Dropping the price to $149 is the wrong move for Nintendo. In the grand schema of things, $50 is not that much when you compare feature to feature what you are getting. Applying the extra money toward the Xbox/PS2 and you get a slew of other features, the GC you can buy an extra game.
Nintendo needs to take a page out of Microsoft's book and make use of the one monopoly they have: the Game Boy Advance.
Nintendo should have kept the $199 price and include a GBA pack-in. The general customer will see TWO systems for the price of a PS2 and Xbox, one game system which is portable, that can go on the family vacation and it has plenty of games to boot. The side effect is that you initially might sell less GC games, because the buyer might opt for the GBA (cheaper) stuff, but does it really matter? What matters is that a GC goes into another home, which spurs future sales of the games it can play.
It seems the $200 mark is the magic mark in the videogame industry. Anything below that doesn't really matter, because most customers start looking at content vs price. Historically, pack-ins sell more than stand alone purchases ($350 for a PS2/GT Combo easily outsold the play PS2 for $300 when it was available) because customers feel they are getting more for their money.
If Nintendo would sell a GC/GBA combo, include a killer title that would take advantage of both systems, GC sales would double overnight.
Actually, most money that is footed up front is apart of the a contract that states that no matter how much the artists' work earns, they still owe the money.
Slashdot Mirror
Dropping the price to $149 is the wrong move for Nintendo. In the grand schema of things, $50 is not that much when you compare feature to feature what you are getting. Applying the extra money toward the Xbox/PS2 and you get a slew of other features, the GC you can buy an extra game.
Nintendo needs to take a page out of Microsoft's book and make use of the one monopoly they have: the Game Boy Advance.
Nintendo should have kept the $199 price and include a GBA pack-in. The general customer will see TWO systems for the price of a PS2 and Xbox, one game system which is portable, that can go on the family vacation and it has plenty of games to boot. The side effect is that you initially might sell less GC games, because the buyer might opt for the GBA (cheaper) stuff, but does it really matter? What matters is that a GC goes into another home, which spurs future sales of the games it can play.
It seems the $200 mark is the magic mark in the videogame industry. Anything below that doesn't really matter, because most customers start looking at content vs price. Historically, pack-ins sell more than stand alone purchases ($350 for a PS2/GT Combo easily outsold the play PS2 for $300 when it was available) because customers feel they are getting more for their money.
If Nintendo would sell a GC/GBA combo, include a killer title that would take advantage of both systems, GC sales would double overnight.
-Brian
Actually, most money that is footed up front is apart of the a contract that states that no matter how much the artists' work earns, they still owe the money.
No, but your obviously infringing on British Telecom's hyperlink patent!