By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Why Nintendo has ruined this gen for me

CommonMan said:
Tuganuno said:
c0rd said:
Tuganuno said:

70 million gamers? Have you talked with each one of 'em? How do you know that an x% of those consumers don't have any kind of idea about hardware and therefor don't know if that's a good or a bad deal? And my brother bought one for 200€ in 2009. He wanted to get some of the Mario classics, but he wasn't very happy with price. Perhaps he wasn't the only one.

Sony launched the PS3 for 600$ but the production costs were superior to that number, so as you can see, one of the consoles is offering a pretty damn good deal, specially because it was and still is the cheapest blu-ray player. Ok now I sounded like a salesman... lol

Wow, that is ridiculous. Do you think there are more people that feel a $250 Wii was more of a rip off than a $500-600 PS3?

A PS3 at $600 was an awful price. Here's something you may be missing: production costs do not matter to the customer. I don't give a fuck if the Wii costs $10 to make, it's reasonably priced as it is for me. If the PS3 cost $1000 to make, I still wouldn't be thanking them when I end up paying them $500 for it.

Ok so, basically what you said was that, even if Nintendo's console costed 5$ to make, and they sold it to you for 250$, you wouldn't mind to get ripped off because the PS3 was twice as expensive, even tho it costed 1000$ to make... You obviously know that you pay for quality, no fanboysm intended, but if a PS3 costs 800$ to make, it's because it has stuff that makes it so expensive - Blu Ray player, for example. If you think that it's too much money for a console, ok, I can accept that, but don't dare to say that paying 250$ for something that costs 135$ to make was a good deal, because it wasn't and at least in my mind, it's completely irrational. I could only accept that if a company was about to bankrupt, or if they wanted to make some profits for a bit because they had a couple of bad years untill then.

So what you're saying is that nobody should make money? I really don't have time to go into basic economics with you but, let's just say that pricing is based on demand. Since the customers liked the product, demand was high and Nintendo could charge whatever the customer deems as fair. The customer sets the "fair" price. That's why the ps3 is now $300 and finally selling well, because the customer says that is what's fair. Sony putting a bunch of crap in the console from the beginning has noghthing to do with "fairness" or "benevolence", they thought that they would be able to make money, first by keeping the price high and bringing production costs down and second by Trojan horse-ing Blu-ray into living rooms. Both Nintendo and Sony "deserve" their respective profits/losses.

Do you really think I'm trying to say that? Cmon, all I've said is that Wii's price was (and still is) too high, aside from that whole demand thing. Please answer honestly, do you think that it was fair to pay 200€ for a Wii in 2009?

If you read my previous posts, you'll see that I'm aware of what Sony wants, obviously they want the same as Nintendo - money. It's naive to think otherwise. The difference is that I consider that Sony offers a much better deal than Nintendo does - quality/price. If they didn't want to lower the price, then they could have (at the very least) given a game or a controller. Having to buy a nunchunk separately shows how greedy Nintendo is.

Oh, and even tho I'm aware of basic economics (I understand why you explained, probably because I said "it's completely irrational in my mind", I was refering to thinking that a console that costs 5$ do make and is sold to 250$ is a good deal), I really appreciate an honest reply instead of one insulting me and saying I suck at economy. Thumbs up for you sir =)



Around the Network
Tuganuno said:

 

Do you really think I'm trying to say that? Cmon, all I've said is that Wii's price was (and still is) too high, aside from that whole demand thing. Please answer honestly, do you think that it was fair to pay 200€ for a Wii in 2009?

If you read my previous posts, you'll see that I'm aware of what Sony wants, obviously they want the same as Nintendo - money. It's naive to think otherwise. The difference is that I consider that Sony offers a much better deal than Nintendo does - quality/price. If they didn't want to lower the price, then they could have (at the very least) given a game or a controller. Having to buy a nunchunk separately shows how greedy Nintendo is.

Oh, and even tho I'm aware of basic economics (I understand why you explained, probably because I said "it's completely irrational in my mind", I was refering to thinking that a console that costs 5$ do make and is sold to 250$ is a good deal), I really appreciate an honest reply instead of one insulting me and saying I suck at economy. Thumbs up for you sir =)

I'm sorry you found my post insulting, but reading your prior posts led me to believe that you don't understand consumer pricing models and the supply/demand structure, I wasn't intentionally being insulting but I can see where it looked that way.

Seeing this post and you listing that Sony has a better quality than Nintendo, your stance makes sense. If you think Nintendo's system and games aren't worth much, it's kind of silly for me to argue with you. Bear in mind though, Sony is not offering you a "deal", they are offering you a product with X amount of features at a price that the market will allow. I personally think that Nintendo's games are much higher quality than Sony's and are $10 cheaper to boot, to me that may seem like a deal. But it's not. It's a game at a price that the market will allow.



killeryoshis said:
Galaxy wouldn't work as well on PS3 as wii. The motion controls are what make the game fun and its a experiance than can't work on PS3. Also the whole casual and hardcore split it a dumb phrase. What makes the 360 and PS3 more hardcore than wii?

Fail...

The motion controls are NOT what makes Super Mario Galaxy fun! At least not for me. Actually, motion controls play a very little part in the game.



Tuganuno said:

Do you really think I'm trying to say that? Cmon, all I've said is that Wii's price was (and still is) too high, aside from that whole demand thing. Please answer honestly, do you think that it was fair to pay 200€ for a Wii in 2009?

If you read my previous posts, you'll see that I'm aware of what Sony wants, obviously they want the same as Nintendo - money. It's naive to think otherwise. The difference is that I consider that Sony offers a much better deal than Nintendo does - quality/price. If they didn't want to lower the price, then they could have (at the very least) given a game or a controller. Having to buy a nunchunk separately shows how greedy Nintendo is.

Oh, and even tho I'm aware of basic economics (I understand why you explained, probably because I said "it's completely irrational in my mind", I was refering to thinking that a console that costs 5$ do make and is sold to 250$ is a good deal), I really appreciate an honest reply instead of one insulting me and saying I suck at economy. Thumbs up for you sir =)

Yes, 200 Euroes in 2009 was fair. At one point they had to increase the cost (in the UK only I believe) due to how poorly the Yen was doing. They weren't making a profit any more. Releasing products in Europe is expensive for Nintendo due to the lack of a good distribution system. With all the languages and laws they have to follow they had to build into Europe. Even to this day there are places where Nitendo's distribution is crappy causing prices to be higher.

Also, Nintendo includes a Nunchuck in the Wii package, it helps to do some research before you make an argument. Also, Nintendo already included a game called Wii Sports. It sold used for ~$25-35 and still sells for ~$15-20 which is more than most games sell used for. Even if you consider it a stupid game, it is a valuable game as proven by the used market (check out videogamepricecharts for proof).

Crying that Nintendo is ripping you off is just a sad copout as a last ditch effort to strike out against a company that is doing a brilliant job providing the content people want at the price they want. They even admitted that they thought about selling the system at $300 during launch, but then decided a cheaper price was better. The fact that they couldn't keep the product on the store shelves is enough evidence that the price is reasonable. Also Considering there is no equal competitor you can't really claim they are overpriced either. Sony failed at this with their $600 machine that was a horrible price to start with. Besides, you really think Sony wanted to give you a good deal on the system? All they really wanted you to do was buy their overpriced Blu-ray and game discs. Heck, they have the highest liscensing fees for games. So why aren't you crying about them ripping you off for game costs?




If you drop a PS3 right on top of a Wii, it would definitely defeat it. Not so sure about the Xbox360. - mancandy
In the past we played games. In the future we watch games. - Forest-Spirit
11/03/09 Desposit: Mod Bribery (RolStoppable)  vg$ 500.00
06/03/09 Purchase: Moderator Privilege  vg$ -50,000.00

Nordlead Jr. Photo/Video Gallery!!! (Video Added 4/19/10)

killeryoshis said:
Galaxy wouldn't work as well on PS3 as wii. The motion controls are what make the game fun and its a experiance than can't work on PS3. Also the whole casual and hardcore split it a dumb phrase. What makes the 360 and PS3 more hardcore than wii?

Oh really? The motion controls appart from pointing for grab seemd quiete gimmicky to me, I can see it beeing replicated on the PS3 / 360 without much problem.



MY HYPE LIST: 1) Gran Turismo 5; 2) Civilization V; 3) Starcraft II; 4) The Last Guardian; 5) Metal Gear Solid: Rising

Around the Network
CommonMan said:
Tuganuno said

Oh, and even tho I'm aware of basic economics (I understand why you explained, probably because I said "it's completely irrational in my mind", I was refering to thinking that a console that costs 5$ do make and is sold to 250$ is a good deal), I really appreciate an honest reply instead of one insulting me and saying I suck at economy. Thumbs up for you sir =)

I'm sorry you found my post insulting, but reading your prior posts led me to believe that you don't understand consumer pricing models and the supply/demand structure, I wasn't intentionally being insulting but I can see where it looked that way.

Seeing this post and you listing that Sony has a better quality than Nintendo, your stance makes sense. If you think Nintendo's system and games aren't worth much, it's kind of silly for me to argue with you. Bear in mind though, Sony is not offering you a "deal", they are offering you a product with X amount of features at a price that the market will allow. I personally think that Nintendo's games are much higher quality than Sony's and are $10 cheaper to boot, to me that may seem like a deal. But it's not. It's a game at a price that the market will allow.

Nooo lol Damn my broken english (?) I wasn't being sarcastic at all... I was just thanking your reply - you could have just said "you suck at this" but you cared to explain (even tho I was already aware of it), unlike some previous replies (to me). And I'm not being sarcastic now... Maybe I should've said "your honest reply". Thanks anyway =p

And I do recognize quality in some of Wii's (First Party) games (once again, I've said it in one of my many previous posts on this thread), I was just trying to explain why I think that Nintendo could provide a better service to its clients, starting on the price. But that's just my opinion, and if we go on like this, we'll be stuck in an eternal loop lol



Tuganuno said:
c0rd said:

Wow, that is ridiculous. Do you think there are more people that feel a $250 Wii was more of a rip off than a $500-600 PS3?

A PS3 at $600 was an awful price. Here's something you may be missing: production costs do not matter to the customer. I don't give a fuck if the Wii costs $10 to make, it's reasonably priced as it is for me. If the PS3 cost $1000 to make, I still wouldn't be thanking them when I end up paying them $500 for it.

Ok so, basically what you said was that, even if Nintendo's console costed 5$ to make, and they sold it to you for 250$, you wouldn't mind to get ripped off because the PS3 was twice as expensive, even tho it costed 1000$ to make... You obviously know that you pay for quality, no fanboysm intended, but if a PS3 costs 800$ to make, it's because it has stuff that makes it so expensive - Blu Ray player, for example. If you think that it's too much money for a console, ok, I can accept that, but don't dare to say that paying 250$ for something that costs 135$ to make was a good deal, because it wasn't and at least in my mind, it's completely irrational. I could only accept that if a company was about to bankrupt, or if they wanted to make some profits for a bit because they had a couple of bad years untill then.

Again, the production cost of the products do not matter to us - its value is set relative to people's needs. Buying the Wii is the only way to access all the great games on the system, which is why you're paying a premium. I personally play the Wii slightly more than both my HD consoles combined, so I'd say $250 compared to ~$550 was a pretty damn good deal.

Since you obviously don't like the Wii, let's look at something else. Take the DS, for instance - it's selling well above production costs. Does this bother you?

A better example would be the PS2, especially its price before April 2009. The console was selling for $129, which had to have been far more than the production cost. If I told you it cost $80 to make, would you call people completely irrational for considering the PS2 a deal at its price?


The bit at the end is a little puzzling to me. Companies will always try to maximize profits. The reason we've never seen Sony pull off something like the Wii, is because they haven't been able to, not because they're generous.



Tuganuno said:
CommonMan said:
Tuganuno said

Oh, and even tho I'm aware of basic economics (I understand why you explained, probably because I said "it's completely irrational in my mind", I was refering to thinking that a console that costs 5$ do make and is sold to 250$ is a good deal), I really appreciate an honest reply instead of one insulting me and saying I suck at economy. Thumbs up for you sir =)

I'm sorry you found my post insulting, but reading your prior posts led me to believe that you don't understand consumer pricing models and the supply/demand structure, I wasn't intentionally being insulting but I can see where it looked that way.

Seeing this post and you listing that Sony has a better quality than Nintendo, your stance makes sense. If you think Nintendo's system and games aren't worth much, it's kind of silly for me to argue with you. Bear in mind though, Sony is not offering you a "deal", they are offering you a product with X amount of features at a price that the market will allow. I personally think that Nintendo's games are much higher quality than Sony's and are $10 cheaper to boot, to me that may seem like a deal. But it's not. It's a game at a price that the market will allow.

Nooo lol Damn my broken english (?) I wasn't being sarcastic at all... I was just thanking your reply - you could have just said "you suck at this" but you cared to explain (even tho I was already aware of it), unlike some previous replies (to me). And I'm not being sarcastic now... Maybe I should've said "your honest reply". Thanks anyway =p

And I do recognize quality in some of Wii's (First Party) games (once again, I've said it in one of my many previous posts on this thread), I was just trying to explain why I think that Nintendo could provide a better service to its clients, starting on the price. But that's just my opinion, and if we go on like this, we'll be stuck in an eternal loop lol

Lol! Well looks like I've gotten all cranky and jaded and just assumed you were being sarcastic. And I don't disagree that Nintendo could price the Wii lower, but it ain't gonna happen until people stop buying the thing by the truckload.

There are a few of us here that try really hard to give people reasons beyond "you suck" when we post (I fail at that a lot though!). It's a decent community here when you get to know us.



tjallern said:
killeryoshis said:
Galaxy wouldn't work as well on PS3 as wii. The motion controls are what make the game fun and its a experiance than can't work on PS3. Also the whole casual and hardcore split it a dumb phrase. What makes the 360 and PS3 more hardcore than wii?

Fail...

The motion controls are NOT what makes Super Mario Galaxy fun! At least not for me. Actually, motion controls play a very little part in the game.


correct.

id also like to add id much have prefered it to have classic controller support.

hopefully, with the new gamepad released, they may make thier core games that can be played with standard controller.



...not much time to post anymore, used to be awesome on here really good fond memories from VGchartz...

PSN: Skeeuk - XBL: SkeeUK - PC: Skeeuk

really miss the VGCHARTZ of 2008 - 2013...

Skeeuk said:
tjallern said:
killeryoshis said:
Galaxy wouldn't work as well on PS3 as wii. The motion controls are what make the game fun and its a experiance than can't work on PS3. Also the whole casual and hardcore split it a dumb phrase. What makes the 360 and PS3 more hardcore than wii?

Fail...

The motion controls are NOT what makes Super Mario Galaxy fun! At least not for me. Actually, motion controls play a very little part in the game.


correct.

id also like to add id much have prefered it to have classic controller support.

hopefully, with the new gamepad released, they may make thier core games that can be played with standard controller.

I agree with the bolded.

I'd also like Yvonne Strahovski, just sayin'