12% of Americans are planning to buy their own VR headset in the next 6 months!

I guess, it's a good time to jump on a VR train.

Check out the survey results: http://appgoodies.net/virtual-reality/vr-industry-will-grow-big/

What do you think guys? Are you planning to develop a VR game or wait until the price goes down?

 

I'm waiting for the price to drop and for the price of the system requirements for VR to drop significantly. I design my games to run on pretty low-end hardware, so VR has a lot of work to do before it's something I'll consider.

 

Really? I would question the statistical methods used in determining that number.

 

"Planning to do" and "will do" don't necessary have a lot of overlap. I knew a few people that were very much looking forward to the release of Rift and Vive and yet none of them have purchased one, myself including. 6 months down the road I don't see any of the main reasons for that having sufficiently changed to convert all those into buyers.

I think the games market needs to offer enough VR stuff first before people really start buying the devices and upgrading their computers for it. I only have a GTX670 which won't be enough apparently, so it would be an investment of over 1000,- Euro for me, which I can't justify for the games that are currently available for VR.

Build it and they will come, maybe.

 

I think it is a lie, and the "study" was financed by VR headset manufacturer.

 

I believe you've successfully nailed clickbaiting. It isn't 12% of all Americans, it is 12% of American eSports viewers.

 

My current belief is that this isn't any different from the 3D TV fad. A lot of wind and noise, not much substance.

 

What ever happened to those by the way? (Also, they technically weren't 3D tvs, but stereoscopic ones.)

 

The 3D TV fad failed because customers were satisfied with their existing televisions, but there aren't any existing virtual reality headsets that are even remotely approaching the quality of the current generation. Remember that while the 3D TV fad may have failed, the HD TV fad was highly successful.

 

I may very well be wrong, but I've lived through a number of "3D is the next big thing" events and it never seems to reach any sort of critical mass. Now the whole HoloLens thing - that I can get behind.

 

Can also be a GearVR or cardboard, many of these folks have an android phone. It's not only about occulus and htc vive. I didn't read the survey, maybe it's mentioned

 

I am very skeptical about the 12% of Americans planning to buy VR hardware during the next 6 months claim. I don't see that many people buying VR hardware at the current price point with the current selection of VR games on the market. At most, I might see 12% of Americans buying VR hardware if the price suddenly dropped and an amazing VR-only game hit the market.

For example, back when 3D video cards first started to take off, Quake 2 was one of the first major titles to require a 3D card. A lot of people were skeptical about the market for 3D cards until that point. Quake 1 supported certain 3D video cards, but did not require a 3D video card to play. I don't think VR currently has its equivalent of Quake 2 to help push the demand for VR headsets. Is there a game that requires a VR headset that is so awesome that gamers will instantly drop $600 to get the hardware to play that game? At this point, there are some VR-only titles, but those look more like tech demos than full fledged games. And many of the really popular games that do support VR are not requiring VR in order to play.

 

Despite consumer launches of the HTC Vive and Oculus Rift, for a few reasons I'll be looking to the PlayStation VR for early indications of whether VR is ready to be truly mass market at this stage.

I'm a VR lover who has to make do with a DK2 for now (much better than nothing!) but in the few years before consumer launch some media and analysts built up expectations for VR sales way too high, especially sales in the first year or two. I note that trying to moderate and downplay these expectations was something a number of VR conference speakers did earlier this year.

 

Click baited? Maybe someone should toss out a Rick Roll. I'd be more likely to believe an estimate like 0.01%.

Gigi

 

Except it needs another zero or two, like 0.001-0.0001%.

And that's probably too optimistic. lol

 

LOL, 12% wow! I bet it's barely 12% that visit theatre regularly.

 

Its a while before the target audience is big enough to focus on VR solely for the profits BUT if you have a little time to invest in R&D I think its a good time to do VR around now. Two reasons:

1. consider mobile games pre iPhone 3... if you are ready to roll when it does hit the big time you will have a big early mover advantage

2. for those looking to work for others the resume entries and experience are going to set you up for a big paycheck in the future

 

The total number of respondents is 35,000. Those numbers are spread out across 16 different countries.

I wouldn't feel comfortable using these statistics as a reason for switching to VR development.

 

Sorry, I don't see VR happening.

I don't want to strap a box to my face that cuts me off from my surroundings and my loved ones. Especially for hundreds of dollars.

And there's no getting around motion sickness. 1/10th of the population will be unable to use VR.

 

Virtual reality isn't aimed at people with a life.

My understanding is that they've already successfully reduced it.

 

I'm sure burglars would love when 12% of the US population are so deep into their little worlds, that they don't notice the stuff that happens around them.

 

Murphy's law says they're the ones who are planning to buy VR headsets.

 

That's already happening. Smart phones have pretty much done that. In this regard VR is just a small incremental step, rather then a game changer.

 

I've never seen anyone get sick from using the Vive, it gets uncomfortable when the room flips on its side sometimes but not just from regular use. I'd say it would be more like 1% or lower... Valve has said 0%.

IMO VR will take off to game console levels in the next few years like maybe 20-40million headsets in total or something by the end of 2018(High end headsets that is). It really depends on content, technology and when new headsets launch. I'd say we are stuck with the current headsets for at least a few years.

The bad thing about VR is that it's either going to not sell a lot of units and GPUs/rendering software won't be built around it and it will stay how it is. Or the alternative is that it's popular and it excellerates tech made specifically for it and the current headsets are irrelevant in six months and everyone is angry that new ones are coming out... Kind of a lose lose situation for early adopters TBH.

 

I dont see anything that can make current headsets irrelevant in the next 6 months, no matter what acceleration may occur.

In terms of competition that could arrive from a different angle, I suppose I'm interested to see if Google's project Tango adds some interesting aspects to mobile VR, and of course AR is also something to keep an eye on.

 

I think VR will be very niche technology. I has many deep usability problems and it's expensive. It's very attractive only to nerds who want to play their Skyrim or WoW all the time while ignoring the world.

Let's say I want to have a drink while having that on my face. I have a problem. I have to remove it to take a sip. Let's say I want to use my keyboard. Oops! I can't see it... The list of problems goes on and on.. and it costs 500 bucks or so.

 

Smart phones are expensive too. Yet they aren't a niche these days.

 

Smartphones have no usability problems and hundreds of highly practical applications. On top of that they are heavily subsidized by mobile carriers.

 

at first glance, I though the title said this:
12% of Americans are planning to never remove their own VR headset in the next 6 months!

 

Fixed that for you. Early attempts at smartphones weren't anything like our current generations.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...e-and-android-came-simon-the-first-smartphone

 

I define "smartphone" as iPhone derivative. That's not what's on that picture.

 

You may define it as an iPhone derivative, but that doesn't change the point. Early devices are almost nothing like what they become after a decade or so of technological and usability innovations.

Smartphones could very easily have failed in their early days and never reached the point they have now.

 

Tsss. Stole that name from the real Simon:

 

People developing VR hardware etc are well aware of limitations. Thats why the HTC Vive has a camera built in. And why I have quite a lot of fun strapping a LeapMotion to the front of my DK2.

There are all manner of reasons why VR may be slow to catch on or remain in a small niche. Its too early to predict, and our own opinions are just that.

Certainly as someone who grew up in the 80's there have been no end of things that ended up gimmicks. Light Guns spring to mind in the 1980's. The Kinect didn't really lead anywhere yet and even something that was initially successful to the extent it opened up gaming to those who didn't game before like the Wii didn't ultimately escape the gravity of the gimmick black-hole.

However it would be much easier to write off VR as a doomed gimmick if the sense of presence when wearing the headsets wasn't so strong. So I would suggest that even if the limitations still prevent this generation of VR from going massive, there is something important here that will not remain on the margins forever.

 

The game I'm working on now while I try to balance health issues with a bank account that is shrinking faster than it is growing will have both VR and normal mode support. Since the player doesn't move in the game, it is a logical fit. The VR experience won't feel as though it is just tacked on as an afterthought. It's a little extra work to model things that wouldn't otherwise be visible to the cameras, but I think an added market segment will help. It seems to me that those types of games are the logical way forward for VR now. Not every genre is well suited to that though. Something like Job Simulator, or whatever it's called, wouldn't be very fun outside of VR and we've already had a discussion on how VR can't just be plopped into first person shooters. Although consensus on that last one wasn't reached.

VR is going to have troubles because it I don't think it is a market that can justify massive time or money investments on its own right now. But it kinda needs that in order to justify the price point. Job Simulator seems really cool, but I don't think it's the type of thing that is going to sell units like Mario sells Nintendos or Halo sells Xboxes. Racing games and flight games are a logical fit, but in those cases it is more of an upgraded experience than a revolutionary one.

As prices drop, it will of course becoming more appealing. But it remains to be seen whether it will have been written off as a gimmick when that time comes around.

 

To be fair, early VR doesn't resemble modern VR very much either. This IS the point where VR has had a substantial amount of time to improve the usability. Hell, I remember my first experiences with VR were Dactyl Nightmare and Rise of the Triad. Compared to those, VR has absolutely done a leap equivalent to smartphones. The only real problems remaining now are system requirements and cost.

 

True. We'll just have to wait and see if it manages to achieve popularity.

 

I think system requirements are going to be somewhat of a problem for a while. Even when the recommended 970 becomes a commonplace card, non-VR games will be pushing the limits of whatever the new higher end cards are. Granted, those newer cards should be pushing pretty great looking graphics at 4k, so the downgraded resolution of today's VR headsets should make it pretty easy to render the scene twice and not lose performance. I suspect that 4k will eventually come to VR as well, and then you'll be right back to needing a higher end card for the best performance.

It does seem like GPU makers are taking steps to improve VR performance on their end though, so the gap may close a little faster.

 

Though at the same time the headset is designed to run at a higher frame rate (90 Hz).

It wouldn't surprise me if we eventually saw both 4K and an even higher frame rate (120 or 144 Hz).

This is one of my primary reasons for not quickly writing off the latest attempt at virtual reality. Past attempts were almost always restricted to at most a few companies, but this time there are many companies investing into it.

 

I define smart phones as rebranded PDAs/Palm Pilots.

I also don't agree with comparison.

Smart phones are a computer in your pocket that gives you access to all of human knowledge anywhere you go.

VR headsets are a monitor you strap to your face.

 

I may be nitpicking, but such thing does not exist.
Internet access requires dataplan and being in area with coverage.
There are many things that are not on the internet as well.
So, there's no device right now that grants access to all of human knolwedge anywhere you go.

Not a good analogy.
It is a small, light-weight, minature monitor, with low-latensy positional and orinetation solution integrated into it.

 

Young guy? Having lived through the introduction of smart phones there is very little point of making distinctions between the modern smart phone and early brick cell phones. Its really been a continuation of the same tech trend that started back in the 80's and 90's.

That's how it is now. But that's not how it started or even the important part of how it went down. If we are going to compare smart phones to VR, lets talk through how it went.

Cell phones in general were first paid for and introduced by businesses as a productivity measure. Being able to have your executives still working while driving between towns was valuable. Being able to have your security staff call for backup from anywhere on site was valuable. Businesses were the first early adopters of cell phone technology. Having a cell phone became a job perk and a mark of status.

Basically all of the drives for improvements in cell technology came from the business sector. The first phones capable of transmitting and receiving data were business driven. If being able to talk to someone at any point was valuable, giving them access to emails was more valuable. And so on. Heck it was even common for people to say things like "I don't want a phone because then work could get hold of me whenever they want." Early smart phones were business driven again. Access to the internet, access to emails, access to documents were all benefits to businesses. First it was early physical keyboard devices, and then the modern touch screen device we see today.

It wasn't really until the mid 00's that cellphone technology really stopped being driven by business productivity needs and moved into being driven as a consumer product. By this point all of the required technology was in place for the industry to be self supporting.

TL;DR: Early adopters of smart phone technologies were businesses, not regular consumers.

 

So basically a monitor strapped to your face.

 

No, it's a phone strapped to your face.

 

Cool. 12% of Americans enjoy violent bowel evacuation through upper channels.

 

Smartphones are full computing devices though. Whereas VR headsets are just expensive accessories, that need a expensive computer too. Not counting gimmicky Cardboard and Gear VR here.

 

Anyone else thinking about the brown noise episode of South Park now?

 

I wasn't aware you could run Unity's editor on a smartphone.

 

If you can't make calls with it, it is not a phone. Also, I don't remember Rift having any semblance of OS on it.

 

You can!

Run a remote desktop.