If Facebook's $200 Standalone Oculus Rift Doesn't Sell Well Let's Finally Declare Mass Market VR Dead in the Water OK?

Analysts have expected to be coming and I suspect social VR developers like High Fidelity and Sansar were given the inside word from Facebook, and now according to Bloomberg it seems to be on its way:

Facebook’s new headset is designed to bridge the gap -- a device that will sell for as little as $200 and need not be tethered to a PC or phone, according to people familiar with its development. It will ship next year and represent an entirely new category. Like current Oculus products, the new headset will be geared toward immersive gaming, watching video and social networking, said the people who asked not to be named to discuss a private matter. Code-named “Pacific,” the device resembles a more compact version of the Rift and will be lighter than Samsung’s Gear VR headset, one of the people said.

The Gear is actually quite light so I'd be impressed if Facebook managed to pull that off. This seriously seems like a last bid for the mass market: Either Pacific sells millions of units its first year, or it'll be difficult to justify any forecast of VR gaining mass market adoption.

Pictured: Bedding Taylor Swift in the Oculus Rift, because you know there's definitely a market for doing that.

Comments

[Lada Charlton]

I suspect they will launch the product at a $200 when the product is first released, likely some time in the summer, later positioning price to maximize holiday shoppers the next season, probably (hopefully) around $99-$150. We'll see!!

[Adam]

This has potential.

And that's from me, who is usually a VR skeptic - the big problem will be, as a standalone device, the computing power will be very, very limited. Probably on par with what is in mid/high end phones today.

The world needs to be not only running on mobile, but running at 60fps+, which is still a challenge for more complex 3D environments. You can't get anything remotely close to the power of e.g. a GTX 970 (the minimum for desktop VR) in mobile devices right now.

This means the content on it, will need to be designed for it - you won't be able to take content from existing virtual worlds and bring it in - at least not easily; it also means things like avatar customisation will have to be somewhat limited to keep resource usage low.

(We've been testing Sinespace on mobile & have some Android clients floating about; for most PC-designed content, getting 5-15fps is fairly typical, even with significant LOD and shader complexity reductions)

But, if you can work within those caveats; and have decent tools for trimming and batching content efficiently, this is a potential game changer.

[Ciaran Laval]

There seems to be a rush to declare VR is on the verge of flopping but if you look at these developments and the partnerships Microsoft have with Mixed reality headsets we're in for a longer haul here.

We haven't even got to the stage of standards for VR headsets yet, it's very early days.

[Han Held]

Anything's possible, but to a lot of us this has all the hallmarks of flopping. Personally speaking, I can't wait until either it's flopped and discarded, or the ridiculous hype has passed and it finally gets a realistic evaluation.

[Patchouli Woollahra]

Ciaran: OpenVR is already a thing, but so far Oculus hasn't come to the party - many VR apps still require separate versions for Rift and Vive. As soon as Facebook stops putting a garden wall around its own stuff and comes in on openness, the fireworks will probably almost start.

Han: VR is still mostly a novelty. but then again so was the phone, the TV and even the automobile. it'll stay around. it just won't be as hot-shakes as the hype made it out to be.

[Mondy]

I've always felt the take up for mass market adoption has to be below a certain price point. Here in the UK/Europe that's probably 200 to 300 GBP or Euro's.
That's low enough that people will buy for Christmas, birthdays or just because it's cheap enough they can afford it even if they won't use it that often.
Any gadget like the DVD, PC, game console coming in around that price point has started to take off. I remember the feeling of disappointment when the Oculus originally expected to be around $350 was closer to $600 as that put it out of my budget.
If $200 translates to £200 (unlikely I know with exchange rates & taxes etc) then I would get one.

[Shockwave]

Wow you can have a goose that lays gold eggs, and kill it because it isnt laying fast enough to suit you.

Look at the history of personal computing. First machines were primitive, cost a fortune, took skill to use and you really had to want it to use it. There wasnt a lot of software either. So folks made their own. Some now have billion dollar businesses from that meager beginning. The case of VR is no different. The first stuff will be primitive and expensive and only the true devotee will be in it. ma and pa may not care now. They may never care. But their kids will. And they will be shopping many decades longer than ma and pa.

You are looking at the future and thinking it will be the 40 year olds that create it. The future will be forged by some 16 yr old who dons a Vive and wonders where the proper 3d world is at. So he creates one.

[Carlos Loff]

Ciaran Laval - That is exactly the problem - To early - Selling VR gears is supported by greedy companies thay made the hype and got dsome cool coins on a promise hard to deliver - Good car engines are cool and useful but if you are still on the old west what is the use for a fine ford engine when all you have aside are wheel wagons and dirt roads ? EXACTLY thee problem - to early

[sirhc desantis]

Twenty bucks, yeah I just might if no phone required. Even if the resolution and FPS were on the crap side - fun toy to mess around with. Any more, I can wait, after all it seems I am far too old to be interested :)