Oculus Rift

The idea of selling at a loss is one that happens all the time. Look at the consoles. Each console since the uh 5th gen (?) has been sold at a loss of some sort but overlooked because of profit outlooks. This is no different, they just wanted more profit and the extra items are a cushion for those that need justification.

I will use the **** out of the box if I can actually use the HMD for more than 10 minutes at a time.
 
To put it another way--When the PS3 came out wasn't it $600? Didn't it scare a lot of people away? And that was a CONSOLE that we knew would have games on it.

This is brand new tech that many people haven't tried. I really see this as being a cool thing that loses support because price points were too high to start.
 
^ Tons of people bought the PS3 @ $600 because at the time, it was a good deal on a BluRay player. Wasn't that new tech? People still bought a new system for that much money because it was cheaper than other players.
 
The idea of selling at a loss is one that happens all the time. Look at the consoles. Each console since the uh 5th gen (?) has been sold at a loss of some sort but overlooked because of profit outlooks. This is no different, they just wanted more profit and the extra items are a cushion for those that need justification.

I will use the **** out of the box if I can actually use the HMD for more than 10 minutes at a time.

They're really not making a profit. Remember Facebook are a publicly listed company, all their financials get disclosed. They can't repeatedly make public statements about the Rift not being sold at a profit if it's not true. It's highly illegal and will land them in a lot of trouble.

I mean, it doesn't even make sense that they'd want profit on the hardware. Facebook are not a hardware business, they buy companies that they think can grow to a big user base to sell advertisments and services too.

Palmer Luckey AMA.
Hijacking your post to respond to the earlier mega-post that was deleted, it included your question:

"The price is what it is, I understand bleeding edge electronics is expensive.. My question is "why was the messaging about price so poor? $599 is not in the ballpark of $350 when your target audience is the mainstream".

I handled the messaging poorly. Earlier last year, we started officially messaging that the Rift+Recommended spec PC would cost roughly $1500. That was around the time we committed to the path of prioritizing quality over cost, trying to make the best VR headset possible with current technology. Many outlets picked the story up as “Rift will cost $1500!”, which was honestly a good thing - the vast majority of consumers (and even gamers!) don't have a PC anywhere close to the rec. spec, and many people were confused enough to think the Rift was a standalone device. For that vast majority of people, $1500 is the all-in cost of owning Rift. The biggest portion of their cost is the PC, not the Rift itself.
For gamers that already have high end GPUs, the equation is obviously different. In a September interview, during the Oculus Connect developer conference, I made the infamous “roughly in that $350 ballpark, but it will cost more than that” quote. As an explanation, not an excuse: during that time, many outlets were repeating the “Rift is $1500!” line, and I was frustrated by how many people thought that was the price of the headset itself. My answer was ill-prepared, and mentally, I was contrasting $349 with $1500, not our internal estimate that hovered close to $599 - that is why I said it was in roughly the same ballpark. Later on, I tried to get across that the Rift would cost more than many expected, in the past two weeks particularly. There are a lot of reasons we did not do a better job of prepping people who already have high end GPUs, legal, financial, competitive, and otherwise, but to be perfectly honest, our biggest failing was assuming we had been clear enough about setting expectations. Another problem is that people looked at the much less advanced technology in DK2 for $350 and assumed the consumer Rift would cost a similar amount, an assumption that myself (and Oculus) did not do a good job of fixing. I apologize.
To be perfectly clear, we don't make money on the Rift. The Xbox controller costs us almost nothing to bundle, and people can easily resell it for profit. A lot of people wish we would sell a bundle without “useless extras” like high-end audio, a carrying case, the bundled games, etc, but those just don't significantly impact the cost. 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. There are a lot of mainstream devices in that price-range, so as you have said, our failing was in communication, not just price.
 
Last edited:
I honestly hope you're just being naive for the sake of this being something you're into. Everybody is out to make a profit bud. Facebook may be the company but Oculus is still a subsidiary operating as a company and as a business. Nobody wants to sell product at a loss. When they find ways to cut corners in manufacturing and bundling bull**** like the controller for no reason at all they will sell at a profit. Trust me.

Them making excuses like naming off devices like phones and TVs is kind of pointless considering the fact with phones you can pay that off in the course of 2 years, TVs can be had on credit for 2 years pay off. The Rift can't. It will still sell regardless of price, but doesn't mean I'm cool with it. It also means that we should expect some form of ad campaigns to recoup in loss of cash.
 
I honestly hope you're just being naive for the sake of this being something you're into. Everybody is out to make a profit bud. Facebook may be the company but Oculus is still a subsidiary operating as a company and as a business. Nobody wants to sell product at a loss. When they find ways to cut corners in manufacturing and bundling bull**** like the controller for no reason at all they will sell at a profit. Trust me.

Them making excuses like naming off devices like phones and TVs is kind of pointless considering the fact with phones you can pay that off in the course of 2 years, TVs can be had on credit for 2 years pay off. The Rift can't. It will still sell regardless of price, but doesn't mean I'm cool with it. It also means that we should expect some form of ad campaigns to recoup in loss of cash.

Of course Facebook want to make money off Oculus. They didn't buy them just for fun.

But making money by charging consumers is not their business model at all. If it were Google, Microsoft or Apple - then sure. They like to make money on hardware/software. Facebook don't, they don't charge for Facebook, they don't charge for WhatsApp, they don't charge for Instagram. Facebooks value is in it's users, so they acquire any company that has a big customer base or the potential to have a big customer base. Oculus is that company.

What Facebook wants is 100's of million of people on the Oculus platform. Logging into Oculus Home everyday to use a store full of adverts. Logging into the upcoming Facebook metaverse/game/world thing, that will have lots of inplace adverts.

Like I said, they can not just make stuff up. You can't just say one thing when actually you are doing another. They are a publicly traded company with shareholders, you can't just tell them you're not making profit on hardware, and then suddenly reveal you sold 500K units with $100 profit on each one. It doesn't even make sense, telling shareholders they're not making money and then revealing they were making a profit in their financial statements. If you were going to do anything at all, that's the reverse of what you'd do. Also, you're Facebook, you make $13bn a year in revenue. Do you really care about selling several hundred thousand units at a $100 profit margin ? that's going to net them a measly $30m to $50m in profit. They're spending 3x that amount on investing in new games for a start, let alone everything else they've invested in.

I know you keep saying you've seen it before etc, but you're working in a completely different corporate environment with very different objectives and goals.

edit:

FWIW to clarify: I could be totally wrong, perhaps they are just blatantly lieing - you could be right. I just tend to believe what they're saying because a) they'd be in a tonne of trouble legally if they were lieing, and b) over the past few years Palmer Luckey has been a very straight talking guy, he has never just blatantly lied and been found out so far.
 
Last edited:
^ Tons of people bought the PS3 @ $600 because at the time, it was a good deal on a BluRay player. Wasn't that new tech? People still bought a new system for that much money because it was cheaper than other players.


I'm not saying it isn't cool tech.

I'm saying that most people won't chase after something new new for $600. Even if it's a new gaming console.

The oculus isn't even a console with additional functionality. It's an accessory. It is a $600 unproven VANITY accessory that only one person in the house can enjoy at a time.

Could it be revolutionary? Sure, but it could also be the next 3D television or motion control.

The price point is very difficult for many to justify.
 
Of course Facebook want to make money off Oculus. They didn't buy them just for fun.

But making money by charging consumers is not their business model at all. If it were Google, Microsoft or Apple - then sure. They like to make money on hardware/software. Facebook don't, they don't charge for Facebook, they don't charge for WhatsApp, they don't charge for Instagram. Facebooks value is in it's users, so they acquire any company that has a big customer base or the potential to have a big customer base. Oculus is that company.

What Facebook wants is 100's of million of people on the Oculus platform. Logging into Oculus Home everyday to use a store full of adverts. Logging into the upcoming Facebook metaverse/game/world thing, that will have lots of inplace adverts.

Like I said, they can not just make stuff up. You can't just say one thing when actually you are doing another. They are a publicly traded company with shareholders, you can't just tell them you're not making profit on hardware, and then suddenly reveal you sold 500K units with $100 profit on each one. It doesn't even make sense, telling shareholders they're not making money and then revealing they were making a profit in their financial statements. If you were going to do anything at all, that's the reverse of what you'd do. Also, you're Facebook, you make $13bn a year in revenue. Do you really care about selling several hundred thousand units at a $100 profit margin ? that's going to net them a measly $30m to $50m in profit. They're spending 3x that amount on investing in new games for a start, let alone everything else they've invested in.

I know you keep saying you've seen it before etc, but you're working in a completely different corporate environment with very different objectives and goals.

edit:

FWIW to clarify: I could be totally wrong, perhaps they are just blatantly lieing - you could be right. I just tend to believe what they're saying because a) they'd be in a tonne of trouble legally if they were lieing, and b) over the past few years Palmer Luckey has been a very straight talking guy, he has never just blatantly lied and been found out so far.
You totally missed one key point. I'll let you look for it.
 
If people bought 4k monitors when they came out, were highly expensive, highly janky (dual panel anybody?), then people will buy the rift at a fraction of the cost. There's no denying it'll sell. My issue is the added bloat from handshake deals that are very obviously upping the cost. Like I said, I give two ****s what lies they spew, it's costing and we're paying that price to the piper. I work in enough business political bull**** to know it when I see it.

Not that I care that it's 600 bucks, because like I said I'll have one for free regardless. My issue is I'd rather it go into paying for highly sophisticated tech, not an amp/dac which isn't necessary, and surely not a stupid controller. Before anybody comes at me with a sophisticated rebuttal, the DK2 was 350 bucks. There isn't enough here that warrants the huge price hike besides the extra bull****. Did they score a deal with SMI? If that tech isn't in it, then this is straight bull****.


How do yo uget to try it for free/ You work in Tech thats pretty cool.
I'm not saying it isn't cool tech.

I'm saying that most people won't chase after something new new for $600. Even if it's a new gaming console.

The oculus isn't even a console with additional functionality. It's an accessory. It is a $600 unproven VANITY accessory that only one person in the house can enjoy at a time.

Could it be revolutionary? Sure, but it could also be the next 3D television or motion control.

The price point is very difficult for many to justify.

I agree with you PS3 was a known thing we knew what it would offer. we dont know with this.

Also I cant wait till its a s real as the Holodeck or Ready Player 1
 
How do yo uget to try it for free/ You work in Tech thats pretty cool.


I agree with you PS3 was a known thing we knew what it would offer. we dont know with this.

Also I cant wait till its a s real as the Holodeck or Ready Player 1
Where I work we have 3 DK2s and I'm replacing at least 2 with CV1. I'll probably replace the 3rd with a Vive if they ever reply to my emails. I get to take home anything I want within reason.
 
Back
Top Bottom