if SONY only wants to compete with XBOX360, then yes they don't need a price cut. take a look at this week's sales, even though XBOX360 had a price cut but PS3 still outselling it 60k ++.
but if they wanna compete with the Wii, hell no!! they need one hell of a price cut!!
| Rock_on_2008 said: The poor US economy is doing more than just hurting American interests -- it's threatening the chance of a PS3 price cut too. PS3 price cut Can I get a what what? How 'bout a price cut then? Economics and video games rarely intersect unless you're playing SimCity or an RTS, but nevertheless today's poor US economy could be taking a PS3 price cut off the table for 2008. Basically, the US dollar stinks right now, while the Japanese yen is surging. How does this affect you? Well, if you're one of those gamers who's waited to buy a PS3 because of price, and thinks that the 2007 Sony price cuts will continue in 2008, the future isn't looking as inexpensive as you might have hoped. U.K.-based gaming pub GameIndustry.biz reported today that the current economic conditions described above could impact the Sony's ability to offer any further price cuts on the PlayStation 3 in the foreseeable future. Sony, for its part, says it has a plan in place to deal with it. "As to the situation of the US dollar's weakness in the medium to long term, we already have a strategy to deal with it," said Ryoji Chubachi, Sony president. "We will lower our production costs as possible as we can and we will choose production sites to cope with the industry's weakness, and in the short term, we will try to accept more orders." In layman's terms, that means you can expect to see the PS3 SKU price points pretty much set in stone for the remainder of 2008. |
Which is why we cant have mcCain for president. This war needs to stop, bush has killed off over 3000 soldiers, and the value of the american dollar is now weaker than the cuban dollar, its pathetic and sad.
Brand loyalty is especially important for computer games though, which, as a medium, have long had a negative image. Kiddy and nerdy.
Sony turned that arround with the PS, and maintained their dominance with the PS2. Nintendo coming to be associated with kiddy, and microsoft with nerdy.
Sad as it may seem, there are still people who'd feel a bit ashmaed of buying a non-sony console. As if doing so would show they were a nerd. That may sound like an exageration, indeed, it may not even be a conscious thing (much brand loyalty is not), but it does seem to play a role in people's console preferences.
The fact sony got off to such a weak start, that their marketing was poor, and that the console seemed aimed only at obsessive fans, really hurt their brand this generation. The fact the wii appealed to social gamers, also took away a chunk of the market sony would have expected to wait for them.
Still, amongst the casual market, PS3 is seen as the 'coolest' console though. People may not know why, but it is. And I think we can see that in the PS3's sale figures. They've been far stronger than the games line-up would justify.
The strength of the PS3's sales are reason enough for sony to delay a price cut. With the 360 failing to surge ahead after its price cut, I think Sony executives will be feeling pretty relieved about the way things are gong, especially compared to a year ago.
Also, on topic I believe the PS3 does not need a price cut, simply because its making money, and sony needs it. Its also selling better than the Xbox 360, when sony can do it they will cut the price, I think thats when they will say they will take the wii on as competition.
Dallinor said:
Basically there are hard core loyals for almost every major brand (these are considered the most important consumers for that brand). It would appear that "lack of research" has very little to do with the reasons people become brand loyals. It has more to do with personal tastes, desires and habits that build into an overall preference for the said brand. With the new and easy access to information (internet etc) people can now make more informed decisions regarding almost all products. However these people, who perhaps bought products without much knowledge in the past, were never brand loyals to begin with. Also to return to the original point, that "brand loyalty is most prevalent amongst the poor." "Findings indicate that, like brand loyalty, service loyalty has some demographic correlates, but they are few and weak" Also China and India, two up-and-coming, but still undeniably poor countries for the most part, have very little brand loyalty, even for homemade products. It's hard to find any other information of the demographic breakdown of brand loyalty. I'm actually now convinced that for the most part brand loyalty favours no section of society over the other. At least not to any degree that it counts. |
Once again you've got it backwords and doubly backwords when it comse to the whole point of the article.
What you are emphasizing isn't brand loyalty.
If what best suits me is a candy bar with marshmellows and almonds... and Hershey's is the only company that makes that, i'm not brand loyal because of that.
To have brand loyalty you MUST at least sometimes put the companies good ahead of your own. For example is a Marshmellow and Almond candbar suits me at the moment but instead I don't buy it and buy a Dove bar because i love Heshey so must. Or buying a PSP just because I like sony.
It means more then just buying one product consisatantly because it best fits you. It's buying that product when it doesn't fit you best.
As for why I haven't offered concrete proof of it yet? Well everything i've learned about Brand Loyalty came from my teacher mostly. He learned most of what he knew from starting his own pretty successful private company who is currently one of the biggest consumer research companies in Cleveland.
As such, all the concrete proof is paid for by companies and politicians and kept for them.
I also disagree with your ascertion that the most money is made off the hardcore brand loyalists in the videogame sector. Once again i'd say that while you make the most money per brand loyalist. You make way way more money from everyone else in combined revenue.
The PS2 made way more money off of non brand loyalists then it did brand loyalists in any words.
As for China and India... now your making cross cultural comparisons which are completly pointless. If you compared rich chinese people and poor chinese people, then you'd have a point. However culutre does effect brand loyalty as it effects EVERYTHING in consumer psychology. If you look for example at the consumer history of china it's easy to see why they don't have strong brand loyaltys like we do. They don't have big companies like we do... and just have had a different economic system for a while.
For example, people in russia LIKE lines do to back when communism was around. You knew what products were good during communism because their was a line. This is something that became ingrained in their culture.
Brand Loyalty in China is strongest among the rich however, because the rich are those who get the most advertising, as advertising is set in the rich and middle class developed areas. In otherwords the places where capitalism's influence is being felt the strongest.
As for the article. Since that was getting lengthy. They are suggesting a pricecut isn't needed because a great number of brand loyal people are going to buy the PS3.
That a lot of PS2 users are brand loyal to the PS3 and likely to buy the PS3 simply because it's the PS3 and that they will buy the PS3 eventually no matter what.
Wow, was that article written by Sony? It's a nice PR spin.
10. Agreed. but it will never catch up with Live. And that's not a big deal, becauce it's free. People shouldn't pretend something free like PSN is as good as something that costs money like Live. You get what you pay for.
9. Disagree. Home will be a terrible flop, because it's tedious, time consuming, looks boring and will probably not be very fun. I don't see any good things in Home to be honest.
8. Disagree. Yes, brand loyalty exists, but it's obviously not true that the majority of PS2 owners will be PS3 owners. PS2 was cheap, casual, and had a huge games library. PS3 lacks all those things. Wii is the new PS2, not the PS3. What did brand loyalty do for Nintendo in the N64 time? PS1 was the new SNES, so everyone bought a PS1 instead of a N64.
7. Agreed. PS2 and PSP are making money. However, I do think the PS2 is holding Sony back. Sony should let it die and focus on the PS3 which needs it the most.
6. Agreed. PS3 won't exist for 10 years (hell, even the PS2 won't), but the console is still young, so there is plenty of time left.
5. Disagree. PS3 doesn't have a very good games library yet. It has ok third party support but severely lacks exclusive titles. It's still hard to justify a PS3 purchase over an Xbox 360 one.
4. Agreed. Blu-ray is a very nice PS3 feature. I have my doubts many "everyday consumers" will jump on the Blu-ray wagon anytime soon, if ever, though.
3. Agreed. PS3 has a good line-up this year. But how long can we wait..? Wii has been out for almost as long as the PS3, but has much more games to choose from, why can't Sony hurry along a bit?
2. Disagree. While it's true that the PS3 hasn't reach its max yet, so hasn't the Wii and Xbox 360. Even the Gamecube and Xbox never reached their max, so this really isn't a well made point.
1. Agreed. PS3 is a very reliable console, especially compared to the 360. The only thing that desperatly needs to change for the better is the crappy Sony customer service. "What, you have dust in your PS3 and now it won't play your games? Too bad, pay us 200 bucks or fuck off". -1 to Sony.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
