You want me to provide proof that if you cut prices sales will increase. Seriously? The proof is everytime there's a price cut sales increase. You're arguing against basic economics, you should be providing proof. You'll get a nobel prize if you succeed. BTW the 3DS has not been frequently discounted, it's only had one price cut and that was two and a half years ago.
What's with the aggressive tone? We're all friends here.
Just because a company could sell more of an item at a certain price does not mean that those sales would result in profit. The effect of dropping the price compared with costs of goods and retailer margins and their estimations of demand have led them to the decision that holding price is the best place to be right now. They know they could sell more with a price drop, but who cares if they sell more if they lose money in the process?
Dropping the price of a game to $0.00 would lead to incredible sales. But that wouldn't make it a real good idea though, would it?
What's with the aggressive tone? We're all friends here.
Just because a company could sell more of an item at a certain price does not mean that those sales would result in profit. The effect of dropping the price compared with costs of goods and retailer margins and their estimations of demand have led them to the decision that holding price is the best place to be right now. They know they could sell more with a price drop, but who cares if they sell more if they lose money in the process?
Dropping the price of a game to $0.00 would lead to incredible sales. But that wouldn't make it a real good idea though, would it?
I think he's getting at the idea that Opiate has specified a few times before, which is if Nintendo's market is a $99 (or maybe $130 for a non-downgrade; DS didn't take off until the Lite at $130) handheld, and they designed one that needs to sell at $170 to be profitable, then Nintendo dun goofed. It's not that they didn't put $170 worth of stuff in there, but that they didn't make it worthwhile to the market at that price. As AniHawk has said before, Nintendo games are just too expensive in the handheld arena, and they appear even moreso compared to mobile/tablet gaming.
Sorry I don't mean to sound aggressive(IRL I'm very laid back so I guess I naturally use strong wording and I'm frustrated with Nintendos basic errors). Maybe I'm a bit frustrated with all the posts based on speculation that goes against the evidence. We've had people with no knowledge of Wii U manufacturing claiming Wii U can't reduce in manufacturing cost when every console in history has reduced in manufacturing cost. Claims of price cuts not boosting unit sales.
I agree a cost/benefit analysis should be done for any price cut. Nintendo hamstrung themselves with the 3DS by releasing excessively powered/featured hardware. Although on the bright side for them, they delivered a knock out blow to Sony leaving Nintendo with a monopoly again(or maybe it was mobiles combined with Sony tripping over themselves). So maybe they are happy with stagnant sales since they don't need to compete for marketshare anymore.
Yeah that's about right. But 3DS was actually designed for $250 to be profitable. I'd guess it's because handheld has replaced consoles in Japan so maybe they thought they could beef it up. Nintendo's market is between $99-$199. $250 is proven failure. $199 I guess they'll be analysing the sales of the DSXL. $169 seems ok for launch. Wider massmarket was proven at $129 with the DS. It may be accessible with $149, that's not really been tested.
That's really crazy.
What about those downloaded from GameCube Hut?
We're talking about relative increase in sales. A higher priced product will sell higher than if it was a lower price. If after a price cut sales drop and keep dropping that doesn't mean the price cut didn't work because the increase is relative. In that case if the price wasn't cut, the drop in sales would have been even more severe.Are we talking about a transient blip, or sustained long term increases in sales?
I guess one can cite the lack of 3D-effect, but I really don't see how that ever served a particularly good sell, let alone is dissuading a sizable portion of potential consumers from just getting the cheaper model if they're price conscious. Isn't the desired outcome in the end to be able to play the software that works on either SKU?
and they designed one that needs to sell at $170 to be profitable, then Nintendo dun goofed. It's not that they didn't put $170 worth of stuff in there, but that they didn't make it worthwhile to the market at that price. As AniHawk has said before, Nintendo games are just too expensive in the handheld arena, and they appear even moreso compared to mobile/tablet gaming.
Although on the bright side for them, they delivered a knock out blow to Sony leaving Nintendo with a monopoly again(or maybe it was mobiles combined with Sony tripping over themselves). So maybe they are happy with stagnant sales since they don't need to compete for marketshare anymore.
Yeah that's about right. But 3DS was actually designed for $250 to be profitable. I'd guess it's because handheld has replaced consoles in Japan so maybe they thought they could beef it up. Nintendo's market is between $99-$199. $250 is proven failure. $199 I guess they'll be analysing the sales of the DSXL. $169 seems ok for launch. Wider massmarket was proven at $129 with the DS. It may be accessible with $149, that's not really been tested.
Nintendo will have to give it another go in the handheld space, clearly. Let's say they bring a new handheld to market in 2016. What price do you think it must come out at, and what features do you think are must haves to compete with mobile? And do you think it finds success in the West?
The features aren't important, it's got the most important feature of all; better games.
...tie-ratios are only around 4:1 for handhelds and handheld games are usually smaller/simpler than console games. Because of this people will not pay too high a price for them.
Also, $99 is a magic number. There's a huge missed opportunity there that 3DS can never hit. That's what Nintendo should work towards. So I would say launch at $169, cut to $149 after a year, $129 after 3 years and $99 after 5 years. Maybe have an XL model at $199 after launch.
I do think it finds success the west and it can compete with mobile. It literally just comes down to releasing good games... If people want the games that Nintendo/Third parties release then people will be prepared to pay for them.
Nope, still doesn't include the GameCube hut
Haha I remember those days and Gahiggidy was great!
I haven't had access to my PC to prepare the graph. Also the first year performance chart was complete so I'm not sure what I'll do (chart wise) from here.Where's our usual graph comparing Nintendo consoles this month, Terry?
So has EA ever given preorder numbers for Titanfall? Have they ever talked about their expectations sales wise for Titanfall?
I have a question that doesn't deserve it's own thread, but is NPD related.
I know that Amazon charts cannot be used to gauge interest or sales for the most part, but it seemed odd to me that the Xbox One dropped from the top 20 a few hours after NPD results were released and hasn't been able to climb back up as far as I have seen. Does that happen often? Do NPD results sway future sales?
Do NPD results sway future sales?
After the results were released the media and social media spread the word to some extent that PS4 was outselling XB1 2:1. Some of that would have included reasoning as to why it was happening(PS4 being cheaper/more powerful). This would then go on to some more positive word of mouth for Sony and negative for MS. Some of the people wanting the XB1 might have been put off or swayed towards Sony. We'll see in February NPD what happens with XB1 sales, although how much that was influenced by the above would be speculation really.
I can't speak to specific instances, but in this age of super-fast social media, who knows? Certainly, sales results - or more specifically, the demand behind them - affect future sales. Word gets around which products are popular, and which are less so, and that definitely affects people's decisions. The bandwagon effect can be powerful, especially when it's reinforcing a "correct" decision (in this case, cheaper/more powerful machine) instead of overriding one's normal preferences.
Simply, Destiny as a franchise will be much stronger than TitanFall due its availability on more platforms. Hence, making EA lose the Gen 8 FPS war to Activision.
I can't speak to specific instances, but in this age of super-fast social media, who knows? Certainly, sales results - or more specifically, the demand behind them - affect future sales. Word gets around which products are popular, and which are less so, and that definitely affects people's decisions. The bandwagon effect can be powerful, especially when it's reinforcing a "correct" decision (in this case, cheaper/more powerful machine) instead of overriding one's normal preferences.
I think he's getting at the idea that Opiate has specified a few times before, which is if Nintendo's market is a $99 (or maybe $130 for a non-downgrade; DS didn't take off until the Lite at $130) handheld, and they designed one that needs to sell at $170 to be profitable, then Nintendo dun goofed. It's not that they didn't put $170 worth of stuff in there, but that they didn't make it worthwhile to the market at that price. As AniHawk has said before, Nintendo games are just too expensive in the handheld arena, and they appear even moreso compared to mobile/tablet gaming.