Cyberpunkd
Member
Laugh all you want but Apple is probably the company to make it work, then bag 99% of the profits due to uniform storefront.I cannot see Apple's fan base disturbing their hair cut with a headstrap.
Laugh all you want but Apple is probably the company to make it work, then bag 99% of the profits due to uniform storefront.I cannot see Apple's fan base disturbing their hair cut with a headstrap.
Same with consoles that are big blocky boxes, cost $500 and you play the same games over again for the last 30 years, only graphics are changing? Look at radio, look at TV, gaming will go down this road unless it shakes things up.VR will not become mainstream until its 100EUR, wireless, is under 100g in weight and looks something like this:
Yikes.https://www.techspot.com/news/97106-falling-vr-headset-sales-could-spell-bad-news.html
Also apparently Facebooks VR division has lost $16 billion since the start of the year, so I think the question is for all companies and not just for them, if this VR thing is sustainable and able to be profitable, or if it's just an optional gateway to other services companies hope people will spend money on to eventually make up for losses in VR.
That loss also includes post-price increase for Quest 2, if the Quest 2 was a major cause for those losses, how much will TCL, HTC, and Sony be losing?
"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."Headsets needs to be lighter, always wireless, work as well with glasses as without, needs great battery life, and VR needs AAA studios to make the biggest IPs for VR.
Yeah, but it’s true. VR will never reach a big mainstream audience as long as you need to strap a bulky headset onto your head. And if they cost $400+ then the same audience will instantly turn around and walk away when they hear you need another $400+ box to run it. And as with any dedicated gaming platform it’ll die without AAA support."Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Lewis Carroll
Lighter and Wireless are contradictions. Lighter and Great Battery Life are contradictions.Yeah, but it’s true. VR will never reach a big mainstream audience as long as you need to strap a bulky headset onto your head. And if they cost $400+ then the same audience will instantly turn around and walk away when they hear you need another $400+ box to run it. And as with any dedicated gaming platform it’ll die without AAA support.
Mobile gaming already dethroned console gaming, booth in amount of users and money generated. Primarily because its easily accessible on a device already owned. Its convenient gaming on a phone, if VR is more complicated than putting on big sunglasses, its never going mainstream.Same with consoles that are big blocky boxes, cost $500 and you play the same games over again for the last 30 years, only graphics are changing? Look at radio, look at TV, gaming will go down this road unless it shakes things up.
Mobile gaming already dethroned console gaming, booth in amount of users and money generated. Primarily because its easily accessible on a device already owned. Its convenient gaming on a phone, if VR is more complicated than putting on big sunglasses, its never going mainstream.
Yeah, well, doesn’t change what I said. With a few rare exceptions everybody I know has gone through the same phases for all VR headsets. Excited - loving it - walking away from it. All because of some or all of the listed problems.Lighter and Wireless are contradictions. Lighter and Great Battery Life are contradictions.
We are limited by tech evolution and laws of physics. Not even in 50 years you can get those 3 contradictions to stop existing, unless you separate the battery from the headset and wear a 4kg battery vest to power the headset wirelessly for long gaming times.
An optional accessory that will always have fractional sales compared with the main console and AAA studios making games that require it will always be wishful thinking.
AAA games with optional VR mode is more realistic and it will still be uncommon.
I disagree. There's nothing that impressive on VR yet, including HLA. Almost all the games have been small little games, limited by the sheer amount of resource hog that VR is. Moreover, VR headsets are still incredibly uncomfortable and heavy, offer constricted FOV that make it seem like the wearer has goggles on and has yet to crack the refresh rate needed to make it comfortable for almost all people (240hz+) at 8k per eye.
I see the potential for VR, but it's very far off.
Apple's VR thing is expected this year, although all indication is it's aimed more at the Quest Pro market than the mainstream.They want VR to succeed so bad even though this tech need an iPhone moment.
Sony had said early on that they weren't losing money on PSVR. Remember that Sony is a hardware company first and foremost. Facebook isn't!
Not really. I doubt a retailer purchased a million headsets, only to find them all sitting on their shelves. It’s a niche product - I doubt the percentage of unsold is all that high.
If you take the Switch out then handheld sales are shit.There are several people in this thread not looking at context and saying that 9, heck, even 8 is better than expected and are looking at it as an achievement, when actuality if you remove Quest 2, it's lower than 2 million and I'm probably being generous there, for all the other close to 2 dozen headsets combined.
So if it wasn't for the big boom for Quest 2 in the early half of 2022, and the sales when they dropped the price back down with other deals for the holidays of Nov-Dec, I'm not even sure there would be 4 million units sold with just Quest sales in the middle of the year and post-rice increase.
It's still does show though there is an audience of around 8 million who were brought into Quest 2 or so, so there's a chance there is an audience there. Whether PSVR2, HTC and TCL's Quest 2 competitors, the Sonium and DPL headsets, and all those other announcements can do next year what headsets couldn't in 2022 remains to be seen.
But if these influx of new headsets captures something than we could see an increase next year, because if there are similar or less numbers by the end of next year, than it wouldn't be out of bounds to say "the fork has been stuck in it" as they say. I think most momentum for 2023 will be based on the performance of the headsets releasing in the first half of the year, which there are several.
If you take the Switch out then handheld sales are shit.
If handheld sales stay the same next year then I think it would be safe to say that handhelds are done.
Yeah sorry what was I thinking, those giant displays for the HTC Vive and TCL err something I saw next to the Quest 2 in Best Buy just slipped my mind.Switch is the only handheld in the industry so what you're trying to do here doesn't make sense. The other handhelds are PC's that you can carry and are not filled with games on shelves at best buy. The others are cloud gaming devices to stream games from other devices to a paperweight. None of those are handheld consoles traditionally.
I picked up the Quest2 for a 1/4 of that last year. Higher resolution than the index, better tracking, wired or wireless, only thing lacking is FOV. The Quest2 gets discussed like it's some sub-standard budget headset when it is pretty advanced piece of kit when hooked up to a PC. And it has the standalone aspect for simpler games like Beat Saber etc.I played my brother's Valve Index. Half Life Alyx was amazing! I just can't afford a $1000 accessory right now... I know there are other options, but I like the idea of holding off for a time when I can afford an Index or whatever the current best is.
https://www.techspot.com/news/97106-falling-vr-headset-sales-could-spell-bad-news.html
Also apparently Facebooks VR division has lost $16 billion since the start of the year, so I think the question is for all companies and not just for them, if this VR thing is sustainable and able to be profitable, or if it's just an optional gateway to other services companies hope people will spend money on to eventually make up for losses in VR.
That loss also includes post-price increase for Quest 2, if the Quest 2 was a major cause for those losses, how much will TCL, HTC, and Sony be losing?
9.6 million is a lot higher than I was expecting. Considering the reponses in this thread, what would have been a good number? 30 million?
Exactly and Steamdeck has sold just over 1M in almost a year too. Don't see how 9.6M is bad for a year.LOL @ OP's "Only" 10 million units in 2022. 95% of those are Quest 2's, and that's as many units as a very successful console sells in a year. Only the peak years of the most wildly successful consoles in history manage to notably outsell that figure, moving like 15 - 20 million a year. This thread may be the hardest copium thread in Neogaf history. The Wii U barely surpassed 10 million LIFETIME, while GC and Xbox barely passed 20 million LIFETIME. 10 million a year is wildly successful for a "niche" product with effectively zero notable/known IP and nothing but low budget indies carrying it.
That would mean all those dev teams stop doing normal games and have to focus their time/funds on VR, with most of the market not caring about VR games tho- its financial suicide, so no1 really is stupid enough to do it, even valve with its half life alyx didnt move needle too much, so imagine how many devs it would take to actually move that needle.Consumers are lazy, don't want to play games while also burning calories, at least that is my opinion. Playing games in VR is 1000x better than with a controller in front of a TV, more immersive, and your body can be used instead of being sedentary. I think the big problem with lack of adoption more so however is not enough AAA games. If tomorrow the industry began to push hardcore native support for VR, with exclusive content, it would be a game changer. The vast majority of games out there are at best amazing tech demos for what is possible.
Well, you know, it's not that VR cant be social....is just that Zuck sucks and cant do what even indie devs do on metaverse.A key problem is that vr is not a social experience at its core. You have a device strapped to your face, fundamentally altering how you look and interact with the world around you.
The key strenght behind vr, immersion, presence in a virtual world etc. is therefore its biggest weakness as well. This is what Facebook is trying to overcome by creating a social experience while you are wearing that headset. They are trying everything to make those headsets paltable to humans which are social animals at heart, but tbh...I don't see it working any time soon, at least not with current devices and ideas. Also, I am quite glad it's not catching on besides a niche gaming/enthusiast crowd, because we need more social interaction, not less.
In my experience that's simply not happening. You control the camera with your head and that's it. Totally not worth it.
VR = 3D TV
Exactly and Steamdeck has sold just over 1M in almost a year too. Don't see how 9.6M is bad for a year.
Not true. The real game changer is the depth perception and field of view.
A VR game with ps2 era shit graphics is still much more immersive than a current gen AAA game with a flat image.
It's not all about motion controls and stuff. Any type of game (except local multiplayer) could be way better on a VR set.
Most of the 9.6M is the Quest as the person I replied to pointed out. 9.6M units really isn't bad for a year. The entire handheld PC market isn't that popular either.One device that has sold alright at best (sorry, but comparatively that's so) compared to an entire market.
Have you played any VR outside PSVR or VR where you don't have to use a standard controller with 6dof. Playing something like No Man's Sky in VR is cool, but it isn't really a VR game made from the ground up utilizing the tech to it's full potential. The magic of VR is in games like Walkabout Mini Golf and Eleven Table Tennis to where they almost feel like playing the same thing in real life. Full motion, physics, 6dof, and spatial audio at least on the Quest 2.We'll have to disagree here. While it's true you got depth, and while I admit it makes dogtag fights easier in No Man's Sky, it is very far from a game changer or a gameplay that "can only be experienced in VR".
It's a bit more immersive and a lot more tiring.
Every time I've played with PSVR i was thinking "i could be much more comfortable on the couch right now".
We'll have to disagree here. While it's true you got depth, and while I admit it makes dogtag fights easier in No Man's Sky, it is very far from a game changer or a gameplay that "can only be experienced in VR".
It's a bit more immersive and a lot more tiring.
Every time I've played with PSVR i was thinking "i could be much more comfortable on the couch right now".
Have you played any VR outside PSVR or VR where you don't have to use a standard controller with 6dof. Playing something like No Man's Sky in VR is cool, but it isn't really a VR game made from the ground up utilizing the tech to it's full potential. The magic of VR is in games like Walkabout Mini Golf and Eleven Table Tennis to where they almost feel like playing the same thing in real life. Full motion, physics, 6dof, and spatial audio at least on the Quest 2.
Well yeah the goal is to have a small, light, wireless pair of glasses you can just put on while laying on the couch.
It's just a far way to go.
I also barely use my VR set but the tech has so much potential. People were just way off expecting some crazy matrix VR when the first really comfortable and easy set is probably still like 10+ years away.
I don’t think VR will ever be mainstream. Game dev is becoming more expensive not many studios will risk making games for it thus AAA VR games won’t be a thing, motion sickness, not easy to carry around, isolation, tidious to put on and remove.
This thing is destined to be a niche product and that’s ok.
Consumers are lazy, don't want to play games while also burning calories, at least that is my opinion. Playing games in VR is 1000x better than with a controller in front of a TV, more immersive, and your body can be used instead of being sedentary. I think the big problem with lack of adoption more so however is not enough AAA games. If tomorrow the industry began to push hardcore native support for VR, with exclusive content, it would be a game changer. The vast majority of games out there are at best amazing tech demos for what is possible.
We are rapidly closing in on 120 horizontal, which is the limit of binocular vision. Full Fov for both eyes would help with immersion but is probably a lot further off and would require new tech for screens or lenses or a second set of screens and is kind of a waste as you can't really focus on it.The moment VR glasses go from this:
to this:
I might become interested. I want to have an almost full field of view to bother having something on my head for hours.
LOL @ OP's "Only" 10 million units in 2022. 95% of those are Quest 2's, and that's as many units as a very successful console sells in a year. Only the peak years of the most wildly successful consoles in history manage to notably outsell that figure, moving like 15 - 20 million a year. This thread may be the hardest copium thread in Neogaf history. The Wii U barely surpassed 10 million LIFETIME, while GC and Xbox barely passed 20 million LIFETIME. 10 million a year is wildly successful for a "niche" product with effectively zero notable/known IP and nothing but low budget indies carrying it.
In the mean time you’re missing out.The moment VR glasses go from this:
to this:
I might become interested. I want to have an almost full field of view to bother having something on my head for hours.