So VR in arcades do not count? Those were a thing in the early to mid 90s. Do not even get me started on the Virtual Boy lol. There really never were any video games before Pong that had any type of a chance. With all of this said I think the Pong analogy that someone made is deeply flawed as Atari/Nintendo were creating a brand new audience where VR headsets have the massive advantage of an already established base and a much easier time of advertising to that base

Also I never claimed to be able to see into the future. I said I do not THINK that VR will ever be anything other than a niche which so far is being supported pretty well. Now what the future holds exactly none of us know but acting like it is anything but a niche at this point is absurd

So you are basically assuming that since he said they could take a loss on the HW a year later they are still taking because he didn't explicitly said they are profiting on the HW? That is quite the reach to not conceed that they could have kept the same price and launch on PC and be a lot cheaper than competitors.. you do know that producing even more would help prices drop faster right?

I'm not ignoring it. Sure selling PSVR at 400 in PC could mean a loss on the HW since we don't know the cost structure. But that is an assumption that you would have to prove, even if acceptable, which is quite different than your first stance that they couldn't and wouldn't sell for the same price because they would lose money without data to back it up.

Also even selling at loss on PC on the start could still work out as a first on Market to win marketshare and better position themselves as brand, on a second iteration or having more presence and allowing for cheaper manufacturing.

There is no assuming, the President of the company said they may need to take a loss.  I am taking the president word since he knows his product.  Also I never said they are taking a loss, I just stated the choice of words when asked a direct question does not directly correlate that the actual hardware is sold at a profit.  There is no reach here, because if you know what the words mean then you know that he specifically did not say Yes the hardware sells at a profit.  

My question to you does operating in the black explictly means the hardware itself is sold at a profit.  This is no different if the PS4 is hardware is sold at a loss but you make up the difference between games and services so the eoc system still runs in the black.

No producing more does not drop price unless you have the bandwidth to produce more at a cheaper price.  If producing more reduce price then we would see prices fall much quicker then we do.

As for proving if PSVR would sell at a loss in the PC space, I really would not have to prove anything.  The fact Sony did not do it is all we need to know because if they believe they could take advantage of that market they would.  The fact Sony did not enter the market and is not looking to enter the market is all people really need to know as to if Sony believes they could take advantage of the market.  We can arm chair their decisions all we want but in the end Sony knows their business and capability way more than any forum poster.

There is no assuming, the President of the company said they may need to take a loss.  I am taking the president word since he knows his product.  Also I never said they are taking a loss, I just stated the choice of words when asked a direct question does not directly correlate that the actual hardware is sold at a profit.  There is no reach here, because if you know what the words mean then you know that he specifically did not say Yes the hardware sells at a profit.  

My question to you does operating in the black explictly means the hardware itself is sold at a profit.  This is no different if the PS4 is hardware is sold at a loss but you make up the difference between games and services so the eoc system still runs in the black.

No producing more does not drop price unless you have the bandwidth to produce more at a cheaper price.  If producing more reduce price then we would see prices fall much quicker then we do.

As for proving if PSVR would sell at a loss in the PC space, I really would not have to prove anything.  The fact Sony did not do it is all we need to know because if they believe they could take advantage of that market they would.  The fact Sony did not enter the market and is not looking to enter the market is all people really need to know as to if Sony believes they could take advantage of the market.  We can arm chair their decisions all we want but in the end Sony knows their business and capability way more than any forum poster.

"[Shawn] Layden [the president and CEO of Sony Interactive Entertainment America (SIEA) and Chairman of SIE Worldwide Studios, as a reminder] declined to say if PlayStation was considering an upgrade path for the PSVR to match the PS4 and its upcoming PS4 Pro release. Though he did note that Sony is making money on each PSVR headset sold, seemingly lessening the need for a redesign in the near future."

https://www.polygon.com/features/2016/10/13/13270458/playstation-vr-interview-launch (at the end)

The virtual boy was a parallax 3D viewer. It has as much to do with VR as a 3D tv or 3DS.

Arcades are a very different type of games, short experiences which VR now has to get away from. There was no reason to develop long complex games in the 90's as there was no home market to speak of. No new ways of story telling to figure out, no long term comfort issues, etc. It took videogames a long time to get away from arcade conventions, heck Nintendo is finally ditching the lives system in 2017. Home VR is brand new, with new challenges.

VR does have the advantage of an established base of video game players. Or is it really an advantage? It seems most gamers are reluctant to try anything new or deviate from their comfort zone... Early videogames didn't have the problem of established expectations and ingrained control schemes. It doesnt look detailed enough, too low res, too experimental, just a tech demo, nobody ever said of those early systems. It seems that non/casual video game players are more enthusiastic over VR than the conservative hardcore crowd.

It's still a niche, an odd one thouh with new headsets coming out on a monthly basis and lots of software/experiences released every week. What's absurb is already claiming that pong had a bigger impact on the industry than VR. VR or the idea of VR has had a much bigger impact on pop culture, books, tv, movies. We've been playing in virtual worlds since games moved beyond the arcades. The headset merely provides a new and better way to experience and interact with those worlds.

I find it hard to go back to the limitations of a controller on a screen. I can't imagine how fantastic contraption could even work without a 3D input method, definitely not at the speed and ease you can put things together in VR. Manipulating things in a 3D environment with a 2D input device will always suck. Hence the pinnacle of video game design so far is the gun, point and shoot. VR finally allows games to move beyond point and click gameplay. (while improving gunplay as well)

I was with you until that (as the majority of what you said was a different opinion. But to compare VR to Pong is just hilarious. Pong was a mainstream gaming phenomeon that inspired countless clones on countless systems compared to a niche product..... Also VR is not "better", almost every VR game is dumbed down compared to its "normal" counterpart. You guys are just way to defensive over VR. If you like it that is fine but do not pretend it is anything outside of a niche product at this point and there are no signs of it ever being anything but (yet, it is possible it will someday but not anytime soon. I still do not think so)

I've already given you plenty examples where VR improves on screen gameplay and where the game would not even be very playable without VR, yet you keep calling almost every VR game dumbed down.  To me it sounds like complaining that almost every early 3D game is dumbed down compared to 2D games since it's not as easy to do pixel perfect jumps for example.

Pong didn't inspire countless books, movies and tv series. It's not for nothing VR has been attempted since the late 60's. Signs that it will be everywhere one day are well everywhere. Current solutions aren't ready for the mainstream yet, but it won't take much longer at the pace VR tech is evolving right now.

Name a VR FPS as deep as Battlefield/CoD...... It does not exist hence the current ones are "dumbed down". If you can not accept that VR games are lacking in content/depth compared to more traditional games I do not know what to tell you because that is a fact...

Inspiration has nothing to do with practicality. You could say that about various different things. 

Name a VR FPS as deep as Battlefield/CoD...... It does not exist hence the current ones are "dumbed down". If you can not accept that VR games are lacking in content/depth compared to more traditional games I do not know what to tell you because that is a fact...

Inspiration has nothing to do with practicality. You could say that about various different things. 

I wouldn't call Battlefield or CoD deep, but I could be mistaken. FPS isn't really my genre and the last CoD I played was CoD 2. I've never played Battlefield. My last online fps experience was Resitance 2 co-op. I guess far cry counts as an fps but I play those more for the adventure.

Anyway there's much more than fps and I don't see a reason why VR fps will have to stay 'dumbed down' compared to whatever CoD and Battlefield are doing. By true, exclusive VR games lack content and depth for now, most of them also cost 1/3rd of the price and are made with a tiny budget compared to CoD/Battlefield.

All that has nothing to do with what VR can do for games, it just needs a bigger userbase and more experience on the development side. As long as VR has steady growth, games will get bigger with more depth and content. 160k per month in the slow time of the year isn't bad and Starting October 10 PSVR will have its one year anniversary sale.

Anyway, I'm curious what VR will add to Skyrim. It's the full game with DLC I haven't played yet. It probably won't have much of anything added for VR specific gameplay but at least we'll be able to see if its dumbed down or not. I hope they allow mixing control schemes, as in freely switch between DS4 and move to manipulate the world. One thing PSVR needs is new motion controllers with analog sticks on them like oculus touch. Bad foresight on Sony's part.