https://www.oculus.com/en-us/

http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/6/107239 … r-everyone

"But this is a final reminder that the Oculus Rift — the thing that brought virtual reality to the whole world — is now for only a few of us."

Not sure I agree with that. New technology is always expensive. Granted, you can purchase cheap VR equipment for your smartphone, but your smartphone doesn't play high-end games. Over time if the Rift sells well, the technology will only improve and the price go down. I hope Sony comes up with something  impressive for their PS4. Anyway, all that said, anyone getting a Rift?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevange … t-in-2016/

"for consumers who want a VR experience on PlayStation, their “all-in” cost shouldn’t exceed $850 in a worst case scenario, which is nearly half the “all-in” cost of an Oculus Rift."

I won't be getting one yet but I agree with you on this. A lot of people seem to be comparing it to a console launch in an already-developed market and that isn't what this is. Right now, this is an immersive display method and is more comparable to a new type of television or something entirely different. And they start off expensive.

And actually, I reckon that for VR to begin to realise its potential as VR we'll be looking at fancier control methods, haptic feedback and so on which will likely push the cost up to far higher amounts. And I don't see that being wrong or unexpected. It's the way it is for new tech.

Now the current prices may rule out mass market sales and have it lumped in with 3DTVs and so on but, if I had been asked to predict the rise of VR 30 years ago, I would not have predicted a huge worldwide massmarket adoption in a single year. I reckon it will take hold slightly as an expensive hobby and curiosity, then get applied to business uses before eventually going mass market, at which point we'll see much more of what a lot of people seem to be taking as the primary purpose: games.

http://www.polygon.com/2016/1/7/1072995 … e-worth-it

"This is everything I dreamed about as a child. This is what I imagined it would feel like to be Starbuck in Battlestar Galactica...The Rift is currently sold out through June...The Oculus Rift is coming, and it's expensive as hell. It's worth it."

I consider myself somewhat of a VR enthusiast, but I was under the impression the Rift would be considerably cheaper. Like more of a mass market item. At $300, it was a maybe for the curiosity factor. At twice that...

People were lead astray when the development kits came out at $300-$350 and I can't really blame them for that.

http://www.cnet.com/news/the-600-price- … f-awesome/

"Why are there suddenly so many haters?"
Well, it's because people are bratty, selfish, and in general just obtuse and obnoxious

"It's all so natural and fluid, it's less like a "game" and more like how you figure you'd act if you were suddenly transported into The Matrix. It's more realistic and absorbing than any game I've ever played, VR or not."

I think a lot of the back lash is you're buying $600 goggles that do nothing unless you have a $1000 computer setup. While that may not be a problem for the majority of knowledgeable consumers, the mainstream console plug n play world has a bitter pill to swallow. A lot of articles like that apologist CNN one you linked don't even mention the hardware requirements to actually run the thing. 970s still aren't that cheap (averaging ~$320 alone).

I will admit I am biased. I won't be buying one nor would because it's owned by Facebook. I imagine a large part of the bump in the release price is due to that deal.

"Including the price of said PC in the overall cost of the Rift is like including the cost of the road when you buy a car: it's assumed you already have one."

This is the dumbest analogy I've ever heard, and makes it clear how desperate the writer is to gloss over the fact that, to a lot of people, the costs involved are going to be significantly higher than $600.

Agreed, dumb ****ing analogy. Don't we already pay for roads with freaking taxes?

I wonder if the 3DO had been released in this day and age, if we'd see the same whiny tech writers trying to justify the pricetag. But hey, if you're trying to limit sales early on, it's a good strategy.

That's the thing, though. This isn't for console users. Sony's working on one for console users. The Oculus was always targeted at people who already have gaming PCs. You can buy one just for this, if you want, but that was never really the intention, AFAIK.

That doesn't really make sense. Facebook has never charged users anything. If anything, I would think they might subsidize it a bit to gain market share.

Honestly, I think it's just expensive because it's new tech, and that's what it costs. I feel like a lot of the people complaining about this are either very young or have very short memories. Being an early adopter of new tech has always been expensive. Back in the 80s, a halfway-decent computer would set you back $2000 (all prices adjusted for inflation). CD-ROM drives started out over $1000. The first 3D accelerator card was around $450.

Suggesting up front that it would launch at a lower price may have been a PR blunder, but I don't see anything unreasonable about the price itself. If it's too much, give it a year or two, or wait for Sony.

The thing with this particular type of product is that virtual reality has tried to make its way to the mainstream numerous times and has failed spectacularly each and every time, often becoming a ripe target for well-deserved mockery. The methods may be different, but the concept is "virtually" the same.

I really don't understand what disliking facebook has to do with any of this? As already pointed out, facebook has never charged a user. They make money through advertising. I think the primary cost is new technology. This is technology many people have wanted for a long time, and now some people realize this is expensive so they're going to cry about it. Deal with it. If you're whining that you can't afford a high-end gaming machine then perhaps you need to reexamine what is important in your life. Anyway, all that said, for the record the original cost of the Apple Mac in 1984 was $2,495 (equivalent to $5,683 in 2016).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K

I can already see the headlines "Price of Computer Means End to Apple" blah blah blah...

I would argue a $2500 computer made it all the easier for Nintendo (and the Japanese game makers) to swoop in and dominate with the NES at 1/10th the price, at least as a games machine (this is also taking the cheaper Atari and Commodore computers of the time into account). Also worth noting...That particular computer you linked was discontinued in a year and a half (hmm, right around the time that the NES launched...). And last I checked, Apple struggled through a good portion of the 80's/90's (until the return of Steve Jobs).

"If you're whining that you can't afford a high-end gaming machine then perhaps you need to reexamine what is important in your life. "

Ugh, dude...really? I think you totally missed the point here. "Not being able to afford" is not the same as being critical of pricing or refusing to buy something at a particular price point (especially something that may very well be obsolete in 2 years). Look at how much momentum Sony lost when they launched the PS3 at $600. People were more than happy to flock to Microsoft and Nintendo (and ironically, PC's, as the price of gaming PC's was starting to drop like a rock around this time). Sony recovered after awhile, but it was hardly the PS2 era all over again.

At $300, the Rift is something people might take a flyer on and hope it works out. At $600, it's a much larger investment and the expectations are higher. I might be able to overlook a nagging flaw here or there at $300, but at $600, I would expect a LOT more.

You're comparing it to a console. This isn't a console. This is currently a fancy pants display system. Closer to a shiny new 4K television. How much were they when they launched? I don't know but I'm guessing good ones weren't cheap.

Seriously, *DVD players* were $500 and over when they first came out, and the leap in technology you're getting with VR is easily on par with that (way beyond if you asked me).

People are just being whiney; if the price is too much for them nobody is forcing them to buy it. And the price without question will come down eventually.

I really think the only reason this is even becoming such an issue is because Oculus undershot the price estimate early on, which admittedly was a stupid thing to do.

I'm calling it now that PlayStation VR will go for $500.

I really wish people would stop calling people that are being critical of pricing "whiny". It...really doesn't accomplish anything. Especially when the mistake about the previously quoted price is openly acknowledged as a mistake.

Jay, I WOULD agree with your assessment if they weren't targeting gamers for these (in that sense, I view it was give the hardware away and make the money back on selling games). From what I recall, 4K started around $4000-$5000 and you can get a decent one now for under a grand.

Whining about the price doesn't accomplish anything either. Also, there's a difference between being critical and whiny, and I would argue most people are in the latter. I also agree with Adam, I think Sony's VR unit will be $500. Give or take $100.

Is that the way this works though? I honestly don't know. Are they setting up a proprietary Oculus infrastructure aimed at gamers like a normal console? Having a glance at their site, there is a focus on games but not just games.

This only works when you have strict control over what gets released on your platform, so that you can take a cut of each game. As of six months ago (couldn't find any more recent statement), this was not the case with the Rift.

Is it whiny to not say it's too expensive, but instead say it's more than I'm willing to pay for it?  I'll wait until it's priced for mainstream use.

No, I think that's what most of us are doing
Although to be honest, I'm more excited about the PS4 VR unit.

I guess I don't really know what their model is, but I can't see this being targeted towards anyone other than gamers. Maybe it's something where developers have to buy dev kits to use the technology? Just seems like a bit of a hole in their pricing structure, since I believe they aren't making games themselves. I guess I'm stuck assuming the price increase helps compensate for a lack of other income sources.

I do agree the PS4 unit makes slightly more sense, especially for the fact that it has the luxury of being designed for a relatively young closed box. No doubt they will probably learn from the Rift's firsthand mistakes as well.

What I will specifically be watching for is the amount of eyestrain these units cause. I actually bought a Virtual Boy on the cheap recently and my eyes didn't work right for DAYS after just an hour of Mario Tennis.

See that's the thing: everyone has their own standards for what is expensive and what is affordable.
I have not used the Rift, so I can't say if it's too expensive because I don't know the technology that goes into it, but I can say that it's more than I feel comfortable paying for it, mostly because of the extra money I'd have to fork over for a decent PC.
I think it's arrogant to call that "whiny" to be honest.

Even with the PSVR, which a lot of people are putting at $400-500, I'd have to see/experience it first to decide whether I would deem it affordable enough. $400 is a price I can justify to myself for a brand-new console, but for a peripheral? I dunno... It really depends on how much of a game-changer it is. It could very well end up being another gimmick like 3D, which has come and gone again for the umpteenth time now.

I've only tried the Vive so far, which was very impressive, but is also undoubtedly going to be more expensive than I would be comfortable with, and is also undoubtedly going to require a high-end PC, not to mention way more free space than I have in my living room.

I don't think anyone's saying it's whiny to say you're not going to buy it because it's more than you're willing to pay. I would reserve the term for people who are acting as though they've been personally wronged by the price point. I don't recall seeing anyone do that here (and I'm too lazy to go back and reread), but I've seen it elsewhere.

Jim Sterling is on point, as usual:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oGUOl_e7Gs

Am I the only one who kind of walks the thin line with this guy? I kind of hate him but I kind of like him.

It's like those two forces cancel each other out and there's an odd neutrality there for me.

I know the feeling. It's a love/hate thing, but he covered all the good points here for sure.

Hey Goldfish, I know this is unrelated to the thread, but can you e-mail me through the forums? I've been going through my Non-VGM CD's and I was going to let some albums go and was wondering if any of them would interest you.

I know you've messaged me before but I think those e-mails are long gone.

I love Jimquisition, and his podcasts are hilarious, but I don't care about his reviews in the least.
I agree with a lot of his views on the industry, but not on individual games.