superchunk said:
goforgold said:
superchunk said:
goforgold said:
|
superchunk said:
2. Sony will continue to be Sony.
Only shining moment was PSVita's price and Sony's willingness to lose money on a console out the gate. Granted, I think its a smart move to be competitive with the 3DS's almost year head start, but Nintendo is most definitely selling the 3DS for a big profit and by the time PSV launches will surely reduce the price. However, at least the game line up for launch looks appealing and worth the $250
|
of my time here I have constantly asked this question and STILL have gotten no reply
so here I go again
@ the bold, what the hell does that have to do with anything?????
consumer goes into store, "I can get this psv which has everything I want in a portable games device, but Sony is not making money so I won't get it, I'll get the 3ds instead becasue nintendo is making money off it" is the only reason I could see how Sony is losing money to actually be relevant in any way, and please tell me you guys aren't that stupid???
I mean is it because you can't find anything meaningful to be pissed about in Playstation products??? I don't get it
|
When did I say it was a negative thing for the consumer? In fact I think I positioned it as a postive thing they did in pricing their product. However, as a shareholder or Sony exec its pretty bad business and easily toppled by Nintendo who has a very comparable product that should be fully capable to be reduced to below $200 by the time PSV launches, therefore making the price a much more important feature for Nintendo.
Sony should try to think of a price consumers will want and then put the tech that comes close to that price. Instead they seem to put in tons of tech and then try to figure out how much they are willing to lose.
PS3 is still losing to 360 solely for this reason. Had they cut back on many interal parts from the get go, they could have been more competitive out the gate. In PSV's case, Nintendo started high so Sony is not doing as bad out the gate. However, pricing still favors Nintendo in the long run as they have a margin to play with.
Sony should have stayed lower costs and continued with better game divergence along with many of the other great features on it, like PS3 connectivity, etc. Personally I woudl have also ditched the backside touch panel as I don't see it becoming highly useful in the greater majority of games.
|
@ bold.......read the rest of you post. you didn't say it, you implied it and then explained it in detail in the reat of your post, doesn't get much contradictory than that
|
"Only shining moment was PSVita's price and Sony's willingness to lose money on a console out the gate."
That's my first sentence which is clearly saying it was a smart move. I then continue to say what i think Nintendo will do to best this by lowering their price because they have the margin to reduce. I don't see how that implies in any way that its a negative thing for the consumer.
I think you're trying to create an argument that doesn't exist.
|
what I'm talking about is why looking at things from a sharehold/ business exc. is relevant to the overal quality of Sony products. I hear the arguement all the time and it makes no sense, especially given the fact that that is what Sony has been doing since they entered the gaming indusrty, so CLEARLY Sony is ok with it so what's the point?? how is it relevant??
