Um, no, I've never been corrected on that to my knowledge. Because it's what they were reported to have said, exactly in those terms.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/09/18/tgs-2015-playstation-vr-to-be-priced-as-a-new-gaming-platform
I'm pretty sure I've covered it with you myself, but let's go over it
one last time, okay?
From the time Morpheus was announced,
Shu was saying that they considered it a platform rather than an accessory, and as such, it would be sold at cost rather than at profit, with Sony profiting on the back end from software sales.
Also in our interview with Yoshida today, the PlayStation executive addressed the matter of pricing for Project Morpheus. He wasn't ready to talk firm pricing plans, but he did say that you won't have to spend $1000 to get your hands on the device, as is the case with Sony's HMZ head-mounted display line.
According to Yoshida, the HMZ line is priced in such a way that Sony makes money on every unit sold. This model doesn't normally apply to game hardware, though, as consoles are often sold at or below cost, and become profitable with the sale of games, accessories, and services.
Yoshida said Sony often prices its gaming hardware lower than other non-gaming Sony devices and explained that he doesn't expect this to change with Project Morpheus. As such, Yoshida explained that a $1000 price point "doesn't necessarily indicate the pricing that we're gonna have" for Project Morpheus.
So from day one, Shu was making it perfectly clear they intended to sell at cost, and he explained precisely how that was gonna work. Then House
reiterated Shu's comment when he told Bloomberg that PSVR will be priced
as a new gaming platform, which is also what IGN reported, and indeed, is the very title of the URL you just provided.
House did
not say that PSVR will cost the same as a console costs. He said precisely what Shu said, they will be pricing it
as they do their console hardware at cost and for the same reason, to maximize adoption, thereby maximizing software sales down the road, which is where they
do make their money.
So are we clear now? From the beginning, Sony have been perfectly clear that they intend to sell PSVR at cost, and to my knowledge, have never given any indication as to what those costs may be, except that it won't necessarily be $1000. So will you
please stop saying they said it will cost just as much as a console?
The actual source quote doesn't make Iribe sound near as unsure as that article - in fact, Iribe says that "everybody agrees that if we can do it at cost that would be great for everybody". But more importantly, Palmer Luckey was saying "at cost' at the same time in very clear, solid words, and not once have they ever said otherwise.
http://www.stuff.tv/news/oculus-vr-founder-tells-stuff-were-going-sell-rift-cost-price
I went and checked the original source and thanks a lot for making me give Orland another click and it sounds just as up-in-the-air as The Verge made it sound, frankly.
It's also going to help bring down the final price of the consumer unit by scaling up the production, Iribe said. "I think [the Facebook buyout] is going to allow us to deliver consumer V1 at a lower cost, because we're not trying to drive a high margin on this," he said. "[Facebook CEO] Mark [Zuckerberg], especially, wants to bring the cost down, him more than me. I do, too, but at the same time we were planning to run a business, hopefully a break-even [or] profitable business off of this, not a money-losing business. Mark is much more in the mindset of 'Let's get this to scale with the best quality product at the lowest cost possible.'"
"I'm hopeful we're not going to be losing money on [the hardware], but I think everybody agrees that if we can do it at cost that would be great for everybody," Iribe continued. "As Mark says, as you start to get to race to scale there are a lot of opportunities to monetize that are really great for consumers, because they get a really low-cost product."
So yeah, he's clearly describing internal debate over the matter of pricing. Yes, Palmer is far more clear about them selling for cost, but he was making that claim on
precisely the same day his boss was saying, "Sure, that'd be lovely, but I dunno
"
But as I said, this was over a year ago, and it was shortly after the acquisition, so it's not surprising their plans weren't as firm as Sony's at that point; they simply hadn't had the same time to plan. That's why I asked if they had said anything more definitive since then. Personally, I've only heard that Palmer was reminding people that CV1 will be a lot nicer than DK2. That would seem to imply that it will cost more than the $350 that DK2 sold for, which would further imply that CV1 will be sold for a fairly healthy profit, since it almost certainly doesn't cost anywhere near $400 to actually build one.
I can't believe people are serious with these types of false equivalences.
Because for them, it's not a false equivalence at all. You say, "PSVR isn't an option because I have no PS4, nor any intention of buying one." The console gamer says, "Okay? Rift and Vive aren't options because I don't have a gaming PC, nor any intention of buying one. Vive won't work on my PlayStation or my iPhone, right? Pretty much locked to PC, right? So where does my equivalence become false?"
You're a PC guy, and that's fine, but don't try to pretend that PCs are superior to consoles in every way. It's just a user preference, and nothing more. Different products fit different people's needs differently, and that's fine too. That's why we have different products. But the fact that someone's preferences differ from yours is no reason to treat them like an idiot. Seems like a smart guy such as yourself should understand this stuff already though.
