binary solo said:
I think my OP answers that question. You can fool some (enough) of the people all of the time... The mere existence of a "console war" in the minds of many also answers your question. Let's not get bogged down in the logistical detail too much. Sony sells the PS3 to retailers for the "base price" and Sony takes all the PSN subscription money for itself (i.e. Sony wears all the cost and inconvenience), whether the fee is paid through the PSN or at the time of purchase at the store. Sony incentivises retailers to sell at the full price (least hassle for Sony) by letting retailers keep some of the "PSN subscription fee" on consoles sold at full price. Free PSN is only something PS3 devotees make a big deal of. It probably sounded like a major selling point for a console, and was probably necessary for such an expensive console. But I wonder how many people made their 360 or PS3 decision based on free PSN vs pay to play XBL. People are mostly price driven in terms of how much they need to pay today. |
The problem still lies in Sony allowing a three month payment plan to take effect. Who does that fall on? Do retailers still have to pay full price for a console and allow customers to do something like this, or does Sony give the consoles to retailers in credit? Regardless, retailers just wouldn't to deal with the hassle. Without the payment plans, your price structure is basically $499, $599 and $699, which is worse than what Sony cooked up back in 2006. There would still be over a $100 loss per console since all early estimates were that the PS3 cost over $800 to manufacture, and now the price would be perceived to be worse, so they would sell less PS3's than they did in reality.
Do you actually have a sound proof plan as to how this will work for both Sony and retailers, because you've yet to come up with anything concrete.
Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.
