DFC Report: "Clear possibility that PS3 could end upthird in market share"

[Qroach]

I don't know where to begin ... every single sentence raises several eyebrows.

...and your single answer replies in this thread make others cringe, since you clearly don't have a valid response. You're also being more than argumentitive, your posts are boardering on trolling in teh way you respond to people.

The HDMI-equipped bigger PS3 SKU is overkill to make a comparison to the 360. The 360 doesn't have HDMI in any version. The big XBox360 SKU has a harddrive the same size as the small PS3 SKU. It's a totally adequate comparison point, unless you believe a headset is worth real money (I don't).

It's not overkill to make a comparrison. hasn't MS said all oalong they would release larger hardrives for the 360? we all know it's going to happen. That's the way the market will see it. they will see two sku's for each. one priced lower and one priced higher. They will make the connection between what is comparable without listening to any of us. All they will see is the price difference...

The HDMI-equipped bigger PS3 SKU costs 100$ more and offers more value than the smaller SKU. The whole HDMI issue is about whether or not you think that spending an extra 100$ to have basically just HDMI and more HDD space is justified. It has nothing to do with any 360 comparison, because once you start talking about HDMI you can no longer be talking about the 360.

your argument doesn't make any sense imo. You keep sayin it offers "more value" but you refuse to state what this value is? if you don't have an HDTV, what is this value? if you don't have an HDTV with HDMI, what is this value? what good is a 60 gig hard drive if there isn't anything to fill it with? save games certainly don't need that and we all know that a HUGE percetage of the game market will NOT be going online. How are you going to justsity this "more value" statment.

The difference between any PS3 and any 360 is predominantly that one is a PS3, designed by Sony, with well-known hardware specifications, and the other is a 360, designed by Microsoft, with well-known hardware specifications. Ignoring this and pretending that there's no further difference is just crazy-talk.

What is this difference? Are people going to see a difference in games? no, we already know this. Some games will stand out on each console. however visually it will be a wash. What is this "more value" for teh extra cost you keep talking about? I'm serious here, you made this statement. please back it up.

You mean, like, selling seven million units over the next four months?

Obviously you aren't aware that MS has been hitting thier "world wide goals" for sales. If you really think they have only sold 3 million units world wide so far, i don't think we should continue this argument.

Care to compare die sizes to the 360 chips? Care to evaluate the PCB and mechanical construction, the external PSU, the detachable HDD enclosure?
And do you actually believe a blue laser diode, when ordered and manufactured in the millions, costs 100$ a pop?

Do you want to compare the die sizes of the chips? Do you care to evaluate the PCB and mechanical construction, the extrernal PSU, the plastic HDD enclosure? come on your arguments aren't accomplishing anything in the above statment. You're simply throwing things out there you nor I could argue about. well done. What I can say is that PS3 is MORE expensive to manufacture than the 360 and contians MORE components that are of a higher cost. You can try to argue that all you want, but we all know this is the truth.

Regarding the blue laser, again it's a weak argument imo.

No.

real nice answer. please elaborate.

No.

Again I see you have no valid response.

And the HDD wasn't a mistake. It was the vehicle to get PC-centric developers up and running easily on the platform. Perhaps you don't realize how useful virtual memory can be.

the HDD WAS a mistake. It was hte only item that didn't not change in price significantly during the course of teh conosles life time. It was great to have for online downloads but that was it. Developers basically ignored the harddrive all together and it was rarely used. It was NOT there for PC centric developers to get up and running easily. If you really think that then you haven't been paying close attention the past 4+ years.

And in fact everyone does want to go online these days.

I'd love this if it were true, but that's a blind and incorrect statement. You aren't paying attention to the market at all imo.

 

[Geo]

You two are saying the console won't sell because it's too expensive, and as your opinion that's just fine, it's just that I don't believe it.

Isn't the point of the thread that it isn't just "you two" who are saying it? It seems to be building up towards almost Conventional Wisdom level outside the hardcore PS3 community.

Now, the CW has been wrong before and it will be wrong again, so maybe it's wrong this time as well --but that's a different point than acknowledging the growing consensus on the point outside of those with a rooting interest in PS3's success.

 

[Titanio]

Isn't the point of the thread that it isn't just "you two" who are saying it? It seems to be building up towards almost Conventional Wisdom level outside the hardcore PS3 community.

Now, the CW has been wrong before and it will be wrong again, so maybe it's wrong this time as well --but that's a different point than acknowledging the growing consensus on the point outside of those with a rooting interest in PS3's success.

I don't think there's any such consensus, certainly not amongst the analysts we're citing here. In fact, most analysts seem to see PS3 leading - eventually. This particular report is a little out of step with the 'CW' to date, if anything (but even then, I'm not entirely sure if DFC is even presenting this as their own prediction - they acknowledge it as one of many possible scenarios, a worst case even).

I think most agree it will sell at the given prices - to a point. What that point is the greater point of difference, with follow-on arguments about how pricing will evolve - or how quickly it needs to evolve - over the product's lifespan.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Even if the PS3 would never actually be released, suggesting that the 360 will hit 20 million units sold sometime next year is at best one of Peter Moore's lucid dreams.

Seemed to me like those figures were there as a “what ifâ€￾ scenario, in order to highlight the point, rather than a definitive projection. This thread is about discussing “possibilitiesâ€￾ and how those possibilities may be arrived at.

The logic always conveniently ignores strong points of the PS3, such as the standard HDD (which very well can influence development costs btw), more storage, more CPU performance, both in scalar/GP "naive code" as in MT/"worker thread" scenarios, higher texturing performance, higher GPU ALU throughput, proper backwards compatibility and the ability to play an HD movie format at all. Did I forget something? Wanna go down that list and tell me that I just made it up?

I’m not sure it necessarily does, many of those points already appear to have been brought up in this thread and even pointed to in the article that spawns the thread. The question remains as to the importance for all of those on a games console and the value they add to the potential next generation console purchasers over the lifespan in relation - there is the possibility that for more of those potential customers they don’t add what they want for games console (just as much as the opposite may be the case).

You two are saying the console won't sell because it's too expensive, and as your opinion that's just fine, it's just that I don't believe it.

Then you need to step back and read a little more rationally because you are reading into things that I personally haven’t said.

 

[Geo]

I don't think there's any such consensus, certainly not amongst the analysts we're citing here. In fact, most analysts seem to see PS3 leading - eventually. This particular report is a little out of step with the 'CW' to date, if anything (but even then, I'm not entirely sure if DFC is even presenting this as their own prediction - they acknowledge it as one of many possible scenarios, a worst case even).

I think there's consensus it will sell all they can make at the given price in the first six months. And there's consensus that if the price differential to that degree is still there after that point it will have a negative impact on sales. Where the CW starts to fracture past that point is just how much of a negative impact, and how it will manifest itself beyond the obvious (exclusive 3rd party publisher support in the out years being a possible by-blow).

Personally, I couldn't care less if the sales numbers for 2008 look like 40% Sony, 30% MS, 30% Nintendo. . . or 40% MS, 30% Sony, 30% Nintendo. I'm enuf of an eye-candy slut tho that I wouldn't care to see Nintendo be the "winner".

Part of the question/expectation game (the disadvantage to being the gorilla in the room) is would Sony be happy with 40%? Or is that "disappointing"?

 

[Qroach]

The logic always conveniently ignores strong points of the PS3, such as the standard HDD (which very well can influence development costs btw), more storage, more CPU performance, both in scalar/GP "naive code" as in MT/"worker thread" scenarios, higher texturing performance, higher GPU ALU throughput, proper backwards compatibility and the ability to play an HD movie format at all. Did I forget something? Wanna go down that list and tell me that I just made it up?

Well for one, you are looking at this from the wrong point of view. These aren't factors that determine what the public buys. Price, availablity, software. Again, the High def movie advantage only plays out if the users have a HDTV, AND if they don't have a dedicated player already...

All the points you brought up are technical in nature and the public really doesn't care about any of this. Publishers really don't care about any of this, developers "might", but they are NOT who decides which platforms get the most support. These were all points you could have used to argue for Xbox over PS2. however you know what happened?

Publishers would always choose PS2 over Xbox due to it's installed base. The public only cares which console platform has the games they want...

I don't want to sound like a jerk here, but there is clearly and easily enough added value in the machine's hardware alone to justify the 100$ extra. 200$ may be stretching it but I can still see it. You two are saying the console won't sell because it's too expensive, and as your opinion that's just fine, it's just that I don't believe it.

Again I don't see this added value you keep talking about. tossing around specs and feature not everyone can see the benefit of having, isn't what I call added value.

 

[Titanio]

Part of the question/expectation game (the disadvantage to being the gorilla in the room) is would Sony be happy with 40%? Or is that "disappointing"?

I think that would depend on the size of the market and market growth.

 

[slackpiv]

Again I don't see this added value you keep talking about. tossing around specs and feature not everyone can see the benefit of having, isn't what I call added value.

It's definately different for each person. For me the 600$ SKU is good for me. Since with the xbox360 i had to buy the wi-fi add on(100$...this is the most rediculously overpriced addon i've ever seen), and the xbox gold live subscription. This brought the total purchase up to 550$(400 + 100 + 50). I also bought play and charge kits which cost me an additional 30$ which brought up the total purchase to 580$. But i'm sure most people are not like me and do not require those. However the 500$ SKU isn't that much more expensive than the 400$ 360 as most people i presume will spend an additional 50$ for the xbox gold subscription where as those that buy the PS3 will not. Those that wish to buy play and charge kits will run an additional 30$ which will make the PS3 in reality only 20 - 50$ more exensive. Of course many of you say that comparing the 360 premium to the PS3 core is a bad comparison. But if you look at the value of the two they are the same. Both lack wi-fi, HDMI, and a 60GB HDD however both have component outputs, wireless controllers, and a 20GB HDD. I think Sony's biggest advantage is the fact that they are Sony. For the most part the public still believes that a Sony product is synonomous to quality as playstation is synomous to gaming. I think generally in the first year of a products life cycle the buyers will most likely be enthusiasts, hardcore gamers, and ******s(though with the PS3 it may include those wishing to buy a blu-ray players or videophiles). Well that's my take on the whole situation.

 

[Rolf N]

...and your single answer replies in this thread make others cringe, since you clearly don't have a valid response. You're also being more than argumentitive, your posts are boardering on trolling in teh way you respond to people.

I disagree. I was being polite. Your posting appeared to me as a laundry list of your beliefs and hopes with little argumentative substance to make it cohesive or sensical. IOW you rambled, and I deliberately ignored most of it in my response because I didn't see a point in being argumentative about all those little points. But if you insist ...

It's not overkill to make a comparrison. hasn't MS said all oalong they would release larger hardrives for the 360? we all know it's going to happen. That's the way the market will see it. they will see two sku's for each. one priced lower and one priced higher. They will make the connection between what is comparable without listening to any of us. All they will see is the price difference...

It is overkill, and the remainder of what you said does not have anything to do with it. You present no basis for your point, you just wrote a lengthy paragraph. I already said that the diff between the small PS3 and the big 360, in check-box equipment stuff, is the headset. And I already said that the 360 doesn't have HDMI out in any SKU, so it is not necessary at all to use an HDMI-equipped PS3 SKU to approach the 360 in a comparison. What did I miss? Wireless LAN perhaps (not sure).

your argument doesn't make any sense imo. You keep sayin it offers "more value" but you refuse to state what this value is? if you don't have an HDTV, what is this value?

I did mention some things in my last posting.

what good is a 60 gig hard drive if there isn't anything to fill it with? save games certainly don't need that and we all know that a HUGE percetage of the game market will NOT be going online. How are you going to justsity this "more value" statment.

You're just wasting my time with this paragraph, aren't you?
60GB is more than 20GB, hence it is more value. If you have nothing to fill the space with, get the 20GB version. You don't see value in HDMI either, so that's exactly the SKU that you want (if at all).
Online is one of the thins that's good about the 360 if I'm not mistaken. If it matters for the 360, it matters for the PS3. If it doesn't matter for the PS3, it doesn't matter for the 360. Works both ways and changes absolutely nothing.

What is this difference? Are people going to see a difference in games? no, we already know this.

Halt. You believe this, and you believe others believe this. No way "we already know this", no sir, not gonna happen today.

Some games will stand out on each console. however visually it will be a wash.

See above.

What is this "more value" for teh extra cost you keep talking about? I'm serious here, you made this statement. please back it up.

See above (previous post).

Obviously you aren't aware that MS has been hitting thier "world wide goals" for sales. If you really think they have only sold 3 million units world wide so far, i don't think we should continue this argument.

They corrected them downwards to be able to correct them back upwards later. Last I checked it was 2m5 in NA, something like 1m in Europe and ~zero in the rest of the world (including Japan). And now I'm supposed to feel filthy for rounding 7.5 down to 7.

come on your arguments aren't accomplishing anything in the above statment. You're simply throwing things out there you nor I could argue about. well done. What I can say is that PS3 is MORE expensive to manufacture than the 360 and contians MORE components that are of a higher cost. You can try to argue that all you want, but we all know this is the truth.

Would you please stop this "we all know" crap? Please?

Die sizes are similar. The 360 innards are viewable on Anandtech and are pretty cramped and complex (18 screws just to pop off the EMI shield). External PSU means more materials, more complex packaging, possibly more gross weight and IMO higer cost. Detachable HDD means more complicated case with more parts and more assembly steps. The PCB stretches across the whole case which doesn't strike me as a technical necessity either.

Regarding the blue laser, again it's a weak argument imo.

At least it is an argument. It is the only cost argument that exists as far as I'm concerned until you can name another one.

So does this thing cost 100$?

real nice answer. please elaborate.

The original quote:

There's a very good reason Sony dropped HDMI from the core version of PS3. They know how much it added to the overall cost of the machine and that it didn't make sense with a LARGE percentage of HDTV owners could never make use of HDMI.

*sigh*
The overall cost of HDMI is a plug and a nominal license fee that Sony can pay out of their left pocket into their own right pocket. IOW: a dollar at most.
So when you're saying that "They know how much it added to the overall cost of the machine" you're still correct, but the rest of the paragraph doesn't warrant any other response but "No."

Again I see you have no valid response.

To what? To this:

It's NOT that simple. What about the millions that already own a PS2 or Xbox? For those PS2 and Xbox owners that are looking to upgrade to something that can display a big improvement visually over their current consoles, the Xbox core version could be VERY attractive, even more so if there's a price drop.

This is nothing but your opinion. I disagree with your opinion, I think it's wrong, and that's why I said "No."

the HDD WAS a mistake. It was hte only item that didn't not change in price significantly during the course of teh conosles life time.

Cost is not the most (or only) important aspect of everything. The HDD enables the machine to do certain things it could not do without, just like a dedicated graphics chip does, or an Ethernet port. You don't leave out random parts of a console just because they cost money. Then all consoles would be empty plastic shells obviously.

The HDD made the XBox unique among consoles.

It was great to have for online downloads but that was it. Developers basically ignored the harddrive all together and it was rarely used. It was NOT there for PC centric developers to get up and running easily. If you really think that then you haven't been paying close attention the past 4+ years.

Have you programmed something in the past four years?

I'd love this if it were true, but that's a blind and incorrect statement. You aren't paying attention to the market at all imo.

Is XBox Live not online? Is that not desireable? Is that not widely used?

 

[Acert93]

I think that would depend on the size of the market and market growth.

That is true.

But Sony currently has 70% of a ~145M unit pie with their ~100M units.

For 40% to result in ~100M units the market would need to expand to ~250M units.

That is an excess of 70% growth in the market in 5-6 years.

That sort of growth seems extremely unlikely, especially considering the growth between the PS1/N64/SS and the PS2/GCN/Xbox is in the low single digits (something like ~142M units versus ~147M units).

What could spur on a 70% growth in the market?

Blu Ray/HD DVD? No, because DVD had a much wider appeal and market position last gen so there is no reason to believe it could spur 70% growth.

Online? Consumers are already online by the millions on the PC and consoles were online last gen. With numbers like 50% adoptions rate from MS this does not seem encouraging either.

Cost? This round of consoles is looking to have a higher mean cost than any past generation when counting all the SKUs.

Maybe the Wii is the answer, but it is hardly the first console to offer revolutionary controls (e.g. the N64 had analog sticks, 4 player ports, etc)--but even then the expansion Nintendo would be accomplishing would primarily be affecting their market share.

Obviously it is hard to predict market side, although it is safe to say 250M units is out of the question. Sony has already hinted at the goal of 100M units. The question is can they get their with their pricing model. Sure, the cost WILL decrease and the gap will shrink, but based on minimum SKU pricing even if Sony sees a 2x cut increase over MS there is still a $100 gap. And there will always be Nintendo significantly cheaper and quite possibly competitive on the 'home' front in Japan.

A lot is going to boil down to marketing. There is a lot of talk about "prestige" quality, but will the PS3 have that cutting edge technological image in 3, 4, 5, and 6 years? With game libraries full of cross platform titles will Sony be able to make the sales pitch that the PS3 is worth an extra $100 in years 3 and 4?

That is going to be the question and I am not sure there is a clear answer on that yet. But like I said, Sony didn't need to create that question in the first place.

 

[Tap In]

I think that would depend on the size of the market and market growth.

yes but without the distinct market advantage (regardless how the actual numbers scale) that they enjoyed last gen, they may not have the same mindshare among the public and publishers alike.


as for the price sensitivity of consoles...

I do not think that the diference in price between it and 360 will matter for the first 4-6 months.
It is after the initial novelty has worn off and the early adopters are satisfied that the price makes a huge difference in any effort to meet mass distribution.

At their current pricing IMO, they might want to prepare for a 35-35-30 split this gen not due to $599 US dollars but because in two years they may not be at $199 and MS and Nintendo will.

 

[Rolf N]

Seemed to me like those figures were there as a “what if” scenario, in order to highlight the point, rather than a definitive projection. This thread is about discussing “possibilities” and how those possibilities may be arrived at.

I don't mind that, but I'd prefer to stay within reason. I already gave an example of some of my own unreasonable "what-ifs". That one won't fly here either.

I’m not sure it necessarily does, many of those points already appear to have been brought up in this thread and even pointed to in the article that spawns the thread. The question remains as to the importance for all of those on a games console and the value they add to the potential next generation console purchasers over the lifespan in relation - there is the possibility that for more of those potential customers they don’t add what they want for games console (just as much as the opposite may be the case).

It was my response for the "the difference is the HDD" statement, and of course to the speculation that Microsoft might grab three times the unit market share of Sony, to which it is relevant as well, because that would suggest the PS3 will be much less attractive, at its higher price of course, which absolutely begs a comparison of value.

It now also doubles up as a response to the "where is the added value" question.

Also (as an actual response now to your post, not an explanation) I think you somewhat underestimate the power of "theoretical value". Many PC buyers "future-proof" their systems, I hope that point will be allowed to me without statistical proof. In rational terms, at a console launch there are two or three games that interest you. That can't be worth 400$ either, and yet people bought 360s at launch, for 400$, or even more when being ripped of on eBay and/or with bundles.

Consoles are bought not least because of the expectation of games that will come later. The "knowledge" of hardware capability is important to form these expectations. My point would basically be that higher expectations can increase sales. This weighs against the higer price of course. In the case of the PS3, in light of the direct competition, I think the price is fine.

Because I think it's fine, I naturally think it will sell well. And what follows is that I don't think the PS3 will be treated unfavorably by mutliplatform developers.

PS: Much of that is my opinion, and I really try hard to use "I believe", "I think" et al where appropriate. "We all know that" is something that really ticks me off sometimes, as should be obvious from my signature ...

Then you need to step back and read a little more rationally because you are reading into things that I personally haven’t said.

Then I have mistaken your defense of the argument as an agreement with the argument.

 

[Titanio]

That is true.

But Sony currently has 70% of a ~145M unit pie with their ~100M units.

For 40% to result in ~100M units the market would need to expand to ~250M units.

That is an excess of 70% growth in the market in 5-6 years.

That sort of growth seems extremely unlikely

My reply was more general - the tradeoff between market size/growth and marketshare. How much of a drop in share that could be 'tolerated' so to speak is dependent on the former.

It is after the initial novelty has worn off and the early adopters are satisfied that the price makes a huge difference in any effort to meet mass distribution.

Agreed, but that point is distinct from the question of how price factors into a person's choice of one system over another. In that specific context, price has proven in the past to trail other factors in terms of importance.

 

[Tap In]

...

Agreed, but that point is distinct from the question of how price factors into a person's choice of one system over another. In that specific context, price has proven in the past to trail other factors in terms of importance.

If they are equally priced in the mass appeal range ($199) then I agree, there are many other factors when making the choice.

those other factors are considerably smaller compared to price when one system is $299 and one is $199 with no (clear) visible evidence on the demo kiosk of the value. A laundry list of additional features only goes so far or apeals to only a certian segment of those buyers. Preference for certain games will carry it so far, but just so far.

To be clear, I'm talking about the buyers after the first 20 million systems are in place.

Up to 10-20 million there are all sorts of things going on in purchasing decisions. After that number the mass market is completely fickle and price becomes HUGE.

 

[Qroach]

I disagree. I was being polite. Your posting appeared to me as a laundry list of your beliefs and hopes with little argumentative substance to make it cohesive or sensical. IOW you rambled, and I deliberately ignored most of it in my response because I didn't see a point in being argumentative about all those little points. But if you insist ...

Ok if you want to disagree that's your choice, perhaps trolling was a strong word but I get the distinct impression you are being argumentitive when you reply with one word post to people. Anyway i'll delivberately ignore parts of your replonse since they are either A. not needed or B. not relevant.

It is overkill, and the remainder of what you said does not have anything to do with it. You present no basis for your point, you just wrote a lengthy paragraph. I already said that the diff between the small PS3 and the big 360, in check-box equipment stuff, is the headset. And I already said that the 360 doesn't have HDMI out in any SKU, so it is not necessary at all to use an HDMI-equipped PS3 SKU to approach the 360 in a comparison. What did I miss? Wireless LAN perhaps (not sure).
I did mention some things in my last posting.
You're just wasting my time with this paragraph, aren't you?
60GB is more than 20GB, hence it is more value. If you have nothing to fill the space with, get the 20GB version. You don't see value in HDMI either, so that's exactly the SKU that you want (if at all).

I presented a very good basis for my point that you went on to ignore. I don't think you understand the argument here. The difference in price needs to be justified between the core PS3 and core 360. it also needs to be justified by the more expensive version. The core 360 doesn't come with a headset btw. anyway you a 60 gig harddrive isn't more value unless all the users can benefit from this. I don't see how this is going to be viewed as important by the public unless it can be used. If you don't have online or don't want online, then where is the value? Anyway as I stated before we all know MS is going to release larger hardrives for the 360, so it's a moot point.

I don't see how HDMI is added value. Will it make a difference to how the games look on screen compared to component? will it make a difference to those HDTV owners that don't have HDMI? Like I said before you to to visibly show the added value for the higher price. I don't think telling people one version comes with HDMI and an extra 40 gigs of space will matter if they don't see how they will benefit from it.

Online is one of the thins that's good about the 360 if I'm not mistaken. If it matters for the 360, it matters for the PS3. If it doesn't matter for the PS3, it doesn't matter for the 360. Works both ways and changes absolutely nothing.

Now you are arguing points that aren't a part fo this discussion. I think Xbox live is great and online is a great feature. However I'm not naive enough to think that the rest of the market, those 10's of millions more games out there think the same. The FACT is there is a much larger percentage of the market that doesn care about online game with consoles then there is that do care about it. to those 10's of millions having online won't mean squat.

Halt. You believe this, and you believe others believe this. No way "we already know this", no sir, not gonna happen today.See above.See above (previous post).
They corrected them downwards to be able to correct them back upwards later. Last I checked it was 2m5 in NA, something like 1m in Europe and ~zero in the rest of the world (including Japan). And now I'm supposed to feel filthy for rounding 7.5 down to 7.

I'm not gettig into this, as you clearly have no idea how many units in total they have sold or shipped 9neither do I, but they are reporting they are hitting thier target estimates in the MS investor reports. I don't think you know just how many countries they are now in. zero units in the rest of the world including japan? it's obvious you aren't being reasonable in your thought process.

Die sizes are similar. The 360 innards are viewable on Anandtech and are pretty cramped and complex (18 screws just to pop off the EMI shield). External PSU means more materials, more complex packaging, possibly more gross weight and IMO higer cost. Detachable HDD means more complicated case with more parts and more assembly steps. The PCB stretches across the whole case which doesn't strike me as a technical necessity either.
At least it is an argument. It is the only cost argument that exists as far as I'm concerned until you can name another one.

yes dies sizes are similar which is why I didn't understand why you brought that up before. external PSU means one thing less that can go wrong with the innards of the console during manufacturing. if you want to make it more the console even more complex, try including it in the console casing. A detachable hardrive doesn't make things more complicated it makes them less complicated. if a faulty hard drive can be replaced it saves you on having to send out an entire console to fix the problem. it makes things easier for teh end users to just send in that hard drive. you are basically pluggin the hard drive into a cable that is attached to the outside of the console. The case for the HDD is just plastic and probably costs 50 cents to make. anyway I really don't see where you were going with this and still don't...

The rest of your post isn't relevant to the discussion Imo. So I won't waste time replying to that...

 

[Titanio]

If they are equally priced in the mass appeal range ($199) then I agree, there are many other factors when making the choice.

those other factors are considerably smaller compared to price when one system is $299 and one is $199 with no (clear) visible evidence on the demo kiosk of the value. A laundry list of additional features only goes so far or apeals to only a certian segment of those buyers. Preference for certain games will carry it so far, but just so far.

To be clear, I'm talking about the buyers after the first 20 million systems are in place.

Up to 10-20 million there are all sorts of things going on in purchasing decisions. After that number the mass market is completely fickle and price becomes HUGE.

There are numerous previous examples which prove this to be incorrect. I mean, Gamecube launched at $199 - an immediately massmarket price - and remained cheaper throughout its life, and it did not attract the mass market in a huge way. If someone holds a preference for a particular system, I don't think it's likely they will compromise on that just because another system is cheaper - they'll wait for said system to come down within their range. Hence what is, IMO, the secondary role of price in the choice of system.

 

[Tap In]

There are numerous previous examples which prove this to be incorrect. I mean, Gamecube launched at $199 - an immediately massmarket price - and it did not attract the mass market in a huge way. If someone holds a preference for a particular system, I don't think it's likely they will compromise on that just because another system is cheaper - they'll wait for said system to come down within their range. Hence what is, IMO, the secondary role of price in the choice of system.

I think there are more factors than those which led to the GC (and Dreamcast before it) failing to meet my theory. The Gamecube never had the software, services and features that the 360 offers (nor Xbox1). I don't think that is a valid comparison. It was also following N64 which for all intents and purposes was a failure. I think MS (and Wii) will have a much bigger contender (value) at $199 than any other system(s) before it to challenge your theory.

 

[Titanio]

I think there are more factors than those which led to the GC (and Dreamcast before it) failing to meet my theory.

Ding ding. Hence "other factors" take precedence. That's exactly my point.

It's not enough to be cheaper or cheapest. You have to be the system of choice, the "right system". If you are, you don't even need to be cheaper or cheapest.

 

[pc999]

Thanks for explaining my points Dave.

I don't mind that, but I'd prefer to stay within reason. I already gave an example of some of my own unreasonable "what-ifs". That one won't fly here either.

As long as XB360 have advantage of units on the market the argument run. For example just having the duble it still make a big market to explore and make a multiplatform game. The bigest problem is that it is a vicious circle.

Anyway I said 20M just because IIRC MS said they expect to sell 10M within the first year, after that (begining of 07) will come price cuts (unless it keep seling very well) and the big games (or at least is expected) so I make a estimation for twice which seems completely probably to me. Althought I probably should have put a higer number of PS3.

 

[Tap In]

Ding ding. Hence "other factors" take precedence. That's exactly my point.

It's not enough to be cheaper or cheapest. You have to be the system of choice, the "right system". If you are, you don't even need to be cheaper or cheapest.

what I meant was that you are correct in the example of GC wrt other factors taking precedent.

My point was that there are more things that are equal between the contenders (PS3, X360) in public wants/needs this generation (compared to your GC example). the machines are more equal in their general game playing capacity and the number and types of games and experiences that they will both be offering. (BluRay movies aside)

So a lot of the 'factors' that you refer to are mitigated this time around, making price more of a factor. IMO :smile: