runningjoke
Member
If all of those titles cost more than they will ever make maybe something is wrong, yes. (unless Sony flips the bill for instance, because that is an investment in image building and not really the games themselves)
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Oculus Rift CEO: High end Oculus Rift games could cost more than $60
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
If all of those titles cost more than they will ever make maybe something is wrong, yes. (unless Sony flips the bill for instance, because that is an investment in image building and not really the games themselves)
TetraGenesis
Member
Now, I don't have one so I can't speak directly but the way I understand it the problem with VR is VR-sickness not eye strain. Whereas 3D glasses force your eyes to shift and focus in a slightly unnatural position, Oculus Rift only allows one eye to see one image and your focus rests on infinity which is the most comfortable eye position.
Any midrange to high end TV has 3d. Its a feature of the tv now. So 3d has not died. Its actually become a standard feature. The occulas rift sounds cool. But where is the new software. Buying a headset to play old games is not that exciting. This reminds me of the 3ds or vita where you can use the other gyroscopes to look around. Cool for about 5 min but not better then just using an analog stick. Wearing a headset that requires a controller to actually play the game will always be not much more then a head mounted TV.
Welcome to economy 101
OLED tvs are now 10x more expensive and yet it is only minor picture upgrade from overall point of view.
With bluray movies companies wanted 5 times as much as dvd movies
And here suddenly people think content won't be more expensive than normal content.
He targets his hardware @ 200-400$ and people should be happy.
His monitor statement also is true. If people will start to use VR, monitors will be used as internet/work hardware
I think higher prices will be justified. Not because it will be so much more difficult to develop for, but because whatever additional effort they do put in will be for a small installed user base.
Still, while I would be ok with a higher initinal upfront cost, I would not be ok with micro transactions.
Still, while I would be ok with a higher initinal upfront cost, I would not be ok with micro transactions.
iamshadowlark
Banned
You're overtrivializing this to the nth degree.
Yeah we shoul be happy they are aiming something between 200 and 400 $.
If VR would be delivered by Sony it would cost 1k or more
Byakuya769
Member
A head mounted tv that imparts depth, free look and greater movement options--all while taking up the entirety of your field of vision and immersing you in the game world.
Do we know if Occulus Rift is also developed with binaural tech in mind? Would be sad to have an immersive visual experience but not the corresponding audio technology with it as in binaural audio that is tied to the geometry of the game world (coordinates, materials, wavetracing etc.).
Sectorseven
Member
Putting the cart before the horse here with these premium games and prices.
How would you even market an Oculus exclusive? You can't show off the experience in video or ads. Heck, you can't even show it to a crowd at a convention.
How would you even market an Oculus exclusive? You can't show off the experience in video or ads. Heck, you can't even show it to a crowd at a convention.
I have seen a lot of people bring this up (specifically with that Barber shop Youtube thing) and how exactly does it differ from 3D sound that most games already offer?
Byakuya769
Member
The return of the arcade machine!
I actually had a bit of an outburst about that on GAF recently.
It seems if you are not marketing your product to everyone you should be ashamed of even developing it.
iamshadowlark
Banned
I was actually thinking of this. The arcade seems like the perfect place to help get this out into the public.
Sapphire Dreams
Member
Don't give them any ideas dude ! God, I hope EA won't listen to this guy.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Hey, the more niche the product the more the developer of said hardware or software will cater to their niche base. Its of no concern of mine if the product interests grandma.
Also the title is inflammatory. Giving the impression that VR games will be higher priced. Fortunately this HMD doesn't have to worry about a walled ecosystem.
Also the title is inflammatory. Giving the impression that VR games will be higher priced. Fortunately this HMD doesn't have to worry about a walled ecosystem.
OLED displays and Blurays require(d) new physical materials and new manufacturing processes. It's really not comparable at all to adding code for Rift support.
JetBlackPanda
Member
Rift isn't even out yet! don't go evil corporation on us yet. Why would you even give developers this idea?
lol
Rift enhanced version $69.99
lol
Rift enhanced version $69.99
SkeptiMism
Member
Quoting for a new page. So many people don't seem to read the article and not even OP. Just a question, but is not reading OP bannable? I saw Bish say that in some thread at least.
Lol. I love Nintendo games, but do you realize what kind of power Oculus Rift demands? It absolutely requires a high frame rate so that your brain believes it and it requires a high resolution. PS4 would probably have trouble producing enough power for this other than for indie games maybe.
Maybe Nintendo will get there in 10 years.
Also lot of people here also seem so certain OR will be niche. Read this.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=749702
Obviously, that's just tinfoil hat hype speculation, but the writer does bring some good points, and no doubt, there is massive potential. The thing about virtual reality is that it's not good only for games, but for many, many other uses too.
I'm not sure if you've seen a single cool OR video or read/seen any impressions from people who have experienced OR. It's nothing like a gyroscope (lol).
According to the company's words, 50 000 developers have OR dev kits.
I would also not be surprised to see people paying way more than $60 for VR experiences they love over time, the tech seems very addicting. Wouldn't word it the way the headline quote does, but that's semantics really and Iribe clarifies he doesn't necessarily mean $60+ straight up.
SkeptiMism
Member
They're working on it.
Read this for example:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...lus-rift-crystal-cove-prototype-is-that-good/
Not heard one guy who got motion sick from the crystal cove prototype. Some of them said they got motion sick in the old dev kits pretty fast but there was nothing in the new Prototype.
SkeptiMism
Member
How about actually reading the OP instead of only the title?
vinnygambini
Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
Nintendo's first-party N64 games were 64.99$ at the time - price-tag of over 60$ is not unheard-of. Hopefully Oculus games will provide great entertainment and not charge the ''3D'' price admission because one is able to do so.
shinobi602
Member
I contacted a mod to edit the thread title to better express the subject matter. Hope it's better now.
chaostrophy
Member
How much programming work is involved in optimizing a game for the Oculus? If it's a lot, it's only fair that Oculus users pay for it. But it would suck for Oculus if developers overcharged for the support.
I think he's right.
Comparisons with pointless technologies like 3D really have no substance: 3D was already a dead tech when it was reintroduced for the third time in the '00, no amount of marketing and media focus can make a corpse pretty.
VR is something humanity has collectively waited for since the first psychedelic mushroom was cooked.
Comparisons with pointless technologies like 3D really have no substance: 3D was already a dead tech when it was reintroduced for the third time in the '00, no amount of marketing and media focus can make a corpse pretty.
VR is something humanity has collectively waited for since the first psychedelic mushroom was cooked.
Elitro
Member
His reasoning is solid, and we can agree why he says it, since 3D raised cinema ticket prices.
Ultimately it will be us -the consumer- who will dictate if premium prices for VR experiences are justifiable.
I am very picky about pricing, last gen i only bought one game day one (Rock Band 3) and ultimately i ended up spending yet some extra money on dlc's (mostly on sales thou). So instead of judging future experiences without knowing what's comming i will say that i am willing to pay that premium price IF it's justifiable in my eyes and of course when the price is right (steam sales).
Ultimately it will be us -the consumer- who will dictate if premium prices for VR experiences are justifiable.
I am very picky about pricing, last gen i only bought one game day one (Rock Band 3) and ultimately i ended up spending yet some extra money on dlc's (mostly on sales thou). So instead of judging future experiences without knowing what's comming i will say that i am willing to pay that premium price IF it's justifiable in my eyes and of course when the price is right (steam sales).
Triggerhappytel
Member
More than $60?!
I did. It still killed my hype.
KaiserBecks
Member
You must have been hyped as fuck if just one headline managed to kill it.
SkeptiMism
Member
The possibility of OR games costing more (OR not having any say on the price decisions of developers naturally)?
Consumer decides. Even if developers price them higher, in the end, consumers are the one who decide if it's worth it. If a game doesn't sell at a high price, then it goes down.
Of course, I suppose that if developers would really decide to increase prices (and in that case they really should deliver well, as the CEO says) and there's a large group of rich people buying the content at high prices, then that wouldn't be very nice. But I don't see that happening.
His statements appear completely reasonable given that he is only making a prediction on how publishers and developers may react to VR entering the industry.
Given how many publishers already abuse DLC and micro transactions how can anyone argue they won't try the same with VR goods? Especially given that VR, as stated in the interview, allows for a much greater experience and interaction with the digital item. I'm not arguing whether it's right or wrong, the value for said product is subjective.
As for VR games costing more upfront, I'm hesitant to give any predictions. Obviously if we're looking at a port situation, there could be significant work required to add-on VR because traditional user-interfaces do not work, instead it would have to be built into the 3D world.
I'm extremely excited for the Oculus Rift, it could be one of the largest changes with respect to game design, not to mention the level of immersion since we moved from 2D to 3D.
It has come up countless times when a new piece of technology is unveiled. It makes even less sense when it's directed towards an "independent" advancement, as in one which requires absolutely exterior support such as G-sync. It does not matter how many people have G-sync, it only requires one person to completely reap the benefits. As for Oculus Rift, I fear the source of the dismissive nature has more to do with it remaining on PC for the immediate future and therefore it's not "mainstream".
Given how many publishers already abuse DLC and micro transactions how can anyone argue they won't try the same with VR goods? Especially given that VR, as stated in the interview, allows for a much greater experience and interaction with the digital item. I'm not arguing whether it's right or wrong, the value for said product is subjective.
As for VR games costing more upfront, I'm hesitant to give any predictions. Obviously if we're looking at a port situation, there could be significant work required to add-on VR because traditional user-interfaces do not work, instead it would have to be built into the 3D world.
I'm extremely excited for the Oculus Rift, it could be one of the largest changes with respect to game design, not to mention the level of immersion since we moved from 2D to 3D.
It has come up countless times when a new piece of technology is unveiled. It makes even less sense when it's directed towards an "independent" advancement, as in one which requires absolutely exterior support such as G-sync. It does not matter how many people have G-sync, it only requires one person to completely reap the benefits. As for Oculus Rift, I fear the source of the dismissive nature has more to do with it remaining on PC for the immediate future and therefore it's not "mainstream".
I believe this will be a bigger problem than a fair few realise.
The only time I've personally experienced motion sickness in a game was using Kinect as a head tracking device in Forza, sadly something I'd been pining for. Main reason being was the relatively high latency, something OR still has from my understanding. There's a large chunk of people who cannot play first person perspective games due to motion sickness, I'd imagine it will only be amplified by virtual reality devices. That's going to be a lot of people excluded off the bat, I've also read of developers only being able to use the OR in 20 minute sessions before the sickness became unbearable. Home users will be expecting far longer sessions, if large numbers cannot do this then I would hazard a guess at the whole shebang being a hard sell.
It's going to be an interesting in some years from now, I wouldn't be surprised if augmented reality takes off beforehand. Being able to see what is around the wearer is going to help a lot, not to mention allow for many more situational uses. For example, people with kids cannot use a completely sealed environment like OR and closed headphones, but glasses which project a screen image and an ear bud will be workable. For me it depends on how rapidly all these technologies move forward and how low the prices get, could well still be something of a flash in the pan. I know the following is usually dismissed out of hand but I recall much of the same being said in the early 90s, big documentaries and news outlets running with how it will change medicine, learning, entertainment and all the rest but that never transpired. Yes, things are a bit different now but has it all changed enough?
We'll have fun finding out either way, I'm sure.
Freedom = $1.05
Banned
He's got a point with 3d objects. Someone who already buys dlc like costumes and pets and mounts is more than likely going to be even more willing to buy those same things if they're rendered in 3d and they can have a deeper level of interaction with them. Man, whaling might never be the same.
Dictator93
Member
Sh... people do not read the article.
SkeptiMism
Member
With the dev kits that are out the motion sickness is indeed a problem for many people, but OR has a new model that's designed to resolve a lot of those issues.I believe this will be a bigger problem than a fair few realise.
The only time I've personally experienced motion sickness in a game was using Kinect as a head tracking device in Forza, sadly something I'd been pining for. Main reason being was the relatively high latency, something OR still has from my understanding. There's a large chunk of people who cannot play first person perspective games due to motion sickness, I'd imagine it will only be amplified by virtual reality devices. That's going to be a lot of people excluded off the bat, I've also read of developers only being able to use the OR in 20 minute sessions before the sickness became unbearable. Home users will be expecting far longer sessions, if large numbers cannot do this then I would hazard a guess at the whole shebang being a hard sell.
It's going to be an interesting in some years from now, I wouldn't be surprised if augmented reality takes off beforehand. Being able to see what is around the wearer is going to help a lot, not to mention allow for many more situational uses. For example, people with kids cannot use a completely sealed environment like OR and closed headphones, but glasses which project a screen image and an ear bud will be workable. For me it depends on how rapidly all these technologies move forward, could well still be something of a flash in the pan. I know the following is usually dismissed out of hand but I recall much of the same being said in the early 90s, big documentaries and news outlets running with how it will change medicine, learning, entertainment and all the rest but that never transpired. Yes, things are a bit different now but has it all changed enough?
We'll have fun finding out either way, I'm sure.
Here's some reading:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...lus-rift-crystal-cove-prototype-is-that-good/
The question is of course, what kind of models will be the end products. Will it only be these kind of better models, or will there be worse (but cheaper) models that can cause motion sickness more easily.
Teletraan1
Banned
I cant wait to enter my Credit Card information to unlock part of the game in a fully realized 3D environment. Sounds magical.