Support NeoGAF

[Mibu no ookami]

Sony will always try and get as much as they can as long as they can. Not only are they greedy with a huge Ego, they also don't want the perception that dropping the price so much quickly shows failure or that consumers have an expectation of lower prices or in future expecting huge price drops in short period of time. It's all psychological.

The PSVR1 dropped in price more quickly and the price drop was permanent...

 

[Vlodril]

This inspired me to connect my psvr2 again. Played a bit of journey to foundation and the difference between this and quest 3 in blacks and colors is staggering. Quest 3 has it's own advantages but i forgot just how much better the device is in those aspects.

 

[metareferential]

350 is a great price for pcvr.

The price cut is us-only? I had one at launch but sold it almost immediately since I only used my Quest 3. Itching to buy it back xD

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

Why does that matter? No one seemed to care when PSVR1 was the best selling VR, why should anyone care now?

But thats my point... how do you know that PSVR2 isn't still the best-selling VR headset this year? Or even last year? And how can anyone say how well or poorly something is selling without context? Can't you see how stupid that is?

 

[Tams]

$299 should’ve been the launch price. $199 should be the sale price.

Most idiotic comment of the day.

 

[Unknown?]

Even more if you're buying it for GT7 and want to play with a decent kit. It's why I was surprised that they didn't bring back GT Academy and really push the VR headset with GT7 bundled with it.



This is what Mr. Phoenix means by bad faith arguments.

The PSVR2 is SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than the PSVR1 and it still requires an even more expensive investment in PS5.

PSVR1 launched October 2016 for 400 dollars (500 if you're including the price of controller and camera if you didn't already have these items, which many did). The PS4 had already dropped to 300 dollars. Meaning for a combined experience you were looking at 700 dollars, 800 dollars if you didn't have the peripherals.

All of that compared to 1050... it's a much bitter pill to swallow, especially with cheaper alternatives.

The Quest 1 launched in 2019, three years later for 400 dollars for the entry model and 500 for the one with more storage. The games it played without a PC were super basic compared to the PSVR1. So you're looking at 500 dollars vs 700/800 dollars...

You can get a Quest 3 for 500 dollars vs the 1050 for the PS5+PSVR2, but you think the previous situation is comparable? Clearly, you're trolling or worse.

I think you're confused.

 

[Hustler]

All that pent up demand, just needed a push.

 

[Buggy Loop]

2 is more than 1

 

[MarkMe2525]

Makes sense. Good price for a OLED HMD. I imagine you have a good bit of people taking advantage of the deal for future PCVR. This price might be worth it for RE4, NMS, and GT7 by themselves. So much replayability in NMS and GT7 specifically.

I wonder if they were clearing stock for a revision, possibly lower manufacturing costs. It would do the platform well to have it's price stay at or below the $400 mark.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Most idiotic comment of the day.

People don't realize that would require either sony to take a massive loss on hardware sales or to really reduce the quality of the headset.

You're better off arguing that Sony shouldn't have bothered with VR at all, but I think that also ignores that Sony was taking out an insurance policy on VR to ensure they weren't left out of a potential market shift.

I called in December of 2022 that this would be aimed initially at early adopters.

I wrote this shortly after the launch in March of 2023

I've seen a lot of discussion about PSVR2, especially around the price being too high and I can't help but wonder if people honestly think it'll stay at this price and configuration for the rest of the generation.

PSVR launched in October of 2016 for $399 but with a launch bundle available for $500 dollars with a camera and two move controllers. A year later they launched PSVR Bundle with PSVR and GT Sport and a Camera for $399 (no move controllers).

Shortly after the launch of this bundle, they promoted a Black Friday sale dropping the bundle to $299. There was also a Skyrim bundle for $349 that included the move controllers.

By the end of the year, Sony priced the GT Sport bundle as low as $200 dollars.

I assume they'll do a similar bundle here with GT7 and in place of Skyrim, they'll probably continue to push the Call of Mountain bundle and perhaps a Resident Evil Village Bundle.

I think it is fairly clear to assume that based on history, they're looking to get early adopter rates but that the price likely will drop significantly by the end of the year.

I'd expect a PSVR2 bundle with GT7 without sense controllers to run around 350, a PSVR2 with no sense controller or games to run about 300, and PSVR2 with sense controllers and Village or Horizon to run 400.

I think a PSVR2 for 300 dollars for players who already have GT7 is going to be fairly enticing, but if they did a similarly priced GT7 PSVR2 bundle at 250, I think that would reinvigorate Gran Turismo sales as well.

Still no permanent price drop or GT bundle, but yeah, the PSVR2 is pretty much on the same path as the PSVR1, maybe extended out a little bit longer due to inflation.

Now that they've exhausted early adopters, they'll probably look to drop the price permanently at some point soon depending on demand from PC users as they'll still want to sell for a profit.

 

[Unknown?]

But thats my point... how do you know that PSVR2 isn't still the best-selling VR headset this year? Or even last year? And how can anyone say how well or poorly something is selling without context? Can't you see how stupid that is?

It clearly isn't and I'm aware of the reasons why(mainly high entry price). My point is it is irrelevant. PC gamers don't buy a Valve index wondering how it's doing compared to Meta products.

They get it because of the superior tech and PSVR2 is similar. You base how you purchase a headset on tech and games, not which one sells more.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I think you're confused.

Great retort.

 

[Unknown?]

Great retort.

I didn't think anything previously was comparable. You're discussing a completely different aspect that no one was talking about.

The price of entry is clearly more, the reasons why PSVR1 sold better are clear.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I didn't think anything previously was comparable. You're discussing a completely different aspect that no one was talking about.

The price of entry is clearly more, the reasons why PSVR1 sold better are clear.

Why does that matter? No one seemed to care when PSVR1 was the best selling VR, why should anyone care now?

Are you dying of dementia?

 

[MatrixReloaded101]

$350 is a good value for it IMO. $550 requires much more value of the product.

It’s still too expensive for what is has to offer. Remember, you need to own a PS5 to use it. When compared to other headsets that have more to offer.

soon it will have ps5 and PC games!! No better time to buy

It would be smart to wait to see how it will perform on PC and what PC games will even be compatible with it. Also in order to use it for PC you now need to spend more for an adapter.

 

[Lunarorbit]

As much shit as I talked about the lack of sony support for psvr2 as soon as the UK got their discount I was waiting for the US to match.

Wonder if their heads are spinning at Sony. When they see the ps store sales for games I wonder if they'll revise their plans

 

[SmokedMeat]

Perhaps it's more to do with how people value products.

This is what it’s really about, with any product.

 

[Unknown?]

Are you dying of dementia?

I'm talking about the irrelevance of how it is doing in relationship to other headsets. You are going on about price of entry which had nothing to do with my original post.

 

[Three]

2 is more than 1

It was 2350% and you can't sell fractions of a unit so minimum if you assume jokingly 1 for the entire year it would be 2350 in a day.

 

[R6Rider]

It was 2350% and you can't sell fractions of a unit so minimum if you assume jokingly 1 for the entire year it would be 2350 in a day.

He tried his best.

 

[Kupfer]

Just bring HL:Alyx and have a system seller.
I don't get Sony, Valve is known for being open to console ports, every PS% & PSVR2 owner without a beefy PC and VR would want this.

 

[blastprocessor]

Once the PS5 Pro is out at £449 the PS5 price will drop minimum £100. A nice and cheap way to play GTA6.

 

[Vlodril]

It’s still too expensive for what is has to offer. Remember, you need to own a PS5 to use it. When compared to other headsets that have more to offer.

It would be smart to wait to see how it will perform on PC and what PC games will even be compatible with it. Also in order to use it for PC you now need to spend more for an adapter.

It is definitely not too expensive for what it has to offer. The device is very good spec wise (one of the best if you are not willing to spend more than 1k+). It has a huge library with very good games (despite people keep saying it has no games).

As far as the pc goes why wouldn't it be compatible with all pc games? As long as it works on pc it would work for all steam games etc (it's a monitor basically). You won't get the features you will get on ps5 (fov rendering, haptics etc) but you don't get them with all the other pc headsets either. Modders or devs might be able to enable those anyway on pc that is something to wait and see.

But right now you can buy a cheap (for a few days) headset that can do both ps5 and pc games seems like a no brainer.

 

[Daniel Thomas MacInnes]

Price always matters. It has been a crucial deciding factor in videogames since the Atari era. Nintendo and Sega particularly understood this rule, and we’ve seen countless examples where more expensive (if more powerful) platforms struggled in the marketplace.

Remember the Three Prime Directives of Videogames:

1) A videogame should be easy to learn, hard to master.

2) A games console is nothing but a box.

3) That box must sell at the mass-market price to survive.

In the 1980s, the mass market price for videogame hardware was $99. In the 90s, it was $149. Today, it’s $300.

Sony’s PSVR 2 requires a PlayStation 5 to function, which raises the cost of entry considerably. That places the VR well beyond the mass market, but the price cut will greatly improve sales.

Whoever can sell a complete VR system for $300 and supply it with great videogames will conquer this market.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

It clearly isn't and I'm aware of the reasons why(mainly high entry price). My point is it is irrelevant. PC gamers don't buy a Valve index wondering how it's doing compared to Meta products.

They get it because of the superior tech and PSVR2 is similar. You base how you purchase a headset on tech and games, not which one sells more.

i don't think you understand the point I was making.

I never said anything about how which sells more or the most is what should drive which headset anyone buys.

 

[Švejk]

I'd be the first to admit that I can't afford it. Even with the price drop, as much as I still want it, it's still not plausible at this time. Inflation and living in a housing area that's more than doubled in value in rent the past 2 years makes the PSVR2 drop down on the priority list...
Still... It will be mine some day. If only the kids would let me get rid of this godforsaken Switch and dozen or so games that sits here and gathers dust, I probably could do an even swap at some game store...

Speaking of, anyone got any suggestions on the best site/place to get the most out of selling/trading in gaming shit? I have a spare PS4 sitting around too. Is anyone familiar with Backmarket? Wonder if it's legit. Internet seems to have mixed things on it.

 

[RJMacready73]

Just bring HL:Alyx and have a system seller.
I don't get Sony, Valve is known for being open to console ports, every PS% & PSVR2 owner without a beefy PC and VR would want this.

Let's be real, no doubt Sony and Valve have discussed this and probably couldn't come to a deal :-( there probably wasn't the numbers to make it work, heres hoping this resurgence in sales forces a rethink

 

[Haint]

That would be R&D but they take a loss on BOM too. They take losses on the hardware everywhere including marketing:

Meta Continues to Operate at a Loss on Quest 3 – Production Costs Revealed

Despite the higher price tag, Meta is most likely operating at a loss on Quest 3. Since the announcement of

xrdailynews.com

Yes as I said, they're not losing money Quest 3 hardware, did you actually read the article you posted? Those are launch unit estimates, and their worst case scenario (which they disclaimer by stating Meta's cost are almost definitely lower than) are still under $500. The fact that they staff an entire medium sized city with some of the highest paid individuals on planet earth and run Superbowl ads speaks to the gross waste I was referring to, not a loss on actual hardware.

 

[ricardo_sousa11]

Damn, they starving.

I guess...VR aint the future.

 

[Ceadeus]

Has it ever been on sale in North America?!

 

[Unknown?]

i don't think you understand the point I was making.

I never said anything about how which sells more or the most is what should drive which headset anyone buys.

"how many units of the damn thing has sold shouldn't be what is important, it's how it has sold or is selling compared to other VR headsets that matter"

Maybe I am misreading what you said but you seem to be implying here that how a headset is selling relative to others is important which is why I said it wasn't important before, so why should it be important now?

 

[Tams]

People don't realize that would require either sony to take a massive loss on hardware sales or to really reduce the quality of the headset.

You're better off arguing that Sony shouldn't have bothered with VR at all, but I think that also ignores that Sony was taking out an insurance policy on VR to ensure they weren't left out of a potential market shift.

I called in December of 2022 that this would be aimed initially at early adopters.

I wrote this shortly after the launch in March of 2023




Still no permanent price drop or GT bundle, but yeah, the PSVR2 is pretty much on the same path as the PSVR1, maybe extended out a little bit longer due to inflation.

Now that they've exhausted early adopters, they'll probably look to drop the price permanently at some point soon depending on demand from PC users as they'll still want to sell for a profit.

I've had this argument many times.

On here it's about console prices, especially in regards to Nintendo. Elsewhere, about how just because some tech is smaller does not mean it should be cheaper.

It's not even a lack of technical knowledge; it's a lack of common sense and logical thinking.

 

[MarkMe2525]

People don't realize that would require either sony to take a massive loss on hardware sales or to really reduce the quality of the headset.

You're better off arguing that Sony shouldn't have bothered with VR at all, but I think that also ignores that Sony was taking out an insurance policy on VR to ensure they weren't left out of a potential market shift.

Idk, I don't see how someone would be "better off arguing that Sony shouldn't have bothered with VR at all" rather than suggesting that Sony came out with a product that was too expensive for its target market. It seems like a false dichotomy. It seems reasonable to argue they should have built a cheaper to produce headset, as the price point has obviously effected the growth, of their VR platform, in a negative way. OLED HDR screens are great, HMD haptics are really cool, but let's not pretend that GT7, Call of the Mountain, RE8, and RE4 wouldn't have been awesome experiences without those feature sets. I'm not suggesting these specific features are the core reason that these headsets are priced the way they are, just pointing out that they overshot the market, and the amount of units they have moved during this sale lends evidence to that.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Idk, I don't see how someone would be "better off arguing that Sony shouldn't have bothered with VR at all" rather than suggesting that Sony came out with a product that was too expensive for its target market. It seems like a false dichotomy. It seems reasonable to argue they should have built a cheaper to produce headset, as the price point has obviously effected the growth, of their VR platform, in a negative way. OLED HDR screens are great, HMD haptics are really cool, but let's not pretend that GT7, Call of the Mountain, RE8, and RE4 wouldn't have been awesome experiences without those feature sets. I'm not suggesting these specific features are the core reason that these headsets are priced the way they are, just pointing out that they overshot the market, and the amount of units they have moved during this sale lends evidence to that.

You say you're not saying those features are why the headset is that expensive, but then you affirm that you are.

No matter what Sony was pricing the PSVR2 for early adopters as I mentioned since 2022. They did the exact same thing with PSVR1.

The real cost was always going to be in the components of the headset itself.

Ultimately, we'll see how Sony prices out the PSVR2 throughout the year, but inherently this was a side business with the desire not to lose money. Meta is losing significant money on their Oculus.

It'll also be interesting to see how they manage inventory moving forward and if a lower price comes with a different strategy or if they're out of VR. With PSVR3 they have a lot of options. They could utilize the same controls or they could come out with Sense Controller 2. By utilizing the same controllers, they could potentially allow people who bought PSVR2 to buy PSVR3 for cheaper and utilize their existing controllers. They've still yet to sell these by themselves, which may also be indicative of a lack of future here.

 

[MarkMe2525]

You say you're not saying those features are why the headset is that expensive, but then you affirm that you are.

No matter what Sony was pricing the PSVR2 for early adopters as I mentioned since 2022. They did the exact same thing with PSVR1.

The real cost was always going to be in the components of the headset itself.

Ultimately, we'll see how Sony prices out the PSVR2 throughout the year, but inherently this was a side business with the desire not to lose money. Meta is losing significant money on their Oculus.

It'll also be interesting to see how they manage inventory moving forward and if a lower price comes with a different strategy or if they're out of VR. With PSVR3 they have a lot of options. They could utilize the same controls or they could come out with Sense Controller 2. By utilizing the same controllers, they could potentially allow people who bought PSVR2 to buy PSVR3 for cheaper and utilize their existing controllers. They've still yet to sell these by themselves, which may also be indicative of a lack of future here.

No reason to misrepresent my statement, as speculation does not equate to affirmation. The only statement I feel comfortable with "affirming" is that GT7, CotM, RE8, and RE4 would be awesome experiences without the features I mentioned previously. Any suggestion made about the costs of said features is obviously speculation. I could just as easily speculate that the eye tracking, materials sourced, or the costs of R&D to support these features, is what resulted in Sony feeling like they had to price their HMD at a price higher than the console itself. But of course, we aren't privy to that information.

Point being, they might have been better off taking a more pragmatic approach in their design choices and built a more affordable headset that strictly leaned into the power of the PS5 to play these "high end" VR experiences. I actually commend Sony for "going all out" in their design, but it's easy to see in hindsight that they overshot the market.

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

Just bring HL:Alyx and have a system seller.
I don't get Sony, Valve is known for being open to console ports, every PS% & PSVR2 owner without a beefy PC and VR would want this.

My fantasy: "Orange Box 2"

License the already perfect community VR mods of HL2, eps 1/2 (maybe Portal 2 VR as well, why not?), include them all alongside Alyx as a pack-in for PSVR2 box. It could fly at even the original full price.

 

[Gamerguy84]

They don't make money on hardware.

 

[Halo2redvsblue]

Now let me have the features on PC too Sony.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

No reason to misrepresent my statement, as speculation does not equate to affirmation. The only statement I feel comfortable with "affirming" is that GT7, CotM, RE8, and RE4 would be awesome experiences without the features I mentioned previously. Any suggestion made about the costs of said features is obviously speculation. I could just as easily speculate that the eye tracking, materials sourced, or the costs of R&D to support these features, is what resulted in Sony feeling like they had to price their HMD at a price higher than the console itself. But of course, we aren't privy to that information.

Point being, they might have been better off taking a more pragmatic approach in their design choices and built a more affordable headset that strictly leaned into the power of the PS5 to play these "high end" VR experiences. I actually commend Sony for "going all out" in their design, but it's easy to see in hindsight that they overshot the market.

Again, you've convinced yourself of pragmatism without the burden of citing pragmatic choices. They magically should have made PSVR2 cheaper, I don't know how, but they could have and should have. Also won't get into how those reductions would have impacted the quality of the product...

I think you fail to understand the concepts of minimum viable product or minimum acceptable product.

Officially I don't think the PSVR was ever sold for less than 300 dollars, though it got sales/bundles in the low 200s. You were never going to see a PSVR2 that was sub 300 and when you begin to look at marginal differences in cost vs significant differences in performance, you realize that cutting features wasn't going to make much of a difference to price, but would make a difference to performance.

That Sony can afford to cut the price to 350 means that either they're clearing inventory or they're able to at the very least sell on par for 350 or take the most negligible of cuts. If it is the latter, most likely the difference would have been that strategically they've priced the PSVR2 to sell to early adopters willing to pay higher prices in order to recover R&D costs.

We'll understand more as their strategy is revealed over time.

 

[Tams]

Anyway, with PC support coming, I'm very tempted.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

"how many units of the damn thing has sold shouldn't be what is important, it's how it has sold or is selling compared to other VR headsets that matter"

Maybe I am misreading what you said but you seem to be implying here that how a headset is selling relative to others is important which is why I said it wasn't important before, so why should it be important now?

Ok. And in that case I was saying that well it should have been important before because at the end of the day that is all that really matters.

Eg. Say you make a supercar. It is priced at $150k. You didn't make that supercar expecting it to sell like a Honda Civic. And if it doesn't sell like a Honda Civic, that doesn't mean you have done poorly. So you measure the success of your supercar, realistically, by how it sold compared to other supercars.

Ideally, this is how the sales of any product should be tracked, you compare it to other products in the same genre.

Now my point, was that the fact that this is not what seems to happen with VR headsets is why I never take the sales of any of them seriously. I don't know how well any VR headset has sold, so how can I say one is doing badly and the other isn't?

 

[Crayon]

Depending on what kind of disposable income you have, it's worth it for GT7 alone.

 

[Unknown?]

Ok. And in that case I was saying that well it should have been important before because at the end of the day that is all that really matters.

Eg. Say you make a supercar. It is priced at $150k. You didn't make that supercar expecting it to sell like a Honda Civic. And if it doesn't sell like a Honda Civic, that doesn't mean you have done poorly. So you measure the success of your supercar, realistically, by how it sold compared to other supercars.

Ideally, this is how the sales of any product should be tracked, you compare it to other products in the same genre.

Now my point, was that the fact that this is not what seems to happen with VR headsets is why I never take the sales of any of them seriously. I don't know how well any VR headset has sold, so how can I say one is doing badly and the other isn't?

Ahhh, it makes sense now and I agree. I was reading it as you meaning that mattered towards purchasing a headset and not it terms of being important measuring sells.

 

[GigaBowser]

prollably pass out if i put this crud on my fat head

 

[SegaSnatcher]

VR was always going to remain niche. The moment you have to put something over your head it became niche. This was never going to become the new standard of gameplay. Its simply a complimentary device and will remain so regardless of platform.

 

[R6Rider]

Depending on what kind of disposable income you have, it's worth it for GT7 alone.

 

[Synless]

Depending on what kind of disposable income you have, it's worth it for GT7 alone.

Even more so if you have the full steering wheel kit.

 

[Crayon]

Even more so if you have the full steering wheel kit.

I'd say even more than that, if you have a friend with a headset to play with. It's an amazing social experience.

 

[MarkMe2525]

Again, you've convinced yourself of pragmatism without the burden of citing pragmatic choices. They magically should have made PSVR2 cheaper, I don't know how, but they could have and should have. Also won't get into how those reductions would have impacted the quality of the product...

I think you fail to understand the concepts of minimum viable product or minimum acceptable product.

Officially I don't think the PSVR was ever sold for less than 300 dollars, though it got sales/bundles in the low 200s. You were never going to see a PSVR2 that was sub 300 and when you begin to look at marginal differences in cost vs significant differences in performance, you realize that cutting features wasn't going to make much of a difference to price, but would make a difference to performance.

That Sony can afford to cut the price to 350 means that either they're clearing inventory or they're able to at the very least sell on par for 350 or take the most negligible of cuts. If it is the latter, most likely the difference would have been that strategically they've priced the PSVR2 to sell to early adopters willing to pay higher prices in order to recover R&D costs.

We'll understand more as their strategy is revealed over time.

Just paragraphs full of misrepresentations and strawmen. Not once do you address any specifics of what I said, it's almost as if you are debating someone else or yourself. I'm not even sure why I am responding other than to point these out to you.

They magically should have made PSVR2 cheaper, I don't know how, but they could have and should have. Also won't get into how those reductions would have impacted the quality of the product...

No magic necessary, reduce the scope during design stage and design for a specific price point, quite literally the same thing they do when designing their consoles. As far as quality, you don't specify if you are referring to build quality or quality of the experience. I already gave my sentiment regarding the potential quality of the experience without eye tracking, headset haptics, and OLED with HDR displays. The games would still be immersive and top notch.

think you fail to understand the concepts of minimum viable product or minimum acceptable product.

Frankly, I think the only reason you said this was to attempt some lame insult. It also implies that you are asserting that some or all of the features previously mentioned are required for a "minimum viable product or minimum acceptable product," that assertion is baseless and you just made it up. All Sony needed to do was deliver a headset with higher resolution, inside out tracking, and could play PS5 VR games. As we all know, it's the software that makes a platform attractive in the long term.

Officially I don't think the PSVR was ever sold for less than 300 dollars, though it got sales/bundles in the low 200s. You were never going to see a PSVR2 that was sub 300 and when you begin to look at marginal differences in cost vs significant differences in performance, you realize that cutting features wasn't going to make much of a difference to price, but would make a difference to performance.

This is a strawman, as nowhere did I suggest they should shoot for a sub $300 price point. You present a false dilemma when you state that even if they cut features, they couldn't get to the price point that you arbitrarily assigned.

That Sony can afford to cut the price to 350 means that either they're clearing inventory or they're able to at the very least sell on par for 350 or take the most negligible of cuts. If it is the latter, most likely the difference would have been that strategically they've priced the PSVR2 to sell to early adopters willing to pay higher prices in order to recover R&D costs.

Not related to the discussion other than when I pointed out that the 2,000% increase in sales shows that price, at least in large part, has been holding back the platforms growth, hence my original statement that "it is reasonable to argue that they should have produced a cheaper headset." If what you suggest about Sony strategically pricing high for early adopters is true, then they greatly miscalculated considering how the platform has been floundering after the inital wave of sales at launch.

One thing I think is being missed is that I am a fan of the product. It wasn't worth it for me to purchase one alongside a PS5 at the original price points, but if they continue to discount the headset, I will probably pick one up. I love VR, and they built a feature packed headset for sure, it's just not catching on. Hopefully, that will change.

 

[Three]

Just paragraphs full of misrepresentations and strawmen. Not once do you address any specifics of what I said, it's almost as if you are debating someone else or yourself. I'm not even sure why I am responding other than to point these out to you.


No magic necessary, reduce the scope during design stage and design for a specific price point, quite literally the same thing they do when designing their consoles. As far as quality, you don't specify if you are referring to build quality or quality of the experience. I already gave my sentiment regarding the potential quality of the experience without eye tracking, headset haptics, and OLED with HDR displays. The games would still be immersive and top notch.


Frankly, I think the only reason you said this was to attempt some lame insult. It also implies that you are asserting that some or all of the features previously mentioned are required for a "minimum viable product or minimum acceptable product," that assertion is baseless and you just made it up. All Sony needed to do was deliver a headset with higher resolution, inside out tracking, and could play PS5 VR games. As we all know, it's the software that makes a platform attractive in the long term.


This is a strawman, as nowhere did I suggest they should shoot for a sub $300 price point. You present a false dilemma when you state that even if they cut features, they couldn't get to the price point that you arbitrarily assigned.


Not related to the discussion other than when I pointed out that the 2,000% increase in sales shows that price, at least in large part, has been holding back the platforms growth, hence my original statement that "it is reasonable to argue that they should have produced a cheaper headset." If what you suggest about Sony strategically pricing high for early adopters is true, then they greatly miscalculated considering how the platform has been floundering after the inital wave of sales at launch.

One thing I think is being missed is that I am a fan of the product. It wasn't worth it for me to purchase one alongside a PS5 at the original price points, but if they continue to discount the headset, I will probably pick one up. I love VR, and they built a feature packed headset for sure, it's just not catching on. Hopefully, that will change.

Mark, if they didn't have eye tracking, didn't have an OLED with HDR, didn't have haptics, what exactly would have made it that different to a PSVR1? These things are to make it attractive as a product. PSVR1 is still there as a cheaper product, last gen PS4 tech alternative, playable on PS5. Those things are there to make the product better.