The_Liquid_Laser said:
I'm glad the OP actually brought some common sense to this discussion. VR is always going to be a niche at best. There are some very vocal defenders of this niche though who can make excuses forever. If the VR is high quality, then they can always say "it costs too much". If the VR is at a low cost, then the defenders can say "the quality is too low". There is always an excuse. The idea that VR will ever become mainstream is itself a "virtual reality". In actual reality it will always be a niche.
|
I take issue with the always. True enough, VR isn't big outside a niche group. But it may be possible to change the fate. Look what Apple did to smartphones, the market exploded. Or Nintendo to home consoles. And handhelds. All what is needed is an enticing product with the right pitch to customers. For Switch BOTW was that pitch. Maybe CR can take off with the right game, the VRs BOTW.
Bofferbrauer2 said:
Well, he does have one point: VR is not selling very well. In fact, PSVR is still doing the bulk of the sales, though the competition is expected to overtake Sony in the near future:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/671403/global-virtual-reality-device-shipments-by-vendor/
In 2017, PSVR accounted for almost half of all VR sets, while in 2019 it's expected to only sell less than one third, with Oculus apparently catching up fast. But that still accounts to a very small market.
Also, I can't understand their outlook:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/591181/global-augmented-virtual-reality-market-size/
So, the market is stagnant for 4 years now but they expect it to be 10x larger in 2020 than their (already optimistic imo, especially for Oculus) 2019 prediction? Doesn't make much sense to me, but okay I guess?
|
It's not 2020, it's actually 2022. Two years are just missing. In these two years some miracle happens, the return of Jesus and he plays VR or something along these lines.
RolStoppable said:
Hiku said:
Your last point there is essentially why I dismiss the comparison between VR headsets and something like a console.
Even when comparing one console to another, the desired install base to warrant a certain amount of software support may be X for one console, and Y for another. Due to their varying circumstances, which include things like cost, age, and technology.
Wii was extremely successful, sold more than PS3/360 and quicker, but was discontinued before them and didn't receive most of their big third party support.
If there was a certain install base number that would convince Capcom to put Resident Evil 5 on Wii, it would probably be exponentially higher than what it needed to be for PS3/360.
When it comes to VR headsets, the circumstances are far more different than between one console to another. So for that reason I don't find those comparisons interesting.
|
Well, it's true that one important factor for software support is the question whether or not a software developer wants a certain platform to succeed. The example of Wii that you mentioned made installed base an irrelevant number, because publishers didn't want to make games for the system.
But looking at VR itself after three years (that's about when Rift and Vive launched), are the investments in VR increasing? It seems like it's not going to change that the money is pumped into conventional PS and Xbox games. VR isn't subject to some super special rules where slumping along at a yearly sales rate of ~2m (all headsets combined) will convince developers that it's a growing market. After all, there are alternatives for video game development that provide better chances for financial success, so despite the differences in circumstances, the most fundamental rules will apply to VR as well.
What keeps the manufacturers of the VR headsets investing in the technology is the expectation that VR catches on eventually, and more importantly, extends to beyond video games. That's why Sony has stuck longer with VR than Vita despite the former selling at a slower rate. Vita's death sentence was the realisation that a portable video game console can't provide more revenue streams than video games, because smartphones and tablets had locked down non-gaming entertainment.
The story of VR so far has been that the results have come in even below the expectations of the pessimistic market analysts. But looking at the Statista links posted by Bofferbrauer2, it doesn't look like expectations for VR have been adjusted to the reality that VR isn't selling well. Expecting an at best stagnant market to grow tenfold between 2019 and 2022 is placing all bets on a sudden miracle.
|
It's not onlythat current sales aren't healthy enough for game makers to invest into new games. VR has actually the Wii-problem too: devs had difficulties with Wii, because it had an unusual input scheme. They had to adapt - and they weren't willing to do that. With VR you also can't put the games on it without any change, you have to make some adjustments. Nothing big, but enough that most devs take a wait and see approach.
3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)
my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023
10 years greatest game event!
bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]
