potato_hamster said:
Sony actually throught people wanted a ~$800 machine, but didn't think anyone would pay ~$800 for it. Sony initially sold the PS3 at a loss, and not just a small loss, a big loss (rumored to be around $200 per unit). So if people were to take your stance at a time, Sony was doing people a huge favor by selling a device valued at $800 for *only* $600, and we're not even counting the cost of the R&D and development of the PS3, which was probably the most expensive console to develop ever at that point. |
no, you seem to offensive. The whole thread, right there you can read the original post. I have been saying that people who wants the value of the ps4 or xbox one are not wrong because if that's what they want then that's the best offer for them, that's the value that they are looking for, but switch offers a differen value and is a different product than the ps4 and xbox one, so you can't say that it should be cheaper because the ps4 and xbox one are $299.99 when the switch is giving you other characteristics that cost money to manufacture.
Also your little example... the xbox 360 and ps3 were the same product and same form factor, if I can buy a cheaper console with better games and better performance for third party game I'm not going to buy a $600 machine. If sony had a hybrid console for $250 or $200 with more power/performance then guess what? Nintendo would be in trouble.







