| goforgold said: 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?? |
Because the decisions Sony makes affects the consumer. Making a console that is over-teched and priced out of competition means I won't buy it and then have to choose to not play games like Uncharted.
PS1 and 2 were essentially first to the market and within the same price range as the others a year later when real competition came to the market with far less games. This year head start made their loss leading strategy work without issue. Coming in late means they play catch-up to a console that has had time to reduce costs and naturally reduce price. Even more so when that console was selling for a sizable profit to begin with.
PS3 was severely too expensive and lost tons of money. You'd think by almost having the worst financial years in history woudl have made them less likely to go overboard and remain profitable which would mean a lower priced console for us as they would want to remain in the mass consumer price point.
PSV is in that price point and is very competitively priced. So they did well, which is what I said. However, Nintendo has surely lots of margin and will drive down the price near PSV launch to create buzz. Then it all comes down to games.
So my point is, by Sony always going to a high cost loss leading device, we are more likely to have a console that is simply too expensive. PSV is close to that. PS3 was well over that. I'm hoping PS4 is near whatever WiiU launches at with a comendable line-up and no chance of having later models gimped to reduce costs. I may not buy it anyways, but as a potential consumer that's my thought process.
