Phil Spencer wishes Sony success, but explains why a "closed ecosystem" can be problematic.
Thanks Phil and hope you have success with HoloLens.
Lets see, hololens, oculus and the rest.... yup MS has their hand in about every cookie jar. Probably even the PSVR if/when it comes to the PC.
it's in their interest to hope gaming evolves but they don't want to commit to that area jjst yet after getting kicked to the curb with kinect.
I like Phil but he is as much a corporate guy as the rest of the people involved with Xbox. Only thing, no matter how direct the questions are to him or Greenburgh (direct questions about Xbox and Microsoft) they always have to include Nintendo or Sony somehow in their answer's, wouldn't be noticeable if it only happened occasionally, but it's every interview with these guys. It's rare for Nintendo or Sony to include the competitors in conversations about their respective consoles, which is completely normal for competing company's. Seems to me that they are trying to create this image of being the go to guys for any information on gaming and I think that is a big mistake on their part. Be the go to guys for Microsoft and Xbox, that's all any person interested in your product needs.
well that is to be expected of these guys today. To not just focus on their own but to include competition as a way to gauge public interest. If they didn't then the followup questions would be something like... "how do you feel about the competition and their decision to do this or that" Not saying followup questions would not happen but by being as open as they can within the limits of information, they are wanting to present a better overall picture to which things can't be misconstrued or taken out of context (but it still happens).
Which really hololens has more to do with PC's not gaming so I have no idea why you think a 600+ dollar device with a limited amount of gimmicky games is like morpheus is to playstation when its totally not.
Just for the L'z
I understand that Microsoft are taking the approach of providing third party software support for Vive and HTC via Windows10; but Phil saying that a closed system won't lead to faster content innovation is patently not true. First party providers have always been the ones with the content that makes the most of a closed system, not third party providers. That is not to say that third parties don't innovate - they do. But by far the norm is that it is the first party studios that provide the best content for a system. Personally I can't wait to see what Sony first party Studios are going to do with PSVR. I'm willing to bet that it is the first party studios that will provide the best content for the platform.
1st parties are generally the ones who push boundaries more but when it comes right down to it... 3rd parties make up the lions share of any and all platform software support.
And I completely agree with you. But it's rarely the 3rd parties that innovate on the hardware. It usualy always the 1st party studios that push the hardware to its limits. With PSVR, I think the same will apply. It will be the 1st party studios that will really push the boundaries of the technology. Yes there will be a ton of 3rd party support, but it's the 1st party studios you should keep your eyes on.
Dude they know that, there just finding excuses to ditch xbox
I don't think he's talking about 1st/3rd party support like that. He's saying that if you put the ability to build into the hands of more people, innovation will happen faster. It's kind of common sense really. However, I will agree that the 1st party is going to be the one that shows off it's full potential the soonest. Problem I have overall with Phil's statement is that he's approaching this like PSVR is available for the PC, and Sony is somehow restricting people on PC from developing for it. That is absolutely untrue for the latter. PSVR is a Sony platform, for Sony platforms, and as such, they will provide the tools required to any qualified dev who wishes to build games for it. All I really see him doing here is downplaying Sony's attempt at VR in an attempt to push Windows itself, and while MS may be backing OR or Valve in their VR endevours may be a thing, MS itself currently has no stake in the VR market, so his views on "putting the tools into the hands of developers" is pointless, because MS isn't really doing that...valve and OR are, with MS just updating their DX API's to support whatever Valve and OR need to work. My question to Phil would be...Where are your tools for VR MS? I've made plenty in the last 5 months...yet I don't recall finding any kind of integration information for DX to help support me to actually make them. I feel if Phil wants to speak on such things, he should be speaking about VR and what MS is actually doing to support the devs in their efforts for VR, instead of just spewing some general indirect hyperbole about how the Windows platform is somehow pertinent whatsoever to current VR efforts...because MS hasn't shown any interest in furthering VR, or pushing it's adoption at all. In a nutshell, we could say that MS is a huge supporter of PC gaming for the last 30 years, because they happen to have an OS in which the software will be consumed. We could say the same about Apple and Google, yet they provide about as much as MS has for PC gaming...which is the overall API to start building games. Anyhow...sorry for the rather off-topic to your original post rant there. Stuff like this annoys me, and I hate that people eat it up as if MS is somehow relevant to the conversation. The day Phil can give a compliment to the competition without that huge qualifier which somehow makes it about MS, is the day I'll probably stop being annoyed.
Rain, "Where are your tools for VR MS? I've made plenty in the last 5 months...yet I don't recall finding any kind of integration information for DX to help support me to actually make them. " Please do me a favor and go on Tweeter if you have an account and ask him that very question after you quote him on VR's 'openness'. If he answer's please let us know, as I'm dying to see what he has to say, even though I know he will PR-talk himself out of it in something like 'We are working on it', then ask him why would he make such a comment if his company is not even VR ready... See if he likes that... Anw, kudos to the guy for constantly praising the competition but he really needs to stop throwing those stealth jabs.
as a consumer i'm taking the same approach , let them figure this stuff out a bit before i dive in .
Kinect did great on windows phil
Exactly. I think that may be his point. He's speaking from experience. I know you're a Sony guy, but you don't have to automatically take a shot at MS. Relax.
It didn't really make Kinect more relevant or successful though. Lots of cool stuff to be had on PC...more than console in fact...but MS isn't providing anywhere near that same level of support for VR, and instead seem like Phil wants to take credit for VR's adoption because OR works on Windows. It's like them taking credit for all PC gaming, because people mostly use Windows OS. I don't disagree with some of his sentiment that open can be better, just his aptitude for somehow making into something about MS/Windows, all while seeming to imply MS is anywhere near relevant to the current VR adoption taking place.
One thing I am curious about is Microsoft trying to build a relationship with valve so they can hope to get the Xbox/Steam integration? If that happens what's the reason for the Steam machine.
there aren't a whole lot of steam machines out that i have seen. the alienware one comes to mind but other than that... MS has had a relationship with valve for years. nothing new really and if MS can get steam to work on xb1 then it's a win for both.
What makes people think that Sony can't get Steam too. They had a close relationship with Valve too when Portal 2 came out on the PS3/Steam integration you remember?
"They had a close relationship with Valve too when Portal came out on the PS3/Steam.." one game does not a close relationship make. Honestly i wouldnt put it past Steam to try and get in on the existing console market via these systems. the question is would Sony let another online distribution service on their system. They turned down EA access so who knows. Maybe they would have a change of heart for valve.
@darth Look at rocket league cross play between pc/ps4 but not on xbox and you expect microsoft to share a whole platform... One step at a time. (also happened with portal 2)
"Look at rocket league cross play between pc/ps4 but not on xbox and you expect microsoft to share a whole platform... One step at a time. " That is a moot to MS point when the audience in question is building their latest rigs around W10. They are sharing with their own customers. Rocket league is just a case of sony getting in their first. MS got no problem with xbox gamers playing with PC...they just dont want sony in on the party. I am playing fable legends and gigantic on XB1 and on my Pcs by the way. Cross play works beautifully in either direction.
Steam is a gateway to the PC gamer. Sony, or MS for that matter, may not be looking to Steam to be a content provider, and I'd bet a lot that they have absolutely no intention to allow Steam on their consoles. However, that doesn't mean steam couldn't be a partner for them to distribute their own software or services. Integrating XBL or PSN into steam's own built in services could be quite beneficial...particularly if current trends of cross platform play becomes more popular among publishers. It removes a lot of headaches for having to support certain features in game, and allows an outside more standardized infrastructure to take over. Another example could be that games with PSNow could easily be distributed as single entities instead of an overall service...and there is really no reason that Sony would not allow Steam to do so since they don't have their own service that's up to par with Steam on the PC. In the meantime, they gain access to millions of Steam users, Valve get's it's cut of the revenue, and both parties benefit. There are many ways in which the console makers and Steam could mutually benefit. Sony probably has more possibilities because they aren't competing directly with Steam in the same way MS is doing, and MS has it's own infrastructure on PC to do what it needs to do. The distribution service though I can't see happening on consoles like that. The only practical reason to have such a thing would be if PC games were actually allowed/able to run on consoles, and console makers are very wary of such things....Sony in particular....hence they required signed code, which would require a special build for the console...thus what's the point to begin with since the console already have their own integrated distribution service, and there's no reason to cut Valve in on the profits.
Valve has practically no relationship with Microsoft. They've been doing everything in their power to distance themselves from MS (Vulkan, Linux/SteamOS, Steam Controller, etc). Valve really doesn't stand to gain much from working with Microsoft, and the concept of Steam on Xbox is in the realm of pipedreams with Steam on PlayStation.
I think Microsoft's original plans with trying to get it so all applications had to go through the Windows Storefront really turned Valve off of MS.
That plan turned off pretty much everyone.
Gabe was never a huge fan of MS. He is often critical of many of their policies. Now, MS is setting it's sights directly on competiting with Steam from multiple directions. While Valve and MS as businesses probably aren't opposed to working together, and they do at times, I can't see any sort of major partnership that would make sense for all the parties involved. In almost every scenario, it's either Valve OR MS that benefits...not both, and if they are now direct competitors, I can't imagine they're going to be doing anything that isn't mutually beneficial, as one is always taking from the other in some way.
Why would Valve partner with ms? Valve are heading the way of Linux with there own SteamOS. Everyone forgets the way Gabe laid into windows 8 and the windows store a couple of years ago. Steam on X1 is as far fetched as seeing pink spotty pigs flying around Big Ben, aint gonna happen.
they think they can beat steam lol well let them try...will fail miserably
I hope they all succeed, although between vive and rift, i hope my future rift succeeds :p, jk i hope they all succeed lol
Ya know....I think I might buy the valve VR. Its bound to play a role on the next xbox.
All these praises from Phil make me want to tell him, "Join the PS brand already!". I think he will be a good addition to the growing PlayStation brand!
who ever thinks VR is just a fad are just wrong ..... some of us have been waiting more than 20 years years for this.
Probably not for the reason you are thinking!
Hololens does not has the support that most of the industry is giving VR but I believe is a good tech for non gaming purposes.
He don't want sony VR to do well he just getting payed to say that :) plp stop believing everything you being told by sony or Microsoft its '' MARKETING ''
Sure he does. Then he can somehow make it about MS and Windows just like he's doing in the quotes in this article. Then once everyone else takes the risks, and it succeeds, MS can be late to the party as usual, and he can claim that MS was supportive of VR forever...kind of how they're saying how they are so supportive of PC gaming now like they've always been. I have to say...this is the first time one of Phil's comments has ever really just struck the wrong chord for me. I have seen almost no support for VR come from MS, and I'm one of these devs he's talking about that needs to get their hands on these tools. I guess I can take solace in the fact that the longer MS takes, the more secure my job is though.
@rainslacker This is what struck me as he was so bold to even claim this: "Our bet on VR right now on an open platform for innovation [like Windows 10] is the best place for something that is this early in its incubation," he told us. "You can say Minecraft will be the killer app, but nobody's bought a copy of Minecraft for VR." Spencer said he wishes Sony success with PlayStation VR, but talked about why a "closed ecosystem" could be problematic for a technology as young as virtual reality." This is what struck me as a wrong cord! Windows OS is now an open platform .......? Really. No Phil...Linux is an open Platform! I don't think an open platform means what you think it means Phil. I like Phil, but no Phil Windows OS is not an open platform.
I don't disagree at all, that a closed platform is as beneficial as an open platform. But an open platform is only useful in the way that he talks about IF the tools are there for those people to make those killer apps. Even then, those "killer apps" often come from the developers with the infrastructure to make and promote their game, with the notable exceptions really being few and far between. I don't think MS is doing nothing at all to help VR move along, I just don't think they're really doing enough to be a contributing factor in the way he's implying. Windows is still an open platform in the sense he's talking about, which is you can distribute your software without adherence to licensing. It does have some limitations compared to Linux, but I wouldn't consider it a closed platform. Their Windows store structure isn't what I'd consider open, because they do have control over your purchases.
Phil is a really nice and humble guy...gotta give it to him.
Thats so generous Phil. lol whats wrong with the trolling comments over here? lots of hidden comments to be unpacked - its all just for a humble regards...Common guys. (Microwave Popcorn: Ting)
phil spencer is da man i agree with him ps vr needs to succeed cuz i really want to buy one it need games that would make me got to have one
I think he is starting to come around. Microsoft will have virtual reality. Watch. If this thing works??? Next generation Microsoft fans will be praising the Microsoft version. So don't hate on it. Join in. Have fun with it. It'll be apart of Microsoft future too.
Nice Guy Phil is his mafia name.
The thing is they kinda need Sony to do well. One of these VR devices needs to catch on, and Sony has the best chance. If it works well AND is priced at a consumer friendly rate there could be a big deal. It also means people with more money might eventually invest in the other devices. That or when the tech becomes cheaper people will still have interest. Also Microsoft should not be trying to push Hololense yet. The tech isn't quite there yet. Plus with it only producing the AR effect on a 4:3 section at the center of your vision it means it can't fully immerse gamers. Which as we all know immersion is the most important thing when gaming.
its like PC and Mac back in the day, Nvidia and amd etc.. Xbox and playstation. The two need each other for it to be a competitive market driving tech advances and eventually sales.
Holy crap guys, I'm sure if I worked for Microsoft or Sony and Nintendo I would have all the systems and ain't any of the big three can stop me because it's what I like to do. That's who they hire to help a system sell a gamer, and im certain I can have another price of plastic to play games on and ain't no call of duty war out there man.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.