How is it gouging? Either people will pay the price or they won't. If they do, they must think the price is fair. If they don't, they haven't lost any money. If enough people don't, the price will come down.
The PSP isn't a necessity like medicine or food. There can't really be price gouging on luxury items.
(the WII controller obviously uses batteries etc as well).
The difference is that the Wii controller takes regular AA batteries. So when they run out of juice or stop charging (if you use rechargeable AAs), you just buy a couple more for cheap. Since the PS3 controller battery can't be replaced, when it stops charging, you buy a new a controller for $50. That's why this story is interesting to people, because now Sony is saying they'll replace the controller. Although, I'm sure that won't be completely free.
Wii has a fantastic linup but even if there are a million units the numbers shipped by christmas probably won't be enough to fill demand.
Recent estimates have Nintendo shipping four million (or even up to six) by the end of December. If that can't keep up with demand, I have to say, that would be awesome for the Wii.
How is it a dig? Sony did sue Lik-Sang over importing, even though it was perfectly legal.
How is it irrelevant? This article concerns the PS3 launch, which will be happening a few months later in Europe than elsewhere, and people might have been considering importing it. Now they might not be able to because of Sony's actions. Seems relevant to those who might've wanted to import, no?
How is it being a weasel? If people are willing to pay more for one off eBay, they must think it's worth it. Are you scamming them by giving them what they want at a price they agree to? The fact that this even happens only shows that the manufacturers have set the price too low for the demand. I honestly don't understand the ill-will directed at the "pre-order then sell on eBay" crowd.
I don't think they've done it with a non-handheld yet, but many people that owned an original Gameboy Advance or DS seemed quite willing to buy the newer ones when they came out.
You're wrong. Only people who receive the binaries have the offer to receive the source code. "Any valid third party" means someone who gets the binary indirectly from someone else rather than the originator.
Rather than continue tilting at windmills, let me go back to the beginning and lay out my point explicitly.
This thread began with Animats claiming that Wal-Mart could put pressure on Sony to lower their price for the PS3, at least to Wal-Mart. You disagreed, stating that Sony could easily sell the 400,000 launch units without Wal-Mart, so Wal-Mart could not reasonably play the pressure game.
I agree that Sony could sell the launch units without Wal-Mart. However, they want to sell more than just the launch units. Millions more.
Now, taken alone, neither Sony nor Wal-Mart may "need" each other, in the sense that one would go bankrupt without the other. Wal-Mart has other products to sell, and Sony has other retailers to sell to. So in order to answer the question "Could Wal-Mart put pressure on Sony to lower the PS3 price for them?" you have to look at leverage. Who has more leverage in the situation?
I believe that Wal-Mart has more leverage, because they don't have as much to lose. They sell a lot more than just game consoles, so I doubt it would matter as much to them as to Sony if Sony took their ball and went home. I'm sure Wal-Mart would try to negotiate to make sure that didn't happen, since they want as much profit as possible. But I really doubt it would make very much of a dent in their profits if it did happen. You think it would make a big difference, because it would drive customers to their competitors, and cause a scandal that would drive even more customers away. My opinion on that is that anyone outside the gaming community wouldn't care, so the scandal would be limited to just people who actually want a PS3. Those people would have to go to a competitor, but like I said earlier in the paragraph, I don't think it would be a huge deal to Wal-Mart, due to such diverse sources of sales.
I think Sony has much more to lose by pulling the PS3 from Wal-Mart. They really need the PS3 to sell well, and Wal-Mart has a very large customer base that can help generate those sales. You said yourself that 25% of the computer and video game sales in the US are from Wal-Mart. Would the gain from not having to sell to Wal-Mart at a lower price outweigh the units that wouldn't be sold because Wal-Mart wasn't carrying them? In my opinion, no, although realistically there is no way to know how many sales Sony would actually lose.
So, I think Wal-Mart does have the leverage to put pricing pressure on Sony, if they really wanted to. That's what I was trying to say. Whether they actually do it, that is something else. Actually I would be surprised if they did, since I've never seen game consoles at Wal-Mart with a price difference of more than a few cents under anyone else.
Did you read the rest of that Wired article you linked? The entire article is talking about how Wal-Mart can do whatever it wants because it's so big. The statistic you quote only makes your argument weaker:
In 2001, Wal-Mart accounted for 25 percent of computer and video game sales in the US.
This is why Sony needs Wal-Mart. They're not going to cut themselves out of 25% of their target audience, it would be utterly stupid.
Yeah, if everybody just stopped selling to Wal-Mart, then they'd all go out of business and Wal-Mart would flourish. Oh wait.
You're right, if Sony could orchestrate a massive move away from Wal-Mart by every other manufacturer, it would hurt Wal-Mart enough that they wouldn't have to deal with them. That sure is likely to happen.
It wouldn't be a PR disaster for Wal-Mart. No one outside the gaming community would even care.
Wal-Mart's revenues for last year were $316 billion, and their profits were $75 billion. Do you really think a large enough portion of that comes from Sony products that they wouldn't consider putting some pressure on Sony if they thought it would help their bottom line? What is Sony going to do, pull all their stock? Get real, Sony needs Wal-Mart, not the other way around.
Sure, but that's not really the professor's problem. Classes are provided for the benefit of the student. If the student wants to blow through the class without learning anything, why not let them? They're paying for it, after all. Once they get a job and their employer finds out they don't know anything, it will catch up with them. A wise employer would be giving some type of practical test as part of the interview anyway, not basing their decision on grades.
Even if they don't get Wii demo units, I'll let you in on how you can demo one. Buy one. Wal-Mart has got to have the most customer friendly return policy ever. They'll take anything back, even without receipts usually. So if you end up not liking it, just return it the next day. Plus, you get to try it out in your own home, without a hundred other people trying to squeeze past you in the aisle, or bugging you to let them try.
Sony probably wants to sell more than just the initial launch shipment, and I'm guessing the largest retailer in the U.S. can help them do that. Just guessing, though.
if it tanks they will probably be forced from the console game and retreat to gameboys and selling franchise titles on other console ala Sega.
I think Sony is a lot closer to being pushed out of the console game than Nintendo. Sony is bleeding money right now, and severely needs the PS3 to help it out. Meanwhile, Nintendo has basically been printing money with the Gameboy line for over a decade, and their consoles have been making them a tidy profit as well. In short, Nintendo has a fuck-ton of money. Even if the Wii tanks, they'll just learn from it and move on to the next one. However, I think the Wii will sell at least as well as the PS3, so it'll be a win for Nintendo. Potentially a huge win if it really takes off.
Why would anyone be upset that the PS3 is powered by the souls of the damned? I could see being upset if it was powered by the souls of the innocent, and you think they don't deserve that punishment. Or maybe you think powering the PS3 is too good for the souls of the damned? They don't deserve a vacation like that.
Playstation 3 draws its power During the witching hour Everyone's grapes turn sour Burma Shave
In 5 years after the analog cutoff, what will that percentage be?
Digital does not necessarily mean high definition. A quote from the digital television Wikipedia article specifically says: "All digital TV variants can carry both standard-definition television (SDTV) and high-definition television (HDTV)."
Besides, the analog cut-off for the US isn't until Feb 2009. A few years after that, HDTVs probably will have enough marketshare where it will be a good business move to support them. This generation I would have said no. However, Microsoft and Sony cater mostly to the graphics-hungry, gaming-as-image crowd, so they probably made the right decision. Many of their intended audience will already have HD or plan on getting it soon.
Slashdot Mirror
How is it gouging? Either people will pay the price or they won't. If they do, they must think the price is fair. If they don't, they haven't lost any money. If enough people don't, the price will come down.
The PSP isn't a necessity like medicine or food. There can't really be price gouging on luxury items.
(the WII controller obviously uses batteries etc as well).
The difference is that the Wii controller takes regular AA batteries. So when they run out of juice or stop charging (if you use rechargeable AAs), you just buy a couple more for cheap. Since the PS3 controller battery can't be replaced, when it stops charging, you buy a new a controller for $50. That's why this story is interesting to people, because now Sony is saying they'll replace the controller. Although, I'm sure that won't be completely free.
Wii has a fantastic linup but even if there are a million units the numbers shipped by christmas probably won't be enough to fill demand.
Recent estimates have Nintendo shipping four million (or even up to six) by the end of December. If that can't keep up with demand, I have to say, that would be awesome for the Wii.
How is it a dig? Sony did sue Lik-Sang over importing, even though it was perfectly legal.
How is it irrelevant? This article concerns the PS3 launch, which will be happening a few months later in Europe than elsewhere, and people might have been considering importing it. Now they might not be able to because of Sony's actions. Seems relevant to those who might've wanted to import, no?
Why wait? Why not point it out yourself?
On the second page of this review they describe the controller like so:
the SIXAXIS feels cheap, plasticky, uncomfortable and disconcertingly light
They don't use the actual word flimsy, but it sure isn't a positive description.
You'll probably need a few tachyon pulses, as well. Never forget the tachyon pulse.
How is it being a weasel? If people are willing to pay more for one off eBay, they must think it's worth it. Are you scamming them by giving them what they want at a price they agree to? The fact that this even happens only shows that the manufacturers have set the price too low for the demand. I honestly don't understand the ill-will directed at the "pre-order then sell on eBay" crowd.
Having an upgraded version of your console mid generation is just a way to piss a lot of your consumers off.
Maybe you're forgetting that they've already done this, multiple times: Gameboy -> Gameboy Pocket; Gameboy Advance -> Gameboy Advance SP -> Gameboy Micro; DS -> DS Lite.
I don't think they've done it with a non-handheld yet, but many people that owned an original Gameboy Advance or DS seemed quite willing to buy the newer ones when they came out.
Anyway, HD isn't going to catch on overnight just because our high overlords in Congress have made a mandate
Note that Congress is mandating a switch to digital television, not high-definition television. SDTV can be digital, too.
You're wrong. Only people who receive the binaries have the offer to receive the source code. "Any valid third party" means someone who gets the binary indirectly from someone else rather than the originator.
Rather than continue tilting at windmills, let me go back to the beginning and lay out my point explicitly.
This thread began with Animats claiming that Wal-Mart could put pressure on Sony to lower their price for the PS3, at least to Wal-Mart. You disagreed, stating that Sony could easily sell the 400,000 launch units without Wal-Mart, so Wal-Mart could not reasonably play the pressure game.
I agree that Sony could sell the launch units without Wal-Mart. However, they want to sell more than just the launch units. Millions more.
Now, taken alone, neither Sony nor Wal-Mart may "need" each other, in the sense that one would go bankrupt without the other. Wal-Mart has other products to sell, and Sony has other retailers to sell to. So in order to answer the question "Could Wal-Mart put pressure on Sony to lower the PS3 price for them?" you have to look at leverage. Who has more leverage in the situation?
I believe that Wal-Mart has more leverage, because they don't have as much to lose. They sell a lot more than just game consoles, so I doubt it would matter as much to them as to Sony if Sony took their ball and went home. I'm sure Wal-Mart would try to negotiate to make sure that didn't happen, since they want as much profit as possible. But I really doubt it would make very much of a dent in their profits if it did happen. You think it would make a big difference, because it would drive customers to their competitors, and cause a scandal that would drive even more customers away. My opinion on that is that anyone outside the gaming community wouldn't care, so the scandal would be limited to just people who actually want a PS3. Those people would have to go to a competitor, but like I said earlier in the paragraph, I don't think it would be a huge deal to Wal-Mart, due to such diverse sources of sales.
I think Sony has much more to lose by pulling the PS3 from Wal-Mart. They really need the PS3 to sell well, and Wal-Mart has a very large customer base that can help generate those sales. You said yourself that 25% of the computer and video game sales in the US are from Wal-Mart. Would the gain from not having to sell to Wal-Mart at a lower price outweigh the units that wouldn't be sold because Wal-Mart wasn't carrying them? In my opinion, no, although realistically there is no way to know how many sales Sony would actually lose.
So, I think Wal-Mart does have the leverage to put pricing pressure on Sony, if they really wanted to. That's what I was trying to say. Whether they actually do it, that is something else. Actually I would be surprised if they did, since I've never seen game consoles at Wal-Mart with a price difference of more than a few cents under anyone else.
Did you read the rest of that Wired article you linked? The entire article is talking about how Wal-Mart can do whatever it wants because it's so big. The statistic you quote only makes your argument weaker:
In 2001, Wal-Mart accounted for 25 percent of computer and video game sales in the US.
This is why Sony needs Wal-Mart. They're not going to cut themselves out of 25% of their target audience, it would be utterly stupid.
Yeah, if everybody just stopped selling to Wal-Mart, then they'd all go out of business and Wal-Mart would flourish. Oh wait.
You're right, if Sony could orchestrate a massive move away from Wal-Mart by every other manufacturer, it would hurt Wal-Mart enough that they wouldn't have to deal with them. That sure is likely to happen.
Saving
Reopening
It wouldn't be a PR disaster for Wal-Mart. No one outside the gaming community would even care.
Wal-Mart's revenues for last year were $316 billion, and their profits were $75 billion. Do you really think a large enough portion of that comes from Sony products that they wouldn't consider putting some pressure on Sony if they thought it would help their bottom line? What is Sony going to do, pull all their stock? Get real, Sony needs Wal-Mart, not the other way around.
Google it.
Actually, you can use braces and semicolons if you want to.
Sure, but that's not really the professor's problem. Classes are provided for the benefit of the student. If the student wants to blow through the class without learning anything, why not let them? They're paying for it, after all. Once they get a job and their employer finds out they don't know anything, it will catch up with them. A wise employer would be giving some type of practical test as part of the interview anyway, not basing their decision on grades.
Even if they don't get Wii demo units, I'll let you in on how you can demo one. Buy one. Wal-Mart has got to have the most customer friendly return policy ever. They'll take anything back, even without receipts usually. So if you end up not liking it, just return it the next day. Plus, you get to try it out in your own home, without a hundred other people trying to squeeze past you in the aisle, or bugging you to let them try.
Sony probably wants to sell more than just the initial launch shipment, and I'm guessing the largest retailer in the U.S. can help them do that. Just guessing, though.
if it tanks they will probably be forced from the console game and retreat to gameboys and selling franchise titles on other console ala Sega.
I think Sony is a lot closer to being pushed out of the console game than Nintendo. Sony is bleeding money right now, and severely needs the PS3 to help it out. Meanwhile, Nintendo has basically been printing money with the Gameboy line for over a decade, and their consoles have been making them a tidy profit as well. In short, Nintendo has a fuck-ton of money. Even if the Wii tanks, they'll just learn from it and move on to the next one. However, I think the Wii will sell at least as well as the PS3, so it'll be a win for Nintendo. Potentially a huge win if it really takes off.
Why would anyone be upset that the PS3 is powered by the souls of the damned? I could see being upset if it was powered by the souls of the innocent, and you think they don't deserve that punishment. Or maybe you think powering the PS3 is too good for the souls of the damned? They don't deserve a vacation like that.
Playstation 3 draws its power
During the witching hour
Everyone's grapes turn sour
Burma Shave
In 5 years after the analog cutoff, what will that percentage be?
Digital does not necessarily mean high definition. A quote from the digital television Wikipedia article specifically says: "All digital TV variants can carry both standard-definition television (SDTV) and high-definition television (HDTV)."
Besides, the analog cut-off for the US isn't until Feb 2009. A few years after that, HDTVs probably will have enough marketshare where it will be a good business move to support them. This generation I would have said no. However, Microsoft and Sony cater mostly to the graphics-hungry, gaming-as-image crowd, so they probably made the right decision. Many of their intended audience will already have HD or plan on getting it soon.
I apologize. Next time I'll work harder. I thought the space monkeys gave it away.
I messed them up, too
haikus are hard when you can't
count to seven or five