I'm hoping it's $350. $700 for a VR system would be awesome.

Light years? All previews point to them being equal with PSVR having a crisper display.

Ever been on Gt planet, some crazy amounts people spend on setting up their racing seats and wheels.  Just now MS cant even maintain stock of a 150$ controller.  Kinetc sold to over 30% of 360 Current user base.   Spending money is easy for people, Sony and the others just have to make then think its worth it.  Thats all.  

Id say the insentive is quite big, im sure every vr maker wants to be the apple of Vr.  Im really sure sony wants its VR to be the vr equavelent of what PS is to gaming.  The incentives are world changing.  This can be kim to the cell phone to smartphone transition, its obvious most of them get that but you dont.  

Sure causal types make up majority of a 160m selling PS, but right now you know damn well most PS4 owners are of the hardcore core gamer type.  So the initial assesment from they article is more right then wrong.  It looks like your argument does not stand, as its based on a false assertion that PS4 owners Now are more casual then hardcore/core.

Lol no, that vr is weak as hell.

As weak as it is, I think it'll still sell decently(especially if there are deals where it is bundled with samsung devices)

Crazy amounts of people spending money on racing seats and steering wheels for GT games? Those are not the average gamers, they're not even the average GT gamers, these are the enthusiasts I mentioned. Most people on these forums are not average gamers, they're above average interested in the topics of gaming and game and console sales, enthusiasts on the web are in no way represesentative of the average customer base of most products. There are people who spend hundreds of dollars on Amiibo for Mario Kart, that doesn't mean the majority of the people who bought the games did.

I don't think developer incentive is that big; it's a huge gamble to pour resources into implementing something that could crash on the market into your productions, many were burned by PS Move and Kinect last generation and most never got any return on their investment. Also; incentive for pushing the hardware itself and incentive for making software for it as a 3rd party are two different things, of course the hardware manufacturers want to gain the biggest piece of the pie, but the 3rd parties will be more timid, especially as long as the tech is this expensive and requires powerful hardware and likely bloated development budgets. Look at how few have started making content in earnest for 4K TV, even 1080p had a slow start on the market and needed to become considerably more affordable for both publishers and consumers before it became a factor; it's all a little too soon.

"but right now you know damn well most PS4 owners are of the hardcore core gamer type"

Actually; I don't, and neither do you. Attach rates and relative software sales suggest that they're mostly regular gamers, the ones I mentioned who don't buy a hundred games for their console or generally spend large amounts of money on peripherals and tech. If anything; the PS4 is less likely to capture enthusiasts from launch than the PS3 was, the PS3 had blu-ray featured and a heavy emphasis on the budding online space of console gaming, the price point was also on enthusiast levels. There is literally nothing supporting this claim, and you even state it as a fact, and go so far as to state that even I know that this is fact, which means I must be wasting my time on purpose even writing these posts. Enthusiasts do not lead to 35 million consoles sold in two years, as with the PS2, compare the sales curve of these two to the PS3 and spot a big difference.

My argument holds perfectly well since it's perfectly reasonable to assume that a larger part of the PS4's installed base are average gamers than the PS3 in the same time frame of its cycle and the 13 million PC enthusiasts are still more likely to shell out several hundred bucks for peripherals than any similar number and/or percentage of any 8th gen console's total installed base.

Again; average gamers do not actually spend that much on games and gaming and there is nothing to suggest that most PS4 owners are not average gamers, to categorically state as fact that most of the are not average gamers is the only likely false assumption here. Among the only statistics we have to go by is that a little less than half of the PS4's installed base has a PS+ subscription, which should be one of the minimum requirements for any enthusiast gamer today, and it's a real stretch to assume that 100% of these are so-called hardcore gamers and not average gamers who clock hours in titles like CoD and Destiny and similar fare, and with 4 out of the top 5 best selling titles on the PS4 being CoD and FIFA, it's kind of hard to keep your train of though about the average PS4 owner alive for much longer. In fact; the top 7 include GTA V and then CoD, FIFA, Destiny and Star Wars: Battlefront, so it would appear that numbers are not on your side for this one if your claim of the majority installed base being enthusiasts who spend a lot of money on gaming are to hold true. The top 20 and top 30 list is ominously void of titles geared more towards enthusiasts and it's utterly dominated by heavily mainstreamed filler franchises.

So was the Wii. Power is irrelevant when it comes to the mass market. Why else would iPhones still exist otherwise? I'm with Layton here: Casual buyers will likely flock to a phone-based VR device because it's simply cheaper* on paper. VR is not a gamers' market, it's a casual market that's being jumpstarted in the gaming realm. Is PSVR going to do better? Yeah, probably. 36>13 and there's a higher likelihood of sheep buying into it from that highly casual 36. But most people aren't likely to buy into an entirely personal experience like this at too much of a cost; it's part of the reason 3DTV has failed thus far after people realized how narrow a window the 3D worked in on early models. 

*There is no installment plan for a PS4 or a PC, like most people have for their phones. Spending $100 out of pocket on a gimmick is something very fathomable of the average consumer (look at those goddamned hoverboards, they're glorified segways and people are shelling out hundreds), especially compared to spending $350+ and needing either a gaming console or a high-end PC. People don't like to spend that much on gaming devices - look at how well the XBO sales did immediately after DROPPING the Kinect (doubled monthly sales immediately after the cut, in case you didn't know), and that was only a $100 difference!

The fact that Sony continues to list numbers rather than mention key titles doesn't inspire confidence either. Until we have a key selling experience (read: until they announce No Man's Sky is PSVR compatible) the PSVR will continue to be a niche product. The denial of some PSVR supporters on the Web is almost equal to when Wii U fans said it'd do well because of all the third party support being announced, or when Vita owners flaunted Bioshock Vita and Black Ops Declassified as reasons the Vita would take off and beat the 3DS  

You only need $600-700 dollar smartphone, but hey, at least headset is cheap. ;)

Seriously though, maybe next iteration where high end phones are not a requirement, or someone else like that Chinese FiresVR company that's trying to go toe to toe with GearVR, will have a mass market appeal.

Still, there are technical dificulties as well - while Gear VR has a lot in common with OR (screen persistance is good as well as motion-to-photon latency), it does not have positional tracking. From what I've read inside-out tracking is not as easy as fixed outside-in (like with OR, Vive and PSVR), but it seems that Samsung is working on it, so probably next iteration will be able to compete head on.

Sony's advantage of it's PS4 install base is also it's weakness, it would be wise for them to after getting VR established on the PS4 , use all that data positive and negative to then move onto PC , that way they have a better pathway when it comes to future upgrading and also it gives them a better chance of it not being seen as just another peripheral with a limited lifespan.

Wii had great games, ones that used its hardware exceptionally well.

Gear does not.