The PS4 thread

[BoringSupreez]

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.

And on top of all that, there's the considerations that the economy was healthier during the PS1 and 2's lifespans, and modern consoles utilize more paid licenses.

[dsheinem]

I

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.

So what? Something should get cheaper over time…because you say so? Or because some other consoles with shorter life spans did? Or because the economy and market for games today is somehow parallel to that in some other time? You aren't making any kind of thought out argument here...

[ZeroAX]

I have to say though Sony must be really frustrated that they can't make the PS3 cheaper to manufacture. If they could drop the price for a system with a hard drive and an old Sony published game at 150-180€ they would sell like crazy

[Cronozilla]

BoringSupreez has an excellent point. I didn't bother talking about economic state (which determines a lot), because the conversation isn't even at that level yet. I'm still trying to explain that the systems need to be at the same basis to even compare them. Otherwise it's just fluff.

ZeroAX also has a good point. If Sony could drop it lower, they probably would. Because it would make it an obvious choice over a 360. Video games are not as widespread as they appear. The audience is still relatively small. Even if a console sells 250 million units (which none have), that's still a paltry amount compared to population numbers. And other technologies do better in that area. So, it's safe to assume, if you're speaking about the hypothetical person whom doesn't own anything yet ... they are someone outside of the normal gaming loop. This is something else that's being ignored in the comparison of generations.

RCBH928

I didn't say prices don't matter. In fact I was showing that prices matter greatly.
You're trying to claim that the PS3 is too expensive, but you're comparing different tiered systems to one another, which isn't a valid comparison. On top of that you're using an arbitrary price of $100, that means nothing since it isn't even the same value as before.

And I am saying, to you, RCBH928, that your argument is complete horseshit.

Lets see how it's horseshit.

You're not arguing from a baseline. You're using multiple different standards, which results in bullshit numbers (that you apparently can't keep straight.)

The PS3 isn't dead yet. Your argument refuses to acknowledge that the PS2 did not drop to that price exclusively in its own generation. It happened THREE YEARS after the PS3 arrived. Prior to that, when the PS3 launched the PS2 was, $129.99. Today that's about $154, that's a $46 difference between it and the PS3's current price in a similar period with the PS4. It's not an unreasonable difference! And I would be astonished if the PS3 didn't drop price again before it disappeared in several years. Since you like using years, instead of generation periods (even though measuring in generation makes more sense, because that's the cycle and years are arbitrary). The PS3 still has 1.5 years to hit a $100-$150 price point to match the PS2 ... which wasn't $100 until 9 years after it came out.

You claim the PS3's price drop percentage is abnormal, but using your own method for finding change in price percentage across a generation, I showed that the PS3's price drop percentage is absolutely normal. It's already dropped more than the average of what most consoles did their entire lifespan, which is why I showed the other system's price drop percentages. And it is somewhat amazing, considering the system started at such a premium price. It's only abnormal for PlayStation home consoles, it is still above average for home consoles in general. And all that argument shows is that the PS3 wasn't as successful as the PS1 or PS2. Ground breaking stuff.

Furthermore, it's ridiculous to harp on the PS3 that it is overpriced when it's direct competitor is the exact same price, and did not start its life at such a premium.

Regardless of what systems have sold for in the past, every generation is different. You can only attempt to predict things that MAY happen. But you can't hold any company accountable for not sticking 100% to some trend that happened in a completely different time period with a completely different market and with completely different economic implications.

It's just ridiculous horseshit.

[Retrogamer0001]

It's just ridiculous horseshit.

You know what else is ridiculous horseshit? Getting so worked up over a stupid argument about price drops.

[Cronozilla]

Don't confuse my annoyance with RCBH as being legit concern about the price state of the PS3. I don't give a shit.

I do, however, care about the way he uses the boards.

I'll toss the post in a spoiler to save from it being annoying.

[flex wood]

I don't understand how anyone could ever be annoyed with him. He's just so foreign and loveable he's like our own Balki Bartokomous.

[MrPopo]

I don't understand how anyone could ever be annoyed with him. He's just so foreign and loveable he's like our own Balki Bartokomous.

+1 for Perfect Strangers reference.

[RCBH928]

I don't want to further annoy board members with this argument because:

1) I think the price of $270(even with a bundled game) for ps3 or the 12GB system (which is lower spec than the launch console) is just too high after 8 years on market. Cronozilla think its at the right price. Whoever is right, thats not going to change anything. There is nothing to gain. This is just discussing a hobby, it can end here.

2)Cronozilla made his calculations and numbers, so I felt like I should reply back with my own numbers and thoughts on the topic, but somehow trying to reply back is considered annoying to others so I will just stop doing it. Even though I am not trying to be a troll, have not called any one names or insulted any one. The thing that I did wrong is that I was discussing ps3 prices in the ps4 thread.


As for Cronozilla's concern with my ways of using the boards, I have been on these boards for 6 years with 3800 posts. If I was using these boards in the wrong way, or was an annoyance to the members here they could have banned me as far back as 2011. So I think I am still welcomed here.

[ZeroAX]

Come on guys calm down. No need for name calling. Let's just get back to bashing next-gen cause the PS3 is currently much better