I don't think they're lying but they have pushed the marketing truth a lot. Luckey said it was going to be a consumer oriented device at $350. It's obviously not that.
Luckey or the Rift team saying it's a huge jump is pretty vague. What exactly makes it a "huge" jump?
I think that is a very fair question. Absolutely. What I don't understand is no one is really reporting on their response to the valid concerns people have. Many of the valid questions and accusations that people have leveled at Oculus have responses. Those responses are either dismissed out of hand or not acknowledged.
My big question is has HTC or Sony weighed in on this? Oculus is saying that this is how much it costs to make quality VR. Where's the competitors to come in and say "Our device won't be $600." Or how about them even saying "We believe we will be able to deliver a high quality experience within a more reasonable budget."
But they're not saying that... yet. That right there makes me wonder if it's not Oculus, but right now maybe it really does cost that much to produce something that isn't a piece of gimmicky trash. Most people are leaving CES with rave reviews for HTC and Oculus. They've experienced it. Many in this thread haven't. So how about some critical thinking? If HTC and Sony have a phenomenal VR experience and come out with a price point well under $600, Oculus will look really, really bad. Why would a company open themselves up to so much bad exposure? That makes no sense to double down on the price defense like they have to blatantly lie. They would have to know that they would be called out sooner or later.
Most people are leaving CES with rave reviews for HTC and Oculus. They've experienced it. Many in this thread haven't.
Most those CES demos are pre-plotted "experiences" with chairs that move around ect. They aren't playing actual games and nobody will have robotic chairs for this.
The truth is games right now without the motion controllers are gimmicks and give the same experience as something like trackir head movements. VR when your limited to a xbone controller is hardly VR imo its a screen attached to your head that you have to use joysticks for everything. Look at some of the VR gaming videos right now they hardly are even making use of their head movements and just staring roughly straight ahead and moving around with their joysticks.
The CES demos right now are akin to the 3d hype. Gamers that want to game on the oculus need to wait for the motion controllers and games that support it.
Those same people are probably blown away by Harold and kumar 3d where silly crap pops out at them in slowmo. It's just a gimmick right now.
600 bucks for a gaming device is just preposterous no matter how good it is. Many people do forget that the total price can go even higher given the fact that OR requires beefy hardware (GTX 970.. really?), hence the need for expensive hardware upgrades will arise for many users.
Also, initial pre orders selling out means nothing.
was fairly happy with DK2 especially when used on driving games + 3dof for amazing immersion that no 3x screen could ever offer, the main gripe here is the way that fat scum baited everyone by lying about the price range of 350.. even that betrayal didn't stop me from ordering, the Rift experience is worth it to some.
that fat scum baited everyone by lying about the price range of 350..
He says that he really underestimated how much it would cost at production apparently.
My issue with Oculus is not the cost. My issue is not announcing the price before starting pre-orders. Beside trying to trap people into impulse buying (which it turns out they're not because you can cancel before shipping and get your money back) I only see one reason for doing that. They're holding their cards really tight (too tight in my opinion) because they fear their competition. Namely HTC I think has shaken them a bit with how good it is. If you ask me, that's the real story about VR right now.
It's a shame really. The reason DK1 and DK2 becamse so popular, was because they were affordable for developers and enthusiasts. It was actually affordable as a hobby or for an indie project. Not anymore though.
Asm0deus said:
Sorry but the cv1 isn't such a huge jump from dk2 unless you count the new case and headphone a huge tech advancement...lol
There is no way in hell it warrants a jump of 300$. You all can thank palmer and zuckerberg for the new price...for such a small difference from the dk2.
According to Oculus, it is a huge jump. Guess they're lying and you're telling the truth based on the zero evidence you've presented.
Yes because they will say "we improved a few things added a motion sensor, some headphone, threw in a few extra items" so we can charge you 600$ instead of the expected 350$-450$...
The only improvement is the screens the rest is stuff they were working on already.
That link is a simulation of what the rift looks like. It's not new but pretty close to what you see when you got the rift on your head...and I have asked a couple people I know that have cv1, not in person mind you but via forums.
I want VR but I don't like what they have done just now which is rather contrary to what was said previously about keeping the cost as low as possible.
I am not saying VR sucks and that the rift sucks etc etc just that the price didn't have to be high as it is compared to dk2. They didn't sell dk2 at a loss you can bet on that.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I'm not very confident in VR's success. The parent company of Oculus, Facebook, could easily subsidize the price and bring it down to $400, but they choose not to. Game developers are reluctant to make VR games too. The lack of confidence is not just coming from consumers, the industry itself isn't very confident in VR.
I want VR but I don't like what they have done just now which is rather contrary to what was said previously about keeping the cost as low as possible.
I am not saying VR sucks and that the rift sucks etc etc just that the price didn't have to be high as it is compared to dk2. They didn't sell dk2 at a loss you can bet on that.
The link that was provided isn't true. CV1 doesn't have the screen door effect. It's one of the reasons the cost of CV1 is more than DK2. In addition it has a professional mic, 3D professional quality headphones. The entire headset is redesign for comfort and extended use as opposed to DK2. This is in addition to addressing the issues with focusing and glasses people were having. They are marketing themselves to the high-end of VR, like Tesla is doing with electric cars. Palmer Luckey (co-founder of Oculus) has specifically made that comparison. They don't want to put out a product and have a sub-optimal experience. A high-end PC is expected to cost $1500 and much more than that. To even run VR you have to hit higher than 60 fps, which means you need a video card a strong enough box to handle it.
Given time the tech will surely drop in price, when updated tech gets put out. As that happens, I think people will start having options to buy in at a lower cost. Just like what we see with video cards today.
Given time the tech will surely drop in price, when updated tech gets put out. As that happens, I think people will start having options to buy in at a lower cost. Just like what we see with video cards today.
I wouldn't disagree. The point, I think, of the article, though, was that the current price point and system requirements could kill the OR before it ever drops its price.
I could certainly see OR failing while other companies find ways to both reduce required specs and undercut OR. Not to say VR itself will fail; I think many just believe that, with such a huge barrier to entry, OR will fail. Or maybe, it'll simply be the Blackberry of VR.
I wouldn't disagree. The point, I think, of the article, though, was that the current price point and system requirements could kill the OR before it ever drops its price.
I think the point being made on Oculus' side is that the 'Rift' is like 'Telsa' for electric cars. It has a smaller user base, but it's made a big impact in showing what can be done now. They wanted a product to showcase as their big release to give VR a great first impression. The point is the user experience needs to be amazing in their eyes to justify cost. Will it price themselves out of the market? I have no idea, but it would of been nice for the opinion piece to at least acknowledge that side of the argument.
Will take another five years at least, we want to game, "the experience" is not our main concern. This tech has had so many false starts it puts of investors and I think will be longer coming to us due to all these attempts to bring it in before the tech is ready.
I want VR but I don't like what they have done just now which is rather contrary to what was said previously about keeping the cost as low as possible.
I am not saying VR sucks and that the rift sucks etc etc just that the price didn't have to be high as it is compared to dk2. They didn't sell dk2 at a loss you can bet on that.
The link that was provided isn't true. CV1 doesn't have the screen door effect. It's one of the reasons the cost of CV1 is more than DK2. In addition it has a professional mic, 3D professional quality headphones. The entire headset is redesign for comfort and extended use as opposed to DK2. This is in addition to addressing the issues with focusing and glasses people were having. They are marketing themselves to the high-end of VR, like Tesla is doing with electric cars. Palmer Luckey (co-founder of Oculus) has specifically made that comparison. They don't want to put out a product and have a sub-optimal experience. A high-end PC is expected to cost $1500 and much more than that. To even run VR you have to hit higher than 60 fps, which means you need a video card a strong enough box to handle it.
Given time the tech will surely drop in price, when updated tech gets put out. As that happens, I think people will start having options to buy in at a lower cost. Just like what we see with video cards today.
Like I said the link was made a good while ago, you can see that as the res for cv1 is wrong but its pretty accurate SDE or not.
Also who cares about a pro mic and headphones....like gamers don't have those items already.. the rest is all BS and not worth the extra price and please don't compare this to tesla cars...lol
Really cut out the headphones and mic and you got a good chunk of that extra cost cut out right there.
Seriously wth would I want to play with headphones when my pc is setup to my home 5.1 sound system with nice proper speakers..only time I use the headset is at night when the rest of the family is asleep...guess what I also have a mic which works perfectly fine.
You guys need to stop believing all the PR hype.
It's like the whole smaller user base/tesla balony.....the goal for OR was ALWAYS to make it accessible to the average gamer so that it has a chance to really take off so you guys need to get off that tired excuse as targeting the smaller hardcore niche crowd was never their intent.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
LoL. All the detractors of the Occulus Rift have not got a scooby. Occulus are not trying to be a Sony or a Microsoft off bat. Their intention was always to introduce a viable VR headset that was as ready as possible, to be the best example of what VR is and not turn people off the technology.
Wisely to maintain this vision they have designed their first actual version to be sold around the only build they feel that is able to meet this standard. Therefore, as they have well predicted themselves, it is too expensive for mainstream gamers and will only be viable for the well off hardcore crowd that can afford £400 gaming cards and powerful machines. However the lifespan of the first Occulus is to be only that of a mobile phone and not that of the PS3 and Xbox 360. The intention is to garner interest, reputation and get the product to the price tag they originally envisioned as soon as possible.
The problem comes with the rivals who could do one of two things possibly. One may be to have a product that is acceptable enough to be so successful and cheap no one pays attention to the rift once its cheaper. On the other hand the cheap ones could be so poor that so many people are put off the idea it goes the way off the recent 3D TV fad and Occulus may not be able to pull it back.
Just to remind people for every Betamax or Dreamcast to use as examples of failure there is an Apple and Android product that remind us there are often room for high end and bargain brands.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
That's the thing about the Sony VR device - it doesn't have to be as good as Oculus. It only has to be 60-70% as good and that'll be enough. Sony has a ready waiting install base of, what, 40 million now? Plus all the game studios to make content for it. And they'll probably subsidize it somewhat / bundle it with PS4 sales. It won't be $600, and if any pack is that price you'll probably be getting a console with it - no stress to worry if your PC is ok to use it either.
Playstation VR will be much cheaper imo and i like the look of it more, it will be able to play games without worrying about "can my pc run it" because its console but also i think maybe it will work on PC too their controllers are supported by windows so who knows.
I was going to buy oculus rift i had saved some money to buy it £350 but when the price was announced to be £500 ive decided ill just wait abit longer for price drop or just wait for the ps4 VR
Playstation VR will be much cheaper imo and i like the look of it more, it will be able to play games without worrying about "can my pc run it" because its console but also i think maybe it will work on PC too their controllers are supported by windows so who knows.
I was going to buy oculus rift i had saved some money to buy it £350 but when the price was announced to be £500 ive decided ill just wait abit longer for price drop or just wait for the ps4 VR
oh your in for a surpise!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
That's the thing about the Sony VR device - it doesn't have to be as good as Oculus. It only has to be 60-70% as good and that'll be enough. Sony has a ready waiting install base of, what, 40 million now? Plus all the game studios to make content for it. And they'll probably subsidize it somewhat / bundle it with PS4 sales. It won't be $600, and if any pack is that price you'll probably be getting a console with it - no stress to worry if your PC is ok to use it either.
there are technical limitations of the PS4 which makes VR really not possible for the PS4
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
$600 is way too high for any gaming peripheral. I don't care how neat it is.
I predict Sony comes out the winner in the VR battle. The Sony VR is likely to be subsidized and therefore significantly cheaper for entry cost, the hardware is standardized making things far less chaotic for gamers as well as developers, the install base is already 36 million PS4s sold, Sony is heavily invested in funding the development and publishing a significant library of exclusive games, and Sony's ability to mass produce a solid product in the PS4 will be tough for the Oculus to even get close.
The Oculus will end up being more of a niche device than the competition (which is a bad thing in video games). It could end up being the NEO-GEO of VR devices; hyped as the most powerful gaming hardware out there by far, but doomed in the long run due to price and robust competition.
you don't get it do you, the ps4 is already obsolete. Sure their version will be a contender, but it will lack features because the hardware just won't support more. That is why I gave the ps4 to the kids as almost all games loo and run better on the PC and my PC is not even close to what most gamers use
$600 is way too high for any gaming peripheral. I don't care how neat it is.
I predict Sony comes out the winner in the VR battle. The Sony VR is likely to be subsidized and therefore significantly cheaper for entry cost, the hardware is standardized making things far less chaotic for gamers as well as developers, the install base is already 36 million PS4s sold, Sony is heavily invested in funding the development and publishing a significant library of exclusive games, and Sony's ability to mass produce a solid product in the PS4 will be tough for the Oculus to even get close.
The Oculus will end up being more of a niche device than the competition (which is a bad thing in video games). It could end up being the NEO-GEO of VR devices; hyped as the most powerful gaming hardware out there by far, but doomed in the long run due to price and robust competition.
you don't get it do you, the ps4 is already obsolete. Sure their version will be a contender, but it will lack features because the hardware just won't support more. That is why I gave the ps4 to the kids as almost all games loo and run better on the PC and my PC is not even close to what most gamers use
The Sony VR actually comes with an additional processor. So it's not limited to just what the PS4 already has.
And the part about games running better on the PC is completely false. Most AAA games released in the last two years run better for the PS4 than PC. This is due to the fact games are either console first (where the primary profit is) with PC versions releasing weeks and usually months later and/or developed from the start to run on consoles. Gone are the days when games were PC first then ported over to consoles.
It's also easier to optimize for consoles due to the standardization of the hardware and dedicated OS for gaming. This will be true for VR game development as well and gives Sony's VR headset a significant edge over the Oculus Rift.
That's the thing about the Sony VR device - it doesn't have to be as good as Oculus. It only has to be 60-70% as good and that'll be enough. Sony has a ready waiting install base of, what, 40 million now? Plus all the game studios to make content for it. And they'll probably subsidize it somewhat / bundle it with PS4 sales. It won't be $600, and if any pack is that price you'll probably be getting a console with it - no stress to worry if your PC is ok to use it either.
there are technical limitations of the PS4 which makes VR really not possible for the PS4
Complete nonsense and shows you don't know much about Sony's VR product (hint: it comes with additional processing hardware).
I wouldn't disagree. The point, I think, of the article, though, was that the current price point and system requirements could kill the OR before it ever drops its price.
I think the point being made on Oculus' side is that the 'Rift' is like 'Telsa' for electric cars. It has a smaller user base, but it's made a big impact in showing what can be done now. They wanted a product to showcase as their big release to give VR a great first impression. The point is the user experience needs to be amazing in their eyes to justify cost. Will it price themselves out of the market? I have no idea, but it would of been nice for the opinion piece to at least acknowledge that side of the argument.
Interesting you brought up Telsa. It introduced a lot of neat capabilities, but is far too expensive and manufacturing is so limited the cost hasn't dropped like it should have over time.
General Motors just unveiled the Chevy Bolt. It's not as advanced or as powerful as what Telsa produces, but it's still extremely impressive technology and will be half the price. Telsa's inability to actually manufacturer on mass scale is leading to delays (something like two years from now for Model 3) and will cause them to fall behind in market share to GM. If that happens (as it appears it will) that would be the end of Tesla.
Oculus is to Telsa what Sony VR is to GM's Chevy Bolt. It's more powerful and technologically advanced, but Sony's VR is still impressive technologically at half the price. Sony knows how to mass produce and subsidize a product; Oculus isn't subsidizing their and is completely new at the manufacturing process (with even their parent company, Facebook, having no experience in this area as they specialize in the digital realm).
As a gaming peripheral, it looks to me like the Sony VR has the advantages you would want. And if developers realize the install base on the Oculus Rift is significantly smaller (meaning lower profits), they will stop supporting it.
Comments
My big question is has HTC or Sony weighed in on this? Oculus is saying that this is how much it costs to make quality VR. Where's the competitors to come in and say "Our device won't be $600." Or how about them even saying "We believe we will be able to deliver a high quality experience within a more reasonable budget."
But they're not saying that... yet. That right there makes me wonder if it's not Oculus, but right now maybe it really does cost that much to produce something that isn't a piece of gimmicky trash. Most people are leaving CES with rave reviews for HTC and Oculus. They've experienced it. Many in this thread haven't. So how about some critical thinking? If HTC and Sony have a phenomenal VR experience and come out with a price point well under $600, Oculus will look really, really bad. Why would a company open themselves up to so much bad exposure? That makes no sense to double down on the price defense like they have to blatantly lie. They would have to know that they would be called out sooner or later.
Most those CES demos are pre-plotted "experiences" with chairs that move around ect. They aren't playing actual games and nobody will have robotic chairs for this.
The truth is games right now without the motion controllers are gimmicks and give the same experience as something like trackir head movements. VR when your limited to a xbone controller is hardly VR imo its a screen attached to your head that you have to use joysticks for everything. Look at some of the VR gaming videos right now they hardly are even making use of their head movements and just staring roughly straight ahead and moving around with their joysticks.
The CES demos right now are akin to the 3d hype. Gamers that want to game on the oculus need to wait for the motion controllers and games that support it.
Those same people are probably blown away by Harold and kumar 3d where silly crap pops out at them in slowmo. It's just a gimmick right now.
Also, initial pre orders selling out means nothing.
I don't mind it existing, if thats how others want to play / enjoy their games then go ahead.
My issue with Oculus is not the cost. My issue is not announcing the price before starting pre-orders. Beside trying to trap people into impulse buying (which it turns out they're not because you can cancel before shipping and get your money back) I only see one reason for doing that. They're holding their cards really tight (too tight in my opinion) because they fear their competition. Namely HTC I think has shaken them a bit with how good it is. If you ask me, that's the real story about VR right now.
The only improvement is the screens the rest is stuff they were working on already.
That link is a simulation of what the rift looks like. It's not new but pretty close to what you see when you got the rift on your head...and I have asked a couple people I know that have cv1, not in person mind you but via forums.
I want VR but I don't like what they have done just now which is rather contrary to what was said previously about keeping the cost as low as possible.
I am not saying VR sucks and that the rift sucks etc etc just that the price didn't have to be high as it is compared to dk2. They didn't sell dk2 at a loss you can bet on that.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Given time the tech will surely drop in price, when updated tech gets put out. As that happens, I think people will start having options to buy in at a lower cost. Just like what we see with video cards today.
I could certainly see OR failing while other companies find ways to both reduce required specs and undercut OR. Not to say VR itself will fail; I think many just believe that, with such a huge barrier to entry, OR will fail. Or maybe, it'll simply be the Blackberry of VR.
Also who cares about a pro mic and headphones....like gamers don't have those items already.. the rest is all BS and not worth the extra price and please don't compare this to tesla cars...lol
Really cut out the headphones and mic and you got a good chunk of that extra cost cut out right there.
Seriously wth would I want to play with headphones when my pc is setup to my home 5.1 sound system with nice proper speakers..only time I use the headset is at night when the rest of the family is asleep...guess what I also have a mic which works perfectly fine.
You guys need to stop believing all the PR hype.
It's like the whole smaller user base/tesla balony.....the goal for OR was ALWAYS to make it accessible to the average gamer so that it has a chance to really take off so you guys need to get off that tired excuse as targeting the smaller hardcore niche crowd was never their intent.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Wisely to maintain this vision they have designed their first actual version to be sold around the only build they feel that is able to meet this standard. Therefore, as they have well predicted themselves, it is too expensive for mainstream gamers and will only be viable for the well off hardcore crowd that can afford £400 gaming cards and powerful machines. However the lifespan of the first Occulus is to be only that of a mobile phone and not that of the PS3 and Xbox 360. The intention is to garner interest, reputation and get the product to the price tag they originally envisioned as soon as possible.
The problem comes with the rivals who could do one of two things possibly. One may be to have a product that is acceptable enough to be so successful and cheap no one pays attention to the rift once its cheaper. On the other hand the cheap ones could be so poor that so many people are put off the idea it goes the way off the recent 3D TV fad and Occulus may not be able to pull it back.
Just to remind people for every Betamax or Dreamcast to use as examples of failure there is an Apple and Android product that remind us there are often room for high end and bargain brands.
VR game devs ready for a slow launch after $599 Oculus Rift reveal
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
I was going to buy oculus rift i had saved some money to buy it £350 but when the price was announced to be £500 ive decided ill just wait abit longer for price drop or just wait for the ps4 VR
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
there are technical limitations of the PS4 which makes VR really not possible for the PS4
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
you don't get it do you, the ps4 is already obsolete. Sure their version will be a contender, but it will lack features because the hardware just won't support more. That is why I gave the ps4 to the kids as almost all games loo and run better on the PC and my PC is not even close to what most gamers use
And the part about games running better on the PC is completely false. Most AAA games released in the last two years run better for the PS4 than PC. This is due to the fact games are either console first (where the primary profit is) with PC versions releasing weeks and usually months later and/or developed from the start to run on consoles. Gone are the days when games were PC first then ported over to consoles.
It's also easier to optimize for consoles due to the standardization of the hardware and dedicated OS for gaming. This will be true for VR game development as well and gives Sony's VR headset a significant edge over the Oculus Rift.
General Motors just unveiled the Chevy Bolt. It's not as advanced or as powerful as what Telsa produces, but it's still extremely impressive technology and will be half the price. Telsa's inability to actually manufacturer on mass scale is leading to delays (something like two years from now for Model 3) and will cause them to fall behind in market share to GM. If that happens (as it appears it will) that would be the end of Tesla.
Oculus is to Telsa what Sony VR is to GM's Chevy Bolt. It's more powerful and technologically advanced, but Sony's VR is still impressive technologically at half the price. Sony knows how to mass produce and subsidize a product; Oculus isn't subsidizing their and is completely new at the manufacturing process (with even their parent company, Facebook, having no experience in this area as they specialize in the digital realm).
As a gaming peripheral, it looks to me like the Sony VR has the advantages you would want. And if developers realize the install base on the Oculus Rift is significantly smaller (meaning lower profits), they will stop supporting it.