Support NeoGAF

[agrajag]

The components being cheap was also unexpected. And prices have been going up sharply in the past few years. Just because you somehow knew that Sony would pull a complete 180 from what they did with the PS3 doesn't mean that everyone did.

I didn't. If you read my earlier posts, you'll see that I assumed that Vita will be sold at a loss to be competitive with 3DS's pricing. But as it turns out, it's not even being sold at a loss, which proves my point about Nintendo dropping the ball further. They would be much more informed than I as to how much hardware components cost nowadays. Are you seriously telling me that "the components being cheap" was a surprise for a hardware manufacturer? Come on.

Greed. Simply greed. It was stupid to release at $250 with no games.

Thank you. I agree with you.

 

[Manmademan]

PS3/360 will get ports of Wii U games. Its ease of development and greater power ensures this.

not necessarily, since the Xbox got tons of PS2 ports that didn't take advantage of the hardware, even though it had easier development and greater power.

Wii U will get ports of PS4/720 games because it actually can, as opposed to the Wii w/the HD twins. Wii U is Shader Model 4.1 (possibly 5.0), whereas Wii wasn't Shader Model anything. It wasn't possible to scale down games to it without completely re-writing the engines and re-tooling the assets.

There's no way to know this before we know what the PS4 and 720 will actually do.

 

[Vinci]

Is the parallax barrier screen that expensive to justify 3DS being as expensive as a Vita? Or is Nintendo simply greedy?

Nintendo is a corporation. It wants to make a profit on its products. This is how it stays in business. As such, it will price its products based on what it thinks it can sell them at, and not based on component cost. Why do they do this? Because this is traditional business policy. Manufacturers do not traditionally use component cost to dictate how they price their products in any industry.

 

[agrajag]

Nintendo is a corporation. It wants to make a profit on its products. This is how it stays in business. As such, it will price its products based on what it thinks it can sell them at, and not based on component cost. Why do they do this? Because this is traditional business policy. Manufacturers do not traditionally use component cost to dictate how they price their products in any industry.

Well, I guess they made a mistake then, because 3DS isn't selling. They made a mistake not branding it separately from DS too.

quick edit: If they based their pricing for 3DS on how well the DS was selling, something doesn't add up, because DS has been slowing down well before the launch of 3DS.

 

[Vinci]

Well, I guess they made a mistake then, because 3DS isn't selling. They made a mistake not branding it separately from DS too.

It's a bit too early to say that. Six months after release, we'll have a better idea how it's doing. Selling 'below expectations' is not the same as '[not] selling.'

EDIT: They based their pricing on how well the 3DS was received at E3. People went crazy for it, and they thought this indicated a great amount of demand for the product. Whether they're wrong or right is hard to say because it's been out too short a time and hasn't received enough strong software. If it doesn't sell well during the holidays, then yes, I think Nintendo can assume that they made a mistake and we'll likely see a price cut sometime next year.

 

[MrBelmontvedere]

It's only hubris if it fails.

well, it's looking like it failed :/

 

[BurntPork]

Is the parallax barrier screen that expensive to justify 3DS being as expensive as a Vita? Or is Nintendo simply greedy?

It's neither. Companies price products based on what they think people are willing to pay. Cost to the company for making and selling the product only comes into play if that cost is close to or potentially greater than the price that people are willing to pay. Nintendo priced the 3DS at where they thought they'd get the maximum profit not per-unit, but altogether. If they thought that the higher sales from a lower price would result in more total profit, then they would have priced it lower.

Businesses are not meant to give us the best deal; they want to profit. And in the long run, it's not profit per unit that matters to them.

 

[Graphics Horse]

The leaked prototype was using a Tegra, so no. You're thinking of the original DS: rumor says the DS GPU was intended to be used in the GBA (project Aurora), but Nintendo found it was not viable at the time.

No I'm talking about this one: http://www.cnbc.com/id/31084652 which I think was talked about before the Tegra rumours even hit.
The idea being they cancelled the Tegra and fell back on the old PICA they would already have experimented with back in 2006.
...Although it could have been something simple like a DSliteXL.

 

[Vinci]

It's neither. Companies price products based on what they think people are willing to pay. Cost to the company for making and selling the product only comes into play if that cost is close to or potentially greater than the price that people are willing to pay. Nintendo priced the 3DS at where they thought they'd get the maximum profit not per-unit, but altogether. If they thought that the higher sales from a lower price would result in more total profit, then they would have priced it lower.

Businesses are not meant to give us the best deal; they want to profit. And in the long run, it's not profit per unit that matters to them.

It's also based on a lot of other factors - how many systems they felt they could produce during a certain time period (ie. if they sold it at $199, they would easily sell out, which would indicate that they had underpriced it relative to its demand and scarcity), etc. There are a lot of factors in pricing decisions, and I think it's simply too early to decide whether the 3DS was overpriced or not.

It's possible it was, but it's hard to say thus far.

 

[agrajag]

It's a bit too early to say that. Six months after release, we'll have a better idea how it's doing. Selling 'below expectations' is not the same as '[not] selling.'

EDIT: They based their pricing on how well the 3DS was received at E3. People went crazy for it, and they thought this indicated a great amount of demand for the product. Whether they're wrong or right is hard to say because it's been out too short a time and hasn't received enough strong software. If it doesn't sell well during the holidays, then yes, I think Nintendo can assume that they made a mistake and we'll likely see a price cut sometime next year.

Is E3 a good indicator of the market as a whole? E3 is a convention for the enthusiasts, I'd be slightly surprised if companies base their decisions on E3 showings.

I agree with you that it's too early to call 3DS a flop just yet, and Nintendo will probably be able to salvage it and make a nice profit from it. But it's tracking under DS sales right now, isn't it? And the DS didn't have a great start itself. I envision a GC-like scenario for 3DS. It will sell moderately well, giving up most of the market-share to Vita, and making a nice profit for Nintendo due to their high profit margins.

 

[Orayn]

well, it's looking like it failed :/

It's a little early in the game to call it a failed system, wouldn't you say?

 

[Vinci]

Is E3 a good indicator of the market as a whole?

No, it's not. But it's possible that Nintendo felt their early launch lineup would be more appealing to enthusiasts and that the E3 response indicated great demand from that demographic. It's also possible that they felt they wouldn't have the system-selling 3DS-specific software ready anytime soon (ie. appealing to the mainstream), and aren't going after that larger market as of yet for that reason. In that case, pricing it higher may have made more sense in terms of total profit earned.

And Nintendo has specifically said that they raised the price based on the E3 response.

I agree with you that it's too early to call 3DS a flop just yet, and Nintendo will probably be able to salvage it and make a nice profit from it. But it's tracking under DS sales right now, isn't it? And the DS didn't have a great start itself.

That's not remarkably surprising as it hasn't received a bulk of strong software yet. Once it has, it'll be easier to tell whether it was overpriced or not. For example, it was easy to see that the PS3 was overpriced over time regardless of its component cost.

I envision a GC-like scenario for 3DS. It will sell moderately well, giving up most of the market-share to Vita, and making a nice profit for Nintendo due to their high profit margins.

I think the 3DS will sell less than the DS, but I don't see that having anything to do with the Vita. And yes, it's a given that Nintendo will make a lot of money.

 

[BurntPork]

It's also based on a lot of other factors - how many systems they felt they could produce during a certain time period (ie. if they sold it at $199, they would easily sell out, which would indicate that they had underpriced it relative to its demand and scarcity), etc. There are a lot of factors in pricing decisions, and I think it's simply too early to decide whether the 3DS was overpriced or not.

It's possible it was, but it's hard to say thus far.

Even if it was overpriced, I'm reluctant to call them greedy for it. They made a mistake, and the consumers showed it by not buying it. I also hate that that breakdown went out because now people think that it should be sold for less than $150, meaning that Nintendo loses sales for people not knowing how businesses work.

 

[Deku]

I agree with you that it's too early to call 3DS a flop just yet, and Nintendo will probably be able to salvage it and make a nice profit from it. But it's tracking under DS sales right now, isn't it? And the DS didn't have a great start itself. I envision a GC-like scenario for 3DS. It will sell moderately well, giving up most of the market-share to Vita, and making a nice profit for Nintendo due to their high profit margins.

The DS launched over the holidays.

We can have a discussion about smartphones impacting its sales, but from a conventional portable space standpoint, they have a lot of room to maneuver because their primary competition isn't even out yet.

 

[Graphics Horse]

What's the maximum people can see the Wii U being sold for? $300? $400?

 

[Oppo]

They are not selling slightly above cost, and the 3DS does not have a 100% mark-up. Nintendo doesn't sell the 3DS for $250; retailers do.

I thought, and correct me if I'm wrong, that retailers typically only make $1-3 at most on a console sale?

 

[Vinci]

Even if it was overpriced, I'm reluctant to call them greedy for it.

Of course it's greedy. I think what's idiotic is somehow making 'greed' a negative thing for companies taking part in commerce. It's not a non-profit. It's meant to be profitable. If it can create products that sell at 4x the cost of making them, they're doing a damned good job. [And yes, I know they're making less on the 3DS - I'm just exaggerating it a bit.] There are many industries out there where the component costs for the products are 1/10th what they're sold at. Hell, my wife owns a purse made out of recycled pop tops that she bought for nearly $100. Which only goes to show how ingenious that damn company is.

Ingenuity is not about increasing costs and selling at higher prices with lower profit margins. That's brunt force stupidity. Innovation makes something inexpensive to make capable of selling for a premium. That's why Nintendo pursues it so aggressively, and why they like 'gimmicks' that everyone stupidly plays off as lazy.

What's the maximum people can see the Wii U being sold for? $300? $400?

Maximum? $350.

 

[BurntPork]

Is E3 a good indicator of the market as a whole? E3 is a convention for the enthusiasts, I'd be slightly surprised if companies base their decisions on E3 showings.

I agree with you that it's too early to call 3DS a flop just yet, and Nintendo will probably be able to salvage it and make a nice profit from it. But it's tracking under DS sales right now, isn't it? And the DS didn't have a great start itself. I envision a GC-like scenario for 3DS. It will sell moderately well, giving up most of the market-share to Vita, and making a nice profit for Nintendo due to their high profit margins.

Actually, it's doing better than the DS did in it's first year if you compare based on the month, rather than the number of months out. If you compare their second months directly, for example, then 3DS didn't even come close to DS, sure. But is it really fair to compare April to December?

 

[Deku]

Of course it's greedy. I think what's idiotic is somehow making 'greed' a negative thing for companies taking part in commerce. It's not a non-profit. It's meant to be profitable. If it can create products that sell at 4x the cost of making them, they're doing a damned good job. [And yes, I know they're making less on the 3DS - I'm just exaggerating it a bit.] There are many industries out there where the component costs for the products are 1/10th what they're sold at. Hell, my wife owns a purse made out of recycled pop tops that she bought for nearly $100. Which only goes to show how ingenious that damn company is.

Ingenuity is not about increasing costs and selling at higher prices with lower profit margins. That's brunt force stupidity. Innovation makes something inexpensive to make capable of selling for a premium. That's why Nintendo pursues it so aggressively, and why they like 'gimmicks' that everyone stupidly plays off as lazy.

Warped economics FTW.

But as I noted, discussing sustainability with enthusiasts who would want everything now and for free is a losing proposition.

 

[MrBelmontvedere]

It's a little early in the game to call it a failed system, wouldn't you say?

perhaps I should say it has failed up to this point. I don't think it will succeed until it gets a price drop and better games. (and BTW yes I own a 3DS)

 

[BurntPork]

What's the maximum people can see the Wii U being sold for? $300? $400?

I would have to say $400, since that's the max any console can reasonably be sold for.

I thought, and correct me if I'm wrong, that retailers typically only make $1-3 at most on a console sale?

I honestly don't know for sure. Where did you hear that?

 

[Vinci]

Warped economics FTW.

But as I noted, discussing sustainability with enthusiasts who would want everything now and for free is a losing proposition.

I always swore to myself that I wouldn't do this. I know it's mostly a losing proposition because people are often too self-centered to understand how the hell things work in the real world. But I also hope that maybe there are people who just didn't understand and are willing to listen and learn. Might never happen, but it's nice that people in here haven't asked if I own Nintendo stock yet. That's a good sign.

 

[Krauser Kat]

Nintendo is fine ATM. They have to have at least 80-100 leeway on the 3ds price point. Bust out a die shrink and fix any problems (like the screen touching) use the more room inside for a larger battery and release it for 175-200 and they will sell.

 

[Oppo]

I honestly don't know for sure. Where did you hear that?

From a few friends who worked in retail. They were shocked to find out, most of the time it was only $1 on something like a PS3.

And also from the whole PSP Go fiasco. The retailers didn't want to stock those things without a healthy markup, because they weren't going to make a dime on software follow-up sales.

So for all intents and purposes, it basically is all Nintendo with the huge markup.

I always swore to myself that I wouldn't do this. I know it's mostly a losing proposition because people are often too self-centered to understand how the hell things work in the real world. But I also hope that maybe there are people who just didn't understand and are willing to listen and learn. Might never happen, but it's nice that people in here haven't asked if I own Nintendo stock yet. That's a good sign.

Owning stock is the only rational reason to care.

Remember, understanding is different from having a concern. How Nintendo makes it's money is not my concern. Their value proposition is. I understand why they might mark up the 3DS, but I don't really care why or how they got to a certain price point.

 

[plagiarize]

The components being cheap was also unexpected. And prices have been going up sharply in the past few years. Just because you somehow knew that Sony would pull a complete 180 from what they did with the PS3 doesn't mean that everyone did.


They are not selling slightly above cost, and the 3DS does not have a 100% mark-up. Nintendo doesn't sell the 3DS for $250; retailers do.

I love how Kaz is suddenly a liar because somebody said something different a few days later. Clearly, there's something not being said there.

i thought it had been clarified that the 'PSV sold at a loss for three years' thing was a mistranslation. certainly estimates on GAF from people in the know put the prices around the level they it was announced at, and they were confident that it could be sold at around cost rather than taking a loss.

what we were afraid of was Sony doing something stupid again.

 

[Vinci]

Owning stock is the only rational reason to care.

Remember, understanding is different from having a concern. How Nintendo makes it's money is not my concern. Their value proposition is. I understand why they might mark up the 3DS, but I don't really care why or how they got to a certain price point.

If I like a company, I prefer that it make decisions that keep it in business and producing products that I enjoy. The loss of SEGA is something I still feel to this day. I like Nintendo and I like Sony. I don't want either one hurting itself so badly that it causes either company to cancel a game or send developers I appreciate to unemployment lines.

Basically, I prefer when they get what they need and I get what I need. Yes, the value proposition is on them, but I think painting decisions in line with that as purely negative simplifies the situation to such an extent that it shows no understanding of how reality works. That, or it shows an utter disregard for others.

 

[BurntPork]

From a few friends who worked in retail. They were shocked to find out, most of the time it was only $1 on something like a PS3.

And also from the whole PSP Go fiasco. The retailers didn't want to stock those things without a healthy markup, because they weren't going to make a dime on software follow-up sales.

So for all intents and purposes, it basically is all Nintendo with the huge markup.


Owning stock is the only rational reason to care.

Remember, understanding is different from having a concern. How Nintendo makes it's money is not my concern. Their value proposition is. I understand why they might mark up the 3DS, but I don't really care why or how they got to a certain price.

I looked it up and, outside of the 3DS in Europe around launch where retailers went crazy with their freedom, you're right. Looking at that, it's fair to say that Nintendo's profit margin is over 140%. Nintendo really could easily have put this at $150 and we'd be back to where we were in 2004. (Though, honestly, I wouldn't want it that low because it would be sold out for too long. lol)

It's up to the consumer to decide if it's worth buying at that price. If you think it's too much, don't buy. It really is that simple. Complaining about being ripped-off is just a waste of time.

 

[Vinci]

For what it's worth, I have no interest in buying a 3DS at present and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Simply put, I feel that Nintendo judged the 'innovation' of 3D too highly based on the E3 experience. I don't feel it's worth $250 to me, though that has absolutely nothing to do with component cost. I simply don't value what it offers at that amount, whereas I had no qualms about buying a Wii for that amount before. And that's not a handheld vs. console issue - the Wii's innovation was just far more worthwhile to me personally.

 

[BruiserBear]

What's the maximum people can see the Wii U being sold for? $300? $400?

I'll be shocked if it's more than $299.

 

[Bamboozle]

Great 1st party games, Combined with great 3rd party support, hopefully great online system, wrapped in a powerful Nintendo Console? I don't really have any Sony or Microsoft 1st party games I like. If Nintendo pulls this off right I may not even have to look at the next PS and Microsoft consoles.

 

[Plinko]

What's the maximum people can see the Wii U being sold for? $300? $400?

$350 maximum, but they better be shooting for a $299 launch. I can see this being a massive failure of a launch at $349.

 

[Vinci]

$350 maximum, but they better be shooting for a $299 launch. I can see this being a massive failure of a launch at $349.

Based on what?

 

[BurntPork]

I'll be shocked if it's more than $299.

We don't even know how powerful the thing is or what will come in the box. Would you still be shocked if you found out that it's 3x as powerful as the current gen and ships Wii U Sports, a Wii Remote, Nunchuck, and CCPro packed in? (obviously with the Wii U's controller too)

 

[plagiarize]

I looked it up and, outside of the 3DS in Europe around launch where retailers went crazy with their freedom, you're right. Looking at that, it's fair to say that Nintendo's profit margin is over 140%. Nintendo really could easily have put this at $150 and we'd be back to where we were in 2004. (Though, honestly, I wouldn't want it that low because it would be sold out for too long. lol)

It's up to the consumer to decide if it's worth buying at that price. If you think it's too much, don't buy. It really is that simple. Complaining about being ripped-off is just a waste of time.

if they could have sold it at $150, i think it would have been a bad move. i think it would have killed DS sales, which i think are still very healthy. it would be sold out, and no one would be buying DSs unless they slashed the prices on those too.

overall i think they're bringing in more financially right now than they would have at $150... but i'm not going to be surprised if they drop the price this year, and it becomes clear that it's over priced at $250.

i'm thinking it probably is, but i'm not ruling out the sales taking off once more games are out, and the competitor comes to market. you get a lot of people in holding pattern at times like this, and there's no guarantee that they're all going to go to the competitor.

we saw it with DS, we saw it with PS2 and i believe we saw it with 360. the 360's first year didn't look good at all (also in part i think because people weren't done with the last gen).

selfishly speaking as a consumer, i hope that the 3DS needs that price cut before sales pick up, because that'll force Nintendo to be more competitive with the Wii U price.

 

[plagiarize]

We don't even know how powerful the thing is or what will come in the box. Would you still be shocked if you found out that it's 3x as powerful as the current gen and ships Wii U Sports, a Wii Remote, Nunchuck, and CCPro packed in? (obviously with the Wii U's controller too)

i'd be shocked if it shipped with a wii remote, nunchuck and ccpro packed in, yes. there are many good reasons to only ship it with the Wii U controller.

 

[beast786]

I'll be shocked if it's more than $299.

Same here. If they do. I will pick one up.

 

[lednerg]

There's no way to know this before we know what the PS4 and 720 will actually do.

For the life of me, I cannot imagine what would make multi-console games for PS4/720 impossible to be ported over to the Wii U. I don't care how powerful they might end up being. Unless publishers stop liking money, or middleware developers forget what scalability is, Nintendo will get those games on their system.

 

[Vinci]

i'd be shocked if it shipped with a wii remote, nunchuck and ccpro packed in, yes. there are many good reasons to only ship it with the Wii U controller.

I think it'll come with a Wii Remote +, honestly. Could be wrong, but they seem to be playing n the 'asymmetrical opportunities' with the two a lot and I think they'll want that available from the word go.

 

[BurntPork]

i'd be shocked if it shipped with a wii remote, nunchuck and ccpro packed in, yes. there are many good reasons to only ship it with the Wii U controller.

I think there's a pretty good chance that "Wii U Sports" will be packed-in, and that'll likely require at least a Wii Remote+. They'd also want to put a Nunchuck in so that the Remote/Nunchuck combo continues to be supported and it has out-of-box backwards compatibility, which is vital for it's success in the casual market.

 

[birdchili]

wii remote+ included, no nunchuk, no cc.

pack-in game(s) that isn't wii u sports. i'm betting something a bit closer to what would be considered a "core" game, and definitely showcasing some ucontroller/remote asymmetrical multiplayer that you can play right out-of-the-box (they've been very clear that having people have a unique experience with the "core package" is important). a collection of smaller games rather than a big single game seems likely.

$299.
</guess>

 

[lednerg]

I hope they don't make me pay for a bunch of things I already own. Give us two SKU's, please, Nintendo. One "base" package with just the console and tablet, and then a "deluxe" one including a Wiimote and accessories that a ton of people already have.

 

[Plinko]

Based on what?

The horrible world economy?

 

[plagiarize]

I think there's a pretty good chance that "Wii U Sports" will be packed-in, and that'll likely require at least a Wii Remote+. They'd also want to put a Nunchuck in so that the Remote/Nunchuck combo continues to be supported and it has out-of-box backwards compatibility, which is vital for it's success in the casual market.

personally, i want the new controller to be supported in just about every game. if every console also comes with a wii remote, then there's really no reason to make that happen.

if the wii had been packed with a gamecube controller say, then most devs would have just used that.

also, i'm sure every game in Wii U Sports will be playable with the Wii U controller. that is after all what Nintendo will be trying to showcase. if any can only be played with the regular controller it's not going to demonstrate to people why they should buy a Wii U.

and yeah, i don't need more wii remotes.

 

[Vinci]

I hope they don't make me pay for a bunch of things I already own. Give us two SKU's, please, Nintendo. One "base" package with just the console and tablet, and then a "deluxe" one including a Wiimote and accessories that a ton of people already have.

They'll do bundles later, but they should initially start with just one SKU to help early adoption and keep from confusing people.

My Guess:

$299
1 WiiPad
1 Wii Remote +
1 Nunchuk
Wii U Play: Chase Mii, Battle Mii, etc. More Play than Sports.

The horrible world economy?

The one that's buying Apple products like they're mints?

 

[birdchili]

did any of the u games on-display at e3 use the nunchuk?

 

[BurntPork]

wii remote+ included, no nunchuk, no cc.

pack-in game(s) that isn't wii u sports. i'm betting something a bit closer to what would be considered a "core" game, and definitely showcasing some ucontroller/remote asymmetrical multiplayer that you can play right out-of-the-box (they've been very clear that having people have a unique experience with the "core package" is important). a collection of smaller games rather than a big single game seems likely.

$299.
</guess>

The only "core" game they'd consider is New Super Mario Bros. Mii, which really doesn't need a Remote. I really want them to have a remote and Nunchck, though, because I don't want to be forced to use dual analog for shooters. That Killer Freaks game looked kinda fun. :/

personally, i want the new controller to be supported in just about every game. if every console also comes with a wii remote, then there's really no reason to make that happen.

if the wii had been packed with a gamecube controller say, then most devs would have just used that.

also, i'm sure every game in Wii U Sports will be playable with the Wii U controller. that is after all what Nintendo will be trying to showcase. if any can only be played with the regular controller it's not going to demonstrate to people why they should buy a Wii U.

and yeah, i don't need more wii remotes.

There's a reason for that sensor bar on the Wii U controller, you know.

 

[Vinci]

did any of the u games on-display at e3 use the nunchuk?

Battle Mii

 

[Plinko]

The one that's buying Apple products like they're mints?

Come on. That's a horrible comparison.

 

[plagiarize]

The only "core" game they'd consider is New Super Mario Bros. Mii, which really doesn't need a Remote. I really want them to have a remote and Nunchck, though, because I don't want to be forced to use dual analog for shooters. That Killer Freaks game looked kinda fun. :/

i hope for optional wii remote aiming in most things, but i'm sure that dual analogue will be be standard, and pointer aiming secondary (like move support on the PS3 or CC support on the Wii).

There's a reason for that sensor bar on the Wii U controller, you know.

yes, so that games that choose to use a wii remote can be played on the Wii U screen when the TV is being used for something else. but i don't think that guarantees that one will be packed in.

 

[birdchili]

The only "core" game they'd consider is New Super Mario Bros. Mii, which really doesn't need a Remote. I really want them to have a remote and Nunchck, though, because I don't want to be forced to use dual analog for shooters. That Killer Freaks game looked kinda fun. :/

a "compilation" of games i think is most likely... i just expect something a little closer to "core" tastes (more shooting stuff and explosions, at least).

a (non-pack-in) new ip from nintendo that's a bit out of their comfort zone within the "launch window" would help their branding if they're really serious about making a sell to 360/ps3 folk.