"Because much like the Vita is right now, the 3DS was in bad shape market wise until they dropped the price $70. And ever since then, they've been selling great."
Both sentences here are incorrect. The 3DS' initial price was $249.99. It dropped to $169.99. That's $80, not $70. The second statement is also incorrect, as the sales didn't reach the way it is now until Super Mario 3D Land came out.
"When the 3DS price was higher, that was Nintendo trying to be greedy. Selling a fairly cheaply made product at a premium price."
Saying Nintendo was trying to be greedy sounds stupid, and the concept is incorrect as well. They decided on the price based on the reception it got at things like e3. They were trying to make a profit (like any for-profit company does), not trying to be greedy. It's also not a "cheaply made product" as it survived the exact same drop-test the Vita got.
"So unlike Nintendo's case, it's not so easy to drop the Vita's price because then you'd have to redesign it in a cheaper way."
It wasn't easy for Nintendo to drop the price, because they started selling at a loss once they did.
"Regardless, the system has been getting a continous stream of applications of all sorts. Ranging from major ones such as Netflix, Hulu Plus, Youtube, and Skype. To the lesser known ones such as Wake Up Club. And just recently, the Vita received it's on addition to the Playstation Plus program, allowing people to be part of both at one price. But no matter what the system receives or what good it does, pricing is everything."
Most consoles have Netflix, the 3DS was planned to get Hulu Plus (don't know why they never did), and those things aren't even what sell a system anyway. Also, price is NOT everything. If it were, cheap devices would always be the successor. So why is Apple doing so well?
So overall, pretty much everything was dumb in the "article."
