sieanr said:
ChichiriMuyo said:
sieanr said: Really, $400 is still fucking expensive.; its more than the PS2 launched at |
Actually, it's not really much more, if at all more, than what the PS2 launched at when you consider the fact that we've had a lot of inflation in the last 7 years and the economy is taking a tumble. Really, in terms of cost of living, the PS3 40GB as a luxury item is no more of a financial strain than the PS2 was at launch. Of course, you probably didn't have to worry about your cost of living then and may not even now, so you may not know squat about that. And as far as the market is concerned, a $400 PS3 is more valuable than a $350 360. When the difference was $400 to $500 (and still 600 euros...) PS3 was actually selling more. While this is another gimp model, it's still very likely to put the PS3 well above the 360 and even more so if the 80GB comes down to $500. |
Inflation calculator; What cost $300 in 2000 would cost $351.26 in 2006 - http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ But given your post, I'd say you dont know jack about cost of living. In fact, you even say that the economy is worse off than it was in 2000, meaning that a luxary item like the PS3 is even more of a finacial strain than the PS2 at launch. Thats some great logic.... |
I may have worded it poorly, but you've missed what I meant. In terms of the cost of living, everything else has jumped up more rapidly in comparison. So yes, a PS3 is a more severe financial strain than a PS2, but it's not by a whole lot and it's a whole lot less of a jump than everything else you would want to go out and buy.
