-Pyromaniac-
Member
Bro I am not even joking. That N64 was on some next level shit.
Wii U Speculation Thread of Brains Beware: Wii U Re-Unveiling At E3 2012
- Thread starter bgassassin
- Start date
- Status
AceBandage
Banned
ozfunghi said:
*looks at Wii and DS*
Yup.
BurntPork said:
Thats exactly what I'm saying.
Do you think anybody cares? Especially the average consumer? Nobody even knows who Iwata is, much less do they care. To them, and what they saw, some kind of new Nintendo DS came out, they didn't care. Now it's a very reasonable price and people will consider it, and learn inevitably that its a new console entirely (if they didnt already know). And oh man what a coinkidink just in time for the holidays!
To this end I believe the Wii U's pricing will depend greatly on when Nintendo is planning on releasing it.
Chet Rippo
Member
BurntPork said:
?
No, it's not. I'm saying that Nintendo did what ALL businesses do, especially tech businesses, while you're saying that Nintendo had some crazy plan.Kyzer said:
So, you're saying that Nintendo would have chosen to slash the price even if it were selling well at its original price? If not, your entire point is moot. If that is what you're saying, however, you need to learn a thing or two about business.Kyzer said:
BurntPork said:
No, I'm saying they milked early adopters for everything they were worth. Sure, if it had caught fire, it would have made them jizz their pants, but it didnt. And everybody knew, from day 1, that $250 was a high priced gamble made by Nintendo based on "Early Adopters=Not Average Consumer" and "Highly Regarded During E3 Reception"
Lolworthy. You need to learn about business, bro. These forums, us gamers, following release dates and announcements, price cut apologies and CEO rumors, even keeping track of sales, we are not the people who make these corporations their money. Sales are determined by what a person sees on the shelf during holiday season or birthdays, or has seen through advertisement or (and this is the biggest) word of mouth. Iwata trolled the hardcore, just like he did with Animal Crossing at E3 2008.
Im not saying they would have cut the price if it sold well, no. I am simply arguing that they were very aware of the sales potential at that price point.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I doubt anybody will remember the 3DS launched at $250 in two years if it gets a lot of heavy hitters which it looks like it is.
beelzebozo
Jealous Bastard
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
most people don't even know it now.
all they know is what they see when they go in a store.
all they know is whether or not it has a game they want.
Dreamwriter
Member
But you were basically saying that the price drop was planned, that it would have dropped by the holidays no matter what. But that's not the case - they were most likely planning for it to follow the Wii pricing route - Wii started at $250, a price that Nintendo admitted was higher than they had originally planned on, and they didn't drop it to $200 for 3 years. And the 3DS price drop was most definitely an emergency thing, as they dropped it to the point where they are losing money on every sale. If it had only dropped $25, sure, I'd say you were right, it was planned. But the price drop was so severe, it's obvious the reason for it.Kyzer said:
... And yet it still ended up costing them over $300 million in one quarter.Kyzer said:
Like I said, your point is moot. They started at a high price because they thought that there would be sufficient demand for it at that price. This is a large part of how a business decides pricing. They weren't satisfied with how it was selling, so the cut the price. This is how business work. You're just paranoid. You even completely ignored my point that they originally wanted to launch in holiday 2010. You're not making sense at all. You're saying that it was their plan to cut the price if they weren't satisfied with the sales, but to keep it the same if they were. No shit Sherlock. All business try to do this if they can afford to do so.
Plus, Nintendo's losing money on each unit. You're saying that Nintendo planned ahead of time to lose money on each 3DS sold, despite profiting on each unit at launch. How the fuck does that make sense? Common sense should tell you that they'd keep the 3DS at $250 until they determine that they'd make more money from dropping the price. Your line of logic is completely asinine. You're not even really saying anything! You're just looking at some things Iwata said and making some weird assumption that he purposefully put out a flop without thinking of the consequences. That's just stupid!
Yeah I know what the fuck Im saying stop telling me. Yeah im saying it was planned.
As for the extreme drop that it took, and how fast it happened, I would attribute it to these unpredictable factors:
1) Poor Reviews : First impressions were not good. No games and high price.
2) Not one month after the release of the 3DS, natural disaster crippled the Japanese economy. We (I personally at least) watched eBay prices plummet from resellers looking to turn a profit into a saturation of product and where you could buy them new cheaper than in stores.
3) Sony announced PS Vita for $249.99. Once this happened Nintendo really had no choice, whenever they planned on dropping it initially.
And damnit BurntPork if you wanna talk to me like an adult stop flinging the word stupid at me. If I'm wrong, you can tell me I'm wrong like a man. I'm not gonna read your posts if you're just gonna repeat what I said and tell me I'm stupid.
No. I'm saying they planned on releasing it at a ridiculous price because they knew hardcore early adopters would pay more for it, and then cut the price, smartass. Which is what I've been trying to say from the start. This all has to do with a specific quote from Iwata.
But I mean, the facts and Iwata's official word on the matter contradict me. This is just a wacky theory of mine or whatever.
And what source do you have saying the 3DS was originally planned for the holidays? I thought even before we had the official announcement the 3DS was planned for release "By March 2012". Which immediately meant "March 2012". And the first time they said anything was at last years conference and they announced the final date so what?
As for the extreme drop that it took, and how fast it happened, I would attribute it to these unpredictable factors:
1) Poor Reviews : First impressions were not good. No games and high price.
2) Not one month after the release of the 3DS, natural disaster crippled the Japanese economy. We (I personally at least) watched eBay prices plummet from resellers looking to turn a profit into a saturation of product and where you could buy them new cheaper than in stores.
3) Sony announced PS Vita for $249.99. Once this happened Nintendo really had no choice, whenever they planned on dropping it initially.
And damnit BurntPork if you wanna talk to me like an adult stop flinging the word stupid at me. If I'm wrong, you can tell me I'm wrong like a man. I'm not gonna read your posts if you're just gonna repeat what I said and tell me I'm stupid.
burntpork said:
No. I'm saying they planned on releasing it at a ridiculous price because they knew hardcore early adopters would pay more for it, and then cut the price, smartass. Which is what I've been trying to say from the start. This all has to do with a specific quote from Iwata.
But I mean, the facts and Iwata's official word on the matter contradict me. This is just a wacky theory of mine or whatever.
And what source do you have saying the 3DS was originally planned for the holidays? I thought even before we had the official announcement the 3DS was planned for release "By March 2012". Which immediately meant "March 2012". And the first time they said anything was at last years conference and they announced the final date so what?
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Video games, guys.
cartman414
Member
TekkenMaster said:
Guess it has to do with their expectations for Nintendo. Of course, if they don't skimp on the hardware at all, they won't be justified.
I'd at least hope Nintendo doesn't repeat the mistake they made with the 3DS. At the same time, the 360 and PS3 can be had for as little as $200 or $250 brand new, respectively, so the WiiU can't afford to price over $300.
What would you rather I say? Dumb? Idiotic? Illogical? Insane?Kyzer said:
Nintendo is a company. Their goal is to make profit. Therefore, if 3DS didn't run into the sales issues, they would not have cut the price until they felt it would increase sales enough to offset the lost revenue from the lower price on each unit sold. Dreamwriter has a point, I admit, that they may have planned a small price cut for a holiday boost. However, even then they would have looked at the situation before deciding to cut it. Something like that would have been looked at whether they had planned it or not. There was no underhanded strategy. There was no "trolling the hardcore." It was just business as usual.
TekkenMaster
Banned
History of console launch prices: ---> inflation calculations from http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
Nintendo Entertainment System
$199 ($397.79 in 2010 dollars)
$249.99 (combo pack w/ ROB) ($499.71 in 2010)
Super Nintendo Entertainment System
$199 ($314.48 in 2010)
Pack-in game (Super Mario World)
Nintendo 64
$199 ($273.66 in 2010)
Nintendo GameCube
$199 ($245.48 in 2010)
Nintendo Wii
$249 ($269.94 in 2010)
Pack-in game (Wii Sports)
Playstation
$299 ($423.52 in 2010)
Playstation 2
$299 ($374.74 in 2010)
PlayStation 3
$499 / $599 ($538.82 / $646.80 in 2010)
20GB / 60GB models
Xbox
$299 ($368.84 in 2010)
includes 8GB hard drive
Xbox 360
$399 / $499 ($441.61 / $552.29 in 2010)
No hard drive / 20GB hard drive
So in 2010 dollars the only consoles that had a launch price cheaper than $350 are the Wii, GameCube, N64, and SNES. all Nintendo consoles
And the sub $350 prices didn't do much to help the N64 and Gamecube (which launched during a horrible economic time right after the 9/11 attacks so theoretically should have benefited from its low price).
The PS2, which also launched in the economic downtimes of 2001 and is the most successful console ever, launched at $374 !!!
People who say Nintendo would be dumb to launch the Wii U at 350 or above are ignoring history.
Nintendo Entertainment System
$199 ($397.79 in 2010 dollars)
$249.99 (combo pack w/ ROB) ($499.71 in 2010)
Super Nintendo Entertainment System
$199 ($314.48 in 2010)
Pack-in game (Super Mario World)
Nintendo 64
$199 ($273.66 in 2010)
Nintendo GameCube
$199 ($245.48 in 2010)
Nintendo Wii
$249 ($269.94 in 2010)
Pack-in game (Wii Sports)
Playstation
$299 ($423.52 in 2010)
Playstation 2
$299 ($374.74 in 2010)
PlayStation 3
$499 / $599 ($538.82 / $646.80 in 2010)
20GB / 60GB models
Xbox
$299 ($368.84 in 2010)
includes 8GB hard drive
Xbox 360
$399 / $499 ($441.61 / $552.29 in 2010)
No hard drive / 20GB hard drive
So in 2010 dollars the only consoles that had a launch price cheaper than $350 are the Wii, GameCube, N64, and SNES. all Nintendo consoles
And the sub $350 prices didn't do much to help the N64 and Gamecube (which launched during a horrible economic time right after the 9/11 attacks so theoretically should have benefited from its low price).
The PS2, which also launched in the economic downtimes of 2001 and is the most successful console ever, launched at $374 !!!
People who say Nintendo would be dumb to launch the Wii U at 350 or above are ignoring history.
TekkenMaster
Banned
BurntPork said:
I guess I'm hopeless, then. Please point out the flaws you observe in my reasoning, so I can attempt to counter them.
Inflation is completely irrelevant, what people are willing to pay for something changes over time, you left out some consoles, you're using prices set by other companies to determine what 's safe for Nintendo to price at, you're ignoring competition, you're ignoring audience, and you're ignoring the economy. Just to name a few. Those last three are the biggest, though I guess you're also assuming that MS and Sony will go with $400/500 for their SKUs. But hey, you equated paying for games/content to paying for a console, so you obviously see the world in a way differently than me. By that " mean you think that if you're willing to pay a certain price, then so is everyone else.TekkenMaster said:
ShockingAlberto
Member
I am finding this all incredibly entertaining.
-Pyromaniac-
Member
foreals, we should go back to my expansion pack discussion.ShockingAlberto said:
TekkenMaster
Banned
BurntPork said:
I didn't ignore the economy - I mentioned how in 2001 after 9/11 the economy tanked and stayed that way for years, the $375 PS2 still sold in record numbers.
BurntPork said:
In 2006 the Xbox 360 low sku sold for $441, indicating people were willing to pay that price. The economy is worse today, so let's say consumers would prefer a price $41 cheaper than what they paid in 2006, for a far more advanced piece of hardware.
So a $400 sku for the 720 seems perfectly reasonable and should be expected. Any higher skus with huge hard drives would appeal to more wealthy early adopters.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
BurntPork said:
Last I heard they were still making money off the units, even with the price cut.
$299.99Reuenthal said:
That's low enough that Nintendo can make sure that Sony and MS can't undercut them, and the casual audience that it needs to survive would be able to buy it. It also keeps it close enough to PS3 and 360 that it won't end up being completely skipped-over by gamers. Honestly, even that's dangerous since the online will probably still be a decade behind and casuals might still consider Wii over it. Nintendo's in a tough position, really. If they fix the online, things will look a little better, but that's not going to happen.
ShockingAlberto
Member
I think it was Nikkei that reported a loss post-pricecut, I am not sure if Nintendo ever said anything.EatChildren said:
TekkenMaster
Banned
I'd say Nintendo should undercut the PS4/720, but by how much depends on how powerful (i.e. how expensive to produce) the Wii U actually is.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
ShockingAlberto said:
antonz said:
Makes sense. I cant imagine the loss is all that large, and likely easily made up by successful software. Christmas will be a decider.
-Pyromaniac-
Member
wii-u being cheaper than ps4/720 is inevitable because they will probably release a year later minimum, give or take.TekkenMaster said:
-WindYoshi-
Banned
If you take Nintendo's recent share drops and multiply them by the rate of inflation in 2010 dollars it's quite clear that Nintendo is doomed.
nincompoop
Banned
IGN: Nintendo Stock In Danger of Being Delisted?BurntPork said:
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Some THQ employee said the WiiU is "much more powerful than the other HD consoles" on some website. Not sure about how much the employee really knows though:
http://www.fedwars.net/wrestling_article.php?article_id=6
http://www.fedwars.net/wrestling_article.php?article_id=6
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
BurntPork said:
World War I will boost the economy.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
EatChildren said:
Why have WW1 when you can just have a splendid, little war?
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
That's kind of impressive that Nintendo released the NES w/ROB for $249.99 in 1985 and released the Wii w/Wii Sports for $249.99 in 2006.
...still guessing $349.99 for Wii U with a pack-in game.
...still guessing $349.99 for Wii U with a pack-in game.
ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
I think Nintendo might have preinstalled games that are sort of tech demos for the hardware (by that I mean the tablet controller), like those on 3DS, but I doubt they'll pack a game in again. There's really no need for it, and in retrospect, Nintendo probably could have made more money selling WiiSports separately.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Andrex said:
As someone stated earlier, I think Nintendo may choose to have an actual game disc as a pack-in because it's of a higher perceived value to the consumer than something pre-installed in the hardware. And with Nintendo introducing a new technology, at least into the home console market anyway, I don't think they'll forfeit a pack-in entirely simply because they want to have control over consumers' first impression of the controller instead of leaving it up to some potential stinker from a 3rd party.
3!
We've actually discussed that "interview" a little further back in the thread. The general consensus is that it's from an unreliable source and can't really be substantiated as having actually come from a THQ employee. If true, though, it's a good sign.
I assume that Nintendo will package in a game like Wii Sports that takes advantage of the new controller. Having Wii Sports out of the box was a huge selling point. It just seems like the right thing to do. Preloaded games could work the same but I don't think it is viewed as the same to the majority of the customers. The actual disc makes it seem like a "deal"/"great value" to the people who might be on the fence or are just not familiar with digital/preloaded content.
ShockingAlberto
Member
I personally don't buy the interview.
I mean, I guess it could be real, but I have no reason to believe it is.
I mean, I guess it could be real, but I have no reason to believe it is.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Ahhh, the internet age.ShockingAlberto said:
SOOO MUCH INFO!!!
Sooo little truth.
- Status