Assuming that PS3 launched at $400 back in Nov. 2006

[misterd]

Entroper said:

plzdontbanme said:

You're the one who blindly stumbled into this thread, you didn't even read the topic, it says "assuming" so you assume. For example if I said assume both your parents were men would you play with your wii as much. Your reply would't be "WEL TAT INPOSSIBLE BABIES ARE BORN WIT A MAN AND A WOMEN AND A BOTTLE OF LIQUOR" it would be a yes or a no. The magical assume.

That's exactly what I did.  I assumed the PS3 launched at $400.  I also assumed that in order for Sony to be able to afford this, they had to use less expensive hardware in the PS3.  I could have chosen to assume that they used the same hardware and simply took an additional $200 loss on each unit, but I assumed they wouldn't be that suicidal.  Should I have assumed otherwise?

Your problem isn't with my assumptions, your problem is that my post assumes that we're in the real world, not some fantasy world where the Cell and Blu-ray are cheap to produce and Sony is still #1 in console sales.  Sorry, but I've got better things to fantasize about.

Precisely. If we are going to untether our assumptions from reality, why assume $400? Why not $200? Or $1? Why not raise the price of the Wii and 360 while we're at it, and maybe have Mario star in an animated porno.