Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Microsoft announces new VR headsets

1235»

Comments

  • observerobserver Member RarePosts: 3,685
    SEANMCAD said:
    Holy Blaz! 

    I just read a few more articles that is touting the MS VR headset as if its the second coming of christ all the while in the same article saying 'even though we dont know the specs yet'.

    This cute little device could be as good as Google cardrboard, marginally better, marginally worse the PSVR we dont know. This gamer really doesnt care either way, when it comes to my gaming experience I always look at the best option, then work my way down from there based on my finances of which are usually rather good so I am only slightly interested in who might when the McDonaldalization of VR.

    that all said, the articles need to tone it down a notch until they have a remote clue what the specs actually are.
    Yeah, i want to see some specs first before praising it.  It was laughable when people were trying to compare Oculus and Vive with Google Cardboard.
  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member EpicPosts: 10,647
    observer said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Holy Blaz! 

    I just read a few more articles that is touting the MS VR headset as if its the second coming of christ all the while in the same article saying 'even though we dont know the specs yet'.

    This cute little device could be as good as Google cardrboard, marginally better, marginally worse the PSVR we dont know. This gamer really doesnt care either way, when it comes to my gaming experience I always look at the best option, then work my way down from there based on my finances of which are usually rather good so I am only slightly interested in who might when the McDonaldalization of VR.

    that all said, the articles need to tone it down a notch until they have a remote clue what the specs actually are.
    Yeah, i want to see some specs first before praising it.  It was laughable when people were trying to compare Oculus and Vive with Google Cardboard.
    How exactly is it laughable? 



  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    observer said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Holy Blaz! 

    I just read a few more articles that is touting the MS VR headset as if its the second coming of christ all the while in the same article saying 'even though we dont know the specs yet'.

    This cute little device could be as good as Google cardrboard, marginally better, marginally worse the PSVR we dont know. This gamer really doesnt care either way, when it comes to my gaming experience I always look at the best option, then work my way down from there based on my finances of which are usually rather good so I am only slightly interested in who might when the McDonaldalization of VR.

    that all said, the articles need to tone it down a notch until they have a remote clue what the specs actually are.
    Yeah, i want to see some specs first before praising it.  It was laughable when people were trying to compare Oculus and Vive with Google Cardboard.
    exactly. that is all I am trying to suggest here.

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    edited October 2016
    SEANMCAD said:
    gervaise1 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    gervaise1 said:
    Vesavius said:
    gervaise1 said:
    Vesavius said:
    The one thing that will retard VR this generation is saturation. Hasn't anyone learn't? Get to a standard asap.
    The high price tag of the Occulus Rift and HTC Vibe coupled with the "smaller" potential market is a bigger issue.


    Disagree. If a price war had not already kicked in and a standard agreed a year ago, the sales for a given format would be really very decent, even at the Rift price (for example).

    What will kill VR this generation is dilution. 

    For software to be made, the market has to be robust. 4+ different formats for a year 1 niche tech do not make a robust market for software.
    For software to be made their has to be a sufficiently high installed base of a given standard - or the expectation of one. The standard alone is not enough.

    Oculus and Rift haven't delivered the install base this - 140k worldwide is trivial for example. Price without doubt a factor; availability probably an even bigger factor. No surprise that EA is not making games for them. "Standards" that don't sell "in volume" are pointless.

    The console base is significant. And most owners can be assumed to play games - not the case with PCs.

    If the MS (And Sony) offerings take off Oculus and Rift will - probably - have to respond by lowering their prices. Especially as XB1 VR will / might - presumably - run on (sufficiently powerful) PCs.  
    so I had mentioned about 2 months ago that there will be a major push with VR this month, turns out I was right. I didnt make it up, I actually posted articles that gave plenty of evidence to that.

    What else have I posted some of? links to news articles saying millions are being invested currently into content. I am trying to hold my tongue but its becoming hard.

    About two weeks ago I read that some 100+ million dollars was being spent to set up the 'Pixar of VR' another article that said HTC is about ready to tell people about a large content project they have been working on, another article about a studio being setup with also millions of dollars. This content doesnt happen over night but just like how I explained the 500 stores in best buy and it actually happening, the links do exist.

    here is ANOTHER link to a NEW story about even MORE money invested in content. another $ 250million
    http://venturebeat.com/2016/10/06/facebook-will-double-its-250-million-investment-in-vr-content/

    here is the HTC story (I think HTC is up to $250 million in content investment now)
    https://uploadvr.com/htc-working-30-teams-vive-content-well-see-soon/

    only $25 million to become 'pixar' of VR they claim
    https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/18/baobab-studios-raises-25m-as-it-looks-to-bring-richer-storytelling-to-vr/

    $5 million for a new studio (although this is likely part of the same HTC money in the article above)
    https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/31/htc-makes-5-million-investment-in-vr-gaming-startup-steel-wool-studios/


    You also said that you didn't expect to see widespread availability this year. Which looks to be the case. Which doesn't mean they won't be running "big promotions" of course. 



       


    Sorry I read that like 3 times and I still dont understand what your saying.

    regardless let me help by re-stating my main assertion again but perhaps differently.

    1. it takes 3 years to make a standard game, only very risky developers would start to develop on VR during the time frame when it was still in development and thus the first API was constantly changing as well as hardware.

    2. millions of dollars are currently being spent on content most of which has just started or started this year. This is not an opinion this is a fact of which I have provided 3 examples.

    3. thus I would expect to see content from these developers explained in item 2 to start having consumable content to customers around the 3 year mark.

    can you please say something that addresses any of these three points

    1. Yes it is risky for developers to make games without an installed user base; agree. 

    2. Yes money is being spent. And yes without money you have nothing. It doesn't mean "X" will make it though. As I have said before though I don't consider the numbers so far to be "huge" - yes I know what they are. "Serious money" only gets spent when companies commit to volume production. When they make millions of units @ $X manufacturing cost for worldwide sales. That is when costs spiral very quickly. Production is very different from development. Which is how Nintendo lost "a billion or so" in the 90s.

    Implication: If MS and Sony are "serious about consumer VR" - IF - then they are or are planning to spend serious -  very serious - money. We don't yet know though - although EA are developing for the Sony VR so they must expect "reasonable sales".

    3. How long do games take? Ignore the conceptual phase and it can be quicker than 3 years (e.g. Destiny) if a firm goes for it. I don't disagree though with what you say. Games take time. Without games though people won't buy VR; but if they don't buy VR games don't get made. Chicken and egg. Which is the type of logjam that Sony and MS (and more recently Google) have been breaking.

    (So I won't be at all surprised if we see stuff akin to what first came out for CD drives way back being released.)
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    gervaise1 said:

    1. Yes it is risky for developers to make games without an installed user base; agree. 

    2. Yes money is being spent. And yes without money you have nothing. It doesn't mean "X" will make it though. As I have said before though I don't consider the numbers so far to be "huge" - yes I know what they are. "Serious money" only gets spent when companies commit to volume production. When they make millions of units @ $X manufacturing cost for worldwide sales. That is when costs spiral very quickly. Production is very different from development. Which is how Nintendo lost "a billion or so" in the 90s.

    Implication: If MS and Sony are "serious about consumer VR" - IF - then they are or are planning to spend serious -  very serious - money. We don't yet know though - although EA are developing for the Sony VR so they must expect "reasonable sales".

    3. How long do games take? Ignore the conceptual phase and it can be quicker than 3 years (e.g. Destiny) if a firm goes for it. I don't disagree though with what you say. Games take time. Without games though people won't buy VR; but if they don't buy VR games don't get made. Chicken and egg. Which is the type of logjam that Sony and MS (and more recently Google) have been breaking.
    that is better, more focused. thank you

    1. we agree

    2.  last year Facebook spent $250 million on content (that is basically a GTA 5 project) now they are doing it again with about $250 million new dollars. So the Facebook story alone is two GTA 5 games.

    3. Wikipedia says average game is 3 years at least the last time I looked. I am willing to look at stats that suggest otherwise as long as they dont come out of someones ass

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

Sign In or Register to comment.