[Guru3d] Oculus Rift Pre-Order $599/€699

[mysticjbyrd]

This post nails it. Cutting edge tech = always expensive at launch. When plasma TVs came out and offered the best IQ, they were crazy expensive. When 1080p OLED came out, it was expensive. BluRay players & PS3 = expensive.

The strategy of launching Rift at $600 US is smart because the high price suggests the firm thinks this product is actually revolutionary. If this was priced at $299 at launch, people would think it's just a cheap gimmick. Right now they can create a halo effect and start the hype train slowly around this premium experience. Then in 2-3 years drop the price to $299 or something and the mainstream consumer will remember that this cutting edge tech was initially an expensive $600 device. Then in 4-5 years they can drop it to $149-199 but people will always remember that it cost $600. If you want to associate your next gen revolutionary tech with premium experience, you don't price it low. Just like LG doesn't sell cutting edge OLED TVs for Vizio LED prices.

I remember the haters who bashed early BluRay, plasma, OLEDs, micro-4/3rds cameras, you name it:

"It was 10 years ago that Panasonic introduced one of the first Blu-ray players, the DMP-BD10, and like the first DVD players before it, the BD10 cost a mint ($1,300). It seems that in order to help popularize the latest format in the face of competition from 4K streaming, Panasonic's competitors are pricing the new 4K Blu-ray players a lot more reasonably at around $400 to $500."
http://www.cnet.com/products/panasonic-dmp-ub900/

Cutting edge tech that first sells in low volumes is expensive and that's how tech has always been. By definition, cutting edge/latest tech => never aimed at the mainstream market.

Just like when $5000 120Hz 4K OLED Monitors, $133,000 8K TVs enter the market, they won't be aimed at the mainstream consumer at first.



This guy gets it. Comparing VR experience to conventional gaming by using $600 GPU prices is a flawed comparison. Even the conventional price/performance metric hardly applies to VR vs. GPU prices since the 'quality/experience' per frame is completely different. You can have 4 Pascal Titans in Quad-SLI and while that's a great experience, VR is a totally different experience. I've had a chance to try VR and while right now without a lot of content I am not going to be an early adopter, no way would I be comparing traditional PC gaming to VR. The 2 experiences are just too different and each has its pros and cons. Over time the tech will come down in price.

It's funny to watch some of the same individuals who crapped on plasma, then HBM1, then OLED, are now crapping on VR. I guess some people just hate progress, something unproven, totally new experience/tech and for them VR is just another new tech to add to that list.

Eventually VR headsets will improve in quality and come down in price, and content will pick up. No need to start the hate wave, especially if one hasn't tried a VR headset at all -- which seems to be the case with a lot of people in this thread/online.

I don't agree with the premise that people would see a $300 price tag, and consider it cheap junk!

If I had to guess, they are releasing it with a $600 price tag, because they are getting a huge markup on it, and they don't want most people to buy it! That sounds crazy, but it makes sense.

As others have said, this device requires an infrastructure to truly be marketable. Currently that infrastructure doesn't exist at all. If it was widely accessible, people would purchase it, and immediately get discouraged that it's functionality is mostly limited to porn. The enthusiast crowd, which often have more disposable income, would be far more forgiving in this regard, however.

 

[Subyman]

Entire supply for March 2016 sold out in 14 minutes. Then entire supply for April sold out too. Units pre-ordered now are shipping in May.

As a point of reference, Oculus sold ~175,000 of DK1 and DK2 kits before the official launch. Pretty surprising how few kits sold for Asia and South America considering how big PC gaming is in China/Brazil/Russia.

Actually, it slipped to June on the second day. So we have a three month back order right now. Seems they priced it either just right or too low for their initial supply depending on what they were targeting.

 

[Subyman]

If I had to guess, they are releasing it with a $600 price tag, because they are getting a huge markup on it, and they don't want most people to buy it! That sounds crazy, but it makes sense.

The BOM is likely near the $600 mark. Luckey confirmed that they will likely not make much off each unit sold. They may have fudged the break even cost up a bit if they slid the freebie units going to backers into the "build cost" of the first run. Looking at the parts included in the kit, I don't have much reason to not believe him.

 

[UaVaj]

VR is nothing more than an all-in-one 1) on head camera pan input with 2) on head display output.

be great for 1st person shooter/simulation. just like in bf4 spectator mode.

if bf5 (or other aaa titles) supports this device. will definitely get one or two.
way way way cheaper than quad furyx/polaris with triple dell u3014.



as for shintaidk's comment. with the tesla suit optional boner attachment. that might just work. lol.

 

[moonbogg]

BF5 won't support it. The reason is simple. All of the below would be available at the same time.

Skylake-E
Pascal
VR
BF5 with VR support.

The above combo won't happen because the universe just isn't that good. Cool stuff happens here, but nothing like that.

 

[freeskier93]

Think about training fighter and commercial airplane pilots, interior space / car designers, architects, medical surgery training, so many uses!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zzxucngu58

For actual commercial or military flight training this would be a huge step down from the full size simulators.

 

[Dribble]

I know gaming excites most of us here but we should expand our horizons a bit.

How many CAD users can benefit from cheap VR. Walking around a seemingly full sized model will be very useful. What about previewing full sized house designs. You can get a much more realistic feel for the final item than using a monitor. There are many more non game uses.

How does 600$ compare to present industrial VR headsets?

No one in industry uses VR headsets, hence there aren't really any industrial VR headsets. VR is isolating and makes you want to throw up nether of these things is popular with engineers (who aren't going to be as forgiving as a load of pro VR geeks). You'll get a few cave's, and 3D power walls but I doubt you find anyone using a VR headset who doesn't work for a university.

Here's an interesting article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35239815

Good demo - fun. One misconfigured demo for 30 seconds left reporter feeling ill and disoriented for the next 30 mins, put someone who had been keen right off VR. This is why VR is so hard - you are walking a thin line, one mistake and it puts people off so badly they'll never go near it again.

 

[Grooveriding]

The price is completely reasonable. It's using 90hz OLED screens which is awesome. It's early and if you want this sort of experience it's going to cost money. Considering for a really good experience you're going to want a rig that costs at least $2000, the price is no big deal for the target market.

VR is incredible and it's only just getting started. It's nothing like the joke that was 3D TVs or the crap that was 3d gaming on the PC.

Eventually we'll so purpose built machines with GPUs for the living room. The experience of VR once it fully matures and peripherals improve will be something a lot of people are going to want to get their hands on. Can't wait for mine to get here.

 

[maddie]

No one in industry uses VR headsets, hence there aren't really any industrial VR headsets. VR is isolating and makes you want to throw up nether of these things is popular with engineers (who aren't going to be as forgiving as a load of pro VR geeks). You'll get a few cave's, and 3D power walls but I doubt you find anyone using a VR headset who doesn't work for a university.

Here's an interesting article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35239815

Good demo - fun. One misconfigured demo for 30 seconds left reporter feeling ill and disoriented for the next 30 mins, put someone who had been keen right off VR. This is why VR is so hard - you are walking a thin line, one mistake and it puts people off so badly they'll never go near it again.

OK, there might not be "industrial VR headsets" but here is an interesting read on non-gaming uses. This is only the beginning.

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/9-industries-using-virtual-reality/


Some quotes:
1) Medical journal Frontiers in Neuroscience published a study last year on the use of virtual reality to treat the phantom limb pain of people who have lost limbs. The therapy uses sensors that pick up on nerve inputs from the brain, and patients have to complete a game using a virtual limb. It helps them gain control — so if an amputee feels as though they've been clenching their fist, seeing a virtual limb that they control helps them learn how to relax the fist

2) Similarly, Audi announced this year that they'd be using VR later in the year to give potential car buyers an in-depth look at their cars, as well as the ability to customize not just colors, but electronics systems, inlays, and even the interior leather.

3) Welding is an old trade, but now training can be supplemented with virtual reality. One immediate benefit is that using virtual reality training means money doesn't have to be spent on materials to practice on, and the trainees can repeat the task as many times as they need to. It won't replace traditional training, but it can make the process faster and cheaper.

4) Recently, the British government made the announcement that it would incorporate Oculus Rift into its training of trauma medics for battle. Other military uses are simulations that can help train how to deal with IEDs — and simulations like those can can be repeated and mistakes learned from.

 

[thilanliyan]

http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/07/the-oculus-rift-made-you-forget-what-the-first-iphone-cost/

Another article about first adopter tech...personally I'm not surprised or disappointed at the price. I myself have never tried any of these newer VR headsets but I'm very curious as to how the experience is playing games/watching movies.

 

[steve wilson]

https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/3zxsgp/tldr_for_palmer_ama/

A TLDR on the AMA Palmer Lucky did on Reddit... the original thing is huge.

 

[tential]

The price is completely reasonable. It's using 90hz OLED screens which is awesome. It's early and if you want this sort of experience it's going to cost money. Considering for a really good experience you're going to want a rig that costs at least $2000, the price is no big deal for the target market.

VR is incredible and it's only just getting started. It's nothing like the joke that was 3D TVs or the crap that was 3d gaming on the PC.

Eventually we'll so purpose built machines with GPUs for the living room. The experience of VR once it fully matures and peripherals improve will be something a lot of people are going to want to get their hands on. Can't wait for mine to get here.

Almost every person put off by the cost also doesn't have a fast enough rig either way.

 

[cytg111]

It just needs time. GPUs need time to get fast enough anyway, probably after the next node shrink and console generation.

That said, I couldn't care less.

Minus the "I couldn't care less." part, i totally agree, we need next gen GPU's to run this thing right.

The rift is just the deluxe item, gear and morpheus etc is coming if you want the lesser species.. given the hardware you need to run it right, 599.- does not seem off to me, it is not for everyone at first. Six months from now and 14nm GPU's, price will problary have dropped to the 300-400.- range.. It is all good.

 

[Timmah!]

I am looking forward to use it one day in combo with the raytracing engine like Brigade, load my creation/arch proposal into it and walk around it to show clients that way. Its going to be something else.

I guess its too much to expect the next gen GPU generation (Pascal/Polaris) to be able to handle the pathtracing in VR environment though...

 

[Subyman]

Good demo - fun. One misconfigured demo for 30 seconds left reporter feeling ill and disoriented for the next 30 mins, put someone who had been keen right off VR. This is why VR is so hard - you are walking a thin line, one mistake and it puts people off so badly they'll never go near it again.

This is why VR needed to take its time. I never experienced ill feelings while using it. My eyes strained with the DK1 until I was able to get it configured properly, but I believe they have made that process easier with the newer software updates. I've never had issues with vertigo or motion sickness. People who do probably need to tread carefully.

 

[Headfoot]

lots of armchair computer scientists here telling us how easy and cheap it is to design real-time real-3d space head tracking at very low latency and overhead levels. If it's so easy and cheap, why hasn't anyone else done it yet? Simple answer. It's not easy or cheap to make a quality VR headset, or it would be cheaper...

 

[Pariah]

lots of armchair computer scientists here telling us how easy and cheap it is to design real-time real-3d space head tracking at very low latency and overhead levels. If it's so easy and cheap, why hasn't anyone else done it yet? Simple answer. It's not easy or cheap to make a quality VR headset, or it would be cheaper...

No one cares how difficult it is to make. If customers don't feel the final product is worth the price to them, the product fails.

 

[moonbogg]

One misconfigured demo for 30 seconds left reporter feeling ill and disoriented for the next 30 mins, put someone who had been keen right off VR. This is why VR is so hard - you are walking a thin line, one mistake and it puts people off so badly they'll never go near it again.

Oh boy. Someone needs to shove a Dramamine down their throat, slap their ass and tell them to get back on that horse!

 

[Headfoot]

No one cares how difficult it is to make. If customers don't feel the final product is worth the price to them, the product fails.

One's head has got to be very firmly in the sand if one can't see the link between difficulty to create, novelty of experience and product, and price.

Not hard.

1080p started out costing $10,000 for the first gen, halo level products. And clearly 1080p TVs failed because of it. Oh wait. Blu Ray was $1000 when that came out, and that failed hard too. Wait, nope. $300 in 1996 was a lot of money for the Voodoo Graphics card. Surely real-time 3d graphics on computers is just a novelty and a hobby that isn't worth that much money.

Don't forget 640k memory is enough, and that no one would ever want a personal computer.

 

[moonbogg]

I remember when Nvidia announced at some conference the retail price of $600 for the Geforce 3. Everyone was like, "Um sorry wut?"

 

[Headfoot]

Yeah, 3d graphics computing on a personal computer for $600 (not accounting for inflation)? Definitely going to flop.

 

[Pariah]

One's head has got to be very firmly in the sand if one can't see the link between difficulty to create, novelty of experience and product, and price.

Not hard.

1080p started out costing $10,000 for the first gen, halo level products. And clearly 1080p TVs failed because of it. Oh wait. Blu Ray was $1000 when that came out, and that failed hard too. Wait, nope. $300 in 1996 was a lot of money for the Voodoo Graphics card. Surely real-time 3d graphics on computers is just a novelty and a hobby that isn't worth that much money.

Don't forget 640k memory is enough, and that no one would ever want a personal computer.

You're still not getting it. When people buy things, they don't research how difficult it was to make in determining whether they want to pay for it or not. The producer determines the price based on what makes financial sense for the company. Consumers determine whether that price is worth what the product will provide for them. Many great products have failed because people weren't willing to pay the asking price. Consumers don't buy products because they feel sorry for how hard the engineers had to work to make the product a reality.

No idea what relevance that last part had to anything here.

 

[Headfoot]

You're still not getting it. When people buy things, they don't research how difficult it was to make in determining whether they want to pay for it or not. The producer determines the price based on what makes financial sense for the company. Consumers determine whether that price is worth what the product will provide for them. Many great products have failed because people weren't willing to pay the asking price. Consumers don't buy products because they feel sorry for how hard the engineers had to work to make the product a reality.

That's why 1080p failed right? Because 10k was too expensive. That's why Blu Ray failed right? Because 1k was too expensive. Remember when high resolution (1920x1200) LCDs were $5000? LCD monitors will probably fail. The price is too high.

It's almost like the people who buy the first commercial release of highly advanced new consumer technology pay more than later in the product's lifecycle...

 

[maddie]

We are talking about some experienced companies here. Facebook and Occulus. Anyone thinks this price was a mere guess? It seems to be working as product is being booked.

 

[Pariah]

That's why 1080p failed right? Because 10k was too expensive. That's why Blu Ray failed right? Because 1k was too expensive. Remember when high resolution (1920x1200) LCDs were $5000? LCD monitors will probably fail. The price is too high.

It's almost like the people who buy the first commercial release of highly advanced new consumer technology pay more than later in the product's lifecycle...

You're comparing technologies that were successors to mainstream products to a technology that has never had a successful commercial product in over 20 years of trying.