ironic that the most expensive VR option is currently the best selling outside of phone VR headsets.
100,000 for gaming hardware after 3 months is horrendously bad. Makes the Ouya look like a smash hit!
To put that in perspective, the Kinect sold over 130,000 units per day during its first two months of release.
Yeah, but that is a console item. You can't compare console arcade stuff to PC gaming.
the problem is that my entire point was why would people choose Option A over Option B
Option A: HTC Option B: OR
if as people said month ago, VR will die because its expensive and its heavy why would people be selecting the more expensive and the heavier item over the one that is less expensive and weighs less.
I do not understand why my point got confused and I have to break it down like this but ok such as life
But what's the ultimate point when sales are terrible regardless? It's like pointing out the more expensive Tesla sold better than the electric only version of the Chevy Volt. Both products were niche, sales combined are terrible, and both lost money with profitability focused on future models.
the POINT as you ask was to suggest that two of the reasons given by critics appear to be incorrect.
Do you know which two reasons I speak of?
OK, so critics were wrong; the more expensive VR headset sold better.
However, even the most pessimistic critic didn't expect overall sales to be this bad.
So the critics were right, but for the wrong reasons.
OK, so critics were wrong; the more expensive VR headset sold better.
However, even the most pessimistic critic didn't expect overall sales to be this bad.
So the critics were right, but for the wrong reasons.
thank you, that is what I have been spending most of the day saying
'it appears the reason of 'its to expensive' and 'its to heavy' appear to be unwarranted and incorrect'
because those two points where worth about 2 days of insane debate (acutally more than two days) most of it with me saying that its really not a factor even at these prices and 'its heavy' is fucking plain stupid
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
ironic that the most expensive VR option is currently the best selling outside of phone VR headsets.
100,000 for gaming hardware after 3 months is horrendously bad. Makes the Ouya look like a smash hit!
To put that in perspective, the Kinect sold over 130,000 units per day during its first two months of release.
Yeah, but that is a console item. You can't compare console arcade stuff to PC gaming.
the problem is that my entire point was why would people choose Option A over Option B
Option A: HTC Option B: OR
if as people said month ago, VR will die because its expensive and its heavy why would people be selecting the more expensive and the heavier item over the one that is less expensive and weighs less.
I do not understand why my point got confused and I have to break it down like this but ok such as life
But what's the ultimate point when sales are terrible regardless? It's like pointing out the more expensive Tesla sold better than the electric only version of the Chevy Volt. Both products were niche, sales combined are terrible, and both lost money with profitability focused on future models.
That analogy doesn't work. Electric cars are vastly different than a gaming console, since energy/fuel determines if it's going to be adopted or not. There's no doubt that VR will be more widely accepted once hardware prices drop, since that's the only thing holding it back from reaching more people. If anything though, the software will determine it's future, and let's just say it will always have a future due to porn. lol.
ironic that the most expensive VR option is currently the best selling outside of phone VR headsets.
100,000 for gaming hardware after 3 months is horrendously bad. Makes the Ouya look like a smash hit!
To put that in perspective, the Kinect sold over 130,000 units per day during its first two months of release.
Yeah, but that is a console item. You can't compare console arcade stuff to PC gaming.
the problem is that my entire point was why would people choose Option A over Option B
Option A: HTC Option B: OR
if as people said month ago, VR will die because its expensive and its heavy why would people be selecting the more expensive and the heavier item over the one that is less expensive and weighs less.
I do not understand why my point got confused and I have to break it down like this but ok such as life
But what's the ultimate point when sales are terrible regardless? It's like pointing out the more expensive Tesla sold better than the electric only version of the Chevy Volt. Both products were niche, sales combined are terrible, and both lost money with profitability focused on future models.
That analogy doesn't work. Electric cars are vastly different than a gaming console, since energy/fuel determines if it's going to be adopted or not. There's no doubt that VR will be more widely accepted once hardware prices drop, since that's the only thing holding it back from reaching more people. If anything though, the software will determine it's future, and let's just say it will always have a future due to porn. lol.
The analogy does work because it's new technology with the first generation being a niche product with a high price tag. It will take subsequent generations and price drops for the products to be mainstream.
ironic that the most expensive VR option is currently the best selling outside of phone VR headsets.
100,000 for gaming hardware after 3 months is horrendously bad. Makes the Ouya look like a smash hit!
To put that in perspective, the Kinect sold over 130,000 units per day during its first two months of release.
Yeah, but that is a console item. You can't compare console arcade stuff to PC gaming.
the problem is that my entire point was why would people choose Option A over Option B
Option A: HTC Option B: OR
if as people said month ago, VR will die because its expensive and its heavy why would people be selecting the more expensive and the heavier item over the one that is less expensive and weighs less.
I do not understand why my point got confused and I have to break it down like this but ok such as life
But what's the ultimate point when sales are terrible regardless? It's like pointing out the more expensive Tesla sold better than the electric only version of the Chevy Volt. Both products were niche, sales combined are terrible, and both lost money with profitability focused on future models.
That analogy doesn't work. Electric cars are vastly different than a gaming console, since energy/fuel determines if it's going to be adopted or not. There's no doubt that VR will be more widely accepted once hardware prices drop, since that's the only thing holding it back from reaching more people. If anything though, the software will determine it's future, and let's just say it will always have a future due to porn. lol.
The analogy does work because it's new technology with the first generation being a niche product with a high price tag. It will take subsequent generations and price drops for the products to be mainstream.
To both of you.
its is a much better comparison then what other people have been throwing around like 'population of the US.' as just one example. Personally I am fine with it.
I am NOT however fine with assuming its over yet when I cant even get my preorder filled and Sonys version isnt even for sale yet. In my mind the show hasnt even started yet
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
ironic that the most expensive VR option is currently the best selling outside of phone VR headsets.
100,000 for gaming hardware after 3 months is horrendously bad. Makes the Ouya look like a smash hit!
To put that in perspective, the Kinect sold over 130,000 units per day during its first two months of release.
Yeah, but that is a console item. You can't compare console arcade stuff to PC gaming.
the problem is that my entire point was why would people choose Option A over Option B
Option A: HTC Option B: OR
if as people said month ago, VR will die because its expensive and its heavy why would people be selecting the more expensive and the heavier item over the one that is less expensive and weighs less.
I do not understand why my point got confused and I have to break it down like this but ok such as life
But what's the ultimate point when sales are terrible regardless? It's like pointing out the more expensive Tesla sold better than the electric only version of the Chevy Volt. Both products were niche, sales combined are terrible, and both lost money with profitability focused on future models.
That analogy doesn't work. Electric cars are vastly different than a gaming console, since energy/fuel determines if it's going to be adopted or not. There's no doubt that VR will be more widely accepted once hardware prices drop, since that's the only thing holding it back from reaching more people. If anything though, the software will determine it's future, and let's just say it will always have a future due to porn. lol.
...based on what that there is "no doubt" vr headsets will be accepted? You can get a "cheap version" of VR on just about any cell phone... not to mention Samsung has been giving away headsets by the millions and people don't want them. They aren't buying into it.
It isn't the price... and I think that's basically the point SEAN has been trying to make for the most part.. the more expensive system won out over the less expensive system.
In a few years, after MR starts its ramp up of marketing, it will be much tougher competition. Sets like these have their time.. and the time is now. When MR becomes available and more diverse sets hit the market, everything spent up to this point is wasted money.
OK, so critics were wrong; the more expensive VR headset sold better.
However, even the most pessimistic critic didn't expect overall sales to be this bad.
So the critics were right, but for the wrong reasons.
thank you, that is what I have been spending most of the day saying
'it appears the reason of 'its to expensive' and 'its to heavy' appear to be unwarranted and incorrect'
because those two points where worth about 2 days of insane debate (acutally more than two days) most of it with me saying that its really not a factor even at these prices and 'its heavy' is fucking plain stupid
Forest for the trees.
If they're all selling poorly, we can hypothesize that the headsets, in general, are too expensive for any kind of widespread (or certainly mainstream) adoption.
Small-niche products (which is what a VR headset is right now) frequently violate common characteristics of any particular, mainstream market (i.e. the more affordable alternatives are usually the more numerous). This occurs when the audience/consumer base for a certain product is so limited that the average niche user's socioeconomic status isn't indicative of the statuses of the average potential users of a more mainstream product/market (specifically in this case, computer hardware/peripherals).
Aka, the VR niche is targeted squarely at potential consumers with lots of extra cash at this time (even the more affordable option is relatively expensive for the average gamer/PC user). Therefore, being the more affordable option in that niche loses some benefit.
I would expect, if VR headsets hit mainstream success, that the more affordable options would eventually overtake the higher-end product on box sales numbers (though not necessarily be more profitable in terms of a cash value). At this point, the audience is so small that deviations from the widespread market are more pronounced.
ironic that the most expensive VR option is currently the best selling outside of phone VR headsets.
100,000 for gaming hardware after 3 months is horrendously bad. Makes the Ouya look like a smash hit!
To put that in perspective, the Kinect sold over 130,000 units per day during its first two months of release.
Yeah, but that is a console item. You can't compare console arcade stuff to PC gaming.
the problem is that my entire point was why would people choose Option A over Option B
Option A: HTC Option B: OR
if as people said month ago, VR will die because its expensive and its heavy why would people be selecting the more expensive and the heavier item over the one that is less expensive and weighs less.
I do not understand why my point got confused and I have to break it down like this but ok such as life
But what's the ultimate point when sales are terrible regardless? It's like pointing out the more expensive Tesla sold better than the electric only version of the Chevy Volt. Both products were niche, sales combined are terrible, and both lost money with profitability focused on future models.
That analogy doesn't work. Electric cars are vastly different than a gaming console, since energy/fuel determines if it's going to be adopted or not. There's no doubt that VR will be more widely accepted once hardware prices drop, since that's the only thing holding it back from reaching more people. If anything though, the software will determine it's future, and let's just say it will always have a future due to porn. lol.
...based on what that there is "no doubt" vr headsets will be accepted? You can get a "cheap version" of VR on just about any cell phone... not to mention Samsung has been giving away headsets by the millions and people don't want them. They aren't buying into it.
It isn't the price... and I think that's basically the point SEAN has been trying to make for the most part.. the more expensive system won out over the less expensive system.
In a few years, after MR starts its ramp up of marketing, it will be much tougher competition. Sets like these have their time.. and the time is now. When MR becomes available and more diverse sets hit the market, everything spent up to this point is wasted money.
They've already been accepted. Not by the mainstream, but so far, by enthusiasts, developers, and studios. People don't want the inferior google cardboard or cellphone VR sets, because that's exactly what they are, inferior. Serious gamers are waiting for PS, Xbox, and PC VR prices to come down. Will it ever be mainstream? Probably not, because i just can't envision a family sitting on their couches with VR headsets on. I can see it being popular among serious gamers though, or for the sole person who likes to game alone.
ironic that the most expensive VR option is currently the best selling outside of phone VR headsets.
100,000 for gaming hardware after 3 months is horrendously bad. Makes the Ouya look like a smash hit!
To put that in perspective, the Kinect sold over 130,000 units per day during its first two months of release.
Yeah, but that is a console item. You can't compare console arcade stuff to PC gaming.
the problem is that my entire point was why would people choose Option A over Option B
Option A: HTC Option B: OR
if as people said month ago, VR will die because its expensive and its heavy why would people be selecting the more expensive and the heavier item over the one that is less expensive and weighs less.
I do not understand why my point got confused and I have to break it down like this but ok such as life
But what's the ultimate point when sales are terrible regardless? It's like pointing out the more expensive Tesla sold better than the electric only version of the Chevy Volt. Both products were niche, sales combined are terrible, and both lost money with profitability focused on future models.
That analogy doesn't work. Electric cars are vastly different than a gaming console, since energy/fuel determines if it's going to be adopted or not. There's no doubt that VR will be more widely accepted once hardware prices drop, since that's the only thing holding it back from reaching more people. If anything though, the software will determine it's future, and let's just say it will always have a future due to porn. lol.
...based on what that there is "no doubt" vr headsets will be accepted? You can get a "cheap version" of VR on just about any cell phone... not to mention Samsung has been giving away headsets by the millions and people don't want them. They aren't buying into it.
It isn't the price... and I think that's basically the point SEAN has been trying to make for the most part.. the more expensive system won out over the less expensive system.
In a few years, after MR starts its ramp up of marketing, it will be much tougher competition. Sets like these have their time.. and the time is now. When MR becomes available and more diverse sets hit the market, everything spent up to this point is wasted money.
They've already been accepted. Not by the mainstream, but so far, by enthusiasts, developers, and studios. People don't want the inferior google cardboard or cellphone VR sets, because that's exactly what they are, inferior. Serious gamers are waiting for PS, Xbox, and PC VR prices to come down. Will it ever be mainstream? Probably not, because i just can't envision a family sitting on their couches with VR headsets on. I can see it being popular among serious gamers though, or for the sole person who likes to game alone.
yes
the problem I think many people here on this site have is for some reason unlike lets say a HOTAS system they think VR has to either Donatello or be a complete and total failure, nothing in between. I dont know where that mentality comes from. Yes I know some in VR has said with the investments made that is has to be 'mainstream' but that is not something that is said all the time nor loudly nor really even agreed on, at least not by me.
The sales are lower than I had expected however industry adoption in this technology is MUCH higher than I thought it would be. Microsoft (As an example) is really not known for getting into tech ahead of the curve or if they do its some fail products from their research firm like the first Surface. Them being early adopters in VR and even more so with the laggard of the industry that likes to push watching sports the Xbox was really a shocker for me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
...based on what that there is "no doubt" vr headsets will be accepted? You can get a "cheap version" of VR on just about any cell phone... not to mention Samsung has been giving away headsets by the millions and people don't want them. They aren't buying into it.
It isn't the price... and I think that's basically the point SEAN has been trying to make for the most part.. the more expensive system won out over the less expensive system.
In a few years, after MR starts its ramp up of marketing, it will be much tougher competition. Sets like these have their time.. and the time is now. When MR becomes available and more diverse sets hit the market, everything spent up to this point is wasted money.
They've already been accepted. Not by the mainstream, but so far, by enthusiasts, developers, and studios. People don't want the inferior google cardboard or cellphone VR sets, because that's exactly what they are, inferior. Serious gamers are waiting for PS, Xbox, and PC VR prices to come down. Will it ever be mainstream? Probably not, because i just can't envision a family sitting on their couches with VR headsets on. I can see it being popular among serious gamers though, or for the sole person who likes to game alone.
But that's kind of the issue, isn't it? Facebook needs to sell 100M units for Rift to become popular. They think they will, according to them. That is much more than core gamers, or being a niche platform.
Developers aren't really on board. Even at E3 the list of games were generally (the majority of) titles with a lasting appeal of 2 Hours or less.
Fallout 4 is going to be a port of a game most people already have, but most of what we're seeing isn't complete developer involvement. Keep in mind HTC is putting millions into funding 3rd party development.
And most recently OR said that the most popular store items were VR "video experiences" -- things that you can access via Gear VR.
As a gaming device, VR headsets aren't going to be the hardware of choice... it doesn't mean there won't be a game or two worth playing... but when is the question. And will it appeal so much that the cost is worth it?
I've been stating that MANY of the sales they've reported for the VIVE and the RIFT are from resellers. They price gouge, you're right. They buy out the stock so they can specifically price gouge.
But they are ON the site.. AS brand new IN BOX. You find these locally too, not just online. That was the entire premise behind my conversation earlier where there were 77K units sold but only 24K installs. It's not to say that 53000 of the remaining are resellers, but what we DO know is that there are a LOT of resellers that are price gouging.
Perhaps you missed my post in earlier conversation, so I'll try to repeat.
The 24K was number of Vive DK1 and Pres. The entire install based of Vive is about 100K units, but Job Simulator which was only included after Vive release has a bit under 80K owners at Steam, so they figure out 24K is the number of other Vive versions.
The article is written a bit badly when it says "Given that discrepancy, we can figure that the total Vive install base consists of some 24,000 (± 7872) Vive DK1 and Pres". Consist ofis the wrong term, they should have said it includes 24K DK1s and Pres.
I've been stating that MANY of the sales they've reported for the VIVE and the RIFT are from resellers. They price gouge, you're right. They buy out the stock so they can specifically price gouge.
But they are ON the site.. AS brand new IN BOX. You find these locally too, not just online. That was the entire premise behind my conversation earlier where there were 77K units sold but only 24K installs. It's not to say that 53000 of the remaining are resellers, but what we DO know is that there are a LOT of resellers that are price gouging.
Perhaps you missed my post in earlier conversation, so I'll try to repeat.
The 24K was number of Vive DK1 and Pres. The entire install based of Vive is about 100K units, but Job Simulator which was only included after Vive release has a bit under 80K owners at Steam, so they figure out 24K is the number of other Vive versions.
The article is written a bit badly when it says "Given that discrepancy, we can figure that the total Vive install base consists of some 24,000 (± 7872) Vive DK1 and Pres". Consist ofis the wrong term, they should have said it includes 24K DK1s and Pres.
I wrote a whole response to this but when I submitted it didn't show up.... not sure what that's about.
But to recap what I wrote, albeit more in depth and eloquently, if what you're saying is true, the general metric of utilizing Tilt Brush for "install base" is misleading as well, which is probably what accounts for such the high margin of error.
...based on what that there is "no doubt" vr headsets will be accepted? You can get a "cheap version" of VR on just about any cell phone... not to mention Samsung has been giving away headsets by the millions and people don't want them. They aren't buying into it.
It isn't the price... and I think that's basically the point SEAN has been trying to make for the most part.. the more expensive system won out over the less expensive system.
In a few years, after MR starts its ramp up of marketing, it will be much tougher competition. Sets like these have their time.. and the time is now. When MR becomes available and more diverse sets hit the market, everything spent up to this point is wasted money.
They've already been accepted. Not by the mainstream, but so far, by enthusiasts, developers, and studios. People don't want the inferior google cardboard or cellphone VR sets, because that's exactly what they are, inferior. Serious gamers are waiting for PS, Xbox, and PC VR prices to come down. Will it ever be mainstream? Probably not, because i just can't envision a family sitting on their couches with VR headsets on. I can see it being popular among serious gamers though, or for the sole person who likes to game alone.
But that's kind of the issue, isn't it? Facebook needs to sell 100M units for Rift to become popular. ...
I think you mean to say 'profitable'
here is the thing about Mark Z comment.
1. when he says 'profitable' does he mean this quarter? next quarter? this year? next year? year after? 2. if it doesnt become 'profitable' in whatever time frame he comes up with does that mean its closed? maybe maybe not. 3. Microsoft Xbox was not 'profitable' for many years. So when Mark Z says 'to be profitable' does he mean 'it has to be' or just 'that it wouldnt be'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
...based on what that there is "no doubt" vr headsets will be accepted? You can get a "cheap version" of VR on just about any cell phone... not to mention Samsung has been giving away headsets by the millions and people don't want them. They aren't buying into it.
It isn't the price... and I think that's basically the point SEAN has been trying to make for the most part.. the more expensive system won out over the less expensive system.
In a few years, after MR starts its ramp up of marketing, it will be much tougher competition. Sets like these have their time.. and the time is now. When MR becomes available and more diverse sets hit the market, everything spent up to this point is wasted money.
They've already been accepted. Not by the mainstream, but so far, by enthusiasts, developers, and studios. People don't want the inferior google cardboard or cellphone VR sets, because that's exactly what they are, inferior. Serious gamers are waiting for PS, Xbox, and PC VR prices to come down. Will it ever be mainstream? Probably not, because i just can't envision a family sitting on their couches with VR headsets on. I can see it being popular among serious gamers though, or for the sole person who likes to game alone.
But that's kind of the issue, isn't it? Facebook needs to sell 100M units for Rift to become popular. ...
I think you mean to say 'profitable'
here is the thing about Mark Z comment.
1. when he says 'profitable' does he mean this quarter? next quarter? this year? next year? year after? 2. if it doesnt become 'profitable' in whatever time frame he comes up with does that mean its closed? maybe maybe not. 3. Microsoft Xbox was not 'profitable' for many years. So when Mark Z says 'to be profitable' does he mean 'it has to be' or just 'that it wouldnt be'
Yes, profitable, thank you.
His quote, which I am not going to look up, I've posted it several times, but the gist of it was.. "We need 100 Million to be profitable. We expect to reach this within the next couple years." being somewhat close to it in 2017.
It's unlikely they will shut down production if they don't make 100 Million in a couple years... but in about 3 - 4 years time VR production will slow. At that point manufacturers will have saturated the market with whatever hardware they can, there will be winners.. mostly losers... and heavy competition from MR.
Any business wants to be profitable. HTC is banking a lot of money on the Vive.. if it did not become profitable.. it is highly unlikely HTC will continue as a company.. and thats the truth. Their other revenue generator.. the cell phone... has tanked... they've been losing revenue nearly 30% or more every month year over year, it's unsustainable.
Now this isn't about HTC, BUT... being unprofitable for too long... IE windows phone... leads to abandonment of that business. I always say OR could make money as a software vendor... creating content, providing the store but not the hardware. I think they've put way too much in the way of expectation on a product that.. not even a year from launch, is considered second
...based on what that there is "no doubt" vr headsets will be accepted? You can get a "cheap version" of VR on just about any cell phone... not to mention Samsung has been giving away headsets by the millions and people don't want them. They aren't buying into it.
It isn't the price... and I think that's basically the point SEAN has been trying to make for the most part.. the more expensive system won out over the less expensive system.
In a few years, after MR starts its ramp up of marketing, it will be much tougher competition. Sets like these have their time.. and the time is now. When MR becomes available and more diverse sets hit the market, everything spent up to this point is wasted money.
They've already been accepted. Not by the mainstream, but so far, by enthusiasts, developers, and studios. People don't want the inferior google cardboard or cellphone VR sets, because that's exactly what they are, inferior. Serious gamers are waiting for PS, Xbox, and PC VR prices to come down. Will it ever be mainstream? Probably not, because i just can't envision a family sitting on their couches with VR headsets on. I can see it being popular among serious gamers though, or for the sole person who likes to game alone.
But that's kind of the issue, isn't it? Facebook needs to sell 100M units for Rift to become popular. ...
I think you mean to say 'profitable'
here is the thing about Mark Z comment.
1. when he says 'profitable' does he mean this quarter? next quarter? this year? next year? year after? 2. if it doesnt become 'profitable' in whatever time frame he comes up with does that mean its closed? maybe maybe not. 3. Microsoft Xbox was not 'profitable' for many years. So when Mark Z says 'to be profitable' does he mean 'it has to be' or just 'that it wouldnt be'
Yes, profitable, thank you.
His quote, which I am not going to look up, I've posted it several times, but the gist of it was.. "We need 100 Million to be profitable. We expect to reach this within the next couple years." being somewhat close to it in 2017.
It's unlikely they will shut down production if they don't make 100 Million in a couple years... but in about 3 - 4 years time VR production will slow. At that point manufacturers will have saturated the market with whatever hardware they can, there will be winners.. mostly losers... and heavy competition from MR.
Any business wants to be profitable. HTC is banking a lot of money on the Vive.. if it did not become profitable.. it is highly unlikely HTC will continue as a company.. and thats the truth. Their other revenue generator.. the cell phone... has tanked... they've been losing revenue nearly 30% or more every month year over year, it's unsustainable.
Now this isn't about HTC, BUT... being unprofitable for too long... IE windows phone... leads to abandonment of that business. I always say OR could make money as a software vendor... creating content, providing the store but not the hardware. I think they've put way too much in the way of expectation on a product that.. not even a year from launch, is considered second
So his statement is his not saying 'we need to be profitable' or 'we need to be profitable by XYZ date' its a sales pitch to shareholders 'we expect to be profitable by..'
so its not a 'need'
like xbox they were not profitable for many years and we are barely even started with this story. pre-orders are STILL not being filled
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
His quote, which I am not going to look up, I've posted it several times, but the gist of it was.. "We need 100 Million to be profitable. We expect to reach this within the next couple years." being somewhat close to it in 2017.
It's unlikely they will shut down production if they don't make 100 Million in a couple years... but in about 3 - 4 years time VR production will slow. At that point manufacturers will have saturated the market with whatever hardware they can, there will be winners.. mostly losers... and heavy competition from MR.
Any business wants to be profitable. HTC is banking a lot of money on the Vive.. if it did not become profitable.. it is highly unlikely HTC will continue as a company.. and thats the truth. Their other revenue generator.. the cell phone... has tanked... they've been losing revenue nearly 30% or more every month year over year, it's unsustainable.
Now this isn't about HTC, BUT... being unprofitable for too long... IE windows phone... leads to abandonment of that business. I always say OR could make money as a software vendor... creating content, providing the store but not the hardware. I think they've put way too much in the way of expectation on a product that.. not even a year from launch, is considered second
So his statement is his not saying 'we need to be profitable' or 'we need to be profitable by XYZ date' its a sales pitch to shareholders 'we expect to be profitable by..'
so its not a 'need'
like xbox they were not profitable for many years and we are barely even started with this story. pre-orders are STILL not being filled
Well, I guess the question is, do you like losing money?
Because if they expect not to ever be profitable... they may as well consider this a charity
Hardware manufacturers often sell at a loss many times when they have first party software they are selling along with it to offset the hardware costs.
Microsoft also made profitability predictions, and they met them in most cases. "Xbox 360 would become profitable by 2007" etc. Zuckerberg states similar ... by 2017.
Even after billions of losses, they can keep the hardware business going if the trend looks good... but the major difference was, XB was selling VERY WELL.. but at a loss per each system they sold.. they never were going to make money doing that.
OR ...even if they are selling at a loss currently... which I don't believe they are... they haven't sold particularly well thus far. Will that landscape change in 2 years time?
To be honest. No. Even if the Rift was available in walmart today, a niche product that requires mainstream adoption just makes the manufacturing company a glutton for punishment.
Well, I guess the question is, do you like losing money?
like or not like has nothign to do with it.
You are taking a statement he said that was made as a projection of what might happen and trying to turn it into a statement of what 'needs' to happen and that is false.
he doesnt NEED to be profitable this quarter, next quarter or even a few years (JUST LIKE XBOX DID!!!!!!!!)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Dude do you even read anything before you make a claim? Amazon is not selling any new rift's. They claim to have 1-3 in stock and thats just the ploy numbers so people will order it. You cannot get the HTC vive from them right now either.
First of all, did you even check the link? This wasn't the Vive that I linked it was the Rift.. .and there are over 50 resellers... and those aren't Ploy numbers.. they have ship dates on them.... Put one in your cart and try and buy it..
And as for the Vive.. have you ever shopped amazon? EVER? Look below the pictures of the Vive.. it shows there are over 16 sellers SELLING the VIVE Brand new.
It's 2 left in stock FROM THAT RESELLER.
They are being sold by price gougers. The vive for 1k and the Rift for 800. Thats not a certified seller of the product its some company who buy's about 40 units then tries to sell them for a lot more then they are worth. So yea you can get one right now but you are going to pay a lot more then you would from Steam, Gamestop, or Bestbuy. You can buy anything right now if you have enough money. Your entire assumption that they are available is based solely on someone who is trying to resell the product and not the actual certified vendors of the product. You can get a Nvidia 1080 right now if you are willing to fork over more then its actual value.
....THATS THE WHOLE POINT
I've been stating that MANY of the sales they've reported for the VIVE and the RIFT are from resellers. They price gouge, you're right. They buy out the stock so they can specifically price gouge.
But they are ON the site.. AS brand new IN BOX. You find these locally too, not just online. That was the entire premise behind my conversation earlier where there were 77K units sold but only 24K installs. It's not to say that 53000 of the remaining are resellers, but what we DO know is that there are a LOT of resellers that are price gouging.
If 10,000 more sets released tomorrow, an sold out, I'd bet many of them.. not most.. but many of them would be sold out due to resellers buying stock.
They don't care if they price gouge now, they won't care until after December.. they're hedging their bets that people will want these expensive sets for Christmas -- WHY? Because marketing is telling them that's what consumers want. Apparently people don't want them bad enough to pay a somewhat small markup for them.
Price gouging only works if the units sell out from the vendors. Otherwise its just a waste of time. The fact that price gouging exists is proof they are selling out. People don't price gouge candy bars, they price gouge items that will be sold out and can be resold at higher prices.
ironic that the most expensive VR option is currently the best selling outside of phone VR headsets.
100,000 for gaming hardware after 3 months is horrendously bad. Makes the Ouya look like a smash hit!
To put that in perspective, the Kinect sold over 130,000 units per day during its first two months of release.
Yeah, but that is a console item. You can't compare console arcade stuff to PC gaming.
Of course you can...both are gaming peripherals for gaming hardware already owned.
Actually you can't compare. Probably about 1% of the PC gaming population has a VR ready computer. All you need for Kinect is a 360 or a ONE. Virtually all Xbox players have that.
I have a really fast system that was near state of the art 4 years ago when I built it, but it is not VR ready. So I am not part of that 1%. Nor can I afford to build a VR ready for a couple of years, since I don't want to build a system that BARELY crosses the boundary of being VR ready. So I will be going PSVR when it comes out.
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
Dude do you even read anything before you make a claim? Amazon is not selling any new rift's. They claim to have 1-3 in stock and thats just the ploy numbers so people will order it. You cannot get the HTC vive from them right now either.
First of all, did you even check the link? This wasn't the Vive that I linked it was the Rift.. .and there are over 50 resellers... and those aren't Ploy numbers.. they have ship dates on them.... Put one in your cart and try and buy it..
And as for the Vive.. have you ever shopped amazon? EVER? Look below the pictures of the Vive.. it shows there are over 16 sellers SELLING the VIVE Brand new.
It's 2 left in stock FROM THAT RESELLER.
They are being sold by price gougers. The vive for 1k and the Rift for 800. Thats not a certified seller of the product its some company who buy's about 40 units then tries to sell them for a lot more then they are worth. So yea you can get one right now but you are going to pay a lot more then you would from Steam, Gamestop, or Bestbuy. You can buy anything right now if you have enough money. Your entire assumption that they are available is based solely on someone who is trying to resell the product and not the actual certified vendors of the product. You can get a Nvidia 1080 right now if you are willing to fork over more then its actual value.
....THATS THE WHOLE POINT
I've been stating that MANY of the sales they've reported for the VIVE and the RIFT are from resellers. They price gouge, you're right. They buy out the stock so they can specifically price gouge.
But they are ON the site.. AS brand new IN BOX. You find these locally too, not just online. That was the entire premise behind my conversation earlier where there were 77K units sold but only 24K installs. It's not to say that 53000 of the remaining are resellers, but what we DO know is that there are a LOT of resellers that are price gouging.
If 10,000 more sets released tomorrow, an sold out, I'd bet many of them.. not most.. but many of them would be sold out due to resellers buying stock.
They don't care if they price gouge now, they won't care until after December.. they're hedging their bets that people will want these expensive sets for Christmas -- WHY? Because marketing is telling them that's what consumers want. Apparently people don't want them bad enough to pay a somewhat small markup for them.
Price gouging only works if the units sell out from the vendors. Otherwise its just a waste of time. The fact that price gouging exists is proof they are selling out. People don't price gouge candy bars, they price gouge items that will be sold out and can be resold at higher prices.
...that's flawed thinking.... There's a reason why all the "price gouged" sets are still on the market. It ISN'T working. Not to mention that the extremely limited supply of sets isn't really helping their case. Just look.. once again.. on amazon... the most frequently bought items TOGETHER.. were the RIFT and the VIVE. WHy would any consumer.. ever.. buy both headsets together?
It's not extremely hard to understand, resellers are buying them all now because they expect a shortage in December. They can gouge as high as they want today... if they don't sell, they still believe they will make the money back in December... .. will that be the case? Probably not. Sets are sitting stagnant on the market.. and now there isn't even a backlog for Vive.. and you can find the Rift in some stores now.
Well, I guess the question is, do you like losing money?
like or not like has nothign to do with it.
You are taking a statement he said that was made as a projection of what might happen and trying to turn it into a statement of what 'needs' to happen and that is false.
he doesnt NEED to be profitable this quarter, next quarter or even a few years (JUST LIKE XBOX DID!!!!!!!!)
The point is... they NEED 100 Million to be profitable. 100 MILLION sets.... it will NEVER happen. Quote that if you like... but they won't hit 1 million sets by the end of the year. His prediction of 100 Million by sometime in 2017.... yeah thats a very poor projection.
The fact is it NEEDS that amount to be profitable. That means Mainstream Adoption. It Will Never Be Mainstream
ironic that the most expensive VR option is currently the best selling outside of phone VR headsets.
100,000 for gaming hardware after 3 months is horrendously bad. Makes the Ouya look like a smash hit!
To put that in perspective, the Kinect sold over 130,000 units per day during its first two months of release.
Yeah, but that is a console item. You can't compare console arcade stuff to PC gaming.
Of course you can...both are gaming peripherals for gaming hardware already owned.
Actually you can't compare. Probably about 1% of the PC gaming population has a VR ready computer. All you need for Kinect is a 360 or a ONE. Virtually all Xbox players have that.
I have a really fast system that was near state of the art 4 years ago when I built it, but it is not VR ready. So I am not part of that 1%. Nor can I afford to build a VR ready for a couple of years, since I don't want to build a system that BARELY crosses the boundary of being VR ready. So I will be going PSVR when it comes out.
here is the problem with that.
If only 1% of the gaming population has a computer that can run VR then it also means:
1. only 1% of the gaming population can run The Division on recommended settings 2. only 1% of the gaming population can run Quantum Break on recommended settings 3. a minority of the gaming population has an Xbox so 'gaming population' needed for success is complete bullshit
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Well, I guess the question is, do you like losing money?
like or not like has nothign to do with it.
You are taking a statement he said that was made as a projection of what might happen and trying to turn it into a statement of what 'needs' to happen and that is false.
he doesnt NEED to be profitable this quarter, next quarter or even a few years (JUST LIKE XBOX DID!!!!!!!!)
The point is... they NEED 100 Million to be profitable. 100 MILLION sets.... it will NEVER happen. Quote that if you like... but they won't hit 1 million sets by the end of the year. His prediction of 100 Million by sometime in 2017.... yeah thats a very poor projection.
The fact is it NEEDS that amount to be profitable. That means Mainstream Adoption. It Will Never Be Mainstream
that is a deliberate misuse of what he said.
If say 'I would need to grow wings to fly'
that does not mean I need to fly and going around telling people that flying is my target that I need to do is being grossly misleading, as you are now
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Well, I guess the question is, do you like losing money?
like or not like has nothign to do with it.
You are taking a statement he said that was made as a projection of what might happen and trying to turn it into a statement of what 'needs' to happen and that is false.
he doesnt NEED to be profitable this quarter, next quarter or even a few years (JUST LIKE XBOX DID!!!!!!!!)
The point is... they NEED 100 Million to be profitable. 100 MILLION sets.... it will NEVER happen. Quote that if you like... but they won't hit 1 million sets by the end of the year. His prediction of 100 Million by sometime in 2017.... yeah thats a very poor projection.
The fact is it NEEDS that amount to be profitable. That means Mainstream Adoption. It Will Never Be Mainstream
that is a deliberate misuse of what he said.
If say 'I would need to grow wings to fly'
that does not mean I need to fly and going around telling people that flying is my target that I need to do is being grossly misleading, as you are now
.....Nothing is misleading when someone says "We need X amount to be profitable" the goal of running a business is being profitable. Furthermore he states specifically that they AIM to be profitable within a couple years time.
That isn't misleading... that's pretty clear cut. You can read into it however you want, but look at Microsofts Nokia acquisition and then sell off. 7.6 BILLION it was bought for by microsoft... sold for 800 Million.. when asked about it, they conceded that the Nokia Purchase was a Failure. EVEN THOUGH Microsoft phones sold okay (not particularly well) but okay. Better than struggling Blackberry that is STILL trying to hang on and even adopted Android just to stay alive.
As a basis for comparison the Lumia 900 sold 600K units in its first 2 fiscal quarters. Still scrapped and considered a failure years later simply because the cost wasn't justified.
Lets take a look at the Rift in comparison.
The Rift sold 175K total Development Kit Units over 4 YEARS. Then bought by facebook for 2 BILLION. Now suspected of having less than 50K in sales within their first couple quarters (which will end by the start of next month)
We're talking about now defunct hardware, no longer in production surpassing Rifts expectations by roughly 1100% in the same time frame.
Comments
However, even the most pessimistic critic didn't expect overall sales to be this bad.
So the critics were right, but for the wrong reasons.
'it appears the reason of 'its to expensive' and 'its to heavy' appear to be unwarranted and incorrect'
because those two points where worth about 2 days of insane debate (acutally more than two days) most of it with me saying that its really not a factor even at these prices and 'its heavy' is fucking plain stupid
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
its is a much better comparison then what other people have been throwing around like 'population of the US.' as just one example. Personally I am fine with it.
I am NOT however fine with assuming its over yet when I cant even get my preorder filled and Sonys version isnt even for sale yet. In my mind the show hasnt even started yet
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It isn't the price... and I think that's basically the point SEAN has been trying to make for the most part.. the more expensive system won out over the less expensive system.
In a few years, after MR starts its ramp up of marketing, it will be much tougher competition. Sets like these have their time.. and the time is now. When MR becomes available and more diverse sets hit the market, everything spent up to this point is wasted money.
If they're all selling poorly, we can hypothesize that the headsets, in general, are too expensive for any kind of widespread (or certainly mainstream) adoption.
Small-niche products (which is what a VR headset is right now) frequently violate common characteristics of any particular, mainstream market (i.e. the more affordable alternatives are usually the more numerous). This occurs when the audience/consumer base for a certain product is so limited that the average niche user's socioeconomic status isn't indicative of the statuses of the average potential users of a more mainstream product/market (specifically in this case, computer hardware/peripherals).
Aka, the VR niche is targeted squarely at potential consumers with lots of extra cash at this time (even the more affordable option is relatively expensive for the average gamer/PC user). Therefore, being the more affordable option in that niche loses some benefit.
I would expect, if VR headsets hit mainstream success, that the more affordable options would eventually overtake the higher-end product on box sales numbers (though not necessarily be more profitable in terms of a cash value). At this point, the audience is so small that deviations from the widespread market are more pronounced.
the problem I think many people here on this site have is for some reason unlike lets say a HOTAS system they think VR has to either Donatello or be a complete and total failure, nothing in between. I dont know where that mentality comes from. Yes I know some in VR has said with the investments made that is has to be 'mainstream' but that is not something that is said all the time nor loudly nor really even agreed on, at least not by me.
The sales are lower than I had expected however industry adoption in this technology is MUCH higher than I thought it would be. Microsoft (As an example) is really not known for getting into tech ahead of the curve or if they do its some fail products from their research firm like the first Surface. Them being early adopters in VR and even more so with the laggard of the industry that likes to push watching sports the Xbox was really a shocker for me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Developers aren't really on board. Even at E3 the list of games were generally (the majority of) titles with a lasting appeal of 2 Hours or less.
Fallout 4 is going to be a port of a game most people already have, but most of what we're seeing isn't complete developer involvement. Keep in mind HTC is putting millions into funding 3rd party development.
And most recently OR said that the most popular store items were VR "video experiences" -- things that you can access via Gear VR.
As a gaming device, VR headsets aren't going to be the hardware of choice... it doesn't mean there won't be a game or two worth playing... but when is the question. And will it appeal so much that the cost is worth it?
Perhaps you missed my post in earlier conversation, so I'll try to repeat.
The 24K was number of Vive DK1 and Pres. The entire install based of Vive is about 100K units, but Job Simulator which was only included after Vive release has a bit under 80K owners at Steam, so they figure out 24K is the number of other Vive versions.
The article is written a bit badly when it says "Given that discrepancy, we can figure that the total Vive install base consists of some 24,000 (± 7872) Vive DK1 and Pres". Consist of is the wrong term, they should have said it includes 24K DK1s and Pres.
here is the thing about Mark Z comment.
1. when he says 'profitable' does he mean this quarter? next quarter? this year? next year? year after?
2. if it doesnt become 'profitable' in whatever time frame he comes up with does that mean its closed? maybe maybe not.
3. Microsoft Xbox was not 'profitable' for many years. So when Mark Z says 'to be profitable' does he mean 'it has to be' or just 'that it wouldnt be'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
His quote, which I am not going to look up, I've posted it several times, but the gist of it was.. "We need 100 Million to be profitable. We expect to reach this within the next couple years." being somewhat close to it in 2017.
It's unlikely they will shut down production if they don't make 100 Million in a couple years... but in about 3 - 4 years time VR production will slow. At that point manufacturers will have saturated the market with whatever hardware they can, there will be winners.. mostly losers... and heavy competition from MR.
Any business wants to be profitable. HTC is banking a lot of money on the Vive.. if it did not become profitable.. it is highly unlikely HTC will continue as a company.. and thats the truth. Their other revenue generator.. the cell phone... has tanked... they've been losing revenue nearly 30% or more every month year over year, it's unsustainable.
Now this isn't about HTC, BUT... being unprofitable for too long... IE windows phone... leads to abandonment of that business. I always say OR could make money as a software vendor... creating content, providing the store but not the hardware. I think they've put way too much in the way of expectation on a product that.. not even a year from launch, is considered second
I'll wait until it's good, maybe in the next 5 years they can bump it to 8K.
so its not a 'need'
like xbox they were not profitable for many years and we are barely even started with this story. pre-orders are STILL not being filled
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Because if they expect not to ever be profitable... they may as well consider this a charity
Hardware manufacturers often sell at a loss many times when they have first party software they are selling along with it to offset the hardware costs.
Microsoft also made profitability predictions, and they met them in most cases. "Xbox 360 would become profitable by 2007" etc. Zuckerberg states similar ... by 2017.
Even after billions of losses, they can keep the hardware business going if the trend looks good... but the major difference was, XB was selling VERY WELL.. but at a loss per each system they sold.. they never were going to make money doing that.
OR ...even if they are selling at a loss currently... which I don't believe they are... they haven't sold particularly well thus far. Will that landscape change in 2 years time?
To be honest. No. Even if the Rift was available in walmart today, a niche product that requires mainstream adoption just makes the manufacturing company a glutton for punishment.
You are taking a statement he said that was made as a projection of what might happen and trying to turn it into a statement of what 'needs' to happen and that is false.
he doesnt NEED to be profitable this quarter, next quarter or even a few years (JUST LIKE XBOX DID!!!!!!!!)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I have a really fast system that was near state of the art 4 years ago when I built it, but it is not VR ready. So I am not part of that 1%. Nor can I afford to build a VR ready for a couple of years, since I don't want to build a system that BARELY crosses the boundary of being VR ready. So I will be going PSVR when it comes out.
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
It's not extremely hard to understand, resellers are buying them all now because they expect a shortage in December. They can gouge as high as they want today... if they don't sell, they still believe they will make the money back in December... .. will that be the case? Probably not. Sets are sitting stagnant on the market.. and now there isn't even a backlog for Vive.. and you can find the Rift in some stores now.
The fact is it NEEDS that amount to be profitable. That means Mainstream Adoption. It Will Never Be Mainstream
If only 1% of the gaming population has a computer that can run VR then it also means:
1. only 1% of the gaming population can run The Division on recommended settings
2. only 1% of the gaming population can run Quantum Break on recommended settings
3. a minority of the gaming population has an Xbox so 'gaming population' needed for success is complete bullshit
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
If say 'I would need to grow wings to fly'
that does not mean I need to fly and going around telling people that flying is my target that I need to do is being grossly misleading, as you are now
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
That isn't misleading... that's pretty clear cut. You can read into it however you want, but look at Microsofts Nokia acquisition and then sell off. 7.6 BILLION it was bought for by microsoft... sold for 800 Million.. when asked about it, they conceded that the Nokia Purchase was a Failure. EVEN THOUGH Microsoft phones sold okay (not particularly well) but okay. Better than struggling Blackberry that is STILL trying to hang on and even adopted Android just to stay alive.
As a basis for comparison the Lumia 900 sold 600K units in its first 2 fiscal quarters. Still scrapped and considered a failure years later simply because the cost wasn't justified.
Lets take a look at the Rift in comparison.
The Rift sold 175K total Development Kit Units over 4 YEARS. Then bought by facebook for 2 BILLION. Now suspected of having less than 50K in sales within their first couple quarters (which will end by the start of next month)
We're talking about now defunct hardware, no longer in production surpassing Rifts expectations by roughly 1100% in the same time frame.