PerturbedKitty said:
ps4tw said:
Firstly, sales were not mentioned. The Wii U has sold just a bit better than the Dreamcast in total units, but has done so at a much slower pace in s significantly larger market. Therefore it is unquestionable that the Wii U has performed worse in the market.
sales were mentioned. you mentioned sales. you said DC was selling a lot. it wasn't. not that it matters, but you're saying sales weren't mentioned, but they were.
You can't just deny what I said about the Wii U not making money without any sort of rebuttal. The price will not cover R&D when you factor in (it's obvious that you're not) shipping and manufacturing costs on top of the retailers cut. The business plan we know as a fact had much, much higher projections and therefore the costs almost certainly will not be covered by falling spectacularly door l short of their initial estimations.
the wii u is indeed making nintendo money. nintendo is making money on every console sold. in fact, that is something that was discussed extensively within the first 100 replies of this thread. thats not even taking account software sales. a lot of wii u games have sold a shit ton of copies and nintendo makes a lot of money off their first party games. and i mean A LOT of money (4 million copies sold of Smash makes a lot more money than 4 million copies sold of Uncharted for example).
sure, they had higher projections, but that doesnt mean they had to reach those goals to make money. nintendo is very good at making money, and if they met their high projections, then we would probably be looking at wii-like profits, which is just crazy. you dont have to sell 100m consoles to be profitable.
You fail to grasp what I mean by support. You talk of it as if a company wants to be friendly. That's not how it works. Support is merely the post product launch plan. There will be a plan that they are following and you'll find that they will be scaling back on all support due to it not being financially viable.
sigh.. it is financially viable. if they replace it now, theyre going to miss out on a years worth of money they can still get from it. they already spent the R&D, so from a business perspective, they might as well use the wii u for what its worth. the wii u isnt a money pit that is losing them anything. theyre better off taking their time to ensure a successful launch of their next system and ride out whatever the wii u has left in it. there is still easy money to be made in the wii u.
I recommend that you Google business plans as it will help you understand what I'm talking about and why the Wii U will be seen by Nintendo as an unquestionable disaster, hence why a replacement sooner rather than later is in their best interest.
no, no, no. replacing it sooner rather than later is not the answer. that is a really shortsighted view of things.
|
|
No, you didn't read what I said. I said the DC was still being sold FOR a lot in reference to the comment that the Wii U wasnnot going to stop being sold due to it's shelf price.
The problem is you have to look past the extremely basic "it's being sold at a profit" talk from a bunch of guys that have no understanding of business and products. There is a hell of a lot more to the price of something other than it's raw parts list (which is ~$260). You have the cost of the R&D, the lifetime support of it (it breaks, who do you contact?), the entire retail cost (shipping, retail cut etc), overheads and so on. It's a very extensive list that goes far beyond "it costs this much to make".
The idea of being able to sail on the selling of games just doesn't fly as well. When you factor into it again all the costs, yes the profit margin is high, but certainly isn't going to plug the massive gap that will exist due to the Wii U having not hit any of its projections. Hitting those goals to make a profit may not be the case, but the Wii U has sold such a small amount it is likely that they have lost money on it, backed by their loses in the last few years. Also again, there is much more than just "profit".
sigh..you have no idea what constitutes if something is or is not financially viable beyond a very, very basic notion of profit. A "years worth of money" may not be enough, and has to be considered against ongoing development costs for other projects, and again overheads. More so, if Nintendo would have made more money by putting all the money invested in the Wii U into regular business savings, then the Wii U will be seen as a financial failure so investing anymore effort into this would be utterly foolish.
No offence, but when you have almost no understanding of business plans and how projects are decided and ran, maybe you shouldn't be claiming something is shortsighted...
