I've always wondered if some of the huge R&D budgets we see are shenanigans to save taxes under the US's R&D Tax Credit.<p>I certainly don't know enough to accuse anyone of tax evasion. But it does seem to be a strong incentive to classify lots of different activities as R&D.
> invested over $100 million throughout the course of the effort<p>That line is completely at odds with the title. In R&D 'alive and well' is not synonymous with spending lots of money. The key factor for deciding whether an R&D organisation is 'alive and well' is <i>output</i>. I.e. have they produced novel research or developed amazing products. Another important factor is the cost of that output. Anything is possible with an endless supply of slave labour (or money).<p>In this case I think that spending 100m on a controller that has only incremental improvements is not a sign of good R&D. It is a sign of a company with a lot of money that is not willing to take excessive risks.
Rewrite of <a href="http://venturebeat.com/2013/11/18/the-xbox-one-controller-projectors-smells-and-other-stuff-that-didnt-make-it-in-part-1-exclusive/" rel="nofollow">http://venturebeat.com/2013/11/18/the-xbox-one-controller-pr...</a>
Research theater? Take this with a grain of salt however, research value is non-linear and its success cycle is measured not In years or a decades even.
It's important, really important. Imagine how sales would be impacted if they had not spent this money and built a crappy controller. Also factor in the suggested tail of the console is 10 years.<p>I just hope they've spent a similar amount of money on making sure the damn thing is quiet when in use.