If Sony enjoyed losing money, then yeah by all means but I don't think they really want to lose cash at this point.

Wishful thinking (and that's me being as nice as possible)

I reckon the cheapest the Neo will be is £300. If rumours about die shrinking are true, I can imagine it not costing much more than the current ps4 and Sony maybe even making a deal since they had to change processor. I wouldn't be surprised if Sony brings out the new ps4 at only £50 more than the old one and slowly phases out the older model.

I'm probably worse for pointing this out, but @bold do you think that every game should also include the price of the console and TV when it is being marketed because obviously a disk is useless without them.

And @ underlined, I wasn't aware that the oculus included the high spec PC required to use it, that is very cheap in comparison to the PSVR if it is the case indeed!

I would think it more shady forcing the move and camera in the bundle for those who already have it. I don't follow your logic.  As it stands it's more consumer friendly.  

The bold was merely to point out that it's still an entry cost approaching $900, as console owners so love to point out that you need a $1,000 PC to use the Oculus. There's still a large ~$600-$800 gap (both will drop as hardware improves and PS4's become cheaper), but those who like to point at the high costs associated with the Oculus or Hive seem to forget that it's still damn expensive for an inferior product on the PS4.

As for the second, I'll put it simply as you seem to be confused: The Oculus actually comes equipped with everything you might need to fully experience the device on your PC. Sony's VR, however, and I'll use the asterisk from their site:

 "*PlayStation®4, PlayStation®Camera and PlayStation®VR software sold separately."

They didn't even include the Playstation Move in their asterisk, which will also be used. Likewise, and while I understand this isn't necessary in the Sony VR's case I feel it's worth mentioning to further show how poorly priced this is in comparison with the Oculus, you get an XBox 1 controller and a full game included with the $600.

Essentially, you get the complete package with Oculus, whereas Sony's VR has left essential parts out to feign a lower $400 price.

For the record, I don't have any dislike for the SonyVR and, assuming it doesn't wind up being bad, I plan to get it. This marketing, however, utilizing asterisks and tiny fonts, is deceptive. 

I agree that options are great and consumer friendly, that's not what I'm criticizing. Rather, what I'm criticizing is the deceptive marketing of the product, taking essential components out of the bundle that will have to be purchased separately in order to promise "SonyVR" at $400 with a tiny-font message beside an asterisk mentioning those pieces you also need.

If by the time of release they make a clear distinction with a "Basic" and a "Complete" model or something of that sort, then that's fine. As it is, though, it's a cheap (and successful) way of convincing everyone that their VR costs $400, when really it comes in closer to $500 for the vast majority of us. There'd be a loooot of disappointed kids who don't have the full complement after their parents go shopping lol

Really, we'd be kidding ourselves to believe this wasn't done with hitting that crucial price point in mind.

"Consider that the Oculus, a superior piece of hardware,"

"it's still damn expensive for an inferior product on the PS4"

It appears that you have made your opinion on the SonyVR really and would be strange for someone who sees it as being the more costly inferior option wouldn't just stick with the PC options of the same products.

I don't get this anyway, if the product was sold at $500 but it included the camera/move/a game/an xbox one controller or whatever then a lot of PS4 owners who have those items already would be a little upset at being forced to buy them again... but that would only effect PS4 owners of course.

The SonyVR simply IS inferior as far as hardware is concerned (I could list specs if you like), just as the Oculus (my second choice atm) is inferior to the Hive.

Really, I want first to confirm that the SonyVR is comfortable and works well (the Oculus has passed those tests from what I've seen). Then, I'd like to take a look at the respective libraries before I pick one. Sony's promise of over 100 games (I believe) being made for or compatible with the SonyVR has me waiting on picking one or the other right now, as that sounds pretty cool.

I just still struggle with the idea that the PS4, which struggles to run open world games or true 1080p as is at times, could really manage worthwhile VR. My concern is that the only version of the game that will be worth playing will be for those with the new PS4 model, as it will be exceedingly tempting for developers to make use of the additional power that will produce a great game for them but a shoddy port for the rest of us. I can't say if this will happen, but this is a rather unprecedented development in the console market (really undermining the whole concept and purpose of the console if you ask me).

Anyway, I'm just waiting for reviews and libraries. Given my friends also have PS4's while only I have a PC capable of the Oculus/Hive, I'm really hoping the SonyVR proves to be fun as I'd love to sell them on the idea and play some multiplayer VR games. Honestly, it could be amazing if it works out.

As for the second part, just refer to my previous response. I prefer options, but not deceptive marketing. Just be up-front with the cost and offer another complete bundle as, given the other components are mentioned in tiny font, plenty of people could preorder (or later buy) the VR without realizing there's more required components.

Only if Sony hates making profits from PS4. I can't see a Neo+PSVR bundle being less than $499. And at $499 that is a really low cost entry into VR, especially if you already have the move controllers and PS Eye.