It's not really 399.99. It's 450.00 because you have to have the camera to make it work and that's not packed in.
Oh come on. You know very well most people are not going to be buying this primarily for the Cinematic mode. That is an added bonus feature to PSVR, not the primary function that most people are buying it for. The camera should absolutely come packed in. It's silly for Sony to ask consumers to purchase a separate accessory and then ask them to purchase an additional accessory before the first accessory can work properly. That's just asinine.
Quick question, does PSVR include the camera? If not that is a big mistake. The PSVR is already an accessory to the PS4 (no matter what Sony says). By not including the camera, Sony is essentially asking consumers to purchase an accessory on top of an accessory in order to make it work. The package needs to include everything that is needed for the VR experience except for the console. Otherwise it's just going to create further confusion and frustration among consumers who get PSVR a...
399.99, book it!
It affects everyone differently. You can't just make a blanket statement like "you can only use it comfortably for 20 minutes." Some people will be able to use it for longer, some less so. It will all depend on the individual.
Also regarding it affecting eyesight, that's why VR is not recommended for anyone 12 and under. It's because children's eyesight is still developing during those years.
Price and launch games. The library at launch will be just as important to my buying decision as price.
I don't think you understand how this works.
"He IS MS"
Wow. The hero worship is strong with you. No, Spencer is NOT MS. He's head of the Xbox DIVISION of MS which is but a pimple on the ass of that company.
They should make whatever they're passionate about. If that's The Last of Us 2, then great. If it's a new IP, that's great too. It's not so much what the project is that's important. It's that the developer is 100% behind it and committed to making it great.
A fact that seems to miraculously escape a lot people's minds.
Not sure if serious.
And again I ask, based on what criteria? Anyone can blurt out so and so game costs too much. But no one ever seems to be able to "show their work" and provide logical reasons why.
Sorry Cobra but you are wrong. In 1977 the average household income was a little over 12,000.00 per year. In today's dollars that's about 46,000.00. In 2015 the average household income is a little over 51,000.00 a year. Sorry but your "people are poorer today" argument does not hold water.
Suikoden 2 was fantastic! One of the best RPG's on PS1.
Gosh where do I start?
Dark Cloud
Onimusha
War of the Mosters
Jak and Daxter
Syphon Filter
Soul Reaver
Klonoa
Bushido Blade
Tenchu
Crash Bandicoot
Wipeout
Marvel vs Capcom
Darkstalkers
Twisted Metal
Godzilla Save The Earth
Something gamers have GOT to understand. Games are cheaper today than they've ever been. Im not just talking about the 20.00 indie titles either. I'm talking across the board, from the cheap indie games to the 60.00 AAA games. When the Atari 2600 came out in 1977, games cost 39.99. In today's dollars, thats about 155.00. In 1995 when the PS1 came out, games cost 49.99. It today's dollars thats about 78.00. In 1996 N64 games were 59.99. Thats about 90.00 in today's d...
"Atari 2600 games were a lot cheaper than today's games."
LMAO! Not even close!! When adjusting for inflation, Atari 2600 games were MUCH more expensive relative to earnings/cost of living at the time. The average Atari 2600 game in 1977 cost 39.99. In today's dollars that would be about 150.00. The console itself cost 199.99, which in today's dollars would be 780 dollars! Gamers should seriously count their blessings when it comes to game prices...
"60$ is ambitious of them. I would personally have priced it around 30$"
Again, based on what criteria? Why isn't anyone questioning UBISoft for pricing the yearly Assassins Creed game at 60.00 or Activision for the yearly COD game? Why is No Man's Sky being targeted as a game that shouldn't be sold at the standard retail game price for this generation?
What is the basis behind people who have an issue with the 60.00 price? It just seems so alien (no pun intended) to me because I never expected NMS to cost anything less! Regardless of how small the developer is, this IS a AAA title. The time and hard work that went into making it and the sheer brevity of content that is in this game demands such a price. If Street Fighter 5 and The Order 1886 can get away with coming out at 60.00, I sure as hell think No Man's Sky deserves to.
It's not just about the price though. It's also about product confusion. The PS VR is already an accessory to the PS4. Without including the camera you're asking consumers to not only purchase a separate accessory for the PS4 but to also purchase a separate accessory FOR the accessory for the PS4. It's going to create a lot of confusion among consumers and I can tell you right now there's going to be a lot of pissed off people who get home with the PS VR and realize they d...