Support NeoGAF

[Henry Panic]

You must have missed CES 2023, thing was almost exclusively about new headsets from countless brands.

All nobodies and Chinese companies, some which aren't even releasing outside the country with no software.

Before you had a ton of headsets crowds of people were buying with wall to wall media coverage of big and small brands people knew. Not a muted event at CES were half the VR headsets weren't covered by the media unless you went to a niche enthusiast site.

There is no excitement in social circles like before.

 

[Henry Panic]

Alright go check the ot and tell me what tech demos and experiences people are playing.

Which has to do with output how? You also ignored I was talking current games for all headsets active now.

Nice people are playing GT7, but it doesn't make the other 89% of current VR games disappear that are the same experiences people gave up before.

 

[Crayon]

Which has to do with output how? You also ignored I was talking current games for all headsets active now.

Nice people are playing GT7, but it doesn't make the other 89% of current VR games disappear that are the same experiences people gave up before.

It's been a long time and those games aren't just going to disappear. Your criticism works for PC games in general.

Nobody cares about the worst games on a platform. They care about the best. Now deny that.

 

[systemr123]

All nobodies and Chinese companies, some which aren't even releasing outside the country with no software.

Before you had a ton of headsets crowds of people were buying with wall to wall media coverage of big and small brands people knew. Not a muted event at CES were half the VR headsets weren't covered by the media unless you went to a niche enthusiast site.

There is no excitement in social circles like before.

Maybe not in your circle and it doesn’t surprise me if so.

 

[gothmog]

Except Facebook has (for now) investment interest, the devs, and the numbers, though retention admissions are having some do double takes. If they can figure out a way to keep what they have and gain profit from somewhere they are going to be kings of VR for some time. Sony needed to be aggressive like PSVR1 if they wanted to lead the market as they aimed for before. If they have changed to just trying to sell a product to a select userbase and possibly break even, then it's also unlikely they are going to push hard into investing in the medium like people are hoping outside the occasional Call of the Wild and GT7 modes.

Facebook is hemorrhaging money. Sure they have a ton of it but lets not pretend the company is in a good place. There was just rumors of further layoff and budget cuts because of this metaverse/VR bet.

PSVR2 is a gaming platform. Meta is trying to recreate Ready Player One. Sony is not only more realistic but will probably show actual forward progress towards making VR at the very least a viable gaming platform.

 

[Ozriel]

they were already 5 million units sold in January 2020.

Does look like it didn’t get the general hardware sales uplift during the pandemic.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Facebook is losing billions on VR and their attrition numbers are awful

We have no idea how much Sony lost during 6-7 years of PSVR1 or their retention rates, we know their software isn't very good and Sony has avoided addressing that so they may not have made much from software to reduce whatever hardware they lost. Especially since late 2018 where it appears they kind of pulled back on support and PSVR1 has been coasting since then until now. Those units unsold on shelves, that didn't already stop ordering have to cost money after a time.

Facebook is moving stuff even if it's not bringing in profits or getting customers to stay in and spend long term. However, if they were to find a way to do so they are currently in the best position.

Will they? Probably not. I don't thin Zucker gets it and he's still throwing millions away on stuff like Horizon.

Are you sure? I'm not asking for you to go dig it up for me or anything. I just remember trying to get anyone to spit it out and hardly got anything back.

edit: was there ever a poll for it? I'm vaguely remembering that.

You and 12 other people were in those threads including Sawyer arguing that they would sell 10-15 million headsets.

Quest 1 could of been around 1 million, but I'm refering to Quest2. Basically psvr was out for a while and was in the 'lead'.

Looks like the moment the Quest2 released, PSVR sales seems fell down by this data.

Quest2 is essentially sold around 10:1 in the same time period. Guess is was due time for PSVR2

The reason why I said that is because Quest 2 was not out when PS4 sold 4 million. Quest 1 was the only device available.

 

[Crayon]

We have no idea how much Sony lost during 6-7 years of PSVR1 or their retention rates, we know their software isn't very good and Sony has avoided addressing that so they may not have made much from software to reduce whatever hardware they lost. Especially since late 2018 where it appears they kind of pulled back on support and PSVR1 has been coasting since then until now. Those units unsold on shelves, that didn't already stop ordering have to cost money after a time.

Facebook is moving stuff even if it's not bringing in profits or getting customers to stay in and spend long term. However, if they were to find a way to do so they are currently in the best position.

Will they? Probably not. I don't thin Zucker gets it and he's still throwing millions away on stuff like Horizon.



You and 12 other people were in those threads including Sawyer arguing that they would sell 10-15 million headsets.



The reason why I said that is because Quest 2 was not out when PS4 sold 4 million. Quest 1 was the only device available.

Okay no. There's no fuckin way I said 10 to 15. I had to think about it for a while to land on 5 to 10 and I stuck with it.

 

[MrA]

they were already 5 million units sold in January 2020.

Does look like it didn’t get the general hardware sales uplift during the pandemic.

That could have been due to the same manufacturing issues sony had with the ps4, can't sell a product you don't build
I wonder if sony sells the headsets at a profit, if they do its a pretty easy niche to keep viable

 

[mckmas8808]

They should sell it in stores and online on Amazon/Walmart if they want to sell more. Many people don't even know it's out.

Feb. 22nd was a soft launch for a reason. I'm assuming it'll be in stores during the holiday later this year. Maybe October at the earliest.

 

[mckmas8808]

VR is niche. I'm glad you guys enjoy it, but it's not the future just like 3D TVs you had to wear glasses over your glasses was not the future.

VR is being used by more people than 3D TVs were being used for actual 3D purposes.

You and 12 other people were in those threads including Sawyer arguing that they would sell 10-15 million headsets.

You may be thinking about me. I said\believe that PSVR2 needs to sell over 10 million to be deemed a runaway success. I think it can do 10 - 15 million in 4 years if Sony keeps their foot on the gas. They'll need to lower the price by the end of the first year on sale though. It's gotta get down to $400 some way, somehow.

With the defacto PS5 costing $399 later this year when Sony (probably) moves to a digital-only console with an attachable disc drive for sale......this will only be a good thing for their VR device.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

They'll need to lower the price by the end of the first year on sale though. It's gotta get down to $400 some way, somehow.

If Sony wanted to race Zucker to the bottom, they would have launched the SVR2 at $299, or $399 (the same price as the original PSVR and the price you mentioned) and probably would have had retail promos for new buyers and possibly a $800 bundle with the PS5 ($900 for reg PS5).

I have no doubt that Sony priced PSVR2 not only above PSVR1, but above the PS5 by $50, because those margins are near non-existent. A sudden drop by $150, more for the Horizon Bundle, to reach $400 can't possibly be making much money, if not losing it.

 

[yurinka]

Realistically, without killer app, I can see this selling a bit less than psvr1 (ps4 install base was almost 5x vs current ps5 install base), also we are expecting multiple pc enabled headsets to hit the market, so the competition is also bigger. Hitting PSVR1 would be a huge success for PSVR2.

This one is cheaper than PSVR1 and in a few months PS5 will have a larger installbase than PS4 launch aligned. It has killer apps like Gran Turismo or Resident Evil.

I have no doubt that Sony priced PSVR2 not only above PSVR1, but above the PS5 by $50, because those margins are near non-existent.

PSVR2 is cheaper than the full kit needed for PSVR1 was.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

This one is cheaper than PSVR1 and in a few months PS5 will have a larger installbase than PS4 launch aligned. It has killer apps like Gran Turismo or Resident Evil.


PSVR2 is cheaper than the full kit needed for PSVR1 was.

Not for many people, but that's not what I was talking about.

As you quoted, I was talking about Sony's profit margins, and mentioning how it's $549 probably because they needed to sell it at that price, and having them drop the price to $400 by the "end of the year" would probably be Sony taking losses.

If Sony wanted to race to the bottom to get market share, then I doubt they would have launched it at $549, or higher with a bundle. They probably would have released it at $399 from the start.

 

[mckmas8808]

If Sony wanted to race Zucker to the bottom, they would have launched the SVR2 at $299, or $399 (the same price as the original PSVR and the price you mentioned) and probably would have had retail promos for new buyers and possibly a $800 bundle with the PS5 ($900 for reg PS5).

I have no doubt that Sony priced PSVR2 not only above PSVR1, but above the PS5 by $50, because those margins are near non-existent. A sudden drop by $150, more for the Horizon Bundle, to reach $400 can't possibly be making much money, if not losing it.

I was clearly talking about dropping the price without game being bundled. I do agree that $150 seems too steep though. Just dreaming I guess. $500 seems more likely.

 

[Kupfer]

If Sony wanted to race Zucker to the bottom, they would have launched the SVR2 at $299, or $399 (the same price as the original PSVR and the price you mentioned) and probably would have had retail promos for new buyers and possibly a $800 bundle with the PS5 ($900 for reg PS5).

I have no doubt that Sony priced PSVR2 not only above PSVR1, but above the PS5 by $50, because those margins are near non-existent. A sudden drop by $150, more for the Horizon Bundle, to reach $400 can't possibly be making much money, if not losing it.

The PSVR2 is cheaper today than the PSVR1 was when it was released

[...] the "big" bundle with move controllers and camera cost $500 in 2016, which would be an inflation-adjusted $623.25 today.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

I was clearly talking about dropping the price without game being bundled. I do agree that $150 seems too steep though. Just dreaming I guess. $500 seems more likely.

Nothing I said is against what you said so I don't get this. I explained why they likely chose $549 in the first place, making a large price drop pretty unlikely.

The PSVR2 is cheaper today than the PSVR1 was when it was released

That's not how inflation works. The money's value is down, this is something people continue to get wrong.

In the 2010 it was easier to buy an item for $500 than in 2019, and it's harder now than 2019 in 2023. Because Inflation is basically an inevitable tax on your income and monetary value. So the adjusted for inflation nonsense doesn't make sense. decades ago when there was a booming economy and people could do more with their money to dispose, adjusted for inflation half that shit costs a kings ransom, but you'd have to be dumb to argue that the same stuff is "cheaper" now because the inflated price is higher than the cost today.

Not to mention 15 million move users wouldn't have to get the big bundle the same bundle that dropped in price that everyone keeps forgetting about.

Anyway, the point of the post you quoted since you went off subject, was Sony likely launched PSVR2 at $549 ($50 more than PS5) for a reason. Likely bad margins and they couldn't sell it cheaper without taking the hit. $150 price decrease by the "end of the year" as said by other user is definitely incredibly unlikely unless it's a desperation sale, but it's way too early. We haven't even gotten Q1 VR sales report yet before we assume panic.

 

[Shubh_C63]

It will be a dark day when PSVR outsolds regular consoles.

I wish it never ever happens, not even at 20 years.

 

[midnightAI]

It will be a dark day when PSVR outsolds regular consoles.

I wish it never ever happens, not even at 20 years.

Doesnt that depend on what VR is in 20 years?

 

[K2D]

It will be a dark day when PSVR outsolds regular consoles.

I wish it never ever happens, not even at 20 years.

VR has the potential of being as popular as arcade machines and rollercoasters - and beyond.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Nothing I said is against what you said so I don't get this. I explained why they likely chose $549 in the first place, making a large price drop pretty unlikely.



That's not how inflation works. The money's value is down, this is something people continue to get wrong.

In the 2010 it was easier to buy an item for $500 than in 2019, and it's harder now than 2019 in 2023. Because Inflation is basically an inevitable tax on your income and monetary value. So the adjusted for inflation nonsense doesn't make sense. decades ago when there was a booming economy and people could do more with their money to dispose, adjusted for inflation half that shit costs a kings ransom, but you'd have to be dumb to argue that the same stuff is "cheaper" now because the inflated price is higher than the cost today.

Not to mention 15 million move users wouldn't have to get the big bundle the same bundle that dropped in price that everyone keeps forgetting about.

Anyway, the point of the post you quoted since you went off subject, was Sony likely launched PSVR2 at $549 ($50 more than PS5) for a reason. Likely bad margins and they couldn't sell it cheaper without taking the hit. $150 price decrease by the "end of the year" as said by other user is definitely incredibly unlikely unless it's a desperation sale, but it's way too early. We haven't even gotten Q1 VR sales report yet before we assume panic.

You're missing that incomes tend to go along with inflation as well.

You have no idea what their margins are. The PSVR1 dropped in price REALLY quickly, so unless you think Sony took a major hit on PSVR1 sales and decided to double down on it with PSVR2, you can assume that it's being sold at a healthy margin.

PSVR2 will also likely drop in price relatively soon.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Doesnt that depend on what VR is in 20 years?

Yeah, if we're dealing with holodecks in 20 years, I'm playing that over Gotham Knights...

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

You're missing that incomes tend to go along with inflation as well.

Incomes are declining from inflation, which is even what the Fed said and is part of the justification for the hikes.

You have no idea what their margins are. The PSVR1 dropped in price REALLY quickly, so unless you think Sony took a major hit on PSVR1 sales and decided to double down on it with

PSVR and the PSVR big bundle both dropped in price. PSVR1 also sold 2 million in just over a year with a large install base PS4, that also was reduced price. I also find it Ironic you say I don't know what their margins are, but then followed that with your perspective as if you do.

PSVR2 will also likely drop in price relatively soon.

Comparing to PSVR1 and PSVR2 which are in two completely different situations and pretending you can use the first to gauge that sony will quickly drop PSVR2's price, the headset not during a VR boom fad, that is also not $50 more than the base console which HASN'T has a price cut yet, and is trying to get it off the ground, doesn't make sense.

What happened to PSVR1 made sense for the market at the time, using your logic Sony would have had no reason to release it at $549 outside of greed and monetizing users.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

In the 2010 it was easier to buy an item for $500 than in 2019, and it's harder now than 2019 in 2023

That’s NOT how inflation works

Lol

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Incomes are declining from inflation, which is even what the Fed said and is part of the justification for the hikes.



PSVR and the PSVR big bundle both dropped in price. PSVR1 also sold 2 million in just over a year with a large install base PS4, that also was reduced price. I also find it Ironic you say I don't know what their margins are, but then followed that with your perspective as if you do.



Comparing to PSVR1 and PSVR2 which are in two completely different situations and pretending you can use the first to gauge that sony will quickly drop PSVR2's price, the headset not during a VR boom fad, that is also not $50 more than the base console which HASN'T has a price cut yet, and is trying to get it off the ground, doesn't make sense.

What happened to PSVR1 made sense for the market at the time, using your logic Sony would have had no reason to release it at $549 outside of greed and monetizing users.

Neither of us know what the margin is, which is my point. Yet I never made an assumption of what it was, while you did.

Incomes are keeping up with inflation yet, but once inflation is brought under control you'll see incomes rise generally to meet it over time.

Precedence is the only thing we have to go on and is much better than your baseless speculation.

Releasing it for 550 for early adopters makes sense and isn't greedy. It's how you make an ecosystem work, making it as profitable as you can.

 

[mckmas8808]

Nothing I said is against what you said so I don't get this. I explained why they likely chose $549 in the first place, making a large price drop pretty unlikely.

I was agreeing with you lol.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Neither of us know what the margin is, which is my point. Yet I never made an assumption of what it was, while you did.

and yet said this,

so unless you think Sony took a major hit on PSVR1 sales and decided to double down on it with PSVR2, you can assume that it's being sold at a healthy margin.

Based on nothing, The projection.

That’s NOT how inflation works

Lol

You should write to the financial professionals and government finances officials and tell them that then so they can learn from James Sawyer, banking expert.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

and yet said this,



Based on nothing, The projection.



You should write to the financial professionals and government finances officials and tell them that then so they can learn from James Sawyer, banking expert.

Based on nothing, the company moved forward with another model, but they don't have their own financials?

 

[mckmas8808]

Incomes are declining from inflation, which is even what the Fed said and is part of the justification for the hikes.


Comparing to PSVR1 and PSVR2 which are in two completely different situations and pretending you can use the first to gauge that sony will quickly drop PSVR2's price, the headset not during a VR boom fad, that is also not $50 more than the base console which HASN'T has a price cut yet, and is trying to get it off the ground, doesn't make sense.

Nominal incomes are actually going up. They just can't keep up with inflation. It's literally easier for people to buy a device for $500 today, than it would have in 2016. That's mainly due to the fact that people in general make more money today. At least in America we do. The FED had to raise interest rates, literally due to incomes and cash inflows being too high.

While the first VR boom did happen in 2015 or so, I'd say it's very obvious that the VR tech and the software is alot better now and more ready to be taken advantage of.

Plus the PS5 is NOT "trying to get off the ground" as you said. It's selling bananas. Plus the fake price cut will be coming later this year according to rumors when the only PS5 that will be for sale will be the PS5 digital-only system. With the disc drive selling seperately.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Based on nothing, the company moved forward with another model, but they don't have their own financials?

You're assuming PVR2 is being sold at a healthy margin based on nothing, you're shifting out of your comment now.

Nominal incomes are actually going up. They just can't keep up with inflation.

Which means they are down. If I get a 5% raise and Inflation is 10% then I don't have a gain.

This is explained similarly over and over again by every expert and officials have admitted inflation is preventing real wage growth, this isn't really disputable.

The FED had to raise interest rates, literally due to incomes and cash inflows being too high.

Debunked excuse but won't go further as that seems to be going into the other category.

While the first VR boom did happen in 2015 or so, I'd say it's very obvious that the VR tech and the software is alot better now and more ready to be taken advantage of.

Which has nothing to do with that fact that 2016-17 almost everyone was buying VR even if it was cardboard junk, stores were filled with them and marketing by several companies even ones not making VR because it was hot, demos everywhere, mainstream news coverage everywhere, and died off when people shifted their priories and realized where VR actually was instead of what was presented or promised.

We have not had multiple competitive well selling VR headsets since, a large consumer base is just gone except some that came back to Quest 2, and PSVR1 benefitted from that time being when PS4 was taking off and the VR boom leading to 2 million in short time, none of that is happening now. None.

Heck in some places you can't even get a PSVR2 unless it's direct, there's not much marketing, nearly no demos outside some countries, and there is no big attraction for general audiences to run back to VR again. The last time we almost got that was at the time of Quest 1 into Quest 2, but we saw consolidation instead.

I would be incredibly impressed if PSVR2 could sell 2 million in 14-15 months, and that's EXCLUDING the fact there's like 50,000 other headsets releasing this year.

Plus the PS5 is NOT "trying to get off the ground" as you said.

You know you have a bad argument when you know I didn't say this but decided to make up I did anyway. Very clearly the item that is "$50 more than the base console" is the PSVR2 not the PS5, but ok.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

You should write to the financial professionals and government finances officials and tell them that then so they can learn from James Sawyer, banking expert.

The financial professionals and government would agree with me

It is easier to come up with $500 in 2023 than it was in 2010 due to inflation

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

You're assuming PVR2 is being sold at a healthy margin based on nothing, you're shifting out of your comment now.

We can assume that the BOM of PSVR2 is substantially lower than Quest 2 because it does not need as much onboard processing or batteries. Additionally Sony is an electronics company and can source many components in-house and has far greater expertise in manufacturing and assembly

There’s no doubt in my mind Sony is profitable on PSVR2 hardware

 

[DenchDeckard]

Any indication of how it is performing so far?

I imagine its too early for any statements from Sony.

 

[DeepEnigma]

We can assume that the BOM of PSVR2 is substantially lower than Quest 2 because it does not need as much onboard processing or batteries. Additionally Sony is an electronics company and can source many components in-house and has far greater expertise in manufacturing and assembly

There’s no doubt in my mind Sony is profitable on PSVR2 hardware

Sony was profitable pretty much right away on the first PSVR.

2016 at launch:

Sony Confirms PlayStation VR is Being Sold at a Profit

www.dualshockers.com

2019:

Playstation VR Has Made Sony Nearly $2 Billion

The Playstation VR is estimated to have made about 2 billion in revenue as of November 2019.

www.thegamer.com

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

It is easier to come up with $500 in 2023 than it was in 2010 due to inflation

Except it's not and that's the exact opposite you say.

Again, the booming economy decades ago is incredibly high with inflation, but the value of the money was more, it was easier and less detrimental to finances to spend, more to dispose, you're basically saying that the same items would be cheaper now, yet it's the same items people are struggling to get and are having issues reaching. Rampant inflation is not making it "easier" to spend or buy the same stuff for $500 without any sort of big hit to the average consumers finances.

We can assume that the BOM of PSVR2 is substantially lower than Quest 2 because it does not need as much onboard processing or batteries. Additionally Sony is an electronics company and can source many components in-house and has far greater expertise in manufacturing and assembly

And yet it launched it $50 more than the console that needs to run it, said base they revised at least 2-3 times to lower costs.

Sony was profitable pretty much right away on the first PSVR.

2016 at launch:

Doesn't have much to do with PSVR2 but ok. I would be shocked if PSVR2 sells 2 million just over a year like PSVR1.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Doesn't have much to do with PSVR2 but ok.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Except it's not and that's the exact opposite you say.

Again, the booming economy decades ago is incredibly high with inflation, but the value of the money was more, it was easier and less detrimental to finances to spend, more to dispose, you're basically saying that the same items would be cheaper now, yet it's the same items people are struggling to get and are having issues reaching. Rampant inflation is not making it "easier" to spend or buy the same stuff for $500 without any sort of big hit to the average consumers finances.

The economy in 2010 was not booming; it was right after the global financial crisis

Unemployment in 2010 was MUCH higher than in 2023, and average wages were less

How exactly is $500 more difficult in 2023 than 2010?

What you stated makes ZERO sense

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

And yet it launched it $50 more than the console that needs to run it, said base they revised at least 2-3 times to lower costs.

English?

How is this not proving my point?

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

English?

How is this not proving my point?

Because the PS5 isn't the PSVR2 and you're trying to conflate the two.

The economy in 2010 was not booming;

How is 2010 "decades" ago? You didn't even bother to read my post because of the aggressive defensive stance.

Again, the booming economy decades ago

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Because the PS5 isn't the PSVR2 and you're trying to conflate the two.



How is 2010 "decades" ago? You didn't even bother to read my post because of the aggressive defensive stance.

We were discussing 2010 pricing, not decades ago

Decades ago, $500 would have been much larger than it is now due to inflation

 

[Mibu no ookami]

You're assuming PVR2 is being sold at a healthy margin based on nothing, you're shifting out of your comment now.



Which means they are down. If I get a 5% raise and Inflation is 10% then I don't have a gain.

This is explained similarly over and over again by every expert and officials have admitted inflation is preventing real wage growth, this isn't really disputable.



Debunked excuse but won't go further as that seems to be going into the other category.



Which has nothing to do with that fact that 2016-17 almost everyone was buying VR even if it was cardboard junk, stores were filled with them and marketing by several companies even ones not making VR because it was hot, demos everywhere, mainstream news coverage everywhere, and died off when people shifted their priories and realized where VR actually was instead of what was presented or promised.

We have not had multiple competitive well selling VR headsets since, a large consumer base is just gone except some that came back to Quest 2, and PSVR1 benefitted from that time being when PS4 was taking off and the VR boom leading to 2 million in short time, none of that is happening now. None.

Heck in some places you can't even get a PSVR2 unless it's direct, there's not much marketing, nearly no demos outside some countries, and there is no big attraction for general audiences to run back to VR again. The last time we almost got that was at the time of Quest 1 into Quest 2, but we saw consolidation instead.

I would be incredibly impressed if PSVR2 could sell 2 million in 14-15 months, and that's EXCLUDING the fact there's like 50,000 other headsets releasing this year.



You know you have a bad argument when you know I didn't say this but decided to make up I did anyway. Very clearly the item that is "$50 more than the base console" is the PSVR2 not the PS5, but ok.

I'm not basing it on nothing. As I said, I'm basing it on Sony's decision to produce a successor. We'll see based on its price whether the margins have space for movement.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

We were discussing 2010 pricing, not decades ago

Um no, I repeated what i said before you jumped in on WHY your "easier with inflation" theory is 100% wrong. Decades ago the prices now would be much higher adjusted for inflation, yet it would have still be easier to spend and have value in your $500 or even $1000 with less detriment to your finances, so the same items that officials are noting Americans can not easily get now.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Um no, I repeated what i said before you jumped in on WHY your "easier with inflation" theory is 100% wrong. Decades ago the prices now would be much higher adjusted for inflation, yet it would have still be easier to spend and have value in your $500 or even $1000 with less detriment to your finances, so the same items that officials are noting Americans can not easily get now.

In 1993, $500 would cost a lot more than it does in 2023.

Why?

Wages were lower, expenses were lower, all the result of decades of compounding inflation since 1993

You are literally talking about something you have no clue about

Consoles launched at $199 or less back then

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Wages were lower, expenses were lower, all the result of decades of compounding inflation since 1993

You are literally talking about something you have no clue about

You're sabotaging your own argument in real time because you haven't been bothering to read mine at all because you keep jumping to defense without thinking.

You are basically arguing against me using official statements and information and arguing it back to me saying it's wrong when it's not. It is not "easier" to take a $500 hit in 2023, or be able to buy the same stuff, or be able to sustain a living, or be able to save, or etc, than in 1987 or whatever.

You're completely 100% wrong. No expert or official aggress with anything your saying, they all KNOW and say it was easier before than now. No one sane thinks that $500 or $1000 in 2023 does better, goes as far, or has similar currency relative worth than decades ago. No one.

You're basically arguing about nothing to try and justify the claim PSVR2 being cheaper than PSVR1 from 2016. When it's actually not for the average consumer right now compared to 2016, and you're removing all factors EXCEPT inflation adjustment so you can say "one number is bigger than the other" out of context with no other facts considered, to pretend that the PSVR2 is more accessible to consumers financially right now than the PSVR1 was in 2016-17 (when it's not).

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

It is not "easier" to take a $500 hit in 2023, or be able to buy the same stuff, or be able to sustain a living, or be able to save, or etc, than in 1987 or whatever.

Yes it absolutely is, if we are comparing $500 in 1993 to $500 in 2023

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Yes it absolutely is, if we are comparing $500 in 1993 to $500 in 2023

Which is the date you brought to your mind and not one I ever mentioned.

Again you are clearly on the defense here and are constructing your own talking points in real-time. We have officials saying everything I have with even media making comparisons to what you can do and how far you can go for a few years now. You even partially sabotaged your own argument by saying expenses were lower on a date I didn't even bring up.

Anyway, point is PSVR2 is not more accessible to consumers than the PSVR1 was in 2016 due to various factors that you are excluding. That are obvious and you know that.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Which is the date you brought to your mind and not one I ever mentioned.

You’ve mentioned multiple dates. 2010. Decades ago. Now 2016

Even compared to 2016, there’s been significant inflation. So for it to be more expensive you’d need to quantify that discretionary income is significantly less in a period of lower unemployment and higher wages to such an extent that it overrides the compounded inflation level

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

You’ve mentioned multiple dates. 2010. Decades ago. Now 2016

Ah you're trolling things out of context, thanks for confirming.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Ah you're trolling things out of context, thanks for confirming.

And you’re arguing based upon emotion and not empirical facts.

If $500 is more difficult to obtain now than in the past, compare the discretionary income for the average consumer now versus then and adjust that for inflation.

 

[mckmas8808]

Which means they are down. If I get a 5% raise and Inflation is 10% then I don't have a gain.

This is explained similarly over and over again by every expert and officials have admitted inflation is preventing real wage growth, this isn't really disputable.

We aren't talking about real wage growth. We are talking about wages in general. Not relative to inflation. The price of the full PSVR2 would be easier to afford today, than the price of the full PSVR 1. That's just plain obvious.

Which is the date you brought to your mind and not one I ever mentioned.

Again you are clearly on the defense here and are constructing your own talking points in real-time. We have officials saying everything I have with even media making comparisons to what you can do and how far you can go for a few years now. You even partially sabotaged your own argument by saying expenses were lower on a date I didn't even bring up.

Anyway, point is PSVR2 is not more accessible to consumers than the PSVR1 was in 2016 due to various factors that you are excluding. That are obvious and you know that.

Okay, so you are just going to play like you don't know what you're saying now huh? You're clearly not dumb, so why argue like this? Most in the videogame's media just hate to admit that either one of two things happened.....

1. More people had the Move controllers and camera than they want to admit

2. The true price of PSVR1 wasn't $399.