Oculus Cuts Price On Rift Goggles and Touch Controllers (usatoday.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oculus Cuts Price On Rift Goggles and Touch Controllers (usatoday.com)

Posted by msmash on Wednesday March 1, 2017 @11:05AM from the price-cuts dept.

Oculus said Wednesday it is cutting the price of its Rift headset and Touch motion controllers by $100 each, dropping the cost of a complete system to $598. From a report: The Rift and Touch combination will drop to $598 from $799, or roughly $100 off each piece of high-end hardware. The discount applies even if the devices are purchased separately. Earlier this week, Oculus announced it was expanding its gaming content selection by eight titles. Brendan Iribe, who heads up the Oculus PC/VR group, refutes the notion that the price slash is in response to slow sales. "VR is a whole new platform and medium, it's the first time people are putting a computer on their head," Iribe, 37, told USA TODAY at the Game Developers Conference here. "We are cutting the price to bring VR to more people, and that's always been our goal."

36 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Oculus in trouble? by JustNiz · 2017-03-01 11:08 · Score: 0

Seems like yet more evidence that Oculus must be in serious financial trouble, probably both from their Zenimax lawsuit and from Valve/Steam/Vive significantly outselling them.
1. Re:Oculus in trouble? by HornWumpus · 2017-03-01 11:23 · Score: 2
  
  Running on VC money. Cash flow isn't the issue. They are grabbing market, or at least trying.
  Hopefully they are over trying to own the market. Their API has been subsumed by SteamVRs. For devs, the choice is Oculus or Vive and Oculus. I don't see any reason any dev would choose Oculus only.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
2. Re:Oculus in trouble? by gweilo8888 · 2017-03-01 11:28 · Score: 2
  
  If this is trying, it's not trying hard enough. The Playstation VR is arguably the best from this generation -- it's certainly far and away the best selling -- and yet it can be bought with camera and motion controllers for $500 list. (And even bought separately, it comes to only $530.) Oculus is still overpriced by about 60% with its new $800 list price.
3. Re:Oculus in trouble? by Namarrgon · 2017-03-01 11:55 · Score: 2
  
  Oculus is still overpriced by about 20% with its new $600 list price.
  FTFY.
  Rift offers better resolution, better frame rate, better tracking, and better controllers for the extra money, though the PSVR is a little more comfortable. But a $100 price disparity is likely small enough that the user's preferred games & gaming platform (PC or PS4) matters more. Certainly the cheaper prices of Steam games will quickly make up the difference.
  
  --
  Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
4. Re:Oculus in trouble? by JustNiz · 2017-03-01 11:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  >> The Playstation VR is arguably the best from this generation
  By what metric? If just by # of users then OK, but as a VR experience it sucks compared to Rift/Vive.
  >> Oculus is still overpriced by about 60% with its new $800 list price.
  I think you're confused about the pricing, Vive is $799, Rift including Touch is now $598.
5. Re:Oculus in trouble? by rtb61 · 2017-03-01 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Price is not the problem. The problem is the lack of public VR competitions. They can see people competing with other games but no FPS VR competition. No duration events, no first team to 100 victories no VR versus keyboard and mouse, just advertising, just selling it like another gimmick. Thanks to other bullshit tech gimmicks, selling a gimmick now is pretty hard, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me and fool me many times, just why the fuck am I still buying their bullshit (it's not like corporations have a rock solid reputation for lying in commercials, it is now normal accepted business practice due to corruption in government paid for by those lies).
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
6. Re:Oculus in trouble? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-01 12:26 · Score: 0
  
  > By what metric? If just by # of users then OK
  Actually by that metric the best of this generation is google cardboard.
7. Re:Oculus in trouble? by gweilo8888 · 2017-03-01 16:47 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You're joking, right? 99% of the population would never watch one of these competitions in the first place. the 1% who might actually watch one, coincidentally enough, are typically going to be the same folks who would buy a VR rig solely for the geek value. VR competitions would not change VR adoption even slightly.
8. Re:Oculus in trouble? by gweilo8888 · 2017-03-01 16:51 · Score: 2
  
  I have tried all three side-by-side myself within the last two months. The Vive and Rift have a slight resolution advantage, yes, but it's nowhere near what it's been made out to be. The PSVR was far and away the most comfortable, which given that you *have* to wear it to use it is pretty critical. Plus you need the market to support it with software, which is likely with Sony's sales volumes, but quite a lot less likely with Oculus or HTC's sales volumes. Oh, and you're right. I misread the price in the summary as I was rushing to post before I walked out the door. So yes, it's $600 versus $500, or 20% too expensive.
9. Re:Oculus in trouble? by JustNiz · 2017-03-02 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Even as a Vive owner I wouldn't be even slightly interested in watching public VR competitions. Actually I suspect that just watching someone else using VR would probably make you actively less likely to want a VR headset yourself.
  It seems clear to me that people have to personally experience VR first-hand (in a roomscale not just a seated way) in order to understand how actually cool VR is. Anything else just looks dorky and wierd and doesn't convey the sensation at all.
10. Re:Oculus in trouble? by JustNiz · 2017-03-02 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  I remain to be convinced.
  I mean just looking at the hardware specs alone, PSVR is clearly VERY limited compared to PC solution. I'm actually surprised that they could even make it work in any credible way at all with just a regular PS4.
11. Re:Oculus in trouble? by HornWumpus · 2017-03-02 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Is it possible to attach a PSVR set to a real computer?
  Playstations aren't going to cut it.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
12. Re:Oculus in trouble? by Namarrgon · 2017-03-02 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget the tracking differences. PSVR has only a single front camera, and cannot see your controllers if you turn around. It can lose sight of your head in some cases too, so it falls somewhat short of true room-scale experiences.
  Oculus + Touch has two cameras that cover a much wider field of view, with uninterrupted tracking in most cases. The Vive's lighthouse emitters cover a very wide angle for complete 360 degree tracking, as does the Oculus with an optional third camera.
  
  --
  Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
13. Re:Oculus in trouble? by gweilo8888 · 2017-03-03 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it is. Not officially yet, but my understanding is that Sony's considering it.
Not from any of those by SuperKendall · 2017-03-01 11:23 · Score: 1

Seems like yet more evidence that Oculus must be in serious financial trouble
Ha Ha Ha, they are owned by Facebook, remember? They are in zero financial trouble.
probably both from their Zenimax lawsuit and from Valve/Steam/Vive significantly outselling them.
Nope.
Not from any of the ones you mentioned anyway. What is affecting them is Sony, but it's not so much income from sales as the need for more units in people's hands to encourage developer support. THAT is why they are lowering price, because they have infinite money and the VR world is still very much in the "need to grab marketshare" phase. It may be very hard to match Sony at any point though, all of the PC based VR headsets just have such a larger bar to get past for ownership...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Not from any of those by JustNiz · 2017-03-01 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  > they are owned by Facebook, remember? They are in zero financial trouble.
  I guess it depends on Zuckerberg/the Facebook board but most "normal" companies (and I do understand that Facebook isn't one) wouldn't keep funding/supporting a loss-making subsidiary for long.
2. Re:Not from any of those by Anubis+IV · 2017-03-01 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  probably both from their Zenimax lawsuit and from Valve/Steam/Vive significantly outselling them.
  Nope.
  Isn't his claim backed up by the chart you just linked? Your chart shows that by the end of last year, the Vive was expected to outsell the Rift in terms of cumulative sales over their lifetimes by 25%. If that's not outselling, what is?
  It may get worse though, because the Rift has been available in various incarnations since 2012, whereas Vive only entered the market in April of last year. In clicking through to some of the other pages linked from your article, it sounds like the analysts may have included those other incarnations in the cumulative sales estimates for the Rift, rather than limiting it to the retail version that launched about the same time as the Vive. If so, it would mean that in just 8 months the Vive not only overtook the last 4 years of Rift sales, but that it managed to surpass them by 25%, suggesting that it may be outselling the Rift in terms of monthly sales by quite a bit more than 25%.
  Also worth pointing out: just because Oculus has Facebook backing it financially, it doesn't mean they can afford to be unprofitable. Facebook is going to want to see a return on their investment. If Facebook decides it's getting too expensive, Facebook will shutter Oculus, even though they may be perfectly capable of funding it until the sun dies.
  Disclaimer: I have no horse in this race, other than wanting to see the facts win. Aside from a handful of professional applications, I think all VR goggles are a fad and little more than a stepping stone to more immersive (yet-to-be-invented) experiences with actual staying power. I think they make for neat tech demos, but I have no interest in owning any of them, nor a beef with any particular one.
Nope. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-01 11:29 · Score: 0

You guys done fucked up. HTC Vive it is.
Meh. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-01 11:38 · Score: 0

VR is still just a one trick pony with little to no use for the average home user that can be really considered productive. I'll be passing until the applications mature which means I'll likely see little of it in my lifetime.
1. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-01 12:08 · Score: 0
  
  You planning to die in the next couple years?
Barf bags by PoopJuggler · 2017-03-01 12:11 · Score: 1

They should include a lifetime supply of barf bags also.
Start of a price war on VR? by Diac · 2017-03-01 12:24 · Score: 1

So I wonder if the vive will also reduce in price to not lose market share to the rift.
1. Re:Start of a price war on VR? by Opportunist · 2017-03-01 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  That's rather unlikely. They may drop it to the 700ish area, but probably not any further. Their selling point is that they're the only one that offers the "room scale" experience, and I would expect Steam to come out with some games that basically demand you to own a Vive to play them rather than trying to engage in a price war.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:Start of a price war on VR? by Fire_Wraith · 2017-03-01 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  They've responded saying that they won't, thus far at least. We'll see if it lasts.
Free Games by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-01 14:58 · Score: 0

If they really want to sweeten the deal, they should start giving away free games.
Resolution sucks by backslashdot · 2017-03-01 15:52 · Score: 0

If the resolution was 5K per eye it would be good enough to watch movies and tv in it as though you were in a theater. As it is now, the screen door effect is far too intolerable.
1. Re:Resolution sucks by ckatko · 2017-03-01 19:48 · Score: 2
  
  5K per eye? You can't even run twin 4K on one videocard. What you're asking isn't feasible with current technology at consumer-grade cost.
  You might as well be seriously complaining "Why don't we all have flying cars yet?!"
2. Re:Resolution sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-01 19:50 · Score: 0
  
  It's good enough for generation 1 headsets. Today's graphics cards don't put out 5K resolution. Headsets are built on your computer's hardware, not the other way around.
3. Re:Resolution sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-01 22:23 · Score: 0
  
  How about 4K screen per eye, rendering at 2K and upscaling?
4. Re:Resolution sucks by backslashdot · 2017-03-02 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  What I meant is that the technology isn't ready yet. It will take about 20 years before we can get 5K per eye displays (at 120fps). They shouldn't be trying to sell these because they aren't ready for the market and it will ruin VR as a concept for a generation. You don't see Ford trying to sell flying cars do you? We don't have the technology to make VR headsets work.
5. Re:Resolution sucks by Zxern · 2017-03-02 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need 5K resolution. They need higher pixel density displays to eliminate the screen door effect.
Not that different in reality by SuperKendall · 2017-03-01 17:03 · Score: 1

because the Rift has been available in various incarnations since 2012, whereas Vive only entered the market in April of last year.
Come on, Oculus started shipping real units only at the end of March 2016, and was heavily supply constrained for a while after that because they had to stop shipping for a while. They aren't counting dev units (nor should they). Vives were shipping in quantity just a week later around April 7th, but they were better at getting units out than Oculus. So by your own arguments I guess Oculus is doing better than Vive since Vive really had a shipping head start...
Facebook is going to want to see a return on their investment.
I don't think you understand Facebook very well. Or really Silicon Valley companies, at all.
Disclaimer: I have no horse in this race, other than wanting to see the facts win.
I want only the same thing which is why I found your post so disturbing. I have no horse in the race either but I do have a lot closer understanding of the whole market as I have been thinking of what platform to work with for a long time now, I have a number of different VR systems and have used all of them (well the ones that have been released anyway).
I think all VR goggles are a fad and little more than a stepping stone to more immersive (yet-to-be-invented) experiences
It's called a Hololens. It's inherently more immersive to have a virtual world overlaid on a real one around you.
But all of the platforms available today have some things they do very well and deliver really fund and/or interesting experiences. That's why Sony's VR headset is selling better than expected with almost a million units sold now, and at least one game (resident evil) getting really great reviews (I've not tried it on there yet).

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That's the cheapest part of the system by RogueWarrior65 · 2017-03-02 03:01 · Score: 1

You go broke on the video cards for your desktop PC which I dare say that most people don't already own. It's a bit like owning a Ferrari and living in Singapore where the speed limit is 50 mph.
Re:Nope! Not even if it's free. Fuck Facebook. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-02 03:22 · Score: 0

Incidentally, your comment is the sanest comment in this thread. What kind of dumb fuck would BUY an expensive, highish-res sensor package, that feeds data to FB?!!
Even if this spy device was free, who in their right mind would install a kernel driver made by these people?