Oculus Rift Status: WENT IN ON
the price is way less suprising than people were making it out to be
only slight id give to facebook is that they deliberately hyped vr as something people will get cheaply soon while they full well knew it'll be enthusiast product for years
N-NO STOP IT. IT'S NOT FAIR!
>tfw the rift will be the cheapest of the three VRs
If it was going to be any cheaper, they would have announced it by now and rekt the pre-orders of the Rift. Inb4 they don't know the price even though it goes on sale in a month.
At the end of the year the Oculus Rift will be about 400-500$ I wager. Why would they sell it for less now when their production capacities are still not great enough to even supply the people who are willing to spend 1000$ on it? No reason. Palmer is a lying shit, but probably mostly because he was completely disregarding laws of supply and demand.
I dunno, maybe to corner the market and establish dominance? Like the PS4 did with the Xbone.
Oculus either dug their own grave with this price or set the standard. Which of these remains up to valve.
> complaining about the price
> being a lower class
HTC is a sinking ship. Valve could afford it, but they're too Jewish. They could sell it at the same price as the Rift and it would still be a better deal just for the controllers, though.
To be fair. Valve has the backing of HTC and their ridiculous tech infrastructure. They are already manufacturing a lot of the tech they need for VR. That brings the cost down a lot.
>SONY is going to poison the well
why i'm not surprised
they exist only to do that
>wanting VR to die before it ever got a chance
VR will be useless unless it becomes a cheap consumer grade item that everyone can own. Until then all that it's gonna have are shitty gimmicky indie games and badly implemented tacked on shit for proper games.
Good god this is full out Sony 2006 level arrogance.
Except Sony had just come off the back of the PS2 - the most successful console of all time.
Oculus is off the back of...absolutely nothing.
>"If something’s even $600, it doesn’t matter how good it is, how great of an experience it is — if they just can’t afford it, then it really might as well not exist." - Palmer Luckey, June 6 2013
Interesting site that helps prove my point
I've only done VR via google cardboard using a galaxy S6 and the screen door effect was pretty bad despite the fact that it's a higher resolution screen than the consumer version of the oculus.
For $600 they could have at least used that 4K display that was used on the Sony Xperia Z5 premium
'almost totally gone'
'more like a fine fabric than a screendoor'
'only there if you focus and actually look for it'
is the general consensus
There's been quite a few reviews during last few days, take a look.
>more like a fine fabric than a screendoor
>games look like they're rendered using fabric
>only there if you focus and actually look for it
yes, and jaggies are only noticeable when you look for them
I guess I'll just wait for the Facebook jew to not cheap out on the second gen edition and use a display that is higher resolution than my phone
They literally bought Oculus for more than what HTC is currently worth.
Why hello. I was just upvoting my reblog so I could retweet and
pepe rageface this derpinuh rage comic about my cool me..maymes. Check out this new peic lewlz that I did for my new social feminism race intersectional class.
I'm am totally a read it.
>Facebook has more pull than Sony and Microshaft combined.
Microsoft is the 3rd most valuable company in the world behind Apple and Google. Facebook has struggled to monetize their shit services and will likely see a massive correction within the next year or two.
Facebook's valuation is ridiculously inflated though. They don't actually have that much money.
The fact that they spent $2 billion on Oculus means they are really riding on it being the future.
If it flops (almost inevitable at this point - either VR fails outright or Oculus is beaten by another VR company), it could seriously hurt Facebook.
>Facebook has no hardware experience at all
Who cares, the point is that they could have gone with much more pixel dense displays, they exist but instead they decided to go with something cheap and low res, meanwhile charging out the ass for it.
because it's Valve and they want to maintain their dominance in the PC market
1. they can subsidize the cost through selling VR games on Steam, the dominating game platform
2. they're a private company and don't need to please investors
The core technology in the Rift is the main driver - two built-for-VR OLED displays with very high refresh rate and pixel density, a very precise tracking system, mechanical adjustment systems that must be lightweight, durable, and precise, and cutting-edge optics that are more complex to manufacture than many high end DSLR lenses. It is expensive, but for the $599 you spend, you get a lot more than spending $599 on pretty much any other consumer electronics devices - phones that cost $599 cost a fraction of that to make, same with mid-range TVs that cost $599.
>no cheaper version without all the gimmicks
I just want a thing that plasters two screens in front of my goggles and nothing else.
Fuck their controller, headset and whatnot.
>wanting a 4K, 24Hz panel for VR
>has only 2/3 of required RGB subpixels
hurr higher resolution = better!
They only want a useful product. VR has very little software support, and is not very convenient to use.
Phones can sell for a lot because they have lots of software support (including a killer app from the start - making calls on the go) and are one of the most convenient devices ever created.
The PS3 was a better technological deal than than the Wii for its money, and yet people stayed the hell away from the PS3 for years until the price went way down.
The lack of clear benefit won't exactly fill your average consumer with enthusiasm.
So were 3D TVs and look how far that went.
Nobody except hardcore gamers want more immersion.
Also I attended websummit and they do a lot of hardware stuff, they're making drones to deliver the internet to another 1 billion people, and are working on AI //recgonition shit a bunch, aside from VR that's their 5/10 yr plan
I'll wait for the Vive's release at the very least, and probably Sony's as well, before deciding which platform to go with.
Oculus is seriously behind as-is with their Facebook-funded platform though, even ignoring their PR mistakes.
Having a mature platform like Steam, which is rather unique in not screwing over devs as a publisher, as the basic platform is vastly preferrable.
Even Sony has something over them since they have actual experience funding and developing games, and they're aware that weeb-experiences like gf simulators and similar will sell it.
When they first arrived their name sounded like some garbage chink firm. Then I thought they where ok, but a company I'd never buy from. Now they're sinking.. well,
Yes, but unlike the other two they already have a willing market in Sonyggers and a guarantee of a slew of Sony-tier quality games.
Hell they can probably push it as the closest thing to a "PS5" and increase their console market share that way if they're smart about it.
I assume vr is mainstream around 2020 when majority of pc gamers have good enough gpu to run it without nauseating side effects.
how expensive will next gen consoles be when everyone expects them to run a vr? 800$?
>Facebook has no hardware experience at all
>None of which are consumer products.
>PS4 had 50% of the marketshare a few months back
>It's more now
>It'll be much more by the end of 2016
Even though there are many more PCs aout there, there are MUCH less PCs cabable of handeling VR than there are PS4's
So no, it's not a limit at all
>HD remaster of a classic press conference
First anon said Facebook had more pull than Microsoft and Sony combined.
I said no it doesn't, no one respects it, no one has ever heard of Facebook doing hardware while HTC is famous for its phones.
You can be pedantic all you want but in the end the public opinion of Facebook is MUCH MUCH lower than MS or Sony's, especially when it comes to hardware.
burden of proof, etc.
facebook literally has 1 billion daily users and is gaining hella goodwill from zuckerberg donating 99% of his money to charity, providing free internet for billions of people, etc.
normies eat it up
>Even though there are many more PCs aout there, there are MUCH less PCs cabable of handeling VR than there are PS4's
That's not true, PS4 can't handle immersive VR. You need at least 60 FPS per eye with a yeast 1080p per eye. That means half the FPS of any current 1080p titles and they need 4x the FPS. Every game will look like shit or just won't be immersive.
You are not immune to burden of proof either m8.
The Facebook WEBSITE is popular, but only because you can connect with your friends/family there, no one cares about the company itself and if a better alternative comes along people will just abandon it just flock in droves to it.
That's why social networks are so fragile, because what matters is WHO is using it, not WHAT the site is, they simply use it as a tool to talk to their friends.
Facebook is in a huge bubble right which WILL pop and it doesn't have a strong foothold outside its social network.
VR is here and it works. For 600 bucks you can have vr. People are really underselling what breakthrough that is. Sure its expensive now but eventually the price will go down. Something like the rift just a few years ago would have cost thousands of dollars.
As for public opinion, that is hard to quantify but if you look at public opinion tracking websites like http://www.whatdoestheinternetthink.net/ for example Facebook has much higher negativity than Microsoft and Sony.
>For 600 bucks
Plus another 250 if you're outside the US.
Honestly I don't think that can be understated. The HTC guys won't have the issue of raping everyone with shipping charges.
From a non-game on a system with 0 games outside Bloodborne, as confirmed by /v/
Ignore her, she doesn't exist. It's just a figment of your imagination.
>That's not true
It absolutely is. I have a high end PC. 860, 16gb ram, SSDs in Raid0, i7-4710. Not the top of the crop but above mid-range. I can run most games 60fps on my 3k monitor, and the more demanding ones like Witcher3 at 1080p.
I still won't buy Rift/Vive as they'll run like shit and I don't even have 4 available USB slots (I doubt USB hubs fix the problem, as if that was the case they'd just merge the required 3 USB3 cables into 1 from the start)
You must suffer from a serious affliction if you think there are more people with 970's than there are PS4's
>Every game will look like shit or just won't be immersive
Consumers won't care. I'm also sure your standards are very high, so GranTurismoSport looks like absolute shit, and the recent in-engine AceCombat7 reveal trailer makes you want to puke from the visual diarreia it is.
Both of which will be playable in VR
But sure, only on-rails shitty looking indie demos will be on PSVR, as you say. M'lord.
>it's a breakthrough
>literally the same shit as virtual boy but in higher res
I hate all this overselling of "NEW" technology which is actually fucking ancient shit with more numbers.
tesla x's framework design is a fucking brilliant breakthrough, virtual boy [CURRENTYEAR] isn't
oculus last year:
>it's going to be $200-$400, guys. definitely not something retarded like $600. it might as well not exist at that price.
>are you goyim serious?! what did you expect? $599 is obscenely cheap you entitled fucking peasant pieces of shit.
why do people allow themselves to be treated like this?
Same reason apple and razer are still in business, people would rather spend a lot of money in something that impresses other people than use a cheaper alternative even if it's the same or better.
>you can clearly see more components on DK2's front panel that aren't spread out like the image below
Is this a new flaseflagger image or are you just that stupid? You could disassemble DK2 much more than that and it would look just like the 3D model below
I don't think you'd be able to run modern games at 1080px2, at the 120fps necessary for vr at 60fps, on a single 980ti, you'd need at least 2, and that's already $1200 without any other component.
>As we’ve said, Facebook has been the exception. While all the rest struggle, Facebook actually keeps growing, and it actually keeps making money.
>people hyping up pricey shit VR
>expecting any quality titles from this device
>not remembering the motion control fad from last gen at all and the bum rush for that market
Can't wait for those $600 bowling games.
Naturally a simple website designed to serve as the background of social interactions will have an edge over hardware companies like MS and Sony since shit breaks down.
This still doesn't make people trust Facebook as a hardware company, I'm sure the vast majority of people don't even know Facebook is a company but rather just a website owned by the Internet Explorer.
>hard to quantify
*to run the latest games on something like the occulous.
and it's always going to be like this. vr is always go to be a rich person thing because your pc is always going to have to be about twice as powerful as it would need to be to play the same game on a monitor.
>This still doesn't make people trust Facebook as a hardware company,
>Still no evidence
> the vast majority of people don't even know Facebook is a company but rather just a website owned by the Internet Explorer.
>Argumentum ad populum
I'm going off the recommended hardware requirements stated by the devs. The occulous runs at 90fps and games are going to have downgraded graphics compared to the brand new titles.
Yeah thanks for elucidating man. what would we do without you
Nah it doesn't. I think a couple Sony Execs follow it though.
Hirai probably wanted to make one at some point, saw the twitter, and decided against making an account because it'll never be as good.
This is my concern, that because the price is so barring less people will buy it which in turn means less people will find a reason to make games that support it or mod other games to use it. Unless the vive is set lower I don't think vr is gonna snowball like it needs to succeed.
>VR let's plays
Isn't this what Sony's doing? When they first advertised Morpheus, it was all about video - movies, tv, etc. So by extension, it's not a huge leap to realize they'll probably also push Twitch VR/Youtube VR/etc.
Taking quotes out of context to mislead people, very nice "argument" you have there.
>As we’ve said, Facebook has been the exception. While all the rest struggle, Facebook actually keeps growing, and it actually keeps making money.
>There’s no denying that FB is superior to its peers. It’s highly profitable, boasting a net profit margin of 18% and a fair growth rate. There’s no doubt that Facebook is a great company with an unequaled understanding of the social media business.
>But even the great Facebook can’t avoid being sucked into the bubble like the rest of the social media stocks. FB is finding that it has to spend more and more to keep users engaged and maintain its edge. There’s no escape; the constant need for investment will burden profits.
In the same article is shows how FB's profitability razor-thin and is only getting lower.
In the end the article writer says it's a good short term investment, which is natural in any stock bubble as long as you pay attention to when it will pop and plan accordingly.
>$599 for VR set
>$1000 for 980 equiped PC
"We inovated too much, in 2016 people are clearly not ready for virtual reality"
- Facebook CEO
And this my friends, is how the waifu age ends. They didn't even give it the chance to begin. We can never ever have nice things.
I can't see if that is an anus, but whatever is it, it's horrible.
>cancerous Youtube e-celebs begin LPing VR games
>try watching it with a VR headset
>half of the screen/one eye is bombarded by a facecam of the guy laying on his couch
I-I can't wait.
It doesn't and I never said it did, I'm simply stating how it's not trusted by investors in the long term.
As for public opinion I already stated what I think and I haven't seen a single proof that it's a respected hardware company in the public eye.
The public's opinion has nothing to do with having "hardware experience" when they do, in fact, make server hardware. That's a fact and not some shitty anecdotes or speculation on the market which has yet to be proven.
It does matter when the crux of the discussion has always been about public opinion.
Anon stated how Sony came off the back of the huge success the PS2 was but still failed to gain traction with the PS3, then other anon claimed that Facebook had more pull than Sony and Microsoft combined which was proven wrong in both fronts: consumer trust and raw company value.
He's saying the PS4 doesn't have the power necessary to effectively use this VR technology. Which it doesn't. The PS4's APU just won't cut it. Which is actually a big fucking deal because of how it works.
Below 60 fps and it fucks with your perception. It's nauseating, like actually stomach-churning not just bad looking.
And it's looking more like PS4 will run games closer to 30 FPS, which despite all the memeing about the human eye's capability, is going to be horrendous to use. You're going to feel like you're drunk when you put it on and it will undoubtedly cause headaches and dizziness.
in a year or two when still no one besides a handful of enthusiasts have bought them, it's going to be impossible to continue to convince devs that vr is going to be the next big thing. they wasted the huge amount of hype they've spent the last few years building up.
I'm not buying Playstation VR though
>Motion control fad
>Motion control in WiiU controller.
>Motion control in PS4 controller.
>Motion control in Steam Controller.
>Motion controls in every cell phone.
>Sony, Oculus, and HTC/Valve all releasing more dedicated motion controllers soon.
>vr headset for platform that can barely do 1080P 30 FPS
>when VR needs 1080P 90 FPS
Did you ever think Sony WASN'T putting out a VR headset to poison the well? PSVR exists to make Oculus and Vive look bad so people won't take interest in PC.
I don't understand the big deal about Facebook buying the Rift. Facebook bought Instagram and changed exactly jack shit about it. If facebook seriously removed the open-source capabilities that would be a different matter, but they're probably one of the few companies who buy other properties and don't change shit about it. I'd honestly be way more pissed if Google or Microsoft bought it.
There'll probably be a headset-only product a couple of months into the release.
>Please build a 1200 dollar computer and buy this 600 dollar headset
Anyone building a PC right now is a fucking idiot anyways.
Pascal is going to change everything. If you buy a GPU right now for any reason other than "I have to replace something ASAP" you are legitimately throwing your money down the toilet.
There isn't an alternative. It's going to be fucking expensive, it's a new technology.
Now if you want it in a motorcycle helmet, that's going to be 1500 mother fucking dollars.
Yes. And everyone buying first-gen Pascal is a retard too, just wait a bit longer and you'll get cheaper version. Just look at the history, first-gen is always way overpriced.