Why should it? The cost of the microelectronics of the total cost can't be that high. It has to be optics and assembly. That part of the total costs doesn't get cheaper.
Occulus Rift mission was to change that. The promise was that with simple tech like accelerometers and phone displays they could realize VR Headsets for the masses.
They just announced that they failed at that. Probably because it just wasn't as easy as Palmer Lucky and Carmack imagined. But also because suddenly it needs a remote, a custom gamepad, a microphone and headphones and a closed marketplace to work.
It will cost less because when it will be at the stage where the mid-range PC will be able to comfortably run VR apps, it will be in *their* interest to start making people adopt the medium. Assembly costs DO indeed get cheaper. Optics, I'll give you that. But optics are not what is making the Rift cost 500£.
Also, Oculus' mission was to change that...at the time of the Kickstarter. I mean, Palmer is a kid who created an innovative product made from cheap parts. Then it got swallowed by what is the *actual* process of RnD needed to bring a product to mass market.
You go ahead and take Palmer's DK1 prototype, and sell it today for 150£. Good luck in making VR a success.
That would've been a gimmick.
Of course it wasn't easy. All this time and 3/4 different devkits, hiring some of the most brilliant technical minds around, are all testimony to that.
Plus, Palmer was shut out of Oculus' operative decisions pretty early once everyone realised there was potential to do much more and, again, Palmer was a kid. He's *the* image of Oculus, yet...
Also, even though it IS costly to maintain and produce - the entry cost both for playing with it and developing on it it's still LEAGUES lower than what it was if you wanted to do the same thing 4-5 years ago. Hell, there are STILL some incredibly sub-par stupidly overpriced headsets (14k+) from the "world's leading VR headset makers" and they'll stay there just because they have contracts with medical and military fields who don't give a rat's butt about price of hardware or development.
Like every NEW media (because you're not buying a new GPU to play your same games but better, or a bluetooth headset that lets you listen to the same music but better), the content makers that are in advantage at this stage are the ones who are starting to do all their RnD on VR. A company who spent 15+ years doing RnD on how to make films, adverts etc will only be able to use, say, 20% of their knowledge for VR. I'm not making this up: we're a 2 man studio and we create 80% of the interactive installations and VR experiences for one of the biggest vfx, feature films and advert studio in the WORLD, and they DO have a VR studio themselves (which is just for show). Game developers are in a MUCH better position technically speaking but not on the other sides of the equation.
Someone who starts building content JUST for VR and spends/spent all of their time/budget RnD'ing on that, will be able to churn out content more easily, and will be content better suited to VR.
Also, as developing becomes easier and easier and tools get more accessible, the amount of people needed to create experiences is lower. Never happened to you to see a game, being awestruck by it, and then realising was made by like 5-10-20-30 people? While on the other hand people say "Oh, that game was only made by 120-200 people? Geniuses".
That will be even more prominent early years in VR, also because there will be a bigger need for shorter experiences as everything gets fleshed out to let people stay in VR for 8 hours like a lot of gamers do in front of their screens.
Concluding, yes, Oculus has kept their promises to make VR affordable to develop and to use. Maybe not as affordable as you were hoping, but just because you didn't know the state of the VR market before their Kickstarter
