If the diamond ring costs you $4,000 and you can sell 1,000 at that price whie the Quartz ring costs you $25 and you can sell 10,000,000 the Quartz ring is more valueable.

No.

The quartz ring is more profitable.  Not more valuable.  I suggest you take a refresher course on the definition of valuable. Remember we are talking about the value in the eyes of the consumer. (Not the businesses who produce these consoles).

@Rpruett

I'll change my example for you then, Suppose you bought a Diamond Ring for $2000 and there is no one who would buy it off of you how valuable is it? On the other hand, suppose you bought a Quartz ring for $25 and can sell it for $25 how valuable is it?

The value argument definitely holds up...at least for me it does

I mean, the blu-ray, wifi and free online all add for me

by now I would've spent $60-100 on XBL and $100 on a 360 wireless adapter

300 + 60 + 100 = $460 is what the 360 would have cost for me by now, and that's with the price cut

oh, and the ps3 has a bigger hard drive, and it looks shiny :)

I'm pretty sure I could sell the Diamond Ring no matter what.  I might not get $2000 for it.  I would assuredly get more than $25 for it though.    Again though,  the consumer normally doesn't re-sell a product that they intend to buy.  Still in the eyes of the consumer,  yes the PS3's value argument holds up very well. 

Valuable doesn't mean everyone has one.  That's not valuable at all.   For example, a Rolls Royce is more valuable than a Chevy Cavalier.

Value implies what you can sell it for ...

What you and most of the Sony Fanboys can't seem to grasp is that $400 (and $600) is not too expensive for people to pay for a PS3, people (on the whole) don't see the PS3 as being worth $400 so its hard to argue that the hardware that made the PS3 dramatically more expensive than traditional console made it more valuable when so many people reject it because its not worth the new higher price.

Sony can sell the PS3 at $400.  A full $150 higher than it's closest competitor.   As it relates to the Xbox 360.  It's selling at a higher rate from release dates at a higher price since day one.  On that essence alone, it is more valuable.

Ah yes, Sony fanboy.  Lolcopter.

600$ is not too expensive for people to pay?  Really? LOL.  Quick name me how many $600 systems have ever done extremely well on the market?  $600 was too expensive for the average consumer and the sales showed that.   People as a whole don't see the PS3 as being worth $400 - $600 ?  21,000,000 people (And counting) disagree with you. 

val⋅u⋅a⋅ble

  <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/V00/V0019700" target="_blank"><img src="http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif" border="0" /></a>  /ˈvælyuəbəl, -yəbəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [val-yoo-uh-buhl, -yuh-buhl] Show IPA –adjective

The dictionary says that you fail.  Sorry.

IF YOU CAN'T SELL IT WHAT HIGHER PRICE CAN YOU BRING?

Beyond that, anything under $1000 is entirely within the price range that the vast majority of people in the western world can buy if they wanted to. People don't buy a $400 PS3 because they don't feel that it is worth $400 not because they can not afford to buy it ...

Stop looking at it from the perspective of "I bought a PS3 so it is totally valueable" and start looking at it from the perspective of "I was a loyal PS2 fan and will not buy a PS3 because it is more expensive than I am willing to pay for a videogame console" ... Why do the 20 Million people who bought a PS3 get to claim that it is worth it while the 120+ Million PS2 owners who haven't bought one get no say?

Sony can't sell the PS3?  Really?  Is that why it's sales are still tracking higher than the cheaper Xbox 360 in identical time frames?   You keep saying this like Sony has to 'give away' the PS3. It gets sold.   21 million in what? 2 years and some change?  How much did the 360 have at the same point?   And what planet do you live on?  Most people in the Western world would have a VERY hard time justifying a $1000 purchase for a video game system.   You live in a world of delusion and fantasy (Which by reading your posts is evident) if you believe otherwise.

Most people who play games that I know,  Just can't afford to spend $400 on another video game system.  Priorities in life take over.  Remember, a good amount of Video game owners are going to be below working age and have to rely on birthday money or their parents spoiling them.

We aren't talking about the PS2.  We are talking about the PS3.  The PS3 has more value in it than either the Wii or the Xbox 360.  It has more monetary value associated with it.  Simple.  It's worth more.   If we broke out the components of all three products and sold them on the black market, you would net more $$ from the PS3 parts than the 360 or Wii components.

You're really dense or trying very hard not to get my point ...

People have a hard time justifying a $1000 videogame system not because they can not afford to pay $1000 for a videogame system but because they don't see the value in a videogame system to justify the $1000 price tag. Even when there were videogame systems that (when adjusted for inflation) cost $1000, simply having a handful of people buy the system does not mean that the value of the system was $1000, although the people who bought those ultra expensive systems thought it was.

Basically, how people describe a product tells you how the value of a product relates to its price. When a product’s value to a potential consumer is less than its price they would likely call it an expensive product, when a product’s value is greater than its price to a potential consumer they would likely say that it was an inexpensive product, and when a products value is in line with its price to a potential consumer they would likely say that it is reasonably priced.

Anyways, you're arguing something much different in spirit than what Sony's PS3 value argument is ... Sony (essentially) claims that the added functionality in the PS3 will eventually be attractive enough that people will be willing to spend more on a PS3 and (therefore) they don't need to reduce the price of the PS3.