-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Wii will cost less than 25,000 yen / $250
- Thread starter Jonnyram
- Start date
Kobun Heat said:Which of my points do you disagree with -- the fact that controllers are such a lucrative source of revenue that Nintendo would be giving away quite a bit by adding it in the box for free (true), or the fact that games like Tennis and Baseball have been specifically designed so as to keep the single-player experience short and conducive to social gatherings (also true)?
Of course Nintendo would make MONEY by not packing in the controller and 'forcing' people to buy another one. I don't think anyone is debating that. I'm sayin' it'd help the systems image by packing in another controller, because the social aspect is far easier to market and emphasize with two controllers than one.
How can I use data to support that? Do you think it's easier to market a single controller system as a 'social' experience via single player 'pass-it-around-the-crowd' games? If so, then explain why - at the end of the day, I think we'd actually agree there.
That's the discussion.
So what this boils down to is an argument between:
"Nintendo will pack two controllers because I'd have more fun with it."
and
"Nintendo will pack one controller because they can profit out the ass off of the subsequent controllers, and well...Nintendo loves money like a fat kid loves cake."
"Nintendo will pack two controllers because I'd have more fun with it."
and
"Nintendo will pack one controller because they can profit out the ass off of the subsequent controllers, and well...Nintendo loves money like a fat kid loves cake."
Kobun Heat
Member
I was under the impression that the discussion was over what Nintendo was most likely to do, not If I Were Reggie For A Day.
Kobun Heat said:I was under the impression that the discussion was over what Nintendo was most likely to do, not If I Were Reggie For A Day.
No, I agree Nintendo is more likely to keep as much shit out of the pack as possible because they are cheap.
Well now you know why they are so profitable.Amir0x said:No, I agree Nintendo is more likely to keep as much shit out of the pack as possible because they are cheap.
Dragona Akehi
Retired
Amir0x said:No, I agree Nintendo is more likely to keep as much shit out of the pack as possible because they are cheap.
But that it goes against the "message" they're trying to portray to customers.
Amir0x said:No, I agree Nintendo is more likely to keep as much shit out of the pack as possible because they are cheap.
on that token, microsoft should throw in two controllers and a HDD with every xbox 360. and sony should have two controllers and a 60gb HDD on every PS3.
just because if they don't, they're cheap!
Kobun Heat
Member
Which is why both Xbox 360 and PS3 come with four controllers. oh damn beaten by matlockAmir0x said:No, I agree Nintendo is more likely to keep as much shit out of the pack as possible because they are cheap.
This isn't "Nintendo = cheap", this is reality for the video game business these days.
Kobun Heat said:Which is why both Xbox 360 and PS3 come with four controllers. oh damn beaten by matlock
This isn't "Nintendo = cheap", this is reality for the video game business these days.
No, they don't come with more controllers 'cause they offer other components which cost a lot more, and sell at a loss.
Compared to Nintendo, which usually sells at the very least at cost or barely losing money at all. In fact I'm pretty sure sometimes from the start they even make money on every unit sold (compared to Microsoft or Sony, who make it back only on software initially). Or do you have data that contradicts this?
Ghengis Cohen
Banned
Remember everyone we're discussing faceless corporations whose intent is profit, not some magical dream factory that's funded by unicorns. Of course they will keep as much out as they think they can. That is the reason why I bought my Playstation I factored in the cost of a memory card, why my brother called me wondering why dvd's didn't work in his XBox.
ghostlyjoe
Member
Amir0x said:No, they don't come with more controllers 'cause they offer other components which cost a lot more, and sell at a loss.
Compared to Nintendo, which usually sells at the very least at cost or barely losing money at all, or in fact making money on every unit sold. Or do you have data that contradicts this?
Companies that don't loss-lead are cheap?
My advice: Don't buy soft drinks, bottled water, gasoline, bread, canned goods ... umm pretty much anything other than the XBox 360 and PS3. All other businesses are populated by cheap bastards.
ghostlyjoe said:Companies that don't loss-lead are cheap?
My advice: Don't buy soft drinks, bottled water, gasoline, bread, canned goods ... umm pretty much anything other than the XBox 360 and PS3. All other businesses are populated by cheap bastards.
Who is denying this? But yes, I do think in this case it represents cheapness - if the surround sound debacle didn't prove this, then nothing will obviously to anyone.
But this is pointless - you're right, everyone wants to make money. Nintendo makes their money with a different business model, which is clearly successful. That doesn't change that in Wii's case, two controllers would be a good thing in my view for the image of the system.
ghostlyjoe
Member
Billy Rygar said:Remember everyone we're discussing faceless corporations whose intent is profit, not some magical dream factory that's funded by unicorns. Of course they will keep as much out as they think they can. That is the reason why I bought my Playstation I factored in the cost of a memory card, why my brother called me wondering why dvd's didn't work in his XBox.
Isn't Kyoto actually built on a cloud surrounded by harp-playing cherubs and floating rivers of nectar?
ghostlyjoe said:Companies that don't loss-lead are cheap?
My advice: Don't buy soft drinks, bottled water, gasoline, bread, canned goods ... umm pretty much anything other than the XBox 360 and PS3. All other businesses are populated by cheap bastards.
This is not the way those industries work! The soda pop manufacturers don't have software revenue streams coming into their corporations.
If Nintendo is "cheap," it is because they produce an affordable product.
Kobun Heat
Member
Whether you're taking a substantial loss, breaking even, or making a tiny profit, more money has to come from somewhere. And a second controller, as one of the only accessory sales that can be well and truly counted on for a critical mass of hardware buyers, is a big step towards making up that extra scratch, often right at POP. Giving that away is not something that any hardware manufacturer has traditionally done, not since 1991 or so. Nintendo could still do it, but if they don't, it's not because they're "cheap."Amir0x said:No, they don't come with more controllers 'cause they offer other components which cost a lot more, and sell at a loss.
Compared to Nintendo, which usually sells at the very least at cost or barely losing money at all, or in fact making money on every unit sold. Or do you have data that contradicts this?
ghostlyjoe
Member
Amir0x said:Who is denying this? But yes, I do think in this case it represents cheapness - if the surround sound debacle didn't prove this, then nothing will obviously to anyone.
But this is pointless - you're right, everyone wants to make money. Nintendo makes their money with a different business model, which is clearly successful. That doesn't change that in Wii's case, two controllers would be a good thing in my view for the image of the system.
I'd like to see two controllers packed in, but I'm not holding my breath. Maybe they'll surprise us. But as much as they talk about reaching out the mainstream, the Wii is going to be too expensive out of the gates no matter what. I don't think Nintendo's rhetoric is a good indication for this debate.
Besides, an extra controller isn't really a dealbreaker for me.
CajoleJuice
Member
It seems to me that Amirox is saying that Nintendo is cheap because they are not selling at a loss like Sony and Microsoft. (Is this proven BTW?) I don't disagree. But Nintendo knows that hardcore Nintendo fans will eat it up, so they sell at or above cost, and yet they still kept the price low, trying to get in customers scared off by the higher price consoles.
ghostlyjoe
Member
Y2Kevbug11 said:This is not the way those industries work! The soda pop manufacturers don't have software revenue streams coming into their corporations.
If Nintendo is "cheap," it is because they produce an affordable product.
No industry works this way. MS and Sony have other agendas here. That much is admitted. Nintendo is still squarely in the gaming realm, and their business model isn't chaning. Whether or not they're "cheap" is pretty pointless ultimately, because what matters to me is entertainment value vs. real-world cost.
ghostlyjoe said:Besides, an extra controller isn't really a dealbreaker for me.
It's not a dealbreaker for me either. Nothing is a dealbreaker for me, that Wii is as good as sold. Just thinkin' it's much better from an image perspective to do this.
And as a curious sidenote, two controllers would be an easy marketing win for the guys behind the name "Wii"
PuertoRicanJuice said:It seems to me that Amirox is saying that Nintendo is cheap because they are not selling at a loss like Sony and Microsoft. (Is this proven BTW?) I don't disagree. But Nintendo knows that hardcore Nintendo fans will eat it up, and by keeping the price low, they are trying to get in customers scared off by the higher price consoles.
I'm actually curious to see what the cost of components is with the system and one controller/nunchuck. I believe they might be even able to fit in a second controller without necessarily losing money, but I could be way off base. They said the controller will be 'expensive' to produce, so I'm wondering just what 'expensive' is to them.
ghostlyjoe said:No industry works this way. MS and Sony have other agendas here. That much is admitted. Nintendo is still squarely in the gaming realm, and their business model isn't chaning. Whether or not they're "cheap" is pretty pointless ultimately, because what matters to me is entertainment value vs. real-world cost.
What are you talking about? Most consoles are sold at loss and the money is made back on software until the console becomes profitable. In Microsoft's case, this has never actually even happened.
The reason your Pepsi analogy is completely and totally false is because Pepsi does not sell you other accessories in which it makes back the loss. If Pepsi was sold at a loss, they would not make money ever. Period. Does Pepsi sell accessory products in which it could make back a loss at the original PoP? Microsoft and Sony have the ability to make back the loss through software.
CajoleJuice
Member
Yea, I've been wondering just how expensive the Wiimote is as well. I agree with your sentiment that two controllers really goes well with the name Wii. If you're going to give your console a name as stupid as "Wii," at least take advantage of it.Amir0x said:I'm actually curious to see what the cost of components is with the system and one controller/nunchuck. I believe they might be even able to fit in a second controller without necessarily losing money, but I could be way off base. They said the controller will be 'expensive' to produce, so I'm wondering just what 'expensive' is to them.
Kobun Heat said:Whether you're taking a substantial loss, breaking even, or making a tiny profit, more money has to come from somewhere. And a second controller, as one of the only accessory sales that can be well and truly counted on for a critical mass of hardware buyers, is a big step towards making up that extra scratch, often right at POP. Giving that away is not something that any hardware manufacturer has traditionally done, not since 1991 or so. Nintendo could still do it, but if they don't, it's not because they're "cheap."
Which is precisely why I predicted a /$50 increase if Nintendo includes the extra controller and Wii Sports (given a controller retailing at 35, and the Wii Sports package not costing a huge amount to develop, a fair increase, I would think). In fact, given that the Gamecube managed to release at $200 with comparative technical abilities to PS2/XBox, and that Nintendo have undoubtedly saved some money on Wii's internals, I wouldn't be surprised if they've been planning on including 2 controllers the whole time, and have been factoring this into a 200 price. I certainly agree that Nintendo isn't likely to take a significant loss on the console just to include a second controller, I wouldn't put it past them to put the extra controller in and price accordingly.
Y2Kevbug11 said:What are you talking about? Most consoles are sold at loss and the money is made back on software until the console becomes profitable. In Microsoft's case, this has never actually even happened.
Most consoles are not sold at a loss. That is a relatively new "innovation", which has "helped" the industry as a whole so very much.
DavidDayton said:Most consoles are not sold at a loss. That is a relatively new "innovation", which has "helped" the industry as a whole so very much.
10+ years is "new"?
DavidDayton said:Most consoles are not sold at a loss. That is a relatively new "innovation", which has "helped" the industry as a whole so very much.
Are you really gonna pick this apart? Most of the consoles in the "modern era" have been sold at a loss-- Playstation, Playstation 2, and Xbox. The Saturn might have been and I think the Dreamcast was-- at least initially. The only ones that haven't would be the N64 and the GameCube, which I believe was sold at a slight loss or they broke even.
We're not even arguing about whether or not it should be sold at a loss. The issue was whether or not you can compare the games industry to other non-entertainment industries, which I think is patently wrong.
And if you look at the Playstation, I'd say it certainly helped the industry in making the machines more affordable and proliferation has increased greatly (not counting the PS3).
Calling a company "cheap" because they want to maximize their profits is very naive and kinda stupid as well. You think Sony and Microsoft take a loss on hardware out of charity? Every commercial company in every business follow the strategy they follow in order to maximize their profits (now or eventually), it just so happens that Nintendo's strategy is more successful than most.Y2Kevbug11 said:If Nintendo is "cheap," it is because they produce an affordable product.
Jokeropia said:Calling a company "cheap" because they want to maximize their profits is very naive and kinda stupid as well. You think Sony and Microsoft take a loss on hardware out of charity? Every commercial company in every business follow the strategy they follow in order to maximize their profits (now or eventually), it just so happens that Nintendo's strategy is more successful than most.
Right. Nintendo controls costs heavily when it comes to design. If that's cheap...well, then they are cheap.
I don't think they are cheap. Maybe if they sell at $299. Lol.
Mike Works
Member
I hate to break it to you drohne, but I'm buying a PS3. You're not buying a Wii. Math simple.drohne said:because they seemed clever when i was writing them? you know how it is: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3287132&postcount=362
So says the wiitard.AniHawk said:I find it odd you had that post of Mike's ready to go.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3141226&postcount=164
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Sony pulled in a nice healthy profit on their PS1 and PS2 by manufacturing their own parts. I suspect they will be selling their PS3 at a loss for a year or so. MS is selling the XBox console at a loss but they may be recouping some money on XBox Live.Y2Kevbug11 said:Are you really gonna pick this apart? Most of the consoles in the "modern era" have been sold at a loss-- Playstation, Playstation 2, and Xbox. The Saturn might have been and I think the Dreamcast was-- at least initially. The only ones that haven't would be the N64 and the GameCube, which I believe was sold at a slight loss or they broke even.
We're not even arguing about whether or not it should be sold at a loss. The issue was whether or not you can compare the games industry to other non-entertainment industries, which I think is patently wrong.
And if you look at the Playstation, I'd say it certainly helped the industry in making the machines more affordable and proliferation has increased greatly (not counting the PS3).
Nintendo must be making a nice profit on consoles. They said they would leave the game industry before making games for other consoles (like SEGA).
SapientWolf said:Sony pulled in a nice healthy profit on their PS1 and PS2 by manufacturing their own parts. I suspect they will be selling their PS3 at a loss for a year or so. MS is selling the XBox console at a loss but they may be recouping some money on XBox Live.
Nintendo must be making a nice profit on consoles. They said they would leave the game industry before making games for other consoles (like SEGA).
Not initially, but eventually it did turn a profit.
Microsoft is consistently in the red with the Xbox. They were black one quarter with the xbox and it was only cause of halo 2.
SapientWolf said:Sony pulled in a nice healthy profit on their PS1 and PS2 by manufacturing their own parts. I suspect they will be selling their PS3 at a loss for a year or so. MS is selling the XBox console at a loss but they may be recouping some money on XBox Live.
Nintendo must be making a nice profit on consoles. They said they would leave the game industry before making games for other consoles (like SEGA).
Sony lost money on the PS2 console when it first came out for many months. Only over time, as their production capacity improved and the cost of components came down, did they start making a profit on the system.