Oculus Pre-Orders Open Now, Price Is $600/£500/€700

And so the age of VR truly begins. It’s been a long time coming, but 2016 is the year we finally find out if facebox gaming will sink or swim. I’m extremely excited personally, but still doubtful that it can reach far outside an adoring techno-niche: something far more elegant is needed for that, I feel. But that’s for the future. Right now, today, the long-awaited consumer version of the Oculus Rift [official site] has gone on pre-sale. The bad news is that it’ll cost you a terrifying $600 before tax and shipping if you’re Stateside, and it gets even worse if you’re based in the UK or Europe – £500 for the former, €700 for the latter – before shipping. Maybe VR just sunk already?

Though you won’t actually have to stump that hideous sum up until the thing’s about to be posted out, which we now know will be in March.

Here’s how that works, as revealed on Twitter (uber-rival to his boss’ firm, wonder how that works?) by Oculus lead Palmer Luckey:

Fingers, both real and virtually real, crossed that his confidence is well-founded. I love a bit of VR, but the last time I used an Oculus headset – the now out-dated DK2 – it didn’t feel anything like ready for primetime despite the concept being sound. I want to believe. But I really don’t want to have to buy a new graphics card to power the Rift; time to see how far I can overclock this GTX 970.

Details and order links here; expect the site to be taking a bit of battering, but Luckey has claimed that pre-orders won’t actually sell out, so don’t panic.

Hopefully he’s right. But maybe panic just a little, for old times’ sake. Though I don’t know how many people will be rushing to pre-order given that crazy price. Luckey claims the apparently unfair exchange rate is all above board, though it’s cold comfort:

Oh, in case you’re an Oculus Kickstarter backer who somehow hasn’t heard yet: you really should take a read of the message they sent you yesterday, or read this
. You’re going to be very, very happy.

Those of you who aren’t getting one for free, what’s your take on the price? Much, much higher than I’d expected, to the point that I can’t actually afford one right now. Dammitall. It comes with ‘free’ copies of EVE: Valykrie and platformer Lucky’s Tale plus an Xbox One controller and wireless adaptor, if that helps. It’s a shame there’s not an option to buy it without the controller and adaptor, as some of us are already sorted for wireless pads and it’d save a fair old chunk of change.

Your move, Valve.

From this site

239 Comments

  1. Cinek says:

    “It’ll cost you a terrifying $600”? Huh? It’s in the range people expected.

    • Cinek says:

      £499 – for those in UK. Pretty much in the middle of the price I expected.

      • BobbyDylan says:

        Well, one thing is for sure, I’ll be holding on to see what Valve put out.

        • LazyAssMF says:

          Yeah, me too. Valve’s VR is a lot better than Oculus VR so if i’m gonna throw away 600-1000 bucks for VR it’s gotta be top notch like HTC/Valve’s is.
          Too bad. I would’ve bought Oculus if it was less than 500 bucks.

          • Arithon says:

            “better” is a bit subjective. The Vive is the same resolution, but the headset is heavier than the CV1. It’s going to cost more. The big downside of the Vive (which put me off totally) is the requirement for two giant PIR sensors. Since the prototype they’ve made them smaller and “less noisy” (?) but you either need them to be wall mounted or on tripods with a lot of space around your PC. Pretty impractical for the majority of people in the UK. Not many people have a spare “VR room” to use.
            The unit is good and works well – I’m not knocking the tech – but to get the required 90fps you need a GTX 980 for most games, so a Vive is definitely the “premium cost” unit to buy – unless you already have a current gen Core i7 and a Titan GFX card.

          • ooshp says:

            Better or worse, the Vive will be good for prices either way.

      • Arithon says:

        UK Price is £529, not £499 – £30 P&P is not optional AND is subject to change if they decide to charge more or the exchange rate goes up in their favour.

    • LexW1 says:

      Which “people”? Every estimate I saw said $300-400. So who expected $400-800? Links please.

      • Malcolm says:

        Not really been paying much attention to price rumours, but $300-$400 is “mid-range smartphone” territory which would have been hopelessly optimistic given the relative complexity and economies of scale. $600 seems remarkably cheap to me, but I think they did mention that the facebook buyout allowed them to subsidise the price somewhat.

        • Vesuvius says:

          The dev kit units were going for that price (300-ish)and they made a big deal about trying to make an affordable entry, so yeah… doubling the price is a huge surprise.

        • LexW1 says:

          They were maintaining that it would be $300-350 until September 2015, when they finally said it’d “probably be more”.

          • Sakkura says:

            Yeah I was expecting 450-500 from that statement. 600 is just too much, especially when Europeans then pay tons in shipping, exchange rate BS, and VAT so the final price gets closer to a thousand dollars.

          • Cinek says:

            lol. No, they did not. No idea where you got that false information.

        • suibhne says:

          $400 may (or may not) be “mid-range smartphone” territory, but it’s certainly not the perceived price that 90% of smartphone consumers in the US pay up front for their phones – which is the much more relevant comparison to this gadget’s MSRP.

          • Apocalypse says:

            US smartphones are deferred payment and usually a lot more expensive than just $400 even for the mid-range phones. And I would give some tech savvy developers that they are very well aware of that.

            Still you are right that perception of customers might be a different one, else that deferred payment business model of the providers would not work so good. I just recently did the math for my contracts: Saving over thousand euros in the last 5 years thanks to buying free smartphones instead of contract phones. Including the price of those 400€ mid-range phones.

            I am still disappointed about the 700€ price tag of the oculus, but at the other hand it will go down on price fast, so I might just grab two next year instead for half the price.

    • LazyAssMF says:

      the estimated price was 300-400 bucks. THEY said that, the Oculus folks. 200 bucks more is 1/3 more than expected and that’s not a small amount. If it was 400 i’d preorder it immediately but now… not a chance. For 600 bucks i’d rather buy a good, big 1440p freesync/G-sync monitor. Or the highest-end GPU. Or both.
      I have a feeling a lot of ppl are dissapointed right now, me included. For 400 it would sell like hotcakes but now… not nearly as much. So dissapointed… :(

      • Cinek says:

        They said that in 2014. A LOT was added, changed and improved since then. It was obvious that the price point would be $500-$600(~£500 in Europe with taxes) by the time of release.

        • LazyAssMF says:

          Nope. They said that around middle of 2015 and adding it might cost a little more than that. A little more doesnt mean 1/3 higher price than originally anticipated. ;)
          I mean… whatever. I was really excited to buy it but for 500 at most. 600 is unacceptable for me and for most ppl who thought of buying it. This was suppose to be a consumer product but with that price point it just became another high-tech toy for selected few.
          I’ll just wait for VIVE because even if it’ll probably cost more (maybe not) it’ll be, and allready is, ahead of Oculus tech and quality wise.

      • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

        It’s a good thing, you’ll have plenty of time to either wait for a cheaper and better revised version way down the road, or possibly even to watch this fad slowly die out and change your mind about ever wanting a brick strapped on your face.

        You’ll be glad you went with a great monitor.

        • Hedgeclipper says:

          Yes this, second or third gen will be cheaper and have more of the teething troubles worked out. On top of which we’ll know by then what sort of games are actually fun and there’ll be more to choose from.

    • Rossy says:

      $300 to $350 was the original estimate up until September.
      link to roadtovr.com

    • Xzi says:

      Who are these people? I sure didn’t expect $600 for a peripheral that needs a $1000 PC to run.

    • Sic says:

      Uh, no it certainly was not.

      Oculus themselves said it was to cost $350.

      This came completely out of left field. Most of the community is on the brink of rioting over this price.

    • DodgyG33za says:

      Turns out it is over AUD1100 in Australia, which is US774.27 by today’s exchange rate.

      I own the DK1 and 2, and have pre-ordered because I have been waiting since the 80’s for this, but US350 this baby ain’t.

      • celticdr says:

        I got $921 in AUD (without shipping), still wayyyyy too expensive, I reckon Oculus have really left the gate for Valve/HTC wide open for a good old fashioned undercut – but will they take that option?

  2. worzak says:

    Wow, am I glad i backed the DK1.. Not even did i get to try it out some. I could sell it with a profit. And now i get this 600$ kit for free? I guess i can justify upgrading my gfx-card now :-D

    • Premium User Badge

      particlese says:

      Dang, good point. I hope they continue to not ship to my country for a while, as I was planning to upgrade only after AMD outed its next round of shiny things. Having a free VR Thing on the shelf would make it awfully tempting to jump the gun. I think I can resist, but man…

      And all my components are way under the official recommendation, so I can’t just get a new video card to tide me over. :) but also :|

      Enjoy the upgrade!

    • Sic says:

      Really kicking myself for not supporting it.

  3. BobbyDylan says:

    Wow, that’s more than I expected. I thought 400 to 500.

    • BTAxis says:

      Doesn’t the Rift come with an XBone controller though? That might explain the gap between expected and asked price points.

      • SpinalJack says:

        Palmer has said that the bundle costs them next to nothing so it’s not a contributing factor here.

      • Xzi says:

        An Xbone controller is $50…even if they took it out and priced it at $550, can’t do it.

    • Ethaor says:

      About 700 euros without shipping here in Europe.

      About the USD$350 price tag: “You know, I’m going to be perfectly honest with you. but it’s going to cost more than that.”

      Double the price sure is rough. That’s way more than I’m willing to spend on VR. I’ll pass.

      • LexW1 says:

        Yeah, that’s very recent backpedaling they did on the $300-350 prices they’d “targeted”.

        • Cinek says:

          Last time they targeted 300-350 was in 2014. When they added more stuff into the Oculus – it was obvious that price would go significantly above initial guess. They still subside it.

          • fish99 says:

            In Sept 2015 they said ‘more than $350 but still in that ballpark’. Clearly $600+shipping (or $775 in the UK, and that’s assuming no import tax) isn’t in the ballpark of $350.

          • Devan says:

            Yeah, affordability was a stated goal of this project from the beginning, not just for appeasement but because the success or failure of VR heavily depends on adoption. You are defending the price by saying it was “obvious”, but I don’t think that’s true and I wouldn’t be okay with the price even if the increase was obvious.

            VR will flop if there aren’t enough games made for it. There won’t be enough games made for it if there isn’t a large enough install base. Even if the price of the Oculus is reasonable considering the technology and R&D that went into it, it has to be compared against what else you could buy for the same money. Currently it’s hard to say that what you get out of owning a rift is really worth that price, and that’s a real concern.

      • Ethaor says:

        Funnily enough part of that Palmer Luckey’s quote got eaten away. Here it is in full:

        “You know, I’m going to be perfectly honest with you. We’re roughly in that ballpark… but it’s going to cost more than that.”

        But regardless of the targeted vs actual price. It’s just too expensive for me for what I want to use it for. And I doubt that’s what most people, including Facebook, qualify as “affordable VR”. Maybe that’s priced right given the quality of the product, but we’re well past the affordable.

        Like Alec Meer says, FB left the door wide open for Valve, let’s see how agressive they’ll be.

        • Vesuvius says:

          Would you consider TWICE the cost to be “in the ballpark”?

          • Geebs says:

            Luckey’s in the engineering business. I wouldn’t get too surprised if a geek uses “ballpark” to mean “within an order of magnitude of”.

            Still, it’s too rich for my blood.

        • TheAngriestHobo says:

          It’s perfectly affordable, for people who sell Oculus Rifts.

        • Slackar says:

          I’m not holding my breath. From what I understood, HTC Vive is (was) supposed to be more expensive than Oculus. This was in March 2015:

          According to HTC connected products marketing executive director, Jeff Gattis, the Vive will reportedly target the “high end” of the consumer market, delivering a “premium VR experience”. This will, he says, mean a higher initial entry price for early adopters.

          “Starting with the premium experience, even if it has a slightly higher price point, is the right thing to do from a strategic point of view. The price can always come down as the market grows. We know there is some pent-up demand there, so there’s not so much price sensitivity early on.”

          • Hedgeclipper says:

            yes but that was back when everyone thought the FaceRift was aiming somewhere under $400. They may well have priced themselves over what Valve thought was the ‘high end’.

            Regardless it doesn’t make much sense to buy the first gen of either system unless you’ve got plenty of spare cash for what remains experimental tech and if you have the money you can get both.

    • ButteringSundays says:

      And at 500, you guessed correctly.

  4. liquidsoap89 says:

    That’s about $200 more than I was hoping for, and I believe also about $200ish more than what they were originally saying it should cost.

    I have a DK2, and I can’t honestly justify spending that much more right now, especially since I still don’t think the drivers are ready.

  5. plsgodontvisitheforums_ says:

    €699 EU ex shipping and taxes…

    • wcq says:

      I think I paid less for the PC I’m writing this on.

      • plsgodontvisitheforums_ says:

        Still feeling a little sick clicking the order button 40 times before it registered … And won’t ship until fkn April … That thing better be the bee’s knees at this price point, may be a blessing in disguise. Or a cancelled order and much disappoint otherwise.

      • Solidstate89 says:

        It’s about 150 dollars less than the monitor I just purchased. I don’t think the price is insane at all.

        • wcq says:

          And I purchased my monitor for less than 150 dollars.

          We obviously have different standards for this sort of thing.

          • Solidstate89 says:

            And I’m guessing based on the price it’s a simple 1080p TN panel.

            High-end hardware comes with a high-end price.

          • TillEulenspiegel says:

            For $150 today, you can get a perfectly nice 23-24″ IPS monitor.

          • fish99 says:

            “High-end hardware comes with a high-end price.”

            And typically sells in small numbers. A high-end price guarantees slow adoption and therefore there won’t be any financial incentive for mainstream publishers/developers to put VR support into their games since the market will be so small. The same thing killed nvidia 3D Vision.

        • DeFrank says:

          I think the question worth considering here is “Will a majority of consumers think that the price is insane?”

          • Ethaor says:

            Indeed. Maybe the price is right given the tech, but if it’s unafordable by most what’s the point?

            I thought their strategy was to sell at a lower price of the real developpement and manufacturing cost in order to create the VR paysage that just doesn’t exists.

            I doubt such price point will give birth to a teeming user base and create a market that is big enough to have a real impact except for well-off techthusiasts.

          • Hedgeclipper says:

            It won’t, the other problem is the high end would already have (or get anyway) the graphics card to run it. Telling people who already have sticker shock on the Rift that they’ll also need to upgrade their card to the expensive end makes it look twice as expensive to someone with less cash to start with.

        • Audiophilip says:

          “And I’m guessing based on the price it’s a simple 1080p TN panel.

          High-end hardware comes with a high-end price.”

          My IPS 4K (!) monitor (Dell P2415Q) sells for less than $450…

          • Solidstate89 says:

            Where? Looks like it goes for about 550 on Dell’s website. Unless you’re talking about a sale price.

          • x1501 says:

            Quoting suggested retail prices from the manufacturer? Really? Amazon has P2415Q at $399 now and had it at less than $450 since last April. Same goes for Newegg and probably all other major online US retailers.

          • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

            The resolution doesn’t make it high-end especially since cheap smartphone screens are even denser, not even the fact that is IPS.

            high end features are more about the internal LUT resolution, IPS-glow correction ( polarization ), supporting a wider gamut or not, true backlighting as opposed to edge lighting, uniformity compensation, the extra care in quality control when it comes to out ot the box color accuracy, backlight bleeding and so on, which means more panels thrown in the bin and higher prices for the good ones as a result.

    • Nosada says:

      Well, us europeans like to complain about the 1:1 conversion rate the gaming industry seems to think appropriate.

      Guess these guys heard the complaint but kinda misunderstood it?

      700 euros is about 750 US dollars, which is obviously the same as 600 US dollars … yup

      • Faxmachinen says:

        Import tax here is 25%, so 600$ * 1.25 is… yep, you guessed it: 750$. If that does include shipping… let’s just say that I would have had to pay 500$ for international shipping of a 1000$ laptop from the US.

      • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

        Sadly that 1:1 conversion is a thing of the past, which is hilarious since now is almost starting to feel “fair” considering the increasing Dollar/Euro similarity.

        Now we’re simply getting even higher prices.

    • Clavus says:

      INCLUDING shipping and taxes actually.

      • plsgodontvisitheforums_ says:

        Nope. Ex €42 shipping, actually. No import duties as they are probably shipping from IE. Should include VAT but no mention on the invoice.

        • Sakkura says:

          Isn’t it technically illegal not to include info on VAT paid? Or does it vary across the EU.

    • LazyAssMF says:

      I would (an will) wait for HTC/Valve VR. It’s gonna be a lot better (Higher resolution, eye tracking,…) for around 100-200 bucks more, maybe even less than that. Since Oculus costs a lot more than originally planned i think most people will do the same.

  6. raiders says:

    $600??? LOL)))) F U!

  7. Flangie says:

    Yep 500 quid plus shipping *returns credit card to wallet*

  8. Schaulustiger says:

    I am so, so tempted. Having experienced Google Cardboard and a Gear VR, I’m really excited about the possibilities of a VR set paired with a strong gaming PC. Especially “Adrift” will surely be an amazing experience.

    What I’m also looking forward – and it’s sometinh that I wouldn’t have expected – is 360° video. The Cirque du Soleil demo video from the Gear VR and the most likely coming 360° coverage of sports has me really excited for the entertainment possibilities in the years to come. VR will be a big part of it, I’m sure.

    • LexW1 says:

      So you watch sports completely alone? That’s rather unusual.

      • Sheng-ji says:

        Depends on your stage of life, when you have got married, had kids and having a “lads” or “laddettes” day watching sports with your like minded friends would involve several babysitters, a total of hundreds of miles driven between you and a venue which also houses a family who quite rightly don’t allow the front room to be monopolised by your mates, suddenly you find the majority of sports you watch is done alone, with the social aspect being communicated electronically.

        • LexW1 says:

          That appears to be a rather bizarre scenario. When I was a kid, the kids usually watched sports with dad.

          You seem to be focusing exclusively on a scenario where your SO hates sports, AND you’re Johnny No-Mates to a large degree (whether by distance, due to kids, or whatever), AND your kids are too young to watch, AND you have hundreds of quid to blow on a VR headset and whatever pricey subscription it is to watch VR sports.

          Which I am skeptical is a common situation.

          • Martel says:

            Every sports viewer I know watches sports alone at least part of the time. Maybe you just don’t watch enough sports for it to happen :)

          • Sheng-ji says:

            SO Hates sports (or likes different sports), which I’m guessing is more than 50% of marriages

            Billy No Mates – Nearly everyone with family and a career which has taken them away from uni/where they grew up.

            Children don’t watch sport with you – I’d be interested to see how this has changed since the days when there were only 3 channels and one tv in the house, I’m guessing more kids these days, like mine, given that they have an actual choice as to what they watch, no longer feel the need to watch ski sunday with dad, when they can follow their football team instead.

            VR subscription – yeah, good point, however, I imagine after a couple of years, people will have better social tools than what the sports themselves are providing, virtual desktops in a MMO type world where they can stream iplayer et al whilst participating in Hearthstone, as if it were a real card game with a tv just next to them – i.e. I genuinely believe people will pay £550 to be more immersed in their gaming/entertainment than running two applications on two monitors.

          • LexW1 says:

            @Sheng-ji – 50%? I guess things vary. In my late-30s upper-middle class Londoner, I’d say it’s well below 20% of SOs who hate sports to the point they’d be even slightly okay with the SO putting on a headset to watch them (and below 30% who even “don’t like sports”).

            Billy No-Mates long-term is different from the temporary period in the late 20s/early 30s when most people are re-orienting to new friends etc. (I notice kids seem to bring a lot of new friends after the baby period when the often drive away old ones). All my kid-having friends have started socializing again now, in our late 30s. Obvs. you’ll always sometimes watch stuff alone, but often enough to justify a VR headset, subscription, and so on? Esp. as you literally cannot watch the kids or otherwise “hold the fort” with it on.

            Kids having a choice, oh sure, probably lower, but it’s one thing for them to ignore it and fiddle with the iPad or whatever, and another thing for you to put on a headset and ignore them, and not even have a real choice to share it with them.

            “I imagine after a couple of years, people will have better social tools than what the sports themselves are providing, virtual desktops in a MMO type world where they can stream iplayer et al whilst participating in Hearthstone,”

            A couple of years? For something the average person could use? You have to be kidding. A couple of years might have some sort of hyper-specialist PC-only thing. A DECADE from now what you describe might exist in a consumer-friendly format such that the average person was happy with it.

  9. mavrik says:

    I don’t get the surprise… how much did you expect a VR device is going to cost? It’s was pretty much targeted at this price range all along.

    • Heretic7 says:

      Well they were the ones who said that they were targeting for 300$ from the get go. After all this time of course no one thought that would be the case and most people expected it to be at the range of 400-450$.

    • LexW1 says:

      That’s simply not true.

      Oculus said they were targeting $300 a bunch of times around when they Kickstarted. Then, very recently, they started vaguely implying it would be higher.

      So most people expected $400. Not $600.

    • Vesuvius says:

      Dev kit pricing and oculus statements both made it clear that the early intention was 300-400ish. This is nearly twice that.

  10. BumKnuckle says:

    Waited years for this thing, was poised over the button as the clocked ticked down, then the price appeared. Nope. Just can’t pay that.

  11. rocket_magnet says:

    Having seen the system requirements to really get the most out of vr its going sink badly. 90fps for it to work “properly” there’s not too many people who run elite or just cause 3 or whatever the next big pretty title at 90fps at all times.

    • Sakkura says:

      Just Cause 3 isn’t really a VR game anyway, you can’t judge based on those kinds of games mainly designed with 1080p60 monitors in mind.

  12. SanguineAngel says:

    Annnnnnd just like that I’m out. I’ll hang around and see how much the competition costs. Though I suspect it’ll be more.

    When estimates were hovering around £300 i could just about justify it to myself (along with some overdue upgrades to the rest of my rig) but this is just too rich for my blood, sadly.

  13. Schaulustiger says:

    Is it? My fiancé is not interested in sports and on weekdays I won’t go out to watch football at the pub or at the stadium. So I watch it alone and don’t see anything wrong with it. And having a stadium-like experience with VR is something I’m really looking forward (especially considering that football ticket prices have become really expensive in the last years).

  14. Heretic7 says:

    All aboard the nooooooooooopeeee train.
    If the price was around 400 euros I would be very much tempted to get one even though I would only run games and programs that didn’t have high requirements till the new GPUs would come out. But 700? Color me unimpressed and not interested at all. All the better for me (and Vive) I guess. It’s probably better for VR since only people with powerhouses and money will buy it but in no way is good for Oculus as a product

  15. Premium User Badge

    Ninja Dodo says:

    700 euros, are you kidding me?! Even with current poor conversion rates, that’s bullshit. I guess in mainland Europe we get shafted the same way we do for high-end software. Definitely not in a rush to be an early adopter if this is the price range.

    • wcq says:

      And that’s before you add shipping and tax.

      Is there some sort of reason why it sells for $150 more without any obvious costs added?

      • Premium User Badge

        Ninja Dodo says:

        I think that’s probably WITH tax (else they are definitely joking), which is a big part of why it’s always WAAAY cheaper to get software and hardware in the UK or the US, but the thing that irks me is they start from just straight converting the price from dollars to euros 1:1 and THEN add VAT, which is just a big f- you to Europe at all times, never mind that salaries are (near as I can tell) much lower here on average. But on the other hand, we have decent health care and social services and don’t have to put up with gun toting lunatics so maybe we get the better deal overall…

    • onodera says:

      It must cost something like 1100 Australian dollars.

      Yeah, at these prices it will be cheaper to buy it in the US and have it shipped by DHL all the way to your doorstep.

    • Premium User Badge

      Ninja Dodo says:

      OK so actually calculated this with current exchange rates and the euro is so weak now that it actually works out being only the VAT that’s driving the price up… and if that’s absolute minimum manufacturing cost on the US price, fair enough, but doesn’t change that this has NO chance of getting widely adopted in Europe until the price goes waaaay down. You can buy a pretty good PC for 700 euros, which you’re probably going to have to get as well because most people don’t have specs that can run this even a little. So that’s 2 x 700 euros for the goggles and a new PC and then you still need to get the special controllers. Yeah, no.

  16. giei says:

    Now we know why he said “No chance of Rift preorders “selling out”…”

  17. Kefren says:

    Mmm. Lots of questions that would make me stay my hand.

    The pre-order page says nothing about warranties or guarantees.

    My PC (which I upgraded for Witcher 3) falls short of the “minimum specs” for CPU, GPU, and ports. My plan was to use the Rift for older games only (e.g. the ones listed at link to vorpx.com) – but it isn’t clear whether the minimum specs means only for new games (so I’d be fine with older ones that aren’t so demanding) or if they’ll refuse to let the Rift run at all on a PC below that spec (as many software/game people do).

    Also – it doesn’t even say if the built-in headphones are stereo or surround. It would seem pointless to gain 3D graphics while going from 5.1 back to stereo sound.

    So I’d probably be getting headphones I won’t use, a controller I won’t use, and some weird remote controller I won’t use. I wish you could just get the headset.

    • Thurgret says:

      I didn’t even notice this. I have a perfectly good headset, and I have my own assortment of input devices without them shipping another controller. That’s absurd.

  18. FluffyFreak says:

    £529 with shipping (estimated) ouch! (Pre-ordered)

  19. Trajano says:

    741€ in Spain, yeah, no thanks

  20. Premium User Badge

    phuzz says:

    Soooo, how much will someone give me for this DK2 then eh?

  21. sicemma says:

    It looked really expensive, but then I remembered it comes with “Lucky’s Tale” AND “EVE Valkyrie”, both of which will surely top everyone’s best of 2016 games lists.

  22. Thurgret says:

    I was expecting it to be €350 to €400. I would have been willing to pay as much as €500 (currently about $537, even with the euro being really weak). €700, however? What on earth are they thinking?

    Nope. Maybe Valve will undercut this with the Vive, otherwise I’m guessing VR is just dead before it really even made it out of the starting blocks.

  23. frogmanalien says:

    Yeah, I was expecting £400 top, maybe £450. That seems high- especially when my CPU (a not awful i7-3770 @ 3.5ghz) and USB requires updating (oh, and my graphics card, but I expected that). Since I’m happy with my PC (it runs things at a suitably high beauty level at 1080 just fine), that makes for an expensive proposition-
    That’s probably another £300 (presuming I can simply tack on a new CPU to my existing motherboard and you can use an USB card – although that might be a bit of trial and error )- that’s £800 to experience VR- without any neat controllers.
    To steep for me – especially with content still not quite proven enough yet.
    Disappointed they haven’t announced any plans to get them out to demo anywhere- everyone tells me real life experience will make you love it – as it stands, I worry it’s big, expensive and might make me ill.

  24. vlonk says:

    700 € before 19% german sales tax and shipping. Giving me a xbox controller I already own, a wireless connector I already have, missing the VR controllers I would rather want. Delivery around the time when the competition enters the field.

    Guess I have to sleep over this. Probably more than once.

  25. vlonk says:

    I assume many people will back out of VR generation 1 now. Oculus has a financial backing to survive this. HTC won’t. Many dev teams won’t. The VR future of 2016 looks shaky today.

    • chuckles73 says:

      Good point, HTC definitely doesn’t have any money from any other form of hardware that isn’t a VR headset. The Oculus Rift being $600 will definitely cause HTC to die as a company. \=c/

  26. rocketman71 says:

    Way WAY too expensive.

    Besides, if I’m going to pay 750€ for VR, I’ll rather pay Valve for a superior product than Fuckerberg.

    About time you save the day, Valve.

  27. Thurgret says:

    Smartphones are often a terrible rip-off for what they are.

    • Thurgret says:

      This was meant to be a reply to a comment above. Please bring back the edit button. :(

      • Horg says:

        Your words are in the wrong place, even edit could not save you now.

        • Thurgret says:

          It might at least make me feel better about my being cast adrift from a thread.

  28. EhexT says:

    And goodbye Oculus Rift. Nearly doubling the price point they told people to expect (and properly doubling the original one) and bundling it with a ton of stuff people already have or don’t need? Nope.

    • Horg says:

      This is going to limit uptake which in turn will limit the number of developers who are willing to work with Occulus. I feel that new hardware should focus more on high volume of sales to ensure continued support and recover costs over time, rather than try to be immediately profitable at the expense of volume sold.

      • frogmanalien says:

        This comment is exactly right – with a high cost of entry sales will be even more limited (I don’t think anyone expected this to reach anyone but the early adopters) – and with low sales the indie market (who might be interested in bringing some short, novel content to VR) will either
        1) Skip it entirely
        2) Buy one headset for their studio, sharing it amongst five devs (that’s a lot of programmer forehead sweat to collect)… and release a post mortem update on how VR ruined their chances of surviving in the real world as there just isn’t enough devices thus sales!

        That leaves the triple AAA guys to… rehash their current content for VR? That makes me even less excited about the investment in the kit… Vicious circle fuelled by a bad price point- I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the kit (display + headphones + xbox controller + shipping + development time, marketing etc), but the expectation was set poorly and it’s almost definitely not what the industry needed to get the ball rolling. I suspect it’ll let Valve and Sony sit on their laurels too and price higher…

  29. Synesthesia says:

    Haha! No, fuck you. That’s insane. I’ll wait for valve’s solution, and see where it goes from there. I really wanted this, too. But that pricing is just batshit crazy.

  30. derbefrier says:

    expensive( though i never believed for a second it would be under 500 bucks, that was wishful thinking) coupled with high system requirements pretty much killed any interest i had. I will wait for the next generation most likely if it survives that long.

  31. Clavus says:

    First to market, in a new industry. First iPhone was $600 at launch + $30 a month contract apparently.

    It’s a high price, but not absurdly high.

    • LexW1 says:

      The iPhone didn’t also need a $1200 computer to even use it. It was a complete package. If this was a complete package, the price would be cheap.

    • Devan says:

      A smartphone also is also more useful than the Oculus, including for things other than entertainment. Additionally, people who buy them usually already have cell phone bills, so that part doesn’t increase the total expense.

    • Jediben says:

      Yeah, what they said Mr Zuckerberg!

  32. Tiax says:

    Wow, I would never have guessed that this morning, but the price actually put me of from buying something I’ve been waiting for years.

  33. japstersam says:

    I agree that its a massive shame you can’t buy it without the xbox controller or Eve. I have both of those already! Far too expensive for me, £300 mark and I’d have bought one without question!

  34. Rizlar says:

    Still just with a 1080p screen, right? Can’t find specs anywhere on the official site so will assume so. Isn’t this a big problem vis a vis you can’t bloody read anything at that resolution?

    May be wrong, have only tried out the DK2 once. VR is incredibly exciting though, it’s a massive game changer for, erm, games. Since I’m not shelling out £500 I can at least afford to be snarky about it.

    • Clavus says:

      Two screens, each 1080×1200 (so 2160×1200 total). Both the Rift and the Vive are the same resolution. They’ve also made a lot of other improvements to the displays (global refresh, 90hz refresh rate, better pixel fill, better lenses, etc).

      • Premium User Badge

        PoulWrist says:

        Far as I know there’s still only one display in these things. It’s just barely above 1080p which lowers the hardware requirements. But still, you need to be able to pull like 180fps in your game at that resolution. Sort of. There are some shortcuts they can take to reduce overhead for rednering it twice.

        • Renevent says:

          For the rift there it’s 2160×1200 (1080×1200 per eye).

  35. mavrik says:

    More than the price though, the concern for me is a lack of any “DirectVR/OpenVR” library for games to implement and support these devices in general. So if your game doesn’t support Occulus (and opts for Vive or Samsung or whatever) you’re SOL. I’d still pay 700EUR for it, but not until I’m sure it’s not HD-DVD type of failure in the market.

  36. Premium User Badge

    caff says:

    I’ve got both a DK1 and DK2 and I can see huge potential for VR given how good the tech is getting.

    BUT, I’ll wait for both the HTC Vive and this to be released and reviewed heavily before making a decision. And even then, it might be to wait for 2nd gen.

  37. Premium User Badge

    PoulWrist says:

    700€ is a bit much for me, considering buying this means I’d need to upgrade my GPU as well. Which right now is a really terrible time to do.

  38. Moonracer says:

    The price isn’t that surprising for VR tech. Unfortunately I’ve already played the role of early adopter to VR enough times in the past that I’ll wait for the Oculus and Steam’s gadget to get into the general public’s hands for a while (and see what software developers do) before dropping any money.

  39. Rao Dao Zao says:

    Seems like this price announcement has caused… a bit of a rift.

    Oh come on, seriously, has nobody done that one yet?

  40. Aerothorn says:

    It’s shameful, really. I don’t know what’s wrong with commenters these days.

    • Aerothorn says:

      That was supposed to be a reply to Rao Dao Zao, but apparently the reply button is busted :(

  41. Ooops says:

    What I don’t get is how they could make the dev kits much cheaper, even though it was in made in relatively small quantities, and have the supposedly “mass market” version so much more expensive.

    Should I throw away everything I’ve learned about economies of scale?

    • Zenicetus says:

      I would assume the dev kits were sold either at cost or below, to jump-start the available content. Also, weren’t the dev kits lower res than this?

  42. DrZhark says:

    Damn 849 Canadian before shipping and taxes! The Canadian dollar used to be 1:1 with USD. Bummer

    I was preordering right up until I saw the price. It will end up being about $1000 CAD with shipping and taxes. Count me out!

    • Kentauroi says:

      Yup, can’t see me or any of my friends shelling out a grand on a device that could be just a fad.

      I do hope there’s enough people who can drop that much disposable income to help it avoid the death spiral though.

  43. Tekrunner says:

    but still doubtful that it can reach far outside an adoring techno-niche: something far more elegant is needed for that, I feel.

    Yeah, also a hell of a lot cheaper.

  44. Zenicetus says:

    To put the price in perspective for niche market users, $600 is what I paid for my Warthog joystick, throttle quadrant, and Saitek Combat Pro rudder pedals for flight sims. Add another $200 for my TrackIR 5 head tracker and Pro Clip.

    So, even ignoring the graphics card and CPU spec you’ll need to run it, the price isn’t that outrageous for a niche market peripheral. People who have already bought gear like I listed above for flight sims and space games like Elite: Dangerous will snap it up.

    It’s only when considered within the “VR dream” of everyone being able to afford one that it looks that way. Considering the resolution and image stability needed to make it a mass market device, I’m really not surprised at the price.

    I’ll be holding off on it for a while though, since I want to see how the Vive thing turns out. Also I have a larger than usual hat size, so I want to hear some feedback about how comfortable it is for users with fat heads and a wider interocular distance.

    • tomimt says:

      It’s only a very small percentage of sim players that will be keen to jump in on this with this price tag. Most of them don’t even have dedicated joysticks, they are very happy playing with pad or keyboard and mouse.

      • Zenicetus says:

        The sim market I’m talking about doesn’t use gamepads. Many of the “serious” sims don’t even support anything but joystick/flight yoke control like X-Plane, or they do support it but at a very sub-optimal level.

        That doesn’t mean VR will be massively popular, but there are enough serious simmers with deep pockets to support a niche market of higher priced VR gear like this. It’s why companies like NaturalPoint (TrackIR) and Thrustmaster are still in business.

        • Devan says:

          That may be true, but I’m pretty sure Facebook won’t be content with its VR product being merely sustained by such a niche market. That doesn’t achieve anything for them strategically. They probably want one in every home and to make it useful as a video chat tool to compete with skype. Or something like that.

          • Zenicetus says:

            That could be Facebooks long-term goal, although my money would be on something more like Google Glass eyewear that would integrate better into everyday life, and not just for gaming.

            At any rate, they need to get the tech accepted somewhere to start with. The hardcore flight/space sim niche is a natural fit for the hardware, and that market won’t stand for resolution and performance below a certain level, hence the pricing.

  45. Premium User Badge

    Mungrul says:

    Well, that saves me some cash then.

    I think this price is a mistake. And unlike others here, I don’t see it as being a big chance for Valve and Vive.

    Rather for Sony and Morpheus.

    Think about it; a PS4 is significantly cheaper than the minimum spec hardware Oculus are touting.

    I doubt very much that Sony will be able to convince their audience to pay more for the Morpheus than they did for the console, so the price is going to be around £300 – £400. That’s if they’re sensible and look at how badly over-priced add-on peripherals for consoles failed in the past.

    Sony could very well end up being the go-to manufacturer for consumer VR if they play their cards right now.

    Don’t get me wrong, I would much rather see VR succeed on an open platform like the PC rather than on the consoles, but that just won’t happen considering the investment currently required.

    • Renevent says:

      I’m thinking the experience on Sony’s device is going to be much worse. The console as it stands today can barely do 1080P @ 30-60FPS, forget about 2160×1200 the Rift/Vive pushes and at higher frequency. So the games you will be able to play on the console via VR will either look nowhere as good as VR titles on the PC or be much smaller in scope.

      Elite (or even approaching that level of graphics/size/etc) on the PS4 in VR? I don’t think it’s possible. You’re going to get a lot of simple looking games or good looking ones that are small in scope (shark cage demo, for instance).

      Could be wrong :/

      • mukuste says:

        “So the games you will be able to play on the console via VR will either look nowhere as good as VR titles on the PC or be much smaller in scope.”

        That’s already the case in modern gaming sans VR, and yet the console market is much larger than the PC one and basically all AAA titles we get are console ports. Seems that cheaper but easy to use and “good enough” experiences win out in the marketplace.

        Remains to be seen if current-gen consoles can do “good enough” VR, which admittedly seems questionable. But we’ll see.

        • Apocalypse says:

          Actually the PC market is these days the bigger one again. Surely not on ultra high-end gaming rigs suited for VR, so those console ports still make sense to increase the target audience as most PC gamers will have about equal hardware anyway.

    • Premium User Badge

      caff says:

      PS4 is not capable for VR. Sure there will be a few titles that run well, but they’ll not be a patch on the experience that a top-end PC can offer.

    • mavrik says:

      If the thing costs 400$+ to manufacture, how can a price be a “mistake”?

      I mean, maybe Occulus is charity, but what the heck do you expect? Them to sell you hardware for a loss out of goodness of their hearts?!

      • Ooops says:

        Not out of goodness. But they first need to create a market (which was what Occulus always claimed was its primary goal) before turning in a profit. At that price, I doubt it’ll go beyond the niche, so I think they’ll fail both financially and in their self-assigned evangelical mission.

        • Premium User Badge

          Mungrul says:

          Yeah, what Oooops said.

          Again, take Sony as an example; they didn’t start making a profit on PS3 consoles until something like 3 years after release. They took that approach in an effort to establish Blu Ray as a new standard.

          And while Oculus couldn’t have done this if they were still an independent with no financial back-up or existing products, they are now owned by Facebook. If Zuckerberg et al were really interested in establishing an industry standard through their investment, they’d sell initial units at a loss. Eventually, as mentioned elsewhere here, if they succeeded, economies of scale would mean that manufacturing prices would decrease and they would then make a profit off of each unit at the same price point.
          As it stands at the moment, they’ve left the doors wide open for Valve and Sony to potentially swoop in and steal their glory.

          You’ve also got to think about iteration. I’m assuming that every year or two, they’ll be introducing a newer, improved unit. Everyone wants some of that Apple pie. The consumer won’t wear that kind of investment that frequently, especially as the most likely improvements are going to be to the pixel density of the screens, which in turn will dictate the purchase of better graphics hardware capable of driving them. At current pricing, that’s going to mean a ~£1,000 spend every year or two.
          I don’t know about anyone else here, but I certainly can’t justify spending that kind of money on a device that I won’t be using 100% of the time I’m in front of my PC.

          • Don Reba says:

            If Facebook heavily subsidizes Rift, it will force HTC out of the market, and we will be worse off in the end.

          • Apocalypse says:

            Well, people already spend that kind of money each year on the gpus, which still idle most of the time. So I guess there is a market and facebooks aims to milk the early adopters each year, while offering the last years model for cheap. Which seems to work for apple too.

            Now just a deferred payment business model is missing to milk them perfectly, something like a facebook subscription which gives you a cheap rift + some facebook goodies. Most customers love those business models ;-)

  46. vorador says:

    That price is too damn high, specially when you take on account it is missing the Oculus motion controllers that will ship late 2016.

    Looking forward to see what HTC/Valve does. If equal or cheaper people will get them instead, since you get Lightroom and the motion controllers included.

    But likely the one to be the winner of mass adoption is Playstation VR. They said they were aiming for 300$, so it will likely cost about the same or cheaper to get a pack of PS4+VR than to buy the Rift.

    Time will tell, but this price doesn’t help mass adoption.

    • Spuzzell says:

      I don’t think very many people will buy PS VR. It’s far too compromised compared to the other options.

      I certainly can’t see anyone interested in VR but new to the PS4 buying a PS4 and a PS VR. That would cost more than the Rift for a much less capable system.

  47. Gibs says:

    €700?
    ahah yes VR sunk already

    • Giuseppe says:

      It looks like the European crowd gets shafted in this deal. 700 Euros or 500 Pounds is a lot more than 600 Dollars, it’s about 25% more.

      Of course I guess I’m used to this by now. Electronics are always cheaper in the US than in Europe or even next-door Canada. Not to mention those poor Aussies who have some of the highest electronics prices in the world.

      The only thing that’s more annoying is when digital products – stuff that essentially costs nothing to manufacture or distribute – still get these outrageous regional price differences. But that’s a different story :)

      • Apocalypse says:

        We have 20% vat, americans get their tax added on their price. And as usually there is some margin for currency fluctuations.

        • Giuseppe says:

          Yeah, it’s not like I don’t know that. It’s just that it still pisses me off when I think about it.

          Bottom line… there’s no way I’m even considering paying the equivalent of around 800 Dollars for this “obscenely cheap” device. Hell, that’s about half the money I spent on my PC :))

          I’d rather wait a good few years until the technology matures, there are more competing products out in the market and PC hardware is better suited to cope with the requirements of such a device. Obviously by that point prices for such devices should be considerably lower.

          Honestly I’m not sure how much they hope to sell in this initial run, but I think that at this very moment we’re looking at a small piece of an already niche market considering that you need a pretty powerful PC to begin with and on top of that you need to have enough interest and enough financial means to buy it.

  48. Premium User Badge

    Dorga says:

    And the Vive will probably cost way more.

  49. Spuzzell says:

    Oh, un-wad.

    It costs less than an iPhone 6s.

    If you ever seriously thought the first low volume iteration of a headset with two high end screens, surround sound, internal processing, motion tracking and the most sensitive motion sensing gaming controllers yet wouldn’t be around this price then.. well, I’d like to sell you Big Ben. Lets talk.

    • Jediben says:

      Yeah but only wankers buy Apple.

    • Sakkura says:

      It doesn’t have two screens, and it doesn’t come with motion controllers, just an Xbox One controller that nobody wanted.

      • Spuzzell says:

        The Rift actually does have two screens, as confirmed by the Rift team at SXSW in May last year.

        However I’m slightly surprised that the motion controllers aren’t included in the price, even if they aren’t going to be delivered at the same time as the headset.

        I had actually assumed that is what would happen, it would seem to me to make sense for everyone for every owner of the Rift to have the same control set up.

  50. Chorltonwheelie says:

    Ahhh, patience boys and girls.
    Early adopters always get fleeced.
    If it catches on the prices will plummet. If it tanks there’ll be plenty of folk trying to get rid at a damn sight less than they paid.

    • Premium User Badge

      caff says:

      VR will definitely catch on – anyone who think otherwise is blinkered. It’s just that the early tech (i.e. this gen) is expensive and perhaps limited in certain aspects. I’d glad HTC and Oculus are fighting over this though, because it can only improve the tech.

      • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

        I think VR will indeed catch on as a general concept, but hopefully not as it’s currently intended.

        I’ll wait for convincing holographics i guess, with the caveat that i might die ahead of time.

      • AngusPrune says:

        Why do you say that? We already know from 3D TV that the average consumer is highly resistant to wearing anything on their head with consuming their entertainments, even the lightest of active glasses.

        The price point means that VR isn’t going to be bundled with any consumer grade PCs, so people will have to actively seek it out. What is it about the VR experience that’s so compelling that it’s going to overcome such stiff consumer resistance?

        Remember, what’s fun for 10 minutes on the trade show floor when you’re having a laugh with friends isn’t necessarily going to translate in to something practical for everyday use. I’ve seen nothing at all about VR that suggests to me that it’s of any use to anyone but the most hardcore flightsim fanatic.

        • Asurmen says:

          Because gamers aren’t an average consumer and comparing VR to 3D TV are apples and oranges?