Quantcast
Contributor to Forbes : Sony VR to be more than x 3 that of Oculus Rift In 2016

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Contributor to Forbes : Sony VR to be more than x 3 that of Oculus Rift In 2016

Ttech. said:
hershel_layton said:
Am I the only one who thinks Samsung's VR can potentially beat Sony's?

Think about it. One hundred dollars. All you need is one of the more recent phones(and most likely the next generation, as leaks show sizes will be similar). Considering you most likely have a phone, a lot of people wouldn't mind buying it, even if they use it once every few days.

 

Lol no, that vr is weak as hell.

As weak as it is, I think it'll still sell decently(especially if there are deals where it is bundled with samsung devices)





 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.

Around the Network
Ttech. said:
Mummelmann said:

 

Like all those who bought a Logitech G27 for GT5 and GT6? Gran Turismo owners are used to buying expensive add-on's for games? That's news to me, most of my pals who bought one or more of the games didn't own anything besides the disc(s) and the console and the steering wheels didn't really fly off shelves despite the GT games (plus; these steering wheels had support for practically every racing there was and were great value due to that). And that cost quite quite a bit less as well. Kinect sold around 20 million units or so and was a fraction of the price and had mainstream appeal on top.

Like I said; average gamers don't spend that much on gaming, the attach rates through the generations paints a picture supporting that. People who buy 100+ games for one console for a generation and spend thousands on peripherals are the minority by leaps and bounds.
PS4 probably won't be the platform to spurr VR into something big, the technology is too young, too expensive and has lackluster developer incentive right now and there probably won't be an abundance of good titles with proper VR support.

Wasn't PS4 also supposed to usher in 4k gaming and 60 FPS 1080p gaming? That's what people said last generation, and PS3 was supposed to staple 1080p gaming in the industry. All this has been said before. Look, I'm not saying it's impossible that VR will be a success, on PS4 or otherwise, but I see it as unlikely, the prices are ridiculous and I can see only enthusiasts willing to shell out this kind of money on a peripheral, that doesn't make for a huge market. To expect more casual oriented gamers, which make up the majority of any platform's installed base, to suddenly buy these kits in droves is highly unrealistic no matter how one looks at it and my argument for those 13 million vs those 36 million still very much stands regardless of yours or my personal opinion on the product itself.

Ever been on Gt planet, some crazy amounts people spend on setting up their racing seats and wheels.  Just now MS cant even maintain stock of a 150$ controller.  Kinetc sold to over 30% of 360 Current user base.   Spending money is easy for people, Sony and the others just have to make then think its worth it.  Thats all.  

Id say the insentive is quite big, im sure every vr maker wants to be the apple of Vr.  Im really sure sony wants its VR to be the vr equavelent of what PS is to gaming.  The incentives are world changing.  This can be kim to the cell phone to smartphone transition, its obvious most of them get that but you dont.  

Sure causal types make up majority of a 160m selling PS, but right now you know damn well most PS4 owners are of the hardcore core gamer type.  So the initial assesment from they article is more right then wrong.  It looks like your argument does not stand, as its based on a false assertion that PS4 owners Now are more casual then hardcore/core.

Crazy amounts of people spending money on racing seats and steering wheels for GT games? Those are not the average gamers, they're not even the average GT gamers, these are the enthusiasts I mentioned. Most people on these forums are not average gamers, they're above average interested in the topics of gaming and game and console sales, enthusiasts on the web are in no way represesentative of the average customer base of most products. There are people who spend hundreds of dollars on Amiibo for Mario Kart, that doesn't mean the majority of the people who bought the games did.

I don't think developer incentive is that big; it's a huge gamble to pour resources into implementing something that could crash on the market into your productions, many were burned by PS Move and Kinect last generation and most never got any return on their investment. Also; incentive for pushing the hardware itself and incentive for making software for it as a 3rd party are two different things, of course the hardware manufacturers want to gain the biggest piece of the pie, but the 3rd parties will be more timid, especially as long as the tech is this expensive and requires powerful hardware and likely bloated development budgets. Look at how few have started making content in earnest for 4K TV, even 1080p had a slow start on the market and needed to become considerably more affordable for both publishers and consumers before it became a factor; it's all a little too soon.

"but right now you know damn well most PS4 owners are of the hardcore core gamer type"

Actually; I don't, and neither do you. Attach rates and relative software sales suggest that they're mostly regular gamers, the ones I mentioned who don't buy a hundred games for their console or generally spend large amounts of money on peripherals and tech. If anything; the PS4 is less likely to capture enthusiasts from launch than the PS3 was, the PS3 had blu-ray featured and a heavy emphasis on the budding online space of console gaming, the price point was also on enthusiast levels. There is literally nothing supporting this claim, and you even state it as a fact, and go so far as to state that even I know that this is fact, which means I must be wasting my time on purpose even writing these posts. Enthusiasts do not lead to 35 million consoles sold in two years, as with the PS2, compare the sales curve of these two to the PS3 and spot a big difference.

My argument holds perfectly well since it's perfectly reasonable to assume that a larger part of the PS4's installed base are average gamers than the PS3 in the same time frame of its cycle and the 13 million PC enthusiasts are still more likely to shell out several hundred bucks for peripherals than any similar number and/or percentage of any 8th gen console's total installed base.

Again; average gamers do not actually spend that much on games and gaming and there is nothing to suggest that most PS4 owners are not average gamers, to categorically state as fact that most of the are not average gamers is the only likely false assumption here. Among the only statistics we have to go by is that a little less than half of the PS4's installed base has a PS+ subscription, which should be one of the minimum requirements for any enthusiast gamer today, and it's a real stretch to assume that 100% of these are so-called hardcore gamers and not average gamers who clock hours in titles like CoD and Destiny and similar fare, and with 4 out of the top 5 best selling titles on the PS4 being CoD and FIFA, it's kind of hard to keep your train of though about the average PS4 owner alive for much longer. In fact; the top 7 include GTA V and then CoD, FIFA, Destiny and Star Wars: Battlefront, so it would appear that numbers are not on your side for this one if your claim of the majority installed base being enthusiasts who spend a lot of money on gaming are to hold true. The top 20 and top 30 list is ominously void of titles geared more towards enthusiasts and it's utterly dominated by heavily mainstreamed filler franchises.

 

 





End of 2016 hardware sales:

Wii U: 15 million. PS4: 54 million. One: 30 million. 3DS: 64.8 million. PSVita: 15.2 million.

Ttech. said:
hershel_layton said:
Am I the only one who thinks Samsung's VR can potentially beat Sony's?

Think about it. One hundred dollars. All you need is one of the more recent phones(and most likely the next generation, as leaks show sizes will be similar). Considering you most likely have a phone, a lot of people wouldn't mind buying it, even if they use it once every few days.

 

Lol no, that vr is weak as hell.

So was the Wii. Power is irrelevant when it comes to the mass market. Why else would iPhones still exist otherwise? I'm with Layton here: Casual buyers will likely flock to a phone-based VR device because it's simply cheaper* on paper. VR is not a gamers' market, it's a casual market that's being jumpstarted in the gaming realm. Is PSVR going to do better? Yeah, probably. 36>13 and there's a higher likelihood of sheep buying into it from that highly casual 36. But most people aren't likely to buy into an entirely personal experience like this at too much of a cost; it's part of the reason 3DTV has failed thus far after people realized how narrow a window the 3D worked in on early models. 

 

*There is no installment plan for a PS4 or a PC, like most people have for their phones. Spending $100 out of pocket on a gimmick is something very fathomable of the average consumer (look at those goddamned hoverboards, they're glorified segways and people are shelling out hundreds), especially compared to spending $350+ and needing either a gaming console or a high-end PC. People don't like to spend that much on gaming devices - look at how well the XBO sales did immediately after DROPPING the Kinect (doubled monthly sales immediately after the cut, in case you didn't know), and that was only a $100 difference!

 

The fact that Sony continues to list numbers rather than mention key titles doesn't inspire confidence either. Until we have a key selling experience (read: until they announce No Man's Sky is PSVR compatible) the PSVR will continue to be a niche product. The denial of some PSVR supporters on the Web is almost equal to when Wii U fans said it'd do well because of all the third party support being announced, or when Vita owners flaunted Bioshock Vita and Black Ops Declassified as reasons the Vita would take off and beat the 3DS  



You should check out my YouTube channel, The Golden Bolt!  I review all types of video games, both classic and modern, and I also give short flyover reviews of the free games each month on PlayStation Plus to tell you if they're worth downloading.  After all, the games may be free, but your time is valuable!

hershel_layton said:
Am I the only one who thinks Samsung's VR can potentially beat Sony's?

Think about it. One hundred dollars. All you need is one of the more recent phones(and most likely the next generation, as leaks show sizes will be similar). Considering you most likely have a phone, a lot of people wouldn't mind buying it, even if they use it once every few days.

You only need $600-700 dollar smartphone, but hey, at least headset is cheap. ;)

Seriously though, maybe next iteration where high end phones are not a requirement, or someone else like that Chinese FiresVR company that's trying to go toe to toe with GearVR, will have a mass market appeal.

Still, there are technical dificulties as well - while Gear VR has a lot in common with OR (screen persistance is good as well as motion-to-photon latency), it does not have positional tracking. From what I've read inside-out tracking is not as easy as fixed outside-in (like with OR, Vive and PSVR), but it seems that Samsung is working on it, so probably next iteration will be able to compete head on.



Sony's advantage of it's PS4 install base is also it's weakness, it would be wise for them to after getting VR established on the PS4 , use all that data positive and negative to then move onto PC , that way they have a better pathway when it comes to future upgrading and also it gives them a better chance of it not being seen as just another peripheral with a limited lifespan.



Around the Network
DivinePaladin said:
Ttech. said:
hershel_layton said:
Am I the only one who thinks Samsung's VR can potentially beat Sony's?

Think about it. One hundred dollars. All you need is one of the more recent phones(and most likely the next generation, as leaks show sizes will be similar). Considering you most likely have a phone, a lot of people wouldn't mind buying it, even if they use it once every few days.

 

Lol no, that vr is weak as hell.

So was the Wii. Power is irrelevant when it comes to the mass market. Why else would iPhones still exist otherwise? I'm with Layton here: Casual buyers will likely flock to a phone-based VR device because it's simply cheaper* on paper. VR is not a gamers' market, it's a casual market that's being jumpstarted in the gaming realm. Is PSVR going to do better? Yeah, probably. 36>13 and there's a higher likelihood of sheep buying into it from that highly casual 36. But most people aren't likely to buy into an entirely personal experience like this at too much of a cost; it's part of the reason 3DTV has failed thus far after people realized how narrow a window the 3D worked in on early models. 

 

*There is no installment plan for a PS4 or a PC, like most people have for their phones. Spending $100 out of pocket on a gimmick is something very fathomable of the average consumer (look at those goddamned hoverboards, they're glorified segways and people are shelling out hundreds), especially compared to spending $350+ and needing either a gaming console or a high-end PC. People don't like to spend that much on gaming devices - look at how well the XBO sales did immediately after DROPPING the Kinect (doubled monthly sales immediately after the cut, in case you didn't know), and that was only a $100 difference!

 

The fact that Sony continues to list numbers rather than mention key titles doesn't inspire confidence either. Until we have a key selling experience (read: until they announce No Man's Sky is PSVR compatible) the PSVR will continue to be a niche product. The denial of some PSVR supporters on the Web is almost equal to when Wii U fans said it'd do well because of all the third party support being announced, or when Vita owners flaunted Bioshock Vita and Black Ops Declassified as reasons the Vita would take off and beat the 3DS  

 

Wii had great games, ones that used its hardware exceptionally well.

Gear does not.  



HoloDust said:
hershel_layton said:
Am I the only one who thinks Samsung's VR can potentially beat Sony's?

Think about it. One hundred dollars. All you need is one of the more recent phones(and most likely the next generation, as leaks show sizes will be similar). Considering you most likely have a phone, a lot of people wouldn't mind buying it, even if they use it once every few days.

You only need $600-700 dollar smartphone, but hey, at least headset is cheap. ;)

Seriously though, maybe next iteration where high end phones are not a requirement, or someone else like that Chinese FiresVR company that's trying to go toe to toe with GearVR, will have a mass market appeal.

Still, there are technical dificulties as well - while Gear VR has a lot in common with OR (screen persistance is good as well as motion-to-photon latency), it does not have positional tracking. From what I've read inside-out tracking is not as easy as fixed outside-in (like with OR, Vive and PSVR), but it seems that Samsung is working on it, so probably next iteration will be able to compete head on.

Then again, look at the usage of Smartphones compared to PC's.

 

PC used to be used by everyone. However, the smartphone has tremendously evolved into a pocket computer.

 

Also, if the Samsung VR doesn't dominate for a long time, I think it will still start some sort of desire(by people) to get VR headsets. The moment they realize, "hey, I can just plug my phone into this!", then it might become popular, even if it isn't as good as its competition("hoverboards" that costed 350).


However, all of the VR headsets have a ways to go. For smartphones, more phones need to be accepted. For PS4, more uses for it. For PC, better pricing.





 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.

Mummelmann said:

Crazy amounts of people spending money on racing seats and steering wheels for GT games? Those are not the average gamers, they're not even the average GT gamers, these are the enthusiasts I mentioned. Most people on these forums are not average gamers, they're above average interested in the topics of gaming and game and console sales, enthusiasts on the web are in no way represesentative of the average customer base of most products. There are people who spend hundreds of dollars on Amiibo for Mario Kart, that doesn't mean the majority of the people who bought the games did.

I don't think developer incentive is that big; it's a huge gamble to pour resources into implementing something that could crash on the market into your productions, many were burned by PS Move and Kinect last generation and most never got any return on their investment. Also; incentive for pushing the hardware itself and incentive for making software for it as a 3rd party are two different things, of course the hardware manufacturers want to gain the biggest piece of the pie, but the 3rd parties will be more timid, especially as long as the tech is this expensive and requires powerful hardware and likely bloated development budgets. Look at how few have started making content in earnest for 4K TV, even 1080p had a slow start on the market and needed to become considerably more affordable for both publishers and consumers before it became a factor; it's all a little too soon.

"but right now you know damn well most PS4 owners are of the hardcore core gamer type"

Actually; I don't, and neither do you. Attach rates and relative software sales suggest that they're mostly regular gamers, the ones I mentioned who don't buy a hundred games for their console or generally spend large amounts of money on peripherals and tech. If anything; the PS4 is less likely to capture enthusiasts from launch than the PS3 was, the PS3 had blu-ray featured and a heavy emphasis on the budding online space of console gaming, the price point was also on enthusiast levels. There is literally nothing supporting this claim, and you even state it as a fact, and go so far as to state that even I know that this is fact, which means I must be wasting my time on purpose even writing these posts. Enthusiasts do not lead to 35 million consoles sold in two years, as with the PS2, compare the sales curve of these two to the PS3 and spot a big difference.

My argument holds perfectly well since it's perfectly reasonable to assume that a larger part of the PS4's installed base are average gamers than the PS3 in the same time frame of its cycle and the 13 million PC enthusiasts are still more likely to shell out several hundred bucks for peripherals than any similar number and/or percentage of any 8th gen console's total installed base.

Again; average gamers do not actually spend that much on games and gaming and there is nothing to suggest that most PS4 owners are not average gamers, to categorically state as fact that most of the are not average gamers is the only likely false assumption here. Among the only statistics we have to go by is that a little less than half of the PS4's installed base has a PS+ subscription, which should be one of the minimum requirements for any enthusiast gamer today, and it's a real stretch to assume that 100% of these are so-called hardcore gamers and not average gamers who clock hours in titles like CoD and Destiny and similar fare, and with 4 out of the top 5 best selling titles on the PS4 being CoD and FIFA, it's kind of hard to keep your train of though about the average PS4 owner alive for much longer. In fact; the top 7 include GTA V and then CoD, FIFA, Destiny and Star Wars: Battlefront, so it would appear that numbers are not on your side for this one if your claim of the majority installed base being enthusiasts who spend a lot of money on gaming are to hold true. The top 20 and top 30 list is ominously void of titles geared more towards enthusiasts and it's utterly dominated by heavily mainstreamed filler franchises.

 

 



 

So since neither can you, your whole essey on the subject is pointless.  You cant prove the current owners are majority casual types you owned up to it so your argument does not stand.  By your own admission.  You can write another essey but your argument is shot.  Also only two years into a gen it is not resonable to assume its majority casuals.  Popular games selling well, fanbase is so casuals wow awesome reasoning.  



I'm amazed anyone thinks VR isn't the future. We may be many hardware generations away from mass acceptance of VR but clearly it is the future. It's just like anything we are at the beginning of VR and it will evolve and become consumer friendly and affordable in time. I tried the original oculus rift and was truly amazed by the roller coaster experience on it even though the resolution was dire. I'm very keen on VR to say the least. It shouldn't be compared with 3D televisions as that is something that only offers a minimal upgrade over conventional 2D displays.

As for oculus pricing, this will change rapidly its likely an early adopter price possibly due to Google's large investment in the company they don't want to underprice it at the beginning in case its a runaway success they want to push for the maximum financial return but I suspect they will soon have to drop prices.

Also remember Sony get their cut/license fee with every VR game so they can afford to subsidise their product a little.

I personally don't think Sony has any advantage with regard logistics though. I think either company will design their VR headsets and then approach third party manufacturers like foxconn to assemble. It's possible Sony have better skills at getting lower prices but you have to factor in the Chinese really don't like the Japanese and often give non japanese companies more favourable terms.

People always over-estimate manufacturing costs but the reality is electronics can be manufactured very cheaply and for many companies its the Research and development which is the big bill they have to pay for and requires a large slice of money on each unit sold.

Whatever both units are first gen retail units and I'm sure will have many design issues that will be solved in their follow up models.



DivinePaladin said:
Ttech. said:
hershel_layton said:
Am I the only one who thinks Samsung's VR can potentially beat Sony's?

Think about it. One hundred dollars. All you need is one of the more recent phones(and most likely the next generation, as leaks show sizes will be similar). Considering you most likely have a phone, a lot of people wouldn't mind buying it, even if they use it once every few days.

 

Lol no, that vr is weak as hell.

So was the Wii. Power is irrelevant when it comes to the mass market. Why else would iPhones still exist otherwise? I'm with Layton here: Casual buyers will likely flock to a phone-based VR device because it's simply cheaper* on paper. VR is not a gamers' market, it's a casual market that's being jumpstarted in the gaming realm. Is PSVR going to do better? Yeah, probably. 36>13 and there's a higher likelihood of sheep buying into it from that highly casual 36. But most people aren't likely to buy into an entirely personal experience like this at too much of a cost; it's part of the reason 3DTV has failed thus far after people realized how narrow a window the 3D worked in on early models. 

 

*There is no installment plan for a PS4 or a PC, like most people have for their phones. Spending $100 out of pocket on a gimmick is something very fathomable of the average consumer (look at those goddamned hoverboards, they're glorified segways and people are shelling out hundreds), especially compared to spending $350+ and needing either a gaming console or a high-end PC. People don't like to spend that much on gaming devices - look at how well the XBO sales did immediately after DROPPING the Kinect (doubled monthly sales immediately after the cut, in case you didn't know), and that was only a $100 difference!

 

The fact that Sony continues to list numbers rather than mention key titles doesn't inspire confidence either. Until we have a key selling experience (read: until they announce No Man's Sky is PSVR compatible) the PSVR will continue to be a niche product. The denial of some PSVR supporters on the Web is almost equal to when Wii U fans said it'd do well because of all the third party support being announced, or when Vita owners flaunted Bioshock Vita and Black Ops Declassified as reasons the Vita would take off and beat the 3DS  

 


did you forget that kinect failed to deliver last generation, that there was no added value because kinect games outright suck? and the other reasons why xbox one sales were bad? namely playstation 4 at a lower price plus superior specs and DRM? 

also, only because you dont know keytitles doesnt mean they werent mentioned. why no mans sky is supposed to be more key then gt sport, rigs, eve valkyrie, doax3, ace combat 7 etc...?



Hunting Season is done...