The price is NOT that bad when you realise...

Status
Not open for further replies.
D@Z - don't over-react. I am not trying to stifle free speech. I find it hard to accept the argument that your deleted post progressed the discussion in a constructive manner and so should've stayed. It was removed to prevent this thread degenerating into personal insults, regardless of how correct you may or may not have been in your sentiment.

And when I say I would encourage facts over hearsay, that is not to say that opinion is not to be expressed, merely that anything that is not known as fact is not advertised like it is. The fact that the statement had an "I would imagine" attached means that the statement was not being expressed as fact.

There is not a conspiracy to protect mod opinion - otherwise why have I not deleted NackNack's comments?

A quick google search throws up this anyway:

The average console gives a margin of about 20-25%. Games are about 35%. And if the retailer makes its own accessories, the margin on them can be nearer to 70%.
Link
 
Munkey Boy said:
A quick google search throws up this anyway:

Link

Makes my "at least 10%" look pretty conservative lol. Very nice.
 
That article is simply not true though. As an average, consoles give no way near close to that in terms of profit, games (again, as an average) are much closer to 20% than 35%, and:

"And if the retailer makes its own accessories, the margin on them can be nearer to 70%."

I know of no retailer that actually makes their own accessories, they simply get them unbranded from a specific factory or manufacturer, GAME and Gamestation do the same, and they pay pennies for each controller (selling them at £7.99 - £9.99 and using them in bundle deals). IIRC, they pay/paid 32p a controller, which is more like 95% profit margin.

Official accessories are much more stingier, hence why GAME and Gamestation favour third party ones they bought in much cheaper.
 
NackNack said:
That article is simply not true though. As an average, consoles give no way near close to that in terms of profit, games (again, as an average) are much closer to 20% than 35%, and:

"And if the retailer makes its own accessories, the margin on them can be nearer to 70%."

I know of no retailer that actually makes their own accessories, they simply get them unbranded from a specific factory or manufacturer, GAME and Gamestation do the same, and they pay pennies for each controller (selling them at £7.99 - £9.99 and using them in bundle deals). IIRC, they pay/paid 32p a controller, which is more like 95% profit margin.

Official accessories are much more stingier, hence why GAME and Gamestation favour third party ones they bought in much cheaper.

I'm inclined to take the word of a professional "financial analyst" from a very reputable firm :clap:
 
quarryfied said:
I'm inclined to take the word of a professional "financial analyst" from a very reputable firm :clap:
Sadly the world is run by accountants.

The store where I worked ages ago folded due to profit margins. We had to have a profit margin of 18% to break even. With the Playstation (yes, before it was the PS1), we made a whole £10 profit per console when they were £200. The only decent profit margin was software - in some cases, such as PC, we could get around 45%, but then the price wars/reductions came in, so instead of selling "The 7th Guest" for £69.99, we sold it for £54.99, causing a dip in our margin, while trying to be "competitive". Nintendo were worse - you had to deal with Bandai directly and there was no movement. We made about 20% per cartridge and about 10% again for a console, provided we sold at the MRP.

Alas, to no avail and a year later, the independent store I worked in closed up.

It's easy for "analysts" to say these things, but with everyone wanting to have the most for the least amount, it's a rather sad state of affairs.
 
quarryfied said:
I'm inclined to take the word of a professional "financial analyst" from a very reputable firm :clap:
"said Rhys Williams, analyst at Seymour Pierce."

It's just another way you try and worm yourself out of accepting you're utterly and totally wrong throughtout this whole thread.

Myself and my friend have worked at various stores (at management level for him), and have had access to the figures and the cost that the stores buy in their stock, that analyst evidentely has only seen a few figures, if any. There is no basis for the truth in the article, just that this Rhys Williams guy said it, no link or back up for his information.
 
NackNack said:
"said Rhys Williams, analyst at Seymour Pierce."

It's just another way you try and worm yourself out of accepting you're utterly and totally wrong throughtout this whole thread.

Myself and my friend have worked at various stores (at management level for him), and have had access to the figures and the cost that the stores buy in their stock, that analyst evidentely has only seen a few figures, if any. There is no basis for the truth in the article, just that this Rhys Williams guy said it, no link or back up for his information.


I said at least 10%, he's saying more than double that in a BBC news article. I haven't seen you provide any evidence of your "five pounds" claim other than proclaiming that you know everything and can't possibly be wrong. Let's face it on this occasion you most certainly are.

You and "your friend" have no evidence to support your "argument" and certainly don't have any information relating to the new PS3, how could you? Time to let it lie petal.
 
My evidence to support my points is having seen many sales sheets and the actual buy-in price that GAME and Gamestation pay - your "at least 10%" is based upon nothing, if that guy is correct (which he isn't) or if I'm correct, that makes you wrong either way.

I never said I know everything, I just know the buy-in prices of a lot of the consoles (from launch to present day).

The new PS3? As opposed to the old one?

I never said I knew about the PS3 either way, but history tells us that it won't have a high profit margin, the PSX and PS2 launched with hardly any profit margin, so why is this going to be any different? The same goes for the Xbox and 360.

As other people have confirmed for me, I am correct, profit margins are not very high at all and subsidised by game and accessory bundles. I've given all the figures I know, you've given nothing other than irritating little comments.

Time to stop trying the patronising angle, idiot.
 
NackNack said:
My evidence to support my points is having seen many sales sheets and the actual buy-in price that GAME and Gamestation pay - your "at least 10%" is based upon nothing, if that guy is correct (which he isn't) or if I'm correct, that makes you wrong either way.

>Great "evidence" lol. How am i wrong with "at least", >understand the phrase please.

I never said I know everything, I just know the buy-in prices of a lot of the consoles (from launch to present day).

>Not the NEW PS3 though, which is what the thread is >about.

The new PS3? As opposed to the old one?

>Is it not new? lol, clutching at straws now.

I never said I knew about the PS3 either way, but history tells us that it won't have a high profit margin, the PSX and PS2 launched with hardly any profit margin, so why is this going to be any different? The same goes for the Xbox and 360.

>History shmistory

As other people have confirmed for me, I am correct, profit margins are not very high at all and subsidised by game and accessory bundles. I've given all the figures I know, you've given nothing other than irritating little comments.

>Nobody has confirmed anything. Other than a financial >analyst in a BBC news article, ahem.

Time to stop trying the patronising angle, idiot.

OOooohhh, saucer of milk for table two. :oops:
 
quarryfied said:
You and "your friend" have no evidence to support your "argument" and certainly don't have any information relating to the new PS3, how could you?
In fairness, neither have you, only assumption based on "facts" from a report in 2004 by an analyst who isn't in the industry (which I believe Pooon linked to).

NackNack can hardly produce evidence as if a trade price list was posted, it would be deleted pretty sharpish I'm sure (not just for consoles, but anywhere on the forums).

As to your initial post, if it's anything like it used to be, Sony supplied to a distributor, who take their markup and sell it on to a retailer, who make their percentage. So - take the vat off to start with on your £425 takes it down to around £360.71. I'd hazard a guess that the cost to the retailer will be around 330 going on past form, maybe down to 325. The distributor will probably make a tenner on each unit. Depending on Sony's set-up, it'll be around the same cost across various distributors, or they may sell through one only (which wasn't unheard of), which means the retailers can't pit one against another to get an extra 50p-£1 off each console for a large order.

Sorry, but while I appreciate where you may be coming from, console hardware was never profitable - it was all in the software.
 
And of course development costs, advertising revenue, setting up the live service. My point is, Sony are not making any money on the console, which is my original point. Anyway, enough from me.
 
I feel i must add. nacknack(and D@z to an extent as i read your post) the figures i quoted are based on my own knowledge and experience of profit margins that are made on electrical products in retail stores so to accuse me of providing false information is very very wide of the mark. I KNOW that what i post is always as accurate as possible, and certainly on this matter the information i have provided is a lot more accurate than what you have posted and/or argued about.

D@z - i'm 100% certain your post wasn't removed just because you disagreed with a moderator. it doesn't work like that round here
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom