if i were rich it would stil be a problem

"vizionvr" wrote:

"mrblack970" wrote:
on second thought.. im probably just gonna get the Playstation vr then half a year later grab a note 6 with gvr. by that time ill be buying a new phone anyway so it won't feel unjustified..
and wait till hololens fixes its fov and comes down in price... to be honest if hololens gets it right they're gonna kill it.. anywhere i go i can have vr on my face.. sounds like a good future..

I have a feeling that a Rift will drop in price long before Hololens will.
(From the recent Goldman Sachs VR/AR report)

no doubt the rift price will drop fast.. mainly because they'll have to if they want the community to grow..
to be fair the graph should include the cost of all necessary hardware along side their headsets; Playstation vr with a ps4, gear vr with a Samsung phone, oculus rift with a excepted pc and hololens with nothing... the chart would balance out the rift and hololens..
and IMO seeing as every phone manufacturer is going to be making thier own augmented reality device in less then a decade, it seems pointless worrying about who makes what now. no matter how amazing oculus rift is, until they make the switch to augmented reality on a mobile platform it has a short shelf life.. very few people are going to choose a device that anchors them to a desk and cant eat a bowl of cereal without filling thier shirt collar with coco fruity puffs if there's a device that can go anywhere, fits on their head, connects to their mobile network to receive calls text and video all while having an advanced view of the road ahead where gps guides them accident avoidance software warns them and connected to a 360 cam on thier car removes all blind spots and when they're parked can flip a switch and completely remove all outside visual to immerse them in a virtual world connected to the millions of other people that also have one because it was on a plan that didn't make them eat kraft dinner to afford one..

oculus rift is amazing and definitely has its place in the market, but if they don't get the price down to something everyone can buy they're gonna miss the window, drop the ball and develop a complete hatred for humanity and its lack of loyalty to the much deserved and under appreciated pioneers that made it happen.

or we all buy one anyway, give over all our cash and in ten years lucky becomes the emperor of his very own matrix like universe where we are all ignorantly and blissfully power his Fortress and virtually build and control his real robot army hell-bent on assimilating every lifeform into the one new conscience hungry for unity and control..
we are oculus, we are one!

"kojack" wrote:

"mrblack970" wrote:
now im left feeling i should wait for the stand alone hololens

Currently $3000us ($4237 canadian), not VR and can't run pc games.

Agree on the price, but it can run anything that runs on a Win 10 laptop (including PC games) as that's basically what it is (but obviously won't magically turn them into 3-d or VR/MR)

"g4c" wrote:
Yes that's true.

But hyper realistic next gen graphics aren't needed for immersion, just liquid smooth frame rates.

A fairly cheap 2015 GPU could pump out 90Hz stereo on some of the great games from early 2000.

It would be a great cash cow for owners of said game rights, just convert to VR and drop it into steam or oculus (if they have the toolchains still).

Sorry that's probably a new topic altoghter. WIth regard to CV1 pricing: It's not TOO bad in USA but here in EUR it's a bit to steep for me. Although if I were rich I would buy 3 or so :D being rich would solve the general problem of not being able to afford something.

I thought I was alone on this. People have been led to believe than anything below a GTX970 can't run ANY kind of VR.

I'm not quite sure I get your point OP.
If you're looking for cheap VR then you have options. Gear VR. Google Cardboard.

Are you looking for high end performance like Oculus and Vive, without motion sickness (90fps is the threshold for most people) AND low price?

We already have people saying VR sucks because the graphics are too cartoon-like, or because they don't look like AAA titles. We have people complaining that they spend an hour feeling the effects of the DK1 or DK2 after playing on an under-powered system. Oculus released the Rift pricing and the trifecta was complete - people complained that the solution to these other two problems costs too much.

I'm reminded of a "compromise triangle".
Low cost
Impressive Graphics
No Motion Sickness

Pick two of the above. In this case Oculus has picked Impressive Graphics and No Motion Sickness. They did what they could about Low cost by releasing 'at cost'. Unfortunately you can't have all three. It's a compromise and I think they've chosen well.

I agree that VR can be done with less impressive computers, but at the moment I think they'd be doing the whole community a disservice by electing to sacrifice quality of the high-end experience so that people can save $100 on the price.

Being Canadian, I completely empathize with having to dole out $1000 for the HMD alone. But lets be realistic here and blame that one on our commodity-based economy - not Oculus.

To me it sounds like you're complaining to Lamborghini and Ferrari that their cars cost too much, and telling Ford that their Focus RS should perform more like a 458 Italia.

I wouldn't have complained about the price if i felt it was any less then 100% profit. there's not that much expensive hardware in the headset thanks to the massive market of cellular phones.
before all the hype when oculus was unknown i watched a video with lucky explaining that vr has been around for years and the big difference "today" is that because cellphone technology has become so popular the rift could be made for a price that everyone could afford.
im not saying that hardware is the only cost, i know the amount of RnD and building a factory full of trained staff was most likely substantial but not $900 per unit substantial.. that cost needs to be recouped over years, not in the first month of pre-orders.
if i had to guess why the company did a 180 on their "bring vr to the masses" policy, I'd like to think it has something to do with the day they sold their souls to the devil disguised as a cia agent pretending to be a billionaire/programmer/12 year old by the name of mark zuckerberg. I'd like to think that the only reason they didn't deliver on their promise was against their will. that i could live with. but no matter who pulls the trigger at oculus these days theres no way a screen, a handful of leds, a gyro, 2 lenses, an ir cam and a pound of plastic and foam cost as much as they say it does.. and add the major discount on hardware they got from dell and Samsung you're not left with a very heavy invoice but you are left with said companies setting the high bar we have for minimum specs that coincidentally sells some of said companies medium to high price components that just so happens to be this years models. and to address the Ferrari analogy, it looks a Ferrari, they say its a Ferrari but its a Honda civic with a Ferrari kit and price tag.. ill be taking the bus with a note 6 waiting for my hololens to drive off the line. and ill pay way to much but at least the dealer didn't hide his wolf like features in a sheep like hat

"DoctorScientist" wrote:
Is splurging on a $600 toy really that crazy an idea to everyone thinking this?

YES ITS INSANE! My car cost less than the RIft.

You are just not aware of how lucky you are in life my friend.

Remember when flatscreen TVs first came out, people would happily shell out $1-2k for the new tech.Then the price came down. Disruptive, innovative tech is always going to be spendy at first, especially for state of the art.

Its not just a factor of the fixed hardware costs, there are considerable R&D costs to recoup, including the $2b spent acquiring Rift. When Microsoft rolled out the original Xbox, they lost money for years before making a profit, just to keep the price down. You're asking Facebook to do the same, which is not a very sustainable business model.

well i didn't buy a flat screen when it first came out but own one now that is lightyears better and a fraction of the cost. last time i checked the creator of xbox wasn't sleeping on the sidewalk smelling of pee, infact it seems to have worked out fairly well. and im completely aware of the cost to produce but that cost doesn't have to be recovered in the first year of production when it has two thousand times doctor Evil in the bank.....

Sounds to me you should just wait for PS VR or 2nd gen which MAY be cheaper.

Lol @ op the hololens developer set costs 3k bucks I cant see the final product being "cheap"