| sonicfan1373 said: I must respectfully disagree with the sweet spot arguement for pricing. I believe people will decide to pay a certain amount based on precieved value (partially based on the precieved quality and quantity of games, partially based on precieved console features and capabilities, partially based on perception of brand). If there is descreptency between the price and precieved value then people will not pay. Hence, the sweet spot for a Sony console is not necessarly the same as the one for a Nintendo or Microsoft console. The Wii U currently lacks meaningful third-party support (and the future of it getting third-party support does not look promising), it lacks many of the media features that is competitors offer, it (and Nintendo) have been battered by various media outlets after the system's first year debut (creating brand damage). Hence, the precieved value for this system is much lower than that of PS4 and Xbox One. Ergo, many people might not want to pay $300 for the system (espcially since the other systems with better precieved value are priced higher only by about a $100), but they might be willing to pay less based on precieved value (my belief is that the system needs to be priced at least $150 [preferabbly $200] less than PS4). I believe this same precieved value vs. system price also explains why the 3DS managed to gain segnificant momentum at $170 rather than at $250. Another example I will give you is with smartphones. Apple is easily capable of selling many units of $850 phones, but this does not make it an industrial sweet spot because most other flagship manufacturers sell very few units at or just below that price; the precivied value of an iPhone exceeds the precieved value of most other phones onthe market, which is why it is capable of selling at that price. |
Your right that percieved value matters but what value does a consumer see in the WII U ?
