• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

VR not a focus of Project Scarlett, says Phil Spencer

Vawn

Member
Feb 20, 2018
4,117
7,370
505
You wouldn't even be talking about VR if this wasn't an Xbox thread, if it said Bobby Kotick instead of Phil you would have agreed with the statement, let's be honest.

You don't contribute anything to the board just a random fanboy that will pretend reality doesn't exist for your plastic box, but it's ok, VR will die yet again and will come back in 10 years in the usual cycle, No sane analysis exists saying that VR is healthy right now, but that's all for naught as you don't really care about VR, you care about Xbox saying they don't want it and failing at pretending to be neutral this entire thread.
Go check out any of the other VR threads and see if I'm there. I've had PSVR since launch and am a huge fan of it. Astrobot is a Game of the Generation contender for me personally.

And wtf are you talking about VR every 10 years? Please tell me you don't think stuff like Virtual Boy was ever Virtual Reality. Because I'm not sure what VR we had for mainstream 10, 20 and 30 years ago.
 
Last edited:

Mass Shift

Member
Jun 12, 2019
416
339
315
Hmmm



But it's dead tho...
Not only is it not dead, it's technology still has years of refinement left to go. These early devices aren't really indicative of what VR will eventually look like.

I promise you, the latter iterations will be far more affordable, smaller, lighter and much more precise in application than the obtuse experiences people are having currently.

In it's current state VR looks very clunky and cumbersome. The current headsets are just too large. As ridiculous as it sounds, VR needs to be as close to the Mnemonic concept as possible before the mass market adopts it in any significant way.

Keanu's character sits right at a desk and after a very small set up he effortlessly gets started.



 

SKY EYES

Member
Oct 3, 2013
1,682
492
480
I'm on team... It's not for me but why not have an option to use one of the headsets on the market.

Judging by this thread... Phil's lack of VR really angered the usual PS warriors that won't buy the console regardless lol
 

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
1,605
1,644
385
These questions all have to be jokes, how much do you think VR is selling right now when the entire market hasn't sold 8 million units since 2014 and the PSVR 4.2 is likely the highest selling product and Phone VR is dead?

Let's be factual here nothing is actually selling well. Quest is selling better than the Rift did and is selling better than PSVR too, but that's not much of an accomplishment nor does that mean VR isn't dead and not growing, how do you grow when half the market is missing?
Valve, Sony, Oculus, Respawn are investing in VR's future, but some rando forum guy has a crystal ball that knows more than all of them, combined. Typical.
 

93xfan

Member
Feb 23, 2013
1,568
301
500
PlayStation had VR this generation. Xbox did not.

Now compare their libraries.
Sure. My point still stands. More smaller projects could’ve been made by Sony and released on PS4.

Games like Driveclub could’ve gotten a pro patch rather than a VR mode.

Gran Turismo Sport may have been more feature complete.


in the end, VR is great for fans of it, but it is also another platform that Sony has to support. Support means time and money that could’ve been used elsewhere.

To be clear, I’m not saying Sony is wrong for investing in VR. Just that I understand why those uninterested in VR (including myself) don’t enjoy seeing it happen.

Personally I wish Sony just made it so the 3rd party VR headsets such as Oculus Rift could work on PS5. Then they have no obligation to keep the platform alive.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Godzilla Emu

Ar¢tos

Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,611
2,950
625
39
Portugal
These questions all have to be jokes, how much do you think VR is selling right now when the entire market hasn't sold 8 million units since 2014 and the PSVR 4.2 is likely the highest selling product and Phone VR is dead?

Let's be factual here nothing is actually selling well. Quest is selling better than the Rift did and is selling better than PSVR too, but that's not much of an accomplishment nor does that mean VR isn't dead and not growing, how do you grow when half the market is missing?


Meanwhile, PSVR + 5 games bundle is sold out already here, and the bundle with VR Worlds has very few units left.
 
Oct 16, 2017
425
586
295
Sure. My point still stands. More smaller projects could’ve been made by Sony and released on PS4.

Games like Driveclub could’ve gotten a pro patch rather than a VR mode.

Gran Turismo Sport may have been more feature complete.


in the end, VR is great for fans of it, but it is also another platform that Sony has to support. Support means time and money that could’ve been used elsewhere.

To be clear, I’m not saying Sony is wrong for investing in VR. Just that I understand why those uninterested in VR (including myself) don’t enjoy seeing it happen.

Personally I wish Sony just made it so the 3rd party VR headsets such as Oculus Rift could work on PS5. Then they have no obligation to keep the platform alive.
That's the thing; PSVR is making money. Maybe not a lot of money, but it is self sufficient.

So as long as PSVR is pulling its own weight, Playstation is not being dragged down by it.
 
Last edited:

magnumpy

Member
Sep 8, 2014
1,467
231
455
Texas
Go check out any of the other VR threads and see if I'm there. I've had PSVR since launch and am a huge fan of it. Astrobot is a Game of the Generation contender for me personally.

And wtf are you talking about VR every 10 years? Please tell me you don't think stuff like Virtual Boy was ever Virtual Reality. Because I'm not sure what VR we had for mainstream 10, 20 and 30 years ago.
this is all debatable, but there are earlier renditions of virtual reality than virtual boy. the mere existence of virtual boy means the idea of virtual reality is very old!

 

Vawn

Member
Feb 20, 2018
4,117
7,370
505
this is all debatable, but there are earlier renditions of virtual reality than virtual boy. the mere existence of virtual boy means the idea of virtual reality is very old
I can't tell if you're being serious. Virtual Boy was never Virtual Reality. Looking at a screen through something you put up to your face is not VR.

I had a Virtual Boy at launch. It was the most pointless console Nintendo ever launched.

Now there was actual (crappy) VR way back then. You could go to special events at malls and wait hours to play 10 minutes of a VR game. I did this. It was crap, but it was at least technically VR, as you could move around in 3D with head tracking, etc. The 3D effects didn't compare to those we have in VR today. But that was not something you could just buy and have at home for personal use.
 
Last edited:

magnumpy

Member
Sep 8, 2014
1,467
231
455
Texas
I can't tell if you're being serious. Virtual Boy was never Virtual Reality. Looking at a screen through something you put up to your face is not VR.

I had a Virtual Boy at launch. It was the most pointless console Nintendo ever launched.
it was definitely a flawed product that left a lot to be desired. but still, you have to learn how to crawl on your hands and knees before you can know how to walk.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
5,223
3,481
1,010
Actually you could buy VR headsets in the 90's, I still have one in the closet somewhere forgot the name. But I got it as a prize, they cost around $600-$800 which is $1,133-$1,500 in 2016. (Some of them were better than the ones you saw at malls and amusement parks, but the most powerful headsets could only be found in those.)

So back then they were similarly priced as when they came back a few years ago, but with inflation they were more expensive overall back then.

Issues is half the home VR's where like 26 colors, while only a couple had a wider range. You also had to plug in a box to your TV for the best models, not as long but wider and more square shaped than the 360 power brick, then hook the VR up to THAT as the box also had the start switch. Luckily the wires were long so you could relax on the couch.

R-Zone and Virtual Boy weren't really VR unless you wanted a very poorly made entry level version of VR. R-zone was closer to full VR than VB though, which is hysterical in hindsight.

The Jagaur VR prototype was the first thing I used on consoles that actually provided a real VR experience, but look at how hard it is to sell VR now, how would you have marketed it back then? Yes the novelty from the commercials would gain some interest but back then paying tons of retailers to have demonstrations in stores would have costed a massive fortune, and would be a huge risk. It also wouldn't help that the online retailer component was very niche at the time, so you'd have to rely on retail only and those guys back than were vicious.

If you wanted Sears to place a VR demo in just a 3rd of their stores you were paying double the money and arguably would have to cut some of your shelf space for your other products. You'd also have to pay a premium to be among the front of their gift book.

Circuit City likely wouldn't have taken it because they barely got Jaguar stock outside of select large cities because Atari couldn't afford it, so they wouldn't risk the demo even if it did do really well and got 10's across the board, because they knew it would take awhile for Atari to take the new profits and manufacture more headsets.

3DO was working on a VR in response that would work for 3DO and PC and possibly be compatible with the PlayStation, but scrapped it because they they had a similar design to another company called Funtech and gave up under lawsuit threats when it turned out one of the engineers used to work for them. It also was going to start at a price of $1000. They only got Toys R Us on board from what I recall as well.

Isn't it hilarious that unethical multi-billion dollar mega corporations are the ones that got VR into more hands and retailers than ever before and not gaming companies?
 
Last edited:

Gargus

Member
Oct 1, 2018
815
1,006
455
Sounds more like they cant offer anything good so they play it off as if it isnt what customers are wanting.

I mean sony is undeniably the ruler of the current gen in terms of hardware and games and sales yet they still managed to also include VR into their portfolio and make their gaming more diverse and offer more options. And they did it well and it has sold well for them. Sony has sold over 4 million vr sets which while isnt a shit ton of them its still quite a lot and they have a wide range of games for it. It is obviously not major mainstream source for gaming for a lot of folks but it does have a market.
 

GermanZepp

Member
Feb 15, 2017
865
865
435
Sounds more like they cant offer anything good so they play it off as if it isnt what customers are wanting.

I mean sony is undeniably the ruler of the current gen in terms of hardware and games and sales yet they still managed to also include VR into their portfolio and make their gaming more diverse and offer more options. And they did it well and it has sold well for them. Sony has sold over 4 million vr sets which while isnt a shit ton of them its still quite a lot and they have a wide range of games for it. It is obviously not major mainstream source for gaming for a lot of folks but it does have a market.
4 millon PSVR? So PSVR is less niche than Bloodborne. EDIT: PS4 owners are more interested in VR that in Bloodborne. Let that sink in.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Gashtronomy

Dane

Member
Jul 16, 2019
415
269
235
Honestly, they should just give support to any VR on the market and let developers do whatever they want.

Its an interesting gimmick, but expensive, and then again, a gimmick, remember when people said that Wii-Move and Kinect were the future and should have been the new standard for gameplay? Plus they had a cheaper cost.
 
Last edited:

Gashtronomy

Member
Apr 19, 2019
2,809
3,609
400
Honestly, they should just give support to any VR on the market and let developers do whatever they want.

Its an interesting gimmick, but expensive, and then again, a gimmick, remember when people said that Wii-Move and Kinect were the future and should have been the new standard for gameplay? Plus they had a cheaper cost.
Even back then, the people who said Wii and Kinect were the future, were painfully short-sighted. The Wii and Kinect were an improvement over the light-gun games of the PSX era and not much more. You stilled gamed on a 2D flat-screen with little interaction other than wiggling your hands and most games restricted you to standing.

VR is a different world entirely.

Matching the sales of VR against any other product is crazy talk. It's like comparing the PS4 to a mobile phone and arguing that candy crush and angry birds are bigger, better, more interesting games than Halo, GTA, Mario and Uncharted combined.

LIke everything, though, one company, one idea, one revision of VR will release and be more attractive than the rest. How many music players did we have until the Ipod changed everything? How about phones and the iPhone?
 

Dane

Member
Jul 16, 2019
415
269
235
Even back then, the people who said Wii and Kinect were the future, were painfully short-sighted. The Wii and Kinect were an improvement over the light-gun games of the PSX era and not much more. You stilled gamed on a 2D flat-screen with little interaction other than wiggling your hands and most games restricted you to standing.

VR is a different world entirely.

Matching the sales of VR against any other product is crazy talk. It's like comparing the PS4 to a mobile phone and arguing that candy crush and angry birds are bigger, better, more interesting games than Halo, GTA, Mario and Uncharted combined.

LIke everything, though, one company, one idea, one revision of VR will release and be more attractive than the rest. How many music players did we have until the Ipod changed everything? How about phones and the iPhone?
Dude, VR is a moving screen with motion controllers that the gimmick trio did, heck, the friggin kinect (and EyeToy) could be considered just a non moving screen VR.
 

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
1,605
1,644
385
Dude, VR is a moving screen with motion controllers that the gimmick trio did, heck, the friggin kinect (and EyeToy) could be considered just a non moving screen VR.
That is absolutely not what VR is.
 
Last edited:

Gashtronomy

Member
Apr 19, 2019
2,809
3,609
400
Dude, VR is a moving screen with motion controllers that the gimmick trio did, heck, the friggin kinect (and EyeToy) could be considered just a non moving screen VR.
It could, if you've never used VR or are wilfully ignorant.

VR is more than the sum of its parts. The psychological tricks and effects it plays on your mind and how those tricks make you act physiologically, that's what makes VR a literal game changer.

To feel your stomach drop as you descend, at speed, in Rollercoaster VR, to feel genuine dread and terror from behind in Alien:Isolation, to fee awe and humulity when traversing the cosmos in a spaceship. These are the what seperates motion controllers and VR and that seperation is a chasm so large that it could only truely, fairly and wonderfully be viewed and appreciated in VR
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
42,335
5,107
1,665
Nice analogy.... NOT

How about this one. Xbox library was thin compared to PS4, imagine if some studios had to focus on VR...

So who's problem is that? Point is, a console maker can have VR work on their console "AND" have enough non-VR games to play for the average gamer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Three and Vawn

Dane

Member
Jul 16, 2019
415
269
235
It could, if you've never used VR or are wilfully ignorant.

VR is more than the sum of its parts. The psychological tricks and effects it plays on your mind and how those tricks make you act physiologically, that's what makes VR a literal game changer.

To feel your stomach drop as you descend, at speed, in Rollercoaster VR, to feel genuine dread and terror from behind in Alien:Isolation, to fee awe and humulity when traversing the cosmos in a spaceship. These are the what seperates motion controllers and VR and that seperation is a chasm so large that it could only truely, fairly and wonderfully be viewed and appreciated in VR
I did use once, and while it was interesting, I didn't make me interest enough to buy it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gashtronomy

Journey

Member
Aug 18, 2014
1,809
435
425
So who's problem is that? Point is, a console maker can have VR work on their console "AND" have enough non-VR games to play for the average gamer.

So what you're saying is, out of the 5 studios they recently purchased, you would be ok with 3 making regular games, and 2 making VR titles? In addition, resources to add more ram or more power to Scarlett be put towards R&D and hardware related to VR?

Personally I rather they NOT focus on VR and get even more games I want to play and give me the best Scarlett 🤷‍♂️


I'm happy with this decision, it makes sense to let 3rd party worry about R&D making the peripheral and 3rd party studios making the titles. MS does not need to invest any of their resources towards this, just allow 3rd party support.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Godzilla Emu

Vawn

Member
Feb 20, 2018
4,117
7,370
505
So what you're saying is, out of the 5 studios they recently purchased, you would be ok with 3 making regular games, and 2 making VR titles? In addition, resources to add more ram or more power to Scarlett be put towards R&D and hardware related to VR?

Personally I rather they NOT focus on VR and get even more games I want to play and give me the best Scarlett 🤷‍♂️


I'm happy with this decision, it makes sense to let 3rd party worry about R&D making the peripheral and 3rd party studios making the titles. MS does not need to invest any of their resources towards this, just allow 3rd party support.
Xbox gamers have been doing this forever. "Here's our reasons WHY Microsoft should have the most quality games." Then, it continually doesn't happen.
 

Gashtronomy

Member
Apr 19, 2019
2,809
3,609
400
Why does Microsoft, a company with heart and brain in the right place in regards to add-on peripherals, but severely lacking in execution*, have make a VR headset or make games for it?

I would like to imagine that one of the big VR houses, that are tethered to PC, which ironically run on Microsoft's own software, would like to free themselves and add an extra revenue stream within the console space while simultaneously competing with Sony, which, at this moment in time, own all of the market share for console VR.

*The exception being the Elite pad version 1, which is a phenomenal piece of equipment.
 

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
1,605
1,644
385
I think Sony is clawing to get Half life: Alyx on PS5 VR as we speak.

Almost no doubt that game will be recieved well, then at E3. "PS5 VR is the only console that will support Half Life Alyx."

That could huge going into next gen. For VR in general and Sony.

Gabe's response already eluded that he wanted it on "every headset he could get it."
 
Last edited:

Vawn

Member
Feb 20, 2018
4,117
7,370
505
I think Sony is clawing to get Half life: Alyx on PS5 VR as we speak.

Almost no doubt that game will be recieved well, then at E3. "PS5 VR is the only console that will support Half Life Alyx."

That could huge going into next gen. For VR in general and Sony.
That would be awesome. I'd love to play it, but I'm not planning on ever building another gaming PC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Romulus

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
42,335
5,107
1,665
I think Sony is clawing to get Half life: Alyx on PS5 VR as we speak.

Almost no doubt that game will be recieved well, then at E3. "PS5 VR is the only console that will support Half Life Alyx."

That could huge going into next gen. For VR in general and Sony.


Gabe's response already eluded that he wanted it on "every headset he could get it."
And this is what some Xbox gamers here are missing. It doesn't "have" to be a PS5 console exclusive.
 

Bodatan

Member
Nov 2, 2019
227
206
265
I think Sony is clawing to get Half life: Alyx on PS5 VR as we speak.

Almost no doubt that game will be recieved well, then at E3. "PS5 VR is the only console that will support Half Life Alyx."

That could huge going into next gen. For VR in general and Sony.

Gabe's response already eluded that he wanted it on "every headset he could get it."
And total amount of 500 fans bought after that since nobody gives a feck about VR other than those guys.
 

ChoosableOne

Neo Member
Dec 1, 2019
16
10
85
I have never tried VR, but super excited for PSVR 2. I think VR is a great tech. It will become mainstream when it's cheaper, nausea free, and got more great games. This is a big minus for Xbox brand. I hope these words won't generate memes. I can't forget playstation's video about game sharing:lollipop_beaming_smiling:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Romulus

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
1,605
1,644
385
I have never tried VR, but super excited for PSVR 2. I think VR is a great tech. It will become mainstream when it's cheaper, nausea free, and got more great games. This is a big minus for Xbox brand. I hope these words won't generate memes. I can't forget playstation's video about game sharing:lollipop_beaming_smiling:
You should definitely try it. It was nothing like what I imagined. Best buy usually has demo stations for Oculus and psvr.
 

quickwhips

Member
Jan 26, 2009
6,503
910
945
38
4.2 million for an accessory that can only be used by one person, built by a company in financial ruin, constructed using old bits knocking about Sony HQ that requires wires and a big square box to play?

Are these supposed to be bad numbers?
Nothing psvr has made me want to buy one. I think by ps6 people will finally have a game or games to make it worth while. Im glad they are sticking to trying though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gashtronomy

Bodatan

Member
Nov 2, 2019
227
206
265
The VR fans sound like LGBT activists in this thread, no matter how many shits you guys came up with, the actual stats and science don't lie about the fact of your biology. 😎
 

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
1,605
1,644
385
The VR fans sound like LGBT activists in this thread, no matter how many shits you guys came up with, the actual stats and science don't lie about the fact of your biology. 😎
How many "shits" they come up with? Doesn't even make sense. I hope your drunk, but you sound like that often.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: pr0cs

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
42,335
5,107
1,665
The VR fans sound like LGBT activists in this thread, no matter how many shits you guys came up with, the actual stats and science don't lie about the fact of your biology. 😎
WHOA! :pie_open_mouth: Do we have a bigot and a VR hater here all rolled into one? :pie_thinking:
 

Journey

Member
Aug 18, 2014
1,809
435
425
So who's problem is that? Point is, a console maker can have VR work on their console "AND" have enough non-VR games to play for the average gamer.

Xbox gamers have been doing this forever. "Here's our reasons WHY Microsoft should have the most quality games." Then, it continually doesn't happen.

Why is it so important to gamers for something to be the "Most" or the "Best" instead of just enjoying something that's good, what happened to choice or taste? 5 good titles here, I always wanted to get this game, but the META score on this one is higher, guess I'm just going with that one... Is it because historically you're only able to have one console and you have to make sure you choose the right one? Xbox has some good games, granted PlayStation has more, but they didn't start that way, they built that starting with just 3rd party support with the original PlayStation which I owned before it even reached the US and well before it created all you fanboys. The existence of PlayStation doesn't make Xbox bad. Xbox has come a long way since the original duke, and they may not have caught up to PlayStation, but with Xbox 360 they did come close at one point, back when Sony was making dumb decisions, then it was their turn to stumble with Xbox One, but it looks like they're turning it around and I'm eager to see what they bring with Scarlett, hard not to be excited as a gamer, competition is good. MS has a little niche that Xbox fans enjoy. It was a mistake to focus on Kinect and I think it would be a mistake to focus on VR. Support it? sure, but not focus on it, I'm cool with this approach.

The mentality of many of you here:
 
Last edited:

Karppuuna

Member
Nov 20, 2016
77
33
230
Everybody how has try good VR game know it's a great way to play games, it's totally different than flatscreen gaming, the immersion is truly another level.
I just finished Blood and Truth in PSVR and it's a fucking amazing experience and game, it feels like you are again a little kid in some really fancy arcade cabinet blasting everyone.

VR has 2 problems, some people get Motion sickness and marketing is super hard, because you have to try it to understand it.
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
42,335
5,107
1,665
That would require a lot of input and development from Oculus. Not outside the realm of possibility but it's well beyond a 100% Microsoft issue.
Wouldn't Oculus (Facebook) want to have this level of input and development though? It'll bring them millions of dollars per year.
 
Wouldn't Oculus (Facebook) want to have this level of input and development though? It'll bring them millions of dollars per year.
You'd think...
tbh coding for a nice closed and consistent platform like a console would be a lot easier than the wild west of pc specs. I'd love to see them do it but it would require a lot of coordination between ms (os level support of VR) and Oculus (porting drivers, libraries, store, etc) and I don't see either of them terribly interested.
 

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
42,335
5,107
1,665
You'd think...
tbh coding for a nice closed and consistent platform like a console would be a lot easier than the wild west of pc specs. I'd love to see them do it but it would require a lot of coordination between ms (os level support of VR) and Oculus (porting drivers, libraries, store, etc) and I don't see either of them terribly interested.
Clearly going by Phil's own words, Microsoft isn't interested at all! But Facebook would and should be interested. All 1st party games for the Xbox Scarlett, will be playable on PCs also so there's more incentive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gashtronomy

Mass Shift

Member
Jun 12, 2019
416
339
315
Clearly going by Phil's own words, Microsoft isn't interested at all! But Facebook would and should be interested. All 1st party games for the Xbox Scarlett, will be playable on PCs also so there's more incentive.
That's interesting, because right now Microsoft's stores are one of the few places where you can demo the Rift