Beat Games, the Czechia-based studio known for VR’s most popular game Beat Saber (2018), revealed it’s managed to generate nearly $100 million in revenue over the course of last year thanks to the block-slashing rhythm game.

Czech language publication CzechCrunch confirmed that Beat Games earned 2.3 billion Czech koruna in revenue last year alone, or around $97 million USD.

This places it as the top-earning game studio in Czechia, as it now sits above Bohemia Interactive (Arma, DayZ), SCS Software (Euro Truck Simulator 2), and Warhorse Studios (Kingdom Come: Deliverance).

https://twitter.com/JaroslavBeck/status/1542569491804176387

CzechCrunch indicates this represents a year-over-year growth of around 65 percent, as last year Beat Games reported sales of 1.4 billion koruna (~$59 million USD).

Profit is another thing entirely however. For comparison, Bohemia Interactive reported an after-tax profit of 616 million koruna (~$26 million USD) last year. Beat Games reported an after-tax profit of only 70 million koruna (~$3 million USD).

SEE ALSO
Meta's First Step Toward a Proper Metaverse: Avatars That Can "travel between" Two Platforms

Bohemia Interactive acts as both developer and publisher of its own titles, which is likely why after-tax profit is so high in comparison to Beat Games, which was acquired by Meta (formerly Facebook) back in 2019. Founded by Ján Ilavský, Vladimír Hrinčár and Jaroslav Beck in 2018, the team now includes more than thirty members working under the Meta name.

With Meta’s deep pockets, Beat Saber has continued to pump out a steady stream of tracks to slice and grove to, which includes content from high-profile artists such as SkrillexBTSGreen DayTimbalandLinkin Park, and Imagine Dragons, not to mention the Interscope Music Pack featuring tracks from the likes of Kendrick Lamar, OneRepublic, Limp Bizkit, and Maroon 5.

Beat Saber regularly sits at the top of the charts across all supported headsets now four years later, which includes PSVR, PC VR headsets, and the Meta Quest platform, the latter of which has no doubt been the key driver for sales in 2021 thanks to the release of Quest 2.

This article may contain affiliate links. If you click an affiliate link and buy a product we may receive a small commission which helps support the publication. See here for more information.


  • ViRGiN

    and this is why there are no proper PCVR games being done.

    • Andrew Jakobs

      What do you mean? Beat Saber is also available on PCVR, so I don’t see why it would be a reason who there are no proper PCVR games. Also I don’t really see it as a problem, the Quest is driving VR forward in market share, so in the end we as VR lovers will benefit from it. So yeah, for now PCVR might not be on the forefront for some VR developers, but let’s face it, PCVR has the problem of needing very beefy GPU’s to actually enjoy PCVR. But with Quest 2 and Pico Neo3 being able to stream PC games it will also enlarge the PCVR market.

      • ViRGiN

        Quest series exist for over 3 years now. It boosted the number of connected SteamVR users in the beginning, but in NO SHAPE OR FORM it has actually influenced in-game numbers for any game whatsoever.

        Beat Saber making 100 million of revenue in a year only further solidify unwilling for developers to enter the market. Why make expensive, but beautiful games that will be shat on for the littlest of things, when you can just make a game on a budget of 10k like Beat Saber or Pistol Whip? This is what sells.

        • Andrew Jakobs

          But that can be said of all games on all platforms. Sometimes you get lucky, like beat saber, but it certainly isn’t known up front if such a simple concept can earn you so much profit. You can’t predict if a small game will make it big, if you can you’re clairvoyant and should go work on Wallstreet.
          For any successful game there are a gazillion games that aren’t.

          And I’ll bet one of the reasons why beatsaber brings in so much money is due the sale of the extra tracks, not due to the sale of the base game itself (which ofcourse is probably also very profitable).

          • ViRGiN

            Making a “buttass” games like Pistol Whip requires almost no upfront costs. Graphics are non existent, mechanics are minimal. Anyone can pull this off and capitalize on simple mechanic. If it works, great, you can farm this concept for years until someone else takes your place. If it doesn’t, cool, it cost you next to nothing, and you know PCVR people are not ready for anything, if pavlov is still on top of the list while doing next to no work at all.

            SuperHot is a rare exception that despite both PCVR and Quest success, they decided that even BIGGER success is actually on flat screen. That being said, i remember seeing news like they made more in single month on Quest 1 than all years of PCVR combined. There is absolutetly no reason to risk any amount of money creating PCVR-worthy games. Racing sims are the rare games that do take advantage of PC architecture, but it’s also one of the very, very few type of games that require barebones effort to get it working in VR. And surely the niche racing/flying sim community is actually willing to pay for the content, even on monthly basis. Subscription to games like iRacing are a normal thing nowadays, and very popular among very dedicated. There are almost no “casual” racers anymore. If you’re investing in a wheel, it’s either a “permanent” part of your setup, or something to dust off every once in a while.

          • Andrew Jakobs

            But you just give a big reason why studio’s are afraid to invest a lot in PCVR games. You can creat such a beautiful and expensive game, but if it doesn’t make it’s money back it’s useless. The marktet for VR is still too small to take such big risks. One advantage for a PSVR2 game like horizon is that they already made most of the assets for their normal game, so it isn’t a big risk to use those and have a few people work on a VR version. Just like with Ubisoft and their location based VR games, they are mostly based off content already created for their normal games.

          • ViRGiN

            They are afraid to invest into proper titles, after seeing the flops like Medal of Honor, Sniper, or even Fallout or Skyrim. It just doesn’t make sense. The consumers responded, and are avoiding all these games at all costs, resorting to playing the very same games over and over that they had in their library for years. So, if they want to get into VR sphere, they will make more simple games to make their feet wet. There is tons of studios out there who could recycle the very same assets from their old game, and they would work just fine on mobile. I guess we have to trust Zucerberg and associates that it’s all in the works, just takes time. I bet GTA SA, no matter how old, will be a smash success, and completly opposite of the remaster critic that PC/console versions had.

            Doom 3 on Quest is an excellent game, for being an amateur port. It’s infinietly better than the official Doom VR we had. Companies needs to retrofit their old golden classics, as it’s infinietly more cheap, and gamers want to experience old games again, just time this in VR, and are willing to pay for it. Resident Evil 4 is a great example.

          • ApocalypseShadow

            Cheap and old games are not the way. That’s not going to work. It will help fill in between bigger releases. But gamers want new games. It’ll makes money for some in the short term. Might even help developers learn VR by using a familiar game already made without going through the usual process of new game creation. But it’s not a long term solution.

            It’s like Naughty Dog. They ported The Last of Us to PS4 before building all their new games for PS4 with that knowledge. They are now porting a remake for PS5. That information will help some of their programmers build PS5 only games. It’s extra cash reselling it. But Naughty Dog AREN’T going to port ALL their old games to PS5 as a standard to make a quick buck because PlayStation owners will pull away from that. They want new games for a new console. Just like VR gamers want new games for new headsets.

            PC’s biggest problems are price and ease of use. To play the latest games in or out of VR in good quality, you have to have a decent setup that’s costly. That’s just a fact. The confusion for some consumers to what they need to buy for games to work on PC is why some shy away from it towards plug and play console gaming. Countless comments all over the Internet are from gamers wondering what they need for a good VR setup on PC. It’s easy for some used to PC gaming. But not someone starting out.

            GTA is a big name and big game. But you can already play that in VR on PC through a mod. It has not drawn gamers to it. But if GTA gets announced for PS VR 2, it’s name and release would be considered huge and again, it’s plug and play.

            The fact remains is that third parties, if they are not getting paid for exclusivity, like more than one platform to spread their eggs out. Putting a huge AAA game in one basket is risky today. That’s why you see an Xbox, PC and PlayStation port of games. PSVR is on its way out. No point of porting besides the lack of analog sticks and power. And PS VR 2 is a ways out it seems. Third parties for VR don’t make PC only releases normally. Only rare like Flight Simulator or F1. But when PS VR 2 is on the market, which will be at a level that ports can be made back and forth across a popular console platform and PC, games are going to flow consistently across platforms. Alyx will come to PS VR 2. And games not exclusive to PS VR 2 will come to PC. More baskets, more chances of success across the board. It’s why you see PC and Quest releases. More baskets.

            Quest might be getting sales on cheap creations right now. But long term, gamers will want more than that where it feels like cheap tech demos and early access games needing more polish that you can side load. We don’t see third parties making big AAA games for Quest either. As much as the headset is selling, Zuckerberg has to pay to get a big game for it. Where’s Quest 1st Party? It’s severely lacking. Third parties aren’t falling over themselves to make games for it. And, the tech is outdated. It’s cool for what it is. But companies have moved on beyond games from PS2 level of graphics, physics, etc that Quest just can’t do. It still can’t do Skyrim. And it came out years ago in VR. Won’t even fit in storage space on lesser models.

            Point I’m trying to make is, PS VR 2 will lift all boats. PC, Quest and console. Big games can make profit like GTA just like small games like beat saber or they wouldn’t be made. Big games will come to PC because PS VR 2 will allow porting to be easier across platforms. And third parties are waiting for that. When Sony announces their line up, you’ll see the companies and then you’ll know that some will come to PC. Then, we can come back and debate about it.

          • ViRGiN

            You have write all of that, just to compare PS4 games being ported to PS5 lol.
            Given all the bullshit games available, absolutetly majority will play the very same OLD (never said cheap) games, just this time in PROPER VR.

            If you think GTA 5 VR exists thanks to mod, you’re out of your brain. That’s stupid ass jank that never had a chance to capture wider audience. NEVER. This type of game HAS TO BE done natively. And that’s what boosts VR to the next level, and makes people go out of their bubble and get one.
            Resident Evil 4 sold the fastest game ever on Q2. GTA SA, despite being old, will guaranteed exceed that even further. The only people whining about “20 year old game ported to VR” are the people who are playing “6 year old flat game modded to janky VR”, claiming their superiority.

          • ApocalypseShadow

            I’m aware that the best solution is a native VR game. But Skyrim and RE7 weren’t native and were accepted just fine on PC and PSVR. And Skyrim had no motion control function initially. Both games unplayable on Quest only. No Man Sky is coming to Switch. Was repurposed for PSVR and PC as it didn’t have motion controls. Unplayable on stand alone only. Why, because it can’t and is outdated. MMS is coming to PS VR 2. No announcement for Quest yet. Why? You know. I know you know.

            RE4 did sell for a minute. Now, no one really cares. Gamers went right back to beat saber. They care for the announcement of RE4 and RE8 for PS VR 2 though. Because it’ll be better and not 20 year old graphics. GTA SA is coming. And that fine. It’ll sell well for a time. Because there isn’t any competition. But Zuckerberg had to pay for it. Rockstar didn’t approach them. Facebook approached Rockstar I’d bet. It’ll sell because Quest needs big games. But gamers will forget it if GTA is announced for PS VR 2.

            You give Facebook a lot of credit. And they should for the tech involved at least. But their first Party sucks. Just riding off of micro transactions from a music game with the same repetitive gameplay. The bullshit you say about PC. What new first Party game has come from Facebook? Jack shit. Nada. Zero. Just micro transactions.

            As I said, Quest is only getting attention because they are sitting in the valley before the coming of better equipment. They make hand tracking. But no games to support it like Nintendo would do. Why? Because Facebook’s first Party sucks. Splinter Cell? Assassin’s Creed? GTA? RE4? None are first Party. Why? Because Facebook first Party sucks. Instead of spending money on features that add nothing, maybe they should be creating first Party studios or buy some. You talk a lot about PC. While looking at Quest with rose colored glasses. Sony won’t have that problem. They have one of the best studios in the business. Their tech already looks forward thinking as the headset can be used on PS6 because of the eye tracking. And some of those third party games will come to PC. Quest is dated. Only possible way of getting better is yet another headset after Go and Quest and Quest 2. And Cambria isn’t going to make Quest 2 better. The graphics or gameplay. It’ll just make it look even more dated while being more expensive. And still no games from first Party. Zuckerberg showing all those future headsets like anyone cares when no games are being announced from first Party. Ready at Dawn is first Party. A very good developer. Where’s their game for VR? How long do gamers have to wait for it?

            You can dog PC all you want to your hearts content while ignoring the fact that Quest lives on DLC and micro transactions and simple games that look like first generation VR games. Hope you’re happy with them. It won’t get any better than 20 year old graphics. Maybe you’ll get yet another exercise game. Yeah. That’s the ticket.

          • ViRGiN

            I don’t know why you keep comparing PCVR to Quest. PCVR has absolutetly failed on all fronts. All user activity are pure laughable number for years. There are no new games announced. The ones that are, are completly dead even before release. Quest is doing absolutetly fine. There is no real step up from Quest 2 – PCVR costs like 8 times as much to get into, and doesn’t even deliver twice the quality, and delivers exactly zero quality expected from beefy PC. The software is simply pure shit. Does PCVR can play Battlefield 2, a 17 year old game? No it can’t. PCVR can’t even get 17 year old graphics to run, not to mention proper sound design, massive content at launch, and support for 64 players at once. And actually being populated. Power isn’t everything. PCVR had all the power. It delivers essentially mobile experience. And don’t even get into “but alyx, boneworks” etc area. It’s pure nonsense and did not really bring VR further. You think RE4 is forgotten? It’s constantly in top seller, and constantly gets new reviews. Nobody talks about Alyx or Boneworks anymore. Alyx is getting little spotlight today thanks to some mods and that’s all. It’s dead. 40 thousand people used to play this game. Now it’s a ghost town. Contractors VR on Quest has more players at once than Alyx. PCVR, so high end…

          • ApocalypseShadow

            As you said above. What’s the profit? Who cares about the revenue when we’re not getting all of the information.

            Virgin is trying to sell you on the idea that no company should invest in more advanced games for PC and possibly PS VR 2. He thinks simple games like on Quest 2 are where the money is.. Going by his thinking, there should be no advancement in gaming or AAA games. Just bring old games back in high resolution from 20 years ago. When we know that’s not going to work in the long run. Gamers will revolt when they see no evolution in games. Even Quest gamers would get tired of playing 20 year old games.

            Why make new TVs, cars, movies, cellphones, etc? Just resell an old B&W CRT, an old Yugo, remasters of Knight Rider and an old Brick Phone. Doesn’t make any business sense.

            Spider-man PS4 or any big Sony 1st Party that sold millions, Red Dead, GTA, FIFA, COD, etc go against this nonsense he’s saying. It’s about game budgets big and small, staying within that budget, including marketing, and hopefully you can attract gamers with quality gameplay and sales. Beat Saber as proof simple games should only be made? Ridiculous coming from him.

            Beat Saber is just another game in a long line of fad releases connected to music. DDR, Drum Mania, Rock Band, Guitar Hero, Sing Star, etc. Are those games fun? Yup. Now, are those games still the rage any more? **NOPE.** I mean, it’s possible Beat Saber could have staying power and defy history. But chances are, it’ll fade just like the rest.

            He’s saying this stuff in the lull between transitions. When PS VR 2 releases, games developers big and small will be making multiplatform games across it and PC. Quest 2, which is already outdated running 20 year old games, will hit a dead end for development that we can already see. Are big 3rd parties making Quest games? NOPE. Only with a check from Zuckerberg like Capcom. And what’s coming? More 20 year old games. Quest had all these sales but no big budget games. We saw that last video show. Just filled with budget A games. There was disappointment across the board when gamers saw those games that looked like early VR releases. And Virgin wants more of that? Lol.

            To think, Virgin believes the future of the VR industry, is games made during the early 2000’s when Usher was top of the music charts with “Yeah” in 2004.

          • Andrew Jakobs

            To be honest, the Quest 2 is limited by is processing power, which is understandable as we haven’t progressed technology that far yet. I personally don’t see any problem with playing 20 year old games which have been upgraded and running smoothly on a Quest 2, lots of people still haven’t played those games. And in reality, games really haven’t improved that much beyond having better graphics or more fluent/smooth gameplay, but all in all, it’s still the same type of gameplay rehashed over and over (which ofcourse is perfectly fine, because after a while it’s hard to come up with a new type of gameplay/story).
            I just think we have to be realistic, hardware just hasn’t progressed far enough to do 90+fps on even 2k/eye with all fidelity we come to expect from modern AAA games without the need for very hefty/expensive hardware. Once we’re at the point were RTX4090 capabilities is able to do on headset priced like the Quest 2, we will see a big increase in ‘fully fledged’ games, but that’s still years away. In the meantime we’ll have to do with what’s capable for mainstream, and I’m perfectly fine with it, as I also don’t want to spend thousands of dollars just to be able to play RDR2 in 90+fps on PCVR.

          • ApocalypseShadow

            I’m not speaking in the sense that old games are trash. I’ve been playing game gear, NES and PS1 in the last week. More so than PS4 and VR at the moment.

            But new headsets can’t survive on old games repurposed for VR. They may add to the catalog. But old games are not the way forward for VR. Even with added motion controls.

            Beat Saber is probably a good game. I didn’t buy it. But I understand the group of gamers that like music games. And I wouldn’t get myself drawn into buying music tracks because micro transactions are another problem in itself.

            Even games like Dance Central was big at one time for 360. As music can create immersion. But what he’s saying is that developers should give up making big games for PC and just keep making simple games for huge profits. But as Christian and I were saying, big games and small games have budgets. Big games can rake in the profits just like smaller games. And smaller games on small budgets can fail to gain a following just like big games made. He talks about player numbers but a lot of gamers play VR singles player. I don’t even subscribe to play online because it’s really not that big a deal. It’s fun. But so is local multiplayer. But he’s picking certain games as proof that VR is failing on PC. PC will pick up when PS VR 2 hits. Guaranteed.

            He just ignores that because he has some type of beef against Steam, Gabe, whatever. Doesn’t matter the site he’s on like upload or road, it can be an article not even about PC and he’ll turn it into a negative against PC. And I’m not even a PC gamer and notice it.

          • ViRGiN

            How the release of PSVR2 is supposed to help PCVR? lol. you have hundreds of millions of people playing serious games every single day. most of them heard about VR already, most are yet to try it. when PSVR2 becomes smash hit, they will go for PSVR2, not PC lol.

            First it was more powerful graphic cards saving PCVR, they came and nothing changed. Now it’s release of a console helping an entire PC platform that existed for over 6 years now and failed miserably at achieving anything? Competition was supposed to drive VR forward. To this day there is not a single competitor to Meta lol. The only thing that can help PCVR is something akin to GTA6 VR, and only when it’s PCVR exclusive. When that happens, it will be considered REBIRTH of PCVR, because as it stands now and for very long forseeable future, it’s absolutetly dead six feet under ground.

            I am not picking “certain games as proof”, this is literally the top of the top of the list. Wtf am i supposed to list? Tiny Town VR with it’s 14 players online? Moss with 12? Drunkn Bar Fight with 2? Top 5 games consume over 50% of all SteamVR users connected right now. Rec Room, Beat Saber, Pavlov, Blade and Sorcery and ofcourse Alyx. And you think it’s completly healthy situation? This is the same list as a year ago. As two years ago. As three years ago minux Alyx. 4 years ago – the same shit. PCVR is freaking dead and not growing at all, it’s shrinking more than ever before.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            Anyone can pull this off and capitalize on simple mechanic. If it works, great, you can farm this concept for years until someone else takes your place.

            That’s not really how game development works. It can be in the initial phase of a platform, when there isn’t a lot of competition, but that doesn’t last long, as we have seen with the relentless flood of wave shooters in the early days of VR. This goes on for a while due to development times, so you’ll still get wave shooters long after the concept is obviously dead, simply because developers finally finished the games they started when it still seemed a good idea. But after some time taking any simple established concept to reduce the financial risk also means that it gets much harder to get even noticed. I wouldn’t recommend creating another rhythm based movement game for VR, even if this genre currently makes the most money by far.

            Contrary to what many believe AAA isn’t defined by quality, but by budgets. And that doesn’t only mean people working on it and money spend on development, but also marketing budgets, which often surpass the production costs. So the incentive to create a technical complex game at high financial risk is that there is a higher chance that customers will actually notice it, so the millions you throw at advertising campaigns actually generate some traction. The same reason companies pay millions for movie franchise licenses instead of simply calling the game Arachnoboy. The extreme case is the current mobile game market, where you need a marketing budget magnitudes larger than the development costs to ensure sufficient user numbers.

            Beat Saber isn’t a hit because it is simple. Beat Saber is a hit because it was unique at the time, introduced a very fitting mechanic for VR, got an incredible amount of free promotion thanks to becoming the accidental poster child for VR, and then got bough by Meta that were able to pay for Lady Gaga license rights.

            The right place at the right time. And after that a lot of polishing, which is, contrary to what you seem to assume, very hard and expensive, even for mechanically simple games. There are hours of documentation on why Mario jumps the way he jumps, and why this is important.

          • ViRGiN

            > Beat Saber isn’t a hit because it is simple. Beat Saber is a hit because it was unique at the time, introduced a mechanic very fitting for VR, got an incredible amount of free promotion thanks to featuring cool laser swords and becoming the accidental poster child for VR, and then got bough by Meta that were able to pay for Lady Gaga license rights.
            That’s absolutetly not the ultimate truth. Beat Saber got immensly popular, because it was the ONLY game capable of holding people in for longer. Just like pavlov today is still keeping it’s thousand-at-once player base thanks for ‘infinite’ custom mod, people could play one single game that they continously got better at, all thanks to dozens of thousands of custom songs.
            Beat Saber clone will not work in today market; but it’s easy to imagine another wave of ‘wave shooters/body rhytm shooters’ with next generation of headset. Fitness is huge, and number one obstacle is the discomfort of actually using your body with something heavy on your face. If this is ligther, this opens us a lot of possibilities for those who quickly abandoned the idea of getting fit. So once again, once VR gets better, it will open up the space more for even more simple games, instead of “full fledged” games. Ask any of your “real gamer” friends what they would actually want to play in proper VR. It’s definetly not among us or some casual 2 month hype steam indie game.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            You switched the criteria with your answer, from “what generates revenue and entices the development of new titles”, to “what keeps people engaged”, which is obviously not the same. Pavlov doesn’t generate extra revenue thanks to prolonged user activity, Beat Saber does if people continue to pay for new DLC, and for Supernatural, the app most likely to have made the second highest revenue of USD 60mn, continued user engagement equals revenue due to subscription fees.

            Any postmortem analysis why something became a hit is bound to fall into the survival bias trap, where a reasoning is created why it was a success with no way to test if this is what actually happened, or if there were other important factors, or if it was purely accidental. The failure of companies to artificially create viral hits is an indicator that chance often plays a much bigger role than expected. Which is why I am reluctant to predict what future VR games will look like.

            So far no gaming platform has ever been completely dominated by only one type of game, the only limits are technical capabilities. Looking at past VR and pancake games I’d expect neither a “casual only” nor a “hardcore only”, but a “wild mix of whatever makes money” for the future, with some surprises nobody will see coming. That is, of course, also just a guess. I will never claim to know the ultimate truth. Not even the truth. I’ll settle for “plausible reasoning” and “getting the math right”.

  • Christian Schildwaechter

    During an earnings call in February 2022, Meta announced that the Quest store had generated USD 1bn in software sales since its launch in 2019. Shortly before the launch of the Quest 2, they had reported a total of USD 150 in software revenues, meaning USD 850mn generated in about 17 months. Assuming that Beat Saber sales increase at the same speed as other titles (which they don’t, newer titles now sell better), USD 100mn in the twelve months of 2021 month would mean USD ~142mn in 17 months (also very oversimplified).

    So Beat Saber generated 142/850 = 21.4% of all revenue generated on the Quest store, with the remaining 78,6%/USD 668mn shared among the other ~350 apps, or USD 1.91mn on average, ignoring any money that went to App Lab and hoping that Beat Saber DLC was already included in the USD 100mn in 2021.

    • benz145
      • Christian Schildwaechter

        If I take these numbers into account (35 apps with USD 1-2mn, 24/2-3, 26/3-5, 17/5-10, 14/10-20, 8/20+) and also base it on the lower of the two numbers, I come to the same numbers as you did: USD 546mn in revenue for the top 124, about 55% of the USD 1bn total, with the remaining apps making 45%.

        If I move Beat Saber to a new USD 100mn category, this changes to USD 626mn for the top 124, at least 38% of which was going to the eight 20mn+ apps, and leaving 37.4% of the USD 1bn for the remaining 221 (out of 345) apps, an average of USD 1.69mn.

        If I then assume that the revenue for the top 124 was the middle of the range instead of the lower end (7.5 instead of 5 for 5-10 etc.), which should be more realistic, and top the previous 20+ category by doubling to 40, I end up with 86.4% going to the top 124, 13.6% for the rest with an average of USD 615K. Going for a more conservative 20-25mn second tier range, this goes up to 18.9%/USD 853K.

        So 37.4% revenue share//USD 1.69mn average revenue for the 64% apps not in the top 124 would be the (unrealistic) best case scenario, with half of that being more probable. Becoming a Quest developer is not a particularly safe way to get rich, even for those few that managed to get onto the official store.

    • Edk

      Your calculation is wrong. Read the whole article. $100 million was the entire Beat Games studio’s revenue. It’s not just Oculus sales.

      • Christian Schildwaechter

        I know. And acknowledged that.

        would mean USD ~142mn in 17 months (also very oversimplified)

        and

        ignoring […] Beat Saber sales on other platforms

        and

        there is quite a margin of error in these numbers

        I basically assume that most of Beat Games revenue is from Beat Saber, and most sales of Beat Saber are on Quest. That is obviously not the same as 100% of all revenues being from Quest Beat Saber, but I have no base on which to determine how many percents they actually are. And there are several other factors in the calculation that could lead to Beat Saber actually taking an even bigger cut of all software sales.

        So it makes more sense to apply the numbers that we actually got and add a disclaimer about the margin of error instead of trying to just guess numbers that may increase accuracy or introduce an even bigger error. The resulting numbers aren’t perfect, they are only the best ones I got.

  • Andrew Jakobs

    They sold almost $100 million,, but how much is the actual profit? as these music track licenses aren’t really cheap, and ofcourse the costs of running the business itself is also a factor. So it’s nice to hear they sold for $100 million, but I’d rather know what the actual profits were.

    • ViRGiN

      Let’s get into uncanny valley and claim 70% of that are costs. That leaves 30 million of pure profit for the simplest game ever to exist. Nothing to be ashamed of. Enough of evidence that it’s better to actually make mobile grade games instead of commiting and risking everything to make proper game which as every title ever has shown, is not worth it. How many are playing Green Hell on PC now? How many are playing After the Fall? These games NEVER came close to even half the pavlov numbers. And pavlov is also on the very low end of gaming.

      • Andrew Jakobs

        You forget, Beat saber also included PC sales, it’s not Quest only.

        • ViRGiN

          And it’s probably still number one sold game on both platform.
          Thing is, Beat Saber has nothing to do with PC hardware at all.
          So seeing it being the most popular paid title ever made, why risk making a full fledged games that everyone deeply wants? That’s a gamble that will NEVER pay off with current state of things with PCVR.
          I did not forget.

          • Andrew Jakobs

            What games do everyone deeply want? Don’t forget there are so many different ‘wants’. And what is ‘fully fledged’. I personally like adventure games, but I don’t want them to take over 12-15 hours, otherwise I think they are just way too long. And the same with VR games, I’m not interested in games that take 30+ hours to finish, I want to be able to finish the game in a couple of hours and move on to the next one. So my ‘wants’ are probably different from your ‘wants’.

          • ViRGiN

            So, you’re a casual gamer, and casual in “mobile phone” grade of sense. Take any blockbuster game released in the past decade. Plenty of 10-12 hours long journeys, and I bet as hell that everyone will prefer to have lengthy, never beaten game, than a shorter 2-3 hour long game that gives you a “sense of pride and acoomplishment” for actually finishing it. Then again there is tons of never explored properly multiplayer games. There is a reason why straight after a wave of ultra-low poly rhytm games and rec room, it’s always some sort of online multiplayer game where you can play the same map over and over again, all because AI still has never reproduced that uniquness of every player playstyle.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            I bet as hell that everyone will prefer …

            That is a bet you will always lose, no matter the subject. People have different preferences and lives. Parents of young children cannot take part in long MMORPG raids, and a lot of previous hardcore games switched to shorter experiences simply due to lack of time, now hating any type of grind. A great experience requires neither a lot of time nor high end graphics nor a high skill set. That is only what a particular subgroup of gamers prefers.

            all because AI still has never reproduced that uniquness of every player playstyle.

            Yes.

            it’s always some sort of online multiplayer game where you can play the same map over and over again,

            Sort of yes, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t casual. Animal Crossing has sold more than 60mn copies, is most certainly a casual game, people play it online for the social aspects and spend hundreds of hours in it, despite the ultra simple, cartoonish graphics. Grinding in Animal Crossing means fishing. For hours and hours.

          • ViRGiN

            VR has tons of those simple kind of games, and in terms of PCVR, it’s all doing EXTREMELY horrible. Get out of your bubble. People have always been asking for proper games, not yet another rhytm shooter or game focused on single mechanic. These games simply do not exist. PC gamers are NOT interested in VR because it’s all mobile phone gaming with your RTX3090. Check latest steam hardware survey, they are loosing players once again, and once again, there has been NO uptick in amount of players connected at once.

          • Andrew Jakobs

            You really think all PC gamers have an RTX3090? Again as I said, biggest problem with PCVR is the need for powerfull hardware which is just very VERY expensive. And it also shows as in all those ‘fully fledged’ games which have VR added through mods, they mostly require a very hefty PC to actually play fluently on even an RTX3080 or above. PCVR is doomed because of the need of powerfull hardware, at least for the next 2-3 years untils hardware like RTX4080+ will become mainstream.

          • ViRGiN

            Do YOU really think RTX3090 is in every gamers home?
            PCVR does NOT require SUCH monstrosity. 98.13% of all SteamVR users DOES NOT HAVE VR headset. RTX 2060 which is MORE THAN ENOUGH FOR VR is in 4.87% hands of Steam users. There is a bunch of EXCELLENT FOR VR cards that goes into dozens of overall percent, AND THESE PEOPLE DO NOT GO AHEAD AND BUY A HEADSET. Repeating the bullshit of needing a powerful hardware, while ignoring MILLIONS of already into gaming people with powerful machine, is just yet another PCVR propaganda. VR and PC gaming has next to zero percent overlap? Future VR customers are not coming from existing gaming platforms? PCVR is doomed because it offers NOTHING, with all capital letters to 98.13% of people. Why someone playing the latest and greatest, and older and still infinietly better than anything VR combined should go ahead and get into VR? To play Rec Room? Beat Saber? Gorilla Tag? Pavlov? There is no killer software for PCVR, as simple as that. And for GODS SAKE, Alyx had 40 THOUSAND people connected at once, in the very same minute when it released. NEVER, EVER, FOREVER again despite over 2 years passing and VR being sold in masses thanks to Quest 2 has that number even came close to HALF of it. PCVR isn’t dying, it’s dead, it’s completly obsolete, and a total joke of a platform.

          • Andrew Jakobs

            Do YOU really think RTX3090 is in every gamers home?

            I’m exacly saying that that’s NOT the case..
            I myself have a RXT2060Super playing on a HTC Vive Pro (wireless these days) and I can affirm that a 2060 is far from ideal for playing PCVR without any visible artifacts (with or without cable), yeah it certainly is Ok to play most games, but any game with a bit of extra fidelity it’s starting to be a problem unless you are turning some options way down, making it look more like the Quest games you detest.
            But saying PCVR is dead and complete obsolete and a total joke of a platform is really just being a big snob. But then again a lot of people say PC gaming itself is dead.
            Personally I don’t see it that way. I enjoy the games that are available on PCVR, I have still so many games in my library which I haven’t played yet. I just wished some of the earlier released PCVR games would update their games to better support the newer headsets, even an excellent game like Robinson the journey would benefit from it.

          • ViRGiN

            I think Rift started as minimum GTX980, later brought down to 970 or even 960. It was fine back then, and great entry way. I wonder what kind of games you’re playing to act like turning down some settings on your RTX2060 makes it looks like Quest. If you really need a much better than RTX2060 to have quality experience, then again, you have a 13.29% of steam users with card like 3070, 3080, 3090 and it’s variants. More than 10x of all connected VR headsets on Steam are not interested in VR.

            The numbers speaks for themselves. Observe VRLFG. Check all the “greatest” games released in the past 6 months. NOTHING is being played, or has a silly numbers. There are no real games to even look forward to. That’s why I consider it dead.

          • Andrew Jakobs

            But we’re not at Rift levels anymore, even the Quest has a higher resolution. And I do notice it on games I play with my Pro which is also already considered ‘low’ resolution compared to the current headsets. I play games like Westworld Awakenings (hate the survival parts actually), Robinson the Journey, Obduction, Down the rabbit hole and a Fisherman’s Tale (both awesome (looking) games) and a lot more games. Even games which I thought would not suit VR like Down the rabbit hole or Along together suprise me as being very suitable for VR and even extremely fun. And games like conductor which have very simple graphics are excellent on PCVR, wish there were more games like that. I don’t care if the graphics are like ‘mobile’ as long as the game itself is interesting to me.
            Ofcourse I would like to have 4k/eye 120fps 200 degrees fov headset wireless and being able to play a game like Cyberpunk with ultra settings and in full VR, but that’s just not feasible in the coming few years.
            And in regard to VR games, we’re still in the early years, and that’s why it’s sad that older VR games (like Alice VR) haven’t been updated to used the newer headsets and motion controllers and insight.
            But then again, I won’t be buying any new games at full price anyway, I have such a large library I can entertain myself for the next decade, and it still grows even with my limit of 5 euro a game (exceptions like Star Wars squadrons for 22 euro, which I already regret as I still haven’t played it and it’s now down to 10 euro’s).

          • ViRGiN

            I could get a $1000 PCVR credit to spend on any games I want, and i would still be unable to commit to anything. It’s all so damn boring, running of an expensive machine capable of playing infinietly greater titles.

            People with no VR experience which is like “almost” everyone can’t tell between full headset resolution, or 1080p image upscaled to their headset. How many have turned down VR cause of blurry visuals? They are still going to be blurry no matter the headset.

            Again, software is always holding VR back, it’s never the hardware.

          • Andrew Jakobs

            You really have an unrealistic view on PCVR.

          • ViRGiN

            rather you’re very easily satisfied and don’t get the real fact why pcvr has failed

          • Andrew Jakobs

            No, I’m just realistic, and I don’t see PCVR as having failed, as I still see Quest 2/Pico Neo3/Focus 3 as PCVR headsets these days as they can also be used as such. And yes, maybe I’m easiliy satisfied, I grew up having my first console be a Philips Odyssee 2001 which was basically Pong, all the way through current day, so I don’t really care about having to need the AAA graphics on a PCVR headset. As long as the game itself entertains me I’m perfectly happy. But ofcourse I’d rather have AAA 90+fps 4k/eye 200 degrees FOV VR, but I’m not willing to spend $3000+ (well probably more like $4000+) on it to have that. And I’m realistic enough to know the PCVR market at this current state is too small for larger developers to wager large budgets on AAA VR games.

          • ViRGiN

            Oh and if you think it’s doomed until powerful hardware becomes mainstream like RTX4080, in those 2-3 years people will be looking into RTX5080 or whatever. It’s a never ending cycle, and VR games are incapable of delivering a quality experience for the hardware. “powerful” hardware does not fix game design issues, and lack of artistis visionary. If you can’t game on GTX1080, your game sucks and is once again abusing the unlimited power of PC to deliver mobile VR experience, just with a tiny bit shinier shaders/materials.

          • Andrew Jakobs

            But RTX4080 power available for mainstream (which means max $400 for the GPU) is what’s needed to at least drive the newer headsets with 90+fps without any artifacts and with a fidelity that people expect. At least it’s one of the reasons they always give when talking about the current state of VR, the graphics look too old, the framerate is too low and make you get motion sickness much faster.
            But personally I don’t see it that way. I’m content with the current headset, and I just accept the current flaws as I’m realistic enough to understand it’s just not possible to have the AAA graphics on VR with only a 2060..
            If you think a GTX1080 is able to bring you the AAA graphics on a VR game with 90+fps, then you really are being unrealistic, unless you are toning down the settings right to above ‘mobile’, which is even much lower than what’s possible on a 2060. Have you actually checked out the demo of roborecall comparison of the PC version and Quest 2 version? They are really REALLY different, and the PC version as we know it is already being complained about looking like ‘Mobile VR’…

          • ViRGiN

            People don’t need to max out the settings, and hit non-stop 90 fps. Most people still never experienced VR at all, so they don’t even have comparision. You know it as well as I do, 90hz is not a basic minimum for quality experience. There is still strong foothold with Quest 1 which was up to 72. Then you have pretty good ASW and alike allowing you to play with half the frame rate. To act like PCVR is failing because of lack of access to powerful hardware is just dumb.
            Let’s assume EVERYONE has RTX3090TI. Now, how can they use it with RTX3090TI worth of quality in VR? They can’t. Maybe a handful of titles like Alyx that looks good, but are still rather shallow. Hardware once again is not holding VR adoption. It’s the quality of software. And PCVR is a garbage landfill where like 95% is never actually played for weeks, with 0 players peak a day. You could actually count all available SteamVR games and count what’s actually played, but you get the idea.

            I have played Battlefield 3 with custom mod to enable VR rendering back with my GTX680 (yes, six-eighty) with my Rift CV1. It worked perfectly fine performance wise. It looked amazing, despite lower settings. That was late 2016. In 2022, I am still yet to see anything close to it. And that game is 11 years old now…

          • ViRGiN

            There are no newer headsets. Nobody is buying Varjos, nobody is buying Pimax. It’s all about Quest 2 for awake people, and Valve Index for STEAM fanboys boasting over “perfect tracking” which is all about being able to scratch your butt for 10 seconds in VRchat, since no real games really require you to keep your hands behind you. Lighthouse isn’t even entirely modular, people who bought V1 lighthouses are left behind with very little note of what’s compatibible with each other.

          • Andrew Jakobs

            Well Quest2, pico neo3, hp reverb G2, htc vive pro 2 are the current headsets capable of PCVR, and lighthouse v1 is perfectly compatible with index controllers or even the index.

          • ViRGiN

            but you can’t use htc vive with lighthouse v2. vive wands are also not compatibible with v2.
            pico neo3 is almost unavailable and never planned in masses; vive pro 2 has 0.61% market share, and wmr is disguised as whole family at 4.6%. those are laughable numbers and totally irrelevant from developers perspective.

          • Andrew Jakobs

            But if you already own v2, why would you even use Vive or Wands v1? You already own a v2 headset and controllers.

          • ViRGiN

            What? Are you excusing the lack of PROPER and OBVIOUS compatibility between each devices?
            You own HTC Vive. Your lighthouse breaks. So you go onto Steam, purchase a lighthouse… and suddenly it’s not compatibible? That’s acceptable for you? NOWHERE ON THE STORE it’s made CRYSTAL CLEAR AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND, what is V1, what is V2, and what works with what. Original “enthusiasts” got fuked up, and Valve lied anyway, cause as lighthouse got more simple and was promised to be cheaper, IT ISNT! Can’t believe the poop you just spewed. Why should I have to buy both new headset, new lighthouses v2, and new wands v2? Wands and headset are perfectly fine, just need V1 lighthouse replacement.

          • Andrew Jakobs

            You own HTC Vive. Your lighthouse breaks. So you go onto Steam, purchase a lighthouse…

            No I don’t go onto steam, I go onto the HTC site and buy the replacement, and by the time they also don’t have it, I’ll propably go onto ebay and buy a second hand vive or something like that. But by then, it’s just cheaper and better to just buy a newer headset (doesn’t even have to be the latest, a second hand Pro is also good).

            NOWHERE ON THE STORE it’s made CRYSTAL CLEAR AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND

            Well it’s crystal clear on the base station page:
            Valve Index Base Stations are not compatible with the original standard edition of HTC Vive products.
            So again, you’re talking BS.
            But if your v1 controllers break, which is more likely than your basestation, you’re perferctly fine to buy the Pro controllers, Index controllers or another pav1 version, as they work perfectly fine with your v1 basestation. If your headset breaks, well, you’re not gonna buy a new headset, now, you’re not gonna try and find a new original vive, and on ebay you can find those more than enough, including their base stations.

            Wands and headset are perfectly fine, just need V1 lighthouse replacement.

            Again, buy them from HTC directly or ebay.

            Yeah I know that Valve lied about the newer basestations going to be cheaper as they were simpler to produce, but instead are even more expensive, but that’s not the issue now is it? again, unless it’s just you want to nag about PCVR.

            Let me ask you, what is your current VR setup?
            Mine is HTC VIve Pro/Wireless/original wands/Index controllers/RTX2060Super/core i7 4770K/16GB/windows 10 Pro.

          • ViRGiN

            Why should I replace a perfectly working headset with perfectly working controllers – which are both V1 shipped with HTC Vive as early as 2016, just to replace it ALL with new lighthouse v2 compatibible hardware? V1 lighthouse is impossible to buy today.
            Do you really miss the point or just playing stupid?
            That’s literally like saying why you want V1+V2 compatibility when you have V3 by purchasing new unannounced hardware?

          • Andrew Jakobs

            If you’ve got v1 hardware, there is no need to buy v2 hardware, and v2 hardware is compatible with v1 lighthouse. So htere is no need to repalce anything unless you want to upgrade, and once you’ve upgraded there is no need for v1 anymore. Are you the one that’s just trying to be an ass?
            I’m using v1 lighthouse with v2 index controllers, and they work perfectly fine, so if I bought myself a v2 headset it still will work with my v1 lighthouse setup without a problem. Once you’ve got a better headset you really don’t want to go back to an original vive, any newer headset at this point in time is better, yeah the original vive still has oled panels, but the low resolution, worse godrays and oled smearing don’t compare to the LCD lack of blackness. (I know I had the original Vive, and upgraded to a Pro, which still has the awful godray and has the oled smearing, but I’m perfectly fine with it as it was a major improvement over the original Vive).
            And you’re just really talking bullock in regard to v1+v2 and v3, as I haven’t said or implied anything like that, I guess you just want it for being able to nag some more.

          • Andrew Jakobs

            Oh please I’m far from a casual game. Because I like different games from you doesn’t make it a “mobile phone” grade games.
            When I don’t have much time I play games like CS:GO, or used to play things like Tactical Ops, Battle field heroes, Dirty bomb.
            And I do get more then enough “sense of pride and accomplishment” when I finish a game of 2-3 hours. I’m just one of those persons that hate things like “to be continued” so I like to play/watch something in one go. I get the same type of pride and accomplishment when I finish an adventure of 4-5 hours long as I have in one of 12-15 hours. I even think when I finish a game that takes me 60 hours to complete is more a waste of time then when I finish a game that is 6-8 hours, as I think I could have played many more different experiences in those 60 hours (mostly those games are repetition after repetition anyway). BUT I certainly would like to see VR game of things like Witcher 3 or games that are ‘open world’ but have quests you can finish in a couple of hours, so it’s more like multiple games roled into one.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            Tetris was released in 1984 for PC, became an international hit when Nintendo released it on the Game Boy in 1989, and is still going strong with Tetris Effect released in 2018 for PlayStatiion 4 and everything else since, including Quest. Probably the only game that runs on more devices than Doom.

            Sticking to a successful game or genre isn’t a problem specific to (PC)VR, and the global success of Tetris didn’t prevent other companies from creating Half-Life, Dark Souls, Pokemon or Candy Crush. And if you look at monthly new ratings for Quest games, you’ll see that Beat Saber now only hover around in the lower part of the top 10. It is very dominant, but most of the revenue comes from DLC sales to a (large) group of players spending a lot of time with Beat Saber, not because it is the only game selling units in sustainable numbers.

            The lack of incentive to create any new VR games comes more from the rather bad return of investment due to the low number of users. Even a 100% user retention of 10mn Quest users would pale to pretty much any pancake platform, and even companies like Konami take a risk like RE4 for Quest only thanks to Meta paying them. People shy away not because of Beat Saber, but despite the fact that they could land an accidental hit like Beat Saber. The probability is just very low.

          • ViRGiN

            Yet Tetris never dominated Playstation 4 market, unlike it’s equivalent did with PCVR. You shouldn’t compare game several decades old.

  • Bryan Jones

    I’ve spent about $200 or more on Beat Saber add-ons in the last 24 months and I want to buy more.

  • GigaSora

    And yet it’s still not cross-buy…

  • Mark Nicoll

    What estimation of monthly users would you put on BeatSabre and Supernatural?

  • peter vasseur

    I’d like to say I don’t own and haven’t played beat saber. I want real vr games this is for all the casualers.