A bit expensive for what it is and does. I think once we know what games are supporting it etc then we can judge if its worth getting.
Oculus Rift Will Cost More Than $350, Says Founder
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
damn, you beat me to it. yeah, we don't have a standardized sales tax rate here. In Pennsylvania, the sales tax was 6%, but out here in Wyoming, it's 5% with an optional 1% being voted on each election cycle. That 1% goes to social programs. (and we STILL get idiot rednecks protesting it...)fix-the-spade said:
in Delaware, they don't even have a sales tax. Growing up around there, it's commonly heard that the reason they don't have sales tax is because they have a DuPont factory there that brings in all the money they need.
Eh, the more expensive it is, the less likely the average consumer is to actually try it. When you are talking about a new product and a companies first product, you should really try to not price out the average consumer. It's a hot item but it's still just a fad at this point, the average doesn't even know if they are going to be able to use it without a vomit bucket near by.
You basically hit the nail on the head in the first part. Sales tax varies from place to place, not even necessarily state to state. We have development zones where sales tax is 1/2 the normal for the state to encourage business to come in and to encourage consumers to shop there. Beyond that, the only price difference will be what different outlets choose to sell the thing at. Luckily, there are no elder gods determining our tax. We do not pay a national sales tax, which if my assumptions are right, is essentially what VAT is. Feel free to correct me in my American ignorance.fix-the-spade said:
Admit it, people would learn how to do their taxes if failing to do so meant possibly facing Nodens Lord of the Great Abyss and trying to explain yourself.Baresark said:
That's exactly what VAT is, 20% on just about everything that isn't food or a book.
You people need to know when to stop adding stuff, and release a consumer modal, you can add stuff to the next gen, if you turn this into the perfect unicorn you will never release it, and when you do, nobody will know why they will want to spent 400+ on it!
If this is your concern I'd be more worried about how it's a near impossible sell to people who haven't tried it and many who do so either wear glasses or feel sick from using it than I would about the pricing.Steven Bogos said:
I mean, come on, how are you going to sell this? Commercials with actors flailing around with a black box strapped to their face? Articles with two identical pictures side by side? You cannot translate the output of this thing in any real way to people who aren't wearing one. This is going to be a big problem for them.
It's because we don't have a nationwide tax of that type. Sales tax is assessed by the states, and each state sets its own percentage for the tax (and five states don't charge sales tax at all).number2301 said:
That doesn't seem bad considering Nvidia 3D Vision and multi-monitor setups usually start around $400. The head tracking alone is better than apparent depth offered by 3D monitors/TVs (and is my only interest in VR). The only major downsides are you have to wear that $400 on your head whenever you want to use it for even basic viewing and can't share the experience with someone else simultaneously.
I didn't think the price was gong to be pretty. If any of the VR concepts do go beyond a niche audience, it's still going to take the early adopters paying off all of the research costs anyways.
I didn't think the price was gong to be pretty. If any of the VR concepts do go beyond a niche audience, it's still going to take the early adopters paying off all of the research costs anyways.
It's not just each state that charges different sales tax rates. Counties (and maybe even municipalities) within those states can also add a percent or two onto the state's. Online stores have even started charging that extra little bit if you live in the same county as one of their physical stores.
Too rich for my blood. I would go for it if it was 300? but at the current estimated price and including our VAT it will push it waaay beyond that (probably around 500?).
The problem is that I don't see on one eye (long story short... I see on both eyes but my brain is wired to only use one at a time and not both at once. I can force myself to use both but the image gets garbled and I can't see anything.) and our stores usually don't demo this kind of stuff so basically I can't see if it will do anything for me except give me a massive headache. Seeing that I'm usually the one testing all the new stuff I just can't throw this kind of money around. I really would like to test it to see if it immerses me even if I do use only one eye but not for this kind of money.
They should skip some extras to drop it down a hundred dollars like the pad (I have four from Logitech that I'm not using so I don't need an extra one gathering dust) and the headset. I have my Razer Tiamat Headset (it was the most comfortable headset I could find) coupled with a nice sound card so I doubt that some cheap cans will do anything more that gather dust next to the Xbox pad.
The problem is that I don't see on one eye (long story short... I see on both eyes but my brain is wired to only use one at a time and not both at once. I can force myself to use both but the image gets garbled and I can't see anything.) and our stores usually don't demo this kind of stuff so basically I can't see if it will do anything for me except give me a massive headache. Seeing that I'm usually the one testing all the new stuff I just can't throw this kind of money around. I really would like to test it to see if it immerses me even if I do use only one eye but not for this kind of money.
They should skip some extras to drop it down a hundred dollars like the pad (I have four from Logitech that I'm not using so I don't need an extra one gathering dust) and the headset. I have my Razer Tiamat Headset (it was the most comfortable headset I could find) coupled with a nice sound card so I doubt that some cheap cans will do anything more that gather dust next to the Xbox pad.
From the sounds of it, I'm sad to say it won't work well if at all for you because it does heavily rely on both of your eyes that I'm aware of. I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure that's how it works. Sorry bud.gxs said:
As for the cost itself, I'm not surprised by it at all and I'd actually expect no less considering what they're shoving in it.
So the new popular hyped up to hell thing is going to cost alot.
Wow.... What a surprise...I totally didnt expect that.
[holds up sarcasm sign]
Seriously though, I dont think i'll be getting one at launch I might just do the smart thing and see if they are actually going to be worth it.
Wow.... What a surprise...I totally didnt expect that.
[holds up sarcasm sign]
Seriously though, I dont think i'll be getting one at launch I might just do the smart thing and see if they are actually going to be worth it.
Actually I'm looking at it from another perspective (pun not intended). I would use it like my screen but the image would move with my head. And I can switch from one eye to the other seamlessly so it could work like it works in my normal life. At least that's my hope and I have yet to test this theory.LegendaryGamer0 said:
I also found this article which gives me hope:
http://kotaku.com/playing-occulus-rift-with-only-one-eye-1074765790
Captcha (how did they know?): little bird told me
"Oculus founder Palmer Luckey says that while the Rift going to cost more than $350."Steven Bogos said:
...
"Oculus founder Palmer Luckey says that while the Rift going to cost more than $350."
....
What?
"Oculus founder Palmer Luckey says that while the Rift is going to cost more than $350, common staples such as flour and milk remain available for much less."
"Oculus founder Palmer Luckey says that while the Rift going to cost more than $350, they done their due diligence, gon' make sure it don't cost much more, nope, sure 'taint."
"Oculus founder Palmer Luckey says that while the Rift continues to eat the northwest corner of his home, they are looking at costs of more than $350."
"Oculus founder Palmer Luckey says that while they continue to make it out of 24 carat phlebotinum, the Rift is going to cost more than $350."
Look, I am perfectly capable of mis-phrasing something: starting with one sentence in mind and then trying to change it mid-way into another, condensing two sentences into one and ending up with something garbled, or going through and editing something and leaving a stray word dangling where it doesn't belong. It happens. But, I'm just a forum scribbler; I'm not writing headlines. I'm pretty sure the intent was just to say "Oculus founder Palmer Luckey says that the Rift is going to cost more than $350.", but perhaps an attempt to differentiate the statement from the primary headline ("Oculus Rift Will Cost More Than $350, Says Founder") went a bit sideways.
Does the Escapist need a proofreader? I work cheap.
Far too expensive for what is essentially a nice gimmick, I'm sorry I don't see VR gaining widespread adoption since it just isn't practical for an everyday consumer, the only real way I can see VR taking off is if they try to push it as a theme park or arcade attraction...IDK I sure as heck am not going to buy one at that price unless I see much better games and much more practical uses for it
It's not a gimmick. It works and will just improve and slowly spread. Like herpes. There are better games and "more practical uses" on the way for sure.