Dev: Next Xbox Console May Not Have VR, Microsoft shows no interest in it.

Is it a good or bad thing that Microsoft is not participating in VR?


  • Total voters
    215
Apr 15, 2018
87
48
160
#51
Microsoft should just allow third party VR support on their platform and call it a day. No real need to create an entirely new VR setup, but they should let their customers have the choice of using existing headsets.
 
Likes: Journey
Jul 9, 2018
569
245
195
#53
Good. The less VR the better. Completely uninteresting feature.
What makes it so uninteresting? Have you actually tried any good games, apps, seen/felt the improvements that come from it?

I don’t give a rat’s ass about VR, as something that’s supposed to have been the “next big thing” for the last 25+ years and hasn’t done shit with most consumers.

If platform-holders want to pursue it, whatever— but don’t focus too much on a technology that a small, niche group cares about.
I think it's fine to pursue it without it being a big focus, but it's going to have to ramp up eventually. We didn't get the truly good 3D games until consoles went all-in.
 
Jan 8, 2019
88
100
160
#54
I don't really care about VR tbh, outside of the implementation in RE7, most other games feel more like tech demos to me than full fledged games. Until i see more games that feel like full games, i have no interest in VR at all.
 
Jul 9, 2018
569
245
195
#55
Can't remember when was the last time I read about VR, isn't it dead already? Either way, good to hear if true, no need to waste time and resources for a niche gimmicks
It's growth doubled every year for the past 2 years on Steam. PSVR has mostly met expectations, and Sony keeps outlining their plans for VR 2.0 and beyond, so it's clear that it's still consistently growing.

Yes, VR is niche right now, I'm sure we all agree on that. But it's not a gimmick, because it definitively adds to gaming in a similar way that 3D graphics did.

You've also shown to have very little knowledge of VR, being proven wrong in many cases, so you viewing it as a gimmick is automatically invalidated.
 
Last edited:
Jul 9, 2018
569
245
195
#57
Nothing beats a control pad and never will. It's the bread and butter of gaming.

Sure, there's a few prawn sandwiches about, but they come and go.
You can use a control pad in VR. There are also games that are objectively better with motion controls.

This statement is ludicrous in general because you are saying given an infinite amount of time, people will always prefer gamepads compared to (eventually, a very far off future) being in the Matrix.
 

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
3,321
2,752
405
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
#58
This seems a bit of an odd comment. If HoloLens concept is genuine mindfuckey, how is VR not so?
It expands beyond the VR approach and brings it to the living room in front of you. VR is something that's on the market for a much longer time and thus the VR of today is basically a refined take on the VR of the 90s.

Aside from the fact that AR/HoloLens is still years behind VR in hardware, software, and pricing, Microsoft have made it clear that they want to focus on both. They have Windows MR on PC. Alex Kipman who leads the HoloLens project, doesn't envision AR or VR as the future, but MR, or others call it XR. This is the combination of both VR and AR, a toggable mode, sometimes a blend between
Fair enough. Don't think the Xbox will have it though due to the Kinect debacle.
 
Aug 18, 2014
1,499
133
305
#61
I don't think they should abandon VR, but it's a good idea to keep it separate from the console budget and focus every penny to get the most efficient box. VR, just like Kinect and Move before it, should be an optional device.
 
Likes: Elenchus
Jul 9, 2018
569
245
195
#62
I don't really care about VR tbh, outside of the implementation in RE7, most other games feel more like tech demos to me than full fledged games. Until i see more games that feel like full games, i have no interest in VR at all.
Astro Bot? Hellblade? Lone Echo / Echo VR? Wipeout? The problem is you're not looking.
 
Jul 9, 2018
569
245
195
#63
It expands beyond the VR approach and brings it to the living room in front of you. VR is something that's on the market for a much longer time and thus the VR of today is basically a refined take on the VR of the 90s.


Fair enough. Don't think the Xbox will have it though due to the Kinect debacle.
Hardly anyone has tried VR of the 90s. The only released products were from small companies. Otherwise people had to get their fix in arcades, so for almost everyone, it's brand new. VR was incapable of producing presence back then as well, which in itself is mind-fuckery, believing you are in another place.

An example of mind-fuckery in VR is playing multiplayer games where we can interact with each other via body language using full body avatars. It's unlike anything in gaming, or just life in general.

The next Xbox can support it as a peripheral, that's easily done without any major backlash. Though I wouldn't expect it at launch.
 
Jul 9, 2018
569
245
195
#64
Good. VR is already forgotten by the masses. Microsoft doesn't need another Kinect episode.
Just like smartphones were forgotten by the masses, PCs were forgotten by the masses. This all happened until they advanced far enough. This is how hype works. Stop buying into media lies.
 
Last edited:

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
3,321
2,752
405
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
#68
Hardly anyone has tried VR of the 90s. The only released products were from small companies. Otherwise people had to get their fix in arcades, so for almost everyone, it's brand new.
Virtuality (which used arcade hardware) was pretty popular back in the day, but relied on hugely expensive custom tech to get it running.

VR stuff on PC never catched on because there was no standard. But it definitely had a presence. Its why PSVR is relatively popular on console, because it is a standard. On PC, you still have to deal with the issue that there are too many platforms there.

VR was incapable of producing presence back then as well, which in itself is mind-fuckery, believing you are in another place.
That is not what i mean with the term. What i mean is that current VR is an older experience, something known in the industry, whereas Hololens is something really new.

The next Xbox can support it as a peripheral, that's easily done without any major backlash. Though I wouldn't expect it at launch.
Kinect.
 
Jul 9, 2018
569
245
195
#69
Virtuality (which used arcade hardware) was pretty popular back in the day, but relied on hugely expensive custom tech to get it running.

VR stuff on PC never catched on because there was no standard. But it definitely had a presence. Its why PSVR is relatively popular on console, because it is a standard. On PC, you still have to deal with the issue that there are too many platforms there.


That is not what i mean with the term. What i mean is that current VR is an older experience, something known in the industry, whereas Hololens is something really new.


Kinect.
HoloLens is still built off AR technology that existed many years beforehand, including in AR headsets. Nothing for consumers, but then again, VR hadn't been tried by more than a small sample in the 90s.

So what we're left with is two technologies that almost everyone has not used, meaning something brand new for the vast majority. If someone tried VR in the 90s, then sure we can say that they have experience with the medium, but since 90s VR is such a difference user experience, it's effectively brand new in itself trying it in modern times.

Kinect had many technical issues and bad support. Phil Spencer already said he wants wireless VR before launching on Xbox, so that in itself would show the technical side of things would be quite a bit better than today. Support, well that's up to them, but you have much more control in game design, so it's easier to build good games for.
 
Last edited:
Jul 16, 2018
184
79
180
#75
How ms can have VR? if they are incapable to support they own system with games, of course it's bad thing for vr.
I don't really get people who thinks it's good thing or don't care? i hope with next-gen will come innovation in gameplay and controls, and vr brings both of these, what i like the most that you can aim with vr, rather then with stick of course it would be even better to change analog sticks from ps1 era with something else more fine sensitivity atleast of mouse level precision. so basically refusing vr for whatever system is slowing down innovation in gameplay and controls. stuck in the past most people in here.
 
Jul 9, 2018
569
245
195
#76
Last edited:
May 24, 2005
39,798
2,685
1,320
#77
If I were an investor...I really would prefer Microsoft to let VR mature before throwing brain power and resources behind it. They need to get these studios making blockbusters. They need to nail the next gen console. I wouldn't feel comfortable with them chasing this largely unproven genre of gaming.

Sony is doing their due diligence, but I can't imagine this being very profitable at this stage. However Sony has mastered it's first party, they are more free to explore VR.
I feel like this will only end with people saying in 10 years, "why isn't MS in the VR game?"

People keep acting as if MS can just throw together some off the shelf parts and have VR once it matures. As if making VR good is that easy.
 
Sep 30, 2006
5,541
427
1,040
#80
Probably a good move on Microsoft's part. The tech has come a long way but still needs to go further to be adopted by the mainstream.
 
Jul 9, 2018
569
245
195
#81
I feel like this will only end with people saying in 10 years, "why isn't MS in the VR game?"

People keep acting as if MS can just throw together some off the shelf parts and have VR once it matures. As if making VR good is that easy.
They have 7 Windows MR headsets with partners on PC, and at least one more confirmed on the way.

They don't even have to manufacture anything if they don't want to.
 

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
3,321
2,752
405
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
#82

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
3,321
2,752
405
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
#84
Yeah, I did say that in my previous post afterall.
Yeah my ideas on VR being a known technology are more centered around its gaming aspects, of which there were in the 90s.

AR/Hololens does not seem to have a consumer/game component yet, although there were concepts using the camera's of phones.
 
Jan 31, 2018
1,146
593
315
#87
I feel like this will only end with people saying in 10 years, "why isn't MS in the VR game?"

People keep acting as if MS can just throw together some off the shelf parts and have VR once it matures. As if making VR good is that easy.
This is possible, but when I say mature it's not so much the technology as it is proper support. That could manifest as true triple A stand alone experiences or the feature of VR becoming more normalized in games. I think the technology is adequate for how recently is was introduced. Especially with some of the more advanced headsets with the higher frame rates. There have been some exceptions...Resident Evil 7 and honestly I think BeatSaber is excellent. I guess I just wanna see more studios get involved.
 
Last edited:
Likes: mckmas8808
Jul 9, 2018
569
245
195
#88
Yeah my ideas on VR being a known technology are more centered around its gaming aspects, of which there were in the 90s.

AR/Hololens does not seem to have a consumer/game component yet, although there were concepts using the camera's of phones.
At the end of the day, this is really semantics.

Both AR and VR will evolve so much that they will be beyond recognizable. There's a writeup of someone testing the new Varjo VR-1 headset and touted it as trying VR for the first time again, actually saying it was realer than real life.

Things like being able to see a perfect representation of your human body, or having audio that feels fundamentally real, or having true haptics - these all reset your experience of VR to a flat zero, because the experience will be completely different.

Same with AR.
 
Last edited:
Jul 9, 2018
569
245
195
#98
This is Phil Spencer on VR and AR:


He's a fan. He wants it on Xbox, but clearly he envisions a wireless headset before it's ideal for consoles.

So is it coming? Yes. It's inevitable. Will it happen at launch? Probably not, but I'd wager mid-generation, we will see an Xbox VR headset with 1st party support, as they have several developers with VR experience that want to do VR.

Microsoft needs to make sure they launch the console with a good lineup, so clearly that's their focus. Once that's all settled, that's the best time for them to focus on launching VR.
 
Last edited:
Feb 20, 2018
2,019
2,961
255
#99
Good counterpoint. But how many sets of competing consoles throughout gaming console history shared 80% of the same library and not called PlayStation # and Xbox something?

All I'm saying it would be cool if we got back to a point where each console was doing completely different things from each other.
 
Last edited:
Jan 3, 2019
431
550
180
A random guy: "Microsoft is the richest company in the world, they gonna dominate next gen, you keep looking, brah"

Same random guy , a minute later: " Investing in VR is a waste of time and money, Microsoft rather not put money on that shit because they need it elsewhere"·

Again the same random guy, 4 years from now : "Sony is leading the VR market only cos they got there first. Wait for Microsoft to buy some more studios"


The largest room for improvement and innovation in videogames is VR. I understand why Microsoft is not prioritizing this for they have more pressing matters to address but discarding VR altogether would be a HUGE mistake unless their strategy is focused on services instead of games.
 
Likes: DaveMorris