A bunch of Vive development teams are here in Vancouver so I've been able to try the Vive and various experiences for an extended period of time. The controllers are so important to the VR experience that I'm still kind of amazed Oculus is shipping without theirs.

Pricing on this seems reasonable, though thanks to the Canadian dollar at the moment if I order the Vive it will be at least $1100, not including shipping and customs fees. I could easily see this costing $1500.

This mostly reminds me that I need to upgrade my motherboard and processor. I have a Geforce 980 already but my processor is a bit too far out of date.

So the thing about this one vs Oculus that is kind of selling it to me is that the motion controllers in the Oculus are not a pack-in, so until they announce the price there I'm not sure if this is any more expensive.

When you factor in that a) it's entirely possible that the Oculus controllers will work with this in some way and b) this is doing the room VR thing... it almost makes more sense to get your starter kit with this one and then consider if you want any of the Oculus stuff on the side. Especially if the software is compatible as well.

Well, my PC meets the requirements for this thing, from what I can tell, so that's a weird one there. I mean, sure, the Sony proposition makes a ton more sense if it's 600 bucks paired with a 400 bucks console as opposed to effectively a 1.5k PC, but I already own both of the above, so the cost for me is strictly on the headset and controllers.

And it makes sense, too. I mean, this is going to be expensive and for dedicated users, so the kind of person that spent way too much money on an overpowered PC is the natural target user. I agree with you, though, for mass enthusiast market, Sony has a cool opportunity, and for the actual mass market, Samsung is bundling a Gear VR headset with their Galaxy S7 preorders, which is a very interesting move.

I work at a company doing commercial VR installations for museums, attractions, etc. and I feel like the Vive might make a lot more sense for the kind of large scale stuff that we do compared to home use.

The HTC Vive has a lot of the same issues that the original Xbox Kinect did. Some people just won't be able to allocate enough space in their home to set it up. It might make more sense in America, where houses are generally bigger, but in other countries (especially Japan and other parts of Asia), people simply don't have rooms large enough to make it work. I live with my parents in a somewhat-smaller-than-average house in the UK and even I can't think of a free space large enough to become a dedicated "VR-zone", unless I could actually be bothered to move stuff out of the way each time I wanted to use it.

Not to mention that HTC is in a lot of financial trouble and this product might literally be their last dying breath, while Oculus is owned by frigginFacebook.

Cheaper than I thought but I'm going to wait a year or two and see how this whole VR thing shakes out.

Guys I'm just going to say it. I don't see how VR will reach the mainstream with prices like these. I want VR to be successful but most can't even try it without spending $1200 to $1,500. That is an insane amount of money for an unproven concept.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it doesn't have to be successful with the mainstream to actually be successful. Instead of selling VR to 5000 people like me with average incomes, maybe the only need to sell VR to 500 with a way above average incomes. If that's the case it just makes me sad that I won't get to try it until 10 years down the line when I can buy it for 300 bucks at Walmart.

@cybexx: Have you tried the SteamVR Performance Test? Search for it and it will do a render for you. I don't think the cpu is as necessary of an upgrade as the 980.

@blackichigo: I think they may be expecting that *when you get around to upgrading to a new PC, they will still be around and you'll have a foot in the door with a capable machine.

Wow, I'm happy. Better than I had hoped for, but also what I kinda optimistically expected.

@blackichigo: Yeah, there is a problem with that. It is $1,000 good from a technology perspective, it's fucking impressive how convincing and natural it is. But this is me in my late 30s saying this, after paying off my truck last year. If this came out 5 years ago I'd be feeling like I really want it, it's awesome (after trying it) and how am I supposed to afford one. Even after a tax return it would be a hard question.

But the tech is there. I demo mine to whoever I can because it's just so impressive to watch someone change after trying it

@frodofeet: I understand and agree with you. But even so $800 for something that has very little content is a bit much. It won't have very much content for a while either. Prices like that might even scare away developers too. Who wants to develop for something for months or years that not a lot of people can really play? Having said that VR as a whole has me really excited because I just don't know what's going to happen with it.

Edit: My brain totally misread that as Oculus performance test, which my computers fails on the CPU and number of USB 3 ports. I just ran the Valve VR Test and I got a really good rating despite my CPU.

About $200 less than I expected...still $800 more than I'm willing to pay for it.

Job Simulator? I know this must be marketed to our vast unemployed masses, but how can they afford this $799 price tag? Or is it a Job Simulator where God tests your faith by taking your family, health and livelihood away? Either way count me out.

Not sure if this has been mentioned but i think you're missing a 'Vive' from the title.

Yikes. This and Oculus Rift are dead on arrival. PSVR has a chance to be reasonable.

Dude. PSVR is rumored to be over a grand. Rift can just run on your PC hardware...but because of how weak the PS4 hardware is, the PSVR has to include both the headset AND some sort of processing hardware to drive it.

The PSVR processing box is simply for reprocessing the image that goes to the TV so it looks normal. It's not some high-end graphics processor. The PSVR will most likely be the cheapest solution.

And as far as DOA goes, none of the manufacturers are expecting to set the world on fire saleswise with the first gen headsets. In fact Zuckerberg said he's not expecting to make money off the Oculus purchase for at least 10 years. This is very much a long term game. That said HTC has been bleeding money for a while now, so I assume/hope there is more involvement from Valve there beyond it being associated with Steam.

its Htc's Vibe. HTC is the manufacturer. lol.

@blackichigo:

This isn't indicative of quality, but there are 231 programs with VR Support currently on the Steam store with launch dates going back to 2014 and 134 of those programs are games. I wouldn't go so far as to say there isn't any content for these VR devices, but I would say there isn't a highly noticeable presence of triple AAA titles being heavily marketed because the devices simply aren't out yet. I am also assuming that developers for large budget or popular games released in the past couple years that have a first-person element have at some point considered the challenges of developing VR Support for their products. I've also considered the modding scene as sources of creating varying levels of solutions for Rift/Vive support. I'm curious as to where the communities will take VR besides the official developments.

LESS THAN EIGHT HUNDRED DOLLARS

First oculus and now this. I'm going to be a 2020> VR dude fo sho

IT IS LESS THAN NINE-THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND!

Very interested to see what Playstation VR will cost now.

Oculus already showed me that if this is the year of VR, i'm not invited to the party.

Not to mention you will spend more for the phone itself anyway. A dedicated peripheral sounds a lot better value in that context.

@mellotronrules: It's not a complaint the it is expensive. For me it's more because they all act like the adoption of the technology is a forgone conclusion. I've been down this road before, having to listen to people praise 3D televisions as if they were the second coming of a technology messiah. It did not end well. In fact here is appears to be even worse: At least with those televisions, it was possible to demo them in store. That is not the case here. Knowing an early adopter being the only real exception, there is no easy way to try these technologies out for yourself. You can't just stroll into a Best Buy and pop one on, you know?

And to answer your question about who had been hyping it up: One of the more recent Game Informer covers (on the back cover if I remember right) mentioned "Revolutionizing Gaming" in regard to VR. That is an absurd claim to make right now and unneeded hype to boot. I would normally be more allowing of such a tactic, but GI is read by a lot of people that could go into a VR purchase thinking the first wave releases of these platforms will be truly amazing gaming machines as opposed to the precursor of such a thing. People can go on and on here (and elsewhere) about consumers needing to educate themselves, but when the largest gaming magazine in the U.S. spouts out rhetoric like that, it's hard not to expect some folks to pony up cash without knowing what minimum specs they truly need in order to use it.

@noelveiga: You appear to be odd man out in that case. Most people I see posting mention an upgrade being required, or at least discussed, to be able to use it properly. That's not to say you're the only one who is all set or anything, I just feel that the way they market these things sounds shady. Even a modification to the press releases, where they put a "Base Price" and a separate "With Optional Equipment" price, would do wonders for my faith in what they're selling. Also shame on me for buying the S6 then! I didn't get a fancy pair of Gear VR with mine!

@humanity: This guy (or girl. I don't know ya!) gets what I'm saying here. Good idea on an all in one solution as well. Being able to buy just a bundle makes sense to me over trying to pick and choose how to make it work with your current setup. It's especially odd that Valve doesn't offer something like that considering how they've been trying to push Steam PCs into people's homes.

Too rich for my blood

yeah- those are reasonable arguments to make. i think the 3D television one is particularly apt- not because the potential is the same (3D was always a gimmick- i don't think anyone truly believed that tech would change the way we perceive media), but rather the physical and somewhat antisocial 'block' that stands in the way. the glasses were dumb, and jeff was right when he said on the bombcast (me paraphrasing) "imagine a superbowl party- you'll never get a room full of people wearing 3D glasses."

never say never, but i can't imagine VR headsets ever being a social (same room) experience, simply because walking into a room of 8 people all geared up would be ridiculous. it's almost an implicitly isolating experience- and even if we end up with VR MMOs, it will still likely be people alone in their bedrooms interacting online.

it's a tough problem to overcome- and one that will be hard for the mainstream to overcome. traditional vehicles of media consumption- particularly screens- lend themselves to shared experiences quite well. VR does not. and that's a very steep challenge for VR to overcome.

as far as Game Informer- I'll concede that yeah, for games coverage that's probably as mainstream-facing as you can get. but even still- when you're talking about the general populace with disposable income (and not strictly 'gamers,' or those that follow enthusiast press)- i just don't get the sense these VR makers are pushing their headsets real hard.

Anyone else mess around with the Steam VR system test? Managed a 7.9 score on an overclocked i5 3570k and an overclocked Gigabyte Windforce 970. No dropped frames, no frames below 90 fps. Seems like you can get away with Ivy Bridge even though both Occulus and Valve list a requirement of a Haswell CPU.

@swaney: I ran it just to see what it looked like, was never really in doubt about my system being up to snuff, since I bought a 980ti specifically for VR. Average fidelity 10.7, no dropped frames.

I really, really hope this will be good.

Yeah I tried it after I saw it on steam. According to it I should be OK. I believe it's mostly because of that monster GPU.

Pretty surprised with the price. I was hoping for around this price, but was starting to worry it would be more expensive. I was sort of hoping it would be more expensive so I wouldn't be tempted to buy it, but I think I am going to have to.

@neozeon: What do you mean proof of concept? VR works and is a pretty compelling experience. Seems obvious that you haven't tried it since you are talking about Virtual Boy and 3DTV when it is absolutely nothing like those.

My PC is about 5 years old and is probably good enough to run it. I will probably upgrade my graphics card because VR is really the first thing that has really given me a reason to even bother upgrading since I put the build together.

Oculus and hopefully HTC seem to have reasonable expectations of sales with this tech and know it's targeting a niche audience. PSVR and even GearVR is much more targeted towards mainstream audience and as devices get lighter, smaller, and cheaper it will reach a wider audience.

lol this is gonna flop so hard. VR goggles have a place replacing trackir , this doesnt

@mellotronrules: Haha, yeah. 3D TV was always a gimmick, that's for sure. I'm with you and Jeff on that "gathering for a game" or whatever as well; the idea of people all huddling around and donning their VR to watch the Super Bowl or something doesn't seem very likely. Not right now at least. Ironically enough, despite my seemingly negative posts when these stories show up, I don't have anything against the technology. It just seems like a lot of promises much too fast. Obviously we'll see how it plays out, but I do hope it amounts to more than some tech demos and a few niche products!

@bookoo327: My my, aren't we defensive. I never said it was a Virtual Boy, that was a joke about wearing a dumb, cumbersome looking headset on your head. As for 3D TV: I do see a similarity between them in the way they are being marketed. It's being treated as a 'Herald Of Gaming's Future' or whatever without even having a real way to test it. Speaking of which...

Yeah, I haven't used it myself. Like I said in other posts on this very story: You can't just go pop one on somewhere. Unless you know someone who got it early/pre-ordered or happened to go to an event showing it (which seems to be mostly press only at this point), the normal consumer can't find it to try out very easily. If they want to sway people, showing it to a bunch of journalists at a trade show isn't the best way to do it.

Who knows, maybe I'll try it out and believe the hype. However, in much the same way people like to bring up how I haven't used it and shouldn't be too quick to judge, I would recommend that people slobbering all over it (not you mind you, just it's more die-hard defenders) take a step back and accept it for what it is - New, unproven technology that has yet to reach the mass market.

Even the people who have liked VR make sure to mention looking forward to it's future, not how what is available now (or in the very near future) is a revolution. Sounds like a proof of concept to me.

Note that the the SteamVR test has a disclaimer about CPU speed needed for the lighthouse or constellation processing. For some reason this isn't emulated in the test, even though it is essential to properly sync HMD tracking with the framerate. I think this a disservice to people who have fast GPUs but an old CPU being unintentionally led to believe their PC is ready. I would also like to make sure people realize the the CPU requirement is the equivilant or greater of an i5 4590 running at stock speeds. If you overclock, your i5 or i7 3xxx may very well still be up to the task, but these test programs do not account for that because they only see the base clock speed of the CPU model. You have to take some blind faith that your overclocking is good enough.

Yeah I noticed. I'm exploring CPU and motherboard options right now.

You can double check your current processor with a program like PassMark, and compare it to an i5 4590.

The potential for VR was strong and promising back when Oculus still touted that their tech would be affordable.

Except it isn't, and neither are any of the alternatives.
It's not going to catch on until these things are less than 400$, I can guarantee you that, it's just unfeasible and too expensive for anyone other than committed PC gamers with a larger income, because of that less and less games will use it as there's just not going to be a signifigant enough portion of the market able to take advantage of it.

It's going to die a quick and pointless death, just like 3D TVs did with their absurd pricepoints.

@mofaz said:

...Except VR is an actual game changer. HD TVs were RIDICULOUS when they first came out. DVDs were INSANE. Blu Ray players? Don't get me started.

"It's too expensive lel" is a redundant argument, all technology starts off expensive. Initial pricepoint has zilch to do with product longevity, 3D TVs didn't become more than a gimmick because that's all they ever were. VR offers a more visceral experience just like HD TVs and Blu Rays did when they first came out, that's why they're still sold to this day. People WANT virtual reality just like they wanted something superior to VCR tapes and CRTs. VR has been around for decades and in the next 5 years development will explode and the more popular something gets the cheaper it gets. Supply and demand baby, gotta love capitalism.

You are right. The question is: will this technology weather the winter till it does become less than $400? By the time the technology can be affordable, will it have stayed in an unattainable state for too long that people are jaded and refuse to adopt it; or will it be affordable soon enough that those who can't afford it now don't feel like they are left out? After reading many forum comments on this, a lot of people are preferring to wait. Take a console release for example, when it first comes out, it's probably a hundred dollars or more than you want to spend to buy it right away, but your current console is fine, it still has plenty of games to play and new ones are still coming out. You are still unsure which of the new consoles you want, and based on past experience, you know it will be cheaper in a year or so on a christmas sale. Hype has been building you up before the new console release to make you feel like you are missing out if you are not the first to experience it, but then the release happens, you hear all the early gossip on game websites and forums, and realize that it is not as exciting as hype led you to believe because there are only a handful of games that aren't much better than the ones you currently own, except for looking a little better. A year passes. Now developers have had the time they've needed to produce some quality AAA titles, and the console has it's first price drop.

VR does have an extra edge in producing hype by the fact it isn't necessarily "better" in technical fidelity like a new generation of hardware such as leaps consoles or televisions have had, but instead an entirely new experience. A developer on a forum elsewhere explained it to me as the comparison of tv to radio. I think it is talk like this that is burning people out. Everyone wants to experience what this New Thing is, and are getting told they are not cool enough because they are not rich. But as it comes out, because of either early adopters or store displays, people will still get a chance to satiate their curiosity, realise that it is something not right for them at this time, yet something they still might want. If so, they'll save up their money, and in a year purchase their HMD of choice, and be better off because now there are dozens of games out and all the bugs are worked out.

@neozeon: I am not even that defensive, but I have just seen the 3DTV and Virtual Boy line mentioned everywhere and even though you didn't say it directly its creates a comparisons to it and attempts to diminish the product.

Also this whole mainstream thing is basically only ever talked about by people who don't think this generation will be a mainstream device. Although most people who are pro VR already know this...I don't think anyone expects Oculus or Vive to be a hot mainstream success.

I think GearVR, VR with SoC, and potentially PSVR have the best chance of being the mainstream VR, but even that isn't in the short term.

oh, i'd forgotten that this exists tbh

@bookoo327: In that case I apologize. I didn't mean to diminish the product, only the marketing behind it. I may have also wanted to take a shot at the Virtual Boy again...it has been a while after all! Hopefully the VR technology will become more than what I fear it could be: A kind of den for tech demos and not much of actual worth. Time will obviously tell, but here's hoping they can do more than that all the same.

Personally, if I end up with any of them, it will probably be the Sony version of the technology. Not by virtue of it being the best, but more than likely due to a presumably lower price.

Here are the international prices if anyone's interested:

This chart is from Anandtech.

As a Canadian in Ontario, I'd be paying $1298 after tax to get one. I even have a computer that could run it, but that's still way, way too much money for a device with an unproven ecosystem.