But there not all 300, God, just never give up with that crap. If Nintendo console cost 600 they would be making and selling blah, blah, blah, if this and that, if Microsoft had a percentage of Japan divided by blah, blah, blah. Give it rest with those numbers. Why do people even go so far to make ridiculous calculations that don't mean anything. I'm sick of it. If your going to use to numbers, use the ones in reality.

Because their favorit consol is losing in reality?

Don't take it personnaly, but that's really very dumb math for several reasons :

1- You're trying to calculate unit solds/price/revenu considering the way price impact sales is a straight line. It's NOT. It's a stair. You don't sell just 2 times more console when its price of 400$ decrease to 200$, but 3 or 4 times more for a certain period of time (depending on period/value and even games). It's a matter of psychological threshold (see point 2) and revenus.

2- You're not considering the fact the psychological threshold is different for each machine. The price of 300$ you would NOT have the same effect on each machine. It would make the PS3 ultra appealing (not just for games but also BR, because it will be almost cheaper than HD-DVD reader, and cheaper than any BR reader, which isen't the case). It would make the X360 slightly more appealing (cause with pack & discount, it's almost at the same price) and it would make the Wii less appealing (cost more). So buyers won't react the same way and figures won't be the same at all.

 3- You not considering that having a 300$ price for each consoles at the same time would probably imply they would be different. Wii would be more powerfull, X360 might be the same, PS3 probably won't have BR. So once again, their value and appeal won't be the same.

 4- You're using as a base figures which are differents in many ways : not the same period (18 months to 6), not the same situations (world wide launch, 2 times launch)... It's considering that a 18 months life span show the same linear progress than a 6 month life span. Of course, that's stupid, since the usually big launch sales are way more diluted by the average daily sales.

And of course, we're not talking about the impact of games, the variation of sales this price could imply in low revenus countries (where you can find the X360) and a bunch of other stuff.

Point is : this math is worthless and completly dumb.

And so am I wasting my time to explain that.

Edit : Oh, yeah, and I forget. What's make you think a lower price will translated into bigger sales for the PS3 ? I mean, look at japan : the 20 Gb is at 400$, the 60G is at 500$... for official prices but many shops are already doing 20% discount, which mean you can get a PS3 20 Gb at 325 $ or so. And now, look at the sales...

???????????????????????? i cant believe weezy even clicked on this thread.

Ok guys no need to gang up on him I'm sure he gets the point.

Yeah. I agree with DKII. However, I will ask another question. If the Wii were $400-450 because it had HD capabilities, would it be doing as good as it is now? People say that if Nintendo had done HD, it would be better. However, I doubt it would have the mass market appeal, due to the price.

Omg. If all the consoles were $10. Everyone in the world would have at LEAST 2! That's like.... 36b consoles IN THE WORLD.

Ps3 would win if it was $300.  Their is just too much to offer and for only twice the price of the dominate Ps2 it's brand would have kicked it into high gear. 

 I also love the analysis.  I.E. assuming revenue would be the same despite the price point.  I.E. the WII should have sold for $1.8775 billion dollars and just sold one Wii.  That way they wouldn't have to worry about manufacturing any more of it, and they could focus on WiiHD.

 If moneky's could fly they'd take over