I bootstrapped a VR company (1) after leaving a high paying CMO job. I put in around $100k, we released three games, one got some funding from HTC, we were shown at GDC, SIGGRAPH, VRLA, etc. We hit around 2,700 MAU before my co-founder tapped out after no salary for two years.
I took six months off from VR to go back to a normal job that paid well. That got acquired (in a very non-meaningful way, at least for me) in December and I’ve been drawn back to VR. Immersive computing is the inevitable next platform. Recent data(2) shows the kind of growth you’d expect and hope for at this stage.
As others have said, the Quest will be a game changer. I think an NDA says I can’t confirm or deny that I have one, but I certainly agree it is a game changer. During my six month break from VR, I didn’t have any of my half dozen headsets setup. We had turned my living room into our office prior to dismantling, so it was nice to just have my living room back to normal. Setting up my Vive again after six months reminded me of what a pain in the ass that process is. The Quest fixes all of it.
VR is not 3D TV. Anyone who has experienced both knows that to be true. AR will have a much higher install base, but VR will have an addressable market of tens/hundreds of millions.
I’ve been working on a postmortem about my VR company for a while, but can’t seem to finish it. Partially because I’m not sure if that company is over yet.
I’ve got plenty to say about VR, VR startups and VR venture, so any questions, ask away.
Is home entertainment the breakout (sustainable) market for VR? That is where most of the public-facing hype is, but it's a very particular market (people are very price sensitive, "training" is self motivated and people eschew instructions, space is a concern, quality expectations are rather high). I also feel like it can be fickle and difficult to build something sustaining.
I've done some VR development and room VR is amazingly good at conveying scale and space. I was mostly dabbling with architecture and vehicles. When people are finished and take off the VR headset there's often a double-take because they forgot how small of a room they were in. It works for assessing scale and space in ways a video, picture, or diagram can't. It's the kind of difference that makes people order doll furniture off Amazon--something that would never happen if you bought it in store.
Other comments on here talked about how game changing Google Earth VR is. Not just for entertainment, but for surveying and planning outings.
The business market has its own problems and demands, though.
Like you I think the Quest will change everything. I feel that it has to, at this point, for VR momentum to break through. Do you think Oculus will dominate the space in the coming decade? I can't help but be reminded of Sense/Net from Neuromancer as a potential VR-only business with massive upside and potential (userbase in the hundreds of millions if not billions) that can be done _today_ if VR headset proliferation went beyond gamers. I am thinking if Carmack and Abrash can't get it done, chances that anyone else will are slim, at least in this generation.
How's the market for VR doing in general? Is it growing or shrinking?
Around the time the first Oculus Rift, the HTC Vive, and Microsoft's HoloLens were released some years back seemed to be high water mark of media stories about VR. Since then it seems to be pretty quiet.
I have spent quite sometime with Vive, Rift and PSVR. (rift, psvr at home, vive at my office)
PSVR is unironically the hope for VR right now, even though it has by far the lowest quality.
It has some very good games (Astrobot, Wipeout, RE7, Ace Combat 7, Moss, Beat Saber). It's cheap, easy to set up (aimed towards couch VR instead of room scale), cool helmet design, and the fact that the headset works as a regular monitor for non-vr games and one person can be watching TV while the other person gaming, is genius.
Compared to let's say Oculus where you need, 4 usb ports (3x usb 3.0), cables everywhere, space, a ~$1200 pc/headset combo...
I do believe in VR though and am excited for what the future holds.
I have an Oculus (DK2, development version though, so please take my opinion with a grain of salt), and while it is great, there are some show-stoppers:
• Games needs to be reinvented for VR, which basically makes adoption much harder - playing a FPS in VR will get you dizzy very quickly, even for people that are not very motion-sickness sensitive
• Quality is still not good enough, you can feel the pixels, and it breaks immersion - 4K screens, or even 8K screens, are probably the minimum, which means that we need also graphic cards that can deliver two 3D scenes combined at 4K or 8K, and these cards aren't there yet
• Plugging/handling all the messy cables is a pain
• And of course the price, but I don't think this is the biggest issue here
As you can see, over the past 2 years we've gone from 0.36% of Steam users having a PC VR headset, to 0.89%.
We're also nearing the launch of the next generation of VR headsets. Both Vive and Oculus have products in development, and its rumored that Valve is working on a new headset as well. I expect we'll be seeing the launch of a few new headsets over the course of the next year.
So no, VR isn't dying on the vine; it's just taking longer to reach maturity than some may have expected.
Personally I see more in Augmented Reality than Virtual Reality, certainly regarding applications.
It's also not that commercial interesting that a big percentage of people gets sick of VR. We stopped demoing because of this. AR seems to have less of those problems from empirical experience. I can use a Hololens for hours without feeling anything while with an oculus rift I get queasy after a couple of minutes.
The only thing that I'm still waiting for is project northstar (http://blog.leapmotion.com/northstar/) so the devices becomes cheaper. The high price seems to hamper the adoption a lot.
The devices just aren't there yet to be the goto solution for low hanging fruit gaming ecosystems with large existing audiences. If you look at the best players and their equipment, VR isn't a part of what's used competitively.
You can see this with racing or flight simulations, genres that translate perfectly to VR in theory (also in practice if you ignore competing solutions).
People there still buy and recommend monitors or projectors to get an competitive edge, to be able to use other peripheral devices like controllers and indicators (which would be blocked out in VR).
This existing market of peripheral devices and their manufacturers are tightly knit with the core audience, and recommending VR would go against their own business. A VR user wouldn't buy a controller that he can't see.
Augmented Reality with a VR like FOV could be a solution for both, VR manufacturers and existing audiences because it doesn't exclude a large part of the existing market and removes that resistance.
The problem with native VR genres is that you can't show off how it's really like to people who don't own VR headsets. On top of that they compete for attention with existing gaming ecosystems which can be seen as hobbies in their own right, meaning that VR really needs to conquer existing genres one by one, which is difficult if it ignores existing market forces.
To give a perspective. Former Second Life founder and CEO founded Highfidelity.com to create an open source social VR world platform. 5 years later, and with at least 75M dollars in funding the platform is empty[1], even though it is in Steam, and even hardcore VR creators dont seem eager to use it. They had to pay users to join them for their stress tests. The creators' stories in the forum may be telling about the shortcomings of creating amd using VR regularly[2].
Meanwhile, secondlife's open source clone, opensimulator, has thousands of regions and users online[3] despite being a super buggy platform, with less than $0 in funding.
> How's the market for VR doing in general? Is it growing or shrinking? ... Is VR dying on the vine?
VR is a fairly radically different technology and in the scheme of things it's still in its infancy. Given that, whether it's currently growing or shrinking probably isn't very meaningful, as that doesn't really say anything about VR's longer-term prospects.
The focus seems to be on games, but VR has huge potential in the workforce (engineering, medical, perhaps even office work - data mining/etc.). However, utility software companies like Autodesk products have very shoddy and fickle VR support.
I currently have to pay a pricy $2K+ license for a 3rd party software (Revizto) to view Navisworks files in VR. It's worth it for my work, but it amazes me the lack of VR support these companies provide given the huge potential.
VR in my field is still very new. Many engineers (young and old) I show it to have never used it or had just done a demo somewhere and had no idea you could use it for work.
You can do stuff in VR you simply can't do on a 2D screen.
There just hasn't been a big killer app for VR, and it's pretty expensive to get into it for any serious usage. Beat Saber [0] appears to be among the most popular games, but I don't think many people are playing regularly. Anecdotal, among my friends, people that own VR rigs don't use them very frequently either.
The big problem is that even doing something super simple takes a fair amount of effort. Even watching a 3D video requires sourcing content and then finding a compatible video player.
In my opinion, the VR market in a bit of a holding pattern right now, and it's running out of opportunities. I personally believe if the Oculus Quest flops and/or Sony opts not to build a PSVR2 for the next-generation PS5, it's over for now. Google and Samsung have pulled back, MS is not happy with their MR headset sales. Oculus continues to push forward, but increasingly they are alone.
In the late 1990's I had seen the Virtuality VR headset on various Orbital album covers, when I got to have a go with the headset I was quite taken by it and didn't even notice that the '3D' wasn't ever stereo. At around the same time I saw Virtual I/O's iglasses and thought the experience was compelling. Had it not been a trade show I would have bought them there and then.
I have a feeling that some person at Facebook had a similar moment of 'oh yes this must be the future' as what I had. They just had more money than me and bought the company instead of hoping to buy just the headset.
Around the time this happened I was saying 'we have been here before' and everyone was saying 'this time it will be different!'.
It wasn't different, there were just more pixels.
So we will see what happens next time around when the next generation comes along and gets wowed by the VR of the day.
Incidentally some of the use cases of the Virtual IO iglasses included being able to watch TV soaps whilst doing the washing up. People got dishwashing machines and Netflix instead of standing at the sink watching broadcast TV to occasionally look down at the draining board.
It's not dying, for full fledged VR (i.e. not Cardboard/GearVR) the active user base is small but persistently growing.
There's a of low hanging fruit for improvement in the first wave that came out recently. Needing to be tethered with a cable to a $1000 PC is one of the big ones, and that should be addressed by the Quest in a few months.
I don't know how it will compare to mobile phone growth, but I expect VR to grow at a much faster rate once the Quest comes out. It will bring the entry cost to $400 (from ~$1400 for most people, who don't already have gaming PCs), remove one of the biggest nuisances (the cable), and be drastically easier to set up. The software library is still small but better than it was a few years ago.
Also keep in mind there's huge numbers of people who haven't ever tried VR yet. The Quest is likely to get in front of a much larger number of potential customers since it's so easy for a friend or relative etc to bring it over compared to the current non-portable systems.
It seems that with VR the technology isn't really there yet, especially at the price needed for mass adoption. It's not clear to me that any company is really ready to put in more money to move it forward right now. But at the speed things are moving, it wouldn't surprise me to see another push in 2-5 years.
AR is the more interesting space right now. On the consumer side, Pokemon, Ingress, and the new Harry Potter game are doing ok from what I can tell. I'm not sure when we'll really get to a wearable AR device that is popular (Google Glass obviously wasn't able to meet people's needs).
Microsoft is still investing in AR, but they're focusing on business use rather than the consumer space. I'm not sure it will really take off with the HoloLens 2, but another iteration that improves the field of view and if they can bring down the price (the newest version starts at $3500) they might be able to manage broader adoption. But even that is likely to be a couple of years away.
The market is growing slowly, but it is very small yet. Personally I don't want it to grow too fast just yet, because I need time to develop/strengthen my bootstapped VR 3D editor product before the highly funded competitors enter the market. I am almost afraid that the Oculus Quest will push the growth too fast, despite I am a diehard VR fan.
No VR is heavily used in architecture, healthcare industry and other professions.
VR as a mass market however is not doing that great right now, because it's not yielding the results the entertainment industry hoped, which leads to less investment and so on... it's a vicious circle.
Ultimately someone will get it right. Apple, maybe.
This is Google saying VR as a medium for passive consumption is dead, or at least the market isn't ready yet. There's could still be plenty of potential for interactive media like games though.
> This is Google saying VR as a medium for passive consumption is dead
Not quite. The OP is about 3DOF content where the stereo is baked. You can't move your head around and can't tilt your head.
You can have passive content like a static or living scene that isn't interactive but where you can move your head a bit or explore, and it can be photorealistic (6DOF video, light fields, which Google is also working on).
VR has this property of being the best hardware to consume some kind of contents that don't fully take advantage of it. Like monoscopic 360° videos, stereoscopic 180° video or stereo panoramas. Not quite VR but there is no better way to consume them. I wonder if it sometimes confuse people assessment of VR potential.
Watching movies clearly only makes sense in a social context and is therefore predictably unsuitable for VR.
However the "interactive media" market is also way overhyped, maybe similar to 3D-TVs. When the initial excitement of the user for VR wears of it feels more like a gimmick rather than an immersive experience. I know plenty of gamers who have rarely used VR goggles stuffed away in some cupboard while going back to their plain old 1080p monitor. VR will stay a small niche even in the context of gaming.
Even if VR was alive beyond all expectations, why would Google have an in-house studio? It just does not seem to be a good fit long term, no matter how you twist it. I can see how Google might want to have some content creation in house to kickstart platform/technology projects, but it would not be intended as a permanent institution no matter the outcome.
I suspect you having been shown the right content. I could reel of a long list of amazing work being done in VR. Google Earth in VR is one of the most astonishing things I've tried in the last decade. Narrative works like Dispatch and Manifest 99 show the potential of VR as a storytelling medium. Tilt Brush, Gravity Sketch are already genuinely useful creative tools...
Getting a headset needs to be stupid simple. The Oculus as someone else mentioned rrquires 3 - 4 USB cables. What!? Regular non geeks dont have time for that. It should hook up to a single hub via USB C now that its a thing and do the rest wirelessly not necessarily BlueTooth since that can be unreliable. Whatever Logitech has been doing for their keyboards and mice seems efficient when BlueTooth fails their dongle just works.
If the barrier to entry is beyond turn this thing on and use it. It will not get people crazy about it. Also you need some sort of fun goofy games that will be addictive / fun enough to market themselves. They dont need to be full blown Skyrim or Minecrafts just something free and simple enough media hype about it will make people want to buy it.
Hell if Fortnite was somehow better in VR I could see people buying any headset they deem worthy.
It could just be that VR at Gooogle scale is not ready. There may still be a huge part for VR to play in "niche" markets like games, training simulators, data visualization etc.
Yeah perhaps there's just not that much room for large companies who want to throw gobs of money and resources at it.
Smaller players, even capable hobbyists, who iterate and find what works and what doesn't and keep rolling on / don't shutdown if they don't hit a goal in X time, might just be the folks who find what works.
I was a co-founder of a VR lab at SAIC in the 1990s. We shut down because we lacked a clear path to monetization even though everyone who tried our system loved it.
It seems like a `chicken and the egg` problem: if enough people had VR gear then studios would have a chance of profitability.
[+] [-] theNJR|7 years ago|reply
I took six months off from VR to go back to a normal job that paid well. That got acquired (in a very non-meaningful way, at least for me) in December and I’ve been drawn back to VR. Immersive computing is the inevitable next platform. Recent data(2) shows the kind of growth you’d expect and hope for at this stage.
As others have said, the Quest will be a game changer. I think an NDA says I can’t confirm or deny that I have one, but I certainly agree it is a game changer. During my six month break from VR, I didn’t have any of my half dozen headsets setup. We had turned my living room into our office prior to dismantling, so it was nice to just have my living room back to normal. Setting up my Vive again after six months reminded me of what a pain in the ass that process is. The Quest fixes all of it.
VR is not 3D TV. Anyone who has experienced both knows that to be true. AR will have a much higher install base, but VR will have an addressable market of tens/hundreds of millions.
I’ve been working on a postmortem about my VR company for a while, but can’t seem to finish it. Partially because I’m not sure if that company is over yet.
I’ve got plenty to say about VR, VR startups and VR venture, so any questions, ask away.
(1) http://www.RLTYCHK.co
(2) https://www.roadtovr.com/monthly-connected-vr-headsets-on-st...
[+] [-] pfranz|7 years ago|reply
I've done some VR development and room VR is amazingly good at conveying scale and space. I was mostly dabbling with architecture and vehicles. When people are finished and take off the VR headset there's often a double-take because they forgot how small of a room they were in. It works for assessing scale and space in ways a video, picture, or diagram can't. It's the kind of difference that makes people order doll furniture off Amazon--something that would never happen if you bought it in store.
Other comments on here talked about how game changing Google Earth VR is. Not just for entertainment, but for surveying and planning outings.
The business market has its own problems and demands, though.
[+] [-] insertcredit|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmoriarty|7 years ago|reply
Around the time the first Oculus Rift, the HTC Vive, and Microsoft's HoloLens were released some years back seemed to be high water mark of media stories about VR. Since then it seems to be pretty quiet.
Is VR dying on the vine?
[+] [-] lm28469|7 years ago|reply
It's a constant hype/disappointment cycle, albeit it's getting better at every iteration; it's far from delivering on their promises though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality#History
[+] [-] throwaway66666|7 years ago|reply
PSVR is unironically the hope for VR right now, even though it has by far the lowest quality.
It has some very good games (Astrobot, Wipeout, RE7, Ace Combat 7, Moss, Beat Saber). It's cheap, easy to set up (aimed towards couch VR instead of room scale), cool helmet design, and the fact that the headset works as a regular monitor for non-vr games and one person can be watching TV while the other person gaming, is genius.
Compared to let's say Oculus where you need, 4 usb ports (3x usb 3.0), cables everywhere, space, a ~$1200 pc/headset combo...
I do believe in VR though and am excited for what the future holds.
[+] [-] xroche|7 years ago|reply
• Games needs to be reinvented for VR, which basically makes adoption much harder - playing a FPS in VR will get you dizzy very quickly, even for people that are not very motion-sickness sensitive
• Quality is still not good enough, you can feel the pixels, and it breaks immersion - 4K screens, or even 8K screens, are probably the minimum, which means that we need also graphic cards that can deliver two 3D scenes combined at 4K or 8K, and these cards aren't there yet
• Plugging/handling all the messy cables is a pain
• And of course the price, but I don't think this is the biggest issue here
[+] [-] Ajedi32|7 years ago|reply
As you can see, over the past 2 years we've gone from 0.36% of Steam users having a PC VR headset, to 0.89%.
We're also nearing the launch of the next generation of VR headsets. Both Vive and Oculus have products in development, and its rumored that Valve is working on a new headset as well. I expect we'll be seeing the launch of a few new headsets over the course of the next year.
So no, VR isn't dying on the vine; it's just taking longer to reach maturity than some may have expected.
[+] [-] glenndebacker|7 years ago|reply
It's also not that commercial interesting that a big percentage of people gets sick of VR. We stopped demoing because of this. AR seems to have less of those problems from empirical experience. I can use a Hololens for hours without feeling anything while with an oculus rift I get queasy after a couple of minutes.
The only thing that I'm still waiting for is project northstar (http://blog.leapmotion.com/northstar/) so the devices becomes cheaper. The high price seems to hamper the adoption a lot.
[+] [-] deltron3030|7 years ago|reply
You can see this with racing or flight simulations, genres that translate perfectly to VR in theory (also in practice if you ignore competing solutions).
People there still buy and recommend monitors or projectors to get an competitive edge, to be able to use other peripheral devices like controllers and indicators (which would be blocked out in VR).
This existing market of peripheral devices and their manufacturers are tightly knit with the core audience, and recommending VR would go against their own business. A VR user wouldn't buy a controller that he can't see.
Augmented Reality with a VR like FOV could be a solution for both, VR manufacturers and existing audiences because it doesn't exclude a large part of the existing market and removes that resistance.
The problem with native VR genres is that you can't show off how it's really like to people who don't own VR headsets. On top of that they compete for attention with existing gaming ecosystems which can be seen as hobbies in their own right, meaning that VR really needs to conquer existing genres one by one, which is difficult if it ignores existing market forces.
[+] [-] buboard|7 years ago|reply
Meanwhile, secondlife's open source clone, opensimulator, has thousands of regions and users online[3] despite being a super buggy platform, with less than $0 in funding.
1. https://highfidelity.com/user_stories?include_actions=concur...
2. https://forums.highfidelity.com/
3. https://opensimworld.com/ (disclaimer:shameless plug)
[+] [-] jamesrcole|7 years ago|reply
VR is a fairly radically different technology and in the scheme of things it's still in its infancy. Given that, whether it's currently growing or shrinking probably isn't very meaningful, as that doesn't really say anything about VR's longer-term prospects.
[+] [-] mojomark|7 years ago|reply
I currently have to pay a pricy $2K+ license for a 3rd party software (Revizto) to view Navisworks files in VR. It's worth it for my work, but it amazes me the lack of VR support these companies provide given the huge potential.
VR in my field is still very new. Many engineers (young and old) I show it to have never used it or had just done a demo somewhere and had no idea you could use it for work.
You can do stuff in VR you simply can't do on a 2D screen.
[+] [-] TheAceOfHearts|7 years ago|reply
The big problem is that even doing something super simple takes a fair amount of effort. Even watching a 3D video requires sourcing content and then finding a compatible video player.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV1sw4lfwFw
[+] [-] kilbuz|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonathanhd|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Theodores|7 years ago|reply
In the late 1990's I had seen the Virtuality VR headset on various Orbital album covers, when I got to have a go with the headset I was quite taken by it and didn't even notice that the '3D' wasn't ever stereo. At around the same time I saw Virtual I/O's iglasses and thought the experience was compelling. Had it not been a trade show I would have bought them there and then.
I have a feeling that some person at Facebook had a similar moment of 'oh yes this must be the future' as what I had. They just had more money than me and bought the company instead of hoping to buy just the headset.
Around the time this happened I was saying 'we have been here before' and everyone was saying 'this time it will be different!'.
It wasn't different, there were just more pixels.
So we will see what happens next time around when the next generation comes along and gets wowed by the VR of the day.
Incidentally some of the use cases of the Virtual IO iglasses included being able to watch TV soaps whilst doing the washing up. People got dishwashing machines and Netflix instead of standing at the sink watching broadcast TV to occasionally look down at the draining board.
Rinse and repeat.
[+] [-] throwaway34241|7 years ago|reply
There's a of low hanging fruit for improvement in the first wave that came out recently. Needing to be tethered with a cable to a $1000 PC is one of the big ones, and that should be addressed by the Quest in a few months.
I don't know how it will compare to mobile phone growth, but I expect VR to grow at a much faster rate once the Quest comes out. It will bring the entry cost to $400 (from ~$1400 for most people, who don't already have gaming PCs), remove one of the biggest nuisances (the cable), and be drastically easier to set up. The software library is still small but better than it was a few years ago.
Also keep in mind there's huge numbers of people who haven't ever tried VR yet. The Quest is likely to get in front of a much larger number of potential customers since it's so easy for a friend or relative etc to bring it over compared to the current non-portable systems.
[+] [-] tallanvor|7 years ago|reply
AR is the more interesting space right now. On the consumer side, Pokemon, Ingress, and the new Harry Potter game are doing ok from what I can tell. I'm not sure when we'll really get to a wearable AR device that is popular (Google Glass obviously wasn't able to meet people's needs).
Microsoft is still investing in AR, but they're focusing on business use rather than the consumer space. I'm not sure it will really take off with the HoloLens 2, but another iteration that improves the field of view and if they can bring down the price (the newest version starts at $3500) they might be able to manage broader adoption. But even that is likely to be a couple of years away.
[+] [-] nadam|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aikah|7 years ago|reply
No VR is heavily used in architecture, healthcare industry and other professions.
VR as a mass market however is not doing that great right now, because it's not yielding the results the entertainment industry hoped, which leads to less investment and so on... it's a vicious circle.
Ultimately someone will get it right. Apple, maybe.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] onion2k|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jobigoud|7 years ago|reply
Not quite. The OP is about 3DOF content where the stereo is baked. You can't move your head around and can't tilt your head.
You can have passive content like a static or living scene that isn't interactive but where you can move your head a bit or explore, and it can be photorealistic (6DOF video, light fields, which Google is also working on).
VR has this property of being the best hardware to consume some kind of contents that don't fully take advantage of it. Like monoscopic 360° videos, stereoscopic 180° video or stereo panoramas. Not quite VR but there is no better way to consume them. I wonder if it sometimes confuse people assessment of VR potential.
[+] [-] sprash|7 years ago|reply
However the "interactive media" market is also way overhyped, maybe similar to 3D-TVs. When the initial excitement of the user for VR wears of it feels more like a gimmick rather than an immersive experience. I know plenty of gamers who have rarely used VR goggles stuffed away in some cupboard while going back to their plain old 1080p monitor. VR will stay a small niche even in the context of gaming.
[+] [-] usrusr|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arrrg|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exolymph|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] godzillabrennus|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paule89|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andybak|7 years ago|reply
I suspect you having been shown the right content. I could reel of a long list of amazing work being done in VR. Google Earth in VR is one of the most astonishing things I've tried in the last decade. Narrative works like Dispatch and Manifest 99 show the potential of VR as a storytelling medium. Tilt Brush, Gravity Sketch are already genuinely useful creative tools...
Oh - and Beat Saber. :-)
[+] [-] giancarlostoro|7 years ago|reply
If the barrier to entry is beyond turn this thing on and use it. It will not get people crazy about it. Also you need some sort of fun goofy games that will be addictive / fun enough to market themselves. They dont need to be full blown Skyrim or Minecrafts just something free and simple enough media hype about it will make people want to buy it.
Hell if Fortnite was somehow better in VR I could see people buying any headset they deem worthy.
[+] [-] SeanDav|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duxup|7 years ago|reply
Smaller players, even capable hobbyists, who iterate and find what works and what doesn't and keep rolling on / don't shutdown if they don't hit a goal in X time, might just be the folks who find what works.
[+] [-] mark_l_watson|7 years ago|reply
It seems like a `chicken and the egg` problem: if enough people had VR gear then studios would have a chance of profitability.
[+] [-] jaimex2|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jimhefferon|7 years ago|reply
Possibly they mean "hawking"?
[+] [-] Ensorceled|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aboutruby|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samstave|7 years ago|reply
Flagged as who gives a heck.
[+] [-] buboard|7 years ago|reply