Its the same price to just get stand in place 360 and will require you to put two cameras atleast 3 feet away on opposing sides of you. It is an extra $100 above the Vive if you want what they are calling roomscale. It will end up in a considerably smaller space that you can move around in, but a bit better occlusion resistance in that smaller space.
Ultimately Rift will continue to be really for sim-gamer's only(or people who are okay with tacked on VR camera in a 3rd person game). People who want to stand up and move around with hands in a game are best served by vive. I own both, and can only suggest the rift if you have zero space to move and want to save $200 or if your favorite racing game is rift-only ATM.
Oh, and definitely check them out in person first, the rift has less stereo overlap and has a bit of distortion as you turn your head. The Vive has a bit less pixel density but higher FOV, brightness, better stereo and no distortion.
Oh, and on the cost of buying the pieces ala carte from HTC, Oculus actually doesn't offer any extra parts for sale so we don't know what the prices would be for individual parts. They actually offer no replacements and won't even repair damaged headsets in most locales, they just expect people to buy an entire new headset if they decline a warranty repair.
HTC's prices are pretty bad, but there is no comparison at this point.
Selling them separately is helping nobody. Some games will support the touch. Some games will even require (or at least suggest) the use of the additional camera. I don't want to keep track of the extra crap I need to play something, I just want to buy one system and play everything made for it. Fragmentation is stupid, and can only be successful when you have products in high demand.
Its too late for that to stop the problem. They have heavily fractured their market, I'd be very interested to see their attachment rate for the headsets they've already sold once touch comes out.
Agree. Oculus hurt themselves by fracturing their market when they launched an incomplete product. By incomplete I mean comparatively to the HTC Vive. They could mitigate this by putting two cameras in there to create parity with HTC's offering and giving a discount to early adopters for the touch package. Usually though as we've seen with other add-ons, if it's not part of the initial package, then odds are it will go the way of the dodo. Of course if adoption numbers of the Rift with the touch package far outpace the headset only crowd then developers may be more inclined to develop with the controllers in mind. Pack in doesn't guarantee anything though. If the controllers are no good then developers wont use them. XBOX one is a good example of a pack in that went nowhere. Kinect is all but useless and definitely not desired by many.
It's still too much. Just because their main competition is also overcharging, Oculus following suit isn't going to help VR adoption. And especially after Palmer's recent escapades and the Oculus' anti-consumer practices (granted, they reversed course but I doubt anyone thinks they won't try something similar in the future) you'd think they'd need all the help they can get.
They didn't really reverse course, they are still not supporting the Vive, even though Valve is supporting the Rift. They are paying for exclusives to their headset/platform, and are locking the people who buy software from them to their platform.
I own both headsets but have not bought any software from Oculus since April, bad actions don't deserve a reward.
Sucks to be an early adopter, the pricing on this stuff is way outside of the realm of everyday people. This is NOT how you get a technology to the point of widespread market adoption.
VR is already unappealing for a variety of reasons, some related to cost and some not. I just can't see how this is going to ever go anywhere if companies don't price their equipment as low as possible in order to drive hardware adoption. Then again, I think a lot of people who have experience in dealing with the tech industry saw well in advance that there wasn't a future in this round of VR. It's a Howard Hughes or Elon Musk-like dream that isn't attainable in a manner that appeals to a suitably large audience.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
14 Comments
Back to Article
austinsguitar - Thursday, October 6, 2016 - link
i'm going to say this and a lot of others will comment.THIS........PRICE.......IS......NOT........OKAY.
comment below.
austinsguitar - Thursday, October 6, 2016 - link
oh my bad. i just got back from walmart with my 32 inch 4k smart tv for 220.:^)
frenchy_2001 - Friday, October 7, 2016 - link
if only... If you know of any 32" 4k TV, I'm interested, but so far, this is an elusive beast.SirMaster - Thursday, October 6, 2016 - link
Why is it not OK?2 controllers (130/ea) and another tracking unit ($135) would cost $395 from HTC.
Also the Rift plus Touch cost the same as the Vive and both offer about the same abilities then.
$200 seemed like the natural choice to me.
trulyuncouth - Thursday, October 6, 2016 - link
Its the same price to just get stand in place 360 and will require you to put two cameras atleast 3 feet away on opposing sides of you. It is an extra $100 above the Vive if you want what they are calling roomscale. It will end up in a considerably smaller space that you can move around in, but a bit better occlusion resistance in that smaller space.Ultimately Rift will continue to be really for sim-gamer's only(or people who are okay with tacked on VR camera in a 3rd person game). People who want to stand up and move around with hands in a game are best served by vive. I own both, and can only suggest the rift if you have zero space to move and want to save $200 or if your favorite racing game is rift-only ATM.
Oh, and definitely check them out in person first, the rift has less stereo overlap and has a bit of distortion as you turn your head. The Vive has a bit less pixel density but higher FOV, brightness, better stereo and no distortion.
trulyuncouth - Thursday, October 6, 2016 - link
Oh, and on the cost of buying the pieces ala carte from HTC, Oculus actually doesn't offer any extra parts for sale so we don't know what the prices would be for individual parts. They actually offer no replacements and won't even repair damaged headsets in most locales, they just expect people to buy an entire new headset if they decline a warranty repair.HTC's prices are pretty bad, but there is no comparison at this point.
ChefJeff789 - Thursday, October 6, 2016 - link
Selling them separately is helping nobody. Some games will support the touch. Some games will even require (or at least suggest) the use of the additional camera. I don't want to keep track of the extra crap I need to play something, I just want to buy one system and play everything made for it. Fragmentation is stupid, and can only be successful when you have products in high demand.Ryan Smith - Thursday, October 6, 2016 - link
For what it's worth, Oculus is also launching a new $798 bundle that includes the Rift package and the Touch package together.trulyuncouth - Thursday, October 6, 2016 - link
Its too late for that to stop the problem. They have heavily fractured their market, I'd be very interested to see their attachment rate for the headsets they've already sold once touch comes out.Manch - Friday, October 7, 2016 - link
Agree. Oculus hurt themselves by fracturing their market when they launched an incomplete product. By incomplete I mean comparatively to the HTC Vive. They could mitigate this by putting two cameras in there to create parity with HTC's offering and giving a discount to early adopters for the touch package. Usually though as we've seen with other add-ons, if it's not part of the initial package, then odds are it will go the way of the dodo. Of course if adoption numbers of the Rift with the touch package far outpace the headset only crowd then developers may be more inclined to develop with the controllers in mind. Pack in doesn't guarantee anything though. If the controllers are no good then developers wont use them. XBOX one is a good example of a pack in that went nowhere. Kinect is all but useless and definitely not desired by many.cwolf78 - Friday, October 7, 2016 - link
It's still too much. Just because their main competition is also overcharging, Oculus following suit isn't going to help VR adoption. And especially after Palmer's recent escapades and the Oculus' anti-consumer practices (granted, they reversed course but I doubt anyone thinks they won't try something similar in the future) you'd think they'd need all the help they can get.trulyuncouth - Friday, October 7, 2016 - link
They didn't really reverse course, they are still not supporting the Vive, even though Valve is supporting the Rift. They are paying for exclusives to their headset/platform, and are locking the people who buy software from them to their platform.I own both headsets but have not bought any software from Oculus since April, bad actions don't deserve a reward.
fanofanand - Friday, October 7, 2016 - link
Sucks to be an early adopter, the pricing on this stuff is way outside of the realm of everyday people. This is NOT how you get a technology to the point of widespread market adoption.BrokenCrayons - Friday, October 7, 2016 - link
VR is already unappealing for a variety of reasons, some related to cost and some not. I just can't see how this is going to ever go anywhere if companies don't price their equipment as low as possible in order to drive hardware adoption. Then again, I think a lot of people who have experience in dealing with the tech industry saw well in advance that there wasn't a future in this round of VR. It's a Howard Hughes or Elon Musk-like dream that isn't attainable in a manner that appeals to a suitably large audience.