Quantcast
The "If XXX console came out at $yyy.yy price argument", and why its WRONG.

Forums - Sales Discussion - The "If XXX console came out at $yyy.yy price argument", and why its WRONG.

d21lewis said:
The Gamecube was graphically more powerful than the PS2 last generation. It sold for $100 less at launch, AND had a solid launch line up. It didn't matter at all. People are gonna buy what they want to buy. Would you pay $.01 for a turd because it was cheaper? I go to videogame stores all the time. I will gladly pay $60 for a game I want rather than $20-$30 for a game I'm lukewarm about.

I don't think anyone that wants a PS3 said to themselves "I really want to play Metal Gear, but I can't afford it. I guess I will get a Wii and play Wario Ware!" The Wii/PS3/360 sell the way they sell because their respectve prices contrast what the consumer is willing to pay for what each system offers. Services & Games........


just two questions, what kind of turd? and, do you ship?

Around the Network
Sqrl said:

Sorry I haven't been able to get into this thread again sooner been busy...

Anyways, on to the responses....

@"Words of Wisdom" & ChichiriMuyo,

If you guys can provide a situation where this line of reasoning adds any value to a conversation about reality please let me know, but the fact is that it's only useful when used in a conversation based entirely on a "what if" scenario. This concept is brought up on a regular basis for people who are trying to mitigate poor sales situations. And the reality of it is that people hear it and believe it and repeat it. Which is exactly why I created this thread.

From the moment you say "If..." or "What if..." you are speculating.  Once you begin speculating, you are changing the subject of the conversation.  It's alright to say "That doesn't matter in relation to what we were just talking about" and "What you've suggested is incorrect" but treating these two statements as the same is a mistake.

All other things being equal, if the PS3 was dirt cheap and the Wii was hideously overpriced then the sales numbers would change.  There's nothing about this statement that is incorrect, however real constraints prevent it from ever being relevant.  Of course, hasty judgments about relevancy lead to mistakes (remember the opinions going around when the Revolution was first renamed to the Wii...).

Back to the point, does this add value to a conversation?  Maybe, maybe not.  It is amusing that people presenting this line of reasoning are actually devaluing their position.  When you posit that sales would dramatically increase with a sizable pricecut you acknowledge that the utility of the good is below its price.  A self-defeating argument for the enthusiast that makes this claim.



vizunary said:
stof said:
If a XXX console came out, Believe me, it would sel well regardless of price.

 

i want one ;) sqrl, it's a stupid argument, but your reasoning against it is flawed. it's just a what if scenario anyways, and no intelligent person takes it seriously. it's like saying that Ferrari Enzos would outsell Mustangs if they were the same price, well no shite sherlock.
You actually reminded me of antoher point, that Sqrl could have added to his arguement. That another reason for the price, is that some companie may want to be able to exclude some of the market. Just think, it's probably perfectly capable for say Porsche could stop taking huge profits, and price a car at £25k, Porsche would sell a whole load more, but why would you want a Porsche if every had one? product may be priced to keep exclusivity.

 



One person's experience or opinion never shows the general consensus

PSN ID: Tispower

MSN: tispower1@hotmail.co.uk

Words Of Wisdom said:

From the moment you say "If..." or "What if..." you are speculating. Once you begin speculating, you are changing the subject of the conversation. It's alright to say "That doesn't matter in relation to what we were just talking about" and "What you've suggested is incorrect" but treating these two statements as the same is a mistake.

All other things being equal, if the PS3 was dirt cheap and the Wii was hideously overpriced then the sales numbers would change. There's nothing about this statement that is incorrect, however real constraints prevent it from ever being relevant. Of course, hasty judgments about relevancy lead to mistakes (remember the opinions going around when the Revolution was first renamed to the Wii...).

Back to the point, does this add value to a conversation? Maybe, maybe not. It is amusing that people presenting this line of reasoning are actually devaluing their position. When you posit that sales would dramatically increase with a sizable pricecut you acknowledge that the utility of the good is below its price. A self-defeating argument for the enthusiast that makes this claim.


I think you have articulated the problem we are having here. I am not saying that in this fantasy world the concept is BS. I am saying in this world (aka reality) its BS. In effect rather than try and tell people "well its ok if you do it this way...but not that way..." I am skipping it and just saying "Don't...seriously just don't F'ing go there.." or the polite equivalent actually.

To give a real world example of how we as a society ostracize these people consider this situation....If we were talking about NFL football and I said "Yeah, the vikings sucked last year but if they had all the good players from the other teams and could pick and choose the best players from all time they would have done much better.".

I think anyone in that conversation would look at me like I was a complete moron, and rightly so because it has nothing to do with the conversation. As you can see from my points above I focus on illustrating why it has nothing to do with reality for that reason. Because there are people who do in fact hear this line of reasoning and repeat it as though it were true.

In fact the exact moment I thought up this thread topic was during a face to face conversation with a person in a gaming lab at school where they used this very reasoning when they made this comment...

- QUOTE - (Actual Comment Below)

"I bet if the PS3 was the same price as the DS it would sell like 10x better."

- END QUOTE - (Hopefully you didn't have an anyuerism)

They then proceeded to start talking about how they "could have removed certain features" but that it would "still be the same basic package" and how "in the end they would of made more profit" etc.... Just for the record I did walk away from the group when he said the quote above but I could still hear him trying to convince the 3 other people of his position. Only later I thought about "What if he does convince them?" The idea of one person believing it is scary...but two or three???. Luckily from what I overheard before heading out to my next class they weren't buying it but the fact that they were trying to have a serious debate about it is frightening to me. And just to reiterate..they were having a debate about this scenario in reality, this guy thought it was seriously something sony could have done...if that doesn't cause you concern for the future of the world then nothing will =P

Anyways, this idea that its only hypothetical is wrong. But I will say that the idea itself is not patently BS, only when applied to reality, which in effect is the only thing worth debating about due to the endless nature of hypothetical situations. If people want to discuss alternate reality sales numbers we can probably get ioi to create a "Twighlight Zone" forum for people to go to =P

 



To Each Man, Responsibility

Well, let fanboys say what they want. In the end they get pwned regardless. Catch my drift?




Around the Network
Sqrl said:
Words Of Wisdom said:

From the moment you say "If..." or "What if..." you are speculating. Once you begin speculating, you are changing the subject of the conversation. It's alright to say "That doesn't matter in relation to what we were just talking about" and "What you've suggested is incorrect" but treating these two statements as the same is a mistake.

All other things being equal, if the PS3 was dirt cheap and the Wii was hideously overpriced then the sales numbers would change. There's nothing about this statement that is incorrect, however real constraints prevent it from ever being relevant. Of course, hasty judgments about relevancy lead to mistakes (remember the opinions going around when the Revolution was first renamed to the Wii...).

Back to the point, does this add value to a conversation? Maybe, maybe not. It is amusing that people presenting this line of reasoning are actually devaluing their position. When you posit that sales would dramatically increase with a sizable pricecut you acknowledge that the utility of the good is below its price. A self-defeating argument for the enthusiast that makes this claim.


I think you have articulated the problem we are having here. I am not saying that in this fantasy world the concept is BS. I am saying in this world (aka reality) its BS. In effect rather than try and tell people "well its ok if you do it this way...but not that way..." I am skipping it and just saying "Don't...seriously just don't F'ing go there.." or the polite equivalent actually.

To give a real world example of how we as a society ostracize these people consider this situation....If we were talking about NFL football and I said "Yeah, the vikings sucked last year but if they had all the good players from the other teams and could pick and choose the best players from all time they would have done much better.".

I think anyone in that conversation would look at me like I was a complete moron, and rightly so because it has nothing to do with the conversation. As you can see from my points above I focus on illustrating why it has nothing to do with reality for that reason. Because there are people who do in fact hear this line of reasoning and repeat it as though it were true.

In fact the exact moment I thought up this thread topic was during a face to face conversation with a person in a gaming lab at school where they used this very reasoning when they made this comment...

- QUOTE - (Actual Comment Below)

"I bet if the PS3 was the same price as the DS it would sell like 10x better."

- END QUOTE - (Hopefully you didn't have an anyuerism)

They then proceeded to start talking about how they "could have removed certain features" but that it would "still be the same basic package" and how "in the end they would of made more profit" etc.... Just for the record I did walk away from the group when he said the quote above but I could still hear him trying to convince the 3 other people of his position. Only later I thought about "What if he does convince them?" The idea of one person believing it is scary...but two or three???. Luckily from what I overheard before heading out to my next class they weren't buying it but the fact that they were trying to have a serious debate about it is frightening to me. And just to reiterate..they were having a debate about this scenario in reality, this guy thought it was seriously something sony could have done...if that doesn't cause you concern for the future of the world then nothing will =P

Anyways, this idea that its only hypothetical is wrong. But I will say that the idea itself is not patently BS, only when applied to reality, which in effect is the only thing worth debating about due to the endless nature of hypothetical situations. If people want to discuss alternate reality sales numbers we can probably get ioi to create a "Twighlight Zone" forum for people to go to =P

 


So in other words my earlier response to ChichiriMuyo was exactly right: 

"OK, so it's perfectly fine to make up some fantasyland numbers and say "A fifty dollar PS3 would be sweet!"  I think that as consumers we can all get on board with that statement.  If you want to post about that, the only complaints you'll get are along the lines of 'WTF is the point of your post?  It means nothing.'

"But nobody wants to leave it there.  People want to take their fantasyland numbers and try to make them into some kind of statement about the real world.  And that is pure delusion.  That is what I see Sqrl fighting against."

 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

While topic doesn't fail, it's not right either.

You can't really call it stupid. The idea is you say "IF XXX was YYY$". If is subjunctive, meaning your talking hypothetically, or, outside the limits of the real world. "If I had 1million dollars, I'd buy a lot of crack". Sure, I don't, or many never will, have 1million dollars, but that's the point. I'm talking in "What if" statements. Which is why your argument is wrong. You are trying to add truth where there is none.

While, yes, some consoles would lose a lot with price changes, but the idea is to argue what if. Truth is, PS3 would be winning if it was 400$ rather then 600$.



Smashchu said:
While topic doesn't fail, it's not right either.

You can't really call it stupid. The idea is you say "IF XXX was YYY$". If is subjunctive, meaning your talking hypothetically, or, outside the limits of the real world. "If I had 1million dollars, I'd buy a lot of crack". Sure, I don't, or many never will, have 1million dollars, but that's the point. I'm talking in "What if" statements. Which is why your argument is wrong. You are trying to add truth where there is none.

While, yes, some consoles would lose a lot with price changes, but the idea is to argue what if. Truth is, PS3 would be winning if it was 400$ rather then 600$.

 Did you bother to read the thread?



To Each Man, Responsibility
Sqrl said:
Smashchu said:
While topic doesn't fail, it's not right either.

You can't really call it stupid. The idea is you say "IF XXX was YYY$". If is subjunctive, meaning your talking hypothetically, or, outside the limits of the real world. "If I had 1million dollars, I'd buy a lot of crack". Sure, I don't, or many never will, have 1million dollars, but that's the point. I'm talking in "What if" statements. Which is why your argument is wrong. You are trying to add truth where there is none.

While, yes, some consoles would lose a lot with price changes, but the idea is to argue what if. Truth is, PS3 would be winning if it was 400$ rather then 600$.

 Did you bother to read the thread?


 

Yes I did. And the point stands, that you truth to a faulty statement. "If" statements aren't truth. Your mad becuase people say "If XXX was YYY$" becuase it's not logical (changing the price effects what the console has) but "What if" statements aren't logical top begin with. They are subjunctive. In the imaginary. Thats why I say it's not wrong for someone to say this becuase it weasn't true to begin with.

Smashchu said:
Sqrl said:
Smashchu said:
While topic doesn't fail, it's not right either.

You can't really call it stupid. The idea is you say "IF XXX was YYY$". If is subjunctive, meaning your talking hypothetically, or, outside the limits of the real world. "If I had 1million dollars, I'd buy a lot of crack". Sure, I don't, or many never will, have 1million dollars, but that's the point. I'm talking in "What if" statements. Which is why your argument is wrong. You are trying to add truth where there is none.

While, yes, some consoles would lose a lot with price changes, but the idea is to argue what if. Truth is, PS3 would be winning if it was 400$ rather then 600$.

Did you bother to read the thread?


Yes I did. And the point stands, that you truth to a faulty statement. "If" statements aren't truth. Your mad becuase people say "If XXX was YYY$" becuase it's not logical (changing the price effects what the console has) but "What if" statements aren't logical top begin with. They are subjunctive. In the imaginary. Thats why I say it's not wrong for someone to say this becuase it weasn't true to begin with.

 So if I say:

"What if" Smashchu had read the thread... then Smashchu would understand that Smashchu made a joke post.

Then it is not wrong for me to say this because it wasn't true to begin with? Wow. Have you been brushing up on your Tractatus?