NJ5 said:
goodridd said:
NJ5 said:
It's true that the 60 GB PS3 model had its price cut. But the PS3 itself didn't. Where is the 20 GB model? A real PS3 price cut strategy would reintroduce that model @ $400. Then Sony would finally be able to say that they have a PS3 under $500.
The reason they didn't do that is obvious - they would lose too much money. Sony no longer has the financial ability to fight this console war properly! PS: Don't tell me about how noone wanted the 20 GB model. That could well change if its price was $400. |
Reintroduce the 20gb.? Why would they increase costs to sell a console the market had already rejected? Sony no longer having the financial ability to fight this "console war" is laughable. |
You didn't read my PS, did you? |
Sure I did, It's easy to make a statement when you add that you don't want anyone using valid points to argue against it. The whole problem with what you said is that the market already rejected the 20gb. version in comparison to the 60gb. Would they sell some 20gb.'s at $400? Sure they would. Do they want to increase production, warehousing, and shipping costs to do so, even though their data already suggests the majority of people were willing to spend $600 over $500 and that this will probably translate well to $500 versus $400? No, they don't.
P.S. don't tell me about anything that might suggest I'm wrong.
