I have argued what you are currently arguing in another thread on another site, however, I did qualify my argument with a concept of objective value. Though I believe you to be correct in saying that the value of a product to an individual is subjective, the object itself has inherent value based on the cost of producing it. This inherent or objective value is a value outside of the market, which is to say without the subjective value added or subtracted from the inherent value by a consumer or producer (e.g. a consumer says feature X is not/very important and so value it less/more; a producer says feature Y is broken/amazing let's charge less/more for it).
Though this might seem like a pointless application of value, that is the idea behind inherent value, value of the object as it is, without regard to outside forces. Though it might sound contrary to say the inherent value is the value of production, an outside force, it is not when you consider that without that particular outside force, the product would not exist. In essence, that outside force is the product and therefore has an inherent value, which is the value of production (which is the cost of production). And though production costs vary based on the market, this does not change the cost of making a product after it has already been made. And at that point you're getting picky about valuation (e.g. the cost of the screen was valued higher the time of production, making that feature, and consequently the entire product, of subjective value).
If Sony is charging less than the intrinsic value of the PSV, then, as an informed gamer, I will add or subtract subjective value to the intrinsic costs and see if the offered price is still lower. If it is, I'll buy it, if it is not, then I shall not buy it. This takes into account those completely put off by the PSV (subtract entire value based on subjectivity) and those who love it (add value of potential utility gained from the device and subtract nothing) and everyone in between. Everyone does this, though. Usually they do this with the offered price rather than the intrinsic cost since many things are sold for profit, but these additions and subtractions of subjective value to actual (production cost) or perceived (immediate cost) intrinsic value are subconscious and not done with solid numbers. I do it every time I consider purchasing something expensive. I believe the biggest problem is people who place far to much value in meaningless (to me) things like image, branding, and other things based on what is essentially social brainwashing.
I hope I have made a somewhat reasonable case for intrinsic value and haven't bored or angered you.
As for a company doing good things for it's consumers, I think that Sony and MS (to a lesser extent) tend to be better about this than Nintendo, since Nintendo, as far as I know, does not sell anything at a loss. And if one is a consumer of their products it stands to reason that one would be appreciative of discounts (and selling at a loss) on products they are interested in. Especially since the discounts only affect those who purchase the discounted goods. Apple has smaller profit margins than MS, actually, so it seems the intrinsic value of Apple products is fairly high.
tl;dr: Inherent value exists, but it is outside of the market, which might be useless. However, people add/subtract their subjective value to the apparent (consumer cost)/actual (production cost) inherent value to determine its ultimate subjective worth.
