Tuganuno said:
Ok so, basically what you said was that, even if Nintendo's console costed 5$ to make, and they sold it to you for 250$, you wouldn't mind to get ripped off because the PS3 was twice as expensive, even tho it costed 1000$ to make... You obviously know that you pay for quality, no fanboysm intended, but if a PS3 costs 800$ to make, it's because it has stuff that makes it so expensive - Blu Ray player, for example. If you think that it's too much money for a console, ok, I can accept that, but don't dare to say that paying 250$ for something that costs 135$ to make was a good deal, because it wasn't and at least in my mind, it's completely irrational. I could only accept that if a company was about to bankrupt, or if they wanted to make some profits for a bit because they had a couple of bad years untill then. |
So what you're saying is that nobody should make money? I really don't have time to go into basic economics with you but, let's just say that pricing is based on demand. Since the customers liked the product, demand was high and Nintendo could charge whatever the customer deems as fair. The customer sets the "fair" price. That's why the ps3 is now $300 and finally selling well, because the customer says that is what's fair. Sony putting a bunch of crap in the console from the beginning has noghthing to do with "fairness" or "benevolence", they thought that they would be able to make money, first by keeping the price high and bringing production costs down and second by Trojan horse-ing Blu-ray into living rooms. Both Nintendo and Sony "deserve" their respective profits/losses.









