Microsoft's Albert Penello stated that they didn't want to distract developers with VR this year. They learned from the experience with Kinect that translating a typical game experience isn't going to work.
Hopefully that does not mean that next year's E3 will be full of VR bs instead of new AAA IPs...
I second that thought!
So....will you need a kinetic to run vr? Also why mention it in the first place? Was it a lie altogether just to combat songs vr, Kinda like how true 4k was a lie?
I guess Microsoft feels the same about exclusive titles so that's why there hasn't been any exclusive games for the xbox in years because they don't want to distract developers with exclusive games
@Jaguar 1/10 up your game m80, read up on some troll books for more originality 😉😂😂
Yo thrash. Maybe they wanted to keep the consumer informed. Hey well do vr when it's ready. Right now it's not a must buy for consoles.
They also don't want to distract their fanbase with exclusives.
E3 will be the big XBO VR coming out party complete with Minecraft VR and the Halo VR Experience!
I second that thought, and add. Microsoft said they learned from Kinect. I thought the main problem with kinect was not that it was to advanced, undeveloped, but that you was going to be FORCED to get it to get the console. The other lessons are secondary to that.
Translated: We didn't have a system powerful enough for VR this year, and didn't want to admit it. Now we will release VR, but only on our new system.
Funny how during the PS3 era all we would hear is give Sony time to bring exclusives and yet those same people not willing to see how hypocritical they really are this gen.
They didnt want to "confuse" developers? Is that why MS has so much to offer in terms of exclusives? Seriously at some point you have to use ninjutsu to lower your IQ in order to believe MS's PR talk. Cant they respect us a little more by coming up with better PR talk that doesn't take us for fools?
@snyiah Smdh.....denial in it's greatest form. @snez Not an idiot but you sure are if you can't link the similarities! Also for the record, MS didn't announce its games coming to pc up until maybe almost 2 years ago. At the start of this generation X1 had games and nothing could rival Ryse for quite some time. Try harder please. The last thing I have time for is replying to idiotic Sony fanboys trying to act as if they just know everything.
No worries this is Microsoft you can get neither and be happy about it!
Sounds like Sony when it comes to options. "You get what we think you should have and you will like it."
Sounds like a good plan. Why try and force a device not ready down everyone's throat and try and fix it in the next hardware iteration. Yet no software. I'm almost certain the Switch has more software than PS VR right now. Switch certainly has more quality software, that is for sure.
well they are supposed to finish most of their load before the next E3 so there is a good chance it will be about VR.
How is AAA not considered to be an overrated PR term by now? I mean between DLC, micro and overpriced collection editions that are starting to not even include the game... Over a hundred years later and P.T. Barnum words still ring true.
Yea I just commented about that. Basically if Xbox does VR or AR, they will STILL not have exclusives because look at xbox's history, and the statement coming straight from Microsoft.... Seems they cant focus on more than 1 thing unlike Sony. So glad PlayStation is in the gaming market, I'd only be a PC gamer or actually possibly at least have a switch at this point.
If MS does VR, I hope they do it right. Not this BS like Sony. Release a headset, some games and then silent. Next year, release a proper headset that isn't rushed with HDR support, but no games.
You are aware PSVR crossed the 100 games mark in under a year right? And that at least years E3 1/3 of the show was all VR games right?
I don't consider shovelware games, ashlen. Maybe you do?
Every time I feel like it's always wait until next year E3.
Whatever happened to the halo lens, it seemed pretty cool.
Why would VR be a "distraction" for developers? Sony was able to successfully release a slim PS4, PS4 Pro & PSVR last year in one holiday season and nobody was confused or distracted. PSVR went on to be the most successful VR option available. Microsoft must be banking on Xbox One X moreso than they've let on.
The question is what happens if it fails to deliver? They seem to have high expectations and are riding on it alot so what happens if it underperforms? I'm curious how it will play out if that's the case. Maybe it's Phil Spencers last ditch effort...I can't imagine why they'd keep him around, they'd need someone to blame like how they threw Don under the bus for their Xbox One original plans.
@-Foxtrot Lol. Phil´s promotion is really hurting people. Good. :)
Exactly, i think the sales of the xb1x will be similar to that of the xb1 slim... It will do great for the first 6 months and then fall of a cliff. Could be worse being priced higher with no real exclusive system sellers at launch. Ill wait a year for a pricedrop or 2 with packed in games.
what?!?! the xbo game lineup this year is without VR distraction? that's just sad. or maybe xbo x is THE distraction. does this mean developers are busy making upgrades patches for improving graphics for old games rather than making new? i think xbo's exclusive situation right now might be proving this point
Someone gets fired and replaced or hey they got money they can start from scratch like nintendo and there switch and prosper.
Honestly seeing the games that are on VR....they are pretty terrible....like Kinect game terrible....so I see the comparison pretty clearly
Are you comparing R7 to Kinect shovelware? You obviously haven't played R7. VR destroys Kinect in potential and practice.
Res 7, Arizona Sunshine, Superhot, Subnautica, Raw Data, Rec Room, Fallout 4 and Skyrim to come. These are just examples, hardly terrible. Give these developers some credit please instead of just shouting "terrible." And I can guarantee you haven't actually tried VR which makes your post irrelevant. Go back to your Nintendo Switch's amazing software lineup. Because that's not terrible at all lol.
@xx-oldboy... How come potential only sold a little over a million units and crappy Kinect v1 sold 10million units Then you bring up RE7... so consumers should buy a $400 headset and sit on it, until 1 or 2 good games a year come out in it? Unless you’re fortunate to have that kind of money to burn... ithats a stupid suggestion
You have no idea what you're actually talking about do you? @BigWan78 Are you joking or just as ignorant and spiteful as Erik7357?
@bigwan the original kinect sold over 26 million units. dwarfing the flop that is PSVR that sold 85,000 units from when it was 915,000 units in february to 1 million in june. @oldboy kinect had good experiences too, the dance central games were awesome with it, but like PSVR, 90% of the games are shovel ware @unreal i love how you guys like to deflect whenever something is criticized. go back to ______ is the most common form of you guys trying to defend.
Because they need to take time off core games to implement VR. Or outright support VR instead of core games, which is what's happening with Supermassive Games for instance. They haven't been able to make a traditional game since Until Dawn and it's a shame.
Wrong. Hidden Agenda comes out this month which is like Until Dawn's decision making that you can play by yourself or with others. Doesn't have VR at all. https://m.youtube.com/watch... That's separate from making Bravo Team and The Inpatient which are VR games. Looks like they have time to do both. Do some research.
Right? If Sony was able to dominate their competition with a "distraction", that doesn't speak well of MS.
Meanwhile the PSVita died. And PSVR support is not coming as most of you guys expected. Just be honest and don't deny it.
How do you consider over 80 million units dead with a long list of games? Wonder what you think about a company changing consoles due to not only selling less than 30 million units but has had less games.
Rude-ro The vita is nowhere near selling 80 million units and Sony's support for the vita died years ago.
Haha 80 million PS Vitas?!?! LoL. The Vita sold 15-16 million units. Lifetime. That is half of what the Xbox One did so far. Just in case you want to make fun of that.
What does PSVita have to do with PSVR? You just want to try to bring up what you consider a failure to balance out what is considered a success. Be honest and don't deny it.
Successful only in that it was the cheapest way to get VR. Not so successful that they had a manufactured supply problem, not getting resupplied to stores for nearly half a year. Now it's going the way of the Vita. We have ONE notable game in VR with everything else falling under super short indies or "experiences", hardly any major developers working on VR modes for their games. Lastly, the PSVR is still overpriced, they should have given it a price drop at E3.
It's a deflection statement... It's not that Microsoft wasn't prepared it's the game devs that weren't prepared... Of course many devs are already working on VR games so obviously they are ready.
Psvr was released way too early. Hardly any good full games. I'd rather MS focus on new ips than dilute with vr.
@seniyah its true over the last year they've lost their focus on new ips I'm just saying right now they have probably realized this and I would rather them focus on new IPs rather than VR.
I do suspect they've placed more stock in One X than they're willing to admit. They say they don't expect it to outsell the base models, but pushing for its current power and optimising is somewhat wasteful at this time unless they're hopeful for some serious market share gains. At this point, I would not be surprised if we see exclusive titles for it eventually. Developers seem pretty open in terms of praise for One X, so I think Microsoft can be coaxed into allowing exclusive software for it. I'm almost convinced Microsoft will just continue revising the "One" models (that is, I think it's the last "new" Xbox) where there will be another One to usurp One X. In this way of thinking, One X is possibly an early start on gen 9. Makes sense if they're trying to make a unified Windows 10 platform a reality. For some, it's not a huge deal. To me, I think it says a lot about how Microsoft perceives Xbox One's success. People say it's iterative hardware, but I'm not so sure with Microsoft anymore.
"PSVR went on to be the most successful VR option available." I think you mean PSVR went on to be the least failing VR option available. Now we all have different opinions of success, mine was that VR would catch fire(more fire than the wii heck even the Iphone), but we know that isn't happening. And before anyone says X company is in for the slow burn, Dont, no company is heading headfirst into a brand new product line hoping for low but constant sales.
Apparently MS seems to think that the development community has ADD and can't collectively handle two technologies at one time. Personally, I find the mid-gens a distraction based on how Penello is equating VR to being one. Having a second set of hardware(a total of 4 for the gen, 5 if you include switch, and 6 if you include PC), is just as much a distraction. Maybe if MS was worried about devs being distracted, they should remove their consoles from the market. The sheer existence of the X1 of any sort is a distraction is it not? MS just can't admit that they don't have a solution for VR. They don't have one for AR either right now. They don't even have a motion control solution which has been used since release. While I have no issue with them not having all that extra stuff, they seem rather insecure about being behind in advancing new things in game development. The X1X is just a more powerful console, but doesn't really advance or change gaming, and once it releases, they won't get the same attention from it that they are now, or that other companies are getting for their supplemental offerings or game offerings. MS likes to downplay anything that they can't deliver. VR they spent two years putting down, showing off Halolens to distract from PSVR, then talking about how it wasn't mainstream enough, until the PSVR was going well so MS had to promote a 3rd party solution on X1X which was BS. Now it's that they don't want to distract, when everyone knows they just didn't have a solution ready. It wasn't altruism that made MS decide to hold off. If MS had a solution ready for market, they'd provide it, and let the devs work it out and hopefully provide support. They wouldn't give up that marketing chance, or the licensing fees that would come from the software that would release on it.
It would be a distraction for their first party devs. They do not want to make the same mistake like they did with Kinect. It still is the most successful console accessory. But look where it ended up, it was too early tech. Had the current Kinect been the first Kinect it would have been a very different story. PSVR is the most successful VR headset so far, but that doesn't say much, it only sold just under 1 million. That is not enough for devs. VR needs to become at least half as expensive for it to become a viable option for regular consumers.
Apparently MS felt the same way about X1X launch games as they do VR. Yeah, someone had to say it.
It's a mid gen console, launch games aren't as important for an upgraded console as they would be for a next gen console. Playing existing and upcoming Xbox One games with improvements is what this console is for.
It was a joke and you are taking my remark far too seriously.
Whether or not it was a joke, this much is true: This is just another terrible, TERRIBLE excuse from a dishonest Microsoft executive who thinks that the people who buy into Xbox are stupid. At the start of the generation, Penello went on NeoGAF and tried to convince discerning gamers that PS4 wasn't going to be more powerful than XB1, and here he's trying to make people think that efforts towards making software for regular video game hardware and VR hardware and whatever software comes along with it are mutually exclusive. You only need to look at PlayStation in 2016 and 2017. The platform had absolutely amazing games come from developers on both sides of releasing new PlayStation console hardware and a new VR solution for its gamers. Microsoft, at this point are just proving that they're not up to the task. "VR distracting developers" is by itself a distraction to make it seem like they were right for not taking the innovative steps that Sony did so well.
Sigh good ol' Microsoft never do you guys.
What developers? Microsoft only has a few left.
The reality is that they would have had no real support for VR this fall as no developer would really support it with it being only for Xbox one x owners. Chances of big game sales would have been impossible. So, they are going to flood the PC market with MR headsets to gain an advantage over Valve's Vive and Facebook's Rift. The PC hardware manufacturers are most likely getting discounts on windows software or even free for creating MR headsets. Because there is no reason for them to make one without incentive. If they can control the market on PC, they can dictate terms with developers and make any or all of the windows MR headsets compatible with both Xbox one s and Xbox one x. Which is why they dropped the "high fidelity VR" nonsense. If successful on PC with the low and ultra requirements for VR software, they can bring that over to the Xbox platform with Xbox one "s" playing some games and experiences. But if you want to play **All** of the games and experiences, you have to buy the Xbox one "x." It's an interesting move if they can pull it off. But it does mean that they would have entered a market to monopolize it. And to destroy what some would call of the competitor's, "walled gardens" like PSVR. EXTEND EXPAND EXTINGUISH for those who know what this means. I'm a Sony and PSVR supporter but I can read their moves like any paid analyst. Maybe I should look into that.
☝🏽Litterally the only intelligent comment in here. Slightly fanboyish at the end but very well put. Though the distraction statement make a lot of sense when you think about it logically with fanboy goggles. They obviously know that they have been criticised for their lack of 1st/3rd party exclusives this year so it's stands to reason that they have things in the pipeline to rectify that and i would expect a pretty decent showing at E3 2018 but adding VR to that would have spread the teams too fin and it is likely the quality of the games they have in development would suffer as a result.
Without fanboy goggles*^
I gave up after the 1st paragraph. How are big games going to get a lot of sales from VR when combined sales from all VR devices probably don't even amount to 5 million units?
I'm correcting myself EMBRACE EXTEND EXTINGUISH. I was sleepy and I was late in commenting. Imalwaysright, what I was saying is that the reason they didn't come out with VR this fall is because they originally claimed Xbox one x was the only Xbox compatible with VR. There wouldn't have been enough headset sales to justify developers making and porting games over to it if not enough gamers have a headset. Dropping high fidelity, they can make Xbox one s compatible too next year with some games and experiences. If some developers aren't yet on board making VR games for PSVR, even with almost 2 million in sales. Do you think they would be making games for MR with sales less than 200,000? No. That's why some VR games are multiplatform like super hot and star trek bridge crew. There are only a few games like job simulator that have sold over a million. It wouldn't have just for Vive, oculus or PSVR alone and exclusive. Microsoft is waiting for control over the PC market, then spread over to Xbox with compatibility. There's no risk to them as they didn't make one headset. The PC manufacturers are making headsets for them obviously because of some under the table deal.
"If some developers aren't yet on board making VR games for PSVR, even with almost 2 million in sales." That's exactly the point of my comment. There won't be any publisher willing to risk AAA budget on games specifically made for VR and it doesn't matter if its PSVR, Vive, Rift or if an hypothetical MS VR device was on the market right now. There aren't big games specifically made for VR in general because the risk is too high due to the combined sales of every VR device on the market so what you're saying about a hypothetical MS VR device applies to all VR devices on the market right now: half assed support that mostly is composed by shitty games that are completely overshadowed by the likes of Horizon, Ni-oh, Persona, Zelda, Destiny... Even Sony is half assing support for PSVR with the pathetic VR mode for GT Sport which of all the Sony's IPs it is without any doubt the one that could help PSVR the most.
Where you fail to see about VR is that it's not the content but the high price of admission that's preventing their sales from being higher. Mind you, I'm all for big games being made for VR headsets. It can only help the platforms than hinder them. More games is always better. But Wii, Kinect and even PS Move didn't sell as well as they did from big name games. Was Madden, COD, Battlefield, Halo, Gears, Forza, GT, GTA, Assassin's Creed, Metal Gear, etc made for those motion controllers? Nope. Did their absence prevent PS Move from selling over 15-20 million, Kinect selling over 25 million or Wii from selling over 100 million? Nope.Was it the newness and the fun gameplay that brought gamers in to buy those motion trackers? Yes. Sure, games like Killzone 3 were compatible and worked very well. But wasn't made for PS Move. Big AAA games aren't required but nice to have. The only thing required is something new, something fun, easy to use and inexpensive. VR gets 3 of those things right except a lower price. That will help VR more being cheaper than a company spending 50 million dollars trying to make a profit. That's why smaller games are being made. Which are profitable until prices lower. Which is the same as launch games. Does GTA normally release at launch? No. Companies like Rockstar wait until there's enough consoles to profit from. Doesn't mean no games should be made at launch for consoles. And not all games can be big because of development budgets. Or there wouldn't be any games to play at all at launch.And, since all developers are new to VR, it's even footing between AAA and Indie developers. Anyone can make a hit in VR. Not because of a name or tons of money.
I'm not failing to see anything as I didn't mention at all the price of VR devices. It's high but only with good games will these devices sell to most consumers as not many will be willing to pay the price of admission when you take in consideration that the best VR games can be experienced without VR. Good games can be developed with low budgets but those kinds of games don't suit VR at all like Cuphead, Ori, Child of light or don't have mainstream appeal like Superhot (also playable without VR) and the one game that could help VR immensely due to the (over)weight its name carries in this industry took a, lets say, minimalistic approach. VR has a long way to go and the more companies that get into it like MS (with their own VR device) the better the tech will have a chance to not go the way of Kinect or 3D in the gaming industry.
Excuse makes no sense. Distract developers from what, doing their jobs? There are exclusive VR games like Batman, Until Dawn Rush of Blood etc where VR *is* the point. The devs that were contracted got jobs out of it. Money. It's not like this is volunteer work. Consider them distracted from unemployment, lol.
No, from doing traditional games. Thank God for that.
Traditional games completely overshadowed VR games this year. That's why the hype for VR died in 1 or 2 months.