VR Sales Analysis

SEANMCAD

https://uploadvr.com/superdata-headset-sales-analysis/

So a lot of people are buying VR headsets. Many ways to spin this story. Curious 

Phaserlight

I saw this too.  I guess it depends on your definition of "a lot".  I am kind of reading this as 'not great, but not terrible either'.  It's also worth it to note that these are end-of-year projections:

Rift: 355,000 units
Vive: 420,000 units
Daydream: 450,000 units
PSVR: 2,600,000 units
Gear VR: 2,320,000 units

Source: SuperData.  I rounded to 3 significant figures, because having different sigfigs for different headset models under the same projection bothers me.

SEANMCAD

Phaserlight said:

I saw this too.  I guess it depends on your definition of "a lot".  I am kind of reading this as 'not great, but not terrible either'.  It's also worth it to note that these are end-of-year projections:

Rift: 355,000 units
Vive: 420,000 units
Daydream: 450,000 units
PSVR: 2,600,000 units
Gear VR: 2,320,000 units

Source: SuperData.  I rounded to 3 significant figures, because having different sigfigs for different headset models under the same projection bothers me.

well its going to open up a whole 'I told you Sony was going to save VR and I never said people dont like VR' posts...just wait..they are coming

mgilbrtsn

I think sales are pretty good considering the cost for them.  I'm sure plenty of people will come online and ask why Rift didn't sell 355,001 and thus it's a fail.  However, considering it's a first gen and it costs a pretty penning.  pretty good.  

laserit

Maybe the numbers signify the make or break price point.

That's my take.

SEANMCAD

mgilbrtsn said:

I think sales are pretty good considering the cost for them.  I'm sure plenty of people will come online and ask why Rift didn't sell 355,001 and thus it's a fail.  However, considering it's a first gen and it costs a pretty penning.  pretty good.  

I think given 'sales of 2016' for Sony VR is really 'sales over the past month' its pretty dang good

Mikeha

Just like I said. 

PSVR

gervaise1

Phaserlight said:

<snip>.  It's also worth it to note that these are end-of-year projections:
<snip>

“SuperData’s approach to the market for consumer-centered virtual reality includes retail checks, executive interviews with decision-makers from all of relevant firms in the marketplace, pricing data, our survey-based consumer tracking panel, and digital content purchases collected from our data providers. We combine both proprietary and public data sources to arrive at an objective reading of the market, including financial information obtained through our client network. Analysts are expressly forbidden to buy, sell, hedge or otherwise deal in the securities of any of the following public companies whose primary revenues come from the creation, selling, or distribution of video games.”

And here is one they did earlier this year (there are others):

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-04-20-superdata-downgrades-vr-forecast-again

that begins: Superdata has lowered its expectations for virtual reality revenues in 2016 for the second time in as many months.

Note: this doesn't (necessarily) mean that the demand for VR has changed simply that Superdata hasn't been getting it "right". Which begs the question: "How right is this projection?"

Moirae

They are going to have to get alot better before I buy them. As in.. more than just a bloody headset. 

cameltosis

Well, it's a superdata report so have to take it with a pinch of salt. 

That said, I'm impressed by some of the figures, particularly PSVR! There are an estimated 47million PS4s sold since launch in 2013, so if they sell 2.6m PSVR headsets that is a little over 5% uptake. 

Considering it is new tech, expensive, unproven and lacking in apps, that is an incredible achievement! Well done Sony!


Oculus and Vive.....much less impressive and likely to be lower. Each month their projected sales get lower and lower so I'd expect final year end to be more like 300k for Oculus and 340k for Vive (based on current projections). Thats much better than I was expecting, but still much worse than needed by both companies to be considered a success. 

I guess we'll just have to wait for some actual reliable numbers before passing final judgement. However, if this projected figures are even close to accurate, it is showing us that accessibility is key to sales. If Oculus and Vive remain expensive and reliant on an excellent PC, chances are they'll never take off. 

SEANMCAD

gervaise1 said:

Phaserlight said:

<snip>.  It's also worth it to note that these are end-of-year projections:
<snip>

“SuperData’s approach to the market for consumer-centered virtual reality includes retail checks, executive interviews with decision-makers from all of relevant firms in the marketplace, pricing data, our survey-based consumer tracking panel, and digital content purchases collected from our data providers. We combine both proprietary and public data sources to arrive at an objective reading of the market, including financial information obtained through our client network. Analysts are expressly forbidden to buy, sell, hedge or otherwise deal in the securities of any of the following public companies whose primary revenues come from the creation, selling, or distribution of video games.”

And here is one they did earlier this year (there are others):

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-04-20-superdata-downgrades-vr-forecast-again

that begins: Superdata has lowered its expectations for virtual reality revenues in 2016 for the second time in as many months.

Note: this doesn't (necessarily) mean that the demand for VR has changed simply that Superdata hasn't been getting it "right". Which begs the question: "How right is this projection?"

guess your right. i would like to see am article that puts this one into question

Iselin

SEANMCAD said:

Phaserlight said:

I saw this too.  I guess it depends on your definition of "a lot".  I am kind of reading this as 'not great, but not terrible either'.  It's also worth it to note that these are end-of-year projections:

Rift: 355,000 units
Vive: 420,000 units
Daydream: 450,000 units
PSVR: 2,600,000 units
Gear VR: 2,320,000 units

Source: SuperData.  I rounded to 3 significant figures, because having different sigfigs for different headset models under the same projection bothers me.

well its going to open up a whole 'I told you Sony was going to save VR and I never said people dont like VR' posts...just wait..they are coming

Personally I miss your many "PSVR tech is inferior" posts... bring those back for old times sake please?

maskedweasel

gervaise1 said:

Phaserlight said:

<snip>.  It's also worth it to note that these are end-of-year projections:
<snip>

“SuperData’s approach to the market for consumer-centered virtual reality includes retail checks, executive interviews with decision-makers from all of relevant firms in the marketplace, pricing data, our survey-based consumer tracking panel, and digital content purchases collected from our data providers. We combine both proprietary and public data sources to arrive at an objective reading of the market, including financial information obtained through our client network. Analysts are expressly forbidden to buy, sell, hedge or otherwise deal in the securities of any of the following public companies whose primary revenues come from the creation, selling, or distribution of video games.”

And here is one they did earlier this year (there are others):

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-04-20-superdata-downgrades-vr-forecast-again

that begins: Superdata has lowered its expectations for virtual reality revenues in 2016 for the second time in as many months.

Note: this doesn't (necessarily) mean that the demand for VR has changed simply that Superdata hasn't been getting it "right". Which begs the question: "How right is this projection?"

well freaking done sir.  I couldn't have said it better myself.

SEANMCAD

maskedweasel said:

gervaise1 said:

Phaserlight said:

<snip>.  It's also worth it to note that these are end-of-year projections:
<snip>

“SuperData’s approach to the market for consumer-centered virtual reality includes retail checks, executive interviews with decision-makers from all of relevant firms in the marketplace, pricing data, our survey-based consumer tracking panel, and digital content purchases collected from our data providers. We combine both proprietary and public data sources to arrive at an objective reading of the market, including financial information obtained through our client network. Analysts are expressly forbidden to buy, sell, hedge or otherwise deal in the securities of any of the following public companies whose primary revenues come from the creation, selling, or distribution of video games.”

And here is one they did earlier this year (there are others):

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-04-20-superdata-downgrades-vr-forecast-again

that begins: Superdata has lowered its expectations for virtual reality revenues in 2016 for the second time in as many months.

Note: this doesn't (necessarily) mean that the demand for VR has changed simply that Superdata hasn't been getting it "right". Which begs the question: "How right is this projection?"

well freaking done sir.  I couldn't have said it better myself.

usually in a debate if one posts an article of a study (for example) the other side uses that chance to post a different article showing difference evidence rather than just using emo logic.

maskedweasel

SEANMCAD said:

maskedweasel said:

gervaise1 said:

Phaserlight said:

<snip>.  It's also worth it to note that these are end-of-year projections:
<snip>

“SuperData’s approach to the market for consumer-centered virtual reality includes retail checks, executive interviews with decision-makers from all of relevant firms in the marketplace, pricing data, our survey-based consumer tracking panel, and digital content purchases collected from our data providers. We combine both proprietary and public data sources to arrive at an objective reading of the market, including financial information obtained through our client network. Analysts are expressly forbidden to buy, sell, hedge or otherwise deal in the securities of any of the following public companies whose primary revenues come from the creation, selling, or distribution of video games.”

And here is one they did earlier this year (there are others):

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-04-20-superdata-downgrades-vr-forecast-again

that begins: Superdata has lowered its expectations for virtual reality revenues in 2016 for the second time in as many months.

Note: this doesn't (necessarily) mean that the demand for VR has changed simply that Superdata hasn't been getting it "right". Which begs the question: "How right is this projection?"

well freaking done sir.  I couldn't have said it better myself.

usually in a debate if one posts an article of a study (for example) the other side uses that chance to post a different article showing difference evidence rather than just using emo logic.

 He posted exactly what I would have posted. I don't see where you comment has any merit or change to that.  You even agreed to it.   Goes to show you that you'll tend to agree when it's not me posting the information.   I'm fine by that. 

SEANMCAD

maskedweasel said:

SEANMCAD said:

maskedweasel said:

gervaise1 said:

Phaserlight said:

<snip>.  It's also worth it to note that these are end-of-year projections:
<snip>

“SuperData’s approach to the market for consumer-centered virtual reality includes retail checks, executive interviews with decision-makers from all of relevant firms in the marketplace, pricing data, our survey-based consumer tracking panel, and digital content purchases collected from our data providers. We combine both proprietary and public data sources to arrive at an objective reading of the market, including financial information obtained through our client network. Analysts are expressly forbidden to buy, sell, hedge or otherwise deal in the securities of any of the following public companies whose primary revenues come from the creation, selling, or distribution of video games.”

And here is one they did earlier this year (there are others):

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-04-20-superdata-downgrades-vr-forecast-again

that begins: Superdata has lowered its expectations for virtual reality revenues in 2016 for the second time in as many months.

Note: this doesn't (necessarily) mean that the demand for VR has changed simply that Superdata hasn't been getting it "right". Which begs the question: "How right is this projection?"

well freaking done sir.  I couldn't have said it better myself.

usually in a debate if one posts an article of a study (for example) the other side uses that chance to post a different article showing difference evidence rather than just using emo logic.

 He posted exactly what I would have posted. I don't see where you comment has any merit or change to that.  You even agreed to it.   Goes to show you that you'll tend to agree when it's not me posting the information.   I'm fine by that. 

yeah..its emo logic.

Poster 1: 'here is a story that suggest sales are good with details on why they think it is, what say you?'
Poster 2: 'its wrong because all the pundits where wrong about Trump'

what? that is the best you got?
EMO logic

bartoni33

My browsing many different types of forums over the last few months has shown me one thing.

Godwin's Law is going to have to be updated, or at least get an addendum.

And no I am not comparing Hitler to Trump either. So stop it!

Nanfoodle

Really is a small population when you consider how many gamers there are but its a start. 

maskedweasel

SEANMCAD said:

maskedweasel said:

SEANMCAD said:

maskedweasel said:

gervaise1 said:

Phaserlight said:

<snip>.  It's also worth it to note that these are end-of-year projections:
<snip>

“SuperData’s approach to the market for consumer-centered virtual reality includes retail checks, executive interviews with decision-makers from all of relevant firms in the marketplace, pricing data, our survey-based consumer tracking panel, and digital content purchases collected from our data providers. We combine both proprietary and public data sources to arrive at an objective reading of the market, including financial information obtained through our client network. Analysts are expressly forbidden to buy, sell, hedge or otherwise deal in the securities of any of the following public companies whose primary revenues come from the creation, selling, or distribution of video games.”

And here is one they did earlier this year (there are others):

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-04-20-superdata-downgrades-vr-forecast-again

that begins: Superdata has lowered its expectations for virtual reality revenues in 2016 for the second time in as many months.

Note: this doesn't (necessarily) mean that the demand for VR has changed simply that Superdata hasn't been getting it "right". Which begs the question: "How right is this projection?"

well freaking done sir.  I couldn't have said it better myself.

usually in a debate if one posts an article of a study (for example) the other side uses that chance to post a different article showing difference evidence rather than just using emo logic.

 He posted exactly what I would have posted. I don't see where you comment has any merit or change to that.  You even agreed to it.   Goes to show you that you'll tend to agree when it's not me posting the information.   I'm fine by that. 

yeah..its emo logic.

Poster 1: 'here is a story that suggest sales are good with details on why they think it is, what say you?'
Poster 2: 'its wrong because all the pundits where wrong about Trump'

what? that is the best you got?
EMO logic

I have a feeling you didn't read his post. 

Phry

I am always more than a little sceptical of Superdata's 'projections' from what i have seen so far, they appear to have a history of not being right, more often than not. I would expect to see some actual corroborative evidence to back up their statements from a reliable source, before i treated their 'data' as anything other than being opinion based rather than fact based.
As always, Superdata's statements are great conversation points, but not something i would necessarily give much credence to, all things considered.

Sooner or later we will get some hard data on VR platform sales, personally i am waiting to see how 2nd and 3rd generation devices fare, as i think thats where the real future of VR will rest.

maskedweasel

Phry said:

I am always more than a little sceptical of Superdata's 'projections' from what i have seen so far, they appear to have a history of not being right, more often than not. I would expect to see some actual corroborative evidence to back up their statements from a reliable source, before i treated their 'data' as anything other than being opinion based rather than fact based.
As always, Superdata's statements are great conversation points, but not something i would necessarily give much credence to, all things considered.

Sooner or later we will get some hard data on VR platform sales, personally i am waiting to see how 2nd and 3rd generation devices fare, as i think thats where the real future of VR will rest.

well said, especially when you take into consideration that their original projections as a whole were cut by 60% from April.  On top of the total released numbers of the Vive being 180K units sold since October, they seem to project that sales for the Holidays ( these 2 months) will almost TRIPLE total sales from the previous 8 months since release.

It's even more skeptical for the RIFT as there are no real concrete sales statistics to truly pull from, it's all estimation because the company refuses to release stats.  A couple months ago it was estimated (and it seems to hold true today based on this estimate) that sales of RIFT is about half of VIVE sales. 

I guess that's entirely possible to reach those goals for the holidays... maybe? PSVR it's entirely possible to hit that 2M mark, as sony believes they are on track to hit their goals this quarter.

The rest though?  These are still very optimistic goals in my opinion.

SEANMCAD

maskedweasel said:

SEANMCAD said:

maskedweasel said:

SEANMCAD said:

maskedweasel said:

gervaise1 said:

Phaserlight said:

<snip>.  It's also worth it to note that these are end-of-year projections:
<snip>

“SuperData’s approach to the market for consumer-centered virtual reality includes retail checks, executive interviews with decision-makers from all of relevant firms in the marketplace, pricing data, our survey-based consumer tracking panel, and digital content purchases collected from our data providers. We combine both proprietary and public data sources to arrive at an objective reading of the market, including financial information obtained through our client network. Analysts are expressly forbidden to buy, sell, hedge or otherwise deal in the securities of any of the following public companies whose primary revenues come from the creation, selling, or distribution of video games.”

And here is one they did earlier this year (there are others):

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-04-20-superdata-downgrades-vr-forecast-again

that begins: Superdata has lowered its expectations for virtual reality revenues in 2016 for the second time in as many months.

Note: this doesn't (necessarily) mean that the demand for VR has changed simply that Superdata hasn't been getting it "right". Which begs the question: "How right is this projection?"

well freaking done sir.  I couldn't have said it better myself.

usually in a debate if one posts an article of a study (for example) the other side uses that chance to post a different article showing difference evidence rather than just using emo logic.

 He posted exactly what I would have posted. I don't see where you comment has any merit or change to that.  You even agreed to it.   Goes to show you that you'll tend to agree when it's not me posting the information.   I'm fine by that. 

yeah..its emo logic.

Poster 1: 'here is a story that suggest sales are good with details on why they think it is, what say you?'
Poster 2: 'its wrong because all the pundits where wrong about Trump'

what? that is the best you got?
EMO logic

I have a feeling you didn't read his post. 

no I think its that you dont understand my underlining point by using said example.

maskedweasel

SEANMCAD said:

maskedweasel said:

SEANMCAD said:

maskedweasel said:

SEANMCAD said:

maskedweasel said:

gervaise1 said:

Phaserlight said:

<snip>.  It's also worth it to note that these are end-of-year projections:
<snip>

“SuperData’s approach to the market for consumer-centered virtual reality includes retail checks, executive interviews with decision-makers from all of relevant firms in the marketplace, pricing data, our survey-based consumer tracking panel, and digital content purchases collected from our data providers. We combine both proprietary and public data sources to arrive at an objective reading of the market, including financial information obtained through our client network. Analysts are expressly forbidden to buy, sell, hedge or otherwise deal in the securities of any of the following public companies whose primary revenues come from the creation, selling, or distribution of video games.”

And here is one they did earlier this year (there are others):

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-04-20-superdata-downgrades-vr-forecast-again

that begins: Superdata has lowered its expectations for virtual reality revenues in 2016 for the second time in as many months.

Note: this doesn't (necessarily) mean that the demand for VR has changed simply that Superdata hasn't been getting it "right". Which begs the question: "How right is this projection?"

well freaking done sir.  I couldn't have said it better myself.

usually in a debate if one posts an article of a study (for example) the other side uses that chance to post a different article showing difference evidence rather than just using emo logic.

 He posted exactly what I would have posted. I don't see where you comment has any merit or change to that.  You even agreed to it.   Goes to show you that you'll tend to agree when it's not me posting the information.   I'm fine by that. 

yeah..its emo logic.

Poster 1: 'here is a story that suggest sales are good with details on why they think it is, what say you?'
Poster 2: 'its wrong because all the pundits where wrong about Trump'

what? that is the best you got?
EMO logic

I have a feeling you didn't read his post. 

no I think its that you dont understand my underlining point by using said example.

that has to be it! Of COURSE! Because the post that you absolutely agreed with several posts up, but chose to disagree with when I commented on it must be caused by my misunderstanding and not yours.  Again, I don't think you read his post, and if you didn't then you have no idea what you agreed with when you said "you're right" in your response to him. 

Nanfoodle

maskedweasel said:

SEANMCAD said:

maskedweasel said:

SEANMCAD said:

maskedweasel said:

gervaise1 said:

Phaserlight said:

<snip>.  It's also worth it to note that these are end-of-year projections:
<snip>

“SuperData’s approach to the market for consumer-centered virtual reality includes retail checks, executive interviews with decision-makers from all of relevant firms in the marketplace, pricing data, our survey-based consumer tracking panel, and digital content purchases collected from our data providers. We combine both proprietary and public data sources to arrive at an objective reading of the market, including financial information obtained through our client network. Analysts are expressly forbidden to buy, sell, hedge or otherwise deal in the securities of any of the following public companies whose primary revenues come from the creation, selling, or distribution of video games.”

And here is one they did earlier this year (there are others):

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-04-20-superdata-downgrades-vr-forecast-again

that begins: Superdata has lowered its expectations for virtual reality revenues in 2016 for the second time in as many months.

Note: this doesn't (necessarily) mean that the demand for VR has changed simply that Superdata hasn't been getting it "right". Which begs the question: "How right is this projection?"

well freaking done sir.  I couldn't have said it better myself.

usually in a debate if one posts an article of a study (for example) the other side uses that chance to post a different article showing difference evidence rather than just using emo logic.

 He posted exactly what I would have posted. I don't see where you comment has any merit or change to that.  You even agreed to it.   Goes to show you that you'll tend to agree when it's not me posting the information.   I'm fine by that. 

yeah..its emo logic.

Poster 1: 'here is a story that suggest sales are good with details on why they think it is, what say you?'
Poster 2: 'its wrong because all the pundits where wrong about Trump'

what? that is the best you got?
EMO logic

I have a feeling you didn't read his post. 

I have accused him of that many times. I have agreed with him and SEANMCAD starts arguing with the first sentence of my post with a response that has nothing to do with what I have said overall. When I pointed it out to him last time. He said it was because my post was moronic or something like that. I only have 1 person on my ignore list and SEANMCAD is getting close to being number 2. But Wizardly will always hold the number 1 spot for me lol

SEANMCAD

maskedweasel said:

SEANMCAD said:

maskedweasel said:

SEANMCAD said:

maskedweasel said:

SEANMCAD said:

maskedweasel said:

gervaise1 said:

Phaserlight said:

<snip>.  It's also worth it to note that these are end-of-year projections:
<snip>

“SuperData’s approach to the market for consumer-centered virtual reality includes retail checks, executive interviews with decision-makers from all of relevant firms in the marketplace, pricing data, our survey-based consumer tracking panel, and digital content purchases collected from our data providers. We combine both proprietary and public data sources to arrive at an objective reading of the market, including financial information obtained through our client network. Analysts are expressly forbidden to buy, sell, hedge or otherwise deal in the securities of any of the following public companies whose primary revenues come from the creation, selling, or distribution of video games.”

And here is one they did earlier this year (there are others):

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-04-20-superdata-downgrades-vr-forecast-again

that begins: Superdata has lowered its expectations for virtual reality revenues in 2016 for the second time in as many months.

Note: this doesn't (necessarily) mean that the demand for VR has changed simply that Superdata hasn't been getting it "right". Which begs the question: "How right is this projection?"

well freaking done sir.  I couldn't have said it better myself.

usually in a debate if one posts an article of a study (for example) the other side uses that chance to post a different article showing difference evidence rather than just using emo logic.

 He posted exactly what I would have posted. I don't see where you comment has any merit or change to that.  You even agreed to it.   Goes to show you that you'll tend to agree when it's not me posting the information.   I'm fine by that. 

yeah..its emo logic.

Poster 1: 'here is a story that suggest sales are good with details on why they think it is, what say you?'
Poster 2: 'its wrong because all the pundits where wrong about Trump'

what? that is the best you got?
EMO logic

I have a feeling you didn't read his post. 

no I think its that you dont understand my underlining point by using said example.

that has to be it! Of COURSE! ...

yes glad you see my point.

Its like discounting everything The New York Times ever say from now to the end of time because they got the number of protestors in 2001 wrong (which they did by the way) and then to top it off provide ZERO evidence to suggest support a counter position that is literally pulled out of ones ass

maskedweasel

SEANMCAD said:

erroneous words

Sure even a broken clock is right twice a day. How long will that broken clock keep guessing until it gets one right? Oh uhm, hmm, ehh..  not this time. lol