Um...sorry, you lost me here. Isn't that one of the worst ways to measure per-dollar value...?

Also, the PS3 is already the best "real dollar" value for what you get.

The problem is it has a much lower perceived value. Which is all that matters.

People will only pay what they feel is worth it for a product.

So how would you do it then? Please suggest another way of comparing all three consoles.

This topic is full of fail and stupid, I gotta go get some fresh air.

Why? it seems like a good way, with the same prices, people will decide by console hardware/games library/gaming expirience, not price.

In which... I imagine Wii would win. I mean, the expanded audiene isn't going to touch PS3/360. No matter the price... if they didn't get PS2's last generation, why would they get them this generatrion?

Your basically asking "What will happen near the end of this lifecycle."

In which case... Wii would still be ahead, PS3 is likely 2nd, 360 is likely third.

Still the point is. He asked what was the best value. Not what would sell best.

Which in of itself is a bit of a nebulous concept.

Sony would go bankrupt, lol

You mean objectively speaking? I wouldn't bother, because I just don't see how it's possible. You and I are going to value different things in our consoles. I, for instance, don't give a fig about high-def graphics, but others do (Wanting Mega Man 9 in HD, anyone?). So the same bullet point weighs much less in my mind than it does in others. Similarly, you may value having the cheapest Blu-Ray player cum game console. I don't care about Blu-Ray. Now I'm paying money for a feature I don't value. Do you see why this discussion isn't feasible?

The only way I can picture this working is by asking people strictly for their subjective opinions. Of course, then you're just asking for trolling, so that's imperfect as well. In the end, I'd suggest just choosing a console that best suits your tastes, and then letting the chips fall where they may.