| Mr Puggsly said: This kind of thinking is childish. If Sony wanted to a "solid" they would throw in some free games as well. Surely they can afford it! Sony wasn't doing anyone a solid when the PS3 was $599. I didn't get one until it was $250 with Uncharted 2 and GoWIII. Not because they were doing me a solid, but because that's what PS3 was worth to me. |
No, it's called having expectations as a consumer that companies won't intentionally seek to fuck you over. Your kind of naivete is bad for the industry because it gives every company carte blanche to screw over the consumer, when in fact, it's the consumers job to reign these cocksuckers in when they step out of line.
Comparing the PS3 to the Xbox One or even the PS4 is a straw man, PS3 cost more than $240 per unit more than what they were charging. If we were to apply that same model to current gen, the PS4 would be, what, $140.65? Yeah, sorry, you can completely criticize Sony for developing 3 new technologies, and leveraging them through the PS3, absolutely. But comparing the PS3's price to the PS4/XB1 is, well, ignorant of the facts.
To be fair though, Sony's initial movements after the launch of the PS3 to stave off more bleeding, wasn't for gamer's either, it was, as I said, to stave off the bleeding. It took them years before they got close to a point where you could say they'd earned back gamer goodwill. And gamer's were right to be annoyed. Not everyone can just drop $599 on a gaming device. Especially at that moment in human history.
