Oculus Has Sold Over 100,000 Rift Dev Kits

Oculus Has Sold Over 100,000 Rift Dev Kits

Oculus DK2

The Oculus Rift VR headset is selling incredibly well, with 45,000 preorders for the DK2 alone alone.

There's a lot of eyes on the Oculus Rift right now, whether we're discussing its ability to buy controller manufactures or the increasing number of games that support it. What's especially impressive is that the consumer version hasn't even released yet; the only Rifts you can currently purchase are those designed with developers in mind. Perhaps that means customers simply tired of waiting, because according to Oculus, the total number of units sold has surged to over 100,000 so far.

According to a post on the Oculus VR forums, the Rift Dev Kit 2 now sits at approximately 45,000 pre-orders, compared to the 65,000 DK1 sales 10,000 of those are expected to ship this month with units reaching developers by July 14th. There's still no word on when the consumer version will reach store shelves, but the dev kit is available to anyone with $350 to spend.

All told, that's quite an accomplishment for a product that hasn't officially launched yet, and suggests that the consumer model will get strong support when it does. How high those sales figures will reach when on launch day is anyone's guess, but given Facebook's decision to buy the company, I'm guessing it'll be pretty steep.

Source: Gamespot

Permalink

So assuming the system costs the same price and ten times as many people buy the consumer version as have the dev kit, Facebook makes up the other 1.9 billion... how? Assuming 90% mark-up on these things (otherwise known as "half life 3 being released this year" level of unrealistic) they would need to move 6.3 million of these things. At 20% mark up (an actually realistic number, though in all likelihood still higher then the actual mark up) 28.6 million units would need to move. I mean sure, Facebook could add advertisement (which would kill sales for the toy) or try to licence out the use of it for games (which would crash and burn given it's a peripheral device, always has been and always will be, though the most expensive one ever made).

I honestly want to know what the thought proses was behind Facebook buying it was. Was it Google envy again? Because that would give some logic to it. Couldn't have been because of buying out the competition, Facebook had nothing competing with it. And it sure as hell wasn't long term profits, with how the company's margined are right now 2 billion on a company which will take at least 10 years to brake even isn't something investors would stand for.

It would probably require insider knowledge, but does anyone actually have a logical explanation for this seemingly illogical deal Facebook made? Because the numbers just don't add up.

I know I'M sure tired of waiting, the fact that it's a product so many people have been able to try out and talk about already only makes it worse.

Zontar:
Snip

You act like this is the first and only version of Occulus Rift that will ever get produced. If this idea catches on it could lead to a whole new technological market like Apple's iPhone did.

so, wait, they've taken so long to release this thing that they have to make a newer devkit?

They probably wouldn't even have to make a consumer device, with the devkits selling so well.. and they can sell the devkits at a higher price point, AND whoever buys the kit knows it won't be "perfect".

The only risk with this strategy is that someone else will get to the consumer market first.

Zontar:
So assuming the system costs the same price and ten times as many people buy the consumer version as have the dev kit, Facebook makes up the other 1.9 billion... how? Assuming 90% mark-up on these things (otherwise known as "half life 3 being released this year" level of unrealistic) they would need to move 6.3 million of these things. At 20% mark up (an actually realistic number, though in all likelihood still higher then the actual mark up) 28.6 million units would need to move. I mean sure, Facebook could add advertisement (which would kill sales for the toy) or try to licence out the use of it for games (which would crash and burn given it's a peripheral device, always has been and always will be, though the most expensive one ever made).

I honestly want to know what the thought proses was behind Facebook buying it was. Was it Google envy again? Because that would give some logic to it. Couldn't have been because of buying out the competition, Facebook had nothing competing with it. And it sure as hell wasn't long term profits, with how the company's margined are right now 2 billion on a company which will take at least 10 years to brake even isn't something investors would stand for.

It would probably require insider knowledge, but does anyone actually have a logical explanation for this seemingly illogical deal Facebook made? Because the numbers just don't add up.

it's a long term investment in future tech. It's not meant to turn a profit the next year.

Zontar:
does anyone actually have a logical explanation for this seemingly illogical deal Facebook made? Because the numbers just don't add up.

For what it's worth, they have already made it clear that they intend to sell it with no significant mark-up.

It's not uncommon in the recent startup model, some of the biggest websites, technologies, and brands are yet to turn an actual direct profit. It is the hope for a wide userbase that they are primarily valued for, and monetization is something that they can figure out somewhere down the line.

This one for example, is not about the sales of CV1, which will predictably be in the single digit millions, but about sticking a finger in the VR pie in case it turns out to be the medium-platform that it seems to be.

There is also the social network's self-protecting market monopolization, just as with WhatsApp and Instagram. Even if the first CV would be a niche, hardcore gamer thing, the long term ambitions of virtual reality do include new communications methods. Why would anyone keep logging onto facebook, if they can just meet with all their friends in a virtual environment far more personal than any videochat? If facebook is about to get disrupted, they might as well keep control of the disruptor too.

Also, it's pretty strange to say that it "always will be" a peripheral. Why would it? Hardware is getting lighter and smaller every day, I can easily see five years from now headsets with the in-built computing capacity of a 2014 gamer PC.

Be social in virtual reality! meet all your family members in full 3d! never see anyone's actual faces, as they're wearing the oculus too!

Zontar:
So assuming the system costs the same price and ten times as many people buy the consumer version as have the dev kit, Facebook makes up the other 1.9 billion... how? Assuming 90% mark-up on these things (otherwise known as "half life 3 being released this year" level of unrealistic) they would need to move 6.3 million of these things. At 20% mark up (an actually realistic number, though in all likelihood still higher then the actual mark up) 28.6 million units would need to move. I mean sure, Facebook could add advertisement (which would kill sales for the toy) or try to licence out the use of it for games (which would crash and burn given it's a peripheral device, always has been and always will be, though the most expensive one ever made).

I honestly want to know what the thought proses was behind Facebook buying it was. Was it Google envy again? Because that would give some logic to it. Couldn't have been because of buying out the competition, Facebook had nothing competing with it. And it sure as hell wasn't long term profits, with how the company's margined are right now 2 billion on a company which will take at least 10 years to brake even isn't something investors would stand for.

It would probably require insider knowledge, but does anyone actually have a logical explanation for this seemingly illogical deal Facebook made? Because the numbers just don't add up.

Most expensive peripheral device ever made? Someone doesn't know much about PC peripherals. Just off the top of my head, the Thrustmaster Warthog has a sticker price of $500. Looking at Amazon, they also have a racing wheel for $600. Sim enthusiasts spend some money, yo.

I have a weird feeling that when playing a multiplayer game with Oculus, when simply talking to someone in the game it will be more noticebly weird to be talking to a character/person with a huge blank stare. At least some games have lip sync but I would like the technology to evolve to that area next (dont know how since Oculus isnt about tracking your face and the thing itself covers half of it, but yeah...).

Either way what is set to do is more then enough to me, I am one of those that even playing a game where I can sit in the backseat of a car in first person is enough to make me enjoy it more (it makes it feel more like I am actually inside the car as a spectator of the driver without having clear vision of its surroundings) so the promise of making me feel more inside the game world is great for me.

Zontar:
So assuming the system costs the same price and ten times as many people buy the consumer version as have the dev kit, Facebook makes up the other 1.9 billion... how? Assuming 90% mark-up on these things (otherwise known as "half life 3 being released this year" level of unrealistic) they would need to move 6.3 million of these things. At 20% mark up (an actually realistic number, though in all likelihood still higher then the actual mark up) 28.6 million units would need to move. I mean sure, Facebook could add advertisement (which would kill sales for the toy) or try to licence out the use of it for games (which would crash and burn given it's a peripheral device, always has been and always will be, though the most expensive one ever made).

I honestly want to know what the thought proses was behind Facebook buying it was. Was it Google envy again? Because that would give some logic to it. Couldn't have been because of buying out the competition, Facebook had nothing competing with it. And it sure as hell wasn't long term profits, with how the company's margined are right now 2 billion on a company which will take at least 10 years to brake even isn't something investors would stand for.

It would probably require insider knowledge, but does anyone actually have a logical explanation for this seemingly illogical deal Facebook made? Because the numbers just don't add up.

Facebook didn't buy occulus for hardware sale reasons, but for service server control reasons. Big data is how facebook makes money, building portfolios on its users, and the more information they contain, the more valuable they are. They bought whatsapp at a cost of about $50 per user, to give you some idea what that's worth to them.

Scars Unseen:

Most expensive peripheral device ever made? Someone doesn't know much about PC peripherals. Just off the top of my head, the Thrustmaster Warthog has a sticker price of $500. Looking at Amazon, they also have a racing wheel for $600. Sim enthusiasts spend some money, yo.

I was talking about the cost to create it for the company. Say what you will about things like the multi-thousand dollar sim set-ups, I don't think the companies which made them sunk 2 billion into doing so.

Cerebrawl:
Snip

That's... actually quite scary. It's also the only logical reason I have come across at this point.

Zontar:

Scars Unseen:

Most expensive peripheral device ever made? Someone doesn't know much about PC peripherals. Just off the top of my head, the Thrustmaster Warthog has a sticker price of $500. Looking at Amazon, they also have a racing wheel for $600. Sim enthusiasts spend some money, yo.

I was talking about the cost to create it for the company. Say what you will about things like the multi-thousand dollar sim set-ups, I don't think the companies which made them sunk 2 billion into doing so.

Cerebrawl:
Snip

That's... actually quite scary. It's also the only logical reason I have come across at this point.

It didn't cost 2 billion to make the Rift. Don't confuse R&D costs with the cost of buying a company. That 2 billion wasn't money spent on a device, it was an investment into the future of the company making it.

 

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