reportedly, ValvE's & HTC's Vive will hover around 1500$ price point

[LAwLz]

and yet cv1 is completely different from dk2. Besides the dk2 was not intented to provide a profit - those who bought it most likely paid little more than what it cost to manufacture. I can see 2 1200p 90hz screens + refined casing + internal processing + sensors being more expensive than a 750p 60hz touch screen (of roughly the same size), a small aluminium chassis and an soc. Not to mention the need for completely new software, which is what John Carmack came for.

DK2 was not a single 750p, 60Hz screen.

It was a 2560x1440 screen at 75Hz. Cost of manufacturing screens goes up exponentially with the size of the panel, so making two small screens is cheaper than making a single big one.

 

Nice move of the goalpost. You said CV1 more expensive to make than an iPhone (in terms of BOM), but now you are saying it is more expensive to make than the DK2. Of course it is more expensive to make than the DK2. Nobody is arguing against that. What I am saying is that I don't believe it contains "certainly more money worth of hardware than an iPhone". The BOM is probably very closer to, or cheaper than an iPhone's.

 

 

 

If this $1500 price estimate for the Vive is correct, that gives indication that Oculus is selling the rift at a loss.

There is absolutely no way they are selling it at a loss. I can buy the argument that they are trying to recoup the money they spent on R&D by selling it at a high price, but there is no way it costs them above 600 dollars to manufacture a Rift. If they do then they are idiots who are overpaying for the components they selected.

For comparison, you can get a Playstation 4 AND an Xbox One for roughly the same price as an Oculus Rift. It has been confirmed that Sony and Microsoft are making money on console sales this generation.

Are you seriously saying that the Oculus Rift, without factoring in R&D money, costs more to manufacture than a PlayStation 4 and an Xbox One combined? Come on...

[thexzenon]

This is hilarious, whether it's true or not. This is new tech, of course it will be expensive as fuck. The next generation will still cost a lot, it's not just this first model. I personally find VR useless, but then again I've never tried on an Oculus (or a Vive for that matter). AR on the other hand looks way more interesting. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what they try to sell it for and how well it goes  :lol:

[rattacko123]

I was expecting it to be $1000 considering the oculus is $600. $1500 is a bit too much unless it's really that much better than the oculus.

Well at least its not $5000 like those oled monitors

[Sauron]

DK2 was not a single 750p, 60Hz screen.

It was a 2560x1440 screen at 75Hz. Cost of manufacturing screens goes up exponentially with the size of the panel, so making two small screens is cheaper than making a single big one.

 

Nice move of the goalpost. You said CV1 more expensive to make than an iPhone (in terms of BOM), but now you are saying it is more expensive to make than the DK2. Of course it is more expensive to make than the DK2. Nobody is arguing against that. What I am saying is that I don't believe it contains "certainly more money worth of hardware than an iPhone". The BOM is probably very closer to, or cheaper than an iPhone's.

 

I actually said it's more expensive than both :huh:

[NeatSquidYT]

1st gen excuse is absolutely bullcrap

and the comparison to 3D printers .. wow; 3D printers have a wider use than a PC peripheral

when you build something, market it at a general audience and claim mass adoption, then you bloody well price it accordingly

No, it's not bullcrap at all. The technology hasn't developed properly yet to make it cost efficient to produce AND less people are likely to buy it due to it being a first gen product. 

[Betabot]

he, Palmer, already stated that the Rift is sold at a loss

to make money, they need ads inside the software platform - this is where FaceBook will hit the Rift owner really hard

 

Pretty sure he stated many times that it's sold at cost. Whether you count R&D into that is another thing, but hardware only it's sold at cost.

 

Also ADs may come, but at first very doubtful. They will make their money from first-party paid software (they already said they have heaps planned), and third-party paid software (through their store). Also it's not like they didn't sell out of the pre-order which they said they wouldn't at a point. So they won't be stressed for money.

 

OT:

I think a lot of people aren't getting that it's a 1st Gen product. It's going to cost quite a bit. The $1500 seems to be off the mark, so doubt it will be that much.

 

If you want a technology to actually last you have to release a great product first and build upon that. If it's a bad product, then you will lose interest.

[Nowak]

Released 1995 for $180.

 

 

Two decades down.  What now?

The problem with that is that only a couple of games for the already tiny library for the Virtual Boy took advantage of virtual reality. The rest would have worked just as well on a 2D-only system.

[TopDollar]

There is absolutely no way they are selling it at a loss. I can buy the argument that they are trying to recoup the money they spent on R&D by selling it at a high price, but there is no way it costs them above 600 dollars to manufacture a Rift. If they do then they are idiots who are overpaying for the components they selected.

For comparison, you can get a Playstation 4 AND an Xbox One for roughly the same price as an Oculus Rift. It has been confirmed that Sony and Microsoft are making money on console sales this generation.

Are you seriously saying that the Oculus Rift, without factoring in R&D money, costs more to manufacture than a PlayStation 4 and an Xbox One combined? Come on...

Well you do have to take R&D cost into it since both the Playstation 4 and Xbox One are generational iterations with lots of rollover design compared to a brand new product. A lot higher R&D cost.

 

Just for fun and maybe a little perspective, lets take a look at some numbers and come up with a rough cost estimate for the R&D of a small project. We'll assume there are 10 people working on the project full time for 2 weeks, 40 hours per week with no overtime. Average income for each employee per hour is $30/hr.

 

10 people X 40 hours per week X 2 weeks X $30 per person per hour = $24,000

 

These are small numbers and make some broad assumptions, but the logic is still applicable when scaled up into what is known as an order of magnitude cost estimate.

[WiiManic]

DK2 was not a single 750p, 60Hz screen.

It was a 2560x1440 screen at 75Hz. Cost of manufacturing screens goes up exponentially with the size of the panel, so making two small screens is cheaper than making a single big one.

Both of them are wrong, DK2 was simply a 1920 x 1080 display at 75Hz. The exact display from the Note 3 infact, just some tinkering to push it to run faster.

 

The one thing I would argue about here is that you are comparing CV1 against iPhones, aginst Xbones, PS4s etcetc. These are all items that will sell 10x, 50x more than the Rift will.

They can of course be cheaper, just because how many are being made.

Take that and add on the fact we are talking about the first iterations vs versions 6/3/4. 

 

Oculus have not only to find somewhere to produce all this technology, but also just find the places capable of doing it with the properties that VR needs.

Its not a screen that Samsung make any more taken and poked a bit.

Its a screen with very specific properties, made for VR alone. Things that before have been of small importance are now very important.

This is going to follow through with a lot of the components of the Rift. There just wont be an alternate version, or if there is, is it focusing on the elements that VR requires?

Iphones, Xboxes, PS4s? They are for the most part using already made up supply lines pumping out the components or similar.

 

I don't think its too far out the box to assume that a company like Facebook is going to have the money to subsidise the cost of the Rift somewhat. 

Tech is just expensive when it comes out and there is a small market so they can't mass produce it, and less being made means the cost per unit is going to be higher. 

[Syfes]

If this $1500 price estimate for the Vive is correct, that gives indication that Oculus is selling the rift at a loss.

 

Probably true, in fact in a recent interview at CES with Palmer Luckey, he indicated that they're selling the rift at not much more than BOM cost.

[LAwLz]

Well you do have to take R&D cost into it since both the Playstation 4 and Xbox One are generational iterations with lots of rollover design compared to a brand new product. A lot higher R&D cost.

Nope, when you say you are selling something at a loss then you don't take R&D into the consideration. If you end up having more money in the bank after having something manufactured and sold, then you are not selling at a loss. In order for something to sell at a loss, you have to LOSE money the more units you sell. It is as simple as that.

 

 

Probably true, in fact in a recent interview at CES with Palmer Luckey, he indicated that they're selling the rift at not much more than BOM cost.

He also indicated that the CV1 would cost about 300-400 dollars in interviews.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

I really don't see how anyone can trust what Palmer has to say anymore. The guy is a clown.

 

 

 

Both of them are wrong, DK2 was simply a 1920 x 1080 display at 75Hz. The exact display from the Note 3 infact, just some tinkering to push it to run faster.

Oops, forgot that the Note 3 had a 1920x1080 display. I thought it was 2560x1440.

 

Take that and add on the fact we are talking about the first iterations vs versions 6/3/4. 

The Oculus Rift is currently at its fourth iteration. We had DK1, DK2, Crystal Cove and finally CV1.

 

Oculus have not only to find somewhere to produce all this technology, but also just find the places capable of doing it with the properties that VR needs.

Its not a screen that Samsung make any more taken and poked a bit.

Its a screen with very specific properties, made for VR alone. Things that before have been of small importance are now very important.

This is going to follow through with a lot of the components of the Rift. There just wont be an alternate version, or if there is, is it focusing on the elements that VR requires?

Iphones, Xboxes, PS4s? They are for the most part using already made up supply lines pumping out the components or similar.

 

I don't think its too far out the box to assume that a company like Facebook is going to have the money to subsidise the cost of the Rift somewhat. 

Tech is just expensive when it comes out and there is a small market so they can't mass produce it, and less being made means the cost per unit is going to be higher. 

The Oculus Rift does not have any parts that are unlike anything we have ever seen. I listed the most significant parts earlier and most of them are very, very similar to parts you will find in a regular smartphone. I would argue that the custom CPU architecture Apple makes is far more complex than anything found in the Oculus Rift.

 

If the Oculus Rift has to be subsidized (as in, the Rift costs 600 dollars to manufacture) to hit 600 dollars then there is something horribly wrong with their supply chains and/or part selection. Like they accidentally made the screws out of diamond instead of steel.

I don't get why people are so stubborn to stay ignorant of how much it costs. Prices of very similar parts of what is needed to build something like the CV1 is publicly available. I would not be surprised if a teardown reveals that the BOM of the CV1 is like 300 dollars. Not even the slightest.

[WiiManic]

The Oculus Rift is currently at its fourth iteration. We had DK1, DK2, Crystal Cove and finally CV1.

If you count the Dev kits, then sure the Rift is on its 3rd iteration, but the dev kits are so much simpler than the Consumer version.

(I'm not counting Crystal Cove, that was an internal prototype and if we count them, Oculus is on their like 100th iteration, plus it was basically a prototype DK2.)

I know this is a bad representation, but look at the difference in complexity between DK2 and CV1.

Its kinda a different process of making CV1 over DK2 yeah?

 

Sure the Rift has similar components that a smart phone has in them, but its not the same components.

The screen that goes into an iPhone goes into other phones, its a similar display to a bunch of phones, its not a display made for 1 device.

Plus all the components that aren't really going into any other devices. the Lens system and all the associated precise mechanics behind that, all the electronics behind a dedicated low latency camera system? It doesn't seem too far fetched to me that this is going to all end up costing a lot. Especially for a company at its first full scale consumer release. 

[TheKDub]

You're kidding right?
Fuck that... As much as I want VR, I'm not willing to pay more than I've paid for my entire setup for a single damn headset... (Maybe if I won the lottery, but other than that....)

 

I'd be willing to part with maybe $300-400 for a higher quality VR headset, but not really more than that...

[vanished]

It will, like you said, get picked up by medical, military, etc. divisions/corporations which will fund development and in maybe 10 years' time, we'll all be using them (and much better ones mind you) for like $200

[RagnarokDel]

might as well be a lambo

 

 

source: http://www.androidauthority.com/htc-vice-price-667174/


---

so, there you have it folks .. the VR's short existence
only thing left is for SONY to come up with a price tag that doesn't scream 1000+$

at these price points, coupled with the fact that you need quite the beastly PC to run it, VR's mass adoption won't happen anytime soon
it will see niche use in some non-gameristic fields, medical, military .. but as a gaming aimed peripheral, it's rather D.O.A.

 

I read somewhere that the PlaystationVR was going to be 900$ USD that's over 1200$ CAD.

[vanished]

I read somewhere that the PlaystationVR was going to be 900$ USD that's over 1200$ CAD.

Which makes you wonder... I mean, odds are most people with a PS4 have one because they thought they couldn't afford a PC.  So, now they're going to end up having paid, what, like $1100 or $1200 for the base console plus the extra VR thing?  I doubt very much that's going to catch on - consider that an "equivalent price" for PC VR would be like $4000 (cost of VR unit div by cost of machine)

[zMeul]

No, it's not bullcrap at all. The technology hasn't developed properly yet to make it cost efficient to produce AND less people are likely to buy it due to it being a first gen product. 

not developed?! then don't sell it as a consumer product; use it as a dev unit and make the bloody software library for it

[zMeul]

I think a lot of people aren't getting that it's a 1st Gen product. It's going to cost quite a bit. The $1500 seems to be off the mark, so doubt it will be that much.

do you recall the 1st PlayStation? how much did it cost? 300$

what if SONY would've sold it at 600$? there wouldn't be a PS2, PS3, PS4

 

the 1st XBox? 299$

 

what Palmer and FaceBook doesn't get, is that they sell home entertainment at a business price point

[vanished]

do you recall the 1st PlayStation? how much did it cost? 300$

what if SONY would've sold it at 600$? there wouldn't be a PS2, PS3, PS4

 

what Palmer and FaceBook doesn't get, is that they sell home entertainment at a business price point

 

This whole thing is just weird... it's like the overwhelming desire for VR has made companies lose their minds.  Take the consoles for example - they didn't put bleeding edge hardware in them trying to achieve a graphics level they had imagined and then sold them for $4000 - they decided on a price point, bought what they could for that, and sold it.  If you simply can't create the product you want to for the price, accept that it can't be done and wait.  Don't waste money bringing out something no one will buy.

[Betabot]

do you recall the 1st PlayStation? how much did it cost? 300$

what if SONY would've sold it at 600$? there wouldn't be a PS2, PS3, PS4

 

the 1st XBox? 299$

 

what Palmer and FaceBook doesn't get, is that they sell home entertainment at a business price point

 

Umm consoles have been around for a lot longer than the PS1, this is a new type of device completely, at least in a full public sense of VR. So doesn't compare on that front.

 

Once again back to this is pretty much the 1st Gen of the product. You can't really count the Dev models as the first Gen as they weren't build for the public. Like the comparison someone made to the iPhone and how many generations it has gotten, and the price from that. Apple only releases devices that are fully ready for the public, so therefore they have like 13 Gens (Including S models) and Oculus has 1.

 

This whole thing is just weird... it's like the overwhelming desire for VR has made companies lose their minds.  Take the consoles for example - they didn't put bleeding edge hardware in them trying to achieve a graphics level they had imagined and then sold them for $4000 - they decided on a price point, bought what they could for that, and sold it.  If you simply can't create the product you want to for the price, accept that it can't be done and wait.  Don't waste money bringing out something no one will buy.

 

Even this can't compare. To get a good experience in VR you need a certain minimum (Pixels, FPS), whereas consoles you can get away with programming them depending on their restrictions.

 

Also waiting to create a product for a price? We wouldn't have half what's in the world today... Most people want to develop and build something for cheaper then they can, and if they waited, then new tech would come out and they would have to play catch up, or release a product that is old tech.

 

Pretty sure Oculus didn't waste money bringing out the CV1... and heaps of people said it was to expensive. How about waiting till we actually know the real price.

[vanished]

Even this can't compare. To get a good experience in VR you need a certain minimum (Pixels, FPS), whereas consoles you can get away with programming them depending on their restrictions.

true.  it's just the best I could think of on short notice

[zMeul]

Umm consoles have been around for a lot longer than the PS1, this is a new type of device completely

VR isn't!?

do you recall a thing called Virtual Game Boy!?

 

 

the very 1st home console - ATARI 2600 - 200$

we wouldn't even be talking right now of gaming if that ATARI would've been priced higher

how much did it sold? 30 milion units

 

 

and you need to keep in mind they're actually selling a peripheral and not a self contained unit

[Betabot]

VR isn't!?

do you recall a thing called Virtual Game Boy!?

 

 

the very 1st home console - ATARI 2600 - 200$

we wouldn't even be talking right now of gaming if that ATARI would've been priced higher

how much did it sold? 30 milion units

 

 

and you need to keep in mind they're actually selling a peripheral and not a self contained unit

 

Inflation is a thing, $200 in 1977 is roughly $1100 now, so my point stands on the account of the ATARI device. Also times have changed, and certain devices/companies charge more then others.

 

About the Virtual boy, even since then till lately VR has been in a huge development phase and not many public releases, consoles have been coming out constantly and are always been developed (even tho I wish they would die ). Also $180 in 1995 is roughly $300 now a days.

[Belgarathian]

I paid $2000 for a monitor, I really wouldn't have trouble justifying $1500 for a Vive, or $599 for a Rift. 

 

Bleeding edge tech is never affordable, it's only ever affordable 2 years later when manufacturing technology becomes more affordable (OLED for example), and the technology used in the device becomes more widely adopted in other fields. An example of this is DJI, whose consumer drones are spin offs of the military drones (with major modification, of course).

 

Who remembers paying $10,000 for a 40" Plasma TV that was 720p?

[NinerL]

Lol, It was interesting seeing people flip out when they saw the price of the oculus. Most likely in the next few years the price of the technology will drop to what people were expecting it to be around, I still don't get what's so intriguing about VR I've tried it. 4K gaming is enough for me