Quantcast
Media Create Sales 1/30 ~ 2/5

Forums - Sales Discussion - Media Create Sales 1/30 ~ 2/5

Carl2291 said:

If we're talking sustained as in 2 Years, then I admit I'm wrong. I don't think the 3DS would have been able to hold the $250 pricepoint for 2 Years. I think it would have been fine with a cut taking it to $200 though, maybe before the Holiday push of 2012... Especially with Mario ready for it. They would still have been bringing in huge profits and I think sales would have been alright leading up to the Holiday push, staying at the front of the pack for Weekly sales.

January NPD has been suggested to be wrong. Really wrong by almost everybody. Even Pachter is calling it out. Using that to try prove a point wont work this time around. I also think 75k in Japan is pretty good considering one game worth buying has been released since December.

We might even have differing ideas on what a success would be for 2 Years at a +$200 pricepoint. Do you think that ~25 Million in 2 Years would have been good at above $200 on pure profit? I think 25 Million in 2 Years would have been doable (And good) for the 3DS if it released with the strategy I said. You probably disagree and I understand if/why you do.

The 3DS wouldn't have sold 25 million in two years at a price of $250, 20 million would already be a stretch.

Suppose the actual January numbers for the USA were 350k (I doubt you would argue that they are higher), that still isn't much; and this is the $170 3DS we are talking about. A $250 3DS would obviously sell (significantly) less.

Also, having a high profit margin on a product doesn't lead to high profits, if you have a low volume of sales. Whether the 3DS sold 10 or 20m units a year, since it's supposed to be a massmarket device, Nintendo will have assigned a marketing budget according to these expectations, so lower sales will ultimately lead to less profit per unit.

There's also the fact that the more money consumers have to spend on hardware, the less they have left over to spend on software where the real money is in the video games business; and more money that can be spent on software translates to higher sales of third party software which is something that Nintendo absolutely needs right out of the gate on their platforms, because third party confidence in general is low. Who knows, perhaps Nintendo would have been forced to drop the price of a hypothetically successful $250 3DS too, because first party games are the primary choice for consumers (like, you know, all the time here we are talking about 3D Land, Mario Kart and Zelda) and with no disposable money left, third party games wouldn't have been able to sell. So third parties would have put pressure on Nintendo to increase the installed base.

Any way you look at it, the 3DS should have never launched at a price of above $200.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Around the Network
RolStoppable said:

Any way you look at it, the 3DS should have never launched at a price of above $200.

This says it all right here.  If the system had launched at $199, a further price drop to $169 would have never been needed in the first place, at least not that soon.  Great software would have carried it through the holidays at that price and us ambassadors would have never had to pay that extra $50 for a bunch of "free" games we already have.

$250 is just too much for a dedicated handheld device.  For example, the PS3 at its $599 launch price was actually not overpriced.  Getting a cutting edge game system and a blu-ray player for six hundred bucks in 2006 was a steal.  But there's a profound difference between overpriced and too expensive, which the PS3 was.  The 3DS at $250 was both.




archbrix said:
RolStoppable said:

Any way you look at it, the 3DS should have never launched at a price of above $200.

This says it all right here.  If the system had launched at $199, a further price drop to $169 would have never been needed in the first place, at least not that soon.  Great software would have carried it through the holidays at that price and us ambassadors would have never had to pay that extra $50 for a bunch of "free" games we already have.

$250 is just too much for a dedicated handheld device.  For example, the PS3 at its $599 launch price was actually not overpriced.  Getting a cutting edge game system and a blu-ray player for six hundered bucks in 2006 was a steal.  But there's a profound difference between overpriced and too expensive, which the PS3 was.  The 3DS at $250 was both.

So, Archbrix, 3 question areas remain:

1) Is the Vita at 250$ overpriced? How do you judge the price in a hypothetical scenario where compelling games exist on the platform and you absolutely want it no matter what? What price kills the momentum despite must-have games?

2) Is overpriced a factor when the market buys it anyways? Of course I don't encourage it, but within this thread, if consumers do buy it due to compelling games or must-buy features (like say blu-ray), then where does pricepoint come into the equation, at what point or moment? For which demographic?

3) When can overpricing be the most deadly, at holiday season or post holiday season? What about pricing of competing products?

These questions lead to this: Something can be overpriced (for instance the iPad), but if people want it and no competitor is able to convince otherwise, why would it matter? I think you see what I mean.

Granted, in the case of the Vita, apart from hardware and one or two compelling, stellar titles in the west, high price is an issue. But the 3DS could've had a hypothetical situation of must-haves where consumers would not have refused to buy it at an overpriced 250$. That's the situation Carl and I both talked about. After that, it all depends on the market penetration you're looking for.



if 17 k sales is good then 3ds is god! cause it always sold near 40 k except the week before the price drop lol

id say psp was in better shape at this point in comparision to vita

if vita continues to not pick up even with tales games or other rpgs japan needs , then sony might just well cut their losses and call it a day in the handheld market. if things don't get better with the line up in the usa its not going to sell much here either i wish usa used weekly sales charts . all we ever get is monthly .

id like to see an average for vita 3ds etc here in the usa.

cause if the vita does 15 k on average here theres no way itll catch 3DS in fact i think its going to be much harder for sony to catch nintendo this time round because they sold 2x the amount they did with the DS in the same time period

if psp couldn't catch 8 million (world wide) it wont catch 16 million(world wide)



happydolphin said:
archbrix said:
RolStoppable said:

Any way you look at it, the 3DS should have never launched at a price of above $200.

This says it all right here.  If the system had launched at $199, a further price drop to $169 would have never been needed in the first place, at least not that soon.  Great software would have carried it through the holidays at that price and us ambassadors would have never had to pay that extra $50 for a bunch of "free" games we already have.

$250 is just too much for a dedicated handheld device.  For example, the PS3 at its $599 launch price was actually not overpriced.  Getting a cutting edge game system and a blu-ray player for six hundred bucks in 2006 was a steal.  But there's a profound difference between overpriced and too expensive, which the PS3 was.  The 3DS at $250 was both.

So, Archbrix, 3 question areas remain:

1) Is the Vita at 250$ overpriced? How do you judge the price in a hypothetical scenario where compelling games exist on the platform and you absolutely want it no matter what? What price kills the momentum despite must-have games?

2) Is overpriced a factor when the market buys it anyways? Of course I don't encourage it, but within this thread, if consumers do buy it due to compelling games or must-buy features (like say blu-ray), then where does pricepoint come into the equation, at what point or moment? For which demographic?

3) When can overpricing be the most deadly, at holiday season or post holiday season? What about pricing of competing products?

These questions lead to this: Something can be overpriced (for instance the iPad), but if people want it and no competitor is able to convince otherwise, why would it matter? I think you see what I mean.

Granted, in the case of the Vita, apart from hardware and one or two compelling, stellar titles in the west, high price is an issue. But the 3DS could've had a hypothetical situation of must-haves where consumers would not have refused to buy it at an overpriced 250$. That's the situation Carl and I both talked about. After that, it all depends on the market penetration you're looking for.

1)  I haven't gotten my hands on the Vita yet, but considering the tech, OLED screen, and what it costs Sony to make it, there's a good chance it's not overpriced.  But again, it's too expensive for a dedicated handheld, which is its biggest detriment to having mass-market sales...

2)  ... which brings me to your second question, which is based around games and subjectivity, which of course complicates things more.  There are people who will buy the Vita and think that it's not too expensive and worth every penny for the hardware and the games it plays.  Then there are some who want the games but feel it costs too much, some who like the hardware but don't think the games warrant the price, etc.  Basically it comes down to $250 is more than the masses are willing to pay for a handheld game system, even if some feel it has great games...

3) ... which brings me to point three:  the iPad.  Yes, it's expensive (and overpriced IMO), but the device does a lot of things, which to many people does warrant the price.  The Vita is primarily a game system, which IMO plays vastly superior games than tablets and smartphones, but like it or not, tablets and smartphones do play games... and do a lot more as well.  This is why I think price is a big factor in handhelds being successful in today's market; at $250, only the most dedicated gamers will bring in the sales of dedicated gaming handhelds, even if the game library is alluring.




Around the Network
archbrix said:

1)  I haven't gotten my hands on the Vita yet, but considering the tech, OLED screen, and what it costs Sony to make it, there's a good chance it's not overpriced.  But again, it's too expensive for a dedicated handheld, which is its biggest detriment to having mass-market sales...

2)  ... which brings me to your second question, which is based around games and subjectivity, which of course complicates things more.  There are people who will buy the Vita and think that it's not too expensive and worth every penny for the hardware and the games it plays.  Then there are some who want the games but feel it costs too much, some who like the hardware but don't think the games warrant the price, etc.  Basically it comes down to $250 is more than the masses are willing to pay for a handheld game system, even if some feel it has great games...

3) ... which brings me to point three:  the iPad.  Yes, it's expensive (and overpriced IMO), but the device does a lot of things, which to many people does warrant the price.  The Vita is primarily a game system, which IMO plays vastly superior games than tablets and smartphones, but like it or not, tablets and smartphones do play games... and do a lot more as well.  This is why I think price is a big factor in handhelds being successful in today's market; at $250, only the most dedicated gamers will bring in the sales of dedicated gaming handhelds, even if the game library is alluring.

Thanks. But question @ bold. Even if it's during the holidays, and there are 3 must-have games like Mario 3DL, MK7 and MH out all nearly at the same time? Does it really take that dedicated a gamer to bite? Why can home consoles sell at 250$ but not portables? Aren't these systems bought for their games? I don't see at this point in the history of gaming why a home console can offer a more compelling experience than a portable, at the level we are in portable processing and graphics power. This is an honest question (not rhetorical).

In your answer, forget the whole TV versus portable experience argument if you can, since some people like the comfort of taking their gaming anywhere over playing on a big screen. But you can touch on it if you'll argue demographics (which demographics prefers playing tv screens, and in which country).



happydolphin said:
archbrix said:

at $250, only the most dedicated gamers will bring in the sales of dedicated gaming handhelds, even if the game library is alluring.

Thanks. But question @ bold. Even if it's during the holidays, and there are 3 must-have games like Mario 3DL, MK7 and MH out all nearly at the same time? Does it really take that dedicated a gamer to bite? Why can home consoles sell at 250$ but not portables? Aren't these systems bought for their games? I don't see at this point in the history of gaming why a home console can offer a more compelling experience than a portable, at the level we are in portable processing and graphics power. This is an honest question (not rhetorical).

In your answer, forget the whole TV versus portable experience argument if you can, since some people like the comfort of taking their gaming anywhere over playing on a big screen. But you can touch on it if you'll argue demographics (which demographics prefers playing tv screens, and in which country).

With those games, during the holidays many people would bite, but pre and post holiday season the sales would stagnate.

The console price vs handheld price (I believe) is due to many factors.  For one, as beautiful as PSV graphics are, they're still not 360 or PS3 and they're not made for glorious HD on a 50+ inch TV with surround sound for (most importantly) many to enjoy.  Many people can participate with a single game console (plus controllers), whereas a single handheld is for a single individual.  Adding another handheld into the mix for multiplayer obviously costs a lot more.

Bringing in demographics as an example though is quite interesting.  In Japan, handhelds trump consoles (possibly even when gaming at home), in the west it is the opposite.  We tend to like our console type games on our TVs and our simpler affairs on our handhelds.  Of course, handhelds have their advantage of portablility, and many (like me) enjoy console type games as well as simpler games on the go, but when the price is too expensive for the masses to invest, many are content with their tablets/smartphones.  This is why I do believe that an accessible price (less than $200) for a handheld is very important.