| nightsurge said: Actually you said very little. You simply said 360 cuts = PS3 cuts which could imply a ton of different things. You also followed that with "Sony isn't stupid anymore." Which makes no sense and is an unfounded addition. Why would Sony risk more profits just to compete with a $99 360? The simple matter is that if they were "smart" they wouldn't. Much like the 360 hasn't matched any of the recent price cuts Sony made within the last 5 years and yet they remained incredibly competitive in yearly sales. Had the 360 kept cutting prices to match Sony the 360 would and should have already been $99. It is a lot cheaper to produce than the PS3. Instead MS chose to focus on profits which from a business standpoint sounds a whole lot "smarter" than slashing your price every time your competitor does. Regardless, though, a $99 Xbox 360 would drastically outperform a PS3 at ~$200+. The current PS3 SKU's are only $49 more than the basic stripped down 4GB 360 console at $199. "Superior product" is also an opinion based statement and varies from person to person. Yes, the PS3 is slightly more powerful and has Blu-ray, that's it. A "more expensive" product is an accurate and bias free statement regarding our current conversation. |
Cheaper products don't tend to receive slashed prices if the more expensive competitor does. That'd be admitting your product is inferior. If MS felt that a price cut were necessary, they would. Obviously they either couldn't afford it, or the comepition's cut didn't do much to affect sales negatively.
$99 xbox would not outperform a $200 ps3. PS3 has better legs as is confirmed by the current sales with the more expensive product.
It's obviously superior, the sales reflect that. It has been the more expensive of the two units for its entire time on the market, yet the sales are virtually equal.
