Long Standing Members here say the Price Sucks! - Page 2 — Oculus
New to the forums? Click here to read the "How To" Guide.

Developer? Click here to go to the Developer Forums.

Long Standing Members here say the Price Sucks!

2

Comments

  • Felix12gFelix12g Posts: 149
    Brain Burst
    I remember when the eyefinity hit and people were snapping up a nice new card and 3 nice monitors to go with it. That cost vs this really isn't that bad.

    Sure, you might have sticker shock, but that hardly makes this the end of the world.

    If you can't afford it, go hit up Samsung, that's what that's for.
    Code Monkey
  • I feel bad for the developers, they have to drop some serious coin now to continue to develop for the CV1.
  • tomba4tomba4 Posts: 12
    NerveGear
    edited January 2016
    Elvis_T wrote:
    I know I won't be popular with my opinion, but I think $600 is very reasonable in comparison to what else is available.

    I agree, kind of. If $600 was a store price, like every other piece of hardware, I'd probably buy it, even knowing that I'm paying for trash (headphones and controller) as well.

    $800-$1100 (depending on where you live) is not so fun though.

    Edit: note that with multiple projectors/displays you'd have a setup for every modern game, while VR support is somewhat limited.
  • Tim74UKTim74UK Posts: 1,369
    Nexus 6
    aabel wrote:
    Tim74UK wrote:
    aabel wrote:
    Long standing member here, been here longer than the OP! I think the price is a bit high, but fine. We always want cheaper! I don't think it's as outrageous as some people do.

    Do you guys have any idea what VR cost before Oculus?

    Sorry I should have said.. long standing and long active.... :roll:

    Sorry, I am a developer I don't have much time for online forums.

    Dismissive shortsighted and arrogant.

    It seems to me you don't have the slightest idea with whom you are speaking with.
    My Rig: - Gigabyte Z97 X5 MB / Core i7 4790K @ 4.4Ghz - Water Cooled Coolmaster AIO Loop (Push - Pull Config)/ 16GB Corsair Dominator ram at 2400Mhz / Palit Jetsteam GTX 980 OC edition / 250GB SSD OS / Program Drive + 2 TB hard drive storage / Win 10
  • smilertoosmilertoo Posts: 268
    Hiro Protagonist
    edited January 2016
    The Rift was supposed to be a consumer entertainment device, sony and ms spent years discovering that the magic cut off point is around $400. Oculus should have at least offered a stripped down version without all the guff starting indie devs dont need, like headphones, mic, gamepad, games and carry case; they could have bagged it and packed it in dung for all i care as long as it got here in good working condition.
  • Tim74UKTim74UK Posts: 1,369
    Nexus 6
    jamacias wrote:
    I feel bad for the developers, they have to drop some serious coin now to continue to develop for the CV1.

    That's just it.... they won't...

    Too much of a risk on the PC platform now.

    Most likely they will change platform mobile or console.
    smilertoo wrote:
    The Rift was supposed to be a consumer entertainment device, sony and ms spent years discovering that the magic cut off point is around $400. Oculus should have at least offered a stripped down version without all the guff starting indie devs dont need, like headphones, mic, gamepad, games.

    Absolutely! Nail and Head!
    My Rig: - Gigabyte Z97 X5 MB / Core i7 4790K @ 4.4Ghz - Water Cooled Coolmaster AIO Loop (Push - Pull Config)/ 16GB Corsair Dominator ram at 2400Mhz / Palit Jetsteam GTX 980 OC edition / 250GB SSD OS / Program Drive + 2 TB hard drive storage / Win 10
  • DreamwriterDreamwriter Posts: 1,101
    3Jane
    jamacias wrote:
    I feel bad for the developers, they have to drop some serious coin now to continue to develop for the CV1.
    Developers who are making games coming out soon get one for free from Oculus. Otherwise, to most serious developers $600 is pretty much nothing.
    Tim74UK wrote:
    Here's the thing: a lower price right now wouldn't increase sales one bit.

    Err yes they would??

    Where on earth did you get that idea from.

    I for one would have bought it at £399... yet we are at more than £100 that...
    But you wouldn't have one, not until May or June. The thing could be $1, and they'd have the exact same amount of owners as it is now with it $600.
    Tim74UK wrote:
    Oculus haven't even come clean on the specs... what is the FOV of the CV1??
    They already said a while back that the FOV of CV1 would be pretty similar to DK2's FOV.
  • aabelaabel Posts: 113
    Hiro Protagonist
    Tim74UK wrote:

    Dismissive shortsighted and arrogant.

    It seems to me you don't have the slightest idea with whom you are speaking with.


    This is exactly why I don't have much time for online forums, especially public ones.
  • RorschachPhoenixRorschachPhoenix Posts: 1,594 Valuable Player
    smilertoo wrote:
    The Rift was supposed to be a consumer entertainment device, sony and ms spent years discovering that the magic cut off point is around $400. Oculus should have at least offered a stripped down version without all the guff starting indie devs dont need, like headphones, mic, gamepad, games.

    Oculus should have at leat said that the price would be around $600 to $700. But they stated very often that the price will be around $300 to $400. And that is very misleading and will break the VR community and industry in half.
    Excuse my bad english. I speak to you through the google translator. :P
  • CantatosCantatos Posts: 12
    NerveGear
    aabel wrote:
    Tim74UK wrote:

    Dismissive shortsighted and arrogant.

    It seems to me you don't have the slightest idea with whom you are speaking with.


    This is exactly why I don't have much time for online forums, especially public ones.

    That's probably also why you have a very narrow understanding of the reason why people are outraged, yet you have to post your input on this online forum.
  • montrayjakmontrayjak Posts: 6
    NerveGear
    Honestly, I'm kind of happy with the price.

    If they're selling it close to cost, then selling it at $350 would have meant it would have felt really cheaply made and just a subpar experience -- Remember, even the DK2 was subsidized, so imagine something worse than that. I'm really excited to experience premium VR... the thing our inner child has always really wanted. I'm excited that's finally here.
  • MaxxgoldMaxxgold Posts: 351
    Trinity
    montrayjak wrote:
    Honestly, I'm kind of happy with the price.

    If they're selling it close to cost, then selling it at $350 would have meant it would have felt really cheaply made and just a subpar experience -- Remember, even the DK2 was subsidized, so imagine something worse than that. I'm really excited to experience premium VR... the thing our inner child has always really wanted. I'm excited that's finally here.


    Yep. I feel the same way.
  • Captain-i0Captain-i0 Posts: 51
    Brain Burst
    Vallie wrote:
    I worry the more indie developers may not resume/update their projects simply because of this.

    It would be a mistake, if so.

    There will be as many Rifts as Oculus can make out there, as shipping is already backed up through May at least. Probably through the year.

    However, it will be a niche market for sure. And this will keep the competition down from the big devs. Those companies that really need a large audience and have been squeezing out indie devs for years are the ones that are going to be scared away by the smaller audience.

    Also, considering the relatively short timeframe and lack of content, those of us that are early adopters are likely to try just about everything and anything that people can put out.

    It's the best time to get a foothold into the market if you are smaller/indie, before it's a mass-market product.
  • velma01 wrote:
    already read reports on other forums that DEVS are pushing down their projects release date cause they fear a low market and don't want to loose their "launch momentum" as that only comes once.
    Personally, I would expect that this is just a knee jerk reaction. I shared this fear initially, but once I saw the expected delivery date pushed back to May, for new orders, I felt much better. If I'm not mistaken, Palmer said that he expected they had enough headsets to cover the initial demand, but in the worst case scenario, the delivery date for additional headsets would just be pushed back, if they somehow didn't have enough. This tells me, that they not only sold well, but considerably exceeded their expectations for the BEST that they would do. So I would expect that once devs see the pre-order numbers, they'll have the confidence needed to continue the projects as originally planned.
  • montrayjakmontrayjak Posts: 6
    NerveGear
    Tim74UK wrote:
    Oculus haven't even come clean on the specs... what is the FOV of the CV1??
    They already said a while back that the FOV of CV1 would be pretty similar to DK2's FOV.

    I've heard that the FOV is 'considerably wider' than the DK2. The one thing that surprised me is it's also slightly lowered to your line of vision so you must get the feeling of wearing a hat or something -- but you can see the ground much better. Makes sense.

    Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comment ... d_here_is/
  • sabyyysabyyy Posts: 33
    Brain Burst
    Not ordering now as today's news make me wait and see if I want this or something else so this is not pissing me off but are we really talking about may-june delivery? Half a year again?
    I was expecting a few weeks max from the first deliveries regardless if you pre-order next week or whatever. This is a cv not a dk I have been told for many months now.
    How is that q1 if the majority who orders in january receives the device in q2?
    And please spare me the BS I already heard for vive that their 2015 "very limited" launch is still a launch after all.. (which of course didnt happen after all).

    Is there a company that doesnt do BS?? I would buy anything from them I dont even need. 100 kgs potatoes or whatever just dont do BS.

    My apologies in advance of course if I misunderstood the delivery dates.
  • NsoldalNsoldal Posts: 46
    Brain Burst
    I AGREE with a few people saying $599 is a good price... IT IS!!!

    BUT 3/4 OF THE WORLD CAN'T BUY IT FOR THAT!!!!!

    Ok... so I'm an Aussie,

    I click Australia price changes from $599 to $650 (no indicator on what currency) okay is that Tax? (hang on 10% {gst} is $60 not $50), hmm okay then has it changed to AUD then? Not sure, Oh well what ever at that price I would still buy it (i have a high tolerance for expensive gear)

    Click next

    Hmm Shipping says here $132, wait this HAS to be in AUD.. Every other country is in their local currency, and who the hell are they shipping through, to cost $132USD per unit????????? (this is the bit that baffles my mind, just how.... how how how how how how how how how how.. no really can we get an explination*)

    At this point, I'm second guessing my self, but think wait, this is all too familiar.

    -My DK2 order

    Shipping: $75.00 USD - We all know the size and weight of the box (how ridiculous does it seem to pay that in shipping)
    Tax: $35.00 USD - Not sure why we paid $35 tax on a product imported, AU laws specifically state we don't need to!?!
    Order Total: $460.00 USD - The only difference here is that IT ACTUALLY SAYS THE CURRENCY!!!

    The same stuff was said, at release then, they said, 'it's because we are young etc.' this will improve!

    ITS WORSE.. (if it truly is in USD)



    Please just send them Fed Ex individually, you would get a better price, I'M NOT KIDDING!

    At this point
  • NsoldalNsoldal Posts: 46
    Brain Burst
    I AGREE with a few people saying $599 is a good price... IT IS!!!

    BUT 3/4 OF THE WORLD CAN'T BUY IT FOR THAT!!!!!

    Ok... so I'm an Aussie,

    I click Australia price changes from $599 to $650 (no indicator on what currency) okay is that Tax? (hang on 10% {gst} is $60 not $50), hmm okay then has it changed to AUD then? Not sure, Oh well what ever at that price I would still buy it (i have a high tolerance for expensive gear)

    Click next

    Hmm Shipping says here $132, wait this HAS to be in AUD.. Every other country is in their local currency, and who the hell are they shipping through, to cost $132USD per unit????????? (this is the bit that baffles my mind, just how.... how how how how how how how how how how.. no really can we get an explination*)

    At this point, I'm second guessing my self, but think, wait, this is all too familiar.

    -My DK2 order

    Shipping: $75.00 USD - We all know the size and weight of the box (how ridiculous does it seem to pay that in shipping)
    Tax: $35.00 USD - Not sure why we paid $35 tax on a product imported, AU laws specifically state we don't need to!?!
    Order Total: $460.00 USD - The only difference here is that IT ACTUALLY SAYS THE CURRENCY!!! (oh and if affordable to most)

    The same stuff was said, at release then, they said, 'it's because we are young etc.' this will improve!

    ITS WORSE.. (if it truly is in USD)

    So they gain 2Bil in funding, and we get 0 improvement on logistics or ordering process? Did you not learn from previous experience? You are honestly killing your market purely with shipping.

    Also just wondering, Ocne Touch comes out will we be paying $139 in shipping? If so I will be paying $398 in shipping expenses. This is directly from the manufacturer.. How can MOM and POP send it cheaper?

    Please just send them Fed Ex individually, you would get a better price, I'M NOT KIDDING!

    Can we please get an explanation of shipping costs and AUD $50 price hike..

    If this was confirmed as "in AUD" ignore all of the above, priced as expected.. shipping just weird offset for pricing.
  • Emvy-Emvy- Posts: 125
    Hiro Protagonist
    I have the same feeling.

    I would have bought it for $599. heck I would pay $50 for shipping even though I think that's absolutely crazy, this high priced products should ship free.

    but in EU I have to pay 742 Euro.. that's $800 including shipping costs.

    not saying I don't think the CV1 is worth it. but for $800 I would want to see the product first in order to determine if its worth upgrading my Dk2 for. not an amount I am willing to take a leap of faith for.
  • mdufformduffor Posts: 68
    Hiro Protagonist
    jamacias wrote:
    I feel bad for the developers, they have to drop some serious coin now to continue to develop for the CV1.

    $600 isn't that much for developers, when you consider all the tools they have to invest in for developing. The extra $200 won't factor in much in the long run. The bigger concern is that at $600 (and more for customers outside the US), CV1 won't be the affordable consumer product that the Kickstarter originally pitched it to be. That means for a long time there will be a much smaller potential customer base to sell into. That lack of demand is what will turn developers off far more than a bit more upfront development costs.

    On the upside, I think this price point makes the GearVR a much more viable product to develop for if one is targeting VR, especially for uses outside of high end games or super-high-end arch vis.

    Cheers,
    mduffor
  • Hmmm, it appears the Oculus supporters don't truly understand the ramifications of this. I'll give you a hint, no matter how you swing it, this price point is an utter disaster.

    I actually worked and have many friends who work for Bio-ware, so I know what I'm talking about here, unlike some other arrogant "Developers".

    Here's the thing, any company, big or small, will develop games only if they feel that there will be a sufficient market share. Making a high quality video game takes many people, a lot of cash, and a lot of time; no company will invest any of that if they feel the market share will be too low.

    To put it another way, people always ask why games are ported to the PC VS just being ported to the consoles, of course it comes down to install base. The amount of people that game on 970's/980's class GPU's is so minuscule it's completely irrelevant to all but the smallest of dedicated indie devs. Now on top of that niche, you add another niche, VR, a peripheral that is more expensive than the cost of a 980ti...

    Simply put, this prices 99% of the general public out of reach. There will NOT be any major games made for the rift, period. This will turn into your standard catch 22. Game studios will not devote resources because they fear the price point will scare people away, but people won't buy the CV1 because they fear they will be stuck with a peripheral that has no games!

    "But what about the indie devs" some might say. Well, considering the costs of the computer and the CV1, very few people will pay that much to play some short crappy demo's, I'm sorry to say. Just won't happen.

    The argument that the rift is selling well is a junk argument. I seem to recall Ubisoft saying how the latest tomb raider sold "okay" with over 4 million units sold. No major game studio will develop a game with 20 thousand users in mind!

    In all honesty the idea of a peripheral selling well is a hard pill to swallow at any price point. But at over 600 USD (Over 1000 CAD) any interest from the average gamer, you know, the 95% of people that don't have a 500$ GPU will all but evaporate, along with the Oculus name. You actually run the risk of the 95% getting pissed at VR, since they can't afford it anyways it will sure be easy to hate on it, and write it off as an expensive "fad".

    I seem to recall Lucky talking about poisoning the well. Huh, I bet most people here would not have thought but 3 years ago it would actually be Oculus poisoning said well...
  • H3ssianH3ssian Posts: 9
    NerveGear
    The Atari 2600. Launched in September of 1977, the Atari 2600 cost $199.99. When taking the 258.9% inflation rate for 1977/2013, the Atari 2600 cost the equivalent of $771 today

    thats not taking in another 3+ years of inflation . Nuff said
  • nightauditor1981nightauditor1981 Posts: 302
    Nexus 6
    I can´t quite understand the outrage over the pricing. What did you guys expect? The dk2 sold for 350, and that didn´t include the upgraded hardware, the headphones, the controller and the game.

    Plus, most of the people who have pc´s that can run the rift must have spent much more on the rig.

    How can a 600 buck gaming device be out of reach for 99 % of the potential market? If that is the case, who is buying all those Titans and 980ies? Who is buying high end simulation hardware?

    All that this pricepoint means is that you´ll raise the average age of the user base by a couple of years. If the software and hardware are as convincing a product as we all want it to be, then they will sell more than enough units.

    Cheaper knockoffs will be available sooner than later anyway. But considering the hardware/software bundle that we get, I really think that this is absolutely reasonable. It´s not cheap, sure, but noone could have realistically expected it to be.
  • GigantoadGigantoad Posts: 395
    Nexus 6
    mduffor wrote:
    jamacias wrote:
    I feel bad for the developers, they have to drop some serious coin now to continue to develop for the CV1.

    $600 isn't that much for developers, when you consider all the tools they have to invest in for developing.

    Let's talk to most developers out there. Majority of them are indies since AAA won't care for VR much for some time. If you add to that the fact consumers will have to pay the same price, the same consumers that are supposed to buy the games developers make, the whole deal becomes even less attractive. If you have a team of people needing several Rifts you now also have a bunch of gamepad and cheap headphones piling up that nobody needs since you already had that stuff.

    The logic that tools cost a lot so needing even more tools that cost a lot won't hurt much is also kinda flawed, don't you think?
  • H3ssian wrote:
    The Atari 2600. Launched in September of 1977, the Atari 2600 cost $199.99. When taking the 258.9% inflation rate for 1977/2013, the Atari 2600 cost the equivalent of $771 today

    thats not taking in another 3+ years of inflation . Nuff said
    Did the Atari 2600 require a computer of double it's value to be able to be used?

    Thanks for the answer.
  • przecinekprzecinek Posts: 588
    Nexus 6
    Warren989 wrote:
    H

    To put it another way, people always ask why games are ported to the PC VS just being ported to the consoles, of course it comes down to install base. The amount of people that game on 970's/980's class GPU's is so minuscule it's completely irrelevant to all but the smallest of dedicated indie devs. Now on top of that niche, you add another niche, VR, a peripheral that is more expensive than the cost of a 980ti...

    Simply put, this prices 99% of the general public out of reach. There will NOT be any major games made for the rift, period. This will turn into your standard catch 22. Game studios will not devote resources because they fear the price point will scare people away, but people won't buy the CV1 because they fear they will be stuck with a peripheral that has no games!

    This is what Palmer has said himself in his interview from 2013. By coincidence he even quoted 600$ as a price regular gamers won't pay "no matter how good the hardware is". He then went on how they want to go mainstream. What made Palmer change his mind I'm not sure. Perhaps he sees VR market as already big enough to swallow 600$ as opposed to 2013?

    I just wouldn't agree that Indies deliver "crappy demos". Some of those DK2 experiences were spectacular! :D As someone who has worked with devs, you should have more respect for your peers :}
  • RonsonPLRonsonPL Posts: 1,115
    Trinity
    przecinek wrote:
    Warren989 wrote:
    H

    To put it another way, people always ask why games are ported to the PC VS just being ported to the consoles, of course it comes down to install base. The amount of people that game on 970's/980's class GPU's is so minuscule it's completely irrelevant to all but the smallest of dedicated indie devs. Now on top of that niche, you add another niche, VR, a peripheral that is more expensive than the cost of a 980ti...

    Simply put, this prices 99% of the general public out of reach. There will NOT be any major games made for the rift, period. This will turn into your standard catch 22. Game studios will not devote resources because they fear the price point will scare people away, but people won't buy the CV1 because they fear they will be stuck with a peripheral that has no games!

    This is what Palmer has said himself in his interview from 2013. By coincidence he even quoted 600$ as a price regular gamers won't pay "no matter how good the hardware is". He then went on how they want to go mainstream. What made Palmer change his mind I'm not sure. Perhaps he sees VR market as already big enough to swallow 600$ as opposed to 2013?

    I just wouldn't agree that Indies deliver "crappy demos". Some of those DK2 experiences were spectacular! :D As someone who has worked with devs, you should have more respect for your peers :}

    I answered it in my "RIP PC VR" thread. He changed his mind because he doesn't care about PC VR anymore, and it doesn't matter if PC Rift will succeed or not, since Oculus is 99% focused on mobile and low-end now.
    PCs meeting minimum requirements will get cheaper in time. Oculus won't push PC VR ahead so the same hardware will be the target for the devs in 2015 and in 2017. They can be sure they will sell some CV1s, they'll earn something, who cares about PC VR anyway.

    PS. But on the other hand - you cannot quote something about GPUs when it's year or 1,5yr old. Prices of i5+gtx970 might (I'm slowly loosing my hopes for that as well) get a lot cheaper by the time Oculus manages to fix their supply chain. Preorders for May are a joke. Just another hint at "Who cares about PC VR" attitude.
    Not an Oculus hater, but not a fan anymore.
    Still lots of respect for the team-Carmack, Abrash.
    Oculus is driven by big corporation principles now. That brings painful effects already, more to come in the future. This is not the Oculus I once cheered for.
  • przecinek wrote:

    I just wouldn't agree that Indies deliver "crappy demos". Some of those DK2 experiences were spectacular! :D As someone who has worked with devs, you should have more respect for your peers :}

    In that context I meant it from how I would look at things if I was some average gamer looking from the outside in. They are not crappy, but you're not going to hook someone into buying a 600$ peripheral with just a demo, that was my point.
  • Hiro_Protag0nistHiro_Protag0nist Posts: 4,792 Valuable Player
    Palmer's explanation over the price:

    I handled the messaging poorly. Earlier last year, we started officially messaging that the Rift+Recommended spec PC would cost roughly $1500. That was around the time we committed to the path of prioritizing quality over cost, trying to make the best VR headset possible with current technology. Many outlets picked the story up as “Rift will cost $1500!”, which was honestly a good thing - the vast majority of consumers (and even gamers!) don’t have a PC anywhere close to the rec. spec, and many people were confused enough to think the Rift was a standalone device. For that vast majority of people, $1500 is the all-in cost of owning Rift. The biggest portion of their cost is the PC, not the Rift itself.
    For gamers that already have high end GPUs, the equation is obviously different. In a September interview, during the Oculus Connect developer conference, I made the infamous “roughly in that $350 ballpark, but it will cost more than that” quote. As an explanation, not an excuse: during that time, many outlets were repeating the “Rift is $1500!” line, and I was frustrated by how many people thought that was the price of the headset itself. My answer was ill-prepared, and mentally, I was contrasting $349 with $1500, not our internal estimate that hovered close to $599 - that is why I said it was in roughly the same ballpark. Later on, I tried to get across that the Rift would cost more than many expected, in the past two weeks particularly. There are a lot of reasons we did not do a better job of prepping people who already have high end GPUs, legal, financial, competitive, and otherwise, but to be perfectly honest, our biggest failing was assuming we had been clear enough about setting expectations. Another problem is that people looked at the much less advanced technology in DK2 for $350 and assumed the consumer Rift would cost a similar amount, an assumption that myself (and Oculus) did not do a good job of fixing. I apologize.
    To be perfectly clear, we don’t make money on the Rift. The Xbox controller costs us almost nothing to bundle, and people can easily resell it for profit. A lot of people wish we would sell a bundle without “useless extras” like high-end audio, a carrying case, the bundled games, etc, but those just don’t significantly impact the cost. 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. There are a lot of mainstream devices in that price-range, so as you have said, our failing was in communication, not just price.
  • Warren989Warren989 Posts: 52
    edited January 2016
    RonsonPL wrote:
    I answered it in my "RIP PC VR" thread. He changed his mind because he doesn't care about PC VR anymore, and it doesn't matter if PC Rift will succeed or not, since Oculus is 99% focused on mobile and low-end now.
    PCs meeting minimum requirements will get cheaper in time. Oculus won't push PC VR ahead so the same hardware will be the target for the devs in 2015 and in 2017. They can be sure they will sell some CV1s, they'll earn something, who cares about PC VR anyway.

    PS. But on the other hand - you cannot quote something about GPUs when it's year or 1,5yr old. Prices of i5+gtx970 might (I'm slowly loosing my hopes for that as well) get a lot cheaper by the time Oculus manages to fix their supply chain. Preorders for May are a joke. Just another hint at "Who cares about PC VR" attitude.

    Still. Even with the Pascal architecture coming up, a 200 card will not be able to deliver the 90+ FPS you need to have a good time. Even then, the average gamer has a 960 or a 950gtx, which is 200$ new vs 500ish for a 970.

    The rest of the points I agree with you on. It's like how some people are comparing the CV1 to a blu-ray player :roll: The blu-ray player had the advantage that it was funded by the media companies pushing their own ware (Sony and all of it's subsidiaries), so yea, a new optical standard was inevitable.

    With something like this, you need the software companies to back it, but they have zero vested interest in doing that if they cannot sell games. A better comparison would be CV1 vs the laserdisk (or HD-DVD). The laserdisk did not have the giant media companies backing and was extremely expensive, so it failed.

    Trying to say the tech will come down in price is irrelvant. People needed a blu ray player to watch a blu-ray. People don't need a CV1 to play games. If you give people a reason to not spend hard earned cash on something, give them something to hate on etc. They will do that instead. This will only increase sales of GearVR in the general public, and Vive sales in the gaming public.
Sign In or Register to comment.