3DS at that price is fine I guess for what it does, even though im not so much of a handheld dude which still makes it hard to pay for such a platform. Interested though to just own I. PSVite on the other hand Id buy under 200$ maybe. Not planning on paying so much to Sony for their handheld for any reason. At the currently advertised price you buy a home console or one of the best stock OCed 560 Ti for your PC. Id rather SLI them than a handheld.
[citation][nom]shanky887614[/nom]its actually nintendo's sales team are uselesseverybody that has done a level buissness studies or higher should know what supply and demand are and most people know what it is[/citation]
Those graphs don't magically materialize for real world products. Even the theoretical equations in your intro econ textbook require all other variables to be held constant.
Just wait until Pokemon hits the console (Main game, not some cheap half-game meant to show off the technology), then sales will skyrocket. They always do, just look at the DS when it was first released.
$170 is definitely a sweet spot for the 3DS pricing. I'm looking into buying one soon to replace my aging DS lite and hey with some of the games that have come out SF for instance taking real advantage of the tech I think it'll be awesome. I'm also looking at PSVite and if they are anywhere under $200 I'll pick up one of those too.
Technically if they're being made at a loss as has been said before, more systems sold means they're losing more money. This can turn very profitable for them still however since they get the profits from Virtual Console sales and their 1st party titles. They probably could've moved them at 200 if they had released them with better titles to begin with.
you know, its hard to say what made nintendo sell more.
actual games are coming out, and a few good ones in a short time frame.
people may have thought the price drop wasn't permanent.
some people who wanted a 3ds may have honestly thought the price was to much (if you aren't a mobile gamer, or cell phone "gaming" is good enough for you, you have NO say in if it was to expensive or not)
honestly i think nintendo jumped the gun lowering the price.
i also think they screwed the launch up with putting out shovelware and tech demos, at full price, instead of good games, of which they only had 1 at launch, and 1 a few months later, and are only just getting now.
Well it makes sense! In times of recession,people out of work,no money,etc. Nintendo just got their act together & droped the price for this 3DS. Nintendo loses their larger profit margin,but gains a much larger sales figure to compensate for the larger profit margin loss. I wonder though if they're actually making more money than they would of,if they would of left the price at the old figure.
[citation][nom]bak0n[/nom]It's called "the sweet spot". Something many console makers have a hard time finding.[/citation]
I'd broaden that statement, to say that it's something many ELECTRONICS makers have a hard time finding... At least by intention.
I think that it's quite possible that, if they're pursuing market dominance, electronics makers should start by first figuring out the "sweet spots" in price are, and THEN engineering a solution for each one they wish to. We'd likely wind up with consoles, etc. that overall, we'd find are a better deal for what they do. There's not that much wrong with taking this sort of "price-point first" approach; after all, it shapes a lot of major decisions are PC hardware makers, most notably AMD and nVidia when it comes to video cards.
And it's not like trying to find some of these "Sweet spots" for gadgets is particularly hard: it's blatantly obvious, for instance, that $99US happens to be the most well-known; a "pricey" high-tech gadget will invariably sell like wildfire at that price, as HP has seen even with their deprecated TouchPads.