RolStoppable said:
archbrix said:
Yeah, people need to learn the difference between what is objectively "overpriced" and something deemed "too expensive", as they are two different things. The PS3 was too expensive for many at $599 in 2006, but it certainly was not overpriced for what you were getting at the time. And Switch 2 hardware is also not overpriced for its tech and functionality in 2025. |
The objective measurement for something being overpriced or not is sales. In other words, it's a matter of a product's price matching its value or not. So while the PS3 was sold at a substantial loss by Sony, it was still significantly overpriced. What is commonly forgotten about is that a console's value isn't determined by the technology inside alone, but also its game catalogue as well as other traits that may be present or not. This is why when you look at the PS5 and Xbox Series X with their very similar technology at the same price point for the longest time, you still end up with only one console being priced right while the other one is objectively overpriced since about a couple years after its launch in late 2020. Great sales and being overpriced are two mutually exclusive things when it comes to products that are non-essential for living. |
@bolded: That's where I would argue that the PS3 was not overpriced, just too expensive to be competitive. Again, two different things. I don't necessarily consider sales to be the ultimate objective metric in determining whether or not something is overpriced. Not always, at least.
The PS3 was not strictly limited to just a games machine. It was a blu-ray player the year that the media format launched. Stand-alone blu-ray players in 2006 ranged from around $799 to Sony's own $999 player - highly marked up and very overpriced. But the PS3 being $599 for a cutting-edge console and a player of a brand new format (and an excellent one at that - by far the fastest player on the market at loading discs at the time) was not overpriced at all. In fact, it was a bona fide steal. To me, that's a lot of value for $599, despite the fact that none of the earlier games interested me and that I had no intention of buying it until it came down to $400. Personally, I loved the Wii and the value matched the price for me but for someone with little interest in Nintendo's games, $250 for a slightly faster Gamecube with new controllers could be seen as overpriced. So while the value of the games catalogue is certainly important - even paramount - I don't consider it wrong for one to say that the PS3 gave you more bang for your buck. Doesn't mean that I didn't value the Wii far, far more in their early years, but as you said, you have to consider other traits as well.
The PS5 vs the Xbox Series X is a case where Microsoft literally devalued its console by taking away exclusivity. To a diehard Xbox fan though, maybe there is equal value there when you consider that some people just like a specific controller/online experience/ecosystem and perhaps have zero interest in Sony's exclusives. Most people would certainly opt to buy a PS5 because now you get Microsoft's exclusives too, as long as you're ok with a console that looks stupid.
Another good example is the PS5 Pro; probably not overpriced based on the tech, but definitely way too expensive for me based on the perks you get over the base model.