"No, I won't debunk your claim because that's obvious. VR is maybe 2% of PC players, and steadily increasing judging by Steam's hardware data"
WOAH MAYBE 2% AFTER OVER A DECADE?! Why got for 98% of the market when you can have a MAYBE 2%! LOL I bet you thought that was a good counter argument. Half life 2 sold ten million the same time frame, just saying.
"My main point of contention with you is over the "gimmick" claim. Niche, perhaps; gimmick, certainly not."
It is a gimmick because that is definition of the word itself. An innovative or unusual mechanical contrivance; a gadget. It's not a insult, it's calling a spade a spade. It's also a Niche because of it's ridiculous pricing and space you need to use it too.
If you look at Steam's hardware data, you'll find that high-end GPUs have similar adoption rates to headsets, but the market for the latter is actually growing and set to surpass the former due to accessibility; the market is currently saturated with fully functional headsets at affordable prices right now, as well as more affordable GPUs that can sufficiently push them. Your angle about long development time is irrelevant. Example: It took a few decades for commercial aviation to become viable after the invention of fixed-wing aircraft. I don't think VR will ever completely replace traditional gaming, but it will command a large market.
To argue semantics, "gimmick"has a negative connotation and usually is reserved for a product with features of no intrinsic value. I disagree with that.
"If you look at Steam's hardware data, you'll find that high-end GPUs have similar adoption rates to headsets, but the market for the latter is actually growing and set to surpass the former due to accessibility; the market is currently saturated with fully functional headsets at affordable prices right now, as well as more affordable GPUs that can sufficiently push them."
Uh huh, but it's still maybe 2% by your own words. Meaning the majority who log onto Steam aren't doing so to play VR. The numbers you gave prove this too.
"Your angle about long development time is irrelevant."
No it is relevant. Why would I ignore selling to 98% of the market to take a gamble to sell to the 2% where I have no guaranteed said users will buy my game? That's bad business decision making 101. If VALVE couldn't do it, why would I take the risk then?
"Example: It took a few decades for commercial aviation to become viable after the invention of fixed-wing aircraft."
Real actual example to compare to since it's a video game, not a plane. Half Life 2 came out on Steam when Steam was absolute garbage to use, one third the user base it has now and it still sold 10 million in the same time frame. Half Life Alex came out after VR has been out for over a decade, Steam's userbase is much larger than it was at launch and it still couldn't sell half of Half Life 2 did in the same time frame. Meaning the majority of the audience didn't come back and the new audience wasn't large enough to replace the former audience. Get the big picture yet?
"I don't think VR will ever completely replace traditional gaming, but it will command a large market."
After ten years of being told that and seeing not ONE console or the PC have over 50% user base using it? It's time to stop huffing paint, no one wants to use it. The numbers don't lie.
"To argue semantics,"
There is no semantics when I tell you I'm using the more positive description than the negative description you want me to use.
Whatever, you arrogant old codger. Commercial VR has only been viable for the last few years, and the market share is rapidly increasing due to the aforementioned reasons listed. Who cares what tech heads were saying ten years ago, when the reality of the products achieving commercial viability is right fucking now?
The aviation analogy was more apt than your HL2 and Steam platform comparison.
(post is archived)