Does this concern anyone else??
Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:51 am
The Number One Resource For Stereoscopic 3D Excitement!
https://www.mtbs3d.com/phpbb/
Not surprise me? Who says that? I've never heard a member of the company saying "it would not surprise me" when talking about a product of the company....not sure what our pricing will be yet but it would not surprise me if it had three digits in front of the decimal place.
jaybug wrote:Yes, the state of gaming "journalism" concerns me greatly.
It would seem this author thinks the Rift is a gaming console, seeing as Sony, MS and Valve are mentioned as competitors.
I can only hope that by saying 'we have to compete in that space' that he means on that caliber. My biggest concern is price point. From his quote the Oculus could be priced anywhere from $100 to $999. I fear he will try to price it too high to make a premium price line up with the universal praise it is getting.Kazioo wrote:jaybug wrote:Yes, the state of gaming "journalism" concerns me greatly.
It would seem this author thinks the Rift is a gaming console, seeing as Sony, MS and Valve are mentioned as competitors.
"We wait for Sony and Microsoft to officially announce more details. We have to compete in that space" - Oculus COO
I think they mean that they want details on Sony and Microsoft's next consoles so that the Oculus Rift can be integrated into them. On the OR's FAQ they show the desire to work on major console platforms. Competing with Playstation or Xbox would be like saying, I have a 32'' LCD screen, and I want to compete with a gaming platform.Kazioo wrote:jaybug wrote:Yes, the state of gaming "journalism" concerns me greatly.
It would seem this author thinks the Rift is a gaming console, seeing as Sony, MS and Valve are mentioned as competitors.
"We wait for Sony and Microsoft to officially announce more details. We have to compete in that space" - Oculus COO
In this context, as quoted in unsilentwill's article, it means competing in dollars spent for similarly priced luxury items.Delryn wrote: I think they mean that they want details on Sony and Microsoft's next consoles so that the Oculus Rift can be integrated into them. On the OR's FAQ they show the desire to work on major console platforms. Competing with Playstation or Xbox would be like saying, I have a 32'' LCD screen, and I want to compete with a gaming platform.
I suppose so, but it just makes it sound like OR is trying to be a console. Also you get the feeling that OR is competing with Valve instead of working directly with them.German wrote:In this context, as quoted in unsilentwill's article, it means competing in dollars spent for similarly priced luxury items.Delryn wrote: I think they mean that they want details on Sony and Microsoft's next consoles so that the Oculus Rift can be integrated into them. On the OR's FAQ they show the desire to work on major console platforms. Competing with Playstation or Xbox would be like saying, I have a 32'' LCD screen, and I want to compete with a gaming platform.
Oculus VR, Inc, COO and Member of the Board of Directors, Irvine, CA
January 2013 - Present
In charge of all operational aspect of virtual reality gaming start up company, Oculus VR. Overseeing
legal, finance, IT, logistics, hardware and HR functions for 20 person Kickstarted company that creates
the most affordable, comfortable and realistic VR headsets.
That was a quote from Palmer many months ago (pre-Kickstarter). The delay he was talking about was the delay to getting the Kickstarter going.I hate to succumb to hype, but in an attempt to keep people from being to upset about the delay: Imagine an HMD with a massive field of view and more pixels than 1080p per eye, wireless PC link, built in absolute head and hand/weapon/wand positioning, and native integration with some (if not all) of the major game engines, all for less than $1,000 USD. That can happen in 2013!
Seems to imply that christmas 2014 will be the target for the consumer version.Then when we go to consumer next year, I believe there are a number of ways to approach this. There are a number of consumer shows that we'll attend, we'll spend a lot of time there. There are demonstration opportunities; you'll see us at E3, and then we hope people in the press will help evangelize that it's worth checking out the product at a retailer
I'm sure it's about the specs of their new consoles, if VR will be possible on those platforms or not. I don't think so if the rumored specs are true. Considering that you'd need a beefy GPU for the 1080p Rift consumer version and the specs of the consoles not changing in the future. New is xbox is rumored to have a HD7770 equivalent (1.2TF)."We wait for Sony and Microsoft to officially announce more details."
The new consoles will be about 399$, same as a Nexus10 tablet, i think that's about the price you can expect considering the higher res screen in the consumer version (i hope they don't ditch the higher res screen to be compatible with consoles though)SartreFan wrote:I just really hope they stay close to the SDK's $300 price point. If they try to price it too high I fear it will be DOA. I want VR to succeed and become ubiquitous, I've wanted that ever since I first tried VR 20 years ago.
STRZ wrote:The new consoles will be about 399$, same as a Nexus10 tablet, i think that's about the price you can expect considering the higher res screen in the consumer version (i hope they don't ditch the higher res screen to be compatible with consoles though)SartreFan wrote:I just really hope they stay close to the SDK's $300 price point. If they try to price it too high I fear it will be DOA. I want VR to succeed and become ubiquitous, I've wanted that ever since I first tried VR 20 years ago.
PS3 at $599 nearly killed it. While it'll be more expensive than the WiiU simply because the WiiU doesn't have powerful hardware, I'm predicting around $499 for both the next Xbox and Playstation.SartreFan wrote:The PS3 was $599 when it first came out. I think the PS4 and XboxWhatever will be closer to that price point than what Nintendo priced the WiiU
The current gen consoles had higher end, and more expensive hardware built in when they came out, closer to top tier PC specs at the time than the next gen will have, they go for cheap with the next gen to fit into the pricerange of the last years.SartreFan wrote: The PS3 was $599 when it first came out. I think the PS4 and XboxWhatever will be closer to that price point than what Nintendo priced the WiiU
I agree. From what I've seen of next gen consoles, they will be at least one generation behind the latest graphics cards as it stands now. RAM and HDDs have gotten cheaper. Not sure about the CPU. If they sell at a loss, 499$ is a reasonable starting point.STRZ wrote:The current gen consoles had higher end, and more expensive hardware built in when they came out, closer to top tier PC specs at the time than the next gen will have, they go for cheap with the next gen to fit into the pricerange of the last years.
German made a good point. It is inherently competing with similarly priced luxury items. The competition being: I want to spend 3-500$ on a luxury electronic item that will entertain me. I can only buy one. Maybe two.Direlight wrote:Oculus isn't competing against any product, except vaguely the hmz-t1.
The'll both use a AMD Kabini (low power) APU architecture (CPU and GPU integrated on one chip) as it stands now. 8core CPU @ 1.6ghz + integrated "Bonaire HD8xxx" graphics equivalent of the HD7770 (1200GFLOPS) for the new xbox, and something slightly more powerful for the PS4 in the range of a HD7850 (1800 GFLOPS). I don't think that they'll sell at a loss like the last time because this stuff is cheap, especially in large quantities.Delryn wrote:I agree. From what I've seen of next gen consoles, they will be at least one generation behind the latest graphics cards as it stands now. RAM and HDDs have gotten cheaper. Not sure about the CPU. If they sell at a loss, 499$ is a reasonable starting point.STRZ wrote:The current gen consoles had higher end, and more expensive hardware built in when they came out, closer to top tier PC specs at the time than the next gen will have, they go for cheap with the next gen to fit into the pricerange of the last years.
You've nailed my situation down. I couldn't afford a $1,200 HMD, but $3-500 is definitely within the cards. Although, I'm a PC Gamer, and have been known to blow money on fancy GPUs and liquid cooling.cybereality wrote:Well before all this Rift business, I've said that I'd pay up to maybe $1,200 for a legit wide FOV HMD. Most people would not (or could not) spend that kind of money on, what some people would call, a "toy". Palmer has said he wanted to keep the device affordable, which is why the dev-kits were only $300. If the consumer version can be around that same price I think it will do very well.
This may sound very ignorant, but I don't have time to read the thing you posted. Could you provide a tl;dr version?Cromfel wrote:This really looks very very conserning in respect to OR and this fellas immediate reactions to try haul the $$$ higher than Palmer estimated (Max profit priority one and killing of anything good). This is really bad news In my humble opinnion. It feels like the whole thing about Palmer and Oculus was too good to be true, and now is the time for reality.
Delryn wrote:
This may sound very ignorant, but I don't have time to read the thing you posted. Could you provide a tl;dr version.
That spirit runs in their blood. And its very far from the spirit what Palmer has.Kotick noted that in the past he changed the employee incentive program so that it "really rewards profit and nothing else."
-----
“When people come up and tell me, ‘how can you possibly make another Call of Duty,’ I always tell them that I used to work for a company that every year had to figure out how to make a white shirt whiter,” Tippl said. “And [Procter & Gamble] have been doing that for 35 years with a product like Tide.”
He continued, “You’re telling me with all the opportunities we have, and the technologies and the content ... and all the different stories, the characters that we can develop, that we can’t innovate on a franchise for 10 years? Give me a break. Then we’re just not doing our job.”
-----
February 28, 2010: A fan project called “King’s Quest 9 – The Silver Lining” is being terminated by Activision, shortly before its release. You could say… sure this always happens, but this time it was a bit different.
The team of hobby-developers, which started working on the project back in 2002 (about 8 years ago) and got a cease-and-desist from Vivendi Universal in 2005, managed to negotiate a deal for a “non-commercial fan license”, which allowed them to develop and publish “The Silver Lining” after all.
2010, nearly done with the work on the project, they handed in a copy for review as agreed in said contract, upon which (the rights to it now belonging to Activision) Activision decided it had no interest in doing anything of the likes and sent another cease-and-desist instead, forcing them to take down their website and forums and to stop working on the project immediately, which they had to do.
Do you mean Kotick's spirit, or Tippl's spirit?Cromfel wrote:Delryn wrote:That spirit runs in their blood. And its very far from the spirit what Palmer has.Kotick noted that in the past he changed the employee incentive program so that it "really rewards profit and nothing else."
“When people come up and tell me, ‘how can you possibly make another Call of Duty,’ I always tell them that I used to work for a company that every year had to figure out how to make a white shirt whiter,” Tippl said. “And [Procter & Gamble] have been doing that for 35 years with a product like Tide.”
He continued, “You’re telling me with all the opportunities we have, and the technologies and the content ... and all the different stories, the characters that we can develop, that we can’t innovate on a franchise for 10 years? Give me a break. Then we’re just not doing our job.”
I so much hope that you are correctDelryn wrote:I think he understands that now is not the time to monetize on VR. Like many companies before him, he has to get his product out there and create a market, not turn a profit. If the Rift can catch on, then we can worry about this situation. I'd rather worry about the Rift not evolving and simply making big bucks. Right now I'm worried about the Rift not catching on.
MSat wrote:You can't honestly try to blame everything that may have happened to Activision-Blizzard on a VP. Business direction is primarily the duty of the CEO and board of directors. Anyway, his job is likely to determine what is economically viable and the best way to pursue it. Expensive hardware can only sell if there's an established support base. For instance, a magical $1,000 computer mouse has a lot more potential in a market when it's compatible with software just like any other mouse. However, if that said mouse required software companies to specifically support it in order to work at all, then its market potential would be substantially lower. Yes, Oculus could try to sell the Rift for $10k, but that's not within the realm of the consumer market that they're targeting.
The way I interpreted him stating that the cost would likely be in the 3 figure range is that they may have actually considered an even lower price point like I mentioned earlier in this thread. If they can manage to get a low-end consumer model with similar specs to the dev kit at a price of around $100, they may just have the hottest selling computer gaming peripheral from a single manufacturer ever. In fact, selling one with a relatively low profit margin might be their best chance of selling higher-end flagship models with greater profit margins, because a large core user base ensures that the software support will be there. They also wouldn't have the risk of a lower model cannibalizing the sales of their better models if they have substantially better features.
PalmerTech wrote:Believe me, this is nothing but good news. Laird is a fantastic guy, and I would not have hired him if he were not a perfect fit for Oculus. He is a professor in USC's Advanced Games course, and mentored/guided Project Holodeck. He has a skill that, frankly, we lacked as a company: Getting a consumer product into the hands of as many people as possible.
If this guy were in it for the money, he had plenty of options that don't involve moving to a scrappy startup! We would not have hired him if we thought his vision was different than ours, and his position as COO still reports to me at the end of the day. If I don't want to go in a particular direction, then we don't.
We want to make a great headset that gamers can afford, not a luxury item. We know what happens when you launch a consumer product at $599, no need to repeat history.
If you were aware of the approximate pricing of components used in the Rift, particularly when purchased in large volumes, you would see that it is indeed possible to come very close to the $100 price range. The LCD panel is likely the most expensive component by a large margin. It may not be the perfect metric, but if you look at the bill of material for the Kindle Fire HD, the display which should be similar to the one used in the Rift dev kit (minus touch screen and related circuitry) costs ~$64. The rest of the components are quite cheap by comparison. You're right, it might take a year or two to get below $100, but around the time the consumer version is set to ship, a $120-175 low-end model should be quite possible. Even if it does take a couple years, wouldn't a cheap version be a good thing?SartreFan wrote:MSat wrote:You can't honestly try to blame everything that may have happened to Activision-Blizzard on a VP. Business direction is primarily the duty of the CEO and board of directors. Anyway, his job is likely to determine what is economically viable and the best way to pursue it. Expensive hardware can only sell if there's an established support base. For instance, a magical $1,000 computer mouse has a lot more potential in a market when it's compatible with software just like any other mouse. However, if that said mouse required software companies to specifically support it in order to work at all, then its market potential would be substantially lower. Yes, Oculus could try to sell the Rift for $10k, but that's not within the realm of the consumer market that they're targeting.
The way I interpreted him stating that the cost would likely be in the 3 figure range is that they may have actually considered an even lower price point like I mentioned earlier in this thread. If they can manage to get a low-end consumer model with similar specs to the dev kit at a price of around $100, they may just have the hottest selling computer gaming peripheral from a single manufacturer ever. In fact, selling one with a relatively low profit margin might be their best chance of selling higher-end flagship models with greater profit margins, because a large core user base ensures that the software support will be there. They also wouldn't have the risk of a lower model cannibalizing the sales of their better models if they have substantially better features.
I don't see this thing costing $100 any time soon. $300 to me is the bottom end, even with a lower resolution screen. $100 is a pipe dream where it stands now. Maybe 2-3 years from now
How does that even happen? Was he tricked like in "The Social Network" or something?SartreFan wrote:PalmerTech wrote:Believe me, this is nothing but good news. Laird is a fantastic guy, and I would not have hired him if he were not a perfect fit for Oculus. He is a professor in USC's Advanced Games course, and mentored/guided Project Holodeck. He has a skill that, frankly, we lacked as a company: Getting a consumer product into the hands of as many people as possible.
If this guy were in it for the money, he had plenty of options that don't involve moving to a scrappy startup! We would not have hired him if we thought his vision was different than ours, and his position as COO still reports to me at the end of the day. If I don't want to go in a particular direction, then we don't.
We want to make a great headset that gamers can afford, not a luxury item. We know what happens when you launch a consumer product at $599, no need to repeat history.
This is great news and alleviates my fears. My dad started his own company about 30 years ago, it went public and got fairly large. Some members of the Board of Directors wanted to take the company's main project and spin it off to a subsidiary that they would own privately and reap all the benefits. My dad fought against a lot of them and ended up being kicked out of the company that he started. I just hope this doesn't happen to you, that was my main concern. This is your project and your product. I'm always rooting for the creative people
It went public. The board hires(and fires) the CEO. The owners are the shareholders which the board reports to.Grix wrote: How does that even happen? Was he tricked like in "The Social Network" or something?
PalmerTech wrote:Believe me, this is nothing but good news. Laird is a fantastic guy, and I would not have hired him if he were not a perfect fit for Oculus. He is a professor in USC's Advanced Games course, and mentored/guided Project Holodeck. He has a skill that, frankly, we lacked as a company: Getting a consumer product into the hands of as many people as possible.
If this guy were in it for the money, he had plenty of options that don't involve moving to a scrappy startup! We would not have hired him if we thought his vision was different than ours, and his position as COO still reports to me at the end of the day. If I don't want to go in a particular direction, then we don't.
We want to make a great headset that gamers can afford, not a luxury item. We know what happens when you launch a consumer product at $599, no need to repeat history.