Phil Spencer "VR is not a focus of Project Scarlett because our customers aren't asking for it."

Correct decision?

  • Yes, waste of time and resources

    Votes: 1,684 56.8%
  • No, it's a growing market and should see support

    Votes: 1,283 43.2%

  • Total voters
    2,967

Psychoward

Member
Nov 7, 2017
25,544
As someone who loves VR I'm ok with this, I don't want VR content to be fragmented between consoles. It already sucks that a few good games are locked on PSVR which is a whole other peripheral and console. Keep it to Quest and PC and I'm fine with that.

I didn't vote in the poll because neither option represents my opinion. It needs support....on PC.
Xbox VR stuff would come to PC lol

Regardless, it's fine that they're not making a headset or even investing in VR games. But having the console not having the functionality for any VR content or ports is a real missed opportunity imo
 

eraFROMAN

Member
Mar 12, 2019
618
Sounds right, everyone I know going in on VR is doing it on a PC for the versatility. PSVR is cool, but it came during the novelty period, so it was easier to justify getting one. Now that VR is established, it doesn't quite have the novelty and the convenience still isn't quite there (price, space, etc.) Designing your console around the traditional experience is better for 90+% of the user base. XB1 being designed around Kinect was a huge waste, considering people can't even use the thing very much if they want to.
 

Megatron

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,265
I don’t want MS to make their own headset, but with their pc compatibility , I think they should allow pc headsets to work on the X. And with their acquisitions they have enough studios that they could make some vr games. Let double fine and Compulsion games make vr games. Your other studios can make non vr titles.
 

FlintSpace

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,754
They're a big step up from the PSVR tracking wise, but a little worse than Oculus/Vive. The also support 100% of the SteamVR compatible games. Pretty great for a VR noob.

An Oculus Quest or PS4+PSVR both cost significantly less than 800.
WMR with Acer looks promising but is 440$ in my country. Not to mention you need a powerful PC to run these things on high res right (as was case some years ago). Would a laptop's GTX 1660Ti work with WMR or Oculus/Vive ?
 

toa95

Member
Oct 27, 2017
187
I really wish in some alternative timeline Xbox and Oculus would have worked together more. The first Rift came with am Xbox One controller, it'd be really nice if down the line they got something akin to Oculus Link working with a future version of the Quest and Scarlett.
 

Psychoward

Member
Nov 7, 2017
25,544
Yes waste of time and resources for MS at this point.
They need to recapture the X360 crowd again as their first priority. No point trying to cater to 800$ folks.
PSVR has a bundle going on rn with the headset and 5 games for $200 though.

Microsoft released a mid-gen $500 console and two elite controllers with the second version being $180.

Making the console VR compatible for people who already have headsets is really not that big of an ask, especially when you consider how focused MS is on PC right now.
 

xabbott

Member
Oct 28, 2017
759
Florida
The Kinect comparisons are hilarious. Kinect was solely aimed at the casual, family gamer. Obviously enthusiast crowds were never going to really enjoy that kind of peripheral.

But here we have a gaming innovation that completely focuses on the enthusiast gamer with immersion and gameplay literally not possible any other way. Microsoft could be laying the groundwork here alongside Valve, Oculus and Sony but instead they’ll likely come in behind the curve in a few years.

And it has never been funnier to see a familiar subsection of Era cheer on a decision for less options and innovation. As if opening up your console for VR means less ‘regular’ games.
Doesn't MS support the enthusiast gamer VR market with Windows and the whole mixed reality headsets? Those even support Steam and HL:Alyx. I own one, they even have games with Xbox achievements that are VR games on PC. They even have a Halo experience. I thought VR was neat on PC but ended up boxing it up. I still have my PSVR near my TV but I couldn't even finish Trover with it. It just feels too isolating for longer games.
 

Calvarok

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,942
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.
ok lol. if i'm just wrong it's not really a "lie", now is it?

but based on pretty much every VR video game i've looked at it's all about standing in a small room manipulating objects, teleporting around an environment to slash/shoot at enemies, or controlling a spaceship to shoot at other spaceships.

full body mapping the ability to play soccer in a realistically sized soccer field just sounds like playing soccer with extra steps, or glorified motion capturing.

the kind of futuristic games that seem interesting to me are the ones in Her, where it's less about trying to make you feel like you're really doing stuff and leaning into the fact that video games always feel like you're manipulating a separate little world. Has anyone considered that maybe people like feeling that way, and don't WANT to pretend the game is "real" or whatever?
 

DarthBuzzard

Member
Jul 17, 2018
2,864
ok lol. if i'm just wrong it's not really a "lie", now is it?

but based on pretty much every VR video game i've looked at it's all about standing in a small room manipulating objects, teleporting around an environment to slash/shoot at enemies, or controlling a spaceship to shoot at other spaceships.
Well that represents nothing about VR because that is not what it's like at all. Games are not like that, and you've only seen a few small examples.
 

Jackie Chan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,151
WMR with Acer looks promising but is 440$ in my country. Not to mention you need a powerful PC to run these things on high res right (as was case some years ago). Would a laptop's GTX 1660Ti work with WMR or Oculus/Vive ?
A GTX 1660TI would work fine for most games for any headset. That's roughtly equivalent to a 1070, though the laptop version likely performs slightly worse since due to thermal throttling. The min recommended spec for VR is a 1060, and in general with a few exceptions you don't need too much more than that obviously having better hardware will give you a better experience, but no need to dive all the way in.
 

Garrett 2U

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
2,797
The Kinect comparisons are hilarious. Kinect was solely aimed at the casual, family gamer. Obviously enthusiast crowds were never going to really enjoy that kind of peripheral.

But here we have a gaming innovation that completely focuses on the enthusiast gamer with immersion and gameplay literally not possible any other way. Microsoft could be laying the groundwork here alongside Valve, Oculus and Sony but instead they’ll likely come in behind the curve in a few years.

And it has never been funnier to see a familiar subsection of Era cheer on a decision for less options and innovation. As if opening up your console for VR means less ‘regular’ games.
People are cheering that the focus at launch is on gaming experiences we already know we love, versus on experiences for optional peripherals.

I also question your assumption that an enthusiast focused peripheral makes more sense on a console than a casual focused peripheral... The numbers don’t lie, motion peripherals sold better, had more support, and were more popular than VR peripherals on console.

And regarding your ‘familiar subsection’ bullshit, there is a poll up top with over 1k votes. The majority agree it would be a waste of resources. You are the familiar subsection.
 
Last edited:

Calvarok

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,942
Well that represents nothing about VR because that is not what it's like at all. Games are not like that, and you've only seen a few small examples.
oh you're right, there's also the ones where it's a god mode perspective and you're looking down at a character that you're piloting using a controller.

that seems ok but also i don't really care.
 

Van Bur3n

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
16,914
We shall see where Valve goes with it, and then perhaps higher demand will become more apparent.
 

DarthBuzzard

Member
Jul 17, 2018
2,864
oh you're right, there's also the ones where it's a god mode perspective and you're looking down at a character that you're piloting using a controller.

that seems ok but also i don't really care.
I mean I might as well say gaming is all about shooting things while running done corridors. It's really no different than what you said in your last comment.
 

cnorwood

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,893
ok lol. if i'm just wrong it's not really a "lie", now is it?

but based on pretty much every VR video game i've looked at it's all about standing in a small room manipulating objects, teleporting around an environment to slash/shoot at enemies, or controlling a spaceship to shoot at other spaceships.

full body mapping the ability to play soccer in a realistically sized soccer field just sounds like playing soccer with extra steps, or glorified motion capturing.

the kind of futuristic games that seem interesting to me are the ones in Her, where it's less about trying to make you feel like you're really doing stuff and leaning into the fact that video games always feel like you're manipulating a separate little world. Has anyone considered that maybe people like feeling that way, and don't WANT to pretend the game is "real" or whatever?
Yes which is why there are games where you are a 3rd person camera. I wish there was more though, I hope Sony has VR camera mode for all their 3rd person games on psvr2
 

Psychoward

Member
Nov 7, 2017
25,544
oh you're right, there's also the ones where it's a god mode perspective and you're looking down at a character that you're piloting using a controller.

that seems ok but also i don't really care.
The fact that you think action games all use teleporting when that's pretty much optional for every single one and is just used as a way to reduce motion sickness for first time players is pretty odd.

I mean I get that not everyone is interested in VR but there are no games that work outside of VR that don't work with VR, even if all the VR does is add depth of field/3D space lol
 

Raijinto

Member
Oct 28, 2017
8,759
That's fine, not every company needs to be investing in VR. And just speaking personally I absolutely haven't relayed that message of wanting more VR devices.
 

Calvarok

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,942
The fact that you think action games all use teleporting when that's pretty much optional for every single one and is just used as a way to reduce motion sickness for first time players is pretty odd.

I mean I get that not everyone is interested in VR but there are no games that work outside of VR that don't work with VR, even if all the VR does is add depth of field/3D space lol
i believe there are some where it's not an option, though that may indeed have been from closer to the launch of the rift and such. and if the game was going to work fine on a TV then what am I buying the expensive goggles for?

I've never seen a VR game that seems like it NEEDS to be in VR or that it looks better and has more features because it's in VR. Whenever I see anything that can only be done in VR it's mostly just about head tracking, or independent aiming/looking.

I'm not trying to say I know everything about it, but understand that I just don't share your excitement or interest. To me it's a separate thing that exists because it can exist, not a replacement for or upgrade from looking at a screen.

and i'm not saying this because i'm worrying about screens going away. I just have no interest in this stuff and don't feel any obligation to "support" it.
 

DarthBuzzard

Member
Jul 17, 2018
2,864
i believe there are some where it's not an option, though that may indeed have been from closer to the launch of the rift and such. and if the game was going to work fine on a TV then what am I buying the expensive goggles for?

I've never seen a VR game that seems like it NEEDS to be in VR or that it looks better and has more features because it's in VR. Whenever I see anything that can only be done in VR it's mostly just about head tracking, or independent aiming/looking.

I'm not trying to say I know everything about it, but understand that I just don't share your excitement or interest. To me it's a separate thing that exists because it can exist, not a replacement for or upgrade from looking at a screen.

and i'm not saying this because i'm worrying about screens going away. I just have no interest in this stuff and don't feel any obligation to "support" it.
You have no interest because you think VR is something it isn't; it's much more than you think.
 

Sidewinder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,037
This is really disappointing, VR is the single most innovative and exciting thing happening in the videogame industry for a very long time and one of the big three still thinks it's not worth it and nobody wants it anyway on their platform.

Gamepass and Xcloud might be the pinnacle of videogame services but it doesn't add anything new to the table, VR does and it'll keep on doing so.

At least those who don't care for VR won't have to complain about getting something they don't want and I won't have to buy a Xbox Two untill it's 150$.
 

mxbison

Member
Jan 14, 2019
2,047
I think he is right. The dedicated Xbox player base seems to be the most opposed to VR.

Personally I'm incredibly excited for it.
 

Pankratous

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,998
Sorry, what the fuck is he talking about with the communal / social comment?

VR is absolutely the most I've played WITH people in the same room for years. I'm not playing a proper singleplayer or even multiplayer game if someone is in the room.
 

Darkstorne

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,448
England
I don’t want MS to make their own headset, but with their pc compatibility , I think they should allow pc headsets to work on the X. And with their acquisitions they have enough studios that they could make some vr games. Let double fine and Compulsion games make vr games. Your other studios can make non vr titles.
Completely agree. That would be far more attractive to me than yet another version of a VR device entering the market, and it would mean significantly less R&D costs for them. If they ever want to get in on the VR market, that's how they should do it, by inviting everyone who already owns VR on the PC (not me by the way, in case you're wondering why I lean this way =P) and offering some great VR software.
 

Calvarok

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,942
Well I'd argue it's much more famous for Xbox Live.
(of course, that's also "a communal, kind of together experience". But you can have online multiplayer in VR too.)
you can play local split screen while playing online. It's like forming an xbl party but IRL.

i'm not saying this is itself an argument against VR. but it's definitely something people already value versus something they might value after it's fully developed.

And I know that theoretically people could play VR together in the same room with separate headsets. but again, that's not exactly what people already liked and were used to.
 

henhowc

Member
Oct 26, 2017
17,128
Los Angeles, CA
I agree in general that wireless would be a big improvement but I'm curious as to how that's relevant for two sit-down games that have you use the DS4 lol
haha I was just pointing out two awesome vr experiences I had. That was more like two separate thoughts.

being able to just put on the headset and play instead of having to mess with cables and cleanup and stuff. Im also bitter about the breakout box situation with psvr v1 owners. that hardware update helped setup a bit.
 
Not gonna lie I don't blame xbox for not wanting to launch a VR platform near their console launch. Even PSVR waited a few years before coming out for PS4 (I also expect PSVR to take a few years to arrive on the PS5). Though I do expect to see something 2-3 years into the Scarlett's life
 

vivftp

Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,801
On the one hand this disappoints me because it's one less big player around to help advance VR as a whole. On the other hand, I'll have my PSVR and eventually PSVR2 to keep me busy so I'll be OK.
 

DarthBuzzard

Member
Jul 17, 2018
2,864
It works for all game genres and all perspectives, even 3rd person works beautifully and adds a lot. Movement is not limited to teleportation; in many ways movement is less limiting in VR because you have much more control. That's what VR is for gameplay: control - the amount of agency you have in a game world is as big (or bigger) as the step from 2D->3D graphics.

It simply improves so many aspects of gaming. It means AI can finally be more reactive, stories can be more emotionally involved and more personal, gameplay can be more versatile with many more options open due to the agency increase, you get to feel new emotional states that games haven't been able to invoke before, multiplayer is infinitely more social and dynamic, roleplaying is increased significantly, and it is overall a more visceral/powerful medium.

Here are some good demonstrations of what it can offer for gameplay.





 

Garrett 2U

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
2,797
Still a silly argument.

Mind you, I actually kind of agree with the conclusion of not focusing on VR, but that specific sentence is kind of silly.
I’m sorry, I wasn’t trying to be a dick, but like I didn’t know what to say to your rhetorical question! Of course Xbox is known for local multiplayer experiences! Halo is super popular, and one of the major reasons is the coop and LAN experience.
 

Olinad

Member
Oct 30, 2017
556
I’m sorry, I wasn’t trying to be a dick, but like idk what to say lol! Of course Xbox is known for local multiplayer experiences! Halo is super popular, and one of the major reasons is the coop and LAN experience.
Lol sorry I was being snarky too :) No offense taken.

But yeah, everyone keeps saying Halo... but that's kind of it. Ok maybe Gears had local multiplayer... but Microsoft isn't Nintendo, the core focus of the console certainly isn't local multiplayer.

Again, I see why they're not focusing on VR, but the motivations feel like PR talk.
 

Scarecrow

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
1,471
I can't imagine it'd be super difficult to adapt current headsets with their new system. No need to develop new hardware.
 

N.Domixis

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
7,848
User Banned (3 Days): Console wars; previous related infractions
Of course, as always MS only goes after things that are already successful.
 

Iztok Mravlja

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,633
It's a good decision, but I do like VR and would've loved to have it on Xbox as well.

Having another peripheral would've just brought up comparisons to Kinect which they don't need at launch.
 

upinsmoke

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
1,861
It's funny reading the comments down playing the sales of PSVR. 5 million is crazy good, for a "fad" in a niche market at 300 quid a pop. Have MS even had a game that's sold 5 million at 50 quid?

Meh
 

inguef

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
16,030
ok lol. if i'm just wrong it's not really a "lie", now is it?

but based on pretty much every VR video game i've looked at it's all about standing in a small room manipulating objects, teleporting around an environment to slash/shoot at enemies, or controlling a spaceship to shoot at other spaceships.

full body mapping the ability to play soccer in a realistically sized soccer field just sounds like playing soccer with extra steps, or glorified motion capturing.

the kind of futuristic games that seem interesting to me are the ones in Her, where it's less about trying to make you feel like you're really doing stuff and leaning into the fact that video games always feel like you're manipulating a separate little world. Has anyone considered that maybe people like feeling that way, and don't WANT to pretend the game is "real" or whatever?
You are misinformed. But, that's a good thing! I'm happy VR isn't as you describe it.

Also, VR is not about 'pretending', your brain will actually be convinced that it is experiencing real things (even when the graphics are heavily stylized) - thus, a virtual reality is established!

Agree. For PC is see support tho for some games. Like FS2020.
Have the developers said anything about headset support? I always assumed that it would not receive it, but seeing as it will likely come on Steam.. I remain hopeful.

oh you're right, there's also the ones where it's a god mode perspective and you're looking down at a character that you're piloting using a controller.

that seems ok but also i don't really care.
The neat thing about the VR nay-sayers is that if you call them out on it, each one of them have never experienced it.

And I don't care if you are not excited about VR or aren't entertained by it - it is those that act like it is the harbinger of doom, a gimmick, or a fad that get me bothered. We need some kind of moderation rules for this - because would we allow people to come into every Nintendo thread to talk shit about Nintendo? We should be better than that as a community.
 
Last edited:

boi

Member
Nov 1, 2017
1,061
Just make the One X and Scarlett compatible with Oculus and some other VR headsets. Shouldn’t cost that much and you have a higher potential userbase than PSVR?
 

Zem

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,897
United Kingdom
saying vr is not communal is very funny
Yep, passing the headset around when people come over is one of the best things about it as people are blown away if they haven't tried VR before or just having a laugh with beat saber or something. People don't come around to play co-op halo or something, they want me to get the VR headset out or Jackbox.