neerdowell said:
TheShape31 said:
I think for the hardware that's involved, each tier should easily have cost $50 less. We were told a long time ago by Reggie that they were going to make a solid profit from day one. So taking into consideration the economic climate, and the fact that Nintendo is no doubt making more than $50 per console, I think the prices are unreasonable. They've even convinced the general public that their Wii U Game Pad costs a ton of money. But aside from being a normal controller, there's only a simple, single-touch screen on it, and a very low quality camera. Things like NFC and internal microphones, etc., are not new technologies and are inexpensive to produce. The more people use the word 'tablet' to define it, the more others are convinced that there's actual built-in tablet hardware of some kind. I wouldn't doubt that the Wii U Game Pad costs them close to $50 to manufacture. And considering how easily those companies can profit off of peripherals, they can charge $100-$150 without flinching.
What if Nintendo is making $100 on their Premium model? It's not outside the realm of possibility. And does anyone really thing that Nintendo is looking out for the best interests of your wallet before those of their investors and shareholders? The people that realize and don't care are the same ones who have propelled Apple to be worth more than any company in the world. But I digress.
To address the title of this thread, the answer is no. $299 is absolutely not the new $599. Believe it or not, $599 was an incredible deal for what you were getting. Sony was losing around $200 per console sold. $299 for the Wii U, on the other hand, is not a deal, it represents an overpriced and overvalued product. I wish more people understood how relevant that comparison is instead of saying, "well, at least it's not $599"... How about instead seeing the truth of the matter and realizing, "you know, the PS3 was actually a much better deal than this".
|
How refreshing it is to hear someone recognize my own sentiments, particularly with how often they are disregarded. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment on value vs. cost and it is why I purchased the ps3 when it was still $500. On the Wii U, while I do think the cost is a little high I would not hold it against them to recuperate R & D; however, it would be nice for them to drop it shortly thereafter to a more reaonable profit margin. I understand businesses are businesses but there is a difference between smart businesss practices and blatantly disrespecting your consumers which I feel many businesses are guilty of.
|
It's difficult to compare Nintendo and Sony/Microsoft directly because Nintendo is solely a gaming company and doesn't have profits from other divisions to fall back on. So if what TheShape31 is saying about the costs is true, we can still somewhat excuse Nintendo for being so darn needy for profits.
On the other hand, I've heard people bring up this point for years and as true as it is, I can't imagine how much money Nintendo must make from their exorbitant first-party software sales (which m/s can only dream of mirroring) and of course... their merchandising (which m/s can't even begin to do, since they haven't invested into franchises like Nintendo has).
I think it would be "nice" for Nintendo to drop the price of Wii U on a sheer "I am a consumer who wants cheap things" impulse. But we all know why Nintendo had to cut the price of 3DS, and I hope that Nintendo doesn't have to reach that point with Wii U. Because if Wii U doesn't do well from the onset, Nintendo may be one step closer to becoming just another software company...
