Oculus Claims it "Isn't Making Any Money" on $599 Rift

[bladestorm91]

Man are people completely missing the point and being absolutely dumb. Listen people, you are thinking about this in the totally wrong way, the Rift is NOT a console, it's a very advanced monitor that comes with HQ detachable headphones and a microphone.

Let me ask you, would you buy a monitor that costs 599$? What about one that comes with free good headphones and a microphone? What if it even comes with two free 'AAA' games and a free Xbox controller? What about if the monitor is (virtually) resizable to any size?

You are getting a good deal at this price for what you get and some people are complaining about it? Their lack of awareness is really pitiful.

 

[The Enquirer]

I don't care if they're making any money. That fact won't magically make me think that it's not too expensive. I wouldn't pay more than $300 for it.

I think this sums up the bulk of what people think. For 600 dollars I could buy, like, 600 dollars worth of actually useful stuff.

I'm seriously surprised that, even regardless of how much it cost to build, they're still charging that much for it. The 20 gig ps3 launched for 499 and when you adjust for inflation it comes out to be just shy of what they're charging for the Oculus. People gave Sony a ton of shit for that. I'm going to imagine that the Oculus is going to face a lot of the same initial problems:
-Small initial customer base
-Notoriously difficult development (bugs)
-Forcefully using hardware gimmicks (Sixaxis anyone?)
-Small number of games to garner interest after launch
-Small number of games at launch
-Other consoles (Nintendo NX expected to officially be announced that same month)

This whole thing just seems like it's doomed to fail, though I'm hoping not given the hype around it.

 

[Pyrian]

Welp, they are currently selling faster than they can make them. Pre-orders started with March delivery, are now in June...

 

[Sarge034]

Now whether you want all the extras is a good question, but it does explain the package price. Detract the audio device, controller, media remote and the games and I don't think it's unreasonable to see the price of the goggles themselves as about $450. And that can, I think, be called in the 'ballpark of $350.'

Except... "To be perfectly clear, we don't make money on the Rift," wrote Luckey. "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 thing's a gimmick and needs to die a PS3 launch death, or more aptly a Kinect death. Give me actual VR or fully immersive and interactive "fake" VR. But they want people to pay $600 USD for a parlor trick that has been around for god knows how long? Oh thy hubris before the fall.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Except... "To be perfectly clear, we don't make money on the Rift," wrote Luckey. "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."

I know, as I said; I don't buy that. It has to impact the cost of the total package. Imagine if they're just going to sell the basics, just the goggles with the cables to use it, and it costs like $550. They could never get away with that.

Besides, even then, from a customer value perspective you still get about $150, maybe even $200, worth of stuff (if you had to get all that yourself) with those goggles. Of course they can include that stuff at a cheaper price than consumers can get it, but consumers in the end look at the money they'd have to spend on everything.

Give me actual VR or fully immersive and interactive "fake" VR. But they want people to pay $600 USD for a parlor trick that has been around for god knows how long? Oh thy hubris before the fall.

How is this fake VR? Combine this with force feedback and the only other thing I can imagine is implanting images straight in your brain, Shadowrun style. I mean, I don't care much for VR myself and don't plan on getting this thing (if only because my PC isn't good enough), but painting the Oculus as a 'cheap parlor trick' undersells the technology and miniaturization that goes into it.

As for it 'needing to die', that's just short-sighted. It might not be useful for gaming yet, and it might still be a few years away from cheap, mass-market accessibility (there's nothing surprising about early adopter tech costing a lot) but it has a lot of uses outside of it. From training to therapy settings, it's great, useful tech.

 

[Sarge034]

I know, as I said; I don't buy that. It has to impact the cost of the total package. Imagine if they're just going to sell the basics, just the goggles with the cables to use it, and it costs like $550. They could never get away with that.

Then you have no idea how package deals work. You get the physical items for next to nothing because you buy in bulk first off. Second, why was it an Xbox controller and not a PS controller or a controller of their own design? It's because in all likelihood Microsoft made the best offer, not because it was a money making deal, but because now the Microsoft brand is tied to the rift (self serving brand recognition) and would need one to utilize the rift (guaranteed peripheral necessity). Same with everything else in the package.

Besides, even then, from a customer value perspective you still get about $150, maybe even $200, worth of stuff (if you had to get all that yourself) with those goggles. Of course they can include that stuff at a cheaper price than consumers can get it, but consumers in the end look at the money they'd have to spend on everything.

I already have an Xbox controller, HD headset and mic, possibly the games too. Where is my added value, how much did I save? Answer, $0.

How is this fake VR? Combine this with force feedback and the only other thing I can imagine is implanting images straight in your brain, Shadowrun style. I mean, I don't care much for VR myself and don't plan on getting this thing (if only because my PC isn't good enough), but painting the Oculus as a 'cheap parlor trick' undersells the technology and miniaturization that goes into it.

Because until I can interact fully with the simulation all that's being done is putting a really expensive 3D tv in front of your face with Kinect motion controls and a controller for everything else. A close analog would be a 3D planetarium. It's 3D, it's pretty, but I still can't interact with it making it no more than a projection. IE, "fake" VR.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Because until I can interact fully with the simulation all that's being done is putting a really expensive 3D tv in front of your face with Kinect motion controls and a controller for everything else. A close analog would be a 3D planetarium. It's 3D, it's pretty, but I still can't interact with it making it no more than a projection. IE, "fake" VR.

How'd you imagine that then? Direct neural control? Force feedback controllers like what Oculus is already working on? Something else?

I already have an Xbox controller, HD headset and mic, possibly the games too. Where is my added value, how much did I save? Answer, $0.

Of course this situation won't be the same for everyone. Hence why what I was describing was only the default, 'outsider point of view' if you will; everything combined costs you X, everything separate costs you, the customer, Y which is way higher than X. Of course for individual customers it might be less attractive because they own the other crap already. But that can hardly be helped now can it?

Now, in the case of the Rift the entire idea of selling it in such a package could be questioned, something TB does quite effectively in that video. Why sell a package aimed at an early adopter, enthusiast market that likes being on the cutting edge of technology when that package is filled with relatively basic stuff that that enthusiast market already has? But that's a different discussion altogether.

 

[RicoADF]

$600 isn't that much in comparison to the price of the rest of the PC hardware you'll need to run games at a high enough framerate and resolution for a passable VR experience.

The chances are that if you've spent enough money on your computer to run games at 180fps, then $600 for VR will be a drop in the ocean.

On the flip side, people who can't afford $600 for the Rift probably wouldn't have a powerful enough PC to utilise the Rift anyway, so they wouldn't spend $600 on a peripheral that their sub-par PC would render near-useless and make them feel sick due to not being able to run games at the required framerate, so really these potential customers they're losing at the $600 price tag weren't actually potential customers in the first place.

To me, baulking at the price of the Rift is like baulking at the price of a new set of decent tyres for your $500,000 Supercar, and I don't understand how anyone could have ever believed that a decent VR experience that lives up to the ideal would ever be cheap.

Sony's Playstation VR is going to suffer similar backlash due to not managing expectations about the price of the hardware and I've read a lot of customers expressing that they believe it should only cost around $150 in a bundle with 5-6 of it's best games.

However, I also think Playstation VR is going to suffer from more backlash than just the price of the hardware as I've read anecdotes that indicate a lot of people don't understand the massive hardware and framerate requirements for a decent VR experience and they believe that the Playstation VR will somehow allow them to run their 30fps AAA games at 120fps in full VR simply by virtue of plugging it in.

If it was being sold at $600 USD I would be fine with it, but here in Australia it's being sold at $1000 AUD + shipping. $600 USD does not = $1000 AUD and thus they are profiteering on us. If their doing it to us then the $600 USD price is also looking suspicious. Also as an Australian, by pushing this to $1000 AUD this has also meant that we now need to pay tax to import it (GSD) which is 10%, thus for us the device is really $1100 AUD + shipping which I heard was around $130 or so. So it's $1200 AUD for something being sold for $600 USD.

Fuck that you greedy pigs!

For those of you at home that's over $900 AUD after shipping. Quite the pretty penny
[link ="Conversion"]https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=650+usd+to+aud[/link]

But their charging $1000 AUD for the device without shipping in the store.

EDIT:
Correction, it appears that it's now $933 due to change in currency conversion, that said their still charging us $649 USD not including shipping. So where has the extra $150 USD come from?

 

[Sampler]

Well that's torn it.

Nothing attracts developers quite like a tiny install base. Half of whom can't use their expensive toy longer than 10 minutes without getting motion sickness.

Wonder why they teamed up with Samsung for the galaxy gear vr - makes more sense now, cheap mass install base with the phone headsets meaning product for their 'real' product

 

[infohippie]

Man are people completely missing the point and being absolutely dumb. Listen people, you are thinking about this in the totally wrong way, the Rift is NOT a console, it's a very advanced monitor that comes with HQ detachable headphones and a microphone.

Let me ask you, would you buy a monitor that costs 599$? What about one that comes with free good headphones and a microphone? What if it even comes with two free 'AAA' games and a free Xbox controller? What about if the monitor is (virtually) resizable to any size?

You are getting a good deal at this price for what you get and some people are complaining about it? Their lack of awareness is really pitiful.

Well I sure as hell wouldn't since I already have good headphones and mike, I do not care about the games, and I despise controllers. $300 is my upper limit, I would not even consider buying the OR for any more than this. I don't care what "great deal" the bundle is or any of that marketing bullshit. It is simply too expensive. Work out how to make it for less if you expect to sell a lot of them.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Its a niche market, they wouldn't profit off it in the long run anyway. But even so, the cost of a new console generation is ridiculous to ask for something that requires an already high-end PC to run properly. I see this tanking hard, and FB having more than just a loss on the books, an actual crash and burn of a tech.

VR is a nice idea but there's too many oddities that will gate regular people from ever adopting it. Things like the expense of both the part and the equipment to run it, the lack of game support.

Sony may outdo FB by way of making Morpheus much more compatible with its library and cheaper because its Sony. They don't seem to mind taking a hit on profits initially to corner a market. If anyone can take niche and make it into a standard it would probably be them, but I don't see even Morpheus being the savior of VR.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

I believe that.

Sure, they shot themselves in the foot and have only themselves to blame for this because they are the ones that said it will be in the range of $300-400. But that price is reasonable for what it is.
2 high resolution, high density , high refresh-rate monitors with motion tracking. A TV that has the total resolution of the Oculus is usually even more expensive than $600. High quality gaming monitor which offer sometimes even less than the Oculus are more expensive.

The Xbone controller was completely unnecessary in the package though. The Oculus, at release, is obviously enthusiast tier hardware. The minimum spects for optimal enjoyment is proof for that. I doubt there is anyone who doesn't already own some quality controller yet has a PC with the minimal specs and has money to buy the Oculus. Sure, the $40-50 won't pull the price below $500, but that's still almost enough to buy a full priced game on release.

I don't understand why people thought it wouldn't be more expensive even thought they claimed otherwise. It's new tech, enthusiast tier tech. New technology is always expensive, you have to pay the premium price. It happens with every new technology. DVD player were expensive as fuck when they came out. 4k TVs were well over $1000. 3D TVs as well. Every "new" technology is expensive and is not meant to be in every home. Only the enthusiasts. In a few years it might drop significantly. Others might join the race and the price will drop. But until then you pay the premium. If you have a PC that can handle modern games at over 1080p and 90fps, then you have money to buy this. It's not a necessity. It's a luxury. A niche market, not for everyone but only the enthusiast. If you can't afford it, you aren't the market yet. I know the people are disappointed, but most of those people has unreasonable expectations. The price is pretty reasonable for what it offers an what it is.

I don't know where, but I read something that hits the nail on the head. People thought 2016 is the year that VR will take off. It's not. 2016 is the year it will become available. Several years later is the time where it might take off. No new tech has ever taken off right of the bat.

Also people really need to stop comparing this to Sony's VR. Sony's VR is a toy compared to this. The PS4 can't output the necessary resolution and framerate with even decent graphics to be good VR. You won't get even PS2 tier graphics with it to achieve the minimum and if it is indeed cheaper than the Oculus, it will be objectively much worse in terms of specs. I highly doubt Sony will try selling it at a loss after the PS3 disaster and their recent financial problems. And that also means it won't be compatible with many games because that would be too much work for something that will be used by less than 1% of the user base.

 

[Denamic]

Well, I was on the fence about the rift, not only because of the potential cost, but because the availability of the device will impact what games will support it. With this price tag, I just don't see it being widespread enough for many devs to devote resources on making their games support it. I won't be buying it anytime soon.

 

[ccggenius12]

People are surprised that it costs more than a smartphone to bolt TWO smartphones to their face? What are they, stupid?

 

[Razhem]

Did anyone actually expect this to not be dead on arrival?

 

[senaji]

Oculus recommends the more powerful hardware at least an Nvidia GTX 970 card or AMD 290. otherwise the helmet is useless (except to look ridiculous).




______________________________________________________________________________
iphone 6 pas cher [http://iphon6.fr/prix-de-liphone-6/] nouvel ipad air 2 [http://www.mon-ipad5.fr/]

 

[Sarge034]

How'd you imagine that then? Direct neural control? Force feedback controllers like what Oculus is already working on? Something else?

I told you what I imagined, how it is accomplished I don't give two shits about. I just know this gimmicky face mounted 3D TV is not it.

Of course this situation won't be the same for everyone. Hence why what I was describing was only the default, 'outsider point of view' if you will; everything combined costs you X, everything separate costs you, the customer, Y which is way higher than X. Of course for individual customers it might be less attractive because they own the other crap already. But that can hardly be helped now can it?

Now, in the case of the Rift the entire idea of selling it in such a package could be questioned, something TB does quite effectively in that video. Why sell a package aimed at an early adopter, enthusiast market that likes being on the cutting edge of technology when that package is filled with relatively basic stuff that that enthusiast market already has? But that's a different discussion altogether.

Look at your two preceding paragraphs and see them conflict. An early adopter of this kind of tech WILL already have an XB controller, high quality audio devices, and most probably the games. This bundle is aimed at the "hipsters" who don't game but want one to have one and the casual late established market crowd.

 

[aelreth]

Disclosure: I pre-ordered it.

It's annoying that they decided to include headphones. Which will likely be of inferior quality to the ones I have. That I will pay a premium on. The controller is also an annoyance.

This is a peripheral, the idea that they should take a loss on this, when this is an entirely optional experience is rather odd and dangerous from an anti-Facebook perspective. Since Facebook is the executive producer, it has to get a return on investment. I would prefer it profit directly, and have it visible than have such a thing hidden elsewhere.

I would rather have the peripheral, with no strings attached. If I have to jailbreak the peripheral to keep my experiences private I will.