| JWeinCom said:
But... you were just saying that improving the graphics within the series was a big deal... When the price difference is that big, you can't say they're the same situation. If a high end gaming PC sold for $450 or $500, I'd imagine that would severely damage the PS4's prospects. The comparison is not apt. Not sure about that, I'd need to see the data. But, if they're appealing to the same people, then they're in competition. Some people will decide on both, and others will choose one. I had a PSP and a DS, as I'm sure many others did. Didn't mean they weren't competing. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2006/11/8239/ You're asking to get pretty deep into a purely hypothetical business model... But I don't think it would be a percentage, as I'm pretty sure that's not how things like Netflix work. It would be a licensing fee. For instance, Nintendo might pay something like 10 million or so to put Just Dance on their service (just a round hypothetical number). After that, Ubisoft is paid. Nintendo keeps all the money for the subscription. So, if Nintendo has 5 million active users, that's 125 million dollars a month. They pay whatever they need to pay out for games licenses, and then the rest is profit (or margin at least). If 2 years from launch Nintendo has 15 million active users (a fairly modest goal), then that'd be 375 million a month. Of course, their could be varying deals for different companies. For instance, some games may earn some kind of bonus for being downloaded x number of times. Or indie games may not earn a licensing fee unless a certain threshhold is met. I can't really say exactly how it would work, because this is a theoretical thing that won't happen in the future. But, there's no reason it wouldn't be possible. I think it would grow faster than those things, since it's tied so intricately to the machine. I'd imagine they may even do the account activation at the point of sales (which would earn retailers a fee and give them a reason to promote the console). But, yeah, it'd take time, and it would be a big risk. But companies don't turn things around by playing it safe. |
No, my argument was that nobody will consider them gimped.
Its not a 100% comparable situation, ill give you that, but the overall point still stands.
Yes they are in competition in the general sense that all products are in competition with one another. Some people will have to choose one or the other, buts that no different than someone having to make a choice between a new TV vs a new Smartphone, what im getting at is they arent overly redundant products where if you have one than you have no need for the other.
I still dont get how they shaved $200 off production costs in a single year.
You're right, we are getting pretty in depth about this and kinda getting off track, but there is one last thing i need to say, Nintendo is constantly talking about how they cannot devalue their IP and that is exactly what such a model would do, they dont want to go from selling $40-60 premium software to allowing unlimited use of all their games for a low monthly fee. It doesnt benefit them.
When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.
