Digital Trends recently published a report entitled ‘VR is in a tailspin, and the sales numbers prove it’. It seems HTC has taken umbrage with the article’s thesis in its newest blog post however, which pushes back against some of the article’s claims, saying it’s “not the whole story.”

Very few major manufacturers have released sales data on their VR headsets, with Sony being the exception when they said that PSVR had already sold over 2 million units back in December 2017. To fill the informational void, analysts typically offer up their best estimates, using third-party services to corral the numbers into what appears to be a solid answer to the question: how is ‘X’ market doing?

Freelance writer Joshua Fruhlinger, who occasionally writes for Digital Trends, used third-party Amazon sales data to back up his claim that consumers don’t care about VR anymore, saying it’s “crystal clear.” The entirety of Fruhlinger’s claims are based on Amazon sales data obtained by Thinkium, an analytics firm that runs a blog-style front end to sell its services, of which Fruhlinger is publisher. Amazon does provide a good watermark for how any given product is faring, but it’s not everything, HTC says.

The article cites a sharp decline in Vive’s ranking in the top-100 products on Amazon, which Thinkium data says was in the top-50 products at it height of popularity. HTC however punches back by reminding him that it’s actually been out of stock due to the shortage of a key component, which is why sales on the original Vive appeared to have slumped so rapidly.

Image courtesy Thinkium

The report also specifies Gear VR’s decline in sales performance on Amazon. HTC posits however that these sorts of VR experiences have become “less enticing,” and that Gear VR’s initial success was due to it being offered in promotional deals with new flagship smartphones, which have since cooled down.

HTC however doesn’t attempt to debunk the article’s claims surrounding PSVR or Oculus Go, which may be more of a reflection of its unwillingness to discuss direct competitors in polite company. Thinkium data puts PSVR at the mediocre 83 spot on Amazon, and Oculus Go falling from number seven to below 100 on the product ranking list since its launch in May 2018 (not October 2017 as the Digital Trends article reports).

The newest crop of standalone VR headsets – Oculus Go, HTC Vive Focus, Lenovo Mirage Solo [left to right]
“More and more, as people begin to understand the possibilities for virtual applications, word of mouth will grow, and sales will continue their upward trajectory,” HTC says, defending its position. “In the VR industry, it’s important to not only move units, but to ensure that we have a growth path for customers and our business over time.”

This is fine, but the only thing to really put these contradictory claims to rest is verifiable sales numbers, something HTC has elected not to do in response to critiques. Instead, the company cites a different analytics firm to back up its claim that its internal HTC Vive team is leading the VR market, presumably worldwide.

Image courtesy HTC

While the Digital Trends piece comes stock with a grippy headline, in the end, Fruhlinger isn’t really saying VR is doomed by default, only that today’s VR headsets have failed to capture the promise of resounding sales—something most people knew from day one anyway. Case in point: only a few online VR games maintain healthy active user numbers, which is clearly due to a small install base relative to traditional consoles and PC gaming; PSVR, having sold 2 million units, pales in comparison to PS4 console sales, which have topped more than 73.6 million units since December 2017.

Despite supposedly slumpish hardware sales, companies like Facebook are throwing massive amounts of money at the next generation of VR, already having reportedly paid over $88 million in Seattle-area real estate this year alone for their new Oculus hub. Oculus prototypes, including the 6DOF standalone headset Oculus ‘Santa Cruz’ and a more recent 140-degree FOV, varifocal, eye-tracking PC VR headset prototype, show a clear pathway to the future of the next generation of VR headsets, at least from Oculus.

SEE ALSO
Exclusive: DisplayLink Demonstrates Foveated Compression for Better Wireless VR

As for software, big investments in first-party titles and premium IP are either already here, or coming very soon. To name a few, Sony Japan Studio’s super engaging platformer Astro Bot: Rescue Mission is due out this fall, and Oculus Studio’s and Sanzaru Games’ Marvel Powers United VR (2018) just released yesterday. Oculus has also invested in Twisted Pixel’s upcoming action-adventure game Defector, and Insomniac Games’ upcoming open world adventure Stormland.

VR arcades are also growing at an unprecedented rate, with Bandai Namco expanding its chain of VR Zone Arcades to cities across Japan and the UK, and HTC providing most of the gear and software for China-based arcades thanks to their enterprise-focused game subscription service, Viveport Arcade. New York’s JFK airport just opened a number of Windows VR kiosks too, which are reportedly seeing round-the-clock usage thanks to the high-traffic area and general novelty of trying out a high-end VR headset for the first time.

So while the first generation of consumer VR has been touted as too expensive and too inaccessible, there are some constants here that bear summarizing: the investment is clearly there, the usecase is so unique we’re still exploring its potential both in and outside of the home, and it’s only going to get better, cheaper, more convenient as time goes on. It’s clear VR has had to play the long game from the very start too, so low adoption rates of the first consumer devices is only news to you if you haven’t been following the space.

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.


  • A VR Enthusiastic

    .
    .
    I am applauding the last paragraph of the article. Very nice summarizing of the current environment.
    .
    .
    And yes, i cannot wait for the second generation of HMDs.
    .
    .

  • JJ

    Nice article!

    • jj

      Here is a quote from Josh’s article…

      “I dig VR. VR can bring a paradigm shift. The first time you strap into a VR experience, you’re taken somewhere else. It’s really cool. It’s a lot like seeing a 3D movie for the first time.

      But then what?”

      This has to be one of the stupidest statement I’ve ever read from an official blogger/reporter.
      This is the equivalent of saying
      “I dig Hawaii. Hawaii brings a paradigm shift. The first time you step into Hawaii, you’re taken somewhere else. It’s really cool. It’s a lot like seeing a 3D movie for the first time.

      But then what?”

      ..but then what…? you enjoy it is what, its not a one off experience. There are places to explore, things to see, people to meet, and senses to stimulate. Hearing him say this makes me thing his entire article was just a big click bait, aimed at vr fans.

      • JJ

        *think

      • Get Schwifty!

        It also entirely misses the point that VR is a multi-application technology – for media consumption, games and “real applications” like engineering/medical/manufacturing. Fortunately the companies like (yes) Facebook and others see the real applications possible as VR matures and aren’t throwing in the towel as is normally is done in business for next quarter, short term results. I can understand the dislike of Facebook’s handling of private data, I really do, but if you’re into VR thank heaven’s we have a long term well funded player in it, even If they are focused on the social media aspects… it can only help VR and all the applications overall. I suspect the next Oculus headset (Santa Cruz) may be the true thrust forward, what is missing still is the content – I am convinced that VR versions of mainstream movie content is the key for the masses…. to watch Avengers in a VR format… that _will_ bring people to the table.

        • JJj

          so much yes!

          and side note try watching the dark night in something like Big screen Beta with a very large screen. Some scenes feel like theyre made for vr so much that my stomach kept dropping from feeling like i was in it

        • Darshan

          Oh why only limited to Avengers… Why not Game Of Thrones in VR .. or Altered Carbon in VR … Just can’t imagine level of realism and entertainment it can pour in 2D screen series.

          Real master piece would be Inception (2010) or The Matrix Kind of Movie in VR…

          • Get Schwifty!

            I meant options for _all_ of them even if its just 3D representations… cool VR run of the opening of GOT I watched just last night on an Oculus Go!.

      • HybridEnergy

        “I dig sex. Sex can bring a paradigm shift. The first time you make love to a woman, you’re taken somewhere else. It’s really cool. It’s a lot like a new life changing experience.

        But then what?”

        I agree JJ, what is life but a constant flow of experiences.

        • JJ

          haha i love this a lot more than my Hawaii example

  • nasprin

    Nice to see the neverending childish hype is dying off to give place for a healthy and slow quality growth.
    The media feeding off sensationalism is a problem on it’s own nowadays, VR was a perfekt target fot this: firs an unexplainable, hysteric hype, than an idiotic kindergarden-level disappoinment in spite of all the advances this new format made in a very short time. Don’t really care at his point if HTC or Oculus (or some other) will win the market in the end, just happy to see money is flowing in steadily, which means we have very exiting years ahead of us!

    • HybridEnergy

      Well said. I’m not sure why the idea that something right out of the gate must sell millions and become the next iphone to be considered a success either.

    • Raphael

      Well said flappy. Couldn’t have said it better.

      VR has dips along a a steadily rising development/sales curve and amateur crusty journalists who in many cases hate VR, write clickbait articles about VR failing. Gen one consumer VR was always going to be a niche peripheral and so many people fail to understand that. Simulation enthusiasts were the biggest slice of the VR market and pretty much all of the big name flight sims now support VR. There is an inevitable cooling off before gen 2 comes along… at which point those journalists who were attacking VR will suddenly start hyping it as “everyone’s gaming future”.

      • Lol, Hit the nail on the head.. @Orangeunderpants:disqus

    • MW

      Be carrefoul calling consumers ‘idiots’. They voting with their wallets, and they choosing 4k monitors over HMD for a reason.
      In this changing world, slow growth often means death (for this generation of VR). Today’s VR just cannot meet expectations of consumers (too little for too much). And your wishful thinking does not change that. Consider this: every next gen hardware seems to be more and more expensive. This does not look well for VR.

  • David D. Taylor

    Read the digital trends article when it came out, and all of his ‘proof’ is super light-weight at best. I’m not going to type a novel, like I did in the comments on digital trends, but his most asinine thought was saying that consumers are clearly done with VR.

  • Sandy Wich

    I’d just ignore the nay-sayers myself. The extreme majority of people I’ve seen say things like, “VR is gonna end up like 3DTVs/VR is failing/VR is in decline”, are people who don’t even own VR or know anything about it and are, for some reason, toxic towards the technology.

    TBH what I’ve seen from most nay-sayers is they’re hopeful that VR will fail. That’s just how some people are.

    We’ll see many more years of this kind of talk towards AR/VR. And likely will as long as they fail to achieve parity with the modern television set.

    Personally I just let it go down the river of not important and let the companies worry about public opinion. Much happier this way. >:D

  • HybridEnergy

    Yea, in your face to the people arguing with me on the other article about the 1500 lay-offs at HTC. Everyone thinks that anything that happens at HTC is instantly the fault of the Vive Pro. Good to see them fire back. VR will be strong, and it will have a good healthy steady growth with out having to compete with the flat screen industry, because both can exist and neither has to be the exact same size at every moment. Something doesn’t have to sell millions to be a success either, it’s based on market expectations.

    • Lucidfeuer

      “Something doesn’t have to sell millions to be a success either” you need to keep off the kool-aid…

      • JJ

        you need to stop using kool-aid as a reference, its not kool. OHHH YEAHHHHH

        • Lucidfeuer

          what would be a modern reference in the US? Arizona Tea? Nope, too 2014…

      • HybridEnergy

        It should sell 23 trillion or it’s a failure trash bin product to be honest.

    • Sandy Wich

      More like you didn’t know why they were fired and then out of blind fanaticism you claimed without having ANY confirmation of why/where they were laid off, in your own words that it had, “NOTHING to do with their VR”. Yes, The capslock too.

      Keep in mind those people were laid off shortly after Vive PRO became the laughing stock of the VR industry. Considering their stock had been on a sinking trend for years it’s amazing that they’d only now fire them after their new VR device fails to impress anyone and not a year or 2 before, huh? Almost like they were holding out for a miracle, it didn’t happen, then the feather broke the camels back.

      Honestly the arguments continued only because you flat out refused to admit that any of HTC’s current woes could have had something to do with the gigantic forcast for VR that was going to save HTC’s company, then it didn’t. You’re just as guilty as anyone else at not knowing what you’re talking about and I get the feeling if HTC wins the lottery someday that you’ll be back spitting acid.

      BTW this article, while it’s nice, is 100% PR. Making excuses like the VIVE is out of stock indefinitely due to missing components is embarrassing. What an easy scape goat, huh? Now they have an excuse for whenever someone says HTC’s VR isn’t doing great. And then they go on to say that other devices aren’t selling as well because consumers don’t find it enticing.. Which is ridiculous. I didn’t get a vote for whatever poll that was a part of. Did you?…

      And come on.. The company that owns the VR uses a 3rd party analytics firm to defend their own device, when they themselves have all the numbers?… Something isn’t right here… Why not just say how many units have sold?.. Why skirt the line with misleading words like revenue?…….. I know why, you should too.

      ..Also what a time to claim revenue success, right? Right after their headset goes on yet another permanent price cut. Wonder why they didn’t mention anything about the VIVE Pro though, huh?…

      Don’t get me wrong. I love VR. I love that it’s getting better, I love that competition is pushing the technology forward and I hate nay-sayers that say VR is doomed when it’s obviously not.

      But not wanting to see reality is also a problem too, you know?.. Let the companies keep flappin their gums and worry about, “revenue”. Just like Microsoft Xbox.

      Lastly I doubt any of those people who are still out of a job would laugh at your, “In your face!”, joke. But hey, that’s just my guess.

      • HybridEnergy

        Give me a break dude, seriously ?

        • Sandy Wich

          What’s seriously? You throw dirt in someones face then try to bring it back up to another group of people while twisting facts to make yourself feel better and then one of the participants of said debate just so happens to walk by, speaks up, and now you’re the one who’s disappointed?… More like give me a break man. There was no reason to even bring up that argument here, this article isn’t about layoffs at HTC or your hurt feelings.

          I just don’t want people coming on here and having a laugh at my expense without at least having the choice to see the other side of the debate as well, you know, considering you coincidentally left it out.

          • HybridEnergy

            Nah, I think I won that hands down and I made the comment because this new article only proved me right. Something like the PRO has nothing to do with such lay offs and large hits to that size of a company. The end.

  • RationalThought

    This is normal. If you follow most major product’s today that started off in a similar fashion until the iteration that mastered the cost/ease of use/marketing formula. Mobile phones had a similar slow start….had they stopped investing in the late 80’s and early 90’s we wouldn’t have the products we all use today. VR will not die….we simply haven’t reached the product iteration that makes it a world wide household product yet, give it time. It took mobile phones over 20 years.

    • Lucidfeuer

      Absolute false-true BS. The most recent, and thus contextually relevant exemple is the smartphone: the first year, the first iteration, sold 6 millions at 700€, 10 years after there were 3 billion smartphone units sold…let’s temper this with tablets which are lesser of a product, the first year it sold 20 millions, and 10 years after there’s close to 800 millions sold.

      The fact that VR has been around since the 2013, but let’s say 2016 for the sake of it, and PC/PS4 version combined have sold less than 4 millions says all there need to be said about it’s state and success…

      • MosBen

        Why is the smartphone the better example than phones in general? By the time that smartphones came out, usage of cell phones was already very widespread. The basic technology worked and the infrastructure was in place. People were used to using cell phones, and cell phones had become necessary, or at least extremely useful, tools for lots of people.

        RationalThought is correct that cell phone technology took a long time to become widespread. There’s no obvious reason why we shouldn’t think of VR being at that stage of technological development and social acceptance.

        • Darshan

          Only thing that need to be stoped is Stupid Journalism, and writers who never tried real VR and keep on writing articles based on their assumptions or just craving need of spicy circulation increment.

          All inventions takes their time before wide circulation and acceptance, there are many economical and social boundaries and some times just stupid reasons of lay-mens tendency of accepting things said by others without trying them selves. So once these all barriers will be broken sure growth is inevitable, since there are many things which are not possible to be experienced by any other medium at all.. Ex. Titans of Space. No chart movie or model can better explain solar system then visiting it in VR.

        • Lucidfeuer

          Because phone appear more than a century ago, even though you can scale adoption rate against other object to determine whether it was a fast or slow adoption and I’m pretty by then standards it was fast.

          Smartphone is the most recent exemple from 10 years ago. And you comparison doesn’t stand: the whole infrastructure around VR, which is computing, connection and interface exists, but I agree that the tracking and pass-through technologies are more challenging than the capacitative tactile screen (the main invention that emerged from the smartphone).

          Still, comparing a century year old’s technology that replaced telegrams to a 2010s technology (that will replace screens and controllers), is absolutely irrelevant.

          • MosBen

            Nobody said that the comparison should be regular land line phones. Yes, land line phones were over a century ago, but cell phones, which is the example that was mentioned, were several decades ago. Smart phones are a recent example of a new technology being adopted, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a good comparison. There has to be some specific similarities between the technologies that make the comparison apt. Simply saying that it’s recent doesn’t mean anything.

          • Lucidfeuer

            I’m saying it’s recent in terms of as in conjectural context, infrastructures, globalisation, economics, medias…you now reality.

            Cellphones -relatives to the 90s- adopted really fast, the same way smartphones -relative to the 2010s- which is another context, adopted really fast to. So did TVs or radios before relative to their respective contexts.

            Well in today’s context, VR is doing really bad. Now we’ve been over this debate many times, in all amounts to having one of two approach: the delusional kool-aid approach which never made anything a success or the realistic critical approach (of which the goal is to garner necessary feedbacks towards the manufacturers, since developer are doing pretty much the job they can).

          • MosBen

            Yes, we’ve had this debate many times, and each time you put the goal posts for your comparisons in places that are extremely convenient for your position. There’s no reason to start cell phone adoption in the 90s. Consumer cell phones were released in the early 80s. And they were expensive, and bulky, and didn’t work great, which sounds suspiciously like the current generation of VR, except that I think that the current generation of VR works better than those early cell phones.

            Nobody doubts that the current generation of HMDs has some handicaps which make it unattractive to many consumers, especially those who aren’t predisposed to be excited about new technology in general and VR specifically. Similarly, nobody doubts that the current sales of HMDs is lower than anyone interested in VR would like. The two primary questions to answer are: 1) Will the next generation of tech be sufficiently improved to appeal to a broader audience than this generation, and 2) Will the sales of the current generation be sufficient for a second generation of hardware to be released, or will we enter another quiet period similar to the 90s and 00s.

            You have repeatedly argued that VR is set to enter another dead period before coming back in 5-10 years, and you accuse people who disagree of having a “delusional kool-aid approach”. But your arguments always involve cherry picking your tech examples to fit your narrative. And yet, we know that next generation HMDs ARE being worked on, even if we don’t have release dates. The tech is improving, and at a fairly significant clip from the first generation HMDs. VR software is getting better, with games like Beat Saber and Moss earning really positive responses.

            The major players aren’t going to be abandoning VR in the near term. If the second generation of HMDs don’t do significantly better than this generation, then maybe, but we simply don’t know enough at this point to guess, and certainly not enough to be raining gloom and doom in the comments to lots and lots of stories.

      • RationalThought

        Lucidfeuer do your research bud. The first smartphone came out in 2000!! The Ericsson R380! It many years and iterations just to get to the marketing term SMARTPHONE. PDA’s that were mobile phones existed in the 90’s. It took them that long to get to an iteration with mass appeal and functionality. You are jumping to the end of the line and comparing VR to the sale of a product 15+ years in the making.

        The first MOBILE phone came out in 1983! Our Smartphones today is just that tech being expanded, upgraded etc etc. Just like the car you drive is a modern iteration of the MODEL T.

        If people listened to people like you we would NEVER have gotten to most of the tech we have today. The first commercial game system The Magnavox Odyssey sold 350,000 units!! Good thing nobody around listened to people like you and they kept working and advancing the tech to eventually produce the NES…..

        • Lucidfeuer

          Yeah okay…you’re spewing so many things you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about. Nobody calls the Ericsson R380 a smartphone but Ericsson, nor any PDAs…it’s like calling plane a car because it’s a transport…

          Also the fact the first Magnavox sold 350K unit in the 70s in the US alone is a huge number, and yet on a global 2010s market the CV1 barely sold as much… So was the Virtual Boy that sold 800K in the first year, and yet it was a failure.

          I don’t know even know where to start so much you start off with deep ignorance, but that’s okay we all learn. Good thing our comments won’t change the outcome much!

          • RationalThought

            Ahhhh personal insults….the domain of the uneducated and ill-equipped. Good day.

          • Lucidfeuer

            1. Okay…the fact that smart is put before a device, doesn’t change the intrinsequial concept of it. The fact that some TVs in the 90s already used the wording “smart TV” like the WebTV, doesn’t mean it was any different as a product from other TV. In fact what we call a smartphone today, has nothing to do with a phone.

            So no, the Ericsson is NOT what the modern usage of “smartphone” points to, neither were Palms, the iPhone is and ALL smartphones today are -conceived- the same.

            But I never said the iPhone popped-out of nowhere, all technologies are the continuation from previous ones, but there simply was nothing like a modern smartphone or iPhone before it, because it’s a new paradigm of device, and it’s direct success speaks for it as a device. VR is a new paradigm, but it hasn’t reach a 10th of the success of…any other successful new device segment, because that’s not granted if the conception of the product falls short of what it should be.

            2. I agree with your point, it’s actually interesting to compare the Virtual Boy (which was considered a failure despite having sold more than the CV1 and Vive combined in the first year) to the PSVR, which sold 1.5 millions in a year and can continue as long as they iterate it next year. Maybe the road is actually as much in the mobile-hybrid segment as it is in console rather than PCs…

      • Andrew Jakobs

        Fact is, vr has been around at least since the beginning of the 90’s, not 2013..

        • Lucidfeuer

          True, it’s not even the first cycle.

          • Today’s virtual reality technologies are built upon ideas that date back to the 1800s, almost to the very beginning of photography. In 1838, the first stereoscope was created, using twin mirrors to project a single image. That eventually developed into the View-Master, patented in 1939 and still used today.

            VR has been around for a very long time, and it has never died, It just wasn’t consumer facing, and too expensive. I’ve worked with VR systems of all kinds for 30+ years, And now its back in the consumers hands, and its growing, and it will continue to grow. Just because some reporter with “NO REAL DATA” says its not, doesn’t make it true. step into the Enterprise world of VR and you will notice that GM, Ford, Toyota, Boeing, Disney, NASA, General Electric, etc. have all been using VR for well over 30 yrs to create the products we use everyday..

          • Lucidfeuer

            Yes, and the first TV dates back to 500 years ago, so does the Homepod by the same logic…

            I don’t believe for a second that you ever worked with VR, since none of the brands I worked with, for VR projects, had used any form of VR recently (before the DK)…

            But the debate is not here, VR is an obligatory technological paradigm change, it’s been for 30 years now…the question is wether it’ll happen in the coming year which is absolutely not a given, or 10-15+ if it fails to take off like it did in the 90s because despite it’s advancement it’s not enough…

          • I guess the XR industry revolves around what you think you know that’s fine kid keep it up while the world around you continues to evolve, the 90’s was a failed attempt to bring it to the consumer market only. The cost to build a real VR solution is in the millions somthing you probably have never seen. Good thing your not an expert.. the industry would be doomed.. lol

          • R FC

            We were dabbling with vr in early 90s whilst I was training as industrial designer, and had exposure to commercial vr during placement inside multinational companies. My friend was design engineer for world leading razor blade manufacturer and I was very surprised they used it for some visualisation projects, but horrifically expensive.

            My first time of consumer VR was in game arcade in London’s trocadero with “Virtuality” in 1991.

          • Lucidfeuer

            No, no quit being a crybaby it revolve around arguments and numbers, I work in the current VR industry and people on kool-aid like you make us more and more certain that VR will not ending taking-off until 10+ years in the next iteration of VR…

          • Lol, as stated VR is slowing down . Take it from a real industry expert.. with 40+ yrs in IT. No kool-aid involved just good old industry experience.

      • Henry Yopp

        Bad comparison, smart phones are the end of the evolutionary cycle of cell-phones, not the beginning. It took decades of slow growth in the cellular market to establish a customer base, build reliable networks and gradually spread out before the smart phone era could even begin.

        VR is an entirely new medium and just like all new mediums before it, TV, Radio, Newspapers, it will take decades to reach full maturity.

    • Get Schwifty!

      Television and radio both took more less 20 years, and even the PC revolution took almost 10 years to _really_ get going. This is no different with VR, and the transition from early phones with limited use to general use then refinements to Blackberry and then “true” smart phones took place over a 20+ year period. VR is in the same boat.

      • Andrew Jakobs

        But you act like vr has just started, even though in the beginning of the 90’s we already had some headsets..still love my vfx-1 which fit better than my dk2 and didn’t give me any motionsickness at all, but i would have loved an internal upgrade ofcourse..

  • Lucidfeuer

    VR is not declining per-se, it’s stagnating which is almost the equivalent, for any markets, ever.

    Now there are clearly two approaches: the kool-aid approach which consist in constant delusional dismissing of the reality in the hope that this “head in the sand” approach will have people lie to themselves and somehow numbers will magically grow, which are symptomatic attitudes of an unhealthy base (usually ends-up in a product doom)…

    …or the realistic approach, which consists in stating the facts as they’re meaning is in the existing context, criticising the shortcomings or mistakes or actors, while not forgetting to notice and applaud the relevant (and only relevant) efforts or advancements in the domain.

    I work in VR, more than anybody I want VR to succeed, but not just for the sake of it, because there’s a specific production and usage I need from it, and therefor I can’t be oblivious to all the crap technology retention, slow cost-economic iteration and lots of shortcomings. Because in the end, delusional kool-aid apologies has never changed or saved a product or market…

  • MosBen

    Excluding mobile VR, which I think we can all agree has some compelling points (price, lack of wires), the first generation of VR requires a pretty beefy PC/console paired with a relatively expensive HMD, and the ability to be ok with the hassle of setting it all up and dealing with lots of wires. That was never something that was going to appeal to people who aren’t already inclined to be excited about VR. But what this generation needed to do was get developers working; working to define the language of VR content, working to sort out what types of experiences work well and which don’t in VR, working to refine things like ergonomics, input design, etc., and to base this off the feedback from people excited enough about the possibility of VR to essentially pay money to beta test VR tech.

    The next generation of HMDs should see big improvements across the board, as well as seeing the introduction of products like Santa Cruz, which should provide a nice VR experience in a single package, without a complicated setup or need for an expensive PC. If sales don’t pick up in the second generation of hardware, I’ll join the skeptics. Until then, I don’t see any reason for doom and gloom.

    • Andrew Jakobs

      Next generation vr will still only be for enthousiasts unless the gpu prices come crashing down. Having to spend 600+ on a gpu to driveva next gen headset isn’t going to sell it. Current gpu’s already have difficulties to drive the current headsets woth the fidelity that people expect.

    • MW

      ‘nice VR experience in a single package, without a complicated setup or need for an expensive PC’ HOW???? When GPU capable of driving next gen VR will costs around 1k USD, and eats around of 400 v of energy?? Not mentioning CPU for at least 400usd and at least 16gb ram? You dreaming man. Whole problem of today’s VR is the same as in 90’s- insufficient hardware.

      • MosBen

        I think that you’re assuming that there’s going to be a big jump in the system requirements for the next generation of VR. I think that that’s not a good assumption. Neither Oculus, HTC, Valve, nor any of the WMR partners are going to release an HMD which requires a PC that costs over $1,000, ever. We’re now at a point where a significant number of people own PCs that meet the minimum system requirements for the current generation of HMDs, and nobody wants to shut those people out by requiring new, top of the line hardware.

        The next generation of HMDs will see some improvements in visuals, but mostly it’s going to be improved ergonomics, better inputs, fewer/no wires, and a lower cost of entry (ie, relatively low system requirements and lower initial prices for the HMDs). The next generation is the one that they’re going to want to be a breakout moment for VR, so they’re not going to be catering to the desires of the hardcore crowd.

        • MW

          If you are right saying ‘see some improvements in visuals, but mostly it’s going to be improved’ than vr dream is dead for now… VR just doesn’t look like ‘R right now (2d hi-res screens looks more R), and that’s why people doesn’t buy it. Visuals are EVERYTHING for VR, the whole point, sense and purpose – to fool at least one sense.
          Only purpose of today’s ‘VR’ is to see potential, not real VR.

          • MosBen

            I couldn’t disagree more. If this generation of HMDs has taught us anything, it’s that humans can experience “presence”, that is, have our senses fooled, with relatively little change in stimuli. Current VR involves visual and auditory stimuli, but lots of people who try the roller coaster experiences or “standing on a plank” experiences feel vertigo or fear. Obviously, the visuals aren’t super high fidelity, but that’s not what is keeping people who aren’t already VR enthusiasts from buying HMDs.

            Normal people care about cost, the novelty of the available experiences, ease of use, and ergonomics way more than how many pixels are displayed. That aspect of the hardware will improve over time, and indeed I expect a small bump in the next generation in FOV and pixel density, but nothing will kill VR quicker than requiring consumers to have expensive PCs with top of the line video cards in order to use it.

          • MW

            I was like you-3 years ago… But experience (with hardware and people) taught me that VR in today’s form, is (for mass consumer) just a gimmick, not something worth real time and money. Everyone says- ‘ok this could be cool’. And after 3-5 minutes fun was ended.
            And yes, feelings in rollercoasters was fun-play (especially for observer’s) for 3-5 minutes. And than noone wants to do this again. On a hardware worth around 2k. So, sorry but I don’t believe you. To convince masses to spend serious money and time (a very expensive currency today) vr needs to be much better.

          • MosBen

            VR software needs to be compelling, and that’s something that will develop over time. We’re still in the early days, when developers are defining the language of VR as a medium, are trying experiments, and learning from missteps. At some point we’ll see a killer app that will be good enough to make people want to pick up an HMD to experience it.

            But it won’t be some arbitrary level of pixel density that will sell people on VR, or some other tech spec. And if anything, the requirement to hook up their HMD to an expensive PC (which they don’t own) will be a huge barrier of entry that will convince lots of people that it’s not worth it. Which is why the next generation of HMDs will see some modest spec boosts, but not so much that it dramatically changes the minimum PC specs. It’s better for pretty much everyone other than the hardcore gamers if the minimum specs basically amount to any PC purchased in the last 2-3 years. VR won’t be mainstream until its cost is comparable to buying a new video game console.

  • ummm…

    what?!?! how will i ever enjoy my vive with such news………………………..

  • kool

    What VR is missing is an open world multiplayer game. Why doesn’t gta 5, bf1 or wow officially support vr?

    • nipple_pinchy

      lol No, that’s not what VR is missing. A multiplayer-only title is a death sentence with an industry that caters to such a small consumer base. There’s thousands of VR “games” and they’re not selling. Gamers have games and they’re already hard-wired to the sedentary access to those experiences, i.e., PC and console, sitting on an office chair or couch.

      We’re over 2 years in and gamers aren’t biting, so forget them and forget “games”. Focus on the greater consumer market and approach VR as a medium for activity-based simulations and work-related applications.

      Thinking of VR as just another mode of gaming will sink the industry. VR needs to divorce itself from gaming and find other consumers.

      • R FC

        @ nipply_pinchy

        “games”, perhaps the least interesting aspect of virtual reality?

        I’ve had much more profound VR sessions using non-gaming applications typically simulations and “experiences”.

        I won’t be going to Mars in my lifetime, but its a total blast driving a Mars Rover on the surface of Mars in VR. Or watching Sadler’s Wells dance company performing “Celestial Bodies” in VR.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/29430a22c3b113920e040d5b30ee34981c75f597dfdaf346336584453004049c.jpg

        There’s a much bigger world out there, than gaming, which means many more consumers interested in experiences than “gaming”.

        • nipple_pinchy

          What you’re saying is the best hope for future adoption of VR: not “video games” but experience-based simulations.

          Cinema found its footing and settled into 90-120-minute narratives that employed cuts, camera angles and sound to convey a story; Video games found their footing by merging their early influences of board games and table-top games with cinema(cut-scenes) to offer experiences of varied length. VR needs to do the same; it needs to find its own identity.

          I think that a massive host of smaller, shorter, more dense experiences that allow us to see, hear, do and be things that for a variety of reasons aren’t feasible in reality.

          • R FC

            Yes, experiences are very memorable “an experience” and can be incredibly vivid, even with the display limitations and ergonomic niggles of contemporary VR headsets and controllers.

            And the shorter run time of experiences can bypass the comfort issues of contemporary equipment, whether this is eye strain caused convergence accommodation conflict or fixed IPD, heat / humidity build-up, facial interface mismatch, etc.

            Also consider the free time paradox. VR equipment is not inexpensive; it often requires considerable financial investment, this is often possible from working in full time employment. Which can reduce the amount of free time that can be invested in using the equipment. Short, dense memorable experiences can be very rewarding and do not burn considerable amount of free time that many games require.

      • kool

        Gaming is what’s keeping this gen going right now. VR won’t find an outside audience until it’s completely wireless and 360 videos get better which is happening as we speak, but the primary use now is gaming. VR finally has figured out how to make any genre work in VR, so now they need big games to build communities around. Rec Room is a good example of that., I don’t think GTA would have a problem finding a community in VR. Most people won’t buy into VR until there’s an IP they’re familiar with on it, which isn’t the case yet. VR has to start going for big profile projects if it wants more people to buy in. All the multiplayer games so far would do similar numbers on a flat screen like so many average at best games do. As for outside of gaming VR three things would boost a wireless headset into the mainstream a Beyonce/Taylor Swift concert live streamed at movie theaters, a 360 Tarantino movie or just dump them into retirement homes and paw paw will be calling you to “get porn on the damn thing”.

        • nipple_pinchy

          Gaming is a good marketing tool to keep enthusiasts interested, but it’s not what will sustain VR as a business model in the long-term. Gamers aren’t buying. Why? Because they already have their PCs and consoles. They don’t want to stand up or move around. They have their gaming chairs and couches. I would not market to gamers if I were a VR developer.

          For VR to not be seen as a gimmick, it has to divorce itself from gaming the same way cinema divorced itself from stage theater early on in its development and how video games divorce itself from tabletop and board games shortly after its inception.

          There’s no “community” in VR and anyone attempting any kind of multiplayer video game enterprise is throwing money down the toilet.

          The problem with VR right now has nothing to do with IPs. Even if Rockstar released a VR-exclusive video game, it’d still barely move the needle.

          1.) If you’re a gamer, VR is an extra expense that allows you to experience games in a new way. For many, before even trying VR, they discount it as a pricey gimmick.

          2.) VR is still relatively expensive. If you don’t have an expensive gaming PC or a PS4, you’re looking to invest at least $800-1000 on the lowest conceivable end to buy into a community of hardware owners that, by and large, consists of gamers, tech enthusiasts and VR devotees.

          3.) Premium VR is still wired and tethered to an external device.

          4.) There’s too many video games and not enough VR-specific content like apps and simulators.

          5.) To the masses, VR hasn’t defined itself yet as a medium with exclusive virtues; it’s seen as “just another video game thing”

          In order for VR to break out in the current zeitgeist and economy, a standalone HMD must do the following:

          -utilize improved inside-out tracking, with at least the resolution of the Vive Pro/Samsung Odyssey

          -motion controllers as good if not better than current ones

          -utilize a proprietary OS that alleviates any issues with driver conflicts or other issues on standard PCs

          -all for the cost of a console OUT OF THE BOX

          -have a vast, vast array of VR-specific applications and simulations(not games) that appeal to all audiences outside the gaming sphere

          Once such a device exists, consumers will flock to Walmart, Amazon or any big box store to snatch them up by the millions.

          If VR keeps exclusively catering to gamers, it’ll be dead again within five years. Mark my words.

          • kool

            I don’t disagree that the non gaming side of gaming will introduce VR to the masses and a standalone device is needed to accomplish that. But gaming is going to be a big part of VR as well and it’s going to take established IPs to take VR gaming to attract mainstream gamers. Gaming is financing the whole industry right now, so they need to get more gamers on board for VR to bring more investorments in the industry.

          • nipple_pinchy

            I’m not very confident that traditional gamers will ever embrace VR, to be honest. There are people that will always take the simpler path, even if the slightly more difficult path will lead to a much better experience. It’s like people buying a $1000 smartphone to watch movies on a tiny screen instead of buying a $500 big-screen that takes up half your living room wall. It doesn’t make sense but a lot of times, consumers don’t make sense.

            Clearly, any first person “video game” , if modified correctly to be played in VR, is leagues more entertaining than its pancake counterpart(I haven’t booted up a single pancake game in over a year but use SteamVR daily), but most gamers are fundamentalists and have been trained over decades to actually prefer artificial experiences on a flat screen with contrived control schemes over VR simulations of a variety of fantasy or real-world scenarios where your method of interaction is far closer to reality than smashing buttons on a gamepad.

            They actually think that something that mimics reality is the gimmick, rather than the thing(flat video games) created as a stop-gap measure before commercial VR’s inception. Those consumers are lost.

            I don’t think gaming is even largely financing the industry, or if it is, to what extent. Investing hundreds of millions more to entice consumers who’ve still not be courted after several years and billions in investments in VR games, it’s not wise to make them the target demographic.

            After hundreds upon hundreds of VR games being released on Steam, gamers will say there are no games being released. Their definition of a “game” is absurd and arbitrary and not helpful for VR’s growth.

            Powerful, enticing simulations don’t need to have a massive virtual world and 25 different mechanics that costs $80mil to develop. My favorite VR titles are sims made by either one developer or a tiny studio consisting of single-digits employees.

          • kool

            I think the reason most gamers haven’t caught on to VR is awareness. most casual gamers aren’t aware it exists and why would they? I’ve seen one two commercials and neither were clear about it being VR and what VR is. VR has the potential to be bigger in gaming because it makes gaming more accessible to non gamers through ease of use. There are a few of gamers that claim they would never play VR, but I think given the right price in a standalone headset that would change. I think next gen VR has the potential to go mainstream but if all it offers is VR media and indie games, than VR will end up being a training tool.

          • nipple_pinchy

            After a few years of exposure on the Internet with the biggest YouTubers making videos that have resulted in untold millions of views, I think enough gamers know that VR exists.

            I think there’s a lot of reasons they haven’t adopted it: price, misunderstandings or misgivings about resolution, weight, form factor, thinking it’s a gimmick, thinking it’s for more than games when they just want to play games, not knowing anyone that has a HMD and just wanting to play multiplayer, thinking all VR games suck, being too lazy, thinking you need an empty room, a lot of general ignorance that I don’t think will be assuaged any time soon.

            A lot of gamers are unbelievably lazy and will just settle for the simplest, cheapest avenue that keeps them distracted. For them, PC and console gaming is enough so they see nothing enticing them to VR.

            Also, a lot of them are so narrow-minded and contradictory in their beliefs that they simultaneously believe that VR is a gimmick AND that VR should just be a gaming system where you can play games like Halo and Bioshock in a unique new way. They don’t understand the contradiction.

            Personally, I think that the current gen of gamers are lost to VR. Once the first inexpensive mobile standalone HMD comes out, the KIDS that have access to that and grow up with that version of VR will result in a new, open-minded consumer base that will clearly understand the values of VR and will be open to new forms of interactive entertainment beyond just “games”.

            Based on that we’re looking at another 12-15 years until those kids become old enough to start nagging their parents for VR stuff(the 1st premium standalone mobile HMD will probably drop in 2-3 years when the first-gen of kids using it will be 6-7 and they’ll start having disposable income 8-10 years after that).

            My prediction around 2015–and that I still hold to–was that VR wouldn’t even begin to be uttered by casual consumers until 5-7 years after the first consumer HMDs dropped. We’re 2.5 years into that cycle so I think my prediction will come true.

            Small, mobile(wireless), standalone and affordable. Once those boxes are ticked, VR will take off.

          • kool

            You have to consider that very few gamers visit gamesites and watch YouTubers about games. Out of the hundreds of psn friends I have only a handful look up games and only four had even heard of the psvr. I ask often to gauge awareness amongst my friends and their routinely blown away when they find out it exists. You may be right about about the gamer crowd. Im starting a VR business now and what I’ve noticed is that kids and non gamers love playing VR games. Even the casual gamers like it, it’s the hardcore gamers that either love it or hate it. They hate it for those reasons you listed and I think they are intemidated by the prospect of having to use some sort of physical skill to win a game. Think about a VR cod, there is no quick scoping and jumping just makes you an easier target. That alone would send the flat cod community into a shitstorm as they rely on exploits and not skill for that precious kdr. This is an interesting phenomenon and I wonder how it will effect next gen VR growth. I always thought of this gen as a prototype generation for gameplay, form factor, price, marketing and tech. I’d just like for AAA devs try and see if AAA IPs will attract more mainstream gamers. Bethesda said it has paid off for them and those are the only two games gamers would even have heard of. I’d ideally like to see GTA or fallout on psvr, I’d take no man’s sky at least. I love VR because it takes you to a realm of infinite possibilities and for me an open world to get lost in with my brother is all l want!

          • nipple_pinchy

            >You have to consider that very few gamers visit gamesites and watch YouTubers about games.

            Most likely right. At least not enough to move the needle.

            >Im starting a VR business now

            I want to start or invest in a VR studio, too. I have several VR-exclusive sims/apps I want to start. Maybe late 2019 or 2020.

            >kids and non gamers love playing VR games

            I think it’s because they’re not trained with such narrow definitions of what makes great interactive digital entertainment. Gamers think VR is just “games” and it’s tough to negotiate with people who live and breathe video games and have a clearly defined version of what they think interactive entertainment can and can’t be. So there’s a dichotomy that you’d think people whose primary hobby is games would embrace VR but they’re so hard-coded into games that if something is different, they consider it a gimmick or a threat.

            >Think about a VR cod, there is no quick scoping and jumping just makes you an easier target. That alone would send the flat cod community into a shitstorm as they rely on exploits and not skill for that precious kdr.

            Exactly. These people have been interacting with virtual worlds for years or decades using contrived control mechanisms so a virtual reality military simulator would seem offensive because it’s counter to what they already know.

            >I’d just like for AAA devs try and see if AAA IPs will attract more mainstream gamers.

            AAA devs and publishers will dip their toes in the VR pond just to hedge their bets and have A presence, but they won’t gamble tens of millions on any VR-only endeavors. This is why VR start-ups and single developers who only care about VR have a chance to establish a firm foothold in the industry. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain. AAAs have money and resources to lose.

            I’d pay $200 for a full-fledged VR version of GTA V, but I don’t see that ever happening. Rockstar barely wants to put their games on PC and PC has hundreds of millions of global consumers.

          • kool

            There is definitely money in VR right now. It has a shut up and take my money quality! The less they know about it the more amazed they are by it! Co op experiences are definitely the way to go this early in the game(it’s easier to get a couple of people than a couple of teams and it bonds people in a positive way)!
            As far as AAA games go the best we can hope for is a port of an old game until next gen. Stormland seems to be the most ambitious VR title so far, but it’ll be next gen before we can get similar size titles on a standalone or get Joshua bell level media content ready. I really hope they can pull it all together in one package next gen. That’s why I don’t mind waiting as long as possible until they drop new headsets.

          • nipple_pinchy

            >it has a shut up and take my money quality!

            For me it certainly does! I see all previews for these super-expensive pancake games like Anthem and I feel nothing, but I see footage for an early access VR sim called Blade and Sorcery made by ONE GUY and I’m hyped to the Nth degree.

            The problem I have with traditional gamers is that they’ve been trained to expect games that have an overflow of mechanics and a ton of features made to inflate the perceived value of an experience and when they see VR, they ask why the equivalent of GTA V doesn’t exist yet.

            They don’t understand that the gaming and VR industries are completely separate. VR is only a little over 2 years old. Traditional video gaming is 40 years old. The consumer base for VR is tiny and the buy-in cost–unless you already have an expensive PC or console–is fairly high.

            I still want Star Citizen with complete VR support so I can buy a starship for my kids so we can explore the universe together, but I understand the numbers game. It’ll be years until the big developers–or upstarts–can feasibly devote a lot of resources and money to VR-exclusive endeavors.

      • fuyou2

        ‘A multiplayer-only title is a death sentence’ , WTF what a retarded comment, what drugs are you on? Content, Content, Content…

        • nipple_pinchy

          You’re not a VR user so just stay in your lane. Just keep playing your Xbox. You have no idea what you’re talking about in regards to VR or what it needs.

  • nipple_pinchy

    Stop marketing to gamers. VR isn’t just another medium to experience frickin’ video games. VR as a medium has infinite use cases. Devs should approach VR HMDs more like smartphones and not gaming consoles. A smartphone is an application hub; a console can only play games.

    Consumer VR has been around for over 2 years now and gamers aren’t biting, regardless of how cheap headsets are now because they already have their gamer hardware. They’re married to their couches and mouse/keyboard/gamepad setup. They’re not going to buy an HMD to do what they already do in a sedentary manner. Forget that consumer base and expand out. Market to everyone else.

    The smartphone market is massive and there’s innumerable revenue streams, not just gaming. VR needs to divorce itself from gaming and establish itself as more of a medium for simulations and applications within a virtual space. Stop calling all VR titles “games”; it’s harmful and misleading. General consumers won’t be interested in tech if they think it’s just another video game thing.

    What VR needs is for non-gaming devs need to come in and start creating content lacking any influence from the games industry that reflects the attractive aspects of virtual reality.

    • HTC stopped marketing to gamers after the enterprise edition was created.. its the VR Gaming marketers that keeps bring them back for VR enthusiast which is fine. HTC Pro is actually focus on the Enterprise hince the price. This is no different than what Nvidia does with Geforce vs Quadro same cards but the price difference is $3-4000 higher that Geforce. in this case HTC doesn’t have a cheaper price for gamers..

  • Pasi Ripari

    “due to the shortage of a key component, which is why sales on the original Vive appeared to have slumped so rapidly.”

    Yeah no kidding, been waiting for my Vive Pro for nearly 2 months now.

    No wonder VR is slow to take off, it’s freaking impossible to get one in the first place, then you need to be lucky enough for it to work. (Returned my first one because of jitter.)

  • Jerald Doerr

    The only type of VR that might die off is cell phone VR or stand alone VR/AR… faaaaaaar before Oculus or Vive type VR (PC Hookup/roomscale) .. and all that’s going to happen is pricing dropping.. plus so much technology is on the way to upgrade VR you’d have to be moron to not invest or think it’s going to go away like track balls….

  • Andrew Jakobs

    For me it’s still the price of a new gpu which holds me back from buying a newer headset (still have the oculus dk2/gtx760), as i think 300+ euro’s for a (not even) midrange card (gtx 1060,6GB) is just way too much, and if you really want decend/coming years vr proof gpu, you’l need at least a gtx1070..
    And i know from a lot of people near me who think exactly the same, the headset itself isn’t really the problem, the gpu to drive it is.

    • Zerofool

      Agreed. And by the looks of it, next gen Nvidia cards (launching late next month) will be even more expensive. AMD has nothing to counter them until sometime next year, so Nvidia can price them as high as they want, especially considering that they have pretty big stock of current gen 10-series cards, which need to go.

      There’s an alleged leak regarding pricing and a new naming scheme, which I hope is incorrect, but in case it’s legit you should be mentally prepared, so here it is (please direct your disappointment, anger and insults towards Nvidia ;) ):

      https://wccftech.com/nvidias-next-generation-graphics-cards-specifications-pricing-and-nomenclature-details/

      Eye tracking and foveated rendering (therefore, lower GPU requirements) can’t arrive soon enough.

  • brandon9271

    If VR is stagnant then why haven’t HTC come down in price? You should be able to buy the Vive Pro WITH controllers for $799. It’s almost like they don’t want mass adoption of their platform. I guess they realize that in the end, Valve gets most of the money from games

    • HTC will probably not come down in price.. it’s focus on a different level of users.. Oculus is focus on winning over Xbox, and PS4 users while HTC is focus on Enterprise business users.

      • brandon9271

        HTC is focused on being greedy :)

        • not greedy just in a different market.. $1300 Vive or $1900 Vive pro is pretty cheap compared to other hmd’s for enterprise.. OSVR is selling theirs for $1000’s http://sensics.com/products/ my Canon MR HMD was $250,000 that was just last years price.

  • FriendlyCard

    The writer of the Digital Trends article, Joshua Fruhlinger, is being negative as usual. Doom and gloom. The truth is, VR is doing very well as it is in it’s first commercial outing, with growing pains that are normal. Wait until the second generation when it’s wireless and easy to configure. It will gain much more adoption and momentum at that point.

  • That article annoyed me a lot because lots of people used it to say that VR is a fad.

  • 1. Amazon should never be a single data source for market trends either, its a piece of market.. lol

    Today’s XR technologies are built upon ideas that date back to the 1800s, almost to the very beginning of photography. In 1838, the first stereoscope was created, using twin mirrors to project a single image. That eventually developed into the View-Master, patented in 1939 and still used today.

    Another example: The Sensorama. This is followed by the first type of multimedia device in the form of an interactive theatre experience, devised by Morton Heilig, and known as the ‘Sensorama’. This early form of VR was invented in 1957 but was not patented until 1962.

    Around the same time, Douglas Engelbart used computer screens both as input and output devices. In 1968, Ivan Sutherland, with the help of his student Bob Sproull, created what was widely considered to be the first head-mounted display (HMD) system for use in immersive simulation applications.

    VR has been around for a very long time, and it has never died, It just wasn’t consumer facing, and too expensive. I’ve worked with VR systems of all kinds for 30+ years, And now its back in the consumers hands, and its growing, and it will continue to grow. Just because some reporter with “NO REAL DATA” says its not, doesn’t make it true. step into the Enterprise world of VR and you will notice that GM, Ford, Toyota, Boeing, Disney, NASA, General Electric, etc. have all been using VR for well over 30 yrs to create the products we use everyday..

  • The only news here is that the HTC VIVE is falling off. They had a HUGE lead over Oculus by getting motion controllers out first. By the time Oculus finally came out with their Touch, people had already installed their Lighthouses and were married to the VIVE. Their attempt to buy companies into their closed market hurt their reputation and slowed down what they should have done from the beginning, which is integrate with Steam. All of these issues are solved now. I haven’t touched my VIVE in months.

    Oculus has made alot of mistakes on what is otherwise FAR more comfortable hardware, delivered at a better price. Assuming they don’t shoot themselves in the foot any MORE times, they are going to advance well ahead of the VIVE in the future. Either that or Windows Mixed Reality is going to devour both of them. :/

    As for mass adoption of VR, that’s still up to the GPU makers, as much as anyone else. A good VR card is still at least $300, right? Just imagine beastly cards necessary to drive 2k to 4k headsets! The card alone will cost more then the whole computer and VR rig combined! I hope Foveated Rendering is as big of a deal as people have said, because without it… those new high-rez headsets are doomed. The GPU power gap is already too high.

    • There is a misunderstanding of markets and where Oculus and HTC is focus.. at the beginning they were both focus on Consumer, but that changed after HTC released the Enterprise version of their VR Solution. HTC is only falling off in the consumer market and that’s by design.. HTC is the standard for Enterprise. I agree Oculus is winning in the Console/Home VR market, and Oculus has lost the war in Enterprise.

  • care package

    35% market share for HTC Vive, and 9% for Oculus? lmao ok.

  • fuyou2

    Whats killing VR is all the substandard fucking shit like mobile VR headsets, that most consumers first impressions of VR comes from.. GEAR VR, DAYDREAM, OCULUS GO, Google Cardboard..The List Fucking goes on..

  • oompah

    I would buy HTC only if
    its 200$

    • JJ

      then you’re cheap. Thats the same as saying i’m only ever gona buy coffee thats 10 cents. i Might find it that cheap but it’ll be shit.

  • MW

    The thing is – people (in general) doesn’t need poor (today’s) VR! No need-no sales (less than 4.milions pieces globally in 4 years is laughable).
    They already have a lot of ways to have fun-play good games for ex. (because ‘good’ means to be able to have a good story). Business ? Ok. But tools for business are expensive and not user friendly.

    Today’s VR is just too weak product to make a global success. Low resolution, small fov, expensive GPU, and no content. Those are nails to the VR coffin. Only way to turn this around is to get better (software and hardware). Much much better. But for this industry needs a waterfall of money…

    • jj

      there arent 4 million bugattis in the world and yet people think that cars a success.. hmmmmm. I dont think those are nails in a coffin, let alone theres a coffin at all for vr… plus vr isnt in a poor state, the resolution is great, the fov is near our eyes, 1070s are cheap and work well for VR, steam is getting pumped with vr content daily.

      Idk what rock you live under but you are just being difficult and creating issues that dont exist.

      plus Fb is that waterfall…. So literally everything you said is bs. try not to be so stupid next time you post

  • nipple_pinchy

    I’m more excited for the future of VR than I am any other tech or medium. So much potential. When consumer facial tracking gets really good I can imagine people becoming virtual actors, making movies in virtual sets and being anyone. Hell, I’d love to do that.

    Kind of like what that guy Andy Serkis does(Gollum, King Kong, Caesar from the Apes movies) only in real-time while wearing a VR HMD.

  • disqus_SWe1pH5gM2

    Notice 3D TV’s are hard to find now when just a few years ago they were considered to be the “latest and greatest”. I’ll be buying a Rift, but I’m not holding my breath.