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

    • AI is the beginning, wait until real robots replace more jobs, specifically jobs that require physical work.
    • AI is indeed eliminating jobs, and Oracle just proved it by Hamid Ganji There’s no question that AI has become the hottest trend in workplaces, and every company is trying to adopt AI-driven solutions across its operations. While some industry leaders repeatedly say AI won’t lead to massive layoffs, recent data suggest that AI is actually one of the main reasons some companies are reducing their workforce. According to Oracle’s annual regulatory filing, the company has laid off about 21,000 employees, or 13% of its workforce, amid increasing AI adoption. “The adoption and deployment of AI technologies across our operations have resulted, and may continue to result, in reductions to our workforce,” Oracle said in the filing. The software giant now has approximately 141,000 full-time employees, a notable decrease from 162,000 during the same period last year. Restructuring expenses, including severance payments, cost Oracle $1.84 billion in fiscal 2026. Additionally, around 49,000 Oracle employees were based in the U.S., while approximately 92,000 were employed internationally. Like many other companies, Oracle has fully embraced AI and concentrated much of its efforts on the technology. The company is also a key participant in the United States’ $500 billion Stargate Project, which aims to build multiple AI data centers across the country. When it comes to AI adoption and its impact on the workforce, opinions remain divided. NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang, whose company has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the AI boom, recently said in an interview that attributing job cuts to AI is a “lazy” narrative. “The narrative that connects AI to job loss, for many of the CEOs that are doing it – it is just too lazy. AI has just arrived, how is it possible they're already losing jobs?” Huang said. However, statistics and recent reports tell a different story. According to Layoffs.fyi, 196 tech companies have laid off about 119,800 employees so far this year. Reducing staff and replacing roles with AI agents could become one of the most significant trends in the job market in the years ahead.
    • Zoom Workplace 7.1.0.41345 by Razvan Serea Zoom Workplace for Windows is a reliable video conferencing tool that makes it easy to connect and collaborate. With features like messaging, file sharing, and app integrations, it’s designed to streamline teamwork. You’ll get high-quality audio and video, strong security with end-to-end encryption, and an intuitive interface—all of which help remote teams and businesses stay productive and connected. Zoom Workplace key features: High-Definition Video & Audio: Provides clear, reliable communication for virtual meetings. End-to-End Encryption: Ensures secure communication with strong data protection. Multi-Factor Authentication: Adds an extra layer of security for user accounts. Integration with Productivity Apps: Supports seamless integration with Microsoft Office, Google Workspace, and more. File Sharing: Easily share files during meetings for efficient collaboration. Real-Time Messaging: Enables team chat for ongoing communication. Collaborative Whiteboarding: Allows teams to brainstorm and collaborate visually. Webinar Support: Host large webinars with interactive features. Administrative Controls: Manage user permissions, meeting settings, and security features. Cloud Storage: Automatically stores meetings and files in the cloud for easy access. Cross-Platform Support: Available on Windows, macOS, and mobile devices. Meeting features: Virtual Backgrounds: Customize your background for meetings to maintain privacy or enhance professionalism. Touch Up My Appearance: Automatically smoothens skin tone for a more polished video appearance. Breakout Rooms: Divide meetings into smaller sessions for group discussions or workshops. Live Transcription: Automatically generate real-time captions during meetings for accessibility. Zoom Apps: Integrate third-party applications directly into Zoom for enhanced functionality. Meeting Reactions: Participants can use emojis for quick, non-verbal feedback during meetings. Polling: Conduct live polls during meetings to gather instant feedback from participants. Attention Tracking: Monitors participant attention during meetings to ensure engagement. Closed Captioning: Enable manual or automatic captions for a more inclusive experience. Webinar Replay: Record and share webinars with analytics for audience engagement. Download: Zoom 64-bit | 145.0 MB (Free, paid upgrade available) Links: Zoom Website | Zoom ARM64 | Zoom Installers | Release Notes Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • UK funds £60M AI labs to challenge US tech dominance with open-source models by Paul Hill The UK government has awarded £60 million to Oxford University and University College London to help keep the country in the AI race by focusing on open-source, low-hardware alternatives. This is in stark contrast to the expensive, closed-source, and high-hardware-requirement models being created in the United States and elsewhere. The money will be shared among two new academic research labs over six years to help them redesign the fundamental mathematics and architectures of AI to help the UK reduce its reliance on a handful of US tech firms. Commenting on the development, AI Minister Kanishka Narayan said: Initially, the government planned to fund just one lab with a £40 million investment, but with this update, two labs will now get access to a larger pool of funds. The labs are expected to invest in the top AI researchers at every career stage, with £2 million per lab being set aside for hiring at least ten doctoral students. The government hopes that this will grow the UK’s talent in the field of AI. The labs are also expected to work closely with the leaders in British AI research, such as the Alan Turing Institute and UKRI’s AI research hubs. This will allow the various teams to collaborate and create new solutions faster than they could alone. This development is pretty interesting for a number of reasons, chiefly that it could create a long-term challenge for US tech firms if these labs successfully scale these open-source architectures that bypass the proprietary ecosystems. It could also give British businesses and public sector organizations access to AI features without paying high licensing fees to foreign providers or needing to invest in specialized server infrastructure.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
    • First Post
      mike_rumble earned a badge
      First Post
    • Dedicated
      tuben earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      464
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      97
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      89
    5. 5
      neufuse
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!