Playstation 3 NOT the most expensive system

Reserved for modern gaming discussions.
soporj1
Posts: 556
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Playstation 3 NOT the most expensive system

Postby soporj1 » May 21st, 2006, 3:09 am

Check this out (specifically the second graph):

[URL=http://curmudgeongamer.com/2006/05/history-of-console-prices-or-500-aint.html]http://curmudgeongamer.com/2006/05/history-of-console-prices-or-500-aint.html[/URL]

Taking inflation into consideration, the PS3 falls behind the Neo Geo, 3DO and (believe it or not) the Atari 2600, 5200, Intellivision and Odyssey 2!

I can't believe my Dad bought us that Intellivision for that price!

Alienblue

Playstation 3 NOT the most expensive system

Postby Alienblue » May 21st, 2006, 6:28 am

As far as classic systems go, the only one I'll give you is
the Intellivision. Yes, that sold for over $300 in the late 70's, early 80's but it was INTENDED to be a very high-end system -I was there....this is why the thing looks like a piece of chipendale furniture. It was the worlds forst 16-bit game system and unequalled at the time (except by Bally Arstocade which cost almost as much and had a lower resolution)
It was MEANT for up-scale households. BUT, when the market became much more competitive in the 80's the price dropped to $150 and then INTV 2 came out for $99.
That's the thing-competition. The PS3 is not the only high-end console out there. (and we still have Wii coming)
But comparing 80's dollars to today means nothing.So the 2600 and O2 cost $200! So what? A 16K computer in the late 70's cost $800 and did not come with a screen, mouse, drives, ANYTHING. A COMPLETE 48k computer back then would cost you $2,000! If you could take a mordern PC back to 1982 you could sell it for like $40,000! People EXCPECT, at this point, that electronics are going to get cheaper, not more expensive, over time. VHS did. DVD did. Blu-ray will.
Translation: You really, REALLY cannot compare old electronic equipment with modern stuff. Inflation goes UP, yes, but at the same time TECHNOLOGY cheapens certain things. I don't think they factored that in. (You could make a handheld Neo-Geo today for $150 and make a profit!)

Atarifever1
Posts: 3892
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Playstation 3 NOT the most expensive system

Postby Atarifever1 » May 21st, 2006, 10:33 am

[QUOTE=soporj]Check this out (specifically the second graph):

[URL=http://curmudgeongamer.com/2006/05/history-of-console-prices-or-500-aint.html]http://curmudgeongamer.com/2006/05/history-of-console-prices-or-500-aint.html[/URL]

Taking inflation into consideration, the PS3 falls behind the Neo Geo, 3DO and (believe it or not) the Atari 2600, 5200, Intellivision and Odyssey 2!

I can't believe my Dad bought us that Intellivision for that price![/QUOTE]
Just so you know, the Neo-Geo was a very elitist gaming system not meant for the mass market.  Also, the 2600 sold less than 1 million units in the first two years of its life.  During the most expensive phase of its life, it wasn't exactly targeted at what today would be called average gamers.  If the PS3 took over two years to move a million units and was only selling to upper class homes, it would be a tremendous failure. 
I think Tycho at Penny-arcade said it best:
"I'm aware there is a chart out there showing the price of all consoles adjusted for inflation, and where the PS3 lands in the matrix.  This would be great if I were buying it with money I used to have, or perhaps spending valuable, inflation adjusted "Future Bucks."


sega saturn x

Playstation 3 NOT the most expensive system

Postby sega saturn x » May 21st, 2006, 12:47 pm

I didn't buy this infaltion crap when it was used for the 360 and I sure as hell don't buy into it now.  Lets face it the very need for a graph like this proves the system is clearly to expensive.


chrisbid1
Posts: 941
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Playstation 3 NOT the most expensive system

Postby chrisbid1 » May 21st, 2006, 1:03 pm

stop with the inflation BS

electronics were way way way more expensive in the 70s and 80s. 19" console TVs cost upwards of 1000 dollars, as were VCRs when they were first introduced. a top end personal computer could go for 10,000 dollars. the cost of electronics and computers have gone way down since those days. everything else is down in physical price and real wages have not increased much since those days.

the truth of the matter is, the PS3 is twice as much as the PS2 at launch, not because of the improvements in its gaming capabilities, but because they are forcing expensive blu ray drives into the machines. blu ray will add virtually nothing to the gaming experience, it will only add additional storage space (at an increased cost in games of course), a problem that could be remedied with multiple standard DVDs... not that many games exceed 9GB anyway

John Rowland

Playstation 3 NOT the most expensive system

Postby John Rowland » May 21st, 2006, 2:55 pm

Adjusting for inflation is the only way to compare apples to apples.  Doing so gives you a good idea of what bundle of goods (say, slices of a car, house, gallon of milk, etc.) you are forgoing when buy your Playstation or XBox (i.e. the opportunity cost).  It is the best measure of the true cost of a console.

 

I think people are getting all bent out of shape because the PS3 is NOT the most expensive console and they want/expect it to be.  But just because it is not the MOST expensive does not mean it is not expensive.  According to the graph if a PS2 came out in the basis year (2006 in this case) it should retail for $348.  To me, this does not mean a PS2 would cost that during the basis year, it means that the high-end console of the day should cost about that.  So, being that the PS3 is about $500-600, I would consider it expensive.

 

What this graph also tells me is that the NES, Genesis, and SNES, when compared to the PS3, were extremely good values. 

 

In sum, yes, adjusting for inflation is a useful way of thinking about console prices, and, yes, the PS3 is expensive.

 

Thanks for the link soporj.

 

(Note: I ran some historical console prices through the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator and the numbers on this graph seem to be accurate)


twel

Playstation 3 NOT the most expensive system

Postby twel » May 21st, 2006, 3:06 pm

i read the core version of the ps3 will cost 499 euro (640 dollar) and its bigger brother about 599 euro (767 dollar) here in germany ... no comment!

bluemonkey1
Posts: 2444
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Playstation 3 NOT the most expensive system

Postby bluemonkey1 » May 21st, 2006, 4:45 pm

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 £425.


Atarifever1
Posts: 3892
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Playstation 3 NOT the most expensive system

Postby Atarifever1 » May 21st, 2006, 5:03 pm

[QUOTE=John Rowland]

Adjusting for inflation is the only way to compare apples to apples.  Doing so gives you a good idea of what bundle of goods (say, slices of a car, house, gallon of milk, etc.) you are forgoing when buy your Playstation or XBox (i.e. the opportunity cost).  It is the best measure of the true cost of a console.

 

[/QUOTE]
Nope.  You're not comparing apples to apples at all.  At the very least the Atari 2600 was not a Blu-Ray player, or any kind of movie player.  Given that the PS3 compares very well to the estimated price of a Blu-Ray player, who's to say it should be compared to consoles at all and not, say, VCRs.  I am of the opinion that the graph is meaningless, but it cetainly can never be made to show that the price of an Atari and a PS3 have anything to do with each other.  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. 
Of course, I don't think it is, but the point is you're never going to be comparing apples to apples just by adjusting for inflation.  You're using the same currency to comapre the price of apples and oranges.  The money's the same, the product is not.

Leo Ames

Playstation 3 NOT the most expensive system

Postby Leo Ames » May 21st, 2006, 6:08 pm

"I didn't buy this infaltion crap when it was used for the 360 and I sure as hell don't buy into it now.  Lets face it the very need for a graph like this proves the system is clearly to expensive."

 

If you want to fool yourself that inflation doesn't exist and can't accurately be determined, have at it. But I don't think you're going to find any support from people knowledgable in the subject.

 

"I think people are getting all bent out of shape because the PS3 is NOT the most expensive console and they want/expect it to be."

 

Looks like to me as well.

 

"Nope.  You're not comparing apples to apples at all.  At the very least the Atari 2600 was not a Blu-Ray player, or any kind of movie player.  Given that the PS3 compares very well to the estimated price of a Blu-Ray player, who's to say it should be compared to consoles at all and not, say, VCRs."

 

That's nonsense if you ask me. They're all videogame systems, The majority of the people buying the PS3 will be buying it because its the Playstation 3, not because it's a blu ray player.

 

Inflation is considered a fact, and can be very accurately determined. Assuming he did his math correctly, the fact is that the Playstation 3 isn't the most expensive console we've seen. Because it has features past consoles didn't, doesn't mean we can't do comparisons. At the end of the day, they're all still game systems.

 

"the truth of the matter is, the PS3 is twice as much as the PS2 at launch,"

 

No, that's not the truth of the matter. You have to adjust for inflation. I don't know why you wouldn't want to accept that.

 

"As far as classic systems go, the only one I'll give you is
the Intellivision. Yes, that sold for over $300 in the late 70's, early 80's but it was INTENDED to be a very high-end system"

 

The Intellivision launched at $300 and was intended to directly compete with the Atari 2600 and Odyessy 2.

 

 



Return to “Modern Gaming”