Oculus Rift available for preorder for $599.99, shipping in March


Recommended Posts

The cost doesn't need justified in the sense that it is expensive tech and worth what it sells for. It's about how justifiable the end user feels putting out that kind of money on a fledgling experience.

 

I don't see the point in comparing VR to phones/other gadgets/PC parts, etc. Many people who can afford it may simply wage that the first adopter risk isn't worth it at the current entry price. Smartphones are pricey but we use them daily 365 days a year so the brain can justify the expense for the use we get out of them. Same goes for integral and expensive PC components like graphics cards. All games need it on your PC, not just one type/one experience (which VR caters for ~ it's a unique experience that requires unique titles).

 

Not everyone will feel that for VR till it matures in development, and when that starts to happen prices will be lower anyway.

Here's an interesting quote:

Quote

Luckey: Gamers are not known to be the most affluent population of people. If something’s even $600, it doesn’t matter how good it is, how great of an experience it is — if they just can’t afford it, then it really might as well not exist. We’re going for the mainstream, but time will tell what the market is.

That's from an interview with All Things D in 2013.

  • Like 1

People make mistakes all the time. This mistake is gonna cost the though...

i would rathet spend $600 on new monitor, video card or other important stuff.the new tech is not worth my $600 us. I will wait the wearable 3d to become mainstream (if)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 hours ago, E.worm Jimmy said:

People make mistakes all the time. This mistake is gonna cost the though...

i would rathet spend $600 on new monitor, video card or other important stuff.the new tech is not worth my $600 us. I will wait the wearable 3d to become mainstream (if)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You make it sound life or death. LOL What is it going to cost people besides $600?
I am not downplaying the value of money, it took me over 24 hours to decide to get it because of the price, but everything I have read points to this is the next phase of gaming. The one and only thing I can see getting in the way is if I am somehow sensitive to it. If I am, I sell it on eBay for a $100 loss and be done with it.
If I am not sensitive and I get to enjoy it, I will get to check out Virtual F**cking Reality. This has been a dream of mine since I first saw The Lawnmower man when I was 17 in 1992.

1 hour ago, DirtyLarry said:

You make it sound life or death. LOL What is it going to cost people besides $600?
I am not downplaying the value of money, it took me over 24 hours to decide to get it because of the price, but everything I have read points to this is the next phase of gaming. The one and only thing I can see getting in the way is if I am somehow sensitive to it. If I am, I sell it on eBay for a $100 loss and be done with it.
If I am not sensitive and I get to enjoy it, I will get to check out Virtual F**cking Reality. This has been a dream of mine since I first saw The Lawnmower man when I was 17 in 1992.

fair enough.  i was just pointing out that the higher entry price vs similar (though inferior) tech might have an effect on the speed of adoption and eventual market share.

3 minutes ago, E.worm Jimmy said:

fair enough.  i was just pointing out that the higher entry price vs similar (though inferior) tech might have an effect on the speed of adoption and eventual market share.

Ohhh, was your first line referring to Oculus and not consumers? The "people make mistakes all the time. This mistake is going to cost them though?" I thought you were referring to consumers, that is why I opened like I did. If you are talking about Oculus themselves, it makes a lot more sense.
I still do not really agree though. It is new consumer tech. New tech is expensive. The PS3 when it first released was also $600 iirc. It hurt them initially, but once the price dropped and it was more reasonable for everyone else, they wound up being okay after several years. I think it could be the same thing here. Honestly I am not sure price is going to be the deciding factor on if VR is successful or not, I think whether it is a big enough shift in how we experience games that everyone needs it is more important. And only time will tell there. Support by developers is going to be one of the biggest deciding factors. You can have all of the technology in the world, if developers do not make media for it, it will eventually fail.
I have very high hopes for VR myself. I hope they wind up panning out, but will not be completely surprised if they do not.

2 hours ago, DirtyLarry said:

You make it sound life or death. LOL What is it going to cost people besides $600?
I am not downplaying the value of money, it took me over 24 hours to decide to get it because of the price, but everything I have read points to this is the next phase of gaming. The one and only thing I can see getting in the way is if I am somehow sensitive to it. If I am, I sell it on eBay for a $100 loss and be done with it.
If I am not sensitive and I get to enjoy it, I will get to check out Virtual F**cking Reality. This has been a dream of mine since I first saw The Lawnmower man when I was 17 in 1992.

The issue is it was repeatedly pitched as a "mainstream" device.  The people who keep saying what did you expect from new tech must not have been paying much attention to what Palmer Luckey has been saying up until the price was announced.  He's repeatedly talked about how the Rift was going to be a "mainstream" device.  He stated that the commercial version would be similar in price to the DK2, I don't think people would have blinked about a jump from $350 to $400 but $600 is a HUGE jump. He used $600 specifically as an example of an absurd price that "might as well not exist".

 

If he had sold from the get go as an enthusiast device there wouldn't be an issue.  "Mainstream" gamers don't spend $600 on GPUs and your GPU is used by just about every game you play not just a specific subset.  He made people believe he was going to bring VR "to the masses" and then he releases a product that's clearly targeting only high end gaming enthusiasts.  Even people with expensive gaming rigs are surprised the headset costs so much based off of his prior comments.  Many of them, while willing to spend more than that on GPUs, Monitors, etc. don't want to invest that much on something that may well flop and die as a fad.  Especially when they were led to believe it would cost about half what it does.

  • Like 1
7 minutes ago, Asmodai said:

The issue is it was repeatedly pitched as a "mainstream" device.  The people who keep saying what did you expect from new tech must not have been paying much attention to what Palmer Luckey has been saying up until the price was announced.  He's repeatedly talked about how the Rift was going to be a "mainstream" device.  He stated that the commercial version would be similar in price to the DK2, I don't think people would have blinked about a jump from $350 to $400 but $600 is a HUGE jump. He used $600 specifically as an example of an absurd price that "might as well not exist".

 

If he had sold from the get go as an enthusiast device there wouldn't be an issue.  "Mainstream" gamers don't spend $600 on GPUs and your GPU is used by just about every game you play not just a specific subset.  He made people believe he was going to bring VR "to the masses" and then he releases a product that's clearly targeting only high end gaming enthusiasts.  Even people with expensive gaming rigs are surprised the headset costs so much based off of his prior comments.  Many of them, while willing to spend more than that on GPUs, Monitors, etc. don't want to invest that much on something that may well flop and die as a fad.  Especially when they were led to believe it would cost about half what it does.


EXACTLY :)

 




 

 

Amazon Canada accidentally leaked a price for the PlayStation VR and it's not good.  The price they listed before pulling it was $1,125.35 CAD which is about $800 USD.

The price has since been pulled and Sony has come out to say: “This was an error by Amazon, we haven’t announced price for PlayStation VR.”

 

If this turns out to be true though then I can't see how VR is going to be anything but a tiny fringe this year or this console generation.  I hope it's just flat out wrong or maybe it's the price of a bundle that includes the actual PS4 ($350) + PlayStation Camera ($60) + VR Headset ($400)... maybe even PlayStation Move controllers and/or game(s) as well.

 

It's not looking good for VR this year right now though that's for sure.

 

Source

  • Like 1
3 hours ago, Asmodai said:

The issue is it was repeatedly pitched as a "mainstream" device.  The people who keep saying what did you expect from new tech must not have been paying much attention to what Palmer Luckey has been saying up until the price was announced.  He's repeatedly talked about how the Rift was going to be a "mainstream" device.  He stated that the commercial version would be similar in price to the DK2, I don't think people would have blinked about a jump from $350 to $400 but $600 is a HUGE jump. He used $600 specifically as an example of an absurd price that "might as well not exist".

 

If he had sold from the get go as an enthusiast device there wouldn't be an issue.  "Mainstream" gamers don't spend $600 on GPUs and your GPU is used by just about every game you play not just a specific subset.  He made people believe he was going to bring VR "to the masses" and then he releases a product that's clearly targeting only high end gaming enthusiasts.  Even people with expensive gaming rigs are surprised the headset costs so much based off of his prior comments.  Many of them, while willing to spend more than that on GPUs, Monitors, etc. don't want to invest that much on something that may well flop and die as a fad.  Especially when they were led to believe it would cost about half what it does.

Your right. I have not paid any attention at all to what he was saying. I knew it was introduced via a Kickstarter campaign a couple of years back. Now I know it is almost available. I did not follow anything in between. So I guess anyone that did pay attention can be upset. I did not pay attention, so I am not upset. So it comes down to perspective. Mine is different than yours. I was not following, I really do not see the big deal. Since you were following, it is a big deal.

And make no mistake about it, I feel it is expensive, I never said it was not, however I am still going to take the plunge.

I am not wrong. Neither are you. We just have different perspectives.

7 minutes ago, DirtyLarry said:

Your right. I have not paid any attention at all to what he was saying. I knew it was introduced via a Kickstarter campaign a couple of years back. Now I know it is almost available. I did not follow anything in between. So I guess anyone that did pay attention can be upset. I did not pay attention, so I am not upset. So it comes down to perspective. Mine is different than yours. I was not following, I really do not see the big deal. Since you were following, it is a big deal.

And make no mistake about it, I feel it is expensive, I never said it was not, however I am still going to take the plunge.

I am not wrong. Neither are you. We just have different perspectives.

I've been following this from the very beginning.  I came VERY close to backing the initial kickstarter and while I ultimately decided not to I have friends who did.  I've been to events where the hardware was demoed, played with the kits my friends received, etc.

 

Pretty much everyone I know who has been following this from the start were unpleasantly surprised by the price.  That's not because they were naive but because he outright said things like that quote above which states his opinion that a $600 device "might as well not exist".  He didn't just say that or things like it once, or a handful of times but over and over and over to those who were listening.  That was the meat of their entire PR thrust.  So yeah if you were paying attention you're almost certainly upset right now I mean seriously how do you say a $600 device "might as well not exist" and then launch your product at $599.99... Seriously?

 

Now the internet is full of the people who were paying attention and I would say are rightfully upset about the price being told how they shouldn't be by people who haven't been paying attention at all.  How TVs and Monitors and GPUs cost more than that or Thurstmaster HOTAS setups or whatever as if it was entirely unreasonable to expect a price lower than.  Well people didn't expect that because they just picked some low number out of fantasy land, they expected a low number because the developer told us it would be low.  Now this isn't directed at you in particular DirtyLarry, I think your quote above pretty much nails it on the head.  This is a public forum though so anyone can read it and so my intent here is just to inform those who haven't been paying attention why exactly the people who have been are so upset.  If you're personally willing to spend that much that's great, there is nothing wrong with that.  There seem to be a lot of people out there however who don't seem to even be trying to grasp the perspective of those of us who have actually been paying attention all along though.

 

It's also a domino effect.  Prior to that release price there was a HUGE amount of excitement about this being a big year for VR.  If Rift isn't Mainstream like Luckey had claimed and is indeed just "enthusiest" or niche or whatever you want to call it then it isn't going to have a user base large enough to sustain quality developers.  Small user base = small development budgets and so even if you have the money to buy the hardware you're likely not going to get a ton of high quality experiences... instead you're likely to get VR tacked on to older games and R&D/Proof of concept projects which effectively makes the Rift CV1 (CV = Consumer Version) just DK3 (Developers Kit 3).  Again this wouldn't be so bad and would be perfectly understandable for a new tech if he hadn't spend so much effort making people believe they were developing a much cheaper device that would thereby create a much larger user base and attract much higher games budgets.

 

 

28 minutes ago, Asmodai said:

<Snipped>

No I absolutely can see why people who were following it would be upset. I am not happy about the price either, and do realize it is a risk. I say a few posts above developers are going to make or break it ultimately, and if no one owns it, developers will not create for it, so it is definitely a concern I have. FTR there is a slight chance I am going to back out completely and not pick it up at all. Only time will tell that.
I get it though, especially after you explain it.
I am just hoping the paradigm shift is enough to keep it going, but maybe not.
I take risks with technology. Hell, I own a 3DTV and have not used the 3D in over 2 years. Fortunately I am in a position to do so, so I guess you can say on one hand there is ignorance in bliss. On the other hand, I do want it to be successful and realize you need early adopters to make that happen, so I am taking the gamble (probably). Will see if it pays off.

 Wow the pricing speculation has gone nuts on these things.  I hope they're way, way off.

 

First the Rift launches at $599

Then Amazon Canada pulls a listing of PlayStation VR at $800

and the latest news from Taiwan is that the HTC Vive could be as much as $1500.

Source

 

I'm hoping the PlayStation VR and HTC Vive rumors are just plain false but if both do turn out to be true then I can't see how VR is going to be anything major any time soon.  They're not going to get enough sales at those prices to make a market large enough for any serious development efforts to turn a profit.  They'll be relegated to just an extremely tiny niche of hardware enthusiasts and prototype/side-projects for developers.  I've personally used VR and I like the tech but I'm concerned they may very well have priced it right out of the market.  I wasn't sure the general public would have bought in even at say a $400 price point... at these prices it seems to me more likely than ever it will just die as a fad like 3D TV.  Again those last two were just rumors though and I'm really hoping they're WAY, WAY, off.  I don't think Sony has announced when PS VR preorders will start but I guess we'll get the real HTC Vive cost by Feb. 29th when they start taking preorders.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • You've tried DuckDuckGo and Brave Search, now get serious with SearXNG by Paul Hill Over the last decade, it has become quite trendy to dump Google Search in favor of privacy-preserving alternatives such as DuckDuckGo, Startpage, and Brave Search. These search engines have done a very good job at highlighting dodgy practices by Google, such as adjusting search results based on what it thinks you’ll like (filter bubble) and stalking you around the web to advertise to you. While these search engines are good starting points when compared to non-private services like Google, there are still quite a few issues with them. For example, both DuckDuckGo and Brave Search require running non-free JavaScript in your web browser, which is comparable to running proprietary software on your computer, meaning you can be sure about what it’s actually doing in the background. Another issue is that these search engines are hosted on the respective companies’ servers, and you are using a service that you don’t control. Finally, DuckDuckGo, while offering privacy features, relies heavily on Microsoft’s infrastructure for its results and, in the past, has permitted Microsoft tracking scripts. If you are looking for a more private search solution than DuckDuckGo, Brave Search, and Startpage, then I recommend taking a look at SearXNG. It is a privacy-respecting metasearch engine that can be used via different public instances, which is useful for mobile users, or you can install it on your computer or server and run it locally with maximum control. Unlike Google, Bing, or Brave Search, which crawl the web and have their own search indexes, SearXNG is a metasearch engine, meaning it taps other search engines, stripping your identifying data, such as IP address, user agent, and cookies, in the process. Your search query is sent to the other search engines you enable before aggregating the results. SearXNG has deployment flexibility. If you are a casual user or a mobile user and don’t want to run SearXNG locally, you can use a public instance that is hosted by someone else. The main problem with this is that you are putting trust in the maintainer of the instance regarding stuff like logs that they may keep; good hosts should have a privacy policy explaining their policies. If you are trying to use SearXNG, you can also install the software on your device and then head to 127.0.0.1:8080 in your browser and search from there. While you don’t have to worry about a third-party admin like the public instances, search engines could ultimately block your IP address if they frown on you pulling in their search results locally. If you want to run it locally, it’s a good idea to use proxies or VPNs to hide your actual IP. You don’t have to worry about this with a public instance, as search engines never see your IP address. The main privacy benefit of using SearXNG is that it isolates your identity from the underlying engines that it’s capable of searching, such as Google and Bing. These search engines will only see requests coming from a generic server, so they can’t profile you and create a bubble filter that influences what results you see. This also ensures that your search engine doesn’t turn into an echo chamber that prevents you from reading alternative points of view. As a free software project, you are allowed to inspect SearXNG to make sure there are no negative features bundled inside. This sets it apart from the privacy search engines mentioned earlier because you can’t check their source code. As a meta search engine, you are not restricted to getting results from one source. Due to the fact that it scrapes content from other websites, your SearXNG instance will periodically get blocked from different providers, so it’s good to select a range of sources as a backup. While enabling all of the services will give you great results, this can make searching slower. I am personally happy with slower searches for the best results, but you can always check which providers are slowing down your search from the search results page and disable them to speed things up. If you want decent results quickly, enable the main search providers such as Google, Brave, DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Bing, and Yahoo. This way, you get wide coverage without the latency. On the Engines tab in Preferences, do note that there are different tabs, such as General, Images, and Videos, with their own providers that can be toggled and are not covered by "Enable all" while on the General tab, so be sure to dig into each. Just a note, if you want to enable everything, press "Enable all" in one tab, then hit save at the bottom of the page, then do the next tab, and so on. If you press "Enable all", then do that in each tab, and then save, nothing will stick. When I had just some of the search engines enabled, I searched “define nefarious” and results came back with the definition of “define” - obviously that was a sucky result. However, when I had everything enabled, it found dictionary pages for the word “nefarious” and even had an inline definition on the sidebar, which is quite nice too - that was delivered by WolframAlpha for anyone wondering! Probably the worst thing about this meta search engine is that the engines you select are saved with a cookie, so you must enable them on every new device you use SearXNG on, including if you decide to go into incognito mode with your web browser. Honestly, I would say this is the most annoying aspect, and perhaps if your browser lets you choose a separate private browsing search engine, then it would be best to use DuckDuckGo for this portion of your browsing. Another weakness of SearXNG is the random blocking of it by search providers. When you are on the results page, expand the “Response time” box, and it will show things like “Suspended: too many requests” or “access denied”. This is why it is good to enable several providers so that there is always a fallback to get results from. I won’t pretend SearXNG will be for everyone, however, if you enable all of the providers and put up with the slower response time, the results can be really amazing. Even if you don’t want to use it as your daily driver, keeping a bookmark handy that links to it is a good idea if you ever feel like doing a deep dive into a niche topic where other search engines are just failing to bring up any good result, due to the amount of sources it looks on. If you’re interested in radical user control over the software you use, installing SearXNG locally can also be a good idea, but be prepared to be temporarily blocked from sites if you trigger bot sensors without a VPN. Personally, I’ve opted to use a public instance, rather than install it myself. If you want to use it via a public instance, head over to searx.space to find a provider. Let us know in the comments if you have used SearXNG or its predecessor, Searx. What do you think about the quality of the results?
    • Dear Neowin, If it is not too much trouble, can you start using the new-ish designations for Insider Preview? "Experimental" is different than "former Dev" as it can apply to different models, eg 26H1 or 26H2 etc, right? No need to seed confusion IMHO. And, please "finally" update your graphics. OK?
    • Did you see their FAQ, its quite good. Have a look in the Advanced section. https://delta.chat/en/help
    • Just install Linux Mint that is a real blessing and many times cheaper because you can continue using your old Windows computer/laptop with the latest Linux updates.
    • Interesting share -- however it does not make sense: Email messages get stored somewhere, so how is Delta Chat "based on email" and decentralized without actually storing anything? By Web3 standard practices, the various Relays would require dedicated storage to make messages available to the recipients (like a large series of message queue channels, akin to racks of traditional post office boxes)... and Contacts must be two-way confirmed in order for encryption keys to be exchanged (ostensibly every key-pair is uniquely bound between sender and recipient) and the Relays would preserve the public keys in order to facilitate message carriage... or every device stores all sorts of keys and contact info. All of this to say, decentralized messaging is like running Bluesky nodes except instead of discovering/browsing public feeds by various posters (at the given node) these Delta Chats would be relaying encrypted messages (via Relays) that only trusted recipients would have the appropriate decryption key (their own private key) to read it. But this doesn't solve the "it's like email" sales pitch. The only way it's like email is that there's encrypted binary stuff being transported from your app into the federated ether of Delta Chat Relays for others to decrypt (hopefully only the intended recipient)... but outside of this federated relays framework, it is absolutely nothing like email.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      tuben earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      226
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      158
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!