I don’t see how what they said was contradictory. VR gaming is indeed dead. And Linux gaming with 5 times less users is also even more dead.
There’s a reason why game devs completely ignore Linux as a platform.
Comment on Minecraft is losing VR support next year
Mistic@lemmy.world 1 week agoThat’s not even accurate.
If VR gaming is dead, then what does it say about Linux with about 5 times less users? Like, a low poly game about monkeys has a daily playerbase of a million people there. Mind you, Mincraft has 1 to 1.5 million. Not bad for a “dead” platform. Also, Valve isn’t even the last one to enter the market.
I think what you’re actually trying to say is that it’s niche, which it absolutely is.
shapis@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Mistic@lemmy.world 1 week ago
- More than 57mil (est.) monthly VR users
- PS5 has 116mil monthly users
For how big PS5 is and how small VR is, VR sure has a lot of people playing.
Lemmy has userbase (not even monthly activity) of 0.6mil. Is lemmy dead?
What constitutes for a dead platform to you?
shapis@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Is Lemmy dead?
I mean. Yeah ? Can you imagine any large companies investing in this in any way? I sure can’t.
Mistic@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I think what you’re forgetting is scale.
Lemmy is niche. VR is niche. Gaming is mainstream.
You can’t call a niche dead just because there aren’t that many people into it. It’s a niche for a reason.
Linux is booming, even though it’s “dead.” Lemmy has never been this active in its entire existence. Why do investments from large companies matter?
What truly matters is growth. Negative growth is what kills a platform/industry/company/whatever else. VR is growing, Linux is growing, Lemmy is growing. It may not be fast, but they all have active userbases that support their development.
You cannot call a child “failure” just because it never achieved anything in life, can you? They are growing. They can get sick, they can recover. They can also regress due to that illness and die. Only then they’re truly dead.
linearchaos@lemmy.world 1 week ago
It’s math. The amount of money they’re spending on supporting the VR platforms is less than the amount of money they make for the people on those platforms. They probably have to dedicate several multi-person teams to manage the clients.
Linux has some pretty good hedging going on with steam deck.
Mistic@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Well, I’ve decided to check the financials of a couple of VR companies since your counterpoint sounded reasonable. The only one working at a loss is Meta. I could argue their business model is in Death Valley right now. After all, they have major capital expenses, which aren’t easily covered unless you have a big userbase.
But that’s their VR sector. Overall, Meta’s profitable and can easily cover all the expenses several times over.
Also, what do you mean by “they have to dedicate several multi-person teams to manage the clients?” Firstly, who’s “they,” secondly, if I understood you right, that sounds prepostrous, unless you’re talking B2B.
linearchaos@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I’m not talking about VR companies I’m talking about Mojang.
The teams that Mojang keeps to work on the platforms cost more than the income from the people using those clients.
If you make a game, and you decide to support Mac, and Mac only brings in $500 a month but you have to pay somebody $3,000 a month to maintain the client, You’re losing $2,500 a month for that particular market segment.
Nothing says you have to get rid of those people or that client, But it’s a fiscally sound decision.
Mistic@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Oh, yeah, that I agree with.
My head was at the “VR gaming” as a whole back when I was writing the comment.