Why Sony’s Decision To Not Include A Camera With PSVR Does Not Make Sense From A Consumer Standpoint

The $399 price point “only” applies to a small percentage of the PS4 install base.

[Abriael]

You mean that not including something many people already have to keep the price lower doesn't make sense from their standpoint?

The things you learn.

[gameseveryday]

Did you actually read the article? The article points out that the price of $399 is only valid for a few million.

Your definition of "many" is wrong, Abriael. For the majority of PS4 install base, the price is not $399.

[Overload]

You're right about many not most. But the reality of the situation regardless of how it spun is PSVR is the least expensive entry into VR. People seem to be buying the camera everywhere, so they obviously don't see a problem with it.

[Eonjay]

Three Scenarios:

1. Sony releases just the full bundle. Result: Rashid makes article about how thats not fair to folks who already own the camera.
2. Sony only release the standalone in some regions. Result: Rashid makes this article.
3. Sony releases both worldwide. Result: Rashid invents a third more elusive 'opinion' on why this is bad/unfair or doesn't make sense.

The truth is that even if you already own the camera, the actually cost is still over 399 because... well because you already bought the camera.

[fr0sty]

You're griping over a camera that can be picked up for $30-60, which will be sold in a bundle that hasn't been priced yet, but definitely won't come in over $500 and will likely include a move controller as well and at least one game. This, when the Oculus costs a minimum of $100 more if you already happen to have a PC worth more than $1k.

Grasping at straws. The price isn't ideal on either platform, but VR is expensive. I commend Sony for getting it down to being as cheap as they have while still delivering an experience most of the people who have tried it agreed was among the best.

[Kal-V3]

Neither is it for the people that bought the camera already. The reveal was for 1 of the im assuming many bundle\versions being sold. 400 is the base price of what you get for the headset itself. if you don't have the camera it might cost you $450..that's your bundle.

Are people that already own cameras forced to buy another camera with a bundle. You need a version that's headset only for those people.

[Cupid_Viper_3]

So much nonsense going around about whether or not Sony should have included a camera or not.

Sony released the PlayStation Camera and that thing was sold out for months and months. This means several things: 1 the PS Camera was clearly bought by a lot of people and still continues to do so as more and more people use it for streaming. Secondly, Sony of all people would have a solid number on how many people actually owns a camera and this decision to not include the camera with the cheapest sku is targeting those people directly......

Millions of people bought a PS camera in addition to their PS4s, these people who went out and spent extra on the camera and stuff are technically "More Valued" customers than those who didn't. Therefore, it is absolutely and perfectly ok to reward those valued customers by not forcing to pay extra for something they already own. You know? similar to how many of you guys b!tched at Sony for the PS2 games with "Sony if forcing me to rebuy something I already own...wah!"

The PS4 Camera has been around since November 2013 (minus the months of it being sold out) so if you don't have one, guess what???? it's your f**king fault. So stop b!tching about $44 and go get one and STFU already....... People these days...... I really, really, REALLY can't stand a lot of people lately....

Talking about " The $399 price point “only” applies to a small percentage of the PS4 install base." Guess what genius!? ATM Sony is mostly specifically targeting this SMALL percentage of people as the most likely early adopters..... CLUELESS people writing about business decisions yet has not an ounce of business sense.

Also, even without a camera the PSVR functions as a GIGANTIC IMax like theatre screen that you can play your games and watch movies on....ALL of this for just $400....

[MrDead]

We already know there's a bundle being relased, this was an announcement on the cost base unit and release date. We also know as with most things of this type that bundle prices are relased later.

This is Gamingbolt people , just another cheap site looking for cheap hits spreading fake concern over something that we already know the answer to.

[donthate]

Sony is engaging in false advertising, because when something is advertised at a certain price point, you expect it to work out of the box. For the 30+ million PS4 owners, this is not the case for $399.

If Sony said, $449 for the bundle, and then for those that own the camera it is $399 then that is proper advertisement.

Of course that will most likely be ignored by the media, because Sony can't do no wrong right now.

[johndoe11211]

I'm sorry, but the article is ridiculous, makes no sense and is a waste of a read. Stop trying to justify that poorly written and researched piece. That article is an absolute disgrace to journalism.

[Death]

$399 is the price Sony want's you to see since they know people will compare it to the $599 Rift price. Had Sony announced their bundle price first, it would have less of an impact from a marketing perspective, but it would have been a closer comparative. You get more with the Rift bundle than you do with the $200 cheaper core PSVR. Only people with an agenda are trying to persuade people that PSVR costs $200 less than Rift. For that $200 you are getting $200 worth of extra's that make it a bundle. When you add two games, a camera and controller to PSVR it costs the same. The same will hold true for Rift when they unbundle it. It should cost about the same as PSVR.

I do however believe it was the right thing to do releasing a core PSVR unit. Owners of the PS camera shouldn't get dinged for buying the camera already. The fact Sony is giving the option should be applauded. The $399 price tag they are presenting that assumes people have the camera is deceptive at best since the majority of PS4 users don't have a camera.

[kowan]

Shuhei mentioned that a lot of ps4 owners already own the camera so he is confident enough to sell the PSVR without it and they're also selling a bundle so I don't see a problem at all. Also the VR like any other product in the world isn't exactly for everyone. Just because the Ps4 sold more than 36 million already does not mean 36m+ owners are interested in VR.

[OB1Biker]

There IS a bundle though. This opinion piece about 'Sony’s Decision To Not Include A Camera' is misleading and shouldn't have been approved.

[mkis007]

donthate

So are rift and vive false advertising because they dont put a pc in the box???

[TFJWM]

@donthate How is it false advertising when they have already stated you need the camera and it is not included in the 399 headset only price.

It still does "work out of the box" because you can use it for netflix and regular games...

[donwel]

Today I learned that "a few million" is not many.

[Outside_ofthe_Box]

This article and those supporting/defending it are making no sense to me at all.

What is it that you want? Sony has already said that they will have a bundle so I don't understand the issue?

Unless you guys wanted Sony to bundle the camera with the headset at the $400 price point in order to not "fool" you into thinking that is the true price of admission into PSVR?

But then wouldn't you guys complain that the headset should also have a standalone headset variant at the price of $350 for those that already have the camera? But then we would be in same position as we are in right now with people complaining about how Sony is deceiving people at what the true price of admission into PSVR is.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

[Death]

I'm not sure how the same people that claim the $60 camera isn't needed for PSVR still believe Rift costs $600. You need the camera for PSVR if you want to use it as intended. Those saying it's still useable as a giant Imax screen might want to rethink how big of a screen they will see without the ability to look up or down on it. No camera = no head tracking which means you aren't looking at as much as you think. The true cost of PSVR is $460. It's irrelevant if you already paid for the camera, you still paid for the camera. If you want to add the cost of a PC since we're adding the cost of a camera, do us all a favor and headbutt a tree and come back, because something is a little loose.

While we wait for the PSVR bundle price we can also wait for a core Rift price. When that happens we can all come back and discuss the price difference. Until then, this is becoming very pointless comparing apples to oranges.

[TFJWM]

I really don't understand the point of your article. There has to be a base model without the camera for people that have the camera. Why would they release the price of the bundle before the base price...

I have an idea for your next article. "Why Sony’s Decision To Not Include A PS4 With PSVR Does Not Make Sense From A Consumer Standpoint"

I mean such a small % of the worlds population has a PS4 so it would make sense to include that in the package as well...

[darthv72]

sort of like when they announced the price of the PS4 and yet all the stuff they demoed used the camera (optional) which made people think they needed it (like kinect)

That made lots of people feel that they were initially planning on including the camera as part of the full package but pulled it out at the last minute.

People may have their reservations about these cameras (gimmick) but in all honesty people would/should get one just to have. MS included one and was criticized for it. Sony makes it optional (mandatory for PSVR) and they are praised for "options".

Bottom line is people who will be interested in VR need the camera no matter what. Did it really matter if the system was supposed to include it or not???? Maybe then but now, not so much.

The $399 price point would be perfect if sony included the camera with the PS4 (as was initially thought). Then they wouldn't have to had dealt with this situation of what to bundle and what not to.

[freshslicepizza]

most people already have the camera? yeah sure. looking at software support for it doesn't hold much weight to that claim. just because it was hard to get doesn't mean they produced a lot of them.

and yes, it will be confusing to some when they buy psvr only to find out it won't work unless you buy another peripheral for it.

sony obviously wanted to hit the $399 mark because bit looks much better than $449 and it doesn't make much sense to only sell a bundle with a camera since some people bought it already. but of course sony is going to promote the $399 price way more than the bundled version that most will likely have to buy.

@Cupid_Viper_

"Millions of people bought a PS camera in addition to their PS4s"

yeah, sure they did. sony would have announced those numbers if it was that successful. so tell me where you got those figures from.

[CantHealz]

You don't think Sony didn't look at how many camera had been sold through thus far. I'm sure they did and figured it was enough to not include the camera with the headset. VR is still an unproven technology and I'm sure they thought their audience is going to be the die hard players, who most likely already have a camera. If they don't guess what? They can go ahead and pick one up right now for 60$, and not have to worry about it come October when the headset is released.

[Pongwater]

Your definition of "does not make sense from a consumer standpoint" is wrong.

[frostypants]

Again, why WOULDN'T they offer it as a standalone to those who already have the camera? They are also offering a bundle.

Gamingbolt is utterly stupid and desperately needs to be banned from N4G.

[Gazondaily]

'Many' is different from 'most'.

Why are you defending this? If a key component of the tech is missing for use then it doesn't make sense from a consumer standpoint; the most important one.

[MetalProxy]

Believe it or not some of use like me already have a ps4 camera. So why would I want to spend more money on something I already have? What the hell am I supposed to do with two of them? I would have been super pissed off if they would have included it in the bundle forcing me to buy a second one just because some other beep beep didn't have one.

[gameseveryday]

@MetalProxy

You fall under a small portion of the PS4 install base that has the camera. The point of the article is that Sony's price point for VR is not $399 for "majority" of the install base.

[Abriael]

@Rashid Sayed: "small portion."

Care to show your magic statistics that we don't have access to?

Also, small or big. This decision saves money for part of the user base, which would have to otherwise spend more for a device that they already have.

Hence, no matter how you try to spin it, it makes perfect sense from the standpoint of customers. Not having to spend money for something twice = good.

[gameseveryday]

@Abriael I respect your opinion but I dont agree with it. It makes zero sense to me, as a consumer, that something that is compulsory to the experience is being left out. You need to understand (which I am sure you wont either ways) is that Sony is pitching the PS VR as a platform and not as a peripheral.

You can twist the wordings and do whatever you want, but the fact remains. PS VR is not $399 for the majority of the fan base.

[DragonbornZ]

I dont understand why people are disagreeing with that lol. It's obvious there should be a bundle with one included. You can be sure if MS comes out with VR requiring the Kinect without it bundled, people would be quick to point it out. And rightfully so. Odd they aren't here.

But with that said, doesn't sony already have plans for a bundle with PSVR and the camera? I thought there was an article about it yesterday.

[Aloy-Boyfriend]

Because we are not being forced to buy the camera similar to how many day one Xbox owners were forced to buy a Kinect.

We and many already have the camera, so we only need the VR. Those who don't have many solutions. Either get it elsewhere for cheap or buy the bundle.

You know all these weeks you and the other have been talking about options. OPTIONS. And here they are ;)

No different from getting an Oculus and then having to buy a graphic card to run it. Anyone getting into this tech need to make sure they have the requirementa to run it. That's our problem. Companies can keep the cost as low and give us options to get extras. I have the camera, so I'm not forced to pay more for a second one. From my perspective it makes total sense

[gangsta_red]

@Xi

"Because we are not being forced to buy the camera similar to how many day one Xbox owners were forced to buy a Kinect."

But...you are being forced to buy the camera if you want to use PSVR.

"We and many already have the camera,..."

I'm sure there are just as many, maybe more who don't have the camera. The ones probably that were celebrating and gloating that they don't need a "kinect" like camera and would never use it...until now I guess.

[ABizzel1]

I get what all you guys are saying, but as Abriael said there are many of us who have the camera already. The PS Camera was on sale for $30 on Black Friday and those who were interested in potentially buying PSVR in the future bought it.

PS Move controllers were on sale at GameStop for $10 or less, and buy 2 get 1 free. I posted this EVERYWHERE on n4g for those who were interested in PSVR, so they could buy it.

I have absolutely no need for the PS Camera or Move to be included in the PSVR $399 price, so it makes absolute sense from a consumer standpoint for me to simply buy the $399 PSVR.

For the rest of you who failed to get the same deal I did over the holiday then there will be a bundle for you as well if you want to play VR games and need the camera still.

http://twinfinite.net/2016/...

PSVR will still function with the camera, but it's more of a cinema viewer at that point, and if you're buying it to play games then you shouldn't have a problem dropping $60 on the needed camera (and $60 for a complete move set (Move + Nav)).

I paid $60 on Black Friday for the PS Camera and 2 full PS Move sets (2 Moves + 2 Navs). I told everyone constantly to buy the stuff before the prices were raised before PSVR launched. People played the wait and see game, and this is an example of it backfiring, because now it's $180 for the same stuff I got, and you have to hope for a cheaper bundle.

[DragonbornZ]

@XiKurapikaKurta

You are right there. It makes sense for you and others who have the camera, but for others who don't it's kind of eh.

"Options" is subjective. It would've been nice if those who don't have the camera could buy it bundled.

You are not right on the last part though. If someone is buying an oculus they already have a pc, so one should hAve everything they need. If they are buying a psvr they already have a ps4, but they do not have all the components because they still need to buy the camera.

Thedit people who don't pay attention to gaming news like we do, that's going to throw them off. There should have already been another bundle.

[Aloy-Boyfriend]

No @Gangsta

I'm not being forced to buy one because I already have one. Option one is for me

"The ones probably that were celebrating and gloating that they don't need a "kinect" like camera and would never use it...until now I guess"

And they are still correct because they don't need that to run their console. They only need it for VR, and that will still be a separate or niche market because not everyone will get into this VR thing

@DragonBorn
People getting on VR should be pretty familiar wiht everything like PC owners. This is not really aimed to casuals. Besides the camera is real cheap in some stores. Sony might take the loss of the camera and charge 20 or 30 mlre with the bundle. I dunno, but I don't have to give more for a 2nd camera. You could say I already payed in advance. The bundle for those who don't have it will be in stores

[PoopsMcGee]

"It makes zero sense to me, as a consumer, that something that is compulsory to the experience is being left out. "

So by your logic they should force us all to buy another PS4 with the VR headset. I mean, after all, it is "compulsory to the experience"

[DragonbornZ]

@XiKurapikaKurta

That's true. But of course with any tech there are those who aren't too informed.
Some people were expecting psvr to be $200 and we all saw the reactions at oculus and vives price announcements. A lot of people, "casuals" included want VR.

I can imagine people, especially parents getting upset that they didn't get everything they needed in the box.

And having to go and spend more money will leave em sour, and after spending $400 without knowing they need a camera they might not be able to afford it.
The camera isn't a lot of course, but you know.

[ziggurcat]

@gangsta:

"I'm sure there are just as many, maybe more who don't have the camera. The ones probably that were celebrating and gloating that they don't need a "kinect" like camera and would never use it...until now I guess."

do you have information on the percentage of people who don't own the camera because they knew they were never going to use it who are now buying it because of PSVR? you're jumping to the erroneous conclusion that everyone who doesn't own a camera is automatically interested in PSVR.

[OB1Biker]

Haha Septic. In another article I saw you said 'Option is good'. Funny how that's turned around here.

[Gazondaily]

@OB1

??? Options? What's that got to do with this?

Options are good. But what im saying is, this is misleading. The entry price for PSVR is NOT £350 quid.

That's my point.

[bleedsoe9mm]

i feel bad for the kid that gets this as a Christmas gift only to realize mom and dad forgot the camera and moves .

[ziggurcat]

@septic:

"The entry price for PSVR is NOT £350 quid."

yes, it is. you're assuming no one has the camera already, and if there's a bundle that includes the camera at $450, then $399 *is* the entry price.

[OB1Biker]

Option is good for people who don't want to buy a bundled camera.
'The entry price for PSVR is NOT £350'
Your right it's £349.
Following your logic you'd have to include a PS4 a DS4, a move controller and a camera.

[gangsta_red]

@Ziggurcat

Not really understanding why I have to provide proof of anything, especially you when you or anyone else here aren't giving themselves.

I'm sure there are many who didn't want or need the camera because they felt it was unnecessary but now have to get one because they are interested in VR and they need it to make it work.

One stroll through N4G long ago can give you examples of how most were not interested in the camera and glad the PS4 didn't come with it.

[DragonbornZ]

@Septic
Yeah you are right Septic. Since the camera is mandatory it's $400 plus w/e you get for the camera. Just because others already have one doesn't negate that fact.

And option-wise people can buy the PSVR by itself and buy the camera sperately or buy just buy PSVR if they already have the camera.

Whether that's an actual option is subjective in a sense, as it would've been better if at the start, there was also an option to buy the camera bundled.
But the bundle is coming. Not sure when, but it is.

[ziggurcat]

@gangsta:

"Not really understanding why I have to provide proof of anything..."

because you're saying that everyone who didn't buy the camera because they felt it wasn't necessary are now suddenly going to buy the camera because of PSVR, and because you're implying hypocrisy. it's called backing up your claims with evidence, and quite common practice when, you know, you present an argument?

can you cite any specific comments from users who stated they were not interested in/didn't want the camera who are now suddenly going to get it because of PSVR?

[Pongwater]

"The entry price for PSVR is NOT £350 quid."

That is in fact the entry price. Entry price never means "including every option available".

[DragonbornZ]

@Pong
That's true, but that's not what he's talking about. Entry should mean including what is required yeah?
Not talking about everything, just the camera since it's required for PSVR to function.

If one wants to "get into" VR on the PS4 they'd need more than just the PSVR.

[frostypants]

But it's not missing. They'll offer a bundle. It's not clear what the problem is.

[Abriael]

So according to you, it would have made more sense to include something that a lot of people already have (and Sony knows how many better than you do), rising the price for everyone, instead of keeping it as an additional purchase, and saving money for a percentage of the customer base.

Also, my definition of "many" is definitely not wrong. I'm quite sure the number is in the millions, and that definitely fits the definition of "many." I never said "most," and it doesn't need to be "most" to make sense.

As I said, the things you learn...

[gameseveryday]

At the end of the day, the point remains. The PS VR is not $399 as Sony has advertised for more than half of their install base. Even if 20% of the install base has a camera, you are forcing the other 80%, the majority, into buying one.

It's like saying, that a company is launching a console for $399. But they don't bundle it with a controller. You need to pay more for a controller.

There is no way this can be defended. A compulsory part is being left out.

[Abriael]

What the price is for this or that percentage of the userbase is irrelevant. Sony informed the users that the camera is required, and people will make an informed decision, just as much as the PS4 is required as well.

The point, unless you titled your article in a quite misleading way, is whether the decision makes sense or not from a customer's standpoint, not how much the total expense is.

Saving a lot of people the cost of a device that they already have makes *complete* sense from a customer's standpoint. There are no two ways around it.

There's only one reason to attack the decision, and we both know what it is.

[gameseveryday]

Not sure what you mean but we both know why people defend such moves as well.

[Gazondaily]

Right so your argument is 'Sony knows best'. The things you learn indeed.

"So according to you, it would have made more sense to include something that a lot of people already have "

No you don't get it. The price point, excluding the camera, is not as great as it seems on the face of it. That's the point.

"Also, my definition of "many" is definitely not wrong."

And who said your definition of 'many' was wrong? I was telling you what the difference between many and most is and what is more applicable. I don't have a PS camera and many I know don't either.

"As I said, the things you learn..."

Are you actually learning though with the stubborn manner in which you are replying?

[P_Bomb]

I have the camera already, and 2 Move controllers from last gen. For those that don't, buy the bundle that has them or wait for a sale. Or don't buy it at all. My xbox didn't come with a battery charger or a lifetime supply of duracells. Either/or are pretty much just as mandatory. C'est la vie. Such is life. Sorry not sorry.

[Vegamyster]

Do you have any stats to show how many people have the camera because i don't know a single person that owns one.

[livininsin]

Supporting Rashid's view, I can't see many reasons for owning the camera peripheral before now. Most likely many of the biggest fans bought it but I don't see many others having bought it.

Supporting Abriael's view, the people that actually bought the camera are also more likely to be the same people that are buying psvr.

However, since the psvr requires the camera, I think sony should have included it and priced it as part of the standard package and then announced that they would also have an unbundled version for people that already own the camera. I think this would have been more honest but more than likely, sony did it this way because they wanted the marketing cachet of announcing a $399 price point not a $449 price point (or whatever the bundle would be priced at).

[donthate]

Abrial,

It is not an issue of the bundles available. It is an issue of false advertisement to the consumer. Sony is saying PS VR $399 to their 36 million PS4 owners.

Can every PS4 owner get PS VR for $399 and expect it to work out of the box?

The answer is NO, because Sony lied. Sony aren't saying "from $399".

The solution was/is to release a $449 bundle with the camera, and have a $399 package without the camera, and advertise $449 or go into grey area and advertise as from $399.

This is a terrible practice and as a writer for a website, dualshockers.com, YOU are responsible to report this to your users instead of defending this poor practice!!!

It is disappointing to see the media constantly mis-inform their users and sometimes have obvious bias (not necessarily you, Abrial).

[OB1Biker]

@donthate
I just watched a video advertisement: it's clearly says at the end : PS4, controller and camera NOT included.
Where's you supposed 'Sony lied' and 'False advertisement'?
Haha seriously people are going to nitpick on anything these days. Besides there has been bundles with free camera included from retailers and I'm sure the camera can been found for cheap enough.

[Pongwater]

"Even if 20% of the install base has a camera, you are forcing the other 80%, the majority, into buying one."

So you're saying that it makes sense "from a consumer standpoint" to force that 20% to buy another camera…?

smh

[donthate]

I wonder what people would say if Sony released a PS4 without a controller, told you it is required, and priced the PS4 at $349 and the controller at $49.

Is the entry price still $349? Hey Sony informed you didn't they?

Because the people arguing for PS VR right now is saying exactly that.

[dantesparda]

Im with Rashid on this one. Most don't have the camera and it should have came with the camera.

[DragonbornZ]

I think the point Abriael is trying to make is that a lot of people already have the camera so bundling one with PSVR would be silly.

And I guess I agree with that, but the camera is required. I dont see why they could'nt have had another bundle with it included ready.

[Thatguy-310]

A bundle with the items that some may not have is coming and will still be cheaper than the competition. The basic sku benefits individuals that already have said items. The more options the better

[gangsta_red]

Funny how no one wanted the Kinect camera and applauded Sony for not including it because according to many no one wanted it. But now many people already have it?

When did the kinect like camera for PS4 become so popular?

Sony needs to make a VR with the camera bundle available everywhere.

[PoopsMcGee]

"When did the kinect like camera for PS4 become so popular?"

Don't you remember? It was selling out EVERYWHERE after the launch of the PS4 because everyone was getting into the Twitch thing and broadcasting play sessions. Sony didn't even anticipate the demand for the camera, thus the early shortages.

"Sony needs to make a VR with the camera bundle available everywhere."

Agreed. They already announced the bundle and now we're just waiting on price. I'm sure it will come to whatever territories that it hasn't been announced for yet (at least if it is Sony's call it will).

[gangsta_red]

Oh okay, so the "kinect" like camera WAS popular and was wanted by the majority of PS players.

I was under the false impression that no one wanted it. I personally don't have it. I don't even know if I would have room for it around my TV.

I agree, there is no doubt that Sony is going to release the bundle everywhere. It just doesn't make sense not to.

[Christopher]

You're arguing to two different groups.

One group is me, where I am not interested in VR or having a camera attached to my system.

Other group are people who are interested in VR.

Some people can change groups when they become interested in VR, as they suddenly see a point in the camera.

Don't try and make them one group. Or try to make a point about the point of a camera 3 years ago compared to later this year.

[gangsta_red]

You are definitely correct Christopher, it's just I find it strange that these groups seem to tell others what they should or shouldn't be interested in until they are or it's convenient for them.

Personally it's not a big deal because I am sure the camera will be easy to find.

Will some soccer moms buy it for little Timmy without the camera because they didn't know better? Sure, but I have no doubt that particular problem will be solved quickly by consumers.

[jstark]

Are you implying a lot of ps4 owners own the camera? lmao

[Christopher]

Am I the only one here who actually reads the news? There's a bundle with the camera and a bundle without the camera....

What is the problem here?

[gangsta_red]

Is that bundle available in all regions? Last I heard it wasn't.

[Christopher]

And I'm certain in those regions without an official bundle, retailers will bundle them on their own.

I'm just not seeing the big issue, to be honest. For people who are interested in forking over $400 in the first place, another $45 isn't going to be the stopping element to it.

I mean, that's the same argument we've had with buying a $400 console and then finding out you have to spend an additional $40-$60 on XBL/PSN. It is what it is.

[gangsta_red]

Definitely.

But forking over for XBL/PSN is a tad different seeing as how you can do that from the comfort of your couch online.

It's like going to Ikea, buying a Helmer dresser drawer, taking it out the box and finding out it doesn't come with any screws and needed to be bought separate. No big deal because you can just go back out and get 'em, but sure is an inconvenience.

[Overload]

Well, considering the PS4 camera was sold out forever around launch and is selling like crazy every where currently, I would say they either are prepared or don't really care about buying the device.

As long as Sony has something on the box saying it requires the camera, I don't see a problem.

[hirobrotagonist]

I don't know anyone that has a camera for their ps4, why would most people have it? PSVR looks great, but is definitely going to be confusing for consumers when they have to buy a camera they probably don't have for it to work, add the (optional) move controllers and you're looking at a price point just south of the Oculus Rift, but with some diminished specs.

[dantesparda]

Exactly.

[Eonjay]

The standalone has to be available for the folks who already have the other parts. Its not an option. That would be a disservice to them. The camera and controllers have been and will continue to be available for all of us. There are like 7 months until launch. That is plenty of time.

Also, their is a full bundle coming to some regions.

[Niv]

Many peeps got cameras already for their ds4s. I got also.

[dantesparda]

And even more don't.

[WeAreLegion]

Didn't mean to comment, but I can't delete it. Crap.

Uh... How's everyone doing?

[etebitan]

Yeah dante so those people will buy the bundle.. Whats so hard to understand??

[dantesparda]

Its not that I don't understand, its that it should have been $400 with the camera, period. What's so hard to understand about that? Especially since its needed.

[Niv]

This camera bundle debacle is gonna keep peeps talking. Any publicity is good publicity

[SlyFoxC]

except they already stated there will be a bundled version of the PS VR in USA

[nevin1]

It seems people in here think the majority does have a camera. If that was the case, than there would of been alot games built for it in PS4's 2 year history.

It is odd one has to buy a separate device to start playing.

I mean whats it going on with companies today? I mean never owned a DS/3DS but was somewhat interested buying a 3DS for SNES play. But then I found out the new 3DS doesn't come with a charger/power cord.

[Tsunade]

You totally forgot that the number one reason people bought the PSVR camera was for streaming, use the Playroom and other related stuff.

Go to the Playstation live section. Everyone has a camera while they are streaming!

[hirobrotagonist]

not sure why you got all the downvotes nevin, it's a fact that most PS4 owners don't have the camera for the PS4, people downvoting you probably have the camera, so I guess they assume everyone has it when it's really less than 15% of users that have one...Twitch streamers don't even remotely comprise the bulk of PS4 gamers...

[Pancit_Canton]

Sony is not really forcing you. Sony didn't INSTATE that PSVR are for "GAMING ONLY".

You can still use the PSVR for something else besides gaming. You can watch netflix and other type of media on your PS4. You don't need PSeye for that type of media. I like it when Sony's are giving an options. Not all people are going to use their playstation VR for gaming, others will use it for other type of media.

What I don't understand is that Nintendo selling 3DS without a power adaptor? mind blown

[FunkyGoron]

I got a PS camera for like 20-30 US$ at Best Buy at some point.

I always thought I wasted my money because other than logging in my wife/myself automatically... it's just been a camera that looked at me. Although it does make a few games like Tearaway Unfolded more fun.

Now it seems my purchase will pay off! Sucks I didn't have any move controllers because I bet prices increase now.

[El_GuapoTron]

I wish there was a cheaper version of the Occulus without the Xbox controller, because I already have one.

[etebitan]

Great sarcasm mate

[Majin-vegeta]

Uhhh they have two options

$399 for just those who already have the camera.or $450 if you want the whole set up.

[akurtz]

or $480 for me cuz i need some move controllers. also, california tax is kicking my butt!!

[etebitan]

The bundle is supposed to come with a move and a camera.. I bet 449 dollars.. So its still a good deal..

[ruefrak]

From a consumer standpoint, it wouldn't make sense to make someone have to buy a camera again if they already have one. Many (maybe not most) have had the camera since the PS4 first launched. It was so popular that it was nearly impossible to find shortly after launch.

I have the camera. Millions of people probably have the camera. So why should Sony force those people to have to re-buy the camera again? I also have a Move controller lying around the house. Why would I want to re-buy another one? I think it's great that Sony is offering PSVR a la carte.

There will be bundles with the camera for those that need one.

[Tsunade]

Many, many PS4 owners already have the PS4. What it would not have made sense is if they forced everyone to buy the camera again!

Also, even if you have to buy everything (PS4, PSVR, camera and move controllers) it is still more affordable than Oculus and Vive where the whole package would be around $1,700 including a capable PC to run it.

[DragonDDark]

If they include it, it will not make sense from a consumer standpoint too though.
Can you say that's wrong?

[Italiano1234567]

There's a bundle with everything included. The camera is only 40 friggin dollars...tons of people already have it...and don't make a difference... the psvr is selling out everywhere already

[P_Bomb]

I find it funny that $399 is universally considered to be cheap for this, yet $450 is suddenly a deal breaker for a couple casuals. C'mon. I can't even afford the $399 right now. I already have the camera so i'm glad there's a bundle that takes that into consideration.

[hirobrotagonist]

Let's be real, a complete bundle is a camera, move controller and PSVR and that is more than $450. PSVR with a standard controller will be good for some ported games, but it's not going to be true VR content. Being able to sit on the couch with a controller and a headset isn't really VR, it's something the oculus has been able to do for years since their first dev kit.

Of course it's sold out everywhere, things usually sell out when they get preorders 7 months in advance, they'll be back in stock and more people will clamor to buy it because it's "sold out" ask Nintendo about that, worked out well for them. I'm excited for PSVR and I'm definitely getting one, but Sony already released an official statement regarding functionality compared to PC VR and they're obviously trying to reign in expectations a bit. It's great Sony is offering multiple bundles for the PSVR, but notice the limelight the PSVR only edition is getting for its pricepoint? This was obviously an attempt to seriously undercut the price for the Vive and the Rift and it worked. I don't necessarily think it's a dishonest tactic, but Sony is obviously framing the situation to their advantage and why wouldn't they?

[zombiewombie]

There are many people like me that have already purchased the camera. It's fine that they don't include it. People have until fall to purchase one aswell so there's no need to complain.

[bleedsoe9mm]

brilliant by sony they get the 399$ price in the mind share of average consumers and they will bait and switch the $500+ before they know whats happening . seen as vastly cheaper than oculus without being vastly cheaper . only sony could get away with this in the media , can't blame them for using their media bias to their advantage .

[kenwonobi]

Then you buy the other version that comes with everything. The option to but either is good. People are not forced to spend more money if they already have the camera and move controller. There are two versions so this article is a moot point.

[Realms]

Some people are missing the point Sony knows PSVR will initially appeal to the hardcore fan base and it's safe to assume that a great majority of those people already own a camera and probably the move. So the entry price point is reasonable to that audience for everyone else they can buy the bundle with the camera.

[WickedLester]

Sony should not have been so misleading in announcing that 399.99 price point. It was fine to announce a 399.99 core sku. I get why a core sku is necessary since many gamers already bought the camera. However they should've announced right along side of it the bundle that MOST PS4 owners interested in VR will actually need. I know a lot of PS4 owners bought cameras but a much much greater number didn't. It was wrong of Sony to announce that price point and then walk away with absolutely no mention of the fact that the camera is a requirement for VR to work. Essentially it's lying by omission in order not to diminish the impact of the announced price.

You can see by my post history that I'm as big a Playstation homer as you'll find. However shame on Sony for this tactic. They should've been more transparent.