Oculus Rift is Too Expensive

The Oculus Rift is too Expensive for the average consumer which will be make it much harder for virtual reality to become a mainstream form entertainment. Those aspects and general comments on the package itself explored within the article.

[uth11]

If you want a quality device, it costs money. It's not more than what some people would pay for a TV or monitor. Which is what this is.

If you want cheap VR, there's always the Gear VR and Google Cardboard. Just don't expect the same quality.

[Rimeskeem]

I understand quality but this costs more than a solid desktop computer.

[Kamikaze135]

This isn't a quality desktop computer. It's the first meaningful step towards virtual reality.

[Lennoxb63]

A $600 desktop is not best for gaming. You might be able to play a game like Ori.

[Vegamyster]

@Lennoxb63

The average store bought PC? Yeah, but if you build it yourself you can easily make a PC that can match/succeed console performance at $600.

[Kenshin_BATT0USAI]

No it doesn't. Lol a solid rig would cost you around $1000, which would have to spend anyway to even use an Oculus.

[jmac53]

I built my desktop with a 970 and it came in around $800 with black friday deals on parts. That's the minimum you will pay for a baseline Oculus computer.

[solar]

it's technology. what do you expect? this isnt the console world.

[UltraNova]

@solar

Yeah because consoles are built with stone and mortar...

OT: For a quality piece of new tech its not that expensive nor cheap. But for someone who has to spend almost $2000 to be VR ready (at the bear minimum specs-GTX970) is quite the investment for a yet to be proven tech.

[solar]

You pay for everything. I think Ferraris are too expensive. We are nobodies. We have to pay what THEY put their prices at. THEY paid for the R&D and now bitching about the price of cutting edge technology. Stop it already you entilist jerks.

[darthv72]

I can remember when the 3do was $699, the Neo Geo was $699 and the PS3 was $599. All quality pieces of hardware (maybe not so much for the 3do) and as time went on all of them came down in price.

OR is the first step towards retail consumer VR so it's going to be $$ but that doesn't mean it will remain that way. Improvements to it will cause the existing models to lower in price just like pretty much all retail goods.

The $599 price is certainly not for everyone but those who can afford it will likely get one and be the envy of all their friends.

[S2Killinit]

I was looking at some monitors for my PC and they are upwards of 400, so this is not surprising. Its not a cheap device, no one ever said it was. In time it will come down in price.

[JackBNimble]

@Rimeskeen

Maybe a cheap ass desktop

[andyo13]

Lots of you on here acting like y'all understand business and economics. Well sit down bitches because you're gunna get a lesson from a multi business owner.

1. $2 billion dollars invested. Assuming the cost of making the device, marketing/manufacture/labour/t ax/legal is about $600 per device(since they said they're not making a profit). That leaves them with $2 billion in debt after even 100 million are sold and you (the consumer) need to pay for that in some way. If they charged less then they'd be adding to their debt and giving their hard work away losing money each sale, no business can succeed with that.

2. If oculus was cheaper, the games would be more expensive. They need to pay for that $2 billion investment somehow. If they charge $10 extra per game they'd need to sell 200,000,000 games just to break even.

3. Consumers are dumb motherfuckers that always complain everything is too expensive and yet are willing to drop all their money on expensive iPhones that cost a fraction of the price to make.

To sum up. These companies fool you into thinking you're getting good value. In the case of oculus rift, they are giving us the best deal ever and because they didn't pull any tricks on us by selling it cheap and giving us super expensive games (I'm guessing the games will be fairly priced) they are doing us all a huge honour.

Also the person comparing the price of building your own desktop to an oculus. That comparison is only fair if you built your own oculus.

[Get_A_Job_Foxtrot]

For a VR headset it is cheap. But so what? It's still a LOT More Money than most people would want to spend on a peripheral. I'm not buying it. And the fact it's optional, means that most won't own it and there is less incentive for 3rx party devs to support it. If Sony focuses just as strongly on pc gaming, then maybe enough 3rd party devs will get behind it. But to get behind an optional peripheral that costs even more than it's host console, is not really going to happen. I wish Sony all the luck in the world, but I'm not getting screwed again (I bought the PS Eyetoy, Ps3 eye, 2 motion controllers, PS Vita, and Vita TV--ALL of which were flops).

[Daveccarsley]

What are you even rambling about? What does Sony even have to do with this???

[Aenea]

This is not about the Sony VR headset, this is about the Oculus Rift for PCs...

[wannabe gamer]

its first generation of a consumer model. they dont want YOU to buy it. casuals are expected to wait for next iterations at a lower price. besides it sounds like you are confused and think this is a sony device lol

[Bahamut]

Smh dude... Oculus Rift. Read the article before posting.

[drk_omeg]

Yes uth11, we all knew that it was going to be higher price than gear vr, but we are talking here that is more expensive than what we were expecting, because it complements with a high end computer, its not a system by itself.

[neoandrew]

So if ps vr will not be 599 usd then it is not a quality device?

[uth11]

Oculus has a higher resolution screen, which cost more money, and the rift appears to contain more and higher quality materials in its build which adds cost. In contrast, PS VR looks mostly plastic and light weight

Sony had significantly more manufacturing capabilities, and they can supply their own screens, not pay a 3rd party for them, so they can save money that way.

That said, I think PS VR will cost more than people expect.

[iNFAMOUZ1]

why the disagrees with uth11 he's speaking the facts lol
only on n4sonyg

[OhMyGandhi]

I completely disagree. It's not so much about the money that irks people, it's that Oculus is supposed to be the de facto VR device, and most fear, as they should, that putting this high price tag on a new peripheral without knowing exactly how it will be supported in the future through software, regardless of the inherent quality of said device, is a gamble that most people won't take.

It's great that you may be getting it, many others, myself included are intrigued by its premise, but Oculus truly depends on early adoption sales to showcase to investors interest in this type of product, and I fear that may not happen.

I'd love to be proven wrong, and have people by the droves ordering them, but this price point is simply too high.
Also, take into consideration the type of people who see this price and also see the specs required to run it efficiently, and you have a device that may as well cost 2000 bucks, rather then 600.

[uth11]

Rift may have the most hype, but I'm not sure its the best platform to get behind. How much experience does Facebook or oculus have in games marketing or hardware? Not much

Compare that to the competition. Vive- HTC has the hardware, Valve has the games/software. And obviously Sony has both. I think if anyone dominates VR, it will be them, not oculus

[OhMyGandhi]

you have proven my point beautifully, and that is yet another reason why I am worried. Neither company (Facebook and whatever Lucky Palmer is) has experience in either industry, and yes, while Valve has the likes of Steam and the knowledge of software/hardware integration, It's really up to the developers to make their games "VR compatible" in the first place. I wish it was as easy as just assigning the "camera" from the right analogue stick to become assigned to the head mounted unit, but it looks to be more complicated than that.

[HumanatPlay]

I see the truth in what you are saying.

[IanTH]

Agreed on all accounts, and yet I'm still of two minds. I find it funny that people keep saying "too expensive for the average consumer". This isn't even relatively CLOSE to being aimed at the average consumer. Hell, I believe nVidia said only about 1% of PCs meet or exceed the minimum specifications. Talk about "not your average consumer" eh?

But to be fair $600 is a lot. I love tech. I love games. I am lucky enough to fall into the 1% of PCs that can run VR. I should be their ideal demographic and yet even I struggle with that price. I'm not saying my single experience speaks for everyone, but when you are talking about 1% the relatively few start to add up to a meaningful amount of your core audience.

I certainly hope software can keep developing to the point where price comes down enough for more people to be able to justify it.

[tee_bag242]

I'd agree with you. I also fall into that 1% (THB I think it's more than that), but paying $600 for something I won't always be using is a tad too rich.

I can justify paying this amount for a monitor because I'm likely to use it all the time.

If it were $450 I'd be in without a second thought.

I wait until the competitors come to market and start competing with each other in price.

[Riskyrodney]

Oculus Rift is a toy for rich people.

[super_bruno]

Yes it is. We are a few years away until we see this technology reach mass market pricing, until then this will be a niche product.

[Apollosupreme]

If you're a company wanting to stay afloat then you need a fanbase. Those they're trying to sell to won't adopt at this price level. A TV is a lot bigger and can be shared with others. A TV is the centrepiece of a modern living room. A VR headset is going to be something excluding that you do off by yourself. The value will not be perceived the same.

If Sony and HTC can enter the market at $400 then it's game over.

[fiveby9]

1080P HD sets were much more expensive when first released. I paid over $4000 way back for a 50" Sony. Prices drop over time especially in the electronics business. I think it will be the software which determines market share as well. As my focus is gaming for VR I suspect I will look into a PSVR first. But I won't rule out the Oculus based on price alone if the software is very good.

[uth11]

It's a new category. People are more likely to spend a premium (if they want one)

Look when consoles started. Adjusted for Inflation, the Atari 2600 cost $780 in todays dollars. $977 for an Intellivision, yet they were both popular.

Or computers. the basic model of the Apple II when released would cost $5000 today, The original base model PC would be $4000, the original Mac would be $5700 today.

I could go on and on, but the point is history shows people will pay lots of money for cool new gadgets, and if you couldn't afford them the first year, then maybe you could second or third. $599 for a new category of device seems kinda cheap by comparison.

[fiveby9]

Have to agree that good quality costs money. You don't have the money or think it is too expensive then don't buy it. Everyone always thinks everything should be $299 (US). Perhaps price will drop someday when a new model releases but for that price it is expected that early adopters pay more.

[XanderZane]

It's too expensive for me, but it won't be for the hardcore fans and the rich. For me it's just not a necessity for enjoying the games I already play. Plus I get motion sickness with some games using VR.

[Dan_scruggs]

This is why Sony cant sell TV's. Cheaper alternatives always win.

[TheShorterBus]

I agree with your opinion. I will say that for the consumers who have yet to experience VR, $599 is a ruff starting point. Many I think would change there tune after trying it. But at current price it's easy for them to lose interest, and put up a resistance without even having an experience with it first. Hopefully they will have places all over the world where people can try it.

[zugdar]

I don't disagree with the balance of cost vs quality. The difference is that you can get a speaker for $15 or $1500 and they will work with almost anything and is not entirely reliant on other elements.

The difference is gaming hardware (Oculus' core audience ATM) needs software to make it relevant and you can't get devs to meaningfully support it with a lacking customer base to back it up. I can have a cheaper rig and play a game or have a monster gaming PC and play the same game with all the features to max. The OR has the bar so high to start you can't have much flexibility on accessibility and install base. Its an interesting move for a tech that demands high saturation for it to become long term relevant especially with two other competitors coming out so soon.

[andyo13]

3 people disagreed with my last comment. I'm sorry but that's economics. The process oculus went through to get to this product has cost them a lot of money and the consumer will pay for it in one way or another.

Sony might be cheaper with VR but either way you'll be paying for it through some sort of means. Whether thats a percentage of the game, an extra charge on playstation plus. At the end of the day it doesn't matter how they dress it up. It still costs so much to make it and you're paying for it.

Just like playstation plus free games. They're not free, you pay for playstation plus. They were just smart and dressed it in a way of making you pay for something you thought you're getting for free.

[SeanScythe]

It's over priced just like the newest smart phones cost $800 and people buy them. They want those that will snatch them up just to brag about having it. A year later when the new wears off the price will drop. The same peopl ethat complain about jobs, and minimum wage are the same ones with the latest nike, iphones and electronic toys charged to their credit cards.

[BlackPanther]

I don't think the same people struggling to make a living are the same people buying $800 phones etc. Not that this is on topic or anything but this post is a vast misunderstanding of the poor.

[Zeref]

You'd be surprised how many people living on minimum wages carry around iPhones and Galaxies. Otherwise they wouldn't be so successful.

[xPhearR3dx]

smart phones are a bad example. Mostly because those devices can be obtained for free or heavily discounted with a contact to the carrier, or even added in small chunks to your monthly bill without the use of a credit card. Those same options aren't available for Rift.

[SeanScythe]

Tell that to ATT when you go to buy a new Iphone6+. When you see people lined up at apple for blocks waiting for the doors to open. Or black kids waiting for the latest new shoes to release. It's all the same I can put this on a Credit card and pay it monthly just like you can with anything. Yes it is the same concept. Expensive toy A is no different than expensive toy B. You are still paying for it.

[2pacalypsenow]

You can buy a galaxy s3 with a boost prepaid account for about $80

[kaizokuspy]

The flaw in the smartphone argument is there are installment plans. I have a note 4, I pay $30/mo for this at the time $800 phone. Pretty affordable if you ask me.

[Rimeskeem]

I just dont understand how it got that expensive.

[neoandrew]

Something needs to pay those 2 bln usd of zuckerburger.

I bet they don't even started to manufacture it, they just check now if it will sell, thats the reason there it 3 months to get one.

They not even sure it will sell.

[miyamoto]

Remember Microsoft has some big stakes invested on ORift.
They need to get back the huge money lost on XB1's disastrous launch.
But it's gonna be just like XB1 vs PS4 all over again.

[BlackPanther]

High quality products cost money. I don't get how people expect to get great experience for cheap.

[xPhearR3dx]

Just because it cost more doesn't mean it's higher quality. They need to prove it's worth $600. There was a reason for all those PS3 is doomed articles because it was also $600 and nothing it had to offer justified that high price tag. Obviously that changed down the road, and the price was cut and better software came out. $400 would have been the sweet spot that I think a lot of people would actually consider buying.

[2pacalypsenow]

" it was also $600 and nothing it had to offer justified that high price tag."
A Blu ray player in 2006 cost $999

[xPhearR3dx]

@2pacalypsenow

So? Doesn't matter what it is, if the content doesn't justify the high price tag, then who cares? Kinect was 1/4 the price of the Rift and people went ape shit over the price. Why? Because the content didn't justify the price tag. When new tech comes out, a higher price tag doesn't mean its worth it. If I remember correctly when 4K TV's started coming out, some went for $10K. 4K TV's certainly aren't worth 10 grand.

[zeuanimals]

That's the problem with the word "worth", it's subjective. They've said it themselves, they're not aiming to sell it to a lot of people right now. The people who do think it's worth getting at the current price may get it. When it drops in price due to cheaper manufacturing costs, then more people will pick one up.

That's how virtually every product has worked since selling things for money has been a thing. I'll build a time machine and sell it at a high price so you can complain about it, and when it's cheaper, you can use it to go back in time and complain about every other product that's ever existed costing too much.

[OhMyGandhi]

I have absolutely no idea why you are getting so many disagrees. You are exactly on point with everything you've said.

@2pacalypsenow
Your point about blu ray players is completely irrelevant. Blu ray is a format, something that runs completely independently from other systems. A more apt example may be 4K TVs, or 3D tvs, a gimmick that paid dividends for Samsung and LG. They had the fanbase, and the insane draw from 3d movies shown on even bigger screens in multiplexes that showcased the potential of the technology. You also have the likes of Avatar and Pacific Rim to show off the power of 3D. You have none of that right now with Oculus.

Oculus has the oppertunity to do alot of good with their hardware, and as long as they have that "killer app" in their sights, they may do better as a result.
But right now, with a price premium, just like how so many blu ray discs used to cost around 30-40 bucks at the start, I also chose the cheaper 19.99 or 15.99.

[TimelessDbz]

You got a piano black finish ,touch sensitive, 4USB ports ,legit backwards compatibility, card slots and A BLU RAY player for only $600. That ps3 price in 2006 was good.

[Lennoxb63]

This isn't meant for casual gamers obviously. The people who are buying this have rigs that cost 4x-5x the price of the Oculus.

[Rookie_Monster]

Bingo. That is the audience or early adopters that Oculus are aftering, so in essence, it will be a niche product in a niche market.

In 5-6 years, who knows when the technology is cheaper and more advancement is made for VR.

[Seafort]

You think publishers and developers are going to go out of their way to make games for a niche product?

Not a chance.

They wouldn't gain any profits from a few 100k early adopters. Most games have sales of around 10% of the total users. So say 500k OR were sold it would only amount to 50k game sales for each title.

Would that be enough for any publisher to risk their money developing a game for the OR? I think not.

[sourav93]

I've got a GTX 980, A Core i7-2600K OC'd + liquid cooled, 16GB of RAM, a 80+ Gold PSU, and also a blu-ray drive. My specs are in the top 5% of PC gamers, and yet I think the Rift is too expensive.

When we spend £300-£500 on GPUs, we know EXACTLY what we're going to get out of it. We know that the games will run better, on max settings, and also, ALL games will work on it. Same with CPU and RAM. But with the Rift, if I drop £500 on it right now, where's the guarantee that it'll still have support in a year's time?All games don't support VR, so it'll be limited to whatever support it gets from devs. There's no killer app for it yet. Yes, EVE Valkyrie looks good, but it's not going to make you buy a Rift.

A lot of devs on Gaf and Reddit are saying they were looking forward to developing for the Rift, but now are saying there's no point due to price point, as the target audience will be too small.

I think what Oculus should have done is released it at a lower price point, getting it out to mass market, which in turn would encourage devs to make games for it. They could have made money on peripherals such as the Touch controllers.

[Lennoxb63]

You spent about 2k-3k on a PC and you think the Rift is too expensive?! lol

[kraenk12]

@Lennox

I see a 5 year old CPU and a 500 dollar card. How the F do you come up with 2-3 K?!

[sourav93]

I explained WHY I think the Rift is too expensive, if you read it again. It's not a question of affordability; it's a question of value. What am I getting out of the product that I'm spending so much money on? Is it worth the price? That's what I mean.

[Lennoxb63]

I understood what you said. You were questioning the software support for it since it will only be in the hands of a couple hundred thousand users.

I'm saying that if you bought a PC of that ilk, than the Rift should be no problem to purchase. I mean, people have to buy it first in order for devs to jump aboard.

Who knows, first adopters could get special rewards or access to alphas/betas for new VR games. IMO that could push sales for it.

[kaizokuspy]

Star citizen will eventually support occulus rift. From what I've seen of the game on my father's pc rig I was drooling. I'm a console pleb :(

[PixelGateUk]

It costs even more in the UK XD

[Scatpants]

People wipe their asses with ipads these days $600 is fine.

[Get_A_Job_Foxtrot]

Not the same.

Iphone has FREE apps, is useful in business, school, socializing, and is a fadhion statement (as shallow as that is, ppl buy into the fashionable Apple products). Also it is paid off little by little and upgradeable.

PS VR is NONE of those things. If you van afford it, then great. But not many people will see how buying this item early on is in their best interest. Some will wait and see how it sells and how much support it gets. Most won't buy it no matter what.

[Daveccarsley]

Again, WHY IN THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT PLAYSTATION VR??!!

PAY ATTENTION BEFORE POSTING

[wannabe gamer]

lol guy this is about oculus rift not SONY VR. these are two separate things from different companies that have no connection to eachother

[gangsta_red]

I don't know why people are comparing the price of tablets or smartphones with VR.

iPads have a lot more practical and usefulness than VR at this moment plus they are mobile something these headsets are not.

Most people (especially young adults) have a need and use for iPads or any tablet. 600 for an iPad is a good investment that will last them longer than a VR headset will.

[RiseofScorpio]

What an impulsive comment. You do realise you need a 900-1000$ PC to along with this right? So $1600 to get this thing running yet you compare it to an iPad which is the most casual electronic there is.

[SeanScythe]

You do know people will go out and buy the newest apple device no matter the cost just to say they have it right? I still have an old iphone4 because the newer ones cost $400-$800+. My phone still works so I didn't impulse buy like so many of my friends. People will pay whatever for the latest newest device. Look at 4K tvs when they came out at $8000+.

[2cents]

I'm happy to wait it out for a while and see what happens with the software support. Also I really want to know the details on Morpheus.

I wont be able to get both so its all down to the games for me.

[maybelovehate]

There will be cheaper options. Rift will be like the Premium experience but there will definitely be lesser cheaper experiences.

[SweatyFlorida]

I think the price is fair for enthusiast who were the main targets anyway. I just think that everyone is disappointed as they thought VR was going to come out of the gates with the hottest tech and affordable price to take the world by storm. Especially given Rift's DK2 price.

New Tech (or at least, actual working to a nice standard) has usually never done that so to expect VR to do something never before done is a bit funny hindsight. Wait it out, the mass will enjoy VR within the next 3-4 years, and then the next big thing will be portable VR(where this cycle will repeat).

[Gaming4Life1981]

We all know new tech is expensive but come on $600 does not seem justified here. There main target was anyone with a computer to run it and if you goto many forums, People are saying the same thing. The world is a big place so many will buy it. Yet the majority will not at this price point.

I mean remember when bluray first came out it was overpriced, 4k tv"so same, etc. Not really sure why people are defending this but when ps3 came out at 600 and Xbox one at 500 everyone was was like wtf and they have more functionality than this vr device. You can't compare this with cell phones or tablets bease they do more than this vr device but it cost almost the same price. I just think they could have did better on the price that's all.

[SweatyFlorida]

They could have taken a (bigger?) loss, the difference is they won't make money off of anything at that point. PC VR is poised to not make much money off their games (for 1st couple years), similar to how most AAA's make less than half their money from PC, where the only successful games are big multiplayer cheap games or straight f2p games, the former will be absent because the install base will be puny, leaving things to weird, but interesting solo games/demo's.

Also the main target WAS small to begin with if your saying "anyone with a computer to run it", this device has some stiff qualifications to run optimal(many who even pre-orderd showed they lacked the proper specs). So they're target was the higher end user, not the middle ground or above average, or below average, which puts the price within buying range of those who have top end computers who afford 300-1000 graphics cards without much regret.

If you don't like this price, wait till vive announces there's (assuming they don't take a big loss), not gonna be pretty either.

[Gaming4Life1981]

I agree $600 is too much for me to spend on this device and not because I don't have the money. I love vr(have the gear vr) but at this price point I'll pass. I really hope hope ps vr doesn't not exceed $400 because that is the most I'm willing to pay period for vr.

I feel like oculus went too expensive when they really didnt have too to make money off the device. I mean tons of people were willing to do $400 so even if they said $450 u that would have been OK but to me pricing these devices more than the actual systems(all vr devices) that are needed for them is crazy.

[Maxor]

I have to choose the OR or a new 4K Bluray player. I'm going with the 4K Bluray player, at least when I spend $600 on the player the wife will get something out of it.

[starchild]

4k Blu-ray is more of a gimmick than VR in my opinion. Not really a gimmick, but definitely less interesting to me. It's hard to notice a big difference between 4k and 1080p at typical viewing distances. I have a 4k Samsung LED/LCD and a Panasonic VT60 plasma and the plasma looks way better overall despite the lower 1080p resolution. Even in the area of detail it's hard to notice much difference.

Now it's true that the new Blu-ray standard will also offer a wider color gamut and HDR, but the number of TVs that can take advantage of those aspects is exceedingly small. And a solid HDR standard hasn't even been established.

Personally, I'll get a 4k Blu-ray player down the road after standards have been established and a good 4k HDR OLED set is available at a decent price to take advantage of it. VR, even in its infancy, is still much more exciting to me.

[Hassassin]

If I had to decide I'd say 4k Bluray player is not worth it now. It will get cheaper faster and also lacks the content as of now.

The Rift instead, having the same lack of content, is more likely to kill VR if we don't buy it. Early adopters of the Rift will determine if VR becomes a thing or not.

I for one will buy into VR hoping it will succeed. Only we can turn VR into something developers care about.

(Also, even if it becomes too much of a niche and "fails" I'll still get to play Star Citizen with it so I guess that's something).

[DeadManMMX]

Not too high for me. Come on march!!! Wooo!!! Day one!!!

[starchild]

Yeah, me too. I was expecting a cost of around $500, so $600 isn't too much more. I know that what they've put into this headset is worth the price they're asking.

[ApocalypseShadow]

People first said they wanted a quality,high resolution product.then complain it's expensive.

Take out the *supposed* free games of Lucky's Tale and Eve Valkyrie.You're PAYING for those games.take out the Xbox one controller.take out the remote.just *unbundle* the forced bundle for a limited first production run.

That headset is probably $400.$450 tops.but why are PC gamers now complaining when they wanted the best solution?unless you thought Facebook would subsidize it.

Lol!no chance of that.if they didn't force that bundle,it would be cheaper than it already is.

[SweatyFlorida]

Yah if I remember correctly PC "master race" was the one who can afford triple monitors and super powerful rigs which doubled or tripled the power of PS4 with 4k resolutions and 120 fps, now all of a sudden $600 is "too" expensive for VR. It's not CHEAP, but "too" expensive seems a bit over the top coming from PC crowd.

[ApocalypseShadow]

Yup. It's hilarious.

It's why steam shows the reality of PC gaming. They all don't have these crazy rigs they talk about. Only a few.and those few jumped on that limited bundle quantity and it sold out.

[dillhole]

If your product is the only of its type/quality available then you set the cost. Competition and sales will contribute to that cost changing over time. Maybe they will get cheaper. Maybe they will get more expensive.

[DragonDDark]

No sh*t.

[kenwonobi]

If it were for a console market it does. Since it is aimed at the premium quality pc crowd? It's actually in line and less than most gaming PC. Which makese sense because the PC crowd spends more on quality products. They want high end. By all accounts this is considered the high end model.

[Seafort]

Actually me and my friends go for mid range PCs so we aren't the target market for this expensive VR product.

I'm just a PC gamer who likes to play games. Paying for a niche product that is about half of what I paid for my PC over the years is not a good price for me.

Maybe in 4-5 years time if the Oculus Rift is still around I might consider it but till the price drops to a reasonable amount I'm out.

It's not an essential peripheral for playing PC games. It feels more like the gimmicky motion controls or the Kinect than anything I would need or want at this time.

[kenwonobi]

I think that's exactly their plan to recover their investment quick. Sell this to the buyers who buy the expensive rigs, audio, graphics cards. Then lower price to where your crowd can buy in later. Like a snowball effect.

[SweatyFlorida]

I'd say waiting for things to see how they pan out is the smartest choice if your "on the fence", we don't know if it will be supported well, if tech cost drive down, if a better revision comes out with next year, or a new "breakthrough" gets discovered.

While it's a bit annoying not to be able to justify the cost immediately, waiting has no repercussions. Cost will drive down, more games will be available. I like to view this is simply as "DK3", a prototype the fortunate can play with while they work on making things better/cheaper, along with more games until breaking into the mainstream.

[Tallpine]

It fits right into the top quality monitors/tvs, force feedback steering wheels, surround sound systems, and computer hardware. The list goes on. Why do people seem so insulted?

[TXIDarkAvenger]

It is about how much I expected it to be though. $200-$300 shouldn't have been expected.

[mochachino]

Well the people willing to spend $600-$800 on a GPU would likely spend it on an entire new gaming experience. There really nothing like it in video entertainment.

But yes, at that price it's appealing to the most dedicated and pecunious gamers.

[contradictory]

it'll definitely be for the dedicated gamers only at first. But if successful the things that can come out of VR are interesting to say the least

[mochachino]

Most interesting change in gaming since widespread adoption of 3D polygon graphics I'd say.

[contradictory]

i knew i wasn't gonna get one yet anyway
( my PC needs upgrading ) so i'm not really upset by this
also, as with most tech i'll just see how it pans out because i've been burned out before for being an early adopter

[Hassassin]

I was expecting a $500 price tag. I knew the controller bundle deal was made so the price didn't look so high. As Palmer said, the wireless controller is almost a freebie (given by microsoft). The only thing I'd take out of the box are those headphones.

Still $600 is within premium peripheral price range. Hopefully this first wave is a success and we get the support needed for a second more mass crowd oriented release.

If you're in the fence I'd say BUY IT, lets make VR a thing. We need as much interest (buyers) as possible in this first wave.

[UlyssesFeral]

I realize it's expensive hardware, but $600? It's unlikely there will be floor demos when the hardware is that pricey. That means people will likely only be able to try it if they have a wealthy enthusiast for a friend. And besides, it's not like VR was going to replace standard displays anyway. Even if it were to be affordable and popular, it was always going to be niche. If PSVR isn't at or under $400, then I'm calling it: VR is going to be a flop. Downvote me now, but come back to this comment in two years.

[Psychotica]

This thing has the same problem as when new consoles first come out, lack of content. You get all excited about the new console, you run to the store and see 2 or 3 games available where maybe 1 is a real AAA title you want. The other games are just crapware you know you won't be playing a few months from now. So no thanks, I am not buying into the hype, I will wait until it's established itself in the gaming world and there are a boat load of games for it.

[Riskyrodney]

Rift wouldn't be a rich person's toy Lucky said. My ass. Microsoft milks Palmer to the end. Cause in physical reality, Microsoft could never be as intuitive and original as madly milked Palmer Luckey...

[oldassgamer]

Everyone complaining about the price are the same people who will go out and pay damn near the same price for a phone.

[Riskyrodney]

Heh, no.

[iliimaster]

at 600 im gonna have to test the hell outta this at bestbuy/gamestop to see if its worth it 600$ plus taxes plus my wii u, xboxone and ps4 plus xbox live idk about this

[InTheZoneAC]

that should've been the same logic for everyone considering VR regardless of price...

[InTheZoneAC]

All I heard from the most rabid VR supporters is that they're going to buy it day 1 no matter what. No matter how terrible the games are or the potential this device has FOR THE FUTURE!!! and that people (general public) wants new technology so that's their excuse for blindly buying into something without waiting or testing. They want NEW EXPERIENCES!!!

But then they announce a price and all I hear is WAAAHHHHHHHHH...but what's funny is that people spend this much money on phones, tablets, and whatever else they probably don't need but somehow VR pricing is an issue? LOL at all these entitled kids...

All I know is in the short term, this helps Sony because PSVR will be cheaper since it uses the PS4, but just the fact that it's cheaper will have all the complainers buying PSVR over Rift, even if it's not as good...just have to wait and see but you get my point.

[Bladesfist]

"rabid VR supporters" is there a story behind this or are you just making fun of the journalists and gamers who have tried VR and loved it?

[InTheZoneAC]

as I already stated, I mentioned there are tons of people out there that are buying this REGARDLESS and haven't tried it.

Don't be so quick to assume I'm attacking people that have tried it...if they have then good for them and they know what they're getting and this price point SHOULDN'T be an issue for them...

[Tzuno]

Glad it costs so much, making it a even desired device, now that happens when you are in the hype train, i salute you from the train station, safe trip customers, uh uh no ticket for me no thank you.

[milohighclub]

it's almost like they want vr to fail....

[u4one]

these articles are stupid. quality costs money. think how good the ps4 and xbox one would be if people were willing to pay $600+ for them. That said - chances are good that all of the people buying the Oculus, Vive or whatever have most likely already spent THOUSANDS on gaming rigs - $600 is not a foreign concept for them. I don't even have a gaming pc but if I did I would expect to pay for a good HMD - and I would expect it to be good. A pair of $50 headphones won't compete with a pair of $250 headphones yet lots of people still buy $250 headphones. No offense but if you're broke, buying an Oculus probably shouldn't be your first priority anyway, and maybe the first year or 2 of VR won't be obtainable by all that are interested. The people that really want it will find a way.

[WheatBread]

Just like a Mercedes, if you can't afford it then it wasn't made for you. Stick to your Google cardboard/Ford.

[FlexLuger]

I agree with you and u4one. people who are complaining, simply cannot afford it or dependant on parents to buy them these things. either way the reality has set in for most. this stuff was never going to be cheap. Not sure why people thought it was going to be, hence why I have always said commercially VR is still not ready to go mainstream. its still too expensive for most gamers who are interested in it.

[u4one]

amen.

[FlexLuger]

I wont dispute the quality of the device. What I will say though is....That is not a mainstream price tag. And I am not complaining.Certainly not out of my reach. But I reckon I am in the minority here. Personally I still need to demo it myself before I commit to buying one. I like my toys, but...we will see. this isnt the first time the promise of VR has been sold to us ( remember the early 90s?) And Im still curious about more practical/serious things like health side effects of prolonged VR play and control interfaces for VR, over long periods of gameplay. I guess I am going to let the first consumers be the guinea pigs.

For the record, I would say $199 is a mainstream price. There is a segment of PC gamers who will buy this no questions asked. They are also the small minority that own better than mid-tier GPUs (sometimes two for SLI/crossfire)and CPUs. We know they are the minority based on steams own survey data. So based on that alone, I dont think its going to catch on until it gets a bit cheaper and it has some must have games. Some people will have to make upgrades to their systems and others who are on laptops can forget about it.

[GrimDragon]

Every game I've seen on the device is on rails your mostly stationary with the ability to look around and do hand gestures while everything else moves around you. The game eve is one example your either in a cockpit or car etc your like an interactive spectator like watching the ball game in a stadium your there but not really a part of the game it's weird. And this is my problem. As this tells me it's the limitations of this tech that kill the price point. I've yet to see anything that has me ready to pre order this. And games that utilize the latest hardware properly and impressively sell hardware. So until I see a must have game or games, 600 bucks stays in my pocket.

Honestly don't know why people are screaming about the price if your into tech and games the price of entry is not what we scream about its about what justifies the cost meaning is the device top quality with occulus anyone can see it is much like the Xbox elite controller its top quality components. Now the next question should be what can we play on it and putting the hype aside is their anything that screams omg I need to experience this? For me the answer is a resounding no not at its current price. Convince me its money well spent and it's yours if not I keep it moving until maybe one day you do or find something else worthy of my hard earned cash. Because really anyone screaming about the price could only be a person who's only casually into this stuff for the rest of us we know exactly how this works and study the end results of this endeavor to gauge it's worth.

[Artemidorus]

I said give it ten more years as VR isn't ready.

[Voids]

I get it, the price is a little high but so were VCR's back in the day when people thought it was the "end-all" for entertainment throughout a few years. In time it'll settle down and we'll all be enjoying this technology effortlessly, but until then ffs just take a breather, accept it's the birth of a new market, if you got a little extra scratch from whatever your job is, hit that VR goodness up, if not well then as uth11 said try alternatives like Google Cardboard to get your VR fix.

It's silly to hate on something all because it doesn't match your current budget - we should be way past that mindset now a days with such access to technology.

Just to think, 20 years ago, if you had the access you have now to all movies, games, music and information but it was locked up in a single room/vault and that's the only place you can go grab it, that's only accessible to maybe 1,000 people - you'd feel like some deep undercover illuminati CIA operative god body. But now in 2016, it's at everyone's finger tips on some two dimensional screen in the shape of a rectangle in our pockets... eventually VR will evolve into some thing we put in contacts or just becomes part of our daily lives through fashion in some weird way, where we'll literally make fun of ourselves about how we once complained about the 600 dollar price tag.

Time is a crazy bitch sometimes, just gotta roll with it :)

[Phish]

I kind of look at this like I do with Star Citizen. In that game you can buy ships that cost $2500. For some people this is acceptable because video games are their primary source of entertainment. Although I may not be that guy buying a $2500 spaceship, I'm all about technology. I will own every gaming device and have a high-end PC to ensure I can play any game that comes out. To me this asking price of $599 is worth it considering the new tech we will be getting. I pre-ordered and will get the one for PS4 as well.

[boing1]

Oculus never had a chance for mainstream VR because it's PC only. Consoles are where mainstream hangs out now. Sony will easily take the crown.

[AmUnRa]

Yes is cost to much i mean its 699 in Europe. 😱To expensive for me. If i buy in the near future a VR set i think its gonna be Sony, i think Sony VR will be cheaper en a good piece of hardware.

[kotaku77]

Too bloody expensive. I hope sony VR to be cheaper... like a lot cheaper... like 300?... well you can dream

[scottieleverne]

This article is a waste of time. That's like complaining about the first wave of any new hardware. It's always expensive and overtime, production costs are cut down considerably. That's like saying that DVD players weren't for the average cinephile because they cost so much upon their initial release.

Just calm down and be happy that this technology is finally happening and understand in just a few short years, the price will be reasonable for everyone. HOLLA!!!

[_LarZen_]

Some people should google "early adopters". And while their at it, google new high-end technology.

[RoseSapphire]

Then I'm proud to be the above average consumer that's willing to save and spend money on the products I have an interest in.

[GrimDragon]

Neo geo was and still is expensive today. So is the Xbox elite controller. You want quality you want cutting edge technology you pay the price. They keep saying it's expensive but compared to what? What on the market offers the same level of immersion and quality at a lesser price? Nothing that's what. If you can pay nearly a thousand dollars for a new iPhone and if you own an iPad Air with at least 32 gb of memory You really have no place complaining about VR price. You could always buy the many cheaper VR headsets like google card board if it's really an issue.

Iam thinking people must be complaining because they haven't seen anything this thing can do that makes the price worth it. If you never strapped on the oculus to see what it's like how can you say it's not worth it? I believe this thing needs a bigger marketing push to show people why it's worth 600 dollars. Especially if they want to mainstream this device on the level of an apple product. Otherwise I suppose they will take a financial loss but find sufficient sustainability by the core market willing to support it....BUT! Only if the games are good enough.

[ShamefulJosher]

I agree with the premise of this article. There is just no way that this will appeal to enough people to be sustainable at this price point. This does not even really factor in the startup cost of having a PC that can run the Oculus Rift. I see it as being appealing to a small few at this point. Which is not sustainable long term. Look at the PS3 last generation. It was too expensive when it launched and it struggled to be competitive until the price came down enough for it to be. By that time it was too far behing the 360 to catch it. Simply put....price does matter and must always be considered when marketing to an targeted audience.

[_LarZen_]

I still remember buying the first Creative Labs bundle with a soundcard and a 1x cd-rom drive. It was state of the art tech and a groundbreaking revolution for PC gaming.

It costed $899 back in the day.

Early adopters always takes the blow with high prices. And they are the ones we all can thank for making prices normally go down as sales picks up and production and manufacturing costs goes down.

So take a step back. Relax. And salute the early adopters and start preparing your PC for the future of gaming and entertainment :)

[cell989]

Well this kind of price only gives more leverage to Sony to also sell morpheous at an expensive price

[welly300]

If i had a rig tht could play it i would definitely get one. But no way i can afford both. Ill see what sony do or might try samsung vr when i upgrade phone.

[DeadManMMX]

600 for brand new tech that changes the way you game and experience entertainment, and learning on your computer is not much. If you think it cost too much its not for you. New tech costs money if you can't afford it wait until the 2nd or 3rd iteration maybe it will be cheaper or there will be more options. Me, I'm ready for this.

[TABSF]

Not expensive if they've already sold out for launch window

[Ashmedae]

What I think some of you are missing is that this is a piece of technology that may flop. $600 is a lot to spend on something that MAY flop. If it flops, then you essentially have a $600 paperweight that will gain dust over time.

I was an early adopter of HD-DVD and bought a HD-DVD player. Look at where HD-DVD is now...dead. I am a proud owner of a $500 paperweight.

That is what the real issue is here with the $600 price point for the Oculus Rift. If the price were cheaper then it would be an easier pill to swallow if the product/technology were to flop.