By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
rocketpig said:
mrstickball said:
Compare it to computers. In the past 10 years, a "good" system in 1995-6 would set you back $2500, in 1990, it'd be $3000 or so. Now a good system is $1200 or so, and economy class computers start at $500. Video games should be trending the same way, as they use the same components.

Not exactly an accurate statement. A premiere gaming rig will still run you ~$2000 for a box. $400 processor, $400 vid card, $200 mobo, $300 in RAM, $150 HDD, etc. When a console is released, they are premiere hardware and over the past two generations, are often initially sold at a loss.

But I understand your point. Sony and MS decided that it was time to raise launch prices on their consoles and it's obvious that consumers aren't buying into it in large numbers. Nintendo took a more classic approach (they're actually overcharging for what you get with the Wii) and the console is selling like gangbusters.

Personally, I hope things are scaled back a bit next generation so that companies can come in at $300-350 at launch and deliver a solid hardware experience, but nothing outrageous like the Cell/Blu-Ray/I'm going to take over the world approach of the PS3, but also nothing as woefully underpowered and overpriced like the Wii. Somewhere in the middle would be nice.


Well I mostly agree.  Your point that the Wii is overpriced for what you get is sorta misleading.  I know what you mean, but others will take it the wrong way.  Nintendo sells the Wii for a $25 profit (slightly less in America because of Wii sports bundle).  Economically speaking, anytime demand is outstripping supply a machine is underpriced, because it means that they are not maximizing their profits.  Ideally, you would sell 90% of a stock at a price that's well balanced.  The PS3, by pure economic terms, is overpriced, because supply far ouststrips demand, despite the fact that it's sold for a large profit loss.   Really the terms under and overpriced are often misused because people think of them as the "bargin" the company is giving you, but in fact they should really only be used to describe the consumer's demand for the product.

I agree that the next generation prices need to drop again.  I think this generation proves that very concretely.  Selling a high graphic console is fine, but if you work to hard to take too big a graphical leap you charge far past the market value. 

Also OriGin, because you are in a minority system section this generation, you are going to have to deal with the fact that many games you want won't be going to your system.  Through 2008 you will see big titles hit the PS3 and 360, but after that all your going to get is mediocre 3rd party support and whatever first party games the 2 companies can come up with.   The only way that will change is if those games somehow magically sell millions of copies despite small system user bases.   This is very unlikely.  Although this generation is unique in that one system is weaker compared to the others than usual, it's still likely to follow the basic trends of previous generations.  In general, the console that was selling fastest 6 months after launch has always won the generation.  I'm affraid if graphics are what you want in the big name franchises, gaming isn't the right hobby for you.  Not once in history has the most powerful console won the system war.