Am I the only one who thinks $400 is still expensive?

[sieanr]

SlorgNet said:

sieanr said:

Inflation calculator; What cost $300 in 2000 would cost $351.26 in 2006 - http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

 

I don't know where that site is getting its numbers, it seems to be talking about buying the same product over time, which isn't an accurate metric of inflation. The official inflation numbers are from US Bureau of Labor Statistics, right here: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/#tables

According to the BLS, $299 in 2000 would be $361.02 in 2007. So the $399 PS3, assuming it's actually released this holiday, really is quite close to the price-point of the original PS2.

Oh shit, $10 off makes all the difference in the world. Still, $40 is almost the cost of a game or the price of a controller. Oh wait, both those things have gone up too.

Really now, the price point is almost where the PS2 was at launch - do you realize how absurd that sounds? That the system has had its biggest price drop, and yet it just hit the almost the cost of its predessor at its most expensive.

Once more, people have gone on and on about how this will "send the PS3 through the roof" - but thats just silly. With the cost of the next gen systems people have lost perspective on how expensive $400 is. That early adopter price, thats "we accidentally killed timmys dog and need to make up for it" range, not sort/kinda expensive Christmas gift. Furthermore, the PS3s competitors are still cheaper, and in some cases significantly.

Basically, when the PS3 hits $200 you can start calling the price "mainstream", until then acknoledge that $400 is still too much for most people.