Oculus Rift and Touch bundle will get another $100 price cut

When Oculus announced a summer sale on its Rift-and-Touch bundle, there was some speculation whether that $399 price tag was going to become permanent. In a blog post today, Oculus squashed that rumor—the promotion is temporary. However, the company won't be returning the Rift-and-Touch bundle to its pre-Summer of Rift cost. Instead, the new permanent price for the set will be $499.

The bundle includes the Rift headset, two Touch controllers, two sensors, the necessary cables, and six free titles. Users looking for room-scale VR experiences (that is, most everybody) will need to grab an additional sensor for $59. That brings the outlay for a room-scale Oculus Rift setup to $558. That amount is considerably lower than the HTC Vive's $799 asking price, and it might put some pressure on HTC to slash its sticker a bit.

While it's good to see Oculus continue to make its VR headset more affordable over time, those interested in the Rift are better off picking one up right this second, as the price in the Summer of Rift sale is the best price we've ever seen for the headset-and-controllers bundle. Oculus hardware might get even more accessible in the future, too, considering reports of a new, self-contained Oculus VR headset. Any downward price shifts can only benefit gamers who've so far balked at the cost of entry into the world of VR.

Comments closed
    • HisDivineOrder
    • 2 years ago

    I admit I’m tempted by the current deal. Thing is, I feel like new VR games worth playing are kinda petering out. If only Resident Evil VII were VR on PC, I’d feel there was enough to play. As it is, I don’t known Elite Dangerous and that’s the only game that REALLY sells me on VR atm that I’m aware of.

    I’m also a little leery of newer models coming out soon and making me regret a purchase of a V1 model.

    • blahsaysblah
    • 2 years ago

    Very few gamers have PCs capable of running 90fps across two screens with quality they’d like.

    Will be only good for professionals for work for near future.

    Forget all of that, if it was anyone else, the reduced price to hit market share would have been a starting strategy, this seems like grasping at straws. Dont have a good understanding of their own technology or vision.

      • Laykun
      • 2 years ago

      25m+ steam users have machines capable of running VR fluidly, that market isn’t exactly tiny.

      • Chrispy_
      • 2 years ago

      But the the two screens are only 1200×1080, each.

      Together they are barely more pixels than a single 1080p screen, and the GPUs use tricks to massively reduce the workload of rendering two viewports with near-identical content, making a VR headset like the Rift or the Vive significantly easier to drive than a single 1080p screen.

      So, if your PC can run 1080p60 at the settings you’d like, there’s a pretty good chance you’ll be able to run a Rift or Vive at 90fps, and even if you can’t, there’s always ASW to give you 90fps viewport updates when the game is only running at 45fps (it’s smoother than you’d think, thanks to it being a synced excatly to 45Hz rather than at 45fps running on a 60Hz monitor with either tearing or alternating 16.7 and 33.3ms frames)

    • mcnabney
    • 2 years ago

    Consumer technology is still not ready for real VR. It is probably only doable now with high priced custom gear outputting to displays which aren’t a smartphone derivative.
    The display needs to be 8k with 10 bit color at over 75fps. A high end gaming desktop can push that data through displayport 1.4 now and 6″ 8K OLED panels exist. So what is possible at super-enthusiast pricing NOW should be ready for the masses in a few years.

    • cygnus1
    • 2 years ago

    I’ll have money for VR after I buy an even moderately future proof gaming monitor… as soon as a unicorn like that is released for a reasonable price.

      • DeadOfKnight
      • 2 years ago

      What’s a reasonable price?

        • cygnus1
        • 2 years ago

        I think $600 is about as high as I’d reasonably go. Right now that’d be more than I’ve ever spent on a monitor. But it’s going to have to check a lot of boxes for me to consider it future proof. Some of the features I desire don’t even exist yet, so this is really a pipe dream.

        – >= 27″
        – > 1080p
        – HDR
        – VRR with max refresh >= 120hz and compatible with AMD, nVidia, and Intel
        -HDMI 2.0x (whatever will handle the DRM mandatory for UHD and higher video)
        -DP 1.4
        -USB-C with PD that can charge a laptop.

          • fyo
          • 2 years ago

          Quantum dot instead of traditional “white” led backlight would be a must on mine. Better colors, contrast, brightness, and efficiency. Costs right now are dictated by the “new and shiny” factor, along with market segmentation strategies, not anything inherent in the qdot films.

            • cygnus1
            • 2 years ago

            Aw shoot, I knew I was forgetting something. Definitely has to be amazing color quality. No TN for sure.

            Maybe I was just used to a much slower pace of screen development, but they keep coming up with features/capabilities that I deem necessary for a future proof monitor. Makes it really hard for production to ramp and stabilize pricing with that ripping pace.

    • southrncomfortjm
    • 2 years ago

    Come back at $200 *with* several full AAA games that have solved motion sickness issues and I may consider it.

      • ImSpartacus
      • 2 years ago

      Honestly, no price is good enough for me.

      I’ll wait for a more polished “2.0” product and greater software adoption.

      This is still very much an early adopter product category.

      In 3-5 years, the market will have matured and margins will drop, pushing all but 2-3 players out of the market. Then it’ll be a decent time to buy in.

        • southrncomfortjm
        • 2 years ago

        I’m actually in the same boat. In no rush at all. But more than price, the limitation for me is motion sickness. I’ve occasionally gotten motion sick playing FPS games on my laptop, so I can’t imagine I’d do very well with many VR games.

        I’m happy with normal PC gaming and my Switch for the time being.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 2 years ago

          Between wearing glasses full-time and motion sickness (even riding in the front of a car – if I’m not driving, I’m gonna get sick), there’s just no way.

            • dyrdak
            • 2 years ago

            Quick question to fellow human being with motion sickness. What’s your take on the “great future” of autonomous vehicles where all of us are relegated to passenger seat? And who’s at fault when one of us puked over the interior of such a car?

            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 years ago

            I’m not going to welcome our self-driving overlords any time soon specifically for that reason. I can’t imagine not driving.

            • psuedonymous
            • 2 years ago

            I look forward to it. With no more humans demanding ‘feel’ of the road, suspension can be a smooth and wallowey as you could ever want, and driving in general should be a lot smoother. With vibration and rapid acceleration change removed from the equation, the sensation should be much closer to sitting in a large bus, which is much more tolerable motion-sickness wise. I can comfortable sit in a bus and watch a small handheld screen for extended periods with no vestibular discomfort, while being a passenger in small car is barely tolerable after short order even using mitigation techniques like horizon-watching or keeping eyes closed.

            • Ifalna
            • 2 years ago

            Same here. I can’t even read a book in a car (a.k.a. not looking our of the window) w/o getting nauseous.

            As for needing to wear glasses, you think Oculus can account for -6 DPT? :X

        • DreadCthulhu
        • 2 years ago

        You are assuming that VR will still be thing in 3-5 years; it could very well end up being one of those technologies that just dies off.

        The success of the Wii had many people proclaiming motion controls to be the future of gaming, and MS & Sony rushed out their own versions (Kinect & PS Move), only for everyone to get bored of it a few years later. The same could easily happen with VR.

      • GrimDanfango
      • 2 years ago

      Certainly worth holding off on account of software, we are indeed still very much in early-adopter territory (albeit with a small handful of utterly stunning, highly polished experiences already).

      Motion sickness at the hardware level though is pretty much a solved issue at this point. The responsibility lies entire with the software, best practices are known, and it’s entirely possible to make titles that don’t suffer from it… even quite action packed ones. Race round a track in Assetto Corsa at 200mph, jostling for position with 20 other cars, and you won’t find yourself feeling ill for a moment – it’s a precise sim with precisely modelled physics, your head won’t be forced to make any unnatural movements, and you always have a car interior to act as a foreground reference point.

      There’s certainly no point in writing off VR on account of motion sickness, just a need to be aware of what kind of games/sloppy design cause it.

        • southrncomfortjm
        • 2 years ago

        Oh I totally get all that, but what about Skyrim and Fallout VR? Aren’t they still having to do teleporting in those?

        • derFunkenstein
        • 2 years ago

        I get sick just riding (as opposed to driving) in the car. I’m honestly kind of scared to strap in.

        • Usacomp2k3
        • 2 years ago

        I’m hoping it falls into the same realm as 3d did for motion sickness. Pretty much all post-conversion or even filmed with 3d as an afterthought make me sick. However I can watch just about any movie that was filmed with 3d in mind, with slower, panning scenes versus jerking the camera. We saw the newest Transfomers in IMAX 3D (first ever filmed that way, IIRC) and I didn’t have the slightest bit of problem. This coming from someone who can get motion sick while watching TV.

      • superjawes
      • 2 years ago

      I would honestly be more onboard if they would focus less on the room scale/totally immersive stuff in favor of more “VR Enhanced” games. Even at $400, I wouldn’t use it often enough to justify the purchase. But if I could enhance ~50% of the games I play while having the *option* of going room scale VR, then $400 is an absolute steal.

        • Chrispy_
        • 2 years ago

        Have my upvote.

        They should leave the casual room-scale stuff for the phone-based wireless headsets – they excel at that where the Vive and Rift’s clunky setup and large space requirements are a high barrier to entry.

        The big spenders aren’t the casual gamers anyway, they are the hardcore PCMR who spend $500 on graphics cards, $2500 on gaming laptops and $750 on G-Sync monitors. I’d like them to focus on that demographic, which automatically means adding support to popular AAA games where you sit down to play them.

      • Chrispy_
      • 2 years ago

      You’re not going to buy this generation then.

      Honestly, the current $399 price probably isn’t making Oculus any profit. The BOM is only going to be $150 or so, but you have a lot of overhead to cover in addition to the manufacturing cost.
      IIRC, the screen alone is in the $75 ballpark, and that’s supplier-to-supplier in quantities of “several Mearsk shipping containers.”

      It’s simply not a cheap piece of hardware – it’s easily more expensive to make than any flagship phone, yet there are plenty of people who drop $800+ on a phone every couple of years without thinking about it.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This