Support NeoGAF

[Giever]

I'm willing to bet that the chance of someone having a PS4 is quite a bit higher than the chance of that same someone having a PC with a >=970 GPU though.

I don't know all of the hardware that is >= 970, but adding together the 970, 980, 780 Ti, and R9 200 series I get about 7.17% of users represented on the steam hardware and software survey. There's probably more cards on that list that are at or above a 970, but I don't know all of them.

Assuming that that survey is representative of the userbase, and we apply it to the latest active user estimate I've seen (via SteamSpy), which is about 140m, we get about 10m users that may have video cards at or above the 970 level.

I'm pretty sure that over double that amount of PS4s have been sold, so you're probably right.

Also I'm probably making a lot of people shake their heads in disbelief at my mathematical/statistical shenanigans here, but it's my first time trying to extrapolate stuff like this.

 

[Bookoo]

What's interesting is Morpheus, which has the weakest hardware to work with, may have the biggest success

Not that surprising since it's a lot easier simply having to own a console is a lot easier than having to deal with building or buying a much more expensive PC.

 

[Kelsdesu]

Am I only one who sees the potential for utility in VR?

 

[Crayon]

Am I only one who sees the potential for utility in VR?

Research, engineering, physical therapy, ignoring people, education, staying home from work, porn addiction. And that's it. That's all the uses.

 

[jiggle]

$500 and no porn
Psvr will bomba

 

[The Llama]

IMO you're a millennial if you were 16-35 around the time of the financial crisis. I think the millennial generation is defined by the struggle of entering the working world/college or surviving the beginning of your career around the time that the world economy was in meltdown.

Spoiler

On topic, ~$300 is what I'm probably going to wait for before I get a VR set. Then again I'm going to wait it out a year or 2 anyway just because I think there will be a lot of weird exclusivity stuff going on at first.

 

[Game4life]

I don't know all of the hardware that is >= 970, but adding together the 970, 980, 780 Ti, and R9 200 series I get about 7.17% of users represented on the steam hardware and software survey. There's probably more cards on that list that are at or above a 970, but I don't know all of them.

Assuming that that survey is representative of the userbase, and we apply it to the latest active user estimate I've seen (via SteamSpy), which is about 140m, we get about 10m users that may have video cards at or above the 970 level.

I'm pretty sure that over double that amount of PS4s have been sold, so you're probably right.

Also I'm probably making a lot of people shake their heads in disbelief at my mathematical/statistical shenanigans here, but it's my first time trying to extrapolate stuff like this.

More close to triple that amount. PS4 is close to 30 million.

 

[low-G]

Any research presented using terms like "Generation Z" must have been conducted with flawed methodology.

 

[Fularu]

It's easy as a generation Z to be excited about VR when you're expecting your parents to foot the bill.

 

[Zaptruder]

Interesting figures.

Bit of a flawed survey though (setting aside protestations about the generation Z category here) - in that it conflates Vive pricing with PSVR pricing, while setting Oculus in its own $1000+ category.

Seems like the people conducting the research haven't done a very good job at defining the pricing ranges to people.

Vive of course requires the same PC as Oculus.

But PSVR also requires its own system to run.

In that sense, all VR HMDs are way beyond the price point that most users are willing to pay.

But in a more real sense, PSVR has a much larger install base, while those with PCs capable of running VR are significantly fewer.

Still, it does mean that PSVR will be far and away the year 1 leader in VR, as far as market share goes.

Problematically with a survey like this... it doesn't really tell us much about how much users are willing to spend in the future for VR - because future VR will not just have better specs, but chiefly, because it'll have a broader cultural zeitgeist and a wider range of applications that'll be useful to a wider variety of users.

It's a decent starting anchor point though - if things improve substantially for VR in hardware terms and functionality terms, making itself a convergent killer app for many tasks (fitness, communication, work, education, etc), then it's reasonable to say that willingness to spend will go up.

 

[ZOONAMI]

I'm willing to bet that the chance of someone having a PS4 is quite a bit higher than the chance of that same someone having a PC with a >=970 GPU though.

I'd be very interested in research that confirms the amount of 970 and 290 plus gpus that are in the wild. Globally my guess would be more than the 30 million PS4S out there.

Edit, I see the above post about the steam survey. Not conclusive though because you are extrapolating a voluntary hardware survey onto the entire pc population.

 

[Giever]

More close to triple that amount. PS4 is close to 30 million.

I searched google and the most recent worldwide sales info I was able to quickly find was from March around 20mil, and I couldn't find later than that, so I just went with over double, but I appreciate the info!

 

[IAmRandom31]

Doesn't nvidia and amd provide sells numbers?

 

[XxRampage07xX]

I will buy a $350 bundle including PSVR, PS move, and PS camera in a heartbeat. But it might just be a wishful thinking.

 

[travisbickle]

I think VR will do alright. I see Sony as the front runner as they'll have about 35 million consoles out there by release and game applications will be the focus for initial adoption ... non-game apps coming later.

 

[Nerdkiller]

Hey, I thought we already settled on a name for Gen Z already. Centennials. If sticking to the Gen Z moniker is what's gonna happen, then we should go back to being Gen Y. Don't single us out with a slur-y sounding name, especially considering it skips a letter.

 

[flyinpiranha]

Generation Z is new to me but I've heard of the others on GAF.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation#Western_world

Basically:

Baby Boomers = 50+
Gen X = 35-55
Millenials = 15-35
Gen Z = 0-20

Since nothing is agreed upon, there is overlap.

I'm a Gen X-er engaged to a Millennial and we have a Gen-Z!

Price point is a little high but I imagine we will have all of them (although it might be Vive or Rift by the time they launch). Kid loves the DK2 but not many experiences for him. Plus I really limit his time to just a few minutes since he's younger. Fiance is not a fan because of nausea but hopefully that will be remedied in the retail releases.

I love it and a huge supporter and believer ... but those prices seem high. I'm all in and $500 would make me hesitate.

 

[Irishmantis]

Research, engineering, physical therapy, ignoring people, education, staying home from work, porn addiction. And that's it. That's all the uses.

Not with that attitude

 

[ArtHands]

Interesting figures.

Bit of a flawed survey though (setting aside protestations about the generation Z category here) - in that it conflates Vive pricing with PSVR pricing, while setting Oculus in its own $1000+ category.

Seems like the people conducting the research haven't done a very good job at defining the pricing ranges to people.

Vive of course requires the same PC as Oculus.

But PSVR also requires its own system to run.

In that sense, all VR HMDs are way beyond the price point that most users are willing to pay.

But in a more real sense, PSVR has a much larger install base, while those with PCs capable of running VR are significantly fewer.

Still, it does mean that PSVR will be far and away the year 1 leader in VR, as far as market share goes.

Problematically with a survey like this... it doesn't really tell us much about how much users are willing to spend in the future for VR - because future VR will not just have better specs, but chiefly, because it'll have a broader cultural zeitgeist and a wider range of applications that'll be useful to a wider variety of users.

It's a decent starting anchor point though - if things improve substantially for VR in hardware terms and functionality terms, making itself a convergent killer app for many tasks (fitness, communication, work, education, etc), then it's reasonable to say that willingness to spend will go up.

thats what i think too. The HTC vive will most probably also need a decent pc with tech specs in the same ballpark as the oculus rift, but since HTC/Valve didn't put out the recommended specs requirement, these ignorant people just assumed the Vive can run smoothly on any pc while the oculus rift require some high end specialized pc, not to mention the PS VR will require a PS4 too. Its irresponsible of the writer to report as such.

 

[RexNovis]

The biggest hurdle for VR is the aversion people have to wearing something unnecessary on their face. Doubly so if said thing also obstructs their vision. I just dont see this breaking that stigma. It'll sell to the hardcore but I am really not buying the mainstream appeal here at all.

 

[Raven Prime]

The biggest hurdle for VR is the aversion people have to wearing something unnecessary on their face. Doubly so if said thing also obstructs their vision. I just dont see this breaking that stigma. It'll sell to the hardcore but I am really not buying the mainstream appeal here at all.

How is it unnecessary? How else are you going to experience presence?

And if I look at a building it's also obstructing my vision of the horizon, if I'm looking at my VR screen I don't consider my vision obstructed at all, since my vision is only obstructed when something is in my view while I intend to view something else.

The generation stuff is always silly to me, trying to group a bunch of unique people together.

It's hard to ignore the influence a certain time period holds. We discuss games and random stuff on online forums, this is very different from the daily realities for those i.e. growing up in the 1920's. So while we are all unique, we definitely share a common background in a certain zeitgeist.

 

[SegaShack]

The generation stuff is always silly to me, trying to group a bunch of unique people together.

 

[mugwhump]

Oculus fucked up SO badly with that $1000+ figure. They should've just said the minimum price was PS4-level hardware for a PS4-level experience.

Price point thresholds indicate that 20% of consumers will be willing to spend between $400 to $500, boding well for Playstation VR and possibly the HTC Vive," the report concluded. "Only 11% of consumers are willing to spend $1,000-plus. With the need to purchase a specialized PC alongside a new console, Oculus falls into this expensive category.

Well if they're counting the price of hardware, none of the non-smartphone VR solutions, including PSVR, will be within that price range.

edit: actually, buying an off-contract phone that's decent for VR is pretty pricey too. I'm not sure if anything will truly be in the sub-$500 price range if you include hardware.

 

[RexNovis]

How is it unnecessary? How else are you going to experience presence?

And if I look at a building it's also obstructing my vision of the horizon, if I'm looking at my VR screen I don't consider my vision obstructed at all, since my vision is only obstructed when something is in my view while I intend to view something else.

It is unnecessary because VR is entirely unnecessary. Nobody needs a VR unit strapped to their face. It is 100% elective.

I have no idea what you are even getting at with the rest of this post. There is a huge difference between an environmental obstruction and a face mounted obstruction. A head mounted display obstructs your view because your actual view is reality not virtual reality. Therefore it obstructs your view of the real world. Hence obstruction. Unless you want to redefine the meaning of the word it is literally the textbook definition.

 

[RPGam3r]

People born 1990-onwards, IIRC.

What? No, mellenials go into 2000s. You're cutting gen Y in half or worse.

 

[RPGam3r]

The generation stuff is always silly to me, trying to group a bunch of unique people together.

Trying to market to demographics based on high level interests is hardly silly. Companies spend millions grouping people together.

 

[darkinstinct]

Really? $400 - $500?

Who did they surveyed?

$300 or less is what I think is the idea price point, no more no less.

Anyone one paying $400-$500 is nuts. And any company thinking VR will sell at that price for a good amount of adoption is just fooling themselves.

They need to treat VR like a console, you need to sell consoles in order to sell your games, and you need to sell a ton of games to sell the console. That's why having a ton of games supporting the device day 1 and having the cheapest price possible is the best scenario possible, make money off of software sales. If VR ever flops it's because companies we're too ignorant to see that.

Or not. Like with every new hardware it will be priced for the enthusiast first. If there are 20 % willing to pay up to $500 then VR will be priced for $500 first. These things will be supply constraint because noone can tell if they are gonna sell 10k or 1 million the first year. Price will reflect that.

 

[Raven Prime]

It is unnecessary because VR is entirely unnecessary. Nobody needs a VR unit strapped to their face. It is 100% elective.

I have no idea what you are even getting at with the rest of this post. There is a huge difference between an environmental obstruction and a face mounted obstruction. A head mounted display obstructs your view because your actual view is reality not virtual reality. Therefore it obstructs your view of the real world. Hence obstruction. Unless you want to redefine the meaning of the word it is literally the textbook definition.

Nobody needs to play games either. But again, if you want to experience presence, you'll need to somehow trick your senses into believing you are part of the game world. The current VR HMDs are the best way for the average consumer/gamer to experience that. Thus VR is necessary in order to experience (believable levels of) presence in video game worlds.

Your play with words does not change the fact that if I elect to view my virtual surrounding with the use of a VR HMD, that nothing is obstructing my view. My reality includes the VR HMD displaying the 'virtual' reality. To choose one thing is often the negation of the other option. If I look left, I'm obstructing my view of the right etc. etc. But all these obstructions are volitional and temporary, just like a person choosing to use a VR HMD for a certain amount of time and I really don't see how that's an actual problem. Unless you want to talk about the risks when moving around with a VR HMD on.

 

[kungfuian]

I see the biggest hurdle for PSVR is it's add on nature. Because it's not a stand alone product it can only have a limited market penetration. For reference, even the best received accessories sell no more than 20-25% of the install base (Kinect for example). So if you have 40-50 million PS4s when it launches, it will sell 8-10 million.

Because of this it will suffer the fate of all add on's before it. Sure selling to people who have already paid for a portion of the required hardware reduces cost and entices those people, but it also significantly reduces the pool of potential buyers; which means a low install base. And with low install base comes a significantly smaller pool of people buying software.

As a developer, selling games to only 8-10 million, when you could for example make and sell games for 40-50 million, is bad math. Due to this software sales/install base problem, support for the device will likely be restricted. I imagine traditional titles with vr versions/support (when it makes sense) and a whole lot of indi style content. And even then the games will really need to be cross platform developed/sold to make much money.

By the way I'm 100% sure Sony is aware of this, and their plans for the device are to test the viability/market response for future VR market products.

As a PS4 owner I'll happily be picking one up. But I would personally like to see the system marketed as it's own platform and sold as a stand alone unit (combined w PS4 or maybe have the device include PS4 guts somehow); and maybe also still sold as separate for existing PS4 users.

 

[RexNovis]

Nobody needs to play games either. But again, if you want to experience presence, you'll need to somehow trick your senses into believing you are part of the game world. The current VR HMDs are the best way for the average consumer/gamer to experience that. Thus VR is necessary in order to experience (believable levels of) presence in video game worlds.

Your play with words does not change the fact that if I elect to view my virtual surrounding with the use of a VR HMD, that nothing is obstructing my view. My reality includes the VR HMD displaying the 'virtual' reality. To choose one thing is often the negation of the other option. If I look left, I'm obstructing my view of the right etc. etc. But all these obstructions are volitional and temporary, just like a person choosing to use a VR HMD for a certain amount of time and I really don't see how that's an actual problem. Unless you want to talk about the risks when moving around with a VR HMD on.

Are you being purposefully obtuse? I'm not the one playing with words. The fact that you choose to obstruct your view of reality in no way changes the fact that it's obstructed. Nor does your little sales pitch on immersion somehow change VR from being an elective (aka unnecessary) head mounted device into a necessity. Nowhere did I say people need to play games. Nowhere did I say that was a necessity because it isn't. I choose to play games just like people would have to choose to wear a big ass display on their heads. I don't see the latter being a common choice for the mass market.

 

[Raven Prime]

Are you being purposefully obtuse? I'm not the one playing with words. The fact that you choose to obstruct your view of reality in no way changes the fact that it's obstructed. Nor does your little sales pitch on immersion somehow change VR from being an elective (aka unnecessary) head mounted device into a necessity. Nowhere did I say people need to play games. Nowhere did I say that was a necessity because it isn't. I choose to play games just like people would have to choose to wear a big ass display on their heads. I don't see the latter being a common choice for the mass market.

I'm not sure if it will help, but I'll try to explain it once more. Everything I look at, will obstruct something else from my view. Humans don't have 360 degree vision and even then there would always be objects blocking something else from view. Thus as a general rule our views are always obstructed. When you are reading my post, your view of whatever is beyond the screen is obstructed. I could try to break this down for you into slightly different examples over and over, but hopefully you understand this simple fact by now. Since our views are always in someway obstructed, saying this becomes somewhat meaningless. Thus if the target of our view is unobstructed there is no need to evoke the concept of obstruction.

Also reality can be defined at multiple levels, but at it's most essential level it is simply everything that exists. Virtual reality is the combination of multiple technologies to create the experience of us being in a virtual environment. Our minds are tricked into believing we are some place where we are not. Thus the reality delivered to our senses is a virtual one, but the experiences themselves are still real experiences. The technology and pixels are still real. Words like virtual only have relative meaning. It's not as if mankind has gone mad and we are collectively hallucinating that VR is an actual technology. Therefore it should be clear now to a keen mind that virtual reality is nothing else than a subset of reality as a whole. My view of reality is always obstructed in one way or another and viewing a virtual environment with the aid of a VR HMD is just one of the myriad ways that 'reality' can be 'obstructed'.

Presence or immersion, whichever word you prefer describes the necessity for VR. Nobody forces us to desire presence, but if we choose to experience this, we'll need a compelling virtual environment. Thus after the choice is made VR becomes a necessity. Man as a social and inquisitive being is curious about new technological breakthroughs, especially when this new technology is able to create strong emotional response from other humans. It's only natural that man therefore craves to experience presence and thus feels a need for VR.

If you still see these matters in a radically different light, then I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on these matters.

 

[hersheyfan]

Am very happy about these survey results - gives me hope that PSVR will be a strong seller, relative to expectations... I want it to reach that critical mass commercially so publishers and devs can be experimental.

While I'd support whichever manufacturer took the lead (I pretty much just want VR, any way I can get it), I admit I'm partial to Sony establishing a beachhead for VR use in consumer consoles. Although the Oculus is likely to be the most open platform (also appealing to me), I just love the idea of VR coupled with a console's plug and play mentality.

Pick up a boxed product at a store, bring it home, boot it up, and let technology take you somewhere else entirely - no futzing around with tech BS, it just works. That's what sci-fi promised me as a kid, and I'm super stoked that its actually about to become a reality.

 

[jimbobsmells]

I'd be very interested in research that confirms the amount of 970 and 290 plus gpus that are in the wild. Globally my guess would be more than the 30 million PS4S out there.

Edit, I see the above post about the steam survey. Not conclusive though because you are extrapolating a voluntary hardware survey onto the entire pc population.

How did you work that out? I would guess much less than 30 million, based on the rise of integrated GPUs in middle range hardware & the bias towards gaming machines inherent in a Steam Hardware review.

 

[cakefoo]

I see the biggest hurdle for PSVR is it's add on nature. Because it's not a stand alone product it can only have a limited market penetration.

Said "hurdle" opens the market up for 40M people who won't need to buy a dedicated processing unit. What alternatives are there that would be more commercially successful?

 

[Graphics Horse]

It'll be more like 50m come next Christmas. They will have a pretty big potential audience if it takes off, surprised they're not pushing the camera in advance.

 

[Turin Turambar]

Wait, someone born from 1980-1995's first gadget was an iPod? Lol, what?

Apple invented gadgets.

 

[Graphics Horse]

Trying to tie in 15 year long periods with such fast moving trends as electronics and pop stars seems a bit flawed to me.

 

[hodgy100]

im happy to spend £300 on a vr headset perhaps a little more if needs be

 

[Jack The Nipper]

I'd like to think we already know what we need here.. I don't need surveys and to pay people to find out what price I need my unit at.

If sony and MS showed us anything,

$500- just won't work
$400- can work but it isn't the sweet spot
$300- getting into that spot but no one starts here soon enough
$200 - this is the real sweet spot and where ps2 really thrived.

Issues are getting to the sweet of the sweet is incredible hard in today's inflation market but it still doesn't change the mindset people have for 200 and 300 dollars.

PS4 and X1 shold have been 300 this year and working as hard as they can to get a 200 dollar revision out asap.

A ps4 at 300 dollars with some digital games thrown in (even if just one or two) would out sell a xbox 1 at 350 with 5 games all day every day.

How to counter the losses? Pick up production (make more sales) and market your games and services more. Have deals on old games like classic packs and push them out super heavily

killzone, knack, infamous 10 dollar classic packs and push out a ton of them. they will be bought with new systems and this is profit.

PSVR must hit 350 or less, MUST have killer apps and a ton of games at launch and through the first year or it will be a huge issue. No killer app, nothing to look forward to and you are done.

Wii U owned the market simply on Wii sports, why we haven't seen a sports game in vr to just copy it? It should be one of the bigger pushes. Excercise and dancing as well, as well as some unique titles which they are doing.

trust me, a full disc golf game would be freakin incredible. that game is so good.

 

[BudokaiMR2]

Not really that interesting, the "best" product never means it'll be the market winner. Vive is by far the best solution for VR but I'm going to bet it'll be in dead last in sales.

I still don't really see this myself. I see something with such a high price barrier being more likely to be successful among PC enthusiasts. I know that gaming PCs are more affordable nowadays but there are still people out there buying dual Titan graphic cards etc.

PC Gamers have almost always been the demographic that picks up new tech trends the fastest in my opinion. The gap ins't as big as it always has been, but it was definitely that way for online gaming, surround sound, simple stuff like higher resolutions etc.

Also, there is the big personal point for me that I will have to worry about my PlaystationVR being a useless piece of plastic on the next console.
I think it's unlikely to happen in this case since its a first party device, but we do live in a time when I am not going to be able to use my PS3 arcade stick on a PS4 version of Street Fighter 5 when it comes out next year. I would be surprised if it didn't work on the PC version though!

Although the VR game I am most interested in at the moment is EVE Valkyrie, I am still leaning towards picking up a Vive first.

 

[ArtHands]

edited

 

[Sephiroth_VII]

Shahid. Leaving Sony.
Is that what you might call a megaton?

Hardly. Employees come and go all the time.

 

[mrdeiz]

VR gets huge according to http://VRFavs.com/ database

 

[Neuromancer]

The biggest hurdle for VR is the aversion people have to wearing something unnecessary on their face. Doubly so if said thing also obstructs their vision. I just dont see this breaking that stigma. It'll sell to the hardcore but I am really not buying the mainstream appeal here at all.

I brought my Google cardboard to work one day and showed 5 of my coworkers a simple roller coaster demo. They had a blast trying it and we're practically falling out of their chairs. If I can get a group of 30-40 year old guys at the office to put something unnecessary on their face I have no doubt that it won't be an issue for most people. The experience will trump the initial embarrassment or whatever you think is the problem.

 

[Chezzymann]

I must be an extreme outlier because I don't want to pay more than $150. I'm expecting it to take like four or five years before VR gets cheap enough for me to dive in though.

Edit: 80% of people had awareness of VR? That sounds kind of fishy. Is the sample truly random? If so, what cities were they doing it in, San Fransisco?

 

[DavidDesu]

PSVR will be less successful than kinect on 360. Almost no way around it, console add ons NEVER do well over the long term and devs don't usually support products well that only a minority of console owners own.

How many Move Games or Kinect games were made last gen? That is the future of PSVR.

Did Kinect offer ANYTHING like the range and quality of experiences already on the slate for PSVR (play Gran Turismo and be IN the cockpit of that Ferrari you always listed over)... vs poor wavey hands time!

No comparison.

 

[DavidDesu]

I want to see how this plays into the "console wars"... I mean if you're contemplating which console but see one has revolutionary VR tech available for it and one doesn't (streaming games via Oculus through a PC doesn't count)... what would you choose?

No one seems to be mentioning this. It's another massive string in the PS4's bow that can only help drive sales even further amongst those happy to go with either console. Why exclude yourself from cool future tech by going Xbox?

 

[Sheriff_Battlesnake]

NY Times ran a piece on Generation Z. It's mostly to aid market research (like always).

It also has this nice graphic explaining the keen difference:

Is it just me or does Gen Z seem way more prepared for the future than Millenials?

I'll say it again, we're the goddamn guinea pigs of the internet age. Raised on the ideals of pre-internet, growing up in the world of post-internet

 

[flyinpiranha]

I must be an extreme outlier because I don't want to pay more than $150. I'm expecting it to take like four or five years before VR gets cheap enough for me to dive in though.

Edit: 80% of people had awareness of VR? That sounds kind of fishy. Is the sample truly random? If so, what cities were they doing it in, San Fransisco?

I think this is the whole thing right here. HTC, Oculus, and even Sony realize that VR isn't going to be in every household next year. It's going to take time and they are rolling out stuff that isn't "perfect" but still better than what's out there (nothing).

 

[backbreaker65]

I must be an extreme outlier because I don't want to pay more than $150. I'm expecting it to take like four or five years before VR gets cheap enough for me to dive in though.

Edit: 80% of people had awareness of VR? That sounds kind of fishy. Is the sample truly random? If so, what cities were they doing it in, San Fransisco?

Like Shu said this is like launching the original playstation. It is not a add on or peripheral it is a "PLATFORM" so PSVR is = to PS1. The tech is here now in its infancy and it will mature.