Support NeoGAF

[beef3483]

psp's value has nothing to do with its "perceived utility" and everything to do with the actual expense and difficulty of building a handheld with that kind of performance. psp was cutting edge hardware in 2004. wii was cutting edge hardware in 2001. the sooner we accept this, the sooner we can put the lid on this needlessly stirred pot of shit.

actually my problem with wii isn't so much that it costs $250 -- that's not much to pay for the entertainment a console is likely to provide. but if nintendo wanted to build a $250 console, they might at least have used a newish ati graphics part instead of saddling users with decrepit graphics for the next five or six years. they haven't built a $250 console.

Do you know the specs? Are you even taking into account the smaller size of the Wii? Going by past precedents, making graphics technology fit into a smaller casing actually increases price. It's the reason why the PS2 costs less than a PSP, though it can output better graphics. Nintendo valued small size and efficiency for it's next console. It's only "poor hardware" if you don't value these things.

And the efficiency aspect is something I greatly value. I think that the PS3 is going to have a lot of hardware issues. They never show you that red indicator light (the one that says you have a hardware problem) in an Xbox360 screenshot.

 

[beef3483]

Value is percieved drohne, you know that.

You cant even make a technical argument with this basis.

If you value the advancement of the input moreso then the processing power/graphical output of said machine, the value here is justified.

If you value processing power/graphical output of said machine, it's not.

Doesnt matter if a machine is loaded with all the wonders of the modern age if everyone moves to a different option, the value is low.

Perception is a key here, as well as opinion.

I am of the mind-set that I value changing how we play games, over graphics, sound, e.t.c. I would have perfered some sort of V.R. set-up more then either the motion sensing controller, or another graphical boost. The graphics of said machine(Maker here is not important) could be PSone era, and I would place a much higher value on that level of immersion over any normal boost in graphics.

It all depends on what the particular individiual wants, and/or hopes the direction of videogame takes.

250$ is high even for my viewpoint, but when considering the alternative, its cheap, and the direction I want gaming to take. Now, if the other two consoles did what the Wii did, but with much improved graphics for the same price, or perhaps even a 50$ price-hike, (300$. Although Value comes into mind again as a videogame console is just a toy, and the price getting to high takes away from the value of a toy) I would buy them over the Wii.(I am drawn to Nintendo produced games, but I would wait for a price-drop seeing as how the value of the Wii would be much lower when directly compared to the other consoles.


I guess what I'm saying is that the Wii focuses on changing player interaction, the other two focus on massive power. Comparing the value of both systems depends on the person, not technology.

My opinion, however wrong you think it is.

Your opinion, point for point, is the exact same as mine.

 

[drohne]

even matt casasasasas is sharp enough to realize that there are two kinds of "value" we might talk about -- wii's material value and the subjective value it might have for consumers. wii's material value is incomparably poor. that's all i'm saying.

and we need to distinguish between miniaturization and portability -- ps two is smaller and more power-efficient than ps2, but smaller die sizes and tighter integration make it cheaper to build.

 

[Deku]

lol at the value arguments. I guess the DS shouldn't also be selling as well as a whole host of other products. Econ 101 AM failed?

It's amazing that supposedly intelligent people can be so stupid.

 

[KINGMOKU]

even matt casasasasas is sharp enough to realize that there are two kinds of "value" we might talk about -- wii's material value and the subjective value it might have for consumers. materially, wii is an incomparably poor value. that's all i'm saying.

I have no problem with that at all.

Its percieved value, and your perception if different from mine.

If your talking strictly about cost,price,profit, the value is low as Nintendo is supposed to make money off of each unit. No argument there as the Wii is a marginal power upgrade.

But, in the end, how many people just make purchases based on number value? I actually cant think of a single person. Percieved value, is alot more important to normal everyday people, then price value.

80/20 I would say. At least.

 

[drohne]

whenever deku refers to his econ chops, i remind myself that he thinks ps3 launch shortages are artificial. and then i laugh.

 

[KTallguy]

DS adds value with innovative controls (does not necessarily =) Wii adds value with innovative controls.

It's all in the software and how it's implemented, and whether devs and the public embrace it. It's not 1:1 here.

Think about the best selling game for DS, Mario. How much does that game use the touch screen ?

 

[SuperPac]

even matt casasasasas is sharp enough to realize that there are two kinds of "value" we might talk about -- wii's material value and the subjective value it might have for consumers. wii's material value is incomparably poor. that's all i'm saying.

So what? You're either going to buy a game system and get your $250 worth of entertainment out of it or you're not. The cost of materials and what they're charging for it makes no difference if the machine offers what you want at a price you deem acceptable. I didn't add up the cost of materials in a 360 before deciding that $400 was a fair price for the machine. I didn't think "oh, Microsoft's taking a loss on the hardware so this is a good value." No, I looked at the games and decided that $400 was an acceptable price to be able to play them. Is that the wrong way for someone to decide whether they should buy a console or not?

 

[beef3483]

DS adds value with innovative controls (does not necessarily =) Wii adds value with innovative controls.

It's all in the software and how it's implemented, and whether devs and the public embrace it. It's not 1:1 here.

Think about the best selling game for DS, Mario. How much does that game use the touch screen ?

I don't think that anybody said that, but I imagine a lot of people think that Nintendos ability to leverage the new control mechanism on the DS into good software, bodes well for the Wii.

Truth be told though, I don't think the really cool stuff will come until next christmas.

 

[Christopher]

So what? You're either going to buy a game system and get your $250 worth of entertainment out of it or you're not. The cost of materials and what they're charging for it makes no difference if the machine offers what you want at a price you deem acceptable. I didn't add up the cost of materials in a 360 before deciding that $400 was a fair price for the machine. I didn't think "oh, Microsoft's taking a loss on the hardware so this is a good value." No, I looked at the games and decided that $400 was the price I'll pay to play them. Is that the wrong way for someone to decide whether they should buy a console or not?

Um this is gaf you could be asking why argue about something so stupid as videogame graphics and consoles in the first place.

I can't think of anything I'd want to play on Wii thus far, espcially at launch knowing that I can get Zelda for the cube. I'm not into Red Steel I personally feel that since it's the only 3rd party game coming out that it's getting unneeded levels of hype.

However I do love my Smash Brothers

 

[GSG Flash]

So what? You're either going to buy a game system and get your $250 worth of entertainment out of it or you're not. The cost of materials and what they're charging for it makes no difference if the machine offers what you want at a price you deem acceptable. I didn't add up the cost of materials in a 360 before deciding that $400 was a fair price for the machine. I didn't think "oh, Microsoft's taking a loss on the hardware so this is a good value." No, I looked at the games and decided that $400 was an acceptable price to be able to play them. Is that the wrong way for someone to decide whether they should buy a console or not?

Umm the post you quoted sums it up nicely for him...

The Wii's material value isn't very high when compared to the PS3 atleast (It's a tossup on the 360 IMO)

 

[KINGMOKU]

So what? You're either going to buy a game system and get your $250 worth of entertainment out of it or you're not. The cost of materials and what they're charging for it makes no difference if the machine offers what you want at a price you deem acceptable. I didn't add up the cost of materials in a 360 before deciding that $400 was a fair price for the machine. I didn't think "oh, Microsoft's taking a loss on the hardware so this is a good value." No, I looked at the games and decided that $400 was the price I'll pay to play them. Is that the wrong way for someone to decide whether they should buy a console or not?

Thats the crux of what I'm saying.

No one goes into a store, and buys anything based soley on the cost of materials.


So many other factors go into percived value, the cost of materials is almost non-existant in 99% of peoples minds.

 

[beef3483]

You're either going to buy a game system and get your $250 worth of entertainment out of it or you're not.

I think that sentence sums up the definition of value the most eloquently. You're buying entertainment. In most peoples minds they aren't buying hardware, but the entertainment that the hardware brings. And the value placed upon entertainment is entirely subjective to the purchaser.

 

[soul creator]

I think that sentence sums up the definition of value the most eloquently. You're buying entertainment. In most peoples minds they aren't buying hardware, but the entertainment that the hardware brings.

uh, except those "materials" do affect the entertainment for some people. It also affects the development of said entertainment. So yeah, it does have some effect when making a purchasing decision. Obviously, it's not the only thing though.

 

[beef3483]

uh, except those "materials" do affect the entertainment for some people. It also affects the development of said entertainment. So yeah, it does have some effect when making a purchasing decision. Obviously, it's not the only thing though.

Exactly, some people value a greater jump in graphics instead of the new control mechanism. And that doesn't bother me in the slightest, nor do I think that those people are intellectually inferior to me.

Also, I probably should have said "hardware package", to count the controller and added extras.

 

[Cheerilee]

The hardware has 512 mb of flash ram, wifi, wireless controllers, usb ports, plays gamecube stuff, etc. And i hear theres this thing where the controller detects motion or some shit like that

edit: AND it comes with a packin.'
edit: the sequel: I dont like the 250 pricetag myself

Actually, GameCube support is one of the features I'm starting to honestly think they could have nixed from the Wii to save some money.

I mean, with the Zelda rape, and Cube controllers not working with anything, and Miyamoto taking about the ease of GameCube Wiimakes, and the Virtual Console, and the crippled drive, I think they could actually do it. If they funnelled all the cost savings into a bigger SD card or a hard drive, they could easily VC all the Cube games that they don't Wiimake. And we've even already got a bunch of them registered with My Nintendo.

Of course, it's already far too late for ideas like that.

 

[Christopher]

Actually, GameCube support is one of the features I'm starting to honestly think they could have nixed from the Wii to save some money.

I mean, with the Zelda rape, and Cube controllers not working with anything, and Miyamoto taking about the ease of GameCube Wiimakes, and the Virtual Console, and the crippled drive, I think they could actually do it. If they funnelled all the cost savings into a bigger SD card or a hard drive, they could easily VC all the Cube games that they don't Wiimake. And we've even already got a bunch of them registered with My Nintendo.

Of course, it's already far too late for ideas like that.

So you'd be cool with buying all this gamecube "wiimakes" again? No thank you.

 

[cicero]

whenever deku refers to his econ chops, i remind myself that he thinks ps3 launch shortages are artificial. and then i laugh.

Because companies never restrict the amount of product to inflate demand?

...

 

[P90]

whenever deku refers to his econ chops, i remind myself that he thinks ps3 launch shortages are artificial. and then i laugh.

PS3 shortages will be mainly due to poor planning on Sony's part. Is that poor planning "artificial" or "natural"? Premeditated or just plain dumb?

 

[loosus]

Because companies never restrict the amount of product to inflate demand?

...

Oh boy, another one.

 

[Deku]

whenever deku refers to his econ chops, i remind myself that he thinks ps3 launch shortages are artificial. and then i laugh.

I don't think I said the launch shortages were artificial, rather, Sony has set the bar so low for themselves they can;t NOT sell out. Big difference.

And now for the issue you TRIED to dodge. So um, about values. Tell me more about them. Because I'm laughing my ass off listening to you blow a vein over a concept you don't seem to understand to begin with.

 

[drohne]

"value" can refer to a great many things besides market value -- you needn't touch an econ textbook to know that wii's market value is whatever people are willing to pay.

i wish i cared enough to dig up your post about ps3 shortages.

 

[Spastic Colon]

Matt Cassamassina- Your apology was $50 too cheap and three weeks too late, lover!

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

I see a $250 price tag with Call of Duty 3 that looks like pure shit. Then you have Battalion Wars 2 that looks bright, colorful, but easily something that can be done on Xbox or PS2 for that matter. Entertaining or not, the Wii is basically an Xbox repackaged with a wand. The goal for Nintendo is simply to rely on awesome texture work in hopes that it can even grab onto a single thread of the 360 and PS3's graphical coattails.

Then again, Wii's graphical, heh, prowess might be a sign that they still think that current gen graphics are fine and there was no need to put out a new machine.

All significant consoles do well its first holiday. Even Dreamcast was able to get 1.5 million units sold in the US before 2000. So its nothing more than speaking the obvious. Game Cube did well and subsequently flopped in 2002, failing to outpace the huge sales of PS2 or the decent performance of the Xbox.

Wii's test will be 2007. As more PS3s get stocked on the shelves, it will no longer rely on Sony's setbacks with PS3. The 360 is building steam and shows no sign of stopping. I wouldn't count on SSBB or SMG to cover the Wii's ass. It didn't work on Game Cube and to be honest, it will positively not work here. The sales and hype will rely on new and original ideas. This will make or break the Wii. If people don't give a shit about the new things, then Wii will be another Game Cube.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

I wouldn't count on SSBB or SMG to cover the Wii's ass. It didn't work on Game Cube and to be honest, it will positively not work here. The sales and hype will rely on new and original ideas. This will make or break the Wii. If people don't give a shit about the new things, then Wii will be another Game Cube.

and you have the precise reason why wii sports is packaged into every wii, with more wii compilation 'tech demos' on the way including the orchestra nongame.

 

[StevieP]

When will people understand... the Wii has double the power and double the memory (give and/or take) of the Gamecube. And the Gamecube could pump out RE4-level visuals, which challeneged the very best looking XBox games.

Just because all of the launch titles are based on Gamecube engines and were made on Gamecube controller kits, doesn't mean that at some point in the future the Wii won't impress us with its SD-neutered visuals. It just means that there are a lot of rush-jobs and lazy developer ports going around at launch. This whole "it's a repackaged gamecube!!!one!!!11!" crap has to stop. The Wii > XBox, therefore the Wii is "next gen" (or new gen, or whatever you want to call it).

Super Mario Galaxy says hello - that looks to be one of the first games built for the Wii from the ground up, and it looks even better than some of the 360 launch titles (with or without rose-tinted shades). Why do people have to be reminded over and over again that you're not paying $250 for Gamecube/XBox-level tech? It's beyond that, and it will show when developers that have talent decide to USE it!

Why do I have to quote myself? Do people here refuse to read the thread before they just hit the "reply" button or something?

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Why do I have to quote myself? Do people here refuse to read the thread before they just hit the "reply" button or something?

are you from gamefaqs? this shit will get you banned. If no one replies, go kill a small animal or something

 

[Campster]

I see a $250 price tag with Call of Duty 3 that looks like pure shit. Then you have Battalion Wars 2 that looks bright, colorful, but easily something that can be done on Xbox or PS2 for that matter. Entertaining or not, the Wii is basically an Xbox repackaged with a wand. The goal for Nintendo is simply to rely on awesome texture work in hopes that it can even grab onto a single thread of the 360 and PS3's graphical coattails.

Then again, Wii's graphical, heh, prowess might be a sign that they still think that current gen graphics are fine and there was no need to put out a new machine.

GRAPHICS = GAMES

 

[dante786]

GRAPHICS = GAMES

No, but they sure do enhance games. You really don't see the immersive advantages of something like Gears of War or a Motorstorm over the likes of excitetruck?

 

[AniHawk]

I see a $250 price tag with Call of Duty 3 that looks like pure shit. Then you have Battalion Wars 2 that looks bright, colorful, but easily something that can be done on Xbox or PS2 for that matter. Entertaining or not, the Wii is basically an Xbox repackaged with a wand. The goal for Nintendo is simply to rely on awesome texture work in hopes that it can even grab onto a single thread of the 360 and PS3's graphical coattails.

Wait a minute wait a minute wait a minute.

The goal for Nintendo is to rely on awesome texture work?

The goal for Nintendo is to rely on any sort of graphical technique?

That's the goal? What Nintendo's relying on? Did I read that right?

 

[Archie]

I thought Nintendo's goal was to make money but I was obviously wrong!

 

[Christopher]

Ok if graphics aren't that important than let's bust out our NESes and go to town.

 

[AniHawk]

Ok if graphics aren't that important than let's bust out our NESes and go to town.

Yes. That's what was said.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Archie
Second-rate Anihawk
(Today, 09:25 PM)

:lol

 

[sc0la]

Ok if graphics aren't that important than let's bust out our NESes and go to town.

My friend and I played mine for 4 and 1/2 hours on Saturday. Where is yours?

 

[Azelover]

I think that sentence sums up the definition of value the most eloquently. You're buying entertainment. In most peoples minds they aren't buying hardware, but the entertainment that the hardware brings. And the value placed upon entertainment is entirely subjective to the purchaser.

The systems that initially sell at a loss eventually get sold with significant profits later on. It's what happened with the PSOne, it's what happened with the PS2 and it's what is happening with the PSP. The reason why consumers were willing to pay the same for a PS2 as they would for an Xbox in 2001 had nothing to do with hardware.

The real value of any machine is in the library of games, once it gets there people will gladly pay for more than the hardware is worth. The role of the more powerful hardware is to entice developers and consumers in order to kick start a new cycle, Nintendo took that approach and reversed it by making the interface the point of progress and freshness instead of the graphics. And it's working at least aswell, if not better, at bringing interest from developers and consumers than a regular approach from them would. After that the games decide what happens, the hardware could be an Atari 2600 for **** sakes and it would still sell decently if good games were coming out for it in droves, if there is developer and consumer support who cares if that interest is coming from something other than graphics?

Nintendo can afford to be profitable from the beginning because they are the only ones doing what they're doing, there's no real competition to what they're showing with the Wii interface. And quite frankly I think the pricing is just right, I'd love to pay less for it but strategically any cheaper than that would have been hurtful at this point.

 

[Campster]

No, but they sure do enhance games. You really don't see the immersive advantages of something like Gears of War or a Motorstorm over the likes of excitetruck?

If bump mapped space marines and raised dirt are the future of gaming, count me out. I'll pull a Chris Crawford and find some other medium that isn't obsessed with the minutiae of one aspect of itself.

 

[Deku]

"value" can refer to a great many things besides market value -- you needn't touch an econ textbook to know that wii's market value is whatever people are willing to pay.

i wish i cared enough to dig up your post about ps3 shortages.

I wasn't referring to market value though. I'm talking specifically about perceived value.

Everyone walks around with prices floating around in their head. It is their own prices, as in how much they will pay for a service (food, luxry, travel, entertainment). The job of actual prices in a market economy is to serve as a signal to consumers. To say "hey, you can have this service for X dollars."

Value is largely perceived. If consumer A will pay $300 for entertainment they will go to the market and pick the bundle of goods that give them the most entertainment for the lowest price (the best possible value). Note that physical value of the goods they are buying doesn't even factor into this at all.

Your overlong tirades against Nintendo about value is misplaced. The consumers don't judge value strictly based on the technology behind a product. It plays a role, but both the Wii and the DS are within the technological tolerance of most consumers. Certainly, the DS has proven this so had the the GameBoy, VHS, and many of Sony's early electronics, which relied on solid/superior engineering, high quality, low prices rather than pure technology to steal market share from the Americans. Ironically this is exactly what Samsung is now doing and what Nintendo is still doing!

As for your red herring diversion about my comments on the PS3, it as I said. The bar is low, Sony can't possibly not sell out. Which makes their PR job rather easy. I can see how this can be construed as a manufactured shortage but its your interpretation, not mine!

 

[beef3483]

The systems that initially sell at a loss eventually get sold with significant profits later on. It's what happened with the PSOne, it's what happened with the PS2 and it's what is happening with the PSP. The reason why consumers were willing to pay the same for a PS2 as they would for an Xbox in 2001 had nothing to do with hardware.

The real value of any machine is in the library of games, once it gets there people will gladly pay for more than the hardware is worth. The role of the more powerful hardware is to entice developers and consumers in order to kick start a new cycle, Nintendo took that approach and reversed it by making the interface the point of progress and freshness instead of the graphics. And it's working at least aswell, if not better, at bringing interest from developers and consumers than a regular approach from them would. After that the games decide what happens, the hardware could be an Atari 2600 for **** sakes and it would still sell decently if good games were coming out for it in droves, if there is developer and consumer support who cares if that interest is coming from something other than graphics?

Nintendo can afford to be profitable from the beginning because they are the only ones doing what they're doing, there's no real competition to what they're showing with the Wii interface. And quite frankly I think the pricing is just right, I'd love to pay less for it but strategically any cheaper than that would have been hurtful at this point.

I agree. It's all about the games.

 

[StevieP]

are you from gamefaqs? this shit will get you banned. If no one replies, go kill a small animal or something

No, I didn't expect a reply to my particular post. I simply re-quoted myself instead of retyping the same shit as a response to posters like the "Experiment", who claims that the Wii is last gen tech. As I said, a talented developer can bring far more out of the Wii than they could out of the XBox, and in a couple years we may finally see the fruitions of those efforts. We can already see some of that in one of the only games currently NOT originating from a last-gen port/engine, and that is Mario Galaxy. Red Steel and Metroid 3 look pretty spiffy too, for games that uses an upgraded Cube engine and began on Cube kits. The point I was trying to make to some of you is that what you see now is not what you get later. Do all you people care about ONLY visuals, anyway? I still get enjoyment out of replaying Zelda LTTP and I recently finished FF IV on the GBA, which has <SNES level visuals - were they both great games, yesterday AND today? Yes!

Nintendo's point on this whole spiel about graphics and ballooning dev costs is because of diminishing returns and diminishing creativity. If you can't see that, then get yourself some lube, bend over, and enjoy the PS3!

 

[drohne]

i use production cost as an indication of hardware performance, and hardware performance demonstrably affects perceived value. in any case i haven't tried to fix wii's perceived value in the market at large -- i'm telling you how i perceive it.

even in this thread you've referred to sony "setting" the bar low -- they haven't set the bar at all. shortages of blue laser diodes have set it for them. for cicero's benefit if not for yours: for sony to constrict supply at a time at a time of elevated demand (i.e. launch) and then flood the market at a time of depressed demand (i.e. next spring) would be monstrously stupid -- it'd be revenue down the toilet. artificial ps3 shortages absolutely wouldn't be in sony's interest.

 

[methodman]

I just went to the store, bought an official Ronnie Lott niners throwback (he was signing jerseys), for 150. I got that shit signed too

But... do you think it's worth 150? because i do, and im pretty sure they make these things for like 5 bucks lol

 

[Deku]

i use production cost as an indication of hardware performance, and hardware performance demonstrably affects perceived value. in any case i haven't tried to fix wii's perceived value in the market at large -- i'm telling you how i perceive it.

lol you can't fix the value. You may approximate it, but that will require market research and actually polling. The value is in people's heads and like an election you'll find out after they vote.

This sort of segue's into another issue I have. When you go on your soapbox and lambast a company for making a profit off their machine and for charging consumers X dollars for 'inferior' tech, that's your opinion. It's yours exclusively and you're right. But the need to impose that view on other people is really unneccessary nor does it serve any purpose. Perhpas it makes you feel better but it certainly won't change people's minds. Quite the opposite.

even in this thread you've referred to sony "setting" the bar low -- they haven't set the bar at all. shortages of blue laser diodes have set it for them. for cicero's benefit if not for yours: for sony to constrict supply at a time at a time of elevated demand (i.e. launch) and then flood the market at a time of depressed demand (i.e. next spring) would be monstrously stupid -- it'd be revenue down the toilet. artificial ps3 shortages absolutely wouldn't be in sony's interest.

Well they did announced 6 million before March 2007 and 4 million before year end 2006 did they not? Before the shipping quantities were know and the Euro delay, I had commented that had they actually met those shipping estimates they may not sell out in some terriroties. Which I added was my minority opinion.

After the delay/shipping cuts, I then added that in light of the shipping revisions, they've set their bar so low now that they will sell out no matter what. In Japan for example 100 k for launch is really a terrible number/ 360's LTD is higher than that. Wii will certainly sell more than 100k at launch. I'm not even sure how many Canada is getting.

There's sensivity around this issue, understandably but it doesn't require a conspiracy theorist to anticipate a Sony PR trumpeting the PS3 has sold out, or that there has been a stampede somewhere to get the last units of the PS3, whether manufactured or not, the sell out is inevitable and it will be spun by the SDF to their heart's content come this Christmas.

 

[Mandark]

for cicero's benefit if not for yours: for sony to constrict supply at a time at a time of elevated demand (i.e. launch) and then flood the market at a time of depressed demand (i.e. next spring) would be monstrously stupid -- it'd be revenue down the toilet. artificial ps3 shortages absolutely wouldn't be in sony's interest.

Amen.

Restricting supply only makes sense if:

1) You think you can make more money on the left of the supply curve, or

2) You want to create the appearance of demand through shortages, and create real demand from interest in the fake demand.

Both of these only work if you won't be able to sell more units at the same price. Sony certainly would be able to sell more than they're shipping, so Occam's Razor says they don't have enough chips.

 

[cvxfreak]

lol you can't fix the value. You may approximate it, but that will require market research and actually polling. The value is in people's heads and like an election you'll find out after they vote.

My vote was decided, for sure, when Capcom announced Biohazard.

 

[drohne]

i don't want to change anyone's mind -- i'm just pointing out the disparity between wii's hardware and its price, and trying (unsuccessfully) to quash some ridiculous evasions of that disparity. it'd clear the air if nintendo fans would face certain facts -- you can't talk about wii if you won't even look at what it is.

i don't mind if people think that wii's entertainment value justifies the disparity, and i've been pretty clear about that distinction throughout. no doubt i've muddled my terms, but you're not objecting to that, really -- for all your affected detachment, you're objecting to my perception of wii's value.

 

[Fusebox]

edit - *nvm, pics were too big and cant be bothered resizing*

 

[Deku]

i don't want to change anyone's mind -- i'm just pointing out the disparity between wii's hardware and its price, and trying (unsuccessfully) to quash some ridiculous evasions of that disparity. it'd clear the air if nintendo fans would face certain facts -- you can't talk about wii if you won't even look at what it is.

i don't mind if people think that wii's entertainment value justifies the disparity, and i've been pretty clear about that distinction throughout. no doubt i've muddled my terms, but you're not objecting to that, really -- for all your affected detachment, you're objecting to my perception of wii's value.

I'm objecting very specifically to your argumentation over the Wii's value. Value is percieved. It's subjective rather than objective as you had assumed in your posts. That's what i had trouble with.

Statements such as 'overpriced' can only become fact if the majority of consumers believe so, and that has yet to be decided on by the market.

As for pointing out the disparity between the hardware and the price, you can point it out but I don't really see where you can do with it. It's Nintendo's strategy. Microsoft and Sony have chosen to sell overteched hardware at a loss and Nintendo has not. Most of the negativity surrounding the price/hardware issue tends to revolve around the fact that Nintendo is actually making a profit!

I'm not going to bring up the naive statement about 'well Nintendo is a business etc. etc.' since clearly, you can sell the hardware at a loss and then recoup it in software sales. It's an alternate strategy and also part of Nintendo's strategy (ie: break even at launch or incur a slight loss and the money rolls in later).

Neither is superior, its just a different approach. And I highly doubt Nintendo's margins is that high either. There may be accounting profits, but considering the cost of launching any hardware, all 3 hardware will probably be subsidized by the manufacturer to some degree. Although it does bring to bear whether the extremes Sony is going to subsidize their machine is infact sustainable over repeated hardware launches. This doesn't account for the massive R&D budget that's gone to build the PS3. Clearly its a gamble of gigantic proportions.

 

[.dmc]

Wait drohne, are you coming close to admitting that the dollars to mhz value of Wii is irrevelevant if we feel that the utility gained from purchasing the hardware is in itself enough to justify the price? Woah..

 

[drohne]

seems to me that i started with that admission. looky here:

you can reasonably argue that wii's software or control innovation or glossy white finish justify the price, but you can't argue that the hardware justifies the price without going into ludicrous contortions. not that this is likely to stop anyone.

i don't care if methodman thinks a ronnie lott throwback jersey is worth $150, but i'd raise my eyebrows if he claimed it made him run faster.