Yes, 200 is an extremely important price point. Still not enough for impulse buyers, but at least we can see that Sony is committed to lower costs. I actually think that the standalone 200 dollar PSVR can be a better deal than the GTS bundle since you're getting the new version with HDR passthrough. Since it still is an enthusiast-level device, it's reasonable to assume people would have it, a PS4 and an HDR TV.
About my first sentence, what I mean is that the current headsets still have a FOV much lower than our vision, The resolution is also low. Maybe even 4K wouldn't be enough since the screen is too close. They give you a much increased immersion, but it still isn't something that could pass as the real thing. We are a few years, maybe a decade, from a really convincing VR device that addresses these issues. For now, we have to use simply the "good-enough" tech. That's why price is important. You can't charge a premium price for something that is just barely enough.
When watching 3D movies on the full size on PSVR I can see the pixels when I pay attention but usually I don't notice them when I'm enjoying the movie, also I basically lose the side of the image since for me the borders are almost about the limit of my vision...
And when I switch to gaming both constraints aren't noticed by me. The low resolution on the games I played were more due to the capacity of PS4 generating the graphic than the VR showing them.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"