theprof00 said:
hsrob said:
infamous8 said:
peachbuggy said:
So... the opposition can't cut their prices too? |
The wii and 360 are already cheap enough that anyone and everyone can afford them if they want.
Ps3 has never been priced at a consumer friendly range. $300 is a decent price though and makes a huge difference.
|
On one hand people argue that the PS3 is greater value for money because of The Cell, Blu-Ray, PSN etc but now you've decided that sub 300 is the sweet spot for consoles regardless? I don't think so.........you can't argue it both ways. If the PS3 is seen by consumers to represent greater value than the competition then it stands to reason that it's sweet spot would be higher than the Wii or the 360 arcade and perhaps they have yet to hit their sweet spot.
Since we are dealing in 'IFs', drop the Wii by a hundred dollars and we will see just how many people thought it was too expensive at $250 or were just waiting for the price drop because as a matter of principle they won't pay $250 for any console.
|
sub 300$ isn't just some arbitrary number. It's actually the spending limits for most people in any given week, (or a month for that matter).
|
I would love to see a source for that. Spending limits for what? Whether people have a spare 300 dollars a week, a month or a year is irrelevant if they aren't willing to spend that $300 on the console in question and at the moment we have absolutely no data to support the claim that there is a huge cohort of people out there that are just waiting to drop their next spare $300 on a PS3. Dropping price on any console has the potential to increase sales but to argue that dropping the price of the PS3 will have a greater impact on sales than a similar price drop for the Wii is speculation and nothing else.
