Imyourvillain said:
sieanr said:
ssj12 said:
flagship said:
Think about it: you're standing in line for a Wii and you're told it's sold out. Knowing all too well that your kids want a new video game console, the affordable Playstation 3 is sitting there for the taking.
That's about where he totally lost me, I didn't realize being the most expensive system on the market made you the affordable option. |
$399 PS3 vs $449 Elite.. PS3 is cheaper then the high end ripoff the elite is. For the $49 more I could get an 80GB HDD and be sitting set for a while. And since a 300GB HDD is in the works a 100GB drive should come down greatly in price soon. |
$270 Arcade vs $499 80gb... Arcade is chaper than the high end ripoff 80gb. For the $230 less I could get quite a few games and be having fun for a while. And since the 360 already has a great library, those older games should come down in price greatly.
See how easy it is to make unfair comparisons? |
I hope your joking because I look at the comparison of the arcade vs. 80GB, and still think the PS3 is of better value. PS3 has Blu-ray player, wi-fi, 80GB HDD, usually you'll be able to get one with 2 games, free online (which does not suck), controllers have built in lithium batteries with usb cable to charge them, and HDMI output which supports Lossless audio (360's HDMI does not support Lossless audio, based on what I have read). That's reason enough without bringing up the "improved" 360s break nearly as much as the old chipset did. The Wii and PS3 rarely break at all. Considering all systems have great games out (For Wii: Zelda, MP8, RE4, Wii Sports, Big Brain Academy; 360: Halo 3, Gears of War, Forza 2, Bioshock PS3: R&CF:ToD, Resistance, Warhawk, Motorstorm, Folklore) it's difficult to compare games. Since the PS3 price drop it is personal preference that will decide between the systems. |
I think when it comes down to it, it's all irrelevent what bells and whistles PS3 has over the 360. For a large part of the market (and this is true of most products out there), it is price that determines the sales of a substitute good. When it comes down to it, the 360 and PS3 are primarily viewed as doing one thing: play games, so in that instance what matters is that one is cheaper and has better software. Now, if the PS3 had successfully marketed itself as a luxury good instead of a product that is largely interchangeable with the 360, the PS3 at $600 may have succeeded. People will pay premium prices for premium products. However, the PS3 was perceived as being in the same category as the 360, so the price absolutely devastated it.
Not to mention that even bad things can be turned into good. Take the RRoD issue for instance. It was a horrible, horrible thing for MS to have that come out. By all means, it should have helped the PS3. But MS's perceived speed at dealing with it (I say perceived because in reality it came about a year and half late) as well the eye popping amount of money they said they were spending to make it right, probably made MS look GOOD in the eyes of the average consumer. Here was a company that made a faulty product, but instead of giving the run around, they owned up to it, said they're spending $1 billion to fix any console for 3 years. It doesn't matter that it wasn't entirely true that it was quick and appropriate fix, but that it was a piece of news that was widely read and helped to build cofidence in the product. Consequently, sales for that month didn't suffer, and in fact even went up in the face of the PS3 price drop.
Speaking of which, on the flip side of this is the Sony price drops. A price drop should be viewed as a good thing, but go about it in the wrong way and it can be taken as a bad thing. For instance, dropping the price of the 60GB and phasing out the 20GB should have been a good thing. An expensive product becames more affordable, and the lower end product was being phased out to make room for a cheaper and better one. But Sony fumbled it. Turns out it wasn't a real price drop, but just clearing inventory. Dropping an SKU makes the buyers of said SKU feel like they bought a lemon that even the company didn't want around. And worse, the introduction of the $600 80GB bundle with Motorstorm made those who recently bought the 60GB at it's original price feel burned (let me tell you, as someone who bought a $300 Xbox in January 2002, I know EXACTLY how that feels). To compound matters even more, that 80GB/Motorstorm pack is dropped AGAIN just a few months later, and a new stripped down version is introduced. These kinds of moves, while necessary (and positive for those looking to buy a PS3), certainly hasn't inspired confidence in PS3 owners or potential buyers. How does a customer know they won't get screwed again? Why would a customer want to buy a product that is being treated in a desperate manner?
Perception, I believe is everything in marketing. A good marketer isn't one that just lets the public know about the product in a positive manner. It's one that can subtly spin perception in a way that most people won't realize they are being played. And in this instance, both due to Sony's failing and MS's suprisingly effective PR team, a disaster was averted and a blow was dealt to a rival. To make matters worse for Sony, the longer they are the under-dog, the less likely it is for peoples' perception to change about it. If it can't shake off the stigma of being the loser this holiday (which doesn't necessarily mean they have to win or even beat the 360 this holiday), the PS3 is done for in America. NOTHING they can do will change that perception after that.
