| Pyro as Bill said: Do you think it would have sold the same without the DVD player if the price stayed the same? Do you think PS3 would have sold at $599 if it didn't have a BluRay player? They added value to the system and dual use stopped them from being packed away or collecting dust. |
Yes, it would have been able to sell the same. When you could get a DVD player for 1/8th the price of the PS2, the DVD function means nothing. It's just a nice feature to use when not gaming. I mean, at that point you could get a Gamecube and a DVD player for $120, or $30 less than the PS2. Yet, strangely, nobody really did. Why? Because the PS2 offered what PS consoles always offer (minus cheap price for the PS3.) And the PS2 could have probably been a little cheaper if it didn't have DVD playback, which would have helped sales, as well.
| Slarvax said: I mean, the PS3 was the cheapest Blu-Ray player, that sure didn't affect its sales. All the proof we should need. Crazy that gaming consoles sell depending on their gaming content. |
I know, right. It's like some can't except that the DS AND PS2 sold on their gaming content, so have to explain away the PS2's success. I could easily just explain DS's success on being able to hack it easily, and that's the only reason it even got close to the PS2. I mean, its attach ratio is almost half that of the PS2, right? Of course, that also would be silly.
