Rift, Vive, and Virtual Reality

http://imgur.com/a/PO9Z7

my biggest worry is touch. How much is that going to cost now ? $400 ? They aren't announcing the price and since its delayed till the second half of 2016 we might have our rifts before touch. Which locks us into whatever price they come up with in their head

All of a sudden, Vive's "lower than €1000" proposition with room tracking system modules and dual SteamVR controllers already bundled are sounding a lot more appealing.

ZH3KaU9.jpg


It's no logical to assume that Oculus deliberately talked about a lower price point to keep the buzz going.
IMO it's naive to assume otherwise.

If Oculus said that the price point would be US$1,000 initially, do you think people would simply say, hey, it's so expensive it's not my thing!
Yes, that's exactly what would happen.
Not only that, $500/500€ is a psychological threshold beyond which a huge portion of people will refuse to part with, for entertainment purposes. The $600's initial price almost killed the PS3 at launch.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, that's exactly what would happen.
Not only that, $500/500€ is a psychological threshold beyond which a huge portion of people will refuse to part with, for entertainment purposes. The $600's initial price almost killed the PS3 at launch.

You do understand that Oculus Rift is not going to be a mass market product even in maybe 2 years? It's completely different from PS3 which was aimed to be a mass market product.
 
You do understand that Oculus Rift is not going to be a mass market product even in maybe 2 years?

I understand that now, despite all the lies the Oculus team told throughout the months/years stating the exact opposite, in order to get free and very favorable press.

Two months ago, Palmer Luckey stated on record that the CV1 would cost close to the price of DK2, which was $350.
You think 2 months ago he didn't know the final price for the pre-orders?
 
I understand that now, despite all the lies the Oculus team told throughout the months/years stating the exact opposite, in order to get free and very favorable press.

They already talked about the lowest cost for a complete system is ~US$1,500. And you said that over US$600 almost killed PS3. US$1,500 is more than twice of the "hugely expensive" PS3 for entertainment purpose. And don't tell me about how a computer is also useful for other works... these days (for most people) the only reason to buy an expensive desktop computer is to play games.

Two months ago, Palmer Luckey stated on record that the CV1 would cost close to the price of DK2, which was $350.
You think 2 months ago he didn't know the final price for the pre-orders?

What he said in October (when being asked about the price point) is this:

You know, I’m going to be perfectly honest with you. We’re roughly in that ballpark…” said Luckey, "but it’s going to cost more than that. And the reason for that is that we’ve added a lot of technology to this thing beyond what existed in the DK1 and DK2 days."
link

And if you read about his "apology" you'd know the reason behind this. People seem to read the word "ballpark" then forget about "it's going to cost more than that" right after it.
 
And if you read about his "apology" you'd know the reason behind this.
The "apology" where he says "oh I thought you would know by now that the price would be this high, my bad" while enjoying favorable press for promising VR to the masses over and over again?


People seem to read the word "ballpark" then forget about "it's going to cost more than that" right after it.
People don't think $600 is in the ballpark of $350. Because it's not.
 
Sold out until June now :( looks like I'll definitely be waiting.

I had my wallet out all ready to go last night but then I figured since my PC is below the min spec and Pascal isn't looking to be out before the Rift then there's little point in becoming an early adopter. I'll just have to look on at the rest of you with envy. Still.... I might just try to pick one up in retail when (if) they release in April and see if I get lucky.

Also I'm not sure why people are claming doom for the OR based on it's price. It's selling better than expected at a much higher price than expected. That clearly shows a lot of enthusiasm for the product. They could have sold the thing for $10 and they still wouldn't have moved more units in the first 3 months than they're going to do at $600.
 
I don't understand why people keep talking about the price point. It's pointless IMHO.
It's no logical to assume that Oculus deliberately talked about a lower price point to keep the buzz going. If Oculus said that the price point would be US$1,000 initially, do you think people would simply say, hey, it's so expensive it's not my thing! Not likely. People would simply assume that the price will be lower at some point and kept talking about it. Just look at Tesla: it's out of most people's budget for a car, yet people are still talking about it.
The point is that people buy the hype of VR. It has nothing to do with price. It's simply because people want it. Heck, even if the price is ridiculously high (such as US$10K for a pair) people would still talk about the possibility of a renting model (e.g. some sort of a VR arcade). And now people are arguing over something like US$100 or US$200.
As someone who care about the future of VR, I'm more interested in how the eco-system will develop. Will there be some standard SDK for all VR headsets? Or will everything be fragmented? Or will one product rule all? Isn't that something better worth discussion rather than some trivial price expectation?

People's infatuation with cars and VR is not analogous to each other. You ever walk into someone's room and found a poster of a Vive on the wall?

Price means everything because part of the hype was built around performant hardware at a affordable price. Mass adoption is a big part of the equation and adoption is strongly influenced by price. Because let's face it, unless these VR goggles are readily adopted the software support will be relatively anemic.
 
So I'm able to see 2 complete orders now. One is order 61300031XXXX the other is 613000030XXXX I can't tell the shipping estimate for any of them.

This is just a really bad system they set up.
 
The "apology" where he says "oh I thought you would know by now that the price would be this high, my bad" while enjoying favorable press for promising VR to the masses over and over again?

You keep saying about the "favorable press" due to the "cheap price" they "promised." Yet 1) they have never promised any price 2) most hype built were about the supposedly unprecedented performance of the VR set, rather than a low price.
If there's already something with similar performance with much higher price then I'd understand your point, but there isn't. People (well, at least for me) got interested in this because the reports about the "presence," which was not known to be achievable before.
Another example is HTC Vive. HTC said many times that HTC Vive is targeted at higher price and the price expectation is higher, yet it seems to enjoy similar hype from the press.

People don't think $600 is in the ballpark of $350. Because it's not.

No, and that's not what he said. He said they were in the ballpark but it's going to be more than that.

Price means everything because part of the hype was built around performant hardware at a affordable price. Mass adoption is a big part of the equation and adoption is strongly influenced by price. Because let's face it, unless these VR goggles are readily adopted the software support will be relatively anemic.

I don't think this is a big problem. This is clearly a first generation product, so it's going to be expensive. Unless it's impossible to get the cost down (it's a possibility, but very unlikely), there will be cheaper VR products in the future.
I understand what Oculus wants to do. They want to make sure the product achieves what they want. There are still a lot of rough edges in the VR world. People are still getting VR sickness. There's still no clear and broad understanding in how to make a good UI for a VR application. A lot of stuffs are still under development. So you need to make something that at least make things right for what we know right now, then we can understand which parts (especially the expensive ones) are not that important and can be removed or simplified, and which parts need to be improved. If, say, 30% of all are never going to overcome the VR sickness issue (I have a friend who's OK with just looking around in VR, but get nausea when he "moves" in game), then it's a much larger problem than a small difference in price.
 
The pc vr was never in point of becoming mass market in the year of 2016.

If you start from scratch today you will need dedicated 1000$ pc and rift 599$. if you want to have monitor for desktop use that is extra on top of that 1000$.

If you have 2 year old gaming pc you likely would have had to pay north of 1500$ to have pc that is minimum spec today. Again that price is without display.

It is rather irrelevant for mass acceptance of 2016 if rift costs 399 or 599. The limiting factor is people with good enough pc's. People with good enough gaming pc probably don't find 599$ pricepoint unattainable. If you want to have something other than minimum spec experience the money equation becomes even more favoring towards rift as your gaming pc is ... ridiculously ... expensive.

And btw. if you thought any of your laptops or gaming laptops would work with rift, tough luck. They do not work. Some specific models can be hacked to work but it requires a lot of annoying tinkering.

Mass market pc vr is 2-3++ years away. Mass market today is in ps4 and/or mobile vr.

If you are upset that the pc vr market is small and you cannot sell to millions of people... well, oculus is very well sold out and they cannot manufacture enough units to fill the demand. There is plenty time for oculus to make good business decisions once the demand starts to slow down.
 
Last edited:
He said they were in the ballpark but it's going to be more than that.
so you think $350 is the same ballpark as $600? for me a ballpark figure would be $300-$400 (10%-20%), thus in same ballpark but more expensive = $350-$400.
then again perhaps to some people same ballpark = ~double the price, thus my understanding is incorrect?
I really want VR but don't want to get a ps4, so was looking for a PC solution but $600 US, man thats a lot, count me very disappointed :(guess I'll wait a while till the price drops, honestly though I can't see why on earth the thing would cost anywhere near to $600 to make, it does smack of trying to make a profit (nice) but prolly not the best idea when you're at the forefront of a new experience when you want to drive a lot of early adoption/tie ins and quickly to your product (and not the competition)
 
palmer has admitted that he is wrong in the messaging using ballpark thing.

he should have changed the message after they changed CV1 target spec to more quality focused. but he didnt
 
so you think $350 is the same ballpark as $600? for me a ballpark figure would be $300-$400 (10%-20%), thus in same ballpark but more expensive = $350-$400.
then again perhaps to some people same ballpark = ~double the price, thus my understanding is incorrect?

From the interview, the impression I got was, they were in the ballpark of DK2 (US$350), but it's going to be more expensive. How expensive? He didn't say. He did warn about possible cost increase because every little things you want to add everywhere. While each little thing only adds a little cost, when a lot of little things are added, it's possible the cost can be higher. And he didn't promise anything. He didn't say that the price "will definitely be" in the ballpark of DK2. It's only that the cost structure at that time was roughly in the ballpark of DK2.

Of course, it's still a communication issue, and that's why he apologised. Personally I'm also a bit disappointed (I expected the price to be up to US$500), but I still want to give it a try.
 
so you think $350 is the same ballpark as $600? for me a ballpark figure would be $300-$400 (10%-20%), thus in same ballpark but more expensive = $350-$400.
then again perhaps to some people same ballpark = ~double the price, thus my understanding is incorrect?
I really want VR but don't want to get a ps4, so was looking for a PC solution but $600 US, man thats a lot, count me very disappointed :(guess I'll wait a while till the price drops, honestly though I can't see why on earth the thing would cost anywhere near to $600 to make, it does smack of trying to make a profit (nice) but prolly not the best idea when you're at the forefront of a new experience when you want to drive a lot of early adoption/tie ins and quickly to your product (and not the competition)

No, reading comprehension is sorely lacking here. The comment was made when people on forums and on twitter were running around like chickens with their heads cut off (like now) saying that Occulus Rift was going to cost 1500 USD. In comparison to that 1500 USD number, their internal estimate was close to but lower than 599 USD. That was within the ballpark of 350 USD versus 1500 USD.

After realizing that 350 was still significantly lower than 599 USD, he attempted to get across the message that it was going to be more than what people were expecting (the 350 USD figure that was meant to illustrate how ridiculous the 1500 USD rumor was), but everyone wanted to believe in the fairyland figure of 350 USD even though it was never stated to be the final price.

Anyway, his full explanation from reddit thread linked previously.

I handled the messaging poorly. Earlier last year, we started officially messaging that the Rift+Recommended spec PC would cost roughly $1500. That was around the time we committed to the path of prioritizing quality over cost, trying to make the best VR headset possible with current technology. Many outlets picked the story up as “Rift will cost $1500!”, which was honestly a good thing - the vast majority of consumers (and even gamers!) don’t have a PC anywhere close to the rec. spec, and many people were confused enough to think the Rift was a standalone device. For that vast majority of people, $1500 is the all-in cost of owning Rift. The biggest portion of their cost is the PC, not the Rift itself.

For gamers that already have high end GPUs, the equation is obviously different. In a September interview, during the Oculus Connect developer conference, I made the infamous “roughly in that $350 ballpark, but it will cost more than that” quote. As an explanation, not an excuse: during that time, many outlets were repeating the “Rift is $1500!” line, and I was frustrated by how many people thought that was the price of the headset itself. My answer was ill-prepared, and mentally, I was contrasting $349 with $1500, not our internal estimate that hovered close to $599 - that is why I said it was in roughly the same ballpark. Later on, I tried to get across that the Rift would cost more than many expected, in the past two weeks particularly. There are a lot of reasons we did not do a better job of prepping people who already have high end GPUs, legal, financial, competitive, and otherwise, but to be perfectly honest, our biggest failing was assuming we had been clear enough about setting expectations. Another problem is that people looked at the much less advanced technology in DK2 for $350 and assumed the consumer Rift would cost a similar amount, an assumption that myself (and Oculus) did not do a good job of fixing. I apologize.

To be perfectly clear, we don’t make money on the Rift. 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 core technology in the Rift is the main driver - two built-for-VR OLED displays with very high refresh rate and pixel density, a very precise tracking system, mechanical adjustment systems that must be lightweight, durable, and precise, and cutting-edge optics that are more complex to manufacture than many high end DSLR lenses. It is expensive, but for the $599 you spend, you get a lot more than spending $599 on pretty much any other consumer electronics devices - phones that cost $599 cost a fraction of that to make, same with mid-range TVs that cost $599. There are a lot of mainstream devices in that price-range, so as you have said, our failing was in communication, not just price.

I'm personally not sold on VR after having been hyped on it multiple times only to ultimately be disappointed by it time after time since the mid-90's as multiple attempts to launch VR mainstream gaming were attempted.

But people are seriously over-reacting. I'd be incredibly surprised if the Sony PSVR was much less than 599 USD unless Sony decide to either skimp on quality or take a loss on each unit sold. Personally, if PS4 continues to do well, I can see Sony subsidizing the PSVR in order to get the price down and then hope to make it back on game sales.

I also wouldn't be surprised to see the HTC VIVE come in at between 799 - 999 USD. Although they may have to revise their plans now that Oculus Rift has launched at 599 USD.

Personally, I think PSVR, Oculus Rift, HTC VIVE and all the other VR attempts will ultimately fail, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Regards,
SB
 
Also, anyone trying to claim Rift was originally meant for the masses. Without spending significant amounts of money to secure mass production of custom parts (like Apple) you aren't going to get favorable pricing for parts that are complex and not used in many devices. Anyone looking at this with an objective eye and not one full of wishful thinking always knew that 350 USD was far too low of a price if Oculus wanted to deliver a quality experience.

And, if by masses you mean people that are going to go out and buy a computer system that costs greater than 1000 USD. That's a very small pool for the "poor" (monetarily) masses. If you can afford the 1000+ USD machine that will be able to run the better looking VR games, you can certainly afford this. I find it even more laughable when people with 2500 USD gaming "laptops" are complaining about the price. Hell, their 1500 USD figure which included the PC + Rift was only capable of running the most basic looking games. Especially when the need is to run the games at 2160x1200 at 90 FPS minimum. For anything even remotely "good looking" you're likely going to need a PC closer to the 1500-2000 USD price point. An even smaller pool of gamers that would obviously have no problems affording the Rift, unless they spent well beyond their financial means in order to get that PC.

And evidently the people that have been truly invested in the vision of VR as a legitimate gaming medium have no problems with the price. Because Rift is actually affordable for them in terms of the quality that is promised.

They have price the device far too low for their ability to manufacture units compared to the demand for a device like this. This means that as soon as another product is announced with availability, regardless of price, they are going to start losing customers. As a business, they would have been better off shipping at a higher price and then releasing a lower priced SKU once the ability to manufacture units was able to meet demand at the higher price point.

The benefit from that is that manufacturing breakthroughs might have allowed them to maintain a profit even at a lower price without having to sacrifice on the quality of the device itself.

From a consumer standpoint there's always going to be people that can't afford the product so lower prices will always bring in more customers. But from a business standpoint lowering the price to make it more attractive when you can't make enough units to satisfy demand at a higher price point does no one any favors. Not the business and not the consumer.

A great example of a company that is good at managing price in relation to manufacturing capacity (supply) versus consumer demand is Nvidia. The first product featuring their GM200 cost ~1000 USD which likely brought in greater than 100% profit margins. And was immediately sold out for while. Once manufacturing was able to meet and exceed demand, they released a product using the exact same chip for ~650 USD (which likely brings in greater than 50% profit margins) while keeping their premium product for consumers willing to pay for it.

That ultimately brings in advantages both for the company and the consumer (lower margins for products aimed for the "masses" for example) as well as the company.

Meh. I'm still not terribly interested in the any of the current/upcoming crop of VR devices, but we'll see how things turn out.

Yes, it is more expensive than they originally planned for with their Kickstarter. But it's also a far better experience than what they originally planned with their Kickstarter.

One can argue they should have released a lesser device at a cheaper price. But one can also argue that it's nice that they saw the deficiencies of their original vision and have attempted to make the device one that is far better than their original vision once they saw the flaws in their original design and/or had access to more funds in order to provide a better experience than their original vision.

Regards,
SB
 
Also, anyone trying to claim Rift was originally meant for the masses. Without spending significant amounts of money to secure mass production of custom parts (like Apple) you aren't going to get favorable pricing for parts that are complex and not used in many devices. Anyone looking at this with an objective eye and not one full of wishful thinking always knew that 350 USD was far too low of a price if Oculus wanted to deliver a quality experience.

So OC has knowingly been lying to their backers/investors, promising a 200 ~ 400 dollar device even though they knew this would be impossible for the past 2 ~ 3 years? Don't forget that people and companies might have invested based on that promise. A low(er) price and mass market appeal is also needed to gain traction and get developers on board which is a requirement for long term success.

[quote[And, if by masses you mean people that are going to go out and buy a computer system that costs greater than 1000 USD. That's a very small pool for the "poor" (monetarily) masses. If you can afford the 1000+ USD machine that will be able to run the better looking VR games, you can certainly afford this. I find it even more laughable when people with 2500 USD gaming "laptops" are complaining about the price. Hell, their 1500 USD figure which included the PC + Rift was only capable of running the most basic looking games. Especially when the need is to run the games at 2160x1200 at 90 FPS minimum. For anything even remotely "good looking" you're likely going to need a PC closer to the 1500-2000 USD price point. An even smaller pool of gamers that would obviously have no problems affording the Rift, unless they spent well beyond their financial means in order to get that PC.[/quote]

I think the main problem people are having is that up until the very last moment OC was talking about a ~ 350 dollar price tag. They should have definitely seen this coming as much as a year ago and should have been pretty sure on what the BOM was going to be 6 months back. They have been producing multiple prototypes so they had knowledge about costs. Yet they decided not to say anything and then at the last moment come up with rather excuses.

Best case scenario OC has been unclear about pricing. More realistically they thought I'd be a good idea not to say anything and keep everybody on board the hype train until the last moment and deal with the backlash later. I don't blame them but it's not hard to understand why people are angry either.

A great example of a company that is good at managing price in relation to manufacturing capacity (supply) versus consumer demand is Nvidia. The first product featuring their GM200 cost ~1000 USD which likely brought in greater than 100% profit margins. And was immediately sold out for while. Once manufacturing was able to meet and exceed demand, they released a product using the exact same chip for ~650 USD (which likely brings in greater than 50% profit margins) while keeping their premium product for consumers willing to pay for it.

That comparison doesn't work. There will always be people who are willing to pay whatever the price is for the best of something. We know that new big gpu's often start out with poor yields and high prices are mostly a result of low availability of usable chips. Once yields go up the same chip is used for other products with some parts fused off.

I don't see the same working for OC. They can save money on the screen or the lenses but these would have to be different parts to make them cheaper, not the same part as would be the case with a gpu. If they have to use different parts the high end parts would most likely get more expensive as they would sell/use less of them, driving price up.

Then it becomes a question of whether or not that is worth it, whether the resulting lower end SKU is good enough not to turn people off etc.

I do think price for a product like this is important as it will succeed or fail depending on software available and nobody is going to invest making a VR game if nobody is buying VR headsets. Not a lot of people are going to be VR headsets if it costs 740 euros.
 
^^ maybe thats one of the reasons why they are giving away headsets to kikstarter backers. instant userbase.
 
Back
Top