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

Forums - Nintendo - 3DS costs 15$ more to produce than DSi

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.

You're completely ignoring the revenue streams both SCE and MS generate due to their gaming divisions alone. Profit isn't everything.



Around the Network
greenmedic88 said:
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.

You're completely ignoring the revenue streams both SCE and MS generate due to their gaming divisions alone. Profit isn't everything.

I disagree, outside of things like charities or other non-profit organisations (funnily enough, gaming companies would never fall into this bracket) there isn't a company in existence that doesn't want to make a profit, be it from day 1 or somewhere further down the line.

Companies who make a loss at some stage aren't doing it out of some sense of love for their customers as has been suggested here, they're doing it to try and gain market share which they can then try to exploit to turn those losses to profit, which is exactly what Microsoft did with the first Xbox. Lesser companies with less backing wouldn't have been able to follow that model though, which brings me back to Sega and the like...



VGChartz

milkyjoe said:
greenmedic88 said:
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.

You're completely ignoring the revenue streams both SCE and MS generate due to their gaming divisions alone. Profit isn't everything.

I disagree, outside of things like charities or other non-profit organisations (funnily enough, gaming companies would never fall into this bracket) there isn't a company in existence that doesn't want to make a profit, be it from day 1 or somewhere further down the line.

Companies who make a loss at some stage aren't doing it out of some sense of love for their customers as has been suggested here, they're doing it to try and gain market share which they can then try to exploit to turn those losses to profit, which is exactly what Microsoft did with the first Xbox. Lesser companies with less backing wouldn't have been able to follow that model though, which brings me back to Sega and the like...

You don't have to agree. Generated revenue is more directly paired with expansion and growth. While the following example has no bearing on Nintendo (which has displayed huge gains in revenue in addtion to profits since the mid 2000s), a company that produces say 10% profits over an annual revenue of $100 million over $50m the previous year, is still generating less cashflow than a company that is breaking even or even posting slight losses YoY on revenue of $200 million up from $150 m the previous year.



greenmedic88 said:
milkyjoe said:
greenmedic88 said:
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.

You're completely ignoring the revenue streams both SCE and MS generate due to their gaming divisions alone. Profit isn't everything.

I disagree, outside of things like charities or other non-profit organisations (funnily enough, gaming companies would never fall into this bracket) there isn't a company in existence that doesn't want to make a profit, be it from day 1 or somewhere further down the line.

Companies who make a loss at some stage aren't doing it out of some sense of love for their customers as has been suggested here, they're doing it to try and gain market share which they can then try to exploit to turn those losses to profit, which is exactly what Microsoft did with the first Xbox. Lesser companies with less backing wouldn't have been able to follow that model though, which brings me back to Sega and the like...

You don't have to agree. Generated revenue is more directly paired with expansion and growth. While the following example has no bearing on Nintendo (which has displayed huge gains in revenue in addtion to profits since the mid 2000s), a company that produces say 10% profits over an annual revenue of $100 million over $50m the previous year, is still generating less cashflow than a company that is breaking even or even posting slight losses YoY on revenue of $200 million up from $150 m the previous year.

None of that really applies here though. Taking Sony as an example, their latest figures showed gaming division revenue down YoY by $400m for the period, yet their YoY profits increased rather massively, because their previously astronomical hardware costs are decreasing over time.



VGChartz

greenmedic88 said:
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?

I was speaking solely as a customer when I made that remark. If I were a shareholder I would definitely think differently about it.

Hell, not investing heavily in Nintendo stock in 2004-5 when I was thinking about it seriously is to this day my biggest financial blunder! (followed by not buying Google stock when they went public ...hoping to graduate from arm-chair analyst one of these days )



Until you've played it, every game is a system seller!

the original trolls

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

Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
good_boy said:

1-You started. Microsoft had nothing to do with this and yet, you had to bring Microsoft in.

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.

1) It seemed you were offended that Nintendo makes money off of their products, so I used Microsoft as an example for a company that you may like, because they lost so much money on the original Xbox.

2) I wrote a sarcastic post and that's something I don't really consider making an argument. Your response to my sarcastic post was just so laughable that I couldn't be bothered to drop more than two lines, but I guess you deserve a response, if you ask so nicely.

3) and 4) You said the Wii has no games and is just a gimmick, but Kinect which doesn't have any different games (and less at it) than the Wii is somehow good? That makes no sense. You say that the most important thing to you is that you enjoy the games. But how in the world can someone hate the Wii, but enjoy Kinect at the same time? Well, there actually is one explanation. Extreme bias.

That doesn't only go for the Kinect games that are out now, but also all those supposed core titles that will be released in the future. Everytime news surface, it's revealed that the game in question is going to be on rails which once again is something that the Wii has already plenty of. But somehow the unproven Kinect games are already better than anything the Wii has to offer?

Another point that is completely nonsensical is that Nintendo doesn't care about third party support. Look at a comprehensive list of announced third party games for the 3DS. That makes it clear that the Wii's problem was not that Nintendo didn't care to get third parties on board, but that third parties didn't care to make games for the Wii. Street Fighter IV? Nah, can't be done on the Wii. Launch title on the 3DS. Ridge Racer? Why should that be made for the Wii. Launch title on the 3DS. Resident Evil 5? The Wii can't handle the title screen, but let's put a couple of rail shooters on it and ignore that RE4 sold more than 1.5m copies. 3DS has already two Resident Evil titles announced that will play like 4 and 5.

Somehow the 3DS is instantly getting most of the games that the Wii could only dream of. Now that either means Nintendo has changed a whole lot lately or third parties have. It's hard to believe that it's the former seeing how the 3DS isn't any more powerful than a Wii and also going to be a generation in graphics behind its competitor, the NGP. So that answers your question where all the good non-Nintendo games for the Wii are: Not being made, because third parties refused to make them.



Great response. I appreciate it!

If you look at my response, I said I hate Nintendo(used to like it before), not the wii overall. My friends enjoy wii games, and since we have similar taste, I'm pretty sure that if I had a wii, I'll enjoy them as well. 

I didn't say I get angry because Nintendo makes money, I just said that I hate Nintendo because they are now an arrogant company, they always have aimed for great prices and still they have profits, people look to Nintendo for making affordable fun accessible consoles, how much was the gameboy? 100$ how much was the gbc? 100$ or less how much was the DS? 150$ no need to say it but still, the gamecube was the first console of that gen. to drop below 100$ All of that because Nintendo is to be a humble company. Nintendo's changed. They have become arrogant. Nintendo even killed their Player's choice program. Nintendo games are still 50$ and some of them are already 4 1/2 years old...zelda tp, Metroid Prime 3 i believe. Where's the respect for the consumer? What about people who can't afford a 50$ game and prefer to wait for a price drop? Screw microsoft, sony and other companies who overprices their products when they launch a new product. I wasn't bashing 3DS and its games, just nintendo and the price of the 3DS.

Then you bring in microsoft when this is about handhelds, it's a different market. It's no brainer that Nintendo has a lot of support when it comes to handhelds but when we talk about homeconsoles, support sucks.

When it comes to Kinect, there's no bias. You looked in fact extremely bias when I said Kinect and you may have thought that I wasn't serious and you just drop me 2 lines. You probably know everyone was mocking Kinect before launch and now that we have seen that Microsoft and developers can do, we can expect something good things when it comes to hardcore games. Microsoft is getting a lot of effort from 3rd party developers, something Nintendo has lost on the wii. I'm not saying either that they will be good, they could suck, we don't know and we can't say anything yet but you can't really be negative at Kinect when it has been proven it can do a lot of things. 



Don't like how apple does this and certainly don't like nintendo does this as well. oh well I guess i will wait for a price cut na dthe redesign that will come a year or two later.



SpartenOmega117 said:

Don't like how apple does this and certainly don't like nintendo does this as well. oh well I guess i will wait for a price cut na dthe redesign that will come a year or two later.


A little lesson in price.  Most people think of price as an initial payment and nothing more.  But when you actually look at price as a value over the life fo the console, things change.

Say at launch it's $250 and you own the console for 6 years (new system, new model, new color, just don't use it anymore).  That's a $41.6 per year investment.  Or $3.47 per month investment.

Now say you wait 2 years for a new model and it drops to about $200.  Now you get 4 years out of it.  That's a $50 .00 per year investment.  Or $4.16 per month.

Suddenly by waiting 2 years, you are actually paying more for the time span you use the system AND you've missed out on 2 years worth of gaming.  Not sure about you but waiting doesn't sound like a very good idea.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Viper1 said:
SpartenOmega117 said:

Don't like how apple does this and certainly don't like nintendo does this as well. oh well I guess i will wait for a price cut na dthe redesign that will come a year or two later.


A little lesson in price.  Most people think of price as an initial payment and nothing more.  But when you actually look at price as a value over the life fo the console, things change.

Say at launch it's $250 and you own the console for 6 years (new system, new model, new color, just don't use it anymore).  That's a $41.6 per year investment.  Or $3.47 per month investment.

Now say you wait 2 years for a new model and it drops to about $200.  Now you get 4 years out of it.  That's a $50 .00 per year investment.  Or $4.16 per month.

Suddenly by waiting 2 years, you are actually paying more for the time span you use the system AND you've missed out on 2 years worth of gaming.  Not sure about you but waiting doesn't sound like a very good idea.

yeah i get it. I just went on my rant for the hell of it lol. Either way I am getting my 3ds for about $150 so its not a huge loss for me.



good_boy said:
RolStoppable said:

I already knew that Nintendo's profit margin is the one thing the most responsible for the 3DS's high price. That became clear from Iwata's comment that they charge $250, because they think that that is what they can sell it for.



You also hate Nintendo, right? This is the reason I hate Nintendo even more. I hate their arrogant behavior. I miss the days when Nintendo was a humble company, when their consoles were being sold at low prices, when they cared about their customers instead of the money. I miss those GameCube days, DS wasn't so bad, I still like the price, personally I think it was priced well. Now it's all an arrogant company. Now, when wii existed, I started to dislike Nintendo, it started to became all about money and now this, 3DS. To me, Nintendo it's completely dead now.

Yes, how dare a company try to make a profit, Nintendo should be like sony and flush it money down a toilet and recoup it money from other divisions, NOT.