Sony relying on heavily bundled and/or deep discount just to get games into million sellers list?

[happydolphin]

theprof00 said:

happydolphin said:

theprof00 said:
I'd like to know exactly what you want me to argue.
Op's comment was "sony needs to bundle to get games on million sellers list."
Which i believe is actually a direct response to my "lbp is a flop" thread which had both of this op's posts being debated shortly before this thread was made.

Not doing a psych profile, this thread is just legitimately, from his own words, saying that sony bundles their games tomake them million sellers.

I honestly don't think anything youve brought to the table even addresses that.
You seem to think it's about the strategy of bundling as a whole, but then you keep referring to sony for some reasone and ignore the other consoles, so its hard to figure out what your point is.

Bundling works. It works for all the consoles, which is why they all do it. Bundling gives consumers an extra reason to buy one console over another, and with attach rate, ends up making profits over the course of just a few games.

This isnt a discussion about bundling, which is what you said you thought it was in your first post. This is galaki saying that sony bundles to sell its games because nobody will buy them on their own, then very specifically points out that the difference is thatNintendo,( who also bundles) sells their games for full price while bundled.

So now, do you want me to discuss what YOU'VE changed the thread into, o do you want me to address the op like I've been doing and what you have not?

I have no clue what the history of it is, and I honestly don't care.

Looking at OP and OP alone, he mentioned this concern, verbatim:

"is Sony just cutting into their profit when they utilize this way too often?"

My first post addresses this head on, so that officially discredits your first critique (bolded). My reply to your critique of his mentioning the same issue with Vita is also on track with that concern.

Then my second main post contained numbers to help explain what you replied to me with, basically asking me how the PS3 managed to be #1 while having flops.

So basically, YOU fucked up.

"is Sony just cutting into their profit when they utilize this way too often?" This is written in regard to the OP title, which is "Sony relying on heavily bundled and or deep discount, just to get games into million sellers list"

verbatim.

"My first post addresses this head on, so that officially discredits your first critique (bolded)."

Your actual first post is as follows:

Video game consoles are sold to make profit on games. It's the catridge business strategy where you sell the console to sell many more games (otherwise the games would be pre-loaded).
If games are bundled, there will be no profit made with the bundled game.
OP is arguing whether this strategy is a solid one. Now discuss.

Let's look at the OP again now that we have it all on one page, along with your understanding of the thread OP.

Sony is relying on heavily bundled games and deep discounts just to get their games into the million sellers list, but is Sony just cutting into their profit when they utilize this way too often? (This sentence is composed of the title, and the OP sentence referring directly to the title)

You explained to Maverick, quite rudely ffs, that-

Video game consoles are sold to make profit on games.If games are bundled, there will be no profit made with the bundled game.
OP is arguing whether this strategy of bundling games is a solid one.

Now, your understanding of the thread would be accurate if the OP was actually asking about the strategy of bundling. However, it is not. OP is very specifically relating to a unique strategy of bundling AND price cuts for the purpose of getting games into 'the million sellers list'. He is saying that this is OK, but if it is utilized 'way too often', this strategy just cutting into their profits.

 

Good, we've gotten that out of the way, along with your purported notion that you've 'officially discredited' my criticism that your understanding of the OP is different from the OP.

 

My reply to your critique of his mentioning the same issue with Vita is also on track with that concern.

My criticism of him mentioning Vita stems from the fact that he is himself abandoning his own OP.

And here's why.
Remember the OP, and how it's trying to quantify the value of bundling games "just to get them into the million seller's list"? The object of bundling CoD and AssCreed is for a very different purpose. The bundling on Vita currently is to sell Vitas. Sony wants customers to be enticed. Furthermore, the bundle being offered was for 249$, the normal current price, and, yep, this is a holiday when there should be a price cut. Currently the material cost is roughly 160 for the 3g model. This materials mockup was done one year ago. The price has likely come down, and witout a pricedrop, it's hard to say just how much they are actually losing by "bundling" these big games as opposed to giving their console a very nice incentive to customers. The question is, 'is it worth it to Sony to sacrifice at most, 40$ on bundling a big name game, to entice consumers into buying the system'.

Sony isn't even cutting the price of the hardware during a holiday, but including a game. Shocking.

So yes, even his 'clarification of the OP for people calling him a troll' was off his own topic.

 

I will respond to the other parts of your post later.

I'll try not to get impatient since you've been polite.

OP:

However, is Sony just cutting into their profit when they utilize this way too often?

^Strategy.

Now, your understanding of the thread would be accurate if the OP was actually asking about the strategy of bundling. However, it is not. OP is very specifically relating to a unique strategy of bundling AND price cuts for the purpose of getting games into 'the million sellers list'. He is saying that this is OK, but if it is utilized 'way too often', this strategy just cutting into their profits.

It says And/Or, not AND. Meaning that I have at least 50% of OP in my replies, and given that the Or condition is used, I'm still on topic.

So your criticism is again taken care of. That, and your arrogant insults as well. For someone blaming me for buggin Mav about derailing the thread, you aren't one to talk.

@

Regarding Vita. Your explanation doesn't change his question. Your answer may invalidate his question, but prior to it being answer, it stands as is, related to OP.

Simple lesson of the day: stay on topic, like I was, and don't derail threads pointlessly. Be proactive, and contribute. Simple.