Wii won't have a price drop until Nintendo gets its supply issues worked out. Hell, they can't meet demand the way it is--a business doesn't drop price when they can't even meet current demand levels. Hell, Nintendo is probably kicking themselves in the ass that they didn't come to the market with a $299 price tag. People would still be gobbling it up. Prices drop when you're sales aren't going well and you want to sell more...Nintendo can't sell anymore unless they up production.

Bodhesatva said: Kasz216 said: Bodhesatva said: Sky Render said: Actually, Bodhesatva, third place contenders rising to second place is not unprecedented. In fact, it happened just last generation: the XBOX surpassed the GameCube, in spite of the GameCube's early lead on it. Granted, that happened much faster, but it was the same basic effect.   Rising to second place wasn't the part that I considered unprecedented: tripling sales is. Xbox passed Gamecube as a turtle passes a snail: the Xbox slowly but gradually outsold it. By contrast, the PS3 has tripled its sales in a single region YoY, and doubled its sales YoY in another (Japan, not so much). The Xbox and particularly the Gamecube experienced stagnant sales worldwide by this time in the generation; the PS2 was on its way up, while the Xbox/GC were dwindling downwards, as the winner became clear. This time, the Wii is on its way up... and the PS3 is on its way up, too. That is unusual. Are you sure about that? I wouldn't be surprised if something like the Neo Geo did the same thing. Keep in mind we don't have any actual concrete data for any other of the "Super price" consoles. Yeah, we do -- the 360. Regardless, the Neo Geo never got to >140k a week averages, or even close to it, so it's hard to make those comparisons at this point. I'm not saying the PS3 is going to launch to victory, Kasz. I'm just saying it's bucking the historical trends so far (third place consoles gradually diminish in sales or, at best, stagnate) and thus it could surprise us again in the future.

The 360 was actually cheaper compared to the PS2 at launch when you take into account inflation. (on one model.)

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/images/relative_prices.gif

How many times does our community have to debunk the idea that a dramatically lower priced PS3 would somehow make it sell millions per week?

I think the previous threads like this have all concluded...

When PS3 is sub $300, the other will have also had relational discounts in affect canceling out the PS3 price.

and...

Games far outweigh price.

Basically, the current levels of sales for the three systems will remain vastly unchanged through 2009. By then all will have peaked and 2010 and on will start the normal leveling off and slight decline.

Infact PS2 tracks right by Sega Saturn, which was pricey.

Which when you compare Saturns sales in Japan is very important.

First year Sega Saturn sales... 1 Million.

Second year total 4 Million.

Which is... a 300% increase in Japan.

So it does have historical precedent.

By year 3... it was at 5 Million in Japan.

 

HappySqurriel said: Lord N said: HappySqurriel said: The PS2 and XBox launched at $450 in Canada, currently the PS3 is $400 and the XBox 360 is (essentially) $300; they're both getting destroyed by the Wii ... In other words, it is foolish to assume that the PS3's only (or even main) problem is its price. The fact is that the PS3 is currently in a price range (worldwide) that people are comfortable paying for electronics that they truely desire, and will justify the cost if it really apeals to them; the PS3 really does not appeal to people on the same level as the PS2 did when it was released.   In what world? $400 and especially the launch price of $500-$600 is far more than what most people are willing to pay for a video game console no matter what it does. The vast majority of all consoles were sold at a price of $200-$300 dollars whereas consoles priced above that have done rather poorly. The fact that the PS3 and 360 with their rather slow sales are the best selling consoles at their respective price points should tell you a lot. Had the PS3 launched at $299, whether it would have been able to outsell the Wii is up for debate(personally, I think the Wii would still be outselling it), but it's pretty obvious that its sales would be a hell of a lot higher than what they are right now.     People seem to be able to find $500 when a peice of electronics that they desire ... I'm not saying that people are used to spending $500 for a console, but people also weren't used to spending $400 on a MP3 player before the iPod was released ...

People weren't use to spending anything on an MP3 player before the Ipod was released because they weren't mainstream at the point. Early adopters and techphiles are always willing to pay more, but the price has to come down in order to keep people buying. Notice how an 80 gig Ipod goes for $240 nowadays, which is far less than what a 20 gig Ipod with less features would have gone for some years ago.

Whether it's Ipods, TVs, or video game consoles, they have to be at a price that most people are willing to pay, and I think we've all seen that $400-$600 is not a price that most people are willing to pay.

 

 

There's a lot of crazy caveats here, Kasz. First, we remove PS3 from "regular" systems by calling it a "super price" system, a category which only contains systems like the Neo Geo and 3D0 with little historical data. Then, we separate the 360 by considering inflation.

Okay. Shouldn't we then consider inflation for the PS3 as well? I wouldn't be surprised if the PS3 ended up being ~300 dollars by SNES standards, for example. Nowhere near the 3D0 or Neo Geo.

Accounting for inflation when comparing products is kind of pointless. What matters is the perception of the product. If $600 is considered expensive to a consumer, it takes some significant change to change this viewpoint. And inflation alone is not good enough to cause this to happen. It would take the side-effects of inflation (ie. prices of products all rising to meet the relative state of inflation) to change how people value products. As it stands, this minimum initial sale value for new consoles has only changed two times in the history of consoles: the bar was set at $200 by the Atari 2600, then raised to $250 by the Wii.

Bodhesatva said: There's a lot of crazy caveats here, Kasz. First, we remove PS3 from "regular" systems by calling it a "super price" system, a category which only contains systems like the Neo Geo and 3D0 with little historical data. Then, we separate the 360 by considering inflation. Okay. Shouldn't we then consider inflation for the PS3 as well? I wouldn't be surprised if the PS3 ended up being ~300 dollars by SNES standards, for example. Nowhere near the 3D0 or Neo Geo.

By super price I mean higher then the Playstation, the most expensive successful console since the crash. (Relative to inflation.)

If you look at the chart you'll actually see it does account for PS3.  Which is equal to about the saturn.  Another losing system that tripled it's sales second year in a region.

The PS3 looks to be the Saturn of the West. Barring a big monumental shift... of which price shouldn't be a factor.

Kasz216 said: Infact PS2 tracks right by Sega Saturn, which was pricey. Which when you compare Saturns sales in Japan is very important. First year Sega Saturn sales... 1 Million. Second year total 4 Million. Which is... a 300% increase in Japan. So it does have historical precedent. By year 3... it was at 5 Million in Japan.

 

 That's a 200% increase, by the way. Otherwise, good point.

Bodhesatva said: Kasz216 said: Infact PS2 tracks right by Sega Saturn, which was pricey. Which when you compare Saturns sales in Japan is very important. First year Sega Saturn sales... 1 Million. Second year total 4 Million. Which is... a 300% increase in Japan. So it does have historical precedent. By year 3... it was at 5 Million in Japan.      That's a 200% increase, by the way. Otherwise, good point.

Not to be nit picky, but it's still 300%.  (1 * 300% + 1 = 4)