5 ms·

Why would NBA allow for this as they would lose an extreme amount of money if people can get the same experience at home? That would be economic suicide for th

Why would NBA allow for this as they would lose an extreme amount of money if people can get the same experience at home? That would be economic suicide for them. They need to keep the seats being a special experience.

shen 3y ago
The people who are paying for those seats will still pay for those seats. The people paying for the headset experience would’ve never paid for the seats. Different audience.
nkingsy 3y ago
It may look and sound the same, but no one is accidentally spilling beer in merriment or telling their friends they were there. 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.
- mlyle 3y ago
  > Watching the game on tv is already a far superior way to actually see what’s happening. 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.
- matwood 3y ago
  > Watching the game on tv is already a far superior way to actually see what’s happening. 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.
JoshTko 3y ago
They can sell two orders more the number of court side seats for virtual season tickets
stuff4ben 3y ago
I'm more a pro hockey fan (go Canes!) and have paid thousands of dollars a year in tickets. I would still go to several games because that is an experience in itself (tailgating, etc). But I would much more gladly pay for a VisionPro than a Bally Sports subscription to watch the rest of the games at home. If they can get the local announcers to do the play-by-play on the VisionPro, I'd be throwing them my money just for this feature alone.
kevstev 3y ago
I think you could make the same claim about TV broadcasts, but pro sports seems to be doing just fine, some claim that live sports is what is keeping cable alive these days. 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.
jimlikeslimes 3y ago
In the UK football broadcasting is regulated. The traditional top-flight league games kick off at 3pm on Saturday. None of those matches are allowed to be broadcast to maintain gate revenues for the clubs. Very roughly speaking only 3 matches on Sunday and one or two on weekday evenings are broadcast. Cup matches etc are allowed to be broadcast too. 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!
- l33tman 3y ago
  Unfortunately any case where the camera moves is not going to work, for a very large portion of the population (I don't know the percentages of people who get motion sickness in VR but they get that even from their own slow motion, imagine motion from a bouncing camera on a motorcycle)
elzbardico 3y ago
There's a limited number of seats in any stadium and the demand today is far bigger than the offer. Besides being very hard to find tickets, a lot of fans with money live far away from the cities where the game is being played, and some of them (lots of them, actually) live in other countries. 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.
bnj 3y ago
Really? We're talking about a transformation from a fixed and time-bound asset, the live experience of being physically present, into an entirely digital experience which can be replayed. 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?
- silvestrov 3y ago
  20% is $200 for a "movie ticket". Is the "virtual experience" $200 better than watching the game on 2D screen?
  - bnj 3y ago
    I wouldn't know, but doesn't the point still hold if I can sell (let's say) 1000 tickets at movie ticket prices, which I wouldn't otherwise have been able to sell? Call it $15 * 1000 people ... ? 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.
ZacharyPitts 3y ago
The worst will be blackouts for NBA games for this. 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.
senttoschool 3y ago
Like others have said, I would never pay thousands of dollars to sit court side unless I'm a multi-millionaire. However, I would certainly pay $10 to watch the NBA Finals courtside in Vision Pro.

shen 3y ago

The people who are paying for those seats will still pay for those seats. The people paying for the headset experience would’ve never paid for the seats. Different audience.

nkingsy 3y ago

It may look and sound the same, but no one is accidentally spilling beer in merriment or telling their friends they were there. 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.

mlyle 3y ago
> Watching the game on tv is already a far superior way to actually see what’s happening. 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.
matwood 3y ago
> Watching the game on tv is already a far superior way to actually see what’s happening. 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.

JoshTko 3y ago

They can sell two orders more the number of court side seats for virtual season tickets

stuff4ben 3y ago

I'm more a pro hockey fan (go Canes!) and have paid thousands of dollars a year in tickets. I would still go to several games because that is an experience in itself (tailgating, etc). But I would much more gladly pay for a VisionPro than a Bally Sports subscription to watch the rest of the games at home. If they can get the local announcers to do the play-by-play on the VisionPro, I'd be throwing them my money just for this feature alone.

kevstev 3y ago

I think you could make the same claim about TV broadcasts, but pro sports seems to be doing just fine, some claim that live sports is what is keeping cable alive these days. 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.

jimlikeslimes 3y ago

In the UK football broadcasting is regulated. The traditional top-flight league games kick off at 3pm on Saturday. None of those matches are allowed to be broadcast to maintain gate revenues for the clubs. Very roughly speaking only 3 matches on Sunday and one or two on weekday evenings are broadcast. Cup matches etc are allowed to be broadcast too. 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!

l33tman 3y ago
Unfortunately any case where the camera moves is not going to work, for a very large portion of the population (I don't know the percentages of people who get motion sickness in VR but they get that even from their own slow motion, imagine motion from a bouncing camera on a motorcycle)

elzbardico 3y ago

There's a limited number of seats in any stadium and the demand today is far bigger than the offer. Besides being very hard to find tickets, a lot of fans with money live far away from the cities where the game is being played, and some of them (lots of them, actually) live in other countries. 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.

bnj 3y ago

Really? We're talking about a transformation from a fixed and time-bound asset, the live experience of being physically present, into an entirely digital experience which can be replayed. 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?

silvestrov 3y ago
20% is $200 for a "movie ticket". Is the "virtual experience" $200 better than watching the game on 2D screen?
- bnj 3y ago
  I wouldn't know, but doesn't the point still hold if I can sell (let's say) 1000 tickets at movie ticket prices, which I wouldn't otherwise have been able to sell? Call it $15 * 1000 people ... ? 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.

ZacharyPitts 3y ago

The worst will be blackouts for NBA games for this. 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.

senttoschool 3y ago

Like others have said, I would never pay thousands of dollars to sit court side unless I'm a multi-millionaire. However, I would certainly pay $10 to watch the NBA Finals courtside in Vision Pro.