By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
curl-6 on 11 September 2012
Edit Thread
Soundwave said:
zarx said:
Soundwave said:


Exactly. The Wii U has an even bigger LCD display (and from reports the display is of fairly high quality even if its not OLED), probably needs an even bigger battery, and has better specs all around even if the Vita's are decent.

It's production cost is almost certainly higher than a Vita.


Multitouch panels are several times more expensive than resistive ones and OLEDs are more expensive than LCDs. Also the DPI of the Vita screen is hicher, and high DPI screens are more expensive for the same area, the Wii U tab is 854 x 480 vs the Vita's 960 × 544. Also keep in mind miniturisation is expensive the Vita uses more modern hardware which is expensive. As for the battery the Wii U tab has a lot less components to power I doubt it would be much bigger than the Vita. The Vita likely costs as much or more than the Wii U will.

After doing a bit of researchhttp://www.forgetthebox.net/mag/culture/forum-m/rumor-wii-u-price.php aparently the screen in the Wii U costs arround $14 and a total BoM of $180 for the entire package.

The Vita before launch cost $160, $50 of that was the screen and touch pads. http://www.destructoid.com/ps-vita-3g-teardown-puts-sony-s-cost-at-159-220036.phtml

So it looks like the pros are saying that the Wii U cost a bit more than the Vita to manufacture at launch. So I guess they would be taking a loss at $250.


Largely irrelevant anyway, since going by that Amazon leak, Wii U will have multiple SKUs, which will no doubt probably pull in a profit, even if the $250 SKU loses a few bucks.

Actually a lot of people forget this, but the GameCube was sold at a slight loss at the time of its launch too. No big deal.

Not really surprising; it was $200 USD at launch IIRC, and it was damn powerful hardware back in '01.