Slashdot Mirror
Oculus Founder Explains Why the Rift VR Headset Will Cost "More Than $350"
An anonymous reader writes: When Oculus took to Kickstarter in 2012, the company sought to create the 'DK1', a development kit of the Rift which the company wanted to eventually become an affordable VR headset that they would eventually take to market as a consumer product. At the time, the company was aiming for a target price around $350, but since then the company, and the scope of the Rift headset, has grown considerably. That's one reason why Oculus Founder Palmer Luckey says that the consumer Rift headset, launching in Q1 2016, will cost more than $350. '...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,' says Luckey.
The parts of cheap. Make 100 Million headsets and you could sell them profitably for $150. They've got a mountain of engineering debt to pay off, though, and they're sure as hell not going to sell 100 million.
People (and research) are expensive. That's why it's going to cost so much.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
As a person who actually tried it (albeit preview version): you can get sick no matter the FPS depending on what is being shown to you AND your genetics.
You don't need 4k $ PC to get high enough FPS, another way is to have slightly simpler scene, no problem. And if you think consoles (Sony has something between AMD 7850-7870 in it) check out this demo (real time rendering):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I wouldn't bet on OR, though. (offtopic: a real shame how kickstarter backers won't get anything from FB deal)
If anyone, Sony, which YEARS AGO released wearable TV (HMZ series) is working on project Morpheus and has helluva experience in gaming/controllers area, will do that.
On pricing side of things, Sony's rep once said it would cost "as console", so 350$-ish area.
I've been a huge supporter of Oculus since the Kickstarter. When people complained about the Facebook buyout, I tried to point out that a major player in the tech industry (like them or not, they are a major player) just dropped a massive investment in VR. When people complained about how long it was taking, I argued that doing something like this, and doing it well, has to take time - an inferior product could be a major issue for VR adoption. When they balked at releasing specs, I reminded myself that it's probably best, they wanted to make sure they had it right before they committed to something.
My first doubts started when they finally released the specs. I was really hoping for a 4K screen. After all the time and money, it seemed logical - come out of the gate with something really great or stay home. Sure, 4K isn't necessary, but there are applications for VR that would really benefit from it. Game will be the vehicle that carries the initial adoption of VR, but there are a ton of real-world applications waiting to be discovered. Personally, I want to throw out my monitors and use a VR headset to create a virtual workspace. But, anything less than 4K isn't going to give me the detail I need to write code on a virtual monitor "floating" a few feet in front of me.
My next doubts came when I started looking at the amount of "executives" and "directors" and people who stand up and do a lot of talking. I've noticed a trend (it's not new, it's always been there, I just finally noticed) - the more talking heads you have in a company, the longer, more expensive, more feature bloated (and never the features we actually want), more disappointing a product becomes. All these people swooped in and promptly buried something really cool in all the typical corporate ("we're not corporate, man! we're a startup that just happens to look like a bloated corporate monstrosity) BS.
Then this. After all the talk keeping it affordable, then they pull this crap.
I get that things add up, but I'll put this in perspective - I work for a company that is supplying them, and I know what we're charging (very low piece prices, and we're expensive compared to our competitors that do larger volumes). I also have access to price sheets from the kinds of suppliers that they're working with. Let's put it this way - there's no legitimate reason that they can't make a 4K rift with all the sensors they have, sell it for $200-$250, and still make a profit. So, either they've gotten a little top-heavy in the salary department, or they're getting greedy. Or both.
Either way, I'm done offering my (measly, not-reall-worth-much) support. My money is on Valve now (we're supplying them too, I've gotten to see some pretty cool stuff)
Yeah man, if I listen to music played though cables that aren't oxygen-free and connectors that aren't gold-plated, it gives me a splitting headache too.
First off, games that are optimized for pure eye candy strain current cards, yes. But you don't have to have teh bezt pozzible grafix for everything. Take Alien: Isolation - looked really good, but ran at excellent framerates even on older cards. And even has some vr support. Tradeoffs can be made to crank framerate, and not horrible tradeoffs. I can handle 2010 graphics on VR, it's not like those games looked bad.
And no, a $4000 PC isn't necessary. The official specs are more like $1K these days. In fact, definitely $1K.
And no, 120fps/eye isn't necessary. You need low latency, definitely, but not that low. The DK2 peaks at 76fps, and yet few people report sickness at that rate.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Input lag. If you move your head but the screen doesn't update the view until 1/60th of a second later then apparently that causes some (all?) people to feel motion sickness. But reducing the lag to 1/120th of a second alleviates the symptoms.
I would definitely trust Occulus's engineers on this one. They've actually tested these things and they'd have no reason to make things more difficult on themselves (by requiring higher refresh rates) unless it was a genuine issue affecting potential customers.
blatant lies!
Only the PC Master Race will get workable VR.
VR is not for unwashed console peasants.
All they deserve are 47fps bulimia simulators.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
But for other kinds of game I really don't see the benefit. Yeah it could be used for first person shooters (for example) but then the game has to somehow reconcile a person running, spinning, jumping, aiming, shooting, standing, crouching and throwing stuff to someone in real life sat on a couch. It's likely that it will be extremely disorientating and puke inducing.
And aside from FPSs what can we expect? Probably some lame jump scare horror games. Probably some table top style games. But nothing that particularly justifies the experience. I bet most games will work as well if not better in 2D.
The strange part is there are at least 3 major efforts to do VR plus a number of smaller ones and they'll end up cannibalizing the market for what it is. It's going to be a bloodbath.
At work they had an Oculus VR demo this past week and I got the chance to test one (I don't know the full specs of that particular unit). My experience and comments from the 5 min demo:
- Very first thing I noticed when I wore the headset was that the resolution seemed low, and the screen wasn't that bright.
- I had no control over the motion of the demo; as a result during panning, I could feel a twinge of motion sickness. Don't know what the framerate/latency was.
- It is a bit disconcerting to look at your virtual self, and while you move your real legs/arms, you don't see your virtual legs/arm move.
- The overall experience is very interesting and I think VR could be quite an enjoyable entertainment medium, but it definitely needs some work.