spemanig said: Oops. Totally forgot Cardboard existed for a second. You proved my point though, so all is well. You're right. There is a mighty big step up in price tag and it does more than explain the disparity. That's my point. I don't know why you're still going on. Don't you get it? None of that matters. Even if the Switch VR didn't come with a solution for depth tracking, it would still sell better than the competition because, as you literally just said, the mighty big step down in price would create a disparity in sales. People don't care that it's not as good when they're paying that much less for it. That's common sense. I don't buy a $20 shirt expecting $80 quality. The question is, is this $20 shirt good for $20? VR on the Switch for $100 would far and away blow the competition out of the water in the same price bracket in almost every concievable way. The only downgrade would be the screen quality. Better games, bigger, more ambitious, have higher production values, more polished games, and more of them released at a consistent pace. Better control in every concievable way without the need to buy unreliable third party controllers. And remember, those cell-phone VR experienced has blown every single dedicated PC/Console gaming HMD out of the water in terms of sales without any of that. Because nobody really cares about any of the things you're talking about when it costs that much. You know why the stock is ample on the HMDs that sell better? I'll let you put 2 and 2 together there. You know why the cheaper PSVR is selling more than the superior but more expensive Vive and Oculus? I think you get my point. Nintendo doesn't need luck. They have basic economics. |