Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Wii U Meant for Consumers with Higher Disposable Income, Says Nintendo

Play4Fun said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
"Also, The U-pad's components aren't going to cost, like, a $100 or more like some of you people seem to believe.
It'll be much cheaper to manufacture. About $40 - $60. The console components is going to cost more than $200 to make, not somewhere around $150 - $200."

Where did you get those numbers from? It seems as though you are engaging in your own wild speculation.


More like sensible speculation.

People are just assuming they're expensive because they see how expensive tablets, particularly, ipads are despite their low production costs.

The U-pad  has tech much less advanced that what is in the Ipad. It doesn't even have any CPU(1) and such things because it's the console that does  the   work.

It probably cost around $50 to produce and would retail at around $70/$80 if sold at retail seperately at launch.

The DS has more components than U-pad and Nintendo can sell those at a profit at $99.(2) There isn't really anything in the U-pad that isn't mature, inexpensive tech. That's how Ninendo works after all.

That leaves $250 - 260 for the console assuming they'll take a small loss to begin with as Iwata said they might or a very small profit at launch.

I'm predicting a $300 price tag minimum (Since Iwata said it would be more expensive than what Wii launch at $250) and $350 maximum with the console, a U-pad, Wiimote and maybe a nunchuk too, plus some game demos like Wii had.

The Wii U pad won't add a $100 price to the console bundle.


There are other kinds of processors than a CPU. Again, this has to turn a streaming signal into an image. That requires some kind of processor.

2. You're taking number of components as your factor? Are you really that ignorant of how tech works? And I can already prove your claim wrong. The screen is closer to the XL, which costs a lot more, due to the expense of a larger screen, which this controller also has.

This is ignorant speculation, not sensible. You're just making assumptions that have no basis in reality. Larger screens cost more money. And this kind of screen needs a processor to make an image.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network
LordTheNightKnight said:
"I've read that some companies are making very basic tablets for dirt cheap around the prices he mentioned, now considering the U controller will have no processer and such and just stream I think he's on the ball here. The controller will have a camera, touch screen and probably a place for headsets to be plugged in but not much else as it's a wireless controller that just streams, people shouldn't think of ipads and so on as those have much more going in them."

"some companies" does NOT mean "every device". Durability and stability need to be maintained for this, and the low end stuff tends to not be good in that regard.

As for not having a processor, that's impossible. It has to accept a streaming signal and turn it into an image. That requires more than just a screen, receiver, and controller parts.


Argue it all you like Nintendo themselves confirmed the controller has no processor in it, it's not a tablet like people call it but a controller utilizing a touch screen, the streaming can be done in the similar way a console tells a controller to rumble it's not as complex as people think. More then anything the console does all the work and just sends it to the controller.



So Reggie is channeling the spirt of Ken Kutaragi!

http://www.1up.com/news/ps3-job

The head of Sony games Ken Kutaragi said to Japanese economics publication Toyo Keizai today that Sony's PS3 strategy is "for consumers to think to themselves 'I will work more hours to buy one'. We want people to feel that they want it, irrespective of anything else."



LordTheNightKnight said:
oniyide said:

NO way. 600 bucks, only psychos and trolls thought that would be the price of WII U. As for the recession, yeah I know what it does, it sucks. BUt people need to understand, things go up in price. THey all do, people need to DEAL with it.(1) If  you paid 250 for a WII a few years ago and 50-100 bucks more is going to hurt you, then dont play.(2) Ninty doesnt owe anyone anything.(3) They'll price it the way they see fit.(4) If you dont like it dont buy, if you cant ball dont play. 


1. This isn't denying things like inflation. This is about Nintendo feeling the need to make something expensive as a mass market product, at a time when more and more people have trouble paying for things. It's bad business.

2. Why are you assuming people bothered by the price are only thinking of themselves? How about some of us want game companies to not shoot themsevles in their feet, and for customers in general to be respected and not gouged?

3. They do if they want to stay in business. The customers actually hold the "don't owe you anything" card, which they demonstrated in the N64 and GC years by rejecting Nintendo's direction, and Nintendo was forced to change it to get on top again.

4. That shows you really don't understand basic economics, and thinks Nintendo is the vassal and the customers the serfs, or esle why would you defend Nintendo making a decision that drives away customers? Some of us here want Nintendo to stop driving their customers away.


basic economics?? Things go up in price, ALL products do, thats the way of the world. YOu really think that this Wii U would cost the same as the WII did at launch?? That makes no damn sense. THe WIi was just a GC with motion controls attached to it, and even the motion tech was kinda cheap, of course it eas inexpensive. This thing is supposed to be more powerful than PS3 and has to transfer info to at least two tablets. Unless you want Ninty to sell at a loss they cant sell this thing too cheap, and how expensive is too expensive?? Cause 350 for a NEW console is not that bad. PS3 hit the sweet spot around 300

N64 and GC, maybe they didnt do as well because the PS products at the time were just THAT much better. and please it wasnt like they were really expensive either. SO i dont know what price has to do with those. 

How about some people have no personal or financial stakes in NINTY's affairs. Some people need to prioritize their lives, if Ninty shoots themselves in the foot, what difference does it make to you?? Dont mean nothing to me, cause they dont put food on my plate. Worst case scenerio, they get another ass kicking and they have survived those, so whatever. Why are they disrespecting customers, by trying to make a product thats not cheap?? WHat kinda logic is that. By that logic Prada, Ferrari any buisness that makes not so cheap products are disrespectful??



LordTheNightKnight said:
"I've read that some companies are making very basic tablets for dirt cheap around the prices he mentioned, now considering the U controller will have no processer and such and just stream I think he's on the ball here. The controller will have a camera, touch screen and probably a place for headsets to be plugged in but not much else as it's a wireless controller that just streams, people shouldn't think of ipads and so on as those have much more going in them."

"some companies" does NOT mean "every device". Durability and stability need to be maintained for this, and the low end stuff tends to not be good in that regard.

As for not having a processor, that's impossible. It has to accept a streaming signal and turn it into an image. That requires more than just a screen, receiver, and controller parts.

Exactly.  People keep pointing to the tablet in India that is selling for $35.  The only reason it's just $35 is because its being subsidized by the government.  When the subsidizing ends, it's going to cost $60.  And at that price, it's probably not that great of a tablet.  I doubt it could handle streaming video games without considerable lag.  It's case is probably a cheap generic one, so durablity and cost won't be that great.  The Wii U's controller, on the other hand, is going to be made from a better plastic, as well as being a custom mold, so its obviously going to cost more just for the casing. 

Have to laugh at his claim it won't have a processor, too.  All controllers have processors, otherwise it couldn't take button inputs and turn them into a signal to send to the console.  And the Wii U controller is going to be handling a wireless feed that needs to be turned into a video image on a 6.2" screen, as well as touchscreen and button inputs that need to be output to the Wii U at the same time.  So to do this without considerable lag, it will need a decent processor.  And if the rumors are true that the Wii U will be able to run certain apps seperate from the console, it will definitely have good processor, as well as some form of internal storage.  In short, the Wii U controller isn't going to be cheap.



Around the Network
LordTheNightKnight said:
Play4Fun said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
"Also, The U-pad's components aren't going to cost, like, a $100 or more like some of you people seem to believe.
It'll be much cheaper to manufacture. About $40 - $60. The console components is going to cost more than $200 to make, not somewhere around $150 - $200."

Where did you get those numbers from? It seems as though you are engaging in your own wild speculation.


More like sensible speculation.

People are just assuming they're expensive because they see how expensive tablets, particularly, ipads are despite their low production costs.

The U-pad  has tech much less advanced that what is in the Ipad. It doesn't even have any CPU(1) and such things because it's the console that does  the   work.

It probably cost around $50 to produce and would retail at around $70/$80 if sold at retail seperately at launch.

The DS has more components than U-pad and Nintendo can sell those at a profit at $99.(2) There isn't really anything in the U-pad that isn't mature, inexpensive tech. That's how Ninendo works after all.

That leaves $250 - 260 for the console assuming they'll take a small loss to begin with as Iwata said they might or a very small profit at launch.

I'm predicting a $300 price tag minimum (Since Iwata said it would be more expensive than what Wii launch at $250) and $350 maximum with the console, a U-pad, Wiimote and maybe a nunchuk too, plus some game demos like Wii had.

The Wii U pad won't add a $100 price to the console bundle.


There are other kinds of processors than a CPU. Again, this has to turn a streaming signal into an image. That requires some kind of processor.

2. You're taking number of components as your factor? Are you really that ignorant of how tech works? And I can already prove your claim wrong. The screen is closer to the XL, which costs a lot more, due to the expense of a larger screen, which this controller also has.

This is ignorant speculation, not sensible. You're just making assumptions that have no basis in reality. Larger screens cost more money. And this kind of screen needs a processor to make an image.


 

Do you know what I mean by CPU? It's not a full on handheld. It's just a dummy controller that   streams from and to the console.

It doesn't have all the parts like CPU, GPU, RAM that a handheld/iPad would. It does not function on its' own. It just needs a transmitter for the high bandwith streaming. Similar to something like wireless HDMI

No, Im not taking number of components as my factor. Read it again. I'm saying devices like handhelds and iPads which work independently need CPU, RAM and such things to do their own processing. U-pad is just a dummy controller that is dependent on the console. All it needs to do is stream, it doesn't need all those parts.

I don't see how your XL point proves me wrong...

It's not the size of the screen, it's the image quality, resolution, touch capabilities, technology it uses.

Everything in the controller is mature tech available at reasonable costs, nothing cutting edge here, folks. This is technology that has been available for a while now.

This is sensible speculation made on GAF's Wii-U speculation thread. They're not pulled out of anyone's ass.

 



Wyrdness said:
drkohler said:
Wyrdness said:

.. now considering the U controller will have no processer and such and just stream I think he's on the ball here.

That is complete nonsense. Behind closed doors, Nintendo has apparently shown early apps that run on the tablet (a web browser was one of the aps)


The app is being run by the console not the controller the latter is just streaming it, it's been confirmed that the controller will have no processor and just stream and be used for inputs, the controller can't function by itself like a tablet the console is what runs everything.

Nonsense. The web browser app was reportedly running independent of the base unit, on the tablet.  Of course, the tabled is not going to be nowhere as close as an ipad clone or "tablet" clone, but apparently it has enough computational power of its own to run some apps.



drkohler said:
Wyrdness said:
drkohler said:
Wyrdness said:

.. now considering the U controller will have no processer and such and just stream I think he's on the ball here.

That is complete nonsense. Behind closed doors, Nintendo has apparently shown early apps that run on the tablet (a web browser was one of the aps)


The app is being run by the console not the controller the latter is just streaming it, it's been confirmed that the controller will have no processor and just stream and be used for inputs, the controller can't function by itself like a tablet the console is what runs everything.

Nonsense. The web browser app was reportedly running independent of the base unit, on the tablet.  Of course, the tabled is not going to be nowhere as close as an ipad clone or "tablet" clone, but apparently it has enough computational power of its own to run some apps.


The console does the work for the tablet, do you understand that? As long as the console is on or in standby mode, the tablet can be used.

So, a game can be played on the controller screen  independently of  the TV screen but it's still the console that is processing the image, not the controller.

So, yeah you could just browse the web, watch videos or play   games on the controller with the TV off as long as the console is on or in standby.

 The controller is only going to show the images generated and processed by this hardware unit [console] - and sent from the hardware unit wirelessly. That's what Nintendo said.



Roma said:
MARCUSDJACKSON said:
Roma said:
MARCUSDJACKSON said:

Well sure its selling less and less I mean it can’t sell the same numbers every year. Its dying compared to its previous numbers but not compared to the competition. We could easily say that when the HD twins sold low compared to Wii they were dying as well but thats not true

 

What do you mean by early grave? Even if Nintendo stopped production of Wii it would still have been out for more than 5 years which is the console life time so unless you started gaming when 360 came out you should know better



i don't completly believe that. Wii was killed to push Wiiu, and that's the main reason for the decline. 

lol you razed the bar even more by saying “killed”. I guess those numbers are just an “illusion” then.



you don't get what i mean. do you expect ninty to devote resources to Wii when they have a paperweight to promote? (Wiiu is a paperweight until it hits the market, and makes pofit)

the Wii is not selling because of future software releases, but because it's a cheap product, there's still a consumer base for it, and likely for the software that's already been released.

also Seece is right.

“killing” means ending something so your not using the word properly.

They still have software coming for it just not working on it fully.

 

A dying console is PSP/PS2 level sales not Wii sales



Jesus christ, i know what killed means. the Wii will be dead, with no real prospects of games coming out too support the Wii, killed is the term i'd use to discribe it.


no man the Wii will live forever!

 

 

 

 

:P

well wii sure does deserve to live forever lol.



thismeintiel said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
"I've read that some companies are making very basic tablets for dirt cheap around the prices he mentioned, now considering the U controller will have no processer and such and just stream I think he's on the ball here. The controller will have a camera, touch screen and probably a place for headsets to be plugged in but not much else as it's a wireless controller that just streams, people shouldn't think of ipads and so on as those have much more going in them."

"some companies" does NOT mean "every device". Durability and stability need to be maintained for this, and the low end stuff tends to not be good in that regard.

As for not having a processor, that's impossible. It has to accept a streaming signal and turn it into an image. That requires more than just a screen, receiver, and controller parts.

Exactly.  People keep pointing to the tablet in India that is selling for $35.  The only reason it's just $35 is because its being subsidized by the government.  When the subsidizing ends, it's going to cost $60.  And at that price, it's probably not that great of a tablet.  I doubt it could handle streaming video games without considerable lag.  It's case is probably a cheap generic one, so durablity and cost won't be that great.  The Wii U's controller, on the other hand, is going to be made from a better plastic, as well as being a custom mold, so its obviously going to cost more just for the casing. 

Have to laugh at his claim it won't have a processor, too.  All controllers have processors, otherwise it couldn't take button inputs and turn them into a signal to send to the console.  And the Wii U controller is going to be handling a wireless feed that needs to be turned into a video image on a 6.2" screen, as well as touchscreen and button inputs that need to be output to the Wii U at the same time.  So to do this without considerable lag, it will need a decent processor.  And if the rumors are true that the Wii U will be able to run certain apps seperate from the console, it will definitely have good processor, as well as some form of internal storage.  In short, the Wii U controller isn't going to be cheap.

You miss the point of the tablet comparison, the Wii U controller and the Aakash tablet both share a 7-inch 800x480 resistive touchscreen but the Wii U controller doesn't have the CPU, RAM, Internal Flash Storage, SD Card slots and (many) other components that are required to make a functional tablet. Essentially, the Wii U controller is a much simpler device that should cost significantly less to manufacture than the Aakash tablet.

Whether or not the device makes for a good tablet or not is irrelevant. The point is that it demonstrates that the components required to make a device like the Wii U controller are not as expensive as some people suggest.

 

 

Another way to look at it is this, the Wii U controller could be seen as being similar to an XBox 360 or PS3 controller with the addition of a 7 inch resistive touch screen. While the addition of the touch screen may increase the manufacturing cost of these devices by 50% to 100% the cost of production of these devices have come down dramatically over the past couple of years; and the volume discounts Nintendo will (likely) be able to get could lower the cost even further. On top of this, being that the costs of these devices will (likely) continue to fall further in the near future, it is unlikely that Nintendo would need to turn a massive profit on day one to justify the cost; because the profit margin would continue to grow over time.

This isn't to say that the Wii U Tablet won't be the most expensive controller for a major console (it probably will be) but I think people who believe it will be (significantly) more expensive than $100 at retail are delusional.