Oculus Hopes the Consumer Rift Will Sell for $200 to $400

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
After all of the research, trial and error testing, nausea correcting software adjustments and hype, the bottom line of all this for consumers was and still is….how much is this thing going to set me back when you finally offer it to consumers.

Oculus has said before that it's targeting a $300 price point, and the latest word is that it will sell at or near the cost of production. "It's going to be as cheap as possible"
Click to expand...
 
I can see that selling, provided there is software support and some overwhelming reason why people might want it. I might be willing to spend that just to see what the effect is like.
 
Is the box going to have a Facebook logo? Now that would be nauseating.
 
Hahahahahahahah, oh wait get are serious...HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

delusional.
 
Get = they..wow auto correct fail.. teach me to hit submit without proofreading.
 
Im very interested in getting a OR, Almost picked up a devkit 2 if I didnt need new shoes for the car at the time.
 
Cause $200-$400 for what is at best an accessory is delusional. That for a dev kit is one thing. Consumer level should be $200 max. Even then it is going to be extremely niche.
 
I think the price range is fair, assuming it actually does what it's been hyped up to do (allow you to enter a very realistic and immersive virtual world, cure AIDS, add 8 inches to your dick, etc.).
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Cause $200-$400 for what is at best an accessory is delusional. That for a dev kit is one thing. Consumer level should be $200 max. Even then it is going to be extremely niche.
Click to expand...

If they are really looking to make it a "consumer" device, then anything over $100 is too much.
 
Yeah I agree,

No matter how much (We) love it. Its going to be a niche market. 200-400 is not reasonable.
It needs to be $199-$299 with $249 as a On Sale number. Those are the numbers that people are most comfortable with.
 
If they can get rid of the screen door effect for the release version, I might pay up to 300$ for it. If not then the price better be closer to 200$. 400$ is way too expensive and 100% sure way to make this will flop as cool device as it is for gaming.
 
I'd rather this be a niche device than some kind of subscription-subsidized crap for $100.
 
I could see this being a hot cakes christmas item and something that sells out.

My kids and all their friends want one.

What they need is good xbox/ps4 compatibility with either the occulus, or their own in house tech.
 
I just put my DK2 on eBay. Head / position tracking works very well. I'm completely sold on the experience. But 1080p is woefully insufficient. I'll come back when the 4K panel is released. Or, at the very least, full 1080P per eye.

If I have to wait more than a year, I'm going to have to get head tracking gear. I'm going to have a hard time going back to first person games without head tracking. That's a killer feature that I would have never even considered buying before I used DK2.
 
Koolthulu said:
If they are really looking to make it a "consumer" device, then anything over $100 is too much.
Click to expand...
They're clearly targeting enthusiast consumers, not the average person. Sub $100 virtual reality headsets aren't likely to happen anytime soon without sacrificing a significant amount of presence.

"It's going to be as cheap as possible."
 
Krenum said:
...200-400 is not reasonable.
It needs to be $199-$299...
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume this was a lame joke about the price needing to end in a nine instead of a zero... instead of the alternative.

That aside, I don't know why this would surprise so many people. It's a niche product, and though Oculus obviously wants to encourage adoption, it's still an emerging technology (at least as far as integrating all the component technologies goes) and should be expected to be on the pricey side. I can't believe anyone involved in tech or the enthusiast market could reasonably expect it to be under $300.

Hell, a decent monitor will cost you at least half that, let alone anything 3D-capable. But sure, yeah, a screen, optics, sensors, and everything else crammed into a compact package should clearly cost even less. :rolleyes:
 
Yep, niche product, but it was basically always meant as one. We'll see how many they sell, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of units shipping. Will definitely be cool for gamers and early adopters.

Wonder when the cheap knock-offs will start rolling in... that might be when you see more mass acceptance. Or if they can finance it, or do ad sponsorship, or something. That price point is realistic for the item, but unrealistic for the value add to most people.
 
Umm, you guys are off base here. How much does a consumer spend on a monitor?

This thing already has support for multiple monitor setups in it. As in, you move your head to the left and you have more workspace.

This should be and is, priced like a monitor; because at the end of the day that is what it is replacing.

200-400 for a monitor is fine.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Hahahahahahahah, oh wait get are serious...HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

delusional.
Click to expand...

If you haven't used one, you don't know wtf you're talking about. If they can get this thing up to 720p per eye it's worth $500 easily. If they can get it to 1080p per eye I'd pay $1000.
 
Koolthulu said:
If they are really looking to make it a "consumer" device, then anything over $100 is too much.
Click to expand...

You're right, because that $400 "ipod" thing never caught on.... $100 is definitely the price for a "consumer device" or else it will fail for sure
 
IRSmurf said:
But 1080p is woefully insufficient. I'll come back when the 4K panel is released. Or, at the very least, full 1080P per eye.
Click to expand...
Because surely average consumer level PCs will be able to render 4k graphics at constant 75 fps by the time the Rift hits retail.
 
Wow, that's gonna be way overpriced when you can get an entire computer for the same price as a screen you're gonna use to make yourself sick in the course of 30 minutes and then never wear again.
 
MaddBomber83 said:
Umm, you guys are off base here. How much does a consumer spend on a monitor?

This thing already has support for multiple monitor setups in it. As in, you move your head to the left and you have more workspace.

This should be and is, priced like a monitor; because at the end of the day that is what it is replacing.

200-400 for a monitor is fine.
Click to expand...

The "Average" consumer doesn't spend $500 on a full computer much less $200-$400 on the monitor alone. Also this is far more comparable to a console accessory than a monitor.

Seventyfive said:
If you haven't used one, you don't know wtf you're talking about. If they can get this thing up to 720p per eye it's worth $500 easily. If they can get it to 1080p per eye I'd pay $1000.
Click to expand...

You would, the Average consumer would not.
 
The barrier to entry won't be the price but the processing requirement for 3d and stereo displays @ 1080p.
Its just not going to work with any current gen console. And that's the majority of their gaming market.

Having played around with the devkit 2, though, a 1080p version will be a day 1 purchase for me, along with another 290x.
 
Koolthulu said:
If they are really looking to make it a "consumer" device, then anything over $100 is too much.
Click to expand...

Because all the computer monitors and TVs are only $100 (OH WAIT, they aren't ;) ) ... and nobody buys anything priced over $100 (like PS4s or XBoxs or computers or TVs or monitors or smartphones or tablets or headphones or running shoes .... etc, etc, etc) :cool:
 
I have DK1 and was impressed with it. I have bad side effects: dizzy/nausea. I'm waiting to try out DK2 soon - if they can get rid of the side effects I get, very cool product.
Not sure about pricing - for my family, I'd rather see it closer to $200 as I think my kids will want the device. (Realize that you sometimes have to pay more than you'd like - heck, let's make it $50 :) )
If there is a decent selection of software, I personally think Rift will be a game-changer (literally).
 
kbrickley said:
Because all the computer monitors and TVs are only $100 (OH WAIT, they aren't ;) ) ... and nobody buys anything priced over $100 (like PS4s or XBoxs or computers or TVs or monitors or smartphones or tablets or headphones or running shoes .... etc, etc, etc) :cool:
Click to expand...
It's not viewed as a TV or a monitor, a necessity to run a computer, it's viewed as an accessory to various things. Accessories need to be priced cheaply else it's never going to be bought except in extreme niche areas. Only too rich to care or die hard believers whop down 200+ dollars on a secondary device.

It has as much hope as the Shield does in attracting people to buy it.
 
Like any new technology, early adoption will not be widespread I feel.
The price seems about right given industry pricing on consoles, the entry into VR will not be free, or cheap, at least not yet.

All I can say is, if you have not tried a Rift, you don't get it.

Also, the pixel density on both developer models is insufficient, but this is known, and intended.

The new partnership with Samsung should relate to hopefully, 4K panels for CV1, but that is speculation. I imagine whatever screen we are going to see in next year's Samsung handsets will be what the rift is limited to.
 
I see this as a great test for Facebook marketing.

What will the maximum price be they can sell this thing and adoption rate using Facebook's full marketing resources.
 
While I think it will be a niche product being over $200, I don't think that will mean it will fail. They don't even need to break even to continue development and refine the product. OR mkII could easily be less money and a better experience. Why does this needs to be a huge success right out of the gate?
 
Having owned/used a DK1 and having a DK2 'on order' (due October).... I'd pay $400-500 dollars for the consumer version (CV1?). As Seventyfive said earlier, if you haven't tried it, you just don't understand...
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Cause $200-$400 for what is at best an accessory is delusional. That for a dev kit is one thing. Consumer level should be $200 max. Even then it is going to be extremely niche.
Click to expand...

VR helmets were $1000 20 years ago. And didn't have anywhere near the capability.

$300-$400 is very reasonable.
 
Youn said:
While I think it will be a niche product being over $200, I don't think that will mean it will fail. They don't even need to break even to continue development and refine the product. OR mkII could easily be less money and a better experience. Why does this needs to be a huge success right out of the gate?
Click to expand...

Umm... What? :confused:

I am almost positive that any and every company's plan or goal is to be profitable, and at least break even. If they cannot do this, then they will go out of business due to no funds to continue developing anything with the business.....
 
*B* said:
Umm... What? :confused:
Click to expand...
This article, along with many many others, state they'd be happy to break even. The funds they got from FB gives them a ton of headroom to take a loss for a good while. This is not a new concept, just look to most consoles sales, they lose money at first.
 
Youn said:
This article, along with many many others, state they'd be happy to break even. The funds they got from FB gives them a ton of headroom to take a loss for a good while. This is not a new concept, just look to most consoles sales, they lose money at first.
Click to expand...

The console model also depended on them making money on the backend from software licensing ... if Oculus has the same gateway then they could lose money on the hardware and make it back on the software ... however, they can't lose money indefinitely ... there has to be an endgame where the hardware market is so large they can make the profit back on the future purchases or where there is a secondary revenue stream (advertising, licensing, etc) where they can make their profit
 
As with all new technology, the market will start with porn and expand from there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top