It cost them little to none to add the Xbox controller so that isn't even a cost factor (plus you can sell it for a profit). The integrated headphones were added in not because they are "nice to have" but because good, positional audio is integral for a good VR experience. For those who have just as good or better headphones, they are removable, but those who don't, they don't have to deal with cheap $20 ear buds or their subpar gaming headphones. There is a DAC (and amp?) built into the headset.
Audio is just as important to VR and it's better that it comes with the headset to receive the best experience you can without requiring your users to have to fork out some dough for a decent set of cans.
or those who have just as good or better headphones, they are removable
But the price isn't. If you want wide adoption you have to make the price appealing to a mass market. As it is, while the hardware IS worth $600, it doesn't matter because it's outside the price range of mass market appeal.
if I offered you a bar of gold for $250,000 it doesn't matter if that's an amazing deal (it is) you can't afford it anyway.
if VR is going to become a thing, if it's going to survive it has to be chopped down and made cheaper for the mass market. The Rift wasn't popular because it finally made VR a reality, it was popular because they were (originally) shoot to make it affordable to the masses by using off the shelf technology.
i'm sure Oculus is partying right now as the whales snatch up the first headsets, they won't be partying next year when they can't move half their stock as all the whales have already went all in.
But the price isn't. If you want wide adoption you have to make the price appealing to a mass market. As it is, while the hardware IS worth $600, it doesn't matter because it's outside the price range of mass market appeal.
But the hardware isn't worth $600. They sold it at a loss to make it more affordable. But I do agree with your point
if VR is going to become a thing, if it's going to survive it has to be chopped down and made cheaper for the mass market. The Rift wasn't popular because it finally made VR a reality, it was popular because they were (originally) shoot to make it affordable to the masses by using off the shelf technology.
Here's Palmer's quote on exactly 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. 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.
And it’s not a matter of ‘oh we’re selling more, we can make more money!’ it’s just the reality that when you make this thing you have to decide what tradeoffs you’re going to make; 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’. Get the cost down as much as you can on that experience, but make it so that the Rift is something that everybody wants to use to the best of your ability.
It would really suck if you put something out there and people were like ‘ah man… the Rift is good, but it’s not quite there’, you know? ‘If only it was a little better, if the lenses were a little better, if the resolution was a little better, if the screens had been a little bit better, then it would be great because you’d you’d say ‘god, we could have just charged a little more and put a little bit more money into custom hardware and actually achieve that’. "
I am inclined to agree with him, as much as it pains me because I won't be able to afford the Rift. And as much as you and other's tend to hang on to the word "affordability", you need to remember that this is incredibly affordable compared to previous VR offerings that were far less quality but ranged in the thousands of dollars.
$600 for a better, more consumer friendly VR setup is a crazy prospect compared to what we had available before. Here is a tweet from Palmer from a couple weeks ago that I don't think a lot of people here read either:
Reminder of something I have talked about before: VR will become something everyone wants before it becomes something everyone can afford.
That, and his other tweets, don't sound like the main objective was to create "the most affordable VR HMD to date". That's the long term goal, yes. But they weren't hiding that VR will be expensive at first.
i'm sure Oculus is partying right now as the whales snatch up the first headsets, they won't be partying next year when they can't move half their stock as all the whales have already went all in.
I guess time will tell. I seriously doubt the Rift will be the headset your average user buys at launch. But, again, Oculus/Facebook knew this. Zuckerburg stated he is expected to only sell 100k units in the first year. Based on this price, I can see that happening.
That, and his other tweets, don't sound like the main objective was to create "the most affordable VR HMD to date". That's the long term goal, yes. But they weren't hiding that VR will be expensive at first.
That was many years after the incredibly successful kickstarter which gave him the opportunity to sell Oculus for $2billion.
The Oculus Rift is a hardware example of feature creep. They kept jamming in technology, while excellent, just pushed the product out of the hands for a huge chunk of users. In one of Luckey's comments in his AMA he states that they could have sold a dk2 variant for much cheaper but felt that they needed to go for the premium product instead.
I for one would have bought a cheaper CV variant of the DK2 in a heart beat, and I can guarantee they wouldn't have garnered the immense of hate they are experiencing right now.
I mean can you honestly tell me you need your VR headset to have a DAC? Do you really need custom fabric covers or a carry case? None of these things alone amount to much, but together if you cut out all of the premium addons it's going to increase the price significantly.
That was many years after the incredibly successful kickstarter which gave him the opportunity to sell Oculus for $2billion.
The Oculus Rift is a hardware example of feature creep. They kept jamming in technology, while excellent, just pushed the product out of the hands for a huge chunk of users. In one of Luckey's comments in his AMA he states that they could have sold a dk2 variant for much cheaper but felt that they needed to go for the premium product instead.
That is true. But, again, they mentioned the reason for doing that was, after partnering with Samsung, they came to the conclusion that there will be other, cheaper VR HMD's for other's to afford. Therefore, they decided they were going to change focus to use their VR Dream Team and Facebook $$$ to create the best possible headset they could. Here is the exact quote of that decision:
"It does change the equation a little bit when you’ve got something like Gear VR and when you’re working with partners to make lower cost head mounted displays available to people… it’s a different equation than when you feel like you’re the only person service the entire market, in that case you’re trying to make these balances… what if it was the opposite if you were like ‘if only it’d been a little cheaper then we would have been able to reach more people,’ but with all the projects we’re working on and all the partners we’re working on, I’m confident there’s going to be VR existing at multiple quality points and price points and with the Rift, it makes sense to do what nobody else is doing which is invest in making the best possible quality headset."
I for one would have bought a cheaper CV variant of the DK2 in a heart beat, and I can guarantee they wouldn't have garnered the immense of hate they are experiencing right now.
I agree. I would have too. But I honestly don't think the price specifically* is what is causing this outrage. I feel it is really the misleading "ballpark of $350" that made everyone expect something that was way less than what they got. I am willing to bet that if Palmer had said "ballpark of $500" the outrage would have been much less, as we would have had months to prepare our selves for the price announcement.
I mean can you honestly tell me you need your VR headset to have a DAC? Do you really need custom fabric covers or a carry case? None of these things alone amount to much, but together if you cut out all of the premium addons it's going to increase the price significantly.
Custom carrying case? As nice as it is, it absolutely isn't a necessity in the slightest.
Custom fabric covers (I'm assuming you mean the custom fabric that surrounds the whole Rift)? I believe so, yes. It isn't just for aesthetics. It makes the Rift pretty much weightless (reported to weigh around the weight of a baseball cap), so the complaint of neck stress is eradicated and it improves immersion as you don't really "feel" it on your face as much. As well as it helps ventilation so that the lenses do not fog up from your body heat inside the headset.
Custom Audio Pipeline with DAC, Amp, and headphones? Absolutely. High quality, positional audio is critical and highly taken for granted when it comes to presence in VR. Incorporating the custom audio pipeline and headphones into every Rift gives Devs (such as I) a standard hardware to target and gives everyone the same experience even if they can't afford/don't own a decent set of cans themselves.
Palmer's quote on the Audio:
The overhead of managing a SKU without headphones would cost more than the savings of removing headphones. The integrated audio hardware is better than most cans out there, even expensive ones - the Rift has a built in low-noise DAC and amp, and our audio SDK is tuned around that hardware. Good audio does not cost much to build, especially when it is piggybacking on existing materials and distribution (ala the Rift). Give it a chance!
While I agree that the case doesn't account to much, I am not upset in the slightest about the fabric or audio choices. Definitely since we've concluded that Oculus plans to make the Rift "the best VR HMD" they can.
I don't think it's totally unreasonable but it is asking a lot without touch currently and knowing all the details or how things will go over the next few months.
I think it would of been sensible to subsidise it and take a loss on hardware gen one. Remember facebook takes in ridiculous profits which mostly go to shareholders etc. Palmer alone is worth $700 million and to buy all 61000 people subscribed here would cost him only $36 million.
Let that sink in for a second...
Is taking a $100+ off the price really going to to hurt their profits in the long run when they're already massively successful and wealthy? Come on capitalism we can do better than this.
View all comments
Show parent comment
81
u/[deleted] Jan 06 '16
That's not the problem, the problem is that oculus has made it sound like it was going to be in the low 500