Dunban67 said:
sc94597 said:
The assumption made is that the market price is the same for the XBO and the Wii U. If both the Wii U and XBO had $200 market prices (decided by Microsoft/Nintendo) the original comment I quoted said that Nintendo should not assume that the Wii U will have an equivalent value (it is less valuable) and thus should drop its price. Nobody can sell an XBO for more than a Wii U in this situation unless there is a shortage of XBO's, because Microsoft themselves are selling it for $200. So if I were only willing to buy a Wii U and I had no interest in XBO (because, for example, I have a Gaming PC which plays XBO's best games) then it doesn't matter that the XBO is $200 and has better hardware, I want a Wii U for its unique games. Hence, the correct phrase to use to describe the original posters dillema is "greater quantity demanded" not "more valuable." At $300 the XBO might have more people who choose to value it at said price so that the demand is greater than the Wii U's. At $200 the Wii U might have more people who value it at said price and are willing to purchase it than XBO. Thus, the XBO is not more valuable, nor is the Wii U (unless you contextualize it by a demographic), it has more total quantity demanded.
Value is price and time dependent, and based on the perception and preferences of the consumer(s) the product targets.
edit: My point is that lower prices can bring in consumers who weren't evaluating any consoles at the higher prices. And higher prices can remove consumers who were evaluating at the lower prices.
|
you misunderstand- I said if you/most anyone had the OPPORTUNITTY to buy both at $200 consdering their actual mrket price/market value today- hence why i said you would sell the Xbox (if you prefered the Wii U ) and make a profit- If they were both being sold at retial for $200, obviously you could ot sell either for a profit
no mater how you want to ty to say otherwise, the value of the Xbox One is greater thean the value of the Wii U- that includes the the context of the definions you provided as well- you are trying to distort your own information- If you decided to go buy 100 ounces of gold tomorrow and you paid $100 more per once than the "ask" price, it would simply mean you were overpaying- it would not set the value of gold or even be an indicator
|
Again economic value =/= market price. Market price is the minimum at which people can buy a good (in your scenario the market price of the XBO is $200.) Economic value is the maximum at which a person/group of people will buy a good. Economic value is different for different people. There is an average economic value, which you are alluding to, but that can only be determined through an open-market auction and it is very much price AND time dependent.
YOU MUST provide context when you say "more valuable."
In your scenario I value an XBO at $200 or anything less than $350 - (the perceived cost of sale.) That is the most I will pay for it. On the otherhand my willingness to pay for the Wii U can exceed this value, and therefore I value the Wii U more than the XBO, even if I choose the XBO to fund my purchase of the Wii U. An alternative scenario is if you have $350 and you want an XBO (the market price of the XBO is $350.) You find a Wii U for $200 and sell it for $300 to help fund your XBO and also gain some extra money. In the end you make $100 on top of your $350 and buy your XBO + a game. Just because you chose to buy a Wii U before buying an XBO does not mean you value the Wii U more than the XBO. You valued the XBO AT LEAST at $350 and the Wii U at most at $300 ($200 you paid + $100 profit you make from it.)
