fooflexible on 27 March 2007
Kwaad said: fooflexible - first off. The point is, "if all consoles were the same price."
I'd buy all 3. I would have bought all 3 at once... for the cost of my PS3.
The real question is. Wich one would you buy if they all cost 400$ (happy middle price between highest console, and lowest console)
I understand the point as I've said in my earlier post. My point is that if you agree on 200 dollars your really asking, what would you buy(and I'm only using the ps3 and Wii because they represent the two prices extremes) A Wii for $50 less, or a ps3 for $400 less? You see, it's not really a fair comparison. And that goes with any price. Take your $400 price tag, your asking would you buy a Wii if it was $150 more, or a ps3 if it was $200 less? How is that fair? My point being is that for the most part the price you pay parrellels the hardware your getting. If Nintendo was forced to create $600 Wii I'm sure it would have at least X360 graphics, with a bigger hard drive, High-Def support, perhaps some other innovative interesting component thrown in. But it doesn't BECAUSE it's 250 dollars.
So I think the best comparison here to make is this: If we all recieved all three consoles for free, which system would you be buying the most games for, and spending the most time playing?
That is fair, as the system war really comes down to software purchase, regardless of the platform the winner is really decided buy time and money spent on a system.
