost found a way to argue that MS made a mistake. Almost.

Do you have a source that Sony is making a profit on VR? If they've already made back all their R&D money from the PSVR and it's sales figures, then MS shouldn't be worried about catching up. If they haven't made a profit, then there's nothing for MS to catch up to other than wasteful spending.

Of course you also point to MS's inability to provide content for VR device even if they did decide to make one. If that's the case, then it sure doesn't inspire confidence for PSVR2. Do third party developers really not create content for VR, or do they only create content for Sony? If they do create for all platforms then alas, there's support.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

I think VR is a luxury that they can't afford while still offering too little for regular games. It's like me saying that I'm gonna buy a private jet.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Pretty impressive to be fair. Never wasting an opportunity to criticize MS. Despite it being pretty evident that MS made the right call, along with VR adoption being pretty lackluster... You still almost found a way to argue that MS made a mistake. Almost.

Do you have a source that Sony is making a profit on VR? If they've already made back all their R&D money from the PSVR and it's sales figures, then MS shouldn't be worried about catching up. If they haven't made a profit, then there's nothing for MS to catch up to other than wasteful spending.

Of course you also point to MS's inability to provide content for VR device even if they did decide to make one. If that's the case, then it sure doesn't inspire confidence for PSVR2. Do third party developers really not create content for VR, or do they only create content for Sony? If they do create for all platforms then alas, there's support.

I think MS is making a mistake, but it's one they have to make. They don't really have any alternative. They don't have the bandwith to support a VR platform.

And it hurts them too - I wish they did care about VR and had their own headset. Because, as we see right now, Xbox is struggling sales wise compared to PS5. And why is that? Well, because PS5 is just a more appealing platform, and by adding PSVR2 to the mix it adds yet another reason for why it's a more appealing platform. It gives the PS5 console more value as an option gamers have just by having VR.

I don't know if Sony is making a profit on PSVR2, but I suspect they are given the price and the parts that are in there. Is it a massive profit? No, and I don't expect PSVR2 to be a massive profit driver for their overall business, but it will be a growing one, and they will continue to grow as VR grows. MS will just be late to the party. And being late to the party in gaming is usually a very bad thing.

 

[Cheezewizz]

I think MS is making a mistake, but it's one they have to make. They don't really have any alternative. They don't have the bandwith to support a VR platform.

That's fine, and maybe they don't have the bandwidth to support a VR platform. I just think it's more a matter of they don't care to rather than they can't.

And it hurts them too - I wish they did care about VR and had their own headset. Because, as we see right now, Xbox is struggling sales wise compared to PS5. And why is that? Well, because PS5 is just a more appealing platform, and by adding PSVR2 to the mix it adds yet another reason for why it's a more appealing platform. It gives the PS5 console more value as an option gamers have just by having VR.

I think it helps them more than hurts them. While you might see Xbox as struggling, I certainly don't. They're selling more consoles compared to last gen and have more people using their services, while Playstation is selling less, and can't seem to increase their subscribers.

While I'm sure some may be swayed by having VR, is it worth it though? PSVR sold maybe 6 million at most, so we know that it's some incredible factor with such a low attachment rate.

I don't know if Sony is making a profit on PSVR2, but I suspect they are given the price and the parts that are in there. Is it a massive profit? No, and I don't expect PSVR2 to be a massive profit driver for their overall business, but it will be a growing one, and they will continue to grow as VR grows. MS will just be late to the party. And being late to the party in gaming is usually a very bad thing.

Well, if Sony is already making a profit on VR, then I'm not sure that inspires confidence. If Sony has to recoup the price of parts as well as R&D costs. Then it either isn't inherently bad to be late, as basically any company can throw parts together. Or the parts they're using are so incredibly cheap, that PSVR2 would likely hurt Sony rather than help it. I suspect they're nowhere near being profitable in VR.

If Sony continues to throw considerable money into VR, while continuing to achieve the sales it has... The only thing that will be growing is the fire Sony continues to throw money into. MS has obviously chosen to skip that party altogether.

 

[DenchDeckard]

200 percent the right move.

It's not viable for some time.

Saying that, we need companies like meta and Sony to push this forward for the future but its not there right now.

Psvr 2 will not move the needle, I can assure you on that.

Vr right now is great for smaller indie type games with lower budgets due to the nature of the business. Low install base, less sales. I personally feel, and evidence has shown that sonys hard-core fans demand high quality, high graphics quality experiences and psvr needs dedicated software to really take off. It can't be a psvr mode as most will just pass on it.

So gt7 will be amazing, saints and sinners etc are all great but available else where.

If psvr 2 can break 2 million sales in the first month or so I think its on track to do ok but still will be on life support. You can't fund big b8dget games on 200k sales ( roughly ten percent of userbase)

MS can join in, or make it so any headset works on the future xboxs. If they can sign this off.

That's the best eay to do it. Let meta lose billions a year and have the device work on the console....however they can work that out.

 

[mrmustard]

Yes, because they can still make a deal with let's say Quest 3 for the Series X and don't have many millions of development costs.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

I think MS is making a mistake, but it's one they have to make. They don't really have any alternative. They don't have the bandwith to support a VR platform.

And it hurts them too - I wish they did care about VR and had their own headset. Because, as we see right now, Xbox is struggling sales wise compared to PS5. And why is that? Well, because PS5 is just a more appealing platform, and by adding PSVR2 to the mix it adds yet another reason for why it's a more appealing platform. It gives the PS5 console more value as an option gamers have just by having VR.

I don't know if Sony is making a profit on PSVR2, but I suspect they are given the price and the parts that are in there. Is it a massive profit? No, and I don't expect PSVR2 to be a massive profit driver for their overall business, but it will be a growing one, and they will continue to grow as VR grows. MS will just be late to the party. And being late to the party in gaming is usually a very bad thing.

In the case of hardware sales MS is also taking another hit of stacking Series X into cloud servers to support the 25M they have, while Sony literally skipping it and putting PS5's into customers homes instead of this massive gamble.

 

[Rudius]

Hindsight is ten years from now, at least.

 

[Fredrik]

If MSFT wants to get into the VR space, they should work with Meta at this point.
Same thing with handheld, work with Valve on the Steam deck.

Yeah, could have wireless VR too if they want, I’m thinking if it works on Windows it shouldn’t be too difficult to get it to work on Xbox.

 

[Kvally]

Meh. Microsoft already supports VR, has been for ages. They sell VR hardware at the Microsoft Store, and support it in their OS. I don't want VR on Xbox as a focus until they can get GAMES on Xbox. And even then, I still don't want VR. It's great that it could be an option for those that enjoy VR in the future.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

200 percent the right move.

It's not viable for some time.

Saying that, we need companies like meta and Sony to push this forward for the future but its not there right now.

Psvr 2 will not move the needle, I can assure you on that.

Vr right now is great for smaller indie type games with lower budgets due to the nature of the business. Low install base, less sales. I personally feel, and evidence has shown that sonys hard-core fans demand high quality, high graphics quality experiences and psvr needs dedicated software to really take off. It can't be a psvr mode as most will just pass on it.

So gt7 will be amazing, saints and sinners etc are all great but available else where.

If psvr 2 can break 2 million sales in the first month or so I think its on track to do ok but still will be on life support. You can't fund big b8dget games on 200k sales ( roughly ten percent of userbase)

MS can join in, or make it so any headset works on the future xboxs. If they can sign this off.

That's the best eay to do it. Let meta lose billions a year and have the device work on the console....however they can work that out.

VR is viable today, PSVR2 proves it

You have multiple AAA games that are better in VR (GT7 and RE8), we have RE4 VR coming soon, and Horizon

Probably getting Alyx later, another Astro game, and countless VR versions of any racing or horror game

Heck Sony probably has a TLOU VR and Spider-Man VR in the works as modes to the fast screen games

 

[Lucifers Beard]

I don’t think they made the right call there but it doesn’t bother me because PSVR2 is just around the corner. I’ll get my VR fix regardless.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

I mean...they should sort out their gaming division and studios for their games already in development first...and then venture into other territories once they can actually have more than a huge game per year. While they are taking a year and half for a heavy-hitter to be released again...clearly they have other stuff to worry about first.

 

[NickFire]

I think the losses that Facebook has incurred are reason enough to say MS made the right call at the time. Sony has a long history in consumer electronics so the risk made more sense for them. But does anyone know if VR itself has been profitable though? I truly don't know if to date, VR has been a passion project or commercial success.

In the present day, I do think MS should be reconsidering their VR position. Might still be best to sit out. But it may be time to get in too. Facebook paid (literally) to get VR in enough homes so that people know what it is by and large. And consumers are going to be far more acceptable of the single cord set-up in a month thanks to GT7, which should help keep the cost down for MS if they jump in too.

 

[sinnergy]

Yes, but we all could see this coming from miles away, the tech and the convenience is not there yet . Maybe in 10-15 years.

 

[Ar¢tos]

I wouldn't say it was right or wrong.
It's still a bit of a risk to invest in VR, so it is more of a safe move and there is nothing stopping them from doing it later.
Sony also has the advantage of being mainly a hardware manufacturer that already makes screens, cameras and all sorts of sensors, so it is much easier and less risky for them to do VR.

 

[Mikey Jr.]

Yeah they were correct.

Rather than giving their player base new experiences, they should spend 70 billion on bullshit.

 

[Riky]

No point wasting money and time on a very niche piece of hardware for VR, money better spent on a bigger more up to date GPU.

 

[SLB1904]

Yes, because they can still make a deal with let's say Quest 3 for the Series X and don't have many millions of development costs.

 

[sinnergy]

Yeah they were correct.

Rather than giving their player base new experiences, they should spend 70 billion on bullshit.

At least that gives us threads that are miles long and months of entertainment.

 

[REDRZA MWS]

the ayes have it

 

[chromatic9]

They can jump in later on once VR takes a bigger step. In or out it's kind of a wash at the moment.

Sony have done a decent job in my view. Just look at the money sunk in by facebook, it has to grow organically before pumping huge sums of money. It's going to take a lot of figuring out, more iterations and tech condensing while software becomes more and more viable to make and people can use and play for longer.

Carmack's recent comments and facebook losses highlight wanting too much too soon with heavy subsidies but not realizing that's just one aspect of getting a product off the ground, you still need a good product and business around it and they're quite blinded as where it is right now and how it's that not compelling enough whether cheap or high end or heavy subsidized. The excitement is to run before walking, VR might need another 10-20 years of walking yet.

 

[j.k.2021]

Yes.The writing was on the wall.

 

[SteadyEvo]

Yes. It seems they’re having trouble managing studios for one platform. And I don’t believe VR will stand the test of time.

 

[X-Wing]

Probably not, VR2 will become the standard and MS lost that train. I guess they can always buy a company or two in the future.

 

[j.k.2021]

Only Apple can make VR/AR mainstream because of their loyal fanbase.

 

[Ar¢tos]

Yes, because they can still make a deal with let's say Quest 3 for the Series X and don't have many millions of development costs.

That's not realistic.
Meta has ZERO reasons to make a deal with MS.
Hardware is sold at a loss or tiny profit, nearly all the profit comes from software and selling games in Xbox store means giving MS a 30% cut. Why would they sign a deal to make less money than they are doing now?
With the Activision acquisition and jobs cuts I doubt MS would give the Xbox division money just to compensate Meta over an accessory with relatively small adoption rate just to say "we have vr too!".

Edit: Forgot about third parties... With those it would be even worse, Meta would get ZERO per game sale of those on the MS store, only MS would get its cut.

 

[JohnSpartanLee]

PSVR2 can only do photorealistic graphics at 4k120 - the tech just isn't there yet.