inXile CEO Brian Fargo is a big believer in VR thanks to the huge passion behind it. He compared that with Microsoft's Kinect, which felt "forced" instead.
Kinect could've been something amazing with more accuracy, but alas, we got what we got. VR is something a lot more studios are getting involved in, so it really goes without saying.
Yeah I think forcing it with the Xbox One at launch was a bad idea, they should have given the consumer the choice to buy it.
and look how it ended up... Peripherals usually don't do well as add-on accessories.
Agreed. I'm passionate about psvr. @ Zeref But Kinect did better as a peripheral than packing it in to the xbone no? Problem was either way it was a fad. Vr is the opposite of a fad. It will keep building and getting better.
I am not convinced that gaming is the best application of VR tech. I'd recommend everyone try it but I'd never recommend anyone buy it.
@zeref had it been an optional accessories it would have done better
Forcing it with XB1 arguably cost MS the generation. Most people weren't interested in Kinect and being forced to pay for it. The decision was easy, $400 for more hardware power and 99% of the same games. Or $500 for less hardware power and 99% of the same games that generally look a bit worse and a glorified $100 plus voice control device. A $399.99 PS4 vs a $329.99 XB1 would have made launch, and as it turned out, this generation much more interesting. By the time xbox adjusted, it was too late. Everyone's friend and friend's friends was saying get PS4 and many people get what their friends have to play online and trade games. In this gen in particular with the emphasis on social online play, launch was where the battle was won. It all just snowballed from there.
kinect had potential just like VR, but yeah MS did everything wrong with that technology, pure wasted potential, will happen the same to VR if developers dont release proper software for it
But it hardl;y enhanced the games or made it better with Kinect. It had its moments like Dance Central but people don't want to fight with the controls. VR actually enhanced the immersion without sacrificing gameplay. You can still play with a regular controller and the accuracy of VR can be very good.
It depends on how you look at it. Kinect could of been used with VR for head tracking. Also kinect worked well for some games that used controllers. Steel battalion was one of them. Ok you need the right setup which I did and it worked but I do think kinect 2 would of been better for that games. It also never got tapped into this gen look what pc Devs have done with both kinect one and two. For me I still don't see them both being the next big thing in gaming because people are stuck in their ways but also why do people want to put a headset on Every time they want to game and on the flip side why spend £400+ for a device that is only used in one or 2 games just like kinect. I do see the good things with be but for me it's not gaming just like AR is also not for gaming and in a way the same with kinect
[email protected] Kinect could have launched with better hardware. I think when Microsoft decided to not use the chip and instead used Xbox 360 and software for motion tracking, it came out weaker than it could have been. And with Xbox one,it was forced and made some gamers back off from buying something they didn't want with their console. But to get more support, it did make sense to launch with the system so that every developer had the knowledge that everyone had it. It's a tough call to make. But everything is hindsight now.
Apocalypse Shadow, It would have been a pretty easy decision if they launched at 399 with the Kinect included, not 500(we all know MS can take the loss).
UltraNova, Mmm, maybe. Remember now, Kinect being bundled with Xbox One as a mandatory peripheral was about more than price. It was right around the time Microsoft was collaborating with the NSA and handing them encrypted user data that we learned about Kinect being mandatory. There were security concerns and trust issues. That was actually a huge reason why I waited for them to sell the console standalone.
VR TOTALLY sacrifices the gameplay Look at RE7, it was made very slow-paced because of vr You cant play a VR game like a normal game VR doesnt work with some kinds of games like street fighter, mario, fifa etc It has several issues in all departments: graphics, gameplay, hardware (tracking cameras, proper controls, wires etc) VR has potencial but needs A LOT of R&D for gameplay and for hardware parts Someday it will be mastered, if the market doesnt lose the interest until then VR is way more complex than kinect Starting with children below 12y cant use it (its not recommended), motion sickness issues, stuffs that limit the general audience
VR prices simply need to come down, with a low price, it only takes a 1 amazing game to sell devices. And that would be like nothing else directly as a result of the medium. If Valve wanted, they could launch VR into the mainstream and then the stratosphere with a $400 device with higher resolution and Half Life 3. I can't even imagine how much energy would be generated in the gaming world from such an announcement. It would be immeasurable. I have faith, next couple of GPU gens should provide enough power at mainstream prices.
PSVR allows for more passive experiences, like just floating around in the sea. You couldn't get that with the Kinect. That one required too much active interaction for true immersion.
VR is useless, like the Kinect. Give me keyboard, mouse, gamepad, 60 fps and nothing else. Thank You Brian.
this may be hard to believe, but you can use a keyboard, and a mouse or a gamepad with VR.
I'm surprised he didn't know that 😁
He said "Give me keyboard, mouse, gamepad, 60fps and nothing else." "..and nothing else." = VR I see it as @Aurenar simply stating he likes all that he listed...without VR. Just curious how you got to your response, after reading his comment?
@Badelf. i saw the nothing else, after the 15 minutes was up so i couldnt edit.
And also, all VR games requires 60 fps as the bare minimum. So your comment turned into a comedy than anything else.
What was his comment? Was it edited or something? Because I don't see what your talking about...being "a comedy"?
Kinect was advertised as a full on upgrade and total enhancement where VR is its own thing.
I'm enjoying VR so far, more pleasant experiences than otherwise
VR being a universal platform (more or less) by its very nature has more support out of the gate than Kinect did. You have more than just one company making hardware for the genre / platform. So yes, VR has more going for it...that however still does't mean it is a guaranteed success. And for all the passion VR seems to have coming from developers we sure seem to be getting way too many shooting gallery experiences. Would really like to see developers get past the shooty shooty games for this.
VR is not universal platform. Well, ironically the only API that is supported by multi-vendors is Microsoft's MR standard (with Asus, Acer, HP, Dell and others). Other than that no one of the current VR platforms follows the same API or has the same specs or anything else other than they go on your head. Kinect and Move were closer in design to each other than all these VR platforms we have now. And this passion for VR is made up. It is a small group; a minority of a minority. Sure the current believers can be passionate but, that does not mean that passion translate to other majority of desktop and console owners. If there was passion then the PSVR would have a great deal more users. But, as it stands 98.5% of PS4 owners that don't have a PSVR. There were more original Kinect owners (over 8 million who bought that device by choice for the 360) then all the Oculus, Vive, PSVRs sales combined; 4 times more original Kinects were sold than all those three VR headsets. So, unless there is some incredible change in the passion, like real beyond 30 minute demos and real games that couldn't easily be experienced as well without the VR then that "passion" will die out just like all the other pet rock passion stories over the years.
Gumby, you're not taking cost into consideration. PSVR, Vive an Oculus are definitely not cheap. They cost 4-6 times kinect price at launch. Of course they wouldn't sell as many units. 98-99% don't have it as not everyone has tried or are interested in VR. Also, there aren't 59 million PSVRs on the shelf to even buy. And development cost for 2 million high end VR headsets is not going to be in the same ballpark as over 100 million consoles and PCs. Secondly, it's not even a year yet to judge games even though there are good ones out now. And not 30 minute tech demos. Any game made could be non VR. That's not the point. In VR, you are now more immersed than playing on a 2D screen. You may believe it's "pet rock." But in a kids classroom, seeing people,places or things in VR is beyond any text book and could add to the curriculum. Seeing a few houses in VR saves realtors time and effort when the buyer can sit and view each property before going to see the ones they picked in person. Job instruction can be more educational before getting hands on for real. Cars can be driven in simulation before ever building one or buying one. Watching a film and being a part of one is totally different. Much more than your pet rock.
@Apocalypse Shadow What is price have to do with it? Kinect was $150 8 years ago. Not exactly cheap. Vive and Oculus have been out for several years but, their demand is negligible. But relative to the cost of the computer that was required to play it $1200+ the expense was similar to a console user spending $150 for a Kinect. I don't know what on shelves mean to you. But, I know what cut back production means to me and that is what Sony has done with the PSVR. PSVR it sold almost 80% of the 1 million in a several months of its release and that demand has essentially dried up in the 7 months following that time. If there were 59 million on the shelves today, there would be the same 59 million shelves a month from now. The point of this article was to show there is this passionate drive. But, there isn't the boys and girls that care have their toys and since that time the rest of us have said "no". Hey, I don't care if you play with VR. More power to you. But, it is not the next coming of anything. It will die out, that is without something that makes its demand necessary or at least desirable to us, the overwhelming majority, who have shown no interest or passion at this point. As for judging games. Yes, I am going to judge games. The same way I would judge any tech that promises something and doesn't deliver on that promise. If this were a movie, I would judge on the current release, not the promise of the fifth film in a series is going to get it right. This is especially true with PSVR. For every RE7 (I guess the gold standard for PSVR) there was the rest of the games that were tech demos. 15 minutes of game play may excite you but, a majority of us don't have that passion for demos, it is lost on us. And we are the ones you need to make it out of niche-dom. An in reality RE7, which I played both ways was not really that stellar of a VR example, it was just the best answer to claims that VR was not living up to the promise. And even though Sony showed off several VR games at E3 there was very little that looked like it couldn't have been easily done without the VR. Or just looked like another dumb ass game thrown together. Let's go Fishing, yeah so creative. /s And Moss what people thought was the best of PSVR is a perfect example of the low expectation of VR quality. It looks really nice graphically but provided nothing that would not be just as satisfying without VR. And that is the problem. The promise of VR for us, the mass majority of gamers, is that the promise has a long way to go before it can interest us and if it can't it will be niched product (not even able to reach pet rocket acceptance). Oh, please spare me that kids classroom example. It is a teaching tool that is limited. Almost everyone believes expects AR is the answer not VR. I can argue that Kinect 2 (a device that felt forced by this article) is used in science or help in school or a handicap person (multiple stories come out a couple of times a year how it helped do this or that) but, that does mean there is a demand or passion outside those that have the device. And your argument that some school with extensive resources decided to buy a couple VR devices instead of iPads doesn't mean anything. Show me the numbers of how it improves anything. Not it made Johnny so much more excited. No data, no prize. Come-on for years it was the belief the tablet that was going to make kids more productive and make it easier to learn. But, data shows that to be false. If anything, the data shows it actually makes kids less productive and have less retention. I am not saying VR or AR or iPads don't have a role but that role is only valuable once the student exceeds the base threshold of knowledge not before.
"An in reality RE7, which I played both ways was not really that stellar of a VR" @Apocalypse Shadow I disagree with this. RE7 was an amazing experience because of psvr. Far better than on a 2d screen.
I notice a HUGE curiosity about VR, even non-gamers are aware of its existence and wanna try it Its not the minority of the minority, but from mere curiosity to buy and use one regularly (buy content), its a gigantic gap
kinect's potential was squandered, but it was a lot of fun and my family has sunk lots of hours into the games, experiences and fitness. I hope they put some more effort into it.