HTC Vive Will Cost $799, Ships Early April

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
If you thought the Oculus Rift was expensive, HTC has just revealed that their headset will cost $200 more. The higher cost, however, may be justified because it actually comes with two unique controllers, not just an Xbox one.

The consumer version of the Vive includes pretty much everything we saw from the Vive Pre back at CES, with the addition of a more ergonomic headstrap design and other tweaks to make it fit more people. HTC also announced a new feature called Vive Phone Services, which lets you send and receive calls, text messages and check on your calendar without taking off the VR headset. There's also a front-facing camera that makes you aware of objects in front of you, and the Vive's wireless controllers have also been improved from last year with dual-stage triggers.
 
Nauseous said:
not getting my money any time soon, just too expensive for me.
Click to expand...

Early adopter pricing on first gen. It's something that happens in tech. Peasants will have to wait a few years. I look at it like I skipped the $800 Gsync and curved UWD displays to wait for this.

That said, this thing gets my money, since it ships with the superior tracking tech, whereas Rift is still trying to figure out how to do motion controls and won't have it ready for their launch (and when it is available it'll be an additional purchase).
 
Kinda wondering why the controllers are being forced as a pack-in instead of lowering the entry fee and selling the controllers separately.

Inb4 these two releases go the way of 3DO and Neo-Geo because of their insane prices...
 
We call called it when they called BS on the $800 price tag haha The price seems about right to me. Anyone that thinks these prices are high don't understand what they are getting or how much stuff cost in the real world. A new iPhone cost you as much as these devices, only difference is that the cell phone carriers come up with ways to trick you into thinking you aren't paying that much. Instead of paying us $700 for your new phone pay us $35 a month and every two years you can upgrade to the latest phone for free. The difference between this and the Oculus Rift is that you need to have lighthouses that you place around the room to help with the tracking of the player and the setting of boundaries. So there is more equipment that is needed which means a higher price point.

Xinmosni said:
Kinda wondering why the controllers are being forced as a pack-in instead of lowering the entry fee and selling the controllers separately.

Inb4 these two releases go the way of 3DO and Neo-Geo because of their insane prices...
Click to expand...

Because you need them to configure and play the thing. Why do cars come with seats, stearing wheels and tires when they could just lower the price and make you buy them all as add-ons?
 
Raudulfr said:
iPhone 6S Plus

MSRP: $750
Cost of materials & manufacturing: $236

I don't know what you were trying to prove with that comparison but, uh, yeah...
Click to expand...

Exactly what you posted there, that the MSRP of the phone is $750. The MSRP of phones can run you $600 - $800 and we all accept that because you aren't actually paying that much out of pocket. The problem with your numbers there are they are ignoring a lot of other things that go into the cost of the phone. Research and development which they need to recover, licensing fees for some technology. In the case of something like this here of a new product you also need to add in cost of time they paid employees before they started to sell anything that they are going to want to try to recover now, cost of new buildings and manufacturing plants and everything else is needed to start up these new products. Higher cost of research and development for a new product vs changes to an existing product... there is much more cost that go into something that just the physical pieces that you put together. Your link there ignores software completely which I guess they assume that software is free to develop. So I would consider that link's data slightly off in how realistic the cost of the actual phone are. Might only increase the cost $30 in the case of the iPhone but that is still something. In this case you have a lot of software that had to be designed for everything here from the ground up so that would be a lot more than updating the OS slightly. First gen always cost more as you have a lot more cost going into the project to design it than you do first gen.
 
This is so tempting, between this and a new notebook it's a really hard choice with this price.
 
Exavior said:
Because you need them to configure and play the thing. Why do cars come with seats, stearing wheels and tires when they could just lower the price and make you buy them all as add-ons?
Click to expand...

you don't need a special controller to use a headset like that for a fps or other sim.
 
I think I'm just going to keep my march deliver for oculus. Vive looks tempting, but numerous reviews have said it's not as comfortable as the oculus. The big sell of the Vive over oculus is room scale. I like the idea and I have the extra square footage to set it up. However the first generation is going to be pretty poorly done. I also don't like the idea of having to build some huge cable management system danging from my ceiling so I don't trip. I would actually prefer a setup with some kind of omnidirectional treadmill or similar to at least contain myself.

Hopefully they get all the kinks of the "standup experience" figured out in the next year or so. Then I'll pickup the vive or maybe oculus will just upgrade their capabilities along side the touch controllers. Initially I'm most interested in seated/cockpit experiences. Flight and driving sims, etc.

Worst case, Vive comes out and is way better than the oculus, then I'll just trade up. I think that scenario is highly unlikely though.
 
Waiting to see how software support will work itself out first before buying in VR. It's great fun and all, but no hurry.
 
No HF3 from valve no sale. I will look into buying one when game play of HF3 is shown. FF7 Remake is coming to PC so I may makes a decision then. at these prices only the gaming I want will do.
 
Raudulfr said:
iPhone 6S Plus

MSRP: $750
Cost of materials & manufacturing: $236

I don't know what you were trying to achieve with that comparison but, uh, yeah...
Click to expand...


BOM for a device is just a portion of the cost. See Spendy but indispensable: Breaking down the full $650 cost of the iPhone 5 to explain further specific to an iphone. These VR headsets would incur much higher per device costs outside the costs of just the components and manufacturing. Apple has a very efficient and mature pipeline. Not to mention they sell 50-100M of each phone. So the non material costs get reduced significantly per unit. I expect the VR headsets are probably in the neighborhood of 400 for the rift and probably 5-600 for the vive. Sure there is some profit baked into each but these companies aren't making these devices for the "greater good". It's to make money.
 
OK, so where are the games?...buying an $800 piece of hardware with nothing but tech demos or maybe 1 game seems like a bad investment...by the time more games come out there will most likely be a new/better revision of the hardware
 
First gen home VR tech was always going to be expensive and will probably be replaced in a year or two. That's what you get when you want to get in early. I'm not that excited about VR, I'll have to be pulled in kicking and screaming. If someone can build and experience I find that captivating, then I'll get the hardware.
 
I was thinking it would be $749, so I guess this doesn't surprise me at all. Looks like I'll be waiting for the Gen 2 stuff before I make the leap. Oh well, it's probably the smart choice, anyway.
 
Seeing how everyone is going to wait for the second gen or price drop, vr is mostly going to be DOA right out the gate.
 
polonyc2 said:
OK, so where are the games?...buying an $800 piece of hardware with nothing but tech demos or maybe 1 game seems like a bad investment...by the time more games come out there will most likely be a new/better revision of the hardware
Click to expand...

DCS World

And you get two aircraft to test it with for free. 6 degrees of freedom. You can move your head, lean forward, lean sideways and it will all function as if you're in the cockpit. Has been in for years with Track IR, but VR just straps the screen to your face if you're into that. Not too sure about the Vive, but it does support the Rift.
 
Wildace said:
you don't need a special controller to use a headset like that for a fps or other sim.
Click to expand...

I might be wrong as I don't own one of these, but I am pretty sure I heard you need the controller to calibrate the room. as you move the controller up and down to set the floor and ceiling inside your 3d box. So even if you are wasting money on device to not use any of the actual features of the device, you would still need the controller to calibrate the device from the start.

lostinseganet said:
No HF3 from valve no sale. I will look into buying one when game play of HF3 is shown. FF7 Remake is coming to PC so I may makes a decision then. at these prices only the gaming I want will do.
Click to expand...

So never then.

yourgrandma said:
Seeing how everyone is going to wait for the second gen or price drop, vr is mostly going to be DOA right out the gate.
Click to expand...

You might want to change that to everyone here who doesn't really seem to actually care about gaming itself. For people who play games to have fun and that is what they look forward to, they are going to buy these. People are buying these now. Some people are just going to bitch about things costing money and will refuse to buy them no matter what generation until they are given them free. If you are fine buying a $1000+ 4K tv for games to run at 4K then you should be fine with buying a $600 - $800 display such as this also as long as you have games that you want to play using it.
 
I'm going to wait a couple of months, after the Vive and the Oculus are in consumers hands to decide which one to buy. I want the Vive, but I'm disappointed with the bundled games. With Valve involved, I expected the Portal VR demo at the very least!!!!!!
 
I'm waiting for a while to see how things turn out. With two major players, one could get pushed out fairly quickly. Lack of support, exclusive titles, one could be superior to the other etc.Too much unknown to plop down $600-$800 on these devices.
 
$800 was my guess, taking into account the controllers and tracking sensors, so I'll happily pre-order at that price.

Wildace said:
you don't need a special controller to use a headset like that for a fps or other sim.
Click to expand...

That's arguable in the case of FPSes, because kb/m has nothing on actually aiming down the barrel of a gun that you're holding in your hand. At least if you're interested in immersion rather than pure competitive advantage, but for the latter you won't want a headset in the first place.
And if you're serious about sims you'll absolutely need a "special controller", just not the ones bundled with the Vive. In any case it's a tiny subset of the possible applications, many of which will benefit from tracked controllers.

I expect there'll be more options to buy specific bits and pieces later on. There might even be a version with the Star Citizen logo printed on it, just for you.
 
BeavermanA said:
I'm waiting for a while to see how things turn out. With two major players, one could get pushed out fairly quickly. Lack of support, exclusive titles, one could be superior to the other etc.Too much unknown to plop down $600-$800 on these devices.
Click to expand...

HD-DVD vs Blu-ray all over again...the better tech lost out in that war, hopefully the same won't happen again with VR
 
Sigh, so instead of going for a console like market approach (IE price it to an affordable price that the average working class can afford to splurge on it) , where they make up money on the backend with accessories/games, they are going for a Laserdisc approach of aiming for enthusiast and hoping that enough of them buy it, g'luck with that.

I was realy hoping VR would take off this time. When I tried it way back in the 80's I thought this could be amazing but it just never took off, and now I fear that this go around will just be more of the same, a flash in tihe pan that people talk about at release but priced such that the mainstream never adopts it.
 
Xinmosni said:
Kinda wondering why the controllers are being forced as a pack-in instead of lowering the entry fee and selling the controllers separately.
Click to expand...

Because HTC and Valve understand input is integral to the experience.
 
Stiler said:
Sigh, so instead of going for a console like market approach (IE price it to an affordable price that the average working class can afford to splurge on it) , where they make up money on the backend with accessories/games, they are going for a Laserdisc approach of aiming for enthusiast and hoping that enough of them buy it, g'luck with that.

I was realy hoping VR would take off this time. When I tried it way back in the 80's I thought this could be amazing but it just never took off, and now I fear that this go around will just be more of the same, a flash in tihe pan that people talk about at release but priced such that the mainstream never adopts it.
Click to expand...

when was the last new technology that came out right out of the gate with affordable 'mainstream' pricing?...it never happens- 4K TV's, OLED, Blu-ray players etc all were crazy expensive at launch...after a few years prices always drop to where the 'mainstream' can buy but never immediately
 
polonyc2 said:
HD-DVD vs Blu-ray all over again...the better tech lost out in that war, hopefully the same won't happen again with VR
Click to expand...

Yeah. I'm excited for VR, but waiting out this war until a winner emerges because of that past experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rahh
like this
In for one.

I worry about having enough quality games or content, but I guess there's always media (porn?) to make it worthwhile.
 
polonyc2 said:
OK, so where are the games?...buying an $800 piece of hardware with nothing but tech demos or maybe 1 game seems like a bad investment...by the time more games come out there will most likely be a new/better revision of the hardware
Click to expand...

This should be enough to get people started, though this software adds another $50 to the price:

Supported Games - vorpX - VR 3D-Driver for Oculus Rift

Nvidia also mentioned the "auto-stereo" feature that should make a lot more games compatible, though they've been quiet on that for a long time:

NVIDIA Brings VR To Regular Games With Auto Stereo Feature

That surely won't be as good as a game natively designed for VR, but I'm sure you could still get a lot of wow factor if it was done right.
 
polonyc2 said:
when was the last new technology that came out right out of the gate with affordable 'mainstream' pricing?...it never happens- 4K TV's, OLED, Blu-ray players etc all were crazy expensive at launch...after a few years prices always drop to where the 'mainstream' can buy but never immediately
Click to expand...

iCVSboA.png


Look at where the major systems are at. The NES, SNES, Genesis, etc. Look at the really expensive ones, Neo Geo, 3D0, etc. Price can play a huge role if something ends up sticking around or is just a fad that never gets the traction it needs to stick around.

For a video game system you NEED "mainstream" appeal because you aren't depending simply on selling your system, you are depending on selling GAMES. What do you need to sell games? You need a user-base, not a small user-base, but a LARGE user base. Developers will NOT want to develop games for a VR system if there is no profit in it. Without games people will lose interest in the platform since it's both expensive and has no real big games coming out on it.

VR already has a HUGE hurdle to get over because this isn't its first party, in the 80's/ 90's it already tried (and failed) and people today still remember that. So having VR trying yet again but with a huge price tag is really not going to help it at all.

We need at least one of the big VR players to make an AFFORDABLE entry-point into VR to at least give the average consumer a chance to get their foot in the door.

That's why so many consoles will take a loss on the system, because they understand that getting a huge user-base is , in the long run, more important than making a profit on the system itself and you can make up the loss on the back with games and accessories.
 
Exavior said:
Why do cars come with seats, stearing wheels and tires when they could just lower the price and make you buy them all as add-ons?
Click to expand...

That's actually a really good question. Would you not prefer it if cars were a little more modular and upgradeable? I know I would.
 
GaryJohnson said:
That's actually a really good question. Would you not prefer it if cars were a little more modular and upgradeable? I know I would.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you're driving, but all of my cars have been pretty modular and upgradeable. Those components Exavior listed do all come off, how much more modularity do you want?
 
Yakk said:
Waiting to see how software support will work itself out first before buying in VR. It's great fun and all, but no hurry.
Click to expand...
Google werks


GaryJohnson said:
That's actually a really good question. Would you not prefer it if cars were a little more modular and upgradeable? I know I would.
Click to expand...
It's probably got something to do with mass consumer appeal (how many people would actually buy a car with just a drivers seat and you gotta buy all the extra seats) and/or DoT regulations.
 
Stiler said:
Look at where the major systems are at. The NES, SNES, Genesis, etc. Look at the really expensive ones, Neo Geo, 3D0, etc. Price can play a huge role if something ends up sticking around or is just a fad that never gets the traction it needs to stick around.

For a video game system you NEED "mainstream" appeal because you aren't depending simply on selling your system, you are depending on selling GAMES. What do you need to sell games? You need a user-base, not a small user-base, but a LARGE user base. Developers will NOT want to develop games for a VR system if there is no profit in it. Without games people will lose interest in the platform since it's both expensive and has no real big games coming out on it.
Click to expand...

the difference is that games do not 'need' VR to sell or be successful...sort of like what 3D was...3D Blu-ray's were not something that needed to sell well out of the gate because regular 2D ones were already out...eventually they bundled them together to create more value/appeal...maybe VR is headed down a similar road
 
polonyc2 said:
the difference is that games do not 'need' VR to sell or be successful...sort of like what 3D was...3D Blu-ray's were not something that needed to sell well out of the gate because regular 2D ones were already out...eventually they bundled them together to create more value/appeal...maybe VR is headed down a similar road
Click to expand...

Eh, I don't think 3D or 3D bluray especially is a fair comparison. 3D TVs are much more expensive than either of the major VR HMDs and the existing content for 3D is pretty limited and content producers aren't really pushing for the transition. Blu-ray is a dying format because of digital content delivery....I can't recall the last movie or game I bought in physical media. While that's anecdotal, the cord cutting movement and proliferation of streaming services backs up my experience.

I DO agree that VR has some hurdles to overcome, especially with your point that games don't need VR to be successful. I think Oculus is doing things right though by creating an ecosystem, giving anybody interested in programming for the Rift the ability to get their hands on a devkit, and setting clear guidelines for hardware requirements. As a consumer with potential interest in the Rift, I can test my current computer to see if it can handle VR, go through approved vendors to get a computer that's certified for VR, read years worth of information on the devkits which aren't TOO much different from the CV besides improved hardware. The Vive on the other hand just seems to be another competitor with not a whole lot of information out there yet.
 
Stiler said:
Look at where the major systems are at. The NES, SNES, Genesis, etc. Look at the really expensive ones, Neo Geo, 3D0, etc. Price can play a huge role if something ends up sticking around or is just a fad that never gets the traction it needs to stick around.

For a video game system you NEED "mainstream" appeal because you aren't depending simply on selling your system, you are depending on selling GAMES. What do you need to sell games? You need a user-base, not a small user-base, but a LARGE user base. Developers will NOT want to develop games for a VR system if there is no profit in it. Without games people will lose interest in the platform since it's both expensive and has no real big games coming out on it.

VR already has a HUGE hurdle to get over because this isn't its first party, in the 80's/ 90's it already tried (and failed) and people today still remember that. So having VR trying yet again but with a huge price tag is really not going to help it at all.

We need at least one of the big VR players to make an AFFORDABLE entry-point into VR to at least give the average consumer a chance to get their foot in the door.

That's why so many consoles will take a loss on the system, because they understand that getting a huge user-base is , in the long run, more important than making a profit on the system itself and you can make up the loss on the back with games and accessories.
Click to expand...
VR isn't a game console, it's a peripheral that changes how things are done in a way nothing else can. A fairer comparison would be 3D accelerators. 3D Labs had them for gamers in 1995 for $350 (about $540 in today's dollars), and they required a substantial PC, and technical knowhow how to install it and get it working with your software. Yet, somehow, 3D graphics still caught on over time. VR is likely to go down a similar path.

I do agree many developers probably won't want to develop for VR exclusively, however for games it's applicable (racing, slower paced FPS's, etc.), I imagine it will be worth the extra sales to spend a day or two adding VR as an option. Kind of like driving wheel or multi-monitor support. A lot of people won't use it, but the additional market it adds makes the relatively low time it takes to add it.
 
I'll glady buy something like this in a year or two, and even then all I really want it for is something like Battlefield4, or GTA5, or porn.
 
Way to much to be an early adopter. Not with the potential risks of motion sickness and whatnot. I'm not saying it's an unreasonable price for what is included, but it makes for a steep gamble. Someone needs to find a way to let the masses demo these things. I can't imagine demo kiosks in Wal-Mart to be a viable option... but something has to be figured out if anyone wants hardware this expensive to take off.
 
Viper87227 said:
Way to much to be an early adopter. Not with the potential risks of motion sickness and whatnot. I'm not saying it's an unreasonable price for what is included, but it makes for a steep gamble. Someone needs to find a way to let the masses demo these things. I can't imagine demo kiosks in Wal-Mart to be a viable option... but something has to be figured out if anyone wants hardware this expensive to take off.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised if GameStop has demo setups. In any case it doesnt need "the masses" to take off. Guaranteed they'll remain sold out for a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top