brochiller
Member
StevieP said:
And to think all it took was a $50 price cut.
Wii U Speculation Thread of Brains Beware: Wii U Re-Unveiling At E3 2012
- Thread starter bgassassin
- Start date
- Status
And to think all it took was a $50 price cut.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
guek said:
The Wii software market has all but evaporated, especially from 3rd parties. With Nintendo now scaling back support as well, and hesitant on dropping prices of evergreen titles, it will be a hard sell against a $199 360 or PS3 in Christmas of 2012, Japan being the exception due to DQ X. The Wii's biggest Western title of the first half of the year is undoubtedly Just Dance 2, and now JD 3 is multiplatform.
Sho_Nuff82 said:
I don't think the Wii will ever be a christmas juggernaut again, but I think a $99 bundle with mario kart or NSMB:wii would still be killer in 2012. It would never top the charts, but that wouldn't be the goal. I think there's potential to milk it for at least through 2012 in order to help nintendo deal with a higher Wii U price point and thus milder sales.
AceBandage
Banned
I know we had the Peter Moore interview posted earlier, but I think it was pretty glossed over and incomplete, so I'll pick out a few things.
On Nintendo and the expanded audience:
On Nintendo and the expanded audience:
bgassassin
Member
AlStrong said:
You know that has been said a lot about Nintendo and a lack of experience in that area, but considering how early new consoles go into development, it is very logical to believe that they have at least a couple of years under their belt of learning what it takes to make things work with much better tech than the Wii. It's also plausible that considering they had an alternate plan for the DS if it failed, they may have had an alternate plan for the Wii. Obviously we don't know (unless I missed something), but we have proof that they first wanted to use the second screen four years ago. They wouldn't have just come up with the idea of a new console recently and then just decided to start learning how to program for it.
I agree with what you are saying about MS's agenda, I doubt Nintendo is very much concerned about PC portability since they haven't even in the past considered the needs of third party devs when developing a console. Now that could play more into it this time around because that's just the nature of the current environment, but definitely not something Nintendo would go out and pursue. How exotic (if at all) it will be will probably depend on what requests Nintendo took from devs and not of their own concern. And considering how the West has become them main driver of home console sales, who knows what Western developers may have asked of them.
Luigiv said:
Then there's the likelihood that it was created using an engine designed for the Gamecube and looks better due to utilizing more powerful hardware, yet still limited due to originally being designed for much older hardware. I look forward to seeing what they do with an engine designed for this level of tech.
People talk as though selling the console at a loss is something Nintendo would never ever consider.
I'm not saying that they'd consider a PS3-level margin loss scenario, please don't misconstrue me (though I'm sure people will anyways).
But I can see Nintendo, sitting on 2 platforms that have had larger-than-normal profit margins per hardware unit sold for the past 5 years (Wii and DS), seeing themselves in a position to be really aggressive in the short term by starting at a manageable loss per hardware unit sold that can be easily recovered when component costs decrease later. They did it with the GameCube, and despite its lukewarm performance, it still made them a fair share.
I think Nintendo knows that by entering the hardcore arena again, it has to be a fierce competitor and take advantage of its early launch with aggressive pricing.
I'm not saying that they'd consider a PS3-level margin loss scenario, please don't misconstrue me (though I'm sure people will anyways).
But I can see Nintendo, sitting on 2 platforms that have had larger-than-normal profit margins per hardware unit sold for the past 5 years (Wii and DS), seeing themselves in a position to be really aggressive in the short term by starting at a manageable loss per hardware unit sold that can be easily recovered when component costs decrease later. They did it with the GameCube, and despite its lukewarm performance, it still made them a fair share.
I think Nintendo knows that by entering the hardcore arena again, it has to be a fierce competitor and take advantage of its early launch with aggressive pricing.
bgassassin
Member
Terrell said:
If the amount of announced support comes to fruition, they could cover those losses through software sales. Even though I don't really attribute 3DS' slow start to its price, I do wonder if Nintendo will be more aggressive with Wii U because of that start. I expect $349, but if they can hit $299 then that to me would be very good for them right out of the gate.
comedy bomb
Banned
Kansasdude2009 said:
fixed for an accurate Nintendo launch
Well, if we look at this chart (borrowed from this thread):bgassassin said:
Nintendo is in a better position than any other company in the industry to start their console launch with an introductory loss leader. Low price to get units in homes and become the next generation's "pace car" could put Nintendo in a position (sales, hardware AND software support-wise) that hasn't been seen in this industry since the PS2... which is a position that you know Nintendo wants back from its Japanese rival, Sony.
The graph shows Nintendo's greatest advantage over its competition for the upcoming generation: they can afford to financially manipulate the outcome in ways that Microsoft and Sony can't and won't upset their shareholders.
Were Microsoft to introduce another loss leader platform to try and out-maneuver Nintendo, shareholders would end up asking how deep the hole MS is throwing the company's money into actually is. Where's the bottom?
And Sony... well, the entire corporation is on shaky ground right now, another PS3 just can't be done, it's fiscally irresponsible.
I really doubt that Nintendo will abandon all the Wii Sports fans, by not including a wiimote in the box.
And considering that they already shown a WiiU Sports like game, I'd say it's pretty much locked in.
Now, will a nunchuck be included too? That's a more difficult question. Guessing yes, but wouldn't be surprised if it didn't.
And considering that they already shown a WiiU Sports like game, I'd say it's pretty much locked in.
Now, will a nunchuck be included too? That's a more difficult question. Guessing yes, but wouldn't be surprised if it didn't.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
ElFly said:
If they're Wii Sports fans, they probably already have one. I do hope they include a WiiMote+ and Chuck standard, though.
Gamer @ Heart
Member
ThoseDeafMutes said:
I do to. It makes sense seeing how they handled their WiiU 'experiences' at E3 that so far, multiplayer is designed with others interacting with the tv. That said, seeing how many of those controllers, + the original with the console, that they have sold into homes, i can totally see them justifying why they wouldn't.
Seeing as how the Wii U controller has it's own sensor bar built-in, I have to assume that they will at least be packing in a Wiimote+ with the system. Probably a Nunchuk will make it's way into the box as well, since they cost next to nothing and are pretty crucial for games. I'm hoping we'll also see a new Classic Controller that doesn't require a Wiimote at some point; the system is practically screaming for one of those. But it would probably be a separate thing, not included in with the console.
bgassassin
Member
I support a new CC as well, but looking at how/where Nintendo is cutting corners that might not come till much later.
Luigiv's post went into much more depth on my original thought, but like he said cash flow is the key. Just to add to his post this is why the third party support would be necessary. Sony and MS pursued such a big loss leader strategy that game sells early on could not cover the difference. They had to wait till hardware production became more fiscally responsible to start turning profits. If Nintendo went with a loss leader strategy, the max I would see it being would fall probably between $30-$50 (although $50 would probably still be too high for Nintendo to consider). They won't go the $100-$200 range Sony and MS went. It would have to be an amount that could be covered by the early licensing fees they make off of devs.
We all know the saying "You have to spend money to make money." However it's one thing to spend money for R&D, but another to spend more of your own money just to support the console the first year or so. Negative cash flow isn't good for anyone, and like luigi said Nintendo doesn't have multiple money streams making negative cash flow even worse for Nintendo.
Terrell said:
Luigiv's post went into much more depth on my original thought, but like he said cash flow is the key. Just to add to his post this is why the third party support would be necessary. Sony and MS pursued such a big loss leader strategy that game sells early on could not cover the difference. They had to wait till hardware production became more fiscally responsible to start turning profits. If Nintendo went with a loss leader strategy, the max I would see it being would fall probably between $30-$50 (although $50 would probably still be too high for Nintendo to consider). They won't go the $100-$200 range Sony and MS went. It would have to be an amount that could be covered by the early licensing fees they make off of devs.
We all know the saying "You have to spend money to make money." However it's one thing to spend money for R&D, but another to spend more of your own money just to support the console the first year or so. Negative cash flow isn't good for anyone, and like luigi said Nintendo doesn't have multiple money streams making negative cash flow even worse for Nintendo.
I think the reason nintendo refuses to use the heavy loss leader strategy is because they know that gaming is their only real revenue. People who demand that the follow sony and microsoft's lead forget that a fuckup on the scale of the PS3 could seriously drain their multi-billion warchest.
I do think that nintendo is too frugal at times, but only when it comes to long term investments like outsourcing better networking or 3rd party incentives.
I do think that nintendo is too frugal at times, but only when it comes to long term investments like outsourcing better networking or 3rd party incentives.
So having divisions that lose money is completely acceptable to shareholders? Really?! I'd like you to review that statement for a moment.Luigiv said:
Tell me how it makes sense for shareholders to turn a blind eye while Microsoft still has ZERO return-on-investment from their entertainment division after more than 10 years at it.
How can one establish a loss leader and justify to investors that the money they're just starting to reclaim on this sector of the business is being flushed down the pipe again? From what I have seen, investors and shareholders are already pissed with Microsoft's inability to recover these supposedly "initial" costs of market entry. But another loss leader for them would show that these "initial" costs have become consistent prolonged debt, and no one with money in Microsoft's business will stand for it.
And tell me how the strategy of using other successful divisions to recover losses is a sound business strategy for Sony, which is frequently and consistently reporting in the red. They squandered all of the gains they made with their 2 successful consoles and Sony's other divisions aren't strong enough to prop up a major loss leader anymore.
Also, Nintendo HAS done a loss leader strategy before. It was called the GameCube, which still netted them a profit. Of course, the loss per console was minimal, but it proves that Nintendo is willing to be price-aggressive if it knows it can cover the loss in other parts of their business. And given the sales of Nintendo's own software with the Wii, they can be pretty confident in software sales reconciling the loss as long as it's not too substantial. And for those not paying attention, I wasn't suggesting a $100 loss per unit, just that profitability on hardware is likely not going to be their primary goal with how it's designed and sold this time.
And more to the point, Nintendo is 400% more solvent in their video game enterprise than Sony or Microsoft. Even if shareholders get paid out a substantial amount of that, they still have more money to pay into a loss leader strategy than both their competitors.
Seriously, this idea of an unaggressive Nintendo really needs to die. It CAN happen as long as Nintendo is willing. And making an HD console shows that with the casual market locked in, they want to steal a larger piece of Sony and Microsoft's hardcore gamer pie.
bgassassin
Member
He's not saying it's a sound strategy. He's just saying that's what they do.
It's also kind of hard to say that idea needs to die since Nintendo began establishing it after the N64.
It's also kind of hard to say that idea needs to die since Nintendo began establishing it after the N64.
So, today I showed my co-worker the Wii U reveal trail, garden tech demo, and Zelda tech demo. Now before I go further I will say he is an avid PC gamer and tech lover. When he saw the ways the new controller was being used he was absolutely floored. His favorite where the Upad mounted on the gun, the golfing one, and the throwing star one. I really don't think Nintendo is going to have a problem selling the Wii U, the new controller is going to be a draw just like the Wiimote was.
Well he is right that Nintendo's not risk adverse, and that they ARE quite aggressive at times, but the real thing is that Nintendo is risky and aggressive with a saftey net. That's basically what the Wii was. They were making money off of each system sold from the start, and they started with VERY modest productions, but dollars to donuts says that Nintendo had a backup plan to be launched within a year or so if the utterly failed. Same with the DS. The Wii and DS, while TREMENDOUSLY aggressive, risky, and disruptive technologies, weren't being thrown out there just because Nintendo had the brass balls to do it, they were thrown out there to see if they could change their squandering marketshare fortunes around by side-stepping the game that they were losing. It was a big, fat, aggressive risk to which there was a plan B. It also worked, so Plan B never saw the light of day.bgassassin said:
evilromero
Member
So a Wimote, Wiipad and nunchuck all in the same box? Which thingy do I grab first?ElFly said:
Terrell said:
Yes the point of business is to make money, but it's not as easy as it sounds, else we'd all be rich. MS can sit at home and let the money roll-in with Windows, Office and its Server operations but it needs to spend on Entertainment and Devices more than ever to prevent itself from being outmaneuvered by Apple, Google, Facebook etc. Much like the Xbox was created to deny Sony hegemony over the living room entertainment experience (and given what the PS3 was it could've been a huge threat) so to does MS throw billions now at Windows Phone 7 and tablets. In tech you can't just do what makes money, you're constantly sprinting just to maintain your position.
Mr.Squirrel
Tom
brochiller said:
I never understand when people make these statements. The Wii has been the fastest selling console in history, and it's games have constantly and consistently been at the top of the NPD charts. People seem to have a weird recollection of history when it comes to the Wii. Outside of the 3rd parties not supporting them (which it seems they're attempting to fix), why wouldn't Nintendo want to recreate that with the Wii U?
Smiles and Cries
Member
Coolwhip said:
Keeping their name in the minds of a new generation of worker ants?
Microsoft entered the industry because they couldnt broker a deal to own Nintendo and had a very heavy desire to thwart Sonys takeover of the house.Coolwhip said:
At this point I think many investors question whats the point. It has been a very expensive undertaking that investors have not liked and it hasnt really thwarted Sony though SOny has done more damage to itself than competition.
Chuckpebble
Member
I know the conversation has moved past this, but I just recently got my account activated, and this has been on my mind a while.
Are the circle pads possibly a design choice meant to avoid accidental input while reaching over to the screen with your thumbs? Just a thought.
Are the circle pads possibly a design choice meant to avoid accidental input while reaching over to the screen with your thumbs? Just a thought.
brochiller said:
I know this quote has already been tackled to hell but I feel a clear response requires images.
and the already posted....
So once again: "Nintendo needs to realize that making a ton of profit per system at launch may not be the most profitable business model"
bgassassin
Member
Truth101 said:
Yeah. Once people get a better understanding beyond "it's a new controller for Wii", it should do well. BlacknMild posted the pic earlier, but the gun idea doesn't get enough recognition IMO. I would like to see that as an alternative control to just straight up dual analog.
doomed1 said:
Ha, I said the same thing in bold a few posts earlier.
I think the context of aggressive in this sense was pricing to be competitive, especially with better technology. Technology costs back in the day were one thing, but the environment to make better consoles and still be affordable is going away. I just don't see Nintendo pushing that unless they have a good amount of support for the console from the get go. I can see the launch price being an indicator of the launch window support, especially if it comes out at $299.
Veal said:
Never played the series, but from what I understand of the gameplay I would like to see the controller be used as a stethoscope and x-ray so that you have to diagnose the problem before operating.
I still find it hilarious that they thought they'd be able to buy Nintendo. Still part of me wonders how that might have turned out...antonz said:
Anyway, do any of you think that Nintendo could take advantage of the 3DS's profit margin and take a small loss on Wii U in it's first year? I think that they really should. First of all, let's be honest; it's highly unlikely that it'll be more than twice as powerful as the current gen. I really want to believe that it's more, but the +50% rumors are likely close to accurate, however vague they my be. After all, the tech demos they showed were behind all of this year's graphical showcases for consoles, and it couldn't even maintain a good frame rate despite running at 720p with no AA. The kit was underclocked, but I doubt it was that underclocked. Add that to Sega saying it's "different" and Ubi saying that it's actually weaker than the current-gen in some areas, and it's obvious that Nintendo hasn't learned a thing. As a result, this thing really should be launching at $199. However, they obviously won't do that. With the controller's cost, they might have trouble keeping the price that low and, frankly, I think that the Wii's success has stuck their heads up their asses. You can say what you want about Sony and Microsoft holding back and diminishing returns, but chances remain that PS4 and XB3 may end up more than 5x as power as Wii U, which means that devs won't want to compromise the quality of their games by putting them on Wii U. "Hardcore" gamers won't want to buy significantly inferior versions of games, either. Nintendo is in a position where they are offering a console that no one but diehard Nintendo fanboys will consider, so price is really the only weapon they have. Honestly, I don't see this doing much better than Gamecube unless Nintendo is trying to make people think it's weak to surprise us later, which obviously isn't the case
My point is that, based on everything I've seen, if it's above $200, it'll be too expensive compared to the PS3 and 360, which it can't compete against due to games, and too close to the next consoles when they release, which the hardcore audience will flock to. So, Nintendo needs to do whatever it takes to get the console to $199, or it really doesn't have a true audience. Really, I think they should scrap it and start making something more powerful for 2014 based on 2011 tech, but that's just me.
BurntPork said:
I've iterated several times now that I think they'll do this but with the Wii rather than the 3DS.
Also, I really do think you're counting your chickens before they hatch as far as the power of this machine goes. Iwata has difinitively stated it's going to cost more than the wii at launch. $300 is likely the baseline price for this machine.
I don't remember this one, link?BurntPork said:
And you come to this conclusion how? Do we even know enough about what Nintendo is "offering" with the Wii U to say who it will appeal to? Judging from E3 Nintendo is definitely planning on carrying over a large portion of their wii consumer base. Whether they succeed or not will be determined later but there's nothing about the wii u that tells me "Nintendo is in a position where they are offering a console that no one but diehard fanboys will consider". The wii u isn't the rumored modern SNES people thought it would be.
So we can forget the screen on the controller, the stylus and every other already known function of the controller and any innovations that might come from it? Also what happened to the appeal of AAA Nintendo 1st party games? Are those no longer viable "weapons"?
Seriously? More than $200 is too much for a brand new home console?
AceBandage
Banned
artwalknoon said:
Because it was never said. Ever...
Ugh, BurntPork. Just... stop...
Jaded Alyx
Member
And foolish me thinking this thread had weeded out the insane.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Long as I'm here the truly crazy won't be far behind.Jaded Alyx said:
AceBandage
Banned
Dunno if this was posted yet:
Nintendo's Katsuya Eguch in EGM said:
bgassassin
Member
That guy might be in for a rude awakening based on the way things went at the end with Wii.
AceBandage
Banned
guek said:
Nintendo knows that content is king. Though, their view on that can be a bit skewed.
At the same time, they have also made it very clear that they understand that online social networking is the future.
The Wii U will be big tasks for both of those fields. We'll see if Nintendo is ready.
Gravijah said:
Like acebandage says, content is king. I want nintendo to create a healthy platform for content to thrive. In order to do that, they must have an open and robust online system as well as enough power to accommodate the needs of third party developers.
I really do think that it's possible they'll accomplish both, but I fear that they'll become short sighted or unable to execute either properly. I think the use of modern shaders and moderate GPU should get them by and allow for most ports of acceptable quality.
It's presently unclear whether or not the wii was simply a master stroke of genius that allowed them to take advantage of an untapped market or if it was a complete fundamental shift in design philosophy. If it was the latter, then I wont be surprised at all if the wii U really is just a beefier 360. Luckily, most rumors point to something a bit more substantial.
- Status