which console is better and 6 good games?

[tuoyo]

Spankey said:

EaglesEye379 said:

 

I already agreed that if you are a Blu-Ray/movie enthusiast (meaning you are planning to start a collection) and want a console then the PS3 is the choice. My question goes beyond that and I dont mean to be 'touchy' as you say.

You did some math adding the cost of an Arcade with a Blu-Ray player, where I think this is not valid because if they wanted a Blu-Ray collection, they would have obviously buy a PS3, its the only choice anyway. But Im just pointing out that there are a huge section of the consumers that would find no use at all with a Blu-Ray feature and therefore, it would by far be more economical to not pay for it in the first place.

If you were using the word economical in terms of a Blu-Ray collectors perspective then Im not disagreeing with you at all, but I took your post as from a general perspective, which would then be wrong to say PS3 is the more economical choice in general.

'16.71 million people seem to be interested in it to date which should answer your question'

No Im not asking how many people are interested, and Im sure for everyone that is interested there is a much bigger percentage who are not.

'... there are millions of people not interested in anything except trying to stay alive right now.'

Who's touchy now?

 

 

touché

but as for your question consider this:

You buy a microwave oven but never use the convection feature. have you wasted your money? Don't know what the convection feature is but if you paid an extra $50 for it then yes you wasted your money

You buy a car but never use the rear seats. have you wasted your money? Obviously not because the point is to get you from A to B.  That it could have gotten three extra people is not your problem.  Anyway you would have also picked a car because of looks.  But if a 2 seater looked exactly the same as 5 seater, had the same engine and features and cost let's say$10,000 less then to some extent you would have wasted your money as you might as well have gone for the identical car which is cheaper

you buy a hi-fi but never use the radio feature. have you wasted your money? No because if the radio was taken out it wouldn't have really made any difference to the price

you buy a Tuxedo, but never use the pockets. have you wasted your money? No because you bought it to wear not as a storage device

you but a TV but never use the RF tuner. have you wasted your money? No because you use satellite to achieve the same thing (watching tv programming) while getting many more channels than through the RF tuner.  On top of that digital picture is clearer than RF picture.

you buy a laptop but never use the Bluetooth. have you wasted your money? only if there was exactly the same laptop save the absence of bluetooththat cost much less

All these features add value, but it's up to the purchaser to decide whether or not to use them

If those features are removed, the product would not be the same without them. sure the item would probably be cheaper without them but would lose functionality that some people are willing to pay for.

Besides, to get back on topic the OP was looking for Blu-Ray player functionality, so for him it's the more economical solution.

See my bolded responses and my statement I underlined.That's the problem to many they do not add value.   You are forcing the consumer to pay for something they do not want.  Let me ask you this.  There are two PS3 SKUS.

SKU 1 has 40gb hard drive and no blu ray drive.  It cost £150.

SKU 2 has a 40gb hard drive and blu ray drive.  It cost £280. 

Which would sell more?  Without a doubt SKU 1.  In fact if Sony had offered this alternative PS3 would have crushed 360 sales by now.  But they couldn't because they were obsessed with winning the HD format war and blu ray in every PS3 was the only way they could achieve this.