| megaman79 said: Sharp make the parallax screen |
LOL didn't fix it fast enough 
Until you've played it, every game is a system seller!
Wii FC: 4810 9420 3131 7558
MHTri: name=BOo BoO/ID=BZBLEX/region=US
mini-games on consoles, cinematic games on handhelds, what's next? GameBoy IMAX?
Official Member of the Pikmin Fan Club
Man confirming what I've been saying for months. Nintendo always sells their hardware for a healthy profit. Now even after you include costs like staff at the factories etc...etc.. Nintendo is still making a good enough profit off each unit. Nintendo needs to compete with Microsoft and Sony both of which have many markets to get their money. Sony can make up for losses by selling some good films and music. Microsoft can recoup the losses with PC software.
Nintendo is the only gaming company in the big three. The only company 100% reliant on video games for its survival. Making a profit is required especially when you have to compete with such big competitors.
Also keep in mind Nintendo spends like half a bill each year on R&D. They have to charge more or bring in more profits to offset this. Microsoft and Sony can both just dip into reserves or other divisions. Sony can use R&D from their other divisions and so can Microsoft.
Plus the price of 3DS is not that radical. Sure its profitable for Nintendo but its not like their asking much more for it then they have other platforms in the past.
-JC7
"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer
You run a business, you naturally "have to" sell your shit for a profit.
When you're selling it at a lose, you're just using your deep pocket to kill off competition and then you have the whole playfield all to yourself. Risky if you failed.
good_boy said:
2-If you made an argument and then you will end with that ignoring my entire post, you need to grow up. Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional. Just a reminder :D 3-Putting Microsoft and Kinect is totally acceptable. It's nothing illogial, you are closed minded. If you think wii is the best console because is has sold the most, then you are wrong, my friend. Numbers don't matter. It doesn't affect any gamer, only fanboys. If numbers mattered, why aren't most of the critcally acclaimed games on the wii? It's a fact Xbox 360 has the most games this gen and guess what? It's not in first place and yet, it's the console with the most games and they are excelent games. If they sell, good but to me, the most important thing is that I enjoy them. I also played and enjoyed Nintendo games in the past with family and friends when I was a kid and I'm glad I did it, it was time well spent. Sure, Nintendo has Mario, Zelda, etc. but Microsoft also own their own franchises, Halo, Gears Of War, Forza, etc. 4-Continuning point 3 but now with Kinect. How can you say that? You know, everyone was mocking kinect games and now look, launch titles were well received because they are quality games. Again, you are being very closed minded, how can you be so sure those hardcore kinect titles will be bad? Didn't people learn something with the launch kinect titles? I'll repeat myself, intead of making silly arguments, be a man(unless you are a lady) and respond well. |
Just wanted to fix something. Those games did sell well and everyone of them made a profit. though Id argue one of them is just horrible and boring(Madworld)). Which btw was that companies biggest game at one point. On the Lazy ones comment. Go play a crap load of 3rd party games on the Wii then go play HD console games by the same companies and yea you will see why Wii owners think that pretty fast.Hell just do it on the wii and then the ds or psp. Huge difference in quality.
fwap said:
|
Blu-Ray, games, web browsing, charity to buyers... It only does everything! 
Pretty sure they just didn't want to do a repeat of the Wii where they clearly underpriced their console relative to the demand. Based on secondary market resell longevity, and supply shortages almost reaching into the third year of production, they easily could have charged $299 MSRP upon launch. That's a lot of lost revenue that essentially went straight into the hands of hardware flippers.
What it means in the short term is that secondary market prices on the 3DS most likely won't be as crazy as they were for the Wii unless they managed to underprice their hardware again. Price premiums over retail on Ebay are modest at best if that's any indicator.
Longer term, it gives them a huge amount of space for retail price cuts or bundles to maintain consumer interest in the platform.
150 Dollar is on the edge of acceptable.
What is not acceptable, however, is that Apple sells phones with similar production costs at more than double the price of the 3DS.
The freaking phone costs around 700 dollars, but Apple produces for just aroun 150 dollars. That's more than 450% of the production costs! This is ridiculous, not Nintendo's profit margin.
updated: 14.01.2012
playing right now: Xenoblade Chronicles
Hype-o-meter, from least to most hyped: the Last Story, Twisted Metal, Mass Effect 3, Final Fantasy XIII-2, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, Playstation ViTA
bet with Mordred11 that Rage will look better on Xbox 360.
I've always loved the spin that it's somehow good for gamers when a company sells at a loss. Let us ignore that this business model killed plenty of gaming companies that were around long before Microsoft or Sony entered the industry, or that massive losses caused Sega to stop producing consoles.
No, it is obviously perfectly healthy for a business to sell things at a loss, because you know, that means they care....
I'd like to see Sony and Microsoft use the same business model if they didn't have other areas of business to fall back on while their gaming divisions eat up billions. They would be dead and gone already.
VGChartz
| gumby_trucker said: Not really surprising that they could have priced it lower... I think it's likely they may have been considering $199 themselves before the "positive reactions" at E3... However this kind of margin does seem exceptionally high. Part of it is definitely due to huge loss of potential revenue during the time the Wii was supply constrained (easily as much as one billion USD if not more), but it also seems that Nintendo are playing it increasingly safe in order to sustain themselves during rainy days which may come... Either that or there are more hidden costs that we don't know of, such as any deals with SHARP (I think they are the suppliers of the screen) or DMP or Marvell... Also don't forget the large investment in online infrastructure for the 3DS (Reggie mentioned deals with AT&T in the US and so on...) Still I can't quite shake the feeling that an additional $5 in parts could have gone towards a better battery... oh well... *edit: fixed list of suppliers |
That would have been my smart-ass comment if I wanted to pretend like I knew what was best for Nintendo (I'm a shareholder and I still won't. If I ever suspect they're being retarded I have the option to sell).
Still, if they're making over 100% margins on each 3DS, sure; how about chipping in an additional $10 for an extra big-ass battery next time?
| milkyjoe said: I've always loved the spin that it's somehow good for gamers when a company sells at a loss. Let us ignore that this business model killed plenty of gaming companies that were around long before Microsoft or Sony entered the industry, or that massive losses caused Sega to stop producing consoles. No, it is obviously perfectly healthy for a business to sell things at a loss, because you know, that means they care.... I'd like to see Sony and Microsoft use the same business model if they didn't have other areas of business to fall back on while their gaming divisions eat up billions. They would be dead and gone already. |
*Cough* Gillette *cough*
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
