VR sales aren't just lagging, they're bad enough that no company will give official numbers for sales. The current estimates for sales are roughly an order of magnitude less than the previous expectations (admittedly dictated by analysts and media), and there is a lot of obfuscation from companies to make it seem better. They will tout the Samsung Galaxy Gear numbers, but what they won't tell you is how many of those were given away (probably the vast majority) vs how many were sold - and that's at a $100 price point.

I really, really want VR to improve and become a commodity in the near future, but most people I talk to think it's dumb even after they try it. I think VR is at least 4 years away from being a serious part of gaming (and that assumes a lot of things go right), and I honestly don't know how many years before it finds other consumer applications.

You have to squint pretty hard to see VR today as any sort of success. It's mostly the province of a gamer niche that's willing to overlook shortcomings, some of which will be inherently hard to overcome, and general lack of content.

How is that not a success?

They have hundreds of thousands of units out, developers of all sizes working on content, and an enthusiastic (and paying) community of users. That's a pretty good launch for a new consumer tech category.

Do you remember the enthusiasm just 6 months to a year ago? Did you see how media was was proclaiming that VR was the next big thing, and I even recall that line repeated on the Motley Fool podcast.

Then the devices came out, and you hear nothing anymore. Sure, there are a bunch of people who bought it, but when none of the vendors are even releasing sales figures, you know it's disappointing. With the recent news that Oculus is closing their demo stations because no one is using them suggests that things aren't going too well.

VR is probably not as bad as 3D TV in terms of a flop, but I don't think anyone can call it a "success" unless your expectations are very different from that of most people.

This year's CES was probably the point where a lot of people realized that, whether or not there's a glorious future coming, it's not there today.

https://www.cnet.com/news/vr-disappoints-at-ces-2017-lenovo-...

If most people buy into the ridiculous hype, then yes, I do have much lower expectations. Or at least, much slower ones.

Selling hundreds of thousands of $800 units is $80M in revenue, not a bad start for a new technology starting out in the "consumer goods, luxury entertainment" market.

At least Sony is positive about this.

Secretive doesn't imply good, e.g. Theranos.

I would say secretive implies "not good." Everybody hears about the inventors of perpetual motion machines or cold fusion that refuse to divest their secrets until they get an investment or patent.

It's true.

But one 'killer app' could change it all.

VR needs it's 'Halo' :)

Resident Evil 7? The gaming press say it's a great experience in VR.

It is. It's not perfect with a few odd black outs. Eg when you start climbing a ladder bit otherwise PSVR is a great way to play the game.

A lot of people talked about Superhot VR as that leap, and it doesn't seem to have driven many sales for people who didn't have VR already. If anything, I've talked to more people who tried Gear VR and decided it was cool enough to upgrade to a non-terrible VR product.

I suppose Superhot could have sufficed without a non-VR alternative, but I rather doubt it.

The sad thing is Super hot could have been the game to beat on VR, but they partnered with Oculus and released as an Oculus exclusive. This split the market right down the middle with many Vive owners now refusing to buy the game at all even when it does come to the Vive.

The worst part? The Oculus version of the game works perfectly on the Vive through ReVive so it's not like they had to do much extra work to get the game working.

I keep thinking valve should use their one shot at HL3 as a move to push VR on their desperate fans. HL3 is so hyped it can't avoid disappointing.

Why would Valve want to push VR?

They think it's an emerging technology and want to be at the forefront? Hence building the Vive with HTC and working on their tracking technology. Gabe Newell has been waxing lyrical about their VR plans just this week. They are currently making three VR games.

I saw him talking about it. He said:

> We're also pretty comfortable with the idea that it will turn out to be a complete failure.

About Vive he said:

> Vive is the most expensive device on the market. It's barely capable of doing a marginally adequate job of delivering a VR experience.

Not sure if he's underselling, but he doesn't sound that enthusiastic about it. It sounds more like the Vive investment is an insurance policy.

Reading the original source article [1], I think he's enthusiastic enough. He also comes across as being more conservative than many at the pace that it's going to be picked up and realistic about how limited the tech is currently.

Per your quote, he apparently also is open to the possibility that VR could turn out to be a dead end but that's not so much a lack of enthusiasm as not being a mindless cheerleader.

[1] http://www.polygon.com/features/2017/2/15/14616192/gabe-newe...

I think your assessment is spot on. I think his conservative take probably stems from the fact that he and Valve are going to be okay no matter what happens with VR. Almost nothing is at stake for him.

Because it's the company vision that they want it to succeed. Also they are partnered with HTC to make the VIVE.

Not strong enough, which is why not everyone owns a console. (compare with phones or even PCs)

Something like a spreadsheet or communication would be just the thing.

Vendors would be perfectly happy to get game console-like penetration, moreover, they would have a viable business and an industry.

If the technology is "that good", it'll be hard enough to replicate that they won't need to be all that secretive.