| Gballzack said: 3. While Sony has offered conflicting comments on Price Cuts, the official verdict and legally binding one is that a Price Cut won't be in the making anytime soon. We can assume this to be the most accurate and valid take on the in-fighting going on within Sony as it is the only comment with legal weight. Sony has a legally binding responsability to their stock holders and investors to be honest and upfront, the suggestion that a price cut is in the making anytime soon would violate this and could result in legal action brought against Sony for price dumping. 4. If the games are going to do so well as claimed in other threads why do you need a price cut in the first place? According to the majority of posters in this forum I would say the consensus is that Sony is doing great, slow and steady. Are people backtracking on thier confidence in Sony here? I'd say this thread itself is a bigger insult to the PS3 than myself. 5. I've not resorted to name calling once in this thread nor have I been unjustly mean-spirited, I'm aware of my actions in other threads but if those are purely in matterial to what is happening here and if you so value staying on topic, then stop dodging the questions by attacking my character based on actions not illustrated in this thread. I've stayed on topic unless lead off by someone else and I am participating as a realistic and objective observer of the market, not a fanboy for one side or the other. 6. I've presented realistic and valid reasons as to why a Price Cut can't happen, yet you call me a biased when in fact it is you who in arguing against the foundations of logic and reason in your hopes and desires for there to be a price cut. All the arguments here in favor of a price cut are either: 1.) After the fact. 2.) Pure baseless speculation. 3.) Founded on what isn't known rather than what is known. |
4. Well, paying 60 for someone who already has a ps3 isn't a problem, but getting someone to pay $660 for a game would be very hard.
6. wrt favoring a price cut, it is a rational damage control move. It keeps the SCE division relevant in this gen as it looks towards the next gen. Not price cutting in 2007 is effectively ceding this gen to 360 and Wii and saying that you're out of this business. Launching a new console is expensive. Why invest in that? But if you can prove that the product is worthy, but the price is the problem. You can call yourself ahead of your time and investors still have some confidence in your DESIGN, and by making changes in marketing, you give them incentive to trust you for the future.
Without something to give investors confidence, why would they invest in the next gen?
