Capcom Blame Retailers

[Dodece]

The price differential might be in response to the respective rebate procedures for each console, or more specifically how the console manufacturer indemnifies the retailer for unsold games. Basically the console manufacturers are or used to lease the space on shelves the retailer provided the space, but really didn't accept much risk.

Basically it is a vendor system the retailer doesn't actually buy the product they sell. When they sell it to the consumer they take a commission for the sale, and the majority of the price goes back to the console manufacturer and the developer. This was how it used to be the last I heard of it which was granted many years ago, but the retailer wasn't really taking any losses for unsold games. They simply adjusted the MSRP as instructed, and took their pittance for services rendered.

That said Sony used to have the best system, and it was always a strong suit of their brand. While Nintendo had the worst system imaginable. That is part of the reason that Sony was always given so much space. When Nintendo was still producing cartridges they couldn't afford to take too large a loss, but Sony on the other hand had moved over to a disc format. Destroying the unsold copy of the game was a dollar loss. While Nintendo might lose nine or ten dollars.

The result was that retailers could afford to stock all the Playstation games they liked. They didn't sell it that was a shame send it back incur no losses on your end. While the retailer probably took a loss on unsold cartridges as Nintendo spread the loss.

For a few months now I have wondered what exactly the policy of Sony is at this time for PS3 software. Are they demanding some form of cash up front if so then retailers might feel stressed to turn quick profits rather then waiting over a year to return games to get their rebate. For examples sake lets say Microsoft is using a pure vendor system, and Sony needing liquid assets is working off of a deposit system.

Well if the retailer has to put down five dollars per copy. Which they might get back two years from now if they have to return the copy. Then they might have millions vested in their PS3 libraries. Which means when a popular game comes out they might want to balance the ledger. I don't think the retailers are doing it to be mean to consumers. They might just be doing what they need to do fiscally, and that said the question has to be why they feel that they need to do this.

I would really like to know what systems each manufacturer has in place. I suspect that Nintendo probably has the best system now given that they are not taxed for income from their console even before licensing fees. I would also suspect that Sony probably has the weakest plan they have to be cutting corners some place, and upfront charging would give them short term cash.

Would anyone be privy to what the policies are at this moment in time. Like I said what I got is many years old, and the systems might have seen a drastic reworking since the last time I read about them.