ElliottRW

"A gamer who wants the most computing power for his buck will naturally prefer the subsidized console, ceteris paribus. "

So what? Of course this is true: given two identical pizzas, I will buy at the lower price.

In the real world, consumers, even gamers, more often have to choose between different products at different prices. And this is the situation with consoles. I think if you really wanted to make a point, you should create an argument based on the actual facts of the situation.

For example, consider the following, mini-editorial:

A good reason for subsidizing game hardware is to reduce consumer perception of risk. Some consumers are savvy enough to know that they will get a lot of value from a purchase. Others aren't so sure--they might get a lot of value, but they might not. In this situation, if a subsidy can push a lot of people off the fence, it makes a lot of sense. But ONLY if you can supply enough goods to meet demand.

Since Sony is in the business of making profits, anything less than their normal profit is a subsidy. To make their normal profit, I suppose Sony would have to charge about $900 for the PS3. How many more people will buy the PS3 at $600 than will buy it if Sony makes a tidy profit on each sale? Maybe a lot, but at $600, it still might not be all that many.

Now consider the Wii: at $250, the Wii will make a profit. I assume this is Nintendos normal profit margin. How many more people will buy the Wii at $200? at $150? at $100? at $50? Maybe a fantastic number. At $250 I am thinking I will wait until next yeat to buy a Wii. At $100, I would buy one for my family, one for my parents, and one for my one-armed Uncle. At $50, I'm buying one for each room of my house.

Now, assuming you could (as I presume Nintendo and Sony can) answer the questions I posed above, would it still make sense to not subsidize? They answer is yes, if you are concerned about supply shortages.

If you subsidize, but have a supply shortage, you do not sell any more units, your entire subsidy goes into the pockets of EBAY profiteers, and your customers experience LESS satisfaction. Case in point: the XBox 360 launch.

I could go on, and maybe you agree or disagree with the substance of the editorial example above, but either way I hope you see how editorials that involve real situations are more interesting.

This is really funny, because my Dad is a neurosurgeon, and he has been playing the equivalent of Super Monkey Ball for decades. What he did was try to navigate a bb around little mazes encased in clear plastic. Who knew it was good for his patients as well has his patience?

$600 is the right price...if you don't have enough supply to meet demand at a lower price. If Sony didn't expect to sell out at this price, they would have mentioned a lower one.

The thing that surprises me is that they chose to reveal the price now, at E3. Did they have nothing else to talk about? Why spill the beans early?

Here's the thing: when you make a juvenile joke, I may laugh, but I ignore your argument. In fact, I assume you have no argument, and so have resorted to name calling.

One of my neighbors is named Bong. No joke. At least once a week, one of my kids goes and plays with one of the Bongs. This does not alarm me, because I know that the Bongs are really good people, who will take good care of my kids. Hopefully, I'll come to feel the same way about Wii.

Nintendo has officially launched the console for small children, girls, and grownups. This name is, I feel, designed to repel socially insecure, immature boys and young men. From the standpoint of attracting new audiences, this should actually be a good thing.

For me, I'm excited by the prospect of my wife being interested in a game console; to that end, I think this is a step in the right direction. Heck, I think my Mom is going to want to by a Wii. And I'm willing to bet that lots of pimply faced boys are going to be asking Santa to bring one for xmas--for their sister, of course.

Price is something to which I am very sensitive, and I am glad that Mr. Iwata wants to hold the line on game prices, which I feel are very high.

On the other hand, the point must be made that what I'm really looking for is value. My daughter played a $35 Pokemon game for 200 hours, and loved every minute. Conversely, my son suffered through a $10 monster truck game for a total of 20 minutes before deciding it was lame.

The quality of the software is what matters. $10, $20, $30 more for twice as much fun strikes me as a good deal.