Half of the guys complaining here run around with their 900$ iPhones in their pockets but go wild when there's something NEW and truly AMAZING wich might seem a little bit overpriced for the time being. Idiots.
That's not really a relevant point, very few people are actually paying 700 to 900 for their cell phones, most of them do contracts with their carriers and pay 100 to 200 out of pocket, or a new popular thing in the US is you pay for the phone over 2.5 years. You're not technically speaking in a contract, but if you leave early you have to pay the difference of the full price of the phone at termination, and you can't even use the phone with the new carrier. On a side note, it really is a racket, and I think if it was more like Europe (one of the few instances where I think Europe has it right) things would be a lot better.
But to your point, yes, there is a significant number of people who need the new hotness as soon as it comes out and will pay for such. That number of people though is not enough to support this fad (or what I believe is a fad). Either way, as with all things, time will tell.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
How do you guys expect games to be developed for the VR with such a price tag. Which developer in their right mind would develop on already fragmented market? The rift, the vive and whatever samsung are pulling have nothing in common they go in pricing in whatever ranges. Do you know how expensive this makes games? Why would any developer stick to more than one VR headset?
Do you know what this brings? This brings game being developed for either the rift or the vive but not both because both platform support different things with different SDKs. And this issue doesn't even hinge on the pricetag.
Add the luxury pricetag(with this pricetag it is a luxury item), and the baseline requirement of a computer that would support the VR and you have just but a fraction of the gamer population actually owning one.
Now piece these both together, and ask yourself, which developer in their right mind would develop for VR?
I saw you guys linking various luxury and exclusive items with high price tag ... snobiety aside, those items are in most cases limited. Yes the companies that make them profit big time BUT thay are not pop culture thing. Whoever brings the VR tech in the 150-200$ range will make every gamer having one, and that would twist the arms of game developers. They'd want to make games for every VR headset under the sun because of the following.
With the current politics ... VR is dead on arrival. *drops the mic*
And for the love of God, consider the fact that those headsets cost as much as a gaming console AND MORE but doesn't have a 10th of the computing power.....infact for 700$ one could get a console and a decent TV on a promotion.
And if you think my opinion is shit, check this vid by an actual game consultants and developers
Half of the guys complaining here run around with their 900$ iPhones in their pockets but go wild when there's something NEW and truly AMAZING wich might seem a little bit overpriced for the time being. Idiots.
That's not really a relevant point, very few people are actually paying 700 to 900 for their cell phones, most of them do contracts with their carriers and pay 100 to 200 out of pocket, or a new popular thing in the US is you pay for the phone over 2.5 years. You're not technically speaking in a contract, but if you leave early you have to pay the difference of the full price of the phone at termination, and you can't even use the phone with the new carrier. On a side note, it really is a racket, and I think if it was more like Europe (one of the few instances where I think Europe has it right) things would be a lot better.
But to your point, yes, there is a significant number of people who need the new hotness as soon as it comes out and will pay for such. That number of people though is not enough to support this fad (or what I believe is a fad). Either way, as with all things, time will tell.
WHAT???????????????????????
Oculus is to expensive and not like a phone because you cant take out a loan? what?!
credit card?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
How do you guys expect games to be developed for the VR with such a price tag.
1. The Division requires a $1000 PC to play. Does that make The Division a $1060 game? 2. There are currently 176 games you can play now with 100 plan this year for the Oculus Rift. Some of the more interesting ones are Eve: Valkyrie, ADR1FT, Minecraft and its looking like very likely Guitar Hero. 3. That is more games planned in a year than the entire AAA market.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Half of the guys complaining here run around with their 900$ iPhones in their pockets but go wild when there's something NEW and truly AMAZING wich might seem a little bit overpriced for the time being. Idiots.
That's not really a relevant point, very few people are actually paying 700 to 900 for their cell phones, most of them do contracts with their carriers and pay 100 to 200 out of pocket, or a new popular thing in the US is you pay for the phone over 2.5 years. You're not technically speaking in a contract, but if you leave early you have to pay the difference of the full price of the phone at termination, and you can't even use the phone with the new carrier. On a side note, it really is a racket, and I think if it was more like Europe (one of the few instances where I think Europe has it right) things would be a lot better.
But to your point, yes, there is a significant number of people who need the new hotness as soon as it comes out and will pay for such. That number of people though is not enough to support this fad (or what I believe is a fad). Either way, as with all things, time will tell.
Some PCs have similar payment options available; at work a top-end Dell tower was advertised at $45/month. It looked like it had a processor better than an i7... 8gb RAM... I wonder if it could run Rift.
As far as the margin included in the price tag of Rift or Vive, no one really knows for sure that isn't a Valve, Oculus, or FB employee, and probably only certain execs at that. I see nothing wrong here; that's literally how every other for-profit company operates in a modern economy, including the manufacturers of the devices you are using to write messages in this thread.
I'll reiterate that I find the prices very fair considering what a professional VR HMD would run in the decade past. Look it up. This is something I have researched and pondered for years. Guardedly, I find recent trends in VR nothing short of miraculous, and very encouraging.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
How do you guys expect games to be developed for the VR with such a price tag.
1. The Division requires a $1000 PC to play. Does that make The Division a $1060 game? 2. There are currently 176 games you can play now with 100 plan this year for the Oculus Rift. Some of the more interesting ones are Eve: Valkyrie, ADR1FT, Minecraft and its looking like very likely Guitar Hero. 3. That is more games planned in a year than the entire AAA market.
1. That analogy is so faulty I'm actually wondering if i should even consider answering it. You can play the division perfectly fine on a 350$ xbox/ps4 (or less) one no? Among few hundred of other games. Plus if you drop 1000$ on a PC now, it will carry you for the next minimum 3 years. Even more so if you decide that 1080p is the perfect resolution for you or 1440p. Unlike the next generation of VR which will probably completely invalidate the older gen. Or will make the old headset bug out with new games. And with your maths, a VR Division would cost percisely 1760$
2. I wonder if you read more than my first sentence in my post. Great, i'm a dev and develop for the 50 guys who have oculus rift. What about the 30 guys with HTC Vive and the 20 guys with the Samsung VR? We leave them to the gutter? But someone just paid 700$ for the vive .... he'll send out a major middle finger to my organization. Most of those 100s of games on the Steam platform are by bankrupt indie studios, as the video says.
3. Watch the video. We are still struggling to get DirectX 12 games and the specs are out since an year. And answer yourself.
FFS...most gamers don't even purchase gaming mice. Tell these people that 700$ for a peripheral is going to be freaking okay. That VR headset is good for nothing else. At least you can do something else on a 600$ smartphone/tablet
How do you guys expect games to be developed for the VR with such a price tag.
1. The Division requires a $1000 PC to play. Does that make The Division a $1060 game? 2. There are currently 176 games you can play now with 100 plan this year for the Oculus Rift. Some of the more interesting ones are Eve: Valkyrie, ADR1FT, Minecraft and its looking like very likely Guitar Hero. 3. That is more games planned in a year than the entire AAA market.
1. That analogy is so faulty I'm actually wondering if i should even consider answering it. You can play the division perfectly fine on a 350$ xbox/ps4 (or less) one no? Among few hundred of other games. Plus if you drop 1000$ on a PC now, it will carry you for the next minimum 3 years. Even more so if you decide that 1080p is the perfect resolution for you or 1440p. Unlike the next generation of VR which will probably completely invalidate the older gen. Or will make the old headset bug out with new games. And with your maths, a VR Division would cost percisely 1760$
2. I wonder if you read more than my first sentence in my post. Great, i'm a dev and develop for the 50 guys who have oculus rift. What about the 30 guys with HTC Vive and the 20 guys with the Samsung VR? We leave them to the gutter? But someone just paid 700$ for the vive .... he'll send out a major middle finger to my organization. Most of those 100s of games on the Steam platform are by bankrupt indie studios, as the video says.
3. Watch the video. We are still struggling to get DirectX 12 games and the specs are out since an year. And answer yourself.
FFS...most gamers don't even purchase gaming mice. Tell these people that 700$ for a peripheral is going to be freaking okay. That VR headset is good for nothing else. At least you can do something else on a 600$ smartphone/tablet
let me basically resay it
1. Although you didnt bring it up the entire 'cost of the PC' has GOT to go. the cost of the PC required to run Oculus in 12 months is going to be 1/2 the cost it is now and in addition its extremely common for new games to push the upper limits of PC requirements, nobody should basically change the rules of the universe just because its an Oculus attached to the PC and not a game.
2. BOTTOM IMMUTABLE LINE: There are more games plan next year for the Oculus then the entire AAA market and some of those AAA games are on the list of Oculus titles. Developers are drueling to make games for this device. peroid...end..of..story
3. There are about 9x times more games planned for the Oculus rift next year then the average AAA titles released in a year. if there is a problem with developers being interested in a platform I think you are looking at the wrong device.
4. Everything I have said above also applies to the HTC Vive when it comes to cost. The device is what? $100 more. If all the above is possible with a $699 device why would $799 be a price point in which all above is not possible?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I'm not sure if the people comparing VR to other tech are playing dumb or are dumb.
I read a piece on Ars about VR and they said when the DVD player was introduced it was $1000, and I've seen this argument using various other things, like mobile phones, TV's, mp3 players, clothing. VR is not like any of those. Not even close.
The DVD player was just a home electronic. Movies were going to continue being made regardless of whether or not people bought DVD players. Music was going to be made regardless of mp3 players, same for television shows, and the fact that people were going to continue trying to communicate with or without mobile phones. And luxury items that happen to be expensive don't exist in a vacuum, it's not like we're all hanging out buck naked because we can't afford Balenciaga.
VR on the other hand requires special software applications that are built for and only for VR, otherwise there is no point to VR. This is why mass adoption WILL matter for the long-term success of VR. No dev studio will put in the effort and money to develop for a small audience. Windows phone is a more apt analogy. Small user base deters development which becomes a vicious cycle as people opt for other OS' which have the apps they want.
VR software will not continue to be developed regardless of whether or not VR exists. That's the primary (and critical) difference between VR headsets and other expensive tech. Smartphones didn't start with snapchat, they started with applications that people already used and that they were going to continue to use - SMS/MMS, scheduling tools, note pads, email. Smartphones didn't do anything particularly new besides converge technologies and make them fit into your pocket, the silly apps didn't show up until after there was a market. VR is standalone. It does VR and that all it does, while things can be adapted into VR, there's no incentive to do so unless there are enough people to support the effort/cost.
This is why the price is creating controversy, because people do want VR, but the barrier to entry is too high and by the time that barrier reaches an "acceptable" level it may be too late to gain traction. All these tech sites that are pushing VR as being "so great" are blowing my mind. First you need a PC capable of running VR and then you need the headset itself, and then you need to wait and hope for something you actually want to play. And this is all before you even begin to consider the physicality of using the device for many hours at a time on a regular basis, which is another major barrier for the general consumer. No, not the looking silly part, but the finding time to shut yourself out of the world and the weight of a device on your face for X number of hours.
It takes some real blinders to ignore all the hurdles of VR while facing a $600-$700 price tag and saying, "nah this is legit."
By the way, this thread's title is misleading, and frankly illustrates a bit of bias. Rift is priced at $599, not $699.
If you are paying $699 for a VR headset, someone is being gipped $100; it even mentions Rift's price in the linked-to article, so perhaps the thread title was a reference to Vive's expected price, unless I'm missing something?
Post edited by Phaserlight on
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
I'm not sure if the people comparing VR to other tech are playing dumb or are dumb.
I read a piece on Ars about VR and they said when the DVD player was introduced it was $1000, and I've seen this argument using various other things, like mobile phones, TV's, mp3 players, clothing. VR is not like any of those. Not even close.
The DVD player was just a home electronic. Movies were going to continue being made regardless of whether or not people bought DVD players. Music was going to be made regardless of mp3 players, same for television shows, and the fact that people were going to continue trying to communicate with or without mobile phones. And luxury items that happen to be expensive don't exist in a vacuum, it's not like we're all hanging out buck naked because we can't afford Balenciaga.
VR on the other hand requires special software applications that are built for and only for VR, otherwise there is no point to VR. This is why mass adoption WILL matter for the long-term success of VR. No dev studio will put in the effort and money to develop for a small audience. Windows phone is a more apt analogy. Small user base deters development which becomes a vicious cycle as people opt for other OS' which have the apps they want.
VR software will not continue to be developed regardless of whether or not VR exists. That's the primary (and critical) difference between VR headsets and other expensive tech. Smartphones didn't start with snapchat, they started with applications that people already used and that they were going to continue to use - SMS/MMS, scheduling tools, note pads, email. Smartphones didn't do anything particularly new besides converge technologies and make them fit into your pocket, the silly apps didn't show up until after there was a market. VR is standalone. It does VR and that all it does, while things can be adapted into VR, there's no incentive to do so unless there are enough people to support the effort/cost.
This is why the price is creating controversy, because people do want VR, but the barrier to entry is too high and by the time that barrier reaches an "acceptable" level it may be too late to gain traction. All these tech sites that are pushing VR as being "so great" are blowing my mind. First you need a PC capable of running VR and then you need the headset itself, and then you need to wait and hope for something you actually want to play. And this is all before you even begin to consider the physicality of using the device for many hours at a time on a regular basis, which is another major barrier for the general consumer. No, not the looking silly part, but the finding time to shut yourself out of the world and the weight of a device on your face for X number of hours.
It takes some real blinders to ignore all the hurdles of VR while facing a $600-$700 price tag and saying, "nah this is legit."
that is the most insane logic I have ever heard.
you dont think the first DVD players had any 'specialized software' or specialized use? really? seriously?
Listen.
I like a lot of people went out and spent hundreds of dollars every 6 months or so just to buy a modem to get on something that wasnt even the internet yet. we bought VCR players before there was really stores like Blockbuster. we bought a new computer ever 1 1/2 years because of a new game that our PC could not play back in the 80s.
For those who grew up during the early days of the home PC revolution there is nothing whatsoever shocking about this oculus approach
oh and the next person that compares a mouse to a VR headset I am going to have to slap.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
These prices could only be dreamed up by executives driving Ferrari's to work.
Hey man, I can afford to drop $799 on a pair of shoes, so these things should cost about what a pair of shoes cost, right? Am I right?
Lol, not exactly the same thing. I can afford $799 (even if Im not sure if it's worth it in this case but I think I will give it a try at my local computer store) for something, I paid twice that price for my PC. I certainly can't afford a Ferrari, not even an old one in crappy shape no matter how long time I save money.
It certainly is expenesive at the moment but so is most new technology, remember what a plasma TV cost when they launched?
If VR becomes popular the price will drop an lot in a few years. And the number of games using it will be hugely increased so waiting is probably a good idea anyways unless you really want one or feel that you have way too much money.
Not sure why anyone is shocked, it's new tech, but do find it funny many where jumping up and down at the Ocules prices saying, other VR prices will be cheaper.
Anyway, the same thing was said about mobiles, "Never catch on" "look at the size", "Look at the price" ($3000+), blah blah and now where in a age people can't put it down and willing to fork over 1000s for tiny changes or updates. Once people discover the many other uses of a product, it does fine, and this will be the case with VR, if you think outside the box of games, this product has so many other uses.
Unless it goes super viral like the iPhone back in 2007, it will fail, like before. I know most of you are hyped about it because that's your boyhood dream, but with that pricetag it's never going to happen. If I have to get up and go to an "VR cafe" to be able to use this tech, then it is full of shit. At least on a computer you could send an e-mail and stuff back then. Or ICQ with friends.
Make no mistake, this thing has 0 computing power beyond reading bunch of motion sensors at a high frequency.
If VR headsets were advanced enough to twist frames themselves and make them fit in the goggles, this price would have been justified. The way it is currently making your computer pull double duty makes it appear very cheap and gimmicky. And it is.
@Herase , what your video shows is a perfect example of AUGMENTED REALITY. The thing that Microsoft is doing with HoloLens.
In my opinion, VR companies should follow Playstation, Microsoft, and Nintendo and sell their system for much cheaper and lose money on it. the industry calls that a "loss leader" they would make their money on the backend selling licensing the way those three companies do it. Each game company pays the VR companies a percentage of the sale of each video game. I would totally buy a VR headset for $199 if I knew some big game companies had signed on.
You can get all this for what that set costs .. Plastic, 2 lenses, and a small IC board .. When you tell me that 699,- is a valid price I claim you are not telling the truth ..
you dont think the first DVD players had any 'specialized software' or specialized use? really? seriously?
Listen.
I like a lot of people went out and spent hundreds of dollars every 6 months or so just to buy a modem to get on something that wasnt even the internet yet. we bought VCR players before there was really stores like Blockbuster. we bought a new computer ever 1 1/2 years because of a new game that our PC could not play back in the 80s.
For those who grew up during the early days of the home PC revolution there is nothing whatsoever shocking about this oculus approach
oh and the next person that compares a mouse to a VR headset I am going to have to slap.
Of course it sounds insane to you, it's non-virtual reality.
DVD players were for playing movies, it doesn't matter what software they had built in or what other uses they had. The movie industry existed before, during and after DVD's heyday. A device that does something with products that already exist and are very popular is going to be fine.
Modems and the internet follow the same mobile phone model. People have, and always will seek to communicate and expand their capacity to do so. The internet is just a medium for doing so.
VR does one thing and an entire industry has to develop around it. It's a chicken v egg scenario. VR needs software to appeal to people and software needs people to buy it or it won't be made. I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm saying that's what needs to happen for VR to stick around. You're the one with the magic 8-ball over there acting like it's a sure thing and it's just like all these other successful things (which it's not).
In any case, this is my last post about VR, I don't actually care that much about the potential future of a tech peripheral.
you dont think the first DVD players had any 'specialized software' or specialized use? really? seriously?
Listen.
I like a lot of people went out and spent hundreds of dollars every 6 months or so just to buy a modem to get on something that wasnt even the internet yet. we bought VCR players before there was really stores like Blockbuster. we bought a new computer ever 1 1/2 years because of a new game that our PC could not play back in the 80s.
For those who grew up during the early days of the home PC revolution there is nothing whatsoever shocking about this oculus approach
oh and the next person that compares a mouse to a VR headset I am going to have to slap.
Of course it sounds insane to you, it's non-virtual reality.
DVD players were for playing movies, it doesn't matter what software they had built in or what other uses they had. The movie industry existed before, during and after DVD's heyday. A device that does something with products that already exist and are very popular is going to be fine.
Modems and the internet follow the same mobile phone model. People have, and always will seek to communicate and expand their capacity to do so. The internet is just a medium for doing so.
VR does one thing and an entire industry has to develop around it. It's a chicken v egg scenario. VR needs software to appeal to people and software needs people to buy it or it won't be made. I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm saying that's what needs to happen for VR to stick around. You're the one with the magic 8-ball over there acting like it's a sure thing and it's just like all these other successful things (which it's not).
In any case, this is my last post about VR, I don't actually care that much about the potential future of a tech peripheral.
I am willing to bet you that there are more games for the Oculus now then there was movies for VHS players the first year they came out.
176 games before the thing is even released...Oculus. your arugements are weak. basically with every example I throw at you, you just basically say 'people want to use a mouse more than a VR headset' 'people want to communicate more on a BBS then they do VR' 'people want to wipe the A more than they want to use an Oculus'
ok I get it you think VR is not that impressive but thus far its sold out THREE TIMES so we shall just have to wait and see
oh and by the way I bet you will knock this one down too.
We got Cable TV when there was literally only one station and it was only 4 hours a day. HBO
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
In addition to above I think what you ARE admitting is that people DO buy expensive new technologies before they have been tested.
You just think a mouse is more compelling then VR which is a subjective arguement.
In the meantime I have found memories of the family turning on HBO (our ONLY cable channel) for the 4 hours in the evening it was on because we wanted to see new approaches to content that has never been seen before (music videos)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
You can get all this for what that set costs .. Plastic, 2 lenses, and a small IC board .. When you tell me that 699,- is a valid price I claim you are not telling the truth ..
No one should be arguing that 699 is a valid price, because it's not; that's not a current price for either Rift or Vive. Rift is $599, not $699.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
You can get all this for what that set costs .. Plastic, 2 lenses, and a small IC board .. When you tell me that 699,- is a valid price I claim you are not telling the truth ..
You can get all this for what that set costs .. Plastic, 2 lenses, and a small IC board .. When you tell me that 699,- is a valid price I claim you are not telling the truth ..
No one should be arguing that 699 is a valid price, because it's not; that's not a current price for either Rift or Vive. Rift is $599, not $699.
Yes my mistake .. it's 799$,- .. that does not make it any better though .. I paid 741€ for my Oculus .. The price is completely ridiculous..
I am having a hard time following what you are saying. I THINK you are saying $799 is to much for HTC VIVE I am just not aure what the price you paid for Oculus has to do with that statement
regardless, HTC VIVE has a good amount of extra hardware that the Oculus does not have. I would assume it would be more. $100 or $200 more? I dont know because unlike some here I dont know what the SPECFIC hardware is or how much said hardware SPECIFICALLLY costs to make...lasers.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
You can get all this for what that set costs .. Plastic, 2 lenses, and a small IC board .. When you tell me that 699,- is a valid price I claim you are not telling the truth ..
No one should be arguing that 699 is a valid price, because it's not; that's not a current price for either Rift or Vive. Rift is $599, not $699.
Yes my mistake .. it's 799$,- .. that does not make it any better though .. I paid 741€ for my Oculus .. The price is completely ridiculous..
I am having a hard time following what you are saying. I THINK you are saying $799 is to much for HTC VIVE I am just not aure what the price you paid for Oculus has to do with that statement
regardless, HTC VIVE has a good amount of extra hardware that the Oculus does not have. I would assume it would be more. $100 or $200 more? I dont know because unlike some here I dont know what the SPECFIC hardware is or how much said hardware SPECIFICALLLY costs to make...lasers.
They clearly want us to cough up for development ..
Sucker prices for early adopters to help pay working out the bugs in first generation models.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Comments
That's not really a relevant point, very few people are actually paying 700 to 900 for their cell phones, most of them do contracts with their carriers and pay 100 to 200 out of pocket, or a new popular thing in the US is you pay for the phone over 2.5 years. You're not technically speaking in a contract, but if you leave early you have to pay the difference of the full price of the phone at termination, and you can't even use the phone with the new carrier. On a side note, it really is a racket, and I think if it was more like Europe (one of the few instances where I think Europe has it right) things would be a lot better.
But to your point, yes, there is a significant number of people who need the new hotness as soon as it comes out and will pay for such. That number of people though is not enough to support this fad (or what I believe is a fad). Either way, as with all things, time will tell.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Do you know what this brings? This brings game being developed for either the rift or the vive but not both because both platform support different things with different SDKs. And this issue doesn't even hinge on the pricetag.
Add the luxury pricetag(with this pricetag it is a luxury item), and the baseline requirement of a computer that would support the VR and you have just but a fraction of the gamer population actually owning one.
Now piece these both together, and ask yourself, which developer in their right mind would develop for VR?
I saw you guys linking various luxury and exclusive items with high price tag ... snobiety aside, those items are in most cases limited. Yes the companies that make them profit big time BUT thay are not pop culture thing. Whoever brings the VR tech in the 150-200$ range will make every gamer having one, and that would twist the arms of game developers. They'd want to make games for every VR headset under the sun because of the following.
With the current politics ... VR is dead on arrival. *drops the mic*
And for the love of God, consider the fact that those headsets cost as much as a gaming console AND MORE but doesn't have a 10th of the computing power.....infact for 700$ one could get a console and a decent TV on a promotion.
And if you think my opinion is shit, check this vid
Oculus is to expensive and not like a phone because you cant take out a loan?
what?!
credit card?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
1. The Division requires a $1000 PC to play. Does that make The Division a $1060 game?
2. There are currently 176 games you can play now with 100 plan this year for the Oculus Rift. Some of the more interesting ones are Eve: Valkyrie, ADR1FT, Minecraft and its looking like very likely Guitar Hero.
3. That is more games planned in a year than the entire AAA market.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
MAGA
As far as the margin included in the price tag of Rift or Vive, no one really knows for sure that isn't a Valve, Oculus, or FB employee, and probably only certain execs at that. I see nothing wrong here; that's literally how every other for-profit company operates in a modern economy, including the manufacturers of the devices you are using to write messages in this thread.
I'll reiterate that I find the prices very fair considering what a professional VR HMD would run in the decade past. Look it up. This is something I have researched and pondered for years. Guardedly, I find recent trends in VR nothing short of miraculous, and very encouraging.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
2. I wonder if you read more than my first sentence in my post. Great, i'm a dev and develop for the 50 guys who have oculus rift. What about the 30 guys with HTC Vive and the 20 guys with the Samsung VR? We leave them to the gutter? But someone just paid 700$ for the vive .... he'll send out a major middle finger to my organization. Most of those 100s of games on the Steam platform are by bankrupt indie studios, as the video says.
3. Watch the video. We are still struggling to get DirectX 12 games and the specs are out since an year. And answer yourself.
FFS...most gamers don't even purchase gaming mice. Tell these people that 700$ for a peripheral is going to be freaking okay. That VR headset is good for nothing else. At least you can do something else on a 600$ smartphone/tablet
1. Although you didnt bring it up the entire 'cost of the PC' has GOT to go. the cost of the PC required to run Oculus in 12 months is going to be 1/2 the cost it is now and in addition its extremely common for new games to push the upper limits of PC requirements, nobody should basically change the rules of the universe just because its an Oculus attached to the PC and not a game.
2. BOTTOM IMMUTABLE LINE: There are more games plan next year for the Oculus then the entire AAA market and some of those AAA games are on the list of Oculus titles. Developers are drueling to make games for this device. peroid...end..of..story
3. There are about 9x times more games planned for the Oculus rift next year then the average AAA titles released in a year. if there is a problem with developers being interested in a platform I think you are looking at the wrong device.
4. Everything I have said above also applies to the HTC Vive when it comes to cost. The device is what? $100 more. If all the above is possible with a $699 device why would $799 be a price point in which all above is not possible?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I read a piece on Ars about VR and they said when the DVD player was introduced it was $1000, and I've seen this argument using various other things, like mobile phones, TV's, mp3 players, clothing. VR is not like any of those. Not even close.
The DVD player was just a home electronic. Movies were going to continue being made regardless of whether or not people bought DVD players. Music was going to be made regardless of mp3 players, same for television shows, and the fact that people were going to continue trying to communicate with or without mobile phones. And luxury items that happen to be expensive don't exist in a vacuum, it's not like we're all hanging out buck naked because we can't afford Balenciaga.
VR on the other hand requires special software applications that are built for and only for VR, otherwise there is no point to VR. This is why mass adoption WILL matter for the long-term success of VR. No dev studio will put in the effort and money to develop for a small audience. Windows phone is a more apt analogy. Small user base deters development which becomes a vicious cycle as people opt for other OS' which have the apps they want.
VR software will not continue to be developed regardless of whether or not VR exists. That's the primary (and critical) difference between VR headsets and other expensive tech. Smartphones didn't start with snapchat, they started with applications that people already used and that they were going to continue to use - SMS/MMS, scheduling tools, note pads, email. Smartphones didn't do anything particularly new besides converge technologies and make them fit into your pocket, the silly apps didn't show up until after there was a market. VR is standalone. It does VR and that all it does, while things can be adapted into VR, there's no incentive to do so unless there are enough people to support the effort/cost.
This is why the price is creating controversy, because people do want VR, but the barrier to entry is too high and by the time that barrier reaches an "acceptable" level it may be too late to gain traction. All these tech sites that are pushing VR as being "so great" are blowing my mind. First you need a PC capable of running VR and then you need the headset itself, and then you need to wait and hope for something you actually want to play. And this is all before you even begin to consider the physicality of using the device for many hours at a time on a regular basis, which is another major barrier for the general consumer. No, not the looking silly part, but the finding time to shut yourself out of the world and the weight of a device on your face for X number of hours.
It takes some real blinders to ignore all the hurdles of VR while facing a $600-$700 price tag and saying, "nah this is legit."
If you are paying $699 for a VR headset, someone is being gipped $100; it even mentions Rift's price in the linked-to article, so perhaps the thread title was a reference to Vive's expected price, unless I'm missing something?
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
you dont think the first DVD players had any 'specialized software' or specialized use? really? seriously?
Listen.
I like a lot of people went out and spent hundreds of dollars every 6 months or so just to buy a modem to get on something that wasnt even the internet yet.
we bought VCR players before there was really stores like Blockbuster.
we bought a new computer ever 1 1/2 years because of a new game that our PC could not play back in the 80s.
For those who grew up during the early days of the home PC revolution there is nothing whatsoever shocking about this oculus approach
oh and the next person that compares a mouse to a VR headset I am going to have to slap.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It certainly is expenesive at the moment but so is most new technology, remember what a plasma TV cost when they launched?
If VR becomes popular the price will drop an lot in a few years. And the number of games using it will be hugely increased so waiting is probably a good idea anyways unless you really want one or feel that you have way too much money.
Anyway, the same thing was said about mobiles, "Never catch on"
"look at the size", "Look at the price" ($3000+), blah blah and now where in a age people can't put it down and willing to fork over 1000s for tiny changes or updates. Once people discover the many other uses of a product, it does fine, and this will be the case with VR, if you think outside the box of games, this product has so many other uses.
Example:
http://www.vrs.org.uk/virtual-reality-applications/
Make no mistake, this thing has 0 computing power beyond reading bunch of motion sensors at a high frequency.
If VR headsets were advanced enough to twist frames themselves and make them fit in the goggles, this price would have been justified. The way it is currently making your computer pull double duty makes it appear very cheap and gimmicky. And it is.
@Herase , what your video shows is a perfect example of AUGMENTED REALITY. The thing that Microsoft is doing with HoloLens.
In my opinion, VR companies should follow Playstation, Microsoft, and Nintendo and sell their system for much cheaper and lose money on it. the industry calls that a "loss leader" they would make their money on the backend selling licensing the way those three companies do it. Each game company pays the VR companies a percentage of the sale of each video game. I would totally buy a VR headset for $199 if I knew some big game companies had signed on.
You can get all this for what that set costs .. Plastic, 2 lenses, and a small IC board .. When you tell me that 699,- is a valid price I claim you are not telling the truth ..
DVD players were for playing movies, it doesn't matter what software they had built in or what other uses they had. The movie industry existed before, during and after DVD's heyday. A device that does something with products that already exist and are very popular is going to be fine.
Modems and the internet follow the same mobile phone model. People have, and always will seek to communicate and expand their capacity to do so. The internet is just a medium for doing so.
VR does one thing and an entire industry has to develop around it. It's a chicken v egg scenario. VR needs software to appeal to people and software needs people to buy it or it won't be made. I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm saying that's what needs to happen for VR to stick around. You're the one with the magic 8-ball over there acting like it's a sure thing and it's just like all these other successful things (which it's not).
In any case, this is my last post about VR, I don't actually care that much about the potential future of a tech peripheral.
176 games before the thing is even released...Oculus.
your arugements are weak. basically with every example I throw at you, you just basically say 'people want to use a mouse more than a VR headset' 'people want to communicate more on a BBS then they do VR' 'people want to wipe the A more than they want to use an Oculus'
ok I get it you think VR is not that impressive but thus far its sold out THREE TIMES so we shall just have to wait and see
oh and by the way I bet you will knock this one down too.
We got Cable TV when there was literally only one station and it was only 4 hours a day. HBO
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You just think a mouse is more compelling then VR which is a subjective arguement.
In the meantime I have found memories of the family turning on HBO (our ONLY cable channel) for the 4 hours in the evening it was on because we wanted to see new approaches to content that has never been seen before (music videos)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
No one should be arguing that 699 is a valid price, because it's not; that's not a current price for either Rift or Vive. Rift is $599, not $699.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_p_n_feature_four_bro_0?fst=as%3Aoff&rh=n%3A172282%2Cn%3A!493964%2Cn%3A541966%2Cn%3A565108%2Cp_72%3A1248880011%2Cp_36%3A2421889011%2Cp_n_size_browse-bin%3A7817234011%2Cp_n_feature_four_browse-bin%3A2289792011&bbn=565108&suppress-ve=1&ie=UTF8&qid=1456327654&rnid=676578011
It is crazy ...
regardless, HTC VIVE has a good amount of extra hardware that the Oculus does not have. I would assume it would be more. $100 or $200 more? I dont know because unlike some here I dont know what the SPECFIC hardware is or how much said hardware SPECIFICALLLY costs to make...lasers.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey