Kagim said:
goldenheart323 said:
Kagim said:
...Besides its been like, what three years? Four? If you haven't bought a PS3 by now you likely don't have any PS2 games. If you do have PS2 games then you likely have a PS2 so i don't see the problem....
Let's see if I can broaden your perspective:
+PS3 controller is wireless, so that's an added convenience to have while playing PS2 games.
+People, (especially wives,) like simplicity. They'd rather have 1 console hooked up to the TV instead of 2.
+Some people just don't have the space for a 2nd console.
+Some people are like me. We never bought a PS2, but there were still a handful of games we'd really like to play, but not enough to warrant buying a PS2 for. If the PS3 had BC, that would make buying a PS3 a easier to justify since it would have more value to us.
+PS2 has wireless controllers and the wired controllers are not exactly short.
+Average TV's have multiple input jacks, you also usually have to switch from tv to console anyways, its just one more press of the input.
+The thing is the size of a PS3 game case
+It's cheaper to buy a new PS2 and a new PS3 then it cost to buy a BC PS3. My PS3 was $800CAD when i bought it and was only 60 gigs. That was the deluxe package.
Your essentially saying your willing to spend 300-400 dollars more for minor conveniences.
Just because something has all the features wanted, doesn't mean it's worth the asking price. While you do point out reasons why those features may not be that significant, I never put a dollar value on their worth. Different people will value it differently. If you have a naggy wife who harps on every little bit of "clutter" in your home theater setup, you may HIGHLY value being able to have 1 less console connected. Or maybe all your TV's AV jacks already have something connected to them, & you'd have to buy a switch box in addition to a PS2 to play. It all comes down to personal preference. Bottom line is they would increase the value of a PS3 for many people. Some, like you, couldn't care less about these features, but that doesn't mean they aren't important to other people.
When I debate buying something with a lot of features, I itemize the features & what they're worth to me. Let's say Bob, for example, is considering buying a PS3.
+He likes the idea of having a BD player, but he'd only pay $150 for one.
+Bob has a 360, so he can already play games in HD. There are only some PS3 exclusives he wants to play, so being able to play PS3 games is only worth $100 to him.
-Where he games is right next to his broadband modem, so wireless internet is of no use to him. Even if he rearranges things in the future, he owns his home, so running wire is no biggie.
-He has a PC to look at pictures on his memory sticks, so all kinds of card readers in the PS3 are also of no use to him.
+He remembers a handful of PS2 games he'd like to play, but never could. Finally being able to play them is worth $50 to him. That's also why he doesn't bother to buy a new PS2. It's not worth it to him.
So far, that's $300 of value to Bob, but since the PS3 is no longer BC, it's only $250. Bob's not going to buy a PS3 because it costs more than what he is willing to pay for those benefits. Yes, the phat PS3 did everything Bob wants, but that was even more expensive.
