Support NeoGAF

[bentanchorbolt]

Would I be happy if Xbox invest in VR? Sure, but they have a lot of ground to catch up on before pumping a ton of money into R&D on a VR device and greenlighting games when they've shown to have issues releasing normal games as is.

But also, we don't need a bunch of bespoke devices segmented behind walled gardens. Is their a marketspace big enough for Quest 2 and 3, Xbox VR, PS VR2, and then PC VR? I'm not thinking so and their resources would be better served in their current role.

 

[THE DUCK]

I think MS is making a mistake, but it's one they have to make. They don't really have any alternative. They don't have the bandwith to support a VR platform.

And it hurts them too - I wish they did care about VR and had their own headset. Because, as we see right now, Xbox is struggling sales wise compared to PS5. And why is that? Well, because PS5 is just a more appealing platform, and by adding PSVR2 to the mix it adds yet another reason for why it's a more appealing platform. It gives the PS5 console more value as an option gamers have just by having VR.

I don't know if Sony is making a profit on PSVR2, but I suspect they are given the price and the parts that are in there. Is it a massive profit? No, and I don't expect PSVR2 to be a massive profit driver for their overall business, but it will be a growing one, and they will continue to grow as VR grows. MS will just be late to the party. And being late to the party in gaming is usually a very bad thing.

That's actually a good point about the overall ecosystem being attractive, one place where you can get everything you want. If you really wanted VR right now you would have to accept crappy graphics (Quest 2) or buy a PC, or very soon the PS5. It is in fact one more feather that could push some towards it, even if they haven't jumped in yet and perhaps maybe never even buy a VR headset. Some of what often drives a new platform is that "feel of cutting edge" and also trends, which this feeds.

That said, the above does also lend to the idea that portable would increase that same notion - one more reason to buy Sony. Investing in a Sony machine would mean you would be covered in all areas, traditional gaming, portable gaming, and VR.

 

[mrmustard]

That's not realistic.
Meta has ZERO reasons to make a deal with MS.
Hardware is sold at a loss or tiny profit, nearly all the profit comes from software and selling games in Xbox store means giving MS a 30% cut. Why would they sign a deal to make less money than they are doing now?
With the Activision acquisition and jobs cuts I doubt MS would give the Xbox division money just to compensate Meta over an accessory with relatively small adoption rate just to say "we have vr too!".

Edit: Forgot about third parties... With those it would be even worse, Meta would get ZERO per game sale of those on the MS store, only MS would get its cut.

Quest was just an example. I don't think VR is successful enough to make Microsoft even think about it. But if they do, they can make any of the exisiting VRs compatible with the Series X.

 

[Danknugz]

it probably makes more sense for them to just keep publishing to the PC space and maybe including VR support for certain PC titles, leaving the hardware support to other vendors instead of taking up the whole nine yards of developing their own headset (ala Flight simulator) they also just lost tons of money on hololens so they are probably feeling the burn from that.

this decision was not MS having some kind of high level precognition/prescience about VR. they chose AR over VR due to greed and lost epically.

 

[reinking]

As a gamer, I wish they would have jumped into VR.

Would be glorious in VR...

Would have a console VR version....

Oh, hell yes.... ..or hell no, if you have arachnophobia...

Not to mention they were coming off of Kinect and had some experience with creating interactive media. I think they could have done a fantastic job iwth VR.

 

[PCFanboy64]

Yes but they need to support other manufacturers headsets and set minimum requirements games can match. There is a reason OpenVR already exists. Get more companies into it. The Quest 2 and similar cases where manufacturers are taking a loss set it up so you can connect them but have to pay a small price to make up for it. An example would be Quest 2 could be connected with a software purchase of $50 that will go to 'Meta'.

Single platform use is the main killer to me.

The XSX is now my main console and replaced my TV emulation PC but it has two missing factors. VR support for Virtual Boy emulators along with USB WiiMote adapters.

 

[DeepEnigma]

As a gamer, I wish they would have jumped into VR.

Would be glorious in VR...

Would have a console VR version....

Oh, hell yes.... ..or hell no, if you have arachnophobia...

Not to mention they were coming off of Kinect and had some experience with creating interactive media. I think they could have done a fantastic job iwth VR.

All of the above would be much more immersive with VR.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

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.

 

[Three]

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.

Based on what? I think MS knew they would be selling more S. They stock more S and they always show the S in marketing.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Probably not, VR2 will become the standard

Standard for who?

I don't think any company except maybe Samsung/Apple has any chance of being a standard.

Sony have done a decent job in my view. Just look at the money sunk in by facebook, it

For all we know Sony is losing money too and just haven't said anything, given that the whole industry seems to be low margin or loss leading when trying to sell more than a few thousand headsets.

 

[TheGreatMusashi]

Absolutely, VR is and will always be a hobbyist product. No bullshit meta-verse will make it a household product. Unless someone, somehow can develop proper software, find use cases, and convince businesses to start employing them and they become as common place as a laptop, it will never be the big business they want to be.

My honest opinion right now is that VR headsets are a good place to escape for an hour or so at a time, to get sweaty in, fog up, and adjust just right for your goober ass you fucking goob.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Based on what?

Based on direct quotes from Phil, and an engineer that worked on the consoles.

https://kotaku.com/xbox-boss-phil-s...init-1845392984/amp?__twitter_impression=true

“I think, over the generation, our expectation would be that price really matters and that you would see the Series S sell more,” Spencer told me.

 

[Three]

Based on direct quotes from Phil, and an engineer that worked on the consoles.

https://kotaku.com/xbox-boss-phil-s...init-1845392984/amp?__twitter_impression=true

??

You said
"Not to mention S wasn't expected to be leading in sales according to MS themselves"

Phil said:
“I think, over the generation, our expectation would be that price really matters and that you would see the Series S sell more,”

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

??

You said
"Not to mention S wasn't expected to be leading in sales according to MS themselves"

Phil said:
“I think, over the generation, our expectation would be that price really matters and that you would see the Series S sell more,”

Does Phil work for MS? Is he not the leader of Xbox?

As I said, S was not expected to be selling more in the beginning, but over the generation.

 

[Chronicle]

I think so. I don't think they need to focus on that now. Consoles just too under powered in my book. Focus on good games VR ain't going nowhere

 

[Three]

Does Phil work for MS? Is he not the leader of Xbox?

As I said, S was not expected to be selling more in the beginning, but over the generation.

He told you he expected the S to sell more. Why are you confused?

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

He told you he expected the S to sell more. Why are you confused?

Um, you're confused, that's literally what I SAID he said. That's why i quoted him lol

You seemed to have forgotten your first post, which was talking about the present saying Xbox was pushing S, which I replied by saying no, they aren't pushing X there's low X stock, and both of those aren't the same thing.

I brought up Phil saying that the S was supposed to be expected to lead overtime in the generation, to show that the S was not expected to be leasing CURRENTLY. Of course it is, showing that they were likely expecting X stock to improve by now, and it hasn't.

They better get production fixed soon though.

 

[Beechos]

Yeah def the right move. Vr has gone backwards since the orig announcement of
Vr support for the one x. Hoping the psvr 2 can move it foward again.

 

[Clintizzle]

I need them to focus on Jim Ryan to be honest. He is an absolute punishing wounder.

 

[SLB1904]

Standard for who?

I don't think any company except maybe Samsung/Apple has any chance of being a standard.



For all we know Sony is losing money too and just haven't said anything, given that the whole industry seems to be low margin or loss leading when trying to sell more than a few thousand headsets.

What even Samsung does in VR.
The only person mentioning Samsung is you. I've never ever in the sea of vr news or people that covers vr. Or any top 10 vr headset. Ever I mean ever mention Samsung. You are literally the only of all internet.

Lmfao

Edit: Holly shit I had to Google. You really pushing a 50 quid headset as standard. You can't be real. And for some reason apple will be standard when they aren't in the gaming business.

You are fuvking with me if these 2 companies will be standard in gaming over playstation. That's some next level lunatic shit.

 

[The Alien]

Correct business decision.

I play both PS and XBox - with X my primary.
I think PSVR2 looks awesome....and i really wish X was getting VR (at least allow 3rd party, etc )....but yeah, it's the correct decision.

Millions in R&D and support. Few 'killer apps' and limited games....and an oversturation of walking Sim BS.

VR isn't there yet, from a widely supported and widely demanded feature/peripheral. It just isn't. When it is, I'm sure X will b there.

 

[Markio128]

The only reason Sony can afford to invest in VR is because their gaming sector is managed competently.

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

VR still is a long way away from being mainstream viable imo. Whether Microsoft is "right" for not being involved depends on your view of how large you think VR will become in the next decade+ to where the rewards would be worth the risk. My guess (completely conjecture with no data to back it up) is that Microsoft is going to partner with one of the 3rd party headsets as the "official" Xbox headset in 5 or so years once the tech is better. So Microsoft "wins" if VR remains a fun side-experience and/or a good complement to traditional gaming, and they lose if VR overtakes traditional gaming as the primary way to play video games. I don't think the latter happens in the foreseeable future, so I think Microsoft is making the logical business decision (though once again, nothing to support this other than my opinion). And I don't think "lack of VR" is as big a system seller as some would say, there aren't likely many customers choosing Playstation over Xbox solely (or even primarily) because of VR support.

 

[Wulfer]

Better For MS to focus on total Console/PC gaming. Glad they made this move. (Coming from a VR supporter)

 

[SuperSaiyanWithDreads]

Ain’t Xbox/Microsoft a richer company than Sony… Sony gave gamers the option and took the chance, i appreciate that.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

The only person mentioning Samsung is you. I've never ever in the sea of vr news or people that covers vr.

Samsungs announcement for VR was all over the news for days since their event, and also had a thread here.

So you haven't been paying much attention to VR news really.

Edit: Holly shit I had to Google. You really pushing a 50 quid headset as standard.

Samsung hasn't announced any price yet.

You can't be real. And for some reason apple will be standard when they aren't in the gaming business.

You are fuvking with me if these 2 companies will be standard in gaming over playstation. That's some next level lunatic shit.

Neither is Facebook and they are the standard and leader in VR right now.

You're fumbling all over the place.

 

[SLB1904]

Samsungs announcement for VR was all over the news for days since their event, and also had a thread here.

So you haven't been paying much attention to VR news really.



Samsung hasn't announced any price yet.



Neither is Facebook and they are the standard and leader in VR right now.

You're fumbling all over the place.

Wtf you even on about them.
I Google Samsung vr and I got the 50 quid attached to phone crap.

The only thing have being doing is watching vr related videos from every major vr YouTube channel. And absolutely no one is mentioning samsung vr.
Literally no one.

Why now you switch to Facebook as standard like some kinda revelation. We know quest is standard for gaming right now. (Not for long lol)
You the one who brought up Samsung and apple instead. Both which have no saying about gaming lmfao. Which won't probably be about gaming
And I'm the one who's fumbling.
Have some shame

 

[Three]

Um, you're confused, that's literally what I SAID he said. That's why i quoted him lol

You seemed to have forgotten your first post, which was talking about the present saying Xbox was pushing S, which I replied by saying no, they aren't pushing X there's low X stock, and both of those aren't the same thing.

Yes, because they are currently pushing S. That's the reason there is low X stock, they aren't manufacturing as many. It's them not doing it. Marketing is also always the S.

I brought up Phil saying that the S was supposed to be expected to lead overtime in the generation, to show that the S was not expected to be leasing CURRENTLY. Of course it is, showing that they were likely expecting X stock to improve by now, and it hasn't.

2.2years isn't considered 'launch'. They expected it to be leading currently.

 

[dano1]

Yes 100% correct call to drop VR. While people love to mock xbox for literally anything, MS is in a good spot currently. They have a healthy number of titles in development. Once those titles start to release next year it will be a nice steady feed of games. VR would have been an unneeded distraction in my opinion.

May as well. Probably not doing another console anyway.

 

[Reallink]

Wtf you even on about them.
I Google Samsung vr and I got the 50 quid attached to phone crap.

The only thing have being doing is watching vr related videos from every major vr YouTube channel. And absolutely no one is mentioning samsung vr.
Literally no one.

Why now you switch to Facebook as standard like some kinda revelation. We know quest is standard for gaming right now. (Not for long lol)
You the one who brought up Samsung and apple instead. Both which have no saying about gaming lmfao. Which won't probably be about gaming
And I'm the one who's fumbling.
Have some shame

The big announcement was just a vague reference to some Google/Samsung XR Android partnership that may one day see some half assed cobbled together headset that costs about the same as Apple's, has no software support, and 1/3rd the processing power by virtue of being saddled with a Failcom Snapdragon against a 3nm M3.

 

[SLB1904]

The big announcement was just a vague reference to some Google/Samsung XR Android partnership that may one day see some half assed cobbled together headset that costs about the same as Apple's, has no software support, and 1/3rd the processing power by virtue of being saddled with a Failcom Snapdragon against a 3nm M3.

Thank you for making me not look like crazy

 

[Benniewise de Clown]

Quest was just an example. I don't think VR is successful enough to make Microsoft even think about it. But if they do, they can make any of the exisiting VRs compatible with the Series X.

This doesn't make sense after HoloLens.

 

[Wonko_C]

A few days ago Microsoft let go 10000 employees, including the WMR team, so I guess MS is really done with VR as of now.

 

[TBiddy]

A few days ago Microsoft let go 10000 employees, including the WMR team, so I guess MS is really done with VR as of now.

Which is good. VR is a vaste of resources, if you ask me.

 

[Physiognomonics]

Back when Xbox "Scorpio" was announced marketed almost entirely as a new console to restore the Xbox One Brand and relaunch it like new, there was a spec sheet that included all the features that Scorpio would support, including high-fidelity VR.

Then they removed it before the Xbox One X (the real name) launched.

Since VR returned in 2014 it had been slow to really gain ground after early excitement, Poorly implemented Mobile VR headsets, let by Samsung where the only one making ground, and then once that died it grew slowly then stagnated until the Quest. The Quest was achieving interest that wasn't though possible for VR, and with the Quest 2 Facebook broke through and were able to sell almost 15 million headsets by now. but software is still not where it needs to be, and the experience is still lukewarm.

The PSVR, the only console VR that was relevant, as Labo flopped and I'm sure everyone here forgot that existed, only managed to sell 5 million units in 6 years and most of that was earlier in its lifespan. The PSVR2 is better but is cutting off PSVR1 users, and will split Sony's resources, which is already being stretched with a new PC and mobile department.

Give where VR is now (excluding the Quest 2) do you think Microsoft was right to drop VR from Xbox to focus more on console gaming, BC, and various software services and updates? Or do you think that they should still try their hand at VR for Xbox Series consoles?

Then they removed it before the Xbox One X (the real name) launched.

Microsoft "removed" nothing at all. From the start if was a big PR lie (from Phil the seller obviously) in order to fight against Pro + PSVR hype. You don't improvise the release of a VR headset + games and such. It takes years, if not decade, of commitment.

The aim was to make some of the potential X1X customers wait for that box, even some that were very interested into Pro. The whole co-marketing with Digital Foundry (with constant articles, 6tf > 4tf etc) for one year before the release of the X1X was about that.

 

[diffusionx]

Which is good. VR is a vaste of resources, if you ask me.

It bums me out to see people who ostensibly enjoy video games say this. The history of vidya evolution is 2D->3D->VR. It’s the next step. It’s not a waste of resources at all. The problem is that we are basically stuck in the 3DO/Jaguar world of mediocrity and lack of advancement right now.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Microsoft "removed" nothing at all.

I meant literally removed it from the slide, the 2nd pic went down, I'm replacing it.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

The big announcement was just a vague reference to some Google/Samsung XR Android partnership

It's already been worked on with Google and Qualcomm, Samsung didn't announce that the headset just started development.

But go ahead and underestimate the competition.

Wtf you even on about them.
I Google Samsung vr and I got the 50 quid attached to phone crap.

It's telling you won't even look up the announcement or the thread here. Nope sorry.

You can keep saying you are looking at VR news but you aren't you aren't searching either, it's easy to find the announcement is all over the place.

Yes, because they are currently pushing S. That's the reason there is low X stock,

They are pushing the S because there is no X stock. You are trolling and arguing nonsense.

We even got a warning before the holidays there wouldn't be enough supply to meet demand there's a thread here on it.

You even got a direct quote from Phil.

2.2years isn't considered 'launch'. They expected it to be leading currently.

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.

it's clear MS thought the X would lead from their own mouth but things changed due to production, the fact they haven't still gotten that fixed by now shows they things have not gone to plan.

Thank you for making me not look like crazy

He literally found the information 9and then fabricated what it said) that you said DIDN"'T EXIST and COULDN'T FIND ANYWHERE.

So if anything he didn't do anything for you.

 

[lukilladog]

It bums me out to see people who ostensibly enjoy video games say this. The history of vidya evolution is 2D->3D->VR. It’s the next step. It’s not a waste of resources at all. The problem is that we are basically stuck in the 3DO/Jaguar world of mediocrity and lack of advancement right now.

The thing with Evolution in general is that it has no guidance or goals... if people just prefer playing on a 2d screen, the evolution of visual technology will continue on that path. Nvidia's 3d vision was pretty good, but it's history now, kicked out of existence by evolution itself.

 

[Three]

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.

No but you took a quote that said we expect series X to sell mostly at launch and ran away with it suggesting they didn't expect to sell more S currently.

it's clear MS thought the X would lead from their own mouth but things changed due to production, the fact they haven't still gotten that fixed by now shows they things have not gone to plan.

And that's what I'm calling bullshit on and you have a quote showing they expected Series S to lead sales as proof. Which is frankly bizarre.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

No but you took a quote that said we expect series X to sell mostly at launch and ran away with it suggesting they didn't expect to sell more S currently.

Because the didn't, they were expecting the S to sell more OVER THE GENERATION.

Which is from the quote yet that part you have for some reason omitted.

showing they expected Series S to lead sales as proof. Which is frankly bizarre.

You're really going to keep putting the foot in?

Phil said:
“I think, over the generation, our expectation would be that price really matters and that you would see the Series S sell more"

S has been leading since near launch. They clearly were not expecting that, or X production to be bad this long, stop it.


And the bottom line is you're claim the X is being sidelines to Push the S is false, they are pushing the S because there isn't enough X to push, they are also the only console makers to have not made a report yet saying that supply has improved and shortages are over which Sony and Nintendo both did, the latter recently.

 

[Three]

Because the didn't, they were expecting the S to sell more OVER THE GENERATION.

Look, you said:

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.

I asked based on what and your reply was "MS expected the series S to sell more over the generation". Over the generation is now or any time even. Your arbitrary point when you think that starts happening is irrelevant. We're 2.2yrs in.

S has been leading since near launch. They clearly were not expecting that, or X production to be bad this long, stop it.


And the bottom line is you're claim the X is being sidelines to Push the S is false, they are pushing the S because there isn't enough X to push, they are also the only console makers to have not made a report yet saying that supply has improved and shortages are over which Sony and Nintendo both did, the latter recently.

Who do you think determines stock numbers between X and S other than MS themselves? They make a bigger loss on Series X than Series S and S is only digital. Which do you think they will favour and push? The fact that both Nintendo and Sony don't seem to be having trouble with supply but the 2 trillion dollar company does for one SKU should tell you everything you need to know about why there are fewer X out there over S.

The Series X may not be available in stores but it's available from MS directly which again points to supply but trying to increase margins on it and simplify inventory/distribution to the just the S where people are more likely to just pick it up while in store.

So I stick by what I said. They are pushing the S and not producing as much X. It's MS doing that, nobody else.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Look, you said:

I asked based on what and your reply was "MS expected the series S to sell more over the generation". Over the generation is now or any time even. Your arbitrary point when you think that starts happening is irrelevant. 2.2yrs not enough?

You seem to be purposefully omitting your own original post from this convo, as well as the one you responded to and mine,

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 was Duck talking about the thread, and the whole thing with Xbox One X removing it at launch, and the fact the Series didn't launch with it either.

In response to this you were saying it would be hard to do because they were "pushing the S" instead.

I said that the reason for the S being pushed right now is not because they were pushing it over the X, but that the X had low stock, and brought up that the X was supposed to be doing better and the S wasn't supposed to be leading in sales, to illustrate that the "stock issue must have really messed things up"

There's nothing confusing here at all. I'm sure youa re aware of this.

They make a bigger loss on Series X than Series S

Now you're just making things up without any information, which wasn't even relevant to the conversation.

Fact is X is low stock, before the holiday quarter Xbox said there wouldn't be enough stock, so there's no controversy around the X having low stock. Nintendo and Sony announcing the shortages are over and MS not goes right in line with the stock issues that were already stated.

The only sure thing is that Microsoft needs to Fi the X issue, not just because it's cutting XBS sales in general downward, but the S can't cover for the people who want the X or PS5 tier hardware, or who want physical. S can only sell so much as we saw this holiday.

 

[wolffy71]

Until they fix a large portion of people getting motion sickness from VR, it's gonna be nothing more than a waste of time and money.

 

[Three]

You seem to be purposefully omitting your own original post from this convo, as well as the one you responded to and mine,


The context was Duck talking about the thread, and the whole thing with Xbox One X removing it at launch, and the fact the Series didn't launch with it either.

In response to this you were saying it would be hard to do because they were "pushing the S" instead.

Yes? I'm saying considering that the majority of their sales are Series S this would be difficult because the VR install base on an already small install base would be difficult with only X support.

I said that the reason for the S being pushed right now is not because they were pushing it over the X, but that the X had low stock, and brought up that the X was supposed to be doing better and the S wasn't supposed to be leading in sales, to illustrate that the "stock issue must have really messed things up"

There's nothing confusing here at all. I'm sure youa re aware of this.

The X had low stock because MS decide how much stock to manufacture between X and S. Nobody determines Series S vs Series X stock other than MS themselves.

Now you're just making things up without any information, which wasn't even relevant to the conversation.

Fact is X is low stock, before the holiday quarter Xbox said there wouldn't be enough stock, so there's no controversy around the X having low stock. Nintendo and Sony announcing the shortages are over and MS not goes right in line with the stock issues that were already stated.

The only sure thing is that Microsoft needs to Fi the X issue, not just because it's cutting XBS sales in general downward, but the S can't cover for the people who want the X or PS5 tier hardware, or who want physical. S can only sell so much as we saw this holiday.

The fact that MS made it clear they had low stock for X before the holidays doesn't mean there is "an issue" to fix. I'm saying they determined it based on losses and decided that supplying more S is beneficial. I don't see how that's not relevant.

 

[Physiognomonics]

I meant literally removed it from the slide, the 2nd pic went down, I'm replacing it.

Yes I obviously get that. I should have used "dropped its vr plans" instead.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

The X had low stock because MS decide how much stock to manufacture between X and S

X had low stock because or productions issues and shortages, same as Sony before recently. You're trying to make an excuse up.

The fact that MS made it clear they had low stock for X before the holidays doesn't mean there is "an issue" to fix. I'm saying they determined it based on losses and decided that supplying more S is beneficial. I don't see how that's not relevant.

It's not relevant because it's made u with nothing to back it.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Yes I obviously get that. I should have used "dropped its vr plans" instead.

I get that they wanted to sell the Scorpio by any means necessary even with inflated hype, I mean they had T-shirts etc and never showed a headset, but I was only specifically talking about whether or not if MS was right to drop even considering VR in hindsight. As in if it was the right decision to not pay it more attention than the temporary hype they gave it in the first announcement.

 

[RickMasters]

As a gamer, I wish they would have jumped into VR.

Would be glorious in VR...

Would have a console VR version....

Oh, hell yes.... ..or hell no, if you have arachnophobia...

Not to mention they were coming off of Kinect and had some experience with creating interactive media. I think they could have done a fantastic job iwth VR.

I agree. I would have loved to played forza and flight simiulator in VR on xbox. plus that would have given xbox gamers access to al sorts of VR games that are out there. For racing games and mech games I would have loved VR. but they are still pricey for an accessory I guess. maybe next gen if sony manage to amke VR a common place thing in console gaming it will encourage MS to atleast partner with occulus or something

 

[Three]

X had low stock because or productions issues and shortages, same as Sony before recently. You're trying to make an excuse up.

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? Because it was more expensive and not as beneficial.

Even in the height of the shortage who do you think determined how many Series S vs Series X to manufacture? How comes Sony were able to manufacture PS5s to outnumber both X and S combined throughout all this? MS chose how many X to supply and the chip shortage had them pushing more S because it was beneficial to them. Even now I would say cost is what makes them do it.

It's not relevant because it's made u with nothing to back it.

If you say so.