Sony sending mixed messages to gamers and developers.

As a developer for ps4 what is the point of spending dev time on something noone will have? The controller which you pay for day 1 has functions removed unless you have the camera. Why not create a controller without the extra camera features?

Sony made the decision to tery and top microsoft. But loose money on the ps eye r&d. If I was a shareholder id want to know the r&d cost of ps eye plus controller r&d.

Seems like there was a lack of conviction and direction on this from sony.

They're right. There's no valid argument for the forced camera.

This is what im doing and alot of my friends are as well, it will happen. 

I'm sure it's already been stated but--remember the PS3 vs 360? Fans were saying, "You had to buy a charger, HD DVD Player, Wi Fi adapter, etc. just to have that "PS3 experience" on Xbox 360". There are probably still TONS of youtube videos on the subject saying Xbox 360 costs more than PS3.

When Xbox 360 was letting consumers only pay for the parts they needed, Sony was offering everything for $500-$600. You can't just say it's okay for one side to do something and then condemn the other side for the exact same practice!

Just seems strange that MS didnt realise they had the right of it the 1st time, why theyve gone for Sonys PS3 launch strategy this time is weird. If your having to defend the value proposition of your product your in a bad place, its not something that should need to be explained to customers. 

It's all just playing on emotions, and Sony do that because it benefits them. Their fanbase laps these headlines up (in general).

Business Decisions and nothing else

Having said that, I agree that not bundling a camera is the smarter choice since it keeps the console price lower and makes it appealing to a broader audience. It's not about choice as much as it is about smart business & marketing.

On the other hand microsoft wants to make the camera an integrated part of the Xbox experience and that has its own value. If it weren't so expensive, I would agree with their business choice.

Exhibit A: The Vita

Also, if this is so anti-consumer, then why does the Vita have a built-in camera? Again, it's all about business logic, no ethics here.

They may of lost conviction with the camera, but its quite easy to see that was based on there key audience consumers not really wanting motion games. 

Give the people what they want strategy and it seems to be working very well, im sure shareholders are extremley happy with the record breakign pre order numbers and positive press momentum PS4 is currently enjoying. 

If you think thats the argument i dont know where youve been this entire time. I repeat for the millionth time no one is talking anti consumer here. Also, no one would argue that if sony, ms, or Nintendo threw in a crappy indie game without raising cost (ie something not needed to enjoy the system since A. You mmight not care for the particular and B. You can be buying the system strictly for AAA games. I mean i dont know if i even opened wii sports.) that would be anti consumer. Look, i know you guys want to come in here and make a quick jab and point but think about what you are saying

Funny how everyone hated ms for not putting HDD in 360 at launch, since HDD was not necessary for playing games. Know they have included a devices which can make experience better, how everyone attacking them again. Yet sony got praised for adding wifi in ps3 and camera in vita just funny.

so i learn *MS can never makes anyone happy no matter how much effort they put in their products*.

NSA paid Microsoft to keep the camera on the device? xD