3 ms·

The PS3 is the poster child for this type of tactic, at their beginning they sold for $300 less than their cost of goods.[1] Their failure has nothing to do wit

• ilamont 15y ago
  It wasn't enough. They may have been selling at a loss, but the introductory PS3 prices were at least twice as much as the Wii. When Sony began to cut prices, sales jumped. A $100 price cut in 2009 doubled sales: http://kotaku.com/5356885/npd-ps3-sales-gain-ground-on-price-drop-nintendo-ds-still-tops http://kotaku.com/5356885/npd-ps3-sales-gain-ground-on-price...
  • uxp 15y ago
    If I also remember correctly, the Wii was the first modern console (post NES, I assume) that sold at a profit, which was a measly $6. http://www.joystiq.com/2008/12/01/forbes-nintendo-making-6-profit-on-every-wii-sold/ http://www.joystiq.com/2008/12/01/forbes-nintendo-making-6-p...
    • bomanbot 15y ago
      As far as I remember, Nintendo always did that, selling each console at profit, however small that may be, starting from NES, to Super NES, N64, Gamecube and now Wii (and I guess, soon WiiU). So Nintendo was the only manufacturer who did not apply the "razorblade" model of the other console makers, which is understandable since they were and are a videogame company only and thus never had any other branches which could have been able to subsidize their console business in the beginning (unlike for example Microsoft). I think the first console Nintendo made that actually sold at a loss is the current 3DS handheld and that may be after the very fast initial price cut after the slow reception on the market.
  • gujk 15y ago
    Sony's problem there was that the PS had very expensive parts, so they had a harder choice to make on pricing to be competitive. Nintendo, meanwhile, couldn't keep Wii in stock for more than half a day until something like 2 years after launch, so they could have raised the price about $100 and not lost a sale