I hate the microtransactions approach companies are taking nowadays. It makes a lot of sense in a game like League of Legends, but when a AAA game company tries to push multiplayer with like 6 maps by promising to release 4 or 5 packs of 3 maps blatantly copypasted from the story campaign for $10 apiece, then you're basically paying $90 for what you paid $50 for 10 years ago.
Oculus Rift May Force Game Prices Higher
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Of course, don't you know that Obama is the reason for everything. I mean, you're car breaks down, thanks Obama. You miss the jump in World 1-1, thanks Obama. Find a Shiny Pokemon but don't have any Pokeballs, thanks Obama.Zachary Amaranth said:
Game prices increasing because of a VR peripheral, thanks Obama. XD
Exactly. And where was he during this most recent polar vortex? In Washington. You know what else is in Washington? The reflecting pool. Do you know what reflects well on a country? Having close relationships with neighbors. Do you know who one of our neighbors is? Canada. DO you know where northern Canada is located? The Arctic Circle. Where did the polar vortex come from? Exactly. Obama is responsible for cold weather. So much for Global Warming.Zachary Amaranth said:It seemed obvious that this would push production costs higher, and I'm not shocked they'd try and recoup money with higher prices.
So what you're saying is increased game prices are due to Obama?Neronium said:And now I can see companies hiking up prices by doing a slap-dash Oculus Rift support feature, and then they'll blame it on the Rift entirely for it, making it a good excuse to place the blame on.
You know, like how fast food restaurants raised prices of food and blamed Obamacare for it, even though Obamacare was both not fully implemented nor had even started yet.
Goddamnit, I fell for a Chalk headline again. Realized it just after I clicked...
Meh, whatever. They've said the same about every new tech. The market won't support even higher prices. The $60 model is already falling through for most titles.
Meh, whatever. They've said the same about every new tech. The market won't support even higher prices. The $60 model is already falling through for most titles.
Yeah, if developers can sink millions into ads and famous voice-actors and think they can make up the difference by selling more games (even though they often fail), I'm calling bullshit on the statement that THIS extra pricetage must inevitably raise the price for consumers. Since when does development cost have any correlation with the price of the game? Everything gets sold for 60 bucks anyway...
Yes, that's exactly what the article just said, with the added expectation that the market will be willing to pay more for VR experiences than mere video games, which seems rather likely given that so far the majority of people who have tried it described it as a life-changingly awesome experience.Scars Unseen said:
Hey look, another gimmick trying to pass itself of as the future of media, where have I seen that before?
I must be the only person NOT sold on the Oculus Rift (Maybe not checking the comments, though). And the concept of price was my primary concern. I can't see the thing being less expensive than a console. And that sort of expense can easily kill it. And the idea of games costing more, is another nail in the head.
Now, I'd love to be within a space fighter's cockpit, battling enemies and blasting obstacles. However, games are already expensive at $60 a pop. Increasing the cost to say $100 a game would effectively prohibitive. There's no way I could afford to purchase such expensive games. And Free to Play is not a concept I am willing to embrace. Especially since I figure such a thing would be like we got on Xbox One. Wouldn't that just be awesome?
Now, I'd love to be within a space fighter's cockpit, battling enemies and blasting obstacles. However, games are already expensive at $60 a pop. Increasing the cost to say $100 a game would effectively prohibitive. There's no way I could afford to purchase such expensive games. And Free to Play is not a concept I am willing to embrace. Especially since I figure such a thing would be like we got on Xbox One. Wouldn't that just be awesome?
Are you kidding? This is Australia, we're talking about. Try $1500. And none of the "objectionable" content will be allowed without being censored.Jewrean said:
to be honest, dude is right, game companies these days are jumping at opportunities to make games bigger and bigger money pits and any excuse possible to push that $60 price point. as apposed to a variable pricing model that allows them to change the price of the game at times it would behoove them to move more units even for a little less money. meanwhile gamers are more and more willing to wait for games to go on sale and reduce in price. so we'll see how it goes for them, i'd bet it's not gonna work out for them so well.
Wait, so they're saying that because it's virtual reality that some developers may be more encouraged to use F2P models with heavy microtransactions?
Yeah, that's already happening in games. Of course it will continue to happen in games. Some will do it and others won't. But it is interesting that DLC in a virtual environment has more percieved value than traditional on-screen dlc. It really could be more successful.
What a lot of people don't realise is that one of the most impressive uses of the VR isn't even gaming. It's movie viewing. It can literally make you feel like you're watching a movie in a movie theater. A small screen strapped to your head that emulates, accurately, the feel of a 750 inch screen. You can toggle between 3D and 2D at will and the 3D is touted to be better than actual 3D because the theater doesn't have to worry about lighting like a real theater does when projecting 3D images. Also, there is no "best seat in the house" when the 3D works well from any seat for the same reasons mentioned and when the surround sound is strapped right to your head. Reviewers have stated that it feels weird. With a kid running upstairs and their wife in the kitchen in the next room over, they had the impression of being in a large empty room with a huge screen despite being in their office with a very small screen strapped to their face(this from PAR). You can have the shittiest apartment with no space and feel like you're in an open environment. Imagine being able to watch old movies that you missed on the big screen. Imagine being able to watch TV shows on it. This is a potential game changer in how we consume these forms of media.
Add that to the ability to enjoy video game worlds and you've got an amazing purchase. This device should rejuvenate the Exploration, Horror and other genres with great effect.I'd also hope that museums and world wonders will also be captured in these environments. I assume porn will also find it's way there for people who are into that (should make for a hilarious video made buy people who walk in on you when you aren't aware they're there because your eyes are covered and your sound is turned up).
Immersion is something we don't have that much of. People throw immersion around on stuff that simply doesn't make sense. But this gives a person a sense of space and presence. That's true immersion.
<spoiler=Youtube video of a guy walking around the virtual theater. Recorded on a phone camera just recording half of the screen since the video feed is double screened><youtube=uc-Y1Lt0y7o>
The new prototype is 1080p and has added a tracking device that sees if you're leaning forward or backward. I do imagine that this type of system would be a prime candidate for 4k resolutions.
The article IS talking about the motivation of making a thousand microtransactions in virtual reality environments because the DLC suddenly has more apparent value to a human brain when it has real apparent depth to it. Would you pay $1 for a vase in a video game home that you watch through a screen? Probably not, maybe a few people would. Would you pay $1 for a vase to stock a home that you can walk around in and potentially enjoy more thanks to the immersion this product offers? Still probably not, but a lot more people would and will.
This is already the draw of F2P games. The occulus rift just ads apparent value to the transactions. One day games may be able to encorporate taste and touch and smell. Then the distinction between a digital rug and a real one becomes blurred. Why not buy a persian rug for $1 if you can lay down on it and read a leather book you also purchased for whatever its cost was on an e-store plus the DLC "leatherbooks" that makes it feel weighty and old?
Yeah, that's already happening in games. Of course it will continue to happen in games. Some will do it and others won't. But it is interesting that DLC in a virtual environment has more percieved value than traditional on-screen dlc. It really could be more successful.
The target price is around $300. You can currently buy a dev version of it for that much. You should think of this more like a type of TV.Saltyk said:
What a lot of people don't realise is that one of the most impressive uses of the VR isn't even gaming. It's movie viewing. It can literally make you feel like you're watching a movie in a movie theater. A small screen strapped to your head that emulates, accurately, the feel of a 750 inch screen. You can toggle between 3D and 2D at will and the 3D is touted to be better than actual 3D because the theater doesn't have to worry about lighting like a real theater does when projecting 3D images. Also, there is no "best seat in the house" when the 3D works well from any seat for the same reasons mentioned and when the surround sound is strapped right to your head. Reviewers have stated that it feels weird. With a kid running upstairs and their wife in the kitchen in the next room over, they had the impression of being in a large empty room with a huge screen despite being in their office with a very small screen strapped to their face(this from PAR). You can have the shittiest apartment with no space and feel like you're in an open environment. Imagine being able to watch old movies that you missed on the big screen. Imagine being able to watch TV shows on it. This is a potential game changer in how we consume these forms of media.
Add that to the ability to enjoy video game worlds and you've got an amazing purchase. This device should rejuvenate the Exploration, Horror and other genres with great effect.I'd also hope that museums and world wonders will also be captured in these environments. I assume porn will also find it's way there for people who are into that (should make for a hilarious video made buy people who walk in on you when you aren't aware they're there because your eyes are covered and your sound is turned up).
Immersion is something we don't have that much of. People throw immersion around on stuff that simply doesn't make sense. But this gives a person a sense of space and presence. That's true immersion.
<spoiler=Youtube video of a guy walking around the virtual theater. Recorded on a phone camera just recording half of the screen since the video feed is double screened><youtube=uc-Y1Lt0y7o>
The new prototype is 1080p and has added a tracking device that sees if you're leaning forward or backward. I do imagine that this type of system would be a prime candidate for 4k resolutions.
Again, and I'll clarify this more lower in response to both you and Jewrean below, they aren't saying that the cost of doing this will skyrocket the cost of games. It is relatively easy to make games Occulus compatible. They're talking about the temptation to make all these games have significant microtransactions. But 3 dimensional games like Skyrim and Far Cry 3 already have the assets 3-dimensional assets fleshed out. So, for the rift, the only thing you have to do is assign the head motion controls to the Rift feedback. As it becomes more and more common, this will be incredibly simple like assigning the spacebar key to jumping. So, if they decide to make a $60 game any more expensive because it's VR headset compatible then you can freely call bullshit. There's a bit more to making the game's field of view match the rift, but we're not talking about tens of thousands of dollars in assets even in games that have hundred million dollar budgets.
The article is NOT talking about games being more expensive than other games. It does not cost much to make games Occulus compatible. Companies have already thrown their games in for free and modders have integrated other games too (albeit somewhat poorly compared to a game with it already built in).
The article IS talking about the motivation of making a thousand microtransactions in virtual reality environments because the DLC suddenly has more apparent value to a human brain when it has real apparent depth to it. Would you pay $1 for a vase in a video game home that you watch through a screen? Probably not, maybe a few people would. Would you pay $1 for a vase to stock a home that you can walk around in and potentially enjoy more thanks to the immersion this product offers? Still probably not, but a lot more people would and will.
This is already the draw of F2P games. The occulus rift just ads apparent value to the transactions. One day games may be able to encorporate taste and touch and smell. Then the distinction between a digital rug and a real one becomes blurred. Why not buy a persian rug for $1 if you can lay down on it and read a leather book you also purchased for whatever its cost was on an e-store plus the DLC "leatherbooks" that makes it feel weighty and old?
It's mostly because because watching tv and going to the movies are still sort of social experiences. People can see you wearing your dorky headwear.Razhem said:
As 'social' as gaming has become, most of isn't face to face, so not many people will see you wearing the headgear.
Plus it has the benefit of being a virtual reality headset, which being straight from the realms of sci fi should add some wow! factor to it, unlike a pair of thick sunglasses.
Thats just great...
More excuses for gaming companies to hike game prices even higher, don't understand why they would need to cost more, also don't like the idea of a "freemium model"
I could maybe be ok with 70-80$ for a VR game if it was amazing and good, but I see this becoming an excuse for 120$ games...
Not that I really care about the OR because they put the idiot who was fired from EA in charge of its marketing...
Really losing hope here valve!
More excuses for gaming companies to hike game prices even higher, don't understand why they would need to cost more, also don't like the idea of a "freemium model"
I could maybe be ok with 70-80$ for a VR game if it was amazing and good, but I see this becoming an excuse for 120$ games...
Not that I really care about the OR because they put the idiot who was fired from EA in charge of its marketing...
Really losing hope here valve!
Seeing as how the byline is Andy Chalk I am surprised that he didn't quote this bit "the age of 2D monitors has run its course".
Get ready to go Oculus only for all your gaming and computing needs, and prepare to pay more for it! The CEO of Oculus says so.
Get ready to go Oculus only for all your gaming and computing needs, and prepare to pay more for it! The CEO of Oculus says so.