ssj12 said:
Darc Requiem said:
MikeB said:
@ Darc Requiem
I disagree Mike. If the PS3 cost as much as the Wii it would have to have several features stripped from it and it chipset would be much weaker. If the Wii was the same price as the PS3 it would comparable in power and most likely have an HD-DVD based medium. Their is a difference in price for a reason. Whether is be PS3, 360, or Wii each systems cost is directly connected to each companies design philosphy. It is why the "what if x console cost as much as y console argument" is a useless one.
If the PS3 would have a different much weaker design, for instance lacking the Cell processor it wouldn't be a PS3 and I would probably have skipped this console generation entirely as well.
The power of a system and provided features are crucial to me. For example the Amiga allowed me to play games and do things which were simply not possible to do on a NES, the two solutions existed next to eachother with their gaming heydays starting around 1988. The Amiga allowed me to play 90s quality games in the 80s, the Amiga had a far more diverse games library than for example the Snes (released here in Europe in 1992) which apart from Super Mario World was by far more impressive to me. |
You missed my point Mike. The "what if the PS3 was the same price as the Wii argument" is pointless. It is too flawed to be mentioned and should never be used in any credible argument. A $250 PS3 would not be the same system as the $600 PS3, a $600 Wii would not be the same system as the $250. This is just as flawed as the rampant and incorrect economy car vs. luxury car analogy used to compare the Wii and PS3. |
yea.. but we all know the Wii is overpriced.. Nintendo could easily have sold it at $200 and made a profit. |
But why not sell it for 50 dollars more and increase their profit margin by 2.5 fold. Please don't try and turn this into a Nintendo is unethical argument.
