By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
HappySqurriel on 29 March 2009
Edit Thread
Rpruett said:
HappySqurriel said:
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.

Sony can sell the PS3 at $400. A full $150 higher than it's closest competitor. As it relates to the Xbox 360. It's selling at a higher rate from release dates at a higher price since day one. On that essence alone, it is more valuable.

 

Ah yes, Sony fanboy. Lolcopter.

600$ is not too expensive for people to pay? Really? LOL. Quick name me how many $600 systems have ever done extremely well on the market? $600 was too expensive for the average consumer and the sales showed that. People as a whole don't see the PS3 as being worth $400 - $600 ? 21,000,000 people (And counting) disagree with you.

 

val⋅u⋅a⋅ble

  <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/V00/V0019700" mce_href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/V00/V0019700" target="_blank"><img src="http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif" mce_src="http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif" border="0" /></a>  [val-yoo-uh-buhl, -yuh-buhl] Show IPA –adjective

1. having considerable monetary worth; costing or bringing a high price: a valuable painting; a valuable crop.

 

 

The dictionary says that you fail. Sorry.

 

IF YOU CAN'T SELL IT WHAT HIGHER PRICE CAN YOU BRING?

Beyond that, anything under $1000 is entirely within the price range that the vast majority of people in the western world can buy if they wanted to. People don't buy a $400 PS3 because they don't feel that it is worth $400 not because they can not afford to buy it ...

Stop looking at it from the perspective of "I bought a PS3 so it is totally valueable" and start looking at it from the perspective of "I was a loyal PS2 fan and will not buy a PS3 because it is more expensive than I am willing to pay for a videogame console" ... Why do the 20 Million people who bought a PS3 get to claim that it is worth it while the 120+ Million PS2 owners who haven't bought one get no say?