| Rpruett said:
Sony can't sell the PS3? Really? Is that why it's sales are still tracking higher than the cheaper Xbox 360 in identical time frames? You keep saying this like Sony has to 'give away' the PS3. It gets sold. 21 million in what? 2 years and some change? How much did the 360 have at the same point? And what planet do you live on? Most people in the Western world would have a VERY hard time justifying a $1000 purchase for a video game system. You live in a world of delusion and fantasy (Which by reading your posts is evident) if you believe otherwise. Most people who play games that I know, Just can't afford to spend $400 on another video game system. Priorities in life take over. Remember, a good amount of Video game owners are going to be below working age and have to rely on birthday money or their parents spoiling them.
We aren't talking about the PS2. We are talking about the PS3. The PS3 has more value in it than either the Wii or the Xbox 360. It has more monetary value associated with it. Simple. It's worth more. If we broke out the components of all three products and sold them on the black market, you would net more $$ from the PS3 parts than the 360 or Wii components.
|
You're really dense or trying very hard not to get my point ...
People have a hard time justifying a $1000 videogame system not because they can not afford to pay $1000 for a videogame system but because they don't see the value in a videogame system to justify the $1000 price tag. Even when there were videogame systems that (when adjusted for inflation) cost $1000, simply having a handful of people buy the system does not mean that the value of the system was $1000, although the people who bought those ultra expensive systems thought it was.
Basically, how people describe a product tells you how the value of a product relates to its price. When a product’s value to a potential consumer is less than its price they would likely call it an expensive product, when a product’s value is greater than its price to a potential consumer they would likely say that it was an inexpensive product, and when a products value is in line with its price to a potential consumer they would likely say that it is reasonably priced.
Anyways, you're arguing something much different in spirit than what Sony's PS3 value argument is ... Sony (essentially) claims that the added functionality in the PS3 will eventually be attractive enough that people will be willing to spend more on a PS3 and (therefore) they don't need to reduce the price of the PS3.
