-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
SCEA announces 250GB PS3 for $349
- Thread starter Jim
- Start date
dfyb said:are you really asking this?
Yes, just asking his take on the situation. Only because I see this type of attitude a lot (especially in my profession). Let's say we have a stock trading at $150. Then the stock declines to $130. Someone will see this decline and say "hey! I can get this stock at a ~15% discount!" So, they buy the stock only to see it decline by another $10... then $10... then $10... all the way down to $50. The problem is the investor is looking at the stock relative to its own history rather than in absolute terms. Sure, it looks like a good deal because it's trading for X% less than a month ago but in absolute terms how cheap/expensive is it? Maybe when it was trading higher it was ridiculously overvalued and now that it's off 15% it's now only super overvalued only to fall much futher to a more normal value?
So here we have ridiculously overpriced console accessories like harddrives (especially with MS). Let's say a 360 100 gig harddrive is $200. Let's say you can get any hardrive for half that. Then MS says "good news everyone! Our harddrive is only $175 now!" But in absolute terms its still expensive.
Firewire said "hey, that's lass than I expected. Good Deal." We know this new PS3 isn't a good deal because the only difference is the HDD which can be swapped out to a 400gb for $50. But he thinks it's a good deal because relative to previous Sony console pricing it's less expensive. So, I was just curious if he's the kind of person to step in and buy a stock thats declined from $150 to $130 without any regard or analysis of its intrinsic value.
RSTEIN said:Yes, just asking his take on the situation. Only because I see this type of attitude a lot (especially in my profession). Let's say we have a stock trading at $150. Then the stock declines to $130. Someone will see this decline and say "hey! I can get this stock at a ~15% discount!" So, they buy the stock only to see it decline by another $10... then $10... then $10... all the way down to $50. The problem is the investor is looking at the stock relative to its own history rather than in absolute terms. Sure, it looks like a good deal because it's trading for X% less than a month ago but in absolute terms how cheap/expensive is it? Maybe when it was trading higher it was ridiculously overvalued and now that it's off 15% it's now only super overvalued only to fall much futher to a more normal value?
So here we have ridiculously overpriced console accessories like harddrives (especially with MS). Let's say a 360 100 gig harddrive is $200. Let's say you can get any hardrive for half that. Then MS says "good news everyone! Our harddrive is only $175 now!" But in absolute terms its still expensive.
Firewire said "hey, that's lass than I expected. Good Deal." We know this new PS3 isn't a good deal because the only difference is the HDD which can be swapped out to a 400gb for $50. But he thinks it's a good deal because relative to previous Sony console pricing it's less expensive. So, I was just curious if he's the kind of person to step in and buy a stock thats declined from $150 to $130 without any regard or analysis of its intrinsic value.
Either that or his expected price was his "goal" price based on previous expectations and analysis of game and accessory market analysis. When it came under the expected goal price, it became a good value.
The stock comparison is not the best, because prices fluctuate up an down without solid predetermined patterns and products are not priced similarly across the industry. With game accessories, the prices are usually firm and similar across the entire industry. When one comes under the expected price based on that industry and its history, it is perceived as a good value (in that industry).
And the new PS3 is a good value to some and not others. For those without the technological know how and bravery or care to replace the drive themselves, its a fantastic deal. To those with the know how and will, its not as good a deal. Not only that but looking at bare drive prices at retail for those who arent on top of the sales and newegg and so forth, a 250gb drive is about 70 bucks. So the new PS3 250 is cheaper for them than buying a separate drive and upgrading, not to mention the "savings" in terms of hassle and fear of breaking stuff for a technological relative neophyte.
RSTEIN said:Firewire said "hey, that's lass than I expected. Good Deal." We know this new PS3 isn't a good deal because the only difference is the HDD which can be swapped out to a 400gb for $50. But he thinks it's a good deal because relative to previous Sony console pricing it's less expensive. So, I was just curious if he's the kind of person to step in and buy a stock thats declined from $150 to $130 without any regard or analysis of its intrinsic value.
Unless there is something in his post history that implies otherwise, you are making an assumption there. He could be saying it is a good deal because he thinks it is a good deal.
I don't have a PS3 at home yet, and I'll be buying this SKU. For me, this is a good deal.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
also what kind of an idiot buys-and-holds individual stocks without a stop loss order *shakes head* never mind that fundamental analysis is useless anyway so buying based on perceived value of the stock versus market price action is crazy.
RSTEIN said:Firewire said "hey, that's lass than I expected. Good Deal." We know this new PS3 isn't a good deal because the only difference is the HDD which can be swapped out to a 400gb for $50. But he thinks it's a good deal because relative to previous Sony console pricing it's less expensive. So, I was just curious if he's the kind of person to step in and buy a stock thats declined from $150 to $130 without any regard or analysis of its intrinsic value.
Nope I wouldn't buy the stock, and in fact I don't play the stock market. To risky for my tastes.
I think most people will see it as a good product at a decent price, allot of people don't want to screw around swapping out hard drives, when a much larger one is only $50 more. Most I think would buy into that.
I glanced at something about the new 250GB being bundled with Uncharted 2 today, didn't catch the price though.
Actually here it is, UK though.
http://www.gameswire.net/news/250gb-ps3-slim-uncharted-2-bundle-on-sale-next-week_415.html
Like the look of Uncharted 2 but don't have a PS3? Want a PS3 but not anything less than 250GB? Getting paid soon? Then you might just be interested in this bundle over at Amazon UK.
According to Amazon, it'll be available to all from the beginning of next week for just £269.99.
Possible game of the year + 250GB PS3 slim = best bundle ever. Sony clearly means business this Christmas. Do it.
http://www.gameswire.net/news/250gb-ps3-slim-uncharted-2-bundle-on-sale-next-week_415.html
Well, yeah, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Having "goal" prices is kind of nebulous and dangerous. His expectations are formed relative to historically very overpriced hardware. Just becuase something is priced less than it once was or priced below your expectations does not make it a good deal. Sure, we could get into utility curves and all that but in this situation we're talking about a commodity (harddrives). Simply because Sony is swapping in a new HDD and the price comes in less than expectations does not make it a "good deal" when one could easily swap in much more space at a lower $/gb.AndyD said:Either that or his expected price was his "goal" price based on previous expectations and analysis of game and accessory market analysis. When it came under the expected goal price, it became a good value.
Let's say you want to buy aluminum. I'm your preferred supplier of aluminum and I tell you I'm charging $10/pound. This is below your expectations of $15/pound. But it's not a good deal if my competitor is charging $5/pound is it?
Well, you're wrong on your first point in several ways but that's another discussion.AndyD said:The stock comparison is not the best, because prices fluctuate up an down without solid predetermined patterns and products are not priced similarly across the industry. With game accessories, the prices are usually firm and similar across the entire industry. When one comes under the expected price based on that industry and its history, it is perceived a sa good value (in that industry).
We're not talking about game accessories. We're talking about the HDD. I would agree with you if were talking about proprietary accessories. Accessory prices coming down represents better deal for the consumer. But we're talking about an interchangeable piece of hardware.
RSTEIN said:Firewire said "hey, that's lass than I expected. Good Deal." We know this new PS3 isn't a good deal because the only difference is the HDD which can be swapped out to a 400gb for $50. But he thinks it's a good deal because relative to previous Sony console pricing it's less expensive. So, I was just curious if he's the kind of person to step in and buy a stock thats declined from $150 to $130 without any regard or analysis of its intrinsic value.
You can buy a 400GB 2.5" HDD for $50?
Onix said:You can buy a 400GB 2.5" HDD for $50?
I thought I read that at the beginning of the thread. I really don't know how much HDDs cost.
Onix said:You can buy a 400GB 2.5" HDD for $50?
I'd further enquire whether it can be bought AND installed for that price. My time and that of others has value.
H_Prestige
Banned
RSTEIN said:I thought I read that at the beginning of the thread. I really don't know how much HDDs cost.
The cheapest 250gb notebook drive someone listed in this thread was $42. I think some people were throwing around prices for desktop drives, which are cheaper.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
gamerecks said:Are people comparing a regular PS3 sku with a limited edition MW2 SKU?
:lol
PS3 sku's last all of 10 minutes before they're replaced with something else.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
Zzoram said:I'm happy with my $299 120GB. The only thing I use the HDD for is game saves and installs, so I expect that I'll never even use all of the 120GB.
Yeah, I stream all my media from my network and don't keep anything on the harddrive. I also tend to stay away from games that require installations unless I can't avoid it like Hot Shots Golf or Afrika.
I seriously doubt I'll ever even go over 40gigs out of my 120gigs available in the lifetime of my unit.
RSTEIN said:Well, yeah, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Having "goal" prices is kind of nebulous and dangerous. His expectations are formed relative to historically very overpriced hardware. Just becuase something is priced less than it once was or priced below your expectations does not make it a good deal. Sure, we could get into utility curves and all that but in this situation we're talking about a commodity (harddrives). Simply because Sony is swapping in a new HDD and the price comes in less than expectations does not make it a "good deal" when one could easily swap in much more space at a lower $/gb.
Let's say you want to buy aluminum. I'm your preferred supplier of aluminum and I tell you I'm charging $10/pound. This is below your expectations of $15/pound. But it's not a good deal if my competitor is charging $5/pound is it?
Well, you're wrong on your first point in several ways but that's another discussion.
We're not talking about game accessories. We're talking about the HDD. I would agree with you if were talking about proprietary accessories. Accessory prices coming down represents better deal for the consumer. But we're talking about an interchangeable piece of hardware.
Once again you are just talking about the hard drive as if that is all that one looks at when assesing the value of this machine.
You forget the time/risk/desire to actually replace it by yourself. A large market of customers cannot and do not want to and do not know how to replace the drive by themselves, so to them the value is great. For you and me who know and are willing to do the dirty work its a poorer value.
And your aluminum comparison is also flawed just like your stock comparison. Because the consumer is not looking at buying aluminum, but an alloy made with aluminum. Sure I can buy aluminum cheaper and smelt it and alloy it, but is my time, tools and necessary skill there and worth it, or should i just pay that little extra to have someone else do it instead?