Does Sony's PS3 value argument hold up?

[HappySqurriel]

Rpruett said:

HappySqurriel said:

@Rpruett

I'll change my example for you then, Suppose you bought a Diamond Ring for $2000 and there is no one who would buy it off of you how valuable is it? On the other hand, suppose you bought a Quartz ring for $25 and can sell it for $25 how valuable is it?

 

I'm pretty sure I could sell the Diamond Ring no matter what. I might not get $2000 for it. I would assuredly get more than $25 for it though. Again though, the consumer normally doesn't re-sell a product that they intend to buy. Still in the eyes of the consumer, yes the PS3's value argument holds up very well.

Valuable doesn't mean everyone has one. That's not valuable at all. For example, a Rolls Royce is more valuable than a Chevy Cavalier.

 

 

 

Value implies what you can sell it for ...

What you and most of the Sony Fanboys can't seem to grasp is that $400 (and $600) is not too expensive for people to pay for a PS3, people (on the whole) don't see the PS3 as being worth $400 so its hard to argue that the hardware that made the PS3 dramatically more expensive than traditional console made it more valuable when so many people reject it because its not worth the new higher price.