Overpriced =/= expensive.

The PS3 was expensive, not overpriced.

Like I mentioned in the other thread, if Sony's taken a $100 loss then the console will be $400. $50 loss will be $450 and so on. 

Which is expensive imo, but is waaaay better than the "599 US DOLLARS" the PS3 is famous for. So I will say they did learn from their mistakes, but I'm not sure if it's going to pay off.

$100 loss is a lot! Sony is struggling to make a profit and taking more loses won't solve the problem. A $50 loss would be more reasonable. 

Wow! What does the 100th person who asks you receive?

I agree. People need to expect that (especially now that Sony said they won't be selling for a loss, or less of a loss than PS3) Sony doesn't want to price their consoles as cheap right out of the gate. It just doesn't seem to work that way anymore. Don't expect anything less, if you do, you are setting yourself up for dissapointment or you are just trying to prove your point. (Not directed at you, Pezus.)

What's worst for sony???

Overpriced but sold at a gain? or Well priced but sold at a loss?

PS3 was overpriced and sold at a loss, worst strategy ever. But if it had been sold at a gain, it would have been a huge financial success for Sony.

it was a 499/599 dollar videogame so it was overpriced. what it costed to sony is irrelevant.

yeah but the economy is not so great now so 400 in 2013 might be pretty equivalent to 500 in 2006

Considering Sony isn't selling at a loss with the PS4, even with part costs lower, I can't see it at less than $450.

Overpriced would mean that it wasn't worth what it retailed for. Considering that stand-alone blu-ray players in 2006 were around $1000, the PS3 was a substantial bargain.

Having said that, it doesn't change the fact that it was still too expensive for what people expect to pay for a video game console.