Item — HN Reader

This poor VR headset didn't stand a chance commercially and unlike the Oculus the lack of devs on the Daydream VR platform already sealed its fate for failure.

It has been known for a long time that mobile VR on the consumer level wasn't really going to work out given the limitations Google explained in their statement. Apart from 'training' applications or very niche games, I'd be surprised if this became an instant hit on mobile.

I think Google must have been dreaming a bit on this, but it looks like this is the reality for others attempting to enter the mobile VR headset market.

1 comments

This is basically the same trap they're falling for with Stadia. It's been proven that streaming games is not really worth it. OnLive failed for the same reason's Stadia will. The number of people with fast enough Internet but cannot afford a full-scale gaming machine is very small.

Sony’s already gunning for Stadia ahead of time by lowering the cost of the PlayStation Now streaming service, and last I checked, PS Now already wasn’t all too popular in its own right for many of the same reasons the Stadia is close to DOA (IMO). Sentiment amongst the gaming communities I’m a part of is downright negative on the idea of using Stadia.

As you called out, then you have the problem with marketing a streaming service to people that can’t afford a gaming console or PC rig, yet assumes their internet speeds are fast enough to handle it (and without busting whatever data caps are in place).

I think it’s one of the most bizarre moves I’ve seen yet from Google in terms of products. Smacks of spray and pray productization tactics.

I'll probably subscribe just to test the pool of games, but I do not plan on purchasing any games or special hardware like the gamepad.

At least with a subscription, I know what I'm paying for is ephemeral.