I don't think this is going to happen.Czann said:But I have a problem with this price range killing VR in the cradle. I want it to thrive not die.
The controller has been stated by Oculus as costing them barely anything to bundle in (probably since most of the $50 consumer price is markup). As for the two tech demos, the companies that made them are probably paying Oculus to have them included as they'll hopefully be the flagship games of the system. So yes, I do believe the games and the controller are freebies and the headset itself costs $600. Which is a shame since I'm no longer even considering getting it for the near future because of the cost.Dying_Jester said:Drop the two tech demo games and the controller from this bundle, because that is what this is, and you'd probably have a price for the Oculus closer to that $400 that was being talked about(Unless of course those are actually being thrown in as freebies).
There already is.albino boo said:At $600 the only way its going sell if there is VR porn made.
It's ready for consumers, just not for mass-market appeal. And that's fine.SlumlordThanatos said:Again, this is just a case of the technology not being ready.
No doubt you're right. I'm guesstimating the controller costs them like $20 at most, probably less, and it ADDS a lot to the experience. And software costs generally nothing (since production of a "new copy" costs exactly zero dollars). Inclusion of it in hardware bundles is a very complex marketing, public image and investor thing. NVIDIA and ATI have been including games forever with their cards. And each bundle counts as a "sale" made for the publisher, so they can claim good sales for PR and investor calls...stringtheory said:The controller has been stated by Oculus as costing them barely anything to bundle in (probably since most of the $50 consumer price is markup). As for the two tech demos, the companies that made them are probably paying Oculus to have them included as they'll hopefully be the flagship games of the system. So yes, I do believe the games and the controller are freebies and the headset itself costs $600. Which is a shame since I'm no longer even considering getting it for the near future because of the cost.Dying_Jester said:Drop the two tech demo games and the controller from this bundle, because that is what this is, and you'd probably have a price for the Oculus closer to that $400 that was being talked about(Unless of course those are actually being thrown in as freebies).
The counter argument is why would any developer spend time on money adapting or creating content for a peripheral that only has 100,000 users.Olas said:I'm glad the first major VR product is fairly high-end. VR needs to prove itself as something truly exciting and desirable to people, and that means it needs to be good and work well. If they just pumped out a cheaper but crappier version that didn't work quite right people are more likely to lose interest in the tech.
Because nearly all 100,000 users will buy it, or at least a much larger percentage will than if it's on a crowded platform. These people paid 600 dollars for the device, I imagine they'll wanna get they're money's worth from it. Besides, some kinds of games can be adapted to VR fairly easily without having to change much with the main game. Basically I'm just parroting what Totalbiscuit said in his recent vid on the topic, I'd check that out if you want to hear the case argued better.albino boo said:The counter argument is why would any developer spend time on money adapting or creating content for a peripheral that only has 100,000 users.Olas said:I'm glad the first major VR product is fairly high-end. VR needs to prove itself as something truly exciting and desirable to people, and that means it needs to be good and work well. If they just pumped out a cheaper but crappier version that didn't work quite right people are more likely to lose interest in the tech.
People have different preferences for different things. Those that enjoy a visual immersion (this includes myself) should absolutely love VR, while those that don't care for (I'm guessing yourself) it probably won't think twice about needing VR. The only thing I really want to add here is in the battle between preference was pretty big when Avatar started the 3D theater phase, and your side lost... badly.rgrekejin said:I suspect that VR's primary problem isn't going to turn out to be cost. Rather, its going to suffer the same problem as 3D TV/movies - once that new tech smell fades, and you put enough time in on the device that you stop going "OMG I'm IN the GAME!" every time you strap it on, you realize that it really doesn't add enough to the experience to justify the additional expense and inconvenience of using it. I'm certain enthusiasts will disagree, but then, there are still some people who love their 3D TVs. And I'm certain that I'm going to get jumped on here by a bunch of people who swear up and down that if I'd actually tried VR with whatever their preferred device is instead of the previous iteration of that same device, then I'd know what "real" VR is and I'd wonder how I ever lived without it. I guess the only possible response to that is that we'll see, won't we?
Console sales are in the millions and gaming pcs are in the same magnitude. At 100k sales there is not simply enough of user base to even port an existing game to it. A team of 5 people working for 3 months will cost at least $50k and there is no guarantee of extra sales.Olas said:Because nearly all 100,000 users will buy it, or at least a much larger percentage will than if it's on a crowded platform. These people paid 600 dollars for the device, I imagine they'll wanna get they're money's worth from it. Besides, some kinds of games can be adapted to VR fairly easily without having to change much with the main game. Basically I'm just parroting what Totalbiscuit said in his recent vid on the topic, I'd check that out if you want to hear the case argued better.