Given those numbers, I would suspect only gaming enthusiasts would be willing to purchase a headset, while the other 40% would play but a purchase would be out of their budget range. That means the potential market for VR headsets is probably around 30 million in the US, and another 70 million or so if you include the EU, which tends to have similar demographics. One million in a potential market of 100 million is only 1%.
At the next 3 years that sounds likely, yes. But it is just potential numbers, the actual salesnumber for the new gen of Occulus and Vive is anybodys guess.
The thing is that it is new technology, at this moment is the price to high and the technology a bit buggy yet. Look at flatscreens when they came, almost everyone still had CRT screens for a few years for just that reason.
If VR truly catches on that will be a few years from now, at the moment it is for hardcore fans but the technology have potential. Of course for it truly to catch on with gamers (at the moment I think porn and 3D movies will do better then games) the games will need to figure out the right mechanics to really use the te chnology right. Just taking a regular MMO for example and add VR to it is not good enough, you need new mechanics for combat and skill use.
I could see a MMO with a magic system that make you cast spells with movement and words instead of clicking icons (anyone seen "The Slayers"?), while it would take a little training to be a good mage it would make things feel a lot more realistic and probably fun.
So: Pricetag of $300, higher resolution, better controls & more games with specific mechanics. That is what VR needs to be mainstream.
I'll just say that I've read far more encouraging outlooks from GearVR users than yours, and a 1% adoption rate or market share is fine for the games/tech industry. A 10% adoption rate is astounding.
I suppose... but according to this article, and the same data from the one originally posted.. it isn't gaming that is really driving the gear VR in general.
Gear VRs adoption rate isn't 10%.. it isn't even 1%. The point I was making is that of galaxy S7 users... roughly 10 Million people at least received free VR headsets.. and according to the article 10% of them are using them. So what happened to all of the other headsets? It kind of shows that people have little interest, that they wouldn't even try to use a free device.
But it gets worse, considering that the numbers mentioned are between both Gear VR and Oculus Rift, with the majority of users on Gear VR.. and focused on Video experiences and NOT gaming.
"Oculus notes that people a wide range of people are checking out Gear VR apps and not just for gaming. Seven of the top 10 most-used apps are 360-degree video experiences."
It's a hopeful article, but it has a lot of pings to take note of. For example... just about every console sold more than 1 Million in it's first month. Most peripherals too, sold more than 1 million...
But here, you can see that they aren't talking about amount SOLD.. because.. first of all they aren't selling them. They are literally giving their BIGGEST VR Generation Machine out to anyone that buys a cell phone.
But adoption is extremely low.
Look, I'm not saying that Gear VR is a failure specifically. I'm using it.. I actually bought the headset "used "(despite buying an S7, we had a promotion to get 100 dollars in free gear or the headset and we opted for the free gear - cases, wireless chargers, etc.) but I picked it up brand new in box on the 5 miles app for 50 bucks.
I'm just saying.. that when you have the hardware (cell phones) reaching over 120 million, and the peripheral (gear vr set) reaching around 10 million. That having only 1 million split between all OR and Gear VR users is not a solid showing. It actually seems like indifference from the larger population.
One million people using GearVR in April; not split between OR and GVR if I'm reading this correctly.
You could be right. I'm not pretending to have the analytics to know if it's a good thing or a bad thing. All I'm saying is it's an "encouraging" number. I'm thinking about it more in terms of 20% the user base of WoW, or the overall number of Star Citizen backers.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
One million people using GearVR in April; not split between OR and GVR if I'm reading this correctly.
You could be right. I'm not pretending to have the analytics to know if it's a good thing or a bad thing. All I'm saying is it's an "encouraging" number. I'm thinking about it more in terms of 20% the user base of WoW, or the overall number of Star Citizen backers.
Yes you were right, the April number is for Gear VR usage only. The 1 million "sold" number that was released was between gear VR and Oculus Rift, with the majority being gear VR.
I don't think it's a discouraging number or an encouraging number... I'm just stating that I think adoption considering the amount of available sets "in the wild" should be higher.
I was thinking about it more in terms of Cell Adoption.
Like for example, the Blackberry Priv in 6 months sold 1.2 million units and was largely thought as a failure.
Now while I believe that those numbers should be encouraging, because it's much better than the sell rate of blackberries BB10 devices.. the market as a whole considered it a failure.
This is similar in view alone with Gear VR. It has been on the market for 6 months, and just now are we getting numbers of 1 million -- not specifically units sold, but people using the device.
As a marketing statistic its somewhat worrisome - but as a new technological adoption statistic, it is somewhat encouraging.
One million people using GearVR in April; not split between OR and GVR if I'm reading this correctly.
You could be right. I'm not pretending to have the analytics to know if it's a good thing or a bad thing. All I'm saying is it's an "encouraging" number. I'm thinking about it more in terms of 20% the user base of WoW, or the overall number of Star Citizen backers.
Yes you were right, the April number is for Gear VR usage only. The 1 million "sold" number that was released was between gear VR and Oculus Rift, with the majority being gear VR.
I don't think it's a discouraging number or an encouraging number... I'm just stating that I think adoption considering the amount of available sets "in the wild" should be higher.
I was thinking about it more in terms of Cell Adoption.
Like for example, the Blackberry Priv in 6 months sold 1.2 million units and was largely thought as a failure.
Now while I believe that those numbers should be encouraging, because it's much better than the sell rate of blackberries BB10 devices.. the market as a whole considered it a failure.
This is similar in view alone with Gear VR. It has been on the market for 6 months, and just now are we getting numbers of 1 million -- not specifically units sold, but people using the device.
As a marketing statistic its somewhat worrisome - but as a new technological adoption statistic, it is somewhat encouraging.
You are comparing a product that everyone wants to a product that is niche. Of course you aren't going to have the same numbers not even close. Its like calling Skyrim a failure because it only sold 10 million units. We have barely reached launch and don't expect a vr headset for every playstation or pc sold.
You are comparing a product that everyone wants to a product that is niche. Of course you aren't going to have the same numbers not even close. Its like calling Skyrim a failure because it only sold 10 million units. We have barely reached launch and don't expect a vr headset for every playstation or pc sold.
Just to clarify, which of the two products are considered products that everyone wants?
I mentioned the Priv because the sales are similar in general. Some would consider a full keyboard on a handset a peripheral. I'm not specifically calling the Priv a failure, I'm basing it off of what marketing analysts considered it.
Right now analysts expect the growth of VR to be around 40B in 4 years. I think it's kind of a rough prediction as they've also considered AR to be double that in the same time frame, with little to no real retail AR devices on the market.
As for barely reaching launch... Gear VR has been out for 6 months. By the time VR launches on PS, it will have almost been a year. More people own the hardware for gear VR currently than will own a Rift, Vive or PS VR headset by years end.
All I'm saying.. is when you look at it based on numbers alone. The amount of hardware on the market. The amount of Gear VR headsets that have been given out. It's actually not a tremendous number. That's really all I'm pointing out.
I like how much attention and traction this story/thread is getting here in the forums
It's either comment on this or go back to hearing about some stupid Kickstarter, or talk about BDO badly, because it doesn't fulfill somebody's mmorpg fantasy's. Pickings are slim these few days...
Here is another article about the same subject. Reason why I share it is because its from CNBC and because it talks about other companies that are upscaling investments (sorry i cant think of a better word) and projects around VR.
You are comparing a product that everyone wants to a product that is niche. Of course you aren't going to have the same numbers not even close. Its like calling Skyrim a failure because it only sold 10 million units. We have barely reached launch and don't expect a vr headset for every playstation or pc sold.
Just to clarify, which of the two products are considered products that everyone wants?
I mentioned the Priv because the sales are similar in general. Some would consider a full keyboard on a handset a peripheral. I'm not specifically calling the Priv a failure, I'm basing it off of what marketing analysts considered it.
Right now analysts expect the growth of VR to be around 40B in 4 years. I think it's kind of a rough prediction as they've also considered AR to be double that in the same time frame, with little to no real retail AR devices on the market.
As for barely reaching launch... Gear VR has been out for 6 months. By the time VR launches on PS, it will have almost been a year. More people own the hardware for gear VR currently than will own a Rift, Vive or PS VR headset by years end.
All I'm saying.. is when you look at it based on numbers alone. The amount of hardware on the market. The amount of Gear VR headsets that have been given out. It's actually not a tremendous number. That's really all I'm pointing out.
You were comparing it to cellphone sales. Which does no justice either way. Everyone wants a cellphone. If the rift only sells 10 million copies it has been a huge success. You look at ps4 has sold 36 million units total. They will be lucky if they sell 5 million units of VR. That will be 1 out of every 7 units sold could have a headset.
You were comparing it to cellphone sales. Which does no justice either way. Everyone wants a cellphone. If the rift only sells 10 million copies it has been a huge success. You look at ps4 has sold 36 million units total. They will be lucky if they sell 5 million units of VR. That will be 1 out of every 7 units sold could have a headset.
PS4 has sold more than 36Million units, that being said.. they are projected to sell 6Million PS VR units by the end of the year.
In that situation, that would be considered the only major VR success OF the year based on CURRENT data we have.
What I'm saying to you is that, you're right, everyone wants a cell phone. Not everyone wants VR. The rift will not sell 10 million units. Galaxy VR has already "sold" over 100 million "units" of applicable devices.
To break this down as simply as I can make it:
To run the Rift you need a fairly intense PC. People are stating you're going to spend nearly 1500 - 2000 between buying the Rift and an applicable PC.
To run Galaxy VR you need a Galaxy S6 or Newer Phone.
So lets equate having JUST the phone to be similar to having JUST the PC. There is no way everyone will end up picking up a PC of that magnitude anytime soon.
Lets push forward -- Now we are looking at, out of all of those 120 Million available VR Capable devices, how many actually have access to the Gear VR system.
According to sales data, Samsung SOLD - LESS than 1 million Gear VR systems. But that doesn't account for how many Gear VR systems they GAVE AWAY with the purchase of a Galaxy S7 that sold MORE than 10 Million Units in its first week.
We know the from numbers projected by Samsungs own analysis they boosted their expected numbers from 300K units to give away to upwards of 1 million units, with sales topping 10 million with many of them preorders, or Gear Applicable Sales.
So -- to nutshell here -- You have 120 Million applicable "devices" that can run VR with between 2 and 11 Million applicable VR Headset Owners, for the time frame of several months with advertising dating back 2 years to the first Gear VR sets.
It isn't a "just launched" here. The sets have been out for 6 months at least. 1 Million Users is an erroneous number really. Does it show progress? Yes. Should it be considered a successful metric at this time? Absolutely not.
You were comparing it to cellphone sales. Which does no justice either way. Everyone wants a cellphone. If the rift only sells 10 million copies it has been a huge success. You look at ps4 has sold 36 million units total. They will be lucky if they sell 5 million units of VR. That will be 1 out of every 7 units sold could have a headset.
PS4 has sold more than 36Million units, that being said.. they are projected to sell 6Million PS VR units by the end of the year.
In that situation, that would be considered the only major VR success OF the year based on CURRENT data we have.
What I'm saying to you is that, you're right, everyone wants a cell phone. Not everyone wants VR. The rift will not sell 10 million units. Galaxy VR has already "sold" over 100 million "units" of applicable devices.
To break this down as simply as I can make it:
To run the Rift you need a fairly intense PC. People are stating you're going to spend nearly 1500 - 2000 between buying the Rift and an applicable PC.
To run Galaxy VR you need a Galaxy S6 or Newer Phone.
So lets equate having JUST the phone to be similar to having JUST the PC. There is no way everyone will end up picking up a PC of that magnitude anytime soon.
Lets push forward -- Now we are looking at, out of all of those 120 Million available VR Capable devices, how many actually have access to the Gear VR system.
According to sales data, Samsung SOLD - LESS than 1 million Gear VR systems. But that doesn't account for how many Gear VR systems they GAVE AWAY with the purchase of a Galaxy S7 that sold MORE than 10 Million Units in its first week.
We know the from numbers projected by Samsungs own analysis they boosted their expected numbers from 300K units to give away to upwards of 1 million units, with sales topping 10 million with many of them preorders, or Gear Applicable Sales.
So -- to nutshell here -- You have 120 Million applicable "devices" that can run VR with between 2 and 11 Million applicable VR Headset Owners, for the time frame of several months with advertising dating back 2 years to the first Gear VR sets.
It isn't a "just launched" here. The sets have been out for 6 months at least. 1 Million Users is an erroneous number really. Does it show progress? Yes. Should it be considered a successful metric at this time? Absolutely not.
That 1 million units happened in April alone. This is where we have the problem. Looks like VR will be taken over by iphone instead of PC/console. For them thinking they will sell 6 million units isnt too bad but that does seem to be highly optimistic. That would mean for every 6 consoles you will see 1 unit attached. That is a high number. You are probably right about the OR sales. Even if they sell 1 million copies that gives them 600million. I think they will end up selling a lot more then that. Don't forget the breaking new gpu's are hitting the market this year as well. They are also affordable.
You were comparing it to cellphone sales. Which does no justice either way. Everyone wants a cellphone. If the rift only sells 10 million copies it has been a huge success. You look at ps4 has sold 36 million units total. They will be lucky if they sell 5 million units of VR. That will be 1 out of every 7 units sold could have a headset.
PS4 has sold more than 36Million units, that being said.. they are projected to sell 6Million PS VR units by the end of the year.
In that situation, that would be considered the only major VR success OF the year based on CURRENT data we have.
What I'm saying to you is that, you're right, everyone wants a cell phone. Not everyone wants VR. The rift will not sell 10 million units. Galaxy VR has already "sold" over 100 million "units" of applicable devices.
To break this down as simply as I can make it:
To run the Rift you need a fairly intense PC. People are stating you're going to spend nearly 1500 - 2000 between buying the Rift and an applicable PC.
To run Galaxy VR you need a Galaxy S6 or Newer Phone.
So lets equate having JUST the phone to be similar to having JUST the PC. There is no way everyone will end up picking up a PC of that magnitude anytime soon.
Lets push forward -- Now we are looking at, out of all of those 120 Million available VR Capable devices, how many actually have access to the Gear VR system.
According to sales data, Samsung SOLD - LESS than 1 million Gear VR systems. But that doesn't account for how many Gear VR systems they GAVE AWAY with the purchase of a Galaxy S7 that sold MORE than 10 Million Units in its first week.
We know the from numbers projected by Samsungs own analysis they boosted their expected numbers from 300K units to give away to upwards of 1 million units, with sales topping 10 million with many of them preorders, or Gear Applicable Sales.
So -- to nutshell here -- You have 120 Million applicable "devices" that can run VR with between 2 and 11 Million applicable VR Headset Owners, for the time frame of several months with advertising dating back 2 years to the first Gear VR sets.
It isn't a "just launched" here. The sets have been out for 6 months at least. 1 Million Users is an erroneous number really. Does it show progress? Yes. Should it be considered a successful metric at this time? Absolutely not.
What would it take to garner your 'stamp of success'? Just curious.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
You were comparing it to cellphone sales. Which does no justice either way. Everyone wants a cellphone. If the rift only sells 10 million copies it has been a huge success. You look at ps4 has sold 36 million units total. They will be lucky if they sell 5 million units of VR. That will be 1 out of every 7 units sold could have a headset.
PS4 has sold more than 36Million units, that being said.. they are projected to sell 6Million PS VR units by the end of the year.
In that situation, that would be considered the only major VR success OF the year based on CURRENT data we have.
What I'm saying to you is that, you're right, everyone wants a cell phone. Not everyone wants VR. The rift will not sell 10 million units. Galaxy VR has already "sold" over 100 million "units" of applicable devices.
To break this down as simply as I can make it:
To run the Rift you need a fairly intense PC. People are stating you're going to spend nearly 1500 - 2000 between buying the Rift and an applicable PC.
To run Galaxy VR you need a Galaxy S6 or Newer Phone.
So lets equate having JUST the phone to be similar to having JUST the PC. There is no way everyone will end up picking up a PC of that magnitude anytime soon.
Lets push forward -- Now we are looking at, out of all of those 120 Million available VR Capable devices, how many actually have access to the Gear VR system.
According to sales data, Samsung SOLD - LESS than 1 million Gear VR systems. But that doesn't account for how many Gear VR systems they GAVE AWAY with the purchase of a Galaxy S7 that sold MORE than 10 Million Units in its first week.
We know the from numbers projected by Samsungs own analysis they boosted their expected numbers from 300K units to give away to upwards of 1 million units, with sales topping 10 million with many of them preorders, or Gear Applicable Sales.
So -- to nutshell here -- You have 120 Million applicable "devices" that can run VR with between 2 and 11 Million applicable VR Headset Owners, for the time frame of several months with advertising dating back 2 years to the first Gear VR sets.
It isn't a "just launched" here. The sets have been out for 6 months at least. 1 Million Users is an erroneous number really. Does it show progress? Yes. Should it be considered a successful metric at this time? Absolutely not.
What would it take to garner your 'stamp of success'? Just curious.
Success is relative.
For example.. PS VR hitting their purported 6 Million estimated PS VR sets WOULD be a tremendous success.
But for me.... as stated... success is relative to the market and saturation.
In Todays Market. The Vive and Rift are not considered successful. From a business POV, OR was bought for 2 Billion with expected revenue and generation to be able to surpass that in the future.
Hardware isn't going to do that. The price point isn't there.. the market is saturated by hardware with no compelling software.
Everyone is coming out with a competing headset, but nobody has really put forth the software to make even one of them worthy or purchasing.
It shows that software for the high end isn't really selling the more expensive sets. Coupled with the fact that out of the top 10 most used RIFT applications.. 7 of them were videos.
This is why I believe PSVR has the best chance of making VR in a gaming capacity "successful" but to what degree I can't say.
Going back to my original point -- it's relative. over 120 MILLION units.. even with just 2 MILLION Oculus powered GEAR headsets sitting in homes today, with only 1 Million "viewers" using them over a span of 6 months (generally - because lest we not forget last months metric was "Hours spent in VR" ) I do not consider that a success.
Encouraging is a signal of hopeful expectation, not a signal of success monetarily or population wise.
yeah thats right...yet again...Oculus just lied about there being 1 million uses in April. of course is obvious...
lol
anyway we can all watch Googles next 'real' VR headset coming next week in our desperate plea for someone to make VR viable....that was a joke but yeah new headset a week from now.
GoPros camera is pretty wild too
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
This makes me wonder if the pc market is going to have a compatibility war. Which would remain the question of will a game use the VIVE and OR without having to be specifically coded for both? If that is the case we are in for quite the war. Steam vs Facebook..... And if Sony decides to enter the pc picture. Ideally we hope there is some sort of pivot program they can center around. But it is possible they will be cutthroat and well you will end up with a HDDVD player that no longer has any products. My money will be on Sony because they have done this more then once and came out victor.
The critical number missing of course is "conversion rate".
As others have said is this 1M trying 1 purchased device or 1M devices being purchased. And we take it for read that it is more than 1 but less than 1M (or whatever the number is). How many though? We don't know. And not knowing the number sold makes it very hard to predict whether this will succeed or go the way of e.g. the Wii Balance Board - which sold millions and millions. As have other devices no longer with us.
Take into account that companies have been attempting to crack the VR nut for decades - some big companies that spent a lot of money as well and put out "glowing" press statements.
And as mentioned above competition from e.g. Samsung and Sony. Not "proper" VR maybe but possibly / probably "good enough".
Hopefully however these current attempts will "establish a toe hold" worth nurturing. History suggests that even that will be tough though.
This makes me wonder if the pc market is going to have a compatibility war. Which would remain the question of will a game use the VIVE and OR without having to be specifically coded for both? If that is the case we are in for quite the war. Steam vs Facebook..... And if Sony decides to enter the pc picture. Ideally we hope there is some sort of pivot program they can center around. But it is possible they will be cutthroat and well you will end up with a HDDVD player that no longer has any products. My money will be on Sony because they have done this more then once and came out victor.
They learned something from BetaMax and don't plan on repeating that debacle again. I think Samsung is going to be one of the primary contenders because they understand and know mass market appeal better than any of the other hardware options. They also have a huge existing install base. They can literally subsidize or bundle those headsets with their handsets to promote adoption.
Google is sort of a joke in this regard. They love to experiment and will always throw an iron into the fire, sometimes two or three. Gmail, Inbox, Hangouts, Google Talk, Wave, Google+ etc. They throw stuff at the wall and go with what they feel like. It's hard to say what their agenda is and where they'll go with it, much like Glass.
There might be a format war, but eventually I think they'll settle on standards. Or someone will be popular enough and settle the standards question for the rest.
I think if one of them starts losing they can just make software that universalizes them. Someone is already trying to do it and claims to have done it with Vive. Problem with that opens the door to anyone making headsets which could be good but also could just be horrible.
This makes me wonder if the pc market is going to have a compatibility war. Which would remain the question of will a game use the VIVE and OR without having to be specifically coded for both? If that is the case we are in for quite the war. Steam vs Facebook..... And if Sony decides to enter the pc picture. Ideally we hope there is some sort of pivot program they can center around. But it is possible they will be cutthroat and well you will end up with a HDDVD player that no longer has any products. My money will be on Sony because they have done this more then once and came out victor.
yes I think compatibility war is going to happen in a year or so as well as just general content war. mobile vs pc vs console vs this new samsung headset that is not mobile, not pc but dedicated. what does it mean? we shall all find out in the coming years
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
USE and OWN are two entirely different things nice try Occ Rift
One c.
The article, along with some sales numbers for the S7 and S6, make it entirely plausible that the number of GearVR owners is greater than 1 million; at least, that seems to be the thesis @maskedweasel is going with.
To be frank, and personal, it doesn't matter to me 'how many other people are using it' (beyond a certain point). MMORPG gamers seem to be a group unlike any other, naturally, somewhat obsessed with "how many people" are playing/subscribed/converted/evangelists of any given product. In the short term, it doesn't affect the end result for me as long as there is "critical mass".
One million seems like a number having achieved this mark. For perspective, only ten cities in the U.S. are larger:
This seems as though it's enough to pass 'the tipping point'. However many given people are using it beyond this is more or less unimportant to me. It's a thing. 50,000 people is still uncertain territory. One million isn't.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
USE and OWN are two entirely different things nice try Occ Rift
This seems as though it's enough to pass 'the tipping point'. However many given people are using it beyond this is more or less unimportant to me. It's a thing. 50,000 people is still uncertain territory. One million isn't.
/2c
The number who OWN does matter at this point in time - probably to you as well.
EA, UbiSoft, Activision etc. will invest in making "VR" games up to a point. If it becomes clear that the adoption rate is slow and as a result they are not making much if any money they will scale back; put developments on hold etc. And so there will be less VR titles. And take up will slow.
USE and OWN are two entirely different things nice try Occ Rift
..
To be frank, and personal, it doesn't matter to me 'how many other people are using it' (beyond a certain
and to that extension for some reason they (as well as many gamers in general) consider anything short of a WoW killer or near WoW killer to be a failure.
For me personally I dont care if VR hits mainstream and I dont think it even needs mainstream to be relevant and to be attractive to developers.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
USE and OWN are two entirely different things nice try Occ Rift
This seems as though it's enough to pass 'the tipping point'. However many given people are using it beyond this is more or less unimportant to me. It's a thing. 50,000 people is still uncertain territory. One million isn't.
/2c
The number who OWN does matter at this point in time - probably to you as well.
EA, UbiSoft, Activision etc. will invest in making "VR" games up to a point. If it becomes clear that the adoption rate is slow and as a result they are not making much if any money they will scale back; put developments on hold etc. And so there will be less VR titles. And take up will slow.
I'm actually really not interested in EA, Activision, or Ubisoft; my tastes veer more toward Double Fine, Amanita Design, Polytron, and Guild Software. 10 years ago my answer would have been different.
And no, it really doesn't matter to me, a humble consumer, whether or not GearVR has enough users to attract the eye of software giants. Let it be indie, I say; so long as it has enough users to sustain a dynamically stable ecosystem, I'm happy: so long as this doesn't become another Ouya (which I own), a product that only had a user base around 100,000 or so.
I'd also like to see someone address @maskedweasel 's theory that there are closer to 10 million GearVR owners, not 1 million.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
USE and OWN are two entirely different things nice try Occ Rift
This seems as though it's enough to pass 'the tipping point'. However many given people are using it beyond this is more or less unimportant to me. It's a thing. 50,000 people is still uncertain territory. One million isn't.
/2c
The number who OWN does matter at this point in time - probably to you as well.
EA, UbiSoft, Activision etc. will invest in making "VR" games up to a point. If it becomes clear that the adoption rate is slow and as a result they are not making much if any money they will scale back; put developments on hold etc. And so there will be less VR titles. And take up will slow.
I'm actually really not interested in EA, Activision, or Ubisoft; my tastes veer more toward Double Fine, Amanita Design, Polytron, and Guild Software. 10 years ago my answer would have been different.
And no, it really doesn't matter to me, a humble consumer, whether or not GearVR has enough users to attract the eye of software giants. Let it be indie, I say; so long as it has enough users to sustain a dynamically stable ecosystem, I'm happy: so long as this doesn't become another Ouya (which I own), a product that only had a user base around 100,000 or so.
I'd also like to see someone address @maskedweasel 's theory that there are closer to 10 million GearVR owners, not 1 million.
agreed.
I rarely ever buy AAA games anymore, so I couldnt care less what those companies are doing or not doing with VR. In fact, I think if they do something with VR I would likely not like the games anyway
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
The thing is that it is new technology, at this moment is the price to high and the technology a bit buggy yet. Look at flatscreens when they came, almost everyone still had CRT screens for a few years for just that reason.
If VR truly catches on that will be a few years from now, at the moment it is for hardcore fans but the technology have potential. Of course for it truly to catch on with gamers (at the moment I think porn and 3D movies will do better then games) the games will need to figure out the right mechanics to really use the te chnology right. Just taking a regular MMO for example and add VR to it is not good enough, you need new mechanics for combat and skill use.
I could see a MMO with a magic system that make you cast spells with movement and words instead of clicking icons (anyone seen "The Slayers"?), while it would take a little training to be a good mage it would make things feel a lot more realistic and probably fun.
So: Pricetag of $300, higher resolution, better controls & more games with specific mechanics. That is what VR needs to be mainstream.
You could be right. I'm not pretending to have the analytics to know if it's a good thing or a bad thing. All I'm saying is it's an "encouraging" number. I'm thinking about it more in terms of 20% the user base of WoW, or the overall number of Star Citizen backers.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
I don't think it's a discouraging number or an encouraging number... I'm just stating that I think adoption considering the amount of available sets "in the wild" should be higher.
I was thinking about it more in terms of Cell Adoption.
Like for example, the Blackberry Priv in 6 months sold 1.2 million units and was largely thought as a failure.
Now while I believe that those numbers should be encouraging, because it's much better than the sell rate of blackberries BB10 devices.. the market as a whole considered it a failure.
This is similar in view alone with Gear VR. It has been on the market for 6 months, and just now are we getting numbers of 1 million -- not specifically units sold, but people using the device.
As a marketing statistic its somewhat worrisome - but as a new technological adoption statistic, it is somewhat encouraging.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I mentioned the Priv because the sales are similar in general. Some would consider a full keyboard on a handset a peripheral. I'm not specifically calling the Priv a failure, I'm basing it off of what marketing analysts considered it.
Right now analysts expect the growth of VR to be around 40B in 4 years. I think it's kind of a rough prediction as they've also considered AR to be double that in the same time frame, with little to no real retail AR devices on the market.
As for barely reaching launch... Gear VR has been out for 6 months. By the time VR launches on PS, it will have almost been a year. More people own the hardware for gear VR currently than will own a Rift, Vive or PS VR headset by years end.
All I'm saying.. is when you look at it based on numbers alone. The amount of hardware on the market. The amount of Gear VR headsets that have been given out. It's actually not a tremendous number. That's really all I'm pointing out.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/12/samsung-gear-vr-over-one-million-people-used-the-technology-last-month.html
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
In that situation, that would be considered the only major VR success OF the year based on CURRENT data we have.
What I'm saying to you is that, you're right, everyone wants a cell phone. Not everyone wants VR. The rift will not sell 10 million units. Galaxy VR has already "sold" over 100 million "units" of applicable devices.
To break this down as simply as I can make it:
To run the Rift you need a fairly intense PC. People are stating you're going to spend nearly 1500 - 2000 between buying the Rift and an applicable PC.
To run Galaxy VR you need a Galaxy S6 or Newer Phone.
So lets equate having JUST the phone to be similar to having JUST the PC. There is no way everyone will end up picking up a PC of that magnitude anytime soon.
Lets push forward -- Now we are looking at, out of all of those 120 Million available VR Capable devices, how many actually have access to the Gear VR system.
According to sales data, Samsung SOLD - LESS than 1 million Gear VR systems. But that doesn't account for how many Gear VR systems they GAVE AWAY with the purchase of a Galaxy S7 that sold MORE than 10 Million Units in its first week.
We know the from numbers projected by Samsungs own analysis they boosted their expected numbers from 300K units to give away to upwards of 1 million units, with sales topping 10 million with many of them preorders, or Gear Applicable Sales.
So -- to nutshell here -- You have 120 Million applicable "devices" that can run VR with between 2 and 11 Million applicable VR Headset Owners, for the time frame of several months with advertising dating back 2 years to the first Gear VR sets.
It isn't a "just launched" here. The sets have been out for 6 months at least. 1 Million Users is an erroneous number really. Does it show progress? Yes. Should it be considered a successful metric at this time? Absolutely not.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
For example.. PS VR hitting their purported 6 Million estimated PS VR sets WOULD be a tremendous success.
But for me.... as stated... success is relative to the market and saturation.
In Todays Market. The Vive and Rift are not considered successful. From a business POV, OR was bought for 2 Billion with expected revenue and generation to be able to surpass that in the future.
Hardware isn't going to do that. The price point isn't there.. the market is saturated by hardware with no compelling software.
Everyone is coming out with a competing headset, but nobody has really put forth the software to make even one of them worthy or purchasing.
I've posted a few times an article by a VR enthusiast that compared the current VR on the market. His statistic was the Gear VR can watch and play 80% of what the Rift can play at 50% of the cost.
http://gizmodo.com/forget-oculus-gear-vr-is-the-only-headset-worth-buying-1769092532
It shows that software for the high end isn't really selling the more expensive sets. Coupled with the fact that out of the top 10 most used RIFT applications.. 7 of them were videos.
This is why I believe PSVR has the best chance of making VR in a gaming capacity "successful" but to what degree I can't say.
Going back to my original point -- it's relative. over 120 MILLION units.. even with just 2 MILLION Oculus powered GEAR headsets sitting in homes today, with only 1 Million "viewers" using them over a span of 6 months (generally - because lest we not forget last months metric was "Hours spent in VR" ) I do not consider that a success.
Encouraging is a signal of hopeful expectation, not a signal of success monetarily or population wise.
yeah thats right...yet again...Oculus just lied about there being 1 million uses in April. of course is obvious...
lol
anyway we can all watch Googles next 'real' VR headset coming next week in our desperate plea for someone to make VR viable....that was a joke but yeah new headset a week from now.
GoPros camera is pretty wild too
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
As others have said is this 1M trying 1 purchased device or 1M devices being purchased. And we take it for read that it is more than 1 but less than 1M (or whatever the number is). How many though? We don't know. And not knowing the number sold makes it very hard to predict whether this will succeed or go the way of e.g. the Wii Balance Board - which sold millions and millions. As have other devices no longer with us.
Take into account that companies have been attempting to crack the VR nut for decades - some big companies that spent a lot of money as well and put out "glowing" press statements.
And as mentioned above competition from e.g. Samsung and Sony. Not "proper" VR maybe but possibly / probably "good enough".
Hopefully however these current attempts will "establish a toe hold" worth nurturing. History suggests that even that will be tough though.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The article, along with some sales numbers for the S7 and S6, make it entirely plausible that the number of GearVR owners is greater than 1 million; at least, that seems to be the thesis @maskedweasel is going with.
To be frank, and personal, it doesn't matter to me 'how many other people are using it' (beyond a certain point). MMORPG gamers seem to be a group unlike any other, naturally, somewhat obsessed with "how many people" are playing/subscribed/converted/evangelists of any given product. In the short term, it doesn't affect the end result for me as long as there is "critical mass".
One million seems like a number having achieved this mark. For perspective, only ten cities in the U.S. are larger:
This seems as though it's enough to pass 'the tipping point'. However many given people are using it beyond this is more or less unimportant to me. It's a thing. 50,000 people is still uncertain territory. One million isn't.
/2c
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
EA, UbiSoft, Activision etc. will invest in making "VR" games up to a point. If it becomes clear that the adoption rate is slow and as a result they are not making much if any money they will scale back; put developments on hold etc. And so there will be less VR titles. And take up will slow.
For me personally I dont care if VR hits mainstream and I dont think it even needs mainstream to be relevant and to be attractive to developers.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
And no, it really doesn't matter to me, a humble consumer, whether or not GearVR has enough users to attract the eye of software giants. Let it be indie, I say; so long as it has enough users to sustain a dynamically stable ecosystem, I'm happy: so long as this doesn't become another Ouya (which I own), a product that only had a user base around 100,000 or so.
I'd also like to see someone address @maskedweasel 's theory that there are closer to 10 million GearVR owners, not 1 million.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
I rarely ever buy AAA games anymore, so I couldnt care less what those companies are doing or not doing with VR. In fact, I think if they do something with VR I would likely not like the games anyway
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me