Quantcast
PSVR Sells Through 3 Million Units

Forums - Sony Discussion - PSVR Sells Through 3 Million Units

Do You Own A PSVR?

Yes 18 35.29%
 
No 33 64.71%
 
Total:51
DonFerrari said:

Well I guess my TV is VR and 3DS is also VR since both have 3D... that now makes the market much bigger and not niche anymore.

After all on the TV you use a glass and see in 3D, seems like the Virtua Boy made lighter =p

yea, don't forget all the magazines with anaglyph pictures+glasses, VR was mainstream all along !



Around the Network
Lafiel said:
DonFerrari said:

Well I guess my TV is VR and 3DS is also VR since both have 3D... that now makes the market much bigger and not niche anymore.

After all on the TV you use a glass and see in 3D, seems like the Virtua Boy made lighter =p

yea, don't forget all the magazines with anaglyph pictures+glasses, VR was mainstream all along !

I loved my VR dinosaur magazines, red and blue colored, when I was a kid. So life like.

What about those holographic cards, are they counted together with the sales of Holo Lens?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Lafiel said:
potato_hamster said:

Just because there was much better VR headsets at the time doesn't mean that the Virtual Boy wasn't VR. At the time it was widely considered to be VR, and I cen remember reading many articles and magazines that said as much, and it still is considered "VR" by many today (and again, no one is saying it was good or even decent VR even for the time).

You don't make the rules about what constitutes "VR" and what doesn't.  The consensus amongst the gaming industry and media alike at the time, both before and after its demise, called it a "VR system". I don't see any reason to change that just because 20 years later, modern VR solutions blow it out of the water in every way imaginable.

Let me put it to you this way: Imagine in 15 years time, someone looked back on the GTX 1050 graphics card and said "That wasn't a real graphics card. It didn't do real time ray tracing,  it didn't play AAA games at the time in 4K at ultra settings,it doesn't do (insert 15 years of advancement here), and look there were better graphics processing solutions at the time that did real time ray tracing, 4K, and other things the 1050 didn't do! It has the same feature set in common with this more modern APU. nVidia marketed it as a graphics card but it never was. The GTX is simply put a "weird looking" APU!" They would be laughed at. Because it's horseshit.

Your example doesn't hold any water. Graphics cards have been on the market for more than 20 years, there are already hundreds of millions of them in homes worldwide, their function is well defined and at no point in the near future (next 100+ years) will a 1050 be not called a graphics card - it's literally a card you put into the PC to be able to display graphics. A much better example in the future will be the use of "lighting" in game graphics/graphics discussions.

Nintendo used "Virtual Reality" as a buzz word to market the Virtual Boy and was able to do so with hardly anybody rejecting that is because: 1. hardly anybody had been able to try (let alone having in-depth sessions exploring the possibilities and limitations of) existing VR headsets, as in 1995 there were only a few thousend in use around the world and probably only a few hundred in public spaces or otherwise accessable to video game magazine writers - and not all of the writers had access to a VB either  2. video game magazines weren't in any way critical about the hardware or it's functions, expertise in these things was extremely limited in "the media" and specs were simply copied wholesale from PR without any commentary ("64bit Atari Jaguar" anyone?)  - the "consensus" you speak of was formed by Nintendo PR, not by an in-depth discussion by industry/technology experts weighing in about how VB differentiates itself to the already well known concept of stereoscopic 3D (mostly realized through anaglyph at the time though) and lives up to the lofty promise of "virtual reality".

 

While stereoscopic 3D is an essential part of Virtual Reality, it alone simply isn't VR and saying "back then VR was vague enough to call S3D VR and get away with it in a space that was basically technology analphabets having fun with technology, so we have to accept that for all eternity" is not a convincing argument.


My example is fine. The way Virtual Reality systems were defined when the Virtual Boy came out meant that at the time it was widely considered to be one. You even admit that. It doesn't really matter why it was considered a VR system. It doesn't change the fact that it was. Just because the bar has been raised since then that devices with similar feature sets are not considered to be VR today doesn't mean that the Virtual Boy wasn't a VR system. If you made a similar device today it almost certainly wouldn't be, but at the same time, when the Virtual Boy was released, it was.

"Virtual Reality" is STILL a buzz word. Do you know there's people that do not consider any VR system that doesn't completely hijack your senses (think Matrix style) to NOT be "real VR"? To this day Virtual Reality's definition is still evolving as technological boundaries push the boundaries of what's actually possible.  Who knows, perhaps in 100 years we will have the ability to hijack our senses and people on message boards will be whinging "The PSVR wasn't really VR! Sony just used "Virtual Reality" to market the PSVR because there wasn't people like me around telling them they're wrong!"

Jim Sterling would have a field day with your comment.



potato_hamster said:


My example is fine. The way Virtual Reality systems were defined when the Virtual Boy came out meant that at the time it was widely considered to be one. You even admit that. It doesn't really matter why it was considered a VR system. It doesn't change the fact that it was. Just because the bar has been raised since then that devices with similar feature sets are not considered to be VR today doesn't mean that the Virtual Boy wasn't a VR system. If you made a similar device today it almost certainly wouldn't be, but at the same time, when the Virtual Boy was released, it was.

"Virtual Reality" is STILL a buzz word. Do you know there's people that do not consider any VR system that doesn't completely hijack your senses (think Matrix style) to NOT be "real VR"? To this day Virtual Reality's definition is still evolving as technological boundaries push the boundaries of what's actually possible.  Who knows, perhaps in 100 years we will have the ability to hijack our senses and people on message boards will be whinging "The PSVR wasn't really VR! Sony just used "Virtual Reality" to market the PSVR because there wasn't people like me around telling them they're wrong!"

Jim Sterling would have a field day with your comment.

Atleast ppl in the future will have to recognize that a tangible definition was established for VR during this time. I imagine a revolutionary next step like audiovisuals and maybe more senses being induced into your brain will get a new word, like "induced sensual reality" or sth like that.

As I said before, stereoscopic 3D was an established and well defined entity in 1995 and the VB doesn't differentiate itself from that in any way, meaning the vague "virtual reality" moniker wasn't it's "definition", s3D was.



potato_hamster said:
KBG29 said:

That was the point. That is what people said about those products in the beggining as they slowly gained traction. Cars, TVs, and Smartphones where not overnight success's, they took decades of consumer availability before they became mainstream, and decades more before they became the norm.

PSVR, HTC Vive, and Oculus Rift are the first actual viable consumer VR devices that have hit the market. They are not mass market ready. They do a great job offering an enjoyable VR expereince, but it takes work from the user to make it happen. Getting set up to play is much like old cars where you had to crank it over, adjust the timing and fuel mixture manually and on the fly to keep them running. It is not something everyone is willing to deal with even if it offers a better expereince. To some the improved expereince itself, might not even be there even if it took zero effort. With each revision going forward though, the expereince gap between TV and Controller to VR Headset and Motion Tracking Peripherals will only increase, while usability will become easier and easier. 

It may be another decade or even two before AR/VR becomes Main stream, and yet another before it becomes the norm, but I believe it is just as inevitable as Cars, TV, and Smartphones. It may not be Sony, HTC, or Oculus that mak it happen, but some company out their will get the balance of expereince and ease of use nailed, and AR/VR will enhance every aspect of our lives, and more so than any other products that have come before.


It's complete horseshit that PCVR, HTC Vive and Oculus Rift are the first viable consumer VR devices. The fucking Sega Genesis had a VR headset planned for it for fuck sakes. Nintendo actually released the Virtual Boy, and as it turns out "the future" wasn't worth only gaming at 20-30 minutes at a time until they got used to it? How can you possibly keep pretending that the gaming industry hasn't been pushing VR in one way or another since the 90s? Current VR headsets are just the first ones to benefit from internet hype. They are as mass market ready as any VR headset will ever be. All PSVR requires is putting a camera on top of your TV. It's as complicated to set up as a Wii. Somehow they managed to sell 100 million of them, while might I add, many people advocated that motion controls were the future of gaming, and how that was going to change the industry as we know it going forward. Yet here we are a decade later, and the only gaming experience that consistently uses motion control is.... VR.

VR has zero excuses, and that doesn't change no matter how many frail excuses you try to make. If VR was going to make it mainstream, it would have done so by now.


It’s you who doesn’t get it. No other VR system before the current generation was anywhere close to being a market ready product with a suitable softwares library with continuous support. For someone who claims to be have lots of experience with VR you seem to be pretty ignorant on that account.

It’s continuously growing and it’s pretty childish to assume it would just get mass market adoption all of a sudden, especially with the wide majority of people not even having the chance to even try it out yet. It requires much more time and dedication than any smart phone, so it’s only natural market growth will happen much slower in comparison.

Stop acting so pretentious as if everyone was claiming VR will conquer the whole world by storm. There are many improvements to be made before it will ever be a mass market product, if ever. 



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
potato_hamster said:

So the fact that while it was being sold the fact that the Virtual Boy sold around the same rate as the Oculus Rift or HTC Vive is irrlevant to you because you consider total sales more important than rate of sale? I just want to confirm that for future reference.

My "0.0001% number" represents an insignificant portion of the market in which VR devices exist. There's a difference between 1 in every 10 Playstation 4 owners bought God of War, and 1 in every 2 console gamers bought a Playstation 4 and 100 in every 100 PS4 Owners bought a PS4, or 1 in every say, 1000 owners of VR capable PCs bought a VR headset. If you can't recognize the difference between the two, that's on you. If you want to blow the term "niche" beyond "represents a comparatively small percentage of the potential market it exists in due to its limited appeal", that's fine. I really don't care how you define words, but I'll stick with the common vernacular.

I really don't think you realize how cheap VR ready PCs are getting, both in the laptop and graphics cards spaces. $650 desktop PCs can run VR reasonably well, and those prices will go down by $100 or so now that nVidia launched it's latest family of graphics cards.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/01/dont-look-now-but-oculus-ready-pcs-are-getting-relatively-cheap/

Also, I didn't say anything about Nintendo's analysts. You did. You misinterpreted me saying "I can find plenty of analysts that make no such insistence that the Wii U failed because it didn't include upgrades Wii remotes as the primary controller" to mean Nintendo analysts. I did not. So what's that about winning arguments? Have you noticed I'm the only one of the two of us actually sourcing my points?

Just because 2 billion people enjoy a luxury doesn't mean it isn't still a luxury. I don't see why this is so hard for you. Cars are also luxuries, so are televisions, so is the internet. I don't see how this is even remotely controversial.  Just because you "feel you need something" doesn't mean you actually need it, it just means you're so comfortable with it you forgot how to live without it. There are millions of people in the USA alone that get along just fine without smartphones. How do they do it?

So Sony creates a motion control system, pushes support in a variety of games, creates peripherals like Wonderbook that make specific use of them, and then with their next console scales back the use of motion controls to literally just VR games, and you don't see that as a step backwards? As for MS, you're flat out wrong with the Kinect 2. The Xbox One was on the Market for eight months before they sold an Xbox One without the Kinect 2. Every single Xbox One sold up to that point came with one. Many people didn't even hook them up but bought one anyways just to get their new Xbox. No only that, Microsoft mandated that developers build in some sort of Kinect 2 support into (I believe) every game that came out for the system until that point. It took months of terrible sales, MS claiming that the Kinect was an "essential and integral part of the platform", or that "Xbox One is Kinect, they are not separate systems", and all kinds of other nonsense before they finally relented. Read here:

https://www.polygon.com/2014/5/13/5713634/xbox-one-kinect-integral-add-on

Tell me, what kind of benefits do VHS tapes offer over Blu-ray? What kind of benefits do 5 1/4" floppies offer over thumb drives? What's that? None? SO PESSIMISTIC!

PS Vita numbers were always bad. They stopped showing them when they got outright embarrassing. They released unsatisfactory numbers for the Vita multiple times before they finally started lumping sales. The mere fact that they're still releasing numbers does not indicate that the numbers are meeting expectations, that is, unless you think Sony announcing the Vita sold 4 million in 2012 as "meeting expectations" of selling just 2.8 million units from February to December. And yes, while it wasn't intended, the Vita turned out to only cater to a niche audience.

For the last time, I really, really don't care what you think of my credentials. It doesn't matter if I'm actually Phil Spencer, Shuhei Yoshida, or Miyamoto himself. If my arguments are out there to stand for themselves, and I don't try to lend any authority to give them credibility. I'm not asking you to take my word for any of it. So please don't. If you don't want to respond, don't respond. That bothers me none.

Nah, my criteria has been pretty clear from the beginning, and has not changed. If you want to point our how my criteria has changed about whether something is "niche" or "selling well" or "a VR system", I'd be happy to listen, but as far as I know I've held the same stance in this thread the entire time.

No the irrelevancy comes from not mattering if it was done in 1 day or in 7 years since that is the total sales and the company cut it out after that because it would just keep dropping sales until it became 0. That is aggravated by the fact that Virtua Boy was a gaming system not an accessory, so any console, handheld or whatever you want to call Virtua Boy selling 700k have been considered a flop, not so much for very specific accessories. The rate of sales of Virtua Boy would be irrelevant closely after they the period you want to consider (as pointed out by another user here, that 700k shipment was largely over supplied and the system kept selling 10k a week months after there were no more shipments, that is why you trying to cut it to a specific period is irrelevant). Another thing that makes it irrelevant is the fact that Nintendo wasn't happy with the sales and cut it out, while Oculus and Vive are keeping it.

You do know that 1 in 1000 is 0.1% instead of 0.0001%? That is the main reason for me calling the BS on your 0.0001% marketshare that you were so proud to give.

I won't dispute your point of 650USD PCs being VR ready, but I want you to provide credible sources that there are 200M PCs that are VR ready at homes as you have claimed. Last I heard from Pemalite there were close to 100M close to PS4 (regular) PCs on the market and those are still not capable of running Oculus and Vive VR at any decent capacity. There were already sources on this thread putting it closer to the 20-50M bracket of PCs that really can do VR with these units. So you better have a source to contradict them, because if not it will be only your assumption that exist over 4x more.

So ok, don't bring the analysts responsible for the system, but please bring an statistic among analysis from credible people showing the reason of failure for WiiU (like 10% of analysts pointed to this as biggest reason, 40% for that, etc) that shows there wasn't a higher percentage of conclusions going towards a high representation of WiiU having the tablet as one of the biggest problems the system faced. I will wait laid down for your sources, if you can't provide then stop trying to say you can find them.

You clearly doesn't know what luxury is. When someone that doesn't even have enough money for food or housing but can buy a smartphone you are clearly not talking about luxury. Car and internet also aren't luxury. Or are you going to consider everything over water and food as luxury? But even so, if you want to call smartphones a luxury, regular cellphones would be on the same class as well so your differentiation would crush under their own weight. Let me help on what can be considered luxury, things that less than 0,1% of the population can afford, that doesn't have any relevant functionality, serves for status over anything else, etc, that is where jewelry, mont blanc pens, gold platted consoles, diamond pierced smartphones, personal 50M USD business jet and other things like that are classified. You wanted so much to use dictionary for niche (even though you can't use basic math) but for luxury you gone for a self coined term.

I'm very wrong on Kinect 2? On the over 6 months in the market please list how many games did MS release that had kinect as the main form of play, because having it hearing a "duck", "reinforcements" or whatever command from the phone isn't really motion control input. I have some games from Move for PS4, including one that came with the system. But yes Sony diminished the support, that isn't coming back, you are very terrible at analysis. If something didn't became standard (as did touchscreen) then removing it isn't really going back technology. But since you brought it to the table, what are your analysis of the sales Blackberry is going to do and by how much will the coming back of qwerty keys will win against all the touchscreen systems?

What benefits of qwerty keys will bring over full screen smartphones with touch bring that weren't there before it got outsold by it. VHS and K-7 brings the benefit of direct capture of TV and radio feed, much easier and direct than BD or CD, satisfied? But since you think Blackberry will come back to win the smartphone fight, why don't you also place your odds for VHS and K-7?

No I didn't say just releasing numbers shows they are meeting expectations. I point other 2 factors of being positive, and that when sales were bad the stopped putting them straight. Don't spin and strawman my argument. Please show your source for Sony not being satisfied or not meeting projections with PSVR.

Credentials =/= names. You pretend to be doing a good analysis, but haven't show anything useful, real or relevant. You want to say you are not being negative, but that is all you have done. You have spined definitions, arguments and all just to try and fit a narrative of your choice.

Okay man. Thanks for the confirmation. Again, it doesn't really matter if the Virtual Boy took six months or twelve to sell its total stock, the point was that the HTC Vive and the Oculus Rift sold at around the same rate as the Virtual Boy, a rate which I might add, doesn't appear to have increased at all. I don't care exactly how many VR systems Nintendo sold in the first six months, or the first year, the same way I don't care exactly how many units Oculus or HTC moved. It really, really doesn't matter for my point at all. Yet you keep getting hung up on this mundane little point as if it's critical for anything.

Do you know I made up the 1 in 1000 figure also? I said  "1 in every say, 1000 owners of VR capable PCs bought a VR headset". I even bolded the part that means I'm throwing out a number for the sake of argument. Again, your focusing on mundane bits of my and completely missing the larger point I'm making. I could have said 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 and it would change my point at all.

I clearly don't know what a luxury is? Well that's odd, considering that in many countries, smartphones, like game consoles, are given a "luxury tax". Just because people make terrible choices and would rather have a device that plays Angry Birds than make sure their basic needs are met doesn't mean that having a device that plays angry birds is a basic need. A Luxury item is anything that isn't necessary but makes an individual's life more enjoyable. Game consoles are luxury items. Televisions are luxury items, cars are luxury items. Do you what isn't luxury items? Food. Housing. Soap, Laundry detergent. Toilet Paper. Feminine Hygene products. Bus passes. That's why in many countries these things are not taxed at all. With the decline of landlines in households and apartments, it can be argued that a basic cell phone can be considered a basic need item, since you know, being able to call the police, or an ambulance can be easily be considered a basic need.  If only things that "0.1% of the population can buy" would be considered a luxury item then almost nothing would be. Cars like Lexus, Audi, BMW, Porsche are considered "Luxury Cars" yet anyone making six figures (well below 0.1% of the population) can afford one. Your definition of "luxury" holds no water.

Yeah, you're wrong on the Kinect 2. Microsoft pushed and pushed and pushed that Kinect 2 was as part of the Xbox One as the controller was. How can that be considered less than standard? Need I give more quotes? But. their customers told them to go shit in their hand so they dropped it like a brick... eventually...

You still don't get my point of bringing up the Blackberry, do you? It's a niche product. It hasn't sold well at all, but for some people, having a physical keyboard with tactile feedback (you know, that thing I already mentioned) is something that is highly desired that as it turns out, the majority of the market doesn't not care about. The new blackberry phones haven't sold well and likely wont, because it's niche, because it's only desirable to a small portion of the cell phone market. i never said Blackberry will comeback to win the cell phone fight. That would be completely ridiculous.

You said that the PSVR must be meeting expectations partly because Sony is still releasing sales numbers on it. Here. I'll quote you.

"Since we have 2 positive direct info with being over projected and being pleased, plus providing numbers (PSVita they stopped showing numbers when it got bad, and PS3 just got direct numbers when things started being good) make 3 good pointers of meeting or exceeding projections"

So first, they said they exceeded expectations and are pleased with sales in the first few months. they haven't said it since. Sony released Vita numbers until they got embarassing, and they always released PS3 numbers. I'm not sure why you think Sony never released PS3 numbers in the beginning. I don't seem to have any trouble finding the numbers on their annual statements since its release. Here. Look it up yourself.

https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/library/presen/er/archive.html

FY 2006,2007, 2008 all have shipped numbers for PS3. I never checked the rest. So the mere fact that they're still posting PSVR numbers just means they're not embarrassed by them. If you don't think them posting numbers is evidence that they're pleased with the numbers, please clarify. I never said that Sony said they weren't pleased with PSVR numbers, I simply said that they haven't said they were happy with sales in over a year.

I don't know what how to deal with your last paragraph? I think you might be having some language issues here, because that's a bunch of meaningless word salad.



Lafiel said:
potato_hamster said:


My example is fine. The way Virtual Reality systems were defined when the Virtual Boy came out meant that at the time it was widely considered to be one. You even admit that. It doesn't really matter why it was considered a VR system. It doesn't change the fact that it was. Just because the bar has been raised since then that devices with similar feature sets are not considered to be VR today doesn't mean that the Virtual Boy wasn't a VR system. If you made a similar device today it almost certainly wouldn't be, but at the same time, when the Virtual Boy was released, it was.

"Virtual Reality" is STILL a buzz word. Do you know there's people that do not consider any VR system that doesn't completely hijack your senses (think Matrix style) to NOT be "real VR"? To this day Virtual Reality's definition is still evolving as technological boundaries push the boundaries of what's actually possible.  Who knows, perhaps in 100 years we will have the ability to hijack our senses and people on message boards will be whinging "The PSVR wasn't really VR! Sony just used "Virtual Reality" to market the PSVR because there wasn't people like me around telling them they're wrong!"

Jim Sterling would have a field day with your comment.

Atleast ppl in the future will have to recognize that a tangible definition was established for VR during this time. I imagine a revolutionary next step like audiovisuals and maybe more senses being induced into your brain will get a new word, like "induced sensual reality" or sth like that.

As I said before, stereoscopic 3D was an established and well defined entity in 1995 and the VB doesn't differentiate itself from that in any way, meaning the vague "virtual reality" moniker wasn't it's "definition", s3D was.

And what was the tangible definition for VR that was established during the Virtual Boy's time? It included devices like the Virtual Boy, didn't it? Yes. Yes it did. Just because the definition has evolved since then doesn't mean we can just go back and apply that definition to past products. it doesn't work that way.



Errorist76 said:
potato_hamster said:


It's complete horseshit that PCVR, HTC Vive and Oculus Rift are the first viable consumer VR devices. The fucking Sega Genesis had a VR headset planned for it for fuck sakes. Nintendo actually released the Virtual Boy, and as it turns out "the future" wasn't worth only gaming at 20-30 minutes at a time until they got used to it? How can you possibly keep pretending that the gaming industry hasn't been pushing VR in one way or another since the 90s? Current VR headsets are just the first ones to benefit from internet hype. They are as mass market ready as any VR headset will ever be. All PSVR requires is putting a camera on top of your TV. It's as complicated to set up as a Wii. Somehow they managed to sell 100 million of them, while might I add, many people advocated that motion controls were the future of gaming, and how that was going to change the industry as we know it going forward. Yet here we are a decade later, and the only gaming experience that consistently uses motion control is.... VR.

VR has zero excuses, and that doesn't change no matter how many frail excuses you try to make. If VR was going to make it mainstream, it would have done so by now.


It’s you who doesn’t get it. No other VR system before the current generation was anywhere close to being a market ready product with a suitable softwares library with continuous support. For someone who claims to be have lots of experience with VR you seem to be pretty ignorant on that account.

It’s continuously growing and it’s pretty childish to assume it would just get mass market adoption all of a sudden, especially with the wide majority of people not even having the chance to even try it out yet. It requires much more time and dedication than any smart phone, so it’s only natural market growth will happen much slower in comparison.

Stop acting so pretentious as if everyone was claiming VR will conquer the whole world by storm. There are many improvements to be made before it will ever be a mass market product, if ever. 

This generation is only the first one that was "close to market ready" because its the only one that the market never immediately rejected. Nintendo thought the Virtual Boy was a market ready product. They had over a dozen games for it ready to go in the first six months (which was a pile at the time). And they were so, so, so wrong. Now years later, Sony gave it a shot, and while its been better received, it hasn't sold that great. Don't get me wrong, it's fine for a niche product, but as something that for some is supposed to be the first major step towards a Ready Player One type of gaming experience? They have to be disappointed.

And if you aren't convinced that VR will be a mass market product, then you're not arguing against me. However, I'm almost positive you've made statements in the past that are pretty contradictory to the more tempered stance you're producing today, but I can't be bothered to put the effort in to find them, so I'll leave well enough alone.

And please, spare the the accusations of being pretentious. There are people that have acted like VR will be taking the world by storm in the past that have commented in this very thread.  I've said all along that VR is a niche product, I said from the get-go the numbers continue to support that. I'm the one that's had my "credentials" questioned multiple times. I'm the only one that's consistently provided sources to support my arguments. I'm the one that has continuously (although not entirely) refrained from personal attacks, and mockery as many others have continuously done in this thread. Cut the crap.

Last edited by potato_hamster - on 21 August 2018

Love my PSVR but it really needs a price cut and more quality games and/or ports that aren't glorified tech demo's to go mainstream. Or better yet, more AAA games with a VR mode like Resident Evil 7.



potato_hamster said:
DonFerrari said:

No the irrelevancy comes from not mattering if it was done in 1 day or in 7 years since that is the total sales and the company cut it out after that because it would just keep dropping sales until it became 0. That is aggravated by the fact that Virtua Boy was a gaming system not an accessory, so any console, handheld or whatever you want to call Virtua Boy selling 700k have been considered a flop, not so much for very specific accessories. The rate of sales of Virtua Boy would be irrelevant closely after they the period you want to consider (as pointed out by another user here, that 700k shipment was largely over supplied and the system kept selling 10k a week months after there were no more shipments, that is why you trying to cut it to a specific period is irrelevant). Another thing that makes it irrelevant is the fact that Nintendo wasn't happy with the sales and cut it out, while Oculus and Vive are keeping it.

You do know that 1 in 1000 is 0.1% instead of 0.0001%? That is the main reason for me calling the BS on your 0.0001% marketshare that you were so proud to give.

I won't dispute your point of 650USD PCs being VR ready, but I want you to provide credible sources that there are 200M PCs that are VR ready at homes as you have claimed. Last I heard from Pemalite there were close to 100M close to PS4 (regular) PCs on the market and those are still not capable of running Oculus and Vive VR at any decent capacity. There were already sources on this thread putting it closer to the 20-50M bracket of PCs that really can do VR with these units. So you better have a source to contradict them, because if not it will be only your assumption that exist over 4x more.

So ok, don't bring the analysts responsible for the system, but please bring an statistic among analysis from credible people showing the reason of failure for WiiU (like 10% of analysts pointed to this as biggest reason, 40% for that, etc) that shows there wasn't a higher percentage of conclusions going towards a high representation of WiiU having the tablet as one of the biggest problems the system faced. I will wait laid down for your sources, if you can't provide then stop trying to say you can find them.

You clearly doesn't know what luxury is. When someone that doesn't even have enough money for food or housing but can buy a smartphone you are clearly not talking about luxury. Car and internet also aren't luxury. Or are you going to consider everything over water and food as luxury? But even so, if you want to call smartphones a luxury, regular cellphones would be on the same class as well so your differentiation would crush under their own weight. Let me help on what can be considered luxury, things that less than 0,1% of the population can afford, that doesn't have any relevant functionality, serves for status over anything else, etc, that is where jewelry, mont blanc pens, gold platted consoles, diamond pierced smartphones, personal 50M USD business jet and other things like that are classified. You wanted so much to use dictionary for niche (even though you can't use basic math) but for luxury you gone for a self coined term.

I'm very wrong on Kinect 2? On the over 6 months in the market please list how many games did MS release that had kinect as the main form of play, because having it hearing a "duck", "reinforcements" or whatever command from the phone isn't really motion control input. I have some games from Move for PS4, including one that came with the system. But yes Sony diminished the support, that isn't coming back, you are very terrible at analysis. If something didn't became standard (as did touchscreen) then removing it isn't really going back technology. But since you brought it to the table, what are your analysis of the sales Blackberry is going to do and by how much will the coming back of qwerty keys will win against all the touchscreen systems?

What benefits of qwerty keys will bring over full screen smartphones with touch bring that weren't there before it got outsold by it. VHS and K-7 brings the benefit of direct capture of TV and radio feed, much easier and direct than BD or CD, satisfied? But since you think Blackberry will come back to win the smartphone fight, why don't you also place your odds for VHS and K-7?

No I didn't say just releasing numbers shows they are meeting expectations. I point other 2 factors of being positive, and that when sales were bad the stopped putting them straight. Don't spin and strawman my argument. Please show your source for Sony not being satisfied or not meeting projections with PSVR.

Credentials =/= names. You pretend to be doing a good analysis, but haven't show anything useful, real or relevant. You want to say you are not being negative, but that is all you have done. You have spined definitions, arguments and all just to try and fit a narrative of your choice.

Okay man. Thanks for the confirmation. Again, it doesn't really matter if the Virtual Boy took six months or twelve to sell its total stock, the point was that the HTC Vive and the Oculus Rift sold at around the same rate as the Virtual Boy, a rate which I might add, doesn't appear to have increased at all. I don't care exactly how many VR systems Nintendo sold in the first six months, or the first year, the same way I don't care exactly how many units Oculus or HTC moved. It really, really doesn't matter for my point at all. Yet you keep getting hung up on this mundane little point as if it's critical for anything.

Do you know I made up the 1 in 1000 figure also? I said  "1 in every say, 1000 owners of VR capable PCs bought a VR headset". I even bolded the part that means I'm throwing out a number for the sake of argument. Again, your focusing on mundane bits of my and completely missing the larger point I'm making. I could have said 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 and it would change my point at all.

I clearly don't know what a luxury is? Well that's odd, considering that in many countries, smartphones, like game consoles, are given a "luxury tax". Just because people make terrible choices and would rather have a device that plays Angry Birds than make sure their basic needs are met doesn't mean that having a device that plays angry birds is a basic need. A Luxury item is anything that isn't necessary but makes an individual's life more enjoyable. Game consoles are luxury items. Televisions are luxury items, cars are luxury items. Do you what isn't luxury items? Food. Housing. Soap, Laundry detergent. Toilet Paper. Feminine Hygene products. Bus passes. That's why in many countries these things are not taxed at all. With the decline of landlines in households and apartments, it can be argued that a basic cell phone can be considered a basic need item, since you know, being able to call the police, or an ambulance can be easily be considered a basic need.  If only things that "0.1% of the population can buy" would be considered a luxury item then almost nothing would be. Cars like Lexus, Audi, BMW, Porsche are considered "Luxury Cars" yet anyone making six figures (well below 0.1% of the population) can afford one. Your definition of "luxury" holds no water.

Yeah, you're wrong on the Kinect 2. Microsoft pushed and pushed and pushed that Kinect 2 was as part of the Xbox One as the controller was. How can that be considered less than standard? Need I give more quotes? But. their customers told them to go shit in their hand so they dropped it like a brick... eventually...

You still don't get my point of bringing up the Blackberry, do you? It's a niche product. It hasn't sold well at all, but for some people, having a physical keyboard with tactile feedback (you know, that thing I already mentioned) is something that is highly desired that as it turns out, the majority of the market doesn't not care about. The new blackberry phones haven't sold well and likely wont, because it's niche, because it's only desirable to a small portion of the cell phone market. i never said Blackberry will comeback to win the cell phone fight. That would be completely ridiculous.

You said that the PSVR must be meeting expectations partly because Sony is still releasing sales numbers on it. Here. I'll quote you.

"Since we have 2 positive direct info with being over projected and being pleased, plus providing numbers (PSVita they stopped showing numbers when it got bad, and PS3 just got direct numbers when things started being good) make 3 good pointers of meeting or exceeding projections"

So first, they said they exceeded expectations and are pleased with sales in the first few months. they haven't said it since. Sony released Vita numbers until they got embarassing, and they always released PS3 numbers. I'm not sure why you think Sony never released PS3 numbers in the beginning. I don't seem to have any trouble finding the numbers on their annual statements since its release. Here. Look it up yourself.

https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/library/presen/er/archive.html

FY 2006,2007, 2008 all have shipped numbers for PS3. I never checked the rest. So the mere fact that they're still posting PSVR numbers just means they're not embarrassed by them. If you don't think them posting numbers is evidence that they're pleased with the numbers, please clarify. I never said that Sony said they weren't pleased with PSVR numbers, I simply said that they haven't said they were happy with sales in over a year.

I don't know what how to deal with your last paragraph? I think you might be having some language issues here, because that's a bunch of meaningless word salad.

For you it is a mundane difference 0.1% to 0.001%? What about 5M VRs on a userbase of 150M (80M PS and certainly no more than 70M capable on PC) that makes it 3% that is certainly a lot more than 0.0001% even if we took your 200M PCs it would make the marketshare 1.8% still much greater. So we know you are torturing numbers to make your point.

Funny you complain I don't care and think it's irrelevant for you to come back and do it. And sorry but it isn't 12 months, it would be for the life of the system it wouldn't grow much over it. PSVR is adding Virtua Boy lifetime about every 4 months. But let's avoid talking about it.

So the tax on luxury items is what define luxury and not being taxed defines what is necessary? In Brazil videogames are taxed as gambling (so Super Mario is a gambling?), electricity, water, food and everything else is taxed as well so they aren't a need right? The only thing not taxed in Brazil at this moment is air. Also better yet aircrafts have tax exemption so I guess they are basic need on your definition. If basically 100% of developed countries population can have a smartphone and even over 1/3 of whole world can as well it isn't a luxury item even if you can say it isn't a necessity, but then phone also aren't so your point was already null and void.

You don't need to give quotes, give me MS games launched on X1 with Kinect being the standard input system. Because if you want quotes from MS I can show they saying they are improving 1st party releases for over 5 years before really doing it.

So your point on blackberry was to try and strawman, ok.

Reread my quote, read your reply. You are still missing any source that confirm Sony isn't pleased anymore or that they aren't meeting projections. Because as already pointed to you there were 2 direct positive on the sales, one indication of positive and 0 indication of negative. Either provide or conceed you are wrong.

Yes sure you don't know difference between showing your credentials, or at least given correct and factual information versus saying your name.

I'll also suppose that the points you avoided to answer were you conceeding you were wrong on as well.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994