Carl2291 said:
|
You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villian.
Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles.
padib said:
I don't want to be mean but you're boring me a little. $15 difference 1.3 years after launch is not the same as a 75$ difference at launch. The pricepoint at launch affects the perception of a console for a while, especially with the mainstream which mostly operates on word of mouth or heavy advertising (which Nintendo doesn't really do). The PS2 was no longer selling well in the areas the Wii was booming in (US and EU) at launch (in november of 2006, since you asked). The PS2 was rather selling in the developing areas at the time the Wii launched. In contrast, the PS3 was still booming in the US and EU when the U launched (Nov 2012), because it had a much later success curve. And finally, the U is still competing against the Wii, while the Wii did not have competition from the cube and also had its launch sales encouraged by a craze up until late 2007. So, the U was obviously not only launched too expensive, but has also other big obstacles which affected its sales. Now (in Feb 2014) the price is closer to $285 yet still more expensive, yet to appeal to the mainstream (while contending with its other woes), it should be even less expensive than the Wii was - in 2009 - in order to sell. People are expecting to buy Nintendo systems at $200 ($228 considering inflation), that was the sweetspot for the Wii in 2009 in its biggest year after the craze subsided. So, the U should not be priced higher than that. Not only that, but inflation is a double-edged sword. People become accustomed to paying a certain price for something and rarely ever see inflation in how they judge prices except after many years. With that, I believe that in order to succeed, the U should have been priced at $200 if not lower. As a side note, the PS2 was cannibalizing PS3 sales at launch, it's not sad when it's just a matter of fact. Take it as it is and stop bashing. That's my opinion. |
Lol. You continue to repeat the same argument I've dismantled for about 3 posts in a row now, so I'm not surprised you're bored.
The Wii U pricedrop occured in August, so I'm not sure where you're getting 1.3 years from. Either way, if it was really as dependant on price as you believe, the pricedrop wouldn't have done almost nothing.
The PS2 sold ~50 million units after the PS3 came out, and it only sold 25m total outside of US/EU/JP, most of which was before the PS3 came out, so your point about it primarily selling in developing countries at that point is simply incorrect.
Both bolded points are in support of my argument. Did you forget what we were arguing about? Lol.
The PS2 cannibalizing PS3 sales at launch isn't sad because the PS2 was still selling very well. The Wii cannibalizing Wii U sales is quite sad because Wii sales fell off a cliff. It isn't bashing, it's reality.
padib said:
It worked that way for the Wii. The Gamecube is a bad counter-point, it was a very differently branded console with very different content. What he meant doesn't really matter. What really matters is what's true. And in essence, price is very important for the success of any console. |
Price matters a lot, everyone agree on that. But the 1st thing is that telling that brand strenght, good marketing (or no marketing mistake), hype, superior multi, better 1st party studio, better end for PS3, form factor account for only 5% of the success is foolish. Just Japan only account for 5% of the success, and it's not based on price. The 2nd thing is that price is not random, it's based on strategic choices which values power or extra features. What make xbox one 100$ more expensive and less powerfull is Kinect, and 65% of the client doesn't think it has a 100$ value difference. Competition is far from "the cheapest win" in most market, it's about what price you sell and what value the client see in it.
What's an arse?
I won't name names, but recently I've been witnessing, astonished and aghast, the uncanny transformation of one of the former finest stealth trolls of this site into a drama queen (and in his current worst moments, even into an old sour spinster).
And you know, drama queens aren't that stealthy.
PULL YOURSELF TOGETHER AND COME BACK WITH US IN YOUR WHOLE FORMER GLORY, UNNAMED STEALTH TROLL!1!!!ONE!!!!! 
padib said:
I appreciate your points, but there are some caveats: 1) if 50m units of 155m lifetime sold after the PS3 came out, over 8 years (2006-2014), and only 25m were split among US/EU/JP, that leaves a very small ratio as compared to sales from 2000-2006 (~103m), most of which sold in the 3 major regions. This point is in my favor. 2) Though Wii HW sales have fallen off a cliff, the SW is still alive. For example, JD2014 sold much more on the Wii than it did on the U. You're looking at the wrong metric to understand my point. 3) I didn't forget what we were arguing about. What I'm trying to say is that the Wii had much more in its favor. So, due to that idea (which agrees with your stance), it only strengthens my argument that the U needed to be priced lower. You see it as a point in favor of your argument, I see it in opposition with your counterpoint that: 1) the Wii was priced similarly to the U (which was untrue in the first place) and that 2) hence the U is without excuse. But rather, instead, I'm arguing that the U needed to be priced even lower. |
1) It wasn't only 25m split among US/EU/JP. The majority of the 25m sales in "other" regions came before the PS3 released. In terms of both hardware and software, the PS2 was a much bigger threat in every region for the first few years of the PS3's life than the Wii has been throughout the Wii U's life. You should really make sure you appropriately understand the numbers before claiming they support your stance.
2) While its software has been doing somewhat better than its hardware, that's not saying much.
3)You initially argued for price alone being enough to completely determine a console's success, but now you're just arguing that the law of demand exists. It certainly seems to me that you forgot what we were arguing about.
I have the two consoles and I can say this video is 100% how I feel: The PS4 is much better because of indies, free games, better quality overall of the interface and a much more estable system.
The free indies are such a blessing and the Free-to-play shooters (Warframe and Blacklight) are a joy, also PS4 gave DC Universe for free as well, it just spoil the fans with gifts and amazing features.
After that, when MGS5 was released, in which system do you guys think I decided to pick it up?
I bought a digital MGS5 on PS4, of course (digital because in Brazil the physical copy was 100 dollars!)
I invested in the system that treated me better, not on the one that give me only titanfall, no indies, no free nothing.
I still use my Xbox One everyday, for Xbox Fitness, but they better step up their game if they want people to use their console for gaming.
And, for now on, I will buy my multiplataforms on PS4 ONLY.
My grammar errors are justified by the fact that I am a brazilian living in Brazil. I am also very stupid.
| kowenicki said: Price is 95% of it. saying anything else is delusional. |
For kicking arse maybe. For outselling it, no. PS4 would still be outselling Xb one if they were the same price.
Percieved value is 100% of the reason, and Jim gave 2 non-hardware price reasons for why perceived value is much greater: indies and PSN+.
“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
Talal said:
|
Actually the answer with PS3 vs 360 is USA. That's the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th reason that 360 sold almost as much as PS3. The fact is PS3 kicked 360's arse even with all the disadvantages it had in the vast majority of countries. It needed to because of the massive market share difference in that one country. For all sorts of reasons not related to the price difference Xb one was always going to lose market share to PS4 in USA, and for those same reasons Xb one was not going to gain market share in all those countries where PS3 won quite easily.
“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
binary solo said:
For kicking arse maybe. For outselling it, no. PS4 would still be outselling Xb one if they were the same price. Percieved value is 100% of the reason, and Jim gave 2 non-hardware price reasons for why perceived value is much greater: indies and PSN+. |
It's that easy.
In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
