Playstation 3 NOT the most expensive system

sega saturn x · Postby **sega saturn x** » May 21st, 2006, 8:02 pm

I'm not saying inflation doesn't exsist I'm saying it doesn't matter.

bluemonkey1 · Postby **bluemonkey1** » May 22nd, 2006, 4:45 am

Of course you can't compare without taking inflation into account.

Atarifever1 · Postby **Atarifever1** » May 22nd, 2006, 7:15 am

[QUOTE=bluemonkey]

Yeah well all you guys have it easy . The UK price is more expensive than both the US and EU prices .

We have to pay ï¿½425.

[/QUOTE]
In Canada we're going to be paying $659 for the premium. That's not actually horrible because we pay $500 for the 360 premium. I don't understand why Microsoft jacked the prices by an arbitrary $100 here while the PS3 seems to be using something closer to the current exchange rate to figure out the price difference. I mean, the Canadian dollar is at over 89 cents American right now, there should not be a $100 price difference on the 360 from just across the border.

Alienblue · Postby **Alienblue** » May 22nd, 2006, 7:58 am

"The Intellivision was meant to compete..with
the Odyssey2 and Atari2600"....
Not at first. EVENTUALLY, Mattel saw the error of it's ways and brought the price down and arcade-type games began to appear for INTV (I love INTV by the way, I have two!).But, IN THE LATE 70's The INTV was supposed to be the "core" of a complete COMPUTER system. (much as the japanese FAMICOM). They made a keyboard, drives, etc..but it tested poorly. Atari and the O2 were NEVER meant to be anything but game machines, and lower-powered ones then the INTV so that they could sell as cheaply as possible
(And at THAT, the 2600 at $200 also came with PADDLE controllers
and an extra joystick-AND a pack in game!). I really, really do not think that you can honestly use inflation figures without subtracting the COST of electronics. My first VHS cost $800
(originally, I got it on discount). My last cost $79!
(By the way before anyone calls me on this, I am aware that, late in it's life the 2600 had a couple of "keyboard" add ons made (which were never marketed) and the O2 CAME with a keyboard (which was used mainly in GAMES...neither the 2600 or O2 ever had a storage device, which the INTV DID...hence, early programs for the INTV computer are out there, as protos...and eventually a REAL keyboard came out for INTV2! It and the Coleco ADAM were the only two game-system "add-on" Computers mass-marketed that I know of!)...and the Price of PS3 is very close to a complete computer!

chrisbid1 · Postby **chrisbid1** » May 22nd, 2006, 8:49 am

everyone seems to be missing the point. in the 70's and 80's electronics were expensive and considered to be major purchases. nowadays, that is not the case. electronics are mostly throwaway products, hence the apples to oranges debate.

the PS3 is expensive due to convergance. most people do not have HDTVs to enjoy the direct benefits of blu ray movies, and sony is going to find out that most people do not have 600 dollars to burn on a gaming console, even with the "added value" of a blue ray player

John Rowland · Postby **John Rowland** » May 22nd, 2006, 12:32 pm

[QUOTE=Atarifever]If you wanted to make it comperable at all it'd have to show the price of a stereo, some kind of movie player, and console fom the 70s adjusted and compared to the price of a PS3 today.
For example, you were not just giving up slices of cars, milk, etc to buy an atari, you were also giving up, say, slices of a music player and slices of a Betamax. With the PS3, you are not giving up slices of either. Thus, the PS3 would have to be an incredible value for the money. [/QUOTE]

Sure, I agree with that. I meant you are comparing apples to apples in terms of what you are giving up, not in terms of what you are getting. The forgone basket could be all bananas too. Or rent, or whatever. All the graph is doing is adjusting for the purchasing power of a dollar.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to throw in the adjusted price of all the other items that the PS3 will substitute for. However, I sure as heck won't be using my PS3 (if I get one) as a music player. If it turns out that it is a good Blu Ray player, and Blu Ray looks to be the dominant HD format, then I might look at it in terms of getting a next-gen DVD player as well. But if either one of those two "ifs" falls through then the PS3 will strictly be a gaming machine for me, and thus perfectly comparable to the Atari 2600 in its day.

twel · Postby **twel** » May 22nd, 2006, 2:50 pm

[QUOTE=Alienblue]...and the Price of PS3 is very close to a complete computer![/QUOTE] - i guess thats the point. i bought my pc for less than 350 euro (450 dollar) ... amd 2400+ /512ram/80GB HDD/Geforce with 256MB/DVD (ok no blueray

) ... i will NEVER spend 600 euro for the ps3!

Atarifever1 · Postby **Atarifever1** » May 22nd, 2006, 6:27 pm

[QUOTE=John Rowland]

However, I sure as heck won't be using my PS3 (if I get one) as a music player.

[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I was stretching there a bit for arguements sake.

Just saying movie player didn't seem big enough, so I kind of threw that in. It's an especially weak part of my arguement considering that in the 2600 days you could easily get vinyl, the best music format ever, which would be a much better purchase in itself than a PS3 even now.

bluemonkey1 · Postby **bluemonkey1** » May 22nd, 2006, 7:56 pm

Except that vinyl is an analogue format .

Anywhoo you may end up using the PS3 for music if it has a visualiser like the 360s. That thing is amazing.

Funkmaster V · Postby **Funkmaster V** » May 22nd, 2006, 11:54 pm

I find it interesting, and none of you will, that my 2 favorite systems of all time were the actual cheapest and the adjusted cheapest system: The 7800 and Gamecube

They were also third place systems

Cousin Vinnie