THere is no such thing as an "objective" standard of value in terms of consumer value interests. If he doesn't care about Blu-Ray, then the blu-ray-playing capacity of the PS3 is worth $0.

Makin, I'd buy ANOTHER PS3 for 299 this fall, lol. I wish that would happen. :(

To be completely honest with you, this gen, as far as efficiency goes, you should probably only have a PS3 OR an Xbox 360.

The reason is, those consoles share close to 80 percent of the same library.

There are a handful of exclusives, but unless they ALL appeal to you, it is not worth paying an extra 199 dollars just for the right to play them.

Now, if you have NO HD console, then to you, each HD console should be worth a lot more, since you would then have the option to buy the vast excellent library of multiplats this gen.

That said, I think that with the exclusives available, and assuming you are willing to pay 199 dollars for a PS3, you could easily see your way to spending 299, IF, and only IF the PS3 gets reinvented with a slim, and a few more exclusives come your way that you would be willing to rent and/or buy.

Otherwise, just wait. It sucks, I know, but waiting will probably be the best bet when it comes to any purchase. The console will only get cheaper, more well made, and the library will get better. For your money, waiting might be the best bet.

But that's like me saying that a diamond should be worth a penny (or free) because I can care less about it. If you're saying that you believe that a PS3 is worth $199 I understand, but all I'm saying is that based on the current prices of things, it doesn't make sense that the PS3 should be valued at only $199 when you look at its features. Even if you don't care about the other features, currently the PS3 is being sold with those features, and Sony spent money adding those features in the factory.

THis still means absolutely nothing when consumers determine value. If they don't care about a feature, it isn't worth the money it cost to produce.

As I said before, I understand if it's the demand that Majin's placing on the PS3. However as I said before, it's ridiculous to realisticly think that the real world value of a diamond, PS3, etc is at the rockbottom prices we both provided. People look at everyone's demand and value of a object, not only one person's. So people do believe that shiny rocks are worth a shit load of cash, and stand alone Bluray players $199, and I say that I don't think that PS3's are currently being valued at $199 by consumers (although it obviously needs to be cheaper due to its sales).

So to clear my posts up, I'm not trying to tell Majin what he should value the PS3, I'm just stating that I believe in the general consumer's eyes I don't think that it's being valued at $199. Sorry for any confusion caused by me.

But see, that's the thing. There is no "general consumer" in this situation - consumer spending is based on individual values, regardless of the factors that go into that. Sony produces them at this price because people will buy them, but no, what some consumers buy does not dictate the absolute value of a product. There is no absolute value.

Long time i think. SONY will want to make up for all the lost money so far this gen.

I didn't mean some "absolute value" but rather equilibrium between supply and demand.

Buy a use one.