Oculus VR Founder Says $400 PlayStation VR Is "A Totally Fair Price"

Palmer Luckey shares his initial thoughts on the PlayStation VR.

113 Comments

Palmer Luckey, the founder of Oculus VR, has called the $400 price tag for PlayStation VR a figure "right around what [was] expected."

No Caption Provided

Speaking to GameSpot in an interview at the Game Developer's Conference, Luckey said, "I know how much this technology costs. We're building a headset, we're trying to sell it as affordably as possible. We have some higher quality stuff, our manufactured stuff, and we have some really nice soft goods and fabric going on in ours. We also have multiple LED displays instead of just one display. But [the Oculus Rift] at $599 is actually not that far off. We're selling $599 with a controller, and with the remote, and with a couple of games. If someone doesn't own them already, [Sony] is selling a camera, a controller, and you've got the headset—we’re actually fairly similar in cost. They are cheaper, but I think it's a totally fair price and they've definitely done a good job of keeping the cost down. Clearly that was a priority."

By comparison, the Oculus Rift headset will go on sale this month for $600 and will require a PC powerful enough to run the technology. Those thinking of picking up a Rift should check that their machine meets the minimum system requirements.

In comparing Oculus Rift to PlayStation VR, Luckey said, "I think [the markets] are almost completely different. People who buy a Rift are people who already own a high-end PC or are willing to buy a high-end PC for VR. People who buy a PlayStation VR are people who already own a PlayStation, or PlayStation VR is something that convinces them to buy a PlayStation that they probably already wanted for other reasons, not VR reasons. I don't think there are many PC gamers that are going to buy a PlayStation and PlayStation VR from scratch. And I don't think there are many PlayStation gamers that are going to buy a Rift and a high-end PC. They're kind of very separate markets at this point."

Sony revealed pricing details and release date for the PlayStation VR at the Game Developer's Conference earlier today. The device will cost $400 in the United States, €399 in Europe, £349 in the United Kingdom, $549.95 in Australia, and ¥44,980 in Japan. This price will get you the headset, a Wii-sized processor unit and a series of cables, including HDMI and USB, among others. A PS4 camera, which is required for the headset to run properly, will not be included in the package.

GameSpot has a team on the ground at the Game Developer's Conference, so stay tuned to our GDC hub for more news straight from the event!

Further Reading: All the PSVR News and Reaction

***

***

***

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 113 comments about this story
113 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for BlueFlameBat
BlueFlameBat

It may be a fair price, but it's not one I'm ready to pay.

Avatar image for joalopes
joalopes

he PSVR is the first mass market solution. But there is no other way to put this.

The PS4 is the limiting factor. There is no way VR on the PS4 will work at more 60 or 90FPS without greatly lowering graphics quality and resolution to some extent. To put it simple. Even mid-range PCs run games at 60 FPS while on consoles the same game runs at 30 FPS.
In practice that means that a mid range PC would have no issues running a PSVR ready game at more than 90 FPS,

So, why are HTC and Oculus forcing themselves into the niche high end market when they can offer PSVR quality as well?
After all, there is nothing limiting their headsets from running games at the same setting VR games will run on the PS4.
Most gaming PCs are already more powerful than a PS4 anyway.

I think the reason is just that Oculus and HTC are companies that are focusing on VR in the long run. Not just as a device you use to attract console sales.
Their goal is to provide AAA experiences as soon as possible because AAA games really sell platforms better than anything.
People buy a PS4 because of Uncharted. Not because of iPad like games.
Oculus and HTC want AAA games to come to VR as fast as possible because that is what will drive sales faster than anything.

But for that to happen, VR has to break free from mobile like quality graphics and experiences.
I think PSVR is going to be a great headset. I'm surely going to buy it if not only because its much more affordable and let's me check VR without wasting loads of money.

I think people will in general will really enjoy the experience too. But at the same time I think AAA high quality VR experiences will only be possible on HTC Vive and Oculus coupled with a good PC.

And since prices are high, we probably will have to wait a bit more to actually get the type of experiences on VR that we are used to in AAA games.
And I'm talking about games like The Witcher, Fallout. Imagine playing the next Elder Scrolls in VR.

In one year we may be facing a situation where big studios start to show their AAA games like Elder Scrolls or CyberPunk or Mass Effect, capable of running in VR. But those games will only be VR ready on PC with a Oculus or HTC Vive.

So the situation might end up being that for small, mobile like graphics quality VR experiences, the PS4 and PSVR is enough. But for jaw dropping experiences you get on new AAA titles you'll need a PC.

People now look at the price of Oculus and the HTC Vive and a PC to be extremely high but prices will drop.

The PSVR in my opinion is simply a device Sony is building to cash in on VR. They know well that they won't be able to deliver games like Uncharted on their devices.

But Oculus and HTC do want upcoming AAA games to run on their headsets. They know, VR will only make it in the long run if AAA titles start supporting it thus leading to more people wanting to get into VR.

Personally, I'm going to wait and see how this plays out.
Once I start to see big names creating high quality games for VR, that's when I'm jumping in.


Avatar image for itchyflop
itchyflop

For that price the rift has to be the better option? And yeah i know you need a massive pc to run it.

Avatar image for martyngiles
MartynGiles

Personally I think that Sonys headset looks nicest.

This won't make it work any better but it is the most aesthetically pleasing to my eye.

Avatar image for shalashaska99
SHALASHASKA99

To all the tramps crying... just wait a couple of years and you will get one for 100 bucks. But even that is too much for tramps. This is new tech , they are not going to give it to you for 20 bucks idiot. GET A BETTER JOB OR WORK HARDER.

Avatar image for imajinn
Imajinn

@shalashaska99: "tramps" Best morning laugh in a while

Avatar image for harold317
harold317

Messy, gimmicky, and devs still trying to figure out what to do with it. And on top of that, costs more than the system itself?

People who get it might enjoy it, but most people just want more games. I'd rather have Sony making first party games like they used to instead of feeding us crazy peripherals. That hasn't worked since '09 or so when the Wii started to lose popularity, Sony should know better :/.

Avatar image for papasound
papasound

400+49.9%=599$, Since when 50% difference is `Very close` price, you must be a total dumb shit or total un-alphabet to say that to press.

Avatar image for sodapoppimpski
SodApOpPIMPski

@papasound: plus $50 for the move controllers if you want the full experience so $500 isn't too far off of $600 and that $600 includes games as well

Avatar image for nickpeck36
nickpeck36

Man, ebay is going to be selling so many less than 30 day old VR units this year it won't even be funny :D I'd suggest that most people just skip the launch day headaches and find one used for a cheaper price to see if it's something you want to stick with. Dumping $500-800 on day one will have a looong wait to be really worth it (for obvious reasons, ie hardware issues & any actually good games).

I'm usually a day one adopter but I still don't really have any interest in VR. I'll sit this round out and let everyone else test the waters and see if it will last or not.

Avatar image for brievolz84
brievolz84

@nickpeck36: can I get next week's lotto numbers since you're on a roll predicting things :p

Avatar image for nickpeck36
nickpeck36

@brievolz84: If I could I would man :D

Avatar image for imajinn
Imajinn

@nickpeck36: I am glad that you can predict what is going to happen with this device. I am also glad you suggest people skip something you, or most people have not experienced. Your wisdom has helped us all. Our life is now complete having read your "facts".

Avatar image for game4metoo
game4metoo

I totally agree with lucky. He said some dumb stuff in the past but this is on point.

Avatar image for eternaldragoonx
eternaldragoonx

But it's not $400. it's more than $500 when you include the PS Camera and Move

Avatar image for mrfriki
mrfriki

@eternaldragoonx: Move is optional (I'm personally won't buy any Move based game) And the camera is something you might or might not need depending if you already own it so basically $400 is still a fair statement.

Avatar image for tj_l33t
TJ_l33t

anyone who wants a taste of VR, check out Samsung Gear VR. its cheap if you have the s6 or note 4 or above. its just the beginning and to get an idea. of course the newer stuff is better, but its to get an idea if you want to shell out for the better stuff.

Avatar image for wkadalie
wkadalie

He's basically saying if this fails, we all burn together. You've been warned.

Avatar image for Daelusca
Daelusca

Gonna be interesting to see how this plays out. Most would recognize the main reason PS is outselling X this gen is X's decision to include the Kinect, which made it $100 (+?) more than the PS. If many of the PS gamers wouldn't (couldn't) fork out $100 to turn a game console into an entertainment unit, which had some games already (most, really, really bad, but a few that make it far more than a game console), it will be interesting to see if this , far more expensive, peripheral gets any traction with that same base.

Currently, I would bet on fail, but it wouldn't be the first time I have been shocked by gamers......and if this can deliver a better gaming experience a few years from now, somebody wake me as I'm in.

Avatar image for nickpeck36
nickpeck36

@Daelusca: I'll go with fail myself. Having said that, VR is going to sell HUGE on console(s) and PC, but it won't last forever. The initial boom will be big, but I predict a lot of units going up for sale (or returns) within the first 30 days because of new product issues and a lack of good software. People get board fast and since not every game dev is dumping all of their time and money into making only VR games (they are testing the waters but not jumping all in) people will tire of it quickly.

Anyways, it's fun to see new tech come out but I'm not even touching VR with a 10ft pole as I plan on letting this one ride until gen 3'ish when things will be working better and we can then see where we are at game wise. Even then I probably won't jump on board, but it will give me a good look at how things will end up to see if it will actually stick around and be worth it or not. I just don't see myself sitting in front of a 65" 4k tv wearing a stupid VR setup... (or sitting at my PC in front of my really nice monitor).

Avatar image for deactivated-5ae060efb3bf6

@Daelusca: Well said, the PS4 folks wanted the cheapest system out of the box and the rest is this gen history. Doubt they will come up with this much money to buy first gen test crap.

Avatar image for itchyflop
itchyflop

@Triton: if thats the case why did Microsoft offer a "cheaper" no kine-ct option after? and then drop it completely later?

The kine-ct was a wasted piece of kit, period, i had one on the 360, something like police 24 (arcade) would have gone down beautifully, instead we got han solo dancing with storm troopers??.

Having a ps4, i dont want to pay more than the console itself (now) for this.

I completely agree its new tech and people that want it on release will pay for the development costing until the manufacturing process becomes cheaper with the product being better understood, in my opinion its overpriced i expected around the £250.

Im not one for "fanboy" comments, so ill ask how you've come to the opinion you have?.

No disrespect intended.

:)

Avatar image for deactivated-5ae060efb3bf6

@itchyflop: I understand. Just seems like everything I heard from the launch was the PS4 was $100 cheaper folks seemed to think the camera was going to be included and free or something, but the big driver was all about price at the end of the day. MS totally misunderstood the next gen market and tried to go with new tech and force it on folks. I myself even held off and I was always a day one buyer of new systems. They messed up and should have offered both systems like they do now, they have paid for it since then and will always be second in this gen, all I believe due to this $100. So when I see the price on this, I think it is going to hit a very small market that has money and second that even is interested in it.

I myself just bought the X1 Elite 2 months ago, for two reason, one I liked the controller it came with and 2nd for the racing games.(and grabbed a G920 wheel) I will buy the PS4 and wheel when and if they ever get some good racing games. Have always had a gaming PC, along with G25 wheel and do not consider myself a fanboy.(more like a raceboy,)

ps - the best part is I now see you have to have a PS4 camera for this overprice 1st gen test market item to work. How is that for poetic justice for those that though MS was crazy to pack in a camera and that is was something you would never ever use. :-)

Avatar image for itchyflop
itchyflop

@Triton: i totally get it, im assuming its the forza series your talking about?

I wasn't implying fanboy-ism at all !!!

I kinda see what your saying, the kine-ct module was a unique selling point to compete with Sony, "Microsoft comes with this", in my opinion it had already flopped on the 360 and thats why it didn't sell the X1.

Gamer's still bought the X1 like yourself for exclusive gaming and other great titles, plus its better for other things like controller-less interaction, i do agree Forza is really good.

Your right it Microsoft missed the boat, Sony edged in front in terms of sales etc because the kine-ct wasn't a valid enough reason for the extra £100, it wasn't any good, so they dropped it and re marketed the X1 at the new price without it.

The camera and motion controllers on the ps3 were pretty good to be fair, they were around the same price as kine-ct, however the camera on the ps4 was useless, unless you like surgeon simulator!!,,,,,,until now as you've point out, it does seem ironic, i dont know if Microsoft have a vr unit for the x1, yeah you still have to buy the camera for £40, but the irony here is the sales of them and the motion controllers have gone through the roof since VR was announced.

I dont see how Microsoft are going to compete with this and maybe they have a sour taste left in the mouths after their failure from the kine-ct, who knows maybe they will use the kine-ct with something similar?

I dont know enough about the holo lens and which hardware its compatible with.

I miss forza, it was a really good game from the beginning on Xbox original, the ps4 was just a better machine and me personally i felt cheated by Microsoft with the ring of death on all 4 of my 360's, i switched back to Sony and played midnight club LA remix for years!!!!! now thats a racer.

Happy gaming man :)

Avatar image for deactivated-5ae060efb3bf6

@itchyflop: We are good. -Game on brother.

Avatar image for mrfriki
mrfriki

@Triton: I didn't buy a PS4 because it was cheaper. I simply didn't want to be charged $100 for something I knew I didn't going to use.

Avatar image for Daelusca
Daelusca

@mrfriki: Sort of a fair argument, but pretty sure you would be shocked at how much you would actually use it....I haven't picked up a remote in 2 years, I just shout at the kinect....my friends capture their best gameplay by yelling at the kinect.....I play Just Dance with my niece who is 1,000 miles away every week and compete with my nephew in Xbox Fitness...and Skype with the fam all the time....and I only use it for maybe 10% of its uses....for me, the decision was very simple....my system is not only a gaming console (but I game a ton on it and a little on my PS4 and PC)...and all for $100 :)

Avatar image for mrfriki
mrfriki

@Daelusca: Yes I know that. It simply that I don't use those features, I don't watch TV, I basically use the TV set to play games and stream content so, for me, is enough the remote. I had the 360's Kinect for a time and barely use it. But hey, it's me, I also didn't liked the Wii move-based games.

Avatar image for Iemander
Iemander

Why does this guy feel the need to respond to just about anything? The Oculus is worst off right now from all three products.

It has all the limitations and nothing that sets it apart. It's the middle road in everything and supports no movement tracking whatsoever out of the box.

Avatar image for seanh
Seanh

£349, plus the added expense for the camera. So around, ~£400.

Nope. Come back to me when it doesn't cost more than the required console in which to use it.

Avatar image for Flyin3lvl
Flyin3lvl

@seanh: Camera been out two years, second hand ones are available, a bundle could be announced, and what ever deal or sale the retailers throw out

Vita does bundles with memory cards nowadays , yeah it should be included but in some ways for the people who brought a camera already well they will have two...... making the first camera a waste of money .......

Avatar image for seanh
Seanh

@Flyin3lvl: It doesn't matter that the camera has been out for 2 years, and that you can buy one second hand - You still have to spend extra money. So it's not £349 for PSVR, it's £390. That's nearly £100 more expensive than the console itself

Avatar image for Flyin3lvl
Flyin3lvl

@seanh: spend extra money

I guess they should be giving this stuff away for free

Avatar image for Random_Matt
Random_Matt

@seanh: As Sterling is currently butchered, why are we not getting cheaper prices?

Avatar image for seanh
Seanh

@Random_Matt: We should be getting it for around £300, but even then, that's still too expensive.

I'll wait a few years I think.

Avatar image for eggsbox
eggsbox

Depends on the games lineup. If they put an equivalent amount of effort to ps VR as the ps4 then it deserves the money otherwise it's expensive.

Avatar image for sodapoppimpski
SodApOpPIMPski

@eggsbox: but since ps4 launch there has been very slim pickings for exclusive games, I hope the software rate isn't as bad as ps4

Avatar image for Paulf001
Paulf001

VR may be cool and what not it might actually even look good with today's tech. But here is the problem. Devs are not going to want to make games that support VR for it only a small number of people who could afford to buy a 400 dollar vr headset. Because they would sell very few of those games and would not make back the development costs.

Avatar image for neowarrior793
neowarrior793

i think its not bad, give it a few motnhes and there will be a price cut or 2, once it his 300 then yea its not a bad price.

Avatar image for lostn
lostn

If all 3 succeed, I can see developers taking a multiplatform approach. Maybe using the lowest common denominator (PS4) version as the base version, and porting it up for the PC headsets. I can't imagine too many exclusives unless they're Sony first party games.

Avatar image for Slannmage
Slannmage

They have to be £200 before I care.

Avatar image for alaskancrab
alaskancrab

Look at Lucky... avoid the real issue as always... You have no games son!

Avatar image for lostn
lostn

@alaskancrab: Lucky's Tale and Eve Valkyrie.