| Picko said:
As for whether the Wii was priced to low, the demand outstripped supply therefore the price was set too low. There is no debate to be had on that. Simple as that. |
So basically, you're agreeing with Malstrom that every single one of the economy analysts that opened their mouth on the Wii to:
- call it a fad that would die soon
- put the Wii as last in the "console war"
are all stupid incompetent fools?
So it seems like you don't always shake your head at what he writes, as you're agreeing with him on this one.
The Wii sure enough is not priced too low, it doesn't work even in hindsight:
- Internet forums were and still are full of fools that cry that Wii is priced too high
- not a single one of the analysts ever said the Wii was priced too low
- Internet publications are still full of articles that say once the competitors reach Wii price, they'll sell like hot cakes
- some competitors are already lower priced than the Wii and despite that, sell far lower numbers than the Wii. What is that called? Selling abysmally too low?
- The Wii was initially set to launch at $200.
So the price may be too low for the job of "meeting demand with supply". Unfortunately, this is NOT the job of the Wii's price, so it's a moot point.
The job of the Wii's price is to acquire customers. It's doing that amazingly well.
Meeting the demand is the job of Nintendo and its manufacturers, it's not the job of the Wii's price.
Hence why Nintendo increase production instead of having a higher price, or even launch with a higher price.
