| Einsam_Delphin said: Not acknowledging = ignoring. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, that's the point of all this. Good, civil, and intelligent discussion is all I want here, and ignoring ones points does not make for a healthy debate. If you don't agree with something, simply explain why. Don't just pretend it doesn't exist, as that doesn't help anyone. Anywho, you're probably right about the competeing with PS360 rather than PS4/XO thing. Of course, that's just short term. Long term, which is far more important btw, it will be the PS4/XO they're competeing with. Either way, a $100 drop works great as it gets the Wii U much closer to PS360 and further away from PS4/XO. As for your last paragraph, I already explained why all that was the case. Basically those consoles were cheaper, so they had less to lose. A $50 price drop meant a lot to them, as that's like 1/4th of the original price. However, that same $50 wont mean as much for the Wii U as it's much more expensive. |
The problem is you're equating not agreeing with your points to not acknowledging them, which is truly what doesn't make for a healthy debate. I could just as easily claim that you are ignoring my point as well when I say that Nintendo is not "2006 Sony" and are not going to cut into their profit margins to that degree. I've already explained why and you continue to make the same argument (yes, acknowledged and yes, I still disagree) in your last paragraph.
The fact that WiiU is more expensive is because it costs Nintendo more to produce than their previous consoles, not because they are enjoying a profit from it. That wasn't the case with the 3DS which was expensive because they were profiting from it. I can't quite understand why you're not grasping what this means.
3DS AFTER $80 price drop = loss per unit sold.
WiiU BEFORE price drop = loss per unit sold. Now imagine the loss that would result in a $100 price drop on top of that.
Contrary to what you personally want to happen, Nintendo is simply not going to do business that way. They cannot just magically cut the price so drastically and not feel the repercussion. It would make more sense to reduce less now that the BOM is still relatively high and then again in the future when it's cheaper to manufacture than it would be to reduce dramatically now that production cost is at its highest.
Sony with the PS3 is probably the single best example as to why this is not a smart idea. They cut a loss-leading console because they had no choice. $600 was too expensive for mass market sales. WiiU, on the other hand, would be at $300 for the deluxe model with just a $50 price drop. That's only about fifty dollars more expensive than the seven year old PS3's current price and a full hundred less than the PS4. Selling consoles leads to profit, yes, but it's a balancing act and you have to be realistic about what is possible.
Finally, I'll conclude that you certainly don't have to agree with my reasoning and that's completely fine. Just don't accuse me of continually ignoring your points when I've already acknowledged them. I just don't agree with their validity in the grand scheme of things.
