[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"]
[QUOTE="2Chalupas"]
For a console, the launch price was obviously NOT reasonable. Granted it cost even more to manufacture than they were able to sell it for, that doesn't change the fact that the price point was still way off the "sweet spot" for a home console.
I'm not sure WTF the OP is talking about now though. I do think both consoles are a bit overpriced, PS3 should be $199 and XBOX should definitely be less than the PS3 (based on lacking of a blu-ray player, it certainly shouldn't cost MORE than the PS3). Maybe at E3 we will get another price cut and a new "super-slim" version of each existing console to go along with the first confirmation of next gen.
2Chalupas
Well, that's your opinion, and I have mine. To me, buying hardware for a price that is cheaper than it costs to manufacture is a sweet, sweet deal. I think most sane people would view it the same. The argument that 'it's to much for a console' is a silly one, as this varies greatly from person to person, based on what they WANT to pay for a console.
Not reasonable to you, doesn't mean it's not reasonable. The hardware was expensive, component wise. The price made it a steal.
I guess it depends on where in the world you are also, I live in the UK, and if American prices where a direct exchange to the GBP, things would be alot cheaper here.
As an example, $250 US PS3 at conversion now is only £157.
UK 320Gb PS3's are selling retail for £229. That's the eqivalent of $363 USD.
So it really does make a difference where you are, in terms of what something costs. If it's worth it depends on the person, but you cannot deny that buying something for cheaper than it's parts is 'cheap'.
Not just my opinion, but obviously many people's opinion as the PS3 was practically dead in the market it's first year or two. Price was a huge factor.
Getting something for less than cost to manufacture doesn't necessarily make it a steal either, Sony should have found a way to manufacture more efficiently or perhaps tweaked the engineering to remove some features at launch (not 1-2 years later start to remove features and redesign it more efficiently). Now for an early adopter of blu-ray movies, the PS3 was a great thing. I've been a huge fan of the blu-ray format replacing DVD (and hopefully moving into 4K soon). But as a gaming machine, early adopting didn't do much and blu-ray was all but useless to the PS3. I love my PS3 and the games it has now, but it's pretty hard to deny how/why the PS3 did not "win" this gaming generation.
I do not consider a PS3 (or 360) a video games machine. They have more purposes than that, and as such, are valued accordingly. The Wii is the last true video games console we will ever see. Again, it is priced and valued accordingly.
If the price impacted it's sales etc isn't really relevant to my point either (for the record, it surely did). My point being only that it cannot be considered 'to expensive' on the terms that it was sold for less than it cost Sony to make. By the token of what the parts are worth, to what the customer paid, it was incredibly good value for money. People attach a value they are willing to pay for something to the features it has, but that is relative to the person, and so cannot be a 'true or false' scenario, as it varies greatly.
The opinion you have, and as you point out others share, is based on this relative personal value of the device, not it's actual hardware value, which is what I am reffering to.
.
Log in to comment