@Happy Squirrel
While I find the debate rather amusing. This debate isn't going anywhere. Rpruett is valuing the console based on current production values and the selling point as value. Where your debating with the thought of perceptive value. The mass market agrees that perceptive value the PS3 comes short. That's why the Wii is in the lead even after having 2 bad generations and last to be released. While the PS3 following up to good generation coming in last.

The value of commodity places the PS3 as high. It is as a product. As an item of worth to people it's low. Because what people find important isn't represented by the PS3.

Just remember all fanboys like to follow the sales stick and whatever the company feeds them. Nintendo and Sony the same.

Rpruett said: bdbdbd said: @Rpruett: What if i don't need Wi-Fi? Cable and telephone plugs are next to my TV, so i could plug my modem there just as well. What value does BD bring to me? I have an SDTV without plans to buy HD one. Besides, the BD drive in PS3 is read only, it should be rewritable before it really could be said being useful, so the BD drive in PS3 is inferior to my DVD player. Then, i buy my games consoles to play games on them. Not to watch movies. For the purpose PS3 offers the biggest price for the value. And it really isn't debatable. Well if you had read my last paragraph in the original response you wouldn't have such misconception.  If you don't need WiFi (And never will) and have an SDTV (With no plans of upgrading to an HD TV) or don't intend on watching Blu-Ray movies ever,   then you really don't have much of a reason for a PS3 and might find the value for the 360 to be better.  And no, the PS3 Blu-Ray Player is in no way inferior to your 'DVD Player'. You can play games on the PS3 as well (It's not just a movie player).  So like I said,  it comes down to what you're looking for.   Read above in my original response if you need anymore clarity.

Wi-Fi is a useful addition, but since you have the plugs to connect to internet next to your TV anyway, it's not a necessity. You either need Wi-Fi or ethernet connection, as long as you have the connection.

I propably get a BD player someday. But i have time to wait until rewritable ones are at afffordable pricerange and free OTA channels are in HD. That's also the time i plan on buying an HDTV (if my current TV doesn't break up before that).

And yes, PS3:s BD drive indeed is inferior to my DVD player, unless it burns DVD:s or BD:s.

How much would you pay for a ton of horseshit?

In most educated gamers eyes it does hold up to its value. However at its current price point the mass market do not see its value. A price cut will help things tremendously

How come Sony sells the PS3 at both the highest price and the greatest loss?

^How come you know so much about Sony's finances?

The said: ^How come you know so much about Sony's finances?

Maybe because they're still in the red?

 

It's simple.

Hardware wise. Component to Component. The PS3 is the most valuable system on the market in terms of cost. In terms of what is being packaged to the consumer. This explains why it's sold at the greatest loss and the highest cost.

The point being made by some that it's not selling as well as say (The 360) is that it's not as 'valuable' in the eyes of the consumer. Which is absolutely horrible logic. If the PS3 was selling at $200 and the 360 was selling at $200 and the 360 was STILL outselling it. Point would be taken and accounted for.

While a solid point was made that maybe the PS3 isn't viewed as $200 more valuable than the 360. We all know damn well that a $300 PS3 would outsell the Xbox 360 on a week to week, month to month basis. Why? Despite still being a $100 more expensive? It's quite simple. It's more valuable, maybe not $200 more valuable but more valuable regardless.


The fact that the 360 isn't obliterating the PS3 on a weekly basis despite being HALF the price is more telling about the value than anything. The 360 is viewed as rather disposable in general. A stark contrast to the PS3.

@Rpruett: Due to the sum of those two, a dumber would think Sony might have fucked up somewhere.

Of course, there obviously are people that see enough value in PS3 to warrant a purchase, but the real problem is, that the value isn't measured by how much the hardware in the package is worth, but the appealing software available. The hardware just don't have any value without the use.

bdbdbd said: @Rpruett: Due to the sum of those two, a dumber would think Sony might have fucked up somewhere. Of course, there obviously are people that see enough value in PS3 to warrant a purchase, but the real problem is, that the value isn't measured by how much the hardware in the package is worth, but the appealing software available. The hardware just don't have any value without the use.

I think the PS3 has caught up pretty comparably to the Xbox 360  in terms of library IMHO.  It has quite a varied library of quality titles.  No need to even list most of them to be honest.   The problem is that while the hardware is valued more by the consumer the games to play on it are viewed as comparable.   So what ends up happening is the PS3 still gets it's fair share of sales based on the value of the system alone and all the hardware packed into it.   

But it still is on the outside looking in to some extent because (At this juncture) the higher price is getting you essentially a comparable library of games with a system $200 cheaper.  Guess what most 'bottomline shoppers' opt for?

While I do believe the PS3 will have more big titles coming out in the near future (More than the 360).  (GoW3/GT5 specifically).  I also think that with all the first party studios that Sony has, it has the potential to keep developing an ever expanding exclusive library. Where as with the high development costs,  both companies will be harder pressed to keep third party developers making exclusive games for them.   Which actually plays more into Sony's hand IMO.

Rpruett said: bdbdbd said: @Rpruett: Due to the sum of those two, a dumber would think Sony might have fucked up somewhere. Of course, there obviously are people that see enough value in PS3 to warrant a purchase, but the real problem is, that the value isn't measured by how much the hardware in the package is worth, but the appealing software available. The hardware just don't have any value without the use. I think the PS3 has caught up pretty comparably to the Xbox 360  in terms of library IMHO.  It has quite a varied library of quality titles.  No need to even list most of them to be honest.   The problem is that while the hardware is valued more by the consumer the games to play on it are viewed as comparable.   So what ends up happening is the PS3 still gets it's fair share of sales based on the value of the system alone and all the hardware packed into it.    But it still is on the outside looking in to some extent because (At this juncture) the higher price is getting you essentially a comparable library of games with a system $200 cheaper.  Guess what most 'bottomline shoppers' opt for? While I do believe the PS3 will have more big titles coming out in the near future (More than the 360).  (GoW3/GT5 specifically).  I also think that with all the first party studios that Sony has, it has the potential to keep developing an ever expanding exclusive library. Where as with the high development costs,  both companies will be harder pressed to keep third party developers making exclusive games for them.   Which actually plays more into Sony's hand IMO.

And that's what's currently diverting most consumers to the 360 over the PS3. In terms of titles, it's currently a wash, with preferences being dictated entirely by personal tastes (halo, gears, etc? Xbox. MGS, Uncharted, etc? PS3).There seems to be a fairly even split between niches that favor one set of exclusives over the other.

Taking exclusives out of account, you're now left with a $200 console for playing RE5, Fallout or CoD, or a $400 console that essentially does the same. Little differences in which is better, mattering only to screen shot nitpickers who mainly want to confirm "their" console is better, don't matter to the average consumer so long as they can play the game.

Under those considerations, why is the PS3 even selling at all? It's not Home. So either there is a significant market looking for a Blu-Ray player/console or you have a significant number of consumers with a fan loyalty to longstanding SCE IPs (GoW, GT, etc.), with a fair amount falling into both categories. There's probably a small percentage of those scared away by Xbox hardware reliability horror stories, but at $200, along with assurances that "it's no longer a problem," it's not as big of an investment (or risk).

First party studio games may play a significant part in seeing how the rest of 2009 pans out, but I'm still more inclined to believe that softs only result in short lived bumps in hardware sales, with price drops having the most long lasting effect as these open up new markets at lower price tiers.