Support NeoGAF

[Trup1aya]

That's literally the opposite of Kinect.

Every VR thread is the same. Someone is quoted being somewhat negative about VR. A hundred posters come into the thread to nod their head and decide to reinterpret the statement as an endorsement of their personal agenda.

Rather, people interpret a benign comment as negative (without reading it in full context), because doing so supports their preconceived bias and supports their personal agenda.

 

[Helznicht]

But they don't do it. Their console is only compatible, they don't have an own vr solution.

If it catches on, they'll have no R&D costs associated with it and just allow a VR maker compatibility with the Xbox brand. If it doesn't catch on, nothing lost on their side.

eh... MS haz no VRz

 

[wesleyshark]

Rather, people interpret a benign comment as negative (without reading it in full context), because doing so supports their preconceived bias and supports their personal agenda.

Yep. Phil had nothing bad to say about PSVR or VR in general in this interview. Again, his only negative comment was about the Kinect haha

 

[gaming_noob]

Is Black070 going to reply to any of the dozen posts who quoted him or is this another one of his failed drive-by's? Lol

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

I'm not sure what his point is, if he thinks it's going to be mainstream in a couple of years maybe he should see that as a major opportunity for Xbox and Scorpio to get a leg up on the competition.

It's not like a couple of years is a decade or two. The tech is more or less there, and the experimental phase is going to happen with any new medium, people have to figure out how to design a different type of game.

VR just needs people with vision and/or money to inject VR with life like a mad scientist. Phil Spencer is a smart dude, but for a leader of a big company he doesn't come off as close to a visionary that can work a chess-board 10 steps ahead of the game.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

Nice bit of PR there, down playing VR right now because Microsoft are only just jumping on the band wagon and won't be ready for VR yet.

While he's not totally wrong, VR has been out less than a year and there are plenty of tech demo right now but some of them show a lot of potential and there are already a few real games out now, so the next wave of games should really start to show more of what VR can do.

 

[Rappy]

Another Spencer thread. Another clickbait title. Another thread full of overly offensive/defensive knee jerk responses.

Maybe the OP didn't purposely choose this thread title to illicit the kind of responses this thread is getting, but you really couldn't have just titled it something like: "Phil Spencer's thoughts on VR, an interview with stevivor"?

 

[Nzyme32]

Phil made the most 'water is wet' comments possible in that article and peeps are coming back with misplaced snark.

Pretty much. Games being the way they are right now has been known for years and expected to continue until the medium is better understood and the technologies required grow and innovate alongside.

 

[HighResTomato]

I.e. it's not important until we do it.

VR doesn't start until Uncle Phil says so?

So basically hololens is superior but just in case vr starting to take off we'll do the usual bringing alot of money late to the game.

He doesn't dare saying that their solution is superior and will give it full supports. Instead half ass half step pr talk.

Well pr guy zero substance as usual I guess.

Guy is a nob.

'We're going to support VR at some point in the future but right now I'm taking this opportunity to put down the PSVR.'

Phill spencer interviews are all over the place, when MS has no product this year (VR, against PRO). It gets annoying and it's called FUD, so that people hesitate to buy a competing product. So obvious.

VR doesn't start until WE say so

He didn't say any of that.

 

[toddhunter]

Nice bit of PR there, down playing VR right now because Microsoft are only just jumping on the band wagon and won't be ready for VR yet.

It might seem that way until you remember how hard they pushed Kinect and how those promised real experiences never actually happened.

They know what they are talking about...

 

[AirPowerFTW]

VR will always be niche since its only really suitable for 1 type of game, ones with cockpits/fixed head postions.

Outside of that its the wii all over again, gimmicky crap or worse a tacked on "vr" overhead view point.

That is until they solve the whole moving issue, teleporting is crap, moving with sticks makes you upchuck.

No, strongly disagree (to the bolded text).

Before VR I might have been inclined to agree with you, particularly as a sim enthusiast. But I've seen some great uses of VR now that defy that basic line of thinking.

The best example I can think of is the Playroom VR platforming game, it's not talked about enough because it really is brilliant... and made me want to play a platforming game (quite an achievement). You might think it's tacked on, but given the depth perception VR adds it's actually far more natural than any overhead camera has ever been.

Games like Tethered, or any number of the room scale games also disprove your assertion.

Sure, I agree VR will be niche for the foresable future, but not for the base reasons you state. Price, resolution, tracking, complexity and social limitations are more likely to keep it niche than the actually gaming experiences, which are already impressively broad.

 

[c0de]

Also, experiments are not a bad thing. They're what makes the difference between a varied lineup of games and only having Gears, Halo and Forza.

Amazing.

 

[SensibleSucker]

I agree with Phil. That said, and as many have already asserted, the demos/experiments phase right now is still enough for me. Specifically with PSVR, Sony have spunked everything at the wall genre-wise, to see what sticks. Smaller versions of multiple game types.

Next year, we'll see VR beginning to mature. The good thing is, VR hasn't succumbed to the AAA arms race yet, which means development times will be much shorter. I have no doubt that games green-lit in the flush of participation in the first 6 months or so of VR this year will be ready for Autumn 2017.

 

[pitchfork]

Ha Ha! good god some of the comments in this thread are fucking embarrassing!

I've yet to try any of the current VR line up, but can't really argue with what Phil's saying here based on everything I've seen and heard.

I don't actually believe there'll be any kind of big VR push from Xbox either when Scorpio rolls round. Not for the first year anyway

 

[Caayn]

He didn't say any of that.

It's the standard "I read the title of a topic but didn't bother to actually read the OP." reply.

 

[Kacho]

He's not wrong and what he says about the games feeling like demos has been said by many other people. I think MS is smart not dismissing VR but also not betting the farm on it either. Give it a few years and see if it's truly worth going all in on.

 

[Coolbgdog12]

Oh boy

 

[Rodelero]

Rather, people interpret a benign comment as negative (without reading it in full context), because doing so supports their preconceived bias and supports their personal agenda.

To state that Phil has said nothing negative about the state of consumer VR in this interview is an outright lie. I don't think he's being too negative - maybe a little dismissive of a handful of VR games that are certainly more than just demos or experiments - but one way or another he makes several negative statements:

1) “I don’t think the creators in the game space have yet found – well, they haven’t obviously perfected the craft of building VR games"

A kind way of saying that developers haven't worked out how to make good VR games yet

2) "I think VR will find its spot in gaming; I would make that bet"

VR hasn't found its spot in gaming

3) "Most of these things I’m playing now feel like demos and experiments"

Most VR games aren't really games

Together they paint a picture that gaming VR isn't worth it yet, either from MS's point of view, or from the consumer's. It's a perfectly reasonable argument, but that doesn't change the fundamental sentiment of what he is saying - negative about the current state of VR, hopeful for the future state of it. I don't think it's coincidental that he's spreading this view shortly after the launch of PSVR, and that's fine, it's part of his job. What I find highly unlikely is that his statement is, as you say, benign, and that he's not remotely thinking of PSVR when saying this. Phil is an intelligent man, a large part of his job is PR, if you read between the lines... it's fairly obvious what he's saying.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

He's not wrong and what he says about the games feeling like demos has been said by many other people. I think MS is smart not dismissing VR but also not betting the farm on it either. Give it a few years and see if it's truly worth going all in on.

With a company as big as Microsoft, I'd expect them to be more of the innovator than the copycat.

And under that "wait and see" logic, it makes no sense that they went the Hololens way of AR and have dismissed VR, a tech that is clearly much more within reach. Yes, I realize Hololens isn't gaming-centric, but VR doesn't have to be either, it's just an aspect/extension of it that has the potential to be very lucrative in the near future.

 

[MisterBrimstone]

I remember when I was younger and had to decide between N64 and PS.. the decision was made because of the games. It's always the games.

Now people get the VR for the gimmick and then hope for the games. Same thing will happen for the Switch?

 

[Croatoan]

LOL, people thinking VR is only for cockpit sim games. Roomscale shits all over your opinion.

 

[MisterBrimstone]

With a company as big as Microsoft, I'd expect them to be more of the innovator than the copycat.

And under that "wait and see" logic, it makes no sense that they went the Hololens way of AR and have dismissed VR, a tech that is clearly much more within reach.

Clearly going for a tech that is further away is being the innovator. Besides, he said that the problem are the developers for the technology, not the devices themselves.

 

[Trup1aya]

To state that Phil has said nothing negative about the state of consumer VR in this interview is an outright lie. I don't think he's being too negative - maybe a little dismissive of a handful of VR games that are certainly more than just demos or experiments - but one way or another he makes several negative statements:

1) “I don’t think the creators in the game space have yet found – well, they haven’t obviously perfected the craft of building VR games"

A kind way of saying that developers haven't worked out how to make good VR games yet

2) "I think VR will find its spot in gaming; I would make that bet"

VR hasn't found its spot in gaming

3) "Most of these things I’m playing now feel like demos and experiments"

Most VR games aren't really games

Together they paint a picture that gaming VR isn't worth it yet, either from MS's point of view, or from the consumer's. It's a perfectly reasonable argument, but that doesn't change the fundamental sentiment of what he is saying - negative about the current state of VR, hopeful for the future state of it. I don't think it's coincidental that he's spreading this view shortly after the launch of PSVR, and that's fine, it's part of his job. What I find highly unlikely is that his statement is, as you say, benign, and that he's not remotely thinking of PSVR when saying this. Phil is an intelligent man, a large part of his job is PR, if you read between the lines... it's fairly obvious what he's saying.

Just because you are choosing to interpret it as negative doesn't mean it is.

1: the craft hasn't been perfected. VR is currently going through similar growing pains that occurred when we switched to 3D play spaces. What's the best way to manipulate the camera? How do we best convey locomotion? What's the best control scheme? Can we further reduce susceptibility to motion sickness? These things are still in flux.

2. VR is still a long war from solidifying its spot in gaming. Growth has been anemic on the PC, and PSVR has been out for a matter of weeks. It's still unclear when/if it will shift from niche to mass market to standard.

3: developers are still CLEARLY in the experimental stages- as evident by the questions we still have around basic gameplay design standards.

There nothing NEGATIVE about the fact that VR developers are still figuring things out. It just is what it is. Yes he is a smart man, and anyone who works in product developement understands that experimentation is a vital and neccisary step. Obviously early adoption is a key part of that process- so if you CHOOSE to twist these words into "don't buy PSVR" that's on you.

At the end of the day, MS is learning from PSVRs precence in the market. They probably got a bunch of retail units in the studios.

 

[wesleyshark]

Just because you are choosing to interpret it as negative doesn't mean it is.

1: the craft hasn't been perfected. VR is currently going through the same growing pains that happens when we switched to 3D play spaces. What's the best way to control the camera? How do we convey locomotion? These things are still in flux.

2. VR is still a long war from solidifying its spot in gaming. Growth has been anemic on the PC, and PSVR has been out for a matter of weeks. It's still unclear when/if it will shift from niche to mass to standard.

3: developers are still CLEARLY in the experimental stages- as evident by the questions we still have around design standards.

There nothing NEGATIVE about the fact that VR developers are still figuring things out. It just is what it is.

Exactly. I don't understand the need to inject negativity into these statements.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

Clearly going for a tech that is further away is being the innovator. Besides, he said that the problem are the developers for the technology, not the devices themselves.

With that logic Microsoft should focus on Matrix style brain plug-ins.

If the problem is with the developers, you give incentive to bring them in and take the short-term loss for long-term gain. That's what Oculus is doing. It's not exactly a new concept.

 

[7DollarHagane]

Phil ain't wrong

 

[Rodelero]

Just because you are choosing to interpret it as negative doesn't mean it is.

1: the craft hasn't been perfected. VR is currently going through similar growing pains that occurred when we switched to 3D play spaces. What's the best way to manipulate the camera? How do we best convey locomotion? What's the best control scheme? Can we further reduce susceptibility to motion sickness? These things are still in flux.

2. VR is still a long war from solidifying its spot in gaming. Growth has been anemic on the PC, and PSVR has been out for a matter of weeks. It's still unclear when/if it will shift from niche to mass market to standard.

3: developers are still CLEARLY in the experimental stages- as evident by the questions we still have around basic gameplay design standards.

There nothing NEGATIVE about the fact that VR developers are still figuring things out. It just is what it is.

His points are negative whether or not you feel his points are valid. As I made very clear in my first post, I don't disagree with his points on the whole, but that doesn't change how positive or negative they are. It is also extremely noticeable that he doesn't really compliment VR gaming on any level. I'll state it again - to say that Phil isn't being negative about the current state of VR gaming is an outright lie. You hold the same negative views, but that doesn't make his view neutral, it just makes it line with your own.

 

[T.O.P]

He didn't say any of that.

Let 'em be, quick shit post then they'll never be seen again in this thread

 

[Ushay]

He's not wrong. But he'll change his tone, as soon as Xbox releases there's.

Pretty much

 

[ResoRai]

I'm not sure what his point is, if he thinks it's going to be mainstream in a couple of years maybe he should see that as a major opportunity for Xbox and Scorpio to get a leg up on the competition.

It's not like a couple of years is a decade or two. The tech is more or less there, and the experimental phase is going to happen with any new medium, people have to figure out how to design a different type of game.

VR just needs people with vision and/or money to inject VR with life like a mad scientist. Phil Spencer is a smart dude, but for a leader of a big company he doesn't come off as close to a visionary that can work a chess-board 10 steps ahead of the game.

It's not like they're sitting on it.

"....We’ll go do stuff on the content side with Minecraft and other things in VR and then we will, as a platform company, focus our first party efforts on something more in a mixed reality world with the belief that that’s where this all plays out eventually any way.”

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Let 'em be, quick shit post then they'll never be seen again in this thread

oh i'll be back once this thread hits the new page

 

[Trup1aya]

His points are negative whether or not you feel his points are valid. As I made very clear in my first post, I don't disagree with his points on the whole, but that doesn't change how positive or negative they are. It is also extremely noticeable that he doesn't really compliment VR on any level. I'll state it again - to say that Phil isn't being negative about the current state of VR is an outright lie. You hold the same negative views, but that doesn't make his view neutral, it just makes it line with your own.

stating something as it is isn't "negative". Negative means bad. He didn't once imply that VR is in a bad state. He implied it's in it infancy... which isn't good or bad... it is just a FACT of being new.

If he said that VR developers have figured everything out, VR is currently enjoying a massive foothold in the industry and it's on the short track to success... THAT would be a lie. The truth is, there's still a long way to go, and MS won't have a VR product until the things are clearer on the software development side. That's HIS strategy... he says nothing to disparage anyone else's strategy.

Refusing to sugar coat something is not the same as being negative.

I don't have any negative views. It's just a fact that VR isn't currently mass market or standard. 1) Because of cost to entry, 2) because a lack of compelling software and 3) because design conventions still need to be figured out. These aren't "negative views" they are undeniable facts.

I'm glad Sony is willing to take the risks to spearhead the solutions to many of VRs remaining problems. But there are problems.

 

[ResoRai]

His points are negative whether or not you feel his points are valid. As I made very clear in my first post, I don't disagree with his points on the whole, but that doesn't change how positive or negative they are. It is also extremely noticeable that he doesn't really compliment VR gaming on any level. I'll state it again - to say that Phil isn't being negative about the current state of VR gaming is an outright lie. You hold the same negative views, but that doesn't make his view neutral, it just makes it line with your own.

What do you mean? He complimented VR multiple times in the interview.

 

[AngryMoth]

Yeah he's not wrong. I'm still excited about VR but I'm not ready to invest in headset right now based on the software that's available.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

I agree with this. I'm not looking for 60 hour AAA games so much as amazing experiences.

Then they should be priced accordingly.

You do not need to be condescending, you have a point I am sure some people have tried VR and have decided its not for them, but there are others who obviously have not. I have been play video games for 30+ years and enjoy my hobby but am beginning to hate the fanbase. They complain about a lack of innovation in the industry and when something arrives that could potentially do that with the right backing they moan.

I still stand by my comment regards Microsoft though, they are making a noise as they do not have a device.

Maybe you should re-read what Phil actually said, take into account the context of how it was said, and not just focus on the soundbites.

I read it. pretty obvious what this is about imo and that sales regards his direct competition.

Yawn.

 

[Rodelero]

What do you mean? He complimented VR multiple times in the interview.

VR gaming? I don't think he does, to be honest. In fact he's quite careful on that point. He says that he loves the TECHNOLOGY behind Oculus and the Vive... not the Oculus, not the Vive, and not the games. He compliments the video use of VR too, but again, not the games (or the demos, or the experiments).

stating something as it is isn't "negative".

He is stating his opinions, not "how it is".

I don't know why, but for some reason when Phil Spencer starts speaking, people lose the scepticism they'd normally apply to what PR people say. He's really not that different to all those others.

 

[T.O.P]

oh i'll be back once this thread hits the new page

So, care to share your opinion on what it's actually wrong with Spencer's statement?

I have a VIVE and i absolutely love it, yet i can agree 100% with what he says, most of the stuff on the system are great in short burst or quickly becomes "just ok" after the initial woah factor ends

Only title that i can see crack the mainstream for VR is RE7 currently

 

[Trup1aya]

VR gaming? I don't think he does, to be honest. In fact he's quite careful on that point. He says that he loves the TECHNOLOGY behind Oculus and the Vive... not the Oculus, not the Vive, and not the games.



He is stating his opinions, not "how it is".

He's stating how it is. I understand you are excited about the prospects of VR (who isn't) but we still don't have design conventions. Until then, VR is undeniably in its infancy.

I don't know why, but for some reason when Phil Spencer starts speaking, people lose the scepticism they'd normally apply to what PR people say. He's really not that different to all those others.

Just because someone is in a PR role doesn't mean they are incapable of accurately articulating the status of a situation. There's a difference between reading between the lines, and inserting your own bias between the lines.

 

[artsi]

I'm not sad that I sold my Vive. It's taken longer than I initially expected for interesting content to surface.

 

[IbizaPocholo]

This time i agree with phil.

 

[pr0cs]

He's right but demos are part of the process ofrefining the experience, Kinect was the same. Eventually the demos and experiments showed that Kinect simply was never going to be what they wanted.

Locomotion is still going to be a massive barrier to entry for vr and likely why there are so few compelling titles out there.
Wouldn't be GAF tho if there wasn't a defense for for everything.

 

[the_milkybar_kid]

The very reason I'm not bothered about VR. There's no killer app. Not bothered about tech demo's.

 

[tearsintherain]

Haven't used my oculus in weeks, would rather play Destiny/BF1/Titanfall 2/etc than any VR game I own or don't own. Best decision I made this year was cancelling my PSVR, so have to agree with him.

My issue is going to be that regular games are always going to "compete" with VR, so until the technology takes a couple massive leaps forward in display, comfort, and immersion its always going to lose (for me) to just regular TV gaming.

 

[Rodelero]

He's stating how it is. I understand you are excited about the prospects of VR (who isn't) but we still don't have design conventions. Until then, VR is undeniably in its infancy.

Do you see anyone saying it's not in its infancy?

Also, to the bolded, lots of people. Don't you read NeoGAF?

Just because someone is in a PR role doesn't mean they are incapable of accurately articulating the status of a situation. There's a difference between reading between the lines, and inserting your own bias between the lines.

Perhaps I'll try a different tact - I don't think what I'm saying is really that outrageous:

I am a Briton who wanted to remain in the European Union. I agree with the economists who think that it will be damaging for our economy and our society. Their sentiment on Brexit is completely negative even though I, personally, believe they are "telling it how it is".

 

[Dead Man Typing]

Thumper and Rez Infinite have me interested in where VR can go. It's kind of a return to arcade gaming and I like that a lot.

RE7 is the big test. If the reviews come out and say it's an 8/10 on a TV but a 10/10 in VR then maybe it'll convince me that longer games can work and I'll probably pick up a PSVR.

If reviews and general opinion ends up that the game isn't better with VR then I'll be more likely to hold off.

 

[Fox_Mulder]

He should be banned for console war flame

 

[LittleBigGamer]

OK

Demos and Experiments made me stop traditional gaming.

Can't wait for ''real'' games.

 

[letmetrythisname]

He has a point. I've yet to see a single VR-only game justify its (usually premium) price tag.

 

[Whompa02]

almost as if this is a new thing and needs to be tested before blowing millions of dollars on a huge scale project.

 

[Kacho]

.