No, happy, I'm not pulling that card. I'm referencing in such as to explain to you that the topic of bundling has been discussed numerous times already and everyone knows and understands why it is done. It's not a big discussion. It works, and everyone does it.

I responded the way I did because OP was clearly saying that SONY specifically was doing it too much. I said everyone does it. I was on topic. You say that your "shut up" was to keep us in line. Again, I was on topic. If the thread was about bundling in general, and asked "why does sony bundle", then yes, my response wouldn't have been in line, but to fault Sony for bundling games...specifically saying that sony can't sell games unless they bundle....that's a joke/troll thread. It's not a mean one, but it's not serious either.

I was responding directly to the OP. You told me to shut up. You had to explain to half a dozen people that they were off topic. This is proof enough that you didn't understand the thread...YOU were the one who didn't understand. Look at all the other posters. They're saying the same things that I said "everyone bundles", "i smell jealousy", "don't be mad at Sony for providing great value". Everyone is responding to the direct accusation against SONY for bundling. Only a couple people directly said what bundling is for beside you. Even another person told you this is a joke thread. Do you think you are the sole person here who is right? The masses are on my side in this, happy. It's not the forums turning against you, it's not the forums devolving into shit and madness. There is no persecution here. This is the reality of the thread, for which you told people to shut up.

And, no you do not understand, because if you did you would not say 'underselling'. Sony was bundling 4 year old games, and even a ps2 game. PS2!..on a ps3 controller! The GoW collection for ps2 was 15$, bundled on a controller that was priced 10 dollars more expensive than usual! Look at the other games being bundled, UC2, UC1, Infamous 1 and 2. These games are slowing down to nothing. Their retail prices are 20$! The retail cut is likely 7, shipping and handling and costs are likely another 3. This is 10$ lost at most IF you could guarantee that people are still consistently buying those games.

Sony has charts and analysts and market coordinators, and pricing analysts who take more information than we can ever have, and they say "what could we do to maximize profit and minimize loss". Their choices take months of planning and manuevering. There is lots of research done on it. They don't just go "hey let's throw this in there, we don't make much from it anyway".

For example,a  controller makes roughly 40$ in profit. Bundling a game with a controller is a good way to get people to buy another controller...usually for people who weren't immediately thinking about replacing a controller, or the money concious who don't think a controller is worth 60$, so they never buy one. You draw people to the margin product by sacrificing a little profit. Sure you could just not bundle and just hope they buy the game, or hope they buy the controller, but instead of making 10$ or 40$, you tip the scales toward making 30$. If you can't sell the product that gives you the good margin, you incentivise. Again, all manufacturers do this. Look at any product that says "extra 10% free". They do this on shampoo, food..you name it, they do it, and they do it to make you spend 8$ on the big bottle instead of 2 dollars on the small bottle. This.Is.Fact.

Close, but I believe it was bundled with SM64 in france. And there was a DK64 bundle afair

ONE: OP wasn't an accusation, it was an observation. That's a big difference. An accusation is me telling you and hatz and mav and PS3-sales that you sabotaged the thread. That's an accusation. And I stand by it.

TWO: I KNOW that all manufacturers bundle, dear god man I have also been on these forums for a while. This is my SECOND account you know. smh

THREE: Even if all manufacturers bundle, the degree to which they do VARIES across the manufacturers. I mentioned this already, sadly I constantly have to repeat myself with you. As such, it is a VALID question.

FOUR: The people I was against didn't say "I smell jealousy". They said "I don't understand the point of this thread" or "/thread" like you did or "why isn't Galaki banned" like PS3-Sales said. I mean my post bundled them together for Pete's sake. I stand my ground to say you guys didn't understand the thought of OP and as such saw no value to his concern. That is YOUR fault and I was upset, and I am even more now that you're DEFENDING them. That's aweful. Their mistake was bad, but your defense makes it so much worse. It becomes hopeless to actually have people understand the thought of OP and actually discuss the topic nowadays, it seems.  And no, the masses are not on your side, because you're lying about what they actually said (except Hatz, you're not looking at what he said that caused me to be upset. He was asking for moderation of Galaki for this valid thread, which is preposterous).

FIVE: I said possibility of Underselling. Whether it's correct or not is IRRELEVANT. The point is that there is a possibility, and it's open to debate, and as such there are not only PS2 games bundled but also current-gen PS3 games. Games by Nintendo continue to sell strong many years later, the question is do Sony's games need to be price-reduced. It's OPEN FOR DEBATE. That's the main point I'm trying to make.

SIX: So since Sony have analysts, should we just close vgchartz since nothing we say is of importance? Yeah, I've heard that argument used for Nintendo as well "Iwata knows what he's doing.", I've used it myself, and I've long realized it's a bullshit excuse to avoid exchanging about a topic of discussion some of us are passionate about (though it seems not all).

SEVEN: I UNDERSTAND... I understand your last paragraph. Before entering the thread, I came in interested in discussing it. Now I've lost that interest, honestly. I'm trying to discuss with you, but I'm lost in this tangle of an affair that I got into with you. Yes, I realize there is a valid reason to bundle products,  I see that for games like Skyward Sword or Wii Fit. I haven't really seen it as something valid for regular controllers per se, since these are generally commodity items. But if you have a decent case to make about the importance of bundling games with regular controllers, I'm all ears and ready to tango.

But before that, we need to get over Mount Everest we created here.

I'm going to point you away from him for a moment.  You want to have a reasonable discussion then discuss it with me.  I think why a lot of people are upset with this thread is because it is directed at sony.  You need to remember that most users on this site are sony fans so they will defend it.  The title its self seems to be geared towards getting people in here to argue rather than have a good discussion.  

With that said all three companies do bundle a lot.  In fact I'd say probably every single exclusive that  has sold more than 1 million has been bundled at 1 point in time.  Some game get bundled more than others but it is a business strategy to get people to buy consoles and then buy more software.  If they like the bundled game they will also buy previous or future installments correct?  

So with all that said what is the argument we are having?  maybe I'm not getting it but I don't see how bundles is relying on selling game over 1 million.  Do you think sony, nintendo, or miscrosoft cares how many copies they sell?  They care about profits and that is what they are trying to do, to gain profits with new customers.

As an example, let's look at the idea of selling more further down the road with say, a sequel (like you said).

Typically sequels tend to sell less than their predecessors, a prime example is Super Mario bros., where sequels have always sold less. Of course Mario helped push the NES, but unless the profit was factored into the console's price, the profit opportunity of Mario is lost in the bundle in one form or another. True that it pushes units, but what if the game had the potential to yield more profit if non-bundled? That's what I think OP is asking. It could be wrong, it could be right, but it's defo open for debate.

Yeah, I understand that bundling helps push consoles or accessories, which then help push titles, so the ultimate question is did the benefit outweight the cost (lost profit opportunity on the title).

So which is better selling one game or multiple games and accessories?  That is what it comes down to.  What is more important, selling your 1st party game or cutting into its profits and maximizing all software and hardware.

Yes if we took away bundles then certain games would have far less copies sold.  I mean GT5 has probably sold well over 1 million copies in bundles but we need to look at the attatch  rate for each console.  How many games are sold per each console, and how much hardware are sold at each consoles.  Exclusives is a business strategy.  They are used to say "hey buy our console because we are the only ones who have it"  Once you buy the console for that game Im sure you will look for more afterwards.  Bundles are an investment if anything. They may be losing  money on one game but accessories and other software will gain them profits.

the arument we are currently having jaywood, is "what is the op about"
I'm saying the op is a joke/troll (though i think it's fine) saying sony cant sell without bundling.
Happy is saying the thread is about the strategy of bundling in general.

This argument started when I said I was responding to the OP, and I said that happy changed the thread into a thread about bundling, when the original intent of the op was not to discuss bundling, but to jab at sony saying they can't sell games. I have no problem with the OP, but I want happy to admit that the thread OP is a joke.