-
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.
Mention of 'high fidelity VR' disappears from Xbox Scorpio website
- Thread starter Hoo-doo
- Start date
Yes, Fallout 4 was only officially announced for Vive.
Obviously, Bethesda would be very reluctant to release anything on Oculus in the current situation.
Even if that were true, I think tracking failure so close before release would be pretty damning.
Also, you can always erect a cubicle around your demo stations -- it would be a bit concerning, but far less so than not showing any working hardware at all.
scoobs
Member
VR is too expensive and niche, smart not to commit to it early and make it a marketing selling point, but to do the R&D so you can support it in the future if consumers are asking for it when the tech has matured more and hopefully come down in price significantly.
They're going to market as a traditional gaming device to go after the core gamers who may have switched to PlayStation. You don't get those people by waving an oculus in front of their faces.
They're going to market as a traditional gaming device to go after the core gamers who may have switched to PlayStation. You don't get those people by waving an oculus in front of their faces.
I think it was a mistake to officially unveil the Scorpio as a reaction to the Pro so soon to be honest. They should just have focused on the slim and their games up until they have a clear plan to show for the Scorpio.
I think Sony did it pretty well with the PSpro, given it was an unprecedented move in the console business that raised many, many questions.
I think Sony did it pretty well with the PSpro, given it was an unprecedented move in the console business that raised many, many questions.
VR is going to continue to improve in the alleyways and I don't see it having maintstream potential until the next gen of the tech comes out.
But I disagree that it was too soon to put the tech on the market. It needs developer support to help shape the tech. Developers need an audience to sell their work to.
hydrophilic attack
Member
Could you expand on this?
ZeniMax (Bethesda) are persuing legal action against Oculus right now.
About 3DTVs, HD-DVDs and floppy disks you would be right, but about VR, you are wrong. VR is an entirely new medium, and betting against it is like spitting into the wind.
As someone who thinks VR will fail to gain traction, I can only assume you haven't tried the latest it has to offer. I recommend going to a Microsoft Store and going through one of their free 10 minute VR demos to check it out. I have a feeling you will be convinced of its long term potential.
Also, read "Snow Crash" and "Ready Player One". Both are seminal works on the possibilities of VR.
EventHorizon
Member
Promoting VR along with Scorpio was always going to be a problem. Microsoft has given up on VR running on the base XB1. That means the only way for someone to experience VR on a Microsoft console is to buy both Scorpio and a VR headset. The sticker shock of that requirement is too toxic and would reinforce the theme that Scorpio is too expensive.
Sony didn't have this problem with the Pro because it already had a large install base of PS4s that they were going to support with VR. Therefore they could rightfully say that for a substantial number of gamers, the price of the PSVR headset was all they needed pay to get VR.
Sony didn't have this problem with the Pro because it already had a large install base of PS4s that they were going to support with VR. Therefore they could rightfully say that for a substantial number of gamers, the price of the PSVR headset was all they needed pay to get VR.
irrotational
Member
Ah yes of course :-(
Not offering any kind of VR whatsoever does reduce the platform's growth potential / future applications.
I rather have serviceable VR (PSVR) than no VR at all.
It's not like they need to bundle the console with a VR headset, just design it with VR applications in mind (i.e. have at least 2 USB ports in the front, offer some kind of VR mode for the xbox dashboard).
We'll just have to wait and see if they're just downplaying VR as an application for Scorpio, or abandoning the concept altogether.
Those who consider 'VR' dead. Sure, it's not as widely applicable as "4k graphics", but a racing game built around VR is an amazing experience, my girlfriend's brother was super giddy when he tried the Driveclub demo, regardless of the sub-par image quality.
I myself found the Battlefront VR mission extremely enjoyable. It's just a chicken-egg problem of devs not willing to invest their resources in a platform with such a small install base. :/
I rather have serviceable VR (PSVR) than no VR at all.
It's not like they need to bundle the console with a VR headset, just design it with VR applications in mind (i.e. have at least 2 USB ports in the front, offer some kind of VR mode for the xbox dashboard).
We'll just have to wait and see if they're just downplaying VR as an application for Scorpio, or abandoning the concept altogether.
Those who consider 'VR' dead. Sure, it's not as widely applicable as "4k graphics", but a racing game built around VR is an amazing experience, my girlfriend's brother was super giddy when he tried the Driveclub demo, regardless of the sub-par image quality.
I myself found the Battlefront VR mission extremely enjoyable. It's just a chicken-egg problem of devs not willing to invest their resources in a platform with such a small install base. :/
hydrophilic attack
Member
Oh, because of Carmack?
This is a comment I keep seeing but I still see no justification in it, I still believe VR is a gimmick, and while it has potential for being a cool niche thing, I honestly have many doubts in it ever becoming something mainstream, I really doubt that VR is ever going to replace "normal" gaming (as in, play facing your TV/Monitor).
Maiden Voyage
Gold™ Member
It's a common misconception that VR is intended to replace "normal" gaming. It's not, it is a new, alternative way to play. A "third pillar," so to speak.
Did TV replace the radio?
Did video games replace board games?
A lot of video game experiences aren't suited for VR. VR offers new experiences that you could only have with VR. There is plenty of room for people to enjoy both means of play.
Another error in thinking is viewing VR as primarily a gaming platform. It is no more a gaming platform than a PC or a tablet. Yes, games are a part of it, but there is a whole host of utilities, media and features that VR opens up. VR doesn't need to have killer games to be compelling because VR does way more than games.
I'll tell you this anecdote:
My friend has been a huge VR skeptic and everytime I talked to him about it he was very cynical. Over Christmas, I brought my GearVR (which is honestly pretty crappy compared to a Vive) to a gathering of friends. He said "fuck it, let's get this over with" and I had him watch the Men's Tennis Final in the US Open on NextVR (he's a huge tennis nerd).
He freaked out with glee and kept jabbering about how awesome it was to feel like he was actually sitting in the audience. Then he declared with self-loathing that he was just like those assholes in the GearVR commercials.
But he was a believer.
EventHorizon
Member
Meanwhile, every PSVR headset that hits retail is instantly bought up. Just try to find one.
It's true that Sony has had production problems so the supply is low, but it is also true that Sony has done very little advertising because of this. This is just the beginning of VR. When PSVR production problems are fixed and the advertising truly starts, sales will jump. Even with the current situation Sony has said that sales have been greater than expected.
It's the doomsayers of VR that I find puzzling. The tech is making progress at an incredible rate and has had a ton of money put behind it. It is going to work better and get cheaper. Even if you think VR doesn't work for you right now, in 2 years it's going to be so much better. In 5 years it's going to be like sci-fi. Betting against VR now would be like betting against personal computers in the early eighties, or the internet in the early nineties.
It's because a false narrative was constructed that VR was supposed to be a mainstream phenomenon out the gate, despite all indications to the contrary from the HMD and software developers. When that didn't happen people declared VR dead, despite it hitting its targets across the board.
People don't seem to understand that the tech had to release in order to start making a revenue stream and build a software library. It also does a lot of good towards shaping the future of the technology to have it out there in people's hands.
When the next gen of tech launches there will be a huge library of polished software waiting for new VR owners.
One of the most amazing apps/experiences to me is Tiltbrush Studio. It's not a game, it's an art program, and it's insane. You could not recreate the experience in any other way. You are literally painting a 3D sculpture in the air around you. It's so cool.
Nya it already is. My parents have kidnapped my PSVR cause they cant find one themselves here in Germany currently and they are the definiton of casual except that they are quiet young (mum 44).
But it also isn't suppose to replace 2D gaming, BUT I really have problems paying attention to 2D games after playing some VR.
I'm not sure that it will ever totally replace "normal" gaming either (on a long enough time scale, I suspect it will), but that is not what's in question. What's in question is whether VR has its place, and will be around two years from now. The poster I was replying to believes it will be "six feet under and forgotten" in two years time.
It is my contention that VR is here to stay, and will be for the indefinite future. I am willing to bet my life savings that VR will be stronger than ever in two years. Set a reminder on this post for two years from now, and if I am wrong, feel free to publicly lambaste my failed prediction - but I guarantee you I am right.
Look at it this way: even if VR fails to become more immersive, useful, and fun in the next two years (which it won't), there is still too much money invested in it for it to fail that quickly. Facebook's Oculus, HTC Vive, Samsung Gear VR, Google's Daydream and Cardboard initiatives, and countless numbers of knockoffs - all are hefty investments for which these companies expect healthy returns. They will continue to nurture the VR ecosystem for the foreseeable future, in hopes of a financial windfall down the line when VR hits a critical mass of popularity. VR is a platform, and owning a part of that platform means they'll be able to act as gatekeepers and charge fees (see: Steam).
Really, if you don't see VR as anything more than a gimmick, again I suspect you haven't been exposed to the best of what it currently has to offer. If you have a local Microsoft store, just go for the free ten minute VR demo on offer.
Exactly this.
I'm talking about games specifically, I see great potential in VR for other departments but videogames, aside from VR specific experiences.
I think both sides are extreme, those saying it will be completely forgotten, and those claiming it as a replacement to the current method we play. For me personally, I don't find it attractive for the simple fact I don't want something attached to my face, but that's a very personal problem and not something to do with the tech itself, I think it has future, but more in other areas than just entertainment.
EventHorizon
Member
It was clearly obvious that Vive and Oculus were going to be too expensive out of the gate for them to be a runaway success. I'll admit that I thought PSVR was going to be a mainstream success like Kinect was at its launch, but I didn't know PSVR was going to be supply constrained.
The things holding back VR are not fundamental to the tech. Price and availability are holding back VR, not its desirability. One reason I'm so certain of VR's success is that it has multiple ways to get there. Gaming, viewing live events, movies, virtual vacations, and education each could have its own success independent of the success or failure of the others.
At some point in the not too distant future you'll be able to buy a relatively inexpensive around sunglasses sized VR wireless headset that will get a better image quality than any monitor because only the pixels you are looking at need to be rendered at the highest resolution. Now I'm curious, do you doubt such a device will exist, or can you simply not think of a desirable use for it?
LukasTaves
Member
The document leaked yesterday was sent 2 weeks after e3 and addresses performance results of the console.
Maiden Voyage
Gold™ Member
Spot on posts. I have a Rift and a Vive and I still play regular games on my PC, 3DS, and WiiU. Those aren't going anywhere. I enjoy VR games in addition to--not in place of--traditional games. In a lot of ways the reactions people have make me think that they believe VR is here to take away their toys. It's baffling to me.
You should get yourself time with a Vive and play around with roomscale. I'd love to get your impressions on some of the Vive and Rift titles out there.
Maybe there still is a future for VR, but coming from someone who has as a Pro and PSVR, Scorpio wouldn't really be missing out on much if it took a pass on this. Current VR is more of a hassle than anything at this point in my experience. I would wait until we have better resolution, better tracking, and wireless headsets before making a real commitment to the technology.
LukasTaves
Member
Perhaps this is true, but when you sell 68k in November in the biggest gaming market even if that's because you didn't have more to sell you fucked up.
Specially for your partners that were counting on having a decent user base to sell games to. And it's likely that's below their own projections as well, considering the close up of that studio, the mia state some of the announcements are and the lack of new big announcements.
Funny that PSVR was said to be the highest shot of making VR mainstream (myself included) but will be likely that the high cost vive and oculus are the ones that will keep the tech alive.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
But it really is. I'm at least being consistent with what I've always said on here and elsewhere when I say that I've never been convinced that VR is going anywhere for hardcore gaming. It's going to go the way of 3DTVs in due time.
I see it as having huge potential for particular entertainment applications and social media, though.
LukasTaves
Member
They are right about the tech as a whole, but right now it is highly inviable as a game platform, because games have a certain cost attached to them and the user base is nowhere close to be enough to support it.
Even if it's not a super AAA production, even indies that could create revolutionary experiences need to get paid. Right now the user base is so small that not only next Call of Duty is unlikely to be made with VR, but the next braid is very unlikely too.
And the magic factor wears off, even if 100% of the people that tested had the magic effect. I for example, after testing both oculus and vive found it to be a piece of shit experience and could never tell why they were play in releasing that to the market or why it gained so much hype before hand.
But even then, not of this will change until VR is its own thing, untethered from any device, physically and logically, until them it's always going to be an added cost that only a small pool of users are going to bother with. Not to mention the countless other problems of the tech high now.
Chobel
Member
Making a smart business decision?
It's too early for mainstream VR. The tech isn't there yet, and what tech there is is too expensive. Check out Michael Abrash's slide on current VR tech versus where it will be in 5 years:
http://cdn.uploadvr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Abrash-OC3-1.png
Currently, it is too expensive for your average person to buy everything they need for a compelling VR experience. Time and economies of scale will change this. 4k screens - likely starting with the Samsung S8 - are a huge step in the right direction.
Very true that we're currently in a catch 22 situation, where VR needs a killer app to accelerate its adoption, but a killer app may not be developed until VR sees wider adoption. That's why companies need to step in and pay for developers to work on VR, like Oculus has.
If I recall correctly, Braid didn't have a particularly high budget, so I think it's possible for a VR dev to create something in the spirit of Braid today.
How the fuck you supposed to sell more when the goods didn't exist? You can't say Sony is fucked up because they're physicaly impossible to sell PSVR at that time. I don't want butt in into VR discussion but this is a pretty thoughtless remark.
Well said.
Particularly the bolded is amusing, because we (as in, VR enthusiasts) pretty much predicted that this is what would happen well ahead of the consumer VR launches.
Dee Dah Dave
Member
I've said before but wish that if they were going to support it, then it would be with a new headset that will be good enough for next gen too. Make it a worthwhile investment. Current VR just isn't good enough for prime time. It's too expensive and too cumbersome, with little worthwhile software.
Still I bet they still support it in some fashion. Just maybe scale things back a bit as the market clearly has no big interest in it right now. It will be just a niche option and given token support where obvious to do so. Like maybe Forza 7, Minecraft, and other stuff where it makes the most sense.
Sony haven't sold many to 50 million PS4 owners, so it ain't suddenly going to be magic on Xbox.
Still I bet they still support it in some fashion. Just maybe scale things back a bit as the market clearly has no big interest in it right now. It will be just a niche option and given token support where obvious to do so. Like maybe Forza 7, Minecraft, and other stuff where it makes the most sense.
Sony haven't sold many to 50 million PS4 owners, so it ain't suddenly going to be magic on Xbox.
Agreed. The way VR adoption has unfolded was predicted well before the launch of Oculus CV1 or the Vive. As with all new technologies, you have:
We're still barely in the early adopters stage.
EventHorizon
Member
Sony is supply constrained and has still sold more than either Vive or Oculus who are not constrained and released earlier. Unless you somehow think Sony will never be able to produce enough PSVR headsets to meet demand, PSVR looks to be the leader in VR by an easy margin for the foreseeable future.
kruis
Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
No technology ever dies. There are still people developing games for the Commodore 64, NES, you name it. When failed tech like the PS Vita still sees new releases, then there will still be people developing software for the various VR platforms. There'll still be devs producing new software, but the vast majority of them will be indies. Teams consisting of just a few people can make a dime and for them $1 million is like hitting the jackpot. But 1 million dollar in sales is a laughable sales target for companies developing the AAA experiences that most PC/console gamers are used to. I bet companies like Insomniac and Crytek lost money on those VR gambles.
Maiden Voyage
Gold™ Member
Yautja_Warrior
Member
MS probably know VR is a way off from being ready for Scorpio, so they are probably not focusing on that too much right now.
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
The amount of FUD on this forum about VR is quite honestly staggering.
Made doubly hilarious in the week of our lord Resident Evil 7.
Made doubly hilarious in the week of our lord Resident Evil 7.
plagiarize
Banned
RE7 disagrees. It's the first 'proper' vr game and it's brilliant. More people need to be able to experience stuff like it.
Come on, that's not true. You could even argue that it's only a small subset of what a "true" VR experience could be without immersive tracked hand controls.
Regardless of that distinction, even if your idea of a "proper" game by necessity includes a story-driven single-player campaign (which would exclude most arcade games ever made from being "proper" games), then I have no idea how something like Arizona Sunshine would not qualify.
superNESjoe
Member
I don't think there's anything to worry about here.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll