I don't think it's just the $600 price tag. It also has to do with the fact that the previous version was half the price. Consumers don't like going to the gas station one day and the next day it's double the price.

I know it's a new model, but the PS1 and the PS2 both started at $300. People come into the store thinking the new model will start as the same price as the previous models and are shocked that it has doubled.

Ok, why are you ignoring the $500 PS3 that has better specs than the $400 360.  M$ charges for online.  Most people don't do math.  And if you ignore the cheaper PS3 because the $600 is the better package, you can argue the PS3 is the better package than the 360 in many ways.  Sony is losing money on each console, much more than has been lost before.  When the PS3 launched it was the cheapest blu-ray player.  With $600 you get a console that is known not to fail (unlike 360s).  But whatever, I suppose "most" people agree with you.

 I understand that the $600 price tag on the PS3 creates a shock for some people, and they may chose not to buy it because of the price. I just don't see why it creates hate.

With your gas station example, if the gas station that I typically go to doubles the price the next day then I'd simple go to the next one down the street and say to myself "Oh well, thier loss".

Oh please, the 500$ version is virtually unavailable and has been since after launch.  You can argue that PS3 is a better value than 360, but that's only if you want all the extra gadgets.  Microsoft gives you the option to choose.  You can play a 360 game for 300$ + 60$ for game.  The PS3 you can not play for less than 600+60$.  The main problem with the ps3 is people don't like having things forced on them that make the price dramatically higher.

I am not sure about that one. I often visit this site too, and especially those polls gave me the feeling that the side is mostly pro-nintendo. but probably dallas is right if he states that this result is mostly due to the momentumthat  nintendo has created.

Yeah, I saw that too... amazing is most sites today are very pro-Nintendo. It´s just they don´t make anyone angry cuz they did so a lot of things right in recent time. Nintendo is almost something like everybodies darling today. Great change if you still remember the scene 5 years ago when nobody was interested in GC....

M$ does not give you the choice to play online games for free like every non-MMO PC and console game. M$ does not give you a hard drive as a standard for their console enabling developers to take advantage and lower load times and make extra content available. They also do not give you the choice to install a hard drive other than the way overpriced ones such as the $180 120GB hard drive (worth $50 retail). Also, apparently it was the consumer choosing against the 20GB PS3 that caused Sony to phase them out. I think it's a bad move on their part because the packages were more comparable.

People keep saying, mainly M$, that they give their customers choices, but they don't yet have a blu-ray add-on drive, do they? Wouldn't a consumer want the choice to have the leading HD drive? Both have choices but that doesn't mean the choices are good.

Also, I believe you'd have to buy a memory card to save games for the Core version, so add some more money on for that. I think M$ has a very clever strategy because they can offer inferior packages and then pack on add-ons that people will most likely choose later. The best thing on the 360 is Live I keep hearing. Well, to take advantage of online games you have to pay. Buyers are short-sighted, I just wish people on this site weren't.

Also, the 20GB PS3 might still be more available than the Wii, and the 20GB version was readily available for months. 

No the 20 gig version is at 1% availability, that's as low as it could possibly be.  Not everyone wants the 60 gig version, but obviously at launch the 60 gig version is the only one that is gonna sell.  The kind people who buy the PS3 when it has hardly any good games and is highly overpriced would obviously buy the 600$ version.  Also retailers didn't want to have them because they made less money on each sold.

If Sony listened to what the consumer wanted they would have put out a 300$ or 400$ system, and would be in a similar situation that the Wii is in right now. 

I'd like to see a survey done of how many PS2 owners want blu-ray on the PS3 taking into account that it will cost 200$ or more.  Hell i'd like to see a survey done on PS2 owners to see how many even know what blu-ray is.

Most 360 owners will tell you that the xbox live fee is well worth it, while PS3 owners are not paying, but it is much worse.  Again, it's an option because you don't have to pay for it.  Ps3 owners are basically paying for the price of online in the price of the system.

Who cares about the MS hard drive, is 60 gigs not enough for you?  Seriously, it's a console.

I don't understand it either. But consumers are quick to turn on brands that think they have been stabbed in the back by them. Like I said earlier (above), GameFAQs.com is visited by a lot of PS2 owners. I'm sure these same people were hoping to purchase the PS3 but are deterred simply because of price. Now they have to turn somewhere else to get their fix and hence the feelig of malcontent.

The best argument I've ever read in the system wars forums.

If MS was really about choice, they would provide a choice between blu-ray or hd-dvd external drive.