Fernando on 08 June 2008
| Sky Render said: A product's value to a consumer determines its sales. Price drops are just an artificial means to boost sales; the effects are never permanent, always stop-gap, and often have immediate repercussions once their effects wear off. At $250, the PS3 would briefly experience higher sales, but guess what? It would drop off to even lower numbers than it had before the boost in sales. The reason is simple: the PS3's value to the average consumer is not nearly high enough to justify buying it even at $250. I guess this idea is difficult for some technology-savvy people to grasp, but to most people, products are tools to accomplish a specific task. The better they accomplish that one task, the more value people attribute to them. Extraneous features will not help sell a product to an average consumer; they buy it for what it's supposed to do primarily. The PS3 is a game-playing system, its job is to play video games. This is also the Wii's job. All else (graphical presentation, audio presentation, extra features, etc.) is moot, the most important selling point is how well they do their job of letting a person enjoy a game. The Wii does a better job than the PS3 at this, because it offers more diverse and accessible means of playing. This is not the technophile's viewpoint, this is the normal consumer's viewpoint. And the normal consumer far outnumbers the technophile. So yes, even though it uses less expensive components and costs less to build, the Wii has greater value than the feature-crammed PS3 does to a normal consumer. |
Thanks dude... that's what I wanted to say in my last post. Price should not be a factor. Specially if the PS3 is "aparently" the more powerful console ever. So, $400 should not be a problem.
