The PS4 thread

[FerretGamer]

The 360 was never really $99. I believe that was with some silly 2-yr contract and cost a whole lot more than $99 when all said and done.

[ninjainspandex]

Now I'm curious how much the PS1 dropped in price compared to its initial 400$ (or was it 300$?) price point..

the Sega Saturn was $400 and the PS1 was $300 at launch

[ZeroAX]

Now I'm curious how much the PS1 dropped in price compared to its initial 400$ (or was it 300$?) price point..

the Sega Saturn was $400 and the PS1 was $300 at launch

ok, and for how much did the PS1 sell at the end of its lifespan? I honestly don't remember.

[isiolia]

ok, and for how much did the PS1 sell at the end of its lifespan? I honestly don't remember.

Far as I know the PSone was dropped to $49.99 (from $99.99) at the same time the PS2 went from $299 to $199 in the U.S. in 2002.

I don't think they went lower than that save for closeout pricing.

[ZeroAX]

ok, and for how much did the PS1 sell at the end of its lifespan? I honestly don't remember.

Far as I know the PSone was dropped to $49.99 (from $99.99) at the same time the PS2 went from $299 to $199 in the U.S. in 2002.

I don't think they went lower than that save for closeout pricing.

Now I wish I had bought one just because of how cool that console is

[Cronozilla]

The 360 was never really $99. I believe that was with some silly 2-yr contract and cost a whole lot more than $99 when all said and done.

Yeah, I got the subsidized 360 and Arcade 360 confused for a moment.

You're right, the $100 unit was a contract model where you had to have live for 2 years.
The Arcade, which is what I was referencing was $200.

I'll update the post.

And, yes the PS1 dropped to an MSRP of $50 as the final price of the system.
I think that was for the PSOne, though.

[RCBH928]

I found this blogpost: http://blog.us.playstation.com/2009/03/ ... under-100/

Which stated that PS2 will be $100 in April of 2009. As you have corrected me its 2000 launch. All prices adjusted to inflation for 2014

ps2 2000 price= $414 -> 2009 $110 = 9 years, %26.5 of launch price price.

ps3 launch price $590 -> 2014 $250 = 8 years, 42% of launch price.

Even if we choose the 12 GB PS3 which has lower spec than the launch console (20GB, ps2 backward compatibility), at $200 it will still be 33% of its original price.

basically, by this time next year we should see a ps3 with at least 20GB at price point of $156 for it to have the same "launch to demise" percentage as the ps2. Even that won't be fair because the launch console had backwards compatibility which is a much added value.

are my calculations wrong? You tell me

Also I am not complaining, just discussing console prices. I own a ps3 and I am not sad that the price has not dropped even further but I think it should. I also did not say that the 360 was any better, I feel the 360 is being sold at a very high price for a 9 year old console. All the money they lost at launch, they are probably making up for it right now.

According to VGchartz, PS3 sold 50k units last week, at $250 per unit they made $12.5m in one week. Also I find it hard to believe that there are 50 thousand new(not used) buyers out there each week for an 8 year old console(200k per month). But if the numbers say so, I can't argue.

So, what were you complaining about again? That the PS3 isn't dropping in price fast enough, even though it's actually cheaper than all other console prices at beginning and end of generation;

I think I understood you wrong. Are you saying the PS3 is cheaper than other consoles prices at launch?
adjusted to inflation, the cheapest ps3 would be $599 in today's dollars
The 360 was launched at $490 in 2014 dollar value.
Snes would be $364 in 2014 dollars.
PS2 would be launched at $414 in 2014 dollars.

All I am saying is that, any one who was waiting for ps3 to drop in price to save $$$ waited for nothing. If he is not looking at any exclusive games to play on the console, its very worthwhile to pay the $130 price difference and be set for the next generation of 5 years (or $26 per year extra for next. gen console)

This makes absolutely no sense. Why would you buy a PS3 at all if you don't care what's on it?

There are people who buy a console just because its the next gen. console. Like the many people who bout XboxOne, PS4, and Wii U on launch even though it hardly have any games but its the new thing and they are hoping for the best. Others wait sometime for the price to drop, and get the console then see what good games does it have.

They are just looking for videogames entertainment, be it Tomb Raider and GTA 5 on PS3 or PS4, or The Order 1886. Its all the same to them. its videogames and its fun. Those who I meant by saying they were waiting for lower price points.

Of course, there are those who buy a console for specific games. Ex.. buy ps3 because he wants to play and MGS4 and Little Big Planet 2 specifically.

[Cronozilla]

This post is long as shit!

PS2 was launched in 2001 for $300 (at loss I am guessing) , price probably dropped to $100 around guess-estimating 2011 (10 years) to $100 . So it ended up selling at 33% of its original price.

PS3 launched in 2006, sold at $600 (top spec model) and after 8 years it is still selling at 45% of its original price.

Which stated that PS2 will be $100 in April of 2009. As you have corrected me its 2000 launch. All prices adjusted to inflation for 2014

ps2 2000 price= $414 -> 2009 $110 = 9 years, %26.5 of launch price price.

ps3 launch price $590 -> 2014 $250 = 8 years, 42% of launch price.

Even if we choose the 12 GB PS3 which has lower spec than the launch console (20GB, ps2 backward compatibility), at $200 it will still be 33% of its original price.

It sure is, which completely falls in line with the history of price drops for the average console lifespan. Which isn't even over for the PS3 yet.

All I am saying is that, any one who was waiting for ps3 to drop in price to save $$$ waited for nothing. If he is not looking at any exclusive games to play on the console, its very worthwhile to pay the $130 price difference and be set for the next generation of 5 years (or $26 per year extra for next. gen console)

They are just looking for videogames entertainment, be it Tomb Raider and GTA 5 on PS3 or PS4, or The Order 1886. Its all the same to them. its videogames and its fun. Those who I meant by saying they were waiting for lower price points.

Of course, there are those who buy a console for specific games. Ex.. buy ps3 because he wants to play and MGS4 and Little Big Planet 2 specifically.

Right ... they don't want exclusives so they buy a machine for exclusives ... makes sense to me.

The PS3 has dropped the most in price from that generation. And the PlayStation system of the generation was, once again, the most price dropped system of the generation (Just for completeness, the Xbox price drop percentage is 47%)

You were complaining (yes complaining) that it wasn't low enough.
It's right here:

PS2 was launched in 2001 for $300 (at loss I am guessing) , price probably dropped to $100 around guess-estimating 2011 (10 years) to $100 . So it ended up selling at 33% of its original price.

PS3 launched in 2006, sold at $600 (top spec model) and after 8 years it is still selling at 45% of its original price. We have to put in mind that a whole PS2 was removed from it right? Yet still standing up at that price point.In fact, its almost the exact same price of a Wii U (next gen. system) that comes with its own tablet device and motion sensor, and the Wii U is selling at a profit not loss!

And here:

PS3s are $270 on Amazon. Now can some one explain to me how is it that a 2013 console costs only $90 more than a 2007 console? That price difference is almost that of a new gam.

Also here:

How come past gen. consoles dropped heavily in price? A ps2 ended up being like $100 even though it still packs in everything the fat ps2 packs in. Also, Bluray used to cost something like $200 or maybe $300 at launch in late 2006. Its been almost a decade already, same time period DVD player dropped from around same price to about $60-80 ('96->'06 , I got a DVD player for around $60 in '08 for sure)

There's so many things you're mentioning sprinkled throughout your posts that are inaccurate and uninformed that I just can't keep up, nor do I have the energy to refute in their entirety. But here's a couple things to think about.

1. The PS1 and PS2 price drops which you're claiming the PS3 should have already had ... didn't happen Y years after they launched ... they happened Y years after their successors launched, and their prices have everything to do with their competition in both generations during that single marketplace time period.

If the PS3 is still $200 two years from now, that'd be different. But the PS4 hasn't even been out for a year.

These patterns happen in cycle of generations, not years. Furthermore, every generation has its own flow.

2. Difference in hardware specs between launch and end of generation doesn't matter. You've singled out PS3, but fail to recognize the hardware differences in later PS2 models. And regardless of that, the end generation model still plays the same software its meant to play ... PlayStation 3 software ... as the launch models. You also ignore the abilities the PS3 has gained going forward, such as HDMI-CEC support and hardware reliability.

How can anybody take what you're saying seriously if your arguments are loaded?

3. You're confusing MSRP with Actual Retail price. You can't argue from two different bases like they're the same thing. You can't say "PS2 got to $100, which is 27% of launch price, but PS3 is $270 which is 45% of the launch price!!". One is MSRP ... one is retail premium. You're using two different bases so you can make a false comparison for a point that isn't there. The only way you can make the comparison is if they are both MSRP. Retail prices are up to individual retailers ... the only common ground price is MSRP. You can't compare the stock vanilla price of one system to a bundle premium price of another system to benefit your argument inaccurately. You have to use examples that are in the same realm, otherwise you're comparing apples to oranges, or star treks to star wars', or Transformers to Gobots. Just because it's similar doesn't mean it's the same shit! There has to be a common basis ... or else there is no merit to the situation you're attempting to highlight. This is something your arguments do not have.

In terms of arguing that this is too expensive compared to that, you have to give the systems the benefit of the doubt by choosing the cheapest possible actual values. If you don't, YOUR NUMBERS MEAN NOTHING. They're just doodles. Because you can easily manipulate any number comparison if you can compare any tier to any tier. I can say that a $40K Lexus should be cheaper because I can get a Toyota for $12K, if I use no ground basis, but I just say they're both cars I can buy and they're the same company. It makes no sense.

You're comparing a vanilla end of life system, which was a phenomenon in performance, to a descending premium bundled middle-life system, which had average performance, using inconsistent price points.

You proved nothing.

[ZeroAX]

My head hurts

[RCBH928]

I don't want to drag this any longer as its fruitless, but in your previous post you were very energetic about prices and percentages that you added extra percentages "just for shits and giggles" .

But now prices do not matter because as you said "You're comparing a vanilla end of life system, which was a phenomenon in performance, to a descending premium bundled middle-life system, which had average performance"

My point is that the ps3 is still too expensive and just to prove my point, the cheapest ps3 on the market is $200 while you can get a next gen. console, Wii U, that comes with an extra 20GB of storage, 2 bundled games, with its own touchscreen tablet all for a $100 more and Nintendo is selling that at a profit as everyone has been mentioning in the Wii U thread.

link of proof, and prices at MSRP : http://www.nintendo.com/wiiu/buynow/


If you still feel like the ps3 is not over-priced, then I do not think you realise that it was released 8 years ago. Thats enough time for a 6th grader to be in 2nd year of college, or the time difference between N64 launch and a year away from 360 launch.