By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
the-pi-guy said:
potato_hamster said:

It still makes absolutely no sense. Two different wireless VR headsets are necessary because one of them is the "easiest way to do wireless VR". If you say so. And Wireless VR isn't more niche than VR? That's like saying supercars aren't niche because Ford Fiesta ST owners would also like to own a Ferrari despite their inability or unwillingness to buy one.

That comparison makes absolutely no sense.  

Are smartphones niche because they are higher end than a flip phone?

You just keep finding bizarre comparisons to try proving your point, even when there are comparisons that are more applicable.  

potato_hamster said:

Sony HTC and Oculus aren't competing against each other directly? Really? So do you think a PSVR owner is just as likely to buy an HTC Vive as someone who doesn't own a PSVR? If you don't, then how are they not competing against each other directly? This reeks of the "Nintendo isn't competing against Sony and Microsoft" arguments that are equally nonsensical.

No, I didn't say they aren't competing, but that the competition between is different.  

The software market between the HTC and Oculus are different (from MS and Sony) because any software you buy for one is playable on the other.   This is important because if Vive and Oculus sold 500k headsets each, that is not 2 separate markets of 500k.  That's a single market of nearly 1 million.  

potato_hamster said: 

... you honestly think the PSVR is going to be on the market 10 years from now and with revisions and technological advancements, could cost $50 at that time? Well I can assure you there's about as likely chance of that happening as KBG is of getting his Nintendo Switch that makes phone calls.


What I think is likely is that PS5 will support PSVR as a low cost option.  The PSVR itself could be $50-$100 in 6 years.  

potato_hamster said:

You're right, there are plenty of reasons why things don't sell, but devices that apparently have swaths of people waiting to jump in and buy when the price is right don't have issues selling, especially ones that apparently everyone wants to buy upon trying for the first time. 

Where did I say there were swaths of people waiting to jump in?

I talk a lot to people about VR, people that aren't gamers to hardcore gamers.  So I have a pretty good idea about what people think of VR.  

potato_hamster said:

It makes absolutely no sense to argue that marketing is a problem when two of the biggest players in VR are Sony and fucking Facebook,with the support of one of the biggest cell phone manufacturers in the world that has given away millions of VR devices for free.

Marketing is a lot more than just product existence awareness.  

Another part of marketing for VR includes trying to get people to understand what VR does for the experience.  Just because people know of VR, doesn't mean they know what the experience is.  Another part of marketing for any system, is marketing uses/games.  

Smartphones obviously aren't niche because they're higher end than a flip phone, but wireless VR is more niche because it's a high cost for an added benefit that many aren't willing to pay for - like Ferraris. Not many people are willing to pay for VR as it is, why would they be willing to pay for VR that's wireless. Wouldn't it be better to work on options that minimize the number of wires a VR headset requires, and come up with solutions to minimize the impact of a tethered solution than invest in an enhancement to VR that doesn't address many of VR's dominant issues?

So HTC Vive games are playable on Oculus Rift and vice versa? That sounds like news to me. That's probably because it is news. From May:

"There’s not as many headsets out there as we thought there might be a couple of years ago,” Conte noted. “It’s growing, and it’s actually growing at a pretty decent pace, but every decision that you make you should be thinking about: How does this get my title into the most users’ hands as possible?"

 Oculus had to abandon its exclusivity deals because of poor sales. So HTC and Oculus are no longer competing with each other in the same was as Microsoft and Sony do, but this is a new thing. Let's not pretend that the Oculus Rit didn't spend the first 4 years of its life with exclusive titles, and paying to keep titles away from HTC and PSVR users.

I can't think of many instances where new playstation hardware was compatible with accessories from previous consoles. But even if it is, it doesn't mean that the PSVR is going to be even a $100 accessory in 10 years time, if they're still being sold. Much like the WIi U, I suspect the cost of manufacturing a PSVR isn't something that lends itself to significant decreases to its Bill of Materials.

I also think I have a pretty good idea of what people think of VR. Most of what I've heard is something along the lines of "Woah that's awesome! Where can I get one, and how much? A PSVR costs $300? It's cool, but not $300 cool."

Did you just try to argue that a console's game's library (or lack of one) is a marketing issue? Also, if you need people to use your device in order to understand it enough to want to buy one, you're never going to sell very many.