Support NeoGAF

[DarthBuzzer]

Not when it takes away resources from what the primary use of the console should be. I’m fine if they want to release something as an optional add on down the road, but making VR an integral part of your console is a stupid, needless risk imo.

They have developers that want to do VR games. Microsoft actually said they are letting developers do what they want to do, so in a way some of that support fulfills itself.

 

[HeresJohnny]

Wiimote was a grand success and today's VR controllers are pretty much following its principles with modern technology though so, it was right to be said at the time. Hell, Nintendo shot itself in the foot when it didn't follow it up with an upgrade and focused elsewhere with the WiiU.

But nah, I don't think many folks said it about Kinect, the failure was visible early on for anyone who wasn't drinking the PR kool aid and just looking at things from a more objective gaming standpoint like VR advocates are doing these days

Also Kinect didn't even work as advertised with fake demos, but (good) VR does work even better than is conveyed in media, lol. Off topic but I'm sure we'll see more Kinect-like but actually working tech eventually, there are cool fine movement hand tracking technologies being worked on.

More great VR games are getting made all the time, of course a first party offering VR will also have to provide some great games with it to show people what it does, nobody's saying to just dump hardware on people without games that use it so, uh?

PSVR in its current lackluster and oudated tech-wise (I don't mean visually, just as you can play modern console/PC games in lower than 4K fine, I mean the playability of its controllers) iteration doing well even without a made for VR first party AAA game only highlights the growth potential.

You can’t say the Wiimote was a grand success and not Kinect; they both sold quite well. The Kinect so well that it made Microsoft think it had found Midas for the coming generation and thus they included it with the Xbone, and well, we all know how that turned out.

They were both successful in that they sold units, but they were overall poor for the industry. The Wiimote is completely unusable for entire genres that are already considered necessities on consoles. Kinect was just garbage all the way around. Both companies realized (early in Nintendo’s case, too late in Microsoft’s) that the ship had sailed on these control constructs, and they wisely did away with them.

My point is that VR should not have to be sold, there should be a killer app for it that makes the case; undeniably and indisputably. The games will usher in the need for the hardware, but I haven’t seen a VR killer app yet. By most accounts the closest thing is Astro Bot on consoles, but even that doesn’t have the punch needed to get people to invest into it imo.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

People said the same shit about the Wiimote and Kinect. It may be the future, it may not. Games and future technology will dictate that.

Edit: the number one thing you HAVE to have with a product like VR is a killer app. It’s a waste of time otherwise... people aren’t going to jump in if you can’t show them (before you expect them to buy it) why they have to have one. The “give us fire and we’ll give you wood” mentality of releasing tech with no impetus for the buyer to invest has gotten ridiculous. Make a game that compels the audience to go buy one. If you can’t come up with one, then maybe your priduct’s time has not come.

Wiimote is a peripheral that tracks rotational movements. Kinect is a camera peripheral. These aren't remotely comparable to VR. Kinect has had some use outside of gaming, and arguably Wiimotes too, but nothing extensive. VR on the other hand has literal world-changing use outside of gaming.

If you want an actual valid comparison, try something like the smartphone or PC, actual computing platforms. Just be sure to compare the early stages of those technologies, rather than falling into the trap of comparing the iPhone X to current headsets.

 

[HeresJohnny]

I always thought games were the primary use. And now with VR, I have access to a lot more games. And regular games don't suffer at all. So it's a win-win.

The primary use is supporting whatever controller came in the box. As for resources, we all know resources are finite; taking money from the pool to support one thing means that money isn’t there to support the other with those used funds. People who buy a system to play with a conventional controller aren’t going to see it as having more games to play, they’re going to see it as games being made that aren’t for them.

 

[Alexios]

You can’t say the Wiimote was a grand success and not Kinect; they both sold quite well. The Kinect so well that it made Microsoft think it had found Midas for the coming generation and thus they included it with the Xbone, and well, we all know how that turned out.

They were both successful in that they sold units, but they were overall poor for the industry. The Wiimote is completely unusable for entire genres that are already considered necessities on consoles. Kinect was just garbage all the way around. Both companies realized (early in Nintendo’s case, too late in Microsoft’s) that the ship had sailed on these control constructs, and they wisely did away with them.

My point is that VR should not have to be sold, there should be a killer app for it that makes the case; undeniably and indisputably. The games will usher in the need for the hardware, but I haven’t seen a VR killer app yet. By most accounts the closest thing is Astro Bot on consoles, but even that doesn’t have the punch needed to get people to invest into it imo.

Where did I say Wiimote was perfect for you to list its problems as some kind of counter argument? It's irrelevant. And how was it "poor for the industry" whose dog did it kill other than bringing Nintendo back to the forefront with a potential they then squandered with the next system?

It still paved the way in tangible ways we still see throughout the industry today. Current VR controllers do everything better (including having standard inputs so games with a focus on more traditional gameplay work fine on them) thanks to tech having evolved which Nintendo didn't follow through with the known results for WiiU. Also, anyone saying a Wii2 would have flopped like WIiU is out of his mind but I guess we can't prove that. Still, to call WiiU era Nintendo wise on any level is hilarious. And Kinect didn't sell on the level of Wii at all, the comparison is waaaaay off.

 

[HeresJohnny]

Wiimote is a peripheral that tracks rotational movements. Kinect is a camera peripheral. These aren't remotely comparable to VR. Kinect has had some use outside of gaming, and arguably Wiimotes too, but nothing extensive. VR on the other hand has literal world-changing use outside of gaming.

If you want an actual valid comparison, try something like the smartphone or PC, actual computing platforms. Just be sure to compare the early stages of those technologies, rather than falling into the trap of comparing the iPhone X to current headsets.

They’re all controllers, that isn’t the point. The point is that we’ve had people proclaim these new controllers to be the future before and it wasn’t true. I don’t care if someone releases a fucking hair dryer if they can show me that it plays games better than what I have now. That wasn’t the case with the Wii or Kinect.

 

[Alexios]

I mean, which controllers are you talking about now then? We're just talking about VR in general here. What VR controllers have you used to know if they're good or bad and how do you separate the controllers from the whole of VR to just talk about them and how do you talk about this or that specific controller and apply it to all of what VR can ever amount to as if different designs and tech don't already and can't ever exist? Also who said to make VR the default for you to want everything playable better with it? Nobody wants or suggests to abandon non VR experiences or anything. If I had to imagine an Xbox VR controller it would be a bit like Rift's except with the standard conventional Xbox inputs on top rather than Oculus' own peculiar arrangement. Not that you would have to play Street Fighter in VR, it's a neat effect but otherwise just a visual gimmick, true VR experiences do much more. The main aspect is it makes new things playable, not that it enhances existing things. As cool as that it for some, it's the least of it. You of course put games in the same vague genre as non VR games, but the actual gameplay experience is a whole different one on multiple levels even for something like a basic PVP FPS like Contractors. Try that or Blade & Sorcery (with a good VR set like the Oculus Rift, properly set up of course) and tell me it's not brand new experiences or that you can have them "better outside VR" if we're to take your own argument in the opposite direction. You can't have it at all, any combat or FPS game with a standard gamepad (or mouse) in 2D screens is wholly different. Not bad, I still like Mount&Blade outside VR, but I'm also looking forward to the day someone sets a game like that up with Blade & Sorcery's ideas.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

They’re all controllers, that isn’t the point. The point is that we’ve had people proclaim these new controllers to be the future before and it wasn’t true. I don’t care if someone releases a fucking hair dryer if they can show me that it plays games better than what I have now. That wasn’t the case with the Wii or Kinect.

Okay, so lets tally up the games that VR works best for, off the top of my head? Specifically ports that are meant to be played in VR: RE7, Alien Isolation, Wipeout, Thumper, Hellblade, Elite Dangerous, Dirt Rally, Tetris Effect,

Here are genres that are objectively better in VR: Racing, Cockpit Sims, Horror games,

Here are genres that are arguably best in VR, or at least massively improved: Platformers, RPGs, FPS, MMOs / multiplayer games in general, Adventure, Stealth, Puzzle, Sports, TCG, Survival, Rhythm, Action.
(+ 3rd person variations of all of those)

That's a crap-ton of improvements. Now I can list general gaming improvements itself: Immersion, emotion, personal connection, freedom of expression and control, getting over industry stagnation.

 

[HeresJohnny]

Where did I say Wiimote was perfect for you to list its problems as some kind of counter argument? It's irrelevant. And how was it "poor for the industry" whose dog did it kill other than bringing Nintendo back to the forefront with a potential they then squandered with the next system?

It still paved the way in tangible ways we still see throughout the industry today. Current VR controllers do everything better (including having standard inputs so games with a focus on more traditional gameplay work fine on them) thanks to tech having evolved which Nintendo didn't follow through with the known results for WiiU. Also, anyone saying a Wii2 would have flopped like WIiU is out of his mind but I guess we can't prove that. Still, to call WiiU era Nintendo wise on any level is hilarious. And Kinect didn't sell on the level of Wii at all, the comparison is waaaaay off.

The Wii U was Nintendo realizing the fad was over, but still trying to capitalize on the Wii's name. Think about it, the system came with a sensor bar and worked with Wiimotes, hell it even kept the name, but it was pretty much a conventional system aside from the screen. Neither you or I can do any kind of forensic analysis as to why it failed, but my take is that it was the Wii name that killed it. Most casuals who had a Wii felt they didn't need another, and most conventional gamers avoided the name like the plague. Case in point? The Switch. It's basically the same concept as the Wii U without the name or motion garbage. More later, I have to run to a meeting.

 

[Alexios]

Like you said, we can't say. My take is that the marketing was all wrong and using the Wii name without a clear 2 and most importantly without actually advancing the ideas, tech and implementation of Wii making it a true successor to it, but instead the only relation to Wii being half assed tacked on support for its then outdated controllers (outside back compat) without even bundling them in the core package, is what killed it. Wii had a great attach ratio and repeated its initial success several times, even the MotionPlus mid-gen add on showed that you can do great by advancing the concept further so it was super weird to see Nintendo give up on that. Not only casuals bought it regardless of some vocal minotity hating it (a vocal minority hates everything Nintendo does and wants them to go third party after all, during that era we even had vocal hate gainst Miyamoto and Iwata as old folks that need to be replaced, lol). WiiU wasn't a Wii2 so inferring anything about such a system's potential based on it has no grounds. The only facts we have is Wii did great with its focus, WiiU flopped with a wholly different focus despite the name. And it also killed the brand hence they can never go back to it. Switch despite similarities is completely different to WiiU by being an actual portable and therefor appealing to folks who liked the 3DS as well, rather than the few folks who liked the WiiU (or GameCube, which Wii redeemed).

 

[Rayderism]

I voted "don't care", but that's only because I'm blind in one eye, and without the ability to see stereoscopic 3D, VR is basically useless to me.

 

[Verdanth]

So what exactly is MS focusing on then? Because I really dont know.

 

[Wonko_C]

I voted "don't care", but that's only because I'm blind in one eye, and without the ability to see stereoscopic 3D, VR is basically useless to me.

There's really not much of an issue at all, you see in VR just like you see in real life.
https://kotaku.com/playing-occulus-rift-with-only-one-eye-1074765790

 

[Alexios]

I voted "don't care", but that's only because I'm blind in one eye, and without the ability to see stereoscopic 3D, VR is basically useless to me.

I think you should give VR a shot still if you can try it at a friend's or similar (as long as it's properly set up for you), you might be surprised at how compelling it can be even without 3D, which you don't have IRL either anyway but can still feel the difference to standard flat TV video games

I mean, it's still a crazy new experience if I close one eye while playing.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

I voted "don't care", but that's only because I'm blind in one eye, and without the ability to see stereoscopic 3D, VR is basically useless to me.

You'd probably struggle competitively, but if you don't play games only at the competitive level, then it's still going to offer you value.

There are people that love VR with one eye, people that love VR while deaf, people that love VR while being paralyzed on the waist down.

 

[Alexios]

There are people that love VR with one eye, people that love VR while deaf, people that love VR while being paralyzed on the waist down.

I think people with disabilities like your last example could have a grand old time in some VR experiences where they can have freedom of movement they sadly don't enjoy in real life (as even the very best wheelchairs or similar, which not everyone can afford, can't give you that if your city's infrastructure for the disabled is shit). On the other hand people who have other disabilities like problems with arm and/or head movement might feel similar for non VR games and be unable to even play most in-depth VR games

 

[Wonko_C]

I think you should give VR a shot still if you can try it at a friend's or similar (as long as it's properly set up for you), you might be surprised at how compelling it can be even without 3D, which you don't have IRL either anyway but can still feel the difference to standard flat TV video games

I mean, it's still a crazy new experience if I close one eye while playing.

I should try closing one eye sometime (apart from the times I do that when I want to aim more accurately). But I don't seem to lose any depth perception neither in VR nor in RL. Is my brain making it all up based on previous experience or am I missing something?

 

[Allandor]

VR was just a quick hype but is already more or less dead. It still has it's niche market, but that was it. Kinect 1 was a success with >19m devices sold, but well it was just a niche and nothing more. VR needs many more customers to be successful. Producing a VR game is just to risky so only hybrids can be successful in the market.
sadly my stomach doesn't like VR

 

[DarthBuzzer]

VR was just a quick hype but is already more or less dead. It still has it's niche market, but that was it. Kinect 1 was a success with >19m devices sold, but well it was just a niche and nothing more. VR needs many more customers to be successful. Producing a VR game is just to risky so only hybrids can be successful in the market.
sadly my stomach doesn't like VR

More or less dead? https://uploadvr.com/vr-steam-grew-2018/

More or less dead you say? https://www.vrfocus.com/2018/09/ocu...tions-states-carmack-reveals-future-upgrades/

VR manufacturers already knew this would be slow going. This is how all technology adoption works. https://www.roadtovr.com/what-vr-he...-have-actually-said-about-sales-expectations/

 

[mckmas8808]

VR was just a quick hype but is already more or less dead. It still has it's niche market, but that was it. Kinect 1 was a success with >19m devices sold, but well it was just a niche and nothing more. VR needs many more customers to be successful. Producing a VR game is just to risky so only hybrids can be successful in the market.
sadly my stomach doesn't like VR

Didn't PSVR have it's best selling year in 2018 though?

 

[Allandor]

Didn't PSVR have it's best selling year in 2018 though?

so PSVR has maybe 5m customers (at best) worldwide?
that is not much. Even 15m wouldn't be enough to produce games for it without a big risk. Not all customers buy the same games. It is a niche market and as sony seems no longer to invest in really anything for it, it is quite dead.
Other devlopers of PC VR sets have at least some professional applications to use with those things. But in this sector AR is more effective than VR.

 

[Alexios]

so PSVR has maybe 5m customers (at best) worldwide?
that is not much. Even 15m wouldn't be enough to produce games for it without a big risk. Not all customers buy the same games. It is a niche market and as sony seems no longer to invest in really anything for it, it is quite dead.
Other devlopers of PC VR sets have at least some professional applications to use with those things. But in this sector AR is more effective than VR.

How is Sony not investing in it? Even Dreams, arguably intented to be one of their biggest upcoming releases (whether it achieves it or not) will get VR support and it's pretty certain they're going to have some kind of VR support for PS5 from all we know so far >_>

Might as well say a good chunk of their first party games are niche and they shouldn't bother with making them any more if they can't get at least COD numbers if that's how you see things, lol.

As for the PC space, there are plenty great games and more coming. Again, maybe they're not getting COD software numbers or PS2 hardware numbers but VR sells enough to support HTC's, Oculus' and Microsoft's (and several partners) WMR initiative, among other companies like Pimax, Natal, Varjo and a ton more, not to mention even more niche markets like location based entertainment companies, taking over escape/mystery room type experiences, and more, and that's before the coming stand alone 6dof VR market (with stuff like Oculus Quest and Vive Focus Plus) and mobile VR. You have to be pretty blind to not see its potential. Not being interested yourself is one thing, trying to apply your own lack of interest as something that shapes the present/future of VR though? VR is steadily growing, the yearly Steam survey shows that even though a VR set has to actually be active when doing the survey for it to apply. So, how is a growing market that supports so many different companies, larger and smaller, a lost cause you feel MS is right to not take on (when they're taking it on with WMR) and Sony is abandoning based on what?

Wow, it's not an already grown market matching the biggest entertainment market that is conventional video games which grew for 40+ years, it's in the process of developing and growing so let's proclaim it dead, as if when Nintendo was first making video games they had today's reach, lol. I'm sure some people were just saying kill it with fire, it will never catch on, when witnessing Spacewar! and Tennis for Two! and Pong and such, but clearly others felt differently and here we are with video games handily beating the movie industry. VR is certainly way past that starting point now.

 

[BMatt021]

Not upset by this decision, I have zero interest in VR whatsoever.

 

[Allandor]

How is Sony not investing in it? Even Dreams, arguably intented to be one of their biggest upcoming releases (whether it achieves it or not) will get VR support and it's pretty certain they're going to have some kind of VR support for PS5 from all we know so far >_>

Might as well say a good chunk of their first party games are niche and they shouldn't bother with making them any more if they can't get at least COD numbers if that's how you see things, lol.

As for the PC space, there are plenty great games and more coming. Again, maybe they're not getting COD software numbers or PS2 hardware numbers but VR sells enough to support HTC's, Oculus' and Microsoft's (and several partners) WMR initiative, among other companies like Pimax, Natal, Varjo and a ton more, not to mention even more niche markets like location based entertainment companies, taking over escape/mystery room type experiences, and more, and that's before the coming stand alone 6dof VR market (with stuff like Oculus Quest and Vive Focus Plus) and mobile VR. You have to be pretty blind to not see its potential. Not being interested yourself is one thing, trying to apply your own lack of interest as something that shapes the present/future of VR though? VR is steadily growing, the yearly Steam survey shows that even though a VR set has to actually be active when doing the survey for it to apply. So, how is a growing market that supports so many different companies, larger and smaller, a lost cause you feel MS is right to not take on (when they're taking it on with WMR) and Sony is abandoning based on what?

Wow, it's not an already grown market matching the biggest entertainment market that is conventional video games which grew for 40+ years, it's in the process of developing and growing so let's proclaim it dead, as if when Nintendo was first making video games they had today's reach, lol. I'm sure some people were just saying kill it with fire, it will never catch on, when witnessing Spacewar! and Tennis for Two! and Pong and such, but clearly others felt differently and here we are with video games handily beating the movie industry. VR is certainly way past that starting point now.

you compare very different times. Today you can't reach consumers with a one day title like pong. Game dev is very expensive and you need a certain number of customers to get things really starting. The steam survey shows that far less than one percent of customers had a vr headset installed (the driver was installed) and nothing more. And less than one percent is far to risky. The market shows no big development and so many projects won't get to its end. Even Sony does not release much for VR.
maybe a second vr gen might get more customers, but by the current numbers of the last two years, VR is just a niche and more or less dead. Won't be surprised if Sony won't release another version of their headset.
VR did the same thing like 3d TVs. First there were many and than nobody used them. Except VR didn't sell that well after all.

 

[Ar¢tos]

VR is already very important outside of gaming and new uses keep being invented. It will keep growing with or without gaming, but with gaming involved the tech will grow a lot faster. I have seen amazing uses for it in education (medical training) and physiotherapy. Ignoring the potential of VR is a bad move.

 

[Alexios]

you compare very different times. Today you can't reach consumers with a one day title like pong. Game dev is very expensive and you need a certain number of customers to get things really starting. The steam survey shows that far less than one percent of customers had a vr headset installed (the driver was installed) and nothing more. And less than one percent is far to risky. The market shows no big development and so many projects won't get to its end. Even Sony does not release much for VR.
maybe a second vr gen might get more customers, but by the current numbers of the last two years, VR is just a niche and more or less dead. Won't be surprised if Sony won't release another version of their headset.
VR did the same thing like 3d TVs. First there were many and than nobody used them. Except VR didn't sell that well after all.

That's a small % of a market that includes everything from hardcore gamers to the most casual users though, Steam has a lot of audiences that are one time buyers for a specific game or a specific genre (VNs, Big Fish style games, Hidden Object games, Football Manager series and so on) so that % that is steadily growing is actually a few million customers already. So, indeed, it's more than enough to not only support one company's device/platform but several companies like Facebook, HTC, and Microsoft's WMR partners, (some of which have slowed support, those with the worst sets usually, and some which have been going all-in with already more than one product like Samsung), points you completely ignored. There are also VR customers not on Steam using Oculus' Store and Viveport. Also, VR grew at least 30% last year (at least because not all companies disclose stats) so where do you get it's not growing? And you totally missed my point about Pong, it wasn't about later consumer versions but rather how it was shown, the games I chose to place alongside it should have been a hint as they weren't consumer products. Nothing about VR is anything like 3D TVs.

 

[Allandor]

VR is already very important outside of gaming and new uses keep being invented. It will keep growing with or without gaming, but with gaming involved the tech will grow a lot faster. I have seen amazing uses for it in education (medical training) and physiotherapy. Ignoring the potential of VR is a bad move.

This thread is about gaming. There is and will be a professional use of VR/AR, I never doubt that. But not for gaming in the next few years.

That's 1% of a market that includes everything from hardcore gamers to the most casual users though, Steam has a lot of audiences that are one time buyers for a specific game or a specific genre (VNs, Big Fish style games, Hidden Object games, Football Manager and so on) so 1% that is steadily growing is actually a few million customers already. So, indeed, it's more than enough to not only support one company's device/platform but several companies like Facebook, HTC, and Microsoft's WMR partners, some of which have slowed support (those with the worst sets usually) and some which have been going all-in with already more than one product like Samsung), points you completely ignored. There are also VR customers not on Steam using Oculus' Store and Viveport. Also, VR grew at least 30% last year (at least because not all companies disclose stats) so where do you get it's not growing? And you totally missed my point about Pong, it wasn't about later consumer versions but rather how it was shown, the games I chose to place alongside it should have been a hint. Nothing about VR is anything like 3D TVs.

And you totally ignore the business perspective of VR gaming. 30% grows is not much if you had only a few customers before. To be successful VR would have needed >200% growth last year. But that hadn't happend. Also steam-survey is quite buggy. Someone who invests in VR on PC will also update the other hardware components quite a lot of times. Just because to make VR better. This way they get every time a new hardware-id in the steam survey. You can totally ignore numbers of lower than 1% in the steam survey.
Just get the numbers directly from the manufactures and those numbers aren't good. They tried to reduce prices etc, but didn't get the needed attention.
PSVR is by a big margin the most sold VR-headset (they sold more than the other combined) and they have just a few million owners, which is not enough to really sell games.
If PSVR would have sold 10-15m than it would still not be enough for bigger projects but it starts to get interesting.

 

[Alexios]

No, you're putting arbitrary personal limits on what's a good % for a business without even knowing what actual numbers that % is. You're saying it's not enough but the companies involved show it was enough even before the 2018 30% growth. Facebook are not running a charity to make 5 folks who really, really like VR happy, they're making money and thus they keep investing more and more rather than abandon it, HTC had the chance to abandon it after all these years, instead they just doubled down with more products in different categories than ever before, Samsung had the chance to abandon it after the first Odyssey, instead they already offered a new product, Odyssey+, various companies put out many different products from mobile to consumer to enterprise and have a long roadmap, Samsung actually continues their GearVR line and support it with the latest flagships, Huawei released the second gen of their VR HMD, hell there are now companies that just make add-ons for mobile VR to become 6dof VR and so on. Sony and all these don't have a worse than you understanding of the market for you to feel you know better if the % is good enough or not, lol, they're calling dibs, some will fail (as Sony failed in the lucrative portable market or as Microsoft failed in the lucrative smartphone market, both of which carry on without them as they were bigger than them) and others will succeed and VR as a whole will keep growing.

I like how Steam's survey is only buggy to show VR users twice or more but it's not buggy to show every other PC gamer who upgrades twice, therefor skewing VR stats but not all the rest, as if PC gamers only upgrade when they get VR, or as if you do the survey every 5 minutes. Creative, lol. Where's your source anyway, that they don't separate and update the survey per account but rather arbitrarily with every submission from the same user counting towards increasing each % they're involved in with every PC hardware change? And lol @ an add on that almost costs as much as a new console only being deemed successful if it sells to a greater-than-I-choose chunk of the console's owners. And then even more arbitrary goal posts like supporting "bigger projects" on top (as if PSVR itself as the hardware wasn't a big project for Sony already) >_>

How long do you think it will take for all these companies to realize the truth you already know and give up on VR gaming either abandoning VR or focusing on some other application for it? Should we get back to this in 2021, 5 years after the first Vive & Rift, or when exactly will "reality" set in?

 

[DarthBuzzer]

you compare very different times. Today you can't reach consumers with a one day title like pong. Game dev is very expensive and you need a certain number of customers to get things really starting. The steam survey shows that far less than one percent of customers had a vr headset installed (the driver was installed) and nothing more. And less than one percent is far to risky. The market shows no big development and so many projects won't get to its end. Even Sony does not release much for VR.
maybe a second vr gen might get more customers, but by the current numbers of the last two years, VR is just a niche and more or less dead. Won't be surprised if Sony won't release another version of their headset.
VR did the same thing like 3d TVs. First there were many and than nobody used them. Except VR didn't sell that well after all.

Sony have clearly hinted that they are working on PSVR2 several times.

And Steam VR sales growth doubled in 2018: https://uploadvr.com/vr-steam-grew-2018/

If Valve make their big moves this year, it would likely triple and get beyond 3%.

 

[ThatStupidLion]

in the short run i think its smart to hold off, but in the long run i think they better have something cooking.

i'd rather them allow rifts or other 3rd party partnerships to be used on the xbox than them put out another Zune

VR aint going away, and its certainly not going to slow down. one day itll be as ubiquitous as cellphones methinks

 

[mckmas8808]

in the short run i think its smart to hold off, but in the long run i think they better have something cooking.

i'd rather them allow rifts or other 3rd party partnerships to be used on the xbox than them put out another Zune

VR aint going away, and its certainly not going to slow down. one day itll be as ubiquitous as cellphones methinks

This is what is really confusing me. I thought at a minimum they were going to allow the Rifts and Vives headsets be usable on the Xbox NEXT console. Just purely as an option.

 

[Alexios]

This is what is really confusing me. I thought at a minimum they were going to allow the Rifts and Vives headsets be usable on the Xbox NEXT console. Just purely as an option.

If they were going to support anything VR on Xbox it would be their own partners' WMR so Xbox VR devs know exactly what standard inputs and capabilities to target rather than a range of differently functioning HMD and controllers.

And you don't need to be confused about what some "dev" said and a weird poll on gaf

 

[IbizaPocholo]

https://gamingbolt.com/microsoft-pl...th-vr-next-gen-consoles-will-have-it-says-dev

 

[IbizaPocholo]

https://gamingbolt.com/id-be-surprised-if-xbox-will-ever-have-their-own-vr-headset-says-dev

 

[Elenchus]

Except VR needs companies like MS to dive in now to help make it mainstream.

Not MS’s job to save PSVR or VR generally. Smarter move is to watch it and Sony’s massive investment in VR sink.

 

[bitbydeath]

Not MS’s job to save PSVR or VR generally. Smarter move is to watch it and Sony’s massive investment in VR sink.

Like how they waited on Smartphones and Tablets?

 

[Ar¢tos]

Not MS’s job to save PSVR or VR generally. Smarter move is to watch it and Sony’s massive investment in VR sink.

Massive investment?
The R&D was basically all done by several other Sony departments, and getting it build was probably very easy too, since Sony is a hardware manufacturer. There was little to lose in this VR bet for Sony. For MS on the other hand, it will be a massive investment, and we all know MS aversion to taking risks.

 

[Allandor]

Massive investment?
The R&D was basically all done by several other Sony departments, and getting it build was probably very easy too, since Sony is a hardware manufacturer. There was little to lose in this VR bet for Sony. For MS on the other hand, it will be a massive investment, and we all know MS aversion to taking risks.

You forget, MS is already working and selling HoloLens (AR) which is a bit more complicated. Not to consumers, but to business. So they are at it. But I really don't see a big future for VR. It was just like Kinect (well Kinect 1 at least sold much more). At first it is bought because it is something new, than it will be bought less and less.
VR shares the same fate as 3D TVs. There is less and less coming. AAA titles are also ignoring it. The VR market is just not big enough to really invest money into it.

 

[HeresJohnny]

Like how they waited on Smartphones and Tablets?

Putting a Nerd Helmet in the same class as smartphones and tablets is a massive fucking stretch lol.

 

[bitbydeath]

Putting a Nerd Helmet in the same class as smartphones and tablets is a massive fucking stretch lol.

I think you’re severely underestimating the potential of VR. It won’t always be about games.

 

[Elenchus]

I think you’re severely underestimating the potential of VR. It won’t always be about games.

It’s about more than games now actually and MS is already reaping the rewards.

They are just not jumping in on the consumer side yet because the tech is too expensive for that market presently and what they would have to ship would be as compromised and wire laden as PSVR.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...army-hololens-480-million-contract-magic-leap

 

[HeresJohnny]

I think you’re severely underestimating the potential of VR. It won’t always be about games.

Agreed there is potential, but it’s years and years off before it will be even remotely mass marketable. It’s an enthusiast device only and I don’t see that changing with the coming generation, which is why Microsoft is wise to stay away from tethering the next Xbox to it, if that is indeed what they are doing.

 

[mckmas8808]

Not MS’s job to save PSVR or VR generally. Smarter move is to watch it and Sony’s massive investment in VR sink.

MS is investing into Hololens. So why act as if only Sony is spending R&D money on VR? At least Sony has a long term plan for VR right now.

 

[levyjl1988]

I actually like new innovational techniques. It’s sad to see it pass by.
Like Dual Screen being the focus on the Nintendo DS, it evolved to the 3DS, but man did it free up the top screen of menus. Then came 3D, it made things really pop up. 3DS is dying due to Switch sales and there is no more 3D TVs available, the last one being the Sony Z9D 3D 4K TV. 3D can only best enjoyed in cinemas now for a limited time, no more re-experiencing that. 3D in PS VR is not the best to be honest with the limited pixel count. I hope VR doesn’t die. It just needs a huge technological leap. Blacks are too grey and there is no enough peripherals. There was Kinect and Wii Board, that really brought me into the physical space to exercise, but it didn’t quite last. Not enough people has enough discipline for that to be honest.

Classic gaming with screen and controller has been the defacto standard, but sometimes I want something gimmicky and innovative as well.

VR is amazing. Playing Wipeout on it is giving me chills. A Halo VR as an ODST will give my that feeling or being launched into space with Eve. Such exhileration.

 

[VincentMatts]

Im completely indifferent to VR, so i honestly dont care either way.

 

[JimiNutz]

I think it would be a mistake for MS to spend a load of money developing their own headset but it seems crazy that they can't partner with Oculus or HTC to ensure that the Rift or Vive work with the next Xbox. MS should also set up a small single studio to focus on VR content.

Ignoring the technology completely is a shame because it has so much potential and I actually think I will def go with PlayStation or PC over the next Xbox if the next Xbox has no plans to support VR at all.

 

[DanielsM]

MR is a very niche enterprise tool, they are releasing HL v2.0 but the product is very niche and at $3,500, its not even close to being a real tool. VR is mostly a niche game device, probably the next gen hardware will make it better but its like MR, it will always be niche. Furthermore, VR is a no go as far as running from Azure unless you want people barfing all over so long-term limited future for Microsoft. I would not be surprised by HL being canned at some point - if they can't reduce the size. Since the processing is heavily done locally on HL, the cloud has less to do with it and is not impacted by Microsoft moving OS to the cloud, generally speaking.

HL can probably be used with some other devices (phones tablets, watches) as well at some point. If you are moving to cloud processing VR is not going to happen there, so all this basically makes sense to me.

If the future is cloud, VR is not a part of that future because of barfing.

 

[mckmas8808]

I think it would be a mistake for MS to spend a load of money developing their own headset but it seems crazy that they can't partner with Oculus or HTC to ensure that the Rift or Vive work with the next Xbox. MS should also set up a small single studio to focus on VR content.

Ignoring the technology completely is a shame because it has so much potential and I actually think I will def go with PlayStation or PC over the next Xbox if the next Xbox has no plans to support VR at all.

I'm 100% lost on MS' strategy with Hololens also. Like why is this device $3,500? And why are you working on it, but not a consumer model that can make you money with the new Xbox?

 

[VincentMatts]

I'm 100% lost on MS' strategy with Hololens also. Like why is this device $3,500? And why are you working on it, but not a consumer model that can make you money with the new Xbox?

I think its more for "experiences" and business use than it is for gaming. Like that military contrat they have for it

 

[DarthBuzzer]

You forget, MS is already working and selling HoloLens (AR) which is a bit more complicated. Not to consumers, but to business. So they are at it. But I really don't see a big future for VR. It was just like Kinect (well Kinect 1 at least sold much more). At first it is bought because it is something new, than it will be bought less and less.
VR shares the same fate as 3D TVs. There is less and less coming. AAA titles are also ignoring it. The VR market is just not big enough to really invest money into it.

I take it you've done zero research in the past few years about VR? Because all the facts immediately disagree with you. Investment is still happening, AAA games/developers are happening, mass-market applications for consumer VR are on the way. Just because you're too lazy to look doesn't mean it's not happening. That's on you.