| DonFerrari said: I wouldn't say that it costing 25% less should sell 25% more... the price elasticity isn't linear... Since we are comparing it to PS4 you have to compare the sales of Switch to when PS4 was 299 USD... and possibly remove the sales made at 399 from the highest Switch could achieve. |
Yh I know it isn't linear... which is why I used the disclaimer "in a perfect world".
But this much is certain.... price affects sales. If something sells X amount at Y price, then sales will either increase or decrease with respective increase or decrease in price.
I don't think anyone can argue with that. So for instance, if the PS4 sold 800k at $399, then unless it was stock limited, it would no doubt have sold more than that if it was priced lower. The reverse could be assumed if it was priced higher.
To address your other point.... it makes no sense (in this case) comparing sales of or at a similar price point ($299 NS vs $299 PS4) even though this may seem to be an obvious yardstick. Why? Because the timing is off. If you want to compare how "fast" the NS is selling, then that comparison is inherently related to how fast the PS4 sold. And in this case we are talking about the first 10 months? 12 months?....etc.
In this case, the constant here is the "first (x) months" and not number of sales at (x) price which is a totally different discussion.
Having said that, looking at the first x number of months, the cost of the consoles would have to be taken into consideration. We cannot change the fact that their first (x) months is what is being considered when saying the NS is selling as fast as the PS4. Same way how we can't change the fact that the consoles launched at different price points.
Long story short, there is no way the PS4 would have sold as much as it did in a given amount of time if it cost $100 more, and there is no way it wouldn't have sold better if it cost $100 less. Same applies to the NS.
