Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
Aielyn said: Early in a generation, install base matters greatly, and even small differences can be a big problem. This late in a generation, though, there's more than enough install base available that the small differences just don't matter - the 360 isn't going to lose exclusives or support from multiplatform titles just because the PS3 managed to edge ahead. So MS have to be more concerned with direct profit, rather than the indirect profit that can be made from growing the install base. Suppose that they make $75 per console sold right now. If they do a $50 price cut, then factoring in, say, $20 as the net profit per console due to game sales (many of the games bought will be second-hand, this late in the generation), MS would have to pretty much double their sales rate to break even. What's more, if MS cuts the price of the 360, there's a good chance that Sony will react by cutting the price of the PS3. |
Problem is that Kaz wont do it as he aims to return Sony to profitability. Theres just no way.
|
The thing is, with the Wii U coming and the 360 already noticeably cheaper than the PS3, Sony really doesn't have much choice if MS drops the price of the 360. Basically, Sony is in a rather tough position, because having the more expensive of the two consoles means that they can't afford to let the other console get a price cut without one of their own. In other words, Kaz's hand is pretty much forced, in such a situation.
Fortunately for Sony, the risks to MS aren't worth it, and so MS won't drop the price of the 360 at this particular point in time. The only way MS drops the price is if the Wii U dramatically pulls away sales of the 360 and PS3, in my opinion.