Tweet
"It's a possibility, it's always a possibility. Alternatively it could be that people think that if they go for a lower-spec machine, that by the time they add in another hard drive, and this and that, they'll end up with something which still doesn't play Blu-ray movies.
So if you're doing some detailed cost analysis as a consumer - which of course, they don't, they buy emotively - then the answer is that the PS3 turns out to be good value. Obviously everyone wants to see products cheaper, and cheaper, and cheaper, and that is the pressure that always comes from the consumer level."
So if you're doing some detailed cost analysis as a consumer - which of course, they don't, they buy emotively - then the answer is that the PS3 turns out to be good value. Obviously everyone wants to see products cheaper, and cheaper, and cheaper, and that is the pressure that always comes from the consumer level."
I agree it's good value if you also want a Blu-ray player, but do all gamers want Blu-ray and should they have to pay for it even if they don't want it? On the other end of the scale, serious home theatre buffs also prefer standalones to the PS3, especially given the relatively poor build quality of the PS3 compared to mid/high-end standalones.
As for the second highlighted passage, notice nobody is screaming for the Wii or Xbox 360 to get cheaper. One, mainly because they're already at a good price, but most importantly, the offer enough "good value" for your average gamer (casual or otherwise) who don't want to pay $200 more to have Blu-ray playback that they may or may not need (and by which time they need it, standalones might be going for peanuts).
Comment