Xbox Exec: We're Still Hesitant To Develop VR Games Until There's A Bigger Audience

Said before, I get why with a pile of unsold Kinect 2s MS doesn't want to make VR headsets but it's not the only option. Allowing 3rd party headsets and VR games on the xbox store would minimalise the risk to MS and let them gauge interest.

This is so maddening to me, because VR is transformational. Bethesda was one of the best at putting content on VR, and more than anything I want Starfield in VR. Heck I want a Skyrim VR update. Lack of VR on Xbox is one thing that will guarantee I spent tons of time on PS. Just partner with Meta for Quest support on Xbox. Lack of VR is one thing that will probably keep me playing more NMS on PS than Starfield On XB, because....yeah Starfield is the bigger better game and I adore Bethesda games, but....one game let's me sit in my ship's cockpit and fly through reentry onto a planet-sized planet, and the other makes must just sit there and stare at it's booty, Booty!

Of course...I suppose I shouldn't be surprised XB would want to be last in the VR space....they've still refused to join the gyro race which has been standard since 2008 everywhere else. I love XB's ecosystem, but....ugh! You're MS, you should be able to lead instead of following!

Tech is too expensive and most of the games are gimmicky. I'd rather they focus their resources on making the best games possible.

I can respect that. Let Nintendo do it first.

I've never seen the appeal to VR, and I love how a certain site tries to inject so much energy into selling it, and certain fans will hold it as the next big thing, but the sale numbers don't lie, although tell them that and they'll be all like "it's part of their 4D chess plan" haha.

I'm joking. Mostly, haha. I don't want VR to be the norm, there's something about it I can't quite put my finger on, maybe it's the extremely short battery life, or the gimmicky (at times) games, or the impractical way it has to be played. I prefer a controller, a TV, and a comfy chair.

These are just my personal preferences and opinions. It's okay if you disagree with me

@Knightmere thank you! The way some people gush over it, but the numbers don't lie

Imo there are not many games that truly shine in VR. Maybe racing games and… flight sim?

MS should just develop VR modes for these games on Steam. Maybe add support for Steam or Meta (or both) headsets to also unlock those modes on Xbox. Don’t think they should waste resources making their own headsets, though, nor making “vr-only” games.

At this point I don't ever expect VR to be mainstream, with mobile you had Samsung giving away headsets and it never went anywhere. Even PSVR2 which I think is a great piece of tech only has one exclusive game from Sony for it, plus support for GT7 (which is fantastic) but has no further announced games for it.

Sadly whilst games can be amazing in VR, most people simply either can't stomach it or don't have the space to set it up

Now, imagine streaming VR games through the cloud to a cheap VR headset? That would be the dream...

Nobody uses VR on the go. You use it at home, where you have wi-fi. I can't believe Xbox is not exploring that idea.

@themightyant That's really the catch-22 of the medium. No company seems to want to invest in the medium at all, and then all will say there's not enough market to justify it. I think of the industry has it's way 2D cinema and pancake games would be all that was on offer from now until the end of time. If this same mentality dominated the 20th century, nobody would have invested in movie making because books are all we really ever need!

On one hand I get why no company wants to invest much in a smaller medium, but, otoh, every medium/tech that ever happened is becomes some company took the loss to build the market. And Apple's weird $3500+ headset that doesn't even have VR controllers is surely not going to change that. I know it's going for a really different market but that's really a whole other extreme.

@Tharsman Vehicle based games, Starfield, shooters, Starfield, racers, Starfield, Flight Sim, Doom, Halo Starfield, Minecraft, Sea of Theives, Minecraft, Starfield, Minecraft, Dishonored, Oblivion, Starfield. MS has TONS of existing games that are practically built for VR already. Probably the best cache on the industry due to their penchant for first person dynamic games instead of 3rd person cinematic games. They're sitting on a VR goldmine and refuse to touch it. IMO that's really all anyone's asking for, and it's not new to Bethesda, Skyrim VR was excellent if technically crippled and will never be updated because MS's anti-VR stance. I don't want a Microsoft headset, and I don't need a whole separate Halo VR edition. They have great games that can be patched/modded for VR support, and supporting third party headsets on the hardware would really please most people I think. Let Bethesda do their VR ports. It won't be "10 million click engagement numbers" but it'll start building a foundation for an extended market. It's not a blood sport market, probably never will be, but why not cover more bases?

I still am starting to really believe VR won't happen until Nintendo makes it happen. Cruppy quality headset with lousy visuals at middling prices + Mario, and suddenly people will be slashing each other in Walmart to get one. Nintendo's always looking for some unexplored territory, and "handheld" gaming is going to get eroded by mobile/streaming more and more, they need a new niche to make mainstream for a while. And they've had that 3D itch forever (Virtual Boy, experiments with stereoscopy on Game Cube that never left R&D, 3DS, Labo VR...)

I think that’s smart. VR is still niche and the tech just isn’t there yet for the masses to fully embrace it. I’m not interested until it’s as simple as popping on a pair of glasses.

Games are also an issue. There isn’t one single VR game that makes me want to invest into that ecosystem.

@carlos82 Of all the issues that do prevent VR from going mainstream, surely space isn't one of them. Yeah, if you want to play Synth Riders dancing around like an exercise room, it takes space. For 75% of other games, you exchange sitting on your couch holding a controller with sitting on your couch holding two controller halves and wearing a hat.

@Fenbops But that's kind of the point, with games isn't it. There's no games because MS and others have this "there's not enough players" mentality. But if you could play Starfield while actually IN IT versus watching it on a TV....which would you pick? Once you've re-entered a planet that's actually the size of a planet....there's really no going back to watching it be a few inches wide on a rectangle screen. It's really not an understatement to stay that NMS in VR ruined Starfield for me. I'm kind of hyped but I know already it's a let-down vs ACTUALLY being in space, even if the gameplay is more limited, dogfighting while actually looking up through the glass canopy and leaning around the side to see behind....it's going to feel completely retro playing Starfield in 2d. I waited years for that game but...I'm still excited....but I know it's going to feel disappointing as a result.

But games are needed to get people to actually buy the headsets to experience it. Once it hooks you it's so, so hard to play 2d games. It's like playing a gameboy after playing a series x. Sure the games can be fun and charming, and you can have a good time with them, but it feels so archaic and retro.

@Zoidpilot4 So a playstation dedicated site can't promote a playstation device?

@NEStalgia I agree with you on this, VR is absolutely amazing when it's done right and games like Half Life Alyx, Astro Playroom, Horizon call of the mountain and Skyrim VR really show what the VR is capable of. But more big devs need to support it for it to really take off, even if it's just them making their normal PS5/XSX games having VR capability as well.

@themightyant Fully agree Ant, It's still not affordable and not enough up take for me at all.

I also worry about the space and convenience etc and the ease of use, I want it to be light and modern and the best it can be.

PS5 Version is an excellent bit of kit, but I don't think it's doing that well, and I worry support will stop in 2 years. Plus I'm not in the Sony eco system.

It will come to Xbox via 3rd party maybe.

Very disappointing. As is, my VR headset sees much more usage than my Xbox.

What's funny, is I play Halo in VR via Contractor's mod more than I play actual Halo. 😂

Wish Microsoft would take the go ahead and at least add support, like say Quest 2's Air Link that let's me use it wireless with my PC.

Then they'd have an advantage in another area as Sony's headset still uses an annoying cable I though we moved past 5 years ago.

@NEStalgia sure there are many games you can just sit in place but for room space it's a different story, when I was had PSVR2 I had to rearrange the furniture whenever I wanted to play. A wireless solution would certainly have made that easier

All new tech is hit and miss until it becomes a necessity. Smell-O-Vision never made it and 3D in movies started in 1838 …
Read a great article on augmented contact lenses - that might be the way forward….

@NEStalgia with the tech on offer now, I can quite honestly say I’d rather play Starfield on my TV. I really don’t like a headset covering my face.

@themightyant I think the problem we have is more one of the current consolidated structure of all business industries into no more than 2-3 companies. Basically if something isn't likely to be the next biggest thing ever, it's not worth doing at all, ever. There's no room for separate markets, smaller markets, there's just one big planetary market designed by consensus. I think we're a lot less likely to see any real innovation not just in gaming, unless it appears to be the next universally, globally adopted thing. If the market isn't everyone the market should be noone. Not just in gaming, it's just the overall business landscape now. Kind of Soviet-esque.

Surely it won't be mainstream for a variety of reasons. But then, people pay money for imax, dark theaters and a 1930s era attempt at total immersion, so it certainly has a market as well.

As far as the "social hurdle" I really don't think that's a problem, as long as you can actually get a headset in people's hands to experience. I think it's a perceived hurdle. People that assume they don't like that based on a vague concept of what it must be. Once you get them to actually try it and get "onto the holodeck" I think it rapidly ends that perception. It's an initial hurdle to bust the myths more than a real hurdle that perpetually keeps people away. The motion issues is a real hurdle. The sensory cutoff really isn't one.

I mean I know the effect, I kind of experienced that effect with Virtual Boy back in the day, but that was I think weird due to the monochrome on black void you stared into and the chirpy GBA level music had this otherworldly, not in a pleasant way, isolation to it. It was weirdly dystopian and isolating, sure. I do know what people perceive. But it's different with modern games where you're getting full sensory input, just of a fictional world.

TBH just navigating a 3D space with your actual senses makes navigating modern complex games a lot "simpler" than a 2D interpretation of it. I think we've kind of reached the limits of what can really be done in a world and when it goes off a complexity cliff trying to relate to 1st person actions in a 2d screen simulation. I've tried taking NMS 2d sometimes just do collect my daily resource accumulation etc. And it seems like a control nightmare of myriad buttons and clunky navigation where in VR it's all as simple as walk around and point at stuff. In a lot of ways, getting past the VR barrier I think actually improves accessibility. A game world is more understandable when it's tangible and replacing 20 button combinations with "touch thing and grab it".

But even normal controller games get a big boost by being able to just use your head to look around rather than analog stick look controls. It seems less natural but is actually more natural. But......you just have to get people to experience it so they understand it, and right now, it's all too inaccessible to anyone. If you're not seeking it with your wallet open you can't find it.

Although then @Fenbops comes in with not wanting a headset to prove me wrong I mean...you can't really have stereoscopic screens without covering your eyes....doesn't really work otherwise. That said, have you actually tried it to see what it's like? Fair game if you have and just don't like it but....I think if you haven't, it's easy to assume what you like and don't vs what you actually get when you do it and how it's kind of...theres really no other way to do it. Then ti's just a matter of you actually don't want to be inside the game world, you like watching it through a window which is, I mean fair if you prefer it. Unimaginable to me but fair.

@carlos82 if you want to play roomscale games, then you need roomscale space. But the majority of games aren't roomscale, so playing such games is a choice rather than a necessity of VR. I don't think anyone would be room scaling any of MS's big games. Maybe the shooters if you choose but not necessary. Surely not flight sim forza or starfield. I have a super cramped gaming area, basically just don't do roomscale, rarely do standing, it's nary a problem. PSVR1? YeAh that was a nightmare and a half. Other VR? Not at all.

Bit unrelated but why is there so many argumentive (mostly Sony but not all) users on here who have a huge issue with someone having an opinion, and then bashing you for being a fan of xbox while on an xbox site? It's not like I'm going over to push and starting arguments. Is there no way to monitor this? Sorry, its just a massive shame. Feels like I've got to keep blocking. This is why I don't bother trying to mix with humans, and I thought a site about xbox would be safe, but no, so many bitter argumentive "gamers" choosing to take offence so they can have some weird opportunity to indulge in delusional superiority. They even go as far to tell you the games you like are wrong. Even when you say it's your personal opinion they got a problem with it. Ugh, I hate it.

To the writers/admins, you do an awesome job with this site and I'll probably stick around to read articles like I use to.

Just a shame how toxic online gamers can be. The worst ones are the ones who pretend to be all natural but they're here to sow seeds of negativity and attempt to gaslight and argue with everyone.

Okay. Anyway. Blah

@UltimateOtaku91 The one thing that has me gutted about MS buying bethesda is the end of Bethesda's VR output. They were at the front of it, and now they're gone. Skyrim in VR is sadly still a blurry mess, but experiencing it that way was amazing.

@NEStalgia the was a great post… wished I wrote it… PoTY

VR will never be for me till somebody makes an affordable holodeck.

Understandable!

Sony took the plunge on the Console side but also had a much larger User base to sell to. They have sold 5 million PSVR units (from what I can find) - it released Oct 2016 and sold 5m units to over 120m potential PS4 buyers. If the 'same' percentage of people on Xbox buy into VR, they'd be lucky to sell 2-2.5m units over the same time frame.

PSVR2 isn't setting the world on fire and despite Meta and others 'pushing' VR, its not yet really taken off to warrant all the research/development etc. I still think their AR approach with Hololens - which seems to be where Apple were inspired with 'iVision' was the right approach, but the tech isn't quite there yet.

I still don't know why MS can't offer VR through 3rd Parties like HP, Acer etc. They could use third Party VR hardware paired with a Series S/X (maybe a usb Hub/dongle required) and that opens up 3rd Party Windows PC VR games that 'could' be released to offer VR and see how many people are 'really' interested, maybe enough for them to work with partners to make 'licenced' (as in Xbox branded VR hardware) rather than spend 'billions' on R&D, developing VR experiences for it, and all the promotional costs, dev kits, review/press/publicity units etc...

But its also another thing they'd have to verify and check...

On a personal level, psvr1 is still the worst purchase I ever made due to the sickness. I was super hyped for VR, until i actualy purchased a headset.

I tried to get over it like the internet keeps telling people, but nothing helped. Getting your VR legs just didn't seem to happen for me. And what's really wierd is I don't actually get motion sickness or anything from anything else except VR.

Until VR/AR is technology like a holodeck or Ready Player One, its just not going to work for most people. It feels more like "monitor strapped to your face" than an "immersive vr technology"

@Zoidpilot4 You know what I'm going to say sorry to you as I think we got off on the wrong foot (as they say), I don't think I've ever said anything before today to you or made you toxic against me in some way, in fact I think today is our first interaction. My first comment to you was literally just a simple question as I see nothing wrong with pushsquare promoting the PSVR2 like you do so I just simply wanted to know why you thought that? Nothing hateful towards you and I wasn't trying to start an argument but I felt your reply to me was a bit strong.

In terms of your other comments on here it does seem you take pot shots at Sony or their fans before even any "troll" comments appear which would class as baiting in the user guidelines of this site so maybe that's why some people seem like they are arguing with you but technically to them you started it and baited them. But I understand you have autism so all these people (me included) should take into consideration before commenting anything hateful towards you and try to understand you better and take a lighter approach to your comments and not get easily triggered. I don't want to upset you or make you feel like you're not welcome here as this is a great site with great users so please continue commenting like you do but maybe with less sony pot shots haha.

@NEStalgia Yeah that is a shame, Bethesdas main games like Fallout, Elder Scrolls and Starfield are all perfect VR games as they are, I feel like every first person game should have a mandatory VR mode haha

@Sakai Same happened with me when I got the PSVR1, the slow games and fixed camera games I was fine with and then I played RIGS 😭

The fast paced gameplay and camera movement made my head dizzy for a few hours, yet games like Moss and Astrobot were great to play.

@NEStalgia Were you playing on PSVR? If so that's why. Skyrim VR has bee and still is fantastic on PC. And the mods you can do, woop.

@NEStalgia I have tried it. My biggest issue is comfort, it’s still not there for me personally and until the tech considerably moves forward I’m just not interested in it.

My side issue is the games. I’ll agree with you, VR games from Microsoft could mean more interest, but I don’t ever see it going mainstream in its current form. The support and sales speak for themselves.

Not surprising, and I'm glad their focus is set elsewhere. VR hardware sales declined 70% from last year. The fact of the matter is most people don't wanna drop hundreds and hundreds of dollars on a headset you have to strap on your face to play a few games that might be worth the investment. Not to mention if there is motion sickness for some. I'd rather just pick up a controller and sit in front of my OLED. Until it's a pair of sunglasses that costs roughly the price of those sunglasses it just isn't going to take off.

Microsoft is right to stay out of VR, there's a real risk it remains a niche consumer market that doesn't really grow over the long-term.

Some of the most populated areas — where most consumers live — are facing an affordability crisis that is resulting in the construction of apartments and condos that are too small for VR. And the real wages / buying power of the general population is declining while the cost of VR remains relatively high.

@InterceptorAlpha Yeah that was PSVR1, I'm sure it's way better on PC, but it'll never be updated for PSVR2, or Quest, or anything, just relying on the old PC build with mod support. That still had Skyrim LAUNCH bugs in it!

@Fenbops Fair if you tried it, though still unfathomable to me. It's just so darned different to be in the game world rather than working it through a little window. I play 2d games because the game itself is interesting, but I'd be lying if I said after VR all the "state of the art 2d" games don't feel basically like 16 bit games to me now. All that production value just seems lost to me when you're staring at a flat postcard of it that moves. BUT I also don't have a comfort issue with it. Quest actually is horribly uncomfortable to me, PSVR2 is very comfortable. But I've heard people have the opposite feeling. Just like hats and clothing I guess it's down to finding the brand that fits right, too. The other negative of "wearables", though it will never be like "sunglasses" because otherwise you can't block out light, can't keep it from shifting and falling off, etc.

But yeah, I do get the games part, that's what annoys me, if the games were there, imagine the great MS 1st party catalogue all available in VR....the idea of using VR to engage with it would be so much more appealing for so many. Sure you get a choice, VR or not, but even if it's hybrid 2d/3d play, the ability to drop into the world "for real" whenever you want is a powerful form of entertainment you just can't get elsewhere.

It's just immensely frustrating to be someone that does like it, once you get used to the idea of being INSIDE the game, the world is the world around you, then trying to be "immersed" watching an animated postcard on a rectangle....it never, ever, feels great again. Every game feels ancient and obsolete to me now. I compared it to a Game Boy but it really feels that way. Whatever the latest most advanced XSXS5 games come out over the gen.....as long as it's a flat moving picture....it'll always feel 30 years old to me. You're in a racecar....vs...you're watching a picture of a racecar.... Just...how can it ever compare?

@Sakai That does suck that you had motions issues with it. That's the one REAL issue with adoption is some people like yourself just won't be able to mesh with it. I did get lucky, never any issues, and using NMS as the example, dogfighting, flying upside down over planets, loops and barrel rolls, never a problem at all, for hours on end, and I'm someone that wouldn't touch a looping roller coaster with a barge pole. That's the one true real barrier.

Definitely not a "monitor strapped to your face though." PSVR1 was kind of primitive, for sure, though, the more modern sets are definitely leaps above that in terms of how naturally the image and feel work. It's googles, sure, but lots of activities require safety goggles.

@UltimateOtaku91 I so much agree, lol!

@themightyant Why is Nintendo Karen staring at her Switch in the corner at the rooftop party? Why is Dad staring at his phone screen while the family is busy? or the 1950s version "Why's dad passed out drunk on the couch again?"

There may be the illusion of participating with everyone and not being cut off while playing on a Switch or with a phone, or playing GoW on the TV but there really isn't, the brain doesn't work that way, and anyone that's tried to play a game or read an email on a small screen, let alone the big TV in the room while "pretending" to listen to someone and respond without sounding like you weren't listening (because you weren't) knows it doesn't REALLY work. You cna play your Zelda on your Switch like Karen, swipe away on your phone, sit in front of the TV staring intently, bet trapped inside your VR, or stick a port-a-potty in the living room and lock the door....you're about as sensory connected to everyone else either way At least the headset says "closed for business" rather than "yeah, yeah I was listening yeah sure, light billys head on fire ok sure don't be out too late (mashes B furiously)"

Perception. Realistically if you're intently playing Starfield on the TV, or you're playing it in a headset, you're equally cut off from the world. The kind of person that needs to be interacting with people around them like that is probably not playing the kinds of games that works well with it anyway, at least when it would matter. And of course if it were more mainstream more in the family would be playing their games in their headsets at the same time, just as they're already staring at their phones and switches all the time not paying attention to each other.

@J_Mo_Money LOL have you seen the price of designer sunglasses? VR headsets are cheap in comparison

@101Force Definitely agree on costs and price, totally. And I think that applies for game/console prices too. But I still don't get the narrative about "too small for VR" like that's the point of VR, it turns a small space into a big space. Most VR you play sitting on the couch. Arguably more compact, you don't need a TV taking up space. Zero more space than a normal console game, if not less.

Yes you CAN do the whole roomscale thing. I certainly don't. Not enough space, and really just not interested. Most VR games are played sitting, same as normal console games.

@NEStalgia I don't mean designer sunglasses, I mean like a good pair of Under Armour's for $100-200 bucks. When VR becomes that small, comfortable, functional, and inexpensive then it will see an increase in market. Problem is, it won't see that type of form factor/price anywhere close in the next 10 years at least IMO. We're talking way into the future. Traditional ways of gaming is still king and will be for quite some time.

No matter of how good it is. I personally won't wear VR goggles on my head to play a game. I do know many people enjoy it, for this reason I hope it does well.

@J_Mo_Money Well, to be fair Quest 2's price cut isn't much more than that, so at least for a "budget" experience it's getting closer, though it's surely not as small as that. Though I think there's a little bit of impractical thinking with the "sunglasses" idea. I.E. if you look down or jerk your head it'll fall off, and skew and that won't work, it needs something to strap it tight. Even if it's like those sports glasses bands some day.

Though I agree that kind of form factor is a long way away and still not necessarily desirable (remember there's a good amount of focusing optics inside, more like binoculars, than like flat glasses, AR can work with glasses maybe, VR still needs focusing optics, so not having some thickness is an impossibility not due to technology but due to physics of light transmission and eyeballs.

I don't think anyone expects VR to replace traditional gaming anymore than anyone expects console gaming to replace mobile gaming (shudder)....it'll never be a casual thing that everybody slaps on. But I'd like to see it become a MUCH more popular option among the kind of people that play 200 hour RPGs and simulators in general. It's not a good fit for the masses that just play some FIFA and GTA with their friends for 30 minutes here and there. But the kind of people hyped for Starfield and FF and Flight Sim, it's just so much a good fit. All the people buying $2000 TVs could spend 1/2-1/4 that and technically get a much more immersive experience. Kind of a shame that it refuses to catch on, in part due to the software selection not having the games people want.

I'm kind of more hyped about the indie VR games because they're VR than most of the "big" games that to me, at this point, feel lower budget no matter how much they spend on it. Bethesda is the one exception because I'm a Bethesda superfan but.....I've played Skyrim in VR now....I know what I'm missing...

@Magabro laggy gameplay where the resolution randomly craps out, all in VR?

Sign me up, I love vomiting 👍

@NEStalgia The day VR catches on bigtime is the day you change that avatar of yours to Zelda 2 which, IMO, is the most underrated Zelda game of all time. sigh that'll be the day ...

@J_Mo_Money LOL! I have a love-hate relationship with Zelda II TBH.

Although......if......I could play it in VR...........

@NEStalgia : I think the only "couch VR" that appeals to me are racing games, flight sims, and a handful of other games. For FPS games, RPGs, adventure games, etc. I'd rather play on a TV instead of "couch VR", if those are the only options available to me. And maybe I'm in the minority, but I suspect the sentiment is common enough.

@101Force I'm sure it's common, but what I don't get is why one wouldn't want to see, say the world of Skyrim actually around them rather than watching a flat picture of it move.

I mean I know there's many reasons, the motion sickness for some, just not liking the feel of it, etc, etc. But generally, why would you rather watch a flat moving photo than actually be inside the world of the RPG or FPS?

(And for FPS why on earth would anyone rather wiggle an analog stick to weirdly dial in their aim rather than just aim the freaking gun? )

It's strange to me how people go nuts over production value and visuals, but actually making the world 3 dimensions around them is too much, they just want ever prettier moving photographs.

@NEStalgia I get what you’re saying about a 3D world around you being more immersive but then you look down at your hands in VR games and they’re usually just floating there 🤣🤣 it takes all that immersion away for me.

@NEStalgia : With "couch VR" you'd still be using an analogue stick to move in those types of games, so I don't really see VR-aiming as a huge win, especially when strafing, quickly turning around, etc. The type of advantages offered VR-aiming are similar enough to the gyroscopic aiming in Resident Evil 4 for the Wii and while it's certainly fun, the game found far greater success on the PS3 and Xbox 360. And I'd argue that's because without a specific degree of immersion people tend to prefer to play on a TV.

@101Force Strongly disagree about aiming, despite MOVING using the stick and accelerating turning, shooters including nms mining laser is far more natural, accurate, faster, and easier when you're just aiming a controller. Remember, one hand is free to just aim like a pistol. If we're taking mouse vs, vr still is better but it's closer. Analog stick aiming? Let's be real, its never been good, ever so anything is better. The only reason it works at all is console games always have aim assist while PC mouse games and vr games don't. It would be unplayable otherwise.

Again using the nms example in VR you just point the pistol and aim at thing to thing to mine it or shoot it. Analog is so slow and fiddly because you're using a pistol like an rc car vs just actually using the pistol.

Even if people don't like the goggles the one thing that really is indisputable is the controls. But it really only works if you can use your head to look, so wii felt bad anyway.

@Fenbops lol maybe, my hands are where my hands should be, so it all seems fine... Maybe you're right, maybe they need to add arms! never bothers me but I can see how disembodied hands can be unnerving 😂

It’s a smart move for MS. They need to get their affairs in order outside of VR before spending more resources elsewhere. We’re still a good 5-10 years away from VR starting to really become mainstream. They will lose nothing by sitting back and waiting for a more opportune time to enter the market.

VR will be huge someday, in a lot of markets besides gaming, and when all is said and done I fully expect MS will be one of the companies in the market. We’re just not there yet.

Right now its expensive with games that don't match the quality of non VR games. Maybe the technology along with a reasonable price are just a few years away. It's easy for MS to look at PSVR and think "yeah no thanks" right now.

If xbox could support third party vr headsets, I'll probably get a vr headset.

The best Xbox accessory I purchased was the quest 2 , I first used it with Xbox to stream my Xbox to as the TV was being used and now it's sort of moved on to the standard way to play Xbox for me

@NEStalgia "Nintendo's always looking for some unexplored territory, and "handheld" gaming is going to get eroded by mobile/streaming more and more, they need a new niche to make mainstream for a while. "

2009 called. It wants its talking points back.

If sales trends over the last few decades are anything to go by, handheld gaming isn't going anywhere. Game streaming has failed to catch people's attention, and Switch has reinvigorated interest in powerful handheld tech.

Mobile gaming is its own thing.

I'm not saying they won't eventually push out a VR-focused console, but it will also be a hybrid.

@NEStalgia

Vehicle based games, Starfield, shooters, Starfield, racers, Starfield, Flight Sim, Doom, Halo Starfield, Minecraft, Sea of Theives, Minecraft, Starfield, Minecraft, Dishonored, Oblivion, Starfield. MS has TONS of existing games that are practically built for VR already.

I honestly dont think VR is that good for FPS, for one due to motion sickness. It's also not a trivial thing to turn every FPS game into a game that can render 90fps in VR.

For me, I find games that have the player inside some static cockpit of sorts (like a car or a plane) to be ideal because they are way less likely to trigger motion sickness. The static first person view of a driving wheel and the inside of a car are less likely to trigger motion sickness, at least from what I have read on the topic.

Tried out PSVR2 recently. Absolutely amazing how good it is. But I've no intention of buying one at the current cost. Right now it's just a cool tech-demo.

@Ralizah Maybe, but Nintendo doesn't like to sit idly by doing the the same thing hoping no one bigger goes for their market. Now bean-counter Furukawa may be a different matter than Iwata, and unfortunately probably is, but now that Switch is so popular, everyone's gunning for its market, from cloud to Chinese "retro" handhelds like Retroids, to Sonys RP whatever-it-is, their blue oceans getting awfully red. We all expect "Switch 2" but I also don't expect "Switch 3", if it happens it means Nintendo as we know it is dead and it's just another iterative tech company. So I expect if any of old Nintendo is left, they'll about face or go "third pillar" at some point. And they have a history of playing with stereoscopy. If Miyamoto's still there at the time it'll definitely be a factor.

@Tharsman Honestly I think the push for even 2D gaming is for every FPS is that it needs to be 90-120fps, at least any competitive one, so I don't see the fps being a problem at all (queue the Redfall jokes now...)

Motion sickness, yes, that's an issue for some players, and it will always be an issue for some players. I don't think that's something that can be aimed at one genre or another, but that's the one true overarching issue for VR that really can never be resolved because it's psychosomatic. We can solve price, perception, comfort, otherwise, but that one is stuck as a hurdle that just keeps some unknown portion of the market out for good, at least so far, unless someone figures out a magic way to solve it. It's known that something with a rendered cockpit can (or might not) help with that, but surely the whole format shouldn't be limited due to that, more realistically there can be a more standardized OPTIONAL!!! setting for adding a "space helmet" or something for shooters to help those with motion issues.

Pavlov is one of the most popular VR games (because online vs. military shooter, of course), I've loved the time I've spent with Light Brigade (not into rogues but the shooting is great), And there's a host of shooters coming up, so thankfully the genre really isn't avoiding it. NMS obviously is mostly walking around on planets, "shooting" stuff, I suppose requires an iron stomach overall? Certainly a super popular VR game within the PC realm. But Pavlov, Crossfire's coming up, Light Bigade, Synapse is a rogue shooter coming up, Crossfire's coming up with a VR entry (queue CF X jokes), Sonys one and only known first party game is an online shooter, and there's more I can't think of, so the genre definitely is firmly represented. Too much in a lot of ways.

Doom VR was great and that was years ago and kind of primitive. It's improved since then. Bethesda used to do cool VR stuff

VR is 3DTV v.2 and too many people get motion sickness for it to ever take off. Plus it will only ever work with some genres. It's pretty limiting in what games you can develop and make. Everything has to be first person which can be pretty limiting.

AR tech is the way forward.

Really enjoyed my PSVR2 for a couple of weeks until it broke. Thankfully got full refund, but I'm not as interested in VR as I was before.

Dual screens don't get used well of possibilities (getting there over time, further than the Wii U did with it's limits of OS use) but exist for a niche audience and dual screen phones get support.

Cough Surface Duo is niche but their willing to put Microsoft Android flavour on it like come on.

How big? I mean sure it's niche but even then third parties are just as cautious, why not build an audience then you get an audience duh. Some companies I swear. Even making small games is an option but companies are too safe and it gets boring. Some that do see some success I assume but like many companies want to do that.

Some companies have done great with VR and yet Insomniac/Bethesda are bought and haven't made a VR game since it's annoying. While others went we tried see you later. Like small attempts is fine but it's gen 2 of VR at least try.

The problem I feel is some customers treat it as a party trick when it's more than that and actually the next dimension of gaming like 3D polygons were over FMV. But oh well. I won't deny I have issues with some VR games but even playing motion control games good and bad (mostly Wii games) I better understand VR's extra steps of motion controls and the headset use then those I know into VR because I have researched and played the closest things to the use cases of the technology with and without using VR.

Then again Sony/Nintendo always experiment. I won't deny Sony has gotten more big budget focused then their niche games but hardware wise they do still throw things at the wall. They literally still have Walkman and phones with good cameras for niche audiences even if the Vita didn't sell well. Other corners of their business covers niches. Some niches do get bigger others don't.

VR hasn't stopped like 3D TV/3DS support did because they were out of people's view, anaglyph and stereoscopic was not clear to people compared to paper glasses and of course it's not something many care for that did experience it and even smaller still play games with 3D support/bought or still kept their 3D TVs. (Like me because mine still works XD).

I mean VorpX for VR/3D is enough to say the PC community are interested enough to find old favourite games to use their headsets with in new ways (just like modding for other things) if that isn't audience interest I don't know what is besides all the official VR supported games on PC/Console.

Also you can't say too niche when Pentiment is niche. Willing to go for certain game angles but hardware yeah I get it. But why not an AR system HoloLens is for businesses at the moment. Could be part of some games with the Xbox app maybe then a headset.

Is supporting 2 pieces of hardware difficult yes (I hate the Project Q Lite it's not even going to do much because why would they have 2 hardware focuses, sigh not interested in it it's a screen that requires no effort to develop for how boring I can do it elsewhere already many places) but Sony did Singstar, Playlink, VR, Move, Eye Toy, Pocket Station and so on. I know the Japanese throw a lot at the wall to see what works and London Studio/Sony's internal studios did a great job with each of them but still.