| Sky Render said: Your claim that saturation is defined by price is hollow; neither the GameCube nor the XBOX received noticeable benefits from their price drops. Nor did the N64 gain sales momentum when it got price drops, nor the Saturn. Price is only a single factor in what drives people to buy a game system. If a product is not wanted, no amount of price drop is going to make it look appealing. If you want a more personal example, if the price of industrial-grade concrete drainage pipes (the kind that are 3 feet in diameter at smallest) dropped to $1 a foot and was guaranteed to not go back up in price, would you go and stock up on it? Unless you had some sort of use for it, of course not. |
I also added a caveat, saying that if third party support continued to be strong for the 360, unlike the GC and Xbox 1, and production continued, price would be the factor in market saturation.
Xbox ceased production, and was never available in mass quantities at low price, due to problems with nvidia. Gamecube had terrible 3rd party support, terrible marketing by nintendo (it was forever pegged as a toy for 9 year olds), and lacked a dvd drive, using inferior 1.5gb mini discs next to the full dvds offered by sony and xbox.
The n64 suffered many of the same problems the gamecube had. Saturn had poor third party support since it was often difficult to program for. And since you apparently don't remember, Sony dropped the price well below the Saturn's price point early on - they were rewarded with huge sales in response while Saturn floundered with their high cost of manufacturing. If you're going to use a system in your argument, at least remember how things went down!
I stand by my statements. The xbox 360 has excellent third party support, Microsoft has stated they intend to back the 360 well beyond the lifespan the original xbox had, and if it maintains production its 'saturation' will be determined by price.
|
|
|
