Support NeoGAF

[Eddie-Griffin]

You're the one making an excuse. Both Sony and Nintendo secured chips fine why couldn't the trillion dollar company and for one specific SKU only?

We have you pushing speculation as fact, and we have actual words from the source.

What if maybe there's another production issue? What if there's something else going on? If it was just that X was more costly why would they WARN ahead of the holidays they could not PRODUCE enough stock to meet demand during the holiday quarter? That type of lie doesn't make sense and has no benefit other than to (if it wasn't true) make Phil look dishonest and to run in the turnaround branding of the Xbox, which doesn't make sense.

I mean it's an interesting opinion, but you're directly trying to push it as a common fact that happened as is.

Not to mention S was already plentiful, there are still holiday packages on sales at stores from the last quarter too, so they clearly over produced S's, and they were all at reduced prices, so that kind of flies int he face of the "it's more affordable" argument with the S having lower margins and more deals during holiday quarter than the S along with whatever games, and gift cards.

 

[Three]

We have you pushing speculation as fact, and we have actual words from the source.

I've pushed nothing as fact except the fact that MS expected to sell more Series S, and they did. You pushed your own speculation as fact by suggesting they didn't expect this and 'over the generation' means some time which isn't now.

What if maybe there's another production issue? What if there's something else going on? If it was just that X was more costly why would they WARN ahead of the holidays they could not PRODUCE enough stock to meet demand during the holiday quarter?

Because they might have already set their inventory amounts based on cost already? Because advertising that fact makes people go out and buy it too?

Why does it have to be a production issue that neither Nintendo nor Sony are having? Why is your reasoning of a production issue any less speculation than mine?

That type of lie doesn't make sense and has no benefit other than to (if it wasn't true) make Phil look dishonest and to run in the turnaround branding of the Xbox, which doesn't make sense.

why does it have to be a lie? It's not a lie but we clearly don't agree who's at fault for setting the amount of stock for Series X. You seem to think it's some "issue" outside of MS' control. I don't. They could have supplied more X than S. Sony does more PS5' than both S and X and Nintendo outsold both too.

Phil like always was vague and didn't give a reason why there is low stock. Besides you say nobody wants to appear dishonest like we don't have lies from execs.

I mean it's an interesting opinion, but you're directly trying to push it as a common fact that happened as is.

Again nothing is being pushed as fact. I guess you're trying to push your idea that the amount of Series X manufactured is something outside of MS' control when others are able to produce more stock than the second biggest company on the planet without a problem.

Not to mention S was already plentiful, there are still holiday packages on sales at stores from the last quarter too, so they clearly over produced S's, and they were all at reduced prices, so that kind of flies int he face of the "it's more affordable" argument with the S having lower margins and more deals during holiday quarter than the S along with whatever games, and gift cards.

You seem to mix up S and X a lot when responding but I have no idea what you're saying here since it's interchangeable and not obvious. They produced a lot of Series S for the holidays and cut prices to win the holiday sales and black friday. What relevance does the fact that they overproduced them have? It's easier to cut prices on something you're losing less money on than one you're not so I'm not sure what argument it flies in the face of.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

I've pushed nothing as fact except the fact that MS expected to sell more Series S,

Ok, you're trolling at this point, Phil quote was clear that he was talking about over the generation, X has been having supply issues form the start.

 

[Three]

Ok, you're trolling at this point, Phil quote was clear that he was talking about over the generation, X has been having supply issues form the start.

Are you trolling? So define 'over the generation' then. When was it expected to start selling more based on your unfounded ideas pushed as facts?

 

[hussar16]

Issue with vr was it blew off a bit at begining but it was very low quality so people moved on and now don't want to try it again even if it's better after the first bad experience because of trust issues. I'm not sold on ps5 vr because of the high price,the last ps vr experience being low quality and the cable that is attached to headset

 

[Kokoloko85]

Yes for now. Focus on what you are doing. But I see them eventually joining in, just like Nintendo

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Are you trolling? So define 'over the generation' then. When was it expected to start selling more based on your unfounded ideas pushed as facts?

I know you have poor reading comprehension issues here (if not straight trolling which I fully believe) but Phils quote was crystal clear that he wasn't expecting the S to lead from the start, which it did.

All your speculation isn't fact. You're guessing about ONE possible reason that also just happens to contradict his quote.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Issue with vr was it blew off a bit at begining but it was very low quality so people moved on and now don't want to try it again even if it's better after the first bad experience because of trust issues. I'm not sold on ps5 vr because of the high price,the last ps vr experience being low quality and the cable that is attached to headset

Actually many came back for Quest 2. Which was after MobileVR died, and proper decent headsets at a low-cost with wireless and the option to be standalone or hooked up started a new novelty of interest.

The question is can TCL, Quest 3, PSVR2, and such do that a 3rd time? Can Apple/Samsung do that a third time?

That's the real question. You only have so many times to make that impression over a big number of potential consumers. So far the experience is sub-par experiences that were cool for a minute that would drop in support and not hold interest.

Quest had the longest shelf-life so far, but can VR last longer? Can Sony, HTC, Apple, Samsung, TCL, etc that are coming out with headsets able to interest consumers, hook them, and give them the support needed to keep them interested for 1.5 years, 2 years, 3 years?

 

[Three]

I know you have poor reading comprehension issues here (if not straight trolling which I fully believe) but Phils quote was crystal clear that he wasn't expecting the S to lead from the start, which it did.

I like the way you changed 'launch' to 'from the start' while simultaneously saying in a previous post that nobody mentioned launch. I think you have poor reading comprehension mate and don't understand what I'm saying:

I didn't say launch anywhere in what you quoted Instead of pretending like you can't understand something simple, why not admit you learned something you didn't know instead of making up things like "they are pushing the X" instead of the truth that "there aren't enough X's.

All your speculation isn't fact. You're guessing about ONE possible reason that also just happens to contradict his quote.

No it doesn't contradict his quote at all but keep going with the reading failure.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

I like the way you changed 'launch' to 'from the start' while simultaneously saying in a previous post that nobody mentioned launch.

Troll confirmed, https://www.neogaf.com/threads/was-...-for-xbox-in-hindsight.1641938/post-267509391

You're trying to nitpick and move the goal posts.

His post was clear, he had the "expectation" the S would sell more "over the generation" because "price matters", it's incredibly clear. I'm sorry that you hate MS so much you have to keep pushing these theories not based on anything fact, including acting like we factually know about how much the devices cost to make, with no data. But it's just a game machine at the end of the day, you don't need to do all that.

Also I didn't say anything about a launch. The quote you posted was me telling you the word "launch" was not in the post from me you QUOTED, which is true

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/was-...ox-in-hindsight.1641938/page-7#post-267511089

As the word "launch" was not in either quote you responded to. So you seem to be embellishing here.

Again, it's fine that you believe MS has put the X aside to the S, and are intentionally underproducing the X, Even with MS saying they can't meet demand they tried to meet, which doesn't make sense, and that the X is losing a ton of money and it's too difficult to make, and loses more than the S, with no data. That's fine.

But that's speculation, nothing confirmed, not fact.

 

[Three]

Troll confirmed, https://www.neogaf.com/threads/was-...-for-xbox-in-hindsight.1641938/post-267509391

You're trying to nitpick and move the goal posts.

His post was clear, he had the "expectation" the S would sell more "over the generation" because price matters" it's incredibly clear. I'm sorry that you hate MS so much you have to keep pushing your conspiracy theories not based on anything facts, including acting like we factually know about how much the devices cost to make, with no data. But it's just a game machine at the end of the day, you don't need to do all that.

What goalpost has been moved? Still haven't answered the question, when do you think "over the generation" starts kicking in? Still haven't said what's contradictory about Phil's quote either.

I'm sorry that you fail to realise MS themselves dictate the ratio of Series S vs X they have produced over these 2.2yrs based on cost and demand securing that inventory. Your speculation of a phantom unspecified "problem" that's out of their control is obviously gospel truth.

Edit: You edited your post to add more. I said 2.2yrs isn't launch and there is no reason to believe MS doesn't expect Series S to sell more than X currently. You said nobody mentioned launch then subsequently used the phrase "from the start" to refer to launch anyway. Then you had the audacity to question the reading comprehension of others.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

You said nobody mentioned launch then subsequently used the phrase "from the start" to refer to launch anyway.

Are you really going to pull this?

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/was-...-for-xbox-in-hindsight.1641938/post-267523753

As I said in this post, you were clearly trying to take an old post out of context. What actually happened is I said I never used the word "launch" in the post you quoted back then, and as I linked, I was right as it wasn't in either quote you made in that post.

Your post on this page quotes me saying "I didn't say launch anywhere in what you quoted" which was referring to you bringing it up without the word being in the quotes you made early in the discussion. What's funny is when I said I didn't say launch in those quotes, you replied "No but" after that admitting that yes, I was right and didn't use that word. Now you're pretending I talked about launch in a recent post, and trying to start a whole new argument, not happening.

when do you think "over the generation" starts kicking in?

Because it's irrelevant, it's a goal post moving question that has nothing to do with anything other than you trying to escape accountability for misreading Phils quote and my original response, making your 2.2 year post completely pointless. I don't know why you keep digging your hole deeper when the post chain is clear as day,

I don't think it was a mistake especially considering sales figures to date, however I am still shocked that they didn't partner with a company like meta to at least support it.
I mean how hard would it really have been to have Series X support the quest 2 and allow developers to make vr games?

Considering they are pushing Series S, very difficult.

Low X stock =/= pushing S, but you know this of course.

Not to mention S wasn't expected to be leading in sales according to MS themselves, so the stock issue must have really messed things up.

The context again, and this is the last time since I've already said this quoting this same chain you intentionally skipped over, believing you may have forgot, but now it's clear you're being intentionally deceptive, that the conversation was about Xbox NOT launching One X or Series VR, or partnering with VR.

You responded to someone posting IN THAT context, that such a partnership would be difficult because they are pushing the X, as you have explained, as the main console.

I told you, correctly, that Low X stock was the reason why the S is pushed around more, even after that discussing MS talking about not meeting demand and producing enough for the holiday quarter, which btw demolishes your theory about them intentionally not producing stock because then making that statement would be a PR issue. The Low X sales is why they pushed the S hard, including the discounts during the holiday quarter (which you have omitted from your speculation that the X is losing more money than the S)

Then I brought up the fact that the S was not expected to be leading sales according to MS, and that the lack of production must have really messed things up for them since the S is still leading. This is incredibly obvious from this chain of posts, as well as the follow-ups before you tried shifting posts.

The X stock issue has been from the start, yes, it clearly has messed up MS expectations based on their own words. The fact the X production still isn't resolved is a problem, and shows that their expectations was tattered. Everything else is you playing word games by removing lines out of context. There's no 2.2 years or anything involved here, that's just you trying to save face because you didn't read the quote accurately.

This has now been explained to you twice, and the chain above is not edited and is clearly not deniable in terms of its context. So that will end your circles now have a nice day.

 

[AGRacing]

I wish Meta and Microsoft would collaborate to bring VR games to Xbox playable on Quest series headsets via the link cable. Meta gets a cut of Microsoft's usual take on VR game sales.

Should be *relatively* low effort to convert PC games. Some already work properly on PC with Quest through game pass (Tetris effect is an example).

 

[Three]

Because it's irrelevant, it's a goal post moving question that has nothing to do with anything other than you trying to escape accountability for misreading Phils quote and my original response, making your 2.2 year post completely pointless. I don't know why you keep digging your whole deeper when the post chain is clear as day,

It's not a goalpost moving question at all when you're suggesting that currently (2.2yrs in) MS did not expect S to be leading in sales. so I'm asking you when you think they expected it based on the "over the generation" which you seem to interpret as whatever the hell you like. So why is now not that time and when do you think it is that MS expected S to outsell X.

You responded to someone posting IN THAT context, such a partnership would ne difficult because they are pushing the X, as you have explained, as the main console.

Man, stop mixing up X and S all the time. I said they are pushing the S so they're less likely to get VR support. They are producing and selling more series S than X, and S is not well suited to VR. that's the context. I also believe they intentionally sold more S as it is cheaper for them to create more units of it than Series X. Even ignoring the fact that most stock and marketing has been the S and who's responsible for that, why do you not at least follow the discussion?

I told you correctly, that Low X stock was the reason why the S is coming around, even after discussing MS talking about not meeting demand and producing enough for the holiday quarter, which btw demolishes your theory about them intentionally not producing stock because then making that statement would be a PR issue. The Low X sales is why they pushed the S hard, including the discounts during the holiday quarter (which you have omitted from your speculation that the X is losing more money than the S)

Why would an allocated amount of loss leader products being advertised as not meeting demand for the holidays demolish the theory that they produced a low amount of it compared to another because it was more costly? Still haven't answered that question either. Don't expect you to considering how this conversation is going.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

It's not a goalpost moving question at all when you're suggesting that currently (2.2yrs in) MS did not expect S to be leading in sales.

That's not what I suggested at all. I gave you the context, twice, sorry but at this point your bad faith circulars are nothing more than you shifting words around. The context is clear, your 2.2 years and the other stuff is fluff you manufactured. Then to save face from your mistake in not understanding Phils quote, and getting caught messing with my quotes, you're now trying and failing to pretend you have valid questions, even though you don't since the premise is manufactured.

And your speculation about X intentionally undershipping X (despite MS PR), and X losing MS more money than S (despite the holiday S deals you forgot about) is also fine. BUT, it's not fact, you have no data, it's speculation. So it's doesn't make sense to present it that way.

 

[Three]

That's not what I suggested at all. I gave you the context, twice sorry, but at this point you're the bad faith circles are nothing more than you shifting words around.

And your speculation about X intentionally undershipping X (despite MS PR), and X losing MS more money than S (despite the holiday S deals you forgot about) is also fine. BUT, it's not fact, you have no data, it's speculation. So it's doesn't make sense to present it that way

Back to the "facts" thing that's already been addressed? It's almost like you don't know the meaning of the words you use. You and I both used the word "theory", now would you like to actually answer the question as to how it demolishes that theory or are you going to keep splitting hairs and crying about how I'm somehow presenting speculation as fact whereas your speculation about a production issue is gospel.

 

[Henry Panic]

Firstly, anyone who believes Microsoft doesn't want to make more Series X is lost, as there's been news on that issue for over two years now. Phil is just incompetent, almost everything he promises ends up false later.

Secondly the answer is yes. VR is a dead market. Those early headsets got attention then everyone stopped buying them. Quest 2 got lucky and has been the only headset to sell over 1M in over two years and is now collecting dust.

All reasons for consumers to come back to VR have been exhausted. The new VR coming out soon all are promoting the same software people were not buying or lost interest in, with the hardware all having the same turnoffs.

I don't think a single company has made net profit on VR except the Index, and that's because they didn't produce many knowing they had a small audience. Microsoft loses and spends enough money as is on Xbox.

Imagine Nadella seeing the same loses as Zuck. Xbox would end on the spot.

 

[MALpractice311]

Yes, Microsoft was right to drop VR for three major reasons. The first two are from a larger market standpoint and the third is Microsoft exclusive.

First, VR is never going to happen until the technology is as small and lightweight as a cell phone. Mainstream audiences are not going to engage with these gigantic headsets.

Second, the price is not going to attract mainstream audiences. That could change if VR headsets were priced at a fad level, say $200, but even if VR was that cheap, mainstream audiences would treat it like the Wii; a fad they would play two to three times and then put in the closet, never to be used again.

Third, Microsoft has proven time and again, despite all of their acquisitions, that they can't manage enough first party software to support a traditional gaming console. How are they supposed to do that and VR at the same time?

 

[VolticArchangel]

They took the safest route of seeing what the competitors are doing, and I don't blame them for that. They learnt their lesson from the "TV TV TV" X1 reveal garbage that broke their userbase in half, destroyed their reputation for an entire generation and handed them (consumers) over back to PlayStation where they came from during the 360 gen, migrating from their PS2's.

Sure, some bad PR here and there for those marketing materials that they promised might be a bad look, but not a generation killer like forced kinect hardware was to Xbox One. Imagine forced VR Series X|S bundles being the only ones available. Literally no one would touch them with a ten foot pole, even with gamepass included.

This is all before investing billions into a proprietary HMD, and then recouping those R&D $$$ in the form of $500-$600 dedicated hardware, on top of a console purchase, especially during the times of global recession? Yeah, no, bad idea. They could have enabled 3rd party HMD's though and maybe some ports, especially on current gen consoles, and I'm sure Valve would have provided driver support for Index and even ported over Alyx too considering the relationship that they have now...

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

and handed them (consumers) over back to PlayStation where they came from during the 360 gen, migrating from their PS2's.

This didn't happen until after early Xbox One, early part driven by Mattrick was successful, then that ended when Phil started taking effect.

From the looks of things that's about to happen again too if Phil doesn't shape up with X production and get more consistent big games out. 2022 was pretty bad.

 

[IbizaPocholo]

Microsoft Could be Working on its Own VR Device

A new patent filed by Microsoft reveals that the company could be working on its own virtual reality technology to compete with the Sony PS VR2.

gamerant.com

Microsoft has filed a new patent for a self-calibrating eye tracking system that could potentially be used as part of a future VR headset.
The patent describes a system that can self-calibrate and compensate for deformations or changes to the device, which could form part of an intuitive and user-friendly VR system.
The patent could simply be an improvement to Microsoft Hololens, but it is likely that Microsoft wants to be competitive in the VR space as it gains traction in the mainstream gaming market.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Microsoft Could be Working on its Own VR Device

A new patent filed by Microsoft reveals that the company could be working on its own virtual reality technology to compete with the Sony PS VR2.

gamerant.com

Microsoft has filed a new patent for a self-calibrating eye tracking system that could potentially be used as part of a future VR headset.
The patent describes a system that can self-calibrate and compensate for deformations or changes to the device, which could form part of an intuitive and user-friendly VR system.
The patent could simply be an improvement to Microsoft Hololens, but it is likely that Microsoft wants to be competitive in the VR space as it gains traction in the mainstream gaming market.

If I'm not mistaken, I think that patent is 4-5 years old.

 

[aries_71]

Yes, drop those gadgets, public doesn’t really want them. They already tried with Kinect and saw that nobody was using it.