By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales Discussion - If Wii/360/PS3 all cost 200?

Steve 3.2 on 27 March 2007

I'll agree with the majority of posters on this topic. The Wii would sell quite well to the Nintendo fans and new converts. I think the 360 would take the biggest hit since the PS3 would be a better deal with a Blu-ray drive, bigger hard drive, and wireless networking built-in. (I'm concluding we're talking about the best current skus for those systems since the 360 Core is a joke.) Nintendo is always number one in my heart, so while I'd pick up a Wii first I'd prob. own all three if they were that cheap.



Numbers are like people. Torture them enough and you can get them to say anything you want.

VGChartz Resident Thread Killer

Around the Network
mrstickball on 27 March 2007

Steve 3.2 said: I'll agree with the majority of posters on this topic. The Wii would sell quite well to the Nintendo fans and new converts. I think the 360 would take the biggest hit since the PS3 would be a better deal with a Blu-ray drive, bigger hard drive, and wireless networking built-in. (I'm concluding we're talking about the best current skus for those systems since the 360 Core is a joke.) Nintendo is always number one in my heart, so while I'd pick up a Wii first I'd prob. own all three if they were that cheap.
I'd disagree that the 360 would take the biggerst "hit". Remember, the Xbox and PS2 dropped their prices simultaneously. It didn't hurt the Xbox. The 360 would have the advantage the PS3/Wii do not: Games. The 360 by far has the superior library, and it would help the 360 to stave off losing sales against a price similar to the PS3. Would it outsell the PS3? No. But it'd hold its ground, and do better than it is now.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

OriGin on 27 March 2007

I find it difficult to respond to a hypothetical situation like this, because my thoughts come from the physical plausibility of the situation, and honestly, with the 360 and PS3 specs the way they are, a $200 price point is no plausible. I would not buy a Wii for more than it's current price, that's about the max they could fetch for that, and I think the consumer market is very similar to this also... a HUGE attracting point in the next gen race towards the Wii is that it offers something so new for an affordable price... it's at a casual consumer access point right from the beginning. PS3 and 360 only just keep looking more and more attractive as the price lowers further and further.



shams on 27 March 2007

Its a bit of a silly question... But if so, I think the PS3 would win easily. Or Nintendo would release a ultra-powered Wii - with 10x the power of a PS3 - also for $200, and they could win ;) If I could buy a new Ferrari for the same price as a family sedan, I know which one I would buy... (both probably :>).



Gesta Non Verba

Nocturnal is helping companies get cheaper game ratings in Australia:

Game Assessment website

Wii code: 2263 4706 2910 1099

Alacrist on 28 March 2007

Ok, I get it the question doesn't make sense, if you feel that way then don't comment on it, it's just a "WHAT IF" question about gaming, I know that the way these systems are built they can't be 200 dollars that's why it's just a thread to say what would happen if their were. Nobody is forcing you to post, so if your not going to add to the thread don't post, it's a hypothetical situation and I thank those of you who posted on topic, FishyJoe and Lingyis your post had nothing to do with the topic, most people who disagree with it, still posted on topic.



 

  

 

Around the Network
FishyJoe on 28 March 2007

What if pigs fly?



fooflexible on 28 March 2007

Alacrist said: Ok, I get it the question doesn't make sense, if you feel that way then don't comment on it, it's just a "WHAT IF" question about gaming, I know that the way these systems are built they can't be 200 dollars that's why it's just a thread to say what would happen if their were. Nobody is forcing you to post, so if your not going to add to the thread don't post, it's a hypothetical situation and I thank those of you who posted on topic, FishyJoe and Lingyis your post had nothing to do with the topic, most people who disagree with it, still posted on topic.
Sorry if I came off knocking your idea, Alacrist. I didn't mean to insult or detract from your thread. I actually like these types of hypotheitcal questions for comparison sake. Despite the distortion of this scenario I like the root of what your getting at. Thats kind of why I threw up my last post, where I reworded this scenario to get more to what I think is the heart of the question. And that was:
Fooflexible said: So I think the best comparison here to make is this: If we all recieved all three consoles for free, which system would you be buying the most games for, and spending the most time playing? That is fair, as the system war really comes down to software purchase, regardless of the platform the winner is really decided buy time and money spent on a system.
(Hey does this make me the first person to quote myself? And if this takes away from your original thread, well I'm sorry. (I know, I know I can just go and get my own thread...)



Alacrist on 28 March 2007

fooflexible said: Alacrist said: Ok, I get it the question doesn't make sense, if you feel that way then don't comment on it, it's just a "WHAT IF" question about gaming, I know that the way these systems are built they can't be 200 dollars that's why it's just a thread to say what would happen if their were. Nobody is forcing you to post, so if your not going to add to the thread don't post, it's a hypothetical situation and I thank those of you who posted on topic, FishyJoe and Lingyis your post had nothing to do with the topic, most people who disagree with it, still posted on topic. Sorry if I came off knocking your idea, Alacrist. I didn't mean to insult or detract from your thread. I actually like these types of hypotheitcal questions for comparison sake. Despite the distortion of this scenario I like the root of what your getting at. Thats kind of why I threw up my last post, where I reworded this scenario to get more to what I think is the heart of the question. And that was: Fooflexible said: So I think the best comparison here to make is this: If we all recieved all three consoles for free, which system would you be buying the most games for, and spending the most time playing? That is fair, as the system war really comes down to software purchase, regardless of the platform the winner is really decided buy time and money spent on a system. (Hey does this make me the first person to quote myself? And if this takes away from your original thread, well I'm sorry. (I know, I know I can just go and get my own thread...)
Your fine that post post was about the people who weren't even trying to say anything about the post. (Plus I was kinda in a bad mood this morning my Wii was broken last night)