By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales Discussion - Media Create Sales 1/30 ~ 2/5

Carl on 10 February 2012
happydolphin said:

I agree with this strategy. At 250$ for the holiday 2011 period with Mario 3DL and MK7, plus the usual holiday push, it would've sold with a holiday spike as usual, yielding high profits. If you'll say "then why didn't it work with the Vita at $250?", the simple answer is that, at that pricepoint, it's the games that matter, especially true during holiday season. And then, come summer, a cut to 200$ would've sufficed to sustain momentum, coupled with some casual offerings (since casuals buy at lower price).

But as I said in my earlier post, Carl (opinion which was ignored by all of you elite posters), is that Nintendo needed to release the 3DS early 2011 so as to ensure its foothold and early start in the market as compared to its competitor. For that reason, the 250$ pricepoint post holidays 2010 was impossible to sustain. 200$ thus at a post-holidays launch would've been a reasonable price for the hand-held. Coupled with low-cost AAA software (like 2D remakes) and Nintendo AAA big names as well as casual offerings, that was the only solution for a post-holiday launch, to keep investors happy. Also, predictions would have needed to fall some 5 millions, to say 10mil. Rol argues that 10mil was not enough to promote generation leadership of Nintendo, I'm still researching that. He may be right, but there are new factors to consider this gen (Playstation brand greatly diminished, Nintendo portable HW finally capable of high-end SD graphics, stronger 3rd party relations with certain devs).


I didn't ignore you, I just rushed back through to Rol's post. Sorry.

The 3DS didn't need to launch early because of the Vita thread, It helped, certainly, but it didn't need to. I think Nintendo launched it so "soon" to counter the losses/stock drops.

Rol would be right that usually, for a Nintendo handheld a 10 Million lead wouldn't be much. Not enough? That's a different story, but a 10 Million lead is still a lead. There are a lot of factors, you missed out a big one - Mobile gaming.



                            

Around the Network
archbrix on 10 February 2012
RolStoppable said:

Any way you look at it, the 3DS should have never launched at a price of above $200.

This says it all right here.  If the system had launched at $199, a further price drop to $169 would have never been needed in the first place, at least not that soon.  Great software would have carried it through the holidays at that price and us ambassadors would have never had to pay that extra $50 for a bunch of "free" games we already have.

$250 is just too much for a dedicated handheld device.  For example, the PS3 at its $599 launch price was actually not overpriced.  Getting a cutting edge game system and a blu-ray player for six hundred bucks in 2006 was a steal.  But there's a profound difference between overpriced and too expensive, which the PS3 was.  The 3DS at $250 was both.



happydolphin on 10 February 2012
archbrix said:
RolStoppable said:

Any way you look at it, the 3DS should have never launched at a price of above $200.

This says it all right here.  If the system had launched at $199, a further price drop to $169 would have never been needed in the first place, at least not that soon.  Great software would have carried it through the holidays at that price and us ambassadors would have never had to pay that extra $50 for a bunch of "free" games we already have.

$250 is just too much for a dedicated handheld device.  For example, the PS3 at its $599 launch price was actually not overpriced.  Getting a cutting edge game system and a blu-ray player for six hundered bucks in 2006 was a steal.  But there's a profound difference between overpriced and too expensive, which the PS3 was.  The 3DS at $250 was both.

So, Archbrix, 3 question areas remain:

1) Is the Vita at 250$ overpriced? How do you judge the price in a hypothetical scenario where compelling games exist on the platform and you absolutely want it no matter what? What price kills the momentum despite must-have games?

2) Is overpriced a factor when the market buys it anyways? Of course I don't encourage it, but within this thread, if consumers do buy it due to compelling games or must-buy features (like say blu-ray), then where does pricepoint come into the equation, at what point or moment? For which demographic?

3) When can overpricing be the most deadly, at holiday season or post holiday season? What about pricing of competing products?

These questions lead to this: Something can be overpriced (for instance the iPad), but if people want it and no competitor is able to convince otherwise, why would it matter? I think you see what I mean.

Granted, in the case of the Vita, apart from hardware and one or two compelling, stellar titles in the west, high price is an issue. But the 3DS could've had a hypothetical situation of must-haves where consumers would not have refused to buy it at an overpriced 250$. That's the situation Carl and I both talked about. After that, it all depends on the market penetration you're looking for.



goldeneye0074eva2222 on 10 February 2012

if 17 k sales is good then 3ds is god! cause it always sold near 40 k except the week before the price drop lol

id say psp was in better shape at this point in comparision to vita

if vita continues to not pick up even with tales games or other rpgs japan needs , then sony might just well cut their losses and call it a day in the handheld market. if things don't get better with the line up in the usa its not going to sell much here either i wish usa used weekly sales charts . all we ever get is monthly .

id like to see an average for vita 3ds etc here in the usa.

cause if the vita does 15 k on average here theres no way itll catch 3DS in fact i think its going to be much harder for sony to catch nintendo this time round because they sold 2x the amount they did with the DS in the same time period

if psp couldn't catch 8 million (world wide) it wont catch 16 million(world wide)



archbrix on 10 February 2012
happydolphin said:
archbrix said:
RolStoppable said:

Any way you look at it, the 3DS should have never launched at a price of above $200.

This says it all right here.  If the system had launched at $199, a further price drop to $169 would have never been needed in the first place, at least not that soon.  Great software would have carried it through the holidays at that price and us ambassadors would have never had to pay that extra $50 for a bunch of "free" games we already have.

$250 is just too much for a dedicated handheld device.  For example, the PS3 at its $599 launch price was actually not overpriced.  Getting a cutting edge game system and a blu-ray player for six hundred bucks in 2006 was a steal.  But there's a profound difference between overpriced and too expensive, which the PS3 was.  The 3DS at $250 was both.

So, Archbrix, 3 question areas remain:

1) Is the Vita at 250$ overpriced? How do you judge the price in a hypothetical scenario where compelling games exist on the platform and you absolutely want it no matter what? What price kills the momentum despite must-have games?

2) Is overpriced a factor when the market buys it anyways? Of course I don't encourage it, but within this thread, if consumers do buy it due to compelling games or must-buy features (like say blu-ray), then where does pricepoint come into the equation, at what point or moment? For which demographic?

3) When can overpricing be the most deadly, at holiday season or post holiday season? What about pricing of competing products?

These questions lead to this: Something can be overpriced (for instance the iPad), but if people want it and no competitor is able to convince otherwise, why would it matter? I think you see what I mean.

Granted, in the case of the Vita, apart from hardware and one or two compelling, stellar titles in the west, high price is an issue. But the 3DS could've had a hypothetical situation of must-haves where consumers would not have refused to buy it at an overpriced 250$. That's the situation Carl and I both talked about. After that, it all depends on the market penetration you're looking for.

1)  I haven't gotten my hands on the Vita yet, but considering the tech, OLED screen, and what it costs Sony to make it, there's a good chance it's not overpriced.  But again, it's too expensive for a dedicated handheld, which is its biggest detriment to having mass-market sales...

2)  ... which brings me to your second question, which is based around games and subjectivity, which of course complicates things more.  There are people who will buy the Vita and think that it's not too expensive and worth every penny for the hardware and the games it plays.  Then there are some who want the games but feel it costs too much, some who like the hardware but don't think the games warrant the price, etc.  Basically it comes down to $250 is more than the masses are willing to pay for a handheld game system, even if some feel it has great games...

3) ... which brings me to point three:  the iPad.  Yes, it's expensive (and overpriced IMO), but the device does a lot of things, which to many people does warrant the price.  The Vita is primarily a game system, which IMO plays vastly superior games than tablets and smartphones, but like it or not, tablets and smartphones do play games... and do a lot more as well.  This is why I think price is a big factor in handhelds being successful in today's market; at $250, only the most dedicated gamers will bring in the sales of dedicated gaming handhelds, even if the game library is alluring.



Around the Network
happydolphin on 10 February 2012
archbrix said:

1)  I haven't gotten my hands on the Vita yet, but considering the tech, OLED screen, and what it costs Sony to make it, there's a good chance it's not overpriced.  But again, it's too expensive for a dedicated handheld, which is its biggest detriment to having mass-market sales...

2)  ... which brings me to your second question, which is based around games and subjectivity, which of course complicates things more.  There are people who will buy the Vita and think that it's not too expensive and worth every penny for the hardware and the games it plays.  Then there are some who want the games but feel it costs too much, some who like the hardware but don't think the games warrant the price, etc.  Basically it comes down to $250 is more than the masses are willing to pay for a handheld game system, even if some feel it has great games...

3) ... which brings me to point three:  the iPad.  Yes, it's expensive (and overpriced IMO), but the device does a lot of things, which to many people does warrant the price.  The Vita is primarily a game system, which IMO plays vastly superior games than tablets and smartphones, but like it or not, tablets and smartphones do play games... and do a lot more as well.  This is why I think price is a big factor in handhelds being successful in today's market; at $250, only the most dedicated gamers will bring in the sales of dedicated gaming handhelds, even if the game library is alluring.

Thanks. But question @ bold. Even if it's during the holidays, and there are 3 must-have games like Mario 3DL, MK7 and MH out all nearly at the same time? Does it really take that dedicated a gamer to bite? Why can home consoles sell at 250$ but not portables? Aren't these systems bought for their games? I don't see at this point in the history of gaming why a home console can offer a more compelling experience than a portable, at the level we are in portable processing and graphics power. This is an honest question (not rhetorical).

In your answer, forget the whole TV versus portable experience argument if you can, since some people like the comfort of taking their gaming anywhere over playing on a big screen. But you can touch on it if you'll argue demographics (which demographics prefers playing tv screens, and in which country).



archbrix on 10 February 2012
happydolphin said:
archbrix said:

at $250, only the most dedicated gamers will bring in the sales of dedicated gaming handhelds, even if the game library is alluring.

Thanks. But question @ bold. Even if it's during the holidays, and there are 3 must-have games like Mario 3DL, MK7 and MH out all nearly at the same time? Does it really take that dedicated a gamer to bite? Why can home consoles sell at 250$ but not portables? Aren't these systems bought for their games? I don't see at this point in the history of gaming why a home console can offer a more compelling experience than a portable, at the level we are in portable processing and graphics power. This is an honest question (not rhetorical).

In your answer, forget the whole TV versus portable experience argument if you can, since some people like the comfort of taking their gaming anywhere over playing on a big screen. But you can touch on it if you'll argue demographics (which demographics prefers playing tv screens, and in which country).

With those games, during the holidays many people would bite, but pre and post holiday season the sales would stagnate.

The console price vs handheld price (I believe) is due to many factors.  For one, as beautiful as PSV graphics are, they're still not 360 or PS3 and they're not made for glorious HD on a 50+ inch TV with surround sound for (most importantly) many to enjoy.  Many people can participate with a single game console (plus controllers), whereas a single handheld is for a single individual.  Adding another handheld into the mix for multiplayer obviously costs a lot more.

Bringing in demographics as an example though is quite interesting.  In Japan, handhelds trump consoles (possibly even when gaming at home), in the west it is the opposite.  We tend to like our console type games on our TVs and our simpler affairs on our handhelds.  Of course, handhelds have their advantage of portablility, and many (like me) enjoy console type games as well as simpler games on the go, but when the price is too expensive for the masses to invest, many are content with their tablets/smartphones.  This is why I do believe that an accessible price (less than $200) for a handheld is very important.