CommonMan said:
Tuganuno said:
c0rd said:
Tuganuno said:
70 million gamers? Have you talked with each one of 'em? How do you know that an x% of those consumers don't have any kind of idea about hardware and therefor don't know if that's a good or a bad deal? And my brother bought one for 200€ in 2009. He wanted to get some of the Mario classics, but he wasn't very happy with price. Perhaps he wasn't the only one.
Sony launched the PS3 for 600$ but the production costs were superior to that number, so as you can see, one of the consoles is offering a pretty damn good deal, specially because it was and still is the cheapest blu-ray player. Ok now I sounded like a salesman... lol
|
Wow, that is ridiculous. Do you think there are more people that feel a $250 Wii was more of a rip off than a $500-600 PS3?
A PS3 at $600 was an awful price. Here's something you may be missing: production costs do not matter to the customer. I don't give a fuck if the Wii costs $10 to make, it's reasonably priced as it is for me. If the PS3 cost $1000 to make, I still wouldn't be thanking them when I end up paying them $500 for it.
|
Ok so, basically what you said was that, even if Nintendo's console costed 5$ 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 $300 and finally selling well, because the customer says that is what's fair. Sony putting a bunch of crap in the console from the beginning has noghthing to do with "fairness" or "benevolence", they thought that they would be able to make money, first by keeping the price high and bringing production costs down and second by Trojan horse-ing Blu-ray into living rooms. Both Nintendo and Sony "deserve" their respective profits/losses.
|
Do you really think I'm trying to say that? Cmon, all I've said is that Wii's price was (and still is) too high, aside from that whole demand thing. Please answer honestly, do you think that it was fair to pay 200€ for a Wii in 2009?
If you read my previous posts, you'll see that I'm aware of what Sony wants, obviously they want the same as Nintendo - money. It's naive to think otherwise. The difference is that I consider that Sony offers a much better deal than Nintendo does - quality/price. If they didn't want to lower the price, then they could have (at the very least) given a game or a controller. Having to buy a nunchunk separately shows how greedy Nintendo is.
Oh, and even tho I'm aware of basic economics (I understand why you explained, probably because I said "it's completely irrational in my mind", I was refering to thinking that a console that costs 5$ do make and is sold to 250$ is a good deal), I really appreciate an honest reply instead of one insulting me and saying I suck at economy. Thumbs up for you sir =)
