By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
archbrix on 10 February 2012
Edit Thread
happydolphin said:
archbrix said:
RolStoppable said:

Any way you look at it, the 3DS should have never launched at a price of above $200.

This says it all right here.  If the system had launched at $199, a further price drop to $169 would have never been needed in the first place, at least not that soon.  Great software would have carried it through the holidays at that price and us ambassadors would have never had to pay that extra $50 for a bunch of "free" games we already have.

$250 is just too much for a dedicated handheld device.  For example, the PS3 at its $599 launch price was actually not overpriced.  Getting a cutting edge game system and a blu-ray player for six hundred bucks in 2006 was a steal.  But there's a profound difference between overpriced and too expensive, which the PS3 was.  The 3DS at $250 was both.

So, Archbrix, 3 question areas remain:

1) Is the Vita at 250$ overpriced? How do you judge the price in a hypothetical scenario where compelling games exist on the platform and you absolutely want it no matter what? What price kills the momentum despite must-have games?

2) Is overpriced a factor when the market buys it anyways? Of course I don't encourage it, but within this thread, if consumers do buy it due to compelling games or must-buy features (like say blu-ray), then where does pricepoint come into the equation, at what point or moment? For which demographic?

3) When can overpricing be the most deadly, at holiday season or post holiday season? What about pricing of competing products?

These questions lead to this: Something can be overpriced (for instance the iPad), but if people want it and no competitor is able to convince otherwise, why would it matter? I think you see what I mean.

Granted, in the case of the Vita, apart from hardware and one or two compelling, stellar titles in the west, high price is an issue. But the 3DS could've had a hypothetical situation of must-haves where consumers would not have refused to buy it at an overpriced 250$. That's the situation Carl and I both talked about. After that, it all depends on the market penetration you're looking for.

1)  I haven't gotten my hands on the Vita yet, but considering the tech, OLED screen, and what it costs Sony to make it, there's a good chance it's not overpriced.  But again, it's too expensive for a dedicated handheld, which is its biggest detriment to having mass-market sales...

2)  ... which brings me to your second question, which is based around games and subjectivity, which of course complicates things more.  There are people who will buy the Vita and think that it's not too expensive and worth every penny for the hardware and the games it plays.  Then there are some who want the games but feel it costs too much, some who like the hardware but don't think the games warrant the price, etc.  Basically it comes down to $250 is more than the masses are willing to pay for a handheld game system, even if some feel it has great games...

3) ... which brings me to point three:  the iPad.  Yes, it's expensive (and overpriced IMO), but the device does a lot of things, which to many people does warrant the price.  The Vita is primarily a game system, which IMO plays vastly superior games than tablets and smartphones, but like it or not, tablets and smartphones do play games... and do a lot more as well.  This is why I think price is a big factor in handhelds being successful in today's market; at $250, only the most dedicated gamers will bring in the sales of dedicated gaming handhelds, even if the game library is alluring.