Luckey Apologises For Oculus Rift Price Confusion

Oculus boss Palmer Luckey has apologised for earlier comments which led many to believe the Rift VR headset would be significantly cheaper than its eventual $600/£500/€700. In a Reddit Q&A shortly after yesterday’s price announcement, Luckey acknowledged that he “handled the messaging poorly” when he claimed last September that the Rift would be “roughly in the ballpark” of $350.

Luckey argued that he had made the claim in light of some reports that the Facebook-backed headset could cost as much as $1500. “My answer was ill-prepared, and mentally, I was contrasting $349 with $1500, not our internal estimate that hovered close to $599. I apologize.”

Due to this confusion, he refused to be drawn on the price of the delayed Rift touch controllers, which will now be sold separately from the Rift itself. ““No more ballparks for now. I have learned my lesson”. Contrary to some online chatter, those who pre-order a Touch controller will not be sent it at a later date, but rather will be granted a “spot in line” for ordering one once they become available.

Luckey puts the headset’s $600 rather than $350 price down to “prioritising quality over cost.” On Reddit, he claimed that “We could have released a lower-quality product and saved one or two hundred bucks, but the all-in cost for the average consumer (including PC) would not have budged significantly.”

He also observed that “we don’t make money on the Rift”, and tried to play down concerns that people were being made to pay for an Xbox One pad and wireless adaptor that they may not need. “The Xbox controller costs us almost nothing to bundle, and people can easily resell it for profit.”

Umbrage about the price has been particularly vocal in the UK and Europe, as added taxes and customs duties bring a Rift order to the equivalent of well over $700 before shipping. Luckey argued yesterday that this was unavoidable:

Despite such concerns, it would appear that there have been significant pre-orders for the first consumer mode of the Oculus Rift. Day one stock sold out within a quarter of an hour, with orders subsequent to that time no longer being promised a March shipment. At the time of writing, attempting to order a Rift brings a message that it will not ship until June. The Rift will also be reaching some retail stores, however – whether this will negate any of the shipping and tax charges remains to be seen.

Luckey declined to guess at a price for HTC and Valve’s forthcoming rival headset, the Vive, but maintained that Oculus was the better offering: “I can’t comment on price speculation, but I think the Rift is the best headset with the best content and the best long-term support.”


  1. flashman says:

    One thing’s for certain: if the Rift now fails, people will point to this moment as the turning point.

    • Luciferous says:

      And they wouldn’t be wrong, ever since his little $350 snafu people who can’t just drop the money for something have been budgeting and saving, if his internal estimates were set at $599 then that is what he should have said… but that’s in the past now, my money is being put towards necessary upgrades and then I’ll wait for the next gen VR stuff that should be a more reasonable price.

    • trjp says:

      Asking people for actual money (even if it’s only a deposit or registration of interest) is usually the point that cool ideas become rather less cool ;0

      I think Vive is also part of the problem – it exists, it MIGHT be better, it fragments a market which barely exists as-is…

      None of this is a surprise tho is it?

      • suibhne says:

        The thing is, they did ask people for actual money. One of the virtues of their approach to dev kits is that they demanded, and received, market validation in the form of people paying for early versions of the product. And then they somehow decided that market validation for $300-350 VR gear was equally applicable to $600 VR gear, which was crazyballs.

        • Apocalypse says:

          The most ironic thing about this is that we had already $1000 VR-Headset in the early nineties. And it never was a consumer product because of that price tag.

          Still, I am pretty sure that facebook did a market analyse and decided that they can actually sell the first gene to early adopters at this price point.

          • Cinek says:

            Apocalypse, that’s nearly twice the Oculus price, inflation adjusted, and the quality was shit comparing to what you’re getting now. The problem of the old sets was that for a high price you got poor experience. That’s not the case any more.

    • Vastial says:

      Not really, the majority of gamer’s aren’t actively interested in VR as a platform, nor are many expecting is to be anything more than a fringe success at best – in many ways this “revolution” has been forced, noone asked for VR, it’s only that the technology is now available that it’s being actively pursued.

      • Cinek says:

        Sorry, but I know plenty of people that did ask for VR. Even those that now belong to the “whining” group.

    • Pizzzahut says:

      It will fail, the question is how badly. Too expensive, and not practical for most games. In two short years we’ll look back on this as the second mass failure to market and sell VR. No doubt about it.

      • Al Bobo says:

        It won’t fail, but games may not be the first medium it thrives early on. Not with that price tag.

  2. Hedgeclipper says:

    Its definitely in the ballpark of being the best headset with the best content and the best long-term support anyway!

    • Pizzacheeks McFroogleburgher says:

      As he rubs his crystal ball..

    • Matt_W says:

      I’m sure it’ll be at least in the top 5 for the next couple of years.

    • neshi says:

      Still have to see the first developer that will advocate against his own products. It’s such a useless statement…

  3. cpy says:

    I still do not need XB1 controller and headphones that OR is bundled with, even 50E saved would be good.

    • Premium User Badge

      It's not me it's you says:

      I’m reasonably sure MS picks up most (or all) of the tab on including the XBone controller (they’ve been working on making their pads the de facto standard on PCs since the 360) and while -you- might not personally need the headphones, you probably -do- need developers to target good positional audio, which they wouldn’t if an audio solution supporting it wasn’t included.

    • John O says:

      “Things cost almost nothing to buy, and people can easily work for profit.”

      • Premium User Badge

        It's not me it's you says:

        I will agree it’s a stupid line of reasoning. It’s much more useful to point out that there’s huge value in standardising aspects of the VR experience while there’s so many open questions still. If everyone who has a Rift is guaranteed to have an ‘bone controller, that means iteration on control schemes will be much more focussed as all developers have a singular target to aim for.

        In a way ‘consumer ready’ is almost a misnomer. I don’t doubt that Oculus is confident the current hardware provides a compelling experience, but the launch is closer to an open beta (in the classic software development sense) – the platform is stable, there’s a promise of backwards compatibility, now it’s time to see how it reacts when confronted with the Real World. Sadly doing an open beta for hardware that’s expensive to produce ends up costing a chunk of money.

        Literally anyone who has any doubts about VR has a very easy course of action – don’t spend anything on anything until they don’t. If Oculus is right, the combination of existence proof (get anyone to try this kit at a conference or at a friend’s or whatever and they will be convinced) and scaling the now expensive custom hardware to mass production forcing pricing down in the coming years should mean widespread adoption is possible in the near-ish (next 2 – 3 years) term.

        The whole thing is still a chicken – egg problem though, no software for a hardware platform with no install base, no install base for a hardware platform with no software. As such, I think shooting for hardware that can at the very least do the job it sets out to do as well as current technology allows is probably a better bet than trying to make something cheaper, which would make it more accessible, but would also make the experience less worth accessing.

        Don’t forget how fast tech moves – regardless of your opinions about Apple hardware, the difference between the first iPhone (announced June ’07) and the current generation are staggering but they would not have been able to build the current phone without each of the intermediary bits of hardware. R&D needs to pay off, production lines need to be created, material tolerances need to be honed, et cetera. VR is somewhat lucky in that a lot of it’s hardware requirements are similar to mobile phones (small screens with high pixel density and good colour reproduction) but it’s still got a lot of challenges that are unique to it (low latency, very high refresh rates, reducing ghosting) and will need a similar push that mobile tech has had in the last decade.

        • John O says:

          Well sure. I don’t really mind the price, unless they put an amazing display in there. Last time they spoke specs, it was a 2160×1200 resolution, now there was something about dual 1080p displays in the AMA.

          I mostly want to build my own stuff and try it out, so I’ll probably get a used DK2 as they’re already pretty cheap. If they really went and upgraded the display though, that’d be something.

    • MaXimillion says:

      The XBone controller reportedly only costs them the manufacturing costs (~$10) to bundle, so removing it would make no significant difference. You can always sell it if you don’t need it.

    • Cinek says:

      You will earn more money from selling Xbone controller off on e-bay than you’d save from getting an Oculus with no audio and no controller.

  4. Pizzacheeks McFroogleburgher says:

    This mirrors my work mantra: promise big, deliver less.

  5. iainl says:

    Well, if it’s that easy to make one that’s a couple of hundred dollars less but not quite as good, I’ll await for that version, thanks. VR may be a major breakthrough and everything, but I can’t justify that kind of money on something I’ll play for maybe an hour a week with.

  6. Bishop149 says:

    Well I certainly won’t be buying one straight away, and if the competition is comparable then if / when I do plump for VR I’ll probably go with one of the others.
    I just really don’t want to give ANY money to people who behaved so poorly over the whole kickstarter thing.

    • Maxheadroom says:

      Pretty much this. Skipped the kickstarter but for me its gone from being a day 1 purchase to “meh, ill see what the others are like and read a few reviews first”

    • Colthor says:

      They’re sending something priced at $600 to people who backed for $300 and have already got the thing they paid for. I don’t think you can criticise how they’re treating backers.

      (Alas my patience, risk-aversity and miserliness haven’t worked out this time!)

    • Cinek says:

      Oh, yea, cause sending people free device that noone ever promised is such a poor treatment!

      • Bishop149 says:

        I was referring more to the business strategy of: “Use Kickstarter as an entirely risk free method of raising seed capital, and then go on to sell for megabucks”

        I know they technically broke no rules, but also simultaneously defecated over the entire ethos of crowdfunding.
        Merely additionally delivering what you already pledged doesn’t really compensate for this now does it.

        And its not a $600 device, at best its a $400 device + profit those initial investors won’t see a penny of.

        • SingularityParadigm says:

          “And its not a $600 device, at best its a $400 device + profit those initial investors won’t see a penny of.” -Bishop149

          Incorrect. Here is an excerpt from Palmer Luckey’s first response in yesterdays Reddit AMA:

          “To be perfectly clear, we don’t make money on the Rift. […] 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.”

          permalink to the source: link to

          • jrodman says:

            I’m unclear why I should believe a man who tells me that his company makes no money on their only product.

            And even if that’s true, it doesn’t inspire confidence.

          • Anonymous says:

            Unclear? LMGTFY – link to en.wikipedia.orglink to – It’s only a very few new leading game platforms that are sold initially at cost or for a profit. The XBone One, the Wii. The various hand helds don’t really count cause they’ve never been pushing tech too hard, and they’ve been notoriously profitable as a result.

  7. DLFReporter says:

    I’m happy to receive mine coming April. (sooo long still…)
    @Bishop: If you backed them then, then you should check your inbox! :)

  8. Cockie says:

    I don’t get the international price difference, tbh.
    700 euro is 754 dollar; so 154 more than the US price – how can the *difference* in sales tax give 25% extra cost? Sales tax itself isn’t even 25% here, and shipping isn’t accounted for in the price either… :S

    • Xzi says:

      It’s a minimum of $30 shipping in the US. $100 or more in some parts of the US. Which means even here people are paying $700+ for something that was expected to be more around $400.

    • PoulWrist says:

      Sales tax (VAT) here in Denmark is 25% on everything – so that’s normal for me. But if they’re shipping it out from the states it’ll cost an additional customs fee for importing it. It makes no sense for europeans to buy this right now, unless you just don’t care about the cost, of course.

    • Luciferous says:

      IUt all comes down to taxes, American listed prices don’t include them because its a per State thing, where as in the UK and Europe tax is included with the listed price, it never quite adds up because the price is worked out on the maximum value of the currency so things always end up more expensive than they naturally should be.

  9. anHorse says:


    All that money to be able to look around your ship a bit in elite

    • badmothergamer says:

      This has been my line of thinking as well. How much am I willing to spend for VR in Elite Dangerous, a game I got bored with over a year ago, but the only VR experience I’ve seen I’m actually interested in.

      I figure in a year or so I’ll be able to pick up a gen 1 occulus for ~$300 on ebay, especially if the vive is cheaper and/or better. By that point there should be a few more interesting titles too.

    • Mr_Blastman says:

      You can already look around your ship in Elite using Track IR for a whole lot less money than 600 bucks.

  10. PoulWrist says:

    I wonder if EU customers will have it sent from an address within the EU or if we’ll have to handle it from the US where we’ll be subject to tollcharges? That’s an unknown that could significantly increase the price even further.

    • trjp says:

      You absolutely MUST get it shipped from the EU – but they’re talking about sales tax and so duty/vat isn’t the issue.

      The issue is aftersales support/warranty – you don’t want to be returning it to the USA if it breaks, do you?

      Ideally you want support in your own country – this thing isn’t going to be cheap to send back if/when it breaks…

  11. trjp says:

    Just to be clear, cutting quality would NOT have saved $100s at any point – they simply aimed low to keep people onboard hoping that the prospect of actually getting one would offset the higher price they knew they’d have to charge.

    If you look at what’s involved, the price isn’t surprising – anyone expecting all that tech. for $350 was optimistic and SOME people were hoping for rather less ($200 is a figure I’ve seen some people expect, which was massively unrealistic)

  12. JimboDeany says:

    Given the substantial US-Sterling fuckery is there any reason I couldn’t pick one up for cheaper in the US and then bring it back to the UK?

    • Replikant says:


      • JimboDeany says:

        Aye, but…..realistically…..

        • Asurmen says:

          Realistically it can happen and does often.

          • TillEulenspiegel says:

            Travel light (one bag), and you’ll almost never be stopped by customs. But it does vary by country/airport.

        • Stevostin says:

          You most likely can buy one for a reseller on US Amazon. Did that for a Cintiq years ago. I didn’t even intended on cheating. Would have paid whatever fee I should have if there was a place to do so, but there wasn’t. Ultimately that was probable the best deal I ever did, 50% of nominal value here in France (for various reasons adding up). Had to pay for a power adapter though, but that’s all.

    • trjp says:

      There’s no fuckery at all

      $600 is £410ish plus 20% VAT is £492 (£500)

      Euros is less great but not hugely

      $600 is Eu550 plus VAT (varies from 12-25%?) is Eu600-680 (Eu 700)

      US Sales Tax is added (in most but not all States) at the checkout – so they’ll pay on-top of the $600 too

  13. wombat191 says:

    looking at the list of available compatible games and seeing the 4 i have and being australian.. somehow the addition isnt worth an extra $250 per game for VR

    i may like eurotruck simulator 2 but i dont like it enough to spend that

  14. tonicer says:

    Normiebookbacked … comes with a gamepad which i will never see a use for … more expensive than i thought … meh i just buy a third 144Hz monitor.

  15. Maxheadroom says:

    So how different is it from the DK2? does it still have that distracting sort of ‘screen door’ effect?

    • TokyoWarfare says:

      It seems unlikely to have that effect. Tried a “put your phone” like hmd with a quite high FOV using an LG g4 witch seems to have same res as oculus and you’ll need to try extremelly hard to see (guess) the pixels. The feeling is MUCH better resolution wise than the DK2, that is for sure.

      • fish99 says:

        Let’s be realistic here, the resolution is still extremely low for a screen that’s a few inches from your eyes. You’d still see the pixels if it was a 4K screen, and it’s not even close to 4K.

        • finc says:

          I’m reading your comment on my not-4K phone that I’m holding a few inches from my eyes… Can’t see the pixels.

  16. Stevostin says:

    Well it’s all about the experience that is delivered first. Is that an easy setup, does it work well, is it comfortable, can I play 4h straight with it etc.

    If it does all of that, then there is an offer. The price it’s worth, I don’t know, but I know people wouldn’t have been ready to pay for the price an iPhone was really (once buy outside of phone subscription deals) for what it brought. But what it brought turned out to be the kind of “no way back” upgrade that you’re ready to pay quite expensive. Maybe it will be the same for VR.

  17. TillEulenspiegel says:

    As always (and especially with a brand new type of product), early adopters will pay more for a worse product. Unless you’re a developer, just wait about a year for the second generation of VR headsets.

  18. KastaRules says:

    So if I pay 700 euros (+ shipping) I don’t have to pay import fees and VAT once it goes through the customs, right?

    Otherwise it would get in the $1000 range and that would be just ridiculous.

    Still, if we were allowed to pay the American price for it and cover the import fees and VAT on our own, it would be cheaper.

    • DLFReporter says:

      Yes it’s 700€ with all Taxes. VAT(19% +Customs 7% for Germany) the shipping will cost you 42€ to Germany. So grand total is 742€ atm.
      Trust me, it is really way more hassle to buy it without Oculus taking care of the tax. Have you ever had to go to the customs office for a thing that you ordered overseas? Trust me, the day lost there can be used in so many other ways. :D

      • KastaRules says:

        Yes, I get about 70 packages from the USA per year.

        I know you Germans like to over-complicate things (kidding, I love you guys!), but here in Italy it’s pretty simple: you get the package at your door and you pay the due fees. This way I would have saved about 30 euros, not much but still…

  19. drinniol says:

    Well, the only 1080p HMD I could find for the consumer was $799 USD. Sony’s ones are 720p and $745. So, it’s the cheapest HD HMD display by far, plus you get free head tracking, 2 games and a controller.

    Yes it should have been handled better and expectations set accordingly, but anyone who is genuinely appalled at this price has no idea about the equivalent tech, frankly.

  20. vahnn says:

    I don’t really have any interest in getting a Rift, so none of this bothers me at all, but “I was contrasting $349 with $1500, not our internal estimate that hovered close to $599.”

    Lol what? How do you fuck that up? And what the hell does that sentence even mean?

    • Asurmen says:

      As the article states, he made the comment partly in response to whether it will be over $1000 or closer to the DK1/DK2 price. He said it’s in the ballpark of the previous model’s price but is higher. As it turns out, he’s right.

  21. TokyoWarfare says:

    So dissapointed with OVR…
    Our game still will come with support for it, more likely targeting DK2 users than CV1 as CV1 users will need to have ready for burn 700€ + 700+ for the GPU, assuming the rest of the gear is up to the task…
    This is a masacre of your pocket kudos. Hope that at least is technically perfect.
    In regards to design, that microphone like cam looks like *~#!* the previous clip cam seemed much better designed than this bulky thing. The gamepad looks totally unnecessary too.
    … Whatever… mixed feelings here…

  22. TokyoWarfare says:

    Forgot to add. For those VAT holding devs, for some reason OVR does not discount the VAT values in the invoices as they should and try to charge the full price. That is totally against to how this should be, unless you’re aquiring it from Ireland, witch seem the place you’re being billed.

  23. Alfius says:

    As I understand it the pricing problem for Europeans is that Oculus are not selling *in* the EU, but rather *to* the EU from the US. The subtle difference between a US Sales Tax and an EU Value Added Tax means that Europeans buying from the US pay both whereas Americans buying from the EU pay neither (or at least no VAT, an American may need to confirm they don’t pay Sales Tax on EU imports). This is because Sales Taxes are levied at point of sale whereas Value Added Taxes are levied at point of use.

    I had this issue when I ordered a pair a skis from the US recently. Had to pay US Sales Tax *and* UK VAT.

    Note, that this is only a problem because you’re buying from a US entity who are exporting the product to you. If Oculus were to set up over here, or sign a distribution deal with an EU retailer the problem goes away, and you’d only be paying your member state’s VAT, even if the Oculus branch office/distribution partner is in another EU country.

    TL;DR if you’re in Europe wait for Oculus to set up over here (which I presume they will at some point).

    • MistaJah says:

      Word. It seems like we’re paying both taxes. Yet if they ship from Ireland I feel like they should be the ones paying the U.S. double tax – they can blame their country.

    • KastaRules says:

      Makes sense to me. I have no hurry to shell out almost 750 euros anyway.

  24. w0bbl3r says:

    Remember physics cards?
    Something with a great idea, but that people just don’t see is worth the ridiculous price tag for something that will be very limited in use for years to come.
    How many games will be designed for VR? Out of those, how many will be good? Out of the one’s NOT designed for it but that you can get working with it, how many will work well enough to not give you headaches and/or make you feel sick to your stomach?
    All this money (and £500 for something costing $600 is NEVER ok, nevermind overseas tax and all that nonsense) for something you might be able to use in one out of every 20 games you buy, and almost none of the games you currently own? I don’t think so.
    At the $350 or so he was talking before, it would have maybe taken some interest. As it is, I expect it to die out faster than the original VR headsets did in the mid-90s.

    • vlonk says:

      Oculus has the money and backing from FB to hang around as hardware Developers for a few years to come. They sunk 2 billion on it already, they won’t back out in 2016 just yet.

      If we do not see a killer app in 2016, that might steer the VR ship into obscurity.

    • MistaJah says:

      VorpX lets you use it on games you own, plus it offers a new way to watch 3D movies. Even Dolphin-emulator supports VR.

      • Jediben says:

        And physics cards died a death but Phys-x was integrated into nvidia graphics cards. And don’t forget TressFX.

  25. VFRHawk says:

    As a matter of interest, does anyone know if the headset has a built in mic? If they’re including headphones, and bundling a MP game, a mic is likely to be essential and is normally a part of most peoples gaming headset….

    Haven’t seen any mention of this anywhere, so does anyone know?

  26. Epicedion says:

    Here’s the problem. As with any expensive niche entertainment device, only small fraction of people will have both the desire and means to get this thing. All of these people will be reliant on a games industry that’s interested in expending extra effort, money, and time to develop games that support the new hardware.

    History’s shown that the games industry doesn’t want anything to do with spending extra effort, money, or time to support niche peripherals, under the principal of “a tiny percent of our target market has one, so why develop for it?” I doubt any triple-A studios will try to fit in Oculus Rift support in between trying to get PS4, XBone, Wii U, and PC versions working — most triple-A studios can’t even get all of that right. The PC market is small compared to the consoles, so don’t expect any extra love from them. Smaller developers with a more focused interest on pairing that sort of technology (see: Elite) with specific games might put out some releases, but what will we really see from that? One, maybe two games a year across the board?

    The Oculus will probably fall into the death-spiral of no one developing for it due to a tiny user base, and the user base remaining tiny because no one wants to pay $600 for a device that works with no games.

    • Hedgeclipper says:

      The AAAs will do one or two each to test the waters and make sure they develop some skills just in case, and then they’ll do some analysis and see if it turned out to be worthwhile – which will depend entirely on how many headsets FaceRift sells and how many games the owners buy – good news is they’ll be a segment with plenty of disposable income.

  27. syllopsium says:

    What does ‘the all in cost would not have budged significantly’ mean? The Rift, as I understand it, needs to be paired by a powerful graphics card as two high resolution screens are being run simultaneously at high frame rates, and it’ll need a fair bit of CPU to do some of the calculations, I’m sure.

    Other than that, what’s to buy? The controller is included, the motion tracking is in, and it has surround headphones. It’s nice to have hand held controllers but not mandatory.

    I do have a Sixense controller set coming when they finally ship their kickstarter, hoping to couple a Rift with a new system and do some 3D world wandering..

    • Fiatil says:

      You pretty much caught it in your initial paragraph. He said that the real price for getting a Rift for most people is about $1500 — $600 for the headset, and $900 or so for the PC. The argument is that $600 vs. $400 hurts mass market adoption, but the counter is that the mass market is really facing $1300 vs. $1600.

      So it’s his belief that anyone who already owns a gaming PC powerful enough to use the thing probably isn’t going to be deterred by the extra $200, and no one in the mass market is going to flip between buying and not buying if the difference is $1500 or $1300.

      I can’t say I disagree. I’m sitting somewhere in the middle, but the big hurdle for me is waiting for the next gen of GPUs to drop. I wasn’t going to go out and build a new PC for a $400 Rift until that happens, and I probably would buy the $600 Rift if I had already invested in a monster PC.

      • Fiatil says:

        Guh, first paragraph should be $1300 vs. $1500

      • GHudston says:

        “So it’s his belief that anyone who already owns a gaming PC powerful enough to use the thing probably isn’t going to be deterred by the extra $200”

        God I hate this argument. It’s like people don’t seem to understand that in order to own expensive things you have to trade your money for them. I can’t afford the extra $200 because I own an expensive PC.

  28. jargon says:

    Won’t anybody think of us lowly Canadians! $849 CAD is simply unattainable for most as we don’t get paid any more than most Americans. Our dollar was worth more than USD less than 5 years ago but now we get screwed for living above the 49th parallel. One day I’m going to expose the global currency market for the sham it is!
    *queue evil laughter*

  29. waltC says:

    I’m sorry, but “day one stock” sells out with a *pre-order*!??? Man, what a marketing trick that is…;) Because of it being a pre-order, there is *no* stock at all at the moment…so what this tells us is that the number could anything from 1 order up…

    This is going to be the tech bust from hell, no doubt…just wait on the reviews…;) It’s going to be chilling–the hype will be incredible and the product will suck.

    • Hedgeclipper says:

      I’ve always found the day one ‘sold out’ marketing ploy amusing given how its spun as a positive whereas if it were not intentional it would represent a failure in planning on the part of the company.

  30. racccoon says:

    Glwt as .. link to

  31. InfamousPotato says:

    I’m glad plenty of people are still pre-ordering, despite the price. I can’t afford this sort of thing right now, but I really do want VR to succeed.

  32. Misha says:

    After what, three years of mission creep and “any day now, promise!”, it comes down to their CEO not being able to tell the difference between $350 and $600 in his head?

    I’m certainly hoping that he’s not their CFO as well! LOL

    Oh well. At least they got the ball rolling. Now I only have to wait for a company who actually know what they’re doing, business-wise, to pick it up and run with it.

    • KastaRules says:

      I am pretty sure they knew very well what they were doing, they probably hinted to a lower price to avoid killing the hype and keep people interested in the Rift.

  33. finc says:

    If the headset isn’t compatible with Gravis Ultrasound I’m out.