• HTC Vive is going to cost $799. Will come with two games bundled. And Vive Phone Services.
    242 replies, posted
I find the price to be completely acceptable. In fact I thought it would be $999. Will definitely be pre-ordering it, come 29th of February.
[QUOTE=Giraffen93;49784719]i'd pay $799 and not more than that if it's advertised as such taxes & import fees included if it's more than that then i'm not getting it, full stop they had their chance[/QUOTE] How? All of the VR setups are basically very high end smartphone, plus you throw in the software and the controllers, being 799 is actually fairly cheap than if you bought everything on your own. Plus valve's system let's you easily build your own motion tracking controllers if you so wanted to
[QUOTE=Combine 177;49784688]Considering how valve loves new innovative things it is bit weird how they don't go and sell their product with a loss.[/QUOTE] If there is one thing valve loves more than innovation it's cash
[QUOTE=Combine 177;49784758]Talk for yourself I don't even own a smartphone.[/QUOTE] Congratulations, you're clearly very unique. Meanwhile the rest of the Earth's population does, which is the point Orkel is making. The average person is happy to drop $700-800 on a new phone that's only marginally better than their previous one every year or two, so the idea that $800 for the most immersive and polished VR experience in history is a ridiculous price is just silly.
rather still get the vive over the oculus. from what i heard it was 10x better. if the rift was $400, sure.
Welp, not getting the Vive then. Just gonna stick to my DK2 forever I guess.
[QUOTE=Orkel;49784733]It's really dumb. Millions of people buy a $700 smartphone every 1-2 years but somehow for those same people an amazing new tech that has only been in science fiction before, is too expensive even at Rift's $600 price not to mention Vive's $799.[/QUOTE]I'm sorry but your comparison is just terrible. First of all, smartphones have an absolutely massive amount of versatility. They're literally hand-held computers, for the average person nowadays they're invaluable, and for many, who only need basic functionality like browsing the web, they've also replaced the home computer. People upgrading them every few years is perfectly understandable. VR? Sorry, but at the end of the day it's just an entertainment gimmick, a [B]very[/B] impressive one mind you, but still not something the overwhelming majority of people will see as worth $600, let alone $800.
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;49784879]Welp, not getting the Vive then. Just gonna stick to my DK2 forever I guess.[/QUOTE] It's gonna get cheaper over time, especially if vr becomes a big success and more companies enter the market.
[QUOTE=Orkel;49784733]It's really dumb. Millions of people buy a $700 smartphone every 1-2 years but somehow for those same people an amazing new tech that has only been in science fiction before, is too expensive even at Rift's $600 price not to mention Vive's $799.[/QUOTE] The vast majority of people don't buy smartphones outright, they pay for them monthly over a year or two. They don't seem as expensive when you pay for them along with your network cost. [QUOTE=srobins;49784874]Congratulations, you're clearly very unique. Meanwhile the rest of the Earth's population does, which is the point Orkel is making. The average person is happy to drop $700-800 on a new phone that's only marginally better than their previous one every year or two, so the idea that $800 for the most immersive and polished VR experience in history is a ridiculous price is just silly.[/QUOTE] Again, no they don't. They upgrade their phone through their network plan for "free".
[QUOTE=Atlascore;49784881] VR? Sorry, but at the end of the day it's just an entertainment gimmick, a [B]very[/B] impressive one mind you, but still not something the overwhelming majority of people will see as worth $600, let alone $800.[/QUOTE] Until they actually experience it themselves, that is.
[QUOTE=Britain;49784667]VR is too expensive imo. There's a gap in the market for a cheaper model somewhere.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.samsung.com/us/explore/gear-vr/assets/images/desktop/GearVR_Hero_Gold.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Atlascore;49784881]I'm sorry but your comparison is just terrible. First of all, smartphones have an absolutely massive amount of versatility. They're literally hand-held computers, for the average person nowadays they're invaluable, and for many, who only need basic functionality like browsing the web, they've also replaced the home computer. People upgrading them every few years is perfectly understandable. VR? Sorry, but at the end of the day it's just an entertainment gimmick, a [B]very[/B] impressive one mind you, but still not something the overwhelming majority of people will see as worth $600, let alone $800.[/QUOTE] Yeah but spending $800 on a smartphone is still extravagant and unnecessary just as VR is. You can get your essential smartphone functions for anywhere from $20-200. VR is obviously not as general a market as smartphones, but for first generation tech and the quality of products being put out by HTC and Oculus, I think they've set very reasonable prices. Early adopters will have fun and bolster the market while HTC/Oculus improve their products and lower prices for second gen.
[QUOTE=Orkel;49784892]Until they actually experience it themselves, that is.[/QUOTE] And then they just get motion sick. [editline]21st February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=meppers;49784896][IMG]http://www.samsung.com/us/explore/gear-vr/assets/images/desktop/GearVR_Hero_Gold.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] But that one is only an option if you have a certain phone. But to be realistic, there's not going to be cheap vr for a few years because the components needed for vr headsets are currently expensive. Luckily, high end phones also have some of those components.
[QUOTE=meppers;49784896][IMG]http://www.samsung.com/us/explore/gear-vr/assets/images/desktop/GearVR_Hero_Gold.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] people talk shita bout gearvr and cardboard, even though oculus literally uses samsung phone screens
[QUOTE=Lolkork;49784907]And then they just get motion sick.[/QUOTE] If they play a bad game/experience, yeah.
[QUOTE=Orkel;49784700]That isn't/wasn't VR.[/QUOTE] Let me use a better example from the 90's, also ironically costing $700. [img]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a166/ballsandy/Computer%20related/VFX1/IMG_7196.jpg[/img] [sp]PC not included[/sp] We literally went 20 years since the last attempt and though the tech got better the price didn't change. It's a joke and saying it's expensive because it's for the high-end is a fucking backpedal. Most of the sets being marketed now were initially advertised for the general public, in at least one case it was initially advertised for half what it's finally going to market for.
[QUOTE=pentium;49784934]Let me use a better example from the 90's, also ironically costing $700. [img]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a166/ballsandy/Computer%20related/VFX1/IMG_7196.jpg[/img] [sp]PC not included[/sp] We literally went 20 years since the last attempt and though the tech got better the price didn't change. It's a joke.[/QUOTE] 90's VR just wasn't VR at least not even slightly close to the level we had now [video=youtube;_fpL9iBi430]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fpL9iBi430[/video] the thing about 90's VR was, they Frankenstein'ed together whatever they could to desperately try and make VR "Work", even if it was only the SLIGHTEST amount, to either scam people out of their cash, or to pretend they had the tech available. The thing about VR today, is that they actually want a functional VR headset
[QUOTE=J!NX;49784937]90's VR wasn't fucking VR [/QUOTE] Stereoscopic LCD displays, motion head tracking, multichannel sound, a handheld controller that allows for multi-axis manipulation of objects or the rendered environment......sounds like VR to me unless you're blindly defending the Virtual Boy as a VR device.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/aARSpDg.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=pentium;49784953]Stereoscopic LCD displays, motion head tracking, multichannel sound......sounds like VR to me unless you're blindly defending the Virtual Boy as a VR device.[/QUOTE] and you love blindly defending old tech. They were failed attempts. Nothing had the same following as today, period. The VR tech in the 90's however was undefendably shitty and never took off for a reason. The difference is that the 90's VR solutions were going to be actually physically painful. Also, 800$ is undefendably expensive for me, but the cost will go down hopefully, people are still buying into it at least. If the headset makes the user feel PHYSICAL PAIN, or requires an insane amount of tinkering to work, then it's not a solution. The 90's had amazing tech, but it wasn't amazing in the VR department. [QUOTE]unless you're blindly defending the Virtual Boy as a VR device.[/QUOTE] also, this doesn't even make sense??
Can we ... like.... not have one of those discussion where everyone involved doesn't plan to change anyway and is only here to show others how superior the point he is making is? Can we...I don't know. Be proactive? Productive? Be happy for the people able to afford it and see the chances it brings?
[QUOTE=pentium;49784953]Stereoscopic LCD displays, motion head tracking, multichannel sound......sounds like VR to me unless you're blindly defending the Virtual Boy as a VR device.[/QUOTE] All of those things existed but they weren't good enough back then, and we didn't really have computers good enough to use them for anything worthwhile.
Wonder how much the total cost will be shipped to Sweden. The Oculus Rift manages to cost well over 800 dollars if taxes and shipping are included.
[QUOTE=J!NX;49784972]and you love blindly defending old tech. They were failed attempts. Nothing had the same following as today, period. The VR tech in the 90's however was undefendably shitty and never took off for a reason.[/quote] How is this me defending old fucking tech? It's a consumer VR decice just as much as the fucking Vive. That like saying "The Fiat Panda isnt a car because its shit". [quote]also, this doesn't even make sense??[/QUOTE] In response to Orkel pointing out that a pictured Virtual Boy was not actually VR.
[QUOTE=Killuah;49784975]Can we ... like.... not have one of those discussion where everyone involved doesn't plan to change anyway and is only here to show others how superior the point he is making is? Can we...I don't know. Be proactive? Productive? Be happy for the people able to afford it and see the chances it brings?[/QUOTE] I'm really looking forward to when people without infinite money for beastly computers and high end tech can afford and use them.
"VR won't take off at this rate", said by people who obviously aren't closely following it and are instead just vaguely watching from the sidelines lmao
The question is with the higher price is it really worth picking over the oculus Yeah the "you can walk around the room and move around" thing looks cool and all but so did the Wii when it first came out. I feel like it doesn't go far enough to be anything more than a gimmick at this point
I expected it to be more expensive, honestly. Still, high quality dedicated HMDs (Oculus and Vive) are going to be expensive initially. The cost of the tech being put into them is pretty damn high by themselves, and the OEMs making them have to make a profit somehow if we want VR to continue to be a thing. If you want those to be less expensive, then just wait for a few generations because the prices will only come down with time. If you're really wanting to have a relatively affordable VR experience ASAP, then you'll be looking into getting a mobile powered HMD. They're not as extensive as the Oculus and Vive are, but for VR media consumption (which is where VR seems to actually be going for the most part), they're perfect. Although VR gaming is a cool concept, I don't see it taking off until they find some ways to alleviate some of the issues that people have it with, especially when it comes to first person games (which is what most people want in VR experiences). The only way we have right now is to have those games use some sort of teleportation mechanic paired with room tracking, but people want to actually feel like they're moving around in a big open world rather than a small room that they have to teleport around occasionally.
[QUOTE=pentium;49784993]How is this me defending old fucking tech? It's a consumer VR decice just as much as the fucking Vive. That like saying "The Fiat Panda isnt a car because its shit". In response to Orkel pointing out that a pictured Virtual Boy was not actually VR.[/QUOTE] this is more like saying the old ford motor prototype cars aren't cars. at 640x480 with a fov of 45 it's as much a VR device as Vive, as much as a [t]https://www.thehenryford.org/exhibits/showroom/1896/quadbig.jpg[/t] is a car today. Not really that suitable for consumer use when compared to today. Ford had to have been the smartest man alive to have thought of this, and it revolutionized the market forever. Even still, car's back then were far too shitty to function to nearly the same quality as a car today. They were unreliably slow, just as the VFX (best attempt at VR) as unreliably lackluster. Of course, the difference is that cars very, very quickly picked up and improved over the decades, and that the early models actually picked up to begin with. VR still is in its early stages.
[media]https://twitter.com/KazHiraiCEO/status/701409666744582144[/media]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.