By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Sales - NA Up - View Post

drizzlenuts on 26 November 2008
Edit Thread
mrstickball said:
Million said:

1. My point wasn't that the PS3 was performing better than the 360 , my point was there is still more desire for the PS3 than there is the 360 . The PS3 would perform far better at an equal price point , that can't be disputed.

2. Are you responding to my point or pulling stuff outa your arse ? . The 360's is highly dependant on it's predatory price point for it's huge sales , the further you push the price up the bigger the sales drop off you'll witness . For most of this year the PS3 was "destroying" the 360 with a much higher price point but it was combination of the 360 price cut (bringing it in the price range of the PS2/PSP) and the ecnomic situation which played to the PS3's disadvantage.

It can't be argued in anyway that the PS3 is outperforming the 360 in any tangiable way but what I am trying to demonstrate is the competetivness of the PS3 and it's sales potential ,the 360 has the advantage for now but it wouldn't take much more than a price cut to eat that lead away (obviously a price cut would have serious implications for Sony and is looking very unlikely until spring.)

 

1. Prove it. If there's more desire for the Playstation 3, why isn't it's sales increasing YOY for the holiday season? There's a point you can't say "oh, there's more potential there" when you have a system that is so inherantly expensive, that relatively few people buy it.

Furthermore, using the argument of "oh, it'd sell much better at the same price" is a very asinine statement. Yes, lets argue that a system with a Blu-Ray device, build in HDD and other costly features wouldn't sell better at the same price!

2. The Xbox 360 isn't at a 'preditory price'. That's the same statement Atari (and I want to say Sega) lobbied against Sony in the 90's when Sony launched a CD-based system for a scant $299.99 USD.

Here are the facts:

  • Microsoft delivered a feature-lite system
  • Sony delivered a feature-heavy system
  • Microsoft built the X360 in such a way that it could perform at very similar standards, despite the loss of features, against it's competitor.
  • Microsoft built their system to be cheap
  • Sony built their system to be expensive

Microsoft had the chance to include HD-DVD in the X360. They did not. Microsoft had the chance to include an HDD with every system. They did not. Microsoft has the chance to cut the Arcade SKU, but has not.

Every indication, since the X360 launched, has shown that Microsoft wanted to make a decently powerful system that could be affordable. That's not preditory, that's just intelligent businessmaking. That's something Sony used to do, but has, by every indication, decided not to do since the Playstation 3 was announced.

And guess what? Microsoft has been right at every step of the way - Nintendo too. Both are doing phenominally well by offering core gaming experiences at affordable prices - something Sony did great with the PS1/2.

 

I wouldnt call it moderatly powerfull for a game console with power 360 is top notch