HTC Vive priced at $799

[thexzenon]

According to UploadVR.com the HTC Vive is priced at $799 and will ship in early April. It will feature a slightly improved and refined design and will allow you to answer your phone. Preorders starting February 29th.

 

 

UploadVR:

Quote

The HTC Vive will cost $200 more than its chief competition, the Oculus Rift. The $799 headset, powered by Valve’s SteamVR, will ship with a controller for each hand and a pair of “Lighthouse” laser base stations to track movement in a room-scale environment.

Quote

The price was revealed at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, where UploadVR confirmed Vive will ship with an internal microphone and integrated Bluetooth support to communicate with a variety of smartphones. For a limited time, the system will come bundled with two popular titles: Job Simulator and Fantastic Contraption

The Verge:

Quote

HTC has detailed the full kit that will come with the Vive and also added the news of smartphone functionality for the VR headset. The Vive will include integrated phone functions that allow the user to answer calls, check text messages, and view calendar reminders without removing the headset or stopping play. iOS and Android will be the two supported mobile operating systems.

Quote

In the Vive Consumer Edition box will be the head-mounted display itself, the two wireless controllers, a pair of Vive base stations, a Vive Link Box, and a pair of Vive ear buds. The headset tethers to a PC via a cable at the back, and offers a headphone jack that allows you to plug in either the provided buds or your own earphones. HTC says it's made a number of refinements from the Vive Pre, including an improved head-strap, more polished finish, superior ergonomics, and the addition of a built-in microphone.

 

Preorders will be available starting Febrary 29th in the following countries:

Quote

United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, Ireland, Sweden, Taiwan, China, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand.

 

Sources: 

http://uploadvr.com/htc-vive-is-799/ 

http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/21/11081462/htc-vive-consumer-edition-price-release-date-mwc-2016

 

It also lets you answer calls while in VR, though I'm not sure this is a very requested or important feature.

I honestly thought it would be more expensive, but this remains an early adopter product. One thing to note is that while the Oculus is $200 cheaper, it doesn't come with the touch controllers so I guess in the end the two products will be somewhat priced the same. Thoughts on the pricing?

 

Edit: Added bits from The Verge article (+ link).

Edited February 21, 2016 by crisro996

[MarcoR]

Somewhat better value than Oculus given the hand controls but it's all a crapshoot right now to see who is actually better. 

 

Pricing will be high no matter what. This is enthusiast grade hardware requiring enthusiast grade desktops. It's not for us "poor people" on any level. I need 1 grand in GPUs just to run VR properly to start off with 

[Misanthrope]

I'm calling it now: the VR movement will be priced out of relevance at this rate.

[SansVarnic]

Nobody said the VR is cost effective. . . .

[thexzenon]

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I'm calling it now: the VR movement will be priced out of relevance at this rate.

It's the first product of this kind, of course it will be expensive. The PC required for such a gadget will also be more expensive than a normal computer. The prices will drop in time.

[Davehaslanded]

I'm intrigued to see how much it was cost in UK after Tax. The Oculus costs £530 after tax and postage (A straight conversion is only about £400). I feel Sorry for the Australians though. I think I'll keep my Rift preorder for now and wait for the Vive to come down. There doesnt appear to be alot of titles exclusive to Vive that really use the body tracking yet anyway. If reviews are good, I'll have both eventually anyway.

[stconquest]

Well, it is up to the Adult Entertainment industry now. 

[Misanthrope]

5 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Nobody said the VR is cost effective. . . .

You're technically correct, but I have to disagree in the spirit of the press this VR movement has been getting. If it was a pet project from a few tech companies then nobody would expect the prices to be lower or the devices to gain mass adoption at all.

 

However we have companies like Facebook involved in this race. Sony as well, Samsung's doing it too. To me this is a very clear implication that they expect VR to become the next mainstream product. At 600 to 800 bucks requiring a 1000+ rig to drive em, people are going to either pass or be severely disappointed at the "Oh....it's just another crappy mobile game but right up in my face....meh" experience.

[PlayStation 2]

I mean if there's anything you can push a 7850 through...

[Misanthrope]

4 minutes ago, crisro996 said:

It's the first product of this kind, of course it will be expensive. The PC required for such a gadget will also be more expensive than a normal computer. The prices will drop in time.

First even after the Samsung thingie and Oculus that will be available virtually at the same time?

 

Also not really, you can preach about VR all you want to me it's just nothing but repackaged 3D again. And it was not impressive then, at this prices it's not gonna be impressive still.

[thexzenon]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

First even after the Samsung thingie and Oculus that will be available virtually at the same time?

 

Also not really, you can preach about VR all you want to me it's just nothing but repackaged 3D again. And it was not impressive then, at this prices it's not gonna be impressive still.

I'm personally not very excited about VR, but I admit I haven't tried an Oculus or the Vive yet. I was about to say that 3D was in a similar situation and it failed, but you beat me to it. Still, it's a bit too early to tell what will happen with it. The market for VR is somewhat different than 3D, which was backed by TV manufacturers (and nVidia also had those weird glasses). 

 

I think that something like an equivalent of the internet cafe for VRs might be something that will begin to gain popularity. Imagine having 5-10 Vives/Oculi(? Oculuses? whatever) and letting people play some games or drawing or whatever. I saw something similar with a flight simulator a few weeks back, looked interesting.

[givingtnt]

I still don't understand why people are going crazy expecting it to be at a lower price.
 

owell.

[SansVarnic]

12 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

You're technically correct, but I have to disagree in the spirit of the press this VR movement has been getting. If it was a pet project from a few tech companies then nobody would expect the prices to be lower or the devices to gain mass adoption at all.

 

However we have companies like Facebook involved in this race. Sony as well, Samsung's doing it too. To me this is a very clear implication that they expect VR to become the next mainstream product. At 600 to 800 bucks requiring a 1000+ rig to drive em, people are going to either pass or be severely disappointed at the "Oh....it's just another crappy mobile game but right up in my face....meh" experience.

It was meant to be sarcastic but you do make a good point. 

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, givingtnt said:

I still don't understand why people are going crazy expecting it to be at a lower price.
 

owell.

Because Oculus fucking lied about their own price point (A misrepresentation it's still a lie to me)?

 

The vive seems to be an innocent bystander sadly but it's pretty fucking simple to understand

[givingtnt]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

Because Oculus fucking lied about their own price point (A misrepresentation it's still a lie to me)?

 

The vive seems to be an innocent bystander sadly but it's pretty fucking simple to understand

idk. its kinda hard be angryu at someone for something they didn't even knew would be so pricy. not like anyone else is a vr engeneer master that knows everything eh ?

if they think it should be priced lower for the first model. well why don't they go make it them selves ?

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, givingtnt said:

idk. its kinda hard be angryu at someone for something they didn't even knew would be so pricy. not like anyone else is a vr engeneer master that knows everything eh ?

if they think it should be priced lower for the first model. well why don't they go make it them selves ?

Mark Zuckerberg has plenty of fucking money. And he bought them, couldn't they handle him the bill? No because they're banking on the idiocy of the tech enthusiasts to succeed, which is even more evident seeing how they went with crowd funding to begin with.

[Davehaslanded]

My biggest concern for Vive is in its marketing, its putting all its eggs into full body tracking. I can see 3 reasons this could backfire. 

 

1. People are lazy, and as we learnt from Wii and Kinect, dont want to jump and dance around their room when playing

 

2. Most people really don't have the room for moving around a VR world. Here in the UK, homes are a lot smaller as are most parts of Europe and Asia. There's no point having full body tracking if you only have a few feet to move about in. 

 

3. Most VR games shown off so far have been cross platform between Rift and Vive. AAA title are probably going to support PSVR too. As we've seen with consoles and the Kinect/move previously, devs develop for the lowest common denominator. That's VR with head tracking. Neither the Rift or the Vive currently has body tracking in their first consumer kits. 

Whi is going to release a game that's is cutting off 2/3s of the Market?  

 

It's a great idea, but until it's universally supported on all VR platforms, I can't see it taking off. 

[thexzenon]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

Mark Zuckerberg has plenty of fucking money. And he bought them, couldn't they handle him the bill? No because they're banking on the idiocy of the tech enthusiasts to succeed, which is even more evident seeing how they went with crowd funding to begin with.

Wooow, that's definitely not how things work. Apple has a crap ton of money as well, you don't see them making the Mac Pro $300 just because the iPhone brings them $50 trillion per quarter.

[givingtnt]

Just now, crisro996 said:

Wooow, that's definitely not how things work. Apple has a crap ton of money as well, you don't see them making the Mac Pro $300 just because the iPhone brings them $50 trillion per quarter.

well. technically he does have a decent point.

keep in mind the first ps3 was way underpriced. and cost sony a heck of a lot of money in the first place. they were loosing money with every sale.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, crisro996 said:

Wooow, that's definitely not how things work. Apple has a crap ton of money as well, you don't see them making the Mac Pro $300 just because the iPhone brings them $50 trillion per quarter.

You do see them making a deal with AT&T to heavily subsidize the first generations of iphones. And since this is technically a gaming centric device, you actually do see Microsoft and Sony heavily subsidizing their products to place the platform everywhere and eventually make it back (and more) with the games and added services and such.

[Davehaslanded]

1 minute ago, givingtnt said:

well. technically he does have a decent point.

keep in mind the first ps3 was way underpriced. and cost sony a heck of a lot of money in the first place. they were loosing money with every sale.

That policy wasn't successful from a business point of view. It's business decisions like that which are partly why Sony is in so much financial trouble. It took them years to break even. 

 

Its ts also why the PS4 was designed to be sold at a profit. 

[Misanthrope]

4 minutes ago, Davehaslanded said:

That policy wasn't successful from a business point of view. It's business decisions like that which are partly why Sony is in so much financial trouble. It took them years to break even. 

 

Its ts also why the PS4 was designed to be sold at a profit. 

So you're saying that's the only reason why the PS3 failed? Because I would say the spend a lot of money on stupid tech that was difficult and impractical for the developers. 

 

But regardless it was said that it's not how you do business, but I just showed you that it kinda is if you are a new comer or have a new product nobody is familiar with. If Sony couldn't do it (assuming you're right which I don't think so) what fucking chance does HTC has at this price point considering they're both new, the product is new and also expensive and impractical?

[captain cactus]

Not paying $799 for something that sits in my drawer 350 days per year. Couple that with the fact this needs to be powered by a machine that's gonna cost at least $1500-$1700 (not counting your neat monitor you also need for normal operations) and you'll be looking at over $2500 which includes all the shipping costs attached. No thanks. This is now a device purely for those who want all the latest tech or for the wealthy folks, but not for average Joe with a $500-$800 gaming PC, and it's the average Joes that need to buy this if you want widespread adoption.

 

Oh yeah, forgot to mention it'll be technologically outdated within a year, so there goes your $800 down the drain.

[givingtnt]

9 minutes ago, Davehaslanded said:

That policy wasn't successful from a business point of view. It's business decisions like that which are partly why Sony is in so much financial trouble. It took them years to break even. 

 

Its ts also why the PS4 was designed to be sold at a profit. 

it was sucessfull in the long run.

they made a ton of money off games and advertisement

[Davehaslanded]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

So you're saying that's the only reason why the PS3 failed? Because I would say the spend a lot of money on stupid tech that was difficult and impractical for the developers. 

 

But regardless it was said that it's not how you do business, but I just showed you that it kinda is if you are a new comer or have a new product nobody is familiar with. If Sony couldn't do it (assuming you're right which I don't think so) what fucking chance does HTC has at this price point considering they're both new, the product is new and also expensive and impractical?

I never said anything about the failure or success of the console. My point is business decision aren't as simple as "sell at a loss, make it back later". These companies are new as you said. But millions has been invested in them, and share holders are going to want to see a return. Not in a few years, but soon. 

 

Thats not how the world really works. I run my own business as photographer. I've reduced prices in the past to encourage a customer that was on the fence, but I've never worked at a loss. I still have a bottom line I need to keep in the black on a yearly basis. 

If I borrow several hundred or thousand pounds from the bank to buy new equipment and then work at a loss, I can't say to them "sorry but I'm building up my profile at the moment and haven't actually made any money, but if you wait, it might pay off in a year or two."

 

Not it how the world works. The world works on profits and revenues.