$600 for the PS3 is a great deal. Most Blu-ray players are $400~, so you're getting the actual system for only $200. But I can understand people still saying it's too expensive; most don't really use Blu-ray.

 Right, you've identified the problem.  It really depends on how you define a "great deal:" if you simply mean how much money it costs to produce, then obviously the PS3 is a great deal. If a great deal is something that lots of people will buy at the given price, then obviously the PS3 is NOT a great deal.  I tend to believe that "Value" is determined by the customer, not the production cost, so I go with the latter.

Real chess would be cheaper AND have better graphics.

I think something is only a good deal when the consumer can afford it and needs or wants it. A Lexus that's on sale for $45000 and is way below sticker price isn't a good deal to me because I'm not rich yet.

 wehhhhh wehhhh its to expensive wehhhhhhh.

 there is not price for it yet, and is sure as hell is not a 100 dollar peripheral.   Your post reinforces you have no clue wtf you talking about go find the price for the eye toy, PS eye shoud cost similar.

 Eye of judgement is 59.99 like any game, not sure if it comes with the camera.

 That sounds like the complaints of Joe Schmoe aka the casual consumer.

You do realize that I own a 2500+ dollar computer set up, right? And that I'm a hardcore PC Gamer? And that my computer can run Crysis, which your PS3 can't? I mention this frequently enough that a regular like you should have noticed this by now.

I'm not saying it's too expensive for me -- I spend absurd amounts of money on video games. I'm saying it's too expensive for the average consumer. Just like the PS3 is. Sony's goal shouldn't be to attract me specifically, it should be to attract everyone, and an expensive peripheral for an expensive console is not the way to do it.

 Say what now? What does this mean exactly?

 It's a variant of the "if you want great graphics, go outside" mantra.