Oculus Rift Will Cost More Than $350, Says Founder

[CrystalShadow]

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.

snip

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.

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.

.... No. That's completely wrong. While I can't speak for headaches, stereoscopic 3d is a trivial side effect, NOT a core feature.
You don't need 3d to do VR.
The core feature is precision head tracking.
(your vision tracks your head movement. )

Thinking of 3d as it's primary feature is a complete and utter misunderstanding.
(VR headsets can and have been made with no 3D effect at all! It isn't an essential feature, merely trivial to implement when you have a headset designed like that anyway)

OT: Given that the minimum hardware specs Oculus has set are an nvidia 280 or AMD 290x, I think the cost of the headset is the least of it.
And trust me, you do not want to cut corners with performance for VR. You will come to regret it!

 

[Leg End]

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.

snip

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.

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.

.... No. That's completely wrong. While I can't speak for headaches, stereoscopic 3d is a trivial side effect, NOT a core feature.
You don't need 3d to do VR.
The core feature is precision head tracking.
(your vision tracks your head movement. )

Thinking of 3d as it's primary feature is a complete and utter misunderstanding.
(VR headsets can and have been made with no 3D effect at all! It isn't an essential feature, merely trivial to implement when you have a headset designed like that anyway)

OT: Given that the minimum hardware specs Oculus has set are an nvidia 280 or AMD 290x, I think the cost of the headset is the least of it.
And trust me, you do not want to cut corners with performance for VR. You will come to regret it!

Didn't properly understand how it worked so glad to hear it is focusing VR first.

 

[pearcinator]

Yeah that will likely be over $600AU which is way more than the price of a console. Should be cheaper or I'll just buy one of the competitors ones like Steam VR.

 

[Vigormortis]

Did....did anyone expect otherwise? Did anyone with even tangential knowledge of the technology and the hurdles it's had to overcome think it would cost any less?

Christ, I've never seen so much simultaneous hype and apathy over a piece of technology people have so little knowledge of.

Anyway, I was already expecting this news. In fact, I'm surprised it took them this long to make the announcement. And since my current plan is to pick up a Vive (with Lighthouse), I've already come to terms with the notion of a higher price point for VR HMDs.

Hmm, lets see what the Vive sans Lighthouse is going to cost. Might actually switch to Valve on the VR front.

Honestly? After having tried the Rift, PlaystationVR, and Lighthouse-powered Vive, I made the switch to Valve's VR plans a while ago.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I've a feeling that VR is going to be not necessarily a niche of gaming but not a standard either. Something that some people will enjoy and some won't, and while the Oculus will be expensive at first, the later iterations will pan out to a more affordable price range.
Depending on how well holo-tech pans out, VR may actually be swept away by it if it ends up being viable in the next 10 years or so. VR may never be top dog in gaming though, thats just my view.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

I don't really see this as a problem, but that might just be due to having no real interest in VR until it's more than a gimmick. Obviously the price will drop when/if it gains more traction, just like ever other piece of technology. Besides, why do you need to be among the first load of people with this technology, unless you're some kind of reviewer. if it ever does revolutionise gaming, this revolution isn't going to be day one. Day one, it will be little more than a tech-toy.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

I guess I haven't been following much of the PR lately, but I'm not all that surprised at this price point. Hell, even the first head-worn cinema by Sony that I saw was about $800, and that is just a screen and headphones attached to your face. So in order to be the pioneer and set the standard I guess they'd have to be the top of their game and offer the best hardware they can cram into it. It's only a matter of time until the floodgates open and everyone else starts copying it, well actually I don't have a clue how long the patent would last but still. It had better be pretty good in any case.

 

[MonsterCrit]

And thus the Occulus is ensured to be in a very niche market.. It's a peripheral that costs as much as a console practically.

 

[Juan Regular]

Hmm, lets see what the Vive sans Lighthouse is going to cost. Might actually switch to Valve on the VR front.

Honestly? After having tried the Rift, PlaystationVR, and Lighthouse-powered Vive, I made the switch to Valve's VR plans a while ago.

While the lighthouse tech is certainly impressive, it's something I don't see myself using a whole lot after the initial wow factor, especially since it's such a hassle to set up and use. Oculus is going the more traditional gaming route at the moment while Valve is trying to innovate. But yeah, I guess the Vive is capable of doing everything the Rift does and then some, so maybe it's a no brainer. I just always figured the Vive would be much more expensive than the rift, even without lighthouse, but now it's looking like the prices will be similar.

 

[hermes]

Mhhh... that is a pity.

The thing is going to live by the impulsive consumer, the one that sees a demo on a store or a TV show and decide to support it. The informed consumer has already made up his mind, it might support it or not, but the numbers are minimal compared to the mass market. After all, it was things like Oprah that made the Wii the phenomenon that was, not the millions spend in TV and web ads.

For that public, 400 is simply too much. I guess the sweet spot would be between 100 and 200, but three times more is just too hard of an impulse sale.

 

[Dragonbums]

Why is anyone actually surprised at the cost of this? I mean I remember the early days of this news when I got hounded for basically calling it a glorified gimmick that appealed to the virtual reality and PC demographic fanatics.
VR technology is still a new thing. No way this was ever going to be cheap enough for the average Joe to buy and utilize.

Now the general tone of threads relating to Occulus is that it's basically an over glorified gimmick that costs too much. Classic.

At least the Wii's motion control gimmicks managed to package the motion gimmick, and console in a package of $200.00

This thing alone costs more than/at the price of a Wii U and it doesn't even come with the system to play it on.

I can definitely see this cropping up and doing huge changes in the industry (even outside of gaming.) years from now. But as of right now, those that claimed that this was innovation but Wii controls were 'gimmicks' were kidding yourselves hard.

This is going to go far beyond the scope of the initial KS campaign. This is looking more like a testing field for future endeavors.

 

[gillnavisingh]

Well, now the HTC Vive and Microsoft's Hololens are looking better, considering they look more affordable for me than Oculus.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

Well, now the HTC Vive and Microsoft's Hololens are looking better, considering they look more affordable for me than Oculus.

I doubt any of Oculus Rift's competitors will be significantly cheaper. Remember, Oculus was bought by Facebook for $2 billion, and Oculus still can't get the price down. The Vive also will have an extra sensor to scan the room it's in and the user's location. That alone should put it above the Rift, even if Valve and HTC can lower the costs to manufacture. I'd bet Sony will only match the Rift's price (if that) with their VR headset, since PS4 users will likely only have that VR option.

Hololens might be cheaper, since it is more of an augmented reality device (like Google Glass), but who knows what MS invested in developing that and how fast they want to recoup that money.