• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Gamingbolt: Sony’s Decision To Make PSVR2 Over A PlayStation Handheld Is Baffling

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just lol @ someone who never tried a real VR headset with the halo strap from PSVR or Rift S: the most comfortable system ever to wear *the something*

Meme Reaction GIF by MOODMAN
Big Mouth Lol GIF by MOODMAN
this is nonsense. I have a Valve Index, a Quest 2, an OG Oculus, and PSVR, on top of having preordered PSVR2.
I am a VR enthusiast. I have a full flight setup (Full cabs wit Hotas Thrustmaster Warthog flight sticks and pedals, triple wrap around screens, all VR capable) and it absolutely sucks to wear any of them for any more than 45 minutes to an hour. PSVR2 will be no different.
 

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
I love it, it's cute, when technology websites (and YouTubers) think they know more than the suits/engineers/developers at big multinational technology companies
funny, but frankly your average NeoGAF user probably has more competence than most CEOs, let alone a youtuber. Look at Xbox, look at Square Enix, look at Ubisoft, look at EA, look at Activision, look at Konami. I think anyone on this board would do a better job than the idiots who are running those trainwreck companies
 
Last edited:

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
Sony made an awesome handheld with the Vita and nobody really bought it so I doubt they are entering that market again any time soon
and WHY did nobody buy it? The simple fact is that for every console failure there's a good reason behind it
 

The_Mike

I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Sony failed with vita, bailing out vr would look bad for Sony when they put so much money into it.
 

THE DUCK

voted poster of the decade by bots
Because if a person is paying $1050 for both, Sony would get more money than someone only spending $550??

VR market isn't a high margin industry.

I dont get it either way, vr alone or with ps5 included, neither is making money so why would we care the difference?
 

Crayon

Member
We don't know if they are losing money on it. They supposedly made profit with the first one. No telling what that includes like R&D, marketing, moneyhats, etc. But they claimed it was profitable so reasonable to assumme the headset itself was not sold at a loss.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
this is nonsense. I have a Valve Index, a Quest 2, an OG Oculus, and PSVR, on top of having preordered PSVR2.
I am a VR enthusiast. I have a full flight setup (Full cabs wit Hotas Thrustmaster Warthog flight sticks and pedals, triple wrap around screens, all VR capable) and it absolutely sucks to wear any of them for any more than 45 minutes to an hour. PSVR2 will be no different.

I played RE7 in PSVR for 1 to 2 hours every play session. It was super comfortable.
 
I played RE7 in PSVR for 1 to 2 hours every play session. It was super comfortable.
You're the only person I've ever heard call that pos comfortable. It was terrible. The cords sucked, the headset was chunky, heavy, hot and uncomfortable. It would get extremely gross and soaked in sweat. It's the worst of all the VR setups by far, it was just convenient because it came out in a booming economy where people were curious about VR, and was easily accessible because you didn't need a PC. That economy is gone now.
 

Ar¢tos

Member
and WHY did nobody buy it? The simple fact is that for every console failure there's a good reason behind it
Good luck finding one. Every single one made was sold. Vita TV on the other end ended up being bundled for free with every ps4 by retailers to get rid of the stock.


Can't wait for Gamingbolt psvr2 review giving it 1/10 because it's not an handheld. 😂
 
So not since 2018? You guys seem to be going around what I actually said in the post,



Unless you guys believe 2016 is after 2018 that is.

What exactly are you saying?

Your argument is that PSVR was not profitable. Not at least until 2018 once it hit the break even point (your words).

2016 comes before 2017. 2017 before 2018, etc. we have articles before 2018. Before 2017, that clearly says that it was profitable.
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
You're the only person I've ever heard call that pos comfortable. It was terrible. The cords sucked, the headset was chunky, heavy, hot and uncomfortable. It would get extremely gross and soaked in sweat. It's the worst of all the VR setups by far, it was just convenient because it came out in a booming economy where people were curious about VR, and was easily accessible because you didn't need a PC. That economy is gone now.

You must not have been on the internet in 2016 and 2017 then. Most people back then said PSVR was one of the most comfortable VR headsets available on Earth. That was the consensus even.
 

SLB1904

Banned
this is nonsense. I have a Valve Index, a Quest 2, an OG Oculus, and PSVR, on top of having preordered PSVR2.
I am a VR enthusiast. I have a full flight setup (Full cabs wit Hotas Thrustmaster Warthog flight sticks and pedals, triple wrap around screens, all VR capable) and it absolutely sucks to wear any of them for any more than 45 minutes to an hour. PSVR2 will be no different.
Well super gt said he played gt7 for over an hour, and people asked him hiw it felt. And he said he could go on for hours. Another preview that had motion sickness in gt sports (like me) he said it was gone.
Also the videos I've seen people are lifting with their fingers.

So I'm hopeful it will be comfortable to use
 
Last edited:

SLB1904

Banned
You must not have been on the internet in 2016 and 2017 then. Most people back then said PSVR was one of the most comfortable VR headsets available on Earth. That was the consensus even today
Fixed
You're the only person I've ever heard call that pos comfortable. It was terrible. The cords sucked, the headset was chunky, heavy, hot and uncomfortable. It would get extremely gross and soaked in sweat. It's the worst of all the VR setups by far, it was just convenient because it came out in a booming economy where people were curious about VR, and was easily accessible because you didn't need a PC. That economy is gone now.
Dude youtube is your friend. There are plenty of videos comparison out there
 
You must not have been on the internet in 2016 and 2017 then. Most people back then said PSVR was one of the most comfortable VR headsets available on Earth. That was the consensus even.
in 2016 it was one of 3 very bad headsets, and it definitely wasn't more comfortable than the Vive.

Playstation fans say weird things all the time. Bethesda became a 3rd rate dev when MS bought them in the eyes of some Sony fanboys.

Thing is, I've owned 5 VR headsets at this point, and I can find nothing good to say about the original PSVR except that it was accessible to those without a PC. That's it's only redeeming quality in my eyes,

PSVR2 looks to be better in almost every way, and I think it will be a very good headset, I just don't believe it will actually sell in the current market. I hope i'm wrong though.
 

killatopak

Gold Member
I do want a Sony handheld back though I’m probably a minority in this forum. I just want something a bit more modern since Nintendo likes to make their platform very low tech relative to what’s available.
 

Crayon

Member
in 2016 it was one of 3 very bad headsets, and it definitely wasn't more comfortable than the Vive.

Playstation fans say weird things all the time. Bethesda became a 3rd rate dev when MS bought them in the eyes of some Sony fanboys.

Thing is, I've owned 5 VR headsets at this point, and I can find nothing good to say about the original PSVR except that it was accessible to those without a PC. That's it's only redeeming quality in my eyes,

PSVR2 looks to be better in almost every way, and I think it will be a very good headset, I just don't believe it will actually sell in the current market. I hope i'm wrong though.

Omg the comfort between a psvr and a vive is huuuuuuuuge. Vive was heavy and belted straight to your face! PSVR1 had the halo strap and barely grazed your face.
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
in 2016 it was one of 3 very bad headsets, and it definitely wasn't more comfortable than the Vive.

Playstation fans say weird things all the time. Bethesda became a 3rd rate dev when MS bought them in the eyes of some Sony fanboys.

Thing is, I've owned 5 VR headsets at this point, and I can find nothing good to say about the original PSVR except that it was accessible to those without a PC. That's it's only redeeming quality in my eyes,

PSVR2 looks to be better in almost every way, and I think it will be a very good headset, I just don't believe it will actually sell in the current market. I hope i'm wrong though.

These weren't just Playstation fans that said that though.
 
This is such an odd take and odd conclusion to draw, given how badly they bungled the Vita, and completely lost their decent market-share in the handheld space that they found with the PSP. PSP sold over 80 million units worldwide. That's more than the 3DS sold lifetime. Why would they spend years of time and untold millions in R&D investing in another handheld? Clearly they are not the best at it. They have their talents in console and VR and subscriptions. Nintendo and Valve are clearly better at making a successful long-term sustainable business out of handhelds.
 
Last edited:
What exactly are you saying?

Your argument is that PSVR was not profitable. Not at least until 2018 once it hit the break even point (your words).

No, I didn't say the PSVR was "not" profitable until 2018, I said the exact opposite clearly.

This is such an odd take and odd conclusion to draw, given how badly they bungled the Vita, and completely lost their decent market-share in the handheld space that they found with the PSP. PSP sold over 80 million units worldwide. That's more than the 3DS sold lifetime.

Well, primarily because of Japan, PSP collapsed worldwide after a few years and SOny backed off support, mostly because of low dev sales and piracy.

3DS probably made more money despite the PSP sales overall.
 
No, I didn't say the PSVR was "not" profitable until 2018, I said the exact opposite clearly.



Well, primarily because of Japan, PSP collapsed worldwide after a few years and SOny backed off support, mostly because of low dev sales and piracy.

3DS probably made more money despite the PSP sales overall.

C0cdqwO.png


Are you trolling right now? I too love a good yank of the chain, but daggone...
 
C0cdqwO.png


Are you trolling right now? I too love a good yank of the chain, but daggone...

The rest of that paragraph you didn't highlight literally debunks you.

It literally says "I am doubtful" on profitability and "I could see break even around 2018 BUT" and then "Since then effectively dead with stock sitting on the shelves".

Nowhere does it say I thought it was profitable UNTIL 2018, only that I "COULD SEE" it break even in 2018, and then being dead since then. Which is why I brought up in multiple previous posts when people brought up profitability about if it was ever profitable "SINCE 2018".
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
The rest of that paragraph you didn't highlight literally debunks you.

It literally says "I am doubtful" on profitability and "I could see break even around 2018 BUT" and then "Since then effectively dead with stock sitting on the shelves".

Nowhere does it say I thought it was profitable UNTIL 2018, only that I "COULD SEE" it break even in 2018, and then being dead since then. Which is why I brought up in multiple previous posts when people brought up profitability about if it was ever profitable "SINCE 2018".

Why would the PSVR headset be profitable in 2016, but not after 2018?
 
Why would the PSVR headset be profitable in 2016, but not after 2018?

Because, the sales dropped off, stock was sitting on shelves, Sony wasn't really supporting it anymore, and then Quest came?

PSVR1 has been pretty much a dead headset for years now. Did they even give it a second price drop to improve sales yet? I know they didn't most of 2022.

Don't know why you would think PSVR1 was still making profits with no support, sitting on shelves, without a price cut, and momentum thrown away.
 
Why would the PSVR headset be profitable in 2016, but not after 2018?
Because despite the hardware alone being profitable since 2016 means that Sony actually increased their own costs to produce the unit so they could actually lose money, because they hate making money. Eddie is clearly playing 4D chess and you and I are playing checkers.

He’s owning us and debunking us with his iron clad “trust me bro” sources. Ya know, instead of actually providing a verified source lol.
 
The rest of that paragraph you didn't highlight literally debunks you.

It literally says "I am doubtful" on profitability and "I could see break even around 2018 BUT" and then "Since then effectively dead with stock sitting on the shelves".

Nowhere does it say I thought it was profitable UNTIL 2018, only that I "COULD SEE" it break even in 2018, and then being dead since then. Which is why I brought up in multiple previous posts when people brought up profitability about if it was ever profitable "SINCE 2018".


Where did I say that you said it was profitable until 2018?
 
Where did I say that you said it was profitable until 2018?

You claimed I said it wasn't until 2018, which ends the same, you misread. I said it's been dead since 2018, and I doubt there's been any breakeven since then, IF that was the case. hence the many posts before you jumped in saying "since 2018" ...
 
Last edited:
You claimed I said it wasn't until 2018, which ends the same, you misread. I said it's been dead since 2018, and I doubt there's been any breakeven since then, IF that was the case. hence the many posts before you jumped in saying "since 2018" ...

So at first:

I claimed that you said that it was profitable until 2018?

And now, I’ve claimed that you said it wasn’t until 2018?

How would you interpret the following quote?

"And some say the opposite, I am doubtful on profitability, i could see break even around 2018"​

 
Last edited:
We don't know if they are losing money on it. They supposedly made profit with the first one. No telling what that includes like R&D, marketing, moneyhats, etc. But they claimed it was proble so reasonable to assumme the headset itself was not sold at a loss.
PSVR might have made a marginal profit from a production standpoint. R&D, marketing, etc... was a loss on top of that. It's the only way the math makes sense.

PSVR2 will be largely the same albeit to a lesser degree.
 
So at first:

I claimed that you said that it was profitable until 2018?

And now, I’ve claimed that you said it wasn’t until 2018?

How would you interpret the following quote?

"And some say the opposite, I am doubtful on profitability, i could see break even around 2018"​


As I said before, the rest of the paragraph you cut off would have solved your artificial confusion.

No matter how you was or wasn't your position is wrong based on reading incorrectly. The fact I brought up how it was sitting on shelves post 2018 makes it VERY clear what I was talking about and you're arguing in bad faith at best.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/gami...n-handheld-is-baffling.1652031/post-267572593
And some say the opposite, I am doubtful on profitability, i could see break even around 2018, but that was when things were down and the headset was stagnating, and since then PSVR1 has been effectively dead with stock sitting on shelves, and software sales were never that pretty, Beat Saber was still a top game on the system, but Sony never revealed any million sellers at all.

As far as we know CREED, Beat Saber, and Among Us are the only major VR titles to cross 1 million units on any headsets/platforms.

Looks pretty clear to me.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
PSVR might have made a marginal profit from a production standpoint. R&D, marketing, etc... was a loss on top of that. It's the only way the math makes sense.

PSVR2 will be largely the same albeit to a lesser degree.
None of us know that. The move controllers and the camera's R&D came from the PS3 era. And they made 30% of all PSVR game sales to cover the marketing cost.
 
Last edited:
As I said before, the rest of the paragraph you cut off would have solved your artificial confusion.

No matter how you was or wasn't your position is wrong based on reading incorrectly. The fact I brought up how it was sitting on shelves post 2018 makes it VERY clear what I was talking about and you're arguing in bad faith at best.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/gamingbolt-sony’s-decision-to-make-psvr2-over-a-playstation-handheld-is-baffling.1652031/post-267572593


Looks pretty clear to me.


I’m arguing in bad faith? My confusion is not artificial, it’s legit. I’m confused. You’re making an assumption about profitability or lack thereof based on gobblydook reasoning. I didn’t include what you said because it’s 100% irrelevant. It doesn’t prove your point nor support it. Why include it?

You’re being dodgy about your profitability statement. It doesn’t matter what your explanation is because it isn’t grounded in facts or source.

You ultimately feel as if it wasn’t profitable, and no, It doesn’t look clear.

You’ve also gone back and fourth on what I’ve claimed you said. Several times. I’ve been consistent this whole time.

You won’t answer a direct question about what you meant regarding profitability. It’s like you’re attempting to confuse and muddy the conversation. It’s not that hard.

Just so we’re clear, I’m not trying to win anything.

At this point, it’s not even a discussion about if it was profitable, it’s become about your statement regarding profitability.
 
None of us know that. The move controllers and the camera's R&D came from the PS3 era. And they made 30% of all PSVR game sales to cover the marketing cost.
Right, which leaves us with two possibilities. They either

A. Put almost no R&D into the rest of the set, and sold relatively crap hardware. Which resulted in profits.

B. Spent significantly on R&D, which resulted in better hardware. Which wouldn't result in profits.

Sony didn't invest in VR to make immediate profits. They did so to get in the VR door early, so that they could dominate later on should the market pan out.
 
Last edited:
I’m arguing in bad faith? My confusion is not artificial, it’s legit. I’m confused

It's artificial. You misread something that was clearly written and now walking back. You spend several posts trying to argue with me over a part of my post by ignoring the rest of the paragraph you highlighted in your photo. There's nothing confusing about the paragraph at all if you read the whole thing, it's very clear I believe there wasn't profit since 2018 based on logical reasoning giving the low margins and common losses made on VR headsets, which has gotten worse over time, and due to the fact Sony pulled support after the first few years, with no other price cuts, with units collecting dust, even more so after Quest 1 released, and triple when Quest 2 released. Most PSVR2's were sold within the first 3 years, and then reached too until 2019 to reach 4.2 million, and 5 million Jan 2020, and radio silence since.

Right, which leaves us with two possibilities. They either

A. Put almost no R&D into the rest of the set, and sold relatively crap hardware. Which resulted in profits.

B. Spent significantly on R&D, which resulted in better hardware. Which wouldn't result in profits.

Sony didn't invest in VR to make immediate profits. They did so to get in the VR door early, so that they could dominate later on should the market pan out.

Yes, this is what many VR companies did back then. It was a loss-leading strategy aiming to be first past the post.
 
It's artificial. You misread something that was clearly written and now walking back. You spend several posts trying to argue with me over a part of my post by ignoring the rest of the paragraph you highlighted in your photo. There's nothing confusing about the paragraph at all if you read the whole thing, it's very clear I believe there wasn't profit since 2018 based on logical reasoning giving the low margins and common losses made on VR headsets, which has gotten worse over time, and due to the fact Sony pulled support after the first few years, with no other price cuts, with units collecting dust, even more so after Quest 1 released, and triple when Quest 2 released. Most PSVR2's were sold within the first 3 years, and then reached too until 2019 to reach 4.2 million, and 5 million Jan 2020, and radio silence since.



Yes, this is what many VR companies did back then. It was a loss-leading strategy aiming to be first past the post.

Clearly written? Where? Walking what back? Where? You do know there is a quote function right? Use it. Show me.

Please see exhibit A:
(Your post in question and the source of my confusion)

Depends on their margins, PSVR 2 is likely more costly to make than 1, and that price with the current economic situation won't bring in as much as if the PSVR1 costed $549 in 2018. The same goes for the more costly games.

They want to cement an audience that could grow so they can ride the growth of the industry if it takes off, that seems to be the goal of almost every company in VR right now other than those who are intentionally targeting a niche with limited units for profits.



No it was Samsung with their GEAR VR partnering with Oculus to use their tech. So in a way Quest has been the leader since the inception, with a side of Samsung.



And some say the opposite, I am doubtful on profitability, i could see break even around 2018, but that was when things were down and the headset was stagnating, and since then PSVR1 has been effectively dead with stock sitting on shelves, and software sales were never that pretty, Beat Saber was still a top game on the system, but Sony never revealed any million sellers at all.​


As far as we know CREED, Beat Saber, and Among Us are the only major VR titles to cross 1 million units on any headsets/platforms.


Strawman argument 1:
(Making claims that I said xyz)

You claimed I said it wasn't until 2018, which ends the same, you misread. I said it's been dead since 2018, and I doubt there's been any breakeven since then, IF that was the case. hence the many posts before you jumped in saying "since 2018" ...
I never made any such claim, you pulled this from your bum.

Strawman argument 2:
(Making another claim that says I said xyz)

The rest of that paragraph you didn't highlight literally debunks you.

It literally says "I am doubtful" on profitability and "I could see break even around 2018 BUT" and then "Since then effectively dead with stock sitting on the shelves".

Nowhere does it say I thought it was profitable UNTIL 2018, only that I "COULD SEE" it break even in 2018, and then being dead since then. Which is why I brought up in multiple previous posts when people brought up profitability about if it was ever profitable "SINCE 2018".
Again, I never made any such claim, another tale plucked from your bum.

And furthermore, I am not the only confused by your post regarding profitability. If anyone is walking anything back, it's you. I have not waffled one single time, I have actually doubled down on it. Articles were provided as source that showed profitability out the gate, you casted doubt, and claimed that you could see break even in 2018 as referenced in the above quote. But I will provide it here:

"And some say the opposite, I am doubtful on profitability, i could see break even around 2018, but that was when things were down and the headset was stagnating, and since then PSVR1 has been effectively dead with stock sitting on shelves, and software sales were never that pretty, Beat Saber was still a top game on the system, but Sony never revealed any million sellers at all."​


One more time, what I have been saying:

"And some say the opposite, I am doubtful on profitability, i could see break even around 2018"​

"and some say the opposite" was your response to an article that showed profitability in 2016.
"I am doubtful on profitability" - Your hot take.
"I could see break even around 2018" - Another hot take, despite sources saying nah, profit out the gate bruh.

It doesn't matter if it stagnated, that late in the cycle, costs GO DOWN due to continuous process improvements, iterations, etc.

Again, we're no longer arguing if it was or was not profitable, it's an argument about what you 100% clearly said, which you are saying you didn't say. It's fine, this debate will have to remain unsolved, for me at least.
 

THE DUCK

voted poster of the decade by bots
Imagine spending loads of money on an oled TV to play on a tiny screen. Nope that wouldn't be me.

Great decision jimbo

Imagine owning an oled at home and wanting to play games on the go, or occasionally in the bedroom where there is no ps5. That would be me and lot of other people. Or imagine a person who doesn't own a ps5 but wants something portable. Open your mind a bit.
 

Kumomeme

Member
i can see why Sony dont want to create handheld. they doesnt want to split their studio resource. or form additional studio/team. currently they can focused on only 1 scope of development which is home console level of games. from there, they can keep pushed foward without looking back

on this aspect, Nintendo's idea behind Switch is brilliant. they unified both handheld and home console at once and they can develop game for both simultaneusly without need to splitting or expanding their resources.
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Imagine owning an oled at home and wanting to play games on the go, or occasionally in the bedroom where there is no ps5. That would be me and lot of other people. Or imagine a person who doesn't own a ps5 but wants something portable. Open your mind a bit.

Then this device just isn't for them then. Not all devices are for everybody.
 
Again, we're no longer arguing if it was or was not profitable, it's an argument about what you 100% clearly said, which you are saying you didn't say. It's fine, this debate will have to remain unsolved, for me at least.

Nonsense, you're back pedaling and changing what the argument was because you misread.

This is what I said, that YOU quoted when you jumped into the conversation without reading first,
So not since 2018? You guys seem to be going around what I actually said in the post,



Unless you guys believe 2016 is after 2018 that is.

This is your first response,

What exactly are you saying?

Your argument is that PSVR was not profitable. Not at least until 2018 once it hit the break even point (your words).

2016 comes before 2017. 2017 before 2018, etc. we have articles before 2018. Before 2017, that clearly says that it was profitable.

You clearly did not read jack.

This was the original post I made before you jumped in,

And some say the opposite, I am doubtful on profitability, i could see break even around 2018, but that was when things were down and the headset was stagnating, and since then PSVR1 has been effectively dead with stock sitting on shelves, and software sales were never that pretty, Beat Saber was still a top game on the system, but Sony never revealed any million sellers at all.

As far as we know CREED, Beat Saber, and Among Us are the only major VR titles to cross 1 million units on any headsets/platforms.

The only thing unsolved is why you keep acting like you didn't misread and pretended to actually read the post. It's 100% clear I said that the headset was stagnant since 2018, sitting on shelves, which was the source of me doubting it's profitability.

You came in confused from the start, bringing up 2016 and 2017 when I was never talking about before 2018, because you didn't read the post, you changed your argument and backtracked several times, and now made up a completely new argument that was never made out of context to make it look like you actually had a valid position the first place, with giant letter text. All that "profit out the gate brah" tlak when I was never talking about out the gate, I was talking about SINCE 2018

You're making a simple issue complicated. Why do you think I used the word "but" next to 2018 in the post? Because I "could see" profits in 2018 though doubt it because 2018 is WHEN THINGS WERE DOWN AND THE HEADSET WAS STAGNATING. Therefore I doubted profit SINCE 2018, as in AFTER.

A link to profits before 2018 doesn't prove there was profits at or after 2018, that's been the fatal flaw of all users trying to use that as an indicator.
 
Last edited:
Nonsense, you're back pedaling and changing what the argument was because you misread.

This is what I said, that YOU quoted when you jumped into the conversation without reading first,


This is your first response,



You clearly did not read jack.

This was the original post I made before you jumped in,



The only thing unsolved is why you keep acting like you didn't misread and pretended to actually read the post. It's 100% clear I said that the headset was stagnant since 2018, sitting on shelves, which was the source of me doubting it's profitability.

You came in confused from the start, bringing up 2016 and 2017 when I was never talking about before 2018, because you didn't read the post, you changed your argument and backtracked several times, and now made up a completely new argument that was never made out of context to make it look like you actually had a valid position the first place, with giant letter text. All that "profit out the gate brah" tlak when I was never talking about out the gate, I was talking about SINCE 2018

You're making a simple issue complicated.

At this point, all of the things I've accused you of, you're accusing me of.

michael fassbender perfection GIF


PSVR was profitable. The end.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom