We absolutely need native VR support!

[Ryder]

37 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

How much investment was required to add VR support, though? And what is your basis for assuming 1%?

Not much?

and

I didn't.

[Ryder]

7 minutes ago, Alshain said:

2 million people purchased a Wii U and yet it is still considered the biggest failure in Nintendo history.  People buying something doesn't matter, lots of people buying something matters.  More people own a Wii U than a VR device.

 

Ahhh, I think you undid your own point.  The Wii U is "considered" (by whom?) a failure... in COMPARISON to other consoles... like it's cousin the Wii.  It's this funny thing called market share.

HTC/Valve says that they are selling at profit already (meaning that they are beyond critical mass for production), and know how to cut the lighthouse costs in half right now... 

The true issue for a manufacturer is: Profit matters.  (I know. I'm a manufacturer)

 

[Alshain]

9 minutes ago, Ryder said:

Ahhh, I think you undid your own point.  The Wii U is "considered" (by whom?) a failure... in COMPARISON to other consoles... like it's cousin the Wii.  It's this funny thing called market share.

By it's sales numbers.

Quote

HTC/Valve says that they are selling at profit already (meaning that they are beyond critical mass for production), and know how to cut the lighthouse costs in half right now... 

The true issue for a manufacturer is: Profit matters.  (I know. I'm a manufacturer)

 

It doesn't matter if HTC/Valve are selling at a profit, it matters if Squad can get a profit on the development effort, which is unlikely.  This is the same issue with the Wii U.  3rd party developers can't make a profit developing for it, and thus it failed.  Yet, Squad could still stand to make more profit if they release that Wii U version than if they add VR.  Though I wouldn't be surprised if they abandoned the Wii U version, disappointed, but not surprised.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Alshain

[KSK]

2 hours ago, Ryder said:

Interesting... but you've done the exact same thing in response...

If it's good enough for you to respond with...

And of course I've done far more than that, and "poor assumptions" are just your opinion.  Which I'm not interested in.

No - I'm challenging your assumptions by asking you to consider some fairly basic questions. Which so far you're refusing to do. But anyway, as @Red Iron Crown notes, the key figure for this discussion is 'how many VR headsets are in use?' I agree that it will be interesting to see those numbers after Christmas. Doing a bit of Googling and ignoring all the more speculative 'x million sales forecast by 2020' articles, I found these:

Article posted on Forbes 21 October 2016: "It’s been revealed that 140,000 HTC Vive headsets have been sold since it launched in April. That number was confirmed to Chinese site 87870 news by the Taiwanese company’s co-founder and chairperson Cher Wang."

Assuming that the article is legit (and if anyone can find a corroborating one, please do post it), then the source (company co-founder) looks reputable. The article notes that sales figures for the Occulus Rift are unknown but suggests that the Vive has received better press. Target sales for the Rift are 400,000 by the end of 2016, which so lets be generous and assume that Occulus hit that target. That gives us 540,000 VR headsets purchased. No doubt there are other models out there but I think I've picked the big two. Lets be generous again and go for a million VR headsets in circulation. That seems roughly consistent with this article on TheStreet. I'm unsure how reliable that site is.

That's not a bad number. It's a pretty small percentage of those 2 billion PC users you were talking about though. It's also a pretty small percentage of the PC gaming market. I have no idea about the size of that market but we can get some idea by looking at Steam.

Google (other search engines are available) for 'active steam users' and you'll find that there were around 125 million active Steam accounts in 2015. According to SteamSpy, 1.65m Steam players own KSP.

Now lets assume that each of those 1 million VR headset owners are gamers and own a Steam account. Again, I'm being generous. So 0.8% of Steam players own a VR headset. So to a (very) first order approximation, 13,200 Steam players with a VR headset, also own KSP. Lets be generous (again) and assume that every 1 million VR headsets sold translates into another 13,200 KSP players. That Street article I linked to forecasts an installed user base of about 32 million VR headsets on PC and console platforms by 2020. Which translates into about 420,000 new KSP players.

Not bad, but not great either and it's assuming some pretty strong growth in VR headset sales which has yet to be proven.

You can no doubt pick any number of holes in my analysis but I think the general picture is clear. For now VR is a niche market. KSP is also a niche market. Aiming a product update at the intersection of two niche markets and expecting it to drive large numbers of new sales does not seem like a smart strategy. Not when there are easier alternatives. Without wishing to derail this thread any further, I would respectfully suggest that attending to the existing user base by a) fixing the console editions of KSP and b) releasing a good expansion pack for sale, would be a wiser strategy in the short to medium term. If VR does start living up to its promise, maybe think about a KSP VR release at that point.

 

Edited December 11, 2016 by KSK

[Ryder]

1 hour ago, Alshain said:

By it's sales numbers.

It doesn't matter if HTC/Valve are selling at a profit, it matters if Squad can get a profit on the development effort, which is unlikely.  This is the same issue with the Wii U.  3rd party developers can't make a profit developing for it, and thus it failed.  Yet, Squad could still stand to make more profit if they release that Wii U version than if they add VR.  Though I wouldn't be surprised if they abandoned the Wii U version, disappointed, but not surprised.

 

Hahahaaaaa... wow.

no... its not by sales numbers,  it sold ~13M units... so by sales numbers, 13M is a failure...

And YET, the Boeing 737 is the most successful airliner sold... at... drum roll... just over 13 thousand sold.

So if it's by simple sales numbers... how do you explain 13 MILLION is a failure, while 13 THOUSAND is the undisputed champion?

Hint: wi U was beneath PROJECTIONS by almost 90%.  Wii U sold at a LOSS.

There just seems to be something you're missing with the concept of sales and success.

 

I'll not waste more time with you on this topic.  Better things to do.

 

28 minutes ago, KSK said:

No - I'm challenging your assumptions by asking you to consider some fairly basic questions. Which so far you're refusing to do.

 

Of course not... I already considered that before my first post.  And I have come to my conclusion after having considered all that (and more).

You simply seem to simply not understand that we disagree.

[CranialRectosis]

Eventually the technical issues will be dealt with and VR will work for most people. As the market increases, DIY kits will become common and then some costs will drop. The market driver will not be games, it will be porn. The funding is limitless. The issues will be dealt with, particularly for men with glasses. The future is VR.

Yes, I remember cassette tape drives.

The costs associated with making KSP into a VR playground are probably ugly and prohibitive. Then again, eventually, people will be playing more VR and less anything else and the market share will drift away over time anyway just like it did for cassette drives and 8 bit games (although demand for the new/old Nintendo is amazing). There will be winners and there will be losers, although porn will always come out on top.

VR for KSP would be a gamble and a pretty big one at that. It would have to be a labor of love; groundbreaking, and epic in scope. The thing is, someone is going to make that game. It is just a matter of time.

The only real questions are, will all the Kerbals be nekkid and will I still be young enough to care.

 

Edited December 11, 2016 by CranialRectosis

[Alshain]

14 minutes ago, Ryder said:

Hahahaaaaa... wow.

no... its not by sales numbers,  it sold ~13M units... so by sales numbers, 13M is a failure...

And YET, the Boeing 737 is the most successful airliner sold... at... drum roll... just over 13 thousand sold.

So if it's by simple sales numbers... how do you explain 13 MILLION is a failure, while 13 THOUSAND is the undisputed champion?

Hint: wi U was beneath PROJECTIONS by almost 90%.  Wii U sold at a LOSS.

There just seems to be something you're missing with the concept of sales and success.

You are comparing commercial planes to video game equipment.  If you don't see the problem there, then you are beyond understanding of the world.  There seems to be something you're missing with the concept of reality.

Quote

 

I'll not waste more time with you on this topic.  Better things to do.

If you don't want discussion, don't visit a discussion forum.  You are just as much a waste of my time.  Good luck in your imaginary play life, it is going to be pretty bitter when you don't get everything you want just because you like it and think it should be.

 

Edited December 11, 2016 by Alshain

[Red Iron Crown]

4 minutes ago, CranialRectosis said:

Eventually the technical issues will be dealt with and VR will work for most people. <...> The future is VR.

This is the assertion I challenge. I don't think VR headsets that prevent you from seeing your other surroundings are ever going to go mainstream, no matter how cool and immersive the applications are for them. People want to be able to see the other people in the room, reach for a drink without risk of knocking it over, and so forth.

The mainstream market already rejected stereoscopic 3D televisions and computer displays, and that only required a pair of glasses that didn't interfere with real world interaction. I find it very difficult to credit the idea that they will jump right in to a technology that requires an opaque, completely eye-enclosing set of goggles.

At any rate, I don't think it can be sensibly argued that VR is anywhere near mainstream right now. We'll see after Christmas, or maybe the year after that.

[Ryder]

11 minutes ago, Alshain said:

You are comparing commercial planes to video game equipment.  There seems to be something you're missing with the concept of reality.

 

 

Ahhh so NOW you are claiming that it's not just sales... but the MARKET segment.

But I ALREADY covered that:  "...  in COMPARISON to other consoles...  It's this funny thing called market share. "

But you chose to ignore that... citing sales numbers ALONE as the definition of failure.

 

The point (which you missed), is that you have to see if vive is PROFITABLE, and its portion of MARKET SHARE, and is performance vs PROJECTIONS (at a minimum)... going by raw sales simply betrays a lack of understanding.  In a way, it's the LEAST important thing. Therefore your notion that "lots of people" buying is what matters... is just fatally simplistic.

Quote

If you don't want discussion, don't visit a discussion forum.  You are just as much a waste of my time.

No, just you.  I don't want to teach manufacturing anymore... adios.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Ryder

[Alshain]

10 minutes ago, Ryder said:

Ahhh so NOW you are claiming that it's not just sales... but the MARKET segment.

But I ALREADY covered that:  "...  in COMPARISON to other consoles...  It's this funny thing called market share. "

But you chose to ignore that... citing sales numbers ALONE as the definition of failure.

I was always saying that.  You are making stuff up.  I compared sales numbers of two gaming consoles.  You brought in airplanes!  You chose to ignore what I was saying and insert your own twisted interpretation.

 

Quote

The point (which you missed), is that you have to see if vive is PROFITABLE, and it's portion of MARKET SHARE, and is performance vs PROJECTIONS (at a minimum)... going by raw sales simply betrays a lack of understanding.  In a way, it's the LEAST important thing. Therefore your notion that "lots of people" buying is what matters... is just fatally simplistic.

No, it is not profitable to game developers.  It is profitable to it's creator.  You seem to have a lack of understanding of market share  Video games and video game consoles are actually in two completely different markets.  The vive is effectively a console, though it is a bit unique compared to others it still is a console, a device needed to play certain games.  Video games are their own market entirely.  So while the device may be profitable to HTC, that doesn't mean implementing it will automatically be profitable to Squad.  For one thing, the markup on the device itself can make it profitable at low sales, and that thing is hugely expensive so has got to be a ton of markup.  But the markup doesn't help game developers, only the device manufacturer

Quote

No, just you.  I don't want to teach manufacturing anymore... adios.

Good! Because this isn't manufacturing, it's economics.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Alshain

[Ryder]

2 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Good! Because this isn't manufacturing, it's economics.

 

Wow.