440°

The First VR Game Confirmed for the Xbox One?

The press release for Narcosis details various platforms for release, including
the "...Oculus store, Steam and Xbox One late summer 2016."

Read Full Story >>
enthusiast.gg
onisama3303d ago

yeah if xbox scorpio is real i wont be surprised

riverstars863303d ago

Really hoping this new Xbox is as powerful as the rumors state. If it uses the Oculus Rift, it'll be the cheapest entry to a top notch VR experience.

listenkids3303d ago (Edited 3303d ago )

How do you figure it'd be the cheapest entry?

@ your comment below, the console wouldn't bundle Oculus. The chespest option without a doubt is PSVR, factoring all costs.

amiga-man3303d ago (Edited 3303d ago )

There is no way Oculus is running on the Xone, Scorpio could do it if they wanted to make it powerful enough, but the console wouldn't come cheap and then you factor in the cost of Oculus, things are starting to look pretty expensive.

riverstars863303d ago

Simple, if the Xbox Scorpio is real and has 6TF, it wouldn't cost more than $500. Please guide me to where I could get a PC equivalent for $500.

ninsigma3303d ago

Where are you getting 500 dollars from??

MachuchalBrotha3163303d ago (Edited 3303d ago )

Forgot where I read it, but supposedly even if Scorpio is true, some think Scorpio will still need help via external gpu to take full advantage of Rift, but will still give on par or slightly better performance as PSVR.

So it seems if rumors are true that not only will Scorpio be a beast..but you can go Super Sayain with additional horsepower. Come on Xbox, knock it out the park this E3.

Also maybe Xbox One gets patched for external gpu support and we get a VR experience similar or better than Gear VR. I own Gear and the few games I do have are hella fun. Anything is better than nothing.

Edit: oh yeah I disagreed that it would be cheapest entry. You still do t know the price of Scorpio or any additional hardware you will need to run VR. The Rift is already a couple hundred more than PSVR...so....so yeah, NO

riverstars863303d ago

@ninsigma

It comes from common sense, Microsoft knows it would be suicide to release a new console over $500. Even $500 is too much, but it's the ceiling most would be willing to spend on a new console.

@listen kids

I agree that the the PSVR is the cheapest way to experience VR. However, in my opinion, it won't deliver the high end experiences as the Rift. The PS4 just doesn't have the power needed. It's why I said "top notch" in my post.

Aenea3303d ago (Edited 3303d ago )

The Rift is more expensive than the PSVR, so no, it won't be the cheapest entry for a VR experience...

Okay, high end then, even with PS4 Neo + PSVR it will be cheaper than X1 Scorpio + Rift...

dcbronco3303d ago

Riverstar you are making a common mistake when judging price on consoles compared to PC. You're thinking retail cost instead of cost associated with hiring someone to do a personal job.

If you look at the 1.8 teraflops on the GPU of the PS4 and compare that to the cost of a discreet GPU at that time you were looking at a huge difference in price. And the PS4 included a CPU for just $99.

You are also ignoring the timetable. AMD will be on a whole new architecture on gpu and CPU. Zen will be twice the power of a chip that is probably twice the power of Jaguar. Even more. So one Zen module would easily have several times the power of current consoles on the CPU side with half a chip.

The Vega architecture is expected to be closer to double the power of Titan. So a 16 teraflops GPU. When you add die shrinks you have a 10nm chip using far less power than current generation consoles while being several times more powerful. So 6-8 teraflops will be a low end chip in 2017. And that's retail. When you're commissioning the project you're looking at chips still far cheaper than the Cell and Xenon from the previous generation.

Look up projections for the generation of GPUs after Polaris and Pascal. People are talking 32 teraflops. So again, ten teraflops would be the low-end chip retail. Which means a $400 console at profit day one.

dcbronco3303d ago (Edited 3303d ago )

Neo would barely be cheaper. Once you add the controller and camera it's one hundred dollars cheaper. But Rift bundled with Xbox Scorpio could be sold for $50 less since the Xbox already has a controller. So really it's just fifty bucks.

And Microsoft more than likely would eat the fifty. So they will be even while the Xbox could have a fifty percent power advantage. Which I actually believe will be more because Microsoft will not allow another power disadvantage and two they will release a year later and most likely a die size smaller. Maybe even with Vega but I doubt it. But I do expect ten teraflops on the GPU with eight being the lowest.

Mr Pumblechook3303d ago

This is a controlled leak by Microsoft because they have been left out of the VR conversation and don't want to be thought of as behind the market leaders.

Gunstar753303d ago

@listenkids he said "top notch" whilst psvr is an interesting proposition, it's nowhere near cutting edge. Still, up until this point it's the only thing that's tempted me to buy a ps4

kenwonobi3303d ago

Not sure it's gonna be the cheapest. That sounds innacurrate considering PSVR is top notch and the cheapest.

PistolsAtDawn3302d ago

True, not cheapest....but cheapest way to get the best experience.

jb2273302d ago

@dcbronco

"Once you add the controller and camera it's one hundred dollars cheaper. But Rift bundled with Xbox Scorpio could be sold for $50 less since the Xbox already has a controller. So really it's just fifty bucks. "

You do realize that the controller for Oculus is just a standard XBO controller? If we are talking a 1:1 comparison, you'd either be talking about an extra charge for the Oculus Touch, which isn't available yet (to my knowledge) & will be sold seperately, or you can throw out the controller requirement entirely considering PS4 owners would already have a standard DS4 & XBO owners would already have their own controller.

Beyond that, PSVR is compatible w/ the vanilla PS4, and rumors point to VR only being compatible w/ the Scorpio. If you have to buy an entirely new console, you are looking at a lot more than a couple hundred in a price differential. The only other alternative is for MS to create their own breakout box to make the XBO compatible w/ Oculus in some way, and they aren't going to hand those out for free, so either way you are looking at a price differential of significantly more for MS VR, regardless of the extra PS Camera charge.

That's another reason why this listing is suspect, how exactly could this game be available for XBO on VR in late Summer 2016 unless MS has somehow found a way to make the base model XBO compatible w/ VR in a very short period of time? Like I said, the only potential is for MS to have created some kind of break out box, but they most definitely won't announce it at E3 then release it a month later considering the cost included w/ Oculus would be pretty pricey & they'd want to give the average consumer some time to get funds together. It's not like Fallout 4 announcing and releasing in a few months time because that is a tiny cost compared to the much larger purchase of a VR solution. I think this listing is just a typo for the most part, they most likely meant that the game would be available on the Windows store along w/ Steam, not the Xbox One store & compatible w/ that box.

starchild3302d ago

Well, VR is currently expensive no matter how you look at it. It's not really at a mainstream price, whether you're taking about the Rift, Vive or PSVR.

But a big mistake many of you are making is assuming prices will be the same by the time this all shakes out next year. For all we know the Rift could be selling for quite a bit less by then.

We just have to wait and see how this all plays out.

3302d ago
+ Show (13) more repliesLast reply 3302d ago
ShadowKnight3303d ago

The only problem I see can Xbox gamers afford the Oculus rift.

LaWiiG3303d ago

Lol, I as a PC owner can't afford the rift XD

ShadowKnight3303d ago (Edited 3303d ago )

Can't wait to go to E3. I'm glad it's in my home state. Let's see if these rumors come true.

ninsigma3302d ago

I'm sure there will be some who can afford it and would love to jump onto VR. It would be a fairly niche market however (like all vr at the moment, and I don't mean that in a negative way because I'm well aboard the VR train :D).

rainslacker3302d ago

I'm fairly sure the VR solutions are aimed at either the people where money isn't a concern, or those willing to spend money on it for the experience(early adopter types).

PSVR and all the PC options are not currently aimed at the mainstream consumer. PSVR may be the cheapest of the bunch, but $400 for a peripheral, for an unproven in the market tech, is not something most casuals or moderate gamers are going to dive in for.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3302d ago
3303d ago Replies(4)
Thatguy-3103303d ago

It'll simply be that whole theater mode they showed back at gdc

meche3343303d ago

No. because they're developing a vr game not a game. a vr game cant be played in the virtual theatre. only normal games

Tobsesan3303d ago

It ships for "PC, Mac and Oculus Rift "
Oculus Rift will be usable with Xbox, trust me. Would be one hell of a deal, since most devs already make games for it.

mcstorm3303d ago

I think if ms go down the vr side this will be the side they go. I don't know enough about specs pf vr as its not something im interest in but what people forget is ms often support 3rd party's in what they do and they are close to HTC to. This could play out well if and its a big if ms say all pc vr headsets will work with the xbox one.

For me I still don't see VR being the next big thing but one thing for sure is E3 is going to be interesting.

Tobsesan3303d ago

Its the smartest way to do it. They dont have to put many resources in development and already got a working headset proven on the market with oculus.

Gunstar753303d ago

I was scepticle about VR, having been here before (Jaguar vr anyone?) However, having had a play on my s7 and gear VR, which is by no means a high end experience, I am well up for this level of emersion in a game.

LaWiiG3303d ago

VR is really expensive. I mean, as a PC player myself, I would have to spend about $1,000 just to play.

rainslacker3302d ago

I'm not sure how I feel about MS going into VR with no vested interest in making it a success. I mean, it's fine if they want to use other people's tech to get into the market, but if they're only doing it to one up Sony, then I'd rather they just stay out and not half ass their support for it.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3302d ago
Godmars2903303d ago

Isn't this something they've already talked about? Streaming/networking an XB1 though a PC?

LaWiiG3303d ago

Why would they do that for a VR game? Streaming was last year, VR this year? Maybe. I'm still skeptical.

Show all comments (61)
80°

Inside the ‘Dragon Age’ Debacle That Gutted EA’s BioWare Studio

The latest game in BioWare’s fantasy role-playing series went through ten years of development turmoil

In early November, on the eve of the crucial holiday shopping season, staffers at the video-game studio BioWare were feeling optimistic. After an excruciating development cycle, they had finally released their latest game, Dragon Age: The Veilguard, and the early reception was largely positive. The role-playing game was topping sales charts on Steam, and solid, if not spectacular, reviews were rolling in.

HyperMoused1d 20h ago

Its easy they called the die hard fans people in their nerd caves who will buy anything and then went woke to reach modern audiences....insulting the nerds in their caves along the way showing utter contempt for their fan base. very hapy it failed and any company who insults their fan base and treat their customers with contempt and insults, in future, i also hope fail.

neutralgamer19921d 16h ago

It’s disappointing but not surprising to see what's happening with Dragon Age: The Veilguard and the broader situation at BioWare. The layoffs are tragic — no one wants to see talented developers lose their jobs. But when studios repeatedly create games that alienate their own fanbase, outcomes like this become unfortunately predictable.

There’s a pattern we’re seeing far too often: beloved franchises are revived, only to be reshaped into something almost unrecognizable. Changes are made that no one asked for, often at the expense of what originally made these games special. Then, when long-time fans express concern or lose interest, they’re told, “This game might not be for you.” But when those same fans heed that advice and don’t buy the game, suddenly they're labeled as toxic, sexist, bigoted, or worse.

Let’s be clear: the overwhelming majority of gamers have no issue with diversity, LGBTQ+ representation, or strong female leads. In fact, some of the most iconic characters in gaming — like Aloy, Ellie, or FemShep — are proof that inclusivity and excellent storytelling can and do go hand in hand. The issue arises when diversity feels performative, forced, or disconnected from the narrative — when characters or themes are inserted not to serve the story, but to satisfy a corporate DEI checklist. Audiences can tell the difference.

When studios chase approval from a vocal minority that often doesn’t even buy games — while simultaneously dismissing loyal fans who actually do — they risk not just the success of individual titles, but the health of their entire studio. Telling your core customers “don’t buy it if you don’t like it” is not a viable business strategy. Because guess what? Many of us won’t. And when the game fails commercially, blaming those very fans for not supporting it is both unfair and self-defeating.

Gamers aren’t asking for less diversity or less progress. We’re asking for better writing, thoughtful character development, and a respect for the franchises we’ve supported for decades. When you give people great games that speak to them — whether they’re old fans or new players — they will show up. But if you keep making games for people who don’t play them, don’t be surprised when those who do stop showing up

Armaggedon1d 10h ago

I thought the writing and character development were fine. Sometimes things just dont resonate with people.

90°

Report: Just Cause 5 Was in Development at Sumo Digital, But Got Cancelled

Recent evidence we discovered indicates that the next game in the Just Cause series may have been canceled, potentially two years ago.

RaidenBlack3d ago

NOooooooooooooooooooooo....... ..............

mkis0072d ago

Well if it went back to being more like 3 I would have liked it. 4 was crap.

280°

Bend Studio Reportedly Lays Off 30 Percent of Staff Following Live-Service Project Cancellation

Sony's Bend Studio lays off 30 percent of its workforce following the cancellation of its live-service project.

Read Full Story >>
twistedvoxel.com
Jin_Sakai3d ago

And to think we could’ve been playing Days Gone 2 by now.

RaidenBlack3d ago

I would even pay 80 bucks for an UE5 based more immersive Days Gone 2 .... or even a new Syphon Filter.
But nah .... rather lay off staff & re-remasters Days Gone i.e Days Gone Reloaded.

Cacabunga3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

Stubborn Sony not wanting to listen to fans is paying the price of its arrogance. They could have let these studios grow and do what they do best and let others like Bungie maybe make gaas for those who want it.

Days Gone 2 is obviously what they should focus on next. We’ve had enough remasters and reeditions of the first one

Profchaos3d ago

Sony's not paying the price its workers are.

z2g3d ago

They were listening to the money that games like Fortnite were pulling in. Market research shows service games when successful make more money. It’s a gamble that Sony was too cocky to worry about. Now ppl are losing their jobs in an economy that’s gonna slow down any minute.

gerbintosh2d ago

@Profchaos

The workers let go were probably hired for the live service game and released now because it was cancelled

jznrpg3d ago

People needed to buy the first game! And not at 20$

neutralgamer19923d ago

I understand the argument that if fans truly wanted a sequel to Days Gone, they should've supported it at launch at full price. But that perspective misses a lot of important context.

First of all, Days Gone launched in a broken state. It needed several patches just to become stable and playable. For many gamers, paying $60 for something clearly unfinished just wasn’t justifiable. That wasn’t a lack of support—it was a fair response to a product that didn’t meet expectations out of the gate.

Despite that, over 8 million people eventually bought the game. It built a strong, passionate fanbase—proof that the game had value and potential once it was properly patched. A sequel would’ve had a much stronger foundation: a team that had learned from the first game, a loyal audience, and way more hype around a continued story.

But Days Gone also had to contend with another challenge—it was unfairly judged against other first-party PlayStation exclusives. Critics compared it directly to polished, masterful experiences like Uncharted, The Last of Us, and God of War. And while those comparisons might make sense from a branding perspective, they didn’t reflect the reality of the situation.

Studios like Naughty Dog and Santa Monica Studio had years—sometimes decades—of experience working with big teams and high budgets on flagship titles. Days Gone was Sony Bend Studio’s first major AAA console release in a very long time—their last being Syphon Filter back in the PS1 era. Before that, they were mostly focused on handheld games. Expecting them to match the output of the most elite studios in the industry, right out of the gate, was unrealistic and frankly unfair.

The harsh critical reception didn’t reflect the potential Days Gone actually had, and it probably played a big role in Sony's decision not to greenlight a sequel. Instead, they pushed Bend and other talented studios like Bluepoint toward live service projects—chasing trends instead of trusting the kinds of games their fans consistently show up for. Many of those live service games have since been canceled, likely wasting hundreds of millions of dollars and valuable time that could’ve gone toward meaningful single-player experiences.

So when people say, “You should’ve bought Days Gone at launch if you wanted a sequel,” they’re ignoring the bigger picture. Gamers didn’t reject the game—they waited for it to be worth their time. And once it was, they absolutely showed up. That should’ve been seen as a foundation to build on, not a reason to walk away from the franchise

InUrFoxHole2d ago

@neutralgamer1992
Has a point. I supported this game day 1. There was either and audio sync issue or a cut scene issue that ruined the game for me early on. I dont blame gamers at all for holding off until it meets their standard.

raWfodog3d ago

I seriously wonder who makes these types of decisions. Days Gone was a solid game. It didn't get that much love at first but people eventually saw the diamond in the rough. The ending basically guaranteed a sequel, but someone said "nope, let's pitch a LS game instead". And the yes-men were all "Great idea, sir!!"

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2d ago
-Foxtrot3d ago

Urgh. Jim Ryan’s sh***y GaaS plans still ripple across their studios even today.

Such a shame, they should have just been allowed to make Days Gone 2.

Sony need to truly let go of their live service plans once and for all.

OMNlPOTENT3d ago

Agreed. I think the live service era is dead. Even titans like Destiny are starting to fall apart. Sony needs to shift their focus back to their single player games.

ABizzel13d ago (Edited 3d ago )

I don’t think the GaaS overall was a bad idea they’ve seen the success of others, however, forcing all your studios to focus on it was absolutely insane.

Those kind of games are backed by hundreds if not thousands over 1,000 developers working on those games year-round even after release for continuous new content monthly, quarterly, and huge annual or bi-annual updates. It was stupid to expect taking your single-player focused studios and have them become GaaS focused studios when many of them have skipped Multi-player modes the entire last generation (a stepping stone into GaaS).

He was after his Fortnite, Apex, etc… and I feel they could have found that by building a singular new studio dedicated to helping developers like Naughty Dog bring Faction 2.0 to life. At most they should have had:

Factions 2.0 GaaS (PlayStation’s Open World Survival)
Destiny 3 (Bungie needs to revamp Destiny)
Horizon GaaS (PlayStation’s Monster Hunter)
A new AAA IP

That’s it. I mean technically Gran Turismo is a GaaS so that could count, and an Open World InFamous meets DC Universe Online could work with custom hero / villain classes.

raWfodog3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

"I don’t think the GaaS overall was a bad idea they’ve seen the success of others, however, forcing all your studios to focus on it was absolutely insane."

What's more interesting is that SIE was not actually 'forcing' their studios to make GaaS games. I have to find the article again but it was explained that these studios knew about Jim's plans for GaaS games and typically pitched those types of games to SIE because they would have a better chance of getting greenlit for production. They were chasing dollars instead of their ideal games.

Edit: I found the article. Take it for what it is, lol

https://wccftech.com/playst...

ABizzel12d ago (Edited 2d ago )

@ra

I don’t think they were forcing all of their studios, however, that initiative didn’t just come out of no where. Jim Ryan’s entire purpose was to make PlayStation more profitable than ever, and a collection of successful GaaS across platforms would have definitely done that. Based on his talk tracks and interviews he is a numbers guy, and he and Herman Hulst ran with this GaaS solution to all the PlayStation teams.

And when your CEO says this is what we’re getting behind and what the company and shareholders want going forward, everyone falls in line and pushes towards it.

Naughty Dog probably wanted Faction 2 with or without influence.

Sony Bend wanted Days Gone 2 and it was shot down, and now more than ever it makes way more sense, since the game, while initial impressions were slightly above average (which at the time wasn’t good enough being compared to God of War, Ghost, TLoUs, etc…), has found a cult following and has ended up selling extremely well across both PS4 and PS5. But instead they were dropped into this GaaS IP that failed and now they’ve wasted years of development when Days Gone 2 could have already been released or releasing.

3d ago
Obscure_Observer3d ago

Sony literally sent Playstation studios into a death trap!

They forced studios into this GaaS bs just cancel their games midway in development and fire thousand of people in the end!

WTF is happening over there? Why those CEOs still got to keep their jobs after billions and billions dollars invested in new studios and games just to so many developers fired and projects canceled in the end?

This is the worst generation of Playstation! Period!

CrimsonWing693d ago

Jim Ryan got fir—err I mean, retired.

anast3d ago

Jimmy followed Phil's advice.

3d ago
raWfodog3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

They didn't actually 'force' their studios, per se, but the initiative was certainly there.

https://wccftech.com/playst...

-Foxtrot3d ago

They didn't have a choice lets be honest, a new boss comes in and lays out all these plans....what are any of them going to do? Pitch a single player game with none of the things that guy is asking for? You're just asking to be given less funding, less notice, less resources and the like. or maybe you're scared incase the guy decides to get rid of you for someone who will actually give him things that he wants.

They didn't get brutally forced but they had no choice but to go with the flow or Jim would find someone who would.

raWfodog2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

@Foxtrot
No, they definitely had a choice but many chose the path of least resistance.

We have plenty of single-player, non-LS games that began development during the LS initiative. Those projects obviously got greenlit for production. These studios just needed to have good ideas for single player games, but most just chose to come up with half-assed LS pitches.

slate913d ago

Can't believe Sony has been shooting themselves in the foot this gen. Abandoning what made them great to chase industry trends

Skyfly473d ago (Edited 3d ago )

Alanah explains the reasons why in this video which goes into more detail: https://www.youtube.com/wat... But its basically down to appeasing their shareholders

Show all comments (44)