vpance
Member
It is when you massively overestimated previously based on number pulled from the usual place.
Yep
It is when you massively overestimated previously based on number pulled from the usual place.
Because a manchild who makes his living screaming at a camera surrounded by toys is the business analyst we should be listening to.
And? It made them a shitload of money and created a ton of hype, leading to financial analysts expecting a profitable holiday season which is crazy since they mulliganed this year. Sour grapes from a greasy YouTube blowhard doesn't change that.
I own it and agree it's s game changer. But it's just not that attractive of a product. It cuts you off too much and demands too much of your attention to truly enjoy the game. It's a very asocial experience.
I love VR, but I still don't think it's here to stay. It's revolutionary only for people like us: hardcore gamers. No one else really cares.
You do realize that Jim Sterling is a neogaf member?
I own it and agree it's s game changer. But it's just not that attractive of a product. It cuts you off too much and demands too much of your attention to truly enjoy the game. It's a very asocial experience.
I love VR, but I still don't think it's here to stay. It's revolutionary only for people like us: hardcore gamers. No one else really cares.
He still on youtube.
That change nothing from what he said, regardless of the validity of the criticism.
Kinect sold 8 million in 60 days when it launched. For $250 more at retail (plus the difference in the economy/inflation between the two launches) I don't think 2.6 million is unrealistic. The narrative has been that Sony had the best shot at pushing VR and that VR in general is much more compelling than the Wii or Kinect ever were. Those people were wrong for now. VR has some more gestating to do if it's ever going to become mainstream.
This I disagree with - to date, I've seen far more indication of people wanting to participate with VR players than any 2d experience. It's the most social oriented "gaming" thing I've seen since motion controls.Peltz said:It's a very asocial experience.
If Sony expected to sell 2.6 million for 2016 and will only sell 750k then this tells me VR is in a lot of trouble.
I don't want it to be because I still very much want one. Just not until there are must plays for me.
Didn't Superdata make the ludicrous prediction of PSVR selling 2.6 million? That was never going to happen.
PSVR is selling well and it's selling whenever stock get replenished. So I have no idea what they want.
I own it and agree it's s game changer. But it's just not that attractive of a product. It cuts you off too much and demands too much of your attention to truly enjoy the game. It's a very asocial experience.
I love VR, but I still don't think it's here to stay. It's revolutionary only for people like us: hardcore gamers. No one else really cares.
As I said on the previous page, Jim Ryan said the sales at launch window would be in the "many hundred thousand".If Sony expected to sell 2.6 million for 2016 and will only sell 750k then this tells me VR is in a lot of trouble.
I don't want it to be because I still very much want one. Just not until there are must plays for me.
But that 2.6M number isn't coming from Sony...
Pretty sure plenty do all the damn time. Solo video game playing has been referred to as anti-social for decades"A lot of people like it that way, i.e. introverts."
I don't think being introverted or social has anything to do with it. Like, are people having Uncharted 4 parties? Is that a thing? You just invite a bunch of people over and have them watch you play a single player game? No, you don't. No one (that describes VR as an "asocial" gaming experience) calls that a "asocial."
If Sony expected to sell 2.6 million for 2016 and will only sell 750k then this tells me VR is in a lot of trouble.
I don't want it to be because I still very much want one. Just not until there are must plays for me.
SuperData's revised forecast for 2016 calls for under 750k PlayStation VR units sold (their previous estimate was 2.6 million)
Llamas added that Sony may be deliberately limiting PSVR supply until it can do a better job with supporting the platform.
When it comes to VR predictions, this report is like Square Enix's 7.6 million Tomb Raider sales in a month forecast.
I was going to say "Well it kinda makes sense, seeing as the popular headset was unavailable" until I read this part:
Was their previous estimate derived from a survey? Because that's a helluva revision.
This part is also interesting:
This makes no sense. Why would a business deliberately limit supply?
I was referring more to calling him a manchild and a greasy blowhard, but yeah if you ignore the unnecessary ad hominem attacks you might get what you got out of those quotes.
Was their previous estimate derived from a survey? Because that's a helluva revision.
This makes no sense. Why would a business deliberately limit supply?
This is super data's own forecast..Wish people would read the vr crapfest on this place is annoying. All we know officially from Sony is that sales were on track
but but but Nintendo is a fuckhead toymaker who can't do anything right, selling all of their hottest holiday product for a profit is a mistake /jimsterling
And? It made them a shitload of money and created a ton of hype, leading to financial analysts expecting a profitable holiday season which is crazy since they mulliganed this year. Sour grapes from a greasy YouTube blowhard doesn't change that.
If we go by the general Nintendo accusation, it's to promote a sense of demand that would not be there had Sony adequately supplied retailers with enough stock to fill the shelves.
Otherwise I more think that in this case, They may not want to ship out too much of the initial production line in case fixes need to be done for a refresh batch later on.
750,000 PSVR is the forecast for the whole 2016.
In finance news "on track" is usually code telling investors not to panic. If the launch was a big success you can bet they'd be crowing about it in no uncertain terms.
It might not matter. If that was a number publishers, investors, etc were looking at it could still be very bad. I hope not.
Why would investors, publishers,ect use this number over Sony's own internal estimates?
Why does radio shack ask for you phone number when you buy batteries?
Did Sony ever say they were hoping to even ship that many this fiscal quarter, let alone by the end of this year?"down from their previous estimate of 2.6 million".
Sounds like backpedalling due to their hilarious prediction.
That's roughly less than 5% of all PS4 owners in the world. So I think they thought it was a safe estimate for a new product exclusive to the platform.
If we go by the general Nintendo accusation, it's to promote a sense of demand that would not be there had Sony adequately supplied retailers with enough stock to fill the shelves.
Otherwise I more think that in this case, They may not want to ship out too much of the initial production line in case fixes need to be done for a refresh batch later on.
This makes no sense. Why would a business deliberately limit supply?
So why ISN'T Sony marketing the PSVR? The only ad I've seen for it was a Taco Bell commercial and I haven't seen a kiosk anywhere