[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;49471770]Yea but these are reservations, not pre-orders, no? How many people are going to actually go through with their payment is anyones guess.[/QUOTE]
I wonder how many people just reserved it to try and scalp a set to sell on ebay
[QUOTE=Cmx;49471816]I wonder how many people just reserved it to try and scalp a set to sell on ebay[/QUOTE]
hint: it's already being scalped
[img]http://i.imgur.com/upOFdE9.png[/img]
they should throw official listings on ebay to discourage that behavior
[QUOTE=Laferio;49469430]$700 for a ps3 on launch?[/QUOTE]
It was 900 here if you got the fancy edition and 600 if you didn't.
To be honest, after making the conversion to my currency, it's kinda the price I expected it to be.
But I'll have to wait till the import fees kick in to have a better judgement.
I'm still waiting for Vive though.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;49472388]they should throw official listings on ebay to discourage that behavior[/QUOTE]
I think the main attracting factor here is the idea that they'll be able to get it in march instead of may
surprisingly, some people are willing to pay a premium like that in order to get it 2 months earlier than if they ordered now
I'm still waiting for the vive pricepoint. If its the same as the rift, or even slightly more, I'm going for the Vive instead.
Palmer's doing an [url=https://nr.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3zt7ul/i_am_palmer_luckey_founder_of_oculus_and_designer/]AMA[/url] right now on Reddit.
Concerning the price and how many people thought it would be lower:
[quote]I handled the messaging poorly. Earlier last year, we started officially messaging that the Rift+Recommended spec PC would cost roughly $1500. That was around the time we committed to the path of prioritizing quality over cost, trying to make the best VR headset possible with current technology. Many outlets picked the story up as “Rift will cost $1500!”, which was honestly a good thing - the vast majority of consumers (and even gamers!) don’t have a PC anywhere close to the rec. spec, and many people were confused enough to think the Rift was a standalone device. For that vast majority of people, $1500 is the all-in cost of owning Rift. The biggest portion of their cost is the PC, not the Rift itself.
For gamers that already have high end GPUs, the equation is obviously different. In a September interview, during the Oculus Connect developer conference, I made the infamous “roughly in that $350 ballpark, but it will cost more than that” quote. As an explanation, not an excuse: during that time, many outlets were repeating the “Rift is $1500!” line, and I was frustrated by how many people thought that was the price of the headset itself. My answer was ill-prepared, and mentally, I was contrasting $349 with $1500, not our internal estimate that hovered close to $599 - that is why I said it was in roughly the same ballpark. Later on, I tried to get across that the Rift would cost more than many expected, in the past two weeks particularly. There are a lot of reasons we did not do a better job of prepping people who already have high end GPUs, legal, financial, competitive, and otherwise, but to be perfectly honest, our biggest failing was assuming we had been clear enough about setting expectations. Another problem is that people looked at the much less advanced technology in DK2 for $350 and assumed the consumer Rift would cost a similar amount, an assumption that myself (and Oculus) did not do a good job of fixing. I apologize.
To be perfectly clear, we don’t make money on the Rift. The Xbox controller costs us almost nothing to bundle, and people can easily resell it for profit. A lot of people wish we would sell a bundle without “useless extras” like high-end audio, a carrying case, the bundled games, etc, but those just don’t significantly impact the cost. The core technology in the Rift is the main driver - two built-for-VR OLED displays with very high refresh rate and pixel density, a very precise tracking system, mechanical adjustment systems that must be lightweight, durable, and precise, and cutting-edge optics that are more complex to manufacture than many high end DSLR lenses. It is expensive, but for the $599 you spend, you get a lot more than spending $599 on pretty much any other consumer electronics devices - phones that cost $599 cost a fraction of that to make, same with mid-range TVs that cost $599. There are a lot of mainstream devices in that price-range, so as you have said, our failing was in communication, not just price.[/quote]
[editline]7th January 2016[/editline]
The Rift basically shifted to being a high-end consumer product, because the VR hardware landscape has changed. Cheaper options are starting to appear, so Oculus decided their role would be better suited filling in the high-end.
[editline]7th January 2016[/editline]
And the high-end looks [url=https://twitter.com/nchan/status/684920428339437568]sexy[/url].
[QUOTE=Orkel;49469523]Rift has a production cost of around $1000 (palmer tweeted that if they wanted profit, they'd have to sell the Rift at above $1000) so they're definitely subsidizing its price - maybe just not enough. I wish they used the facebook money to drop it to 499, would have been a lot more palatable to everyone.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't have a production cost of around 1000 dollars, every expense, from advertising, utilities, maintenance, research, production, and whatever else costs money takes a bite out of your revenue and thus affects your net profit. So i'm gonna assume that it actually costs 20 dollars to make using shoddy Chinese hardware, and that Mark Zuckerberg has stripped the company of all of their cash by spending it all on hookers and blow, thus necessitating the higher price point.
$850AUD, I'm so glad I had no interest in VR.
Quite the price for a neat little gimmick only a few things will support.
[QUOTE=Luxuria;49474869]$850AUD, I'm so glad I had no interest in VR.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure it actually comes out as more once you select Australia as the country and then shipping costs. A lot of Australians have said a total of $1100AUD
Yeah $1111.68 at current exchange rates, probably going to be even more once it's shipped.
Wow, I could've just buy a Samsung VR and a Note 5 here and still get the same performance for less price.
I don't even see how the heck does it even cost $1000 to manufacture, every smart phone nowadays has a motion sensor and yet they cost less than that. They have just as much if not more computing power than the Rift itself and it still cheaper.
How expensive is just a bunch of motion sensor, a cheap CPU, a screen and a plastic casing?
[QUOTE=Soriddo;49475405]Wow, I could've just buy a Samsung VR and a Note 5 here and still get the same performance for less price.[/QUOTE]
you do realize that samsung VR pretty much only plays shitty phone games? right?
the difference isn't even slightly comparable.
[editline]7th January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Grandzeit;49474943]Quite the price for a neat little [B]gimmick [/B]only a few things will support.[/QUOTE]
There's that magic word that people use to dismiss something
also "Few things will support", another buzz word everyone likes to use.
I noticed that no one dismisses it without using these terms
[QUOTE=Soriddo;49475405]Wow, I could've just buy a Samsung VR and a Note 5 here and still get the same performance for less price.
I don't even see how the heck does it even cost $1000 to manufacture, every smart phone nowadays has a motion sensor and yet they cost less than that. They have just as much if not more computing power than the Rift itself and it still cheaper.
How expensive is just a bunch of motion sensor, a cheap CPU, a screen and a plastic casing?[/QUOTE]
What? You're saying that you're gonna get the same performance from a smartphone that you'd get from using the Oculus with a VR-ready PC? Did you even think about what you're saying?
[QUOTE=simkas;49475464]What? You're saying that you're gonna get the same performance from a smartphone that you'd get from using the Oculus with a VR-ready PC? Did you even think about what you're saying?[/QUOTE]
the[U] gpu alone [/U]on a gaming pc, without even counting the cooler, is literally twice as big and far more powerful than everything inside the phone, even if you count the screen.
[QUOTE=J!NX;49475410]
There's that magic word that people use to dismiss something
also "Few things will support", another buzz word everyone likes to use.
I noticed that no one dismisses it without using these terms[/QUOTE]
Maybe because that's what it is. It changes your experience with a few games, that's it. It's expensive for consumers, it's expensive and risky to develop for, it might not even be that fun to use for a lot of people since it's both cumbersome and prone to give you a headache or nausea until your body is used to it.
It's not much different from the Kinect, honestly. Another gimmick for the gimmick pile, except this thing costs more than a decent gaming PC alone.
[QUOTE=Grandzeit;49475576]Maybe because that's what it is. It changes your experience with a few games, that's it.[/QUOTE]
But it's not though? You can use it with regular games, yeah, but that's just one possible use. Its main use is for games that are specifically made for VR, which there aren't that many out at the time. It's absolutely nothing like the Kinect, the Kinect is just a thing that tried to slightly change how you play games, VR can create completely different and new experiences that we could never have before.
[QUOTE=Grandzeit;49475576]Maybe because that's what it is. It changes your experience with a few games, that's it. It's expensive for consumers, it's expensive and risky to develop for, it might not even be that fun to use for a lot of people since it's both cumbersome and prone to give you a headache or nausea until your body is used to it.[/QUOTE]
only a few games??? can you show me all of the "Few" games there are? If there are only a "Few" games then this should be an insanely short list.
and everyone I've heard of using it, I've NEVER heard them complain about it being that cumbersome or cause nausea, except in a very fine few cases.
[QUOTE=Grandzeit;49475576]
It's not much different from the Kinect, honestly. Another gimmick for the gimmick pile, except this thing costs more than a decent gaming PC alone.[/QUOTE]
there is a huge reason the kinect failed, and that's because of how insanely impractical even HAND motion control is for gameplay, let alone full body, without a controller like the wiimote / etc. VR is a high end screen on your face that has head tracking, a far more simple concept with a far greater impact to the immersion is.
[QUOTE=Grandzeit;49475576]Maybe because that's what it is. It changes your experience with a few games, that's it. It's expensive for consumers, it's expensive and risky to develop for, it might not even be that fun to use for a lot of people since it's both cumbersome and prone to give you a headache or nausea until your body is used to it.
It's not much different from the Kinect, honestly. Another gimmick for the gimmick pile, [B]except this thing costs more than a decent gaming PC alone.[/B][/QUOTE]
Says the guy who apparently only plays farmville, since that's the only game you can play on a $599 PC nowadays...
(Note: I don't agree with the way they announced the price.)
[QUOTE=Flumbooze;49475671]Says the guy who apparently only plays farmville, since that's the only game you can play on a $599 PC nowadays...
(Note: I don't agree with the way they announced the price.)[/QUOTE]
600$ PC can do a pretty decent amount of gaming actually
especially when you consider the fact that we have 20+ years of games you could play on a 400$ machine if you're new to games, PC gaming can be cheap
low end machines are pretty justified to shoot for, budget wise.
[editline]7th January 2016[/editline]
of course that's not to say you're going to be playing fallout 4 on ultra, or like, at all, on a 400$ machine. 600$ might though.
[QUOTE=J!NX;49475675]600$ PC can do a pretty decent amount of gaming actually
especially when you consider the fact that we have 20+ years of games you could play on a 400$ machine if you're new to games, PC gaming can be cheap
low end machines are pretty justified to shoot for, budget wise.
[editline]7th January 2016[/editline]
of course that's not to say you're going to be playing fallout 4 on ultra, or like, at all, on a 400$ machine. 600$ might though.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but he said 'decent' gaming PC so I don't think playing Call of Duty 1 is what you want from a 'decent' gaming PC.
[QUOTE=Flumbooze;49475671]Says the guy who apparently only plays farmville, since that's the only game you can play on a $599 PC nowadays...[/QUOTE]
What
Also $600 is minus tax and shipping. Still more than enough to run most games to this date pretty well without looking like trash.
[QUOTE=simkas;49475580]Its main use is for games that are specifically made for VR, which there aren't that many out at the time.[/QUOTE]
My fear is that if the requirements for VR and the cost of a VR setup itself put them out of reach to most gamers, making VR an expensive toy for dedicated enthusiasts, there won't [I]be[/I] any mainstream games made specifically for VR. No major publisher will bankroll a game that alienates a majority of its audience through technical requirements.
And it could make for a circular situation where affordable VR doesn't get developed quickly because there's no market for VR because it's too expensive. There are a lot of interrelated factors here that are necessary for VR to become mainstream in gaming.
I'm a VR convert, ever since trying it at PAX I've known that I'll be buying one, but I'm concerned that it'll wind up like the TrackIR I have sitting in the closet- a fun peripheral but not something that will transform the market.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49475985]My fear is that if the requirements for VR and the cost of a VR setup itself put them out of reach to most gamers, making VR an expensive toy for dedicated enthusiasts, there won't [I]be[/I] any mainstream games made specifically for VR. No major publisher will bankroll a game that alienates a majority of its audience through technical requirements.
And it could make for a circular situation where affordable VR doesn't get developed quickly because there's no market for VR because it's too expensive. There are a lot of interrelated factors here that are necessary for VR to become mainstream in gaming.
I'm a VR convert, ever since trying it at PAX I've known that I'll be buying one, but I'm concerned that it'll wind up like the TrackIR I have sitting in the closet- a fun peripheral but not something that will transform the market.[/QUOTE]
Thats pretty much the way I see it. Seems like we jumped the gun on VR and it's being ramped into production when it's not at all cost effective for the consumer or the developer.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49475985]My fear is that if the requirements for VR and the cost of a VR setup itself put them out of reach to most gamers, making VR an expensive toy for dedicated enthusiasts, there won't [I]be[/I] any mainstream games made specifically for VR. No major publisher will bankroll a game that alienates a majority of its audience through technical requirements.
And it could make for a circular situation where affordable VR doesn't get developed quickly because there's no market for VR because it's too expensive. There are a lot of interrelated factors here that are necessary for VR to become mainstream in gaming.
I'm a VR convert, ever since trying it at PAX I've known that I'll be buying one, but I'm concerned that it'll wind up like the TrackIR I have sitting in the closet- a fun peripheral but not something that will transform the market.[/QUOTE]
I don't really see that happening. What I think will happen is that those enthusiasts are gonna be making games for VR (there's already some almost AAA quality games being made for VR), which will probably take a few years and then by the time a lot of those games will be finished, the technology used in the VR headsets and needed PC hardware will get cheaper and the headsets will become much more affordable to use to a wide audience and that's when the big VR boom will happen. That's kinda what happens with any new technology, it starts expensive where only real enthusiasts can afford it and then over the course of a few years it gets much cheaper and more available to a wide audience and then it becomes something that a huge amount of people have.
[QUOTE=simkas;49476080]I don't really see that happening. What I think will happen is that those enthusiasts are gonna be making games for VR (there's already some almost AAA quality games being made for VR), which will probably take a few years and then by the time a lot of those games will be finished, the technology used in the VR headsets and needed PC hardware will get cheaper and the headsets will become much more affordable to use to a wide audience and that's when the big VR boom will happen. That's kinda what happens with any new technology, it starts expensive where only real enthusiasts can afford it and then over the course of a few years it gets much cheaper and more available to a wide audience and then it becomes something that a huge amount of people have.[/QUOTE]
I would agree with you here if the occulus had everything you need to get going on it. The piece of hardware itself is $600 and you need a $800-1000 PC to play anything on the occulus. The startup costs for occulus is pretty insane.
The original Xbox and PS3 were like you mentioned; extremely expensive to start but the price dropped gradually and within about a year they were affordable by the mass market. The difference between a PS3 or 360 and the Occulus is that the 360 and PS3 are ready to play out of the box, your only requirement is a TV. The Occulus isn't at all like this.
If the Xbone and PS4 were just $600 hardware add-ons to the original PS3 and 360, they probably wouldn't have sold as well since it alienates the market so badly.
[QUOTE=Flumbooze;49475742]Yeah but he said 'decent' gaming PC so I don't think playing Call of Duty 1 is what you want from a 'decent' gaming PC.[/QUOTE]
Are you being serious or just stupid? For 600$ you can get a decent PC (excluding peripherals) for 1080p gaming on middle-high settings. You're probably going to use AMD instead of Intel but it will still give you decent performance for half the price of the any Intel processor.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.