Compete reports that Sony fans are dumb and Nintendo fans are disloyal (via Gamasutra):
Though much has been made in some circles about the PS3’s hefty price tag ($600), word has apparently not reached most consumers…many of whom have the PS3 on their shopping lists. In fact, almost half (48%) of those considering a PS3 expect it to cost less than $300—equivalent to the original price of a PS2. When told of the PS3’s actual retail price, 73% of all gamers and 59% of those considering a PS3 thought it was overpriced. Wii fared much better and many of its buyers will be pleasantly surprised by its value. Among those considering a Wii, 75% expected it to cost more than $200. It goes on sale for $250.
Wii’s price may be right, but a troubling sign for Nintendo emerges on the loyalty front. Nintendo’s strategic decision to simplify its console may in fact be turning off a number of its loyalists. 39% of GameCube owners are considering a Wii purchase while 40% are considering a PS3. PlayStation loyalty is considerably higher with 63% of PS2 owners considering a PS3.
Those numbers might be true and representative of the average consumer… then again they might not. Unless I’m going blind Compete.com doesn’t tell us how many consumers they asked or how they asked.
Considering this tidbit:
It seems like their methodoly is based on clicks on webpages or somesuch - what kind of consumer shops for a console not yet released and should we really base our view on the rest of the population on how he answers questions?
I’m not saying there isn’t a large number of consumers waiting for the PS3 because they don’t know anything about it or its pricing (I have been saying for a long time that the general potential console buying public doesn’t ahere your cynicism because they simple don’t read/hear all those PS3 rumors we discuss here and mainstream media is the same) I’m just saying I want a bit clearer methodology before I believe the conclusions reached.
Well, the people who actually get a PS3 at launch certainly know the price. The rest of the yokels will get clued in with the news stories about the PS3 launch and shortages, etc., that will invariably mention the price.
Hey, if I had the money, and an HDTV, and the patience to wait in line overnight, and actually like console games more than I do, and wasn’t planning on getting a Wii for my kids, and didn’t have to work on Friday, and my horoscope said it was a good day for making a big purchase, I’d be right there getting my PS3!
If it hadn’t been for my personal “five new threads per day” limit, I would have started a thread on consumer ignorance with this delicious morsel from my older brother, when I asked him why he wanted a Wii for Christmas:
Wiimote? Didn’t know about it. Lack of HD support? Nope. Finally, after getting irritated with my grilling him, he asked me:
As a Gamecube owner, my problem with buying the Wii has nothing to do with the remote (which I actually kind of like). My problem is the fact that I have very few freakin Gamecube games. If Nintendo’s next system has as small a library as the Gamecube, I’m getting ripped off by buying it, when compared to Sony’s track record for 3rd party support.
Ok, anecdote time. Before class I was talking with a couple of my game savvy students about the PS3 launch. A couple of other students overheard us and chimed in, saying they were stoked to get a PS3 once it came out. I made some snide comment about college students always having enough money for iPods and game consoles but never enough for textbooks. They told me they had their $300 bucks saved up and ready to go. You can imagine the jaws hitting the floor when I told them the actual price. They also didn’t know what the Wii was.
Most average consumers don’t follow this stuff as closely as we do.
Sure, but you’ve got to admit it’s amazing that people who don’t even roughly know the price of an entertainment product are still convinced that they need to buy one! If Sony just put PS2s in the boxes and wrote “PS3” on them, do you think these people would notice a difference?
I’d guess the last one. Nobody but computer geeks know that the PS3 is going to cost as much as it does. Justifications for the price aside, calling it the PS3 leads people to make certain price-point assumptions. In the casual gamer’s mind, it’s like going to buy the next Madden and finding out it’s $200 when you packed three $20s.
Ok, apparently the PS1 was $299 as well. Maybe everyone but me knew that. I guess if I were a Madden lover who didn’t follow gaming media then I might have assumed a $299 tag for the PS3. I’ve never owned a PSanything and I read tons of qt3 so it’s a little hard to wrap my brain around this supposed mindset.
The Gamecube had tons of great exclusive games! Paper Mario 2, Pikmin 1 and 2, Bomberman Generations, Super Smash Brothers, Super Monkey Ball 1 and 2 (eventually ported, yes, but the originals remained superior), Mario Golf, Wave Race Blue Storm, F-Zero GX, Gotcha Force, Cubivore, Wario World, Mario Sunshine, Luigi’s Mansion, Ikaruga, PN03, Lost Kingdoms 1 and 2, Mega Man Network Transmission, Donkey Konga 1 and 2, Wind Waker, and Kirby Air Ride, and those are just the ones that I personally owned. I hate to break out listmania but I feel compelled to defend the Gamecube’s honor.
Don’t forget Eternal Darkness, the REmake, Resident Evil 0, and the superior version of Resident Evil 4.
That said, Sharp has a point (…oh God, I didn’t mean for that to happen) in that for much of its life, the GameCube was something you bought to play Nintendo’s first-party titles when they came out, and rarely saw any real use otherwise.
Considering that for much of its life the Gamecube could be had for little more than two games, the lack of a large software library never bothered me. But as a rabid Nintendo fanboy, maybe I’m not the best sample set for that. I’d gladly pay $250 every generation even if I knew for a fact that only Nintendo first party games would come out for it.