One of the threads here touched on this topic and I found a site that gives some interesting information. From the first console launch in 1976 all the way to the launch of the PS3 in 2006, this is a comparison of their initial prices. Strangely, the Wii is absent it seems.

First, the 'absolute' price, or what the machine cost to the consumer at that time:

http://curmudgeongamer.com/media/console-prices-absolute.pdf

Now here is the 'relative price', or how much each machine would have been priced in today's dollars once adjusted for inflation:

http://curmudgeongamer.com/media/console-prices-relative.pdf


******************

As you can see in the relative graph, the $500 PS3 is below the Atari 2600 at launch as well as the Sega Saturn (the Intellivision was equal to $825 !!!) . Of the top consoles sold each generation (other than the 2600), it does remain the priciest, but it's not as bad as I thought. Compared to the PSOne for instance, the cheaper model PS3 is relatively only about $100 more expensive.

For a gamer who plans to play the modern games to the fullest without any unecessary extras, you can compare the primary XBox 360 model with a hard drive (most agree the Core system is inadequate) with the $500 PS3. There, the PS3 is only about $90 more expensive.

To really maximize gaming on those units you have to be able to play online. If you compare the free online gaming capabilities of that PS3 unit to the $50 (annual) cost of going on XBox Live (drop this comparison if you don't game online), you are down to a $40 difference, adjusted for inflation. It's still a $50 difference in absolute terms, which is the most relavant, but still a good deal ($400+$50 = $450 for gaming with no limitations on the X360 compared to $500 for a PS3 with the most similar gaming abilities).

But despite the PS3 offering relatively better technology and media features than the PSOne and PS2, the price will remain an issue to the masses for the PS3 until it can knock off $75 - $100. IMHO, it should be a top priority for a competent version of the system to be sold for $300 by Christmas 2009 if the PS3 has a chance to approach that record-setting sales pace of its two PlayStation predecessors. Price, price, price.

Oh god not another one

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... wakes upp... reads this thread..... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The only problem with that line of thinking is that inflation over the past decade has been driven by increasing housing and energy costs. Prices on consumer goods have remained relatively flat. Prices in consumer electronics have fallen.

To get anything even remotely as powerful as the PS3 you would have had to build a supercomputer the size of a small town. Think how expensive that would have been. We must be getting a bargain now.

i dont think you can discount the 50$ internet service yet.

Live has quick downloads consistently (opposed to slow slow sony d/ls) and 3rd party demos, a movie system, a great friends list/chat, and support for every single game, and they maintain it on their own Microsoft server.

Sony doesnt' maintain a central server, so they have no costs

I'm just comparing general capabilities for next-gen gaming and the costs involved. Anyone can argue a feature is better here or there (my PS3 dloads are not slow at all BTW), but overall for a gamer to get roughly the same features, he has to spend...

- $450 for a 20-Gig XBox360 and online gaming access (and $50 more a year after that)

- $500 for a 20-Gig PS3 with online gaming access (comes with non-gaming 1080P movie watching)

You know bread used to cost a nickel.

{after looking at the graph scrolls down to the bottom of the thread without reading it and types my post is a waste}

my post is a waste

You youngin's got it good.. back when I was a kid we had to walk uphill both ways






in the snow!

Whats funny about those lists is looking back at the prices of Neo Geo and the 3D0.
The 3D0 is especially funny cuz it just came out too soon. What format were those movies they had for that thing? haha. Matter of fact, wasn't that where the geico lizard got his start?

The only problem with that line of thinking is that inflation over the past decade has been driven by increasing housing and energy costs. Prices on consumer goods have remained relatively flat. Prices in consumer electronics have fallen.

That's key right there. Look at average laptop now vs. 10 years ago. Not only do you get more machine but they are FAR cheaper in nominal dollars (no inflation adjustment) and even moreso in real inflation adjusted dollars - the prices have plumeted despite inflation effects and more capable hardware. It works in the opposite direction and makes a cheap price even cheaper bringing a current laptop price back to 1997. Conversely taking an expensive 1997 laptop and inflating the price forward makes it even more expensive relative to todays less expensive unit. Producing electronics has simply gotten far cheaper due to efficiency and the large supply demanded.

Not saying there's anything wrong with adjusting for inflation and seeing what you find, but merely that before you draw conclusions you want to look at the whole landscape and how pricing has changed relative to that specific industry/item class.

i dont think you can discount the 50$ internet service yet.

Live has quick downloads consistently (opposed to slow slow sony d/ls) and 3rd party demos, a movie system, a great friends list/chat, and support for every single game, and they maintain it on their own Microsoft server.

Sony doesnt' maintain a central server, so they have no costs


Agreed. The 360's network still destroys the PS3's online network in every non-monetary sense I can think of. However, IMO the PS3 is a better DVD player (scaling aside) and a darn fine Blu-ray player. Competition is a good thing. I hope we see both Sony and Microsoft continue to update their consoles with new and better features.

Even with the high console prices we are getting more value for our dollar than we ever had before. When in the past (Xbox aside) would a console come out that would give us continuous simple-to-install upgrades for free (like we are seeing with the 360 and the PS3)?

It's not really an apples to apples comparison by bringing up other consumer electronic pricing trends like laptops becoming more affordable. Gaming consoles are a unique entity in that they are almost always introduced at a launch price well below cost for market share, and then make their profits off of third-party licensing, first-party game sales, and accessories. Every other electronic gizmo sells well above cost at launch to make profits from the unit itself until market saturation occurs.

That's why most high-def consumers are pleased with the PS3 price while gamers were first shocked buy it. We gamers have been coddled for quite awhile by the industry.

It's not really an apples to apples comparison by bringing up other consumer electronic pricing trends like laptops becoming more affordable. Gaming consoles are a unique entity in that they are almost always introduced at a launch price well below cost...

It's certainly "fair" given that the entire impetus of this thread was the idea that previous consoles were actually more expensive when adjusted for inflation.

Besides, you're making comparisons going back into the 2600 days. Was the 2600 sold as a loss-leader in hopes of making it up in licensing?

It's not really an apples to apples comparison by bringing up other consumer electronic pricing trends like laptops becoming more affordable. Gaming consoles are a unique entity in that they are almost always introduced at a launch price well below cost for market share, and then make their profits off of third-party licensing, first-party game sales, and accessories. Every other electronic gizmo sells well above cost at launch to make profits from the unit itself until market saturation occurs.

That's why most high-def consumers are pleased with the PS3 price while gamers were first shocked buy it. We gamers have been coddled for quite awhile by the industry.

The pricing model (sell hardware at a loss) is different than traditional consumer electronics and computers but the effect within the industry is the same. So basically consider it accurate and then chop off the top for consoles.

It's not perfect, nothing is, but you simply can't use general inflation indicators and hope to get good output when the specific segment/industry has experienced massive pricing plummets that simply aren't reflective of anything else in the inflation basket. You have to account for the industry - the console pricing model might be a wash if it was always sold at a loss but this also varies. Nintendo didn't sell at a loss and I'm pretty sure I remember Atari games for $32.95 or $39.95 when at the time they could be coded by one guy without too much time.

It's certainly "fair" given that the entire impetus of this thread was the idea that previous consoles were actually more expensive when adjusted for inflation.

Besides, you're making comparisons going back into the 2600 days. Was the 2600 sold as a loss-leader in hopes of making it up in licensing?

Console-to-console is as close to an apples-to-apples comparison as you're going to get. Other consumer electronics follow a completely different path for determining launch price and profits from hardware.

As for the 2600, that is one of the exceptions, as is the Wii. Which is why I posted above with the qualifier "almost" always.

Console-to-console is as close to an apples-to-apples comparison as you're going to get. Other consumer electronics follow a completely different path for determining launch price and profits from hardware.

As for the 2600, that is one of the exceptions, as is the Wii. Which is why I posted above with the qualifier "almost" always.

The 2600 was sold at $200 at launch, but it only sold 250,000 units that year. The next year it was up to 550,000.

So even though we consider the 2600 a success, the volume of sales it had when it sold for $200 in 1978 dollars was very low. Certainly, no one would consider the PS3 a success if it only sold 1/2 million units a year.

So when you look at those machines that were more expensive than the PS3 a launch, look at how many units they moved at those price points to get a more complete picture.

Console gaming is very cheap as a hobby regardless. $500 for 5-6 years of usage of a console is very little for thousands of hours of gaming.

hey, I am a Sony and PS3 "fanboy". 500.00 or 600.00 today is still a lot of money for many, although you are getting a lot of product for the money or at least what the product can do or potentially do. The gas argument many try to make is the same. They argue gas relative to 19$$ is way cheaper today. Let me tell you 2+ dollars a gallon is still damn expensive even in 2007. All that adjusted for inflation crap gets meaningless when you have to spend the money to buy the item. And I agree with the other poster who said electronics prices have been coming down significantly over the last few years. A lot of them are virtually disposable now, especially on the lower end, like the 50.00 dvd player.

I dont think PS3 are expensive or over priced, but about everytime I type that someone drills me. Id love to see what some people who say its too much spend their cash on. On the other hand, if the price was lower alot of non early adopters type would buy it and as another member explained, thats probably the only way Sony will hit those PS2 numbers. Makes sense.

The only problem with that line of thinking is that inflation over the past decade has been driven by increasing housing and energy costs. Prices on consumer goods have remained relatively flat. Prices in consumer electronics have fallen.


Inflation doesn't look at energy prices fwiw. Yeah that surprised me to and then it didn't surprise me, if you know what I mean.

Inflation doesn't look at energy prices fwiw. Yeah that surprised me to and then it didn't surprise me, if you know what I mean.



I play it again. :)

If you just want to play games. The playstation is WAAAAAAY to expensive. If you just want watch HI def movies. The playstion is a steal.

I remeber when i had my first job at Arby's many years ago.. It would take damn near a month+ to make $600. I was happy just to make $200 every two weeks.

I'm sure there are a lot of yourger people that would honestly love to have a PS3 but just cant afford it at all. And you know most parents are not going to spend that kind of money for their kid..

If you just want to play games. The playstation is WAAAAAAY to expensive. If you just want watch HI def movies. The playstion is a steal.

I remeber when i had my first job at Arby's many years ago.. It would take damn near a month+ to make $600. I was happy just to make $200 every two weeks.

I'm sure there are a lot of yourger people that would honestly love to have a PS3 but just cant afford it at all. And you know most parents are not going to spend that kind of money for their kid..

The PS3 isn't aimed at parents buying stuff for their 6 year olds.


If you don't have an HDTV, the PS3 is a very poor choice...without HD gaming and Bluray, the game selection is weak. The wii is aimed at that market.

Any teenage kid can somehow come up with $600 over the course of 6 years to own a console, and if you have your own job, its just a matter of where your spending priorities lie.

For what you get, the PS3 is a very fairly priced product.

Wow I remember buying a Sega Saturn for $780 cnd when it first came out lol. I also remember buying a 3DO for just over 800 cdn (with 4 controllers) but we won't talk about that haha . Though to this day I still think I had the most fun with my 3DO but My biggest WOW purchase was Sega CD :) ahhhhh the good ol days :)

Inflation doesn't look at energy prices fwiw. Yeah that surprised me to and then it didn't surprise me, if you know what I mean.

Core inflation doesn't look at energy prices (or food). Other measures of inflation do.

For what you get, the PS3 is a very fairly priced product.

I would personally revise that to say, for what you "may" get in March with the update, the PS3 is a very fairly priced product.

I would personally revise that to say, for what you "may" get in March with the update, the PS3 is a very fairly priced product.

Ok, fine. But by buying in December, you got Talladega Nights and $70 in Bluray coupons.

Once it becomes a media hub, its essentially the only device needed to hook up to your television.