Scarlet red? Is there another kind?
Sony has its hands full with PlayStation this week, discussing its top-loading PS3 release and unveiling three 'limited edition' PlayStation 3s, now available in current design with red, silver and white casing. The Japanese firm confirmed the existence of a forthcoming third-gen PS3 model, although quashed rumours it would be …
Scarlet red? Is there another kind?
Claret is a red that's not scarlet. Although it is 87.5% scarlet...
So why not just call it Scarlet? Scarlet is a more specific term than simply red. It's a redundancy. You wouldn't get a scarlet blue, would you?
This is so you know they're not releasing a Scarlet* Johansson themed PS3.
*I know there would be two Ts in there, but still.
I did misinterpret the original post, but I think the article is better for it.
A colleague asked me "what's an Ottoman?".
I said "It's an amphibious, river-dwelling mammal, dude!"
That comments like this don't receive more upvotes!
"You rock! You rule!"
I do struggle to see why offering the product in a different colour would somehow encourage somebody who wasn't already going to buy the console to buy it. Although given that they all do this, presumably its proven to work. "I don't think I will buy a new PS, I'll just wait until the next gen box comes out..... Ohh it comes in Scarlet blue now? Well why didn't you say! I'll take 10."
What happens is over time they realise ways to reduce the cost of the device through improved chip production techniques or merging lots of discrete ICs into one. Doing so lowers the asking price of the console while increasing the profit margin too.
To ensure it sells they have to pull out all the "gimmick", colour is just one of those tricks.
Flash back to a marketing meeting one week ago:
"Quick! We've badly managed expectations and people think we're announcing a new product"
"Erm, I've got a can of spray paint.. Surely that won't be enough to fool 'em though?"
"No, we can't be that blatant, they'll never fall for that..."
They think to get higher profits releasing a crap low quality PS3 ?
The current PS3 Slim Model K is already cheap as hell still based on the original chassis and design.
But the upcoming top-loading PS3 is just plain garbage. Sony managers are out of mind. Yes they did something like that to the PS2 too over the years but it doesn't mean that it is a good thing to do. Also the PS3 is still their main console on the market, the PS4 hasn't been released so why the heck would they want to release a crap top-loading PS3 all plastic ultra-cheap garbage edition?
If anyone with an old PS3 Fat or Slim out of warranty has to replace it because it can't be repaired at a cheap price then Sony is offering them an all gargbage top-loading PS3 all plastic cheap crap edition?
With the PS4 already released most people wouldn't be bothered but until the PS4 gets released the PS3 still remains Sony flagship console product. It's just plain stupid to release a garbage edition when you are still selling it as you premium flagship product....
Who cares? Exact same product that plays the exact same games and the exact same peripherals, but with cheaper materials ensuring a bigger profit margin. This has already been established for decades with various hardware manufacturers.
Isn't 4 unlucky in Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_superstitions#Numbers).
No PS4 / PlayStation death, hence the PS4 is the PS Vita / PlayStation life.
Reducing build quality to increase profits works in the short term usually but at some point you have your Schlitz moment where your quality is so low that customers associate you with Chinese no name brands or worst you make international news in a bad way. This is the type of short sided thinking that destroys brands.
>where your quality is so low that customers associate you with Chinese no name brands
See Sony BRAVIA for example.
Is that shortages of PS3s? If so, then it's circular logic.
Meanwhile in Canada, the Sony-branded 'Sony Stores' are disappearing pretty fast.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017