Oculus just now hired Jason Rubin, co-founder of Naughty Dog.
[URL]https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1523379957/oculus-rift-step-into-the-game/posts/872324?at=BAh7CDoMcG9zdF9pZGkDhE8NSSIIdWlkBjoGRVRpA2W2HkkiC2V4cGlyeQY7BlRJIhgyMDE0LTA3LTEwIDE0OjIzOjMyBjsGVA%3D%3D--2002d411bdd932eb956d1bfce04a5c09f7882c41&ref=backer_project_update[/URL]
I don't know what he's currently up to but he made a speech in 2004 that I saw a couple of years ago about the state of the industry which is incredibly insightful and definately still relevant. It's over 50 minutes long though.
[video=youtube;uhmYENdFZc8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhmYENdFZc8[/video]
[url]http://www.stuff.tv/oculus/oculus-founder-tells-stuff-were-going-sell-rift-cost-price/news[/url]
[quote]Still shaking from the pant-ruining terror of playing Alien Isolation on the Oculus Rift, we sat down with Oculus founder, Palmer Luckey, to discuss what's next for the field-leading VR company. And while Luckey remained tight-lipped on a release date for Oculus as a finished consumer gadget, he did reveal that Oculus doesn't plan to make any money from selling it.
[B]"WHATEVER IT COSTS US TO MAKE, THAT IS WHAT WE’RE GOING TO SELL IT FOR"[/b][/quote]
CV1 is going to be fucking [I]cheap[/I].
For comparison, an iPhone costs $198.70, the components and manufacturing and all. How much will a (relatively) much simpler Rift cost..?
[QUOTE=Orkel;45067749][url]http://www.stuff.tv/oculus/oculus-founder-tells-stuff-were-going-sell-rift-cost-price/news[/url]
CV1 is going to be fucking [I]cheap[/I].
For comparison, an iPhone costs $198.70, the components and manufacturing and all. How much will a (relatively) much simpler Rift cost..?[/QUOTE]
And on that bombshell, goodnight!
Seriously, though... Woah. Somebody do a parts cost breakdown on the DK1, and then consider that the DK2 is cheaper in parts. How much cheaper is CV1 going to be?
Also consider that the problem with the widespread adoption of 3D televisions was the cost of the sets themselves, and the price of additional glasses per user. We can assume the television makers were trying to leverage a hefty profit on the eyewear. Oculus has just sidestepped that hurdle by a mile.
We're talking sub-$100 VR headsets here, if you consider that the Rift is essentially a $30-50 phone screen (at supplier prices), some accelerometers, gyroscopes, and circuitry that's available for pennies, the lenses, and the housing. This is big.
EDIT: I don't like Luckey's "I don't care if people want it sooner..." though... Not because it's necessarily a bad thing. It really isn't. However, I don't want VR ending up like Half-Life 3, and I don't want Oculus running on Valve time. That'd hurt the brand too much, I think. What happens when people invest in Sony's VR, or Samsung's, and the market's saturated by the time Oculus enters the fray? Having a better product isn't always the key to consumer adoption, and being late to the game doesn't help.
Hopefully we're looking at a year, max. If Sony decides to drop the Morpheus at this November's Playstation Conference, Luckey and the gang are going to have to strike back hard if they want any of that marketshare or mindshare. I really don't want this to fizzle, I don't want it to be another Half-Life 3, or Duke Nukem Forever, or any other piece of vaporware that's come and gone.
[QUOTE=woolio1;45067969]And on that bombshell, goodnight!
Seriously, though... Woah. Somebody do a parts cost breakdown on the DK1, and then consider that the DK2 is cheaper in parts. How much cheaper is CV1 going to be?
Also consider that the problem with the widespread adoption of 3D televisions was the cost of the sets themselves, and the price of additional glasses per user. We can assume the television makers were trying to leverage a hefty profit on the eyewear. Oculus has just sidestepped that hurdle by a mile.
We're talking sub-$100 VR headsets here, if you consider that the Rift is essentially a $30-50 phone screen (at supplier prices), some accelerometers, gyroscopes, and circuitry that's available for pennies, the lenses, and the housing. This is big.[/QUOTE]
And is probably one of the reasons palmer is urging consumers to not buy the DK2 no matter what. To reduce the bitching when they reveal a $150 CV1 with better everything later this year :v:
[QUOTE=Orkel;45068016]And is probably one of the reasons palmer is urging consumers to not buy the DK2 no matter what. To reduce the bitching when they reveal a $150 CV1 with better everything later this year :v:[/QUOTE]
$150? Heck, I'd be shocked if anything in either of those dev kits is worth $150, even total. The Rift is not a complex device, it's just really smartly engineered. And with CV1 being built from the ground up, it's going to be even more smartly engineered and even less expensive.
The thinner, lighter comment's got me thinking... What do you want to bet they'll be pulling some curved OLED trickery in CV1, with a wraparound lens? They might be able to pull off a taller Geordi visor, something flatter and closer to the face.
Ow, my hype just started acting up again over the CV1 revelations. I think I'll need to go lay down for a bit.
[QUOTE=woolio1;45068149]They might be able to pull off a taller Geordi visor, something flatter and closer to the face.[/QUOTE]
I don't know how close you'd want to put the screen to your face. The closer it is, the more easily visible the individual pixels would be. You would need a screen with a higher density to put it closer to the face.
[QUOTE=Daemon White;45068230]I don't know how close you'd want to put the screen to your face. The closer it is, the more easily visible the individual pixels would be. You would need a screen with a higher density to put it closer to the face.[/QUOTE]
How many times have they mentioned CV1 is going to be higher resolution?
My tally's about twenty right now.
[QUOTE=Daemon White;45068230]I don't know how close you'd want to put the screen to your face. The closer it is, the more easily visible the individual pixels would be. You would need a screen with a higher density to put it closer to the face.[/QUOTE]
The lenses warp the images to fill your field of view.
Regardless of how close or far the screen is it's only the post-transformed image that matters.
However, I have a strong belief they wouldn't change the screen from flat to curved since it would cause all the software to also change in a non-backwards compatible way (or so I'd bet).
[QUOTE=woolio1;45068243]How many times have they mentioned CV1 is going to be higher resolution?
My tally's about twenty right now.[/QUOTE]
I know that the CV1 will be higher resolution. It will definitely improve on the screen door effect, but what I was thinking was that it will improve the screen door effect for the distance it currently is at and that bringing it even closer to the face might be counter-productive.
Keyword is might, I'm no engineer, and I have yet to try any of this for myself so I don't know. All speculation.
[QUOTE=bord2tears;45068259]The lenses warp the images to fill your field of view.
Regardless of how close or far the screen is it's only the post-transformed image that matters.
However, I have a strong belief they wouldn't change the screen from flat to curved since it would cause all the software to also change in a non-backwards compatible way (or so I'd bet).[/QUOTE]
Doubt it... You'd just change the shape of the projection. The Rift already makes the render a perfect circle for projection into the lenses, if you curved it and widened the field of view, you'd just need to stretch that projection out and remap it. All of that can be done in a software handler layer, or baked into the game itself depending.
[editline]11th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Daemon White;45068269]I know that the CV1 will be higher resolution. It will definitely improve on the screen door effect, but what I was thinking was that it will improve the screen door effect for the distance it currently is at and that bringing it even closer to the face might be counter-productive.
Keyword is might, I'm no engineer, and I have yet to try any of this for myself so I don't know. All speculation.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. They've already said it'll be thinner, though, so we absolutely know that they're bringing that screen closer to the face. The only question is how close.
They've stated multiple times the cv1 will just be a dk2 but better in every way you can think of, it is extremely unlikely to get curved screens or other trickery that modify the core features and construction.
[QUOTE=Orkel;45068336]They've stated multiple times the cv1 will just be a dk2 but better in every way you can think of, it is extremely unlikely to get curved screens or other trickery that modify the core features and construction.[/QUOTE]
But Luckey's stated in that article that the CV1 won't use any of the same parts, and will be lighter, thinner, and built from the ground up.
So... Hm. What do you make of that, beyond his usual enthusiasm?
EDIT: This bit, right here:
[quote]"There isn’t a single piece from DK1 or DK2 that will go into it, so we’re able to design it from the beginning to be a perfectly integrated, minimal piece of hardware."[/quote]
[QUOTE=woolio1;45068408]But Luckey's stated in that article that the CV1 won't use any of the same parts, and will be lighter, thinner, and built from the ground up.
So... Hm. What do you make of that, beyond his usual enthusiasm?
EDIT: This bit, right here:[/QUOTE]
Yes, but the feature set will remain the same. They stated DK2 has all the building blocks for CV1.
Palmer was chatting with giant bomb earlier
[url]http://www.giantbomb.com/videos/giant-bomb-live-e3-2014-day-1/2300-9056/[/url]
[QUOTE=Scot;45072179]Palmer was chatting with giant bomb earlier
[url]http://www.giantbomb.com/videos/giant-bomb-live-e3-2014-day-1/2300-9056/[/url][/QUOTE]
Palmer's barefoot.
What a professional.
I'm a bit worried about the being sold at-cost bit.
How does Oculus plan on making money and staying functional as a business? I hope they realize that the less money they make, the more Facebook is going to get nervous about their investment and try to step in.
I'm not saying that they should price the OR like a pizza ($1-$2 to make on average, sold for $10-$15) or an iPhone, I'm saying its a good idea to make some kind of return on each rift sold while still making sure its cheap enough to get widespread adoption.
The rift isn't a console where they can make up for lost profit on units sold through liscensing fees and what-not. Its a totally open platform. The only money they are going to get is from the OR itself unless they have something else planned.
[QUOTE=KorJax;45072565]I'm a bit worried about the being sold at-cost bit.
How does Oculus plan on making money and staying functional as a business? I hope they realize that the less money they make, the more Facebook is going to get nervous about their investment and try to step in.
I'm not saying that they should price the OR like a pizza ($1-$2 to make on average, sold for $10-$15) or an iPhone, I'm saying its a good idea to make some kind of return on each rift sold while still making sure its cheap enough to get widespread adoption.
The rift isn't a console where they can make up for lost profit on units sold through liscensing fees and what-not. Its a totally open platform. The only money they are going to get is from the OR itself unless they have something else planned.[/QUOTE]
Zuckerburg probably trusts Lucky to create a larger user-base, to which the VR world is lacking.
How will Facebook make money off of a VR venture if there is no one to supply demand for software?
Palmer just wants to start up a VR industry as fast as possible. IF the Oculus was cheap, you bet that mummies and daddies would buy it for their children, and the average PC gamer would buy it.
It was mentioned somewhere before, but it's one of those things where with Facebook backing them, they can afford to sell it at cost and with it beign so cheap, almost anyone can get aboard the VR Train now.
Once everyone is aboard they can start making software (They have the people to do that really well) and sell that for profits. With everyone on and looking for game made explicitly for the Rift / VR, then there is a huge fanbase that they can immediately sell to.
That made me think: How does Facebook make money on Instagram? There are no ads and it's free.
If that part about them selling it at factory costs is true, holy shit - < $150 VR headsets which are also the best ever made available for anyone.
[QUOTE=PHrag;45072691]That made me think: How does Facebook make money on Instagram? There are no ads and it's free.
If that part about them selling it at factory costs is true, holy shit - < $150 VR headsets which are also the best ever made available for anyone.[/QUOTE]
it's something truly unheard of in this day and age
I was planing to buy CV1 and I were expecting a 300-400$ price and would gladly pay that amount. But if really will land in the 150-250$ range I'm seriously considering buying two.
It would be INSANE if it were sold at ~factory price. I mean, THAT'S how you build a large user base.
I'm excited and eager to see/hear more from them!
IIRC Consoles were sold at cost or a loss for the longest time with the bet being the games would make enough money to offset that. It made sense as the cost of the console was the biggest initial cost for the consumer and making that more palatable would make people more willing to buy the console, and with more people owning the console more people would buy the games.
If Oculus is using the same plan, it will make VR more mainstream that much faster. Selling the Rift at cost is a very savvy move.
[QUOTE=ClarkWasHere;45072368]Palmer's barefoot.
What a professional.[/QUOTE]
He had sandals :D
[editline]11th June 2014[/editline]
Probably Crocs.
[QUOTE=GeneralSpecific;45073873]IIRC Consoles were sold at cost or a loss for the longest time with the bet being the games would make enough money to offset that. It made sense as the cost of the console was the biggest initial cost for the consumer and making that more palatable would make people more willing to buy the console, and with more people owning the console more people would buy the games.
If Oculus is using the same plan, it will make VR more mainstream that much faster. Selling the Rift at cost is a very savvy move.[/QUOTE]
It's not entirely for the same reasons though. Console manufacturers recoup those costs through license premiums on games (which is why a console game costs 10 bucks more than its pc counterpart).
Oculus can't do that. They're purely selling low because they are trying to kick off an entirely new medium and selling it to as many people as possible.
$150 sounds a bit sensationalized, and having everyone disappointed when they announce the actual price wouldn't be good.
Interesting article on how VR devs have to deal with player avatars and collision:
[url]http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/SergioHidalgo/20140611/219121/VR_Letting_go_of_the_avatar.php[/url]
In short the problem is that if a player pushes his head through a wall in VR.. you don't want it to actually clip through. But you also don't want there to be a discrepancy between camera movement and player head movement.
[editline]12th June 2014[/editline]
Game titled "The Assembly" announced for the Morpheus, as well as the OR apparently.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0XVkP6lXOU[/media]
I anticipate paying around $250-300 for a rift, and plan on buying two.
The price will probably be higher than $150 if they go with the absolute latest "prototype screens" and other jazz, and they also said that there are a couple of "features" that they haven't yet revealed. Might be eye or hand tracking.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
