Microsoft had their taste with Kinect , when they brought that out the whole focus was on that and core games suffered
Difference is the wrong people were in charge back then. You've seen the Power On doc, right? Well they clearly show a shift in business pursuit once Mattrick took over the Xbox division. He was the biggest push for Kinect in 360's late life and he pushed for it with XBO (as well as focusing on multimedia with XBO).
The tech could've persevered with someone more in-tune with the market running the show, but it didn't.
I think many look at it as a very black & white issue and the Xbox faithful still has nightmares about what Kinect did to Xbox.
In this case though, the Xbox series line are basically standardized PCs and MS already supports VR modes of some titles on PC. Working on OS software/drivers and maybe a cable to duplicate the hdmi/add bluetooth for WMR would hardly be a distracting commitment like Kinect. Taking even a low effort approach now could safe guard Xbox in the future should VR start to take off.
100%. Some of it definitely feels like post-Kinect trauma. But things are different this time: Phil Spencer is not Don Mattrick.
At least having support for a 3P VR headset solution on console gives that element of protection for the platform as you've mentioned. It's always better to take those measures ahead of time instead of being caught reacting to a change in the market, since the latter always puts you at some disadvantage.
Why? VR is the next logical step for games. VR will most likely begin the take over of traditional AAA gaming in the next decade with non-VR games being relegated to mobile and indie.
Either PS6 or PS7 will literally release as a VR console... not a peripheral.
I honestly think (well, hope) PS6 includes an entry-level VR headset by default in a singular SKU. IMO one of the biggest reasons VR has yet to have mass-market adoption is because it's still stuck at peripheral status. The Quest 2 is the first big attempt (at least that I know) which is trying to break out of that and it's clearly a success for doing so.
A future console with VR support included by default would offer all the advantages of both and by the point such would happen the total cost of production shouldn't be much higher than what it's turned out to be for 9th gen systems of today.
YES!!! That's literally my argument. There's going to be gamers that will end up not buying an Xbox Series console at some point because it doesn't support VR. It would cost MS almost no money to allow it. It's almost financially criminal that they DON'T allow it to be honest.
I'm guessing they will by the beginning of next generation though.
Yep; most people who want VR are looking at platform purchases/investments based on the totality of what they can provide, and as long as those platforms also support VR, they will consider them.
If the platform has no support for VR, then for these sorts of people it is automatically not in the running, regardless of what else it provides, and in the case of Xbox this is exacerbated further considering all of its 1P games come to PC Day 1. Due to that it's also lost the potential allure of full exclusive games to draw people into the console side of the ecosystem, lack of VR support just stacks on top of it for certain folks.
And in spite of their strong sales on storefronts like Steam, I'm still sure MS would prefer driving as many people to the console as possible, since that means retaining 100% of the money made on 1P digital sales, and getting 30% cut on all 3P sales. Not to mention, people getting Series S probably default to signing up for GamePass, which means more recurring revenue from subscriptions. That isn't guaranteed on the PC side and in fact from what's usually said GamePass on PC is a bit of a mess.
But anyway, back on topic...yes. I hope MS open up to allowing a 3P VR headset or two as compatible on Xbox Series systems, feels like a natural next step.
They probably will, but I think for now the risk of losing gamers and revenue inside their own system/sandbox (playing other companies VR instead of MS non-VR) outweighs the financial rewards of allowing it.
I don't think there too many people that would be picking a PS5 over an Xbox at least at this point due to VR, the reason I say that is the people who bought one already are early adopters who will by things like VR, vs more casual gamers who probably don't care a lot about VR.
But like we both say, over time, this is shifting. They will probably watch PSVR2 sales with great interest.
It's not really about them losing sales to PS5 due to potentially going a long time without VR support...it's about losing sales to
PC.
If that sounds ridiculous (considering MS being one of Steam's top publishers, for example), think of it like this....most of MS's GamePass subscriptions come from consoles being sold. The vast majority of the Xbox's revenue comes from 3P software sales...those 3P software sales obviously come from the
consoles. Most of their GamePass subscription revenue comes from the
console audience.
Their 1P games being Day-and-Date on PC already provides a very strong incentive for some people to stick to PC compared to buying an Xbox, but that is something Microsoft are seemingly okay with not just because they still generate lots of revenue from 1P software sales/DLC/IAP etc. but also because they are still generating lots of Xbox division revenue from
3P sales and
GamePass subscriptions...the former
100% coming from Xbox and the latter the
majority of which are coming from Xbox.
If things like VR continue to gain ground, and especially if more 1P games continue to support VR on the PC side, while Xbox itself continues to offer no VR support...that means Microsoft risking more players going from Xbox to PC, meaning potentially one
less GamePass subscriber (unless PC GamePass is revamped; there's an issue with installs and encryption on the drive that keeps some people from using it over there), one less person buying 3P games on Xbox (less of that 30% cut for Microsoft on 3P sales), etc.
They would need an exponential growth of 1P game sales on Steam to offset that loss in revenue from people potentially leaving Xbox for PC, but if recent revenue reports are anything to go by then 1P revenue is not at that point to make up the difference. Realistically, it would probably never reach that level, but this would apply to any other platform holder in the same position, i.e Sony and Nintendo, if they had an exactly similar strategy.
This is why MS need to get ahead on stuff like this, like providing VR support on Xbox with a 3P headset, so that they aren't left reacting in what could be considered a scattershot response if things like VR become bigger factors for more people in deciding what platforms they invest in, including if that leads them to choosing PC over Xbox. Which, again, might sound ridiculous since MS are obviously entrenched on the PC platform, they're practically ubiquitous with it. But that ubiquity doesn't extend to
PC gaming in terms of a platform holder: that belongs to Valve, meaning only a fraction of Microsoft's advantages of being a platform holder on the Xbox side, translate to them being a publisher (a top publisher, even) on the PC side, since they're
dependent on Steam for that, and Valve are going to treat Microsoft (just like how they treat Sony) as another publisher on a storefront platform Valve themselves own.
Personally I think they would be better served to launch a portable, considering the Switch's success.
Possibly, though with them going for expanded xCloud support and stuff like the SteamDeck coming along, if MS's approach to mobile is anything like it is with VR then they will want to rather support hardware already on the market.
I think there's a stronger argument for Sony to make a portable, but that's a completely different discussion and would end up going off-topic.
I dont know why you quote me and tell me this, when I clearly dont agree. Just seems antagonising at this point. We dont have to agree.
That wasn't my intent and I apologize if you feel that way. It was just an idea I had a different opinion on, and expressed that. Just as a means of showing that budgets for one type of game might not necessarily eat into budgets for another type of game.