So really it's around £390 but that's a decent price point for what I think is probably a good entry level system.
Considering you can probably get this full experience from scratch for around £600-700 it's a bargain in comparison to just a headset for that price.
Still pricy to rule out a lot of casual gamers but cheap enough for many to buy it and see.
Its a good price and, though its not for me, I'm happy a mainstream adoption will drive VR game development. Hopefully developers will target the big hitter HMDs and then scale their games down for the technically inferior PSVR - just like the current PC market... 
There will be a lot of segmentation of the hardware though. Some will / will not have PSVR, some will / will not have Move. Tough time for developers who aim for the lowest common denominator. Could result in tacked on VR experiences and party games - not good for VR.
Please Sony watch the exclusives. They contributed to the death of 3d TV (e.g. Avatar being exclusive to Panasonic TVs). Its bad for the market in general!
Bought myself a cheap HOTAS.
Anyone recommend any VR flying fun? Am I right assuming there's no point getting Elite until I've got a CV1?
I am a bit confused with the Sony VR - it is 120hz, which is good, and 1080p, which isn't so good.But Playstation games can barely hit 60 fps at 1080p, let alone 120 - will that mean the PS VR games will be reasonably basic?
That's my expectation - don't expect the latest call of duty to be vr capable. They may introduce different settings, where graphics options are automatically reduced when a headset is plugged in
The PSVR comes with a hardware box add on which will add more power.
Your head movement is somehow captured at 120fps yet the game world moves along at 60fps. Not sure how that works but thats the magic trick going on apparently.
That the hardware box brings any meaningful gaming processing power... I'm calling that bogus!
asynchronous time warp is a thing, and when supported works really well.I can see why it is something sony are heavily invested in given it is likely their in game framerates are likely to tank more than on a high end pc.
when it works tho it is a thing of magic.... try fly inside fsx.. FSX is a pig on your hardware, on my i5 2500k @ 4.3ghz (the game is apparently largely cpu bound) and a GTX 980 i regularly had framerates of 50fps or less.
but flyinside tracked my head movements at a solid 75fps all the time, and as such meant that untill the actual game frame rate got to around the 40fps mark, it was a fully comfortable experience.
They would have to running at a big loss if that hardware box has anything meaningful in it (maybe they have a basic gfx chip in there to run it in "sli".)