You're assuming people didn't do their research. What info do you have to support that claim?

I know I bought it at 250$ because I wanted it, at that price. I was a happy buyer. The Ambassador prog for me was a bonus. Personal testimony, yes, but it's better than none. People who complained are mostly people who didn't even buy it (I know, I've been reading the comments on here and I know who's been buying what).

So the reason 3DS wasn't selling like it should have is because of tech?

Vita seems to have the tech, why is it selling so badly?

Tech had nothing to do with 3DS' early struggles.

The Vita sales have been a complete disaster any way you slice it. Sony will sell half of their projected numbers and post holiday sales will return to being brutal. This thread makes no sense. 9 months to sell what another console sold in 5 when it wasn't selling accirding to expectations?

Because Nintendo has higher sales expectations (clarified by edit) and more options.

Excellent observation, no panic pricecut.

Your post made it sound pretty much like you were putting them on the same footing. Logically, unless the expectations were not magnitudes higher, the 3DS didn't need a pricecut. Just look at the graph I posted earlier.

Being more amicable though, I actually agree with your reply, and that's exactly what I was asking here -> http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4962357

This thread makes zero sense. Vita sales are brutal no matter what spin you put on it. Its a damn shame as well as even though i lean towards nintendo i would have loved a closer race bringing out the best of the two companies.

P, if that were true, wouldn't Sony also have to? Sony is in much worse shape than Nintendo, Ninty is in ok shape financially speaking, Sony can't have more problems atm, they are under fire.

Anyways, even if that weren't true, just for the sake of reason, Nintendo was selling the 3DS at profit, with the pricecut they ended up selling a loss leader. Don't you think, if it were for money, they would not have done it?

EDIT: Also, did you look at the trends? They cut the price in August, that's at week 8*4 28 of the japanese launch. In the global trend I posted (here reposting for demonstration), the 3DS' trend is still better than the Vita's. If Sony didn't have to pricecut, Nintendo certainly didn't. We know why Nintendo pricecut, and that's because they wanted to reach their 16M unit target, and that was for 2 reasons we know, from sources (I don't have on hand):

1) To increase 3rd party confidence in the platform (It defo paid off).

2) To support the 3DS' momentum so as to ensure market dominance.

Here's the graph (week 28, check it):

This thread makes little sense.  Since when has sales to pricecut been a useful or reliable metric of a system's success?

All you have shown is that Sony is less willing or able to drop price than Nintendo, who in turn were unwilling to tolerate such low sales.

Consoles exist to sell games, if you can not even sell enough systems to make people want to make games for your system you are dead in the water.  As for price drops devaluing a product, you simply can not compare consoles to phone/tablets and Apple's model. This whole premise is based on the consumer agreeing with the manufacturer's assessment of a product's value.  Apple is oft-sited as a successful implementation of this philiosophy but for every time this works there are examples where it doesn't e.g. Sony TVs.  A relatively high-priced, 'premium' product with good technology: Sony refused to drop prices to match competitors in the face of declining sales. The result?

Important: post about Europe.

Again with this price drop thing?
Do you realize that a Vita can easily be found (new) for € 150 in shops in Europe? (Not online shops, real shops.)
I see plenty of great bundles. Like Vita + LBP for € 190. That's a Vita for € 150. € 100 less than launch.
And you want a price drop to 170? lol. That's actually more expansive than how much it is NOW.