A court side seat to an NBA game is north of $1000. If this creates 20% of the experience it will easily pay for itself in 1 season.
A 10 second clip that will have been tuned to perfection by the very best editors for the demo is one thing. A live, un/rough-edited capture of a game broadcast in real time is quite different.
I've seen some truly amazing sports coverage to show off my OLED TV when I bought it. I still have the USB drive the TV came with and it does indeed look gorgeous. You know what doesn't look quite so good? Live broadcasts of those same sports. They are pixelated with some macroblocking and judder and posterization as the cameras quickly pan around the field and cut randomly.
It still looks pretty good but no way near as good as the minute long demo video LG used to show off how good their TV can look.
Obviously I've not used a Vision Pro so my comment isn't about the Vision Pro specifically, just that it is quite easy to make things look very good in a highly tuned demo for something vs real world broadcast quality.
Or perhaps the appeal of court-side seats is the atmosphere, experience and social signaling, none of which are provided by these glasses.
Our desire for "cheap" court-side seats is understandable from an evolutionary sense. But it's almost like these glasses (and VR in general) are designed to provide the "feeling" of evolutionary benefit while carefully and completely removing any actual benefit.
The author's entire point was that the demo did recreate the atmosphere and experience he had while courtside at an NBA game. Maybe it doesn't provide the social clout, but that's not the point for tons who wish they could sit courtside.
There is no maybe about it. Tell me another reason why people would want court side, that wouldn’t also apply to a high school game (where people could sit court side for free but absolutely don’t)
* You can't do the math from a baseline of "not watching the game at all". If this creates 20% of the experience but a $1000 TV creates a different 20% of the experience (watching with other people next to you, for example), you haven't gained any value over the cheaper device.
* Unless you're regularly buying NBA tickets, this isn't going to "pay for itself". Solar panels can (in theory) pay for themselves because they cut back on a bill you'd have either way. A product like this can only pay for itself if it causes you to spend less money on NBA tickets than you otherwise would have.
Having a courtside seat is a physical constraint that does not need to be respected in VR.
Have you ever watched the announcement of a new videogame console? Or even new videogames?
10 seconds of marketing don't extrapolate well to 10 days of actual usage.
That would be economic suicide for them. They need to keep the seats being a special experience.
It builds the brand. Watching the game on tv is already a far superior way to actually see what’s happening. No different from any other live event, it’s a social experience.
Yes and no.
Knowing the entire state of the game? Sure, TV's pretty good.
But watching on TV doesn't give the strong impression of the sheer physicality of the game that sitting a row or two away from the court does. I used to sit baseline for Warriors games and it sure left an impression.
I agree with you for football, but the first 5 rows at an NBA game are amazing. And it's very easy to see what's going on.
Live sports and being at the event is always going to be a special thing that people want to pay for- you can't heckle the opposing team through a headset. If people want to pay even more to get a coach-eye view of the game, I can't imagine ticket sales would be impacted one iota. As it is, watching a game on TV is a better viewing experience than being their live for most sports. American Football, for example- the field is large, your seat is static so it can't follow the action. Its often played in cold, rainy conditions- I go to a game or two a year just for the excitement of it all, but come a dreary rainy late November day, I am happy to sit on the couch and enjoy the surround sound. All major US sports make most of their money off TV broadcast rights. This will be no different.
All these rules only govern what they can broadcast to UK citizens though. If you have a globally popular sport/product like the Premier League you can broadcast the Saturday 3pm matches to them, as they're unlikely to be able to attend a match anyway.
All that aside I actually think cycling could be a wonderful sport to view in this format. Great screnery shots from helicopters and close up peleton shots captured on motorbikes. Also strap into your turbo trainer to ride along for an hour too!
People don't go to the game solely to watch the game. They go because of the atmosphere, the status of being able to afford the tickets, and the excitement. The VR experience even if a lot more immersive than watching on TV, would never be the same, people would still buy seats as they always did.
Doesn't this change the potential customer pool from people within traveling distance at the right time with enough money, into a global market?
Consider this: Sell the live courtside seat for the same 1000+; Open up sales for the virtual experience for 20% and sell it to anyone you like -- and, the next day, put the same no-longer-live experience available to pass-holders at $x/season and on-demand for $50 --
Haven't you just transformed your $1000 seat into some hugely increased figure?
Is the "virtual experience" $200 better than watching the game on 2D screen?
I think the made up hypothetical figures distracted from the main idea, I was questioning the position that NBA would lose value when it seems like technology like this would open up a new audience of consumers who might now be willing to spend some money that they wouldn't otherwise have spent.
I had NBA TV for one season, but because I live in the Portland area, I can not watch Portland trailblazers games. It was ridiculous, so I did not subscribe this year.
However, I would certainly pay $10 to watch the NBA Finals courtside in Vision Pro.