By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
d21lewis on 28 November 2009
Edit Thread
Xoj said:
d21lewis said:
Xoj said:
restored_lost said:
yea i mean i see the comparisons but all that really proves is that sony would have failed with the ps2 if xbox were a little more seasoned and gamecube i dont know what happened there, basically sony did really well and inovated with the ps1 at an affordable price but bulnered the ps2 and ps3 with there overpriced launches, but hey i mean cant blame them for trying to push the industry, every gen their consoles have some new format to push, id lol if ps4 was all digital download.

i actually happy they did what they did for the ps3.

i don't want that happen what happen with PC Gaming, where intel thinks 4500HD is good enough, and PC gamers are lazy bunch t hat can only code with engines. (not coding at all).

while they pushed harder, though the price raised, ps3 also have more quality than all the consoles in the market. and in the end the price went down. and would have gone done faster it wasn't for sony.

360 would still be 399$ wiii 250$

debatable.

Are the Wii and 360 priced less because of Sony or is the PS3 $299 (half priced) after 3 years because of Microsoft and Nintendo.............

pink - ps3 it's made of higher quality more expensive chips. for the cell, Blu ray drive, HDD, XDR ram and having a overall failure rate, almost as low as the wii. actually main problem of the wii and ps3 are only lens.

yellow - both microsoft and nintendo pushed their pricecuts after PS3 sales spike.

and the ps3 still is 100$ more expensive than the main competitors.

360 cut their price twice in 2008! since ps3 hit 400$ they couldn't get ahold of anything in europe and others.

when u are the most expensive consoles it's given u are bound to have more price cuts, since the space for those are bigger, and sony being the one pushing.

u may say because there wasn't demand for it, but recent price cut make me believe there always was a demand, just it was too expensive (for a good reason).

As for the "PS3 also have more quality than all the consoles in the market" comment:  How the hell was I supposed to know you meant the material the console was made of?  I thought you meant software library or failure rate!!

And the statement that Microsoft and Nintendo dropped their prices because Sony reached the $299 price point:  That's why I responded with a rhetorical question.  That's true, but c'mon.  The PS3 is at a $299 price point because the competition was so much cheaper!  The PS1 and PS2 were redesigned near the end of their console generations.  Look how early we get a PS3 Slim.  Which came first?  The chicken or the egg?