sergiodaly said:
slowmo said:
sergiodaly said:
Play4Fun said:
sergiodaly said:
slowmo said:
"People will get a second job to buy a PS3"
They care about your money just the same as Microsoft and Nintendo
/thread |
yeah... and selling at a loss says exactly that...
of course they care about money... its a business... but i do think, sony does want to reach people by giving them good products with good support to make them fans, gain market share, after this comes profit ... MS IMO has a different approach... they want to give people a product that is profitable, mainly (XBL gold yearly fee says exactly that), and the quality and support come after that!
nint is a mix of them both... being Japanese and being American can have a lot to do with it.
of course this is opinion and a personal view of things.
about the quote on your post... i would get a second job to be able to have anything worth, or that i really want (car, phone, console, shoes, bigger breast for my GF, etc) its called common sense.
|
You think Sony sells at a loss for the fans? They sell at a loss because they think they can recoup those losses and get those profits elsewhere. It's called a loss leading strategy.
MS is just the same as Sony, they use the loss-leading strategy too. They also want to make people fans of their products and gain marketshare. Any company that sells products wants that.
The whole "second job" fiasco was arrogance from Sony being a bit too over-confident coming from two very successful previous generations. No console is worth $600 except to a small subset of hardcore fans and Sony learned that this generation.
|
of course its a strategy... losing money was never their plan... but its how they use their strategy and how they see the customer as a part of the strategy that i think is different.
"... Sony being a bit too over-confident ..." sorry but that does exist... they were confident in their product... if they didn't show that who would? MS? nint? imo gamers are very sensitive persons that can spin what ever they want to feed their agenda.
"... No console is worth $600 ..." if it cost 800$ to make how can't it be worth 600? that does not make sense... you couldn't see the value in it, i accept that... i don't see it too in a 12.000$ wrist watch but some other find, and buy them.
|
The PS3 never proved it's market value at $600 hence the terrible sales. It might have been worth that to you but the majority of consumers spoke and Sony were forced to listen.
I think you need to seriously reassess your view of Microsoft. They contribute a lot to charities, they cut the price of their products for education and most importantly of all, they do all this out of their own pockets without being funded by a government like the subsidies Sony receive from the Japanese government (which incidentally some person in Japan is paying for in taxes too). I'm not saying Microsoft are some holier than thou corporation but you seem to be taking a very blinkered view of them ignoring the fact they actually do a awful lot of good for some parties that they really have no obligation to do. I would add they don't do this for PR as you rarely hear about the charitable work the company does. You could argue that they do the education deals to try and capture a audience for their products early on but the point is these people would still have to use Microsoft products given the marketshare so would arguably have to buy them anyway.
My point stands that all gaming companies are out for your money, they just have different methods of getting it. I would hardly call Sony's response to YLOD and dead Bluray laser issues of not replacing them on launch models as caring about a consumer more than the others. Hell even Nintendo offered a recall on launch Wii's that had a certain laser fitted that may have issues with some of their newer titles.
The XBL fee is so they can provide a service to ahigh standard and maintain it to that standard. I would rather pay for a better service and I've always felt XBL is a far superior service to PSN and happily paid for the privilidge. My XBL account costs me 8p per day, I spend more on parking in ayear than I do on XBL and get zero enjoyment for that privilidge. If it was £10 per month I'd agree it might make me think twice but in the grand scheme of things they've been upfront about the cost and only ever improved the service so I fail to see how it's an issue unless you have some "principle" about not paying for a receiving a good service...
|
PS3 cost 500$ at launch... the value was there because it did sell... not as much as sony wanted and expected... but the fact is that it did sell. majority is not the same as fact. wii was much more cheap and i never saw value in it so i didn't buy it... its all about personal view. i am not saying that mine is better than other but you have to give me my right to have it.
about MS... here we were discussing the role consumers have, in the way they do business in their gaming section... and my view stands... i found it hard, at best, to justify the annual fee for XBL gold. you see the value in it and, i don't. the exclusive deals were more about cut the sales of the competition over giving their consumers real exclusivity, prof is that most of them come to sony platform sooner or latter... that gives me the felling that they want my money more than they want me to give me enjoyment. its my opinion... go figure... and since PS3 was my first console purchased by me (former PC gamer) you can hardly call me a fanboy.
i have no "principle" against paying for a service... and i do... to my ISP... as stated before, i was a PC gamer and paying for a service that should be free is not in my horizon... sorry!
|
I never said you were a fanboy or that you didn't have a right to a opinion. My reference to your stance on Microsoft is that you seem to have a opinion of them that doesn't reflect reality which means you clearly don't have the full facts on how they run their business which is somewhat of a flaw when using them in comparison to another company you clearly have an interest in and have researched.
I knew you were a PC gamer before you mentioned it in that post, as the Live fee is one of the things frequently brought up by a lot of PC gamers. I myself was a PC gamer for 20 years so can appreciate it's a hard concept to get used to paying for a online service you've traditionally received free of charge. I still own a gaming PC by the way but haven't felt any need to upgrade in the last 2 years, although that opinion will change as the next generation approaches and we start to see a big ramp up in development that always happens on PC as better hardware is released. Technically not wanting to pay for a online service is a "principle".
The PS3 cost $599 at launch, the 20GB none wireless cut down model ($500) wasn't available in large numbers. Sales indicate demand for a product, the demand for a PS3 at $599 was poor and hence the price cut to increase the perceived value of the product. It really never proved it's value at launch.
