The average person doesn't know what's under the hood, just what he can see in games and the pricetag.

Price does not equal perceived value. So a mediocre ford out selling a Lexus that costs 3 times as much means that ?

and thats what counts anyway

its the software produced.

some systems have failed due to low quantity of quality software

i.e Saturn, Dreamcast, N64 to a lesser degree

You sir, got no life, what so ever.

Ps3 is as expensive as having 7 hookers, each every day, come 1 hour every week

i know what i would want, if i didnt have a gf ofc =)

Apart from you, who said anything about the Ford being mediocre?

As far as the person who bought the Ford is concerned, he's obtaining tremendous value for a car that is similarly equipped but lacks the brand cachet of the Lexus, which he can happily live without.

Therefore, for the person who bought the Ford, it is a much better value than the overpriced Lexus.

Just like your Ferrari F50 you use as your avatar and as an analogy to the PS3: Many would consider the Ferrari a terrific car, just like many people would consider the Porsche 911 to be a terrific car, but many rather see the value in a Porsche since it's so much cheaper than an F50 and with the right tuning can be equally quick. Still, there are those who think the Skyline GTR is much better value because it can, in turn, smoke both cars with the right equipment and still come out cheaper than what it would cost to buy an F50.

Value is relative. Price is absolute. A Ferrari F50 will cost what it costs, and a Porsche 911 will cost what it costs, and a Nissan Skyline GTR will cost what it costs. However, to the person who is actually forking over the money, the perceived value of the cars can and will differ.

Of course, some will still think that the F50 is the better value overall, and more power to them. But suggesting that a Ford is mediocre simply because it is cheaper (and hence inferred as an inferior car) is completely missing the point.

Edit: BTW, Blue3, I'd like a reply from my question about your allegation that there are Wii fans that deny the Wii is underpowered compared to the Xbox 360 and the PS3. Please, when you get to replying to this post, you also reply to my initial post. Thanks.

If none of the big three look any better than the original XBox than he´s right but until than I really don´t care what anybody says, even if he´s a developer. Plus some of the Xbox games where really amazing.  What happend to the statements that the Wii doubled the GCs power, I´m more confuzed than usually now, just like when people praise the cell, we all know its amazingly strong but how strong really and why ??? Its really not that important anyway,  since  the only thing HD in my house is the PC monitor (and has been since the 90s) so I´m happy with whatever happens as long as games look as good as Conker Live & Reloded or Resident Evil 4 I´m happy. I know this sounds like denial but eventually I will eather upgrade my PC or buy a PS3/360 so I´ll just wait untill really good looking games like Bioshock and Crysis make my PC obsolete, this is one of the problems the 360/PS3 have expecially in germany (we love PCs), and expecially since so many 360 games are also PC games. I know 2 other PC freaks who have a Wii, but the only one with a 360 is the only one who doesn´t have a PCs. So basically the Wii didn´t avoid two strong enemys but three.

its a legit article, whats your problem.

maybe it will shut up those delusional people that think wii can run same game engines as  PS3 with only the graphics tuned down.

 LOL "similarly equipped" talk about understatment.

mayeb you will tell me a mustang is as good a M3 on the race track.