@JSF

Yeah. At least we can agree that all 3 consoles have futures of possibilities. All up to Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo.

PS3 has the hard problem of being at $600, double the cost of its predecessor at launch, and judging by the charts of last gen, most game console are sold at a sub $300 price, now granted it may also imply library maturation, but its unlikely that price does not play a factor, and I doubt most will be willing to pay over $300 for one, and unless the PS3 can reach that $300 mark in the next year or two I don't expect its future to be all that bright

The Gamecube was never a lot cheaper than  the competition.  $200 vs. $300 isn't that big a difference.  $100 vs. $150 is even less of one.   With a small seperation in price and with all systems under the massmarket limit of $300 other things become bigger factors.  Things like game library, total sales (causes kids to want what their friends have), and various extras like online or being a DVD player.  $250 vs.  $400/600 is a major difference.  At that level price does become the major determinant in which system people buy.

Something I thought the article was a little off on was the effect of the 360 Elite.  It says it should make the premium look like an even better deal at "only" $400.  If that's how market psycology works than the cheap by comparison core pack should be selling like hot cakes to the mass market.  IMO the Elite makes things worse since now even the $400 premium looks like a turd pack.  Although since MS doesn't seem to be making many Elites it may not matter that much.

Yeah, Microsoft is pretty funny. What if Sony released an Elite PS3 for $800? "See now the normal PS3 is pretty cheap, eh guys?" Ohhh Nintendo could release a Super Wii that also gives you back massages, for $300.

I guess now we find out if the PS3 is future-proof.

I think, for the PS3 vs. PS2 price drop is the fact that on the PS2, yes, we waited 19mo for a $300-$200 price drop, but that was a 33% decrease.

Most likely, we will have a 33% price drop within that timeframe, but it could be done twice @ 10mo each, give or take.

Also, the PS2 has dropped below 50% of it's price. Its now $129.99. The Xbox never went below $150, but got bundled with games.

Gamecube went to $69.99 onsale in some areas.

I personally don't really think much of that data, as they have *totally* failed to take into consideration inflation, because they talk about the $300 and $200 'barriers' yet I'm sure since the PS2 launched that they have risen a fair bit now.

Adjusted for inflation $200 would be $225 and $300 would be $339 ...

Generally speaking, the nominal price for the average PC has dropped at a steady rate since the mid 1980s while inflation has dropped the real price of the average PC dramatically; consider in 1985 you would have (probably) spent $2000 which would translate into $3600 in today's dollars, today you can buy a pretty good PC for $1000 or less.

What I am saying is that the price level has not changed that much since the last generation started (even less since many of the price drops took effect) and people generally expect the price of consumer electronics and PCs to remain the same or drop.

HappySqurriel said it better than before I did.

Inflation on video game stuff is irrelevant. Electronics not only get exponentially better, but cheaper. A mid-range PC costed $2500 10 years ago, that costed $3500+ 20 years ago, that now costs $1000. Even though the mid-range PC is 1000x better, the price is also lower.

Video games are the same way. The price is always the same, as income goes up with inflation, on a similar basis. Therefore, it doesn't matter. That makes the relevancy of a $100, $50, or $200 drop just as important as it did 5, or 10 years ago, if not more important.

Ahh, Ok makes sense.