Oculus Rift Will Cost More Than $350, Says Founder

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Oculus Rift Will Cost More Than $350, Says Founder

Palmer Luckey

Oculus founder Palmer Luckey says that the Rift going to cost more than $350.

2016 will finally see the long-awaited consumer version of the Oculus Rift hit store shelves, but if you were planning on buying one you had better save up. Speaking with Road to VR at its recent Connect event, founder Palmer Luckey stated that the device will cost more than $350 at launch.

When asked if the Rift would be coming in at the $350 ballpark that was initially discussed back in the Kickstarter days, Luckey responded that "You know, I'm going to be perfectly honest with you. We're roughly in that ballpark... but it's going to cost more than that."

He explained that "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."

"Are you going to optimize for absolute lowest price possible, even if it's gonna be a lower quality experience? Or do you try to say 'you know what, this is the first consumer VR headset that were going to be pushing out to people. We need to put a stake in the ground and say: this is the best possible experience that we were able to make. No compromises were made in terms of quality.'"

Luckey stopped short of actually announcing how much the device will cost, but his comments do suggest we're looking at at least $400.

This is somewhat disappointing, as I feel that the Rift can only really be successful if it is incredibly widespread, and becomes a device that a huge majority of gamers use. At $400, its likely to become another expensive PC gaming niche gimmick.

Source: Road to VR

Permalink

Understandable. It's the route Tesla went with their cars, start high and go low.

You know, I was hoping it would be at a more reasonable price, like about 200... That price will in all likelihood outright tank the sales of it. It will have a burst in the beginning and then it would fall into the category of, "Damn that thing looks awesome! Wish I could get it." Hopefully it will drop quickly.

So much for that whole selling at cost thing.

Just say it will only be for YouTubers, Lets Players and Gaming critics.
Its a lot simpler than making it seem like the consumer's fault for wanting "too much"

If the consoles were any indication, never buy the first gen of anything.

I don't think it's at all an unreasonable price. You're looking at at least that much for a high quality HOTAS + pedal peripherals. This is virtual reality we're talking about here. As much as I'd like it to not be over a couple hundred dollars, I'm more than happy to save for the best system they can put together.

To add, there won't be any shortage of affordable VR systems available. The way I see it, the approach is no different than it was to me when I got my first gaming PC. I didn't want to break the bank, but I understood that if I wanted a powerful, lasting machine, I was gonna have to plan on a bigger budget.

So accounting for the Australia TAX and terrible aud-usd conversion, I figure it will be at least $600 in Aus. Maybe $700.

They really need great launch titles, some well known beloved franchises to offer full support alongside some new games designed specifically for it. If there's some great experiences to be had with a popular franchise like say: Fallout, then I don't think the pricetag will matter much at all in the long run.

Either way, think I'll be waiting until all the competing companies bring out their take on VR and possibly even wait until a second generation has been released before throwing down that much cash.

I'll get the v.2 after we have useful things to do with them that isn't Xbone wank. GIVE IDE

For me the funny thing about this statement is hat he says it's the best experience possible yet with a 2k resolution CV1 will still have some screen door effect that only CV2 with 4k will solve.

Another thing is that he basically excuses the increase in price with feature creep. I'm rather mehhh about that.
Doesn't the CV1 come with an Xbox One controller? Cut that, there saved you 30$.
Why does it need headphones? I'm sure most people got better gear already. I for example will still use my home theater and I'm sure a lot of people got good headphones already e.g. from Bose or Sennheiser, which are probably leaps and bounds better than whatever the rift has. Cut it, there saved another 10$.

$400 is roughly £260 in local currency. That's quite pricey, but not product-cripplingly expensive. There's hope for it.

This was clear to anyone sensible from the very start, if you want cheap VR there is always Google Cardboard, Gear VR and a billion other joke products like them. Responsive and accurate hardware that will make a solid experience on the other hand is expensive.

It's the same product space as force feedback wheels/flight sticks. If you wanted the good shit you forked over a good deal of cash and the experience they delivered was immense, if you wanted to go cheap you stuck with controllers/keyboards and pretended it's good enough, if you went somewhere in between it was simply a waste of money.
And much like flight sticks this VR thing will have a limited use, at launch I doubt there will be a good selection of games and I doubt they will be very refined for the VR experience. Even console launches have very poor starting points and that is with conglomerates shovelling billions into devs pockets to get shit done for them.

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

So it's the cost of a new console. Figured as much. Since I already have a rig that far outpaces the consoles, this is still a maybe, but if Playstation's VR set has a lower pricepoint, it will be awfully tempting.

crimson5pheonix:
Understandable. It's the route Tesla went with their cars, start high and go low.

Yup. The first round is really going to be for the enthusiasts, developers, and so on. And really, unless you are into vehicle sims, there's not going to be all that much compelling content for a while anyway. I'm planning on getting one, but then again, even if it were $600 that would still be cheaper than building a multimonitor simpit, so for me this is still quite reasonable.

Yeah $400 is far too much if they want to build an eco-system. They really need to be pushing these things out as a loss leader if they want to get any traction. At that price point I'll have a look at the Vive instead, or at the very least, wait for the 4k version.

09philj:
$400 is roughly £260 in local currency. That's quite pricey, but not product-cripplingly expensive. There's hope for it.

Plus VAT, remember Americans quote prices without tax for some reason, so you can pretty much map the $ price to £.

Remus:
So it's the cost of a new console. Figured as much. Since I already have a rig that far outpaces the consoles, this is still a maybe, but if Playstation's VR set has a lower pricepoint, it will be awfully tempting.

I'm actually quite curious what the Playstation VR will be priced at. I'm sort of afraid it will be $400, too and this made that price point all the more likely in my mind.

Which is unfortunate. I could see some games, like No Man's Sky, being amazing in VR. On the other hand, I can't see too many games using VR in the immediate future, and expect many that do won't use it well. So that makes buying it seem a little unwise. That goes for Oculus, too.

All Rift V1 has to do is survive the first two years while mid price graphics cards and PCs catch up to what is required of them. Right now the only people buying rift have monster machines anyway, so £300-ish here won't be much issue.

Once mid range hardware (and whisper it, new consoles) can run it properly it needs to get down to half that price, which it will the way hardware prices go over time. Then we'll see if it's doomed to be forever niche or a real revolution.

number2301:
Plus VAT, remember Americans quote prices without tax for some reason, so you can pretty much map the $ price to £.

That's because sales tax in the US is calculated based on your state and some other factors known only to the Elder Gods, it's not like us Europeans with our weird unified rules across countries.

Well, I'm expecting it to land in the uk for slice more than three hundred pounds.

A little outside of my price range for the moment.
That's probably for the best.
It'll give me time to decide whether I'm tempted by any of the alternate versions being offered.

Valve's take seems quite tempting, but I have a feeling it's going to be responsible for an epidemic of bruised ankles and broken furniture.

So what's stopping people just buying the dev kits now for 350?
I think anyone buying it at 400+ on launch day just has to be someone that hasn't done their research.

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.

fix-the-spade:
All Rift V1 has to do is survive the first two years while mid price graphics cards and PCs catch up to what is required of them. Right now the only people buying rift have monster machines anyway, so £300-ish here won't be much issue.

Once mid range hardware (and whisper it, new consoles) can run it properly it needs to get down to half that price, which it will the way hardware prices go over time. Then we'll see if it's doomed to be forever niche or a real revolution.

number2301:
Plus VAT, remember Americans quote prices without tax for some reason, so you can pretty much map the $ price to £.

That's because sales tax in the US is calculated based on your state and some other factors known only to the Elder Gods, it's not like us Europeans with our weird unified rules across countries.

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...)

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.

fix-the-spade:
All Rift V1 has to do is survive the first two years while mid price graphics cards and PCs catch up to what is required of them. Right now the only people buying rift have monster machines anyway, so £300-ish here won't be much issue.

Once mid range hardware (and whisper it, new consoles) can run it properly it needs to get down to half that price, which it will the way hardware prices go over time. Then we'll see if it's doomed to be forever niche or a real revolution.

number2301:
Plus VAT, remember Americans quote prices without tax for some reason, so you can pretty much map the $ price to £.

That's because sales tax in the US is calculated based on your state and some other factors known only to the Elder Gods, it's not like us Europeans with our weird unified rules across countries.

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.

Baresark:
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.

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.

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!

People still think OR is going to be a widespread phenomenon?

Steven Bogos:

This is somewhat disappointing, as I feel that the Rift can only really be successful if it is incredibly widespread, and becomes a device that a huge majority of gamers use.

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.
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.

number2301:
Plus VAT, remember Americans quote prices without tax for some reason....

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).

09philj:
$400 is roughly £260 in local currency. That's quite pricey, but not product-cripplingly expensive. There's hope for it.

£260 in theory. Typically there isn't a 1:1 exchange ratio and typically it's slightly more expensive, £300 is my estimate.

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.

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.

gxs:
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.

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.

LegendaryGamer0:

gxs:
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.

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.

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

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here