Oculus Rift will cost over $350 so there are “no compromises,” says founder

"We need to put a stake in the ground and say: this is the best possible experience."

Read the whole story

 

[reno79]

Gotta say if they can keep it near the $350 (and us brits don't get shafted too much on exchange rate) I'm in. You can pay £250 for a very good monitor, so it makes sense.

Look forward to seeing official pricing soon though.

 

[AndreaFaulds]

Samsung's Gear VR is cheap because all the fancy stuff's inside the phone. The thing you buy is merely lenses and one or two extra sensors to supplement what the phone itself has.

 

[charleski]

typos:

the first consumer VR headset that we're going to be pushing out

include the company's Touch Controllers

Back on topic: This is the right way to go (as long as it's not too much more). VR has failed so many times now that any company wanting it to really break into the market needs to produce a no-compromise solution.

 

[mrseb]

charleski[/url]":s6cpnlw6]typos:

the first consumer VR headset that we're going to be pushing out

include the company's Touch Controllers

Back on topic: This is the right way to go (as long as it's not too much more). VR has failed so many times now that any company wanting it to really break into the market needs to produce a no-compromise solution.

thanks; fixed.

 

[Kazper]

I understand their argument - and I agree at least to a point. It would be pointless to make a cheaper headset that fail to gain traction because of bad compromises.

But price does matter - especially to a "new" and unproven technology and/or with shaky support from the beginning. Just ask Sony about the PS3 and "making no compromises".

 

[Eldorito]

reno79[/url]":2jlo2hlm]Gotta say if they can keep it near the $350 (and us brits don't get shafted too much on exchange rate) I'm in. You can pay £250 for a very good monitor, so it makes sense.

Look forward to seeing official pricing soon though.

That's where I'm at. I have a $1000 TV, buying something that can pull off this level of immersive for even just watching movies under $400 isn't an issue for me. Adding in gaming and whatever other 3D stuff comes up over the next couple of years make this a no-brainer buy for me.

The PC hardware upgrade is really the harder one, I'm not "due" for an upgrade, but I'm feeling that I'll be running a bit short.

 

[Vorador]

Not surprised. I'm expecting all the announced headsets to hover around $400, or more.

I agree that is better to make a $400-500 headset and make a great device, that to do a $200 one that makes you puke your guts out. While you will only reach a smaller audience than with the $200 one, consumers will be satisfied.

 

[Kerome]

Well Sony did already say that their solution was going to be priced similarly to a new platform launch. This merely confirms that PC based solutions are not going to be any cheaper.

But I do think that a lot of people are going to be cautious at that price point. Most new platform peripherals like the Kinect came in a lot lower, and even then failed to achieve critical mass to sustain a good market of well differentiated products.

Problems with a good paradigm for movement in the early Epic demos do seem to indicate that a lot of cinematic, dynamic content may be hard to achieve. I'll be sitting on the fence for a while with this one I think.

 

[Mark Havel]

Kazper[/url]":229ftjya]I understand their argument - and I agree at least to a point. It would be pointless to make a cheaper headset that fail to gain traction because of bad compromises.

But price does matter - especially to a "new" and unproven technology and/or with shaky support from the beginning. Just ask Sony about the PS3 and "making no compromises".

I think it really matters if you're aiming at mass market and want to quickly achieve critical mass. However, price aside, there's already obstacles aplenty for anyone interested in buying one. It mostly revolves around games support and the hardware you'll need to have games running properly with VR enabled.
The most important, I think, is game and therefore, API support, which you somewhat imply. For now, it seems there's a hodgepodge of solutions between Nvidia's stuff, Valve's efforts and I guess Occulus own contraption and obivously, Sony's tech, not to mention whatever Google might be cooking with cardboard VR. I have absolutely no idea whether all of this is interoperable, easily portable or not.
This will lead to fragmented support: there's already Frontier Development saying they'll support Valve/HTC's Vive from day one while Occulus support will come later.

Unless all actors suddenly coalesce around Valve or Occulus API, I suspect we'll have to endure a few years not unlike the 90s and the birth of 3D accelerators, with each solution having their own incompatible and even wildly different API and various level of game support.

The big elephant in the room is that for now, there has been no word from Microsoft about a Direct VR to unite (or crush) them all. Something like this would be a sign of maturity of the ecosystem and probably signal the technology is ready to leave early-adopter domain and goes mainstream.

 

[LostAlone]

An expensive, hardcore-only accessory that's beholden to games developers to support it to justify it's cost? That is a big ask. I'm not saying that they won't ship a single unit; far from it. But this is not the price point you want if you're hoping to make a piece of technology ubiquitous. Sure, I get that there are some early adopters out there who will be more than happy to buy at this point. There's people who buy perfect recreations of real flight sticks that are in this ball park and I'm certain they'll snap this up. But that is a super-niche market.

For a lot of gamers the choice is going to be between this and $350 of games. And that's not even a difficult question. If you can afford all the new games AND this, well, that's ok. But most people aren't going to. Most people don't even have $350 to spend on games, let alone a special game-vision headset that they may or may not get a lot of use out of.

There really isn't a killer app on VR. Sure, it can add something to some specific games, but there's nothing there that I couldn't just play on a monitor. I might gain something in terms of immersion (although if a game is immersive it'll still be immersive without it) but there's nothing there to make me want to stretch my budget. I can play the games anyway, so...

 

[SuperSpy]

It's important for them to hit the quality mark with no compromises as an introduction to the market.

The public image of VR hinges on the initial product launches, so if they cut corners to hit a price point, it has the potential to ruin the public image of the entire industry and could be a major set back to all VR.

 

[jdietz]

It wasn't clear from the article whether a controller is included.
A controller is pictured, but it's not clear that a controller is included.

 

[Rommel102]

LostAlone[/url]":vh7peutd]An expensive, hardcore-only accessory that's beholden to games developers to support it to justify it's cost? That is a big ask. I'm not saying that they won't ship a single unit; far from it. But this is not the price point you want if you're hoping to make a piece of technology ubiquitous. Sure, I get that there are some early adopters out there who will be more than happy to buy at this point. There's people who buy perfect recreations of real flight sticks that are in this ball park and I'm certain they'll snap this up. But that is a super-niche market.

For a lot of gamers the choice is going to be between this and $350 of games. And that's not even a difficult question. If you can afford all the new games AND this, well, that's ok. But most people aren't going to. Most people don't even have $350 to spend on games, let alone a special game-vision headset that they may or may not get a lot of use out of.

There really isn't a killer app on VR. Sure, it can add something to some specific games, but there's nothing there that I couldn't just play on a monitor. I might gain something in terms of immersion (although if a game is immersive it'll still be immersive without it) but there's nothing there to make me want to stretch my budget. I can play the games anyway, so...

There absolutely is a killer app for VR. It's just something you don't talk about it polite company.

 

[kray28]

The closer it gets to consumer reality, the less compelling it looks.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

SuperSpy[/url]":35iwd1fu]It's important for them to hit the quality mark with no compromises as an introduction to the market.

The public image of VR hinges on the initial product launches, so if they cut corners to hit a price point, it has the potential to ruin the public image of the entire industry and could be a major set back to all VR.

We could end up with a VR version of an AI winter.

 

[pokrface]

I'll just be over here, buying a Rift and an HTC Vive and a second 980ti because i think i have a problem.

 

[blackcrayon]

LostAlone[/url]":2v9w9vuh]

There really isn't a killer app on VR. Sure, it can add something to some specific games, but there's nothing there that I couldn't just play on a monitor. I might gain something in terms of immersion (although if a game is immersive it'll still be immersive without it) but there's nothing there to make me want to stretch my budget. I can play the games anyway, so...

Playing vehicle games with the Rift is on a whole 'nother level of immersion. In Eliteangerous it's the difference between looking at a small view of a cockpit and *flying your own space ship!*
Having a 3/6DOF motion platform helps too . It should be its own "killer app" as long as the games are good and ready come release time.

 

[greatn]

I kind of thought the final product would have a different name. Oculus Rift sounds like a cool name, but whenever I think about it a little longer I think it's tearing your eyeballs apart.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

Pokrface[/url]":3nkt4k99]I'll just be over here, buying a Rift and an HTC Vive and a second 980ti because i think i have a problem.

Can't wait for, "bring your VR headset to work" day.

 

[coconutboy]

Caveat emptor early adopters. I'll be holding onto my $$ at least until they've bundled the Touch controllers (and ditch the xbox1 gamepad), and possibly till 2nd gen hardware arrives a year or 2 down the road.

I have an xbox1, so zero interest in paying for another controller I don't need, but even if I didn't have an xb1, the Oculus Touch controller looks well thought out so why pay for a gamepad?

 

[Totally Radical Liberal]

Rommel102[/url]":l3t8dscq]
There absolutely is a killer app for VR. It's just something you don't talk about it polite company.

Sure you can. Just call it Second Life (which does have VR support in some viewer or other) and pretend that "game" has other purposes.

 

[Panick]

At or below $400 I can see it doing well (In a "if you want the best you buy a Rift but if not there are other, cheaper options out there" sort of way). The target audience, i.e. the type of people that will be able to afford a PC that can make use of the Rift, probably wouldn't bat a eye at that. Anything over that and I feel like you're asking for your product to be beyond niche.

 

[Redenaz]

The great thing about so many VR sets coming to market relatively close together is that I can just wait for reviews, see what sticks, and see what developers support.I've waited this long—I can wait a little longer to see how things go.

$350 isn't cheap by any means, but I'm glad they're prioritizing quality, since price can come down later. We'll see how their quality-for-cost stacks up against their competitors.

 

[shevaberg]

My brand new gtx 980 ti says shut up and take my money

 

[manzoor.milky]

Spent slightly north of $250 on an ultrawide monitor, which generally cost far more, and it has been a transformative experience in gaming beyond what I imagined. So $350 sounds like a very reasonable pricing for what it promises.

 

[BlackHex]

If they get it just right it could entirely replace TV sets... so 350 per person sounds like a total bargain.

 

[flunk]

Occulus would be better off selling a cheaper unit, if they don't get traction in the market quickly they won't get any software support and their product will be dead on arrival. Most people don't even have $350 to spend on a special-purpose gaming device. I could easily afford one, but I'm not sure I want to spend $400+ dollars on something I may barely ever use. Maybe I'd rather spend it on a video card, or taking my girlfriend on a weekend retreat.

 

[samanime]

I've followed Oculus Rift since the early days, but held off until this point because I wanted a consumer model. I probably won't be a Day-One buyer by any stretch, but I'll likely pick one up at some point.

Something to keep in mind to is that by starting at this higher price point, they may get fewer customers, but they will get some. Hopefully, they'll have a good experience. This will start a positive feedback loop where more developers will start supporting VR, so more customers will buy headsets, more developers, more customers, etc.

All the while, the technical improvements and economy-of-scale will slowly help bring down the price point, until they likely hit a $150-200 price point with something of the same (or better) quality of what they're going to release for ~$300.

 

[Meailda]

Caveat emptor early adopters. I'll be holding onto my $$ at least until they've bundled the Touch controllers (and ditch the xbox1 gamepad), and possibly till 2nd gen hardware arrives a year or 2 down the road.

I have an xbox1, so zero interest in paying for another controller I don't need, but even if I didn't have an xb1, the Oculus Touch controller looks well thought out so why pay for a gamepad?

Yeah. IT has taught me not to be on the bleeding edge. I hope this release is everything everyone wanted, but I will not be buying. I will be interviewing those who did.

 

[Dramethia]

Kazper[/url]":4dy2mfsc]I understand their argument - and I agree at least to a point. It would be pointless to make a cheaper headset that fail to gain traction because of bad compromises.

But price does matter - especially to a "new" and unproven technology and/or with shaky support from the beginning. Just ask Sony about the PS3 and "making no compromises".

It's a different market. Sony has to appeal to all ages, and when the PS3 had a no-subscription online service, they decidedly went after the lower income teens to early 20's market who would be turned off by recurring expenses. It's hard to get people to shell out any substantial cash when a large part of your customer base is fundamentally resistant to paying more.

On the PC side, dropping $400 on a video card is fairly common, and a lot of people spend quite a bit more in search of the most immersive experience.

Occulus is doing this correctly. Make an excellent, well refined product and start on the high-end market. The technology will filter down to lower price points as the product gains momentum. Very few people will buy it just because it's new. They need to try one out first. They need to see their favorite games will work with it. You get it into the hands of early adopters who are less likely to be stopped dead by a small bug or individual game compatibility issue. Let their feedback help refine the experience (like they did with dev kits). Meanwhile, they're showing the hardware off to friends, bragging about it... building interest in the product. When their friend puts the headset on, you don't want to be tweaking game settings, fucking with cables or controls. It needs to be effortless, and totally immersive.

They're actually taking a page out of Apple's playbook. There were MP3 players for years before the iPod. But they were cheap crap. They broke due to cheaper plastic casings, faulty memory, poor design. It was a joke. Apple made a high end MP3 player in the $400 range, and it took off. Then they did the same with smartphones. There were plenty of cellphones which could browse the web (kinda). But again, they were all shit manufacturing, had usability problems, no one took it seriously. Then they released the iPhone, again, around the $400 mark (with contracts) and consumers went crazy for it. It redefined what a phone is. Those characteristics are now found in all phones from virtually all manufacturers.

This price point is the consumer sweetspot. It's exactly how much the average person is willing gamble on a new product, just because it's cool. Any higher, people get more cautious with their money. Any lower, you can't deliver high quality.

 

[RndNum123]

Fstchvy[/url]":2xtycsfw]It was $350 originally... Then Micro$oft forced them to include a controller that no one in the market for a top tier VR headset wants to buy.

Easy way to knock off 50 bucks is to drop the XB1 controller.

They don't pay anywhere near 50$ for the controller, more like 10-20$ !

 

[arkiel]

RndNum123[/url]":1ur0cvxp]

Fstchvy[/url]":1ur0cvxp]It was $350 originally... Then Micro$oft forced them to include a controller that no one in the market for a top tier VR headset wants to buy.

Easy way to knock off 50 bucks is to drop the XB1 controller.

They don't pay anywhere near 50$ for the controller, more like 10-20$ !

I'd go ahead and speculate that Microsoft is paying Oculus for each unit shipped. If Oculus was smart getting into that agreement, they shouldn't be paying Microsoft anything, and the electronics in the units themselves should be worth more than $350.

 

[Fstchvy]

RndNum123[/url]":3124jag1]

Fstchvy[/url]":3124jag1]It was $350 originally... Then Micro$oft forced them to include a controller that no one in the market for a top tier VR headset wants to buy.

Easy way to knock off 50 bucks is to drop the XB1 controller.

They don't pay anywhere near 50$ for the controller, more like 10-20$ !

It is still a cost burden passed to the consumer.

Unless MS is giving them away for free (which we will never know)...

If you are an early adopter on high end immersion gear, you likely already have (or plan to buy) high end interface devices. Forcing us to buy a licensed proprietary controller from a third party is asinine.

 

[sep332]

It was $350 originally... Then Micro$oft forced them to include a controller that no one in the market for a top tier VR headset wants to buy.

Easy way to knock off 50 bucks is to drop the XB1 controller.

FB bought Oculus for $2B - what leverage could MS possibly have to boss them around?

 

[2late2die]

Up to $400 it's still pretty much an insta-buy for me. If it gets up to $450-500 or more then I'm gonna have to see about reviews, or look for must-own games, or something like that.