Devil_Survivor said:
Less see, the PS3 was at 600 dollars, the Vita was at 250 dollars, and much of the Sony tvs are overpriced. I think you have exposed yourself as a Nintendo hater with blinders on, your the first person to claim Nintendo overprice their consoles when they sell them below the other two lol. |
You're both coming at this from two different but equally valid angles. His POV is that whilst Sony price their hardware high, but both PS3 and Vita (actually, not sure about Vita, may just be cost price) were sold at a loss. From a profit margins POV, Sony underpriced their hardware (by a ridiculous $240 with PS3) to try and get a hold of marketshare. In pure hardware terms, you're getting a top machine for less money.
It didn't work for the reason you point out; the majority of consumers weren't (or aren't in the case of Vita) willing to shell out that much for a dedicated games machine. So in terms of the market and consumers, they were overpriced. In the case of Vita (and 3DS), neither Sony or Nintendo had realised how much the handheld market had changed from when DS and PSP were released. Nintendo have combat that with a reasonable price cut to a level where it's now doing very well.
Nintendo on the other hand have priced their consoles at a fairly consumer friendly level. However, when you look at the costs associated with their hardware, their profit margins are nearly always higher (they're making a loss on WiiU but supposedly will make that back after a single game purchase). A much less riskier business model, but it's also a fair argument to ask if you're getting value in the hardware.
