Live data from Hacker News

Facebook can’t decide how much VR should cost

techcrunch.com

31–40 of 59 posts

Re: Facebook can’t decide how much VR should cost

#31
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you define widespread adoption? When adding all the current gen VR systems together we're already over 10M units sold.

Those are really optimistic numbers which must include GearVR and its competitors, which are toys that most people do not consider true VR. Total sales for Rift, PSVR, and Vive are ~1.5 million units combined. All the others (OSVR, chinese clones, et. al.) might add up to 2 million total.

The 10M figure does include Gear VR yes. It's less capable than a Vive but ignoring its success while prophecising VR's doom seems weird to me.

Re: Facebook can’t decide how much VR should cost

#32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither Vive nor Rift have been selling very well recently if the Steam Survey is any indication. PSVR numbers are better but I don't think they're that impressive either.

The amazing thing to me is that my 10 and 8 year old nephews have a PSVR, and Xbox, and an iPad, and all they want to do is play the iPad. They use the Xbox sometimes, and the PSVR collects dust. It seems nowadays low friction is the killer feature.

Kids aren't the only ones. Most of us in the wealthy West now have so many entertainment options that we ignore even many of the ones we've already paid for, or are continuing to pay for. Half the time I forget I have Prime Video at all, and I've temporarily got Showtime for Twin Peaks but despite knowing there are probably tons of other shows and movies on it (and not on Netflix/Prime) that I'd enjoy I've not even looked at the rest of their catalog aside from ~5min scanning through it when I first signed up.

I have a total of probably 60+ entirely unplayed games for the PS2, PS3, Xbox360, Gamecube, and Wii, picked up cheap used or in digital PS+ freebies or sales but not touched since. Hundreds of hours of entertainment which I'd probably enjoy and many of which have at least some artistic merit but they sit unused. We recently picked up a PS4, so now games are accumulating for that too. Don't get me started on Steam/GoG. My to-read list of just books I own is solidly in the 3 digits. We've still got a couple DVDs kicking around that we bought over a decade ago for next to nothing used, never watched.

I've never found time to catch up on all the music I pirated 10+ years ago, sometimes in large dumps of material from friends who were more into tracking down The Good Stuff than I was (keeping up with all that meta-reading to learn what's worth your time itself takes tons of time) let alone listen to much new music aside from a handful of CDs purchased and listened-to after live shows over the years. Spotify and such can go to hell, I don't got time and the last thing I need is another way to find things I like but won't have time to pursue.

I end up seeing a more-or-less random 25-50% of the movies that are probably excellent and I'd likely really enjoy that come out every year. There are hundreds of culturally and artistically important movies from the last 100+ years still on my to-watch list, but the ones I miss each year keep making the list longer rather than shorter. Most are easily available. Some of them I could go watch right now (Netflix, et c.)

I'm still meaning to read Sandman and a dozen other acclaimed, important comics, to say nothing of all the ones I'd probably enjoy as pure bubble-gum entertainment. I've barely scratched the surface on that entire format.

Plus I've got all that stuff in life that's not just "consuming" media.

I've truly got more excellent art/entertainment readily available than I have time for, by a large margin. We live in strange times.

[EDIT] Oh, and let's not forget the ~a billion hours of free entertainment on Youtube, podcasts, archive.org, and so on, much of it good. I'm not much into that stuff because wow do I ever not have time to sort wheat from chaff let alone enjoy said wheat, but it's all right there and I could seek it out any time I please.

Re: Facebook can’t decide how much VR should cost

#33
post #14

Is it safe to say that VR still has another decade (at least) before it gets any kind of wide spread adoption? I was hyped a couple years ago for VR but it feels like its fizzled out.

How do you define widespread adoption? When adding all the current gen VR systems together we're already over 10M units sold.

Basically when new games are made for VR first and traditional games (PS4/XBOX/Nintendo) are more for niche gamers.

Re: Facebook can’t decide how much VR should cost

#34
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you define widespread adoption? When adding all the current gen VR systems together we're already over 10M units sold.

Basically when new games are made for VR first and traditional games (PS4/XBOX/Nintendo) are more for niche gamers.

That's a pretty interesting goal. I haven't thought too much about this, but for that to happen we'd need some high bandwidth brain-computer links. Then those new VR systems with brainlinks would also have to be cheaper than all the existing traditional gaming platforms. Add the gaming system upgrade cycle to that (5-10 years). So I'd wager it won't happen for at least another 30-40 years at least. That said, I can easily see VR system sales being in the billions with just 10 years. It's just that traditional systems will outnumber VR systems for a long time, especially if a VR system also depends on owning a traditional system.

Re: Facebook can’t decide how much VR should cost

#35
VR is not going to happen for general productivity purposes, but it will be handy for some specialties. Then they can invest in better, more expensive equipment.

VR is such a closed off experience right now, I would schedule it under Dreaming. Sweaty too, with today's gear.

It asks a lot for what it can deliver for now.

Re: Facebook can’t decide how much VR should cost

#36

Is it safe to say that VR still has another decade (at least) before it gets any kind of wide spread adoption? I was hyped a couple years ago for VR but it feels like its fizzled out.

A decade seems like too much. Maybe 3-5 years. You know that expression "wait for the third generation" - I think it applies to VR headsets, too. I've also tried both Oculus Rift and Vive and despite what some may say, 1440p is just not enough. I feel like 4k needs to be the bare minimum resolution, so I don't plan on getting one until it has a 4k resolution. There are also other kinks to solve in the overall technology/experience, so waiting a few more years could pay-off.

Re: Facebook can’t decide how much VR should cost

#38
post #22

This is pointless, people are not buying VR because there is nothing there they really want to use it for, not because it costs too much. A gaming rig to run it will cost you more.

Much of this is just how computer parts get cheaper over time. VR may end up like trackballs which never replaced mice, but still sold millions of devices.

PS: I flat out will not buy a Facebook product which may be contributing to HTC’s $799 Vive is continuing to sell better than the Rift.

Re: Facebook can’t decide how much VR should cost

#39
I don't think anyone can really gauge VR's day-to-day casual consumer value. It's genuine applications are rare, and it's primary value is in deflecting hazardous situations onto remote operated robotic vehicles with telepresence.

But humans prefer actual experiences above all, every single time, unless real dangers are presented, so VR always feels like an undesirable compromise.

Re: Facebook can’t decide how much VR should cost

#40
post #22

This is pointless, people are not buying VR because there is nothing there they really want to use it for, not because it costs too much. A gaming rig to run it will cost you more.

But people are more likely to pay $200 for something that they might not get a huge amount of use from than $500+.
Post reply on HN