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)?
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.
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.
Amir0x said:No, I agree Nintendo is more likely to keep as much shit out of the pack as possible because they are cheap.
Amir0x said:No, I agree Nintendo is more likely to keep as much shit out of the pack as possible because they are cheap.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
ghostlyjoe said:Besides, an extra controller isn't really a dealbreaker for me.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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).