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.
“Microsoft's Penello: We Didn't Want To Distract Developers with VR This Year; We Learned from Kinect” Kinect was forced in the box VR would be optional. So I don’t see how this is even remotely related.
Can you play Sony VR without the PS4??
@Dlaw76 Is PS4 a PSVR accessory?
@The infected This perspective might help. Both vr and kinect were poorly planned out. The titles for each do not warrant a must buy. The technology simply isn't at a place where it can be used in a AAA game. So instead of pulling resources to make vr games, MS is waiting for the tech to advance more. Then they will jump on. I'll say this, vr has a better chance than kinect.
@81BX Why do people like you keep saying that VR isn't good enough for AAA experiences? I've had more fun with VR games lately than I have standard non-VR gaming. No, VR is definitely good enough for AAA releases. It already has some (go check out Lone Echo) and is only getting better. I mean, I would consider even a AAA game like Project Cars 2 to be a VR game considering how vast and advanced the settings are and how awesome it is in VR. With my racing setup playing racing games in VR is infinitely better than any 2D screen setup. VR is awesome and besides wireless connectivity and higher resolution (though this is better now than people make) VR is already a pretty mature and stable product. I never have issues with my Oculus, personally.
"So instead of pulling resources to make vr games, MS is waiting for the tech to advance more." MS isn't using resources to make games period. Edit: Acquire? Yes. Make? No.
@ILostMyMind It is poorly accepted accessory (less than 1.5% of PS4 consoles have one). And Sony has to continue to support the device. That means taking away development resources that 98.5% of PS4 users will not see for their machines. If VR was a more acceptable risk at this point it might makes since. The return of VR is minimal and Microsoft would rather invest in other areas and delve more into supporting devices like the X. But, remember Sony SIE has budgets too. Every dime Sony spends developing games for VR is a dime that would go to support a game that all 100% could play not just 1.5%. Microsoft just decided that expanded resources on VR for the console market makes no sense at this time. But, since they are going to be using the same MR API and device designs that are being released by OEMs for Windows this year and next they are essentially developing what will be the Xbox VR of the future anyways. Just not willing to spend resources to see low returns on a test device like Sony has done with the PSVR.
It's not similar at all. MS used both halolens and later VR to distract from PSVR which was getting a lot of attention. They wanted to promote it for X1X because they saw that PSVR had positive reception. MS hasn't learned anything, they just don't have a solution right now, and instead of admitting they're being in providing a consumer solution, they make up some BS like this. Developers aren't distracted by VR. They either don't use it, or implement it if they have a desire and resources to do so. Not a single game I can think of has been hindered by VR. Certainly not by it's exclusion, and no example of it's inclusion. VR just existing hasn't affected development whatsoever. This is nothing more than PR speak to try and appear that they're all about the dev's interest, when all they're doing is restricting potential to get more games. Sure, it's a small market right now, but it does exist. I wonder if MS will feel they're distracting the dev when they finally do release a VR solution, or Halolens, or whatever mixed reality thing they come up with. I don't see how things are going to change going forward, because whenever they do release a solution, or any new hardware, it's a distraction by their reasoning. The mid-gens alone are a distraction based on his logic.
@The_Infected - you are missing the point. You are focusing on the issue of Kinect being a required buy device where Penelo is not talking on that issue. Penelo is pointing out that Kinect and VR both are attachments that require a separate focus to implement a game on them versus not. Requiring Developers focus on a much smaller niche than gamers as a whole. Very few augmented reality games that are developed for play outside of the VR/Kinect in their play also.
"We Didn't Want To Distract Developers with VR This Year" guess that is why they ARE releasing it... (with help of lots of hard ware manufacturers) Microsoft is confusing - will they release, or not, or release... please make your mind up! https://techcrunch.com/2017...
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.
Or even worse a bunch of shovelware VR games like they did with kinect
Well that's what you've experienced with you PSVR, tell us what it's like?
Which is the same exact kind of experience that VR offers.
I can't believe you said that, have you played VR? 85% of the software is tech demo shovelware.
That is pretty much all there is on VR in general. Case in point, PSVR is the worst offender of this.
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.