JayWood2010 said:
Shinobi-san said:
It's not a derailment. You have a particular posting style that refuses to accept you are wrong. It makes it hard to continue the discussion. So its very relevant when you reply to my post.
I will repeat what i said earlier because now you are once again mixing up arguments (you did this in the previous thread as well which makes it relevant here).
Selnor said PS4 should be priced with the One. That is $500. Without any additional value that would price sony out of competition as the Xbox One would have Kinect that is tremendous perceived value over the standalone PS4. It would have been the biggest talking point right now if that was the case. Because there would be no justification for the price to the average consumer. Pre-order numbers would be the opposite of what it is now. That is why i said what Selnor proposed "price it with the one" made no sense.
It Sony was to include the Eye then that changes things because we have no idea what the Eye costs. Selling it at $400, $450, $500 is meaningless because we know nothing about the Eye and its costs. So its pointless to even talk about the eye.
The reason why we can talk about Kinect with estimates is because MS has already stated that they will break even or have a slight profit margin at launch.
Btw...what i say usually goes. I dont post that often and when i do I make sure of what i type and I make sure its backed up, factual and logical. Now we can do this again as it went in the other thread, its up to you. But lets face you know you lost that one 
|
It is derailment and off-topic. Unless you see the name JayWood2010, Jay520, and Shinobi-san in the OP somewhere?
How am I wrong again? Selnor said they should have priced the PS4 with the ONe making it profitable. Ps4 is $450 with the camera right now being sold for a loss. $50 increase makes it $500 and likely profitable or $450 without the camera. What is wrong with any of this?
And more importantly what is factual about anythig you have said? The only thing factual about your post is that XBO is $500. Other than that you are just stating an opinion on what you "believe" is correct.
Im not accepting im wrong in this case because what I said isnt wrong. PS4 IS BEING SOLD AT A LOSS. That is a fact. and"IF" they increased the price by $50 it would be the "exact" same price as XBO and likely profitably. That is all 100% true unless the PS4 is taking a bigger loss then we are lead to believe.
|
That is not what derailment is. Do you see Sony in the article?
Yet here we are discussing Sony and a range of other sub related topics. If someone replies to my post in an unreasonable manner then that persons posting history is relevant to our discussion. If you feel strongly about it being off topic then report me and lets see where that goes.
Everything i said is factual, logical and backed up. What part of what i said isnt? Point it out.
Jay what you are saying is different from what Selnor said. Please realise here that you jumped onto a a post i made to Selnor not to you. This is why i pointed out that you mixing up arguments. I am not trying to attack you. Selnor was very clear in his post. I use quotation marks for a reason. "Maybe they should have priced PS4 with The One." Price the PS4 at $500. That is what "with" means in that context. He didnt say close to it...he didnt say at break even for Sony he didnt say at profit for Sony. He said with the One. That is the statement i said didnt make sense.
Discussion about the eye is really pointless unless we know what the hell it costs. We dont know what it costs. So how do you $500 is at a profit? Then you back where you started.
And why on earth are bolding " PS4 IS BEING SOLD AT A LOSS." not once have I questioned that in this thread.
