Europeans don't mind waiting for delayed hardware

Retr0gamer

well according to Sony we don't:

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=68422

SCE Worldwide Europe VP Jamie MacDonald reckons that Europe will quickly get over the delay between the US and Japanese launches of PlayStation 3 next month and its European debut next March.

When asked by our sister site GamesIndustry.biz what he'd say to European consumers who feel they're always last in line for new consoles, MacDonald said, "European consumers have shown that historically they don't mind [the delays], because they end up buying as many PlayStations, if not more, than the US and Japan."

"In Europe, it doesn't seem that the release of our platforms after the US and Japan - in the long run - affects how consumers feel."

"If we were sitting here in five years' time, I don't think we'd really think about or notice that PlayStation 3 was four or five months later in Europe. I think in the long run, PlayStation 3 will succeed because of the great product it is and the great software we make for it," he added, when asked how he felt the delay would affect Sony's chances in the next-gen battle.

MacDonald's frank assessment of the situation is likely to raise hackles with, well, you (you're already sharpening your keyboard, aren't you?), but generally speaking he certainly shared Sony UK boss Ray Maguire's perspective on the announcement, around a month ago, that the console's European release would be delayed until March.

At the time, Maguire admitted that Sony UK was "extremely disappointed" by the delay. "We can truly empathise with everyone who was looking forward to PS3's imminent release. We will however be working tirelessly to ensure that the March 2007 launch is the biggest and best in the company's history," he added.

So can Sony get anymore arrogant.

tuxy

Retr0gamer wrote:

So can Sony get anymore arrogant.

still he has a good point, it probably does not affect the number of units sold in europe

Retr0gamer

Thats because they never missed a big christmas launch before. This year they are going to lose an awful lot of sales to the 360 and Wii.

Laguna

I only wish he could have his smug words rammed down his throat, but he won't. Every Tom, Dick & Harry will buy a PS3 over here when it eventually comes out regardless of price as it will have da best graffix eva!.

Rhyme

Laguna wrote:

it will have da best graffix eva!.

Not onli dat, buh evrytin else is jus a copy of soni, ninbendo and micro$oft r de tieves. soni rulez.

I hate the fact that, for the most part, he's right. Damn the sheep of Ireland

Fidelis

I think that the people who have already decided that they are going to buy a PS3 will buy a PS3 regardless of when it comes out. Sony knows this and aren't pushed to release it here earlier.

It would be awful to see Sony go belly-up in the console market, leaving Microsoft with a monopoly.

Sega! Come back!

Royale with Cheese

Well I had a ps1 and a ps2. Was planning on getting the ps3 until they revealed the price of the bloody thing. Bought a 360 not too long after. If the price hadn't put me off the 6 month wait definitely would have.

mcgarnicle

Retr0gamer wrote:

Thats because they never missed a big christmas launch before. This year they are going to lose an awful lot of sales to the 360 and Wii.

Well I'd rather this than what they did with Playstation and the PSP, delaying them here for almost a year to get that Christmas launch. Saying that I wouldn't be surprised at all if this time next year the PS3 still isn't available over here.

Laguna wrote:

I only wish he could have his smug words rammed down his throat, but he won't. Every Tom, Dick & Harry will buy a PS3 over here when it eventually comes out regardless of price as it will have da best graffix eva!.

It will also have the Playstation name which to many, obviously not you, is indicitive of the games they like to play. I don't really get this whole anti-Sony trend, their marketting guys may be idiots but what's new there? I find microsofts efforts to portray themselves as the hip cool company far more cynical and Nintendo were far scummier than either company when they were leading the market a decade or so ago.

ShiverinEskimo

I think the anti-sony trend you speak of is directly related to how they price and delay their hardware. They know they have an installed userbase with the PS2 and so are sitting knowing that no matter what people are going to lap up their consoles. Thanks to these sheep we'll be paying upwards of a grand for the PS4 etc in years time.

Sony are single handedly removing the only argument consoles had against PC's - price.

I'm anti-Sony for their rootkit scandal a few months back personally but this arrogant statement coupled with how they treat their Euro customers really drives me away from the PS3 - They dropped the Japanese price just to satisfy their valued Japanese customers while at the same time informed their European customer that they have to wait a further 3/4 months longer than their valued customers in Japan and America - and then in Europe you get idiots defending the PS3 and Sony because they are big fans of the PS2.

I see the PS3 and how its being delivered as a big ****-you to gamers everywhere. I have a futile hope that the PS3 bombs but I know it won't.

CiDeRmAn

To give an example of the type of hype already felt out there, and therefore helping Sonys cause, I had a colleague ask me about the PS3 saying it was what her son wanted this Christmas, I first told her it was delayed til March 07 and she rolled her eyes to heaven then I mentioned the price, to which she answered, "Sure its only a few bob more", so there you go, MS and Ninty are doomed as long as these parents blindly follow the instructions of their equally blind offspring. Oh, yeah, the suggestion that she whould buy him a 360 just resulted in a rather incredulous look and the conversation steered back to the PS3, no justice in the world is there, I reckon at this stage it would take Sony to actually package dog crap in the PS3 box to tirn folk off and even then they will probably just pass it off as a limited edition and charge more of it!

Guy:Incognito

Sure didnt MS fight the good fight by releasign the cheap as chips 360.

mcgarnicle

ShiverinEskimo wrote:

I think the anti-sony trend you speak of is directly related to how they price and delay their hardware. They know they have an installed userbase with the PS2 and so are sitting knowing that no matter what people are going to lap up their consoles. Thanks to these sheep we'll be paying upwards of a grand for the PS4 etc in years time.

The delays are nothing new:


_____________Gamecube:__________________Nintendo 64:
Japan - September 14 2001___________June 23, 1996
U.S. - November 18 2001____________September 29, 1996
Europe - May 2002 __________________ March 3, 1997 (France - September 1, 1997)

Europe has always got the ****ty end of the stick from all the companies, remember Nintendo's price fixing a few years back? Microsoft broke the mold by having a worldwide launch but that was not the norm, I wouldn't really slam Sony for sticking with what has always been done. Nintendo will manage to make plenty of Wiis without much hassle as fundamentally it is similar to a Gamecube (according to Miyamoto himself:http://www.joystiq.com/2006/10/04/wii-hardware-is-basically-a-gc-says-miyamoto/ )

This means that it's not too hard to get production going on them.

As for the price of the PS3, Sony are selling it as cheap as they can. It may be expensive but it is not a rip off, they are making losses on every console, as are Microsoft... unlike Nintendo who are making a profit on each one.

ShiverinEskimo wrote:

I'm anti-Sony for their rootkit scandal a few months back personally but this arrogant statement coupled with how they treat their Euro customers really drives me away from the PS3 - They dropped the Japanese price just to satisfy their valued Japanese customers while at the same time informed their European customer that they have to wait a further 3/4 months longer than their valued customers in Japan and America -

The statement may piss you off but it's not arrogance it is time tested fact, over and over no matter what console from whichever company releases in Europe after months of delays they always sell well. Sony are not the only or primary culprit in this.

ShiverinEskimo wrote:

and then in Europe you get idiots defending the PS3 and Sony because they are big fans of the PS2.
I see the PS3 and how its being delivered as a big ****-you to gamers everywhere. I have a futile hope that the PS3 bombs but I know it won't.

And conversely you get idiots slamming Sony alone while ignoring the fact others, most notably Nintendo have been doing it far longer. If you want to have a go at Sony for screwing us Europeans at least acknowledge that the others are just as bad.

Retr0gamer

mcgarnicle wrote:

And conversely you get idiots slamming Sony alone while ignoring the fact others, most notably Nintendo have been doing it far longer. If you want to have a go at Sony for screwing us Europeans at least acknowledge that the others are just as bad.

At least Nintendo and Microsoft have done something about it and haven't been rubbing it in our faces by basically insulting us by telling us how stupid we are for buying a products like sheep and telling us that we don't mind delays despite a universal outcry everytime there is one. Sony should stop looking at the figures and start listening to their customers.

mcgarnicle

Retr0gamer wrote:

At least Nintendo and Microsoft have done something about it and haven't been rubbing it in our faces by basically insulting us by telling us how stupid we are for buying a products like sheep and telling us that we don't mind delays despite a universal outcry everytime there is one. Sony should stop looking at the figures and start listening to their customers.

Sony don't give a dam what people say, only what they do. In Europe what consumers have done over and over again, and not just with Sony products is accept that they are getting it last and buy crap loads anyway. The guy isn't laughing at Europeans, he wanted to get it out on time, the question before the one being discussed was:

GamesIndustry.biz: Were you disappointed to learn that the PS3 is going to be delayed in Europe?

Jamie MacDonald: I was gutted. Absolutely gutted. Like many people, I was looking forward to having a PlayStation 3 under the Christmas tree. But, you know, that's a privilege that the people in the United States and Japan are going to have. It's just unfortunate we couldn't do that in Europe. So yes, of course I'm disappointed.

He is dissapointed and then he goes on to say that, historically Europeans don't mind. Saying they don't mind might be a bit silly, many are pissed off, but as far as Sony are concerned they don't mind in that they buy the console anyway.

One or two guys might get in a pisser over this and buy a 360 or a Wii instead but to be honest Joe Average probably won't even know that the thing is out in Japan or America and will only realise the thing is on the way when Game have the ads for it up in January

ShiverinEskimo

mcgarnicle wrote:

As for the price of the PS3, Sony are selling it as cheap as they can. It may be expensive but it is not a rip off, they are making losses on every console, as are Microsoft... unlike Nintendo who are making a profit on each one.

And yet they dropped the price in Japan. Which is the one place they do seem to care about the PR aspect. Japan is Sony's bread and butter and Sony are willing to do more to satisfy these customers than elsewhere which is fair enough. But don't tell me they are selling it as cheap as possible. If Sony were selling it as cheap as possible then they would match the Japanese price worldwide.

mcgarnicle wrote:

The statement may piss you off but it's not arrogance it is time tested fact, over and over no matter what console from whichever company releases in Europe after months of delays they always sell well. Sony are not the only or primary culprit in this.

Its the first time a company has publicly acknowledged that they aren't worried about delaying the Europeans as they will buy our product anyway. If you can't see arrogance on a corporate level in such a statement then fair enough. But its blatantly obvious that public opinion towards their product was not factored in when the decision to delay came about. The only worrying aspect for Sony is missing the xmas market - not their PR.

mcgarnicle wrote:

And conversely you get idiots slamming Sony alone while ignoring the fact others, most notably Nintendo have been doing it far longer. If you want to have a go at Sony for screwing us Europeans at least acknowledge that the others are just as bad.

In the current three way console war (or 2 + 1 ways as Nintendo suggest) Sony seem to be the only company who are assuming they are going to do well while the other console manufacturers are working to build a userbase through PR and promotions and are interested in Image. Sony, imo, have forgone trying to win new customers and are just relying on their fanboy PS2 base. Who seem happy enough to ignore the pricing and delays in order to prove Sony right.

shortys94

I was wondering whether the PS3 will be reduced in price before launch in Europe. I know the PSP didnt really have a set price for launch in Europe but I remember the PSP was significantly cheaper when it was released in Europe than when it was released in Japanand the US, well at least thats what I remember. Anyway Its only a month until we see what this machine can actually do.

BlitzKrieg

I'm trying to find the quote, but a user on Eurogamer summed this up

EDIT:

found it

drumbaby +1

It's really funny how people react to company PR in general and Sony PR in particular. Right now whatever Sony says is (rightfully) bound to be ridiculed or it is met with disbelieve. And all this is caused by their huge marketing mistakes: their 'lies' were not good enough. It doesn't really matter what the motives are for a particular business decision, as long as you make sure you sell it in the right way to the consumer. Take these two, purely fictional, sprouted from my imagination, examples:

1) Company A is being troubled by a patent lawsuit and would like to gracefully remove the technology in question from its product, so that risk of having to pay big penalties in the future is reduced but without hurting the pending case. It happens to have come up with a product innovation. They remove the potential patent infringement technology and tell the world this had to be done because it conflicted with its innovation. People don't buy this explanation as it is quickly disproved as being nonsense. Company A's reputation is hurt because they made up a bad lie.

2) Company B wants to release a new product. They would like to introduce an advanced technology in it but this technology is not yet finished and it will take about a year before this technology could be implemented. Company B however is under time pressure because they want to release their product before their competitors enter the market with their new products. Company B decides to not include this advanced technology. They tell the world they did this because they wanted to have the product available at an attractive price and in time they will introduce an add-on with the advanced technology so that consumers are offered the choice to use it or not. People love this explanation, it can't be disproved. Company B's reputation goes through the roof because they show they really care for their customers.

Morale of the story: if you lie, make sure you can't be caught...
ignore poster

Also on the comments of Nintendo performing similar practices...Note how badly they got rammed in Europe with their last two consoles, and tell me if you think that might have had an effect on their current strategy? Just because everyone else did it, means Sony should do it too.

mcgarnicle

ShiverinEskimo wrote:

And yet they dropped the price in Japan. Which is the one place they do seem to care about the PR aspect. Japan is Sony's bread and butter and Sony are willing to do more to satisfy these customers than elsewhere which is fair enough. But don't tell me they are selling it as cheap as possible. If Sony were selling it as cheap as possible then they would match the Japanese price worldwide.

They dropped the price in Japan two months before release, who knows. In January they may well announce a European price cut.

The 360 released in Ireland with an RRP of €410, in Japan it was 39,795 yen... today that translates to €265.

The Wii has an RRP in Ireland of €250, in Japan it is set for 25,000 yen... that's about €166. That means Nintendo can sell it at a profit for €166 in Japan, where wages are higher and yet they are charging us €250. I can't believe that people can read that and accept that Sony are the scummy ones here.

Their price cut in Japan has hints of desperation, they need to get the attention of the Japansese market because they won't have much of a presence there as a result of their production delays.

ShiverinEskimo wrote:

Its the first time a company has publicly acknowledged that they aren't worried about delaying the Europeans as they will buy our product anyway. If you can't see arrogance on a corporate level in such a statement then fair enough. But its blatantly obvious that public opinion towards their product was not factored in when the decision to delay came about. The only worrying aspect for Sony is missing the xmas market - not their PR.

So what, that doesn't mean that it wasn't true before hand, as I have pointed out already the guy wasn't boasting he was simply pointing out that in the grand scheme of things a delay of a few months doesn't damage sales in Europe. He should have used different language but his point is valid.

They didn't make the decission to delay, they had no choice. The production problems are real and they could either cut Europe or have a total disaster where they simply infuriate millions of people in all territiries due to lack of hardware.

mcgarnicle

BlitzKrieg wrote:

Also on the comments of Nintendo performing similar practices...Note how badly they got rammed in Europe with their last two consoles, and tell me if you think that might have had an effect on their current strategy? Just because everyone else did it, means Sony should do it too.

Of course not, I'm not a Sony fanboy, I have a 360 and a Wii on order. My point is that all these people coming down on Sony, while usually proclaiming their love of Nintendo need to wake up, Nintendo may camouflage their corporate identity in public games of wii tennis but they are an extremely efficient and ruthless company.

Right now they are trying to retake their place at the top of the market and are making some effort in Europe with this release but the fact is they are still the only company making a profit from the word go. If they were as jolly and friendly as a lot of people seem to think they could sell the console at the still profitable €166 it is going to go for in Japan.

To be honest though I think Nintendo's previous failure in Europe had little to do with them screwing Europe over as it did with Sony simply doing everything right with the PS1 and continuing the momentum into the PS2. Don't forget by the time Nintendo's price fixing was revealed Sony already had dominance in Europe.

As for their current strategy I think the Wii is comparatively easy to manufacture, as shown by recent news they will have 11 million built by the end of the year. This makes a worldwide release easy, therefore why not do it? They haven't really changed the strategy with the cube, pal games still take months to come out after their ntsc counterparts. The same goes for the DS.

Wertz

mcgarnicle wrote:

GamesIndustry.biz: Were you disappointed to learn that the PS3 is going to be delayed in Europe?

Jamie MacDonald: I was gutted. Absolutely gutted. Like many people, I was looking forward to having a PlayStation 3 under the Christmas tree. But, you know, that's a privilege that the people in the United States and Japan are going to have. It's just unfortunate we couldn't do that in Europe. So yes, of course I'm disappointed.

LOL, and you think that as the vice president of SCEE he won't have a PS3 under the tree this christmas? A position like that defines privilege. He'll prolly get the platinum plated one...

He's right though, we'll all go out and buy it in our droves just like we always have.
But the worldwide marketplace is changing, how many of the machines on pre-order in JP and the US will end up on eBay, and how many of those will be bought by EU gamers for a vast mark-up? Sony only shoot themselves in the foot by staggering release dates like they have...they create an imbalance in the global market and create opportunities for money making by middlemen.

I still cannot understand why they couldn't have done a M$ on this and just released limited numbers globally....but no, as history shows, it's perfectly okay to just piss all over the EU customer base since they'll still willingly pay to get walked on.

Personally there are fewer and fewer reasons for me to get a PS3...sony's attitude just adds to them. The average guy on the street won't care and will just part with his ~600 quid and that's the type of person who makes up the majority of console buyers...

mcgarnicle

Wertz wrote:

LOL, and you think that as the vice president of SCEE he won't have a PS3 under the tree this christmas? A position like that defines privilege. He'll prolly get the platinum plated one...

That was hardly the point. The point was that if Sony could have got it out in Europe they would have.

Wertz wrote:

He's right though, we'll all go out and buy it in our droves just like we always have. But the worldwide marketplace is changing, how many of the machines on pre-order in JP and the US will end up on eBay, and how many of those will be bought by EU gamers for a vast mark-up?

An inconsequential ammount, same as early PS1, PS2 and PSP importers. There may be a few forum people that import a PS3 or are aware of it going on but Sony's target demographic in Europe won't.

Wertz wrote:

I still cannot understand why they couldn't have done a M$ on this and just released limited numbers globally....but no, as history shows, it's perfectly okay to just piss all over the EU customer base since they'll still willingly pay to get walked on.

They didn't have enough consoles, it's not that hard to understand.

Wertz wrote:

Personally there are fewer and fewer reasons for me to get a PS3...sony's attitude just adds to them. The average guy on the street won't care and will just part with his ~600 quid and that's the type of person who makes up the majority of console buyers...

That's the whole point. You know that and he knows that, why is he such a dick for saying it?

Wertz

I never said he was a dick for saying it!
In fact being actually honest about it is a tad refreshing.
Doesn't make it any easier to swallow when they can be so damn brazen about it, though...

But the bit of that interview I quoted is patronising:
Like many people, I was looking forward to having a PlayStation 3 under the Christmas tree.
Trying to affiliate himself with the common man by claiming that he won't have one this christmas? Please.

Mcgarnicle wrote:

They didn't have enough consoles, it's not that hard to understand.

I don't have exact figures to hand, but, just like the PSP, they could have pretty easily cut a chunk of say, 20% of the US &JP stock and did a limited EU release...the logistics wouldn't have been that huge an issue and they'd have saved face somewhat (IMO).

But as mentioned, they'd prefer not to piss off the JP&US market by depriving them of that 20% than they would to just let the EU market slide again, since we'll just take it lying down.
The yanks and the Japs wouldn't take too kindly to such treatment and might instead opt for 360s or Wii for christmas....Sony couldn't have that, especially in their home market...

BlitzKrieg

mcgarnicle wrote:

Of course not, I'm not a Sony fanboy, I have a 360 and a Wii on order. My point is that all these people coming down on Sony, while usually proclaiming their love of Nintendo need to wake up, Nintendo may camouflage their corporate identity in public games of wii tennis but they are an extremely efficient and ruthless company.

I see your point, but I say let them come down on Sony, why? Because it should help Sony get their act together. People went hard on microsoft when they entered the market, Microsoft took the brunt of the attack, noted what people liked, and have been shovelling what people want back at them.

Is it a bad thing that people are hitting sony with such criticism, Sony need to prove they deserve the top spot again.

Right now they are trying to retake their place at the top of the market and are making some effort in Europe with this release but the fact is they are still the only company making a profit from the word go. If they were as jolly and friendly as a lot of people seem to think they could sell the console at the still profitable €166 it is going to go for in Japan.

Are you sure? Have you took in the extra warrenty costs in europe alone plus the extra costs and higher production demands in the european market?

Also I dont see why people have such a hang up on Nintendo making profit from the get go, the price of the Wii and its games are cheaper then all the competitors if they did go for the price your putting forward they run the risk of upsetting the entire market which most of the companies being tied in some way, they wouldnt want tht.

But I gotta run, I'll come back later and actually finish this talk.

mcgarnicle

BlitzKrieg wrote:

I see your point, but I say let them come down on Sony, why? Because it should help Sony get their act together. People went hard on microsoft when they entered the market, Microsoft took the brunt of the attack, noted what people liked, and have been shovelling what people want back at them.

No I don't have any problem with people criticising Sony's actions; in my first post in this thread I pointed out that I consider their marketting guys to be idiots. My point was that I don't understand why it is cool now to jump on the anti-Sony bandwagon.

The stuff brought up in this thread; price difference between Europe and Japan and delays in releases are not Sony exclusive, Nintendo and Microsoft have both had this. I will admit Microsoft is far less of a culprit than the other two but the price difference between 360 in Europe and Japan is quite high.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

I think it's right that Sony should get stick when they mess up, which I will admit they have done quite alot recently. I also think it should be pointed out when Nintendo and Microsoft try to shaft customers, like charging us €250 for a console that costs them about €100 to build.

Is it a bad thing that people are hitting sony with such criticism, Sony need to prove they deserve the top spot again.

The proof will be in the sales and the majority of their audience will be totally oblivious to all these marketting blunders making them more or less irrelevent. All most people will know is that there are PS3 ads up at Champions League matches. They won't know or care about the price difference between here and Japan not to mention "giant crabs", "massive damage" and all the other bs that people are jumping on as proof that Sony are on the way down.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

Are you sure? Have you took in the extra warrenty costs in europe alone plus the extra costs and higher production demands in the european market?

Warranty costs can't be that much and I'm no expert but I thought they were all built in the same place.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

Also I dont see why people have such a hang up on Nintendo making profit from the get go, the price of the Wii and its games are cheaper then all the competitors if they did go for the price your putting forward they run the risk of upsetting the entire market which most of the companies being tied in some way, they wouldnt want tht.

I don't have a problem with it, I'm just saying when people are looking at the cost of Sony's console and singing Nintendo's praises for charging what they are they should look at how much it is costing Sony to sell the console at that price.

I don't really understand your last point, maybe I'm reading it wrong but it looks like you're saying that Nintendo would do too well if they charged the Japanese price here, so good that they are worried about damaging their competitors?

BlitzKrieg

I don't really understand your last point, maybe I'm reading it wrong but it looks like you're saying that Nintendo would do too well if they charged the Japanese price here, so good that they are worried about damaging their competitors?

Its sort of like ASDA TESCO etc. The industry is an olligopoly, we have a small number of large companies mostly fighting over primarily customer loyalty, because when you take them apart you tend to find the same people own large chunks in all sides, so if one of these companies makes a drastic change, the others are expected to give an equivilent counter (online etc.) if possible. And the goal is usually a stable market Hence both microsoft and sony plugging the Wii as the 'second console'. If nintendo were to make a big of a shake up as the price levels your proposing it could cause an upset in the market, prices the competitors cant match, an already inflated industry collapsing because 2 of its 3 platforms falls out and the number of people needed to support just one console are kept and the rest unemployed, the number of retail space and chains are cut by dramatic portions.

Hence Nintendo wouldnt want to completely kill out the two competitors. Sega was killed off because Microsoft replaced them essentially.


This is running off from a hazy memory of leaving certificate economics from over 3 years ago.

mcgarnicle

BlitzKrieg wrote:

Its sort of like ASDA TESCO etc. The industry is an olligopoly, we have a small number of large companies mostly fighting over primarily customer loyalty, because when you take them apart you tend to find the same people own large chunks in all sides, so if one of these companies makes a drastic change, the others are expected to give an equivilent counter (online etc.) if possible. And the goal is usually a stable market Hence both microsoft and sony plugging the Wii as the 'second console'. If nintendo were to make a big of a shake up as the price levels your proposing it could cause an upset in the market, prices the competitors cant match, an already inflated industry collapsing because 2 of its 3 platforms falls out and the number of people needed to support just one console are kept and the rest unemployed, the number of retail space and chains are cut by dramatic portions.

Hence Nintendo wouldnt want to completely kill out the two competitors. Sega was killed off because Microsoft replaced them essentially.


This is running off from a hazy memory of leaving certificate economics from over 3 years ago.

Don't think so, it's a competitive market and Nintendo are by no means on top of it. If they had an advantage that they thought would have the effect you're describing I am positive they would use it. Otherwise they wouldn't even be trying to "revolutionise" the industry by changing tactic and going out on their own.

Balfa

Wertz wrote:

I don't have exact figures to hand, but, just like the PSP, they could have pretty easily cut a chunk of say, 20% of the US &JP stock and did a limited EU release...the logistics wouldn't have been that huge an issue and they'd have saved face somewhat (IMO).

It's not really as simple as that. If you're going to go the effort of spending (arbitrary figure) 10 million dollars on marketing and generating hype around a huge launch (and big launches are important), you don't want to waste all that money by not having the product available for your potential customers to buy. If you split the stockpile and the marketing budget between three territories, then none of the three get the booming launch you want them to get and you waste all your marketing money. Timing is very important in business.

Kazu

my head hurts coul;dnt read it all though some good points made


solution long live the pc

mcgarnicle

Balfa wrote:

It's not really as simple as that. If you're going to go the effort of spending (arbitrary figure) 10 million dollars on marketing and generating hype around a huge launch (and big launches are important), you don't want to waste all that money by not having the product available for your potential customers to buy. If you split the stockpile and the marketing budget between three territories, then none of the three get the booming launch you want them to get and you waste all your marketing money. Timing is very important in business.

Not to mention the fact that once they had launched they would then have to support all three territories at the same time making it far more difficult for them to consolidate their position and gain any real standing in any of the markets.

BlitzKrieg

Don't think so, it's a competitive market and Nintendo are by no means on top of it.

I never said it wasnt, Tesco and Asda still compete. But the companies all share the same resources and the same market and know its unhealthy to shake the boat.

If they had an advantage that they thought would have the effect you're describing I am positive they would use it.

no they wouldnt. Its bad for buisness, it would pretty much have the same affect as the console crash atari caused.

Otherwise they wouldn't even be trying to "revolutionise" the industry by changing tactic and going out on their own.

'revolutionizing' the industry. Its another word for trying to expand the market, nintendo have said it themselves, they are trying to get people who normally dont play games to play games. They are not changing the industry in any fundemental way, just adding new markets, making a bigger base. There has been no actual change to the industry itself.

Wertz

Balfa wrote:

It's not really as simple as that. If you're going to go the effort of spending (arbitrary figure) 10 million dollars on marketing and generating hype around a huge launch (and big launches are important), you don't want to waste all that money by not having the product available for your potential customers to buy. If you split the stockpile and the marketing budget between three territories, then none of the three get the booming launch you want them to get and you waste all your marketing money. Timing is very important in business.

I'll bow to your greater knowledge on the subject....but the point about big launches? It's the PS3 for christsake....by Sony's own admission, the thing will fly off the shelves regardless...at this stage the marketing is done...free publicity on worldwide news broadcasts every time they announce a delay or a change in rollout, every kid from here to Hiroshima screaming to their parents about it; Playstation is a household name...in fact it's the term used for consoles in the same way that the iPod is the ubiquitous mp3 player, hoover a vacuum cleaner, etc etc.
They can hardly increase brand awareness much further.

My argument is there are forecast to be 2 million units on sale/sold by end of 06, split ~70/30 between US/JP....a % of units removed from either of those markets to fcillitate some type of simultaneous EU launch wouldn't have hurt either of the other markets that much (remember 360 global shortages last year?)

But no, Sony in their infinite wisdom decide to piss all over the EU again, doing more harm to their EU customers and their brand than a slightly higher global shortage would have done.
But getting back to the topic, the VP guy with the bare christmas tree says it best that sony basically don't care because the market will still roll over to have it's belly tickled in March.

Maybe we're better off to have the delay...the PSP released here was of seemingly better build quality than the first batches launched in the US, the 360 had problems with it's initial production run, so had the PS2 IIRC.

Regardless, I'll be steering clear especially with rumours that both HDdvd and BDdvd are to receive dual support on ONE disc ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5364238.stm ).
360 price drop, the release of GTA and some other once exclusive titles and the fact that I won't own a 1080p TV for a long time and perhaps even the wii mean I can't be arsed lining a company's pockets who have seeming contempt for our corner of the world...

PixelTrawler

Another viewpoint to consider, with the many problems sony are having in production would you really want one of the first 500,000 units...

Every console has problems with the first couple of production runs... PSP had problems with dead pixels and a sticking square button ( in asia only i think ). Theres been problems with the drives on the 360 etc.. The first iterations of the ps2 had problems too i seem to recall. I know plenty of people on their second ps2 as the older, earlier ones didnt last.

Anyone really wanting a ps3 they might be glad in the end of the couple of months delay while Sony iron out the production difficulties, of which there seems to be plenty. Its quite possible the very early adapters on asia and the US could be sending a lot of units back...

This bit is speculation on my part granted but look at Sony Hardware difficulties at present. Exploding laptop batteries left, right and centre, and the incredible rush on at the moment to get that 500,000 first ps3's for sale and ready within the next 6 weeks! Cell yields are appalling and they're having plenty of problems with the Blue laser diodes too. You would have to be concerned about build quality under that manufacturing pressure.

mcgarnicle

BlitzKrieg wrote:

I never said it wasnt, Tesco and Asda still compete. But the companies all share the same resources and the same market and know its unhealthy to shake the boat.

What has sharing resources got to do with anything, they do shake the boat and that's where the term "supermarket wars" comes from. That's why Tesco has expanded so much. Prices are about as low as they can make them in a lot of cases. Take a look at Lidl and Aldi they have seriously under cut their competitors' prices, do you think they give a damn how their activities are harming Superquinn? I don't think so.

I'm only suggesting Nintendo follow the same pattern as the others in their industry, sell your console for little or no mark up and get money from the games and before anyone points out the price difference in the games, there are reasons for that. While the Wii has cheaper games they will still be making as much profit on each one as Sony or Microsoft as a result of lower development costs for the wii... in other words Nintendo will be making just as much profit on games as Sony or MS in addition to the initial profit on the console. In a couple of years 360 and PS3 games will fall in line.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

no they wouldnt. Its bad for buisness, it would pretty much have the same affect as the console crash atari caused.

The price war was only one of many causes of the crash. You are also assuming that people will only buy a Wii if it goes cheap. Nintendo have established that the Wii is offering a different experience, it's not the same as 360 or PS3.

Oddly enough in this context I think one of the analogies of the master of stupid analogies; Hideo Kojima, actually makes sense. He compared Wii to watching tv, 360 to watching a dvd and PS3 to going to the cinema. While I don't necessarily think that the inferred difference in quality is valid I do think that they all offer unique experiences and people will want to try more than one. No matter if you can watch a movie on the tv for free, you still go to the cinema.

I know that the price of Wii won't stop me getting a PS3 or 360 but if it were cheaper I'm sure it would help convince me to buy a wii. It would not destroy the industry though as you seem to be suggesting.

The price war was between consoles of similar spec all selling at a loss, if anything this already happens with PS3 and 360 which are both making losses. I'm not suggesting Nintendo do this but if they can sell Wii for €166 in Japan and make a profit, then why can't they charge us something similar?

BlitzKrieg wrote:

'revolutionizing' the industry. Its another word for trying to expand the market, nintendo have said it themselves, they are trying to get people who normally dont play games to play games. They are not changing the industry in any fundemental way, just adding new markets, making a bigger base. There has been no actual change to the industry itself.

Well then how about the original playstation, that effectively took the market from Nintendo in a pretty ruthless fashion, hijacking games bound for Nintendo and taking popular franchises ie. final fantasy 7.

Honestly I just don't think your point makes sense, even if a cheap wii did destroy PS3 and 360, which it clearly wouldn't, Nintendo would have no problem with this. Game developers and publishers would for sure, Nintendo wouldn't. Nintendo don't care if Sony or MS fail they are not a co-op they are all out for number 1.

Retr0gamer

mcgarnicle wrote:

I'm only suggesting Nintendo follow the same pattern as the others in their industry, sell your console for little or no mark up and get money from the games and before anyone points out the price difference in the games, there are reasons for that. While the Wii has cheaper games they will still be making as much profit on each one as Sony or Microsoft as a result of lower development costs for the wii... in other words Nintendo will be making just as much profit on games as Sony or MS in addition to the initial profit on the console. In a couple of years 360 and PS3 games will fall in line.

What's so wrong with nintendo making a profit on every Wii sold. nintendo have always made a profit on the hardware they sell. the PS2 was sold at a loss and Sony weren't making a profit on the PS2 hardware and software until over 2 years after launch. As for the xbox the only month MS made a profit was on the release of Halo 2. That same year MS announced they only lost 2 billion dollars on xbox software and hardware sales which was a huge success for them. Nintendo who didn't sell nearly as many consoles were making a profit right from the start. It's just sound business practice. And don't be using the uninformed argument that the GC is the same as a Wii because they are similar and should be sold at the same price. The GC and Wii are similar just like my old P100 with PowerVR is similar to my 2Ghz machine with X800 card. They have similar architecture but I'm not playing Half-Life 2 on my P100.

As for the argument that some companies are moaning about higher development costs therefore the price of games has to go up. Pure BS. Development costs have gone up but how come a game on the next gen machine goes for 70 yoyos on the next gen console but only 45 on the PC. Devs haven't upped the cost of PC games significantly despite have the same development costs.

astrofool

The Wii to GC seems to be more like a 2ghz/256/x600 machine to a 2.2ghz/384/x700 machine.

Anyway, the cost is the R&D, the smaller packaging, the controller, and sensors, the wireless. Of course they could have brought it all out for the GC, but then the Mega CD was also a huge hit wasn't it? (+ they get the extra space of DVD's as opposed to the older mini DVD).

BKtje

I'm not defending the €70 vs €45 price tag difference but i'd say it would cost a lil extra to bring a game out on a console as u have to pay the manufacturer of the console some amount. That said €25 is an incredible difference.

I dont buy many consoles (i'll prob get the ps3 at some point as i love the ff games on a console) mainly cos i cant be bothered spending the huge amounts on what the games cost (that said i do spend large amounts on upgrading every few years. more than what a console may cost ).

BlitzKrieg

Ok...Here is basic economics 1o1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly

That is the sort of system the games industry is currently in. You have your big 3 (sony nintendo and microsoft.) Everything they do affects the other extensively. Microsoft successful implement online gaming in consoles, both sony and nintendo adopt similar services and so on, everything each company does has a dramatic effect on the others.

The supermarket industry is coming out of it (like I said I studied this 3 years ago before the rise of lidl etc and the supermarket's were always the example used.)

And lidl etc dont undercut the competitors, they just dont pay for brand quality. Which is what the major supermarkets promote (you dont tend to find popular brands in lidl.) thats what your mostly paying for when you shop at tesco etc.

The price war was only one of many causes of the crash. You are also assuming that people will only buy a Wii if it goes cheap.

I'm not. People will buy the Wii, hell I intend to buy one. You've sort of lost me so I'm backtracking here. You were stating nintendo were making profits on each wii sold (something I might add nintendo has enjoyed since the N64) and that they should cut the prices more to give more to the consumer. I was saying nintendo wouldnt want that because it could shake the industry a bit too much and could lead to a price war that would severly damage the industry, and I dont mean in nintendo's favour, sure short term it could knock the wind out of the ps3 and 360 by undercutting them, but the real people who will suffer will be the developers who have been increasing their costs steadily over the last 8 years, a sudden price cut in the industry will cause alot of the big production companies to cut back to adapt to the change, nd you suddenly find one of the fastest growing industries has suddenly let go thousands of trained workers across the world (if not more.) No one wants that, not the consumer, not nintendo and not the developers. Hence the Wii is going for a cheaper price, but its at a strategic point where the console supports itself and keeps supply and demand in check.

The price war was only one of many causes of the crash.

I never said it was the cause, I said it would have the same effect as the atari crash, which was actually caused more by the market being flooded by cheap interchangable products that didnt appeal.

Funnily enough Nintendo formed its seal of approval system for the Nes to avoid such a danger. Something which was never adopted by much of its competitors hence sega and sony during their lifetimes were flooded with larger quantities of games of less quality.

but if they can sell Wii for €166 in Japan and make a profit, then why can't they charge us something similar?

Because Japan is a different market, computer games in Japan enjoy the same position in the Japanese market as DVDs enjoy here, there is a higher concentration of purchases meaning Nintendo can sell hardware cheaper because there is a higher margin that the money will be made back ala software sales which are much higher then say europe or America. Here in Ireland and the UK, games dont enjoy the same level of concentration, in fact a large percentage of the trading would go through second hand sales while a smaller number of games would generate the same concentrated release date sale (those games being popular franchises such as GTA and FIFA.). Why do you think the rumour of Sony putting software registration on the PS3 go down so badly in the US and Europe?

ddly enough in this context I think one of the analogies of the master of stupid analogies; Hideo Kojima, actually makes sense. He compared Wii to watching tv, 360 to watching a dvd and PS3 to going to the cinema. While I don't necessarily think that the inferred difference in quality is valid I do think that they all offer unique experiences and people will want to try more than one. No matter if you can watch a movie on the tv for free, you still go to the cinema.

I think the crux of the problem is I'm argueing the point from the developers and economic viewpoint and your looking at it like above, from a consumer viewpoint. If you were to take the above model, you would be keen to note, that just over a year ago Hollywood was crying that DVDs are killing the cinema and that the market for it is being dried up. There has been a dramatic cut in cinema time for releases and jump up on the releasing of dvds (the time between cinema release and dvd release is ever growing smaller, some dvds hit the stores as soon as 2 months after cinema release.)



Ok My post is a bit over the place cause I took this bit by bit.

But to sum up:

game industry = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly

which means the bigger splash one company makes the more of an effect it has on the other companies, if it makes too big of a splash it could lead to the market changing, which can be good for consumers, but possibly bad for buisness in the short run. What companies in Oligopoly do instead is try to create new markets, such as branded items (game franchises) deals (online gaming, online market) or attracting new markets (the Wii's policy.) as gamers this is all great because that means the creative forces behind games have more to play with, but it also means unless one of those 3 companies suffer a serious problem we wont see a drastic change in the current price policy. Regardless of innovation.

mcgarnicle

Retr0gamer wrote:

What's so wrong with nintendo making a profit on every Wii sold. nintendo have always made a profit on the hardware they sell. the PS2 was sold at a loss and Sony weren't making a profit on the PS2 hardware and software until over 2 years after launch. As for the xbox the only month MS made a profit was on the release of Halo 2. That same year MS announced they only lost 2 billion dollars on xbox software and hardware sales which was a huge success for them. Nintendo who didn't sell nearly as many consoles were making a profit right from the start. It's just sound business practice.

Did you even read what I said? The Japanese price of €166 is making a profit. I don't have a problem with them doing that but if that price is profit making then the €250 they are charging us is a total rip off and there is no other way of putting it.

Retr0gamer wrote:

And don't be using the uninformed argument that the GC is the same as a Wii because they are similar and should be sold at the same price. The GC and Wii are similar just like my old P100 with PowerVR is similar to my 2Ghz machine with X800 card. They have similar architecture but I'm not playing Half-Life 2 on my P100.

No offence but I'll take Miyamoto's word over yours. I linked to an article earlier in which he points out that in terms of development tools, both consoles are pretty much the same... hence lower prices.

Retr0gamer wrote:

As for the argument that some companies are moaning about higher development costs therefore the price of games has to go up. Pure BS. Development costs have gone up but how come a game on the next gen machine goes for 70 yoyos on the next gen console but only 45 on the PC. Devs haven't upped the cost of PC games significantly despite have the same development costs.

The dev costs have gone up, they can afford to charge 60 on a pc game, and they were 60 oblivion was not 45 on pc, but the extra licensing cost of putting it on a console takes the price up that extra bit. Not to mention the fact that you need seperate equipment for different consoles, consoles are more complicated... many reasons. Also it's not as though Nintendo aren't charging a similar licensing fee, I don't know what it is but I would imagine it's comparable.

BlitzKrieg

I linked to an article earlier in which he points out that in terms of development tools,

In terms of development tools, those are the key words, which goes back to retrogamer's point that his p100 and 2ghz machine would use the same processes, its just the 2ghz machine has built on it more, but developers dont need to learn a whole new system.

mcgarnicle

BlitzKrieg wrote:

In terms of development tools, those are the key words, which goes back to retrogamer's point that his p100 and 2ghz machine would use the same processes, its just the 2ghz machine has built on it more, but developers dont need to learn a whole new system.

And that makes dev costs cheaper which is my whole point. I never said the wii was a fancy gamecube.

BlitzKrieg

You disagree with Retro despite having the exact same point that Miyamato had, except he used different wording.

Yet you agree with me when I say that they are both saying the same thing?

mcgarnicle

BlitzKrieg wrote:

Ok...Here is basic economics 1o1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly

That is the sort of system the games industry is currently in. You have your big 3 (sony nintendo and microsoft.) Everything they do affects the other extensively. Microsoft successful implement online gaming in consoles, both sony and nintendo adopt similar services and so on, everything each company does has a dramatic effect on the others.

Nothing in there explains why they can't charge less for the Wii. They are the only ones not following the common model, that consoles are initially sold at a loss, so by your logic they should really change it to stabalise the market. Again I don't think Nintendo should charge at a loss, just a fairer profit.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

The supermarket industry is coming out of it (like I said I studied this 3 years ago before the rise of lidl etc and the supermarket's were always the example used.)

And lidl etc dont undercut the competitors, they just dont pay for brand quality. Which is what the major supermarkets promote (you dont tend to find popular brands in lidl.) thats what your mostly paying for when you shop at tesco etc.

They undercut prices on goods of a similar type, the names are irrelevent. It's not a simple matter of using own brand goods, the rest have that too. It's an entire new model they use where costs are kept as low as possible by using as little staff as possible and doing away with fancy shelving etc.
Surely the fact that it has already changed in 3 years shows it isn't the most reliable model. If the supermarket industry can come out of it why can't videogames?

BlitzKrieg wrote:

I'm not. People will buy the Wii, hell I intend to buy one. You've sort of lost me so I'm backtracking here. You were stating nintendo were making profits on each wii sold (something I might add nintendo has enjoyed since the N64) and that they should cut the prices more to give more to the consumer. I was saying nintendo wouldnt want that because it could shake the industry a bit too much and could lead to a price war that would severly damage the industry, and I dont mean in nintendo's favour, sure short term it could knock the wind out of the ps3 and 360 by undercutting them, but the real people who will suffer will be the developers who have been increasing their costs steadily over the last 8 years, a sudden price cut in the industry will cause alot of the big production companies to cut back to adapt to the change, nd you suddenly find one of the fastest growing industries has suddenly let go thousands of trained workers across the world (if not more.) No one wants that, not the consumer, not nintendo and not the developers. Hence the Wii is going for a cheaper price, but its at a strategic point where the console supports itself and keeps supply and demand in check.

Your point was that if Nintendo sold the wii at €166 it would tear down this oligopoly and put MS and Sony out of business and in turn destroy the developers etc. I was saying that the price of the wii isn't going to desuade the people buying a 360 or PS3, if it were going to it would have already.

I don't follow how cheaper consoles will make the developers spend less on games.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

I never said it was the cause, I said it would have the same effect as the atari crash, which was actually caused more by the market being flooded by cheap interchangable products that didnt appeal.

So what effect is that? You are saying that Nintendo charging a still profitable €166 here would destroy the market totally?

BlitzKrieg wrote:

Funnily enough Nintendo formed its seal of approval system for the Nes to avoid such a danger. Something which was never adopted by much of its competitors hence sega and sony during their lifetimes were flooded with larger quantities of games of less quality.

Actually the others did implement quality contry, what Nintendo did was limit each publisher to 5 games a year for their console and prohibited anyone else making carts, meaning publishers had to buy the carts direct from nintendo, these could not be returned therefore Nintendo took on none of the risk but plenty of the money. They eventually stopped this rather scummy carry on.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

Because Japan is a different market, computer games in Japan enjoy the same position in the Japanese market as DVDs enjoy here, there is a higher concentration of purchases meaning Nintendo can sell hardware cheaper because there is a higher margin that the money will be made back ala software sales which are much higher then say europe or America. Here in Ireland and the UK, games dont enjoy the same level of concentration, in fact a large percentage of the trading would go through second hand sales while a smaller number of games would generate the same concentrated release date sale (those games being popular franchises such as GTA and FIFA.). Why do you think the rumour of Sony putting software registration on the PS3 go down so badly in the US and Europe?

Funny I was under the impression that Japan was actually the smallest market, certainly the US is the biggest... hence Nintendo and Sony prioritising the states.

There are plenty of reasons to be bothered by software registration. I've never bought a second hand game in my life but I'd be majorly pissed off by that and I was at the time too.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

I think the crux of the problem is I'm argueing the point from the developers and economic viewpoint and your looking at it like above, from a consumer viewpoint. If you were to take the above model, you would be keen to note, that just over a year ago Hollywood was crying that DVDs are killing the cinema and that the market for it is being dried up. There has been a dramatic cut in cinema time for releases and jump up on the releasing of dvds (the time between cinema release and dvd release is ever growing smaller, some dvds hit the stores as soon as 2 months after cinema release.)

It was an analogy my point was they are similar experiences delivered via different media. One will win out, just look at sony last gen. But the thing about the games industry is that they start with a clean slate each time and all 3 will be out to win ground. There is no boat to rock at the moment.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

Ok My post is a bit over the place cause I took this bit by bit.

But to sum up:

game industry = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly

which means the bigger splash one company makes the more of an effect it has on the other companies, if it makes too big of a splash it could lead to the market changing, which can be good for consumers, but possibly bad for buisness in the short run. What companies in Oligopoly do instead is try to create new markets, such as branded items (game franchises) deals (online gaming, online market) or attracting new markets (the Wii's policy.) as gamers this is all great because that means the creative forces behind games have more to play with, but it also means unless one of those 3 companies suffer a serious problem we wont see a drastic change in the current price policy. Regardless of innovation.

Gaming may be an oligolopy but you are implying it's some sort of cartel. These companies do not work together, it is extremely aggresive. Just look at Sega's demise or the manner Sony and MS entered the market. They are not worried about rocking the boat in the slightest.

Anyway my original point was that Sony aren't bad for charging €600 for a PS3 when you consider they were making a loss on each one compared to Nintendo who are charging us €250 even though they can charge the Japanese €166 and make a profit on it.

mcgarnicle

BlitzKrieg wrote:

You disagree with Retro despite having the exact same point that Miyamato had, except he used different wording.

Yet you agree with me when I say that they are both saying the same thing?

Retro told me not to use the argument that they are the same, which he pointed out as uninformed. Miyamoto's own words "the hardware is basically a Gamecube". I know there are a lot of differences but for getting production going the tools are already in place. That is why they can throw out 11 million by years end.

I was talking to you about dev costs, retro was referring to my point about hardware production.

BlitzKrieg

They undercut prices on goods of a similar type, the names are irrelevent.

Names are relevent they attract customers, there is a large percentage of customers who are more likely to buy an product advertised and established in Ireland, like say Coca Cola or huggies toilet paper over a product which is either classified as simply cola or is half in another language, this is the crux in the competition between supermarkets like Tesco and Lidl, Lidl would be cheaper but you wont get Coca Cola and your thirsty little tykes want to drink coca cola. You may say thats stupid or what not but thats how the world works, its not undercutting the competition in price because you are not selling the same product.

It's not a simple matter of using own brand goods, the rest have that too.

That is an important element of Oligopoly the companies do not compete in price on the same products, tesco will not try and sell coca cola (the specific brand *not cola*) at half the price of asda because it wont benefit either them (cause Asda will easily match it.) instead Tesco create Tesco brand cola which they sell at really cheap prices, they gain a small increase in profit from these while still keeping customers who want Coca Cola happy.

NONE OF THESE COMPANIES WILL COMPETE IN A PRICE WAR ON THE SAME PRODUCTS, its that simple.

It's an entire new model they use where costs are kept as low as possible by using as little staff as possible and doing away with fancy shelving etc.

Again not competing on price, finding alternative sources of profit or cutting costs.

Surely the fact that it has already changed in 3 years shows it isn't the most reliable model. If the supermarket industry can come out of it why can't videogames?

The argument is that it might not be a good thing to come out of Oligopoly as it does encourage quality as a form of encouraging customers (The Marks and Spencers model.) Its an economic theory not a disease, all I am stating in its current form the games industry is fitting into the same mould, you could be very much right that they will come out of it in the next number of years. But the Beauty of oligopoly is the companies have greater control over it and might not want to come out of it unless some uncontrollable event forces them out of it.

Your point was that if Nintendo sold the wii at €166 it would tear down this oligopoly and put MS and Sony out of business and in turn destroy the developers etc.

Actually that was never really my point, I was just responding to your questions as to why it was $250, which is because its a safe number for a market like this, it puts the nintendo wii in the same price bracket as its competitors, which means it doesnt undermine the other consoles or risk itself to becoming a *discount console*

I was saying that the price of the wii isn't going to desuade the people buying a 360 or PS3, if it were going to it would have already.

Why do you think both sony and microsoft plugged this point constantly after E3, they like the idea of the Wii moving into an expanded market as either a console for non-regular gamers, or the 2nd console for gamers, both these markets are small and untapped right now. THATS OLLIGOPOLY at work, an informal agreement between competitors,

But...If it went differently, If Nintendo went for blood, pushed the Wii to a low price and try and push the other two consoles out of the fight by making it that they couldnt compete price wise they could flood the market and both sony and microsoft unable to keep a footing loose 3rd party developers, loose retail space and in the end bow out.

You say Nintendo cant do that, that its impossible, I say that before the notion of can comes up, Nintendo WONT do that, its not a healthy market choice for the industry and thats why nintendo would choose $250 as its price rather then a much cheaper alternative, because they see it as the more secure choice.

why?

with a decrease in competition, the number of retail chains, developers and technology companies involved in the gaming industry would drop on a huge scale. There would no longer be a need for such a larger number of retail stores competing because the natural competition in the industry would be gone, the need for multiplatform development would be gone and the technology that pushes the new hardware of the two bigger consoles would not be needed (and the PC market alone wouldnt sustain the extra influx.)
In the end the industry is smaller, the market would be smaller and it would be in a

I don't follow how cheaper consoles will make the developers spend less on games.

Its actually a smaller market would make developers spend less on games. Which can *in theory* be caused by a cheaper console dominating the market.

So what effect is that? You are saying that Nintendo charging a still profitable €166 here would destroy the market totally?

honest answer no I dont think it would. I'm more concerned with understanding why Nintendo chooses the higher option, and my belief is $166 is a riskier number for nintendo compared to $250 for many reasons one of which that it could upset the market in the above way (this is probably why when I original wrote this point I stuck it at the very end of my post...it doesnt merit this much discussion.)

Funny I was under the impression that Japan was actually the smallest market, certainly the US is the biggest... hence Nintendo and Sony prioritising the states.

Oh yes for hardware sales Japan is the smallest market, but in software sales its actually very profitable, In Japan if you can get a console into every home your software sales are going to be very high because Japan's software consumption is much higher (like I said, games are like DVDs in Japan.) compared to the US and Europe where while its vastly more profitable to get a console in every home, your sales from software are not assured to be as concentrated as in Japan. Think of the recent lull in software release over the summer, Japan wouldnt recieve such a lull its more concentrated and consistent.

here are plenty of reasons to be bothered by software registration. I've never bought a second hand game in my life but I'd be majorly pissed off by that and I was at the time too.

Yes you'd expect consumers to be pissed. but for retail companies to raise worrying eyebrows is a more important matter, Gamestation in the UK makes an insane amount of its profit from 2nd hand games. Of course this worried them more then it worried consumers.

Gaming may be an oligolopy but you are implying it's some sort of cartel.

An informal cartel, no official rules, but gentlemens terms.

These companies do not work together,

Yet they share the same resources, share the same brands and focus their competition on other elements aside from price.

it is extremely aggresive. Just look at Sega's demise

Which was a very very long demise, the mere fact that Sega was not pushed out until it had not one, not two, but three other competitors pushing at it show that the market is divided like an Oligopoly, Just like Atari wasnt pushed out fully until it had Sony to replace it, a moe interesting aspect would be the smaller companies (such as Nec) which couldnt match in scale or Neo Geo who couldnt match in support, show that it is an Oligopoly.

Anyway my original point was that Sony aren't bad for charging €600 for a PS3 when you consider they were making a loss on each one compared to Nintendo who are charging us €250 even though they can charge the Japanese €166 and make a profit on it.

True it is in theory not bad, but the argument alot of people put forward what is the PS3 doing that justifies that price. Thats the problem alot of people have. Some say Blue-ray, yet HD-DVD is out producing blu-ray with the number of films available, also HD-DVD has been tweaked so you can buy one and if you dont have a HD-DVD player it will still work as a normal DVD, Blu-Ray has got as far as the testing stage of this, HD-DVD can do it now. What makes my mind boggle is why they havnt started filling rental stores up with them using this advantage, you can perk people's interest in HD-DVD and not risk upsetting the market. Outside that, its the powerful graphics and new controller, both of which have yet to show me something unique. It took Capcom to show me something for the 360 that does this (Dead Rising and Lost Planet.) Without which I would still think the 360 is as much of a dead weight as the PS3.

Stoichkov

What an amusing thread. I love the utter arrogance of people like Rhyme and ShiverinEskimo who proclaim that those who want a ps3 are nothing but sheep. I enjoy playing games like MG, ff, dmc, nippon ichi games, dq and other such rpgs. Should I buy the 360 just to make you happy or am I destined to be a sheep and purchase a console that is far more likely to cater to my tastes? :rolleyes:

If doctors found that the ps3 cured aids and cancer, some of the fanboys here would still bitch and moan complaining that sony would be causing the closure of pharmaceutical companies and thus the loss of thousands of jobs.

uberpixie

Nintendo will charge €250+ here as

(1) They can as people are willing to pay at that price in Europe.

(2) They avoid looking like a discount, crap console to parents.(like Blitz said)
After all if it looks too cheap a parent might be less likely to take a chance on one (expensive = good quality;))

(3) Why cut the price now? Why not sell at huge profit at the start and save that price cut up for next xmas? Or gradually over time reduce the cost down to the Jap price over several smaller price cuts?

Really Nintendo are playing smart, just like all the other companies.

By ensuring they make profit on each console, they survive to fight in the next gen and make more profit, even though they have the smallest market share they still make profit and are in a comfortable position.

Very Shrewd.

They are in the business to make money after all, like all other businesses, they just happen to make Consoles and games to do it :-)

Cuddlesworth

uberpixie wrote:

Nintendo will charge €250+ here as

(1) They can as people are willing to pay at that price in Europe.

(2) They avoid looking like a discount, crap console to parents.(like Blitz said)
After all if it looks too cheap a parent might be less likely to take a chance on one (expensive = good quality;))

I hate people using the simplistic reasons for why Europe is always more exspensive. Simply put we have tax, charges and costs that Japan/US never deal with. Adding to that brands like Best Buy bulk ordering 50,000 consoles where shop's here pick up 5-10, you are going to see price differences.

Froot

ShiverinEskimo wrote:

And yet they dropped the price in Japan. Which is the one place they do seem to care about the PR aspect. Japan is Sony's bread and butter and Sony are willing to do more to satisfy these customers than elsewhere which is fair enough. But don't tell me they are selling it as cheap as possible. If Sony were selling it as cheap as possible then they would match the Japanese price worldwide.

Price discrimination, charging two separate prices in two separate markets, does not take transport costs into account. Japan is their bread and butter because its a Japanese company based in Japan and its cheaper to produce next door to your customers that halfway across the world.
The fact is Sony might not actually be making an extra few hundred quid per console in Europe compared to Japan.
I have no intention of buying a PS3 but I have to say that though they might be making more of a profit in Europe compared to Japan I do not think it is going to be massive.

If Sony matched the Japanese price worldwide they would crash like a f*cking dart.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have to laugh each time I see a new statement or news article about Sony. They either have the worlds largest most High Definition Ace up their sleeves or they are stupid. Blu Ray was released recently and Sony were unable to get there own dvd player finished on time...Only Samsung had one ready, which was apparently crap.

So why do people hold any hope for a PS3 in april from a company who release a new format on to the market but are unable to even produce their own model in time for the release date...

Ciaran500

Froot wrote:

I have no intention of buying a PS3 but I have to say that though they might be making more of a profit in Europe compared to Japan I do not think it is going to be massive.

Its unlikely they will be making a profit anywhere with the PS3. Any profit for most new consoles comes from software and accesories sales.

Froot

Thats a good point Ciaran.

A friend who works as a games journalist was saying that in his eyes the PS3 will be awesome in 2 or 3 years time when it has all the bits to go with it but straight off it will be a poor buy.

So a PS3 is prbably going to be the ultimate Christmas entertainment purchase for Christmas 2008 or later...

Sad really.

Retr0gamer

The reason that Sonys own blu-ray player wasn't ready was because they had to divert all the blue laser diodes they had to PS3 production. I really can't see Sony making a profit for another 3 years on the PS3. Theay are selling the console at a ridiculous loss already. I seems they need to sell nearly 8 games per console to make a profit. The PS2 had a ratio of less than 4 games per console sold.