The system isnt THAT expensive

talkin about the Iphone? of course the Treo lines are abotu 600, and of course it's not as expsenisve as a blue ray player, or an xbox 360 with a wifi adapter and HD dvd rom player, it's not as expensive as a car stereo system, and sometimes cheaper than spinning rims. it's not as expensive as a lifted truck is and serves more purpose.

It's not as expensive as the amount of money you can save by playing the PS3 rather than going to the bar every weekend, and if you drank at home making your own drinks by the end of the year you'd have more than enough for it. It's definately not as expensive as all the money americans throw away by using credit cards and not paying them off getting further into debt.

It's not as expensive as a cruise, or some international flights. I got my PS3 for 624 dollars American by trading in my PS2, some controllers, memory cards, pokemon diamond, guilty gear for DS. here's what I got for all that money. Brand new PS3, memory card adapter (to xfer the data off the mem cards I was trading in) God of War II, Trauma Center Second Opinion, and Resistance the Fall of Mankind. all for the 625 dollars. Pretty good price IMO.

Anyway if you can save up 4 dollars a day, in 6 months you'll have a PS3. Now if you think about that... if you smoke a pack a day, you can't complain about the PS3 price. If you didn't smoke that much you'd have enough for a PS3 already.

actually its 659 and it comes with click on bluray.

(Walmart)

Heck if you eat fast food everyday then there's no reason why you can't lay off the food and save to get a ps3. Bluray was really the price hiker though. It will either make or break the PS3 depending on how well it succeeds with developers in the future

Remember, Everyone used CDs for the PS2 and Dreamcast at first, then all PS2 games started to use DVD because of the space available. With Blu-ray, I can imagine devlopers jamming in a lot more content than they can on a DVD9. DVD9's reached its limit and will when Games suddenly become shorter and less in content.

Ecspecially if you look at anRelative and Absolutechart of console prices. (American) So if you think it's TOO expensive. You're wrong. Take it.warbmxjohn

Ummm...yeah sure. But in reality, most of the consoles on that list really shouldnt be compared to one another. You cant compare the relative cost of a CD player from today to one from the 1980s. Why? Because production costs are increadibly lower. Around 1985 a CD player cost $500. Thats alot even in ABSOLUTE terms.

You have to compare the consoles to their contemporaries. For example from the N64 up. You cant compare an Atari 2600 to a PS3. Thats like comparing a VCR from 1980 to a DVD player from 2007. Give me a break

Ecspecially if you look at anRelative and Absolutechart of console prices. (American) So if you think it's TOO expensive. You're wrong. Take it.warbmxjohn

Furthermore....if you choose to ignore that, look at the majority of consoles that had relative prices just as high or higher than the PS3.

Sega Saturn - what happened to that one?

3DO - or this one?

Neo Geo - Where did that go? Did you even own one?

Thats right, they died out. Why? Cuz TOO EXPENSIVE.

[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]Ecspecially if you look at anRelative and Absolutechart of console prices. (American) So if you think it's TOO expensive. You're wrong. Take it.menduco76

Ummm...yeah sure. But in reality, most of the consoles on that list really shouldnt be compared to one another. You cant compare the relative cost of a CD player from today to one from the 1980s. Why? Because production costs are increadibly lower. Around 1985 a CD player cost $500. Thats alot even in ABSOLUTE terms.

You have to compare the consoles to their contemporaries. For example from the N64 up. You cant compare an Atari 2600 to a PS3. Thats like comparing a VCR from 1980 to a DVD player from 2007. Give me a break

All consoles are entirely relevant when forming a comparison of a video game console prices, ecspecially if inflation is a factor in the comparison. The entire point of the graph was to show that relativly speaking the PS3 isnt the most expensive console. And if there was a discussion where someone was saying that dvd players are too expensive, someone could most definitly state that vcr's were also expensive when they were mainstream home movie format.

[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]Ecspecially if you look at an Relative and Absolute chart of console prices. (American) So if you think it's TOO expensive. You're wrong. Take it.menduco76

Furthermore....if you choose to ignore that, look at the majority of consoles that had relative prices just as high or higher than the PS3.

Sega Saturn - what happened to that one?

3DO - or this one?

Neo Geo - Where did that go? Did you even own one?

Thats right, they died out. Why? Cuz TOO EXPENSIVE.

The logic is there. It is blatantly obvious that the graph definitely shows that possible outcome. However what the graph doesn't show that only one of those other consoles were serious competitors in the gaming market. Sega is the only company that had a good history of sales. There are more factors than just price. Such as, but not limited to; company reputation, company financial situation, developers, market support. That kind of murks the situation a little. Point being those consoles weren't only too expensive, there were other factors in their failure than price. Also with the PS3 there are more factors working in SONY's favor than in the "failed consoles"....

so, for 600 dollars, you get a console and a controller.

Then fifty more for another controller

Then seventy more for the darn HDMI cable, or fifty more for the component cables.

You could get two Nvidia 8800 GTS 640MB for that much, which would OMGWTFBBQPWN the PS3, not to mention hold five times what the ps3 has in ram in VRAM alone :).

Then again, if they ever release a world simulator on the PS3, I'll buy one.

so, for 600 dollars, you get a console and a controller.

Then fifty more for another controller

Then seventy more for the darn HDMI cable, or fifty more for the component cables.

You could get two Nvidia 8800 GTS 640MB for that much, which would OMGWTFBBQPWN the PS3, not to mention hold five times what the ps3 has in ram in VRAM alone :).

Then again, if they ever release a world simulator on the PS3, I'll buy one.

lompocus

And then you couldn't play PS3 games? Besides i already have a computer, nothing like what you described but she does the job. Theres many ways to productively spend money in our capitalistic society.. Nothing is cheap these days.

so, for 600 dollars, you get a console and a controller.

Then fifty more for another controller

Then seventy more for the darn HDMI cable, or fifty more for the component cables.

You could get two Nvidia 8800 GTS 640MB for that much, which would OMGWTFBBQPWN the PS3, not to mention hold five times what the ps3 has in ram in VRAM alone :).

Then again, if they ever release a world simulator on the PS3, I'll buy one.

lompocus

so, for 600 dollars, you get a console and a controller.

Then fifty more for another controller

Then seventy more for the darn HDMI cable, or fifty more for the component cables.

You could get two Nvidia 8800 GTS 640MB for that much, which would OMGWTFBBQPWN the PS3, not to mention hold five times what the ps3 has in ram in VRAM alone :).

Then again, if they ever release a world simulator on the PS3, I'll buy one.

lompocus

so, for 600 dollars, you get a console and a controller.

Then fifty more for another controller

Then seventy more for the darn HDMI cable, or fifty more for the component cables.

You could get two Nvidia 8800 GTS 640MB for that much, which would OMGWTFBBQPWN the PS3, not to mention hold five times what the ps3 has in ram in VRAM alone :).

Then again, if they ever release a world simulator on the PS3, I'll buy one.

lompocus

People have $200 - $300 ipods, 360 users complain about PS3 price but they paid $400, that's a lot but if your spending $400 then why is $200 a LOT more. Some people can't save money it's not like you have to get it right away.darkmanure

And if you want the same features on your 360, it'll end up costing you more than the $600 the PS3 costs.

so, for 600 dollars, you get a console and a controller.

Then fifty more for another controller

Then seventy more for the darn HDMI cable, or fifty more for the component cables.

You could get two Nvidia 8800 GTS 640MB for that much, which would OMGWTFBBQPWN the PS3, not to mention hold five times what the ps3 has in ram in VRAM alone :).

Then again, if they ever release a world simulator on the PS3, I'll buy one.

lompocus

$70.-!!!!! My HDMI cable cost 10 Euro's(about $13), and it's working perfectly.

In SWEDEN the Ps3 costs as cheapest: (hang on to your butts)

5800 SEK, Swedish money and its = 808.72 US Dollar.

You have to consider the audience, in the early 90's gaming was just coming into the households for the average consumer. Most of these were bought as toys for the children. Now, the children are all grown up and it is that group who is buying the majority of the expensive consoles. PS has a history, gamers are going to buy it. Nintendos will still be bought for the children (not saying it iscompletely a kiddy console, I have one).

Gaming is going to become just as commonplace as electricity and indoor plumbing have become. Of course, in the first 10 years of their existence, what percentage of people actually had it?

This just proves that the price is far too high to possibly be accepted. The fact that the Atari 2600 was the "market leader" of its time does nothing to prove that the price is acceptable to most consumers. Gaming was far smaller back then and its competitor's weren't too far away from its price. We're in a generation where there's now a $350 price difference between the most expensive and the least expensive- that IS a lot of money.

For the PS3 to be successful, it needs a price drop this summer followed by another one sometime early next year.

This just proves that the price is far too high to possibly be accepted. The fact that the Atari 2600 was the "market leader" of its time does nothing to prove that the price is acceptable to most consumers. Gaming was far smaller back then and its competitor's weren't too far away from its price. We're in a generation where there's now a $350 price difference between the most expensive and the least expensive- that IS a lot of money.

For the PS3 to be successful, it needs a price drop this summer followed by another one sometime early next year.

Vampyronight

I think you're wrong, the Wii is more of a fun to have console(which many 360 and PS3 owners will keep as a second console), the battle is between the PS3 and the 360, and if you want your 360 to have the same features(1080p, a webbrowser, for the 360 you need a remote controll to be able to play movies, and online gaming) you need to shell out more than the $600 the PS3 costs.

[QUOTE="Vampyronight"]

This just proves that the price is far too high to possibly be accepted. The fact that the Atari 2600 was the "market leader" of its time does nothing to prove that the price is acceptable to most consumers. Gaming was far smaller back then and its competitor's weren't too far away from its price. We're in a generation where there's now a $350 price difference between the most expensive and the least expensive- that IS a lot of money.

For the PS3 to be successful, it needs a price drop this summer followed by another one sometime early next year.

Nene33

I think you're wrong, the Wii is more of a fun to have console(which many 360 and PS3 owners will keep as a second console), the battle is between the PS3 and the 360, and if you want your 360 to have the same features(1080p, a webbrowser, for the 360 you need a remote controll to be able to play movies, and online gaming) you need to shell out more than the $600 the PS3 costs.

I agree, I bought the Wii at first, and although it is a gaming console, it is not in the same war. I felt the Wii was especially lacking in online play, which isn't going to be the same as 360 or PS3's online experience. The fact is if you want a fun party console with some great games, choose the Wii, if you want something a little more hardcore and adult-centered, buy a PS3 or Xbox360. That's your choice...

i'd say the ps3 isn't expensive i think sony is more up front about the price than MS. if you think about it ps3 has built-in blu-ray drive and 360 has a external drive which sold is separately. Also ps3 has built-in wifi and again 360 has an external attachment. ps3 has a psn which is free (and don't tell me it's a worse service than xboxlive cos it can be equal to or even greater than xboxlive with only a few updates) and 360 has xboxlive which has a annual fee. adding the cost of the external attachments of the 360 and a few years of xbox live which brings the price of the ps3 and 360 to near enough the same

[QUOTE="Vampyronight"]

This just proves that the price is far too high to possibly be accepted. The fact that the Atari 2600 was the "market leader" of its time does nothing to prove that the price is acceptable to most consumers. Gaming was far smaller back then and its competitor's weren't too far away from its price. We're in a generation where there's now a $350 price difference between the most expensive and the least expensive- that IS a lot of money.

For the PS3 to be successful, it needs a price drop this summer followed by another one sometime early next year.

Nene33

I think you're wrong, the Wii is more of a fun to have console(which many 360 and PS3 owners will keep as a second console), the battle is between the PS3 and the 360, and if you want your 360 to have the same features(1080p, a webbrowser, for the 360 you need a remote controll to be able to play movies, and online gaming) you need to shell out more than the $600 the PS3 costs.

Well, I didn't intend to compare who's selling the most right nor or whatever. But let's go over a few things.

There are probably only 30 million hardcore gamers. That leaves 80-90 million casual gamers. Those 30 million may pick up a PS3, but I can't see many of those casuals (let alone the so-called "non-gamers") picking up the PS3 when it's more than double the cheapest console, and 50% more than a console that can respectably compete against it.

I'd say, if you want everything that the PS3 has to offer in terms of hardware, it is of tremendous value. No doubt about that...but take me for example. I have absolutely NO USE for Wifi, but I'm paying for it. Memory card readers? Hah! Blu-Ray is questionable in terms of its necessity to gaming (although I tend to slightly side with it being necessary).

The point is, the PS3 has additional features which it doesn't need and is driving up the cost. I think Sony made a big mistake by making two versions, but even then they did, they made the 60gb the lead platform...the 20gb should've been the clear-cut lead platform. I know Sony likes to say "nobody was buying it," well, that's because you need to ship it for people to buy it.

For $700(i live in Canada), i get what i paid for and probably more... i dont see anybody complaining about a certain "phone" that costs about the same ColumbianManaT

so, for 600 dollars, you get a console and a controller.

Then fifty more for another controller

Then seventy more for the darn HDMI cable, or fifty more for the component cables.

You could get two Nvidia 8800 GTS 640MB for that much, which would OMGWTFBBQPWN the PS3, not to mention hold five times what the ps3 has in ram in VRAM alone :).

Then again, if they ever release a world simulator on the PS3, I'll buy one.

lompocus

how are you gonna use those cards? look at them?

Also are all the games coming out later for the next five years play smoothly on it.

HD player?

[QUOTE="ColumbianManaT"]For $700(i live in Canada), i get what i paid for and probably more... i dont see anybody complaining about a certain "phone" that costs about the same thomass60r

Not nearly as old, AND worthless as people with no FACTS or even valid reasoning, trying to state it's too expensive. I saved my potential console purchase money and held out for what is my console of choice. I don't plan on accepting your opinion as my own, so save your breath. Besides, Blu-ray isn't just an option, it is the new media format for PS3 games and will prove to be VERY good at it's job.

[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]Ecspecially if you look at anRelative and Absolutechart of console prices. (American) So if you think it's TOO expensive. You're wrong. Take it.menduco76

Furthermore....if you choose to ignore that, look at the majority of consoles that had relative prices just as high or higher than the PS3.

Sega Saturn - what happened to that one?

3DO - or this one?

Neo Geo - Where did that go? Did you even own one?

Thats right, they died out. Why? Cuz TOO EXPENSIVE.

[QUOTE="thomass60r"][QUOTE="ColumbianManaT"]For $700(i live in Canada), i get what i paid for and probably more... i dont see anybody complaining about a certain "phone" that costs about the same warbmxjohn

Not nearly as old, AND worthless as people with no FACTS or even valid reasoning, trying to state it's too expensive. I saved my potential console purchase money and held out for what is my console of choice. I don't plan on accepting your opinion as my own, so save your breath. Besides, Blu-ray isn't just an option, it is the new media format for PS3 games and will prove to be VERY good at it's job.

Nice! I totally agree! Some people just don't get it. We pay for our PS3's stick by our guns. We try and point out to others that don't do the homework that if you added on all the little extras (ie HDMI, BLU-RAY yadda yadda) as well as a machine that doesn't blow up with the "Three rings" issue all the time that the PS3 is one hell of an investment. I'm sure that we will be enjoying our version of GTAIV, MSG4, LAIR,Heavenly Sword ect ect the entire time, while others will have theirs in the shop.. You're preaching to the converted. I saved up like mad. Waited. Researched and made my decision. I'm not a fanboy......just better informed

[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]Ecspecially if you look at anRelative and Absolutechart of console prices. (American) So if you think it's TOO expensive. You're wrong. Take it.menduco76

Furthermore....if you choose to ignore that, look at the majority of consoles that had relative prices just as high or higher than the PS3.

Sega Saturn - what happened to that one?

3DO - or this one?

Neo Geo - Where did that go? Did you even own one?

Thats right, they died out. Why? Cuz TOO EXPENSIVE.

No because they were garbage pieces of ****.