Facebook can’t decide how much VR should cost | Hacker News Reader

Facebook can’t decide how much VR should cost

techcrunch.com

28 pointsjanober55 comments

This is pointless, people are not buying VR because there is nothing there they really want to use it for, not because it costs too much. A gaming rig to run it will cost you more.

Anecdotally, cost was a significant factor for me. I've been looking to purchase a headset ever since I had an opportunity to demo one a year ago, but $600 was a bit too steep for something that I likely wouldn't use for anything other than playing games (unlike a PC, which I use for much more than that). $400 though (the current price thanks to the summer sale) was enough to make me pull the trigger.

I also noticed a huge surge in the level of activity from new Rift owners on the /r/oculus subreddit after the sale started, and many there are reporting that the headset is sold out in a lot of stores, so I'm pretty sure I'm not alone here.

The $399 sale was what put me over the edge to finally buy one. Based on comments around the internet that I've read on this sale announcement, there are plenty of people similar to me.

Much of this is just how computer parts get cheaper over time. VR may end up like trackballs which never replaced mice, but still sold millions of devices.

PS: I flat out will not buy a Facebook product which may be contributing to HTC’s $799 Vive is continuing to sell better than the Rift.

But people are more likely to pay $200 for something that they might not get a huge amount of use from than $500+.

I think live sports and being able to switch between players/drone/sideline 360 views would be a killer app.

That's a popular opinion. And it's something that people have a demonstrated willingness to pay for.

It does make it into a solitary experience. And I think there's also the question of whether people would really want to be that immersed for a 2+ hour game.

Yeah, the solitary experience thing seems like the biggest hurdle. maybe a twitch like experience where one person directs the camera location and narrates with a bunch of follower who can control their own 360 view.

Is it safe to say that VR still has another decade (at least) before it gets any kind of wide spread adoption? I was hyped a couple years ago for VR but it feels like its fizzled out.

We're in the trough of disillusionment.

Indeed, the hype train is always miles ahead of reality.

How do you define widespread adoption? When adding all the current gen VR systems together we're already over 10M units sold.

Those are really optimistic numbers which must include GearVR and its competitors, which are toys that most people do not consider true VR.

Total sales for Rift, PSVR, and Vive are ~1.5 million units combined. All the others (OSVR, chinese clones, et. al.) might add up to 2 million total.

The 10M figure does include Gear VR yes. It's less capable than a Vive but ignoring its success while prophecising VR's doom seems weird to me.

I don't know where you are getting the 2 million total, but it is wildly off:

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS42707617

These are numbers for Q1,2017, placing a total of Rift, PSVR and Vive at ~750k units. This is for the worse quarter of the year, post launch hype and off Christmas sales. I'd wager there are 5 million units of "serious" VR units out there.

Also of note, something I didn't know: The Vive is outselling Oculus Rift at almost a 2:1 ratio.

>These are numbers for Q1,2017, placing a total of Rift, PSVR and Vive at ~750k units

Combined with the sales from last year, that's almost precisely the 1.5 million units I mentioned sold of the major 3.

Except we're now in the end of Q2. Vive/Oculus now have four quarters of sales, not two, while PSVR has three. Even a linear extrapolation lands in 3 million units, and you still have to account for both the Christmas and launch factors.

>Even a linear extrapolation lands in 3 million units

That's the thing. You really can't even extrapolate these sales in a linear fashion. There was a massive pent up demand for these devices, and the market is reaching saturation very quickly.

I wont argue that perhaps 3 million units of the major 3 headsets have been manufactured and sold to various outlets already. But what matters for developers is the install base of actual users. The latest numbers for SteamVR show an install base of ~220,000 users [0]. The biggest breakout hit game of 2016, Raw Data, has a current ownership number of ~90,000 users, with an average total play time of 2 hours. [1].

I'm not trying to be pessimistic, but the numbers simply wont be there to support large scale development of games until the install base increases at least 10x, which I do not see happening with this gen of hardware. A lot of this comes down simply to price.

[0] http://steamspy.com/app/250820

[1] https://steamspy.com/app/436320

Basically when new games are made for VR first and traditional games (PS4/XBOX/Nintendo) are more for niche gamers.

That's a pretty interesting goal. I haven't thought too much about this, but for that to happen we'd need some high bandwidth brain-computer links. Then those new VR systems with brainlinks would also have to be cheaper than all the existing traditional gaming platforms. Add the gaming system upgrade cycle to that (5-10 years). So I'd wager it won't happen for at least another 30-40 years at least. That said, I can easily see VR system sales being in the billions with just 10 years. It's just that traditional systems will outnumber VR systems for a long time, especially if a VR system also depends on owning a traditional system.

Well, there's certainly not as much hype anymore as there may have been a couple years ago, but I wouldn't really say it's "fizzled out". New games are coming out all the time (e.g. Robo Recall, Echo Arena), new hardware is being developed (version 2 of the lighthouse trackers, Valve's knuckle controllers, new headsets from LG, etc.), and we're finally starting to get to the point where there are a lot of games available for VR that are more than just tech demos. The ecosystem is still very much alive.

I'd say we'd have to wait for generation two before giving up on it. Cheaper, lighter, higher resolution, etc.

I don't know what the timeframe is but, yeah, it probably needs to get to untethered few hundred dollar with better video quality range. At that point it's pretty much a no-brainer for anyone who doesn't have motion sickness problems with it. At which point, volume drives content like virtual tourism that gets beyond hardcore gaming.

AR is probably more interesting in the long-term although that will have to navigate through the glass-hole problem among other things.

id say five years. the price cuts will help. i will get one (again) when pixel density doubles.

Yes. I was a hardcore fanboy, bought the DK2, had both Rift and Vive preorders on day one. Spent months making my own games and VR experiments in Unity. However I just sold all of my headsets last month.

Theres been a lot of amazing stuff to come out of this generation of VR. But as hard as the software devs try, you simply can't get past the fact that the hardware isn't ready for primetime yet.

The clunky controllers, the wires, the sensors. We need full wireless, full FOV, and at least double the pixel density/resolution with a control scheme that uses finger tracking lightweight gloves.

Th current gen of tech is really mindblowing at first, and it certainly has incredible potential. But until then VR will unfortunately remain a niche toy like HOTAS controllers.

Full wireless would be a great thing to have. The wires as it is now are not ready for mass adoption.

This is why I'd never want to do a VR company right now (at least not with my own money and shouldering all the risk). Having my fate depend on hardware vendors who don't necessarily have interests aligned with me is not a situation I want to get into!

Have you seen the TPCast? That makes the vive wireless, and can already by shipped from China, coming to the US later this year. Intel is also releasing something similar for the vive next year. So that is wireless. LG is bringing out a SteamVR headset later this year with a higher pixel density. And valve just sent out the Kunckles controller to devs, which has full on finger tracking. So we are not very far away from solving most of those problems.

TPCast is a huge step forward. No one saw that coming within a year of the major headsets launching. I've definitely got my eye on that stuff. But it's still huge and clunky at the end of the day. It won't be until the major manufacturers integrate this stuff that mainstream adoption hits.

I got into VR development with the mindset that the hardware will be ready in 5 years, and when it is the people who stuck with it through the times of disillusionment beyond the hype phase will be in prime position to start doing amazing things at scale. I'm personally waiting for the next gen of headsets now to do more full scale VR work. The current top level hardware is pushed to it's bounds in terms of adoption and it just doesn't make financial sense for developers yet. Until then, mobile is where it's at IMO. The integrated solutions from Samsung and Oculus on the horizon are really exciting.

The SteamVR Knuckles I think are a terrible idea. I wish Valve would get past the idea of controllers entirely. Any kind of physical game controller becomes extremely clunky and restrictive in VR. We need perfect finger tracking in the form of a lightweight pair of cloth gloves that you simply slip on like normal. VR allows such a complete paradigm shift in your ability to manipulate the environment that creating a traditional controller mapping inherently limits the way people will think about designing interactions. Rather than moving towards more intuitive actions, developers will be allowed to just fall back on old gameplay cliches of the console era.

Have you ever tried gloves or hand tracking? Without the haptic feedback that you get from a controller they're also extremely clunky and unintuitive.

A decade seems like too much. Maybe 3-5 years. You know that expression "wait for the third generation" - I think it applies to VR headsets, too. I've also tried both Oculus Rift and Vive and despite what some may say, 1440p is just not enough. I feel like 4k needs to be the bare minimum resolution, so I don't plan on getting one until it has a 4k resolution. There are also other kinks to solve in the overall technology/experience, so waiting a few more years could pay-off.

> You know that expression "wait for the third generation"

which generation are we on, now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality#History

Obviously, I don't mean the 90's "VR", but the recent headsets.

Since Oculus Rift and Vive are still the first generation, it's generation 1.

Thats still a lot of money for something you're only going to use for ~6 hours

They ran out of the old bundle that had two boxes (one with headset, sensor ,Xbox controller and remote. other one with touch controllers and sensor). And announced earlier than expected the new cheaper bundle: one smaller box with headset, touch controllers and two sensors. The new box has no Xbox controller and no touch remote.

VR is not going to happen for general productivity purposes, but it will be handy for some specialties. Then they can invest in better, more expensive equipment.

VR is such a closed off experience right now, I would schedule it under Dreaming. Sweaty too, with today's gear.

It asks a lot for what it can deliver for now.

It is still way too expensive. I like VR and enjoy gaming but not enough to replace a PC that comfortably plays everything else I want to play.

I don't think anyone can really gauge VR's day-to-day casual consumer value. It's genuine applications are rare, and it's primary value is in deflecting hazardous situations onto remote operated robotic vehicles with telepresence.

But humans prefer actual experiences above all, every single time, unless real dangers are presented, so VR always feels like an undesirable compromise.

I'm not so sure about that. There are a lot of domains where actual experiences are impossible. Think re-living an important moment in history, exploring the world with a hawks-eye view, or interacting in 3 dimensions with someone half-way across the globe. You can't exactly say that VR is a compromise in these situations, because there is no alternative.

> humans prefer actual experiences above all, every single time

I love the idea of living in my virtual forest in Potioneer but I wouldn't want to do it for real.

I'm not sure humans prefer "actual experiences" every single time; the business models of Facebook, Amazon, and Google depend on that not being the case.

Back when the internet was still low-res and slow people said the same thing about it: chatting, buying, and researching with a computer is an undesirable compromise. That's where we are with VR.

Anecdote: I fondly remember the days spent hacking AOL with people online, being ostracized and punished by people around me for not having "actual" experiences like going out and playing sports. These people now spend countless hours on Facebook and Instagram. Now apparently I need to be more social with actual people (on Facebook) instead of hacking with fake people in fake virtual reality.

Saw a headline yesterday that Oculus is coming out with a $299 headset next year.

According to that rumour that headset is a competitor to Daydream or Gear VR, not the Rift or Vive. (IOW it doesn't have 6DOF positioning). So it'd be good for passive consumption but not so great for games or content creation.

I assume this is the Santa Cruz headset? The big thing with that one is it's standalone -- my guess is that it includes electronics similar to a smartphone.

My question is whether I'll be able to connect this new, cheaper (better?) headset to my PC for gaming or whether it can only be used standalone. Given the PC specs required for current VR games, I can't see how a system builtin to the headset could provide a comparable experience.

PS VR effect.

And the "Vive is winning" effect...

Is there anyone who prefers Oculus' IR over Vive's LIDAR?

Neither Vive nor Rift have been selling very well recently if the Steam Survey is any indication. PSVR numbers are better but I don't think they're that impressive either.

The amazing thing to me is that my 10 and 8 year old nephews have a PSVR, and Xbox, and an iPad, and all they want to do is play the iPad. They use the Xbox sometimes, and the PSVR collects dust. It seems nowadays low friction is the killer feature.

You're basically describing casual gaming (etc.) vs. hardcore/immersive gaming. With tablets and smartphones, casual gaming is clearly winning as a percentage of users.

Kids aren't the only ones. Most of us in the wealthy West now have so many entertainment options that we ignore even many of the ones we've already paid for, or are continuing to pay for. Half the time I forget I have Prime Video at all, and I've temporarily got Showtime for Twin Peaks but despite knowing there are probably tons of other shows and movies on it (and not on Netflix/Prime) that I'd enjoy I've not even looked at the rest of their catalog aside from ~5min scanning through it when I first signed up.

I have a total of probably 60+ entirely unplayed games for the PS2, PS3, Xbox360, Gamecube, and Wii, picked up cheap used or in digital PS+ freebies or sales but not touched since. Hundreds of hours of entertainment which I'd probably enjoy and many of which have at least some artistic merit but they sit unused. We recently picked up a PS4, so now games are accumulating for that too. Don't get me started on Steam/GoG. My to-read list of just books I own is solidly in the 3 digits. We've still got a couple DVDs kicking around that we bought over a decade ago for next to nothing used, never watched.

I've never found time to catch up on all the music I pirated 10+ years ago, sometimes in large dumps of material from friends who were more into tracking down The Good Stuff than I was (keeping up with all that meta-reading to learn what's worth your time itself takes tons of time) let alone listen to much new music aside from a handful of CDs purchased and listened-to after live shows over the years. Spotify and such can go to hell, I don't got time and the last thing I need is another way to find things I like but won't have time to pursue.

I end up seeing a more-or-less random 25-50% of the movies that are probably excellent and I'd likely really enjoy that come out every year. There are hundreds of culturally and artistically important movies from the last 100+ years still on my to-watch list, but the ones I miss each year keep making the list longer rather than shorter. Most are easily available. Some of them I could go watch right now (Netflix, et c.)

I'm still meaning to read Sandman and a dozen other acclaimed, important comics, to say nothing of all the ones I'd probably enjoy as pure bubble-gum entertainment. I've barely scratched the surface on that entire format.

Plus I've got all that stuff in life that's not just "consuming" media.

I've truly got more excellent art/entertainment readily available than I have time for, by a large margin. We live in strange times.

[EDIT] Oh, and let's not forget the ~a billion hours of free entertainment on Youtube, podcasts, archive.org, and so on, much of it good. I'm not much into that stuff because wow do I ever not have time to sort wheat from chaff let alone enjoy said wheat, but it's all right there and I could seek it out any time I please.

In that vein, I read a piece recently. The gist was that, if you launch a TV show today that takes a season or so to get its footing and figure out how to tell its story, you're increasingly not going to make it. Of course, lots of shows have always been canceled early on. But, at least speaking for myself, today there are so many good to great shows that I don't have time to watch that if you don't grab me in an episode or two I'm tuning out.

How can you tell that from the Steam Survey? [1] All I see is market share among people who own VR headsets without mention of how many own headsets at all.

[1] http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

seems about right from an article I found (1). I guess the rift might actually be in specific trouble though if it has a market share similar to a no-name cardboard rip off.

(1) http://www.businessinsider.com/vr-headsets-comparison-popula...

It is not Facebook's right to decide how much VR should cost. That's what a free market is for. They do believe in the free market, right? Right??

Ordinarily technical companies are well-differentiated which means they are not commodities that you can interchange precisely - unlike rice or wheat. So while it is not sensible to state "(biggest wheat importer) can't decide how much wheat should cost" since their options are probably within a very narrow limit where asking for just 15% more would cause their sales to drop to 0 and asking for 15% less would let them capture 50%+ of the market - but at a loss for them - the same is rarely true in the technical industry, which has high margins and high differentiation.

So for these reasons, Facebook's pricing choices are complicated and the free market does not clearly prescribe their pricing strategy in the way you suggest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com