1) That's what this was about... best value

2) Many PS2 owners still would of found more value in a new control scheme.

3) Many PS2 owners will never buy another console, and some who will... won't until later in the lifespan even it it is 250.

The perceived value of the Wii is just higher then the PS3's in the minds of the general consumer public. This was do to the Wii taking off right away, not the PS3 floundering.

As such, all the news stories would of still happened, tons of people would still come in from new areas... and the Wii still would of one. Basically how it will end up is how the "final generation sales" will end up.

People can cling on to the "It was just to expensive" arguement if they'd want... but it's just not the case.

So you're saying the question, the answers, and indeed the entire discussion is irrelevant? If so, then I agree. 

In that case we could just go for broke and imagine this scenario:

"What if the PS3 were $100 and it already had 90 million WW units sold with the 360 and Wii at $900 with 500k sold WW each."

Whoops, sorry, I missed your post the first time. I'll reiterate what I wrote earlier though: because our tastes are different, our mileage will vary, so even if we go by library, we won't really be measuring the same thing.

Even then, however, there's a flaw here. The HD consoles are more expensive because they cram in more features. If I may use an analogy, let us examine, say, graphics cards. An 8800GT costs about $130 nowadays, and can give you pretty darn good graphics. The newest lineup will run you $500, and offer you better graphics, but not necessarily four times better graphics. Which is the better per dollar deal? The 8800GT offers you the best bang for the buck, so most people would pick that (it gives you only what you want, at a low price).

However, some folks really, really want to run Crysis at max settings. This is incredibly important to them. The 8800GT doesn't do that. To them, that card isn't as good a deal because, despite being cheaper, it doesn't deliver what they're looking for. This is analogous to what we have now in the console world.

Now, suppose we do what Rock On did, and make both cards only $130. The 8800GT is still good enough for most people, but for the same price you could get more. Sure, most folks are uninterested in more, but if you can pick it up for "free", why wouldn't you? That's part of what makes this question incorrect.

I'm not THAT far in imagination land. :)
The question is hypothetical - the consoles have the same properties, without anyone going bankrupt due to prices... that's not a problem to anwser and you don't really need to go into a deep discussion.

Which would still go Wii, PS3, 360. Price is largely irrelvent.

At best MAYBE PS3 loses some marketshare in the end due to 360 selling more consoles it's first year alone on the market.

X360, PS3, Wii, IMO.

What Rol says.

Or simply "What if they were all free?"  That would REALLY tell you what people's pure preferences were. 

But as I said earlier, this firestorm could have been avoided if Rock_on_2008 had simply made it clear from the start what Xen and Sqrl have agreed upon -- that it's an utterly hypothetical question with no practical real-world application.

People would just get all of them...

Exactly.

In the case of that analogy, your logic is completely true... however there are more factors with console stuff, therefore it could apply there. With consoles - games available, experience required, experience delievered, family fun? people will decide on these factors, not just better or worse, like with video cards.