-
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
Yeah, better for him to be straightforward about it than misleading. IIRC, they talked about the X having VR support, but it never happened.
So for those that are interested in VR, Playstation is the way to go as far as consoles go. And of course there is PC.
They certainly announced their intentions to embrace VR. Even at that time (and more so in retrospect now), this seemed to be a thinly veiled attempt to steal some of the shine out of the soon-to-be-released PSVR by assuring their fans, "Never mind those guys, we're making one too!"
They didn't want to be left out of the conversation.
Actually, that's putting it mildly. Phil Spencer's announcement didn't mince words. He was deliberately trying to insert Microsoft into that conversation.
See above. They announced plans at one point. Whether their internal developers were seriously involved is another story. I assume they never truly got very far along, which is why it was no skin off their back to backpedal on their "announced" VR plans. At the same time, it smacks of desperation, in the sense that they felt the urge to cling closely to Sony's coattails on the hot trend of the day, out of fear of fading into technological irrelevance.
That's not what I said at all.
I said there's a difference between the two groups. I did not say they were the same group.
You're responding to something that I haven't said.
I didn't say it was impossible for someone to not be interested in VR.
All I said was that there are some who go a bit further beyond disinterest, and literally hope that it'll fail.
You're dramatically pushing a belief that no one has said or implied.
Sorry, which people were you arguing were getting separated into "us" vs "them".
A few full AAA games isn't enough to justify an entire other platform
Incredibly shortsighted. VR is the current gaming frontier and it's kinda sad to see them dismiss the incredible potential it has.
They'll come around. But likely years too late as usual.
They'll come around. But likely years too late as usual.
What makes you think so?
The biggest hurdles are cost, resolution/performance and quality of life stuff all of which will continue to improve.
While reading this all I can hear in my mind is the folks who say we should focus on Earth first before heading back to the Moon or going to Mars. There's great benefit in the things we discover by making an effort to reach further than we have before.
Except it will considering Ready Player One is a sci-fi story.
Yes, there are bad people out there and everybody knows that. I don't think that anybody is arguing these people don't exist at all.
It was implied that this was just me being hyperbolic and that no one says stuff like that.
But you're talking from the perspective of buying a next-gen xbox and MS might support VR in the future. I'm talking about choosing a next-gen system and currently only one offering VR. It ends up as a reason to buy PS5 at release as much as you may want to play a Naughty Dog game in the future is a reason to buy a PS5 at release.
My friend went to a convention where they had full 3D body tracking for Halo. Every movement he made the game simulated.
Seems pretty close to me.
I think people are going to be surprised how close we will get in just say 10 years.
To the context of the thread and MS:
They got a lot of flak this gen for trying new things and even bundling Kinect, an immensely successful peripheral which sold more than 30 million last gen. They also got flak by not focusing enough on their 1P platform and not having enough high quality exclusives which made them create gamepass, invest into their existing studios and even bought a couple of new ones to make their platform more attractive for the general audience while introducing a gaming subscription service. And now some people give them flak again for not going full steam into a peripheral that is yet in its infancy and that many people just don't even have interest in.
They got a lot of flak this gen for trying new things and even bundling Kinect, an immensely successful peripheral which sold more than 30 million last gen. They also got flak by not focusing enough on their 1P platform and not having enough high quality exclusives which made them create gamepass, invest into their existing studios and even bought a couple of new ones to make their platform more attractive for the general audience while introducing a gaming subscription service. And now some people give them flak again for not going full steam into a peripheral that is yet in its infancy and that many people just don't even have interest in.
what do you mean "every movement"? so he could throw his gun away and dance and master chief's body would map to that? or it was just the default viewmodel mapped to where they're looking?
you know what i meant. I was not talking about literally every sci fi story. And from what i've seen of ready player one it still has the impossible level of control fidelity and freedom of movement that every bullshit vr fiction concept has.
Unless it's literally just a pair of sunglasses you put on no mainstream consumer will bother with the hassle of setting that shit up and I'm not even talking about the financial barrier to entry.
so, after the Xbtwo is long dead? seems like a bad investment right now.
That's fine, Project Scarlett is not a focus for me either because it's not giving me anything I ask for.
I don't think you realize how very attainable Ready Player One technology is.
I mean it very easily could be in the future though.
I honestly don't know and he's asleep right now, but I can ask him tomorrow.
I'm not sure why you wouldn't build it into your brand new platform. It's basically as "free" as it's going to get right now. (Yes, it will cost SOME amount of money and work to build it into the infrastructure, etc, as all things do.)
It's so weird how badly the various Microsoft teams aren't on the same page, or at least weren't. I know about the in-fighting and competition (the org chart of the various departments pointing guns at each other, etc.), but they launched the Mixed Reality platform, found some mild success, and even if for some reason Xbox One couldn't support it (HDMI limitations, etc), you're making a whole new platform that could support it very easily. And devs are going to like the possibility of porting over PlayStation VR titles. It's just a weird line to draw in the sand when even Nintendo is clearly rethinking it.
Oh hey, it's the "this is why our games can't have online" Nintendo excuse. That worked out well. Also there's a ton of games that are "VR Player vs TV Players" at this point, so that's some hard BS. And if I'm not mistaken, chatting with other people online in VR is very popular...?
It's so weird how badly the various Microsoft teams aren't on the same page, or at least weren't. I know about the in-fighting and competition (the org chart of the various departments pointing guns at each other, etc.), but they launched the Mixed Reality platform, found some mild success, and even if for some reason Xbox One couldn't support it (HDMI limitations, etc), you're making a whole new platform that could support it very easily. And devs are going to like the possibility of porting over PlayStation VR titles. It's just a weird line to draw in the sand when even Nintendo is clearly rethinking it.
Oh hey, it's the "this is why our games can't have online" Nintendo excuse. That worked out well. Also there's a ton of games that are "VR Player vs TV Players" at this point, so that's some hard BS. And if I'm not mistaken, chatting with other people online in VR is very popular...?
I don't think anyone has said a lot of this.
People are definitely hoping that MS supports VR. That doesn't mean they have to bundle it or go full steam with it.
And just to throw the point out there. This is the clunky stuff that is being done right now. 3, 5 or 10 years of progress will go a long way.I don't think you realize how very attainable Ready Player One technology is.
Kind of silly. There are plenty of examples in this and the several HL: Alyx threads.
yeah you just need a giant studio and overhead connectors for your goggles, bulky gloves and gear, an expensive PC and game design that's based around performing simple actions in a small static environment.I don't think you realize how very attainable Ready Player One technology is.
i'm not gonna get pulled into the hype on this one. I remember when people were talking in the exact same breathless tone about where we'd be by 2019 or 2020.
if people really care about it enough that it's the only reason they won't get an xbox, i don't give a shit. like i said, i don't care if this is the "right" decision. I just also don't care about VR.
I mean I get it because it is isolating in real life buuuut it also makes multiplayer games that much more communal so yeah the reasoning is kind of bunk.
Especially for people playing in their room alone/when their SO is away/when they have extra free time etc.
Yeah, waveguides can practically cut the size in half again.
Well that blows, was really hoping MS would come out with their own headset but I understand the decision too. PSVR2 is a known quantity at this point and both systems are likely going to be comparable in power, I just hope Sony starts funding some bigger budget VR experiences. Astro Bot is cool but not sure I'd call it AAA and it's a bit on the short side. REVII is the closest we've seen in the console space to that but it's a seated deal with no use of motion controls, and I'm not sure how much Sony bankrolled the resources that went into the VR mode outside the exclusivity part. I want to see some HL: Alyx or Asgard's Wrath caliber titles, the shorter stuff is fine to pad out the library but I'd still like to see Sony use its resources to craft something larger in scope.
This has me wondering if MS will put the kibosh on any attempts Asobo may make towards adding VR support for Flight Simulator 2020 :/
This has me wondering if MS will put the kibosh on any attempts Asobo may make towards adding VR support for Flight Simulator 2020 :/
I'm selfishly glad because I don't care about it. I'm not saying VR isn't going mainstream, or that the tech won't add something in other fields, but it will clearly take like 10 years for it to get really interesting, if they figure out all the basic mechanics to support varied gameplay, and I'm not ready to center my gaming time around that yet.
1. You don't need much if any space for VR.
2. Wireless VR is a thing.
3. Bulky gloves now, lightweight gloves in 10 years.
4. No PC required.
5. Game design that's the most expansive it's ever been because VR offers the most potential game mechanics of any form of gaming,
You're inventing most of your points up.
It heavily depends on the game. Stuff like Superhot or Beat Saber are pretty much unplayable with a very small play space.
Yes, you need a good PC and an Index - but that's all you need for high-end VR with perfect room-scale and hand/finger tracking. Also, just a 2m by 1.5m area will suffice for 99% of all VR games.
Also, 'small, static environment'?
Your post is full of hyperbolic lies. Just play VR for yourself before you assume what it is or isn't.
Not to mention mixed reality reconstruction will help solve isolation.
There's nothing about VR that makes it a gimmick; it brings real value to gaming and very likely improvements to the exact types of games you play. If you value immersion at all then you'd be doing yourself a disservice.
Ugh, I need this for when I'm watching a movie in Bigscreen. But having it reconstruct my actual phone's screen to enough detail seems like a pipe dream.
They're also like the best examples of why VR is so neat though.
How many more years does VR need to be a thing before people stop calling it a gimmick, especially compared to other actual gimmicks like the Virtual Boy or the Kinect.
Technically the headset used in the example is equivalent to a 4K monitor, but only at a small area in the center.
May not be your job, but it's your fault.
and if you don't try it yourself, you just don't get to play it. Nobody's forcing you to try VR..
The day MS shows interest in VR, and they will, most of these guys will suddenly be interested.
Why on earth someone would be happy for less content is beyond me. If Sony can push VR and still make AAA games, MS should be able too as well.
VR needs shit like Halo in VR to push the medium forward so it can grow and get better. This is not some good news.
props to Valve for the Half-Life VR and not sitting idly by while everyone else does the work.
I don't know if you were asleep the whole gen. MS lacked especially in that regard and shifted focus on what was the main criticism in recent years, 1P AAA output.
Two things
First. I believe Sony invested in VR because at the time that is where PC gaming was heading and they view the PC as bigger competitor than Xbox. (One of the reasons cited for making the Playstation Pro was to stop gamers from switching to PC -- Source ). Microsoft was never in that position as their games were already on the PC and now they sell their games on Steam. They honestly don't care where you play their games.
Two. Xbox has a budget which is not infinite and they recently have purchased several studios and have been investing in their growth. They simply cannot afford to invest in VR at this time. My guess is they looked at VR game sales and trends (not device sales) and the market isn't worth the expense right now to have their new studios making VR games at the expense of a traditional games that can be on Game Pass for the millions who don't have a VR device.
I have to imagine though they will leave the option open for when they are in more stable place to support VR, that isn't right now though.
First. I believe Sony invested in VR because at the time that is where PC gaming was heading and they view the PC as bigger competitor than Xbox. (One of the reasons cited for making the Playstation Pro was to stop gamers from switching to PC -- Source ). Microsoft was never in that position as their games were already on the PC and now they sell their games on Steam. They honestly don't care where you play their games.
Two. Xbox has a budget which is not infinite and they recently have purchased several studios and have been investing in their growth. They simply cannot afford to invest in VR at this time. My guess is they looked at VR game sales and trends (not device sales) and the market isn't worth the expense right now to have their new studios making VR games at the expense of a traditional games that can be on Game Pass for the millions who don't have a VR device.
I have to imagine though they will leave the option open for when they are in more stable place to support VR, that isn't right now though.
As someone who primarily plays on Xbox but also owns a Pro and PSVR I don't like that VR won't be a focus on Scarlett.
There are great VR games and my favorite genre is racing. I enjoyed playing Driveclub and GT Sport in VR. Wipeout VR is easily one of my favorite gaming experiences in the last 10 years. The fact that I won't get that with Forza makes Scarlett a lot less enticing to me.
There are great VR games and my favorite genre is racing. I enjoyed playing Driveclub and GT Sport in VR. Wipeout VR is easily one of my favorite gaming experiences in the last 10 years. The fact that I won't get that with Forza makes Scarlett a lot less enticing to me.
