Oculis Rift preorders are up Jan.6th

Discussion in 'VR & Head-Mounted Displays' started by Comixbooks, Jan 5, 2016.

  1. Pringle

    Pringle 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,505
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    $600? Seriously?

    So essentially, if you want to experience proper VR with this thing, you'll need a $300 graphics card, plus a $600 accessory?

    Strictly coming from someone who has a dinky graphics card, there's no chance in hell I would shell out almost a grand just for the VR experience. Which is sad, because the majority of PC owners are in the same boat and I really had hopes this would be successful.

    But for $600? That's a big nope from me.

    Edited to add: I'm completely aware that 90% of the forum users actually have more than the required equipment to run VR properly. This is strictly from a casual hardware user.
     
  2. Yakk

    Yakk [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,810
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    Similar price point to higher end video card(s) needed to power the VR kit makes sense to me.
     
  3. Dawill

    Dawill Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    397
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Vive isn't going to be cheaper. I'll put money on that. They have always been targeting the premium market. The original dk1 and dk2 were $3-350 but they didn't have a controller at all, as refined of materials, dual screens, camera, headphones, etc.

    While I think $600 is a little steep, this is first generation. I'm curious if they can even meet demand at the $600 price point. Lower it and they definitely wouldn't be able to. I know it sucks for people with a tighter budget, but oculus doesn't really owe it to anybody to meet a specific price point. I'm sure they did an analysis on how many they can make and how many they can sell at different price points (supply and demand) and they found the $600 was the best point.
     
  4. USMCGrunt

    USMCGrunt 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,113
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    I'd have to agree this is well over Lucky's initial desires to stick to a $350 price point. Here's hoping it's well worth a near doubling of the cost. To be honest though, I don't need a giant fancy base for the IR sensor...I'm already trying to work out how I am going to set this up as I have no space on my desk for it, my "monitor" is mounted about 4 inches above the top of my desk. I also don't NEED the controller, though I understand the purpose of the bundling. I'm curious what the cost would be if it were just the HMD with no headphones, fancy sensor stand, games, remote control and xbox controller...and what appears to be a fancy storage case.
     
  5. Stiler

    Stiler [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,538
    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Well on twitter/forums it certainly isn't getting mainstream appeal.

    Leading up to this Palmer said time and time again that they were aiming for 300 for the consumer release.

    We already had VR in the past and it never gained mainstream acceptance and created a stigma of entry.

    The main thing they needed to do was attract the mainstream with ithis thing, without good wide adoption it will be dead in the water.

    The fact that not only do you need a good "beefy" pc to use it but now that it cost 600 on top of that? Yeah they aren't going to get that.

    Mark my words, if the Vive/Playstation VR are at this price range VR isn't going anywhere, it'll just end up a niche again.

    Did they learn nothing from the ps3 launch?

    There's a reason that Ms/Sony/nintendo take a hit ont he consoles and make their profits through software and such, a large install base ensures both the console maker makes money and devs support it.
     
  6. schizrade

    schizrade [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,744
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2003
    ooph... ill wait. Not worth $600 to me.
     
  7. Slava

    Slava 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,316
    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    I am disappointed that it is so expensive. Wont be buying until 2nd revision or later this year. Also, their compatibility application says that pc is not oculus ready because of my cpu.. I just laughed!!!
     
  8. Dawill

    Dawill Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    397
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Going by the same logic I guess the 980ti, titan-x are failures as well? They cost as much if not more and are just for gaming. They aren't even revolutionary products like VR.

    I think the problem is you have a bunch of nerd rage from teenagers and underemployed adults that got all excited for VR, but didn't realize the price for entry was going to be steep.

    This is first generation. Don't compare it to ps3. PS3 has expectations of 10's of millions of units on launch. I highly doubt oculus expects that kind of saturation. I think they will sell a few million @ $600 though. There are plenty of geeky engineers like myself that spend way more than that on other hobbies and haven't been this excited about gaming in years if not decades.

    The complainers are very vocal, but us well employed adults are just like "oh well" and pre-ordering away.
     
  9. HockeyJon

    HockeyJon [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,092
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2014
    Who cares if Facebook owns it....?
     
  10. SeymourGore

    SeymourGore 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,753
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2008
    Yar, really surprised by the pricing. It doesn't really appear to be an 'aggressive' price point to penetrate the market. And if it is, I'd hate to see what a non-aggressive price point would be.

    Personally, I believe VR's best chance of success lies with the Playstation VR (due to that platform's market penetration).

    I guess it's nice to see headsets that are far more advanced (and cheaper) than the early VR models (with their large dedicated base stations and domes).
     
  11. Comixbooks

    Comixbooks Ignore Me

    Messages:
    13,671
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Either this thing is going to be the future........
    I don't think people will be selling and scalping these things at that price.
    But I could be wrong.....
    Hell it could end up like Nintendos Virtual Boy

    Obviously it will become outdated with time no way to update the internal hardware specs unlike a PC.
     
  12. KickAssCop

    KickAssCop [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,576
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    At 600 it better come with a hooker and blow.
    Given how many other similar techs are coming out this year I will wait for a version 2 to indulge.
     
  13. Uvaman2

    Uvaman2 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,124
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    I agree the vive probably wont be cheaper., but it seems to have certain features that are better on paper. The camera would be very important to me I need to be aware of my children even if for a short moment here and there. https://mobile.twitter.com/RoboticS...6?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
     
  14. piscian18

    piscian18 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,021
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    For me the games come first. I've yet to see a game that would justify owning one of these things.
     
  15. USMCGrunt

    USMCGrunt 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,113
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    It's just a display with motion sensors basically. The only way for it to become outdated is newer models with higher resolutions/pixel densities and more accurate or broader sensor capabilities (body part sensing/integration for example).
     
  16. John721

    John721 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,623
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2006
    That doesn't sound too bad. A smidge more taxing than 1080p and less so than the 2560x1080 I currently run.

    Though I did raise an eyebrow at the 3x USB3 + 1 USB2 port requirement. That's a lot of ports! I'd have to shuffle things around on the back of my PC and move less frequently used devices to a USB3 hub. A cheap enough fix, though.
     
  17. Stiler

    Stiler [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,538
    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002

    Video cards have been around a LONG time and are already mainstream, the top of the line video cards are always expensive.

    The rift is NEW tech that has virtually zero consumer install base.

    They have to create demand and get mainstream appeal if they want the rift to be around for years and years to come.

    You are out of your mind if you think 600 bucks is "throw away" money that normal average people will just haphazardly throw at VR, especially without a large amount of games or huge titles backing it.

    There's a reason ps4 wasn't 599 like the ps3, and the ps3 had a price drop so quickly while they were getting creamed by 360 at it's cheaper price.

    There's also a reason to this day that most console makers still take a hit on the console sales instead of pricing them at a profit.
     
  18. ir0nw0lf

    ir0nw0lf [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,319
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    *golf clap* The level of nerd rage on the internet is already over 9000 and growing. Rightfully so, this ludicrous price really turned off a lot of potential buyers and made this even more of a niche product. The sub-$400 range seemed much more palatable.
     
  19. ashmelev75

    ashmelev75 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,538
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2007
    Why people are surprised by $600 initial price?
    Oculus is not a charity, I'm sure the'll manage to sell out the initial production run at that price to people who really want the new toy. After that the price will go down to ($550, 500, 450, 400, 350, etc.) until they eventually milk out the money from the rest of the population interested in VR gadget.

    That's marketing 101.
     
  20. USMCGrunt

    USMCGrunt 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,113
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Because Palmer Lucky has been preaching from nearly day one of wanting to bring affordable VR to the masses near the $350 price point. While he has recently backed away from that, he's never specifically given a higher price range, only said that quality parts cost money.
     
  21. schizrade

    schizrade [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,744
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2003
    Pretty much this right here.

    Ill wait, its not like I have to have it anyway. Ill probably pick one up used after they drop when some impulse buyer has to hock it for 4-450 to pay rent or something.
     
  22. RazorWind

    RazorWind 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,284
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2001
    $600 isn't that far off of a good G-Sync monitor, though, which you wouldn't need if you're using this instead. Also, it saves you from the need to have a big meaty SLI setup, so in that regard, it's still cheaper, or at least a wash. The price is pretty rich for my blood, but doesn't seem entirely unreasonable.

    The real trouble is that, as you say, adoption just isn't going to be widespread enough at that price point to make it more than a niche thing. I bet support for it will be less robust than it is for SLI, once the novelty wears off in a year or two.
     
  23. DPI

    DPI Nitpick Police

    Messages:
    10,960
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2013
    Wait, first gen early adopter pricing is higher than budget gamers hoped? YA DONT SAY

    meanwhile they're already sold out. and will continue to sell out every time a new batch is available.
     
  24. LeviathanZERO

    LeviathanZERO [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,496
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Exactly.
    I expect Vive to be that or $700, but that was always expected. Palmer gave the first word on a higher price 2 weeks ago, after he had spent all last year talking about affordable, 350$ range.

    This backlash, they did it to themselves.
     
  25. Dawill

    Dawill Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    397
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Providing a good experience for first generation is more important than price point. It can be a "niche" product out the gate. Look at the original iphone. Took over 2 months to sell 1 million. Now it sells over 10x that before release just on pre-orders.

    I'm sure a lot of people who can't afford one will still know somebody who has one and they can give it a whirl. Or possibly demo it at a store. Given a good experience they will be more likely to buy the 2nd generation. Which I would expect to have same price point with more features (maybe higher resolution) then have a cheaper version which is same/close as first generation.

    If they cut corners to provide a product at the original 3-400 price point and the experience suffered, well I don't think there would be as many people around for the 2nd generation. While you guys are right, they don't have a lot of attempts to get this right, I think we disagree on what is most important on first generation. I think it's experience and price comes much later.

    Hopefully for 2nd generation they add eye tracking and foveated rendering support. I suspect you could get by with a lot less powerful gpu for the same resolution and offer a much higher resolution screen for us willing to invest in more powerful hardware.
     
  26. polonyc2

    polonyc2 [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    16,836
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    all first gen products are pretty much prototype niche products...OLED's suffered from the same fate and now are pretty close to being affordable to the masses plus have worked out most of the issues that plagued them early on...2nd gen should not take that long to be released if all goes well
     
  27. Uvaman2

    Uvaman2 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,124
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Well we don't know the tear down costs... So the 600 price might be a ripoff.. If it has a lot of off the shelf parts, its probably cheap to make.
     
  28. USMCGrunt

    USMCGrunt 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,113
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    While this may be a 1st gen consumer release, they've had 3 previous generations out to "developers" for 2-3 years now; DK1, DK2, and Crystal Cove. All of which have been available to the public for purchase for around the $350 price point. In addition, they've been bought by Facebook, partnered with Samsung (assumedly to allow for a cheaper purchase of Samsung screens), and partnered with Microsoft (also assumedly for a cheaper purchase of Xbox controllers).

    Cost, ergonomics, and custom parts costs are all issues that I'm sure have been hammered out.
     
  29. polonyc2

    polonyc2 [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    16,836
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    I'm still more tempted to get the 1st gen PS4 VR set but again it depends on pricing, what games launch with support and overall reviews...I'd rather wait to upgrade my GTX 970 to Pascal and wait for 2nd gen Oculus/Vive
     
  30. Shmee

    Shmee [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,148
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2014
    So I need about $1000 to get in with Oculus Rift since I would need to update my graphics card? I think I will wait. I am interested, but I have other uses for $1000 dollars. Maybe I will get a new graphics card this year and a headset next year when the price drops a little and I can see which headset is winning, Vive or Oculus.
     
  31. kbrickley

    kbrickley [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,514
    Joined:
    May 13, 2012
    They are simply returning to the more traditional early adopter model ... DVD succeeded with players in the $300-1000 range at launch ... so the the launch price isn't the gate if you are going for the early adopter model instead of mass consumption at launch

    Consoles can sell at a loss because they level heavy licensing fees for the software developers to use their system ... if Oculis is following that model and requiring licensing fees to develop games and software then they can sell at more of a loss ... if they are going for more of an open platform without those fees then their hardware can't be sold at a loss

    Realistically I think VR, in some form, is the future of Computer User Interface so they are probably going with a low risk approach using the Early Adopter approach for this instead of the higher risk loss leader while competing technologies like 4K are still in play
     
  32. polonyc2

    polonyc2 [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    16,836
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    HD-DVD vs Blu-ray- Round 2
     
  33. USMCGrunt

    USMCGrunt 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,113
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    VHS vs BetaMax Round 3
     
  34. Derangel

    Derangel [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    17,769
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Crystal Cove was only shown at trade shows. They never sold it.
     
  35. Shmee

    Shmee [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,148
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2014
    Exactly! I don't need to throw $600 plus tax and shipping at something only to have all the games developed for another platform. My hope is that the dev tools out there make it pretty easy to port between them all so people aren't throwing their money away.
     
  36. brentsg

    brentsg [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,693
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Ugh, I stayed on the sidelines all this time through the dev kits and was excited for this. I can afford to do it, but I'll wait it out. I can't see enough content to justify a buy at that price.
     
  37. RanceJustice

    RanceJustice [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,003
    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Even with such a high price Rift could have been a "must purchase" for me if I felt I was funding a VR evolution by a company I believed in. Unfortunately, this is not the case thanks to Oculus's decisions leading up to launch.

    On an ethical side, they split off from Valve when they could have had a partnership - this would have easily eliminated creating their major competitor had they not done so and I'd guess that some of my other objections would not be present were they independent or owned by Valve. Being bought out and developing under the mantle of Facebook has been a continuous point of contention for me, ethically. Its likely that the Rift's TOS will enable all sorts of data to be scanned, mined, stored, shared and added to the library that Facebook collects through its social network and other media. This poses a further privacy implication from the start and this is to say nothing for what sort of developments may evolve in the VR space. If by some miracle Oculus somehow doesn't store/only collects what information it needs to provide service, it would still be benefiting Facebook financially to support their subsidiary and I'd like not to do that especially if there are comparable technological alternatives. Lastly, watching the development of the Rift I've seen some troubling decisions which lead into my technical objections...

    On the technical side, one of the first objectionable decisions Oculus under Facebook did was to restrict its more open, multi-platform stance down to a proprietary one. In its early dev kit iteration, Rift was to be supported on Linux and OSX in addition to Windows, but soon after Facebook took hold these other two platforms were all buit forgotten with all future SDK developments. This has continued to date where the consumer version of the Rift requires Windows 7 or higher exclusively; there isn't even any "other OSes coming soon after launch. " Likewise, their software/SDK has become more proprietary as well. This is frustrating as Linux is my preferred OS and I typically like to support open (source) software and hardware for a number of reasons. Regarding hardware, I've also noticed that the Rift, even with its consumer version, doesn't seem to have the best hardware compared to other VR tech, which would have helped to justify such a considerable price. Conversely, it seems that HTC VIVE and SteamVR /OpenVR has done a much better job. For instance, HTC and Valve in partnership have always extolled the virtues of supporting Linux, Mac, and mobile platforms in addition to Windows. Much of this support is open source as well, not just creating the SteamVR A and releasing it FOSS, but also OpenVR itself! This ensures not only that non-VIVE headsets if hardware compatible can play SteamVR titles via the API, but also allows all compliant headsets to work without Steam at all, making the OpenVR project a central location for compatible VR development that isn't encumbered by any particular hardware or software! Furthermore, the latest dev-kit VIVE Pre seems to have considerably more power and features than Rift's consumer version if I am understanding. For instance, its HMD is more advance graphically with higher resolution/refresh rate/image quality displays, but it also has an outward facing camera as well as better IR tracking and many sensors. Aside from the HMD, it has a comprehensive room-wide multi node tracking and scanning system as opposed to the single desk-mounted one the Rift uses. As far as controllers are concerned, the Rift has delayed their VR specific controller which is anticipated to cost another $100 or more and instead ships with a XboxOne controller. The VIVE Pre though still a devkit is using its own pair of 3D controllers and these may be further refined by launch.

    Overall it seems that HTC/Valve have a better product on the docket but we don't know if this will come with an even higher price of entry. Still it may be worthwhile if it provides a better experience than Oculus while supporting more worthy development strategies. Oculus seems poised to try to make it to market first, bank on name recognition and push forward making themselves a de-facto standard. I was a bit more worried of this undesirable happening before I saw the price. Hopefully studios and users alike will wait and watch, refusing to put all their eggs in one basket.

    However, it is important to note that these prices, even if they sell out during the pre-order phase, may not be meaningful in the grand scheme of things to make VR more than a curiosity. High prices and hardware requirements will defer wide adoption and if there is too much market fragmentation where you have to have Headset X to play Game Y, VR may not break into the mainstream this generation. It is still worthwhile to realize there are other technologies yet in development that may add to what seems to a two-sided fight. For instance, if Magic Leap can deliver on their implementation (and hopefully do so via open development) it may change the whole dynamic as it does not rely on a HMD instead projecting VR/AR in a more natural way to one's eyes to the point VR worlds and AR objects look very much the same as those in the physical world.

    While VR/AR are exciting, this generation with HMDs are far away from full-dive, immersion VR that many picture - the ability to bring either complete bodily presence and sense into a virtual world or something close enough that we feel we're really there not just viewing it on a pair of screen strapped to our eyes This VR of fiction, from Snow Crash, Ready Player One, and Sword Art Online will still require a decade of research or more. Frankly, we need to know more about how the brain works as well as fine safe ways to interact with it in order to allow players to lay down on their real world bed with their "VR login device" yet experience walking naturally within the virtual world. However, as someone passionate about virtual worlds I can only hope that we are taking a nascent step forward. Ultimately the way we progress is as important as doing so which is why I am wary of Oculus; these technologies should be openly accessible and used with respect for real-world privacy, not as simply another venue for unscrupulous businesses to surreptitiously exploit the user for maximum profit in the hopes they won't realize the "trick" because of the new medium. Lets see how things reveal themselves...
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2016
  38. polonyc2

    polonyc2 [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    16,836
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    yup...I actually bought an HD-DVD player back in the day because I believed that it offered the best features and specs (even today I think HD-DVD should have won)...it even had the backing of some major Hollywood studios...but at the end of the day Blu-ray won...so just goes to show that the best technology doesn't always win
     
  39. ochadd

    ochadd Gawd

    Messages:
    894
    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    I tried ordering for hours off and on to find the ship date is May. I thought it would be fun to be an early adopter but now I'm just going to wait for the controllers and see how it all shakes out :(
     
  40. USMCGrunt

    USMCGrunt 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,113
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    WAY more than a decade. As you said, there are still a lot of biological functions that we have yet to figure out, let alone commercialize and build into a safe consumer device. For instance (I'm a huge fan of the SAO anime), paralysis of the body without drugs and being able to do it repeatedly without negative effects (other than the obvious downsides of a body being still for long periods of time). I think we will be lucky to see it in our lifetimes, or at the very least, it will be rudimentarily functional in a lab in 40-50 years.

    Another angle is approached in the movie Surrogates (with Bruce Willis). Given the ability to fully immerse our bodies in a virtual environment and take neural input and translate it into in-game movement, why not just use a robotic avatar that isn't limited by your own physical ability to experience reality. Robotics are making great strides everywhere and you have militaries developing the technology as well.