By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Million on 05 September 2008
Edit Thread
TheBigFatJ said:
Million said:
TheBigFatJ said:

(1) The public realized the PS3 didn't have the value of a $499/$599 console at launch which is why Sony had to drop the price so aggressively compared to Microsoft

Wrong , the public for the most part couldn't (and still can't) afford a $499/499 console regardless of how much perceived value it had, which is why Sony had to drop the price so aggresivley for an affordable and competetive price point. Eternal lfe for $ 50 trillion earth is excellent value for money but I guarantee you it wouldn't sell alot if at all.

(2) Microsoft has gained very significant mindshare and marketshare over Sony -- ultimately, Microsoft employed more successful strategy than Sony.

As seen in the XBOX 360 selling slower than the PS3 since their respective launches ?

What do you guys think?  Sony seems to be price dropping much more aggressively than Microsoft in the US.  By the time the PS3 is 3 years old, will it have dropped $200?

 

I think it's unfair that you ignore the fact that the PS3 had/has a much higher pricer point than it's closest rival , if they were equaly or similarly priced then I'd understand that a $200 price drop on the cost of a PS3 show'd microsoft succesfullness or new found dominance. Sony will likely never sell the PS3 below the cost of the XBOX 360.

 

 

(1) You are the one who is wrong.  If people want to afford a $599 console, they can.  People buy $30,000+ corvette cars for entertainment.  They buy $3500 TVs for entertainment.  They buy $2000 computers for entertainment.  You're telling me that people can't afford a $599 luxury when they're buying much more expensive and similar luxuries all of the time?  Hell, the government gave most people/families $600-$1800 recently to spend on luxuries and service to try to improve the economy. 

People can afford $600.  They simply choose not to because they don't perceive the PS3 as worth that much money.

(2) The Xbox 360 improved drastically on the Xbox's launch.  The PS3 dropped signfiicantly compared to the PS2's launch.  You can say, "hey, Sony is still doing as well as Microsoft" but the fact is that they were way ahead of Microsoft before this generation and being in this position is a huge loss for them.

 

(1)Yeah If people wanted to pay half of their monthl salaries they can , people buy $30,000 + cars , expensive TV's etc but these people dwindle in comparison to the no of people who buy $10,000 cars , cheaper TV's ,PC's etc ,that's not because people don't think that the expensive TV's are good value for money or the nice cars but they'd either have to A.Sell their houses for such luxuries B. get in to serious debt.

.Around 75% of the wealth belongs to 25% of the population in many developed countries and the diversity is even worse in poorer countries . Consoles are made for mass market penetration so they should have a price point which makes that goal possible , The PS3 wans't fit for the purpose of mass market penatration with it's oringinal price point Sony relied to heavily on the power of the PS brand and they suffered for it.

I say it now and i'll say it again, none of the other current gen consoles would have sold relativley well at all with a $600 price tag , the PS3 is a gaming console primarily and the average consumer will not spend $600 for the luxury especialy in our current economic situation.

 

(2) Every generation is effectivley a new race you could argue Sony was performing badly relativley to last gen but that would make sense because i don't recall any brand coming strong 1s for 2 or more generations except for Playstation , it's the nature of this industry to do well one generation and flop the next , the consumer isn't as brand loyal as you think they'll go with whatever console fulfils their needs ( Nintendo wasn't No.1 for at least 2 generation before the PS3 but that didn't proove to be much of a disadvantage for the Wii.