This chart is interesting and its not the first time I've seen it. I'm comparing the price of the 40GB model at 399 when I talk about source prices. I feel this is fair, as MOST successful consoles, don't take a significant price cut in the first 6-8 months of adoption. To accurately compare I think we need to accept 399$ as the PS3's natural price. Sony took an apple approach this generation (stick it to the early adopters?)
I also question the inflation calculations here. I bought the SNES for 230 USD in 1990. Yet apparently inflation has only accounted for 60$ USD in nearly 20 years. It seems a tad low, although I felt the NES which was 299-399$ in 1984 should be higher as well than the quoted 364$ adjusted price. I don't know for sure, but it certainly is awfully comparable to 400$ on a PS3.
You know when I was growing up spending 500$ on a Vic20: that was a luxury. In 2008, we spend 500$ on an ipod and a cellphone which we will throw away in 2-3 years. The market is just totally different, even if prices have stayed relatively the same. This was my main point.
Since we're talking about families buying LPB, I think there will be some families out there who use the PS3 as a cheap living room PC (instead of buying a wii), and may find interest in games like this.
Its not going to push this game into the 17 million zone (like everyone seems to think SSBB is heading on the same theory), but it will significantly impact sales such that a few million copies is within reach.
I'm not even going to bother with LawLdar. He's just being contrary and will say anything that suits that end: Like Blu-ray sales are incredibly low (by whose definition?), and ignoring PR statements like 87% of PS3 owners watch blu-ray movies (which of course doesn't mean people are buying PS3 solely for use as blu-ray players, but it IS a factor since its the best valued blu-ray player). Like the Neogeo and Atari 2600 and Saturn platforms weren't successful... Puhlease, just because they didn't finish first in their gens (wait, didn't the 2600 do that?) doesn't mean they weren't successful or worthy of comparison in any case.
1
This chart is interesting and its not the first time I've seen it. I'm comparing the price of the 40GB model at 399 when I talk about source prices. I feel this is fair, as MOST successful consoles, don't take a significant price cut in the first 6-8 months of adoption. To accurately compare I think we need to accept 399$ as the PS3's natural price.
Sony took an apple approach this generation (stick it to the early adopters?)
I also question the inflation calculations here. I bought the SNES for 230 USD in 1990. Yet apparently inflation has only accounted for 60$ USD in nearly 20 years. It seems a tad low, although I felt the NES which was 299-399$ in 1984 should be higher as well than the quoted 364$ adjusted price. I don't know for sure, but it certainly is awfully comparable to 400$ on a PS3.
You know when I was growing up spending 500$ on a Vic20: that was a luxury. In 2008, we spend 500$ on an ipod and a cellphone which we will throw away in 2-3 years. The market is just totally different, even if prices have stayed relatively the same. This was my main point.
Since we're talking about families buying LPB, I think there will be some families out there who use the PS3 as a cheap living room PC (instead of buying a wii), and may find interest in games like this.
Its not going to push this game into the 17 million zone (like everyone seems to think SSBB is heading on the same theory), but it will significantly impact sales such that a few million copies is within reach.
I'm not even going to bother with LawLdar. He's just being contrary and will say anything that suits that end: Like Blu-ray sales are incredibly low (by whose definition?), and ignoring PR statements like 87% of PS3 owners watch blu-ray movies (which of course doesn't mean people are buying PS3 solely for use as blu-ray players, but it IS a factor since its the best valued blu-ray player). Like the Neogeo and Atari 2600 and Saturn platforms weren't successful... Puhlease, just because they didn't finish first in their gens (wait, didn't the 2600 do that?) doesn't mean they weren't successful or worthy of comparison in any case.