For VR to take off we do not "need" the casual crowd to buy it. Oculus & Valve are not targeting casuals yet - the tech is too expensive. Over time more and more people will afford it and be able to use it. VR will not be an overnight success, and the headset manufacturers know this
HTC Vive is $799, ships early April 2016
- Thread starter Enter the Dragon Punch
- Start date
- Status
For VR to take off we do not "need" the casual crowd to buy it. Oculus & Valve are not targeting casuals yet - the tech is too expensive. Over time more and more people will afford it and be able to use it. VR will not be an overnight success, and the headset manufacturers know this
For those of you saying prices mean nothing:
Look at the super-expensive consoles.
NEO GEO, 3DO...
Now look where the big winners were mostly at, NES, Genesis, SNES, playstation, etc.
Prices mean nothing right now to VR. HTC & Oculus aren't targeting the mass market here
Exactly. It's establishing a market and a development/publishing community that will provide more and more tools going forward to, within a few years time, bring the aforementioned together in such a way that VR becomes a viable space in which to develop for all types of companies. Until then we have an enthusiast device that targets the upper end of what can realistically be done in a consumer VR product, and that will help the entirety of the VR market going forward, no matter the manufacturer.
Dreamwriter
Member
I don't get your point. Look at Neo Geo, it was a very successful game console that made SNK a LOT of money. Yes, it was niche, so? It's something every gamer wanted, and it and its games sold for enough profit to keep the company going and making more games.
You realize you can buy USB port cards for your PC right? There's no reason to buy a whole new computer for USB ports. They are like $20 on Amazon.
Dreamwriter
Member
Pretty sure the X51 doesn't have any spare expansion slots.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
You'd be lying to yourself if that's what you believe. Everyone is targeting the mass market. No one invests billions to cater to a small market. Everyone wants to target the mass market. The tech is quite expensive so they have no choice but to target the small market.
Prices mean everything. Maybe in a few years these will be 50% off, but right now they can't do anything but wait. It sucks more for developers who want to make good games for it but may not see any return on their investment because "the target isnt mass market" for the hardware they're making the product for.
PSVR is genuinely the only saving grace here. Folks may hate it on for not being as technologically advanced as the Rift or Vive, but its price point and accessibility and potential install base is the only thing that'll give confidence to the developers.
For those of you saying prices mean nothing:
Look at the super-expensive consoles.
NEO GEO, 3DO...
Now look where the big winners were mostly at, NES, Genesis, SNES, playstation, etc.
VR isn't a video game console. Price always matter, but it doesn't need to be $200-$300 even in the first couple years to succeed. What will matter is if the experience being offered is worth the price being asked. Are 50 inch TV's for your living room worth spending $500-$1000 on? For a lot of people they were. Is a dedicated VR experience worth $2000 at launch? For some it will be. $1500 in a year or two? It will certainly be more and more enticing. Problem is like with quality TV's I don't expect high end VR to get down to $300, and I don't suspect it will have to.
Stiler
Member
So you think it's smarter to target that audience, the same way NEO-GEO did, instead of going in for the mainstream like the NES/Genesis and others did?
Cause it really didn't work out well for NEO-GEO.
The problem is simple, this is a system that is relying on games and people buying them. What do developers who make games need/want? A wide-audience.
Developers, much like tv producers, are not going to develop games when the audience for them is small and tiny vs developing them for a system with a huge userbase.
Hence the importance of Rift or Vive or one of the big VR players to GET the mainstream.
If you do not get a wide audience, the developers will leave, if the developers leave, the people who might buy the system won't because "there's nothing to play on it." It ends up becoming this cycle of "Why would I develop games for a platform that has no one to buy teh games? and the people saying "Why buy an expensive system that doesn't have any good games?"
Meanwhile, lets say you price the system at a loss, you end up getting a bigger share of the market, you get a large install base, you get more developers developing games, word spreads and more people come in, you can then make more money on the back end through games/accessories for the system. In the end this is the "better" scenario an dthe best hope for VR. A lot better than pricing it out the wazoo and ensuring only enthusiasts buy it and "hoping" that down the road you can somehow make it cheaper in-time before the developers or the potential install base hasn't written it off.
VR needs the mainstream if it wants to take off, otherwise it's going to end up just like the VR of the 80's, a fad that comes and goes.
Dreamwriter
Member
In what way didn't it work for Neo Geo? The console made SNK a lot of money, games continued to be sold for it through 2004.
Ah. Well I guess that's the downside of buying a prebuilt PC without any expandability.
nephilimdj
Member
Now we know why Japan is the main launch country atleast, they love their expensive tech. see stuff like the $1000 dollar walkman.
At this point, this will import a gray market Oculus from HK in a few months (will be much cheaper then aus price), will upgrade my PC first.
At this point, this will import a gray market Oculus from HK in a few months (will be much cheaper then aus price), will upgrade my PC first.
For those of you saying prices mean nothing:
Look at the super-expensive consoles.
NEO GEO, 3DO...
Now look where the big winners were mostly at, NES, Genesis, SNES, playstation, etc.
Console prices do mean nothing in this context. They have no relevance to a completely different technology with different build requirements, expenses, content and projected sales and total produced units for that. Vive and Rift are not attempting to have "console" like sales, and are not intended to sell in massive numbers or to the "mainstream". Both Vive and Rift are also being aimed at multiple indistries as a PC product. Console sales and pricing couldn't be more further away from PC VR right now
Stiler
Member
A lot of money? It had a TINY audience (especially in NA) and was no where near the success of NES/Gen/SNES and playstation.
Yes it had a cult following, yes it had some great games, and it had decent support that lasted a while but it was not on the scale of success that many companies aim for.
No one knows the actual sales figures, but through serial #'s and digging most people say it got up to around 300'ish thousand give or take some.
SNK had a much better success with the arcade and Japan with the King of Fighters series and games, among their hand-helds.
I'd like to read where you see that the NEO GEO was a success or any kind of sales figures.
No chance in hell. People who think this are blind.
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
Just what VR needs for a bright future, a 3DO to compete with Facebook's Saturn
Your shot, Sony
Your shot, Sony
Stiler
Member
The rift/vive are both their own platforms, they are depending on gaming to be their main money maker. Yes they have other areas they can be used in but gaming is where they expect to make the most money and where the main target audience is that they are aiming for.
The main difference is that both Vive/Rift are dependent on not only their own hardware but the user having a powerful enough pc to run it all, which raises the barrier of entry even more.
So it's not simply like a console but rather more like the 32X/Sega CD.
Facepalm.
It's 1am where I am. I do not have the time or energy to explain how wrong this perspective is. I'm done with this thread.
Stiler
Member
If it doesn't get any mainstream success and only gets a niche audience that is what will happen. Developers will not keep making games (especially expensive AAA games) for a system that has a low install base and doesn't recoup them their development budget + a profit.
I want VR to succeed, I want it to catch on and to become the wave of the future for gaming.
That is why I think it's a huge mistake for all the big VR companies to aim for a small audience and not have an entry-level experience that the average joe can afford and get into that allows VR to obtain a large install base.
Sony is the last hope of that happening now.
DouglasteR
Member
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
The only hardware that's like the 32X/Sega CD is PSVR. Rift/Vive will never have similar experience across hardware.
Interficium
Banned
By all your posts and dumb charts, you're clearly trying make a really bad comparison between game consoles and VR equipment. It doesn't work.
You really need to stop approaching this from your flawed "Why doesn't this product cater to me, the AAA-only console gamer in 2016?!?" perspective. That you keep doubling-down on the idea that because a product doesn't meet your personal preferences on pricepoint that it's going to be a mass-market failure is laughably self-absorbed.
This is the way of all technologies. For every "X technology was too expensive at launch that's why it was failure" argument you make, there's going to be just as many success stories. For every Laserdisc, there's a DVD. For every Newton, there's an iPhone.
Please, just stop.
//edit, just saw this gem:
What the fuck platform did you think their arcade games and King of Fighters ran on, genius?
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
I thought it is pretty obvious that when he said they are not targeting the mass market, he's referring to the near future. Right now, the aim is to remove the outdated perspective of VR from folks who have tried it back in the years.
At the moment, its for the enthusiasts to try it out and learn more about it, then help with the words of mouth to the casual market, which is when the 2nd or 3rd gen of VR headsets will be out. They can just upload a vr porn to the rift and get their friends to try 'em. After all, its something you have to experience to get it, which is why they used gear VR to push VR for the past years
Dreamwriter
Member
Sounds like you are assuming they wanted to be the best selling game console. Not everyone wants to target the mass market, SNK obviously didn't, they were aiming at being the top of the line game console, the system everyone wanted and rich people bought, the best way to play true arcade titles in the home. They knew $700 wasn't a mass-market price for a console, same with $250-$400 game cartridges. And it doesn't matter how tiny an audience that you have as long as you make enough of a profit to keep going. And they obviously did, they kept going for years without trying to lower the cost of the Neo Geo. They kept manufacturing Neo Geo cartridges for 14 years, and only left the business due to rampant piracy.
If all that matters is a low price, then the Wii U must be cleaning up this generation, right? I mean, it launched SUBSTANTIALLY cheaper than both PS4 and XBox One.
It's the same with the Vive, HTC were very forthright, the Vive was supposed be "the Premium" VR experience for "a Premium price", they said it themselves. They didn't say the mass market device for everyone.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
I feel like these are an elaborated set ups to the "sony is the best and will win the vr market" narrative here.
Both HTC vive and Oculus Rift has acknowledged that they understand this wouldnt be anything short term. You're acting as if they havent thought about all these.
kungfuian
Member
So what is required for the layperson to buy-in from scratch on this? and what will we get year 1? So if I want to jump in is it gonna be 2-3K with a 2 year proof PC (With the new pc chips like Pascal coming should I hold out)? and what software/apps 'experiences do we see manifesting themselves year one?
This is a legit question. I like the idea of being an early adopter if the experience is amazing! But if it's only marginally better the PSVR and the software is kind of weak then I will prob stick with Sony for a few years and let the PC VR market mature a bit more before jumping in.
I have the money but not sure it's gonna be worth it?
This is a legit question. I like the idea of being an early adopter if the experience is amazing! But if it's only marginally better the PSVR and the software is kind of weak then I will prob stick with Sony for a few years and let the PC VR market mature a bit more before jumping in.
I have the money but not sure it's gonna be worth it?
Stiler
Member
You are talking like this is some kind of all new "technology." VR has been around before, it already came and failed once before.
Yes there are some differences this times and new things to it, but the idea of it is largely the same.
We already had the Virtual Boy and other VR experiences in the past.
You're acting like just because this time it's better that it'll pave the way for cheaper-better sets, but to do that it has to be successful or at least get enough people interested in it to gain the appeal of the mass market, if it does not catch on then it can EASILY end up just like the virtual boy did.
Do you not see my point?
Also AAA only console gamer? Yeah....you have no idea what type of gamer I am so thanks for making assumptions.
I could afford the Vive, I could afford the rift if I wanted, my point and the crux of my posts is that I don't want them to fail. I want VR as a medium to succeed and take off, to not end up as yet another failure at VR and have it go away like it did in the 90's.
I am talking about the NEO GEO home console, the one that sold terribly in the US? You know, the super-expensive home console that no one bought because of its absurdly high price point compared to the rest of the consoles on the market? The console that while having awesome audio/video and some great games never got the mainstream audience.
Hence why they made most of their money on the arcade and hand-helds and then went belly up in 2000 or so, meanwhile Nintendo still churning away with plenty of money.
Boy you sure have got your panties in a twist as though I have somehow personally attacked you, I was simply posting reasons why VR needs at least ONE of them to go for a mainstream appeal, that's all.
Sure, but it's obvious that neither then Occulus Rift nor the Vive are targeting the mass market with their current products. They may do so in a couple of years, but the technology is only really there for the enthusiasts willing to pay a premium. VR is following the standard adoption curve, so it's not at all out of the ordinary.
It's gonna be a difficult decision between the Rift and the Vive. I don't have budget for both. If it was just for fun, I'd be more interested in the Vive because of the kinds of experiences (room scale) it's optimised for, and I suspect it might be better value in general. But I'm concerned with developing for these things. The Rift shares tech with GearVR which I'll be working with anyway, plus I suspect it'll have slightly better display quality + more accurate motion tracking controllers.
I tried to find info on specs but found this.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/virtual-reality/oculus-rift-vs-htc-vive/
I know it's a month old and doesn't have all the info but why is the Vive $200 more?
Also, where can I see the specs required for Vive?
http://www.digitaltrends.com/virtual-reality/oculus-rift-vs-htc-vive/
I know it's a month old and doesn't have all the info but why is the Vive $200 more?
Also, where can I see the specs required for Vive?
travisbickle
Member
Complete package (headset, tracking, wands)
HTC: $800
Oculus: ~$700
PSVR: ~$450
I think they should have aimed lower, for specs and price. I don't think the majority of people are willing to pay the extra, and they're really pandering to rich San-Fran tech crowd.
We'll see if it works out.
HTC: $800
Oculus: ~$700
PSVR: ~$450
I think they should have aimed lower, for specs and price. I don't think the majority of people are willing to pay the extra, and they're really pandering to rich San-Fran tech crowd.
We'll see if it works out.
One reason to have more optimism this time around is the class of companies investing in the technology. Facebook, Google, Samsung, and Apple have deep pockets and can afford to stick around in the market for years if that's what it takes.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
I tried to find info on specs but found this.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/virtual-reality/oculus-rift-vs-htc-vive/
I know it's a month old and doesn't have all the info but why is the Vive $200 more?
Also, where can I see the specs required for Vive?
Vive comes with motion controllers, has chaperone mode, and phone integration.
It has full room-scale based tracking system. Well the rift has it too, but the general thought is that vive's tracking system is going to work better.
MetalGearZed
Member
still have hope that PSVR will still be $349-$399 because it probably won't come with so much junk. They may have like a PSeye/Move controller bundles that may be higher though.
Huge Succeeded
Banned
this is the dogwhistle for either knowing very little about the history of VR versus "VR", hmds, etc or choosing to view that history through a very selective and exaggerated perspective
and this is the ironclad proof
comparisons to the virtual boy have zero merit. very different climate. very different industries. very different tech. very different levels of support. very different underlying philosophies and intended experiences backing the hardware. very different range of potential applications.
virtual boy and dated hmds aren't vr, they were just called vr for lack of a more succinct and communicative marketing term.
that comparison is like... lets say that, last decade, I were to adopt the position that smartphones might fail to have any staying power beyond enthusiasts, using 'smartphones of the past' as my comparative metric...
and the 'smartphones of the past' i'd be referring to were pagers, you know, beepers.
that's about how valuable it is to compare today's VR to yesterday's 'VR' on pretty much any level. literally not at all.
HammerOfThor
Member
Please save us Sony.
Problem (for me at least) is that sony's platform is inferior this time and will be even more heavily handicapped in the future because limited hardware and expansion options. Also, the games do not look that appealing and most are just simple tech demos. If i want "cheap" vr then i might just go with mobile solutions.
I did a Vive demo last week. Played the Portal demo and a fruit slicing thing.
Both of them were really awesome experiences that I was happy to have exactly once. The fruit slicing demo had a lot of fun depth simply because of the controls, I played that 2-3 times. The Portal demo was impressive but it's basically a cutscene with limited interactivity. There was nothing to those experiences that left me wanting more.
There is no way that $800.00 is mass market. PSVR has a way better chance.
Both of them were really awesome experiences that I was happy to have exactly once. The fruit slicing demo had a lot of fun depth simply because of the controls, I played that 2-3 times. The Portal demo was impressive but it's basically a cutscene with limited interactivity. There was nothing to those experiences that left me wanting more.
There is no way that $800.00 is mass market. PSVR has a way better chance.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
I think Sony has got a lot to work on in terms of getting true VR contents. Most of the stuffs it shown are either tech demos (summer lesson) or just tacked-on vr view mode on traditional games
I'd pay $599 for a Rift just to play Elite Dangerous until the end of time. There are good fully-featured games that will be supporting these headsets, with a lot more to come. Oculus alone is funding a shit-ton for release this year.
Dreamwriter
Member
A tip: you shouldn't speak without knowing what you are talking about (like, say, Virtual Boy). It just makes you sound ignorant.
Trojan
Member
This is the sentiment of a sizable chunk of NeoGaf users who have a powerful PC and are already into gaming, but the mainstream market will not be able to pick up a lot of the fidelity differences. This is why Sony could be in a unique spot if they keep the price low. The fact that they have kept the price low by not getting in a tech arms race with Occulus/Vive is their competitive advantage.
Exactly.
And I think that PSVR will have enough killer apps. Elite Dangerous seems like a good game for Oculus. I'm thinking PSVR will have similar things ... and they'll be cheaper... and the hardware is set, so you can guarantee a consistent experience.
Oculus is smart by selling "Oculus ready" rigs though.
- Status