others up!!

[Godot]

Euphoria14 said:

Squilliam said:

Euphoria14 said:

Squilliam said:
@ Euphoria you're wrong on the price cuts. It would have been $100 if the 20GB was released in any decent number. We've been over this before in other threads. It was almost impossible to get the 20GB SKU and the sales ratio between the 60/20GB prove it.

 

Alright, but then were do people pull this $200 number from? This is something I just never understood.

High end SKU is still $100 less than original high end price and low end is still $100 than original low end price.

PS3 is still running a 2 SKU show.

 

@pakidan101

Thanks.

If the PS3 20gb and 60gb were available equally, one would expect:

PS3 20gb sales to be much higher than 60gb sales because the 20gb model is far closer to the launch off price of $400 at which PS3 sales took off.

Instead, 60GB sales are far higher by a ratio I believe of 4-1 IIRC. So people who were struggling to purchase the PS3 or justify its puchase decided to pay $100 extra for no good reason?

Wireless isn't that important and hardcore initial buyers would know they could change the HDD out anyway.

Lastly, a 20% price cut isn't significant enough to justify the PS3 increase in sales in 2007, however a $200 or 33% cut does.

 

 

 

Maybe we look at it differently but for me it doesn't matter if "X" decided it was justified or if "X" person decided to pay $100 for no reason or if one was more readily available than the other.

All I see is that PS3 did in fact start off as a 2 SKU show and it still remains as a 2 SKU show. The prices between the 2 SKUs in comparison to their launch date counterparts is still only $100.

Doesn't matter about the "ifs", I just go on what facts are present in from of me.

If it was indeed a $200 drop then please show me the way to my up and coming $299 PS3.

 

@Sulla

I guess me and you will take it differently, I still stand by my thought however.

The way I see it, no matter which option you wish to take it still looks good for the PS3. Especially for a console that moved systems with a game that so many here felt wouldn't move any systems at all.

Also just to add, PS3 before KZ2 week was 84k consoles behind the 360 WW. The following week it was ahead by a couple thousand give or take. Yakuza we know sold around 20k consoles, everyone else in every other territory dropped in sales, including handhelds. So unless I go by what I think I have no choice but to assume that PS3 would have been the only one to be unaffected.

Something has got to give in your argument.

 

 

The way you calculate it is completely illogical. You can consider the sales to your product just by using the sales relative to your competition. It just doesn't make sense. Sony didn't earn money for 80k PS3 but for 30k PS3. Also, as Trios_zen stated, it's normal to be civil, when it's you and CGI-Quality posting 80% of the posts of the thread.

OT: Good sales all around.