vitoaf27 said:
by my math, and by sonys financial reports, youre 100% wrong. the ps3 is actually about $440 worth of equipment. selling at $400, its $40 less than its worth. if it was "$100 more than its worth," sony would be incredibly profitable, despite their other technology's struggles. |
"Worth" is not the cost of the parts, it is how much a buyer will accept to pay for it in a free market.
Thus, you're both wrong in some measure. You're talking about a different quantity (production cost), and Zen is extending his opinion or personal evaluation on how much it's worth for him to the general public (about 15-20% less than 360 buyers each week deem the PS3 worth that amount or more, as they state with their wallet by buying one).
For me there are other PS3 features that made it worth my €400, on top of me wanting a good, constantly up-to-date BluRay player and WiFi enabled console that could play the exclusives I was interested in:
- easily replaceable HDD, that doesn't invalid the warranty. I could upgrade it to 350GB for about €40.
- easy dual-boot into Linux, supported out of the box by the system software. I can now play all my emulators on my 42" Plasma from my couch instead that on my computer in the studio.
Just as an example of two rather rarely requested features, underlining that saying that a console is "worth" its price by itself is meaningless. It is entirely dependant on the user's needs and wishes.
For me and my needs, it was a bargain, and I would have paid even more for it. It has nothing to do with Sony's spin, only with the features I value.
