It's not, it's well worth the money.
How is the PS3 still considered overpriced?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Theres more to PS3's than just video games, also a simple concept.$400 to play veideo games equals alot of money. Not a hard concept to understand.
ActicEdge
$400 to play veideo games equals alot of money. Not a hard concept to understand.
ActicEdge
Only a fool would buy a PS3 just for the games.
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]Theres more to PS3's than just video games, also a simple concept.$400 to play veideo games equals alot of money. Not a hard concept to understand.
Shhadow_Viper
Obviously since the sales seem to indicate people don't use it just for games. Its too expensive for that. Its still overpriced for its main function however.
Theres more to PS3's than just video games, also a simple concept.[QUOTE="Shhadow_Viper"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
$400 to play veideo games equals alot of money. Not a hard concept to understand.
ActicEdge
Obviously since the sales seem to indicate people don't use it just for games. Its too expensive for that. Its still overpriced for its main function however.
Sure it would be overpriced if it did not have a very valuable alternate function, BluRay. But it does so the price is a steal for what the consumer gets. A great gaming console, and a BluRay player two functions easily worth more that 400 bucks.[QUOTE="ActicEdge"][QUOTE="Shhadow_Viper"]Theres more to PS3's than just video games, also a simple concept.Shhadow_Viper
Obviously since the sales seem to indicate people don't use it just for games. Its too expensive for that. Its still overpriced for its main function however.
Sure it would be overpriced if it did not have a very valuable alternate function, BluRay. But it does so the price is a steal for what the consumer gets. A great gaming console, and a BluRay player two functions easily worth more that 400 bucks.Value =/= not being overpriced however. The PS3 is marketed as a game console which plays blu rays. Not the other way around thus its main function is what makes it overpriced.Not that talking about value with SW posters is really all that much of smart idea. Too many system warriors here to defend there systems.
Sure it would be overpriced if it did not have a very valuable alternate function, BluRay. But it does so the price is a steal for what the consumer gets. A great gaming console, and a BluRay player two functions easily worth more that 400 bucks.[QUOTE="Shhadow_Viper"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
Obviously since the sales seem to indicate people don't use it just for games. Its too expensive for that. Its still overpriced for its main function however.
ActicEdge
Value =/= not being overpriced however. The PS3 is marketed as a game console which plays blu rays. Not the other way around thus its main function is what makes it overpriced.Not that talking about value with SW posters is really all that much of smart idea. Too many system warriors here to defend there systems.
Value certainly does play a major role in a products pricng. Just because one feature does not validate the price necessarily, does not mean the supplementing features do not validate the price. Just like a base model car, the less features the lower price. More features equals a higher price, and all vehicles have one main function driving. But people pay for what they want and some people want more out of their purchase and they pay for that.[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]Shhadow_ViperCareful talking about people may bait you into another mod, just a friendly tip. i will get to your post after i cook dinner, and thanks for the tip but at this point i could care less.
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"][QUOTE="Shhadow_Viper"]Theres more to PS3's than just video games, also a simple concept.Shhadow_Viper
Obviously since the sales seem to indicate people don't use it just for games. Its too expensive for that. Its still overpriced for its main function however.
Sure it would be overpriced if it did not have a very valuable alternate function, BluRay. But it does so the price is a steal for what the consumer gets. A great gaming console, and a BluRay player two functions easily worth more that 400 bucks.Remember, though, not to confuse the 3 terms that are being thrown about in this thread:
- Expensive means something costs alot.
- Value (good or bad) speaks to the relationship between product/service benefit and price.
- But all overpriced describes is whether something's price is over/above what you'll pay for it.
For many (for most, really), this makes the PS3 expensive AND overpriced at the same time, though it might still be good value... or not.
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"][QUOTE="Shhadow_Viper"]Sure it would be overpriced if it did not have a very valuable alternate function, BluRay. But it does so the price is a steal for what the consumer gets. A great gaming console, and a BluRay player two functions easily worth more that 400 bucks.Shhadow_Viper
Value =/= not being overpriced however. The PS3 is marketed as a game console which plays blu rays. Not the other way around thus its main function is what makes it overpriced.Not that talking about value with SW posters is really all that much of smart idea. Too many system warriors here to defend there systems.
Value certainly does play a major role in a products pricng. Just because one feature does not validate the price necessarily, does not mean the supplementing features do not validate the price. Just like a base model car, the less features the lower price. More features equals a higher price, and all vehicles have one main function driving. But people pay for what they want and some people want more out of their purchase and they pay for that.So what you are saying is that all the extra features justify the price? Okay, they jutify it for you, for the rest of us who just want to play games and aren't interested in the rest of the features t over priced. Better?
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"][QUOTE="Shhadow_Viper"]Sure it would be overpriced if it did not have a very valuable alternate function, BluRay. But it does so the price is a steal for what the consumer gets. A great gaming console, and a BluRay player two functions easily worth more that 400 bucks.Shhadow_Viper
Value =/= not being overpriced however. The PS3 is marketed as a game console which plays blu rays. Not the other way around thus its main function is what makes it overpriced.Not that talking about value with SW posters is really all that much of smart idea. Too many system warriors here to defend there systems.
Value certainly does play a major role in a products pricng. Just because one feature does not validate the price necessarily, does not mean the supplementing features do not validate the price. Just like a base model car, the less features the lower price. More features equals a higher price, and all vehicles have one main function driving. But people pay for what they want and some people want more out of their purchase and they pay for that. You seem to be forgetting the "who" in the equation. One feature validating the price or notfor who (or whom)? The supplementing features validating the price or not for whom? I feel like the offering only validated the price for Sony, not for us, and we're the important whoms in this situation. I can tell you this, if in your analogy the base car price and each step up the feature set, if the customers aren't ponying up, that car is overpriced no matter which features are or aren't included.The price of the PS3 should have been determined by well researched analyses of what the market would bear, not Sony's wishful thinking. And if they put so many (and expensive) "supplementary features" in that they couldn't charge what the market would bear, then they made a huge mistake by chocking it so full of goodness. Any PS3 owner has benefitted, sure, but as a corporate decision it was pure clown-shoes time.
Sure it would be overpriced if it did not have a very valuable alternate function, BluRay. But it does so the price is a steal for what the consumer gets. A great gaming console, and a BluRay player two functions easily worth more that 400 bucks.[QUOTE="Shhadow_Viper"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
Obviously since the sales seem to indicate people don't use it just for games. Its too expensive for that. Its still overpriced for its main function however.
dsmccracken
Remember, though, not to confuse the 3 terms that are being thrown about in this thread:
- Expensive means something costs alot.
- Value (good or bad) speaks to the relationship between product/service benefit and price.
- But all overpriced describes is whether something's price is over/above what you'll pay for it.
For many (for most, really), this makes the PS3 expensive AND overpriced at the same time, though it might still be good value... or not.
Well I feel there is no point in discussing a products pricing subjectively, as it only boils down to preference and there can never be a consensus. There is no discussion unless there is some objectivity, this thread may as well be a spam thread asking whats your favorite color.Value certainly does play a major role in a products pricng. Just because one feature does not validate the price necessarily, does not mean the supplementing features do not validate the price. Just like a base model car, the less features the lower price. More features equals a higher price, and all vehicles have one main function driving. But people pay for what they want and some people want more out of their purchase and they pay for that.[QUOTE="Shhadow_Viper"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
Value =/= not being overpriced however. The PS3 is marketed as a game console which plays blu rays. Not the other way around thus its main function is what makes it overpriced.Not that talking about value with SW posters is really all that much of smart idea. Too many system warriors here to defend there systems.
ActicEdge
So what you are saying is that all the extra features justify the price? Okay, they jutify it for you, for the rest of us who just want to play games and aren't interested in the rest of the features t over priced. Better?
I agree with that point.[QUOTE="dsmccracken"]
[QUOTE="Shhadow_Viper"]Sure it would be overpriced if it did not have a very valuable alternate function, BluRay. But it does so the price is a steal for what the consumer gets. A great gaming console, and a BluRay player two functions easily worth more that 400 bucks.Shhadow_Viper
Remember, though, not to confuse the 3 terms that are being thrown about in this thread:
- Expensive means something costs alot.
- Value (good or bad) speaks to the relationship between product/service benefit and price.
- But all overpriced describes is whether something's price is over/above what you'll pay for it.
For many (for most, really), this makes the PS3 expensive AND overpriced at the same time, though it might still be good value... or not.
Well I feel there is no point in discussing a products pricing subjectively, as it only boils down to preference and there can never be a consensus. There is no discussion unless there is some objectivity, this thread may as well be a spam thread asking whats your favorite color. Believe me, that (and by that I mean a "favourite colour" argument) would not make it unique in SW, or the world of debate in general. Pricing is subjective in a forum like this, but an objective viewing shows that the overpriced sentiment bears out in the marketplace, also, as the PS3 is in dead last and falling further behind.Value certainly does play a major role in a products pricng. Just because one feature does not validate the price necessarily, does not mean the supplementing features do not validate the price. Just like a base model car, the less features the lower price. More features equals a higher price, and all vehicles have one main function driving. But people pay for what they want and some people want more out of their purchase and they pay for that. You seem to be forgetting the "who" in the equation. One feature validating the price or notfor who (or whom)? The supplementing features validating the price or not for whom? I feel like the offering only validated the price for Sony, not for us, and we're the important whoms in this situation. I can tell you this, if in your analogy the base car price and each step up the feature set, if the customers aren't ponying up, that car is overpriced no matter which features are or aren't included.[QUOTE="Shhadow_Viper"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
Value =/= not being overpriced however. The PS3 is marketed as a game console which plays blu rays. Not the other way around thus its main function is what makes it overpriced.Not that talking about value with SW posters is really all that much of smart idea. Too many system warriors here to defend there systems.
dsmccracken
The price of the PS3 should have been determined by well researched analyses of what the market would bear, not Sony's wishful thinking. And if they put so many (and expensive) "supplementary features" in that they couldn't charge what the market would bear, then they made a huge mistake by chocking it so full of goodness. Any PS3 owner has benefitted, sure, but as a corporate decision it was pure clown-shoes time.
Yes so far the high features and pricing have not been in Sony's favor, but it's not like the product is not selling at all just because it is not leading the market. I got a great deal on what I have through purchasing my PS3 even though Sony is not dominating the market. That is why I assert the PS3 is not overpriced. I was more than willing to pay for my PS3 at release and payed 650$ for it, so if were are speaking subjectively the PS3 is not overpriced at it's current standing because I payed even more for one.
Value certainly does play a major role in a products pricng. Just because one feature does not validate the price necessarily, does not mean the supplementing features do not validate the price. Just like a base model car, the less features the lower price. More features equals a higher price, and all vehicles have one main function driving. But people pay for what they want and some people want more out of their purchase and they pay for that. Shhadow_ViperYou seem to be forgetting the "who" in the equation. One feature validating the price or notfor who (or whom)? The supplementing features validating the price or not for whom? I feel like the offering only validated the price for Sony, not for us, and we're the important whoms in this situation. I can tell you this, if in your analogy the base car price and each step up the feature set, if the customers aren't ponying up, that car is overpriced no matter which features are or aren't included.
The price of the PS3 should have been determined by well researched analyses of what the market would bear, not Sony's wishful thinking. And if they put so many (and expensive) "supplementary features" in that they couldn't charge what the market would bear, then they made a huge mistake by chocking it so full of goodness. Any PS3 owner has benefitted, sure, but as a corporate decision it was pure clown-shoes time.
Yes so far the high features and pricing have not been in Sony's favor, but it's not like the product is not selling at all just because it is not leading the market. I got a great deal on what I have through purchasing my PS3 even though Sony is not dominating the market. That is why I assert the PS3 is not overpriced. I was more than willing to pay for my PS3 at release and payed 650$ for it, so if were are speaking subjectively the PS3 is not overpriced at it's current standing because I payed even more for one. On a subjective level, then, it was not overpriced for you. Taking the entire market into consideration, though, you are vastly outnumbered by the people who's own personal subjective tests gave it the thumbs down signal.[QUOTE="Shhadow_Viper"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"] You seem to be forgetting the "who" in the equation. One feature validating the price or notfor who (or whom)? The supplementing features validating the price or not for whom? I feel like the offering only validated the price for Sony, not for us, and we're the important whoms in this situation. I can tell you this, if in your analogy the base car price and each step up the feature set, if the customers aren't ponying up, that car is overpriced no matter which features are or aren't included.Yes so far the high features and pricing have not been in Sony's favor, but it's not like the product is not selling at all just because it is not leading the market. I got a great deal on what I have through purchasing my PS3 even though Sony is not dominating the market. That is why I assert the PS3 is not overpriced. I was more than willing to pay for my PS3 at release and payed 650$ for it, so if were are speaking subjectively the PS3 is not overpriced at it's current standing because I payed even more for one. On a subjective level, then, it was not overpriced for you. Taking the entire market into consideration, though, you are vastly outnumbered by the people who's own personal subjective tests gave it the thumbs down signal.Fair enough. It's not a major issue as it is. Sony being last in the market for the beginning of this gen has not hampered my experiences, I don't know why I even care to be honest. :PThe price of the PS3 should have been determined by well researched analyses of what the market would bear, not Sony's wishful thinking. And if they put so many (and expensive) "supplementary features" in that they couldn't charge what the market would bear, then they made a huge mistake by chocking it so full of goodness. Any PS3 owner has benefitted, sure, but as a corporate decision it was pure clown-shoes time.
dsmccracken
that is true, but the ps3 is a flagship product following in the foot steps of its predecessors. it was made for mass market and said market sees it as overpriced. if the ps3 were made for a higher consumer it would have sold at a gain like other high profile luxury items like sports cars and jewelry or to draw a more direct comparison Bose speakers are top of the line and have a much higher cost then other but Bose still makes a good amount of profit selling less units because it was intended to perform that way[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Shhadow_Viper"]In economics there is such a thing as a demographic, and mass appeal. Just because a products price puts it into a higher demographic it is not overpriced. It only means it is expensive. Now if it were possible to get all the features that one gets with the PS3 but cheaper, then the position could rationally be formed that it is overpriced. Being too expensive to make it into the mass market demograhic, does not make a product overpriced. Value determines whether or not a product is adequately priced, not it's respective postion in the market. Shhadow_Viper
Well from the start Sony has not stated that the PS3 is cheap, like the famous statement about getting two jobs to buy one. So with statements of that nature along with what the console offers its obvious a different dierection is being taken by the company this genaration. Therefore assuming that they are doing the exact same this genaration as previous generations is false. The PS3 is expensive, to the point that it puts in into a different niche in the market. That addition of a BluRay player makes the console more expensive, but adds a significant amount of value for those with HDTV's. People with HDTV's as well are more in the upper demographic as it is, and many people say HDTV's are overpriced, but those who have bought one know it is worth it. The inherent value is readily apparent in the PS3 and it just provides a more diverse media experience.
Now see in your example of Bose and their premium quality speakers, notice how you metioned they are still turning them for a profit. Also premium speakers are not a fitting example as they only serve one purpose. Anyway if the PS3 is not even selling for a profit that really points that Sony is not overpricing their product. The PS3 is more than a gaming console, now that serves against it and for it. It currently puts its price point out of the casual market, but it is not possible to get everything you get with a PS3 for a lower or even comparable price. That also highly asserts that the product's value easily exceeds it's price. For now the majority of the casual market still buying dvd's, and not owning HDTV's. The PS3 is not selling at the highest rate thus far this generation for those reasons. As it is in the smaller, but higher demographic. That is what has adversely effected the rate of sales more than the market accepting the price as you assert.
The long life cycle design with the PS3 is not really going to acheive all of it's sales at the early point of it's life cycle. That business plan just does not work that way. Now that could work, it could backfire, but that is why the PS3 is not selling at the highest rate of all consoles. Just because a high value product has features the normal consumer is not ready to pay for, as they will not be able to take advantage of said features does not make that product overpriced. Especially considering the company cannot even make the product for less than they have to sell it for because of all that the product offers. If they are already selling the product at a loss it is not feasible to lower the price, but let the market catch up so the features are more immediately desireable by the majority of the consumers. I would say that the low sales are product of the state of the market more than the high pricetag.
Essentially what I see here is a confluence of the 10 year lifecycle argument and the "PS3 is a ferrari, 360 is a Toyata, and Wii is a Kia" argument. The pricing and feature sets bear out the latter to a certain extent, however Sony is not in the business of making ferraris, or their electronic equivalents. They are in the mass market electronics business. Despite what Crazy Ken and others said in that famous E3, I (and most, I'd think) do not believe for a second the "instilling discipline in children" tripe, that was spouted there. It does not behoove Sony to make their console as unattainable as a ferrari, and it certainly doesn't help the devs that signed on to back the successor to the 120+ million selling PS2. If they really meant it and had conviction in the non-overpriced PS3, that first year price drop would not have happened. The thing would still be $699+. Nor would they be lowering the price again, if we can believe the persistent rumours. Really, by show of hands, who here thinks that if Sony could actually do it, they wouldn't lower the price yesterday? Going for a small super-exclusive niche is not their big raison d'etre. As for the 10 year lifecycle stuff, that this is so early in the PS3 lifecycle and the fruit will be born eventually... fat chance. If Sony has learned one thing (aside from the price catastrophe), it is that they made a huge mistake letting MS get that year head start. They only have the RROD to thank for not being further in the hole then they already are, something that they certainly weren't counting on when the launch delay became necessary. Anyone who thinks they are going to let the PS3 go on well beyond the next gen (whenever it should come) and allow MS and presumably Nintendo get a headstart again is nuts.On a subjective level, then, it was not overpriced for you. Taking the entire market into consideration, though, you are vastly outnumbered by the people who's own personal subjective tests gave it the thumbs down signal.Fair enough. It's not a major issue as it is. Sony being last in the market for the beginning of this gen has not hampered my experiences, I don't know why I even care to be honest. :P The games have come, and they have been great. I'd rather have a PS3 than a 360 atm, and only a stockholder should care about sales until (and only if) this starts impacting dev support a la the xbox last gen. But this IS a thread about the thing being overpriced, not how great LBP was....[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="Shhadow_Viper"]Yes so far the high features and pricing have not been in Sony's favor, but it's not like the product is not selling at all just because it is not leading the market. I got a great deal on what I have through purchasing my PS3 even though Sony is not dominating the market. That is why I assert the PS3 is not overpriced. I was more than willing to pay for my PS3 at release and payed 650$ for it, so if were are speaking subjectively the PS3 is not overpriced at it's current standing because I payed even more for one. Shhadow_Viper
[QUOTE="Shhadow_Viper"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"] You seem to be forgetting the "who" in the equation. One feature validating the price or notfor who (or whom)? The supplementing features validating the price or not for whom? I feel like the offering only validated the price for Sony, not for us, and we're the important whoms in this situation. I can tell you this, if in your analogy the base car price and each step up the feature set, if the customers aren't ponying up, that car is overpriced no matter which features are or aren't included.Yes so far the high features and pricing have not been in Sony's favor, but it's not like the product is not selling at all just because it is not leading the market. I got a great deal on what I have through purchasing my PS3 even though Sony is not dominating the market. That is why I assert the PS3 is not overpriced. I was more than willing to pay for my PS3 at release and payed 650$ for it, so if were are speaking subjectively the PS3 is not overpriced at it's current standing because I payed even more for one. On a subjective level, then, it was not overpriced for you. Taking the entire market into consideration, though, you are vastly outnumbered by the people who's own personal subjective tests gave it the thumbs down signal.The price of the PS3 should have been determined by well researched analyses of what the market would bear, not Sony's wishful thinking. And if they put so many (and expensive) "supplementary features" in that they couldn't charge what the market would bear, then they made a huge mistake by chocking it so full of goodness. Any PS3 owner has benefitted, sure, but as a corporate decision it was pure clown-shoes time.
dsmccracken
You do have to wonder, for all those who think the PS3 is overpriced, then at what price will it be considered satisfactory. I think there is a large majority of people who would like a PS3 but are completely satisfied with what they currently have and I think there is a just as large group that believe the PS3 is overpriced only because they feel they have too large of an investment in their current setup.
The main reason I posted this topic was for those people who were on the fence about which system to buy (between Xbox 360 and PS3) and were wanting to get the most for their money. I can completely understand that people are satisfied with their Xbox 360 as it has a nice library but I would encourage anyone who is on the fence to research their prospective purchases rather than be pulled into fanboyism, thus limiting any future interest in the "competitors" products.
Essentially what I see here is a confluence of the 10 year lifecycle argument and the "PS3 is a ferrari, 360 is a Toyata, and Wii is a Kia" argument. The pricing and feature sets bear out the latter to a certain extent, however Sony is not in the business of making ferraris, or their electronic equivalents. They are in the mass market electronics business. Despite what Crazy Ken and others said in that famous E3, I (and most, I'd think) do not believe for a second the "instilling discipline in children" tripe, that was spouted there. It does not behoove Sony to make their console as unattainable as a ferrari, and it certainly doesn't help the devs that signed on to back the successor to the 120+ million selling PS2. If they really meant it and had conviction in the non-overpriced PS3, that first year price drop would not have happened. The thing would still be $699+. Nor would they be lowering the price again, if we can believe the persistent rumours. Really, by show of hands, who here thinks that if Sony could actually do it, they wouldn't lower the price yesterday? Going for a small super-exclusive niche is not their big raison d'etre. As for the 10 year lifecycle stuff, that this is so early in the PS3 lifecycle and the fruit will be born eventually... fat chance. If Sony has learned one thing (aside from the price catastrophe), it is that they made a huge mistake letting MS get that year head start. They only have the RROD to thank for not being further in the hole then they already are, something that they certainly weren't counting on when the launch delay became necessary. Anyone who thinks they are going to let the PS3 go on well beyond the next gen (whenever it should come) and allow MS and presumably Nintendo get a headstart again is nuts.dsmccracken
I would like to think the PS3 is more easily attainable than a Ferarri, thats a bit off scale.. I did not mean super small niche, thats kind of taking it the the extreme. I meant a slightly smaller niche, as the sales reflect, because the sales have been pretty similar with the 360 and PS3 since the PS3's release. The sales are really not that bad, they have both had hot and cold periods. Of course Sony would lower the price if it were feasible for them to do so. Which just lends credence to the fact that they are not really overpriced from an objective standpoint, but more of a subjective demographic location standpoint.
As of right now not many people will immediately benefit from the BluRay player in the PS3, as HDTV's are still not that prevalent regarding userbase. But the incentive to own a PS3 will only grow as they keep pumping out great exclusive titles, and more people are looking to get a BluRay player. As I said that may work in their favor, it might not, we don't really know because it's too early according to their supposed 10 year plan. Also just because they let the PS3 go well into next gen, does not necessarily mean they are not gonna release a new console before that. The PS2 is still selling pretty strong.
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"] Essentially what I see here is a confluence of the 10 year lifecycle argument and the "PS3 is a ferrari, 360 is a Toyata, and Wii is a Kia" argument. The pricing and feature sets bear out the latter to a certain extent, however Sony is not in the business of making ferraris, or their electronic equivalents. They are in the mass market electronics business. Despite what Crazy Ken and others said in that famous E3, I (and most, I'd think) do not believe for a second the "instilling discipline in children" tripe, that was spouted there. It does not behoove Sony to make their console as unattainable as a ferrari, and it certainly doesn't help the devs that signed on to back the successor to the 120+ million selling PS2. If they really meant it and had conviction in the non-overpriced PS3, that first year price drop would not have happened. The thing would still be $699+. Nor would they be lowering the price again, if we can believe the persistent rumours. Really, by show of hands, who here thinks that if Sony could actually do it, they wouldn't lower the price yesterday? Going for a small super-exclusive niche is not their big raison d'etre.
As for the 10 year lifecycle stuff, that this is so early in the PS3 lifecycle and the fruit will be born eventually... fat chance. If Sony has learned one thing (aside from the price catastrophe), it is that they made a huge mistake letting MS get that year head start. They only have the RROD to thank for not being further in the hole then they already are, something that they certainly weren't counting on when the launch delay became necessary. Anyone who thinks they are going to let the PS3 go on well beyond the next gen (whenever it should come) and allow MS and presumably Nintendo get a headstart again is nuts.Shhadow_Viper
I would like to think the PS3 is more easily attainable than a Ferarri, thats a bit off scale.. I did not mean super small niche, thats kind of taking it the the extreme. I meant a slightly smaller niche, as the sales reflect, because the sales have been pretty similar with the 360 and PS3 since the PS3's release. The sales are really not that bad, they have both had hot and cold periods. Of course Sony would lower the price if it were feasible for them to do so. Which just lends credence to the fact that they are not really overpriced from an objective standpoint, but more of a subjective demographic location standpoint.
As of right now not many people will immediately benefit from the BluRay player in the PS3, as HDTV's are still not that prevalent regarding userbase. But the incentive to own a PS3 will only grow as they keep pumping out great exclusive titles, and more people are looking to get a BluRay player. As I said that may work in their favor, it might not, we don't really know because it's too early according to their supposed 10 year plan. Also just because they let the PS3 go well into next gen, does not necessarily mean they are not gonna release a new console before that. The PS2 is still selling pretty strong.
Super small niche or kinda small niche, this is certainly not what the devs supporting the gigantor that is playstation had in mind.
If a PS4 comes alongside whatever MS and Nintendo releases next, the growing HDTV market may help that console (though MS will probably also add BR), but it will probably be too late for the PS3. And if that new PS4 comes, I doubt that that will mean good things for the PS3 and it's plans longevity-wise. After all, the only reason (though it's a good one) that the PS2 is still selling "pretty strong" is that Sony has 120+ million owners of that console to service. I strongly doubt that they will have that (and therefore that reason) with the PS3.
[QUOTE="Shhadow_Viper"]
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"] Essentially what I see here is a confluence of the 10 year lifecycle argument and the "PS3 is a ferrari, 360 is a Toyata, and Wii is a Kia" argument. The pricing and feature sets bear out the latter to a certain extent, however Sony is not in the business of making ferraris, or their electronic equivalents. They are in the mass market electronics business. Despite what Crazy Ken and others said in that famous E3, I (and most, I'd think) do not believe for a second the "instilling discipline in children" tripe, that was spouted there. It does not behoove Sony to make their console as unattainable as a ferrari, and it certainly doesn't help the devs that signed on to back the successor to the 120+ million selling PS2. If they really meant it and had conviction in the non-overpriced PS3, that first year price drop would not have happened. The thing would still be $699+. Nor would they be lowering the price again, if we can believe the persistent rumours. Really, by show of hands, who here thinks that if Sony could actually do it, they wouldn't lower the price yesterday? Going for a small super-exclusive niche is not their big raison d'etre.
As for the 10 year lifecycle stuff, that this is so early in the PS3 lifecycle and the fruit will be born eventually... fat chance. If Sony has learned one thing (aside from the price catastrophe), it is that they made a huge mistake letting MS get that year head start. They only have the RROD to thank for not being further in the hole then they already are, something that they certainly weren't counting on when the launch delay became necessary. Anyone who thinks they are going to let the PS3 go on well beyond the next gen (whenever it should come) and allow MS and presumably Nintendo get a headstart again is nuts.dsmccracken
I would like to think the PS3 is more easily attainable than a Ferarri, thats a bit off scale.. I did not mean super small niche, thats kind of taking it the the extreme. I meant a slightly smaller niche, as the sales reflect, because the sales have been pretty similar with the 360 and PS3 since the PS3's release. The sales are really not that bad, they have both had hot and cold periods. Of course Sony would lower the price if it were feasible for them to do so. Which just lends credence to the fact that they are not really overpriced from an objective standpoint, but more of a subjective demographic location standpoint.
As of right now not many people will immediately benefit from the BluRay player in the PS3, as HDTV's are still not that prevalent regarding userbase. But the incentive to own a PS3 will only grow as they keep pumping out great exclusive titles, and more people are looking to get a BluRay player. As I said that may work in their favor, it might not, we don't really know because it's too early according to their supposed 10 year plan. Also just because they let the PS3 go well into next gen, does not necessarily mean they are not gonna release a new console before that. The PS2 is still selling pretty strong.
Super small niche or kinda small niche, this is certainly not what the devs supporting the gigantor that is playstation had in mind.
If a PS4 comes alongside whatever MS and Nintendo releases next, the growing HDTV market may help that console (though MS will probably also add one), but it will probably be too late for the PS3. And if that new PS4 comes, I doubt that that will mean good things for the PS3 and it's plans longevity-wise. After all, the only reason (though it's a good one) that the PS2 is still selling "pretty strong" is that Sony has 120+ million owners of that console to service. I strongly doubt that they will have that (and therefore that reason) with the PS3.
I am not saying that it is impossible for it to go down like that, I just would like to think it won't. I can only speculate and I know it can go right or wrong. I also know it's not going as good as it could be, but it's not as bleak as some people like to think.
that is true, but the ps3 is a flagship product following in the foot steps of its predecessors. it was made for mass market and said market sees it as overpriced. if the ps3 were made for a higher consumer it would have sold at a gain like other high profile luxury items like sports cars and jewelry or to draw a more direct comparison Bose speakers are top of the line and have a much higher cost then other but Bose still makes a good amount of profit selling less units because it was intended to perform that way[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Shhadow_Viper"]In economics there is such a thing as a demographic, and mass appeal. Just because a products price puts it into a higher demographic it is not overpriced. It only means it is expensive. Now if it were possible to get all the features that one gets with the PS3 but cheaper, then the position could rationally be formed that it is overpriced. Being too expensive to make it into the mass market demograhic, does not make a product overpriced. Value determines whether or not a product is adequately priced, not it's respective postion in the market. Shhadow_Viper
Well from the start Sony has not stated that the PS3 is cheap, like the famous statement about getting two jobs to buy one. So with statements of that nature along with what the console offers its obvious a different dierection is being taken by the company this genaration. Therefore assuming that they are doing the exact same this genaration as previous generations is false. The PS3 is expensive, to the point that it puts in into a different niche in the market. That addition of a BluRay player makes the console more expensive, but adds a significant amount of value for those with HDTV's. People with HDTV's as well are more in the upper demographic as it is, and many people say HDTV's are overpriced, but those who have bought one know it is worth it. The inherent value is readily apparent in the PS3 and it just provides a more diverse media experience.
Now see in your example of Bose and their premium quality speakers, notice how you metioned they are still turning them for a profit. Also premium speakers are not a fitting example as they only serve one purpose. Anyway if the PS3 is not even selling for a profit that really points that Sony is not overpricing their product. The PS3 is more than a gaming console, now that serves against it and for it. It currently puts its price point out of the casual market, but it is not possible to get everything you get with a PS3 for a lower or even comparable price. That also highly asserts that the product's value easily exceeds it's price. For now the majority of the casual market still buying dvd's, and not owning HDTV's. The PS3 is not selling at the highest rate thus far this generation for those reasons. As it is in the smaller, but higher demographic. That is what has adversely effected the rate of sales more than the market accepting the price as you assert.
The long life cycle design with the PS3 is not really going to acheive all of it's sales at the early point of it's life cycle. That business plan just does not work that way. Now that could work, it could backfire, but that is why the PS3 is not selling at the highest rate of all consoles. Just because a high value product has features the normal consumer is not ready to pay for, as they will not be able to take advantage of said features does not make that product overpriced. Especially considering the company cannot even make the product for less than they have to sell it for because of all that the product offers. If they are already selling the product at a loss it is not feasible to lower the price, but let the market catch up so the features are more immediately desireable by the majority of the consumers. I would say that the low sales are product of the state of the market more than the high pricetag.
i am sorry, i do have a good argument. i even have 3 sources (2 being wiki) to support it, but because of the drama caused in this thread between being modded and a nameless less then reputable poster, i cant bring my self to fill the outline. call it backing out or what ever you want, i do hope that we can touch on this subject at some point in the near future as talking with you was kinda fun. i am sorry this could have been a good free flow of ideas between people who have a basic understanding of economics.
It could come with $2000 wroth of hardware and software...$400 is still too much for a game console.
goblaa
Then why did people buy 360's for 2 years?
Sure it would be overpriced if it did not have a very valuable alternate function, BluRay. But it does so the price is a steal for what the consumer gets. A great gaming console, and a BluRay player two functions easily worth more that 400 bucks.[QUOTE="Shhadow_Viper"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
Obviously since the sales seem to indicate people don't use it just for games. Its too expensive for that. Its still overpriced for its main function however.
ActicEdge
Value =/= not being overpriced however. The PS3 is marketed as a game console which plays blu rays. Not the other way around thus its main function is what makes it overpriced.Not that talking about value with SW posters is really all that much of smart idea. Too many system warriors here to defend there systems.
You sure about that? :P
[QUOTE="bigblunt537"][QUOTE="goblaa"]
It could come with $2000 wroth of hardware and software...$400 is still too much for a game console.
DGDG1989
Then why did people buy 360's for 2 years?
I got mines for $260 bucks and never had the RROD once.That's not the point. I'm sure you can get great deals on a ps3 used on ebay right now also. The 360 launched at 400 the same price as the Ps3. Now don't say 1 was in a recession and 1 wasn't because during the time the 360 released our economy was already on a huge steady decline. My point is 15 million people didn't mind buying a 360 for $400-$350. Now that the ps3 is the same price its considered expensive, but offers so much more. When the 360 was 400 and the ps3 was 600 NOBODY said the 360 was expensive, because it was not. For a brand new top of the line console 400 is not a lot. I got my GC for almost 400 on release day a few years ago. Now a $600 ps3 was expensive, but it definitely was not over priced and now it's 400 which is still a great value. Now cut the BS and move on. I'm tired of these fanboy rants.
I got mines for $260 bucks and never had the RROD once.[QUOTE="DGDG1989"][QUOTE="bigblunt537"]
Then why did people buy 360's for 2 years?
bigblunt537
That's not the point. I'm sure you can get great deals on a ps3 used on ebay right now also. The 360 launched at 400 the same price as the Ps3. Now don't say 1 was in a recession and 1 wasn't because during the time the 360 released our economy was already on a huge steady decline. My point is 15 million people didn't mind buying a 360 for $400-$350. Now that the ps3 is the same price its considered expensive, but offers so much more. When the 360 was 400 and the ps3 was 600 NOBODY said the 360 was expensive, because it was not. For a brand new top of the line console 400 is not a lot. I got my GC for almost 400 on release day a few years ago. Now a $600 ps3 was expensive, but it definitely was not over priced and now it's 400 which is still a great value. Now cut the BS and move on. I'm tired of these fanboy rants.
I'm not a fanboy. I would like a PS3 but I have never spent more than $300 bucks on a system if I just want to play games. I usually get the two of the cheapest consoles each gen. Last gen, I got a GCN and PS2 since the original Xbox was the most expensive. I just want to play games and so unless I find a great deal on a PS3 but NOT from ebay, I'm not getting a PS3 at its current price.
So it's expensive, not overpriced. And people must know Ps3 and 360 are more than just game consoles now. Whether we like it or not, consoles are turning into something else.It could come with $2000 wroth of hardware and software...$400 is still too much for a game console.
goblaa
[QUOTE="bigblunt537"][QUOTE="DGDG1989"] I got mines for $260 bucks and never had the RROD once.DGDG1989
That's not the point. I'm sure you can get great deals on a ps3 used on ebay right now also. The 360 launched at 400 the same price as the Ps3. Now don't say 1 was in a recession and 1 wasn't because during the time the 360 released our economy was already on a huge steady decline. My point is 15 million people didn't mind buying a 360 for $400-$350. Now that the ps3 is the same price its considered expensive, but offers so much more. When the 360 was 400 and the ps3 was 600 NOBODY said the 360 was expensive, because it was not. For a brand new top of the line console 400 is not a lot. I got my GC for almost 400 on release day a few years ago. Now a $600 ps3 was expensive, but it definitely was not over priced and now it's 400 which is still a great value. Now cut the BS and move on. I'm tired of these fanboy rants.
I'm not a fanboy. I would like a PS3 but I have never spent more than $300 bucks on a system if I just want to play games. I usually get the two of the cheapest consoles each gen. Last gen, I got a GCN and PS2 since the original Xbox was the most expensive. I just want to play games and so unless I find a great deal on a PS3 but NOT from ebay, I'm not getting a PS3 at its current price.And thats perfectly fine. This was the only time I bought the most expensive console at $600, but to say a console e is expensive when most didn't consider the competitors expensive is a bit biased. Now if you say its out of your budget that's perfectly fine. Also it depends who you are because depending on your salary something can be expensive or cheap. My point is that many 360 owners that bought it at $400 are now calling the Ps3 expensive, but they had no problem shelling over 400 bucks for a 360 about a year ago.
I'm not a fanboy. I would like a PS3 but I have never spent more than $300 bucks on a system if I just want to play games. I usually get the two of the cheapest consoles each gen. Last gen, I got a GCN and PS2 since the original Xbox was the most expensive. I just want to play games and so unless I find a great deal on a PS3 but NOT from ebay, I'm not getting a PS3 at its current price.[QUOTE="DGDG1989"][QUOTE="bigblunt537"]
That's not the point. I'm sure you can get great deals on a ps3 used on ebay right now also. The 360 launched at 400 the same price as the Ps3. Now don't say 1 was in a recession and 1 wasn't because during the time the 360 released our economy was already on a huge steady decline. My point is 15 million people didn't mind buying a 360 for $400-$350. Now that the ps3 is the same price its considered expensive, but offers so much more. When the 360 was 400 and the ps3 was 600 NOBODY said the 360 was expensive, because it was not. For a brand new top of the line console 400 is not a lot. I got my GC for almost 400 on release day a few years ago. Now a $600 ps3 was expensive, but it definitely was not over priced and now it's 400 which is still a great value. Now cut the BS and move on. I'm tired of these fanboy rants.
bigblunt537
And thats perfectly fine. This was the only time I bought the most expensive console at $600, but to say a console e is expensive when most didn't consider the competitors expensive is a bit biased. Now if you say its out of your budget that's perfectly fine. Also it depends who you are because depending on your salary something can be expensive or cheap. My point is that many 360 owners that bought it at $400 are now calling the Ps3 expensive, but they had no problem shelling over 400 bucks for a 360 about a year ago.
Yeah I get you. In other words they're being hypocritical. But just so u know I would have never bought a 360 for $400 dollars. I found it in a price I personally could afford but if I didn't bought my 360 then, I would've gotten the arcade bundle probably. I would like a PS3 but as of now I can't afford a new console.It could come with $2000 wroth of hardware and software...$400 is still too much for a game console.
goblaa
The NES cost $200 in 1985 (Today would be $395.87)The Genesis cost $200 in 1989 (Today would be $343.03)
The Playstation cost $300 in 1995 (Today would be $419.92)
The Saturn cost $400 in 1995 (Today would be $559.89)
For those that don't understand inflation. Buying a $350 NES in 1985 would be equivalent to putting down almost $700 on a console in todays money. So when you think about it. For what you get $400 on a PS3 is not much at all.
[QUOTE="goblaa"]
It could come with $2000 wroth of hardware and software...$400 is still too much for a game console.
CajunShooter
The NES cost $350 in 1985 (Today would be $691.40)The Genesis cost $390 in 1989 (Today would be $668.91)
The Playstation cost $300 in 1995 (Today would be $419.92)
The Saturn cost $400 in 1995 (Today would be $559.89)
For those that don't understand inflation. Buying a $350 NES in 1985 would be equivalent to putting down almost $700 on a console in todays money. So when you think about it. For what you get $400 on a PS3 is not much at all.
Here is some more information about what you posted. I thought it was interesting.
Charts
i know what you are trying to say and maybe i even agree a bit but if joe blow walks into the game store and sees a 299 xbox that plays cod 4 and a 399 ps3 that plays cod 4 whats he gonna buy?
If he could afford a PS3 he could get one but if he was smart, he'd get the 299 xbox and get a $50 gold membership making it 350 bucks with COD4, 380.i know what you are trying to say and maybe i even agree a bit but if joe blow walks into the game store and sees a 299 xbox that plays cod 4 and a 399 ps3 that plays cod 4 whats he gonna buy?
Riverwolf007
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment