Slashdot Mirror
Oculus Rift Pre-orders Begin At $600 (oculus.com)
New submitter jerome writes: Pre-orders have just started for the Oculus Rift virtual reality headset. The $600 price tag is higher than most people were expecting — and that doesn't even account for the required upgrade needed to fully enjoy VR apps. "In September of 2014, Oculus founder Palmer Luckey said to expect a $200 to $400 range for the Rift." The device will first begin shipping on March 28th, though the store is already showing an estimate of April for Rifts beyond the initial stock. "The Rift package also doesn't include the relatively powerful Windows PC that will be required to use the device. Oculus recommends a rig with an Nvidia GTX 970 (or equivalent), an Intel i5 processor, and at least 8GB of RAM." In February, they'll start taking pre-orders for a package that does include a full, "Oculus-ready" system for $1500.
You know, for my ass?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Sounds like Luckey really meant "$200 + $400 range" - I mean, small wording change and he was right on the money...
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Its a high end gaming screen. I paid $800 for my last monitor and it didnt have head tracking, 3d audio, etc....
This one has the added bonus of causing headaches and nausea!
when i'm sitting next to her at night with this thing on?
I was an initial Kickstarter backer, and they sent a message saying that backers that supported the project at the level of getting a dev kit are getting a final version for free as well (a "Kickstarter Edition", whatever that means - though in included the pack-in games).
This is a classy move and something they didn't have to do, but really shows some appreciation for those of us that helped launch the company high enough to attract Facebook...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
VR has been "emerging" for the last 20 years. Don't get me wrong - they seem to be finally to a point where they can make something a consumer would actually want to buy, it's not a brand new tech. As a matter of fact the only reason people might be willing to pay $600 is specifically because VR is starting to mature as a technology.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Twin fail.
Although to be honest once they announced they were halting support for Linux, I stopped being interested.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
was bad. Wait til these cybertron mutherfuckers are walking around town. At least they won't see the fist coming!
I think this price is too high. A VR helmet should not be a goal, but a means. VR games should be the goal. If you want VR to be a success, a VR helmet should be available for many people. $599 (for me it will be €699), is simply too much money for too many people. What they should have done is make the helmet relatively cheap and let game developers pay a small fee to have support for that helmet in their game. Or a business model comparable to those of 3D engines. So, you pay a big portion of the price of the helmet during the actual purchase of the helmet and pay the rest in small portions with every game you buy. That makes the helmet available for many people, which will make VR more interesting for game developers. Is seriously thing $599 is a missed chance.
It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
Maybe it isn't targeted to the average person? Since the average person isn't likely to have the computer capable of running the thing in the first place.
VR is like nuclear fusion, it's always coming at some point in the future.
Protip: use your own hand.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If it takes off, expect politicians to pontificate about buying 3D headsets for The Poor, just like they did for computers, Internet access, and cell phones.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
With 2 billion dollars to purchase the company and who knows how much else invested into R&D, it has to be targeted at the average person just to break even. At $600 they will run out of money very soon and we can thank Facebook for killing Oculus. Maybe Valve/Steam will come up with something better.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Then you got hosed. I paid like $500 each for 2 27" pro series Dells a few years ago. They're amazingly clear for all of my uses (and I'm pretty picky about visuals). I don't know what speciality niche industry you could possibly need such an expensive monitor for, but I'm guessing that instead you paid 'that' company a lot of tax for the privilege of having a grey monitor with a fruit on it.
Bye!
Maybe they were hoping for the "iPhone effect", where people enter this reality distortion field and justify buying one no matter how much it costs. But Zuckerberg is learning he's not Steve Jobs.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
What's with the whining? This was never meant to be a console crowd device and it sure as hell isn't a Virtual Boy. This was targeting the PC gaming world where entry level systems start around $1500. Given the hardware packed into the Rift it's pretty hard to imagine it not costing that much. Luckey had a nice goal, but he probably should have crunched the numbers before spouting off.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
$800 for a monitor? What was it, a 32 inch 4k curved OLED panel?
The monitor inside the Oculus is like 5 inches. Not an expensive component at all. Yes it has other stuff too but just on the strength of its individual components, it doesn't justify a $600 price.
Of course iPhone components don't justify a $650 price either, yet Apple sells gazillions of those... so I'm not saying it's overpriced or not worth buying. There's clearly added value there from all the VR research and integration they've done.
Maybe Valve/Steam will come up with something better.
The same Valve that turned the Steambox into such a confused fiasco?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Most people weren't about to buy Oculus even if it was $200 because they wouldn't have a PC powerful enough to run it so I'm really not sure your logic holds up; especially as it was pretty obvious it was never going to be aimed at the 'average person'. I doubt it's ever been likely its target at launch would be the average PC gamer. As for blaming Facebook, that seems like a massive uninformed leap. If anyone could afford to subsidise a loss making device it's them, so god knows why you'd expect it to be cheaper or last longer while losing money if they weren't owned by a major tech company.
Correction: It is a SMALL high end gaming screen... the screen itself is not why it is expensive...
That's making a lot of assumptions. I can easily find monitors worth dropping $1000+ on that don't have fruit on them. I'm going to make an assumption of my own and guess your lovely 27" Dells are only 1080p if you got them for $500 each a few years back. My next monitor that I plan to drop several hundred dollars on will have at least 2560x1440 res if not 4K and will be 32" or more in size.
The Oculus' price has nothing to do with GamerGate. Now if Kotaku came out praising the Oculus, and telling all gamers to play Depression Quest on it, you might have a point.
If any of that were true the units would be far cheaper.
I've seen no sign of that in any other way, and the people at Oculus said it would not happen - we'll see when the final units arrive but I'm really doubtful you are correct.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The biggest problem with this, as well as this generation of game consoles that that GPU tech can't keep pace with display technology. We have consumer-priced sub-$1000 (some even $600) 4K displays and manufacturers are already looking toward 8K meanwhile most mid-level GPUs, much less what goes in to laptops and consoles, are only now getting powerful enough to really push out 1080 with smooth framerates and decent AA and other effects. As I understand it, the Rift is two 1080x1200 displays which is half of 4K resolution and it still needs a $400 card.
Until we can get commodity-level cards that can smoothly handle these resolutions, or a 720p VR solution, I can't see this being anything more than a toy for people with too much money. I would love to get one, but unless I can hook it up to a laptop or whathaveyou, I can't see getting one. The last thing I want for VR is to be tethered to a desk. Hell, maybe with this technology, maybe 3D movies and games can finally make a comeback.
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
You get what you pay for. I have Dells at work. The quality is poor, the menu options are poor, the reliability is poor, and I am far happier with my 10 year old NEC Multisync which I bought for well over $1000.
Then you got hosed.
You really think so?
I paid like $500 each for 2 27" pro series Dells a few years ago.
I paid $750 for my 32" Acer 4k IPS monitors, you think that is expensive?
27" QHD displays are running around half that these days, closer to $200 for 1080p screens, but bleh 1080p...
The professional 30" 1600p displays are still near $1K, but they are really good factory calibrated monitors.
$600 was definitely more than I was expecting; was hoping for $400 at most. That said, as soon as I switched my country to NZ, the price jumped to $700 for some unknown reason (which I imagine is still in US$), so $600 is looking a little better to me. Just wish there was a model that didn't come with built-in headphones and the Xbox One controller (which I already have.) That would shave a little off the price. Just glad you don't have to pay up front!
It isn't the price that pisses me off it is fact they must have known what price would be for quite some time. Lucky intentionally let the $350 expectation run unchallenged for all this time based on earlier statements until the bitter end when they knew full well it was a lie not even "virtually" close to "reality".
Who I really feel sorry for are all the devs who spent their time and energy alpha testing SDKs and developing content who are now royally fucked.
I was already ready to purchase one until I saw the price tag. I figured it would be in the $400 range. I just can't justtify spending $600+ on the Rift plus another $300+ on a new graphics card.
Then you got hosed. I paid like $500 each for 2 27" pro series Dells a few years ago. They're amazingly clear for all of my uses (and I'm pretty picky about visuals). I don't know what speciality niche industry you could possibly need such an expensive monitor for, but I'm guessing that instead you paid 'that' company a lot of tax for the privilege of having a grey monitor with a fruit on it.
I guess you got hosed too, since I paid $418 each for 2 27" WQHD monitors a few years ago.
Although I also paid $800 for a 34" Dell UltraSharp U3415W monitor last year to replace my 30" Dell monitor which used to be between my two 27" monitors. All four of these monitors look great and fulfill my needs perfectly. The ultra wide allows me to put two development environments side by side much better than my 30" or 27" ones, although my small 27" monitors are still very good for surfing looking at online documentation or watching movies.
And since they meet my needs perfectly it must mean you were hosed when you paid $80 more for your monitors. Since no one could ever have different uses for their monitor setup, right?
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
I remain skeptical that this will be anything but a niche product, anytime soon.
Apps will be severely limited by the motion sickness problem. Also, pretty much everyone with children are automatically ruled out unless they hire a baby sitter have a very tolerant significant other.
That said, Google Cardboard was the hit of all the parties I attended this holiday season. But only for about 5 minutes.
It had better be targeted to the average PC gamer at least, if they plan to make money. It is *just* a peripheral, and while I'm sure some people are content dropping $800 for a monitor, most gamers (going by the most popular monitors) are only willing to spend $150 for a big 1080p monitor, or $250 for a 144hz big 1080p monitor. The Rift's price point is 50% more than a PS4.
I'm sure they are going to sell some to boutique PC gamers (like the ones with two Titans and water cooling systems), but I have a hard time believing they are going to sell enough volume to cover their R&D costs at that price point.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
With shipping, it's $914 for Canadians. LOL. Nobody is going to pay that, that's ridiculous. The worst part is that by doing this, a lot of people who were hard-core VR supporters are turning their back, which in turns hurts the developers and the technology.
For more, head on over to /r/oculus/ and read what's going on with the community.
But 700€ ... yeah, fuck you too.
So?
Work a few more months, save up, and then buy it.
Nothing wrong with working and saving to get something you want...Everything in life doesn't come "instant gratification".
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
1. It is a troll comment, I would have modded down if I had points as well
2. What makes you think the editors need to participate for modding to go against what you believe
3. Nausea is a problem with older units, this one is supposed to be better able to do head tracking with good 3D accelerometers and high frame rates (allowing it to draw the view faster)
4. There are people that will always get nauseous no matter how good the product is. My mother can't go see 3D movies as it makes her nauseous, should everyone stop going to 3D movies now because they might make you sick, but not me?
5. Make an account if you want to be treated fairly, ACs are always started at 0 as they generally don't have anything good to say, and are mostly trolls. If you want to be a productive member of the community, you wouldn't be posting as an AC.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Also, April is tax month!
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
It's more than I expected (I was guessing ~$400), but I can't say that I am all that surprised or outraged. For a long time, the Oculus folks insisted that they were going to focus on making it good, not making it affordable. This makes sense, because VR technology has been around for decades, but nobody has really managed to make a GOOD VR set prior to the Oculus. Assuming the consumer version is in fact good, they can then focus on making it affordable. If you want affordable, there's always the cardboard VR sets to play with.
If they manage to succeed with making a good set, then VR will start to catch on and prices will fall for other good sets. I wouldn't be surprised if Oculus eventually releases different models to fulfill low and high end price points.
I also don't understand the outrage over the PC specs. The fact of the matter is that based on years of testing, it was determined that you really needed high resolution (i.e. 4k) to get rid of the screen door effect that has always been the bane of VR implementations. I wouldn't be surprised if 8k will be needed to really get rid of it. That takes a lot of computing horsepower and there just isn't any way around it.
There are a LOT of folks out there that have plenty of disposable income, where dropping a grand here or there isn't really that much of a second thought.
You see them every day, driving higher end cars, living in well to do neighborhoods and nice homes....and not struggling.
Not everyone flips burgers for minimum wage you know.
And if that's all you do, your time might be better spend doing what it takes to get a higher paying job than playing games and worrying about not being able to afford the latest and greatest luxury item toy....
Then there are the people like me, who (while married) live in a house affordable on 1 income, pay $125 a month to own a basic car rather than spend $300-$400 a month leasing a brand new high end car, and are actually able to save money instead of only being able to get by through using credit cards every month. There's a pretty big segment of the population like me that are perfectly willing to spend money, but you better give us a pretty good reason to do so. And the Rift right now does not provide that reason.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Are your monitors 4K? Do they do 120Hz or 144Hz? Do they support G-Sync or FreeSync? These are all reasons why he could have spent what he spent and more than you. And no it has absolutely nothing to do with a fruit or a niche industry thing.
This is an amazing monitor for instance for video gaming. 144Hz IPS is not a cheap thing anywhere plus the G-Sync module from nVidia.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...
Two AMOLED screens binned for the best possible quality. The screens aside, there is a lot more to the thing. Its worth at least as much as a decent smart phone I would think.
Apple has taught me the public doesn't care about $700 phones with fine print that states your personal info will be sold
I think you misspelled Google, Apple does not sell personal info and in fact is one of the few companies adamantly against doing so...
there could be cheaper versions that do happen to be advertising platforms
There is, it's called Google Cardboard. Which I honestly do see as something of a threat to the more expensive versions, but I'm not sure how much.
It will all depend on how much consumers value VR. If enough people get really into it more expensive platforms that are not ad/data driven will gather steam. If not the field will devolve into Cardboard hacks and it will be super niche.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Ive used them. Just a fun novelty. Sensor drift and poor fov kill it. Was good enough to make me want to spend money on better though.
But does it play Ridge Racer?
Price of entry, and PC specs are just way too high to get this going. I love the cool little demos on my DK2, and it sold me entirely on VR as the future. Just not anytime soon. Maybe when todays I7s are considered low end and less than $99 the industry might be where VR needs to be for public consumption. Or maybe they'll just end up putting 8k screens in the Rift and set us all back again.
I'll be looking closely at the PSVR. I think targeting a standardized platform is going to help the cause a bit more. But, again, cost, and performance will need to be worthwhile.
Your signature is hilariously ironic.
This product is more innovative than anything Apple has done since the iPod 15 years ago.
And this one has a release date 4 months from now.
...it's the dual Titan X rig you'll need to pump out 3-4x the graphics load
I don't expect you to read the article, but at least read the damn summary. A GTX 970 is about $325, a third of the price of one Titan X.
Heck, it appeared in the movie Hackers which came out in 1995!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01...
It was already something easily recognizable at that time.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I need the most following to be available before I get into VR (Oculus Rift or Vive):
1) Flight simulation games: Falcon level of details
2) Space combat: Wing Commander or Freespace game
3) Racing games: arcade or realistic doesn't matter much to me
4) Descent Underground
5) good controls
I was talking to a friend about Oculus, Valve/HTC, and Sony; and we arrived at the decision that Oculus is probably going to get creamed in the VR industry. The main problem is that the unit is just too expensive and is coming to market way too close to other units that are coming. At $600, I may as well hold out and see what HTC and Sony have to offer here in 4-6 months when they come to market.
In the conversation, I also brought up the question of why didn't Oculus just take a loss on the first 10,000 units or so in order to bring the price down (I actually guessed that it would probably cost at least $600). As someone that was on the fence about buying a unit, $600 is just too much for me to spend when I know that in 6 months HTC or Sony will have their own unit out. The interesting revelation that me and my friend came to however, was the fact that HTC and Sony are in a better position to actually take a loss on their VR units compared to Oculus since they are actually backed by another platform that they can make money off of. To Sony and Valve, their VR unit is very similar to a game console, where they want to try and get as many adopters to buy into their system as possible so they can make money off of the games and peripherals that go along with it. So the smart thing for Sony and Valve to do now is to come out with a price now that is $200-$350 cheaper than the Rift, even if it means they have to take a loss on the first 10k units or so.
Personally I'll be holding out to see what HTC/Valve do since I want something that I know will work with the SteamVR SDK.
They just priced themselves out of being a mainstream peripheral that every gamer will get and into the niche of racing wheels and aircraft simulator MFPs.
Good job guys for missing the entire boat.
This product is more innovative than anything Apple has done since the iPod 15 years ago.
...which wasn't all that innovative when it came out, either.... "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." (from http://slashdot.org/story/01/1... :-)
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
I don't disagree with the statement, I feel that it is too soon to say if it causes headaches and nausea, therefore it was trollish, it assumes something that no one could know yet.
It is also a troll because it is attributing the negatives of other products to a product that worked very hard over a number of years to remove thaos negative aspects in their own product.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
It's a critical mass thing.
Developers need X amount of users to bother making a rift game.
Users need X amount of games and Y price to bother buying a rift.
So the lower the price, the more users and so the more games. I was pretty happy to pay $300 for something that may not have any supported software. At $600, I'll wait until I see some killer games come out and since I'm not actively out there buying rift games there is less of a reason for developers to make those games at all.
Well it's just a question of mathematics. Even if $600 was pure profit they would have to sell over 3 million units to recover the initial investment. Facebook exists in another reality distortion field, one where money comes easily. This was created by the banks that floated the IPO, and is maintained by Wall St. which for some reason values FB stock at incredible multiples. But in reality, money is not that easy to come by for average folks. And while Zuckerberg might have come into his billions quite easily, it's not all that easy to actually earn billions from a product.
I blame Facebook because they bought Oculus. Ultimately they are the ones reponsible.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Yeah. Divide 2 billion by $400 and see how many units they need to sell. BEFORE paying any costs. While some people can afford a $400-$600 toy, not everybody can. Especially when you need a pretty uber PC to actually run it, too.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Back in the day, all you had to do for one of those was answer 50 multiple choice questions to become an SCO reseller. Then they sent you copies of every product they had, complete with license cards.
I already acknowledged that there were people who would buy them, but consider that Facebook spent $2 billion just acquiring the technology, and who knows how much they spent in the nearly 2 years following in development.
They'd need to sell tens of millions of units (*just like Sony would for a console console*) just to even come close to breaking even, and when they are catering only to the rich-disposable-income gamer crowd and maybe small volume businesses, where are they going to make up the rest of the tens of millions?
It was already an iffy-proposition even at the $200-400 price point.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
My experience with a DK II (sitting on my desk) is intense nausea in any scenario that includes a fairly high pixel density (half the screen isn't black) and motion. So for example, I'm fine playing Elite Dangerous until I go into one of those spinning stations but almost everything else makes me want to throw - and I remain in that state for a good few hours after use.
The problem is mostly to do with the Vestibular System, i.e. there's no frame-rate or head tracking latency solution (in other words, I don't believe the problem can be solved for a head mounted display alone). However, there are individual differences in susceptibility, which may explain your experience.
They made some weird deal with Microsoft that got them the gamepads really cheap or at least that's what they say. It's kind of weird, as they also include another small remote-like controller in the box as well. The gamepad feels completely redundant and unnecessary. And with Oculus Touch yet another controller will be released in a few month.
Most VR sickness isn't caused by latency or frame rate, it's the conflict between what the vestibular system thinks is happening and what the visual system thinks is happening. It's like a reverse-engineered inner ear infection. I have found the symptoms reduce to almost zero in a game like Elite Dangerous, where most of the pixels on screen are black. The combination of dense occlusion and motion however, gives me intense nausea.
Note this was my experience with the DK II. I'm willing to believe the new version will be better but I very much doubt it'll alleviate the problem or make the symptoms go away simply because it cannot change basic physiology.
Last time I checked about 5% of Steam gamers had a PC meeting the recommended specs from Oculus. That was a few month ago, so it might be a bit more by now, but I am pretty sure that it's still a tiny minority of gamers, and far less when it comes to regular PC users.
You'll be able to get a cheap second hand one from parents selling the unit they bought for their kid, who ended up spray-painting the wall with spaghetti hoops.
LOL I make that much in like a day.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
1080x1200 per eye is too low of a resolution? What do you want, 16K per eye?
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
I dare you to try to run a business, lol
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Predator X34 is sold out at newegg and cost $1300.
It's ~the monitor to have today for home usage.
34" 21:9 3440x1440 IPS 75 Hz over-clockable to 100 Hz when using G-sync if I remember correctly.
It's the screen to have currently I'd say. That or a similar FreeSync screen, guess the later is ok even with non-optimal AMD-cards.
My new wish though is that it become OLED too ..
How many people own iPads? How much do they cost again?
One of three outcomes is likely in the market.
Facebook's primary product is offered to 'users' free, if you're argument was close to the truth then they'd be trying to charge everyone $200 a year for having a Facebook account; and they aren't. Furthermore Facebook brought in huge amount of investment while it lost money for years. It's investors and senior management all have experience of operating at a loss for an extended period in order to build a product.
As to blaming Facebook for the price of electronics, you might as well blame Boeing for the fact you can't go out and buy an A380 for $10.
I don't disagree with the statement, I feel that it is too soon to say if it causes headaches and nausea, therefore it was trollish, it assumes something that no one could know yet.
With every other immersive/VR product , from earlier generations of VR headsets to iMax and planetaria there have been reported non-negligible amounts of nausea and headache.
To assume by default that this one won't have these problems seems like magical thinking. We should assume that this one will too, until and unless it has shown itself to be different.
Anything that subjects your eyes to full views that disagree with your inner ear should probably be treated as a real potential for inducing motion sickness. We have no reason to believe that the OR is any different. if anything, higher resolution might make the effect even more pronounced.
Why most of us have no problems when using a standard monitor is that we see the bezel and parts of the room, and our inner ear agree with those. But for a VR device, we have no anchor.
It's like a kid in the back seat of a car seeing only the seats and doors, and an unchanging sky out the side windows. As the car accelerates in different directions, the inner ear disagrees with all his view being static, and car sickness ensues. Someone who can see out the front window gets a frame of reference that agrees with the inner ear, so no sickness.
I think you really have a unrealistic view of what people have at home today... the 970 is $300+ and 'most people' really don't have that at home, FAR FROM it..
When looking for a new monitor 4 or 5 years ago, I compared the Apple Cinema display against the equivalent specification Dell display.
Once things like taxes and delivery were added (Dell advertised without tax or delivery, and Apple with the prices included), the Dell display was within £5 of the Apple display (I don't remember if the Dell was £5 less or £5 more). The Apple display also had a built in magsafe charger which the Dell didn't.
If you compare like with like, often you'll find that the "cheap" brands are not actually any cheaper than the "expensive" brands. It's just the cheap brands also sell lower end stuff for a lot less.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
No head tracking, but:
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-HMZ...
Maybe it isn't targeted to the average person? Since the average person isn't likely to have the computer capable of running the thing in the first place.
Unless your product is something like Lamborghinis, it's hard to make much profit from selling toys to rich people.
The secret to success in business is generally to get the mass market.
Something at $600 is just overpriced enough to put a lot of people off, without being expensive enough to generate vast profits on much smaller sales.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
it was pretty obvious it was never going to be aimed at the 'average person'. I doubt it's ever been likely its target at launch would be the average PC gamer.
Yes, but the target market of "people with more money than sense" is much, much smaller than the market of "gamers".
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
There are a LOT of folks out there that have plenty of disposable income, where dropping a grand here or there isn't really that much of a second thought.
Aren't teenagers the primary audience for gaming tech? Outside of Silicon Valley, most 16 year olds can't casually drop a grand on toys here and there.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
And your point is?
I have the money now. I just can't justify spending that much on this kind of device so I can play a limited set of games. Especially since, I don't even know what the experience will be like. Maybe if I could demo it somewhere but I can't. Also, I don't have as much time to play video games as I used to...
So?
Work a few more months, save up, and then buy it.
Nothing wrong with working and saving to get something you want...Everything in life doesn't come "instant gratification".
Self evidently he doesn't think it's worth the effort to work extra for, in the same way that I'm not going to work two jobs for a year and live on water and dried bread just so I can buy a Porsche.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
VR has been "emerging" for the last 20 years.
2015 (it is still the beginning of 2016..) - 20 = 1995. It wasn't emerging is my point, it was mainstream back then. You are agreeing with me, you just don't seem to realize it.
Who cares if it is obscure, it was my first thought when MBGMorden said 20 years ago.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
HAH! the iPod wasn't innovative - I already had an mp3 player at that point and wondered why the fuck everyone was getting so excited!
My first computer was a Commodore 64/128. I have been around for all of it. I am aware that it was from far before 1995, that was the whole point I was making, that in 1995, in the movie Hackers, it was already well known. So yes, VR is much older than 20 years ago, which was exactly the point I was making.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?