By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
QuintonMcLeod on 25 July 2014
Edit Thread
padib said:
QuintonMcLeod said:
padib said:
QuintonMcLeod said:

Oh? Then why did the Wii U sell 3 million consoles in 2012 when it was priced at $350? Why did people prefer to buy the more expensive Deluxe SKU than the less expensive Basic SKU? Why does the Wii U have a higher attachment rate than the PS4 even though the PS4 has outsold the WIi U? 

Price has little to do with it. If consumers see the value of a product then they will pay the price of that product. It's as simple as that. You're speaking from a historical point of view while I'm speaking from the present and historical point of view. 

1) The U is heavily front-loaded, there's a reason for that and it's not price. 2) The Deluxe SKU offered more value than the basic set, yet the Wii offered that value at the price of the basic set while the U did it at the price of the deluxe (e.g. a higher price).

3) Hence why, in my view, the sales plummeted after an initial hype wave by excited early adopters. I believe the same thing happened for the 3DS so it's not a valid counter-point.

1) Front-loaded? What the heck does that mean?

2) If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying the Wii U Basic SKU's value was equivlent to the original Wii's value at release?

The original Wii was $250 at release. The Wii U Basic SKU was $300. It was, in fact, more expensive. The original Wii only had one SKU, while the Wii U had two SKUs. People opted for the more expensive SKU. You've already said it yourself - because the more expensive Wii U had more value. Notice how you didn't mention the price. Price has little to do with economics. It's all about value. It's the reason why real diamonds don't cost $30 bucks and why the PS4 doesn't cost $5,000 dollars.

3) Yeah, I'm not too sure how you came across this conclusion. I mean, if you factor in economics, then the answer is pretty simple. You're basing your conclusions on a hazy idea of what you believe the Wii U's consumer base would buy. However, you don't factor in consumers who did not buy the Wii U based on loyalty to Nintendo, or consumers who are buying the system as a gift, or consumers who just want the latest tech and etc. and etc. There's far too many factors for you to conclude the success or failure of a product based on its consumer base. The real sure-fire way is to look at the product's value, and what it has that would appeal to more consumers based on previous buying trends. In a market dictated by gaming and entertainment, then it's pretty reasonable to believe that games factor into the value of a system. The Wii U lacked that one essential thing. Therefore, its' sales suffered as a result. 

1) Front-loaded means that it sells a lot at first but does not have what we call legs (long-lasting sales).

2) I'm saying what I said... smfh that the U's deluxe value is the Wii's value, at the price of the U's basic set. Hence the same value was provided for the U at a higher price relative to the Wii.

3) I came to these conclusions through repeted study of the numbers for various case studies.

My basis for all the arguments provided above are trends of past systems, which took off at a certain price. The 3DS is the best example of a Nintendo trend being radically altered once the price went below a threshold Of course price in itself is not the be all end all, the be all end all is value. However Nintendo provides constant Nintendo value and as such the sales trends seem to stumble past a certain constant price.


I would like a link to these case studies you are quoting. You are already setting the value of the Wii U Deluxe SKU at the same height as the original Wii when the sales do not agree with your assertion. You are also ignoring other key factors in what turned the 3DS around. You seem to understand that "value" is what determines how something sells and how it doesn't, but you keep arguing that the price is the main factor. I mean, all other evidence points to the contrary.