By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
QuintonMcLeod on 05 July 2014
Edit Thread

 

Scisca said:


The problem for both Wii U and XO is that after their price drops they STILL are too expensive. XO costs the same as PS4, but it's common knowledge that it's an inferior console. Why get less for the same money? Wii U is only $100 cheaper, but is closer to PS360 than PS4One in terms of performance. People look at this and can't see the value for the asking price. It's not just about cutting the price for the sake of it, it's about setting it on the proper level.

 

It's your own uninformed opinion that the Wii U is a console closer to the power of the PS360. There's already plenty of evidence that proves that the Wii U is several generations ahead of the PS360.

The Wii U isn't as powerful as the PS4 and the Xbone, but that doesn't mean it should be priced similar to those older machines because of your misinformed opinions.

The problem with Wii U is that it's impossible for Nintendo to improve the value to truely compete with PS4One, cause 3rd parties just won't care about it and, quite frankly, the gamers wouldn't care about any multiplats, as they'd be heavily gimped due to console limitations. Nintendo 1st party is great, but it's not better than 3rd parties +Sony/MS 1st party. This is why, I believe, they need to show a pricetag that makes their product a no-brainer. Its only chance to get any real traction is to become "the second console" that everyone who owns a PS4 or XO needs to have. But a secondary console can't cost as much as the primary one.

This is your opinion. It's not impossible to add value to any product. Look at the PS3 and the 3DS. Both of them got off to very rocky starts. Both of them received an initial price drop just like the Wii U did. After that, they were given good games - games that added value to the systems they were on. 

I'm starting to realize that economics isn't exactly your strong point.

So to sum up my argument - I'm all for Nintendo improving the value of the product, it's essential, but it is absolutely impossible for Wii U to have value similar to PS4One. Thus, as long as the price remains in the same ballpark as the price of PS4One, it won't be worth the value. Nintendo can't take on the whole world with a clearly inferior product and charge you almost the same price.

You must be very very young. I feel like an old fart right now. I say this because your argument completely ignores the video game market's history in its entirety. First off, the system with the best graphics nor the cheapest system was the system that won a console generation. It was the system with the best and most compelling software. This has been proven time and time again, over and over and over and over. 

The NES won the 3rd generation, despite the Sega Master system being a superior system. The NES was more expensive and it was weaker than the Sega Master system, but it still outsold that system. Why? Because of it's software library. You can argue that the PS4 has more 3rd party support, and therefore, provides a better library than the Wii U. However, nowadays, there are very few exclusive 3rd party games this generation. Multiplats have never really made or broken a system. The exclusives are what sets a system apart. Sony knew this with the PS1 and the PS2. It had the most (key word here) 3rd party _exclusives_. The PS2 was a more expensive and inferior system compared to the Xbox and the Gamecube.

To me the price is the most important factor keeping me from getting a Wii U. I'm thinking really hard about that MK8 bundle (it's 300 Euro here), but after comparing what I got from my Wii and my PS3, I'm really unwilling to pay this much.

Price has nothing to do with it. Even if the Wii U was free, you still wouldn't buy one. This could have more to do with bias or perhaps the Wii U's library doesn't feature games you want to play. Whatever the case may be, price has nothing to do with it.