SO Occulus Rift sales start tomorrow 6th of januar: who is getting one?
- Thread starter Dread Lord
- Start date
Okay, I will be willing to wait and let all of you that purchase, give me and the rest reviews and long term reviews. Good Luck with your purchase.
I have been following the rift ever since it was still a rumour. I did not buy into the DevKits, patiently waiting for the release version.
Now that they announced pre-orders, I am not buying one... They spent years creating the expectation that the consumer version would be in a price range that would allow wide adoption, and even suggested that price range to be between 250-450 on multiple occasions. And I find out they will charge $600 USD for it? (For our European friends, I think it's even more expensive). In fact, they even said that "being backed by facebook will allow us to drop the price even further". It is quite the contrary...
After following the product for years, I have decided I'm going to buy the HTC Vive instead. Coming only a month after, it actually has certain features that the Oculus does not offer.
Don't get me wrong, it's not an issue with the money, or anything of that sort. But I refuse to give my money to a company that so blatantly set certain expectations and then utterly failed to meet them. Their excuse "Oh, we're including a free Xbox One controller (I don't give two craps), and you get EVE Valkyrie for free (I also don't care).
Oh, but the thing rising the price partially is EVE Valkyrie and the Xbox controller? Give me the option to buy the Oculus without the extras, after all, I don't want them. Considering the price of an Xbox Controller ($50?) and EVE Valkyrie ($60), that should drop the price to about $480. Would I pay that much? Probably.
Supposedly, there is "higher quality materials and internals blah blah blah").
If that was the case, they should've announced the change in expected price months ago, I highly doubt they decided to use "higher quality" stuff in the last 30 days.
The reason I decided to go with the Vive is:
Oculus price revealed, HTC/Valve will very likely price their VR headset around the same pricepoint, and maybe even lower to compete.
Earlier versions of the Oculus had a front facing camera, the consumer version has had the camera removed. Why do I care about this?
Picture this: With the Oculus, if I want to take a sip of a glass of juice next to me, I have to remove the headset so I can look at the glass and grab it (otherwise, I could spill it). If someone talks to me, I would have to take the headset off to talk to them. If I want to go grab a controller, or replace my batteries, or anything that requires me to see what I'm doing, I have to take the headset off.
The HTC Vive has a front facing camera: It has been confirmed that the consumer version will allow the camera to be used so you don't have to remove the headset for any of these things. Press a button, the camera relays your living room into the headset, so you can reach for that glass, or do anything you need to without having to take it off. In my opinion this is a great feature.
The Oculus tracking mechanics are good, but the Vive is using more advanced technology for it. The Vive will be able to use these lasers in conjunction with the camera to "map" objects in your room and learn your room layout, even if you don't use the feature to see around your room, it will still alert you if you are about to run into something.
The Vive's microphone will be integrated into the headset, I am not sure how the Oculus will handle the microphone, but it seems itll be part of the "detachable headphones" (which I won't use anyway, my studio quality headphones paired with my soundcard would leave whatever they put on in the dust).
It seems the Vive will not be bundled with some useless stuff that a lot of people won't care about (e.g. Xbox controller, some game, etc).
Once again, due to the Oculus being out, I am confident Valve will price their headset accordingly to compete.
I have followed the Oculus since its beginning, but now that Facebook took over it, apparently their promise to deliver a well priced product seems to have disappeared in the name of "we're releasing this first let's squeeze as much money as we want out of it".
So yeah... I have been hoping for the Oculus to be released, but as of this moment, they are not getting a single cent for me.
Hell, even if the Vive came out at 800 bucks, I'll still buy the Vive. Screw Oculus and their false advertising/expectations.
Now that they announced pre-orders, I am not buying one... They spent years creating the expectation that the consumer version would be in a price range that would allow wide adoption, and even suggested that price range to be between 250-450 on multiple occasions. And I find out they will charge $600 USD for it? (For our European friends, I think it's even more expensive). In fact, they even said that "being backed by facebook will allow us to drop the price even further". It is quite the contrary...
After following the product for years, I have decided I'm going to buy the HTC Vive instead. Coming only a month after, it actually has certain features that the Oculus does not offer.
Don't get me wrong, it's not an issue with the money, or anything of that sort. But I refuse to give my money to a company that so blatantly set certain expectations and then utterly failed to meet them. Their excuse "Oh, we're including a free Xbox One controller (I don't give two craps), and you get EVE Valkyrie for free (I also don't care).
Oh, but the thing rising the price partially is EVE Valkyrie and the Xbox controller? Give me the option to buy the Oculus without the extras, after all, I don't want them. Considering the price of an Xbox Controller ($50?) and EVE Valkyrie ($60), that should drop the price to about $480. Would I pay that much? Probably.
Supposedly, there is "higher quality materials and internals blah blah blah").
If that was the case, they should've announced the change in expected price months ago, I highly doubt they decided to use "higher quality" stuff in the last 30 days.
The reason I decided to go with the Vive is:
Oculus price revealed, HTC/Valve will very likely price their VR headset around the same pricepoint, and maybe even lower to compete.
Earlier versions of the Oculus had a front facing camera, the consumer version has had the camera removed. Why do I care about this?
Picture this: With the Oculus, if I want to take a sip of a glass of juice next to me, I have to remove the headset so I can look at the glass and grab it (otherwise, I could spill it). If someone talks to me, I would have to take the headset off to talk to them. If I want to go grab a controller, or replace my batteries, or anything that requires me to see what I'm doing, I have to take the headset off.
The HTC Vive has a front facing camera: It has been confirmed that the consumer version will allow the camera to be used so you don't have to remove the headset for any of these things. Press a button, the camera relays your living room into the headset, so you can reach for that glass, or do anything you need to without having to take it off. In my opinion this is a great feature.
The Oculus tracking mechanics are good, but the Vive is using more advanced technology for it. The Vive will be able to use these lasers in conjunction with the camera to "map" objects in your room and learn your room layout, even if you don't use the feature to see around your room, it will still alert you if you are about to run into something.
The Vive's microphone will be integrated into the headset, I am not sure how the Oculus will handle the microphone, but it seems itll be part of the "detachable headphones" (which I won't use anyway, my studio quality headphones paired with my soundcard would leave whatever they put on in the dust).
It seems the Vive will not be bundled with some useless stuff that a lot of people won't care about (e.g. Xbox controller, some game, etc).
Once again, due to the Oculus being out, I am confident Valve will price their headset accordingly to compete.
I have followed the Oculus since its beginning, but now that Facebook took over it, apparently their promise to deliver a well priced product seems to have disappeared in the name of "we're releasing this first let's squeeze as much money as we want out of it".
So yeah... I have been hoping for the Oculus to be released, but as of this moment, they are not getting a single cent for me.
Hell, even if the Vive came out at 800 bucks, I'll still buy the Vive. Screw Oculus and their false advertising/expectations.
Last edited:
Very interesting, thanks for posting.
Funny thing though - they both chose the Vive, but based solely on what they said I would pick the Rift! They said the Rift had a better display, less screen door effect (something I know I want, from experience). They said the controllers (when they come) are better on the Rift. The only part that bothered me was the Rift having a bit less FoV than the Vive. All the talk about walking around and stuff - utterly useless to me, my room is too small and I don't really want to do it with a cable attached to my head anyway! What, you have to have someone trail around behind you like at the demos, or install some sort of curtain rail on your ceiling to keep it out the way. Their excitement was mainly about that aspect... and it means absolutely nothing to me! Going to be interesting times.
Look up the technical specifications for the Oculus and the Vive, they are exactly the same. Same type of screen, same refresh rate, same resolution, except the Vive has the slightly higher FOV.
And don't think of it as "walking around your room". Think of it as, someone talking to you (girlfriend, they can get talkative sometimes, the hey look at this, what do you think of this, do you like this or that, what do you want for dinner, etc etc, picture your girl on one of those talking to you 3 or 4 times in a row and you have to remove your headset each time to look at her), trying to drink something from something sitting on a table next to you, your wireless controller runs out of batteries and you have to take off the headset to replace it, blah blah, i could go on and on... And don't even think of not looking at your girlfriend when talking to her lol, some can be really sensitive about it.
Yeah, the Vive's feature is pretty damn nifty, at least in my book. With the Vive, I'd be able to pay attention to all that without having to take off and put on the headset.
I concur 100%
Read this - it might not be enough to change your mind but it might be enough to make you look at it with a little less cynicism.
HTC/Valve have been "prepping" up for a higher price tag - continually referring to the Vive as a "premium" VR experience. I have a feeling that you will be disappointed if you think it will be the same price.
Wrong. It has two of those lighthouse things - a feature I will never use. I will only be using VR for seated stuff - don't want, or need, two.
They're not making any money on the sale of the hardware.
Just going by what those people said after using them back to back. I guess the Rift has better lenses or something.
I think it's good to have as an option, for those that want it, I just know that it's of no interest to me.
Do you think the camera system as offered by OR is going to be better than then DK2? The tracking system on the DK2 for me (granted I'm at the max distance, think HTPC with it mounted above my telly) is not the great in ED and I don't really want I camera on a wand sticking up in front of my telly (maybe I could de-mount it / snap it off) or the other more costly (clock cycles, purchase delay and money) of a second camera. Laser tracking has been around for very long time and a small dream of mine to play VR table tennis may become reality
Do you think the camera system as offered by OR is going to be better than then DK2? The tracking system on the DK2 for me (granted I'm at the max distance, think HTPC with it mounted above my telly) is not the great in ED and I don't really want I camera on a wand sticking up in front of my telly (maybe I could de-mount it / snap it off) or the other more costly (clock cycles, purchase delay and money) of a second camera. Laser tracking has been around for very long time and a small dream of mine to play VR table tennis may become reality
I believe I've read that the CV1 tracking is better (in an evolutionary sense, rather than revolutionary) but, while I've been following VR pretty closely, I've never had an issue with the DK2 sensor, using it as I am about 3 feet away on my PC monitor, so I cant remember any more than that. I kind of figured the new one was just a slightly improved, prettified version!
I figure the fact it's on a stand and they know a lot of people will use their Rift in front of a TV or monitor because that's where their chair is, means it maybe has a wider spread, seeing as they'll likely have it at the side, rather than directly in front, perhaps? But, that's just guessing.
That's one reason I'm on the fence, I get the jump in tracking when looking left that behaves better when I play in a darkened room. I will hopefully continue with the DK2 until a little more info gets around. (oh and new MB CPU GPU)
Thank you sir. Your rep is in the post.
I'm with jabokai on this. The DK2 tunnel vision effect has never bothered me, maybe this is due to a lifetime of staring out of crash helmets. Both screen door effect and tunnel vision are annoying, but it's the screen door effect that's going to stop you seeing enemy ships in the distance.
I seem to be leaning more towards the Oculus. I guess we should count ourselves lucky that there are two great headsets to choose between, and I hope both headsets gain popularity and are well supported for many years to come... especially the headset I plump for.
It seems funny that it's when you look in a particular direction. Have you checked that all you infra-red LEDs are working? You can use your mobile phone camera to see.
I really don't care about the CV1's price - I allocate a certain amount of my income to different areas. PC gaming is my main hobby and my allocation exceeds anything that would remotely make sense by far. I'll happily spend 20k € on a VR machine if it makes sense.
The CV1 comes with an Xbox Controller and dumbed-down games to sufficiently match with it. Sorry not interested.
However, having used a DK2 for >2000 hours in ED alone, I can say the front-facing camera is completely pointless. Never missed the glass, ashtray, cigar or dinner wearing it, never knocked anything over using 2m extension cables and walking around. I sometimes take it off if I eat a steak for dinner, but no matter how good the Vive's camera is, I guess I'd briefly take it off even with a front-facing Camera.
Last edited:
I understand most of your points, but I would like to touch on this one specifically.
Every company is out there to make money. If they were making "no money", they would price it higher. No company, and I mean, absolutely no company will not sell a product without making some kind of profit, otherwise producing the product becomes a financial loss and well... Nobody likes financial losses.
Where do I get this? I'm a business management graduate. Additionally, I have very tangible real life experience as to the cost of items that companies put out for sale.
I am the owner and CEO of my own company, and while my company does not deal with anything in the electronics department, we invest in products that we can sell to the public later. We specialize in heavy duty equipment for commercial trucks, industrial equipment, and anything in the commercial market. We sell our products at retail prices, and in our current operating area, we offer the lowest prices of any other company in the same field.
A very common part that we sell, we offer it for around $339 USD. Our cost on that item is around $188 USD, and the item normally goes in our area for about $350-399. So while we are still making a whopping $151 USD on each item, we are still offering it cheaper than anyone else in our market for our area.
Please note, we do not own our own factories, we buy direct from the manufacturers, which also happen to make money on these items (otherwise, how could they keep operating?)
At least in our field of expertise, the minimum profit margin allowable (before it gets to the point in which our profits are not enough to cover operating costs) is around 33%. The ideal profit margin is about 50%, (make $150 out of a $300 investment, for example) and the best case scenario is when you make 100% profit on an item (sell at double the investment price).
Even in all these numbers, like I said, the factory is STILL making a profit, they are STILL making enough money to cover their operating costs. So if they charge us $188 for the item in my example, how much does it truly cost them to manufacture?
Additionally, , the more you buy, manufacturers give you a lower price. The item in my example we buy 100 of them at a time, our price being $188. If we purchased 150 of that same item, that price would drop to around $175. Purchase 200, the item would drop to around $162. And in all these, the manufacturer is still making money.
The point being, their "we are not making money on the hardware" is absolute b*llcrap to justify not meeting original expectations on pricing structure. A company like Facebook has the means to purchase the components in such volumes that their prices could be ridiculously low.
Now, if they were unable to purchase the components in any significant volume, due to not being under the wing of a company like Facebook, and they said they weren't making any money on the hardware, then I might actually believe it. Buying direct from a manufacturer can't be done by just anyone, and manufacturing companies have strict requirements on how much volume you have to be able to afford in order to buy direct from them. (For example, the company that distributes that specific product for my company has a $150,000 USD / year purchase requirement). If you do not meet these requirements year after year, they simply close your account -possibly to never be opened again-. There are even more stringent requirements and conditions that I am almost certain the computer/electronics industry does not have to deal with.
When I started my company a few years ago, I did it with my own savings and work, I definitely did not have the means to meet strict volume requirements. The item in my example I could only buy around 10 at a time, and only through a 3rd person (known in the field as a "distributor, basically a rich company that chooses to be the middleman between the manufacturer and the upstart retail businesses). Through a distributor, I had to pay around $282 for that specific item. Which selling at $339 - $349 was enough profit to push the business forward, but not enough to even hire a single employee at the time.
But, considering Oculus is now under the wing of a billionaire company like Facebook, their "we are not making any money" claim is absolute bull*hit. A company like Facebook has plenty of resources to buy in enough volumes to make sure they get the best possible price.
So... yeah, don't fall for that . XD lol, they ARE making money, and what truly happened at Oculus was that Facebook did not like the profit margin they were going to get with their original "expected" consumer price, and told them "We got the money, we got the reins, and we want to make more money on this, so... more expensive it is"
Last edited:
What they said is that they are not making money on the hardware which currently is CV1. That's not to say they don't plan to make money on hardware (and I assume they plan to make money on software) but at this stage it's about getting people into VR, similar to early console releases selling subsidised hardware. This is not a new phenomenon.
Umm.
was going to write a whole long answer, but suffice to say. Get your money back on that degree.
Its only jumps sometimes, there was a thread about it not so long ago as a few users have similar problems, it gets better with each ED build which is strange.
I can assure you that how you think it will work will totally not work in real life. Yes you'll be able to see stuff but you won't be able to do anything useful with the camera such as pick a drink up or reach for headphones etc. any more than you can with the Stevie Wonder-esque patting around with your hands. I have an FPV rig for drones and the headset has a camera on it for exactly this sort of thing and it's comically worse than you can imagine. instead of picking the glass of water up, you'll be more likely to send it flying :-D
I can see the thread now thanks, "DK2 performance and tracking loss" I never really thought about it before but I have had that step jump in the past. It happens so infrequently that I'd almost forgotten about it. I'll keep my eye on that thread.
Hahaha, I won't argue there, a lot of the things I learned in business school have not applied to real world scenarios. However, despite what everyone here may choose to believe, they are not selling these things while "making no money". From a business perspective, it's simply not viable to do so. Someone mentioned consoles, and yes, in the case of consoles there is a chance that they make very little, if any profit at all, and they can get away with doing so. Why? Because a console without games is well... Mostly useless, and Sony makes money on every single software item it sells. What does the Oculus have to sell to offset "not making money" on the hardware? Software makers can choose to make their games without Oculus support, in fact, adding Oculus support can add to the development price of their software, so it's not like the Oculus will make money off of software sales.
And regardles of what you might say, I have been in business for around 8 years. I started with a regular 9-5 job, then worked in real estate investing, contracting, and finally now I do what I am currently doing. I know very well what it costs to manufacture certain items and the price differences when you buy things in big amounts.
Either way, to each their own. This price they are putting now is to take advantage of the early adopters, the ones that cannot wait to have the item. After the pre-order shipments are released, I am certain that the prices will drop dramatically.
Kind of like when new video cards are released. Priced high, $200 cheaper a few months down the line.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I won't completely argue against you here, and I actually don't know a thing about drones
So, I have no idea what you are talking about I would think the drone would have different video fidelity due to it being wireless, while the Vive will be wired. It would also depend on the quality of the camera itself. If I was to use my phone as an example, I could activate the camera and interact with stuff around me while looking at the screen. If the camera on the Vive is at least half decent, it shouldn't be too bad. If they opt for a crappy camera though, then well...
Anyway, good point there. We'll only know when its released and tested.
Last edited:
Oculus has it's own publishing arm. Want to try that rant again?
Even if you discount that, getting market penetration with their hardware, rather than a non subsidised competition, for example, would be an investment in the future. If they have the most uints out there then it will get the most content and they can reap the rewards down the line. They have no need to make money right now.
Seriously, you went to business school, and they gave no examples of this kind of thing?
Last edited:
Oh, that's interesting... I already knew that. But a publishing arm does not produce games, it simply publishes them. Software makers have the choice to use, or not use a specific publishing company. Having a publishing arm does not guarantee having the software. Developing for the Rift will incur extra expenses and development costs, so software makers will have the choice to not use the Oculus in their game.
When it comes to a console, it's a little different. It's a proprietary system, software developers have no choice but to use whatever means the console has for distributing the games, if they wish to develop for such console. In this instance, the console manufacturer has **guaranteed** its profit. Also, developing for a console does not incur extra development costs. It simply costs what it costs.
The way I look at it, Oculus might be hoping to make money through their publishing arm (although I'm sure they are making money on the hardware), but in the long run it might not happen for them. At least the Vive is backed by Valve, which happens to own one of the biggest, if not the biggest game distributing platform we know (Steam). Not to mention Valve could choose to help fund the development of newer games to include Vive support.
And you are actually supporting another point of mine here. At $600, the Oculus will reach only a niche market of hardcore gamers that are willing to pay such a price. The more casual gamers will not spend that kind of money, and as you may possibly know, most people out there are casual gamers. People like us that would spend $600-1000 for a shiny new video card are a small group indeed, so they will not gain as much "market penetration" with such a price tag. I had at least 4 other people that wanted to get the Rift, when they thought it'd be around $400. Well, their response to the new price was "Screw that".
The Oculus has the possibility of gaining wide adoption by being a product that even a casual gamer might be willing to buy. Or it has the possibility of being a niche product that only certain people will be willing to pay for.
As of right now, it seems it's headed to the niche side of things. And you know what that could mean? Even developers that have already "signed up" might change their minds, if the overhead and expenses caused by developing for the Rift is too much compared to how many people actually adopt it.
Kind of like NVidia 3D back in the day.
I'm amazed at how little people know about things and only base their opinions on whatever they read online. I'm amazed that people would truly believe that a company, no matter what it is, would do something for "no profit".
Lol, I could open a book publishing company, doesn't mean I'll get the books to publish through it.
Last edited: