They are willing and able to lose money per unit sold. They do it for years when they release a new Playstation. They make their money back on software.
And considering Sony is subsidizing theirs while funding/publishing over 20 exclusive games doesn indict they strongly believe in VR. Oculus Rift's parent company, Facebook, is unwilling to subsidize the Oculus as expected (hence the originally $350 prediction by Oculus CEO) and is only spending a fraction on exclusive games (does Facebook even have any first party developers working on Oculus only projects?).
So, yes, they both make perfect sense.
It's definitely possible. Sony quite famously took a major loss per console at the PS4's release, despite the $600 price tag.
So I wouldn't put it beyond them to do the same here if they feel the tech is worth that investment.
them taking a major loss on VR would also require them to have a strong faith that VR is the way to go.
So is that where the critic community is now? its not about VR its just that its not Sony. Is that the turn we have made because I am nearly positive that turn will be coming sooner or later. Last year it was different, last year it was VR as an idea was not worth it, a gimmick, now its viable?
Where do you get the stuff you come up with? Sony has been focused on their VR development since 2010.
And these VR headsets are being marketed as gaming devices. The gaming market is a competitive place and the new $600 price point makes the Oculus less competitive than previously expected.
The viability of Oculus for VR in general hasn't changed, but it certainly has in terms of gaming (again, the target market according to Oculus itself).
I barely understand what you are saying. regardless let me explain
There are people saying the following 1. Sony VR will do better because its coming in at $300 2. Sony VR will work as good as Oculus because it will come with extra hardware.
well here is the problem, those two items can not be true TOGETHER unless Sony is ready to take a HUGE loss per unit sold and if they do that then that is Sony saying 'we believe more strongly in VR then anyone else'
does that make sense?
No way the Sony is going to be as good as the Occulus rift. No amount of add-on kludge is ever going to as good as a dedicated platform and API. The question is will the Sony be good enough at a lower price point that people will buy it or will the Occulus rift be good enough in spite of it's higher price point that people will buy it. I'm saying no on both counts but only time will tell.
I think that the GearVR for Note 5 smart phone is marginally better than the Sony VR hooked up directly to a Sony Playstation with no middlewear involved and as a result the VR device itself would then cost $200 more than the GearVR
That should give you a general reference of what to expect.
Sound a lot like more than something you made up (hence starting with "I think').
do you know the resolution of the Note 5? I do Do you know the resolution of the Sony Playstation? I do Do you know the resolution of the Oculus PC version? I do Do you know the resolution of the Dk1 version? I do
it doesnt take a rocket scientist to look those resolutions up, and then side by side see how i came to my conculusion
Those are technical specifications. That means if you ran optimized software, like a tech demo, you would experience those results.
We're talking games here with most being developed by 3rd party developers for multiple systems. Therefore, claiming you "think" games will run a certain way based on technical specifications (and not the actual performance comparison) is making stuff up.
Those are technical specifications. That means if you ran a piece of hardware, like a tech demo, you would experience those results.
We're talking games here with most being developed by 3rd party developers for multiple systems. Therefore, claiming you "think" games will run a certain way based on technical specifications (and not the actual performance comparison) is making stuff up.
so in that context each of those devices would be taxed HARDER.
and as it turns out I have tried one of those on the list as a game, by a third party, not as a tech demo and for extended period of time.
as the article I posted awhile which I need to bookmark it seems the evidence is backing up gamers assumptions that the consoles are actually NOT I repeat NOT better optomized for games then PCs of same spec. at least not in the magintude of 2x
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I barely understand what you are saying. regardless let me explain
There are people saying the following 1. Sony VR will do better because its coming in at $300 2. Sony VR will work as good as Oculus because it will come with extra hardware.
well here is the problem, those two items can not be true TOGETHER unless Sony is ready to take a HUGE loss per unit sold and if they do that then that is Sony saying 'we believe more strongly in VR then anyone else'
does that make sense?
No way the Sony is going to be as good as the Occulus rift. No amount of add-on kludge is ever going to as good as a dedicated platform and API. The question is will the Sony be good enough at a lower price point that people will buy it or will the Occulus rift be good enough in spite of it's higher price point that people will buy it. I'm saying no on both counts but only time will tell.
I think that the GearVR for Note 5 smart phone is marginally better than the Sony VR hooked up directly to a Sony Playstation with no middlewear involved and as a result the VR device itself would then cost $200 more than the GearVR
That should give you a general reference of what to expect.
Yeah I don't think that's going to be good enough. If Sony really wants to commit to VR they're going to need a dedicated console platform solution. Current console hardware can't be adapted.
What keeps getting missed by people in this thread is THE SONY VR HEADSET COMES WITH ADDITIONAL PROCESSING AS PART OF THE UNIT.
(sorry for the bold uppercase, but I've literally typed that about half a dozen times already)
What keeps getting missed by people in this threat is THE SONY VR HEADSET COMES WITH ADDITIONAL PROCESSING AS PART OF THE UNIT.
(sorry for the bold uppercase, but I've literally typed that about half a dozen times already)
and then that will add to the cost.
we keep going around in circles dont we
Sony will have a better VR for $300 well not without the hardware which costs more than $300 well they will offer it for a loss which means they have strong faith in VR
yeah but..but..$300
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Those are technical specifications. That means if you ran a piece of hardware, like a tech demo, you would experience those results.
We're talking games here with most being developed by 3rd party developers for multiple systems. Therefore, claiming you "think" games will run a certain way based on technical specifications (and not the actual performance comparison) is making stuff up.
so in that context each of those devices would be taxed HARDER.
and as it turns out I have tried one of those on the list as a game, by a third party, not as a tech demo and for extended period of time.
as the article I posted awhile which I need to bookmark it seems the evidence is backing up gamers assumptions that the consoles are actually NOT I repeat NOT better optomized for games then PCs of same spec. at least not in the magintude of 2x
If you actually tried launched VR games and then tried the Oculus version you would then know the basic foundations are all the same. Said game is limited by the worst hardware it runs on.
What you're saying is only true for a game developed from the start for the Oculus since you couldn't 'dumbed down' an Oculus based game (the engine, tools, etc.).
What keeps getting missed by people in this threat is THE SONY VR HEADSET COMES WITH ADDITIONAL PROCESSING AS PART OF THE UNIT.
(sorry for the bold uppercase, but I've literally typed that about half a dozen times already)
and then that will add to the cost.
we keep going around in circles dont we
Sony will have a better VR for $300 well not without the hardware which costs more than $300 well they will offer it for a loss which means they have strong faith in VR
yeah but..but..$300
Yes, the cost is obviously more than $300. The PRICE for the individual consumer will be around $300. (Cost and price have very different meanings in economics; you seem to use both interchangeably)
Sony is willing and able to subsidize it as they do with the Playstations while Facebook decided not to (hence $350 estimate from Oculus CEO turned into $600).
What keeps getting missed by people in this threat is THE SONY VR HEADSET COMES WITH ADDITIONAL PROCESSING AS PART OF THE UNIT.
(sorry for the bold uppercase, but I've literally typed that about half a dozen times already)
and then that will add to the cost.
we keep going around in circles dont we
Sony will have a better VR for $300 well not without the hardware which costs more than $300 well they will offer it for a loss which means they have strong faith in VR
yeah but..but..$300
Yes, the cost is obviously more than $300. The PRICE for the individual consumer will be around $300. (Cost and price have very different meanings in economics; you seem to use both interchangeably)
Sony is willing and able to subsidize it as they do with the Playstations while Facebook decided not to (hence $350 estimate from Oculus CEO turned into $600).
1. I meant price to consumer, you very well knew I meant price to consumer why are you going down that road? 2. again I state SONY TAKING A LOSS IS A STRONG VOTE OF CONFIDENCE THAT VR IS THE FUTURE. would you agree? 3. How do you know Facebook didnt sell Oculus Rift at a loss? Can you tell me how much the hardware cost them to make?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
What keeps getting missed by people in this threat is THE SONY VR HEADSET COMES WITH ADDITIONAL PROCESSING AS PART OF THE UNIT.
(sorry for the bold uppercase, but I've literally typed that about half a dozen times already)
and then that will add to the cost.
we keep going around in circles dont we
Sony will have a better VR for $300 well not without the hardware which costs more than $300 well they will offer it for a loss which means they have strong faith in VR
yeah but..but..$300
Yes, the cost is obviously more than $300. The PRICE for the individual consumer will be around $300. (Cost and price have very different meanings in economics; you seem to use both interchangeably)
Sony is willing and able to subsidize it as they do with the Playstations while Facebook decided not to (hence $350 estimate from Oculus CEO turned into $600).
1. I meant price to consumer, you very well knew I meant price to consumer why are you going down that road? 2. again I state SONY TAKING A LOSS IS A STRONG VOTE OF CONFIDENCE THAT VR IS THE FUTURE. would you agree? 3. How do you know Facebook didnt sell Oculus Rift at a loss? Can you tell me how much the hardware cost them to make?
I have no idea if you know the difference between cost and price and why I said it in the first place.
Sony believes they can make a lot of money on VR in terms of gaming. Not the future of VR across the board (again, not Sony's focus which is gaming). Oculus is also being marketed for gaming which makes Sony a direct competitor.
The CEO of Oculus publicly stated he expected the price to be $350. So more cost is obviously being redirected at the consumer than originally predicted. So something obviously happened in a relatively few months. I know Facebook's stock has plateaued since the Oculus CEO made that prediction with Facebook having less cash on hand (and that right there would be why Facebook executives wouldn't have greenlite the Oculus subsidy).
I have no idea if you know the difference between cost and price and why I said it in the first place.
Sony believes they can make a lot of money on VR in terms of gaming. Not the future of VR across the board (again, not Sony's focus which is gaming). Oculus is also being marketed for gaming which makes Sony a direct competitor.
The CEO of Oculus publicly stated he expected the price to be $350. So more cost is obviously being redirected at the consumer than originally predicted. So something obviously happened in a relatively few months. I know Facebook's stock has plateaued since the Oculus CEO made that prediction with Facebook having less cash on hand (and that right there would be why Facebook executives wouldn't have greenlite the Oculus subsidy).
So you are SAYING Sony is very confident in the future of VR (I never said anything about industry specific so please dont try to divert)
The Oculus CEO ALSO said..which I am sure you know given you are stating facts all the time...that they increased the price because they increased the quality of what they had originally planned because of the current competition in the market place.
So I ask you again, how do you know that the changes they made was cheaper than the price they are asking for? Also, how do you know that Sony is so confident in VR as a gaming tool that they will be willing to sell at around a 70% loss?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I have no idea if you know the difference between cost and price and why I said it in the first place.
Sony believes they can make a lot of money on VR in terms of gaming. Not the future of VR across the board (again, not Sony's focus which is gaming). Oculus is also being marketed for gaming which makes Sony a direct competitor.
The CEO of Oculus publicly stated he expected the price to be $350. So more cost is obviously being redirected at the consumer than originally predicted. So something obviously happened in a relatively few months. I know Facebook's stock has plateaued since the Oculus CEO made that prediction with Facebook having less cash on hand (and that right there would be why Facebook executives wouldn't have greenlite the Oculus subsidy).
So you are SAYING Sony is very confident in the future of VR (I never said anything about industry specific so please dont try to divert)
The Oculus CEO ALSO said..which I am sure you know given you are stating facts all the time...that they increased the price because they increased the quality of what they had originally planned because of the current competition in the market place.
So I ask you again, how do you know that the changes they made was cheaper than the price they are asking for? Also, how do you know that Sony is so confident in VR as a gaming tool that they will be willing to sell at around a 70% loss?
I have no idea if you know the difference between cost and price and why I said it in the first place.
Sony believes they can make a lot of money on VR in terms of gaming. Not the future of VR across the board (again, not Sony's focus which is gaming). Oculus is also being marketed for gaming which makes Sony a direct competitor.
The CEO of Oculus publicly stated he expected the price to be $350. So more cost is obviously being redirected at the consumer than originally predicted. So something obviously happened in a relatively few months. I know Facebook's stock has plateaued since the Oculus CEO made that prediction with Facebook having less cash on hand (and that right there would be why Facebook executives wouldn't have greenlite the Oculus subsidy).
So you are SAYING Sony is very confident in the future of VR (I never said anything about industry specific so please dont try to divert)
The Oculus CEO ALSO said..which I am sure you know given you are stating facts all the time...that they increased the price because they increased the quality of what they had originally planned because of the current competition in the market place.
So I ask you again, how do you know that the changes they made was cheaper than the price they are asking for? Also, how do you know that Sony is so confident in VR as a gaming tool that they will be willing to sell at around a 70% loss?
No. Very confident in the future of VR for gaming. VR headsets are being developed and marketing for gaming. If they revolutionize medicine or engineering or whatever that's great, but that's not the current focus for any of them. So, no, Sony isn't confident of the future of VR across the board for all aspects of life. Neither is Oculus based on their targeted audience.
You act like the CEO made the public $350 price prediction years ago or something before all the costs were known.
I have no idea if you know the difference between cost and price and why I said it in the first place.
Sony believes they can make a lot of money on VR in terms of gaming. Not the future of VR across the board (again, not Sony's focus which is gaming). Oculus is also being marketed for gaming which makes Sony a direct competitor.
The CEO of Oculus publicly stated he expected the price to be $350. So more cost is obviously being redirected at the consumer than originally predicted. So something obviously happened in a relatively few months. I know Facebook's stock has plateaued since the Oculus CEO made that prediction with Facebook having less cash on hand (and that right there would be why Facebook executives wouldn't have greenlite the Oculus subsidy).
So you are SAYING Sony is very confident in the future of VR (I never said anything about industry specific so please dont try to divert)
The Oculus CEO ALSO said..which I am sure you know given you are stating facts all the time...that they increased the price because they increased the quality of what they had originally planned because of the current competition in the market place.
So I ask you again, how do you know that the changes they made was cheaper than the price they are asking for? Also, how do you know that Sony is so confident in VR as a gaming tool that they will be willing to sell at around a 70% loss?
No. Very confident in the future of VR for gaming. VR headsets are being developed and marketing for gaming. If they revolutionize medicine or engineering or whatever that's great, but that's not the current focus for any of them. So, no, Sony isn't confident of the future of VR across the board for all aspects of life. Neither is Oculus based on their targeted audience.
You act like the CEO made the public $350 price prediction years ago or something before all the costs were known.
He made that prediction in SEPTEMBER 2015!
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT MEDICINE.
ok fine we will do it your way.
You are in agreement that Sony is very confident in VR for gaming enough to take around about a 70% loss on selling the stations.
The interview which I am sure you didnt miss that came out just two days ago this was said 'we increased the cost BECAUSE we increased the quality and we did that BECAUSE of compeition that exists now that didnt exist before'
moverover! unless you know the EXACT number of the loss a change from $350 to $600 can STILL mean a loss just not as much of a loss.....ech?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
No. Very confident in the future of VR for gaming. VR headsets are being developed and marketing for gaming. If they revolutionize medicine or engineering or whatever that's great, but that's not the current focus for any of them. So, no, Sony isn't confident of the future of VR across the board for all aspects of life. Neither is Oculus based on their targeted audience.
You act like the CEO made the public $350 price prediction years ago or something before all the costs were known.
He made that prediction in SEPTEMBER 2015!
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT MEDICINE.
ok fine we will do it your way.
You are in agreement that Sony is very confident in VR for gaming enough to take around about a 70% loss on selling the stations.
The interview which I am sure you didnt miss that came out just two days ago this was said 'we increased the cost BECAUSE we increased the quality and we did that BECAUSE of compeition that exists now that didnt exist before'
moverover! unless you know the EXACT number of the loss a change from $350 to $600 can STILL mean a loss just not as much of a loss.....ech?
You really believe that since September Oculus magically increased the performance of Oculus to also justify nearly doubling the price?
I can say for a fact that didn't happen since the the development kit 2 (DK2) came out in 2014. Otherwise, that would mean developers have been working with hardware that isn't close to what will launch all this time.
If that's true, that would be another reason to not buy the Oculus. If the software being developed is for an inferior model (and developed for multiple VR platforms) then why spend the money on the most expensive VR if the capabilities won't be reflected in the games?
You are in agreement that Sony is very confident in VR for gaming enough to take around about a 70% loss on selling the stations.
Again, where are you getting this number?
I am getting that number based on a estimating how much it will cost Sony to make an external device for their current VR project that will boost the performance beyond 720p 30fps. $1000 box sounds about right maybe less. How much do you think that magic box will cost?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
You really believe that since September Oculus magically increased the performance of Oculus to also justify nearly doubling the price?
I can say for a fact that didn't happen since the the development kit 2 (DK2) came out in 2014. Otherwise, that would mean developers have been working with hardware that isn't close to what will launch all this time.
If that's true, that would be another reason to not buy the Oculus. If the software being developed is for an inferior model (and developed for multiple VR platforms) then why spend the money on the most expensive VR if the capabilities won't be reflected in the games?
so I am going to assume that Palmer Lucky doesnt lie nor even need to given the popularity of VR and given he has billions of dollars now in his pocket with that said, maybe he did which brings me to asking you this question. When was the last quote from Oculus themselves on that price point? and yes I do think in 4 months they could turn around that much tech
IMPORTANT EDIT: also...$350 to $600 STILL could mean they sold it at a loss. both prices could STILL be a loss so all this arguing about price points between really doesnt count for much
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
You are in agreement that Sony is very confident in VR for gaming enough to take around about a 70% loss on selling the stations.
Again, where are you getting this number?
I am getting that number based on a estimating how much it will cost Sony to make an external device for their current VR project that will boost the performance beyond 720p 30fps. $1000 box sounds about right maybe less. How much do you think that magic box will cost?
Seeing as how I'm sure Sony doesn't pay the same price en masse for hardware that we do for individual pieces (and we don't know what Sony plans to do subsidy-wise), I'm not going to attempt a number. Any attempt at it would be a less than educated guess, if we're being honest.
As it stands, there definitely isn't enough information to put a number on any loss Sony might take per unit.
You are in agreement that Sony is very confident in VR for gaming enough to take around about a 70% loss on selling the stations.
Again, where are you getting this number?
I am getting that number based on a estimating how much it will cost Sony to make an external device for their current VR project that will boost the performance beyond 720p 30fps. $1000 box sounds about right maybe less. How much do you think that magic box will cost?
In that case you must know what goes into the box, perhaps you could let us know too, because i for one am very curious as to how they are managing to boost performance on the PS4 for PS VR using an external device.
You really believe that since September Oculus magically increased the performance of Oculus to also justify nearly doubling the price?
I can say for a fact that didn't happen since the the development kit 2 (DK2) came out in 2014. Otherwise, that would mean developers have been working with hardware that isn't close to what will launch all this time.
If that's true, that would be another reason to not buy the Oculus. If the software being developed is for an inferior model (and developed for multiple VR platforms) then why spend the money on the most expensive VR if the capabilities won't be reflected in the games?
so I am going to assume that Palmer Lucky doesnt lie nor even need to given the popularity of VR and given he has billions of dollars now in his pocket with that said, maybe he did which brings me to asking you this question. When was the last quote from Oculus themselves on that price point? and yes I do think in 4 months they could turn around that much tech
When the CEO of a company says something publicly, that's Oculus 'themselves' speaking. And I never said he 'lied'. I specifically said I know things like Facebook's stock not only plateauing but actually losing over 5% since he made those comments. And I know Facebook has less cash on hand.
These are facts that Facebook must legally publish as a publicly traded company.
And what I do know is that the Oculus Rift didn't magically get more powerful since he made those comments (otherwise all of the development kits are out of date meaning all of the software being developed is optimized for the wrong hardware).
You are in agreement that Sony is very confident in VR for gaming enough to take around about a 70% loss on selling the stations.
Again, where are you getting this number?
I am getting that number based on a estimating how much it will cost Sony to make an external device for their current VR project that will boost the performance beyond 720p 30fps. $1000 box sounds about right maybe less. How much do you think that magic box will cost?
You just admitted you completely made it up...lol!
Comments
And these VR headsets are being marketed as gaming devices. The gaming market is a competitive place and the new $600 price point makes the Oculus less competitive than previously expected.
The viability of Oculus for VR in general hasn't changed, but it certainly has in terms of gaming (again, the target market according to Oculus itself).
We're talking games here with most being developed by 3rd party developers for multiple systems. Therefore, claiming you "think" games will run a certain way based on technical specifications (and not the actual performance comparison) is making stuff up.
and as it turns out I have tried one of those on the list as a game, by a third party, not as a tech demo and for extended period of time.
as the article I posted awhile which I need to bookmark it seems the evidence is backing up gamers assumptions that the consoles are actually NOT I repeat NOT better optomized for games then PCs of same spec. at least not in the magintude of 2x
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
(sorry for the bold uppercase, but I've literally typed that about half a dozen times already)
we keep going around in circles dont we
Sony will have a better VR for $300
well not without the hardware which costs more than $300
well they will offer it for a loss
which means they have strong faith in VR
yeah but..but..$300
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
What you're saying is only true for a game developed from the start for the Oculus since you couldn't 'dumbed down' an Oculus based game (the engine, tools, etc.).
Sony is willing and able to subsidize it as they do with the Playstations while Facebook decided not to (hence $350 estimate from Oculus CEO turned into $600).
2. again I state SONY TAKING A LOSS IS A STRONG VOTE OF CONFIDENCE THAT VR IS THE FUTURE. would you agree?
3. How do you know Facebook didnt sell Oculus Rift at a loss? Can you tell me how much the hardware cost them to make?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Sony believes they can make a lot of money on VR in terms of gaming. Not the future of VR across the board (again, not Sony's focus which is gaming). Oculus is also being marketed for gaming which makes Sony a direct competitor.
The CEO of Oculus publicly stated he expected the price to be $350. So more cost is obviously being redirected at the consumer than originally predicted. So something obviously happened in a relatively few months. I know Facebook's stock has plateaued since the Oculus CEO made that prediction with Facebook having less cash on hand (and that right there would be why Facebook executives wouldn't have greenlite the Oculus subsidy).
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
The Oculus CEO ALSO said..which I am sure you know given you are stating facts all the time...that they increased the price because they increased the quality of what they had originally planned because of the current competition in the market place.
So I ask you again, how do you know that the changes they made was cheaper than the price they are asking for?
Also, how do you know that Sony is so confident in VR as a gaming tool that they will be willing to sell at around a 70% loss?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You act like the CEO made the public $350 price prediction years ago or something before all the costs were known.
He made that prediction in SEPTEMBER 2015!
ok fine we will do it your way.
You are in agreement that Sony is very confident in VR for gaming enough to take around about a 70% loss on selling the stations.
The interview which I am sure you didnt miss that came out just two days ago this was said
'we increased the cost BECAUSE we increased the quality and we did that BECAUSE of compeition that exists now that didnt exist before'
moverover! unless you know the EXACT number of the loss a change from $350 to $600 can STILL mean a loss just not as much of a loss.....ech?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
IN 3D!!1!!one!!!
Have fun!
I can say for a fact that didn't happen since the the development kit 2 (DK2) came out in 2014. Otherwise, that would mean developers have been working with hardware that isn't close to what will launch all this time.
If that's true, that would be another reason to not buy the Oculus. If the software being developed is for an inferior model (and developed for multiple VR platforms) then why spend the money on the most expensive VR if the capabilities won't be reflected in the games?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
so I am going to assume that Palmer Lucky doesnt lie nor even need to given the popularity of VR and given he has billions of dollars now in his pocket
with that said, maybe he did which brings me to asking you this question. When was the last quote from Oculus themselves on that price point? and yes I do think in 4 months they could turn around that much tech
IMPORTANT EDIT:
also...$350 to $600 STILL could mean they sold it at a loss. both prices could STILL be a loss so all this arguing about price points between really doesnt count for much
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
As it stands, there definitely isn't enough information to put a number on any loss Sony might take per unit.
These are facts that Facebook must legally publish as a publicly traded company.
And what I do know is that the Oculus Rift didn't magically get more powerful since he made those comments (otherwise all of the development kits are out of date meaning all of the software being developed is optimized for the wrong hardware).