Just want to update to make sure you all know that we are working on a lot behind the scenes - Further development, potential partnerships, marketing, legal organization, and more! We are excited about Spectiv and look forward to having you test our initial platform.
Thanks for keeping us up to date. Do you have an estimated time for initial platform launch to test?
We will be able to answering this shortly, we are meeting with our recently hired platform developer tomorrow. We hope to have a version of the platform that users can experience within 30 days. This will likely be more of an interactive demo, and not the full alpha.
If your team can pull this off before the ICO start than trust me your ICO is going to be a massive success.
OK. As an early adopter of VR, this interests me and I've been reading through this thread (although WAY too much of it is about bounties and worries about prices/Aug 1st etc. Not enough about the actual project itself!). I quoted this post as some sort of beta I can look at pre-ICO would be a "must have" for me.
Background: I work in IT. Have done for 20+ years. Fair amount of development experience. Lots of non-functional testing experience. Mainly load/performance/network testing and test automation. Have been involved with/using VR since Oculus DK1 stage. Currently own a Vive. Had a launch version Oculus as well, but sold that as I prefer Vive. Also have a phone adapter type headset (a BoboVR - one of the better ones on the market).
So, how do think this weighs up as an ICO?
Sorry, but I have HUGE doubts.
Taking it mainstream? OK. Fine. Already trying to do that are: Steam, Oculus (backed by Facebook), Samsung, Sony, YouTube, Google etc etc. There are already a LOT of big players pushing this. What makes me think an unknown crypto can do a better job? Nothing.
Platform. An indy VR platform. OK. There are already a few of those. And they are pretty well known in the VR community. Plus Steam already allows homebrew software and YouTube allows any user supplied content. Google Play store has plenty indy VR stuff for the phone headset market. Again, some big, established, players you're going up against.
360 degree video? Is a niche within a niche. I have VR. Have done for a long time. How much do I use 360 vids? Almost not at all. Quality is king. Will be people be interested in user submitted content? (Which is no different to YouTube), no, not really. Highly unlikely to pay for it. Also, streaming it will require major bandwidth. Things like football and major sporting events? Yeah. Great. But the licensing and rights to stream stuff like that is a hugely expensive area dominated by MASSIVE global players. To stream stuff like this legally, I don't see this having much chance. If you can provide some concrete proof of partnerships in this arena, that might give me some hope, but just saying you plan to in a white paper? Not enough for me. As you say yourself, license agreements like that require good user numbers (which means BIG bandwidth requirements to support it). But how do you get the user numbers first? Not with home-made 360 vids, I can tell you that. VR users have had to endure months and months of homebrew shitware just to get where they are now. Their appetite for more of the same is ..... lets just be nice and say "very low"!
Free headset? At best, it's going to be a junk version mobile phone type set. Anyone thinking these compare with Oculus/Vive/PSVR .... nope. Sorry. Not even close. I don't see this as much of an incentive to anyone.
A lot of the things mentioned in here - porn, games (obviously), interior design, medical applications, are already either in development or available elsewhere. I struggle to see how this will offer anything over the established markets.
The advertising numbers in the white paper seem HUGELY optimistic to me. $100k for an advert on your platform? Who on earth is going to be paying those kind of numbers!
End result, much as I love VR, and expect and hope it will grow in coming years, I don't see how this offers anything new and it will be going up against some established players in an already niche market. The tokens themselves don't seem to server much purpose to me, and the dual token only makes it more confusing as to where the value lies.
I'll keep watching this, but I won't be buying into the ICO. I suspect, at best, it's a huge long term bet ....
