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.
I am sorry but yes, you are being misleading and its not the first time.
If I say 'I need wings to fly' then going around suggesting using clever langauge to protect yourself that I need to fly is being misleading.
The TRUTH of this is that Mark Z was giving an overly optimistic earnings forecast to his shareholders. He does NEED to make a profit on it. Just like Xbox didnt make a profit for years.
now here is the gut of it. the gut of it is that you know what I am saying, you know damn well that OR can last many years without showing a profit just like xbox did, but why you want to spin it differently is something that is beyond me and that motovation you have is something I think you should sit and think about on a personal level.
Lets not talk about this again, its going to do nothing but go around in circles. But I encourage you strongly to contemplate what I just said in the directly above paragraph.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
.....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.
I am sorry but yes, you are being misleading and its not the first time.
If I say 'I need wings to fly' then going around suggesting using clever langauge to protect yourself that I need to fly is being misleading.
The TRUTH of this is that Mark Z was giving an overly optimistic earnings forecast to his shareholders. He does NEED to make a profit on it. Just like Xbox didnt make a profit for years.
now here is the gut of it. the gut of it is that you know what I am saying, you know damn well that OR can last many years without showing a profit just like xbox did, but why you want to spin it differently is something that is beyond me and that motovation you have is something I think you should sit and think about on a personal level.
Lets not talk about this again, its going to do nothing but go around in circles. But I encourage you strongly to contemplate what I just said in the directly above paragraph.
You're making a ridiculous argument about WINGS when I'm specifically stating that it doesn't matter the time frame.. the fact is simply he needs to make a profit of 100M UNITS... and he will not.
Like always you try and obfuscate the point with inanity. Wings do not matter. Flying doesn't matter. Becoming profitable matters.
They will not become profitable... ever.. if they expect the Rift to sell 100 Million Units. It doesn't matter that he said 2017... my point was showing you how ridiculous a 2017 statement was.
It does not matter if there's a Rift in every store when nobody is buying them. (see @filmoret s price gouging fallacy)
It doesn't even matter that you can't get one directly from the company today (because, honestly, that's their fault, and there are still hundreds on the market you could buy today)
What matters is that the sales are so low, the demand is so low, in 4 YEARS they sold 175K development kits when they were the only VR set on the market... and many of those were likely REPEAT purchases upgrading from one DK model to the next.
By next year, Rift would be LUCKY to be in the 1 - 2 Million range... with a REDUCED price point.
At that point, they'll have so much competition ... I don't doubt they'll bow out within the next 4 years.
.....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.
I am sorry but yes, you are being misleading and its not the first time.
If I say 'I need wings to fly' then going around suggesting using clever langauge to protect yourself that I need to fly is being misleading.
The TRUTH of this is that Mark Z was giving an overly optimistic earnings forecast to his shareholders. He does NEED to make a profit on it. Just like Xbox didnt make a profit for years.
now here is the gut of it. the gut of it is that you know what I am saying, you know damn well that OR can last many years without showing a profit just like xbox did, but why you want to spin it differently is something that is beyond me and that motovation you have is something I think you should sit and think about on a personal level.
Lets not talk about this again, its going to do nothing but go around in circles. But I encourage you strongly to contemplate what I just said in the directly above paragraph.
You're making a ridiculous argument about WINGS when I'm specifically stating that it doesn't matter the time frame.. the fact is simply he needs to make a profit of 100M UNITS... and he will not.
your not listening to me and I am done talking about this.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
your not listening to me and I am done talking about this.
Yeah, i gave up too. It's just best to leave it alone. It's good to be skeptical, but when he starts being negative and pessimistic on every single VR thread, it's obvious that he wants to see VR fail.
This may be a surprise but apparently 99% of the gamers playing the Division can't run on recommended settings, but they can still buy and play it and that includes XB1 and PS4.
Population needed for success is a real thing. More breaking news at 11. Back to you Mortie.
let me say it again because I dont think the root of what I said got understood
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
is there a difference betweeen min. and recommended? yes but it barely moves my observation at all.
Xbox One is a rather small % of the gaming population.
is it possible the VR is not focused on 'all' gamers just like games like The Division are clearly not?
oh and
4. you have no fucking clue if 99% of the population who bought those games cant run it on recomended settings
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
no you just completely missed the point but you are not the only one.
BETWEEN TWO OPTIONS
its called a 'compare' between two options. as in this item compared to another specific singular item.
I find it intresteing that when a user is presented with two options they select the one that is more expensive and weighs more.
For the third time I am NOT..repeat NOT suggesting 100,000 is a lot of sales, I know its not.
QUOTE: 'ironic that the most expensive VR option is currently the best selling outside of phone VR headsets.'
does this say that its sell well? no its the best sellin gout of the ones that are currently selling out side of the phone VR headsets as in your population of compare is HTC and OR. not the universe. Why would a user select this option instead of the other option when its more expensive and cost was one of the main reasons people said they would not buy so why are people not buying the less expensive option?
Vaild question but - I suggest - we don't yet have an answer.
There are several reasons why people buy A rather than B.
Availability is possibly the biggest factor. These numbers are small especially on a worldwide stage. If both units were equally available, people could go into a store and check them out side by side etc. then the comparison between the two is valid. I don't think we are there however. If someone wants to try VR and they go into a store or onto a site and the only option they have is A then their options are A or no VR. Same with item B. It is only when they have a choice of A or B that the comparison holds.
Price? Well those who are bothered by Price are clearly buying phone VR sets. These units may fall into the area of "luxury pricing" - when normal rules no longer apply. Don't think this is the case though.
However outside of availability this may well be people picking one over the other because they consider that to be "the best". And - again because numbers are small what is "best" for one person is not "best" for another. Peoples eyesights are different; head sizes; weight will impact on some more than others etc. So I am inclined to say "to early to make the comparison". Except with phone VR sets.
Edit: Lots of standard marketing stuff about why things sell. How good the product is, the price and whether it is available are three big factors. The other usual suspect I didn't touch on above - which may also be a factor - is Promotion. Sales and Marketing. And - again because we are talking worldwide - I suspect it is really hard to know which product has been pushed the most. With these numbers the difference could simply come down to marketing.
no you just completely missed the point but you are not the only one.
BETWEEN TWO OPTIONS
its called a 'compare' between two options. as in this item compared to another specific singular item.
I find it intresteing that when a user is presented with two options they select the one that is more expensive and weighs more.
For the third time I am NOT..repeat NOT suggesting 100,000 is a lot of sales, I know its not.
QUOTE: 'ironic that the most expensive VR option is currently the best selling outside of phone VR headsets.'
does this say that its sell well? no its the best sellin gout of the ones that are currently selling out side of the phone VR headsets as in your population of compare is HTC and OR. not the universe. Why would a user select this option instead of the other option when its more expensive and cost was one of the main reasons people said they would not buy so why are people not buying the less expensive option?
Vaild question but - I suggest - we don't yet have an answer.
There are several reasons why people buy A rather than B.
Availability is possibly the biggest factor. These numbers are small especially on a worldwide stage. If both units were equally available, people could go into a store and check them out side by side etc. then the comparison between the two is valid. I don't think we are there however. If someone wants to try VR and they go into a store or onto a site and the only option they have is A then their options are A or no VR. Same with item B. It is only when they have a choice of A or B that the comparison holds.
Price? Well those who are bothered by Price are clearly buying phone VR sets. These units may fall into the area of "luxury pricing" - when normal rules no longer apply. Don't think this is the case though.
However outside of availability this may well be people picking one over the other because they consider that to be "the best". And - again because numbers are small what is "best" for one person is not "best" for another. Peoples eyesights are different; head sizes; weight will impact on some more than others etc. So I am inclined to say "to early to make the comparison". Except with phone VR sets.
Edit: Lots of standard marketing stuff about why things sell. How good the product is, the price and whether it is available are three big factors. The other usual suspect I didn't touch on above - which may also be a factor - is Promotion. Sales and Marketing. And - again because we are talking worldwide - I suspect it is really hard to know which product has been pushed the most. With these numbers the difference could simply come down to marketing.
I think availability is skewing all numbers. I am not suggesting that this means OR is selling well, I dont know, I am just saying its hard to see what is being sold when people like me who put in a pre-order months ago are not even be recorded because they cant charge my card until they ship.
Others on this thread however are trying to suggest that the availability between the two products are basically the same which of course is silly
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Well, according to YOU, only 1% can run it on recommended settings. Basic maths would say that the other 99% can't. So I'm just going by what you're saying there. If you "have no fucking clue" as you say, that's all on you. Don't throw numbers out that are bullshit if you don't want them referenced.
The point is that a lot of people can run the game who don't meet the recommended spec. A lot of people bought the game who can't run the recommended spec. No one can run a Rift unless they meet the recommended spec.
first off your screwing up your own facts in a way that doesnt help you so let me reach out and help you with a hint.
not all copies of The Division are PC based to begin with.
regardless, I absolutely do not agree with you that the difference between Suggested and Min. are large enough to change the underlining point.
Do we really think the target 'norm' for the gaming industry is to have the vast majortiy of people intrested in a AAA title to play the game only on min. settings OR are we to think it has been over the past 20 years that over short peroids of time those settings no longer become expensive to buy.....aka GTX 1060
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I think availability is skewing all numbers. I am not suggesting that this means OR is selling well, I dont know, I am just saying its hard to see what is being sold when people like me who put in a pre-order months ago are not even be recorded because they cant charge my card until they ship.
Others on this thread however are trying to suggest that the availability between the two products are basically the same which of course is silly
Agree
It is a factor. I had a check what I could "buy" and currently it seems to be: Samsung VR; pre-order HTC Vive; OR can't pre-order, not listed in most stores although it can be bought on Amazon (11 - a whole 11! - available at huge cost). A GTX1080 though I have been able to pickup for weeks
I think availability is skewing all numbers. I am not suggesting that this means OR is selling well, I dont know, I am just saying its hard to see what is being sold when people like me who put in a pre-order months ago are not even be recorded because they cant charge my card until they ship.
Others on this thread however are trying to suggest that the availability between the two products are basically the same which of course is silly
Agree
It is a factor. I had a check what I could "buy" and currently it seems to be: Samsung VR; pre-order HTC Vive; OR can't pre-order, not listed in most stores although it can be bought on Amazon (11 - a whole 11! - available at huge cost). A GTX1080 though I have been able to pickup for weeks
There are 80 OR listed on Amazon new and used. You've been able to buy them since they released. They are also listed on Newegg. You've been able to pick them up for months now unlike the 1080 which hasn't been consistently available even with a $200 - $300 third party markup.
again
1. I, like many people do not want to buy from a reseller. I do not trust them 2. I, like many people do not want to spend more for the same when the same is coming. 3. I, like many people had no clue about these options until I started reading posts from you guys
so 1. a lot of people dont know its an option 2. a lot of people dont want to spend $200 MORE for the same thing they already ordered 3. many people dont trust resellers, 4. a lot of people dont even know this option exists.
so yeah...it DOES affect sales numbers
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I think availability is skewing all numbers. I am not suggesting that this means OR is selling well, I dont know, I am just saying its hard to see what is being sold when people like me who put in a pre-order months ago are not even be recorded because they cant charge my card until they ship.
Others on this thread however are trying to suggest that the availability between the two products are basically the same which of course is silly
Agree
It is a factor. I had a check what I could "buy" and currently it seems to be: Samsung VR; pre-order HTC Vive; OR can't pre-order, not listed in most stores although it can be bought on Amazon (11 - a whole 11! - available at huge cost). A GTX1080 though I have been able to pickup for weeks
There are 80 OR listed on Amazon new and used. You've been able to buy them since they released. They are also listed on Newegg. You've been able to pick them up for months now unlike the 1080 which hasn't been consistently available even with a $200 - $300 third party markup.
What people aren't understanding is that it says 11 in stock -- but its from that reseller at that price. There are almost 100 other sellers.. Consider that this one had over 10 sets to sell...... if we extrapolated that each reseller had 10 sets, that's 1000 sales just from resellers buying and then reposting for a markup.
your not listening to me and I am done talking about this.
Yeah, i gave up too. It's just best to leave it alone. It's good to be skeptical, but when he starts being negative and pessimistic on every single VR thread, it's obvious that he wants to see VR fail.
No, it isn't being negative, it isn't being pessimistic, its looking at the facts. VR doesn't need help failing, and I'm not out to see VR fail, I'm looking for one VR horse to back. VR hardware that is still going to be around and supported in 3 years.
Sean opts out of the conversation when he can't think of one of his inane rebuttals... he will always back out when he loses. Always.
My point is that .. expecting profitability at 100 Million units at any point in the future is setting yourself up for failure, not to mention thinking it will be just a couple years down the line that you'll hit that mark when the Development kits took 4 years to hit 175K.
The Rift is already second rate with more competition on the way. It's time to look at this realistically instead of through fanboy eyes. If you're going to back any PC VR system it should be the Vive... why anyone continues to "wait for a preorder" of the Rift is beyond me. (especially since it has always been available on amazon and other online sites and local retailers since launch)
I think availability is skewing all numbers. I am not suggesting that this means OR is selling well, I dont know, I am just saying its hard to see what is being sold when people like me who put in a pre-order months ago are not even be recorded because they cant charge my card until they ship.
Others on this thread however are trying to suggest that the availability between the two products are basically the same which of course is silly
Agree
It is a factor. I had a check what I could "buy" and currently it seems to be: Samsung VR; pre-order HTC Vive; OR can't pre-order, not listed in most stores although it can be bought on Amazon (11 - a whole 11! - available at huge cost). A GTX1080 though I have been able to pickup for weeks
There are 80 OR listed on Amazon new and used. You've been able to buy them since they released. They are also listed on Newegg. You've been able to pick them up for months now unlike the 1080 which hasn't been consistently available even with a $200 - $300 third party markup.
Newegg - so in the US.
And whilst I have lived / worked in the US I am currently in the EU. And there are / were 11 on "my" Amazon site. And none at all in stores - including one from which I have been able to pick up a 1080 for weeks - not that long after it "launched". (The vendor has a relationship with NVidia.)
Which simply shows that availability varies geographically. Got to remember that worldwide is quite a big place.
I think availability is skewing all numbers. I am not suggesting that this means OR is selling well, I dont know, I am just saying its hard to see what is being sold when people like me who put in a pre-order months ago are not even be recorded because they cant charge my card until they ship.
Others on this thread however are trying to suggest that the availability between the two products are basically the same which of course is silly
Agree
It is a factor. I had a check what I could "buy" and currently it seems to be: Samsung VR; pre-order HTC Vive; OR can't pre-order, not listed in most stores although it can be bought on Amazon (11 - a whole 11! - available at huge cost). A GTX1080 though I have been able to pickup for weeks
There are 80 OR listed on Amazon new and used. You've been able to buy them since they released. They are also listed on Newegg. You've been able to pick them up for months now unlike the 1080 which hasn't been consistently available even with a $200 - $300 third party markup.
Newegg - so in the US.
And whilst I have lived / worked in the US I am currently in the EU. And there are / were 11 on "my" Amazon site. And none at all in stores - including one from which I have been able to pick up a 1080 for weeks - not that long after it "launched". (The vendor has a relationship with NVidia.)
Which simply shows that availability varies geographically. Got to remember that worldwide is quite a big place.
While you're correct that it varies geographically, there's still no telling exactly how many are actually in stock as you have 11 in stock plus 2 other sellers... both of which we don't know how many either of them have in stock.
Comments
If I say 'I need wings to fly' then going around suggesting using clever langauge to protect yourself that I need to fly is being misleading.
The TRUTH of this is that Mark Z was giving an overly optimistic earnings forecast to his shareholders. He does NEED to make a profit on it. Just like Xbox didnt make a profit for years.
now here is the gut of it. the gut of it is that you know what I am saying, you know damn well that OR can last many years without showing a profit just like xbox did, but why you want to spin it differently is something that is beyond me and that motovation you have is something I think you should sit and think about on a personal level.
Lets not talk about this again, its going to do nothing but go around in circles. But I encourage you strongly to contemplate what I just said in the directly above paragraph.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Like always you try and obfuscate the point with inanity. Wings do not matter. Flying doesn't matter. Becoming profitable matters.
They will not become profitable... ever.. if they expect the Rift to sell 100 Million Units. It doesn't matter that he said 2017... my point was showing you how ridiculous a 2017 statement was.
It does not matter if there's a Rift in every store when nobody is buying them. (see @filmoret s price gouging fallacy)
It doesn't even matter that you can't get one directly from the company today (because, honestly, that's their fault, and there are still hundreds on the market you could buy today)
What matters is that the sales are so low, the demand is so low, in 4 YEARS they sold 175K development kits when they were the only VR set on the market... and many of those were likely REPEAT purchases upgrading from one DK model to the next.
By next year, Rift would be LUCKY to be in the 1 - 2 Million range... with a REDUCED price point.
At that point, they'll have so much competition ... I don't doubt they'll bow out within the next 4 years.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
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
is there a difference betweeen min. and recommended? yes but it barely moves my observation at all.
Xbox One is a rather small % of the gaming population.
is it possible the VR is not focused on 'all' gamers just like games like The Division are clearly not?
oh and
4. you have no fucking clue if 99% of the population who bought those games cant run it on recomended settings
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
There are several reasons why people buy A rather than B.
Availability is possibly the biggest factor. These numbers are small especially on a worldwide stage. If both units were equally available, people could go into a store and check them out side by side etc. then the comparison between the two is valid. I don't think we are there however. If someone wants to try VR and they go into a store or onto a site and the only option they have is A then their options are A or no VR. Same with item B. It is only when they have a choice of A or B that the comparison holds.
Price? Well those who are bothered by Price are clearly buying phone VR sets. These units may fall into the area of "luxury pricing" - when normal rules no longer apply. Don't think this is the case though.
However outside of availability this may well be people picking one over the other because they consider that to be "the best". And - again because numbers are small what is "best" for one person is not "best" for another. Peoples eyesights are different; head sizes; weight will impact on some more than others etc. So I am inclined to say "to early to make the comparison". Except with phone VR sets.
Edit: Lots of standard marketing stuff about why things sell. How good the product is, the price and whether it is available are three big factors. The other usual suspect I didn't touch on above - which may also be a factor - is Promotion. Sales and Marketing. And - again because we are talking worldwide - I suspect it is really hard to know which product has been pushed the most. With these numbers the difference could simply come down to marketing.
Others on this thread however are trying to suggest that the availability between the two products are basically the same which of course is silly
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
not all copies of The Division are PC based to begin with.
regardless, I absolutely do not agree with you that the difference between Suggested and Min. are large enough to change the underlining point.
Do we really think the target 'norm' for the gaming industry is to have the vast majortiy of people intrested in a AAA title to play the game only on min. settings OR are we to think it has been over the past 20 years that over short peroids of time those settings no longer become expensive to buy.....aka GTX 1060
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It is a factor. I had a check what I could "buy" and currently it seems to be: Samsung VR; pre-order HTC Vive; OR can't pre-order, not listed in most stores although it can be bought on Amazon (11 - a whole 11! - available at huge cost). A GTX1080 though I have been able to pickup for weeks
again
1. I, like many people do not want to buy from a reseller. I do not trust them
2. I, like many people do not want to spend more for the same when the same is coming.
3. I, like many people had no clue about these options until I started reading posts from you guys
so 1. a lot of people dont know its an option 2. a lot of people dont want to spend $200 MORE for the same thing they already ordered 3. many people dont trust resellers, 4. a lot of people dont even know this option exists.
so yeah...it DOES affect sales numbers
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
No, it isn't being negative, it isn't being pessimistic, its looking at the facts. VR doesn't need help failing, and I'm not out to see VR fail, I'm looking for one VR horse to back. VR hardware that is still going to be around and supported in 3 years.
Sean opts out of the conversation when he can't think of one of his inane rebuttals... he will always back out when he loses. Always.
My point is that .. expecting profitability at 100 Million units at any point in the future is setting yourself up for failure, not to mention thinking it will be just a couple years down the line that you'll hit that mark when the Development kits took 4 years to hit 175K.
The Rift is already second rate with more competition on the way. It's time to look at this realistically instead of through fanboy eyes. If you're going to back any PC VR system it should be the Vive... why anyone continues to "wait for a preorder" of the Rift is beyond me. (especially since it has always been available on amazon and other online sites and local retailers since launch)
And whilst I have lived / worked in the US I am currently in the EU. And there are / were 11 on "my" Amazon site. And none at all in stores - including one from which I have been able to pick up a 1080 for weeks - not that long after it "launched". (The vendor has a relationship with NVidia.)
Which simply shows that availability varies geographically. Got to remember that worldwide is quite a big place.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Oculus-Rift/dp/B01GVXJJWY/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1468021433&sr=8-3&keywords=rift
A couple used ones are being sold too.