It's definitely still early. Have you seen an add for an AR/VR/XR service with any merit? Have you visited a website on an immersive device? Have you seen even one person wearing AR glasses on the street? The tech might have started years ago, but it's nowhere near its destination, and therefore the names are not worth much yet. The fact that decent offers are already coming in for some in this thread is very promising, considering how not-mainstream these technologies remain at the moment. There's so much naysaying in these recent posts. Why? I see nothing but reasons to be optimistic. I'll accept evidence to the contrary when it's presented, but when evidence that promotes optimism is presented, it also should result in the appropriate response.
Well, let me say it is not early and yes it is no where near it's destination.
I have mentioned that the total number of 'VR' devices is very good.
But you have to divide them up for compatibility.
It's just not enough to get developers kicking out cool stuff because of the total number of a single potential buyer. They have to write multiple versions of the same thing. And may not work the same on all platforms.
Would you want to dive into that ? I mean there could be ?1M? VR users, but the largest single compatibility block may only be 150k for example.
You may want and like the specs of a Vive Pro but all the games you want to play may be on a PlaystationVR. Hard for the consumer as well.
For VR, we have to wait for standards to develop. Probably on the 3rd gen of products.
AR (glasses style) will have the same problem when it catches up in 3-5 years.
It is going to lag until the pricepoint comes down and the same kind of standards develop for the dev bunch to want to go there. Apple 'may' be a exception because they have such a existing far reaching platform and dev crew, and numbers potential depending on price point.
I am a bit optimistic that the new Oculus stand-alone will crank out to the public in numbers to change this equation for VR a bit.We should see others like it this year, but will they be compatible ? But AR is still a long way off from where we might think it should be. Let's face it, good 3D AR is expensive and not all that good.
As I have said many times in this thread, most of our names are going to sell to 'start-ups', mostly in software.
Names need not just a single user wanting them, but competition for the same name.
But you can always get lucky where a company has to have the one you hold for various reasons.
But will you recognize it when you see it.
As far as I am concerned, the industry is still in beta test mode until the 3rd gen of products.
Anyway... think about the problems and you will perhaps be able to put better time lines on this going forward. Nothing changes quickly. Even when we want to think so.
Mine for VR is now looking like 2020 before we have a 'descent' names demand, no matter where the industry is. But you should know there have been plenty of them already that were under the radar/NDA.
Very hard for most to make good judgement for names in this industry because of this.
I can only judge what I have been watching and what I have. I see names that sold and have no idea for how much.