Quit Holding Your Breath For Xbox VR

Not open for further replies.
They probably saw how low PS VR adoption was. How little content there was. How few VR owners kept using them after the novelty wore off. Then realized VR is not ready for mass adoption yet.

I don't think it will be until it is standardized and standardized in such a way that developers can simply make games and have them work on VR headsets and monitors/TVs without much added difficulty. Plus people being able to buy any VR headset and accessories like they do monitors, keyboards and mice. Then have them work with any VR capable game.

Plus it needs to unobtrusive. Most people don't like stuff on their face. That's why 3D TV was a flop. Without extremely compelling content and total immersion. Wearing something uncomfortable, messes up your hair and isolates your vision is a hard sell to the masses.


Probably a smart decision VR/AR isn't ready for prime time yet. Both in terms of cost of the headset but also in terms of graphical fidelity and of course a killer application. For Microsoft it probably makes more sense to simply open up the Xbox to allow any of the models that work on PC to be usable on it too. No reason at all the make their own.


Jan 5, 2015
VR is all cool and fun, but the most important thing is that despite the efforts of Sony, it is still a niche market as of now. I'm not debating how useful it could be for some designers, or for some specific applications, but as a home entertainment device, VR is still not ready for prime-time.

Yes, the technology exists to get good VR experiences, but it comes at a cost, and it comes with some required setup. It is not comparable to most entertainment products, where it's usually "just sit down and press start on the remote/controller".

Also, the very nature of VR is a solo experience. Sure, you can play online with others, but that's not my point. My point is that a good VR experience cuts you off from reality, which is cool, but for anyone who live with a wife, kids, it's basically shutting yourself from everyone else in the house. You also don't know if someone knock at the door, if the telephone rings, and so on. You almost need to set aside some scheduled time to play, and let others know that you're not available. You're just not "there" anymore, and you can see that this isn't ideal for people that aren't living alone.

Don't get me wrong, I love VR. But I also can understand that it is still not ready for prime time. Far from it, in fact. Despite what some Sony fanboys will say.


Oct 29, 2012
>They probably saw how low PS VR adoption was. How little content there was.

Doesn't make sense when PSVR is the most successful VR system by both shipping more headsets than anyone else and selling more licenses (games) than anyone else.


Apr 1, 2004
They just did find out that a good VR experience is still very expensive...
Vivo pro would cost 1600$ with new beacons and it does not include the pc that you need to power the games. And even that is not yet good enough... So waiting for low cost ar solution is vice choise in consoles market. We need more powerfull hardware and higher resolution screens. And those Are still very expensive to produce.



Adding TV/monitor support to a VR title is one thing, but having automatic VR support for a conventional title is not going to happen.

VR adds a lot of considerations that don't exist, in the conventional authoring process. Things like minimizing motion sickness, ensuring an acceptable minimum framerate is maintained, and that OS and menus are legible, comfortable, and easy to use. Just for starters.



It's funny - that jumped out at me, but I didn't really think about it.

It's obviously wary. You cannot be tired of something you haven't even done. Rather, they haven't yet done it because they're approaching it with caution.


Oct 22, 2016
Fkn Microsoft. The one chance they have to jump into something ahead of the curve (something with obvious staying power and huge potential) and they give up.

It’s like they lack confidence as a corporate culture. They *need* to be the VR equivalent of the Zune for some reason. I have a PSVR, and despite all the cons given here, it’s incredibly impressive— especially if you keep buying new types of games and don’t sit on a handful of titles.

Whelp, looking forward to Windows 11 I guess. Should be totally bloated, insecure and worthless (but free!).



Except... Hololens!

Okay, Magic Leap might beat them to the punch of having a "consumer" product, but it cannot be denied that MS got way out ahead of everyone else in AR.

You also can't argue that MS didn't make PC VR more accessible. They set a new price floor and nobody else has undercut them on GPU requirements. Not to mention the fact that it needs no cameras or lighthouses. All they need now is to go wireless, and then you'll probably get it on your XBox^2 (or whatever they call it).

I'll give no argument about the technical problems they face. That's just one of the hurdles which will have to be overcome for mainstream acceptance.

It's a chicken or the egg problem. There won't be mass purchasing of VR if people can't play all their games. Game makers won't fully commit to VR if people aren't buying and using it.

With little or no standardization among VR makers. That makes it even more difficult for game developers to support VR or they have to live with an even smaller audience. Standardization would greatly reduce development costs for game makers. As it would reduce complexity. It would also increase the available audience. Both of which are financially compelling reasons to increase VR support.
Jun 26, 2018
I say NO to VR for children , and consoles are aimed at children .

I want my Children Brain to grow up in healthy natural condition , not inside Virtual worlds.

I am almost sure that 20 years from now , Mental hospitals will be filled by people who played alot of VR games at childhood while their brain was developing.
Not open for further replies.