CommonMan said:
So what you're saying is that nobody should make money? I really don't have time to go into basic economics with you but, let's just say that pricing is based on demand. Since the customers liked the product, demand was high and Nintendo could charge whatever the customer deems as fair. The customer sets the "fair" price. That's why the ps3 is now $300 and finally selling well, because the customer says that is what's fair. Sony putting a bunch of crap in the console from the beginning has noghthing to do with "fairness" or "benevolence", they thought that they would be able to make money, first by keeping the price high and bringing production costs down and second by Trojan horse-ing Blu-ray into living rooms. Both Nintendo and Sony "deserve" their respective profits/losses. |
Do you really think I'm trying to say that? Cmon, all I've said is that Wii's price was (and still is) too high, aside from that whole demand thing. Please answer honestly, do you think that it was fair to pay 200€ for a Wii in 2009?
If you read my previous posts, you'll see that I'm aware of what Sony wants, obviously they want the same as Nintendo - money. It's naive to think otherwise. The difference is that I consider that Sony offers a much better deal than Nintendo does - quality/price. If they didn't want to lower the price, then they could have (at the very least) given a game or a controller. Having to buy a nunchunk separately shows how greedy Nintendo is.
Oh, and even tho I'm aware of basic economics (I understand why you explained, probably because I said "it's completely irrational in my mind", I was refering to thinking that a console that costs 5$ do make and is sold to 250$ is a good deal), I really appreciate an honest reply instead of one insulting me and saying I suck at economy. Thumbs up for you sir =)











