[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;49476111]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.[/QUOTE]
But that's the thing, the enthusiasts that are going to buy into VR right away are mostly developers who probably already have a pretty powerful PC and for them, that isn't going to be a problem.
And consoles are in general kind of a different deal altogether. Consoles have been around for more than 30 years and every new console is more or less an upgrade of the previous generation. VR is a completely new thing and there hasn't been anything like it before, so the very first example of it is obviously going to be really expensive.
Anyone have any idea how much it's going to be in euros when shipped to Finland?
I'm afraid I'll have to call off my reservation, if it's like I think it its (599 dollars is 523 euros, when you add Finlands tax it's ~685 euros which in turn is ~745 dollars and this doesn't even count shipping so fuck).
[QUOTE=J!NX;49475410]
There's that magic word that people use to dismiss something
[/QUOTE]
In a literal sense VR has been a gimmick up until now, being something you can not buy or use that is used to draw attention. This is the point where it is no longer a gimmick, instead it's a prohibitively expensive experiment that may or may not take off.
[editline]7th January 2016[/editline]
Also, if you aren't already 100% on the VR train I would advise against becoming an early adopter. You're spending $600+ dollars on the worst version of a product that has very few games. It basically buying a console on day 1. Maybe wait for the first revision where the price has dropped and there are actual games for it.
God, the worst thing for VR will be if the first year of games are just tech demos. I hope you guys who do buy one get a decent game by the end of the year.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;49476175]In a literal sense VR has been a gimmick up until now, being something you can not buy or use that is used to draw attention. This is the point where it is no longer a gimmick, instead it's a prohibitively expensive experiment that may or may not take off.[/QUOTE]
which is pretty much entirely true really
there have been so many bullshit 'attempts' at "VR"
people have even made "TRUE VR HEADSETS" for... 2D games
[QUOTE=simkas;49476137]But that's the thing, the enthusiasts that are going to buy into VR right away are mostly developers who probably already have a pretty powerful PC and for them, that isn't going to be a problem.[/QUOTE]
Right, but a few developers making niche VR indie games isn't going to trigger a VR revolution in gaming. I think your prediction of it taking a few years of slow adoption is the most likely outcome but I also think there's a possibility of it fizzling out and dying if there isn't a full ecosystem to sustain it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall the Rift requires games to be specifically developed for it- it's not something you can just use with any game. That means that the Rift can only be usable if developers specifically develop for it, which in turn requires that the Rift have sufficient market penetration that the return is worth the investment.
It's a chicken-or-the-egg situation. VR can't become popular if developers don't develop for it, developers won't develop for it if it's not popular. The question here is whether the hype is enough to surpass business pragmatism and encourage developers to develop for it even if the market is small.
No matter what happens, even without official support most games will have third party (programs / mods) support
skyrim, ut99, and a bunch of other games have VR support, albeit crappy, through these methods.
of course, this is [I]far[/I] from ideal
[QUOTE=catbarf;49476210]Right, but a few developers making niche VR indie games isn't going to trigger a VR revolution in gaming. I think your prediction of it taking a few years of slow adoption is the most likely outcome but I also think there's a possibility of it fizzling out and dying if there isn't a full ecosystem to sustain it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall the Rift requires games to be specifically developed for it- it's not something you can just use with any game. That means that the Rift can only be usable if developers specifically develop for it, which in turn requires that the Rift have sufficient market penetration that the return is worth the investment.
It's a chicken-or-the-egg situation. VR can't become popular if developers don't develop for it, developers won't develop for it if it's not popular. The question here is whether the hype is enough to surpass business pragmatism and encourage developers to develop for it even if the market is small.[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's going to be just "a few" developers making VR games, that's what has been happening until now when there was only really the Oculus DK headsets out there. There's gonna be a lot more developers getting behind it and developing stuff once the proper headsets are out.
[QUOTE=simkas;49476137]But that's the thing, the enthusiasts that are going to buy into VR right away are mostly developers who probably already have a pretty powerful PC and for them, that isn't going to be a problem.[/quote]
But there are no where near enough developers to support VR on their own, especially in it's early stages like this. Theres people out there who will buy this irrationally, but if you've got a PC powerful enough, you're probably smart enough not to buy into the first generation of new technology, and if you aren't smart enough, you're probably wise enough not to buy into a new technology that has no games. I'm all for supporting new markets like this but the expense to get this thing running is insane, it's prohibitively expensive.
[QUOTE=simkas;49476137]
And consoles are in general kind of a different deal altogether. Consoles have been around for more than 30 years and every new console is more or less an upgrade of the previous generation. VR is a completely new thing and there hasn't been anything like it before, so the very first example of it is obviously going to be really expensive.[/QUOTE]
While this is true, my comparison still works. A new console isn't going to have many new games on release, but again, it has everything you need to get going with it, except electricity and a television. If you want, you can go back to the early commodore 64's or Ataris. They had everything in them you needed, albeit expensive, it was plug and play on day one. Occulus doesn't have any of this. It comes with a few free tech demos but you need to dump $800-1000 into a high-end gaming PC for you to even be able to play those tech demos. And because Occulus is a walled garden, development specific too it is going to be sparse because the cost is way too high to hit the consumer market.
[media]https://twitter.com/PalmerLuckey/status/684775746913484804?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw[/media]
This tweet alone shows just how out of touch with reality this whole project is.
[editline]7th January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=simkas;49476268]I don't think it's going to be just "a few" developers making VR games, that's what has been happening until now when there was only really the Oculus DK headsets out there. There's gonna be a lot more developers getting behind it and developing stuff once the proper headsets are out.[/QUOTE]
Like Catbarf said, why develop for a prohibitively expensive product that not many people have, because not many people develop for it?
Lets all not buy the rift because no one will develop for it, therefore causing no one to develop for it because no one owns it
makes perfect sense
[editline]7th January 2016[/editline]
or maybe people can buy stuff and accept the risks involved, that way it actually has a chance to exist in the first place. You can't fund new tech using magic, you need people to purchase it first.
[QUOTE=J!NX;49476312]Lets all not buy the rift because no one will develop for it, therefore causing no one to develop for it because no one owns it
makes perfect sense[/QUOTE]
Whether you like it or not this may be how it ends up. If it were $200-400 I would certainly buy a Rift, even though there will be little support for the next year or so. But $600 is just far too much for something that may or may not take off.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;49476329]Whether you like it or not this may be how it ends up. If it were $200-400 I would certainly buy a Rift, even though there will be little support for the next year or so. But $600 is just far too much for something that may or may not take off.[/QUOTE]
it might not be worth it to [B]you[/B], and it might to expensive for [B]you[/B], but UHD for example and beyond didn't become a thing through people deciding to never purchase them "Because they're too expenseive". The only way you're going to get devs to actually make games is if there is enough demand for it. People bought the REALLY pricey monitors and it slowly grew.
But no, early adopters only do it because they're not smart enough to understand the risks, I guess? But if no one was an early adopter however we would all be using CRT monitors, or even worse. Every single thing about computers became a thing because people bought into new tech early on and because of that it managed to grow better and better. If it wasn't for people buying into obscenely expensive PC's in the 80's and 90's which had literally no games, we'd all be using consoles still
600$ isn't even nearly as expensive as you act like it is. That's about the same price as a high end monitor, if not cheaper. It's also much faster (90hz) and a higher res than a standard 1080p screen. People aren't as irrational as you think for wanting to get a boot in first. They know what they are risking and they're accepting that. That's the joy of getting new tech first, it's the entire point.
that being said, yes of course, 300$ would be INFINITELY better, but there are far, far more people who are willing to buy it at 600$ than you think, and they're smart enough to understand the risks.
[editline]7th January 2016[/editline]
like personally, I'm totally accepting the fact that I'm risking having to deal with third party support for mainstream titles. I totally accept this, in fact, that's what I WANT, it lets me see how VR works and lets me toy with a new and interesting device.
I want my boot in the door, I want to use it ahead of others, and I'm willing to accept the cons of that. Personally, I've accepted the price of the leap motion and even though it was a failure imho, it was exciting to see, though extremely disappointing. I've accepted the cost of the steam controller, and got something REALLY good out of it.
[QUOTE=simkas;49476268]I don't think it's going to be just "a few" developers making VR games, that's what has been happening until now when there was only really the Oculus DK headsets out there. There's gonna be a lot more developers getting behind it and developing stuff once the proper headsets are out.[/QUOTE]
But who are those developers? They won't be AAA, mainstream developers who are beholden to publishers unless they can make a business case for the time and expense of VR support. Indies? Sure, but like I said, a few indie devs making VR-specific games probably won't kickstart a VR revolution.
I'm sure that there will be plenty of new releases by AAA companies that support VR, but they won't be games developed specifically [I]for[/I] VR and requiring VR as an essential part of the experience. And if AAA games can be played without VR, the question for your average gamer is whether or not the cost of VR is worth the improved experience. If it costs him a thousand bucks for the headset plus necessary upgrades to his machine, then I doubt it.
Right now it's running on hype. There's nothing wrong with that. Any new console is sold on hype and the expectation that more games will be developed beyond the launch titles. But hype alone can't support a technology if market adoption doesn't follow.
[QUOTE=J!NX;49476368]it might not be worth it to [B]you[/B], and it might to expensive for [B]you[/B], but UHD for example and beyond didn't become a thing through people deciding to never purchase them "Because they're too expenseive". The only way you're going to get devs to actually make games is if there is enough demand for it. People bought the REALLY pricey monitors and it slowly grew.[/QUOTE]
What happened to plasma TVs? They were objectively superior display technology to LCD TVs. Better color, better contrast, better viewing angles, less motion blur.
But it was cost that ultimately killed them, because for most people the improved experience wasn't worth the price tag. Sure, there are a few enthusiasts who cling to their old plasmas, but they're not who the industry supports.
Don't try to take this analogy too literally. The difference between a Rift and a monitor is much greater than the difference between a plasma and LCD TV. But at the same time, your cable company didn't have to invest extra money to support plasma TVs. My point is that there is a long history of 'superior' technologies getting axed because the market couldn't sustain them.
I think VR has reached such impetus that it won't be a fad, but I think it is entirely possible that initial enthusiasm could fade and it'll reach 'cool niche peripheral' status for a few years (or even a decade) while the technology gradually matures.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49476411]But who are those developers? They won't be AAA, mainstream developers who are beholden to publishers unless they can make a business case for the time and expense of VR support. Indies? Sure, but like I said, a few indie devs making VR-specific games probably won't kickstart a VR revolution.
I'm sure that there will be plenty of new releases by AAA companies that support VR, but they won't be games developed specifically [I]for[/I] VR and requiring VR as an essential part of the experience. And if AAA games can be played without VR, the question for your average gamer is whether or not the cost of VR is worth the improved experience. If it costs him a thousand bucks for the headset plus necessary upgrades to his machine, then I doubt it.
Right now it's running on hype. There's nothing wrong with that. Any new console is sold on hype and the expectation that more games will be developed beyond the launch titles. But hype alone can't support a technology if market adoption doesn't follow..[/QUOTE]
There's already more than "a few" indie developers making games specifically for VR and the real headsets aren't even out. AAA doesn't need to developer VR only games for VR to get popular. And you're also forgetting that VR isn't just for games, it's gonna probably see pretty wide use for other kinds of applications used by people that aren't even at all interested in games.
So since Valve has infinite money, they can probably sell the Vive at a loss and still be fine. They could undercut the rift and become the main VR platform.
[QUOTE=IrishBandit;49476621]So since Valve has infinite money, they can probably sell the Vive at a loss and still be fine. They could undercut the rift and become the main VR platform.[/QUOTE]
They'd be stupid not to.
They just need to undercut or match the Rift, promote the vive as 'the' way to play VR games on steam and they're set. Could easily overtake the market.
[QUOTE=IrishBandit;49476621]So since Valve has infinite money, they can probably sell the Vive at a loss and still be fine. They could undercut the rift and become the main VR platform.[/QUOTE]
This. I can't think of any person who will want to get oculus if it's going to cost more while doing less and if vive will be able to work without base stations or at least with a lot less space available. (last time I saw the manual it required quite a big room to work)
$849.00 CAD
Jesus fuck. And here I was actually considering getting it.
[QUOTE=IrishBandit;49476621]So since Valve has infinite money, they can probably sell the Vive at a loss and still be fine. They could undercut the rift and become the main VR platform.[/QUOTE]
That was an option for Oculus too, Facebook also have a shitload of money.
[QUOTE=IrishBandit;49476621]So since Valve has infinite money, they can probably sell the Vive at a loss and still be fine. They could undercut the rift and become the main VR platform.[/QUOTE]
Valve isn't selling the Vive, they provide the software platform. HTC is selling the hardware. And HTC is having money problems last I heard. How much they can subsidize their product remains to be seen, but they've already gone on record calling it a 'premium consumer electronics product', so don't get your hopes up.
[QUOTE=IrishBandit;49476621]So since Valve has infinite money, they can probably sell the Vive at a loss and still be fine. They could undercut the rift and become the main VR platform.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Alex_grist;49476821]That was an option for Oculus too, Facebook also have a shitload of money.[/QUOTE]
Oculus has said that they're selling the Rift at a loss and that the hardware costs ~$1000 baseline. I doubt we'll see any Rift competitors with comparable technical capabilities at substantially lower prices.
[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]
I think what he's saying is that hardware wise flagship phones have more computing power and thus are more expensive than a rift should be. A rift is a fancy screen with less hardware than a flagship phone and costs more because omfg virtual reality guys!! When in reality or virtual reality lol. The PC and video card do all the heavy lifting. It's cool stuff don't get me wrong but I'll wait for competition to step in and shake things up even more so the hype price will decline. I'll let everyone else be early adopters but I'm not dumb enough to purchase an over blown screen. Just watch the ifix it teardown it makes you realize that oculus is pricing based on hype. Sure a lot of R & D went into it but I'm not a sucker.
[QUOTE=apierce1289;49477035]I think what he's saying is that hardware wise flagship phones have more computing power and thus are more expensive than a rift should be. A rift is a fancy screen with less hardware than a flagship phone and costs more because omfg virtual reality guys!! When in reality or virtual reality lol. The PC and video card do all the heavy lifting. It's cool stuff don't get me wrong but I'll wait for competition to step in and shake things up even more so the hype price will decline. I'll let everyone else be early adopters but I'm not dumb enough to purchase an over blown screen. Just watch the ifix it teardown it makes you realize that oculus is pricing based on hype. Sure a lot of R & D went into it but I'm not a sucker.[/QUOTE]
When they make a flagship cellphone they are not making tens or hundreds of thousands phones to sell, they are making millions. Tim cook said about their 2015 earnings, "On average we sold over 34,000 iPhones every hour, 24 hours a day, everyday of the quarter," So these phones are able to be drastically cheaper to produce because of the huge volumes compared to a much much smaller run for something like Rift, which drives the cost up.
Pre-ordered. Can't wait :) Had so much fun with the DK2.
[QUOTE=Ajacks;49477113]When they make a flagship cellphone they are not making tens or hundreds of thousands phones to sell, they are making millions. Tim cook said about their 2015 earnings, "On average we sold over 34,000 iPhones every hour, 24 hours a day, everyday of the quarter," So these phones are able to be drastically cheaper to produce because of the huge volumes compared to a much much smaller run for something like Rift, which drives the cost up.[/QUOTE]
Still a moot point just because there's less of a market doesn't mean anyone should pay that ridiculous price. Which is based on hype and a lack of viable consumers that will actually buy it. Just because they're appealing to a smaller niche area doesn't justify a overblown price. If you were to itemize the components in a rift vs a flagship phone the manufacturing cost for parts and assembly alone wouldn't equal that of the hardware in a flagship phone (phones just as an example). But hey that just leaves more room for a company to come in and offer something of the same value for less. It won't happen anytime soon but I'm not eating oculus' bullshit sandwich. I'm not chomping at the bit for vr so in a few years the price will be more sensible.
Well, I wanted to get it but I make $9/hr not $20.
[QUOTE=apierce1289;49477035]I think what he's saying is that hardware wise flagship phones have more computing power and thus are more expensive than a rift should be. A rift is a fancy screen with less hardware than a flagship phone and costs more because omfg virtual reality guys!! When in reality or virtual reality lol. The PC and video card do all the heavy lifting. It's cool stuff don't get me wrong but I'll wait for competition to step in and shake things up even more so the hype price will decline. I'll let everyone else be early adopters but I'm not dumb enough to purchase an over blown screen. Just watch the ifix it teardown it makes you realize that oculus is pricing based on hype. Sure a lot of R & D went into it but I'm not a sucker.[/QUOTE]
There's a looooooot more to a VR headset than there is to a smartphone.
I think I will choose the rift rather than a 4k screen. Virtual boobies
[QUOTE=jamzzster;49477863]I think I will choose the rift rather than a 4k screen. Virtual boobies[/QUOTE]
you see this guy gets it
[QUOTE=Clavus;49476863]Valve isn't selling the Vive, they provide the software platform. HTC is selling the hardware. And HTC is having money problems last I heard. How much they can subsidize their product remains to be seen, but they've already gone on record calling it a 'premium consumer electronics product', so don't get your hopes up.[/QUOTE]
HTC is providing the manufacturing capabilities, but I'm pretty sure both the hardware and software were designed by Valve.
Would the $600 become £400 because price conversion? I bloody hope so. But I'm gonna wait until competitors show off their stuff before actually buying.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.