Support NeoGAF

[sinnergy]

Ironically this was the marketing line for Kinect. That there was no need for a controller that was apparently a barrier for 'ordinary people'. It's a headset and those who use it get use to it, just like a controller.

But who wants to be out of contact with the rest of the room .. for hours or even days ,only the hardcore ..

 

[DarthBuzzer]

But still, this didn't change much. Yes it sells quite good, but I would guess, most of them sell well to people who already had a first-gen VR headset. It doesn't change the other things that are negative about VR (e.g. it is still a headset)

It's confirmed that the vast majority of Quest 2 sales are to new users.

There is a big difference there. The Adaptive controllers add more people to the existing systems. VR splits the userbase into 2 groups. Adaptive controllers are there for people that can play games "the normal" way. VR is pointless in this regard. VR is just another gimmik.

How is DualSense not a gimmick in your mind then? It was born from Sony's PSVR division, and goes in the same direction of more immersion. If VR is a gimmick, then by your own logic, DualSense has to be too. Right?

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

But still, this didn't change much. Yes it sells quite good, but I would guess, most of them sell well to people who already had a first-gen VR headset. It doesn't change the other things that are negative about VR (e.g. it is still a headset)



There is a big difference there. The Adaptive controllers add more people to the existing systems. VR splits the userbase into 2 groups.

It definitely doesn't. This is an idea playing off the thought that VR gamers only play VR games, but this isn't true for the majority of them. They play both, so it's actually adding more options for gamers as a whole, not splitting the base into two.

That could probably be said of most add-ons actually; unless it creates complete incompatibility (at which point, it's probably its own new console), the base isn't necessarily being split, even on the developer side (especially these days).

Adaptive controllers are there for people that can play games "the normal" way. VR is pointless in this regard. VR is just another gimmik.

But, and this may come off as a bit in poor taste as an example, couldn't gamers with no need for adaptive controllers consider those kind of controllers as gimmicks, for their own personal use-case? Again I think it'd be in very poor taste and reductive, but saying VR is just a gimmick is a pretty reductive take IMO, if not necessarily one in poor taste (or certainly anywhere near the example I gave with adaptive controllers).

 

[Romulus]

Of course it won't completely die, the very same way Kinect is still up and running, but as a gaming device (because keep in mind this is a gaming forum and we're talking about games here) - yeah, it most likely will, unless some miracle happens like a 100-150$ price tag or something, because like I said, people will be sick and tired of it already before it gets "good enough".

How is kinect up and running like VR? Kinects sales graph boomed for 8 months and died, vr has been increasing sales exponentially for years. Its the complete opposite in terms of sales graph with kinect being the poster child for what NOT to invest in.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

There was more kinects sold than psvr….would you consider psvr a failure??

Kinect broke Xbox for a while, all they could see was the quick cash grabs... And they made the One, before that point most people were giving them this generation, but MS didn't show up, Sony did pretty well with the PS4 too.

So yeah it was a success, but that was not a good thing for them, or gaming.

Seriously, me and a couple of buddies were going to go from PS3 to Xbox whatever, back then I got the feeling it was going to be the norm, everyone expected MS to do what they had to to win... but they looked at the Kinect numbers and decided it was the core feature of the future.

Anyway, I can't wait for MS to do VR on the Xbox, people will act like they invented it.

 

[Romulus]

The Kinect comparison isn't because it's literally the same thing. It's because it follows a similar pattern:

- new tech comes out that many people thought would be the "next logical step" for gaming

- v1.0 is limited in lots of ways. Geeks fantasize about how great it will be when the technology advances and removes those limitations

- despite the technological advancement, it turns out that people realized they generally prefer regular old ass-on-couch TV gaming over "immersive pantomiming" once the novelty factor wore off

So when are they going to realize that they generally prefer couch TV gaming when it's continually selling more year after year? When is this giant realization going to happen? When it gets smaller and cheaper? Because that's what's happening every year.

 

[Menzies]

I keep seeing the Quest 2 sales numbers used as evidence to support this, but do we know any of the following?

- What is the current game attach rate of the Quest 2?
- What is the game engagement time of Quest 2 users?
- How many $60 RRP games have been sold?
- How many people use the tethered gaming?
- How many people just don't use it for gaming at all?

It is my suspicion that we will discover that many of the sales are from people willing to give VR a try, as a low-cost barrier of entry and not requiring any other expensive hardware.

Asking the question another way, will an Xbox VR product match the versatility and more generalised use of a Quest 2 VR? Probably not.

 

[Romulus]

I keep seeing the Quest 2 sales numbers used as evidence to support this, but do we know any of the following?

- What is the current game attach rate of the Quest 2?
- What is the game engagement time of Quest 2 users?
- How many $60 RRP games have been sold?
- How many people use the tethered gaming?
- How many people just don't use it for gaming at all?

It is my suspicion that we will discover that many of the sales are from people willing to give VR a try, as a low-cost barrier of entry and not requiring any other expensive hardware.

Asking the question another way, will an Xbox VR product match the versatility and more generalised use of a Quest 2 VR? Probably not.

We don't even know most of the answers to your questions for ps5 and XBox series S do we? We know there are definitely $60 games on the consoles, and mostly $40 on Quest. The rest is just not something shared in the first year. Quest 2, XSX, and Ps5 are all new.
And of course, sales are likely indicative of the lower cost, but I don't see what that means really. You said it yourself in the next sentence, versatility is also a huge factor and a growing library.

 

[Son_of_Zardoz]

MS doesn't have to mess with HoloLens as a VR platform, they already have Windows Mixed Reality on PC with various compatible headsets. I can't imagine that it would take too much effort to port that over to the Xbox and allow approved devices to work there. Hoping that's what happens down the line.

I'm excited for the future of VR but understand it's going to be a while before it goes mainstream. The Quest 2 is certainly leading the charge because wireless is the way but I'll be happy to remain tethered to my PC for the massive increase in power vs existing wireless standalone VR sets. Once the difference between the two gets much smaller, things are going to be amazing.

 

[Menzies]

We don't even know most of the answers to your questions for ps5 and XBox series S do we? We know there are definitely $60 games on the consoles, and mostly $40 on Quest. The rest is just not something shared in the first year. Quest 2, XSX, and Ps5 are all new.
And of course, sales are likely indicative of the lower cost, but I don't see what that means really. You said it yourself in the next sentence, versatility is also a huge factor and a growing library.

And yet, we see Quest 2 sales numbers repeatedly spruced as some meaningful statistic for why MS should support a VR add-on.

I think MS announced 10 million users played Forza Horizon 5 in its' first weekend, are there any figures splashed around from any VR publisher?

 

[SportsFan581]

The future of VR is VR that doesn't force you to be tethered by a cable to another expensive box.

There's a reason the Quest is doing so well.

A self contained VR system/headset that you can take and play anywhere is where the efforts should continue to go.

Quest 2 is doing great, but I would say what will sell VR more than anything is great software. The more powerful the hardware you have to work with, the better the illusion can be that you've stepped into another reality.

But no question the fact that a traditional headset needs a 1.5 - 2k PC to go with it definitely hurts adoption.

 

[Romulus]

And yet, we see Quest 2 sales numbers repeatedly spruced as some meaningful statistic for why MS should support a VR add-on.

I think MS announced 10 million users played Forza Horizon 5 in its' first weekend, are there any figures splashed around from any VR publisher?

FH5 is on 4 consoles and PC, hardly even remotely fair and probably the reason for the logic to avoid direct comparisons. PC has had an established user base for literal decades and Xbox one has some 50+ million users. Not even counting XSX/XSS. Actually, looking at all that, are you sure it's not more than 10 million users in a weekend? I mean with PC you're looking at hundreds of millions of potential users.

 

[Menzies]

FH5 is on 4 consoles and PC, hardly even remotely fair and probably the reason for the logic to avoid direct comparisons. PC has had an established user base for literal decades and Xbox one has some 50+ million users. Not even counting XSX/XSS. Actually, looking at all that, are you sure it's not more than 10 million users in a weekend? I mean with PC you're looking at hundreds of millions of potential users.

I take the point that it's hard to discern per platform. The question remains what game sales figures have been announced to further provide evidence of its' viability?

You're making my original point for me again. There's so much more market scale of developing a traditional game over a VR game.

On the topic of 'Microsoft should support VR on Xbox' consoles you can be optimistic, pessimistic or pragmatic.

Pragmatically, I would suggest that a Xbox VR add-on, has a lot more in common with a PSVR add-on over the Quest 2. As such, they can expect similar numbers, which beg the question whether it's worth supporting a tethered, expensive, add-on, with $60 games over a stand-alone product with cheaper games and a lot more 'non-gaming' versatility.

 

[Romulus]

I take the point that it's hard to discern per platform. The question remains what game sales figures have been announced to further provide evidence of its' viability?

You're making my original point for me again. There's so much more market scale of developing a traditional game over a VR game.

On the topic of 'Microsoft should support VR on Xbox' consoles you can be optimistic, pessimistic or pragmatic.

Pragmatically, I would suggest that a Xbox VR add-on, has a lot more in common with a PSVR add-on over the Quest 2. As such, they can expect similar numbers, which beg the question whether it's worth supporting a tethered, expensive, add-on, with $60 games over a stand-alone product with cheaper games and a lot more 'non-gaming' versatility.

Well, what game sales have we seen out of PS5 and XSX? Very little, but I'll get to that later. But those machines have also been out a year just like Quest 2. What I'm telling us is they're not going to report the software stuff as much before it will be compared to previous consoles that had millions more consoles to sell to. It could be good or bad, we don't know. I know Alyx did 2 million in sales with barely any headsets on the market. That's more than Ratchet and Clack or Returnal. On Xbox you get game pass, so that skews it even more. Beat Saber sold 4 million. Superhot made more revenue from VR than all the combined non VR versions they made.
But who would even argue that VR games have more share at this point? Literally, 2021 was the first arguable "mainstream" year. Do you really expect a Forza or COD numbers? Before 2021, the highest hardware sales were under 2 million. 2021 is 10 million. So roughly 5x growth in a single year.
PSVR and Xbox add on having similar numbers is a big guess. PSVR was outdated tech on day 1 that alot of people hated. VR has come a long way even before it was released with controllers and tracking. Just to be clear, i think Xbox should stay out of VR for awhile, but not for any reason you've listed.

 

[Three]

I take the point that it's hard to discern per platform. The question remains what game sales figures have been announced to further provide evidence of its' viability?

There are no sales figures for your example of FH5 either. The 10 million is number of players people got from a leaderboard. A lot of whom launched it from a subscription service. Prior to gamepass and the multiplatform strategy FH was hitting only ~3M actual sales on the far more popular 360.

So the issue isn't that VR games won't sell or be played. It's that the VR install base is currently smaller hence individual game sales are not in the 10M+. How do you expect VR games to sell if you are not creating the install base for it? Then using game sales to justify not supporting something required to play them. It makes no sense. It would have been like saying FH games aren't viable before it actually had access to a larger install base and started increasing in number of players. VR as a medium currently has the biggest growth and is viable. Oculus is a company doing fine with just VR.

 

[Menzies]

But who would even argue that VR games have more share at this point? Literally, 2021 was the first arguable "mainstream" year. Do you really expect a Forza or COD numbers? Before 2021, the highest hardware sales were under 2 million. 2021 is 10 million. So roughly 5x growth in a single year.
PSVR and Xbox add on having similar numbers is a big guess. PSVR was outdated tech on day 1 that alot of people hated. VR has come a long way even before it was released with controllers and tracking. Just to be clear, i think Xbox should stay out of VR for awhile, but not for any reason you've listed.

No. Far, far from it.

What I think we need to be clear about these wonderful Quest 2 sales figures and growth is that 1x Quest 2 VR sale =/= 1x console sale in context of the gaming market. That is to say that, there is lower attach rates, lower game revenue, lower in-game spend, lower engagement, as we know the Quest headset is more versatile than just gaming.

Good to know about those VR game sales. At the same time, there's nothing showing there which would make me change tack and support this with the current technology.

How do you expect VR games to sell if you are not creating the install base for it? Then using game sales to justify not supporting something required to play them. It makes no sense.

It's not Microsoft's problem to solve this chicken and egg situation as you've laid it out. These are just the facts of the market. I'm sure Microsoft didn't like this when they tried to get Windows Phone off the ground, there weren't enough users to warrant making apps to support the platform. They don't need to splinter off user bases and development efforts for every piece of technology that individuals desire.

 

[Three]

It's not Microsoft's problem to solve this chicken and egg situation as you've laid it out. These are just the facts of the market. I'm sure Microsoft didn't like this when they tried to get Windows Phone off the ground, there weren't enough users to warrant making apps to support the platform. They don't need to splinter off user bases and development efforts for every piece of technology that individuals desire.

No it's not their problem but you can't say smartphone app downloads were low compared to Windows programs so smartphones aren't viable for example. VR is viable. Should MS invest in growing the market? I don't know that remains to be seen but just like Windows phone if they remain without developer support for long enough others might establish an ecosystem they will have trouble catching up with.

 

[Romulus]

No. Far, far from it.

What I think we need to be clear about these wonderful Quest 2 sales figures and growth is that 1x Quest 2 VR sale =/= 1x console sale in context of the gaming market. That is to say that, there is lower attach rates, lower game revenue, lower in-game spend, lower engagement, as we know the Quest headset is more versatile than just gaming.

Good to know about those VR game sales. At the same time, there's nothing showing there which would make me change tack and support this with the current technology.

We don't know about engagement per console watching Netflix, Disney+, or all the other apps either. I'm sure there will be studies showing these devices are used alot as media devices too like last generation. You can't say there is a lower software attach rate, that requires data. There are people that just buy a console for COD and madden. You can't say lower engagement either because there's no data for either side. Revenue is probably an easy one for consoles. "In-game spend." No idea.
Why would anything I've shown you make you want to support VR? Would you want to support normal gaming if I just showed you sales charts with COD and fortnite dominating everything? Seems there would be more stuff with substance, wouldn't it? Definitely the same is true for VR.

 

[ZywyPL]

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/wind...-xbox-fans-want-to-see-fixed-in-2022.1627744/

 

[Kagey K]

2% of Xbox users care about VR according to that other thread.

 

[UltimaKilo]

Why not just partner up with that competitor now and NOT buy them for billions later?

Because VR is far from a mature tech and it's far cheaper to allow others to, not only build a market, but develop the technology.

 

[Three]

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/wind...-xbox-fans-want-to-see-fixed-in-2022.1627744/

2% of Xbox users care about VR according to that other thread.

So going by this Windows Central Survey Don Mattrick was right to focus on TV TV TV.

 

[Kagey K]

So going by this Windows Central Survey Don Mattrick was right to focus on TV TV TV.

Where's the TV TV TV part?

I must be missing a tiny piece of that pie chart.

 

[Three]

Where's the TV TV TV part?

I must be missing a tiny piece of that pie chart.

I think it's my bad reading DVR when it's referring to screen recordings in general. BC is so low at 2% aswell but everyone asks for that too.

 

[Kagey K]

I think it's my bad reading DVR when it's referring to screen recordings in general. BC is so low at 2% aswell but everyone asks for that too.

Because there isn't much left to ask for that doesn't have licensing issues.

Plus all the big games are there, it's a few asking for some niche games.

 

[mxbison]

They obviously don't need it yet, but when VR eventually goes huge they could be quite far behind.

I doubt that Microsoft is just striaght up doing nothing in that field though. Surely they already have their fair share of VR/AR research even if it's just on the software side for now.

 

[Kagey K]

They obviously don't need it yet, but when VR eventually goes huge they could be quite far behind.

I doubt that Microsoft is just striaght up doing nothing in that field though. Surely they already have their fair share of VR/AR research even if it's just on the software side for now.

Hololens is way ahead of what other people are doing, it just doesn't have a consumer facing product yet.

 

[Gameplaylover]

They obviously don't need it yet, but when VR eventually goes huge they could be quite far behind.

I doubt that Microsoft is just striaght up doing nothing in that field though. Surely they already have their fair share of VR/AR research even if it's just on the software side for now.

Consoles are almost like pcs, they could just make a Deal with Meta.

 

[Kagey K]

Consoles are almost like pcs, they could just make a Deal with Meta.

If I needed a FB (or Meta) account to keep playing I would toss my console out.

That's literally the day i die, and watch reruns of Matlock until my body gives out.

 

[ZywyPL]

So going by this Windows Central Survey Don Mattrick was right to focus on TV TV TV.

Probably. But certainly not for 100$ extra and with always-online DRM.

 

[Three]

Because there isn't much left to ask for that doesn't have licensing issues.

Plus all the big games are there, it's a few asking for some niche games.

This feedback is more complaints than requests. The BC one it's people complaining about the quality of BC on Xbox Series S and not games asked for if you read the text.

This is a Windows Central author asking his twitter followers of xbox fans for feedback. 2% of xbox fans wanted VR. I'd say that's actually fairly high on a feedback survey and not a feature request survey. Most people just complained about things broken on the current xbox. If VR launched on xbox with issues it'll probably be higher in this feedback of complaints than not releasing.

It would be interesting if somebody did a survey of 'what feature would you like to see added to xbox' with VR as a choice. That would be more indicative.

 

[Kagey K]

Probably. But certainly not for 100$ extra and with always-online DRM.

He had it ficked, nowhere in the chart is TV or Streaming mentioned.

 

[Kagey K]

This feedback is more complaints than requests. The BC one it's people complaining about the quality of BC on Xbox Series S and not games asked for if you read the text.

This is a Windows Central author asking his twitter followers of xbox fans for feedback. 2% of xbox fans wanted VR. I'd say that's actually fairly high on a feedback survey and not a feature request survey. Most people just complained about things broken on the current xbox. If VR launched on xbox with issues it'll probably be higher in this feedback of complaints than not releasing.

It would be interesting if somebody did a survey of 'what feature would you like to see added to xbox' with VR as a choice. That would be more indicative.

Well perhaps another day, and another grant they could set up that survey.

Until then this us what we got.

 

[Deleted member 471617]

MS makes a lot of first person games that would probably be quite popular with a vr mode. They could support something like this without needing to make VR specific games. The funny thing is that VR modes like Skyrim and RE4 are just as popular/well received as most of the VR specific software.

Perhaps but considering the fact that it's taken Microsoft a generation to finally get their first party studios in order, there's no need to stretch themselves thin by concentrating on VR. They don't have their own VR headset and I don't want them to. VR is extremely niche. PSVR sold 6m. What's the point? Point of entry is too expensive and you need the console in which all of them are hard to find and buy. At best, I can see allowing third party VR headsets on Xbox but I don't see them going further than that.

 

[SportsFan581]

Perhaps but considering the fact that it's taken Microsoft a generation to finally get their first party studios in order, there's no need to stretch themselves thin by concentrating on VR. They don't have their own VR headset and I don't want them to. VR is extremely niche. PSVR sold 6m. What's the point? Point of entry is too expensive and you need the console in which all of them are hard to find and buy. At best, I can see allowing third party VR headsets on Xbox but I don't see them going further than that.

This thread isn't so much about a dedicated headset on Xbox, it's more about adding low-effort support via existing hardware and 3rd party VR software along with VR modes to existing games.

 

[mckmas8808]

Because VR is far from a mature tech and it's far cheaper to allow others to, not only build a market, but develop the technology.

Which is literally what I'm saying now. Partner with Valve now and allow the Vive to be playable on the Xbox Series consoles. It would be that hard to do. Especially since so much of what MS does on the OS side of things translates directly to what's going on with the PC side of things.

 

[UltimaKilo]

Which is literally what I'm saying now. Partner with Valve now and allow the Vive to be playable on the Xbox Series consoles. It would be that hard to do. Especially since so much of what MS does on the OS side of things translates directly to what's going on with the PC side of things.

The current Vive offerings are quite terrible. I don't believe Microsoft want to be in the market of skewing people away from VR on their platform. They'd be better off just waiting a few years and releasing their own. However, there might be new headsets coming this year, or next, that might be better suited for a partnership.

 

[Deleted member 471617]

This thread isn't so much about a dedicated headset on Xbox, it's more about adding low-effort support via existing hardware and 3rd party VR software along with VR modes to existing games.

I can see Microsoft allowing compatibility with VR headsets. That's fine. I just don't want Microsoft to have their first party studios developing VR games because it took an entire generation to get where they are and them developing VR games would be a huge setback in my opinion so as long as it's all third party support, that's perfectly fine by me.

 

[Wonko_C]

Their recent aqcuisition of Activision upsets me as a VR player. Not that I GAF about Call of Duty (I likely would if it went VR, though), but that's one title that would help sell headsets.

Microsoft have already robbed us of studios that have made VR games: Bethesda, inXile, Ninja Theory... I just hope they get on the train soon, on the PC at the very least. They did VR for Flight Simulator on PC, why not Forza 5, Halo Infinite, etc.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

If MS wants to release the next Series with a port to plug in a Rift or Index, and sell VR games on its store then I'm all for it. I don't want MS putting out their own headset, or dedicating resources for VR until the VR space is ubiquitous.

MS learned the lesson the Kinect taught them. Innovative tech is cool, but not to go all in on it when the consumer base is not ready to get on-board.