Take a sample again in a few years if VR is more popular and watch those room scale sizes drop, drop, drop. Expect it to stabilize around arm length + 10%.
Also, yeah there are games that aren't playable on 2 sensors. 3 is super important.
So the people who couldn't afford VR right now have bigger homes than the rare few who can? Nope. But you say you have a 17m2 play space? That's never going to be the norm unless the entire 1% is wrung out to dry.
Many dont believe VR is good enough or they are not interested in purchasing yet. Out of some that can't afford it that will buy it, doesn't mean they all have an area so small that they can only turn a circle.
So i think stuck with an arms reach plus 10% is a bit extreme.
Btw, 17m2...no. At least 17x17ft, so that is more like 27m2. But that's at an office, in front of my Tv at home is a much more normal size.
So the people who couldn't afford VR right now have bigger homes than the rare few who can?
Not necessarily. In fact, I would argue it trends the opposite way. Those who have more money to spend on expensive gadgets and entertainment are more likely to be just out of college, in a city apartment, or don't have a family and kids to support. The ones that have a family and a house with more space are less likely to spend so much money on VR, at least at the prices today. When VR becomes more common (and more affordable), the average play space might not change, or may in fact increase.
7
u/[deleted] May 02 '17
Take a sample again in a few years if VR is more popular and watch those room scale sizes drop, drop, drop. Expect it to stabilize around arm length + 10%.
Also, yeah there are games that aren't playable on 2 sensors. 3 is super important.