AdmiralViscen said:
So telling someone they don't have the right to something that they think they have the right to isn't telling them they are wrong or misguided?
K.
For the third, and ****ing last time i'm asking you to stop twisting what i'm saying and ignoring what i'm telling you. This is what I said..AGAIN...
I can't think of any other home electronics that follows that model so I can't see how you feel you have the right to it.
I said I don't know how he feels he has the right to the business model. As a consumer, you have no ****ing rights to set price. Why? BASIC ****ING PRINCIPAL OF CONSUMERISM!! If you don't feel the price is a balance of features and benefits of the product to you then you don't buy it. It's that ****ing simple, what is so hard to grasp about this? You keep shortening what you are saying as you get further and further backed against the wall, first it was just an ad hominem attack on my character, then it was...
And to act like a consumer is wrong or misguided for wanting a lower price.... Yea, that's crossing the line in fandom
and now we are down to just..
So telling someone they don't have the right to something that they think they have the right to isn't telling them they are wrong or misguided?
Here's some advice, pick one and stick with it. If you are wrong stop waffling and playing word games. I never said he was wrong for wanting a lower price. I said very clearly as quoted several times now, I did not see how he felt he had a right as a consumer to require a company to sell a system at a loss. If i'm wrong, why don't you try to prove THAT instead of twisting what i'm saying and playing word games.
I'm talking about it from the consumer perspective. $200 = OK, $500+ = Hmmm...
You're talking from the corporate perspective, because you apparently work for Sony and are more worried about their profit margins than consumer preference.
I'm talking from the reasonable perspective. Who the hell doesn't want to pay the least amount possible for a console. I'm not going to go out demanding a company sell their products at a loss like its my right though. Thats what I was pointing out.
And yes, I work for Sony *rollseyes* OHHH BURN ON ME:lol pathetic.
Sony has PROVED that the razors-and-blades setup works for video game consoles. Unless you want to tell me why that's magically changing, we don't have much to talk about.
Sure, ITS CALLED A ****ING $800 PLUS SYSTEM TO MAKE. They are using brand new barely out the door tech in the system. That's the "magical" difference.
Again, YOU mentioned Nintendo, not me. Who's twisting??
I mentioned it as an example. I never said you mentioned them. But you are cleverly avoiding respoinding to that example. Good job.
THE ONE THAT HAS CAUSED THE INDUSTRY TO MORE THAN DOUBLE IN SIZE SINCE 1995.
Sure, and it helped them break into the industry. There are differing reports if they actually even sold the PS2 at a loss. And if they did it wasn't by much. Again though, there is a HUGE difference in pricing and what they are doing now that they are a leader in brand recognition. They are moving in a different direction just like Nintendo. The difference there being Sony is a huge CE company with hands in alot of jars and they are moving in a direction to combine those things. This is a totally different tangent you are going down though.
...Sony sold 20 million PS2s at their original price point, 80 million after they dropped to $200 or less. Tell me again, which is the majority of the mass market? The $300+ crowd or the ~$200 crowd?
I believe I already said the $200 or less crowd was the majority, hell you even bolded it. Are you even reading what i'm posting?
But now this is turning into a typical PS3 pricing argument, which I don't get involved in these days.
YOU ****ING STARTED IT! Worse yet you dragged it way off my original point so don't even try to play that card.