$600 for the The Oculus Rift?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

$600 for the The Oculus Rift?

I've used this space to talk about VR a lot.

Read Full Article

Again, this is just a case of the technology not being ready.

I really want to see the Oculus Rift succeed. Playing something like EVE: Valkyrie or No Man's Sky in virtual reality has long been a dream of mine. I mean, the Rift is certainly a milestone: for the first time, the technology fucking works. All of the pieces are in place and ready to go.

But in order for the technology to be truly ready to market, it has to be affordable...and $600 for a peripheral isn't affordable. There are still problems to overcome.

That being said...VR isn't going to vanish again. Virtual Reality is close. Very close. We can practically taste it, because there is only one real obstacle to overcome, and it's fairly minor. All someone needs to do is figure out a way to drastically cut the cost of production, and we're fucking there.

It's only a matter of time. I'm confident that it'll finally be able to take off within the next decade.

At $600 the only way its going sell if there is VR porn made.

I don't have a problem with it costing $600. Better that than putting cheap crap on our eyes.

But I have a problem with this price range killing VR in the cradle. I want it to thrive not die.

Solution? Hell if I have one. I'll sit here and hope for the best.

Drop the two tech demo games and the controller from this bundle, because that is what this is, and you'd probably have a price for the Oculus closer to that $400 that was being talked about(Unless of course those are actually being thrown in as freebies).

I really do hope VR succeeds, though it's currently no cost I need to think about. I already told myself I'd wait one year before deciding which VR device I wanted to get myself. Before I do that though I still need to upgrade some of the parts in my PC.

Czann:
But I have a problem with this price range killing VR in the cradle. I want it to thrive not die.

I don't think this is going to happen.

HDTVs cost thousands when new, so did 4k panels. Now 1080p is bog standard and 4k is more money but not traumatically so.

Oculus will be the same, retail Mk1 is going to sell to the GTX980 and water cooling crowd (hi there!) or to home entertainment types wanting home cinema without having space for a giant screen. Unlike active 3D screen VR is a massive upgrade from a flat panel screen, so it's going to find a home with the enthusiasts.

Once it's entrenched there it will come down in price, within five years I would expect if to halve and I would expect the cost of VR capable hardware to halve as well, then we can all talk about volume sales. Facebook will be banking on that too, they haven't poured billions into this for a short term buck.

Software could be a sticking point, but again I think Facebook, Samsung, Sony and HTC/Valve will get their cheque books out to make sure there's VR software out there. The only other problem could be cross compatibility with software/hardware, but I expect that to be solved by Nvidia and AMD dictating driver standards since they account for 99% of PC and 100% of console graphics hardware.

Dying_Jester:
Drop the two tech demo games and the controller from this bundle, because that is what this is, and you'd probably have a price for the Oculus closer to that $400 that was being talked about(Unless of course those are actually being thrown in as freebies).

The controller has been stated by Oculus as costing them barely anything to bundle in (probably since most of the $50 consumer price is markup). As for the two tech demos, the companies that made them are probably paying Oculus to have them included as they'll hopefully be the flagship games of the system. So yes, I do believe the games and the controller are freebies and the headset itself costs $600. Which is a shame since I'm no longer even considering getting it for the near future because of the cost.

From the view of a pundit who wasn't going to take the leap regardless of disposable income available (I don't have that amount of dosh to begin with to spend on something like this), this was...

... Kinda expected?

VR is sort of inevitable in a way, but in a world where consumer tech of a fairly utilitarian nature is expensive enough as it is, this wasn't going to fly very far.

Who would be insane enough to develop the kind of high-end games that would actually incentivize that incredibly small demographic of gamers (key word, gamers) who will buy this to unironically use in their real day-2-day gaming experiences?

albino boo:
At $600 the only way its going sell if there is VR porn made.

There already is.

Long long ago (over 15 years), I played a VR game at a local mall. It was called raptors rampage or something like that. We had to wear headsets and gloves, but it allowed you to look around with your head in game, and the gloves allowed you to aim and shoot with your real hands.

The game was fun, I got picked up by a velociraptor and shot it in the sky (falling to my death), but it's main point was competative fps (you shot at other people in the VR game as well...I believe there was 8 of us at a time. Me and my friends playing it a few times, at 10 minutes a pop (believe it was $1 a minute). There was a huge line to play it though...so you spent an hour + waiting to play it each time.

After that there where VR battletech games etc, still over 15 years ago, so VR already seemed to be a thing at that point. No home VR systems, but at least I figured we would be seeing more vr gaming centers. They all seemed to dissapear though.

$600 is a pretty huge price range, but compared to the old rates to play the games, it's only about 10 hours worth of play to pay for it. If you have a decent selection of games to play, it can quickly pay for itself. The ability to play online with friends from all over, any time, means you could have unlimited VR play at this point. Remakes of previous games (Especially fps games) would be great. I'd love to see borederlands 2 for instance, remade for VR play. Perhaps the next game will be made with VR in mind as well (Which will probably do more for selling the equipment then anything else).

A good game is vital though. People already buy $400 systems etc for 1 game they really want. VR IS going to be the norm eventually, we are still at it's early stages. Eventually it will probably be the norm, and the hardware will get smaller and smaller (And cheaper). Even if it's current home console launch doesn't do great, it will in time I am sure.

The problem that VR has as a new technology that isn't present in TVs or audio systems, etc, is that it is for a single person. I can't put an oculus rift in my living room because only one person can use it at a time. Thus, it must go with my gaming PC, which may or may not be capable of running the thing. So now I am talking about needing a 1500 dollar computer to run a 600 dollar peripheral which I can't share with people. The use is too limited at that price.

Yes, I can save and afford this, but is it worth the money to me? While I'm old enough to have the kind of money needed to buy something like this, I also have a child and a wife and a full time job. The time I can give to playing games is very small. The price difference between 400 and 600 isn't the issue. Realistically, if I am considering 400 for a periphery item, 600 is not a huge difference. The problem is value for the money and the value isn't there. This kind of thing has to get dirt-cheap for me to consider it.

SlumlordThanatos:
Again, this is just a case of the technology not being ready.

It's ready for consumers, just not for mass-market appeal. And that's fine.

New tech often launches first in a higher price category, aimed at enthusiasts who like being early adopters. A few years later the price will go down and it'll enter the mainstream market. That is, if it happens to be a success among early adopters. It happened with smartphones, it happened/is happening with 4K displays, Blu Ray, you name it. The Rift is no different in that regard.

People crying that this'll kill VR are overreacting. What we're seeing is completely par of the course for new tech. We'll find out whether this'll find an audience among early adopters soon enough, and if that happens we'll probably see this tech developed further. Who knows, maybe it'll stay a high-end toy, maybe it'll become a mass-market thing, maybe it'll be a fad. We don't know yet and what we're seeing so far doesn't provide much of an indication either way. We'll find out eventually.

As for me, this is about as far out of my budget as buying a full flightsim cockpit. I'm already happy my PC can sort-of handle Fallout 4 (though that's a poorly optimized game), let alone this.

stringtheory:

Dying_Jester:
Drop the two tech demo games and the controller from this bundle, because that is what this is, and you'd probably have a price for the Oculus closer to that $400 that was being talked about(Unless of course those are actually being thrown in as freebies).

The controller has been stated by Oculus as costing them barely anything to bundle in (probably since most of the $50 consumer price is markup). As for the two tech demos, the companies that made them are probably paying Oculus to have them included as they'll hopefully be the flagship games of the system. So yes, I do believe the games and the controller are freebies and the headset itself costs $600. Which is a shame since I'm no longer even considering getting it for the near future because of the cost.

No doubt you're right. I'm guesstimating the controller costs them like $20 at most, probably less, and it ADDS a lot to the experience. And software costs generally nothing (since production of a "new copy" costs exactly zero dollars). Inclusion of it in hardware bundles is a very complex marketing, public image and investor thing. NVIDIA and ATI have been including games forever with their cards. And each bundle counts as a "sale" made for the publisher, so they can claim good sales for PR and investor calls...

And let's just look at the console price developments for ... EACH generation ever. They plummet soon enough.
Just compare XBONE price now to the first announced price: €499 to now $300. Next year it'll be 300 bucks *with* the latest hot game and two controllers and a headset...

The Rift is already a tough sell, $600 isn't going to help. You can't show what people see with it on and actors flailing about with black boxes strapped to their face doesn't seem as impactful with a wider audience as images of happy actor families playing with the wii. The real killer though is what you need to run it well. Two screens that need to be refreshed quickly do not make for a simple spec requirement.

I'm glad the first major VR product is fairly high-end. VR needs to prove itself as something truly exciting and desirable to people, and that means it needs to be good and work well. If they just pumped out a cheaper but crappier version that didn't work quite right people are more likely to lose interest in the tech.

I suspect that VR's primary problem isn't going to turn out to be cost. Rather, its going to suffer the same problem as 3D TV/movies - once that new tech smell fades, and you put enough time in on the device that you stop going "OMG I'm IN the GAME!" every time you strap it on, you realize that it really doesn't add enough to the experience to justify the additional expense and inconvenience of using it. I'm certain enthusiasts will disagree, but then, there are still some people who love their 3D TVs. And I'm certain that I'm going to get jumped on here by a bunch of people who swear up and down that if I'd actually tried VR with whatever their preferred device is instead of the previous iteration of that same device, then I'd know what "real" VR is and I'd wonder how I ever lived without it. I guess the only possible response to that is that we'll see, won't we?

Olas:
I'm glad the first major VR product is fairly high-end. VR needs to prove itself as something truly exciting and desirable to people, and that means it needs to be good and work well. If they just pumped out a cheaper but crappier version that didn't work quite right people are more likely to lose interest in the tech.

The counter argument is why would any developer spend time on money adapting or creating content for a peripheral that only has 100,000 users.

albino boo:

Olas:
I'm glad the first major VR product is fairly high-end. VR needs to prove itself as something truly exciting and desirable to people, and that means it needs to be good and work well. If they just pumped out a cheaper but crappier version that didn't work quite right people are more likely to lose interest in the tech.

The counter argument is why would any developer spend time on money adapting or creating content for a peripheral that only has 100,000 users.

Because nearly all 100,000 users will buy it, or at least a much larger percentage will than if it's on a crowded platform. These people paid 600 dollars for the device, I imagine they'll wanna get they're money's worth from it. Besides, some kinds of games can be adapted to VR fairly easily without having to change much with the main game. Basically I'm just parroting what Totalbiscuit said in his recent vid on the topic, I'd check that out if you want to hear the case argued better.

rgrekejin:
I suspect that VR's primary problem isn't going to turn out to be cost. Rather, its going to suffer the same problem as 3D TV/movies - once that new tech smell fades, and you put enough time in on the device that you stop going "OMG I'm IN the GAME!" every time you strap it on, you realize that it really doesn't add enough to the experience to justify the additional expense and inconvenience of using it. I'm certain enthusiasts will disagree, but then, there are still some people who love their 3D TVs. And I'm certain that I'm going to get jumped on here by a bunch of people who swear up and down that if I'd actually tried VR with whatever their preferred device is instead of the previous iteration of that same device, then I'd know what "real" VR is and I'd wonder how I ever lived without it. I guess the only possible response to that is that we'll see, won't we?

People have different preferences for different things. Those that enjoy a visual immersion (this includes myself) should absolutely love VR, while those that don't care for (I'm guessing yourself) it probably won't think twice about needing VR. The only thing I really want to add here is in the battle between preference was pretty big when Avatar started the 3D theater phase, and your side lost... badly.

Olas:

Because nearly all 100,000 users will buy it, or at least a much larger percentage will than if it's on a crowded platform. These people paid 600 dollars for the device, I imagine they'll wanna get they're money's worth from it. Besides, some kinds of games can be adapted to VR fairly easily without having to change much with the main game. Basically I'm just parroting what Totalbiscuit said in his recent vid on the topic, I'd check that out if you want to hear the case argued better.

Console sales are in the millions and gaming pcs are in the same magnitude. At 100k sales there is not simply enough of user base to even port an existing game to it. A team of 5 people working for 3 months will cost at least $50k and there is no guarantee of extra sales.

RandV80:

rgrekejin:
I suspect that VR's primary problem isn't going to turn out to be cost. Rather, its going to suffer the same problem as 3D TV/movies - once that new tech smell fades, and you put enough time in on the device that you stop going "OMG I'm IN the GAME!" every time you strap it on, you realize that it really doesn't add enough to the experience to justify the additional expense and inconvenience of using it. I'm certain enthusiasts will disagree, but then, there are still some people who love their 3D TVs. And I'm certain that I'm going to get jumped on here by a bunch of people who swear up and down that if I'd actually tried VR with whatever their preferred device is instead of the previous iteration of that same device, then I'd know what "real" VR is and I'd wonder how I ever lived without it. I guess the only possible response to that is that we'll see, won't we?

People have different preferences for different things. Those that enjoy a visual immersion (this includes myself) should absolutely love VR, while those that don't care for (I'm guessing yourself) it probably won't think twice about needing VR. The only thing I really want to add here is in the battle between preference was pretty big when Avatar started the 3D theater phase, and your side lost... badly.

As someone who's cautiously optimistic about VR, the counterpoint to this is that battle also happened when 3D tvs were being majorly pushed, and we know which "side" lost then :3

The current price tag is going to make sales difficult. Although, the Rift has competition about to release their own VR equipment. The competing VR solutions and early adopters should cause the price to fall, hopefully fast enough to more enough units to warrant more VR supporting games. If the prices can't fall fast enough. or the whole VR phenomenon doesn't win over enough of the game market, I still see VR surviving in its own niche.

Beyond games, I see VR easily being adopted for various training programs and other non-gaming uses, at the current prices and capabilities. Even if a full VR rig costs a lot to the average consumer, they may still use one often for work or in a class.

RandV80:

rgrekejin:
I suspect that VR's primary problem isn't going to turn out to be cost. Rather, its going to suffer the same problem as 3D TV/movies - once that new tech smell fades, and you put enough time in on the device that you stop going "OMG I'm IN the GAME!" every time you strap it on, you realize that it really doesn't add enough to the experience to justify the additional expense and inconvenience of using it. I'm certain enthusiasts will disagree, but then, there are still some people who love their 3D TVs. And I'm certain that I'm going to get jumped on here by a bunch of people who swear up and down that if I'd actually tried VR with whatever their preferred device is instead of the previous iteration of that same device, then I'd know what "real" VR is and I'd wonder how I ever lived without it. I guess the only possible response to that is that we'll see, won't we?

People have different preferences for different things. Those that enjoy a visual immersion (this includes myself) should absolutely love VR, while those that don't care for (I'm guessing yourself) it probably won't think twice about needing VR. The only thing I really want to add here is in the battle between preference was pretty big when Avatar started the 3D theater phase, and your side lost... badly.

Did they, though? Avatar made huge money because it was exploiting the early phase of this cycle, when decent 3D was a new and breathtaking thing. No 3D movie has done anywhere near as well since, and the general consensus in the film industry is that 3D is dying out. People are seeing less and less movies in 3D. In 2010, 52% of moviegoers had seen at least one movie in 3D that year. By 2014, that number had fallen to 27%. The fall from grace of 3D movies kind of proves my point - people loved them at first, when the tech was fresh and new, but after seeing a few movies in 3D, most people became acclimated to the gimmick and decided it wasn't worth the extra expense. To put it bluntly, nobody cares about 3D these days. No movies are made natively for 3D - they're all just regular 2D movies with shoddy 3D effects added in post-production so that they can gouge a little extra money out of the few people who are still willing to pony up the extra bucks for 3D.

Whatever VR tech porn supports is the VR tech that will succeed.

VHS beat Betamax because porn

Blu-Ray beat HD DVD because porn

Mobile Phones started getting bigger screens again because porn

So, I think the smartest option is to wait until all the VR hardwares are out and to see which one porn adopts.

pearcinator:
Whatever VR tech porn supports is the VR tech that will succeed.

VHS beat Betamax because porn

Blu-Ray beat HD DVD because porn

Mobile Phones started getting bigger screens again because porn

So, I think the smartest option is to wait until all the VR hardwares are out and to see which one porn adopts.

I see this argument get thrown around a lot, and I don't think it's *quite* a spurious correlation, but it's certainly close to one. It's also pretty heavy revisionist history.

Although porn may indeed have had something to do with it, VHS beat out Betamax because VHS tapes had a longer runtime. When first introduced, Betamax tapes ran a maximum of 60 minutes, whereas VHS tapes could run for 240 minutes, enough time for a full-length theatrical movie. By the time a Betamax tape was introduced that was long enough to actually hold an entire movie on a single tape, VHS had already won the format war. It had just as much to do with Disney as it did with porn.

As for HD-DVD vs BluRay... who the hell even *buys* hardcopy porn in the age of BluRays? Porn has mostly been distributed by download since at least 2006. BluRay won the format war because 5 of the 6 major movie studios initially decided to release their movies on BluRay, which they did because BluRay had superior built-in DRM to HD-DVD. Only 3 major studios supported HD-DVD out of the gate(Warner Bros and Paramount supported both), meaning that BluRay had exclusive movies from three studios, whereas HD-DVD only had one (Universal). Additionally, Blockbuster (which still mattered back in 2006) decided to carry only BluRay. That was pretty much it for HD-DVD.

The "porn always decides the winner of the format wars" thing gets passed around because it's funny to think about, but ultimately, it's probably more urban legend than fact.

The Bucket:

RandV80:

rgrekejin:
I suspect that VR's primary problem isn't going to turn out to be cost. Rather, its going to suffer the same problem as 3D TV/movies - once that new tech smell fades, and you put enough time in on the device that you stop going "OMG I'm IN the GAME!" every time you strap it on, you realize that it really doesn't add enough to the experience to justify the additional expense and inconvenience of using it. I'm certain enthusiasts will disagree, but then, there are still some people who love their 3D TVs. And I'm certain that I'm going to get jumped on here by a bunch of people who swear up and down that if I'd actually tried VR with whatever their preferred device is instead of the previous iteration of that same device, then I'd know what "real" VR is and I'd wonder how I ever lived without it. I guess the only possible response to that is that we'll see, won't we?

People have different preferences for different things. Those that enjoy a visual immersion (this includes myself) should absolutely love VR, while those that don't care for (I'm guessing yourself) it probably won't think twice about needing VR. The only thing I really want to add here is in the battle between preference was pretty big when Avatar started the 3D theater phase, and your side lost... badly.

As someone who's cautiously optimistic about VR, the counterpoint to this is that battle also happened when 3D tvs were being majorly pushed, and we know which "side" lost then :3

Yes there's that, and to be honest I barely even knew that these 3D TV's were a thing! I think a big problem with those though are that people already went out and bought themselves a big screen flat panel TV's just before the big 2008/09 market crash, so there isn't really a need to replace them. Also if I recall weren't the glasses for these TV's ridiculously expensive, like $200 each?

I was looking at Avatar as more visual porn though. There are a lot of people who weren't able to see it like this and just got caught up on it being nothing more than a rehashed Pocahontas movie. I can understand as I'm the same way with audio, whether it's a single mono channel coming from my TV or the highest end surround sound theater experience it's all the same to me. But in the end there were far more people loved the visual experience of avatar than there were those that didn't feel it. I imagine it will be much the same when you can directly immerse yourself into the game/media with a VR headset at an affordable price.

$350 was within the realm of possibility for me.

$600 and I'm no longer paying rent. For a gaming peripheral (one I wasn't a core supporter of from the beginning too) this is impossible for my wallet to open up for. This is a shame because I tried one of the dev kits my friend had and it seemed like something worth pursuing but I just can't do it.

I would love to see VR succeed. I certainly have no interest in it myself at this time, but I think the premise is nice.

Multiple reasons for not wanting to dive in myself. I wear glasses and VR headsets don't really jive well with glasses. Every VR game I've seen looks like an old N64 game or possibly PS2. I'm not a graphics snob, but if I'm going to have something jammed into my eyes, I want images that won't cause headaches. I go back to play the old Golden Eye game now and just looking at a normal TV screen of that hurts my head.

But, more than that, I have yet to see a game that also looks fun to play. Yes, they all are varying degrees of functional with a focus on showing off the potential of the tech. But that's just it. There's not really a deep narrative story like I get with other games. There's no meaningful challenge. And if we're just getting re-releases of games I already have, then I'm not really interested in shelling out $600 + (probably need a new machine for VR) just to replay a game like, say, Portal, but with VR capability. Not a worthwhile price of admission. Then I've even seen some games where it's a third-person game with the headset... What's the point of that exactly? I like third-person games and being able to see my character that I made. But why would I want to do anything not-first-person with a VR headset? That sort of misses the point... or perhaps I'm missing some other point that doesn't quite make sense to me.

Ultimately, I don't see VR taking off just yet or maybe even for a while. The next big hurdle I see is making it a viable platform for gaming, work, entertainment, anything. For that, you need to convince publishers of that. And they didn't feel confident making games for the WiiU, which is just adding an optional touch-pad. Here, we're asking for specific kinds of visuals and specific types of games. And my faith in the triple-A market for being able to do that is very... low at best. And those are the games you really need to sell the device. Again, WiiU failed to pull in big name third-party titles and that's why it's in the spot it's in. VR will likely have that problem PLUS a higher price tag and still being more inconvenient to use for the average consumer than even the WiiU gamepad or a Mouse-N-Keyboard (PC gamer, but I understand people not liking that set up). I wish VR the best of luck, but it'll probably be a while before it's truly mainstream.

I think 3rd person actually works better than first person in VR. You have less movement problems. The sense of presence is no less for not inhabiting an avatar.

rgrekejin:

As for HD-DVD vs BluRay... who the hell even *buys* hardcopy porn in the age of BluRays? Porn has mostly been distributed by download since at least 2006. BluRay won the format war because 5 of the 6 major movie studios initially decided to release their movies on BluRay, which they did because BluRay had superior built-in DRM to HD-DVD. Only 3 major studios supported HD-DVD out of the gate(Warner Bros and Paramount supported both), meaning that BluRay had exclusive movies from three studios, whereas HD-DVD only had one (Universal). Additionally, Blockbuster (which still mattered back in 2006) decided to carry only BluRay. That was pretty much it for HD-DVD.

Also, the PS3 had a built in BluRay which meant BluRay had a much bigger install base than that of HD-DVD.

rgrekejin:

The "porn always decides the winner of the format wars" thing gets passed around because it's funny to think about, but ultimately, it's probably more urban legend than fact.

Indeed.

OT:
My biggest problem with VR (not ath I have much experience with it) is the lack of tactile feedback.
Sure I can look around a lot, but I can't see my hands or my feet.

Although Elite Dangerous with HOTAS and VR-goggles looks promising.

when i checked the list of compatible games it works out to be a list of 4 games i own work with VR.

i checked and i need a new video card to get this to work, and im australian all up with shipping and upgrade i wouldnt exactly be getting much change out of $2000 AUD.. thats more than i paid for this computer full stop and the video card i have works fine as it is at the moment.

yeah i may like eurotruck simulator 2 and i am curious what it would be like in VR but i donty like it enough to be basically spending $500 to try it

fix-the-spade:

Czann:
But I have a problem with this price range killing VR in the cradle. I want it to thrive not die.

I don't think this is going to happen.

HDTVs cost thousands when new, so did 4k panels. Now 1080p is bog standard and 4k is more money but not traumatically so.

That's my hope. Another one is that inferior and cheaper hardware will not win over the better options.

Olas:
I'm glad the first major VR product is fairly high-end. VR needs to prove itself as something truly exciting and desirable to people, and that means it needs to be good and work well. If they just pumped out a cheaper but crappier version that didn't work quite right people are more likely to lose interest in the tech.

And just how would VR do that if the userbase is small?

And it's not just going to cost $600 to get the OR for the average user, it's going to cost them upwards of over $2000 to get the thing and a system capable enough to run it. For tech that hasn't been proven to have any legs, that's beyond way too much for nearly anyone.

OR is only going to be bought by a niche audience only. For devs, that small audience isn't going to be close to big enough to make content that makes the most out of OR's hardware.

albino boo:

Olas:

Because nearly all 100,000 users will buy it, or at least a much larger percentage will than if it's on a crowded platform. These people paid 600 dollars for the device, I imagine they'll wanna get they're money's worth from it. Besides, some kinds of games can be adapted to VR fairly easily without having to change much with the main game. Basically I'm just parroting what Totalbiscuit said in his recent vid on the topic, I'd check that out if you want to hear the case argued better.

Console sales are in the millions and gaming pcs are in the same magnitude. At 100k sales there is not simply enough of user base to even port an existing game to it. A team of 5 people working for 3 months will cost at least $50k and there is no guarantee of extra sales.

You're vastly underestimating the cost of five developers for three months. Try $150K. Remember, employees cost companies a lot more than their paycheck. Companies pay benefits like subsidizing health insurance and they pay a payroll tax. A typical game developer at a AAA studio likely costs at least $100,000 a year. Further, you need to provide facilities for the developers to work in and equipment. I would imagine that if a company like Bethesda were to port their latest game (Fallout 4) over, we're talking about at least a half-million dollar investment (if not far, far more).

Remember a decent computer monitor can cost up to over a thousand AU dollars. So it's no surprise to me that the rift is $600. However that being said I personally have no interest in the Rift. Yes I have tried it and yes it is really immersive. However there are some issues.

1. Too immersive: This thing can really trick your brain, but when you try to grab an in game object with your real hands it's really disorienting.

2. It's a hassle: Putting this thing on to play games is annoying. Although I am willing to do that with headphones

3. it's a little anti social, in other words you look silly wearing it.

4. it's only appropriate with certain games. A niche accessory for niche games for a niche market.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here