@ The: I hope you mean that the PS2 didn't have free online *at launch*.
| The said: It's $400 for christ's sake. We're in 2009. The PS2 sold like crazy at $300 back in 2000, that was quite an amount of money back then (and that price tag was unchanged until MAY 2002) PS2: did NOT have ethernet or wifi did NOT have a hard drive did NOT have FREE online gaming did NOT have wireless rechargable BLUE-TOOTH controllers did NOT play any media content except for CDs/DVDs did NOT have USB ports did NOT have cutting edge disc format player (DVD was quite popular and affordable already in late 2000, in comparison Blu-ray launched with the PS3) it DID have something to its "advantage" in that it played its prior generation games. PS3 doesn't do that anymore, but I wonder who cared to play PS1 games that much on their PS2s. Anyway, for whatever it's worth there were PS3s and, to some extent, still can be found that are able to play PS2 games, and upscale them for HD displays to boot. Once you bought your PS2 you certainly HAD TO pay at least $35 for a Sony Memory Card. Most people who gamed a lot and cherished their precious saves ended up buying more than one. That's $335 in the year 2000,2001, half of 2002. $400 for a high-quality marvelous system in 2009. Is that too much to ask? have gamers become so cheap? christ, lord almighty..... |
If we're using the 2009 price of the PS3 shouldn't we be using the 2003 price of the PS2?
If adding something onto a console made it more valueable why doesn't the PS3 have a built in Waffle Iron? Everyone loves waffles and a $400 gaming system with a waffle iron has to be worth more than a gaming system alone, doesn't it?
Why don't you add in the $10 price increase in the cost of games, the $20 price increase on controllers, and the lack of a decent library of value-priced games?
| The said: It's $400 for christ's sake. We're in 2009. The PS2 sold like crazy at $300 back in 2000, that was quite an amount of money back then (and that price tag was unchanged until MAY 2002) PS2: did NOT have ethernet or wifi did NOT have a hard drive did NOT have FREE online gaming did NOT have wireless rechargable BLUE-TOOTH controllers did NOT play any media content except for CDs/DVDs did NOT have USB ports did NOT have cutting edge disc format player (DVD was quite popular and affordable already in late 2000, in comparison Blu-ray launched with the PS3) it DID have something to its "advantage" in that it played its prior generation games. PS3 doesn't do that anymore, but I wonder who cared to play PS1 games that much on their PS2s. Anyway, for whatever it's worth there were PS3s and, to some extent, still can be found that are able to play PS2 games, and upscale them for HD displays to boot. Once you bought your PS2 you certainly HAD TO pay at least $35 for a Sony Memory Card. Most people who gamed a lot and cherished their precious saves ended up buying more than one. That's $335 in the year 2000,2001, half of 2002. $400 for a high-quality marvelous system in 2009. Is that too much to ask? have gamers become so cheap? christ, lord almighty..... |
We are comparing it's value compared to the Wii and XBox360, it's contemporary counterparts, not it's predecessor.
For me, the PS3 offered the best value when I bought it. I spent over $550 for my XBox360 buying the wireless adapter, XBox Live Gold, and a charging kit. I spent $500 on my PS3 for all of that to be included. Not to mention I got a free PS2, and HD movie player with it. While you no longer get a PS2 with each PS3, it's still a slightly better value IMO.
Of course, the PS3's percieved value will change with each person, and what they desire from their console. If I didn't want to play games online, did not care about original XBox games, and did not want to download any XBLA games, then the XBox360 would be very enticing at $200.
EDIT: BTW, does anyone think it's ironic that the XBox 360 Arcade can't download some XBox Live Arcade games due to lack of memory?
@HappySqurriel Spoken like a true fanboy. Please go away with your childish logic.
The PS3 components and features do indeed cost more. Unfortunately, it is the consumers who determine value, not sony. What sony needs to do is convince the consumers of the ps3's value since as evidenced from the sales, the consumers don't appreciate it.
entry price is more important than value, sony knows it but they cant do anything about it
dd if = /dev/brain | tail -f | grep games | nc -lnvvp 80
Hey Listen!
| DrJay said: The PS3 components and features do indeed cost more. Unfortunately, it is the consumers who determine value, not sony. What sony needs to do is convince the consumers of the ps3's value since as evidenced from the sales, the consumers don't appreciate it. |
That's exactly how Sony got into this mess in the first place, by telling consumers what they want.
Since when did it become automatically assumed Bluray would take over from DVD's? I'm not saying its not likely but declaring victory already is foolish. Bluray does add value to people looking to buy a Bluray player and a games console, although as long as multi platform titles keep being limited by the DVD space limitation on the 360, it's not going to show a big advantage in the pure gaming market just yet imo.
| blazinhead89 said: 21 Million consumers and counting think it does |
I don't and chances are that many others feel the sting of buyers' remorse.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
