Valve And HTC's Vive VR Headset Will Cost $800

[OldNewNewOld]

Yeah, that's how enthusiast level hardware goes when it gets released.
I don't get how people can't understand this.
No new tech was cheap when it first released. Especially no new high-end tech. The Titan was a freaking $1k. This isn't for people like me who can't buy even a decent PC. It's for people that have enough cash that they can burn it away without noticing too much. It was never aimed at a wide market. The market will widen when more people buy it, the hardware gets cheaper and so on. But at release it's only for the top of the enthusiasts.

Anyone actually expecting VR to be cheap is simply delusional and/or highly uninformed.
You need two high resolution high density high refresh rate monitors. A single TV with those specs would cost close to that price point. Then you have all the other things attached to it that increase the price.

 

[Kajin]

The cost of new chip plant is roughly between $9-10 billion. Thats a fixed cost not dependent on how many you make. The cost comes from making wafers pure and the ability to control doping to build transistors at 5nm scale. The raw material cost is nothing compared to the plant cost. So the major factor in chips prices is capital cost in setting up the plant. The only way chip manufacture is economically viable is by selling millions. All the costs are dwarfed by the capital cost so the factor that decides the output price is the number sold. Once again price varies by volume because the cost is shared over units.

You're talking in purely material terms. I'm talking in engineering terms. Until that R&D to improve the production process is made it's still going to cost a lot to manufacture something that's never been successfully produced before. Until that research is made, the process smoothed and all the redundancies filtered out the production cycle is still going to be a hell of an expense. THAT is why VR headsets are so expensive. We're breaking new ground with cutting edge tech. The process to produce it still needs ironing out. Until then, they're going to be expensive as hell to produce.

 

[Vigormortis]

I think people are being very short-sighted in their reactions. I mean, everyone knew these initial devices would be very expensive and niche. It's the same with every new form of tech or gadget. It wasn't that long ago that naysayers were laughing off the early smart phones as useless gimmicks. Technology improves, investments are made, software grows.

Also need to acknowledge that VR has way more potential than just video games.

The Vive looks to be leagues ahead of the Rift's offering. Just seems to be a lot better value/quality for money prospect.

And considering several industries[footnote]Medical training, pharmaceuticals, animation, the arts, engineering, automotive, military, etc.[/footnote] other than video gaming have already adopted the Vive for other uses...I'd say I agree. People are being willfully short-sighted and ignorant about what the tech is and what it is capable of.

That doesn't surprise me, though. People see a new, expensive thing they don't understand and it seems scary. People like to lash out at things that are scary.

I think it's silly to be scared of a VR headset, but who am I to dictate what's scary to others?

 

[dohnut king]

I can't imagine they'd let something they spent this much time, money, and resources for "die out" as quickly as people are claiming.

That depends a lot on whether they find something else to jump into. In the tech industry, the fear isn't that what you thought was a wave turned out to be a ripple. The fear is that what you dismissed as a ripple turned out to be the next big wave and you've missed it. They can afford to fail. They can't afford to not succeed. (Did that make any sense?)

This.

An Atari 2600 cost $199.99 when launched in 1977, or nearly $800 today. Games were similarly expensive, running $80 to $100 or more in today's dollars. It was fun for its time, but pretty expensive garbage when compared to what came after.

I think the biggest potential hurdle for vr gaming is the expense of making a vr version of a game. If it adds significantly to the cost, then we may have little software for the devices after the initial burst. I am not a game developer or programmer, so I don't know.

 

[Ishigami]

I fucking called it:

Calling 800$ ex. tax for US now, Europe 1000$ inc tax.
If Oculus is not lying about their production costs then HTC and Valve will not undercut them.

 

[tacotrainwreck]

As long as VR stuff will continue to support my DK2 I will still keep using it. My biggest concern is Oculus kicking it to the curb and force early adapters/developers who got it for 350 bucks to cough up another 600.

 

[Pyrian]

I think the biggest potential hurdle for vr gaming is the expense of making a vr version of a game. If it adds significantly to the cost, then we may have little software for the devices after the initial burst. I am not a game developer or programmer, so I don't know.

I've done a little VR in Unity. Slapping a Unity game into VR that way is pretty easy, but fully integrating it is another matter (and depends a lot on the existing game). VR is both rough on framerate and completely unforgiving of framerate issues. Meanwhile, a lot of post-processing effects don't work well in it. But the real hell of VR dev is nausea; does your game move the camera? Can you adapt it to not move the camera?

 

[shrekfan246]

I think people are being very short-sighted in their reactions. I mean, everyone knew these initial devices would be very expensive and niche. It's the same with every new form of tech or gadget. It wasn't that long ago that naysayers were laughing off the early smart phones as useless gimmicks. Technology improves, investments are made, software grows.

Also need to acknowledge that VR has way more potential than just video games.

The Vive looks to be leagues ahead of the Rift's offering. Just seems to be a lot better value/quality for money prospect.

And considering several industries[footnote]Medical training, pharmaceuticals, animation, the arts, engineering, automotive, military, etc.[/footnote] other than video gaming have already adopted the Vive for other uses...I'd say I agree. People are being willfully short-sighted and ignorant about what the tech is and what it is capable of.

That doesn't surprise me, though. People see a new, expensive thing they don't understand and it seems scary. People like to lash out at things that are scary.

I think it's silly to be scared of a VR headset, but who am I to dictate what's scary to others?

Er, I'd rather say that it's because most of the people around here and on other similar enthusiast gaming websites aren't terribly concerned about what applications VR is going to have outside of, well, gaming.

It's all well and good that VR has the potential to completely revolutionize several other industries, but that doesn't really matter to the avid gamer who has very little contact with said industries but would still need to pay the same premium.

 

[Vigormortis]

Er, I'd rather say that it's because most of the people around here and on other similar enthusiast gaming websites aren't terribly concerned about what applications VR is going to have outside of, well, gaming.

It's all well and good that VR has the potential to completely revolutionize several other industries, but that doesn't really matter to the avid gamer who has very little contact with said industries but would still need to pay the same premium.

But when it offers similar potentialities for the gaming industry, I feel it's extraordinarily short-sighted to claim the tech is "dead in the water", just because the first batch of units are expensive. Especially when those making the claim don't understand the tech and are willfully ignoring the demand that does exist for it.

 

[shrekfan246]

Er, I'd rather say that it's because most of the people around here and on other similar enthusiast gaming websites aren't terribly concerned about what applications VR is going to have outside of, well, gaming.

It's all well and good that VR has the potential to completely revolutionize several other industries, but that doesn't really matter to the avid gamer who has very little contact with said industries but would still need to pay the same premium.

But when it offers similar potentialities for the gaming industry, I feel it's extraordinarily short-sighted to claim the tech is "dead in the water", just because the first batch of units are expensive. Especially when those making the claim don't understand the tech and are willfully ignoring the demand that does exist for it.

A lot of people (myself included) are skeptical as to the practical applications VR is going to have for gaming. It's not a question of not understanding the tech (though yes, I'm sure some people don't) insomuch as not believing that the tech is yet at a point to be ready for wide adoption (and, at least in my case, not believing that the tech is going to be as game-changing as others think; I don't want to give up non-first-person games, and right now I don't think the gaming industry itself is in a position to know how to use VR to any better potential). Some people might say that of course it's not going to be for wide adoption yet, but the point is that people wanted it to be available to be widely adopted.

It's a bit difficult to remember that this is still technically the first babysteps for VR, because it's been talked about constantly for the past, what, three or four years and people have had loads of hands-on experience with all of the prototypes already. The public had the impression that these VR sets weren't going to be a highly niche product. Perhaps that was a misguided perception, but it's not one that the developers ever tried to dispel.

 

[Vigormortis]

A lot of people (myself included) are skeptical as to the practical applications VR is going to have for gaming. It's not a question of not understanding the tech (though yes, I'm sure some people don't) insomuch as not believing that the tech is yet at a point to be ready for wide adoption (and, at least in my case, not believing that the tech is going to be as game-changing as others think; I don't want to give up non-first-person games, and right now I don't think the gaming industry itself is in a position to know how to use VR to any better potential). Some people might say that of course it's not going to be for wide adoption yet, but the point is that people wanted it to be available to be widely adopted.

It's a smart move to be skeptical, but why is there still the assumption that VR must inevitably ring the death knell for non-first-person games? Tabletop games existed long before video games, yet the ever growing popularity and advancement of the video gaming industry has not destroyed tabletop gaming. People still play board games and card games, of which are still just as popular as they ever were. So why assume VR must invariably replace ALL other forms of video gaming? Why not view it as it is: Something different and new. Something to compliment the wide range of gaming activities rather than something to replace it.

[sub]And for the record, I didn't mean to imply every person making the claim that "VR is dead" is doing so from a perspective of ignorance. That was poor wording on my part. However, most of the complaints I've seen DO come from such a position, especially those who claim the prices are "pointlessly too high".[/sub]

It's a bit difficult to remember that this is still technically the first babysteps for VR, because it's been talked about constantly for the past, what, three or four years and people have had loads of hands-on experience with all of the prototypes already. The public had the impression that these VR sets weren't going to be a highly niche product. Perhaps that was a misguided perception, but it's not one that the developers ever tried to dispel.

It's also not a perception they perpetuated nor endorsed. The goal has been, from the start, to create something new. To explore the possibilities of what the tech can offer. To explore the sort of experiences that could be offered. To that end, large strides have been made; both for gaming and non-gaming applications. And it was never implied that the first run of VR was ever going to be a thing that everyone would have in their homes. It was understood that, as with virtually all new technology of this sort, it was going to be expensive and slow to start. Adoption is something that happens over time, so long as the demand is there. (And the demand IS there, from the public and corporate sectors. Even NASCAR has adopted the tech for their broadcasts.)

I'm not here to say VR will be a roaring success that will fundamentally change how the world works over the course of the next year. That's a misguided assumption with no real, quantifiable evidence to back it up. But then, so is the assumption that VR offers nothing for the gaming industry and that it is doomed to fail before it starts.

We'll have to wait and see how things pan out.

 

[shrekfan246]

A lot of people (myself included) are skeptical as to the practical applications VR is going to have for gaming. It's not a question of not understanding the tech (though yes, I'm sure some people don't) insomuch as not believing that the tech is yet at a point to be ready for wide adoption (and, at least in my case, not believing that the tech is going to be as game-changing as others think; I don't want to give up non-first-person games, and right now I don't think the gaming industry itself is in a position to know how to use VR to any better potential). Some people might say that of course it's not going to be for wide adoption yet, but the point is that people wanted it to be available to be widely adopted.

It's a smart move to be skeptical, but why is there still the assumption that VR must inevitably ring the death knell for non-first-person games? Tabletop games existed long before video games, yet the ever growing popularity and advancement of the video gaming industry has not destroyed tabletop gaming. People still play board games and card games, of which are still just as popular as they ever were. So why assume VR must invariably replace ALL other forms of video gaming? Why not view it as it is: Something different and new. Something to compliment the wide range of gaming activities rather than something to replace it.

Once again I'll simply state that I have very little faith in the gaming industry as a whole. It's not so much that the advent of VR means we have to forsake "traditional" gaming as it is that if VR becomes as big as people want it to, publishers are going to ride that cash cow for all it's worth to the extreme exclusion of everything else. Despite the fact that the demand was still very loudly present, publishers spent the past 10-15 years declaring horror games, space sims, strategy games, platformers, and even things like "classic" Western or Japanese-style RPGs (Dragon Age II/Inquisition in comparison to Baldur's Gate, Final Fantasy XIII in comparison to Final Fantasy Literally Any Before XI) dead. Even when faced with direct evidence from their own games that people still want those genres, they doggedly deny reality.

Gaming has the opportunity to grow immensely with the introduction of VR, but I personally don't believe that the companies are actually ready to undertake that task. EDIT: I'd love to be proven wrong, however.

EDIT: I know that big publishers aren't the entire industry, too, but let's just say that given the state of Steam lately, I don't have the highest opinion of the indie developers either right now.

It's also not a perception they perpetuated nor endorsed.

I get what you're saying, but that's kind of beside the point. Time has shown us again and again that if somebody remains silent on a thing that may or may not be being created, the public at large is going to run off with its own wild fancies. They didn't need to perpetuate or endorse the perception; it was still created and I can't imagine they were unaware of it. I'm not trying to say whether that's wrong or right, just that it's something that will happen and the companies making these things could have done more communicating. (Then, I always think companies should be more open and communicative with us. I think it's hilariously stupid that publishers treat their unreleased games as if they're classified government secrets that could cause the downfall of all society if they fell into the wrong hands.)

 

[Vigormortis]

Once again I'll simply state that I have very little faith in the gaming industry as a whole.

Not an unreasonable position to have, but I think many people assume it to be far worse than it is.

It's not so much that the advent of VR means we have to forsake "traditional" gaming as it is that if VR becomes as big as people want it to, publishers are going to ride that cash cow for all it's worth to the extreme exclusion of everything else. Despite the fact that the demand was still very loudly present, publishers spent the past 10-15 years declaring horror games, space sims, strategy games, platformers, and even things like "classic" Western or Japanese-style RPGs (Dragon Age II/Inquisition in comparison to Baldur's Gate, Final Fantasy XIII in comparison to Final Fantasy Literally Any Before XI) dead. Even when faced with direct evidence from their own games that people still want those genres, they doggedly deny reality.

Which could well be what happens with VR. It could be that publishers decide it's not worth the cost to invest in VR game development. They may choose to stick with the "status quo".

Or, either of our scenarios could be off the mark and VR development just becomes another branch in the wide range of game development goals.

Gaming has the opportunity to grow immensely with the introduction of VR, but I personally don't believe that the companies are actually ready to undertake that task. EDIT: I'd love to be proven wrong, however.

I believe that's likely true. That many publishers and developers aren't quite ready to take that leap.

However, there are a lot of talented people working toward the goal of making the process easier, allowing the transition from standard game development to VR development more accessible.

EDIT: I know that big publishers aren't the entire industry, too, but let's just say that given the state of Steam lately, I don't have the highest opinion of the indie developers either right now.

I know Greenlight is a mess, but it's not really an accurate metric for the state of the indie game scene.

I get what you're saying, but that's kind of beside the point. Time has shown us again and again that if somebody remains silent on a thing that may or may not be being created, the public at large is going to run off with its own wild fancies. They didn't need to perpetuate or endorse the perception; it was still created and I can't imagine they were unaware of it. I'm not trying to say whether that's wrong or right, just that it's something that will happen and the companies making these things could have done more communicating. (Then, I always think companies should be more open and communicative with us. I think it's hilariously stupid that publishers treat their unreleased games as if they're classified government secrets that could cause the downfall of all society if they fell into the wrong hands.)

I agree, but at the same time, many new technologies are well outside the reach of the general public when they first appear. For example: Smart phones.

However, as demand stays high and production costs drop, the technology becomes cheaper and more widely available. This is not to say this is what will actually happen with VR, but as long as the demand stays there (even if only at a larger niche level), adoption of the technology will spread.

Time will tell how this all goes. But for the first time in history, VR actually works and is starting to deliver on the promises it's made over the years.

 

[shrekfan246]

Or, either of our scenarios could be off the mark and VR development just becomes another branch in the wide range of game development goals.

To be honest, I'll admit that I kinda just have an issue with the phrase "[X] is The Future!!!"

To go on an unrelated tangent, I always get annoyed whenever somebody says that the video game industry should move to an all-digital model, for instance, because it inherently dismisses and ignores people who don't have good internet. And, while they've been slowly getting better, digital store fronts are still far riskier for actual purchases. If you get a game and you don't like it or it doesn't work, you're typically just out whatever money you paid for it, while with physical copies you can still return them, get them replaced, or just trade them in/sell them if you don't care that much.

I mean, there are multiple Steam games where I've spent more than the two-hour allotted return time just trying to troubleshoot.

I know Greenlight is a mess, but it's not really an accurate metric for the state of the indie game scene.

And Early Access. And actually just the storefront itself, because awful games get on without needing to go through Greenlight all the time these days. It might be a misnomer to call many of those "indie", because they do typically have some trashy publisher behind them, so I'll qualify my original statement to mean more "lower-budget" than actually independent.

Not that I don't know how good those games can potentially be as well; I adore games like Darkest Dungeon, Grim Dawn, Cloudbuilt, Dex, Shadowrun Returns/Dragonfall, Divinity: Original Sin, and many more. It's just unfortunate that, like with big publishers, games like those tend to get drowned out by the mediocre/really bad ones.

I agree, but at the same time, many new technologies are well outside the reach of the general public when they first appear. For example: Smart phones.

However, as demand stays high and production costs drop, the technology becomes cheaper and more widely available. This is not to say this is what will actually happen with VR, but as long as the demand stays there (even if only at a larger niche level), adoption of the technology will spread.

Time will tell how this all goes. But for the first time in history, VR actually works and is starting to deliver on the promises it's made over the years.

For the record, I certainly don't believe VR will be dead in the water. I'm a bit cynical toward it, but I'm sure it'll have its place and it's definitely interesting.

As long as it costs more than half of what I just spent to get a new PC, though (a PC that I'm not even sure will be able to support the Oculus Rift well, I should mention), I definitely can't see myself getting invested in it anytime soon.

 

[Vigormortis]

For the record, I certainly don't believe VR will be dead in the water. I'm a bit cynical toward it, but I'm sure it'll have its place and it's definitely interesting.

As long as it costs more than half of what I just spent to get a new PC, though (a PC that I'm not even sure will be able to support the Oculus Rift well, I should mention), I definitely can't see myself getting invested in it anytime soon.

You can always run Valve's VR test [http://store.steampowered.com/app/323910] to see if your rig can handle it. It'll even tell you which parts need upgrading, if need be.

I haven't spent that much on my PC, and most of the hardware came from a time frame between 1 and 2 years ago. Yet, it passed the tests with flying colors.

I think people are over-estimating just how powerful the hardware needs to be to handle the upcoming crop of VR HMDs.