XBox Head Phil Spencer Sends Mixed Messages on Project Scorpio and VR

Microsoft unveiled ‘Project Scorpio’ to the world at E3 this year, stating that it would provide the Xbox platform enough power to run high fidelity VR experiences. But a recent interview with Xbox head Phil Spencer seems to show a company still unsure about its future in VR.

[christocolus]

Imo there is no mixed messaging at all.

“Microsoft’s commitment to VR seems a little lack lustre, as illustrated by Spencer himself. “Like, other people might try to say, ‘VR is the future of console gaming.’ I’m not saying that. I’m saying if you’re an Xbox One console gamer, we are so focused on making your experience the best experience you’ve ever had with the best lineup of games. We’re not getting distracted.”

Phils quote is actually quite clear and all mixed messaging regarding Scorpio has since been cleared up..regarding VR all he is saying is they will continue to focus more on traditional way of gaming over VR,cos he doesn't see VR as the future of gaming, he isn't alone on this even certain devs like EA , Rockstar, 2K etc dont believe VR to be the future of gaming...but atleast MS acknowledges the fact that many Xbox fans may want VR and so Scorpio will support VR,it will support high fidelity VR gaming..the fact they showed Fallout 4 must mean the game must be in development for the platform but the fact remains that their focus will always be traditional way of gaming, afterall there was a time many thought motion controls would become the future but that never hapened and I think MS is just being careful about putting too much focus/funds into another device especially after the way the kinect went down.

[darthv72]

I didn't see any confusion in his message. I mean VR is very cool but it is also very limiting in the scope of you are the one wearing it and having all the fun while your friends are either taking goofy pics of you or tieing your shoelaces together (it could happen).

Xbox just doesnt want to get caught up in VR the same way they tried with kinect. kinect is also a cool piece of tech when used properly but there was such a push to use it that Xbox had almost no quality control. It became a dumping ground for anything that a company thought would be neat for kinect to be used for. I certainly dont want to see that happen with VR (just look at 3d tv as an example).

Sony is obviously the most vocal about this being part of their future because they are very invested in the tech. This is way different than the eyetoy (pseye) and requires them to be fully supportive of it. MS and xbox believe that VR has its place but that traditional gaming also has its place and are willing to support both as the market dictates. right now traditional gaming has the edge because it is what every gamer who buys a console is going to start with. From there it is their choice to buy into VR or stay on the traditional path.

[Filmicfps]

Makes sense to me. The Xbox One wont have VR support because its too weak. VR support will be an extra feature for Scorpio version of games and it looks like you cant use VR for long sessions. I dont want to spend hundreds of dollars on a device that could turn out to be a fad like kinect.

[OB1Biker]

'MS and xbox believe that VR has its place but that traditional gaming also has its place and are willing to support both as the market dictates. '
I'm not questioning what you think Ms approach is but it seems to me it's exactly what Sony is doing

[donthate]

Yeah, VR might tank before Scorpio releases next year anyhow. VR still hasn't solved major issues, and is relegated to " short experiences". Even Sony acknowledges this, which is not a good vouch for VR.

http://www.gamasutra.com/vi...

A lot of people start getting sick using VR, and as more people have access to it that are even less experienced than gaming journalists, that might dominate the news. My mom got VR sickness videos will be fun to watch on YouTube in 3-months.

I am pro VR, and do some dev myself in it, but reality is that the technology has major flaws and really isn't ready for market consumption.

[Fatal-Aim]

@ christocolus

So wait, let me get this straight... That mean Sony is not focus on gamers because they invested in VR? Wasn't it Sony who showed off a huge number of exclusives for the PS4 at E3 2016 instead of hardware? And a lot of those didn't have anything to do with PSVR, so what's the difference?

Before, Phil was heavily invested in Hololens. He even went as far as showing MineCraft off for it at gaming event when Sony was hyping the headlines with PlayStation VR along side Oculus. He also mentioned how he didn't see VR being the way he'd like gaming to go but rather Hololens. NOW he's boasting about Scorpio's greatest feature being VR with the Hololens nowhere to be found. Hell, he even backed Kinect 2.0 at one point. You don't think that maybe Phil is just saying these things because he nor Microsoft were fully prepared for Sony?

I'm now thinking Scorpio's VR will just be some virtual theater screen with games running on it.

[mcstorm]

@christocolus your spot on. I have no interest in VR just like I did not have in Kinect games outside fitness and dance. Yes VR is cool but I play games to relax after a hard week at work. I don't want to be putting a head set on to play games. VR will be a device that people go wow at the start but then don't use.
I have a friend with an Android VR headset and his kids loved it when he got his S7 for about 2 weeks and now they never bother with it.

VR is good for some games but a lot are better on a big screen just like some games were better with Move, Kinect and Wii Mote.

[MatrixxGT]

I have the same feeling. I never bought into added on peripherals. I believe it will have a wow factor at first but then after a few times it will sit aside. My fear is Sony going to push VR too much that there will be parts of games that require it or are exclusive to VR.
Like you I work 70hrs a week man, in my limited time I have to play games it's going to be relaxing on the couch usually socializing with friends on weekends. VR seems like a way to isolate yourself from anyone around you. I always aware of my surrounding at all times, I have pets to keep eye on, kids running around etc.

[AngelicIceDiamond]

"all he is saying is they will continue to focus more on traditional way of gaming over VR,cos he doesn't see VR as the future of gaming"

That's how I much rather have it we've have other forms of gaming before say like Kinect. The problem with Kinect MS was trying to replace traditional gaming with it at one point. Traditional gaming should always come first over peripheral gaming. Peripheral gaming should always be an option or co exist with traditional gaming. MS personally doesn't want to make the same mistake of peripheral gaming over core traditional gaming that was disastrous.

[rainslacker]

I agree with that notion, and don't feel any company should go to such great lengths to change their focus. But there's a difference between changing one's focus completely, and being almost non-committal on how much support they're actually going to offer. In the first case, they're narrowing their potential market, by changing it to something else, in the latter, they'd be expanding their market, by broadening the appeal of their products to more consumers should they commit to making it meaningful.

What I see from MS now is non-commitment on VR as a whole. They want it there to attract those that are interested in it, but as of now, Spencer seems very non-committal on saying they will offer compelling experiences themselves. Even if the Scorpio can deliver the better experience, Spencer seems to be saying that those experiences won't be from them. Given that other companies are pushing the tech to a much greater degree, the chance they offer more compelling experiences is much greater, and they're going to be looked at with much more respect in what they have to offer, because for the most part, if it becomes significant on a platform, it's likely to get many of those same experiences you could get on the platform which doesn't have the backing behind it. Those experiences may not perform as well, or look as nice, but they will be there, and it gives more to the user looking for experiences rather than just having more power.

I really hate to say it, because I know people will take it the wrong way, but what I see from Spencer right now seems more about downplaying the importance of VR because another company is more invested in it. What I see is that he is trying to keep people from taking a look at the competition, while at the same time trying to get those who have taken a look, to consider them instead. But I feel that without the commitment behind VR and it's potential, that those who already know what's there or coming, aren't going to be swayed by what MS has to offer....because they really don't have anything to offer except one will be able to use OR on the platform, and nothing beyond that.

[rainslacker]

I don't think Spencer has been unclear in the messaging of VR, and clarified any confusion over Scorpio well enough for those that want to listen. At least as it stands for what we know already.

The thing I see more is that their commitment to VR is that they seem to think everyone thinks that it's "the future", and will supplant traditional gaming. I don't really see anyone stating that, or even implying it. Even Sony isn't going at it from that perspective. OR and Vive are not doing so either. It is, and likely always will be, a supplimental experience in gaming.

In my opinion, if a company is trying to balance the fact that it's not the future and it's an either or scenario, and instead is just offering it to have it there, best experience or not, then their support of VR is not going to be anywhere near significant enough to make it worthwhile on that platform. it might be impressive for the support it gets, but what's clear to me is that MS is not going to push the technology to any great degree, and instead are just offering a means for their user base to have access to it.

What I see is MS not trying to make it anything more than it already is. They're clear that they think it's supplemental to current gaming trends, which is fine, because that's true, but also aren't invested at all in making it into a MEANINGFUL experience....and in the grand scheme of things, it's more important to make something meaningful to the user over making a product that is just ACCESSIBLE to the user, for others to do the work on making it meaningful.

Many of the great innovations and "future" things in gaming are those that have been driven by the console makers themselves, and in this case, if MS doesn't care to do that pushing, and instead just uses it as some sort of selling point with little effort on their part, they will end up not being one of the driving forces behind VR, and should VR take off in a big way, they will be left behind, like they have been in so many cases before where they don't see the appeal or potential of emerging markets, or disregard those markets. And without fail, in those cases, they are always left having to work extra hard to try and sell the notion that they are on the bleeding edge of these technology changes when they finally get back into it, and by that time, they are barely a consideration to the majority of consumers.

There's nothing terribly wrong with MS approach overall, so don't take it as I'm criticizing their cautious approach, but it means it will rely on others to make the actual compelling software which will drive adoption, and add more value to the system and overall acceptance of VR itself.

But here's what can happen. If PSVR takes off in a big way, come this time next year, Spencer is going to be changing his tune on the subject of VR, and trying to promote them as being the leader in what is to come, and will do everything they can to drive people's interest in VR over to the Xbox brand. His caution now is justified, but markets aren't made by waiting it out to see what's successful, they're made by pushing the product with as much backing as possible.

[donthate]

I think MS recognized early on the fundamental flaws of VR, and don't think it will succeed, but they can't dismiss it in case it does. Instead, they will roll out a token support and VR will just die away as a niche product. If instead, VR succeeds, MS can support it more. VR is a long game, with a lot of unknowns right now.

[rainslacker]

Yeah, and that's exactly what they're doing. Nothing wrong with that for their part, but it's not going to win them any favors in getting people to convert over to Xbox should they be looking for a VR solution.

I mean, if Sony was taking the same approach, even with having their own hardware, do you think people would be that excited for it? Sony is creating content to sell the new experience, whereas MS is just offering a way to have access to that experience, and not caring if it sells or not.

If it fails, then Sony just failed to make it successful on it's platform, and things go on. People will crticize them for wasting their time and money for console war purposes, and everything else will return to normal and MS will continue to not care. But if it succeeds, Sony is now a front runner in the console VR space, attracting more customers due to whatever reputation they gain, and MS will be left playing catch up as they suddenly try to capitalize on the market that exists for it, and will have to work twice as hard to get people's attention....which they still may not do, because everyone is going to criticize them for not caring right now.

Both approaches to how to offer up a new tech have their merits, but with Sony, about all they stand to lose out on is the money invested. Will suck for them. With MS approach, they won't be taking the risks involved, but still are hoping to get any rewards that come from other people's risks. Generally, when it comes to the consumer market, those who take the risks, tend to see the biggest rewards. And that's why I feel it might be prudent for MS to take a bit more interest in driving the technology, and they certainly should stop all this downplaying as if it's a passing fad, because that's just going to make it all the harder should it become successful. They don't have to go on and on about it, but would be nice if they stop marginalizing the technology itself just because they don't have their own solution coming soon, nor have any interest in supporting the technology themselves right now.

@your comment below about AR.

One successful product that happens to use a technology does not denote that that technology will be an ongoing successful product. AR has been around for a long while now, and for the most part, it's a pretty marginal tech, that most people just don't really care to use for gaming to any great degree. It has it's place for some things, and can be fun, but it's not a driving force for console or software sales as a whole. It may become that going forward, in which case, MS can claim to have been a front runner, or at least in the game. But as of right now, no trend has shown that AR is any kind of "future" for gaming, anymore than VR has been shown to be any kind of future.

But to correlate it to the conversation at hand, Sony hasn't downplayed AR, and has implemented it in many places with their own products, and built it into both the Vita, and the PS4, and were doing stuff with it back on the PS2 and PS3. Difference here is that right now, MS isn't doing that with VR, and instead have the most cursory of offerings to try and attract customers with the least work possible, all while selling it's "better experience", instead of pushing it's meaningful experiences borne from the fruits of their own labors.

[rainslacker]

Edited my prior comment because I wanted to add to it to clarify what I'm trying to say for more meaningful discussion. I don't actually disagree with what you say. Just feel that the discussing the potential scenarios is an interesting topic, and feel that MS messaging isn't unclear and instead people should focus on the merits of what was said, instead of trying to confuse the message or make it into something it's not.

Cont'd from above

On the other hand, you have MS AR initiatives, which are quite compelling, even if not ready for the mainstream market. They've shown how it can be beneficial, and I'd imagine, at some point, they will have a mainstream solution which they will be able to capitalize on and be known as a company that was behind this tech for a while now. This is where the long term benefits come in.

With VR, if it becomes successful and something MS decides to support with their full backing, the competition is going to be the one's DELIVERING new compelling experiences, while MS is only PROMISING new experiences, until they can manage to get the development cycle in full swing.

On top of that, should it be one of those long term fads...say like motion controls last gen, by the time they get into full swing, people may move on. While Sony, and others who backed VR will have capitalized on the market, MS will barely be making any return on investment for what they bring to market...although this is highly dependent on the duration of the "fad", and when/if MS decides to partake in it. To liken it to the whole AR "fad", other companies are going to start making their own offerings for a similar product due to Poke-Go's success. The one's that take longer to do so, aren't likely to see success, as it becomes "so last year" to the consumer base. Those that can get a product out quickly, and have something compelling, still stand a chance to capitalize on said "fad". Poke-Go, as it stands continues to be successful, because they made the tech compelling, and sadly, many will see this product as the front runner to the technology itself, despite it being around a while. To Nintendo's credit, they have been invested in AR for a while though.

MS is not taking the risk now to save money on a product they feel won't succeed, and that's fine, they have to look at their own risk vs rewards in determining if they want to support it. But if it's successful, that money saved now is going to cost them more just to get market awareness for their offerings, and if they don't manage to sell the hardware from the get go, they will have even less rewards due to not having as high an install base as the competition continues to keep growing. Right now, supporting VR with compelling software may cost them some money, but I feel that expenditure will be more than made up for should VR succeed. It's a long term loss scenario for MS should it succeed, but they are no worse for wear should it not catch on.

That's all I'm really trying to say. Not trying to criticize their approach or say their messaging is unclear. It's more about how their attitude being expressed in said message could play out in the future.

Just merely trying to discuss, because I would like to see MS take more interest in VR, because I do find it a compelling technology.

[gangsta_red]

I'm not getting any mixed messages either. Especially since the rumor is that Scorpio will support Rift.

I'm also not really interested in VR, none of the games so far has gotten me excited that it is a must have device. It all seems at the moment just a novelty item with hardly any real benefit.

The message seems to be confusing for some who don't want to take the time and read.

[sampson3121]

"EA , Rockstar, 2K etc dont believe VR to be the future of gaming" you mean the very devs that are making all these VR games? please send us a link to them discussing this please. thanks

[medman]

@christocolus
Of course there was mixed messaging with the Scorpio. Own it, and move on. I don't know about the VR waffling going on at Microsoft, but clearly the Scorpio's introduction could have been smoother. Everybody could read the statements for themselves. When you have statements made, multiple statements made, that have to be walked back by other executives the very next day, that is the definition of "mixed messaging". Saying the Scorpio will not benefit gamers who don't have a 4k television had to be walked back. Phil Spencer said that. Another Xbox exec said developers could make Scorpio only, exclusive titles if they chose...that also had to be walked back the very next day to reiterate that "no xbox one gamers would be left behind" and there would be no Scorpio exclusive games. Hardly the straightforward, clear and concise messaging you would expect from the announcement of new hardware.

The entire introduction of Scorpio and what it represented could have been handled better. That doesn't mean it's not a fantastic idea, nor does it mean it won't be successful. All it means is that like so many other things this gen, Microsoft did not present the clearest possible introduction for their upcoming hardware. That is something they absolutely have to correct, and to ignore it is a mistake, both on Microsoft's part and the part of gamers. Blind loyalty is never going to help you see more clearly.

[TheCommentator]

That's right, Donthate. MS has been developing technologies to combat the rudimentary nature of VR with projects like Irides and Sparse Light. I think it's the right approach to let others be the guinea pigs, check out their prototypes, and design ways to create a better headset than your competition, if in fact VR takes off.

[rainslacker]

Yes, this approach has served them well for years.

-Their phones are doing gangbusters.
-Their tablets are high up there in market penetration.
-Their music players took the market by storm.
-Their implementation of a digital store front to support their ecosystem and drive revenues is highly anticipated and people are ready to move in droves away from the competition.
-MSN Messenger(or now Skype) beats out all other forms of social media interaction.
-Bing is a highly respected search engine.
-Bing(MS Maps) is the go-to GPS mapping application.
-Their staunch take on web browsing allows them to command people's accessibility to the web.
-Windows Media server has been the premier go-to media server forever now.
-They are the front runners in digital identity with Hailstorm.

I'm not saying that MS doesn't have it's share of successes for the products they back, and even with some of the examples above they manage to actually have offerings before some of the competition, or even have much better offerings overall.

But it's not like this approach of wait and see, or getting out of the market too soon, haven't resulted in MS being well behind the curve in their own offerings when products become successful because someone else makes it so. Even if they manage to make better products, they often do not get the market attention that those products deserve, because people have already accepted what is best based on their own perception.

Sometimes it pays to be a leader in new tech, and to put your full backing behind things. If MS had managed to do that in the smart phone market, instead of dropping out, they wouldn't have to be trying so hard to keep people within their ecosystem now.

Edit @ your clarification below

That may be, but with what Spencer is saying, they don't seem to think it's any kind of future worth doing research for, or investing in beyond the ability to use it on their platform.

If that's the case, how could anything they do pave the way for the 2nd generation of VR?

That could happen if it's successful, and decide to start backing it, in which case, that's great, more advances to the technology for the consumer to benefit from. But as it is right now, based on what MS is saying, it's highly presumptive to assume that they will have any part to play in the evolution of VR as a whole.

I understand that could be what's going on, but if that's the case, Spencer may want to revise his message to make that clear, because the seeming lack of interest on their part, and downplaying of what's coming, isn't indicating that they have any kind of motivation to support the tech.

As it stands, it's not hard to understand MS message on how they feel about VR, as they are quite clearly saying, "It's not the future". Looking back on history, and to be relevant to my original reply to you, when MS feels that way, they tend to play a lot of catch up and often don't get very far with what they end up bringing to market, and in some worse case scenarios, tend to lose market share for their actual successful products.

[TheCommentator]

I posted in the wrong spot, let me clarify. I was agreeing with the motion sickness issue Donthate posted about. VR is barely passable at this point, and while it will get better over time on an evolving platform like PC, there isn't enough power to evolve the tech on a fixed platform like a console. Therefore, doing research first allowed Ms to develop technologies that will make VR a better experience that more people can enjoy. Their research will pave the way for 2nd generation VR.

[leeeroythe3rd]

Big issue that i have experienced with vr is the motion sickness headache. Its a fun experience but can be disorienting. Hard to completely buy in with a large portion of population unable to experience

[ScorpiusX]

Don't sound like a mixed message , sounds like they are covering all base weather it takes off or not.
While looking to remain true to traditional gaming .
As for me I hope it supports both Rift & Vive at release .

[Software_Lover]

People see what they want to see. Sony can do no wrong to some people. Microsoft can do no wrong to others. Republican president in the white house, everything he says is scrutinized by the Democratic swayed media and loved by the Republican media. Democratic president in the white house says and does the same things as republican president and the media switches roles.

I see what I see. I see no mixed message concerning VR. Microsoft is not making a VR device. They are making Scorpio, a VR compatible device. It will work with 3rd party VR devices and the use of VR is up to the devs.

[Godmars290]

Its not that Sony can do no wrong but rather MS often over promises and under delivers. And especially in this case its an instance where they're playing catch up after already saying they were taking a wait and see attitude with VR as they were talking up an AR device with Windows Glass or whatever its called. Taking an entirely different path with only similar tech.

[rainslacker]

For the most part, I still see them having this wait and see approach to VR. They want to have an offering to attract those who are interested in VR, but have shown no signs that they care about promising anything beyond making it accessible to their platform. In this case, they actually aren't over promising, but I do feel they are downplaying the significance of what VR could be. Should VR actually become a big thing, Spencer is going to have to do a lot of back peddling to explain why Xbox is the best place to experience the technology, because as it stands, based on what Spencer is saying, they have no interest in really making it a meaningful experience.

I agree with Spencer that it's not the future, but so do most other companies involved with pushing the tech. I think for the most part, the companies involved, and even those interested in it, see it as a supplemental way to play games, and not a replacement for the traditional model we're accustomed to. Because of this, I feel MS would be better off in supporting the push for VR, instead of just taking a laissez-faire approach to it all and jumping in if and when it becomes something successful. If they don't, they stand a rather big chance of being left behind in customer perception, and will have to go to greater efforts to sell their own offering.

[donthate]

Ironically, AR has had far better success than VR so far with Pokemon Go. It shows at least that there is a killer app available for AR with none of the VR sickness issues. AR on phones will open a path to AR headsets so I see AR as much better odds despite the lack of market presence.

We can thank Nintendo for that!

I think MS knows VR is probably going to be a dud. People still hasn't solved the fundamental problems, and VR sickness news is about to come soon.

[jb227]

The funniest thing about those early comments from Phil in regards to HoloLens vs. VR was that he "sees VR as a future tech out in the distance", that "AR is for the present and a tech that is more readily able to be achieved"

Yet here we are, HoloLens only has a $3,000 dev kit in the wild w/ a horrendous FOV, and no release date or consumer model in sight, and yet we will have no fewer than 4 different VR solutions ready & available for consumers at decent price points by the end of the year. Bottom line is anyone actually listening to MS will absolutely see the mixed messaging. Phil is no stranger to hypocrisy & turn arounds....look at Rise of the Tomb Raider's timed exclusivity...as the game was releasing last year Phil said he wasn't interested in any more timed deals, that he's not a fan of them & that he won't be doing them going forward, less than a year later we see Dead Rising 4, another new timed exclusive. This is why you can't trust anything Phil or MS says...in the last year alone we've seen a turnaround on Xbox DVR, a feature once touted to push boxes will now never come, we see Phantom Dust a game that was revealed w/ a trailer before it actually had any game, canceled...Fable Legends, shown in the wild at consecutive trade shows, canceled...Kinect, a device that was 'integral' to the XBO & the box couldn't function w.o it, now the new XBO S can't even accept it w/o a $40 add on....this goes on & on. Anyone who doesn't see mixed messaging on a regular basis at MS simply isn't listening to a word they've said.

[freshslicepizza]

I think the only people confused are those who don't show any optmisim no matter what they do regardless so they come up with scenarios instead. phil is taking a wait and see approach to vr because of their faliure with kinect. of course he is apprehensive about vr right now. and why wouldn't he be when everything we have seen looks like tech demo's anyways. plus he knows the current xbox one is not powerful enough, some even question psvr and how well it will compete in the future and think ps4 neo is also being leveraged to push psvr even more.

he is also going to take the same stance as sony about diving gamers with vr. sony has all along said psvr is a stand-alone product and phil will do the same thing with project scorpio because when they say they will not leave xbox one gamers behind they will with vr and scorpio. he has over a year to see how well it evolves and takes off and will have the most powerful console to support it. until then he doesn't need to say anything. people seem to give sony a pass on ps4 neo and their reluctance to say anything so phil can do the same with vr support.

[cfc83]

It's not mixed. Spencer sees games as the future of xbox, as do some gamers such as i. VR is something to keep an open mind about, but as this moment in time it's a novelty with potential. VR isn't just about games. There are alot of possibilities with regards to how it could be used. Sony have put alot into thinking psvr will be the next big thing for games. Personally i'm in no rush to buy into VR. Folk who can afford to be guinea pigs can go first.

[Destiny1080]

so basically, we don't have any vr titles in production

[343_Guilty_Spark]

I think the message is clear.

They will have the most powerful console come Fall 2017 and that traditional gaming is still better than VR.

[zb1ftw777]

VR is better than 3D and kinect.

But it must never try to beat traditional gaming.

Traditional gaming must be the core for a console to succeed.

That is why Nintendo keep falling behind. They've lost site of core gaming.

[donthate]

Ironically, loosing sight of core games is what made Nintendo make a killer console that won last generation with the Wii. They are doing it again with Pokemon Go AR game.

Just to put it in perspective.

[zb1ftw777]

Did you know mobile gaming generates the most money.

And yet the games are still a steaming pile of shit.

[donthate]

zb1ftw777:

They are a pile of shit to you, to others they are fun. It's like complaining about Justin Bieber, if it ain't for you ignore it. Doesn't mean it isn't good to the fans. People say the same thing about Playstation/Xbox/PC gaming. How you shouldn't spend time on it.

See it goes both ways!

[MacTastic]

There are no mixed messages in his statements about VR, microsoft learned a lesson from kinect. I do hope though that he is trying to get great new games and I hope he delivers. They can't keep releasing the same kind of games every fall and winter season and every year saying we have the best games lin up. I am really looking forward to that great experience and new games.

[Yetter]

After finally getting my hands on the HTC Vive I can safely say, I don't believe VR is the future of gaming. Its certainly an incredible experience at first, there is nothing quite like it but after I played with it for a week or so I had little desire to return to any game I tried out. I also really, really don't like how it completely cuts you off from the real world.

[Godmars290]

Its not a mixed message that MS as a major player in VR is coming into it dead last yet saying that they will provide the best experience? At this stage the best they can do is to latch onto Oculus which is why Carmack was likely on stage at E3.

[sampson3121]

“I think the capability in the consoles that are on the market today to play high-fidelity true console-like experiences in VR … they’re just not powerful enough.”

Resident Evil 7 ps4.

[Gamist2dot0]

I think what he's trying to say is they want to focus on games for now; that's it. .
Most of what he said is straight forward. The only question I have is the part where he mentions about focusing on "console games" when just not too long ago, at E3, he/MS was presenting a message about unifying PC and Xbox with Play Anywhere. In other words, why didn't he just say "games"? So that people won't jump to conclusions that they might abandon the console?

[Circuitburnout]

All Phil does is send mixed messages about everything. Can't keep his lies straight it seems.

[krypt1983]

What's so mixed, they will support oculus I just see them not investing in 1st party titles making them vr compatible, but games like fallout and resi7 you definitely will be able to play

[Lennoxb63]

MS is doing the same thing that Sony is doing and people don't get it. No mixed messaging here. Just hypocrisy. Now that Xbox will be the most powerful console this time around, the media are trying to change the subject as quickly as they can. And its working. Don't expect to hear a peep about power when the Scorpio releases.

[leeeroythe3rd]

Keep on trying fanboys... the reality is microsoft will release the most powerful console in 2017. They may adopt vr support if vr is of value to market.they will not over commit on a device. Vr is neat but i have yet to be amazed with my oculus. I think ps vr has some good game concepts that i am excited to play.

[Jamesx82x]

I see why some people think VR is the future of gaming and if thats what you like then go for it but its not for me. I dont want to game like that. I want to just play a game on my TV with a controller. Im 34 years old not only do I have more important things to spend my money on but I dont have the amount of time to play games to begin with to justify spending that much money on VR. Your talking an extra $300+ investment. That covers my electric bill for 2 or 3 months.

[coreyweb]

It's really not that complicated or confusing. Apparently people are just........really bad at comprehending.