DonFerrari on 10 May 2019
Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:
"PS3 started very high in price, but the parts also dropped quickly and they removed things to lower the price. By 2013 they were selling it at a good profit." http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9004676
Seems like your memory is a little odd, unless you want to say good is different then big. Still please prove they were making good profit.
Of course PS3 SS were either cheaper to produce and/or to ship and sell, if it wasn't there wouldn't be a point in developing it. But if the cost reduction was made to not have loss on HW anymore then no one should expect it to receive a price cut.
You are basically taking a single point and trying to make it the most common thing.
And on the real benefit you were already prove wrong by Pema but seems like you won't admit. Price isn't the single benefit to customer.
Sony lost money on the HW of every single Playstation through launch and up to over 2 years of launch, they were aggressive on discounting PS1 and PS2 after revisions and launch of new systems even thought they dominated their gens. So no, cutting price to drive sales isn't price war. I'll repeat for you to let it sink, if they aren't cutting price in response to competitor they aren't doing price war. Sony sold PS3 at 200-300 loss from the beginning of the gen where you can't say they weren't doing price war as they launched and kept that price at a time they were already expected to dominate (wrongly) and they sold the console 200 more expensive than PS2, so clearly they weren't pricing it against X360 but trying to not be that much over regular console pricing (they failed) and win the format war. The price cuts from PS3 most came from reduction on the cost to produce instead of trying to follow MS cuts (I would say it was the opposite though).
|
Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics. The PS3 was selling at a profit in 2010, that's the official word. Which was even before the Super Slim released and became even cheaper to produce.
Honestly, I don't even feel like reading your post. This discussion is over. The PS3 Super Slim and 360 E were cheaper to produce but no benefit to consumers in regard to price. That's really my point and you're on a tangent.
Lastly, PS1 and PS2 dominated but they were still trying to crush competitors for the little market share they had. This is objective.
|
Not losing money is good profit. Well that is new for me.
