Admit it, Nintendo totally blew it.

[Final-Fan]

ishkabibble said:

Final-Fan said:

ishkabibble said:

Final-Fan said:

ishkabibble said:

Final-Fan said:

Mummelmann said:

Vizion said:

Nintendo could have capitalized immensely if they weren't so conservative and had more Wiis produced. I wouldn't doubt there could have been 10-15 million more Wiis in people's homes today if there were that more many available.

If the userbase was that much larger even more developers would have shifted more of their resources to the Wii thereby creating an even higher demand for the Wii and decreasing demand for the 360 and PS3.

All year long the Wii was selling like hotcakes and Nintendo still didn't increase production to meet demand especially for the holiday seasons. What a huge opportunity Nintendo missed.

Don't get me wrong, Nintendo is still greatly successful even with this huge mistake. But they could have been so much more successful and dominant in the console market if they had more Wiis produced.

Why would Nintendo, who have been struggling to sell past 25 million consoles in the two previous generations produce 25-30 million Wii's for the FIRST year?! That would be an amazingly rash and idiotic business decision, regardless of the outcome.

There was no way for them to know whether the Wii would sell at all, and at which rate it would move. Hindsight is 20/20, in business and everyday life... Unfortunately; it can only be applied AFTER, hence the expression.

QFT and to get it on the current page.

Fun fact: The Wii is on track to sell more units in 1.5 years than the Gamecube has sold in 6 years.

Fun fact #2: The people saying that Nintendo was blind and foolish not to wager their entire company on the Wii doing BETTER THAN better than any gaming console in the history of the industry can shut up. (repetition not accidental)

If I'd known ahead of time what the winning lottery numbers were, then I'd have bought a ticket. But I didn't.

Nobody said Nintendo had to wager their company by producing an insane amount of consoles up front. But after being completely sold out for 8 months, don't you think pretty much any other major company on the face of the planet would have increased production more?

How exactly does this relate to the lottery?

Jigglypuff: It's an ok analogy. The Wii isn't terribly complex, either. And yes, Apple sold out of the iPhone. For a little while.

After the launch, it became clear that the sustained demand was considerably in excess of 1 million a month.
D > 1 million
is not the same as
D > 2 million
and I think that that's a significant distinction.

It's not that Nintendo hasn't been ramping up production; in fact, it has increased production more than any company has for any game console in its first year ever EVER. Apparently that's not fast enough, but I don't blame Nintendo for failing to forsee that. I also don't fault it for not betting on it. And that's what production orders made 5-8 months in advance of market fluctuations are -- very large bets based on very well-educated guesswork. Nintendo bet a little low, which is prudent when maneuvering in completely uncharted territory, which is what I hope you have the decency to admit it has been doing ever since the Wii controller was designed.

As for the iPod analogy, it's less about how "complex" the device is than it is about how "custom-built" the parts it's made of are. I freely admit ignorance as to what specifically goes into Ipod manufacture, but I'm confident that it has more mainstream technology on the whole than the Wii does. It's well-known that certain suppliers were -- for a time -- holding back Nintendo's ramping up of production.

[edit: And maybe if Nintendo charged Apple's prices, the Wii wouldn't be sold out either.]

[edit2: Regarding first-year production increases: um, except the GBA, apparently. Second year may be a different story though.]

You said it yourself. Signficantly more than a million requires a significant distinction.

Nintendo did not bet a little low. If they just bet a little low, you'd see a Wii in stock fairly often. They bet a LOT low.

If you're ignorant about how complex devices are, then maybe you shouldn't be speaking about it.

ookaze: point out where I trolled the things you say. I'm a Nintendo fan and stockholder, and try to take an objective view of their business practices. They've done a ton of things right this generation, but they definitely have done a few things wrong.

You have either completely misinterpreted or completely ignored my arguments. This makes you either an idiot, a troll, or a fanboy.

Whatever is the case, you aren't worth my time until you actually refute some of the points I made in that post.

Please point out which arguments I misinterpreted or ignored. I touched on the "significant distinction". You disproved your own point about increasing production with the GBA example. You use an Ipod comparison, when I clearly said iPhone (the iPhone is arguably as complex and custom-built as the Wii).

As for pricing, yep, Nintendo could have charged more and made more money. But they chose neither to have a higher price point or manufacture enough consoles to meet demand.

Ok?

For starters, the iPod vs. iPhone thing. Here is where the comparison came from:

Jigglypuff said:

Godsmurf said:

1. Producing too many Wii's was not such a big risk - the console has years to go so any surplus could eventually be used.
2. Apple never seems to have a problem meeting demand for new iPods at launch day btw, let alone a year later.

1. THe Wii outsold the gamecube in ONE year in many places. No one could have predicted this, so its totally foolish to suggest that they could have built up stock because it would sell eventually. Even the most liberal of demand estimates would not have suggested this. Can you imagine Sony making 120 million PS3s in the first year "hey we have the next 6 years to sell them!!!"

And as a matter of fact, having extra stock can kill a business, there are many examples of this in the video games

2. Awful analogy.
All apple need is basically a hard drive & a few other pieces. The first time they tried to go beyond that (the iPhone), guess what, they ran out of stock!

So: the original posts were about iPods, and iPhones were only referred to for the sake of a counter-comparison. My post was refuting you saying, "Jigglypuff: It's an ok analogy. The Wii isn't terribly complex, either."

Regarding your condescending dismissal of my iPod commentary: you chose to ignore my argument in favor of belittling me. If you think my assertion that the iPod doesn't have as much specialized technology as the Wii, then say so, with reasoning to back it up. I think that mine is the natural presumption, since the iPod AFAIK is a triumph of elegant design in an otherwise unexceptional piece of hardware, while the Wii has quite a bit of technology that was highly unusual in the field of video games.

As far as the iPhone part of the debate is concerned, you've conceded my point: to wit, that the Wii would probably be as available as the iPhone is if it were to charge an iPhone-like price. You may disagree with Nintendo's decision to not do so, but that's a completely separate argument.

Next, the supposedly lethargic increase in production:

You only had two comebacks to my long paragraph on this subject.

1. You picked out my using the word "little" and ignored the entire post. Fine. Replace "little" with "lot". Any more objections?

2. "You disproved your own point about increasing production with the GBA example." Bzzt. Wrong. Reason A: The fact that there is one exception to "biggest production increase ever" does not mean that Nintendo's production increase was inexcusably small, especially since Reason B1: the GBA was a much, much simpler and cheaper-to-produce item that ALSO was Reason B2: following on the heels of the most unstoppable juggernaut in video game history, the Game Boy. Nintendo had every reason (B3) to be poised to throw all its weight behind it if it was a hit and no reason (B4) to fear that it was a fad.

Actually, let me add a little to both (1) and (2). You blame Nintendo for seeing that demand was over 1 million a month and not forseeing (not a typo) that it was in fact over 2 million a month. Why do you think that Nintendo can reasonably be blamed for that, especially when Pachter and Pals were all saying 'Wii fad will die down, PS3 domination begins in 4 months'?

P.S. "But [Nintendo] chose neither to have a higher price point [nor to] manufacture enough consoles to meet demand." Wow. You are so right. Nintendo deliberately decided to massively underproduce the Wii, because it hates money. And if it had only realized that the way to solve the supply crisis was to jack the price up to (let's say) $330, I'm sure that consumers would be much happier knowing that availability could be purchased for a mere $80 premium. Instead of, you know, rioting in the streets, costing Nintendo all the moral high ground it currently enjoys over Microsoft "RRoD well within industry standards" and Sony "$599 US Dollars, Marketing Hates Our Customers". Maybe Nintendo should just put its Wiis on eBay and see what the market will bear.

P.P.S. Please respond to each of these, and not just one or two. I think it's only fair, since you specifically asked for them.