NY Times says Wii: Nov 19th, $250.

Do I think it really costs $2.65 a gallon to get me that gas at the pump? No. But that's a price I'm willing to pay and someone is profiting from it. Nintendo is a for-profit company. What's wrong with that?

theres zero wrong with that.. good for them.. but as a consumer who knows some stuff.. I find it craptacular that I'm paying $100 over what I probably should be paying.

Nintendo does not have to subsidize it's console because they know there are enough people out there that 'feel' it's worth $250 that they can release a large number on the market without leaving excess inventory.

hmm...doubtful.. more like Nintendo cannot afford to subsidize its console....

Sony is only releasing a very low number of units, probably because there price is too high to sustain the demand they were hoping for originally.

again doubtful.. at launch with the initial hysteria is when Sony would sell a great deal of consoles.. no Sony is probably faced with simply not being able to build enough units.. low yeilds on Cell.. with limited manufacturing partners... is probably more the reason for their low ship numbers.

You can't build a Wii.

eh? I cant build alot of things.. whats that got to do with anything? I mean I cant build an Xbox360 either..?

moustache

have a good week-end!

Screw the cost of the electronics; I'm concerned with the cost of the raw materials. I figure the Wii probably weighs about 8 lbs, figure 3/4 of that is plastic and rest is metal. Metal comes from rocks, which are free. Plastic is petroleum-based, isn't? Which makes it old dead plants, which are also free. So (6 * free) + (2 * free) = 0. I figure I'm getting ripped off by about $250 for the Wii. However, the 360 and PS3 should cost about the same (with a bit more of the free stuff), so Nintendo is ripping me off less than everybody else. Wii it is!

I would just like echo Ducki's comments. What the wii is offering is something that you just can't get anywhere else. New control, legal emulation of my favorite childhood games, Mario Kart and Smash Bros. online and much more. Nintendo has a monopoly on these things so the cost to get it into Best Buy is irrelevant. What is relevant is how much I am willing to pay to have access to those things. $250 is probably a little bit out of my price range, but depending on how well the control pans out it may become worth that price.

A handheld gaming device that had exclusive rights to Dwarf Fortress and several other games of it's caliber wouldn't cost very much to build. However, I would be willing to pay several hundred dollars for it because it's value to me would be so damn high.

I care about the hardware that goes into my PC because it directly impacts it's utility in all aspects. Consoles just do not match that model, so it is not worthwhile to discuss the cost of the hardware contained.

TheGameguru wrote:
Do I think it really costs $2.65 a gallon to get me that gas at the pump? No. But that's a price I'm willing to pay and someone is profiting from it. Nintendo is a for-profit company. What's wrong with that?

theres zero wrong with that.. good for them.. but as a consumer who knows some stuff.. I find it craptacular that I'm paying $100 over what I probably should be paying.

I don't get it, what should you be paying? If you base what you should be paying purely on what it costs to make, there's a lot of things out there that are overpriced.

As a consumer who knows some stuff, why does the Wii price bother you, but not the price of gas?

Nintendo does not have to subsidize it's console because they know there are enough people out there that 'feel' it's worth $250 that they can release a large number on the market without leaving excess inventory.

hmm...doubtful.. more like Nintendo cannot afford to subsidize its console....

How can you fault Nintendo for both not having enough money AND for making too much of a profit on the Wii?

Sony is only releasing a very low number of units, probably because there price is too high to sustain the demand they were hoping for originally.

again doubtful.. at launch with the initial hysteria is when Sony would sell a great deal of consoles.. no Sony is probably faced with simply not being able to build enough units.. low yeilds on Cell.. with limited manufacturing partners... is probably more the reason for their low ship numbers.

True, but I was ignoring that because it has a negative effect on my argument.

Duttybrew wrote:

I would just like echo Ducki's comments. What the wii is offering is something that you just can't get anywhere else. New control, legal emulation of my favorite childhood games, Mario Kart and Smash Bros. online and much more. Nintendo has a monopoly on these things so the cost to get it into Best Buy is irrelevant. What is relevant is how much I am willing to pay to have access to those things.

I understand what your saying. I just don't like to support this kind of business model. I don't think I should have to pay "the monopoly tax" b/c Nintendo holds exclusive rights to some games I would like to play. They could have released many of these on Gamecube. It just makes me feel like they are getting a little too greedy. I don't mind them making a profit but at $170 (rumored) to produce (the console and wiimote) it just seems too much in my opinion.

How can you fault Nintendo for both not having enough money AND for making too much of a profit on the Wii?

hmm.. they'd probably still make money off the console at $150-$175 so then.. again why should I care? I understand WHY Nintendo went with the Rev the way it is.. and I've said in the past.. its a smart decision.. they neither have the cash or ability to compete with Microsoft and Sony head to head anymore.. so they are competing sidewise.. much like Apple does with Microsoft/Intel/AMD/Dell (aka the Wintel world). I just disagree with them charging $250 and making AS MUCH as they are on each console... thats a ripoff to me. I dont feel priviledged or special to pay Nintendo $250 for the honor of playing their games.. cause in the end.. I'd have just as much fun playing a game on my Xbox 360 or PC that I spent $50 for.. oh wait.. the games still cost money? damn.

As a consumer who knows some stuff, why does the Wii price bother you, but not the price of gas?

hmm..not sure I said anything about the price of gas.. but ok. Not sure your point there.

EvilDead wrote:

I understand what your saying. I just don't like to support this kind of business model. I don't think I should have to pay "the monopoly tax" b/c Nintendo holds exclusive rights to some games I would like to play. They could have released many of these on Gamecube. It just makes me feel like they are getting a little too greedy. I don't mind them making a profit but at $170 (rumored) to produce (the console and wiimote) it just seems too much in my opinion.

Want to talk greedy? Why do I have to buy a Wii if I want to play Super Metroid on a modern console legally? Why can't they let someone (and someone would do this if given the rights) port it to the GBA or DS? Or Mother 2 and 3. There are all kinds of games that are going to be used as leverage to sell the Wii. And it sucks for those of us who have no plans to buy the Wii and would rather play said games on a console we already own, which could handle the games just fun. But it's their intellectual property, so.....

duckilama wrote:

I'm gonna go with You can't build one for cheaper.
These aren't PCs. You can't just say "F-ing FalconNorthwest boxes are just overpriced, I can make the same thing for 1/3 that price."

This is the big point when it comes to consoles: they're not general purpose computing hardware. Yes, they're computers, and we can compare them as such, but ultimately, you buy a platform, part of which consists of the hardware, part of which consists of the library, and part of which consists of a bunch of other nebulous things (online, possible support, vendor track record, etc.)

TheGameguru wrote:
Do I think it really costs $2.65 a gallon to get me that gas at the pump? No. But that's a price I'm willing to pay and someone is profiting from it. Nintendo is a for-profit company. What's wrong with that?

theres zero wrong with that.. good for them.. but as a consumer who knows some stuff.. I find it craptacular that I'm paying $100 over what I probably should be paying.

hmm..not sure I said anything about the price of gas.. but ok. Not sure your point there.

I mentioned gas. You mentioned you have no problem with it, good for them. C'mon, keep up. Just cause you're having 3 arguments at once is no reason to get lost

Why does Nintendo particularly draw your ire for pricing their product higher than you would like but at a price where you will still buy it? Isn't that sound business practice for any other company/commodity?

Jolly Bill wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:
Do I think it really costs $2.65 a gallon to get me that gas at the pump? No. But that's a price I'm willing to pay and someone is profiting from it. Nintendo is a for-profit company. What's wrong with that?

theres zero wrong with that.. good for them.. but as a consumer who knows some stuff.. I find it craptacular that I'm paying $100 over what I probably should be paying.

hmm..not sure I said anything about the price of gas.. but ok. Not sure your point there.

I mentioned gas. You mentioned you have no problem with it, good for them. C'mon, keep up. Just cause you're having 3 arguments at once is no reason to get lost

Why does Nintendo particularly draw your ire for pricing their product higher than you would like but at a price where you will still buy it? Isn't that sound business practice for any other company/commodity?

er.. yeah.. I never mentioned or responded to your gasoline comment.. but carry on.

I have lots of problems with lots of things.. but this is a thread about Nintendo. Sorry.. I'll make another thread and list all my issues.

You keep mentioning that this is a sound practice.. I've agreed with that.. but I'm a man of the people.. and Nintendo is ripping people off with this Revolution. Is it that hard to seperate the two ideas? That 1) I can agree with Nintendo from a business perspective.. but 2) think they are ripping people off overcharging for their hardware.

I think Sony is pricing their PS3 to high for what it brings value wise vs the Xbox 360.. but its hard to say they are ripping people off with the price of Bluray players right now.. it just so happens that not many people place much value on a Bluray player in a console (possibly rightfully so).

Additionally I was very upset with Microsoft's decision to release two SKU's and I felt that the Premium should have been the only SKU and it should have been $299. (and I still think that today).. but either way neither in my mind is a ripoff in terms of what hardware you are purchasing.

You keep mentioning that this is a sound practice.. I've agreed with that.. but I'm a man of the people.. and Nintendo is ripping people off with this Revolution. Is it that hard to seperate the two ideas? That 1) I can agree with Nintendo from a business perspective.. but 2) think they are ripping people off overcharging for their hardware.

It is that hard, because you are both approving and disapproving of the same activity. You're using your agreement as proof of your objectivity while making an ethical statement about Nintendo.

The problem is that you are separating business from ethics. Because many people assume that if you approve of their business policies, that means they are behaving in a way that is both responsible and economic in your eyes. If, however, you feel they are committing "Anti-competitive practices: these include but go beyond pricing tactics to cover issues such as manipulation of loyalty and supply chains" (from wiki), then you have a good case for a breach of ethics. A lot of people do not consider that "sound business policy."

If you don't think they are behaving unethically, just pricing a bit higher than they should, I don't see the need for the repeated slams you've given them and those that would buy their products. (I didn't say insults. You've definitely implied that those who are unashamed and uncritical of Nintendo for releasing the Wii are being blinded by loyalty and nostalgia, though.)

I don't mind them making a profit but at $170 (rumored) to produce (the console and wiimote) it just seems too much in my opinion.

What, exactly, do you think the normal markup on a durable good is?
If the _materials_ and assembly cost $170, in my mind, $250 is about right.

Just because Sony and MS are selling at a loss and making it up on licensing fees doesn't mean that is the business model everyone _should_ follow. It doesn't make it ethical, either. In fact, I'm pretty sure that most instances of selling at a loss as a (anti)competitive measure is generally frowned upon by regulators in most other markets.

Businesses are _supposed_ to make money on their products. Enough to cover not only materials, but all sorts of overhead, management, R&D, etc, etc, etc.

A bit less than 50% markup? That sounds about right for a market that's not commoditized like PCs and PC components are.

What's the markup on handhelds(release day, that is)? What about MP3 players? Digital Cameras?

Ulairi wrote:

Why aren't you including the Wii Channels and other things as part of the hardware?

Because everyone else has a user interface too, they just don't slap a catchy name on it as if that makes it special.

McChuck wrote:

I think the reason for the new box maybe the additional calculations required for the Wiimote. I could actually check this somewhere, but I thought the system had a dedicated physics processor. That and a updated processor seem necessary for the new controller to work properly. Otherwise, maybe it could have been a Cube peripheral.

A physics processor wouldn't have anything to do with interpreting an infrared signal into X/Y coordinates on the screen.

Certainly there's a bit more to the Wiimote than that, but most of it is in the controller itself.

And the grapics are supposed to be better. Most articles say they can tell a difference and EA in an article from today or yesterday said Madden is comparable on the Wii and 360. I'm assuming that's 480p which as it should be. I'm sure 780p is no contest, though.

Well, Madden's probably not a great example, as the graphics on the 360 are fairly underwhelming IMO.

You do realize that most retail products are marked up between 50-90% over production costs?

For most products, we take this. But when it comes to Nintendo, it is somehow unacceptable. Is it only because its competitors are selling at a loss?

How is Nintendo ripping you off any more than say, whirlpool, when it sells a product for a profit?

Nice picture, Legion. I love that dude!

Unlike Sony or MS, Nintendo has a strong track record of creating 1st gen equipment that works for years without needing expensive repairs. As a person with a very finite budget and memories of an XBox that died within days of purchase, that makes the true price differential even greater.

peacensunshine wrote:

You do realize that most retail products are marked up between 50-90% over production costs?

For most products, we take this. But when it comes to Nintendo, it is somehow unacceptable. Is it only because its competitors are selling at a loss?

How is Nintendo ripping you off any more than say, whirlpool, when it sells a product for a profit?

basically because unless we eventually learn differently the sum of the components of the Revolution could very well end up costing Nintendo less than $70 to manufacture. Thus selling the unit for $250 is fairly obscene.. given its relative power vs the competitors. If your going to be that much lower and target a different marketplace.. then go for a realistic price point.. say $150-$175.. not just $50 lower than your competition.

Unless we see a BOM, isn't the production cost of the Wii nothing but speculation? Besides, the intrinsic value is irrelevant compared to the market value. If people are willing to pay $250 then that is what the Wii is worth. If it isn't then people won't buy it.

Just the fact that Gameguru is disgruntled about the price yet still buying it shows that Nintendo has set an ideal profit margin.

LiquidMantis wrote:

Just the fact that Gameguru is disgruntled about the price yet still buying it shows that Nintendo has set an ideal profit margin.

Very good point. I'll be sure to appropriate the concept for other discussions.

hey, this is interesting and all, but a dumb thing to argue over.

LiquidMantis wrote:

Unless we see a BOM, isn't the production cost of the Wii nothing but speculation?

I just have to give props to LiquidMantis for using (B)ill (O)f (M)aterials in an online debate. I really think there is a lack of ERP terms used on most forums that I visit.

Boy, you guys have really covered most of the bases on this debate. Me personally, I think I'm going to have to wait and see on it. I have never been one to wait and see on a Nintendo console in the past, but this time I'm not sure I'm ready to follow. I'm going to have to wait and see about the control scheme.

Last Sunday, before I left for a conference, my wife was wonderful enough to let me play video games pretty much all day, probably atleast 8 hours. That is very comfortable and easy to do with the wireless controller for the 360, which for me is about the best controller on the market right now. Is this going to be true for the Wii? I personally don't see how playing Zelda for 8 hrs or more is going to be that comfortable. If they would have let you play it with the Wavebird Shell for the Wii-Mote, then that would be one thing, but I think I remember reading that you are not going to be able to play it that way, you have to play in the interactive fashion.

I'm just going to have to wait until my younger more impetuous friend who is single and just throws money around willy-nilly buys it, and I can check his out.

Ganguro wrote:

hey, this is interesting and all, but a dumb thing to argue over.

Best post of the thread!

Personally, the lack of horsepower, HD and the price will become irrelevant if the controller turns out to be as great as it's hyped to be. But the thing is, I'm a little suspicious after watching a few videos. The guy from IGN had a lot of trouble aiming in Red Steel and I had a hard time seeing the connection between his moves and the sword in game. Wii Sports Tennis looked laggy. Another guy, a Tony Hawk dev mind you, kept ramming into the walls when playing Downhill Jam. Metroid looked iffy as well at first but the new "expert" controls seems to make it better...

I dunno, my expectations of it are pretty tied to aiming and camera control. I'm not sure replacing button presses with funky movements will be all that. I was expecting it to pwn the mouse and so far it looks shaky.

But I'm a gaming whore with no will so I'll probably pre-order it anyway.

The dudes from Penny Arcade said it best in their latest column. I just read it. Referring to a Joystiq blogger, who was making the same tired argument that selling a console at a profit was somehow wrong and a bad business strategy..

"Awesome! It's a Goddamn retard rodeo over there. It's fun to think about the author tippity-tappin' this one in while he eats light bulbs in the last car of the circus train."

I think that sums it up.

DSGamer wrote:

The dudes from Penny Arcade said it best in their latest column. I just read it. Referring to a Joystiq blogger, who was making the same tired argument that selling a console at a profit was somehow wrong and a bad business strategy..

"Awesome! It's a Goddamn retard rodeo over there. It's fun to think about the author tippity-tappin' this one in while he eats light bulbs in the last car of the circus train."

I think that sums it up.

I have no comment on the Joystiq article one way or the other.. but you and PA apparently missed the point completely. In no way does the article say that selling a console at profit is wrong and a bad business strategy. It simply says that a rational consumer would choose the console that had the most for the money.. i.e. the console sold at a loss via subsidizing. That it.. nothing more nothing less. No way shape or form does it go into how great the games are blah blah whatever else Nintendoits get their panties in a bunch about.

Give me a break..

Where the hell is my mega roll eyes gif??

Actually a rational consumer plays what's fun. Be that a Wii, a PS3 one of those freaking Atari Retro consoles that includes all the games in memory. Once again, how can you quantify the price someone places on fun? If it's fun, then it's worth the money.

When I sold my DS because it was killing my hand, I bought a GBA again. That probably was a bad deal since the GBA definitely makes a huge profit at this point. And I went online and bought a new copy of Chu Chu Rocket (my favorite game) for $30. That game can be had used for $5. I guess I'm the ultimate moron, right? You can think that. I don't care, though, because I'm happy and having fun. And that's really the point, isn't it?

Then I was looking at the site where I bought Chu Chu Rocket the other day, in fact, and saw that they had NEW Dreamcast consoles for $100. I'm seriously tempted to go buy one so I can relive my favorites from that console like Crazy Taxi, Jet Grind Radio, etc. ON the console I loved so much. I might do it. And it might be stupid to you. And I might not care what you think, because if I'm having fun, then it's worth it.

And those are extreme examples compared to someon

DSGamer wrote:

Actually a rational consumer plays what's fun. Be that a Wii, a PS3 one of those freaking Atari Retro consoles that includes all the games in memory. Once again, how can you quantify the price someone places on fun? If it's fun, then it's worth the money.

When I sold my DS because it was killing my hand, I bought a GBA again. That probably was a bad deal since the GBA definitely makes a huge profit at this point. And I went online and bought a new copy of Chu Chu Rocket (my favorite game) for $30. That game can be had used for $5. I guess I'm the ultimate moron, right? You can think that. I don't care, though, because I'm happy and having fun. And that's really the point, isn't it?

Then I was looking at the site where I bought Chu Chu Rocket the other day, in fact, and saw that they had NEW Dreamcast consoles for $100. I'm seriously tempted to go buy one so I can relive my favorites from that console like Crazy Taxi, Jet Grind Radio, etc. ON the console I loved so much. I might do it. And it might be stupid to you. And I might not care what you think, because if I'm having fun, then it's worth it.

And those are extreme examples compared to someon

Once again.. you miss the point.. the Joystiq article clearly states that "ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL" i.e. that all systems have fun games, awesome games, great graphics, sound. WHATEVER!!!!!!!!! then the rational consumer would purchase the console that gave him the most "bang per buck" (so to speak)

Nothing more nothing less.

TheGameguru wrote:

Once again.. you miss the point.. the Joystiq article clearly states that "ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL" i.e. that all systems have fun games, awesome games, great graphics, sound. WHATEVER!!!!!!!!! then the rational consumer would purchase the console that gave him the most "bang per buck" (so to speak)

I think we get the point - we (or at least I) just think that boring hypotheticals (OK, so everything's exactly the same except for price - pay more, or pay less?) and discussions of console processing power vs. cost are, for lack of a better word, a bit silly. I, for one, appreciate PA calling them on it in a visible place.