-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Only 9.6 million VR headsets have been shipped WORLDWIDE in 2022.
- Thread starter Eddie-Griffin
- Start date
Foilz
Banned
Meta has done a great job in it's VR space. Constantly updating and adding features the problem is that the games just aren't there yet. There are a lot of great games on quest2 but there's also a shit ton of shovelware. On top of that the applab idea sounds great but it's too much work to find these games. Meta needs to bring applab/side quest into the quest headset "officially" . Yes I know side quest is on quest but it's not the same as including it in the meta store.
aclar00
Member
Shovelware vs quality games needs to be balanced out on VR for it to be great IMO. Somehow, it feels like shovelware/experiences hovers around 90% of all VR titles.
As far as Sony goes, if they actually believe it can succeed, then they need to put theiqr tier 1 studios on it...and i dont mean tier 2 studio primarily develops and tier 1 assist just to have their named attached, but to have a tier 1 studio completely develop a game from ground up.
They need to stop half-assing, but unfortunately, that's Sony’s model unless its a traditional console game. Eyetoy, PSP, PS Eye/Move, Vita, and even PSVR never recieved the input they really needed from the top studios. Dont get me wrong, i get it, but these peripherals cant be half-assed if Sony truly wants them to succeed.
As far as Sony goes, if they actually believe it can succeed, then they need to put theiqr tier 1 studios on it...and i dont mean tier 2 studio primarily develops and tier 1 assist just to have their named attached, but to have a tier 1 studio completely develop a game from ground up.
They need to stop half-assing, but unfortunately, that's Sony’s model unless its a traditional console game. Eyetoy, PSP, PS Eye/Move, Vita, and even PSVR never recieved the input they really needed from the top studios. Dont get me wrong, i get it, but these peripherals cant be half-assed if Sony truly wants them to succeed.
ResilientBanana
Member
I mean, 9.6 Million isn't not mainstream.
PeteBull
Member
Even big flop console that was wiiu sold over 13m units, we will know if VR is mainstream or not if VR games wont be short low budget shit named "vr experience" but full fledged AAA proper big games, till u get at least some of those(currently at lets say 1, half life alyx) u cant claim vr being mainstream.
Lets wait and see how it looks in 2023, so far niche af proven by unwillingness of devs/pubs to make big budget games on it.
Last edited:
Son_of_Zardoz
Banned
I totally get why it's slowly coming along, like others have said, it's not easy to describe the feeling--you have to actually try it. Regardless, I love it. I don't game as much any more and with my limited time, I tend to want to try new things in VR rather than a flat screen. I mean I still play console games but VR stuff gets me the most excited.
Keihart
Member
Quest 2 had sold over 15M until Q1 of 2022, that was the 2 year mark, so it should be over 20M by now going by the OP.
aclar00
Member
This is what all VR needs. I do think Sony is in a unique position given they have the hardware and the studios, but they rarely, if ever go in all they way...they just wet the tip of all their peripherals. Too scare to swing for the homerun. Got to get Naughty Dog, Santa Monica, Guerilla, and Insomniac in on the action.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
10 million sold is 10 million sold. If they sell at a certain MSRP then you simply take those units multiplied by the MSRP and you get the total revenue. Any subsidization Meta does for Quest 2 is already accounted for before the unit is put on sale.
Going by revenue from that sense is very reasonable because at the end of the day that's 10 million units being sold at $400 MSRP a pop. That's $4 billion, which is more than what GamePass pulled in for revenue in 2021. Nothing shady at it. I didn't say VR pulled in more net profit than GamePass or other subscription services, but it did pull in more revenue than GamePass & all other similar 'game-rental' style subscription services in 2021 did combined, especially when you also add in software revenue for those VR devices like Quest 2.
Eddie-Griffin
Banned
They didn't sell 10 million they shipped 9.6M.
You're mixing a lot of unrelated things together to get your numbers, the amount of money people are making on VR is poor, to say that GP is making less money only works if you ignore ACTUAL revenue generated from sales instead of speculating based off estimated shipped figures (and ignoring price changes) and acting like VR hasn't has any losses.
Facebook with Quest 2 alone by itself would cause VR to be way below whatever revenue earned from GP compared to the whole active VR industry put together.
Yes GP likely has some cuts to the revenue too but clearly not as big, and it's generating a big amount just off the subs of varying lengths, that's before you get into it generating games sales because of discounts, mtx etc.
VR is just the headset, and if you are a major player you might have a store ecosystem to make money off of, and VR players are losing a crap ton, FB 16billion.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
The average ARPU from GamePass is at best around $60/year, which is half the $120/year cost regular GamePass goes for, or 1/3 that of GPU. We can figure out those numbers due to leaked revenue figures for Microsoft gaming services from the CADE court documents, as just one example. So there is a lot of subsidization involved in the GP service, whether or not that comes from any cuts on MS's end with the backend or licensing deals, because a lot of actual subscribers aren't paying the full normal subscription fee for the service.
As for Meta, even assuming they shipped 9.6 million, and let's just be extreme here and say 1 million of those went unsold for the year (if this were happening Meta would have either called back unsold units, reducing the shipped figure, or retailers would have been doing big sales to push inventory, which didn't end up happening), they still would have generated more in revenue than GamePass subscriptions. $3.4 billion off hardware sales of 8.6 million Quest 2s at $400 each (any price changes you want to think of would not have been dramatic) vs. $2.9 billion off services subscriptions of GamePass and XBL Gold combined, where GamePass's share is likely somewhere around $1.5 billion.
Remember, MS wanted to do something drastic to shift people to GP last year that they had to walk back, games like Halo & Forza haven't had the long-term sustainment factor MS hoped for, and Phil himself said growth stagnated on console for GP in 2022. The fact they are still providing XBL Gold at all should indicate it still pulls in enough revenue to where MS can't consider just shutting it down or folding all current Gold subscribers freely into GP or GPU (without doing a conversion trick) yet (likely also suggesting only a fraction of Gold subs have actually upgraded to GPU via the $1 conversion offer, likely because they aren't stacking 3 years worth of Gold for 3 years worth of GPU).
Eddie-Griffin
Banned
the 9.6 million was for ALL headsets. That's the point, just Quest 2 alone reduces the whole industries positive revenue.
Your whole position involves ignoring relevant data for Quest 2 and including speculative data for GP.
Originally you compared all of VR to just GP so I feel there's a slant in your argument here. If we take ALL subs they vastly generate more real revenue than VR headsets, because not only is there no massive loss sink in comparison to the slow moving hardware VR has been stuck with so far, but you have more flexibility and more opportunities to make revenue.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
OK, fine, the 9.6 million is for all headsets. Doesn't change much, as you'll see.
Also what do you mean by "positive revenue"? Revenue is revenue, it's that simple. Companies always report raw product revenue, then factor in the operating costs, production costs, licensing costs etc. and whatever cuts belong to 3P companies, taxes (I'm assuming) etc. before providing their net profit. You either have net profit (in the black) or net losses (in the red).
That's as far as "positive" and "negative" lingo is usually used by companies.
Okay then, you want relevant Quest 2 data?
2021 Quest Store software revenue of $1.5 billion
14.8 million Quest headsets sold since its launch
And from that, from what analysts have said it seems Quest 2 sold 8.7 million units in 2021.
So let's just focus on the 8.7 million Quest 2 units from 2021 and the $1.5 billion in Quest Store revenue. That's a total of, still, higher revenue from GamePass, Quest 2 hardware sales alone being $3.48 billion. But you just made me consider that since Quest 2 is a platform, and the content for that platform is through the store, then the store revenue has to be taken into consideration too (conversely, GamePass has no extra fee for its content outside of the costs of the subscription).
So you're actually looking at $4.98 billion in combined Quest 2 & Quest Store revenue from 2021 vs. most probably $1.5 billion from Game Pass. But I'll even just roll in the XBL Gold numbers, if you want to pretend all of the $2.9 billion or the vast majority was from Game Pass. Still puts the revenue in obvious favor of Quest 2, regardless of what revenue cuts you want to think Meta took in terms of subsidization that for whatever reason, you want to have applied after the sales revenue when this entire conversation is about nothing but consumer sales revenue, not sales revenue minus subsidization costs (because by that logic you would not want to discuss Xbox hardware sales revenue due to wanting to ignore the $100 - $200 subsidization MS themselves have said they take on Series console sales).
Lol there is no "real revenue" or "fake revenue", just revenue. The product is on the market for the customer to buy. How many customers buy (or in the services' case, subscribe to) the product determines the revenue. You factor in cuts from subsidizations, licensing fees, service maintenance, hardware production etc. AFTER that, and that's just to derive what the net profit is going to look like.
We aren't talking about net profit here though. And the reason I compared all of VR to simply GP (I expanded that to PS Now and NSO+, BTW) is because I was referring to Microsoft's statement of VR being "niche" as a reason they have no vested interest in consumer VR, yet they've been pushing subscription gaming via Game Pass hard. And I basically said, if the revenue from VR products (which realistically should include hardware & software, since VR content isn't provided through a subscription service) is higher than that from gaming subscription services, it makes Microsoft's stance look stupid.
Welp, that revenue from VR hardware & software, even just limited to Quest 2 & Quest software, IS higher than combined Game Pass/PS Now/NSO+ revenue from 2021 and I'd argue even when also throwing Stadia and Luna into that mix. Now, I know my argument has a weakness and that's IF you throw Apple Arcade into the sub service mix, because that has a model vaguely similar to GP/PS Now/NSO+ and combined with those they would have more in 2021 revenue than Quest 2 hardware sales & Quest Store software sales. But I take it this discussion on subscription services is primarily focused on non-mobile gaming, which is why I left Apple Arcade out of this.
Crayon
Member
^^^ 9 times out of 10 I'd rather play a flat game. Shit, maybe 49 out of 50. I want to play VR though, there's no replacement. I don't get many good times to do it, but when I do I go in. My favorite games are actually full conversions of flat games. In general it's flat out superior except for having to get up and put the thing on your head. No pain, no gain.
Eddie-Griffin
Banned
So we are leaving 2022 now? The 9.6 is for 2022.
You still haven't addressed the issue as shown here, you're admitting what revenue comes with gamepass and only including revenue that's related to VR. We don't know how much each individual category contributes per user, but we know Gamepass is the Sub of varying lengths depending on the person+Game discounts+exclusive offers for DLC, MTX so on that also contributes.
You are comparing a bare bones sub based on only ONE possible outcome (people have varying sub lengths) to everything includes on the VR side.
Your comparison isn't remotely fair.
And the fact that the VR industry is mostly driven by one device in decline with as the thread says, a big percent decline from 2021, is not really a healthy market.
And remember, you originally said VR got more revenue than subs, without considering how many big sub services there are and how much revenue they generate. You only have one major revenue generator in 2022 for the WHOLE VR industry.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Uh, I was talking about VR in 2021 because IIRC the leaked CADE figures for MS gaming services was for 2021. Or it could've been FY 2021 which would have gone up to June 2022 calendar.
From what I'm seeing, Meta had a target of 6.5 Quest 2 sold for calendar 2022. There's also this report stating they had sold 14.8 million Quest 2s since launch, so if 8.7 million sold in 2021, and the unit launched in 2020 (October). I can't find 2020 sales numbers, but between that and Jan - June 2022, some 6.1 million headsets would have been sold. This report mentions that 1.098 million Quest 2 units were sold inn 2020, that leaves ~ 5 million for the first six months of 2022.
Even using that figure, at $399 each that equals ~ $2 billion in revenue off the hardware for Q1 & Q2 of 2022. The CADE figures for MS services might've been referring to their FY 2021, so from June 1 2021 to May 31 2022. I'm not even going to bother saying how much of the $2.9 billion was from calendar 2021 or calendar 2022, but let's just be unrealistic and say 75% of it was from Q1 & Q2 2022 (realistically, considering 2022 was slow for GamePass and their big releases were in 2021, and if Game Pass makes up most of that $2.9 billion figure (again just for this example), then something like at LEAST 60% of that $2.9 billion would have been from 2021 calendar). That's $2.175 billion, and let's again be SUPER generous and say Game Pass is 80% of that (not realistic, but since you seem to not accept otherwise); that's $1.74 billion.
As you can clearly see, ~ $2 billion is a bigger number than $1.74 billion, and that's not accounting for sales revenue from the Quest Store (for software), which would push Quest 2 revenue for even just the Jan - June period of 2022 clearly above $2 billion and that much ahead of Game Pass. We don't have any numbers to Game Pass revenue from July - Dec 2022, so I won't cover that period, but I have also NOT included that period in these Quest 2 revenue figures, either.
What does this even mean? How many categories do you need for a headset? There's only one kind of Quest 2 headset, everyone who buys it is buying the same headset. They're all buying it directly from a store either in-person or online. The Quest Store sells digital software. That's the way software is provided there. You want software for Quest, you download it from the store. Free games don't count towards the software revenue.
Everything you're describing as a conditional affecting a Game Pass sub actually hurts your point. Game discounts are for games otherwise being purchased which would count towards software sales revenue, not services revenue. DLC & MTX purchased would be in their own category, similar to how Sony does it (I'm assuming). That would not be lumped in to subscription services revenue.
No, I'm comparing Game Pass (based on leaked services data, so it doesn't matter if we're talking year-round subs or 1 month-only subs or whatever) revenue to Quest 2 hardware/software revenue. I admit I might've gotten some of the timeline in the other posts a bit off but I've adjusted and accounted for that in this post, and my point still stands:
Quest 2 still made more revenue than Game Pass for the 2022 period we can safely compare (January - June).
Maybe Game Pass made more revenue July - December, maybe it didn't. But, we can't even speculate on that because we don't have any games services revenue figures from Microsoft for those two quarters, AFAIK. Also let it sink in that Meta, friggin' Meta, is more transparent about at least their software sales revenue than Microsoft, and Quest 2 is really their first foray into an actual non-mobile gaming platform. That's quite embarrassing to consider if I were at Microsoft thinking about it.
It's fair, and realistic. You just don't like it because it's not big-upping Game Pass as "the future" or whatever. Well, we're talking revenue which means we're talking numbers. I'm only going by what the numbers say, and what guesses/estimates I'm making, I actually try to be fair, but realistic.
Unlike certain websites that think 'fairness" is in constantly overestimating a certain platform's numbers while constantly underestimating other platform's numbers despite more credible sources consistently proving them wrong. Yes, I'm talking about VGChartz.
So I guess we're going to pretend supply shortages aren't a factor? No it's simply due to demand? OK.
Tell me then, how does a subscription service that's technically available on hundreds of millions of devices, see stagnation on its chief platform and absolute sub growth on another device that isn't growing from a large pool to begin with, if the only barrier for accessing it is having an internet connection, paying pocket change per month (even free some some folks), and servers being online (which they almost always are)?
Answer me that and try saying it has nothing to do with lacking demand, if demand is the main factor you might be considering in stating why Quest 2 sales were lower in 2022 vs 2021.
Doesn't matter. And, I did go back and include PS Now and NSO+, even Luna and Stadia. The only one I've left out is Apple Arcade, because that's clearly mobile-centric and we're not talking about the mobile market here.
If anything, you should be concerned that revenue for Netflix-style gaming sub services COMBINED is only at most maybe slightly better than revenue from a SINGLE product in an industry with multiple product options. That should show you how small the current market for subscription gaming services actually is. I'm not saying it will remain that way, but going off revenue, that's where it's at right now.
And yes, the VR market could absolutely stand to grow, too. Hopefully that's what devices like PSVR2 and Apple's rumored VR/AR headset can help to do. My entire argument is basically to balk at MS's reasoning for not supporting gaming VR with a product of their own because of it being "niche", as if insinuating Netflix-style sub services are a much bigger, non-niche market.
When if we look at the actual revenue between the two, the entire sub services market in summation is at best about on par or only slightly ahead the revenue from a singular "niche" VR gaming device. Therefore calling Microsoft's statements on gaming VR, BS. Because that's what they are.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
What does PC VR hardware sales have to do with one console maker's sub plan service?
That's like saying Pioneer is legit because it had more TV sales revenue than Netflix back in 2002.
Last edited:
Puscifer
Member
The entire post is all over the place lol.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
It really isn’t but thank you for sharing.
Puscifer
Member
He said it's because of the americans not wanting to get physical with games, as if the Wii isn't the most successful console of all time, it could just be people know what a gimmick is a lot of the times or they maybe had experience with those "free VR" headset stuff a few years ago that was all over the place and just decided they don't want to be part of it again.
Eddie-Griffin
Banned
None of that have to do with the 9.6 million VR headsets sold in 2022 which was what you were trying to connect to.
No, it's not realistic or fair, it's you being dishonest including things for VR and then excluding things for GP, and you still are dodging your original statement that VR as a whole for the year was bigger than Game subs, you're the one that later tried reducing it to GP for warrior reasons since GP was never relevant to this subject anyway. Starting with VR industry vs. individual GP, which doesn't make any sense, and now you are comparing FB Quest 2 to GP in revenue while not evening the comparison on both sides.
You quoted me talking about GP, not sure why you think I was talking about Quest 2.
Proving my point your omitting several names, and are also trying to speculate revenue for service we don't have the entire picture for.
It appears the entire point of your original post in this conversation, was to randomly and unfairly compare Gaming subs vs. VR industry, and then strip it down to VR v.s gamepass then Quest 2 vs Gamepass.
You seem to do an awful lot of Microsoft attacking and using very convoluted ways to do it. Like when you brought up a "mission statement" that Microsoft "made" about the Series S which you quoted multiple times but no other user got you to provide a source to the quote.
Exactly the whole thing was random, until he brings up gamepass, and then it becomes about trying to make gamepass look bad in a thread that has nothing to do with subs, but VR.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
VR isn’t more successful because gamers are lazy. My mind hasn’t been changed.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Just look at his post history. One of the few remaining hardcore brand warriors left on this board.
Puscifer
Member
But I would play it if the best games weren't VR chat.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
VR chat is shit. There are a ton of good VR games.
Puscifer
Member
Majority first person "experiences" and there's beat saber and half life Alex.
Shit give me something like roller coaster tycoon where you build coasters with your hands or a real tabletop Warhammer experience. Largely now all I see is 90% vr chat memes and first person FPS
Last edited:
Halo is Back
Member
Most people don't want to buy an overpriced headset to play shitty games. What a shocker!
Lumpyoatmeal
Member
Y’all talking about that thicc_girls poster, I just put his weird fucking ass on ignore, that’s another one. Thank you.
Chukhopops
Member
Yeah it’s weird as hell to compare hardware sales with service sales, what conclusions would you make out of it?
The issue with VR isn’t even sales but the ecosystem attach rate and the churn, both of which are considerably worse than standard platforms.
SkylineRKR
Member
I've had a PSVR for a few years. Its nice to play for an hour or so but then I just want that thing off my head. VR will always be a hard sell and its not like the new mainline God of War, GTA or CoD will be on it. Perhaps a small mode on the side. Even Sony is not going to put their big IP on it, the best you get is something like Horizon Call of the Mountain which isn't a bonafide Horizon 3.
VR fares best when smaller games like Rez are on it. Thats a game I like more in VR, but its an arcade rail shooter ofcourse. Which I think is ideal for VR. To me it sort of replaced light guns, but much more expensive.
VR fares best when smaller games like Rez are on it. Thats a game I like more in VR, but its an arcade rail shooter ofcourse. Which I think is ideal for VR. To me it sort of replaced light guns, but much more expensive.
K2D
Banned
There's new hardware from one of the big players on the horizon. Who would've thought the total sales be down?
CuteFaceJay
Member
That seems like a lot seeing as there isn't many major releases that I hear being talked about for VR.
Guerilla Munch
Member
I started using my Quest/PSVR less and less when my girlfriend moved in with me, and since we've had a kid I haven't touched it once. Unless you live alone VR is absurdly impractical.
Tams
Gold Member
Or, you know, just not baby/very young kid life compatible. That's a very broad brush you painted it with.
Kerotan
Member
I have a young baby myself and it's the only reason I'm not getting this. I skipped PSVR1 and would have gotten this.
Schmendrick
Member
It´s the same category as 3D.
Fascinating for a few hours, then the novelty factor takes a nose dive and the issues and restrictions become hard to ignore. That there are is barely any high profile software available doesn´t help either.
And ofc there`s the "i`m playing sharade in my living room alone while my wive watches"-factor......
Fascinating for a few hours, then the novelty factor takes a nose dive and the issues and restrictions become hard to ignore. That there are is barely any high profile software available doesn´t help either.
And ofc there`s the "i`m playing sharade in my living room alone while my wive watches"-factor......
It could become Sony’s Kinect 2. The convenience for VR isn’t here yet and the novelty and economical factors are not doing any favors.
Last edited:
DonkeyPunchJr
World’s Biggest Weeb
One thing to keep in mind about Kinect is that a lot of nerds focused on the technical shortcomings. “Once it can do lag-free 1:1 control, and track finger movements, and work in any sized room in any lighting condition, then it’ll really take off!”
Of course that’s pretty much what we got with Kinect 2… and it flopped. Turns out the more important question is “is this how people want to spend their entertainment time?” And it seems like the answer is mostly “no”.
Like Kinect, VR is one of those things that people think they want, until they’ve tried it. Turns out that people really love sitting on their ass with a controller and looking at a screen. They’ll take that over clearing out the living room, strapping a headset to their face, and pantomiming stuff.
Yeah.. the tech is not there yet, you got to applaud the VR pioneers and Sony for trying .
R6Rider
Gold Member
In most cases it's the exact opposite.
Most people think VR sounds neat, and then they try it and it blows them away.
FBeeEye
Banned
Still a niche and still way too expensive. I thought Half Life Alyx was going to be the game to bring VR to the mainstream, but alas it wasn't meant to be. The hardware is still too clunky and expensive.
I guess we're going to have to wait for Apple to bring it mainstream and disrupt the entire gaming industry. There are still important questions that Sony, Valve and Facebook aren't even asking, much less answering. Microsoft can afford to hang back and see where it goes and they can also afford the disruption with their diverse high-revenue businesses. Can Sony?
I guess we're going to have to wait for Apple to bring it mainstream and disrupt the entire gaming industry. There are still important questions that Sony, Valve and Facebook aren't even asking, much less answering. Microsoft can afford to hang back and see where it goes and they can also afford the disruption with their diverse high-revenue businesses. Can Sony?
Last edited:
nemiroff
Gold Member
It will. But I mean, I've been deep into discussing VR for decades, and when Oculus started the second wave, most people was optimistically arguing against VR going mainstream "tomorrow" because we knew that even as much strides the tech had gone to make the DK1 and DK2 happen, many big hurdles still remained. This stance has not changed much since, even with iterations and improvements, hence why I think your post is a rather cheap strawman as no one is seriously saying VR is going mainstream overnight (although 10-15 mill is actually a lot in my eyes at this stage, much more than I thought VR would sell). Even a huge of VR fan as I am, I don't see how it could happen right now. It will happen, but just not for a while yet. PSVR2 won't change things much either (I for one am waiting for the new Pimax, but that's a enthusiast device of course..). The v3/v4 wave is good for progression and iteration. But we are nowhere near to solve locomotion issues in a meaningful manner (which is why so many VR games feels more or less the same btw). So there's a clear big challenge left there to be solved together with the other big challenge in form factor. We could even possibly need a new technology before we're ready for mainstream. It could be projecting video into the retina, could be contact lenses, IDK.
Apple will probably not bring it's V1 much closer to mainstream than anyone else. And I don't believe there's going to be much disruption when it comes to gaming. I predict it'll be a relatively expensive headset aimed at connecting people for business purposes at first. We'll see, I'm crossing my fingers to be surprised.
Microsoft is involved in VR btw, just not on Xbox.
Last edited:
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
No surprise. VR isn’t something you see fully stocked on shelves.
Schmendrick
Member
If word of mouth and tryouts were as positive as you claim we`d not be looking at those sales numbers and my personal experience is quite the opposite, too.
R6Rider
Gold Member
That's the thing, very few listen to the positivity. You can see that all over this forum.
There's always dozens of excuses.
Last edited: