What does it mean that MS could hold out so much longer on $100 price cut?

[forevercloud3000]

crumas2 said:
I think the PS3 came out of the gate WAY overpriced. The 360, not so much, regardless how many might argue that the PS3 is a much better value for the money. All 3 consoles are primarily gaming machines, so having Blu-ray is nice for the storage and for those who want a do-all unit, but I personally prefer a standalone unit for watching movies (less power, heat, noise, space, etc.).

Is that not contradictory? If you had a single electronical device that could play your games, movies, music, etc you would use less power and heat. And the PS3 is super quiet, DVD players are much louder. You also would have more space because you would have less devices to manage. Your point is moot.

 

And I too think it is unfair to judge the PS3's pricepoint. Firstly, it was sold out the gate at a huge disadvantage, with all of it's bells and whistles accumalating around 800 bucks. It was sold at 600. Demand for a price cut was too strong so many still waited and Sony gave in. Now they range from 400-500. The standard 360s were still under that sku pricing point. Yet the PS3 continued to outperform it in sales. That shows that if they were around the same price the PS3 would be the overwhelming victor easily. It is it's price point that holds it back. People want it, just dont want to pay so much for it. More so then they do for the 360.

I also find it very unfair to judge the PS3 for including so many bells and whistles within it seeing as MS sells plenty of all the accessories that the standalone PS3 matches. All those people who pay for play and charge kits, hardrives, HDDVD players, etc, have spent way over the PS3's price tag and dont even know it. With the single purchase of the PS3 all of those accessories become null and void. And I KNOW MS sells quite a few accessories because I work in retail. The idea baffles me how people fell for this marketing ploy...