If the Wii was $400 I'm pretty sure that only about 1 or 2 of the 6 people I know who own it would have bought it.

If you look at sales of systems from the NES to the XBox you will notice a trend that the vast majority of consoles were sold at $200 or less (even if you factor in inflation) ... The PS3 and XBox 360 have sold poorly and missed sales targets because they're way too expensive. If $400 is still way too expensive what makes you think $500 is not way too expensive?

It doesn't matter if it has Blu-Ray, most consumers see $500 as way too expensive
It doesn't matter if it has the Cell processor, most consumers see $500 as way too expensive
It doesn't matter if it has WiFi, most consumers see $500 as way too expensive
It doesn't matter if it has Home, most consumers see $500 as way too expensive

A long time ago consumers decided that a videogame system was worth $200 or less, it doesn't matter what has been included with the system you have to sell the system at $200 or less if you want to maximize sales.

Well, that's sad for the other 4-5 people you know, but there are so many people out there right now that still want the machine and don't have it that the thing would have just sold to someone else. eBay is a good metric for these issues, and it is brutally frequent that Wiis are sold there for $400 with Wii Play also included. Factor in shipping, which the seller will always charge too much for on eBay, and you see a situation where people are already paying $450 for a Wii and Wii Play. The demand for the Wii is just that high.

As for the majority of consoles launching at $200 from the NES on, I have to say you're just looking at Nintendo consoles. Their competitors have regularly launched at a higher price, with the Dreamcast being the only non-Nintendo system I can think of to possibly launch at $200. Nintendo maintains that price-point, their competitors usually get there after a price cut or two. If you factor in inflation, then either the GC or the Wii is the cheapest launch price a console has ever had by a large amount.

With inflation the N64's $200 pricetag would be $300 now. And whether you realize it or not, for the general consumer $400 is not too expensive... if the console gives them the experience they want/. As I've pointed out, there are people paying $400 for a Wii as we speak and there are probably 25 million that would buy the PS3 at $400, the 360 doesn't have as much going for it as either of those two in the consensus view of people who want to play games.

And yes, the consumers did decide a long time ago a console was worth $200. This is not a long time ago, this is today. When I got my NES it cost $200 and candy bars cost 35 cents. Candy bars cost 75 cents now and consoles, should they provide a good enough experience, are worth $400 now.

The fact that Nintendo hasn't raised their prices as quickly indicates not that gamers won't pay more, but that Nintendo does business in their own way. The retailers forced Nintendo to increase the cost simply because, unlike Nintendo, they are aware that a dollar simply doesn't go as far as it once did and people are willing to pay more for things now than just 5 years ago, let alone 20 years ago.

So, again, the $400 console price range that you think is drying up is actually the $400 360 price range drying up. The Wii would still be kicking ass at that price, since there are already people paying over $100 mark-up plus shipping to get the console at that price when they could have it for less by waiting. The PS3 would be kicking ass at that price too because many loyal PS1 and PS2 owners will ignore the 360 and wait until the console that brought them here gets into their price range.

MS has run out because they don't have over a decade of brand loyalty to work with and they have a very bad reputation to overcome from their dealings in other sectors. It's an uphill battle for them, and they'd lose to both competitors at the same price-point. Really, they can't beat Nintendo or Sony without an outright pricewar, and that's how they are beating Sony for now.

 I didn't say Launch price ...

100% of Gamecube systems were purchased at $200 or less
(roughly) 75% of PS2 systems were purchased at $200 or less
(roughly) 85% of XBox systems were purchased at $200 or less
100% of Dreamcast systems were purchased at $200 or less
100% of N64 systems were purchased at $200 or less
(roughly) 80% of Playstation systems were purchased at $200 or less
100% of Genesis systems were purchased at $200 or less
100% of SNES systems were purchased at $200 or less
100% of NES systems were purchased at $200 or less

Only a handful of systems sold more systems above $200 than they did below $200; Sega Saturn, Atari Jaguar, Neo Geo, CDI, XBox 360 and PS3 are the only systems I can think of which really fit this mold. 

Even when you factor in inflation I don't think there is a single system that sold more than 50% of its systems at above $200 that also sold more than 10,000,000 systems worldwide ...

Try to look outside of your sheltered existance where "Everyone" will buy a PS3 for Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy and look at the 80% of PS2 owners who NEVER played those games ...

People who bought the PS2 to play Mercury Meltdown, Super Bust-A-Move, and The Sims do not buy $400 consoles ... These gamers out number you 4 to 1!

But launch price is all that matters here. The PS3 will be under $200 some day, it's inevitable. Today is not the day to talk about that, however, because neither of its competitors will be in that price range for the next 12-18 months either. It's a moot point, because it doesn't apply to any of these systems. Maybe the PS3 will sell the majority of its systems under $200, that's fine. That's a long ways off for all three of the current gen systems and too far in the future for you to reasonably predict what will happen.

Also, you're wrong on a number of those stats. Genesis launched at $250, for example.

Now, again, I'm going to tell you to stop putting words into my mouth. I never once indicated that "Everyone" was doing anything. I never even used the word everyone, that was you. I also would never indicate that the vast amjority of gamers are waitign for FF and MGS when they are a small part of the market. So, again, you're putting words into my mouth that I never even thought, let alone said. GT is much, much bigger than either of those two series and I haven't even implied anyone is waiting for that. What Sony's loyal fans are waiting for, as I did say multiple times, is for the console to get within their price range.

I dunno who taught you to read, but they failed miserably if you missed that and substituted it with your own ideas of what you thought I said. Those are your own flawed views you're arguing against, and in doing so you've failed to argue against any of the points I actually made.

As I said, the retailers had to put their foot down and tell Nintendo that they are selling their products too cheaply. Nintendo knows where their bread and butter is (the $200 range you mentioned), but they have a tendancy to completely ignore reality as they see fit. The reality is that the people who previously wouldn't pay more than $200 for a console now will just like the people who previously wouldn't pay more than a dollar for a 20 oz coke are now paying a dollar and a half. The people who wouldn't pay more than $1.35 for a gallon of gas when I was a kid would be happy to pay $2.70 now. The price of thigs go up, and so do disposable incomes. People are willing to pay more for a console now, even if the largest share of people aren't ready just yet.

After all, at $600 the PS3 has done as well as the PS1 launch price of $300 and is getting a price cut after approximately the same amount of time it took the PS1 to get its first cut. Imagine what it would have done to the old PS2 records if it had launched at only $400. And don't bother thinking about how the console would be doing at $300, because it'd be just as badly supply constrained as the Wii is today.

I will try to explain further why the PS3 can never follow the path of the Playstation and why it will never hit $200.

What I was trying to point out is that there is only a small portion of the general gaming population who sees videogames as being important enough to spend more than (about) $300 on a system. Just because these gamers are willing to spend more that (about) $300 doesn't mean that they will spend that much money on a PS3; between the PC, XBox 360, PSP, Nintendo DS and Wii there are enough competition for their attention that a PS3 may not be something they buy.

What this means is that the PS3 is going to sell like crap until it becomes inexpensive enough to tap into the general gamer market (say $200 to $300). The unfortunate consequence of having low sales is it becomes difficult for a developer to turn a profit producing games for your system so their attention is focused elsewhere. This produces a cycle where developers leave the system because of low sales, which in turn  reduces the sales of you system.

The PS3 will never last long enough to see $200 ... 

 If Sony has a good E3 this year sure, if htey have one as awfull as last year it will be more, sony sony what happend? 

Other than that I don't think the avarage Japan consumer will care a bit about E3the westen world that is another story. 

@Topic 

Well I see a small increase for a while and mantain a steady sale untill christmas. I don't think GTA will give that much of a boost because the really hardcore GTA fans will probarbly chose xbox360 with their exclusive content. 

I'm sorry, where did you buy your crystal ball? I'd really love to be able to look into the future, which is clearly what you must have done to be able to find out that the PS2 somehow never sells for $200. Or is it a time machine? Can I borrow it? I promise, it'll only be gone for a second.

You do not know how this is going to play out, so stop acting like you do. All we can do is speculate on what's happening now and what the results of it will be in the near future. The fact of the matter is, there isn't any evidence that the PS3 is going to die. In fact, with this price cut they will probably stay on the same sales course as the 360 and have about 10 million units sold this time next year with a good holiday.

That's not a dying position by any definition. Yet that's what we have to look at for the imeadiate future. Claiming that the PS3 isn't going to make it to the sweet spot, which is higher than you are apparently aware of, is asinine. As it stands, the system hasn't even gotten more than 2-3 big sellers when it has dozens in the pipelines. Wait until it starts seeing games people care enough about to buy before you predict the system's future, because I can assure you that game selection is hurting the systems sales right now as much as price. Again, the PS1 started off just as badly and picked up after not just a price drop but also the launch of games people were genuinely interested in.

Sony has always moved slow, that hasn't stopped them from getting huge in the long run. Sony doesn't care about today, they care about their future plans which we know so little about. They're just doing business as usual, and that got them two of the best selling electronic devices in history (three if you would like to talk about Walkman as well).

First off Sony has not "always started slowly" ... claiming that demonstrates that you don't really know what you're talking about. Secondly, you don't need a crystal ball to look at previous consoles (like the saturn) and see exactly how things are going to play out. 

If this pricecut is permanent, it should lead to a pretty significant increase in sales. It might even level the playing feild in NA between the PS3 and the 360. That would make the battle more interesting.

As far as the Walkman goes, yes Sony made it into a huge success, no doubt about it. Sony also handed that market over to Apple on a silver platter because of their own arrogance and ineptitude.