Support NeoGAF

[CamHostage]

VR games are less costly to produce because they don’t have the scale of big AAA games.

a real half life 3 would be considerably more expensive to make

Well... I don't know about that, at least in this case. I think Alyx had a scale and scope pretty on par with what you would expect from a HL game with modern graphics. It was just as long as past games in the series and it probably involved a good deal more iteration because the ideas were new.

In most cases VR games are smaller and cheaper to make and there are clearly a lot of people willing to buy games like that. But there's a need for marquee titles that are bigger in scope to sell headsets too and a lot of people don't see it as worth it to make games like that.

Yes, absolutely nothing was cheap about developing Half-Life Alyx, it was AAA effort. I don't know how close this Half-Life Alyx budget calculation is right comes, but $40-$60 million is not unreasonable given what's on-screen and how the staffing adds up.)

Typical big VR projects were estimated in 2017 to be something like $5m, with big games like the PSVR key apps being more like $10m.

A little indie game where you're just shooting zombies or throwing items around in a factory would be much less, but any game production that cracks $1M in production costs needs to be careful (and/or smart about monetization) since there are limited numbers of products generating business in the millions in the VR space currently.

VR games are only less costly to make when they are lesser games.

It doesn't matter if you make a Rick & Morty game for VR or for console, it costs whatever it costs to make a Rick & Morty game. Nothing about VR makes a VR game cheaper to make, other than that customer standards are a little lower in the VR space as far as production value quality/quantity. Two games of the same story and visuals and actor costs might even be more expensive on VR, because you need special development kits to make it (Anybody in the office testing their build needs a VR headset, and now that everybody is working at home, essentially everybody on staff needs their own helmet to do their work.) And given that VR games for the most part aren't sold in stores makes it even harder to budget for, since it's not a product that's in front of users' eyes.

As with any game platform, you can make good money, if you keep your budgets in check. VR does however have the added complication of it being an accessory (or with Quest 2 a new and isolated platform, albeit a hot one at the moment.) If you're a platform manufacturer (like Valve or PlayStation) creating a loss-leader in order to forward your platform's install base, it may be worth spending $10s of millions on a game that will not recoup that cost. Just make sure you don't over-commit to those huge projects, you don't want your loss-leaders becomes a genuine loss.

insomniac games has multiple high quality VR projects. That’s similar to what I’m suggesting.

each major dev has some smaller group that is dedicated to experimenting with VR

Yeah, I get you, and I like that idea. Using Insomniac as an example, though, they made some great VR titles back when they were independent and searching for opportunities. Then they became a PlayStation studio, and settled down to business, and have made no VR games since. (And weirdly, neither of their VR games have been brought over to PSVR.)

There was a time where every major dev had smaller groups to explore things like handheld games or digital download games. (It's how we got great little titles like Killzone Liberation and Motorstorm RC.) But sadly, the business has flipped the other way, and now studios are sucking in smaller groups just to make one big project. Look at how many companies are wrapped up in developing Halo Infinite for 343, or how Rockstar used to make so many different games like Bully and Manhunt and Beaterator and Ping Pong, and now all those studios are making GTAO/RDRO content. Check the credits list for any given Ubisoft game. It's a sad turn away from the business model you're suggestion (and a business model I liked a lot, particularly since I loved portable games and got a lot of great stuff when AAA studios lent out their franchises to B-teams or partner developers,) but it's the way things seem to be going. PSVR would have to command a major portion of PlayStation revenue for them to flip the script on that method.

 

[DogsAndKisses666]

You don't need to go back years, many of the figures for 2020 are public. Oculus estimates it has 10 million VR users (and that's not US, that's worldwide, for all Oculus devices,) with Quest 2 contributing a million hardware sales, then PlayStation VR has sold 5 million itself and SteamVR shows at least +2 million given how many copies of Half-Life Alyx have sold. There are also a lot of other fringe devices out there, but all told, I don't see how the math adds up to even half the amount you're setting for mass adoption.

And that's the entire industry, not any one product; any game maker who's looking at 60 million units and thinking that's a good install base to target must contend with the fact that each manufacturer/standard-creator has its own ecosystem, so their new game will only be reaching a portion of the market base given unless they port their game to each one of the standards.



Dude, I don't know that you would like to see VR held up to the sales curves of the early days for TV, personal computer, console gaming, or cellular phone markets, but you can try...

Technological Change

Technological change underpins so many of the developments we’ve seen in health, agriculture, energy and global development.

ourworldindata.org

It'll be hard to do, since most figured date back to the inflection point (where they became mass market devices) rather than the actual invention of the industry, but then again, VR isn't four or five years old. It's decades old. Sony and Facebook and Samsung and Google brought their big VR devices out in 2015/2016 because they were ready to take this product sector to the mainstream.

But even by your tracking date, if we're calling it four years of VR being on the market and it's done as well as it has, do you think at the end of the fifth year VR will be in 10% of homes like color TV was? (Invented 1953, charted 10% US homes in 1966.) The VR industry adds up to 20, maybe 30, let's make it 50 million headsets sold, that's going to have to speed up a lot by year five to match 271m iPhones sold in its first year.

I was pointing out how idiotic comparing a fictitious flying cars invention to VR in anyway is when there is plenty of real tech that has overgone extreme development over time.

Comparing the numbers of TVs sold to VR is very disingenuous. Ffs the alternative to TVs was radio. The comparison was solely on the capabilities of tech development over time.

To compare anything is borderline disingenuous, again, I was just trying to make flying car guy realize how far into the realms of stupidity he had travelled to not even be using an ACTUAL tech. VR will always be compared and coincide with console gaming, which is graphically superior, more relaxing without the requirement of a headset, amongst other things.

But if anyone thinks its a "fad" thats peaked when the 7-10 year future (maybe sooner, hard to say) is weightless glasses with 1080p and a substantial improvement in game development, then they are just crazy.

 

[CamHostage]

But if anyone thinks its a "fad" thats peaked when the 7-10 year future (maybe sooner, hard to say) is weightless glasses with 1080p and a substantial improvement in game development, then they are just crazy.

And IMO, anyone who thinks all VR needs is 4K/8K/xK screens and way more than $40 million production budgets in order to take over all of entertainment, I think they are crazy.

But that's my opinion. Disagree with people, and prove your point. Don't just call people idiots, and don't dismiss facts and figures because you believe in something superhard. Maybe I'm the crazy one for doubting. Let's talk about it.

The reality is, after five years of being a major product market, VR is on its way to being a niche market, not the future of entertainment. It'll have to ramp up and catch fire in a big way before it lays any claim to being a dominant force. Maybe it will break through, though. Maybe...

you are a major dumb dumb for thinking 4 years after PSVR = enough time to develop VR to its full potential.

My question to you is, if PSVR has so much potential that Sony is building upon, why did they essentially abandon it in 2019? (They did produce Iron Man VR with Camouflaj for a 2020 release, but that was going to be 2019 also until it slipped. Everything since then has been 3rd Party.) You're saying they've just barely gotten started at four years, I'm looking at them throwing in the towel after three and hoping to reboot the PSVR brand with a PS5 VR relaunch in 2022/2023.

The best answer either of us could come up with is probably that they're putting all their effort into PS5VR. Okay, but if VR is such a great and important business to be in, what sense does it make to drop out of VR for three or four years?

(*If Sony announces a new Sony-produced PSVR game in their State of Play coming up in an hour, BTW, I'll be happy to eat my words, but who's going to take that bet?)

 

[BabyYoda]

I'd say they have an obvious passion for vr and like to be a loss leader there

Personally, I was very impressed with their first attempt, I thought the headset and image quality was better than the first Rift. The weaknesses were obvious, but I really enjoyed my time with it.

If they iron out the issues, like the poor tracking, controller and make a lighter headset (I beg of them not to change to awful fresnel lenses though) and support it with more quality software, along with continuing to support asymmetrical coop and pvp on the TV (really important as a social experience), then I'm very glad it exists.

Valve and Oculus are still very new to the hardware business and it shows, Sony really showed off their hardware chops with that early release, albeit, I know they can do way better and I think they'll embarrass the competition tbh.

Microsoft are in a position to be a real loss leader as well. But after the half hearted mixed reality headsets (misleading name), that was it. Unless they're working on the second generation secretly, then how uninspired and safe of them, so very disappointing /tut tut.

I'm not really much of a Sony fan tbh, but I thank them for keeping the dreams of my very own Holodeck alive!

 

[Shelookdlvl18]

no, you are wrong

Prove it.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Yes, absolutely nothing was cheap about developing Half-Life Alyx, it was AAA effort. I don't know how close this Half-Life Alyx budget calculation is right comes, but $40-$60 million is not unreasonable given what's on-screen and how the staffing adds up.)

Typical big VR projects were estimated in 2017 to be something like $5m, with big games like the PSVR key apps being more like $10m.

A little indie game where you're just shooting zombies or throwing items around in a factory would be much less, but any game production that cracks $1M in production costs needs to be careful (and/or smart about monetization) since there are limited numbers of products generating business in the millions in the VR space currently.

VR games are only less costly to make when they are lesser games.

It doesn't matter if you make a Rick & Morty game for VR or for console, it costs whatever it costs to make a Rick & Morty game. Nothing about VR makes a VR game cheaper to make, other than that customer standards are a little lower in the VR space as far as production value quality/quantity. Two games of the same story and visuals and actor costs might even be more expensive on VR, because you need special development kits to make it (Anybody in the office testing their build needs a VR headset, and now that everybody is working at home, essentially everybody on staff needs their own helmet to do their work.) And given that VR games for the most part aren't sold in stores makes it even harder to budget for, since it's not a product that's in front of users' eyes.

As with any game platform, you can make good money, if you keep your budgets in check. VR does however have the added complication of it being an accessory (or with Quest 2 a new and isolated platform, albeit a hot one at the moment.) If you're a platform manufacturer (like Valve or PlayStation) creating a loss-leader in order to forward your platform's install base, it may be worth spending $10s of millions on a game that will not recoup that cost. Just make sure you don't over-commit to those huge projects, you don't want your loss-leaders becomes a genuine loss.



Yeah, I get you, and I like that idea. Using Insomniac as an example, though, they made some great VR titles back when they were independent and searching for opportunities. Then they became a PlayStation studio, and settled down to business, and have made no VR games since. (And weirdly, neither of their VR games have been brought over to PSVR.)

There was a time where every major dev had smaller groups to explore things like handheld games or digital download games. (It's how we got great little titles like Killzone Liberation and Motorstorm RC.) But sadly, the business has flipped the other way, and now studios are sucking in smaller groups just to make one big project. Look at how many companies are wrapped up in developing Halo Infinite for 343, or how Rockstar used to make so many different games like Bully and Manhunt and Beaterator and Ping Pong, and now all those studios are making GTAO/RDRO content. Check the credits list for any given Ubisoft game. It's a sad turn away from the business model you're suggestion (and a business model I liked a lot, particularly since I loved portable games and got a lot of great stuff when AAA studios lent out their franchises to B-teams or partner developers,) but it's the way things seem to be going. PSVR would have to command a major portion of PlayStation revenue for them to flip the script on that method.

I agree that the business model has shifted, but I think the lack of portables actually frees more of those smaller resources to VR.

I strongly believe Insomniac hadn’t a a dined VR, they are simply hard at work on PS5 VR launch titles

 

[Wonko_C]

Oh please stop, It is not a false equivalence, the argumentation used is the same. You guys are so sure that technology will evolve to a point where no one will be able to resist the awesomeness of VR, and the Flying car crowd used to think just like that.

Did I miss the time when they were selling flying cars and people didn't buy them? They don't exist yet. They're still the future, far far future, maybe not even in our lifetimes, but they're the logical next step in private transportation, traffic jams will be a thing of the past.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Well... I don't know about that, at least in this case. I think Alyx had a scale and scope pretty on par with what you would expect from a HL game with modern graphics. It was just as long as past games in the series and it probably involved a good deal more iteration because the ideas were new.

In most cases VR games are smaller and cheaper to make and there are clearly a lot of people willing to buy games like that. But there's a need for marquee titles that are bigger in scope to sell headsets too and a lot of people don't see it as worth it to make games like that.

don’t get me wrong. It compares to half life 1/2, but modern games these days are enormous 30-40+ hour adventures

the 8-15 hour experiences like Control or Miles Morales are much cheaper to produce, I think those are a good length for VR

 

[CamHostage]

don’t get me wrong. It compares to half life 1/2, but modern games these days are enormous 30-40+ hour adventures

the 8-15 hour experiences like Control or Miles Morales are much cheaper to produce, I think those are a good length for VR

I think you're off in understanding how game budgets work? Game length isn't what makes a game expensive to make; asset density and talent investment and technology development and iteration/polish development and other production values are way bigger figures, plus location and senior staff vesting and all the backend stuff you wouldn't normally think about. (You are correct that, yes, if a game is huge, it takes a lot of people to put stuff in that world.) Control and Miles Morales were intentionally kept on the low end of AAA production costs, but I assure you, they had healthy budgets. (Of the games you mentioned, we do know that Control took 3 years and cost $30m, while Half-Life 2 was at least a 5 year production and cost $40m or more in development costs; neither estimate factors in marketing. Witcher 3 is one of the biggest game worlds I can think of, way bigger than HL2, and yet that is said to have cost $34M.)

I unfortunately don't have a great resource to point you to (budgets are kind of a secretive thing in gaming, not like movies where it's fully disclosed,) but it's worth reading up on if somebody has good suggestions.

 

[MrMephistoX]

PSVR sold 5 million despite the hassle of wires: as long as VR2 is wireless it will probably sell even better. They have the best exclusives by far barring Half Life Alyx and I personally love the option of sitting on the couch too.

 

[SF Kosmo]

don’t get me wrong. It compares to half life 1/2, but modern games these days are enormous 30-40+ hour adventures

the 8-15 hour experiences like Control or Miles Morales are much cheaper to produce, I think those are a good length for VR

I mean that's true to an extent that AAA games are a range, and there's a vast gulf between, say, God of War and Control; between a game that costs 30 million and one that coats 150 million. They're both AAA, but it's a huge difference.

I'd resist thinking about it in terms of length, though, like Witcher 3 and Half Life Alyx probably had pretty similar development budgets (though Valve spent far less on marketing). It's more about a game being enough to feel like a "main" game rather than a "DLC" or side thing.

The problem is, even at the low end of that AAA budget spectrum, $20-30m, what I said still applies. You're gonna get a lower ROI than if you made something that you could sell on every platform to a wide audience.

 

[DogsAndKisses666]

And IMO, anyone who thinks all VR needs is 4K/8K/xK screens and way more than $40 million production budgets in order to take over all of entertainment, I think they are crazy.

But that's my opinion. Disagree with people, and prove your point. Don't just call people idiots, and don't dismiss facts and figures because you believe in something superhard. Maybe I'm the crazy one for doubting. Let's talk about it.

The reality is, after five years of being a major product market, VR is on its way to being a niche market, not the future of entertainment. It'll have to ramp up and catch fire in a big way before it lays any claim to being a dominant force. Maybe it will break through, though. Maybe...



My question to you is, if PSVR has so much potential that Sony is building upon, why did they essentially abandon it in 2019? (They did produce Iron Man VR with Camouflaj for a 2020 release, but that was going to be 2019 also until it slipped. Everything since then has been 3rd Party.) You're saying they've just barely gotten started at four years, I'm looking at them throwing in the towel after three and hoping to reboot the PSVR brand with a PS5 VR relaunch in 2022/2023.

The best answer either of us could come up with is probably that they're putting all their effort into PS5VR. Okay, but if VR is such a great and important business to be in, what sense does it make to drop out of VR for three or four years?

(*If Sony announces a new Sony-produced PSVR game in their State of Play coming up in an hour, BTW, I'll be happy to eat my words, but who's going to take that bet?)

You think its crazy when VR has 4k resolution it won't substantially grow?

Lmao

 

[UltimaKilo]

The future, the future, the future... I'm sorry, am I the only old man in this thread who was around in 2016 when PSVR launched and we were saying the same thing?

(BTW, I like VR, but I'm coming at this thread hard because everybody here is acting like it's an obvious situation that Sony would be foolish to not invest in. For the second time. Because VR is the future, duh...)



Yet not enough money to keep making software for it. Sony shuttered as many VR studios last year as it produced VR games.

Oh, but we're talking the future, and Sony must be putting all of its development into PSVR for PS5. Maybe next gen will be the one where Sony supports its VR hardware longer than it supported PS Vita...



I like this point. Forging a relationship with external VR developers makes a lot more sense than this narrative that Sony is building an internal headstart for the impending VR boom. Because otherwise, Sony has not released a PSVR game made in-house since May 2019, and if you look at who's been making the games for PSVR, Sony Interactive Entertainment studios (including Japan Studio, London Studio, and XDEV) are only responsible for about a dozen PSVR projects, including VR modes and some visualizer apps.

So Sony may only be wading into the future, but it is making partnerships with those who have cannonballed into that water. If VR does floats into the future of entertainment, they have the relationships to be a part of it, and if it sinks, none of their businesses have had to transition away from standard AAA game production.



So many companies are getting into the VR space, sure. So many companies are getting out of the VR space too. Like Google and Samsung. They must be short-sighted (for getting burned in the first big VR boom/bust,) whereas Apple knows its customers so well that it's getting into the VR space with a $3,000 Apple VR headset.

And it's selling like crazy, and generating revenues in the 10s of millions of dollars! As long as game developers keep costs lower than a few million (VR game development budgets in 2017 were said to be $5-10 for high-tier productions, costs have surely only gone up since then,) they may be able to make payroll.

Their checkbooks? What do you think "developed in collaboration with" means here? Would it be that Valve and Microsoft invested millions into a headset by HP that costs $1,000? Or would it instead be more like they answered a few emails or sent a guy over to do QA support about how to get SteamVR and Windows Mixed Reality prototcols needed to have full support on this pair of glasses? (HP Reverb 1 launched at $600, BTW, and that also had the "collaboration" of Microsoft, in that it was a Windows MR device.)



(*Stolen from a similar thread)

That would be something, then. If Sony put its major studios on VR projects, it would be a clear indicator that they're committed to PSVR being the future of entertainment. They are not doing that, of course, (not that we know of, at least, but maybe in the future.) Sony didn't even put that kind of commitment into PSP, and that platform moved 15x the number of units that PSVR did. If we saw Sony pushing in that direction, then the answer to the OP's question of why Sony is investing in VR would answer itself. As it is now, there's no evidence that any of Sony's AAA studios are making their core franchises for VR (aside from VR modes/options in otherwise mainstream games,) and the same can be said of every major game publisher (except Valve, who credibly backed the VR future by putting AAA production into Half-Life Alyx.) Only three mainstream Sony games (GT Sport, Dreams, and Wipeout Omega) have VR modes, so even when VR is a bonus feature, PlayStation can't get its studios to put in minimal support. (Granted, PS5 has more power than PS4, so maybe we'll see more normal PS5 games with VR modes this gen?)

There would have to be a seachange of VR demand for Sony's major studios to move over and become VR studios. If even one of the companies like Naughty Dog, SSM, Guerrilla, Sucker Punch, or Media Molecule became VR studios, that would be a major moment for VR, but meanwhile, I'd be nervous for the future of whatever company that is because VR was no future for the defunct Guerrilla Cambridge and Evolution Studios after they made PSVR games.

Yep too all your points. Except VR is VERY early likely 5 years or more ahead of prime time.

Samsung has never announced they are out of VR, they just discontinued something that was way overdue.

Many companies experiment with a product segment and return later on. No company has abandoned VR, and even if/when some do, it will be because their product is unsuccessful against competition, much like Windows mobile, the Zune, etc. So the point you’re trying to make doesn’t add up.

Take AR. It’s been around forever. It did not “fail”, it’s a tech that way way ahead of it’s time and the hardware was simply not there, yet it’s clearly the future.

To another point of yours, Insomniac has hinted they’re working on PSVR2.

Early adoption of new tech is slow, from television, to PCs and even automobiles.

Sorry for erratically jumping around, I’m in the back of a car.

 

[93xfan]

I’d rather have a dedicated BC team and resources put towards a Socom 2 online remaster. When Sony does that, then they can chase this super niche stuff

 

[Exoil]

I'm glad they're making us a PSVR2. Now let's force Polyphony to give us the full GT7 in VR and I'm set for this generation.

 

[CamHostage]

You think its crazy when VR has 4k resolution it won't substantially grow?

Lmao

So...of all the questions and statistics I posed to you, that is the thing you took from it all??

Yeah, dude. I don't believe 4K will make fuck-all difference to mainstream market penetration. It will help sell more VR to people not satisfied with their current VR, but it's not what will push unconvinced consumers into buying it.

VR's challenge of being the future of entertainment is not resolution. The challenge is selling people a dorky helmet that they strap to their face and stumble about the house, breaking their lamps, while playing off-brand shooting galleries and toss-junk-around sims and "BOO!!!! " horror walking sims.

VR has to convince people that it's worth looking this stupid to enjoy being a player...

 

[paypay88]

they are doing PS3 style basically. Make constantly good games and when time comes it will blow up like ps4

 

[Kokoloko85]

Because its not gonna disappear and the tech will just get better and better and then cheaper.
Eventually many more people will have it. I tried it and loved it, but didnt buy it. I will buy PSVR 2 though.

Think of it like NES to PS2. Sony is investing in it now.

 

[paypay88]

Comparisons to MS shows how people here see MS as a gaming company first and foremost, which is super damn wrong. MS doesn't need to invest to VR as hard as Sony does - actually MS is betting on AR. But they're not gonna focus AR on gaming, there's not point in that, instead they focus it on professionals. My company is actually working with AR implementations in the medical field, and the thing is fucking amazing.

MS owns Windows. How many headsets work with Windows? How many new players will probably come and insert themselves into the Windows ecossystem? Why should MS focus on VR when their clear focus is on AR, and down the line they can just partner with whatever VR handset maker for Windows and Xbox gaming?

If I was MS I wouldn't bother with investing super hard on VR. They have companies already working and implementing their own headsets into their Windows system, so why would they?


And to the OP - as others have said, VR is basically the future of gaming.

AR is trash.

I worked with hololens and its bs PR to trick higher ups. In reality no worker wants to use goofy as heaadset or google glass.
they dont work properly and there is no advantage. It's literally thing tech kiddies created for serving no purpose.
and it doesnt work most of time even with these new trackers

people watch too much movies to think it will be viable anytime soon when we still have batter issues - wireless issues and more

 

[sainraja]

While increased immersion is a real thing, I think the real draw of VR is the fact that anyone can play it. You don't need to know how to work joysticks or a KBM to interact with games anymore.

I wouldn't be so sure about "not knowing how to work joysticks" a benefit of VR. I have witnessed the struggles of that very thing in my family (the only difference is, since VR is such a different concept, people are actually willing to put forth the effort to understand how to use it; with some instances of having to explain to someone how the controllers work over and over, since they don't use it very often.)

Basically, they don't lose interest which they do when it comes to traditional gaming. Interest has to be there otherwise it's going to face the same thing.

 

[RGB'D]

Those people are short sighted morons. Sounds harsh, but my honest opinion. Anyone who can't see growth in a 10 year development of this sort of tech has absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Isolation is the silliest shit I ever heard when the immersion of team based shooters and a party game like Werewolves Within is much greater than platforming.

Also the software wasn't there even a few years ago. That isn't the same today. Even booting up oldies like Gorn and Space Pirate Trainer are some of the coolest most immersive experiences. I hope MS/Valve's collaboration leads to Series X pushing a index through and adapter. I occasionally bring my rig out of my office to play room scale (vacation, entertaining, etc.)but I would pick up another series X as a steam box if it could push even 90hz index steam VR. Or PS5. Having a big office or combo space for room scale VR is a serious consideration for my next house.

 

[SLB1904]

I'm glad they are doing vr worlds blew my mind. I was smiling all the way through. But the technology is clearly underdeveloped. I'm more excited for the version 2. Cant wait. Vr is incredibly

 

[RoyalLaFlame]

Why the fuck do people always argue FOR these massive companies? How do people that only on a Xbox and not a powerful pc benefit from not having a vr option? It’s a fun thing to at least try and the psvr isn’t even that expensive.

>Comparisons to MS shows how people here see MS as a gaming company first and foremost, which is super damn wrong.

Yea but they have a small gaming division now, you might have heard about it, it’s called Xbox.

>MS doesn't need to invest to VR as hard as Sony does - actually MS is betting on AR.

Yea and since Sony is working on vr they don’t have to invest in a starting r&d on a new console, because that logic totally makes sense.

>But they're not gonna focus AR on gaming, there's not point in that, instead they focus it on professionals. My company is actually working with AR implementations in the medical field, and the thing is fucking amazing.

Am I not on the gaming section of neogaf? With the same logic again, I could question why Microsoft bought all those studios when they could have made their surface line up less shit. Kinect ended up actually having some interesting uses in the medical field too. Doesn’t change that they forced millions to buy it if they wanted an Xbox before abandoning it entirely.

>MS owns Windows. How many headsets work with Windows? How many new players will probably come and insert themselves into the Windows ecossystem? Why should MS focus on VR when their clear focus is on AR, and down the line they can just partner with whatever VR handset maker for Windows and Xbox gaming?

Again, I gotta be honest. Why are people with no large stake in Microsoft purely talking from the perspective of what can make Microsoft the most money in the easiest manner? Xbox is going all in on trying to give the Xbox platform as many of the benefits of pc gaming as they can between the bc and the higher FPS news from last week, meanwhile Xbox gamers don’t have the option for THE most exciting thing to happen on the pc gaming side of things in a long time. That just sucks for Xbox gamers. Why are we so cool with a massive corporation just buying their way into relevance in new fields with insane amounts of money? They sucked ass at the game aspect of gaming and spent billions to catch up fucking over Nintendo and PlayStation gamers in the process. So whenever they decide they want in on vr, we just gonna be cool with them money batting a bunch of exclusives while Sony invested early to make things happen now? Why? You don’t make money when Microsoft does.

>If I was MS I wouldn't bother with investing super hard on VR. They have companies already working and implementing their own headsets into their Windows system, so why would they?

You yourself said it even just below, it’s the future of gaming. They sell their series x as the best place to play games while entirely ignoring vr which may very well take over gaming. Yes there is an easier cheaper route for them because they own windows, but on a gaming forum, why make so many damn excuses for Xbox gamers that can’t also afford or justify getting a powerful pc just for vr not getting any vr for potentially 2 full generations?



And to the OP - as others have said, VR is basically the future of gaming

What the fuck is with some of you guys coming full defense force?

MS and Sony are different players with different markets. The only thing in common they have is gaming - for one is the most important brand, for the other is a small piece of the pie. When you own Windows, Azure, Office and all that crap that actually brings billions to your company, why lean into VR that hard? I told you already, AR is where MS is betting for now, and it has uses for the professional world - they own most of the professional stack of tools, so that's their main goal.

Should they create yet another VR headset that works with Xbox and Windows when they already have other companies there and can easily do a partnership with one of them to bring it to Xbox? Or just spends millions on R&D and become just another one, because of the high cost of entrance in this space for the average consumer?

Windows is open, it allows third parties to develop freely for the biggest platform in the world. Only recently Satya stated that Xbox is import for MS, but don't be fooled to think it's on the same level as Windows or Azure.

Will they create one? Maybe. In fact we might see one in the next few years, but god damn at your hate for MS. I don't give a fuck about MS, I'm just kind of open minded and don't think of them as a gaming company (because they're not). You being on the gaming side of the forum means jack shit.

AR is trash.

I worked with hololens and its bs PR to trick higher ups. In reality no worker wants to use goofy as heaadset or google glass.
they dont work properly and there is no advantage. It's literally thing tech kiddies created for serving no purpose.
and it doesnt work most of time even with these new trackers

people watch too much movies to think it will be viable anytime soon when we still have batter issues - wireless issues and more

Yeah, it's so trash that we've been actively using it in hospitals and doctors fucking love it because it helps them a lot.

But whatever floats your boat.

 

[Romulus]

PSVR sold 5 million despite the hassle of wires

A bunch of wires, shitty controllers, and an outdated machine to run it. Even Ps4 pro is severely underpowered to run anything remotely taxing in VR. It does the job but PSVR1 just screams "barely VR" and still sold millions at a high price.

Of course Sony is doing PSVR2, they'd be crazy not to knowing just how many disadvantages the first iteration had.

 

[Nhranaghacon]

Well, this narrative that technology will make it better and has already made it good enough does nothing for me as I don´t think that is the main problem. I have made the point before that the better and more immersive VR becomes thanks to technology, the further it will push the experience away from the casual, recreational, benign on the senses, and energy saving experience we naturally tend to prefer.

People didn't buy Virtual Boy precisely because it was archaic on arrival. Which is why it failed to bolster VR technology.

Your argument is counter to reality, and that reality is - the more this technology improves and becomes cheaply available, the more consumers will shift to VR.

It right now is still akin to strapping a brick to your face for immersion benefits, and many adopter's would say 'worth it' even at this early seemingly advanced stage of VR.

And since when does better technology negate the consumers ability to pick and choose their experiences? Many consider full dive to be an era sometime in the short future, where
the user controls all action with thought but you infer full motion tracking is the apex of this technology, when it has been a reality for VR since 2013.

Why anyone would infer VR reaching immersion levels of entertainment would hinder VR's success is beyond me, particularly when everything they've pointed out
line item.

The Casual benefits of VR - not something that will be relegated by VR technology improving

The Recreational Benefits of VR - how anyone could infer VR recreation will flounder due to improving technology is beyond me

VR motorfunction as a non requirement - IE: No physical labor required - Games right now exceed what most imagined possible in respect to VR motorfunction - many only ever thought laying back in
a lazy recliner enjoying VR would emerge as the correct form of VR. However citing that a barrier already broken years ago will somehow in the future... hinder VR's chances - when the reality is
the technology for fully functional physical VR was tackled and most obstacles conquered well over half a decade ago.

VR that is energy efficient - another fear based on improved technology suddenly and out of no where, becoming less efficient - which has never been the case. Particularly
when speaking of mobile products. If anything, as technology improves it becomes more energy efficient, lighter, better, faster.

So in fact of the issues you've cited will only improve VR iterates into it's final form, none will be negated.

None in fact truthfully... can be negated.

Particularly ubiquitous full dive VR which you seem oddly wary of - of which most
consumers are still holding out for.

None of these technologies will be hindered or come with the requirement that you the consumer are expected to submit to strenuous exercise to physically
render yourself a part of the game world.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I wouldn't be so sure about "not knowing how to work joysticks" a benefit of VR. I have witnessed the struggles of that very thing in my family (the only difference is, since VR is such a different concept, people are actually willing to put forth the effort to understand how to use it; with some instances of having to explain to someone how the controllers work over and over, since they don't use it very often.)

Basically, they don't lose interest which they do when it comes to traditional gaming. Interest has to be there otherwise it's going to face the same thing.

That's the thing.

There's no effort required with VR. You don't have to learn a new skill.

Dual analogue sticks + 16 buttons on a controller is too intimidating for a lot of people.

Sony knows their potential market for PS5 players is 100 - 140 million. With VR, that number skyrockets exponentially.

 

[sainraja]

That's the thing.

There's no effort required with VR. You don't have to learn a new skill.

Dual analogue sticks + 16 buttons on a controller is too intimidating for a lot of people.

Sony knows their potential market for PS5 players is 100 - 140 million. With VR, that number skyrockets exponentially.

Um, all VR headsets comes with controllers with buttons you have to press. I have seen my family struggle with the controls but unlike traditional gaming they put effort in the learning it. That just doesn't happen with other traditional games (unless its like Mario Kart but even then its not the biggest motivator.) I know my family is a small sample but something that is supposed to require no effort I sure have seen the opposite!

I am not trying to downplay VR but I am saying it does require some interest and effort on the part of people trying it. Yes, people don't need to learn how to move their hands but they still do need to learn how VR works; have you gone through the set up tutorial that they have to get people accustomed to it? It requires time. My brother and sister who got VR headsets are explaining each time on how it works lol

 

[THE DUCK]

Probably a reasonable question, vr may sell a few million for them again, but a switch like handheld with ported ps4 and ps5 games has way more potential to make them money.
I'm excited for psvr2, but it seems kind of dumb looking at 80 million switch consoles sold........

 

[paypay88]

What the fuck is with some of you guys coming full defense force?

MS and Sony are different players with different markets. The only thing in common they have is gaming - for one is the most important brand, for the other is a small piece of the pie. When you own Windows, Azure, Office and all that crap that actually brings billions to your company, why lean into VR that hard? I told you already, AR is where MS is betting for now, and it has uses for the professional world - they own most of the professional stack of tools, so that's their main goal.

Should they create yet another VR headset that works with Xbox and Windows when they already have other companies there and can easily do a partnership with one of them to bring it to Xbox? Or just spends millions on R&D and become just another one, because of the high cost of entrance in this space for the average consumer?

Windows is open, it allows third parties to develop freely for the biggest platform in the world. Only recently Satya stated that Xbox is import for MS, but don't be fooled to think it's on the same level as Windows or Azure.

Will they create one? Maybe. In fact we might see one in the next few years, but god damn at your hate for MS. I don't give a fuck about MS, I'm just kind of open minded and don't think of them as a gaming company (because they're not). You being on the gaming side of the forum means jack shit.


Yeah, it's so trash that we've been actively using it in hospitals and doctors fucking love it because it helps them a lot.

But whatever floats your boat.

doctors may love it (or not)

but nobody in construction (workers) or automation company workers arent using it.
A doctor is well beyond educated for it but a construction worker make joke of it and doesnt want to wear it since he will be called dork

 

[ZywyPL]

So...of all the questions and statistics I posed to you, that is the thing you took from it all??

Yeah, dude. I don't believe 4K will make fuck-all difference to mainstream market penetration. It will help sell more VR to people not satisfied with their current VR, but it's not what will push unconvinced consumers into buying it.

VR's challenge of being the future of entertainment is not resolution. The challenge is selling people a dorky helmet that they strap to their face and stumble about the house, breaking their lamps, while playing off-brand shooting galleries and toss-junk-around sims and "BOO!!!! " horror walking sims.

VR has to convince people that it's worth looking this stupid to enjoy being a player...

I keep saying this over and over that VR's best, most practical application is where there is no player movement involved and you just sit on your ass the whole time, a.k.a. all sorts of simulators, then it really is an experience to behold. Otherwise, the more complex movement the worse it gets.

 

[futurama78]

PUSH THE TECH WIN GAMES

 

[Wonko_C]

Might not be the case all the time but with the right games, VR is just more accessible to the non-gamer:

 

[Revolutionary]

Because, no matter how much you kick and scream about it, VR is the future of gaming

 

[THE DUCK]

Because, no matter how much you kick and scream about it, VR is the future of gaming

Patently not true, it may end up with its own large market many years from now, but it will never fully replace conventional gaming.

 

[Shelookdlvl18]

Because, no matter how much you kick and scream about it, VR is the future of gaming

The people kicking and screaming that VR won't be the future of gaming can do so because that's the reality as it is today. Despite several VR releases attempting to change that.

The people kicking and screaming that VR will be the future of gaming can only do so based on their hopes and dreams alone. VR as a viable platform has been released, marketed, and revised several times now. The mass market has rejected it as being the primary way to play games.

This isn't a hard thing to grasp. The people unwilling to see the writing on the wall at this point only do so because they want VR to become the primary way games are played. For years there were people who swore flying cars were set to be the future of transportation. They'd repeatedly claim that technology just hadn't gotten there yet, but that it was coming. Despite the overall mass market suggesting otherwise.

Absolutely zero data to suggest that VR will become the mainstream way of playing games.

 

[Three]

Sony is investing in VR because they see the future of gaming in VR and they're already in the forefront of mass VR adoption.

I honestly have a really hard time figuring out why Microsoft is so reluctant into adopting VR into their consoles. They invested into creating the Windows Mixed Reality hardware standard and software ecossystem that brought us the best cost/performance ratio on the PC along with some excellent solutions, and when they first announced project Scorpio (One X) they claimed it would have VR support. then at some point they cancelled WMR on the One X, and then doubled down on ignoring it for the Series consoles.

And what's even weirder is that Microsoft is still working on Windows Mixed Reality, and the recent launch of the HP Reverb G2 proves it. But Microsoft's VR/WMR team is apparently still pretending the Xbox doesn't exist and vice-versa.


I'm with @Shmunter here. I think at some point they'll wake up and figure out they need to spend billions of dollars on software houses just to catch up on a market that is bound to grow up.



I doubt Nintendo could smack a portable Xbox One S or a PS4 Go, if either were capable of running the same gen8 library of games.
At this point, the only thing going on for Nintendo in 3rd party games is an embarassing complete lack of competition.

The One X never had any VR plans. It was so obvious that they were showing vapourware and staged showings just for ambush marketing. The fact that people kept asking what happens with One S and VR and the idea that "all games work on both platforms" and they dodged the question should have opened some eyes but it didn't.

 

[NickFire]

I don't get the appeal of wearing a headset in your home. But if people enjoy it, and Sony wants to make it, then go for it.

 

[Revolutionary]

Patently not true, it may end up with its own large market many years from now, but it will never fully replace conventional gaming.

The people kicking and screaming that VR won't be the future of gaming can do so because that's the reality as it is today. Despite several VR releases attempting to change that.

The people kicking and screaming that VR will be the future of gaming can only do so based on their hopes and dreams alone. VR as a viable platform has been released, marketed, and revised several times now. The mass market has rejected it as being the primary way to play games.

This isn't a hard thing to grasp. The people unwilling to see the writing on the wall at this point only do so because they want VR to become the primary way games are played. For years there were people who swore flying cars were set to be the future of transportation. They'd repeatedly claim that technology just hadn't gotten there yet, but that it was coming. Despite the overall mass market suggesting otherwise.

Absolutely zero data to suggest that VR will become the mainstream way of playing games.

You'd have to be delusional and/or incredibly shortsighted to think that VR isn't going to trump traditional gaming when technology advances to the point where it's feasible. It's in its infancy right now and like I said, no matter how much you kick and scream about it, it is the future and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

 

[brian0057]

The irrelevant questions people keep answering about VR:

• What it is?
• What it does?
• How does it work?
• Tethered or wireless?
• Frame rate?

The only question nobody answers that actually matters about VR:

• Why should anyone own one?

Answer that last question and VR will sell like heroine on any given San Francisco street corner.

 

[Kagero]

I want them to make a stand-alone VR headset like the Quest 2 and have it be able to hook up to the PS5 similar to Quest 2 to PC set up. I think this is what they will do. Just not ready to announce it quite like this yet.

 

[Romulus]

I’d rather have a dedicated BC team and resources put towards a Socom 2 online remaster. When Sony does that, then they can chase this super niche stuff

The only reason it's super niche is because Sony dropped the ball in some many areas. Literally almost every bulletin point that makes good VR they failed at, and still sold over 5 million. Makes sense they would go back.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Might not be the case all the time but with the right games, VR is just more accessible to the non-gamer:

sainraja

This.

 

[Wonko_C]

For years there were people who swore flying cars were set to be the future of transportation. They'd repeatedly claim that technology just hadn't gotten there yet, but that it was coming. Despite the overall mass market suggesting otherwise.

Again, can anyone explain this to me? Why do people think flying cars aren't ever going to be a thing? We just don't have the right technology yet to make them a reality.

Just in this recent CES they showed a concept of what flying cars could be when they're finally able to make them: Some kind of personal VTOL that looks like an oversized drone.

 

[ToTTenTranz]

The One X never had any VR plans.

Phil Spencer, head executive of Xbox:

Project Scorpio is actually an Xbox One that can natively run games in 4K and is built with the hardware capabilities to support the high-end VR that you see happening in the PC space today... when it ships it will be the most powerful console ever built.

(...)
having something at six teraflops that will get millions of people buying it is very attractive to some of the VR companies that are out there already, and we've architected it such that something will be able to plug right in and work

 

[SF Kosmo]

Patently not true, it may end up with its own large market many years from now, but it will never fully replace conventional gaming.

As someone who loves VR I fully agree with this. TV didn't kill movies, tablets didn't kill computers, 3D games didn't kill 2D games, they're both gonna be around.

 

[GustavoLT]

they should not release a new one until they got it wireless!

 

[Arkam]

I for one am glad Sony is staying in the VR space. The PSVR was awesome when it was released. It was a VR setup that was accessible to mainstream gamers. I was surprised how many of my friends (that I didnt even know played games) picked up a one cuz they had a PS4. And the numbers show it with what, 3 million units sold? Prior to the quest I believe it was the most successful visor.

Really curious to see what this version turns out to be and how motions will be tracked. The base PS5 camera seems meh, so I wonder if the visor will do inside out tracking mostly. As long as they up the resolution to the range of the current visors (index, Quest 2, etc) it should be plenty crisp. And pass through cameras are a must.

Also excited to see what the new Move controllers will look like. Will Sony follow the current VR trend or pave their own way with something off the wall? When the move came out it was great.... but that was many years ago and times/tech have advanced greatly in this area.

GT7 with PSVR2..... its gonna be a fun ride!

 

[Three]

Phil Spencer, head executive of Xbox:

I'm aware of the marketing. That's what vapourware ambush marketing is, but I was telling people that Xbox one will not get VR despite MS claims. They did not invest in it with anything really substantial but used what they had (hololens) for ambush marketing in 2015 against the PSVR. MS fans claimed it will get VR support and games by 2019 or earlier nonetheless and that never materialised. This was obvious to all but the most loyal MS fans.

Nadella: HoloLens Version 1 aimed at Enterprise Users not Gaming

Well surely most average Joe's wouldn't be here, and certainly wouldn't be arguing this point for hours on end... just a thought. Fixed. Simpleton that I am, when I see a device prominently showcased at "the greatest gaming lineup in Xbox history" stage show at E3, I am going to infer that it...

www.neogaf.com

 

[ToTTenTranz]

They did not invest in it with anything really substantial but used what they had (hololens) for ambush marketing in 2015 against the PSVR.

The interview I quoted is from 2016, and they clearly invested into creating the low-cost WMR immersive headset ecossystem along with inside-out tracking which they announced on CES and GDC 2017 and released one month before the One X. Along with promises for compatibility in 2018.

Another source for WMR headset in the One X:

Windows Mixed Reality experiences will light up on other devices over time...Our plan is to bring mixed reality content to the Xbox One family of devices, including Project Scorpio, in 2018

VR on the One X was very obviously on their plans in 2016/2017 as per their own wording and actions at the time, unless you just firmly want to believe their statements on Scorpio compatibility were all lies and them investing to create a VR headset platform with inside-out tracking that doesn't need Kinect was just an elaborate red herring.

Regardless, at this point I think the conversation has run its course.

 

[Three]

The interview I quoted is from 2016, and they clearly invested into creating the low-cost WMR immersive headset ecossystem along with inside-out tracking which they announced on CES and GDC 2017 and released one month before the One X. Along with promises for compatibility in 2018.

Another source for WMR headset in the One X:


VR on the One X was very obviously on their plans in 2016/2017 as per their own wording and actions at the time, unless you just firmly want to believe their statements on Scorpio compatibility were all lies and them investing to create a VR headset platform with inside-out tracking that doesn't need Kinect was just an elaborate red herring.

Regardless, at this point I think the conversation has run its course.

They started showing the Hololens in 2015 at E3 same time as PSVR. The inside out tracking and hololens was real but I'm saying MS had no intention of supporting it on Xbox, only empty promises for ambush marketing. WMR was simply trying to get people to use their "Windows Holographic" platform for Windows 10 hence the actual windows name in Windows Mixed Reality.
From your article :

What’s even less clear is how virtual reality and mixed reality will roll out to Project Scorpio. The future Xbox is set to get “mixed reality” in 2018, but the console is also supposed to be capable of virtual reality (VR) at launch. Will Scorpio owners be waiting until 2018 to get VR and mixed reality via third-party headsets?

They got nothing. MS sat on the sidelines expecting third parties to create the headsets and third parties to create content. That's why I said "They did not invest in it with anything really substantial but used what they had for marketing ". They used Hololens and their Windows Holographic platform (renamed to WMR) but threw empty "Xbox/scorpio may be compatible/supported" knowing full well that they didn't have the install base whatsoever to support it there, didn't have any investment in hardware, didn't have any investment or commitment in first party games for the third party hardware and it went against their at the time investment in xCloud and the weak Xbox One S. They just had a platform for windows and gave false hope using it to oversell Xbox/Scorpio every now and then.