There's an element of truth to this. I've always been willing to pay a little more than I'm comfortable with for a console, if I felt like the games were worth it. That said, $500-$600 is just stupidly excessive.
Which is exactly why I didn't shell out for a PS3.Article said:Sony says that price isn't as important to consumers as the quality of a product.
I'd like to note that Sony fanboys may be few and far between, what with their other... behaviors being prevalent.Corpse XxX said:I somewhat concur with Sony on this one..
But to a certain degree that is, fanboys will buy whatever brand they have always been following no matter the prize..
But the average non-hardcore consumer will usually buy the cheaper one, and this is a big group of people any company cannot afford to overlook...
In short, fanboys go for brand, everyone else go for prize..
*shrug* well, we're about to see more soc-designs and multicore setups on smaller netbooks now. So that will definitively be an alternative. Better battery-life, more options, etc.TheComfyChair said:I'll stick with PC, it's so much cheaper.
Correct response: "599 US dollars."Tom Goldman said:Sony: Price Doesn't Make or Break a Platform
You and the rest of the world.pandasaw said:I have to disagree. I bought the 360 and Wii before the PS3 because they were not as expensive. I eventually bought a PS3 when the price was not in the stratosphere.