No doubt the high price tag is one of the many reasons keeping many consumers away from the PS3 at the moment. There are many people who are interested in getting a PS3 but couldn't afford/not seeing its worth in this very forum, an undeniable fact. But analyzing the performance of the sales over the holiday season, no one knows until it actually happens.

It's not about the affordability tagged with the price tag of $399. I have many friends worldwide who are rich people (willing to pay thousands of dollars for an arcade game) but unwilling to get a PS3. Their reasons was simple, they won't spend $400 for a console. You can't simply put your philosophy on spending for a PS3 the same as others. The price tag is unreasonable viewed by averaged consumers despite the value of the console, that's the barrier.

That's very positive thoughts However there are too few similarities between last gen and this gen in terms of competition and market conditions.

I'm a pessimist, the way I'm seeing it is the PS3 draws some similarities with the 3DO. Of course it won't be as bad, but the trend is just there.

Just some thoughts, no pun intended. I'm a happy PSWii60 owner, so I hope all will do well

Those who are complaining the price tag most are the parents and those gamers who are not into high tech gadgets, like me (although I gave in for my gaming DNA). To be honest I do see a point in their complain. Pirates on the other hand stand a small portion in the gaming community.

Everyone here is trying to stick with the price tag argument here trying to avoid another unnecessary console war (although that might be lightning's intention )

PS: Not saying that you are wrong

This post has been edited by gundamalpha: Oct 8 2008, 02:13 PM

Joking only mah Although I am a L9 Newtype though, better evasion and accuracy, plus longer range attacks (poison playing Robot Wars Z)

Serious note, we won't know the real answer until someone can come up with a price elasticity data for consoles on current market conditions.

This post has been edited by gundamalpha: Oct 8 2008, 03:20 PM

Economics was my major back then

I used Fedex, cannot tahan so long for Robot Wars

Like I said before, it's not about affordability

I can't see the point of your argument here.. It has nothing to do with PS3's price perceived as being too steep.

The last time I checked, MS are selling their consoles close to break even after taking in the replacement into consideration. And all those money paid for developers? There's no evidence suggesting this except in GTA4's case, the rest are just rumors.

And the whole point of the thread isn't XBox 360 vs PS3 to begin with, it's the perception of the $399 price tag as being steep. And majorities of those perceiving this way aren't you and me, or many other gamers who have bought one, they are the parents and non high tech gadget savvy gamers.

I can't argue with you on the piracy issues in Malaysia more, that's a sad reality. But you have to look beyond the Malaysian community in terms of the price issue. Even if all those who are interested in getting a PS3 added up in our country, how many would that be? Our market is quite insignificant to be honest.

I have come across many foreign gamers who say nay to PS3 because of the price, games issues aside. And in foreign countries, parents do have a big say in this industry believe it or not. I do believe most of those who have the knowledge and interest have been captured, those who haven't decided yet are the main targets for this analysis. And no surprise for those who haven't bought one won't be interested until further price drop is announced.

1. It was announced, it's fact.
2. He can say whatever he wants.
3. If it was fact, why was it taken down?
4. They are saying they have better budget allocation and understanding each console's strength and capabilities than its competitor.

I'm not trying to defend anyone nor opposing anyone, but unless statements were made like in point 1, anything else are base on assumptions and interpretations. Honestly, if MS really did pay for those exclusivity, then they are doing it for the good of their customers. Sony could have done the same for the PS3 owners, anything they said only reflects they are unwilling to spend more for the good of their customers.

"We don't buy exclusivity. We don't fund development. We don't, for lack of a better term, bribe somebody to only do a game on our platform. We earn it." The way I see this statement is "We won't spend for exclusivity. We care for our profitability only. If someone else want to buy exclusivity then go ahead, we are not going to spend to improve our situation as we have enough fan base. Consumers are oblige to buy our stuff."

I repeat, I'm not biased. If that's the way Sony wants to market their products so be it. At the end of the day if they could get the right amount of games for PS3 I'd still buy it (which I already did). MS on the other hand, if they want to spend money to expand their sales, I couldn't see anything wrong with it either. Competition only benefits consumers in the end, unless one company bought over another to kill off the competition by being the single console manufacturer.

This post has been edited by gundamalpha: Oct 12 2008, 01:25 PM