Yes, but even for an "educated gamers", I believe the argument about value is BS. There are no such things as value in FCMG... only in luxury goods...

Anyhow, this "value" debat is a diversion to gain some time before the price cut...

Define where you see low value FMCG splitting from 'Luxury'?

So far as I'm aware most consumer electronics supports you across the spectrum - i.e I can get the top of the range HD TV or a cheaper model, same for DVD, Blu-Ray, etc.

It's pretty obvious game console can have different 'value' too. That's the whole point and why IMHO the argument isn't BS.

Everything has a value unless it is seen as a pure commodity with nothing to chose between except price (heck even printer paper can be high end or cheap).

Of course the 360 and PS3 can be considered on value - the question the original articule correctly asks is which is most important to the majority of purchasers right now, and how much the current economy will drive that.

Clearly if you want the same multi-plat games, WiFi, Blu-Ray, etc. etc. then the PS3 could easily seen to offer better value for cost. On the other hand if you want the same games and don't give a hoot about WiFi, Blu-Ray, etc. etc as per Sony's argument then the PS3's value is going to plummet, which the value of the 360 is going to rise with price being the easier decider between the two.

For the record while I know they're hurting I do think that, particularly in the US, the PS3 does not have the right price point for a large percentage of potential purchasers, and its different specification points (WiFi, Blu-Ray, etc) are not percieved as having enough value. Hence the 360 vs PS3 sales and position (although the 1 year lead also has something to do with it).

@greenmedic88:

"Under those considerations, why is the PS3 even selling at all?"

That, I think, is the key question. Because if they were as comparable as some suggest the price difference would be a killer, and it clearly isn't.

I can think of a few reasons that go beyond the technology arguments, but a significant one is probably that the PS3 isn't made by Microsoft, which isn't everybody's favourite company.

Especially outside the US, where I guess American dominance is disliked about as much as Americans dislike Japanese dominance.

And, really, if consumers are willing to spend an extra 200 dollars to not buy your product, you have some significant problems with your brand.

And unfortunately for SCE, attempts to add value in the eyes of public opinion (free PSN, Home, additional media functions, etc.) really won't win any additional converts under current circumstances, including a library with enough variety to suit most tastes.

A very sizable chunk of the current holdouts are simply waiting for a lower price, regardless of features.

$299 opens up an entirely different tier of consumers when it comes to video game consoles. $399, regardless of functionality, has always been a fairly limited niche market, typically early adopters (initial Saturn, initial Xbox360 Pro). There really isn't any precedence of a mass market console selling at $399 or above for over two years (platforms such as the 3DO and Neo Geo being very limited niche products).

While price hasn't killed the platform given the current numbers sold (which only look low relative to the competition) it has undoubtedly slowed mass adoption. $399 is simply not a mass market price for a video game console, Blu-Ray or no.

Blu-Ray players are currently available for well under $399, and have been since last holiday season, if not earlier.

From a technology standpoint, it is now 2-3 year old technology. And while it remains the only consumer electronic device to use the CBE architecture, the games themselves really don't sell the technology any more than it should have when few, if any games even took advantage of the hardware at all during that initial year of release.

Even games like Uncharted or Killzone don't make undecided gamers declare "this is the reason for Cell!" as strong as they are.

While it's possible the tech gap may become more apparent with future releases, it's a slim gap at best and given the length of time into the current generation, may not really matter to anyone but those who already bought a PS3.

I'd venture to say that more late converts would be added simply due to consumers fed up with 360 hardware issues, primarily earlier adopters who don't particularly have any fan loyalty MS or any other hardware manufacturer in particular.

With you pretty well all the way on that.

I suspect that Sony were't really aiming for the mass market to start with anyway, but they probably were expecting to be in a better position to cut prices by about now.

As to the tech gap - I don't think that really comes into it, not so far as the capabilities of the consoles go. It may do (and I think this is what Sony are pushing) for the cost of getting online, but that is more about bundling/unbundling rather than technology.

The problem with the marketing approach (free PSN vs. $50 a year for XBL for however many years you choose to play online) is that it's playing the value card again, which many consumers aren't using as the reason for their choice so much as that initial price.

Granted it doesn't make sense if you consider paying $200 for four years of online play for a $200 console, but very few actually think of it this way. Or justify the expense by breaking it down on a monthly or weekly or even daily basis (pennies a day!) or otherwise convincing themselves what a great value a paid subscription service is. It is inexpensive, but not really for the basic service most are using it for (play online).

XBL does a little added value perception of their own by touting the best most stable (highly debatable) console gaming network and even did a little more shuffling, not by giving more exclusive content to paying subscribers, but by delaying content to free accounts as an example. One could argue it's to limit bandwidth/stress on XBL servers on new uploads, but some would be more apt to take a slightly more cynical opinion of this "bonus" for subscribers.

Exclusive deals really don't cut it either (deals limited to Gold accounts) in that they don't actually give the user anything extra, it just makes them more apt to buy on sale.

Value is like art, its all in the eyes of the beholder. There cant be a right or wrong answer.

Sony's ONLY way they can argue price being competitive presumes that the person will be playing online.  If they don't then what advantage does Sony have on price?  A person gets XBox Live Silver and can download a LOT more demos and content then on the PS3.  It is cheaper.  As for online play, one has to ask if the PS3 is worth it.  Also, assuming 1 vs 100 is the start of a bunch of games you play for free with XBox Live Gold, then Sony is hard pressed to argue for its advantage.

@richardhutnik said "A person gets XBox Live Silver and can download a LOT more demos and content then on the PS3. It is cheaper."


Huh? people can also download tons of stuff from the PS Store, and how can anyone download more on a X360 with no HDD (Arcade) or a 60GB HDD than a PS3 with 80GB HDD?? And what's exactly cheaper? Stuff on the store? let's talk about hard drive upgrades and let's see what's cheaper.