But you're right that the PlayStation VR appeals to the price conscious. Almost as much as not buying one ;)
I'm also pretty interested in VR, and am curious to try it out. But my PC would require about $1,200 in upgrades (I checked) in order to properly support the Rift or Vive, not to mention the cost of the unit itself, so I'm looking at at least a $2,000 investment to try VR at home on my PC (I am not counting trying it out somewhere else, I mean owning it and using it on my own time and terms)..
On the other hand, I could spend 500$ to get the PSVR and potentially breathe new life into my PS4?
Even if it's not the top-of-the-line experience, it's a pretty easy choice for someone like me who qualifies as a casual gamer but is pretty curious about this new tech, and wants to give it a shot for the lowest amount of investment.
I'm also not trying to match minimum spec, if I'm going to spend money upgrading for VR, I would want something that will last at least a few years, so I looked into (reasonably) top-of-the-line hardware.
970 is really not that much slower and then the whole machine is like $600 instead of $920.
The implication here, that there's no market for a $400 piece of video game hardware when more powerful hardware is available at higher price points, is pretty obviously wrong given the success of the PlayStation 4 itself.
The simple fact is, for the price of a Vive, you can get both a PS4 and a PSVR. And the $800 Vive requires a computer even more expensive than itself. This is not an insignificant difference.
But thats just the gateway drug to VR. From my perspective in the VR bubble I prefer more pixels.
I think the PSVR will have much better unit sales than Rift/Vive, but that the latter will provide tangible benefits to those that enjoy VR experiences.
Also don't forget their history as a game developer, which attributes an arguably Carmack-like reputation in 3D gaming.