This is a terribly bold and terribly uninformed prediction.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Phil Spencer "VR is not a focus of Project Scarlett because our customers aren't asking for it."
- Thread starter MauroNL
- Start date
User warned: antagonizing another member, accusations of shilling
no one. bcat often posts false info and shills for MS no matter the thread.
Yes there is value in that. The value is specifically 5 million PSVRs for every 100+million consoles. Corporations deal in opportunity costs though and the big companies will always focus on what makes more money. VR can be cool and mind blowing, but it's not at the point now where everyone will go all in. The return isn't there right now.
It's way too early to announce anything along the lines of "VR is set to expand rapidly once the price/performance/software stars line up".
We don't know that yet. Maybe VR will explode. Maybe it won't. I don't think it will, but that doesn't mean I'm not very cautious when handling such predictions. At this stage, I think it's safe to say the current batch of VR devices aren't lined up to be mainstream, at least.
I already admitted that I was wrong about that, but thanks for the console warring attack on me personally there.
Nintendo sold 75 million 3DS worldwide according to this:
IR Information : Sales Data - Dedicated Video Game Sales Units
www.nintendo.co.jp
(Switch is over 40 million btw)
It still sold 6.4 million 3DS in 2018 if this source is correct (Switched launched in 2017):
Nintendo 3DS sales worldwide 2011-2021 | Statista
In the 2021 financial year which ended in March 2021, Nintendo sold 170 thousand 3DS consoles, down from 690 thousand units sold in the year prior.www.statista.com
I don't give two fucks about the Vita, but saying the handheld market is contracting immensely, while technically correct, is still disingenuous.
Handheld consoles are still doing great, "hybrid" or not, they're just not on the level of the DS golden age anymore.
So... I'm right but disingenuous? Wtf...
You literally admit its past the "golden age of the DS" so... it's literally contracting immensely. VR has barely even expanded yet!
80 million PSP's and 150 million DS's down to 10 million Vita's and 75 million 3DS's... yet I'm being disingenuous
While it remains the price it is I'm just not interested
But I'd still like to see Scarlett support it even if in limited capacity of supporting Windows MR headsets
But I'd still like to see Scarlett support it even if in limited capacity of supporting Windows MR headsets
Well...
That.
And this.
It is perfectly fine for Xbox to not "focus" on VR. Also, Sony's first party output has not suffered because of Sony investing in VR.
I know what he does, and I have a lot of respect for him.
But he doesn't know what the technology will look like in 5 years. He's looking at what things are like right now, and hes not wrong. VR is expensive for most people. It's inconvenient, it takes up a good chunk of space.
All of those problems will be fixed.
I love VR and this seems like a perfectly reasonable statement?
Also, MS is probably in the best position to just randomly add VR anyway for the next xbox? They already have WMR headsets (cheaper, better quality screens, better hand input that PSVR) since next gen can probably do VR, so yeah not exactly a big deal either way.
Also, MS is probably in the best position to just randomly add VR anyway for the next xbox? They already have WMR headsets (cheaper, better quality screens, better hand input that PSVR) since next gen can probably do VR, so yeah not exactly a big deal either way.
he's not wrong. they can work it in years later when everything's improved cuz right now it's pretty lame.
Gaming PC: All Xbox games + VR + PC games
Xbox Scarlett: All Xbox games
Difficult decision. ;-)
Xbox Scarlett: All Xbox games
Difficult decision. ;-)
Fixing these issues will not automatically mean VR will be for the masses, this only means the *additional* problems that the tech has right now might get resolved.
I think the tech has too much potential to never go mainstream. It's too useful.
What's the difference between a 'problem' and an 'additional problem' then?
If it's that one is completely unfixable, I'd say take another look.
Almost every issue that people point to towards VR is fixable even if you think the laws of physics disagree; that just means you're looking at it wrong.
Is this the moment where we "pretend" to care/not care about VR?
Right now, I don't see VR ending up being the "future of the gaming living room experience" but I don't see it as an unnecessary component either. The comment feels more dismissive of it as a tech which isn't entirely worrying but does say that they have way different priorities when it comes to hardware and especially software. I'm sure that one of the recently acquired devs (NT, inXile have experience in those types of experiences) will pitch a project to XGS and they could see it as an interesting addition to Game Pass.
It's a cool piece of tech but it still has a super long way to go if it ever wants to replace the living room experience. I don't see Sony trying to make that happen but instead go for an additional experience alongside the traditional non-VR gaming.
Half-Life Alyx looks mighty impressive when it comes to blending VR with the level design that we usually know from Valve. The way how you can push objects away to find hidden ammo is something that feels like the first showcase of the physics-based gameplay that we saw in the HL2 demo.
Right now, I don't see VR ending up being the "future of the gaming living room experience" but I don't see it as an unnecessary component either. The comment feels more dismissive of it as a tech which isn't entirely worrying but does say that they have way different priorities when it comes to hardware and especially software. I'm sure that one of the recently acquired devs (NT, inXile have experience in those types of experiences) will pitch a project to XGS and they could see it as an interesting addition to Game Pass.
It's a cool piece of tech but it still has a super long way to go if it ever wants to replace the living room experience. I don't see Sony trying to make that happen but instead go for an additional experience alongside the traditional non-VR gaming.
Half-Life Alyx looks mighty impressive when it comes to blending VR with the level design that we usually know from Valve. The way how you can push objects away to find hidden ammo is something that feels like the first showcase of the physics-based gameplay that we saw in the HL2 demo.
The main issue in your sentence is the "yet" part.
That's pure assumption.
Nintendo is making loads of money by selling 3DS and now Switch.
And keep in mind that by your terms, home consoles are also "contracting immensely".
Compare basically 3x80 million = 240 million vs approximately 100 + 40 = 140 million, or even 180 million by counting Switch (which doesn't count for a handheld, but will count for a home console I'm sure ...)
Handhelds are not dead. Maybe they will be in a few years. I dunno, I'm no Nostradamus. But they're still alive and kicking.
I have to say this is a textbook example of Sony being the only company that has any clue what they're doing in the console business.
Sega, Nintendo, Microsoft continually fart up stupidity that Sony can easily take advantage of, it doesn't surprise me that they've dummied the console competition for the better part of 25 years.
It's like watching one older kid continually take advantage of three dumber kids on a school playground, lol.
And I'm not big Sony fan, but really it just seems to me like they sit back and wait for their competitors to make dumb mistakes and then take advantage.
Luckily for MS in this case, once they realize they are wrong on this, they can easily adapt by allowing PC headset compatibility in a firmware update most likely, but it's just another telling sign that Sony's direct competition is utterly clueless.
Sega, Nintendo, Microsoft continually fart up stupidity that Sony can easily take advantage of, it doesn't surprise me that they've dummied the console competition for the better part of 25 years.
It's like watching one older kid continually take advantage of three dumber kids on a school playground, lol.
And I'm not big Sony fan, but really it just seems to me like they sit back and wait for their competitors to make dumb mistakes and then take advantage.
Luckily for MS in this case, once they realize they are wrong on this, they can easily adapt by allowing PC headset compatibility in a firmware update most likely, but it's just another telling sign that Sony's direct competition is utterly clueless.
Yup, they definitely knew what they were doing with the PS3 lol. Not focusing on VR is not a dumb mistake for MS, it's the opposite.
To predict that VR will not surpass traditional gaming is "bold" and "uninformed"?
It's always funny how people recall the few "visionaries" which did provide something new which was widely adopted, while forgetting all the failed attempts like, you know, Kinect anyone? Among the host of failed new tech we don't even remember existed in the first place.That's really too bad. Even in its infancy VR is transformative. As the technology improves, becomes wireless, and cheaper the adoption rates will be huge.
As for his reasoning:
The PS3's first two years is the only time in 25 years in the home console business that Sony made really dumb mistakes.
Other than that, they've basically just sat back and waited for incompetence from their competition and taken advantage of it. By now it's a pretty predictable pattern.
It's not a coincidence that since 1995 they're utterly dominated the console business like 80% of the time.
I feel like someone needs to say this on every page because people are misunderstanding: Phil isn't definitively saying that VR compatibility will never make its way to Xbox. He's saying it isn't a focus. Meaning it isn't something they're going all out on in house.
I'd bet my house that we will see VR on Xbox at some point.
I'd bet my house that we will see VR on Xbox at some point.
That's really too bad. Even in its infancy VR is transformative. As the technology improves, becomes wireless, and cheaper the adoption rates will be huge.
As for his reasoning:
Wait so Sony putting VR on their box is the equivalent to Henry Ford creating the Car?
Yes, and I don't see how that is irrational. It will be a bigger niche, but it will never be baseline.
Again, this is all kinds of irrational. People who say this tend to be unable to even list a single consumer use outside of gaming. They just fatally misunderstand the technology at every angle.
People go from saying MS has no games to MS then investing in first party to now saying they want MS to split their development between regular console games and VR? Just doesn't make sense.
The focus right now for Phil is to expand their library utilizing GamePass and make their games available to as many devices as they can through Scarlett, xCloud and PC. Once they have that down they can look to VR.
The focus right now for Phil is to expand their library utilizing GamePass and make their games available to as many devices as they can through Scarlett, xCloud and PC. Once they have that down they can look to VR.
User warned: Platform wars rhetoric.
How is it exactly that Sony, a smaller company with fewer resources, has no problem making better 1st party games than MS and supporting VR simultaneously.
To be honest the state of the current game market where Sony just completely dominates all of the other dummies in the home console state is pretty well earned.
I don't even think Sony does anything necessarily all that spectacular, they just sit back and wait for their competition to implode.
Agree with Phil's view here. Why pour money into KINECT 2 that a fraction of core gamers are interested in.
He's basically being super cynical actually.
"We don't see the money yet" -> subtext "Don't doubt we'll go there if there is money to be made" 🤷♀️
VR already exists, has for years though.That's really too bad. Even in its infancy VR is transformative. As the technology improves, becomes wireless, and cheaper the adoption rates will be huge.
As for his reasoning:
Did people still want only faster horses after cars were already on the market for years?
Phil Spencer didn't say "We here at Xbox never do anything until customers are asking for it." MS has been experimenting with AR/VR for YEARS... let's not ignore that. They throw loads of R&D at unproven tech.
And you think MS not focusing on a currently niche product for their console launch is a dumb mistake lol? Focusing on first-party content and bringing the most value to their customers with the best subscription service in gaming seems like the smartest thing they could do at the moment.
It's a shame ms isn't jumping in. They could do it by just letting other devices just work on the console of they dont want to do it themselves.
Gamepass + Vr would be a nice combo
Gamepass + Vr would be a nice combo
I own 3 vr headsets and have no problem with this stance. I don't think the market can really support, and doesn't currently need, multiple console based headsets. Imagine if each console needed its own TV. That's basically what we're talking about in terms of cost and hassle.
People are wrong on this. IMO VR is going to be much more analogous to online play and the impact that eventually had on gaming than Kinect. VR on PS4 is basically what online was to Dreamcast/PS2 ... taking its baby steps.
We all the story of MS 1st party issues that happened from the end of the 360 generation to when Phil took over with the X1. While this was happening Sony was fully invested in their own studios and they were firing on all cylinders. MS is playing catch up at this point and looks to finally be catching up with the next generation.
Also the big Sony 1st party studios haven't really done much with VR and i's been their smaller ones that have developed games.
No company, even a trillion dollar one like Microsoft, has unlimited resources to spend on everything. I 100% agree and would be upset if they were siphoning off investment in their first party studios to make niche VR content as opposed to other new game experiences. I would not be shocked if they end up just supporting VR on Scarlett for the Windows Mixed Reality headsets which may have SteamVR game support or something so that the investment in content can come from other places where someone else wants to spend that money right now.
They probably will do that. They are just not pumping resources into making an Xbox focused VR headset and getting their teams to make VR exclusive games. Supporting other headsets and VR experiences/games is actually the most sensible thing MS can and should do.
Sony is the only one that knows what they're doing in the console business, lets be honest. The other two (well three, when Sega was in) just blindly swing away at stuff and then eventually end up learning the hard way that Sony was right in their vision most of the time.
But what does any of this have to do with VR?
You are acting like it's proven that VR is going to dominate next gen or something.
I mean, that's basically what he's saying. It's just for some reasons there are people which keep saying VR will be the new big money maker. He's saying he doesn't think so, at least in the short term (and I agree).