The Oculus Rift’s Problem Isn’t Price—It’s Perfection
Click to Open Overlay GalleryThe Oculus booth at CES 2016. Dina Litovsky for WIRED
Still staggering from sticker shock over the launch price of the Oculus Rift? Flummoxed that the virtual reality headset will cost $599 (or more, depending upon where you live)?
Let’s be clear: Oculus has 99 problems, but $599 ain’t one.
I’m not saying that 600 bucks (plus the cost of a high-end gaming PC, plus more for the Oculus Touch controllers that will launch later this year) is a mass-market price. But Rift does not need to be a mass-market product this year. Virtual reality, using the loosest definition of the term, already is mass-market. Google Cardboard costs $23.95 shipped to your door. There’s one problem with Google Cardboard: it kind of sucks. Sure, you can jam your phone into it, strap it to your head, and see a 360-degree environment. In that sense, it “works.” (That it works at all is the coolest thing about it).
But if Google Cardboard is VR, then VR is doomed to fail again for all the same reasons it failed before, and a year from now we’ll be talking about the whole VR fad, or bubble, or passing fancy in the same way we talk about the Star Wars prequels. Because strapping a piece of cardboard to your head with a rubber band is uncomfortable. Because your phone is a phone, not a VR display. VR is not a problem of making it “work.” VR is a problem of making it perfect, because anything less than perfect equals “OK, cool, now get this thing off my head.”
What is the Rift? It’s not simply another VR headset. Those already exist, and they’re cheaper than $599. It’s not just a nicer-looking version of those, or a slightly better version. It must be a categorically better VR experience. An apples-and-oranges situation. It has to be a quantum leap; there has to be a dividing line between Rift and everything else.
You’ll get to try out a Rift if you want to, even if you don’t buy one right now. It’ll be at store demos in the mall, or at fan conventions, or any number of places where you might test a new technology before committing to buying it. It’s important that you come away utterly, completely gobsmacked.
ADVERTISING
The odds that “CV1” Oculus will profit from the first generation are low. The components are so new, and so robust, that the per-unit price of the Rift—from fabrication to shipping—is probably close to the $599 asking price. Reducing the price, then, would mean cutting corners. Oculus can’t do that. There’s more at stake here than selling a few million units and calling it done. Oculus (and Facebook) is not “competing” with Sony, Valve, HTC, et al in any meaningful sense. Everyone pushing out full-featured VR this year is on the same side of a different conflict: the establishment of a Virtual Reality industry versus abject failure.
So I would hardly criticize Oculus over Rift’s price. If anything, I worry that Sony might be tempted to cut corners with PlayStation VR, which it hopes to release this year, to keep the price down. Sony once introduced a gaming console for $599, which prompted one of the worst backlashes it ever saw. Yes, it was 10 years ago, but the Internet never forgets. Does Sony want another round of “599 US DOLLARS” memes? That’s a very, very expensive videogame accessory. But what about PlayStation VR makes us think it might cost significantly less than Rift?
Sony does have one thing that Rift doesn’t: every purchase of PlayStation VR loops users into its closed software ecosystem. Yes, Oculus has a store, but you don’t need to pay Oculus another dime after you buy a Rift; it’s a personal computer accessory and you’ll be able to find software elsewhere. But if you buy a PlayStation 4, you get your games via Sony, and no other channels.
So Sony has a bit more incentive—and an ability—to take a loss on the PlayStation VR hardware, just to solve the chicken-and-egg problem and make PlayStation VR a mass-market device from the start. After all, Sony knows it’ll make up the loss with software sales. (The company has even said that the cost of PlayStation VR will be roughly equivalent to the purchase of a new game console, clearly prepping users for a high cost of entry.)
I remember going to one of the earliest VR arcades, “Virtuality,” in my local shopping mall around 1993. VR was tried, released to great fanfare, tested, and found wanting. Then it disappeared into the ether with Furbies and Tamagotchi. It is entirely possible that could happen again—and what will keep it from happening is not price, but quality.
http://www.wired.com/2016/01/oculus-rift-price/
I think that this is the absolute best read on the subject of Virtual Reality to be had today. Like, literally, I am dropping the mic on this one. If you take anything away from this, it's that all of the companies involved in this tech have a vested interest in making a quality experience for you.
I think that it gets lost in the translation in System Wars, with all the rhetoric about power between PC and PS4 currently, that the bottom line is that a dedicated gaming machine has far more horsepower for pushing VR than any other piece of technology out there. The vehicle for deliver has to be damn good, and everyone who has tried these things or reviewed them has said the quality is there.
Just read this article. Then, we can have an actual intelligent conversation. If you think PSVR is going to be Pong and Breakout at 90fps, you are in for a Richter Scale 7 shock. If you think Oculus Rifts price for a full kit at the same price as a premium graphics card is going to kill its chances of success, you are also in for said shock.
Launching at that price point is going to mean that very few people actually buy one. If very few people buy one, very few developers are going to bother adding Rift support. If very few developers bother to add Rift support the consumer base won't grow and developers won't start making games in a vicious cycle that will cause the product to fail.
Launching at that price point is going to mean that very few people actually buy one. If very few people buy one, very few developers are going to bother adding Rift support. If very few developers bother to add Rift support the consumer base won't grow and developers won't start making games in a vicious cycle that will cause the product to fail.
That, I think is a realistic threat. $600 would also set it as a competitor to Oculus Rift and since the platform pushing it is not anywhere near as powerful, it would have a price/quality issue. I'm only guessing that PSVR will be $400. That will put it in a competitive space for launch.
The problem is that price point if you ask me along with it's hard to show people demo-ing the thing. A product like that people would need to get their hands on first before even think about making the jump to VR. I mean 1) You are asking people shell out 600 for just a headset that will give you VR experience. 2) You ask people to go out build a very nice computer that will cost about 1000 minimum right now. 3) You're hoping developers latch on to the idea for VR as a gaming platform. You've got three big ifs at the moment that a lot of people just aren't will to just jump the gun for. I personally hope VR takes off so that with in the next 5 to 10 years the components needed to make the headsets get cheaper, but right now only those who really have an itch for a brand-new-ish experience and the money to do it will.
The problem is that price point if you ask me along with it's hard to show people demo-ing the thing. A product like that people would need to get their hands on first before even think about making the jump to VR. I mean 1) You are asking people shell out 600 for just a headset that will give you VR experience. 2) You ask people to go out build a very nice computer that will cost about 1000 minimum right now. 3) You're hoping developers latch on to the idea for VR as a gaming platform. You've got three big ifs at the moment that a lot of people just aren't will to just jump the gun for. I personally hope VR takes off so that with in the next 5 to 10 years the components needed to make the headsets get cheaper, but right now only those who really have an itch for a brand-new-ish experience and the money to do it will.
That's true. Even the iPhone had to start somewhere.
@Shewgenja: Well the difference with the iPhone is that Apple was already a trusted brand at that point. Apple had been an established electronics make for quite some time before the first iPhone came out. Not that this Occulus Rift will be bad but right now it has a lot going for and against it at the moment. Cross your fingers and hope for the best.
Irrelevant and niche until proven otherwise. That's all that needs to be said about the current state of VR.
Really? The Gear VR was sold out through the holidays. I'm not saying its future is crystal clear, but the technology seems to be resonating far outside just the gamer space. Hardly niche.
I think the biggest issue that I've only seen addressed once so far is the effect this thing will have on gameplay. Is strapping giant goggles on my face going to make the gameplay better? I know people will argue that it increases the immersion factor, but that's a novelty that can quickly wear off.
I think this thing will break immersion and weaken gameplay capabilities. Ever tried 3D gaming? Great for about 30min until you toss the glasses aside and get back to playing the way games have always been played.
Irrelevant and niche until proven otherwise. That's all that needs to be said about the current state of VR.
Really? The Gear VR was sold out through the holidays. I'm not saying its future is crystal clear, but the technology seems to be resonating far outside just the gamer space. Hardly niche.
Very niche for gamers and what they want. When one can control a game interface and movement with their minds from inside a VR setting, like Sword Art Online for instance, then we'll have that leap forward.
Irrelevant and niche until proven otherwise. That's all that needs to be said about the current state of VR.
Really? The Gear VR was sold out through the holidays. I'm not saying its future is crystal clear, but the technology seems to be resonating far outside just the gamer space. Hardly niche.
Very niche for gamers and what they want. When one can control a game interface and movement with their minds from inside a VR setting, like Sword Art Online for instance, then we'll have that leap forward.
Right now it's just bells n whistles at best.
Man, I know you'll just have to take my word for it as a rando out on the world wide interbuttz, but the difference between controlling what you see through a small window in a virtual world and actually having presence in said virtual world really does change things. It's a different thing into itself. Very akin to the leap from sprite-based gaming to 3D graphics and presence. The way you conceptualize the "character" is much more personal in a VR game or program.
Irrelevant and niche until proven otherwise. That's all that needs to be said about the current state of VR.
Really? The Gear VR was sold out through the holidays. I'm not saying its future is crystal clear, but the technology seems to be resonating far outside just the gamer space. Hardly niche.
Very niche for gamers and what they want. When one can control a game interface and movement with their minds from inside a VR setting, like Sword Art Online for instance, then we'll have that leap forward.
Right now it's just bells n whistles at best.
Man, I know you'll just have to take my word for it as a rando out on the world wide interbuttz, but the difference between controlling what you see through a small window in a virtual world and actually having presence in said virtual world really does change things. It's a different thing into itself. Very akin to the leap from sprite-based gaming to 3D graphics and presence. The way you conceptualize the "character" is much more personal in a VR game or program.
I know it's cool and all in its early form, but it still has a long way to go to revolutionize the gaming industry. Gonna take a lot of convincing for the masses to get on board. This is an important step forward though, I agree.
I might jump in earlier than expected, but not this dog gone early.
I think the biggest issue that I've only seen addressed once so far is the effect this thing will have on gameplay. Is strapping giant goggles on my face going to make the gameplay better? I know people will argue that it increases the immersion factor, but that's a novelty that can quickly wear off.
I think this thing will break immersion and weaken gameplay capabilities. Ever tried 3D gaming? Great for about 30min until you toss the glasses aside and get back to playing the way games have always been played.
VR and 3D viewing are FAR from the same thing.....
You can easily get a cheap/crappy glimpse of the potential by using google cardboard with your smart phone... done properly this technology has many uses. I hardly see how this level of emmersion could be a "Gimmick" .... why would you look at a TV/Monitor if you can have perfect viewing on your head, with headphones? its potentials just a far better experience in the long run. that being said, I dont mean replacing tvs etc.
Regardless, it wont be PC gaming or the PS4 version that will drive this industry initially, will probably be porn with google cardboard.
This is Sony chance to make this VR competition interesting. imagine The sony VR is around $300-350 and the launch games are big titles such as horror games "resident evil" or a silent Hill plus they add some fps games to it it could make sony look really good for the time being.
Sony probably looking at this oculus rift news like..
I know it's cool and all in its early form, but it still has a long way to go to revolutionize the gaming industry. Gonna take a lot of convincing for the masses to get on board. This is an important step forward though, I agree.
I might jump in earlier than expected, but not this dog gone early.
One of the weirdest experiences I've had since taking the plunge on a Gear VR is watching Netflix in the Oculus app. It's like you're sitting down in front of a 100inch flat panel watching your show or movie.. But, you look around you and it's a virtual living room. You'll have to forgive me for being at a lack for words to describe the sensation of when it hits you in that moment that all the gaming you have ever had.. On every high-end rig and every console on every nice TV you've ever ever played a game on, is still something that has only happened within a certain degrees of space sat in front of you.
Jumping in and playing a game is definitely something, if not perhaps a little early. But the experience of being forced back to 2D media within that realm instantly tells you that entertainment is evolving. You want more. You want to be IN the scene. It lets you do that. Everything else just seems old. Like movies from the 1950s. Valuable, precious, entertaining, and high quality.. But old.
This is Sony chance to make this VR competition interesting. imagine The sony VR is around $300-350 and the launch games are big titles such as horror games "resident evil" or a silent Hill plus they add some fps games to it it could make sony look really good for the time being.
Sony probably looking at this oculus rift news like..
It's also Sony's chance of destroying the future of VR.... if their solution is s*it ... then it may stain the scene for years.
VR and 3D viewing are FAR from the same thing.....
You can easily get a cheap/crappy glimpse of the potential by using google cardboard with your smart phone... done properly this technology has many uses. I hardly see how this level of emmersion could be a "Gimmick" .... why would you look at a TV/Monitor if you can have perfect viewing on your head, with headphones? its potentials just a far better experience in the long run. that being said, I dont mean replacing tvs etc.
Regardless, it wont be PC gaming or the PS4 version that will drive this industry initially, will probably be porn with google cardboard.
I can acknowledge the potential of medical application, even educational. As far as movies and games I don't think it's going work at this point.
My guess is that if lightweight 3D glasses(active glasses aren't very light) are annoying and break the immersion factor, then giant goggles with a tether will be even worse. Games are about gameplay, and I see this thing being disjointed in the same manner Wii FPS were. Yeah it was good when looking around in the view port, but once you go to turn and aim while looking around it breaks. There's more nuance to aiming IRL, I think it will break gameplay mechanics and reduce quality of play.
Immersion for me is the gameplay. If you break the gameplay you break the immersion. So in what manner is this $600 device going to beat a quality HDTV or monitor? That you can look around halfway with less control over the actual game as a trade? Sounds like a gimmick..."You can tilt your head and see a naked girl!" That should be the punchline for this thing.
This thing isn't the holodeck, it's a screen on your face. $600 is price prohibitive and even 2 years from release when it's $400 it's still gonna be more than what most people want to pay for a face screen. Let's see how Sony prices the PSVR. Over $250 and it's just gonna flop. Shoot people didn't even want to pay the extra $100 for Kinect on Xbone.
Can't blame people for not wanting to invest heavily in peripherals. History has shown that they rarely get meaningful support beyond a few games.
This is Sony chance to make this VR competition interesting. imagine The sony VR is around $300-350 and the launch games are big titles such as horror games "resident evil" or a silent Hill plus they add some fps games to it it could make sony look really good for the time being.
Sony probably looking at this oculus rift news like..
It's also Sony's chance of destroying the future of VR.... if their solution is s*it ... then it may stain the scene for years.
i agree completely.These next couple months going to very interesting to see
So what happens when the PSVR price is announced at $499? I'm telling you this thing won't be cheap. Sony has already warned us just like the Oculus folks did. I was actually expecting a $699 tag for Oculus so I'm kinda happy with the $599 tag. I pre-ordered the Oculus and will get PSVR as well. I am expecting PSVR to be far more limited and more of a "budget" experience. I don't know how it could be anything but with the PS4 hardware. I've said it before, I think Sony should wait until next gen. But I also understand why they are trying to jump out in front of this whole thing. If they can attach their name to VR in the consumers eyes, it will be a HUGE victory.
90% of consumers will have no idea what the Oculus Rift is. I had a friend over last week that complemented me on my "cool looking computer box thing." He is a network administrator........... Only buys Apple......... Calls all video game consoles "a Nintendo." The Oculus Rift is not for people like this so Oculus has to sell at cost. Sony can gamble but I doubt they will sell PSVR at a loss. But they fact that they have to give you an additional box to get it to work on the PS4 is going to make things more expensive. I'm gonna go with $499. $449 and a minimum but there is NO WAY IN HELL it sells cheaper than $299 like some on this board want.
lolno, the price is still ridiculous. My 970 is the requirement for VR and I'd rather use the $600 to buy a 980Ti or a Titan than buy OR which may or may not be an experience I like.
I definitely agree with the article, but they claim the Rift is a "categorically better VR experience" despite the existence of the HTC Vive and it's mapping real-space while displaying a virtual space to the viewer... giving far more flexibility to developers who want to integrate rooms and real-world obstacles into their games. Or even for an enhanced AR display.
Anyone who complains about being able to afford one isn't on Oculus' consumer radar right now.
@hiphops_savior said:
How many people here could afford a Tesla Roadster when it first came out? We are seeing the same strategy being used by Occulus.
This is an excellent (albeit with yet another car) analogy.
lolno, the price is still ridiculous. My 970 is the requirement for VR and I'd rather use the $600 to buy a 980Ti or a Titan than buy OR which may or may not be an experience I like.
I understand where you are coming from, and I would definitely choose a 980 Ti over the Rift if I had to choose. However, I already have a 980 Ti, so I went ahead and ordered the Rift.
Log in to comment