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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Wii U to be priced at $299?

Tagged games:

radishhead on 01 March 2012

There's no way that it will be that cheap in Japan



Click this button, you know you want to!  [Subscribe]

Watch me on YouTube!

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheRadishBros

~~~~ Mario Kart 8 drove far past my expectations! Never again will I doubt the wheels of a Monster Franchise! :0 ~~~~

Around the Network
Panama on 01 March 2012

That's great, what the PS2 launched at from what I remember. Hoping the 720 and PS4 launch at that price in 2013 also but I won't hold my breath.



Dark_Lord_2008 on 01 March 2012

12 million lowest and 16 million+ highest in the first year of the Wii U's sales worldwide. PS4 and NextBox launch prices will determine their fates. Sony and MS can not afford to sell more than $100 than the Wii U's $299 price point.

$299 price point was the magical number for the PS1 and PS2 at launch and the PS3 Slim. Historically $299 is the sweet spot for consumers.

Wii debuted at $249 in the US.



happydolphin on 01 March 2012
RolStoppable said:

The failure of the N64 and GC is rooted in the software and hardware though. Everything beyond consists of just minor factors. No amount of marketing can save a poor product in the long run and neither was price ever a real issue for these two Nintendo systems. An interesting question is why did the GC worse than the Nintendo 64 despite having vastly better third party support, i.e. receiving most multiplatform games and more games overall in its lifetime? And how could the Wii with worse third party support than the GC when it comes to quality software outsell the previous two Nintendo systems combined with ease? Why did Wii sales collapse eventually?

The right answers to these questions lead to an unsettling truth that puts world views upside down. The N64 and GC were not traditional consoles, they were abominations. Once you step out of the Nintendo fanboy zone, you begin to realize that these generations were not a time of evolution, but rather an era of destruction of the original values. Once the tradition was restored, Nintendo became successful again. Once the tradition was abandoned again, Nintendo's business started to fall through the floor. Within Nintendo, there are two opposing directions that do not mash. Whichever one happens to be the dominant one at a given time decides over Nintendo's fate.

If you deny the fact that the N64 released at a time where 3rd parties were yearning for another manufacturer to make consoles, and were sick and tired of Nintendo's 3rd party policies.

If you deny the fact that Sega portrayed the Nintendo systems as kiddy and Sony piggybacked on that.

If you deny the fact that the N64 sported cartridges, while the Playstation and Saturn sported disk-based media.

If you deny the importance of FFVII as an exclusive to PS.

If you deny the immense marketing strength of Sony at the time, and its deep involvement in the movie (media) industry.

If you deny the piracy that helped propel the Playstation and drive it into many people's homes.

If you deny that the Gamecube came out during the Playstation's prime.

Then yes, probably you would argue that the N64/GC failure is rooted in the HW Interface and SW offerings.

 

And also, was the PS2 traditional or something else, according to your definition?



Roma on 01 March 2012

WiiMote and nunchuck will be included in the box as i've always said it will but i do not believe this will be the final price unless Nintendo is ready to lose on each console sold



    R.I.P Mr Iwata :'(

Around the Network
happydolphin on 01 March 2012
RolStoppable said:
happydolphin said:

1) If you deny the fact that the N64 released at a time where 3rd parties were yearning for another manufacturer to make consoles, and were sick and tired of Nintendo's 3rd party policies.

2) If you deny the fact that Sega portrayed the Nintendo systems as kiddy and Sony piggybacked on that.

3) If you deny the fact that the N64 sported cartridges, while the Playstation and Saturn supported disk-based media.

4) If you deny the importance of FFVII as an exclusive to PS.

5) If you deny the piracy that helps propel the Playstation and drive it into many people's homes.

6) If you deny that the Gamecube came out during the Playstation's prime.

Then yes, probably you would argue that the N64/GC failure is rooted in the HW Interface and SW offerings.

 

7) And also, was the PS2 traditional or something else, according to your definition?

1) Also applies to the Wii which was successful regardless.

2) Also applies to the Wii (Sony and Microsoft in this case) which was successful regardless. Although this time around the casual image got added on top, so the badmouthing has become worse.

3) The Gamecube fixed this problem and did worse than the Nintendo 64.

4) Also applies to the Wii which was successful regardless. Virtually all major third party games were not available on the Wii.

5) Software sales of the PlayStation far outpaced the Nintendo 64, so piracy is really a poor excuse.

6) Also applies to the Wii which was successful regardless.

You see, I don't have to deny anything, that's why I can say with certainty that the N64 and GC failed on their own merits. This is why it is such an unsettling truth.

7) Sony started from zero, so whatever they did with the PS1 would equal their tradition. The PS2 continued what the PS1 started, so the PS2 is a traditional console in Sony's context. Perhaps this is where all the confusion nowadays comes from. Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft do not have the same values, but many people assume they are all the same, so when Nintendo does things differently, it's considered wrong, even though it's actually the right path to take for them. Sony and Microsoft are pretty much the same, because Microsoft's consoles have been tailored to do the same as Sony's, but better. But Nintendo competing on the same terms clashes with their own tradition which is why they should avoid symmetrical competition with Sony and Microsoft. Note that this also holds true the other way around.

Eesh, Rol. This is so upside down. I'll give it a chance, but I'm fairly confident in my position this time, let's try to clarify the terms and ensure we are talking about the same thing (especially point 7!).

1) No, 1 does not apply to gen 7. It does to a very small extent, but not nearly as reactively as in gen 5. What it takes to topple a market leader, gen 7 should help you figure that out. I think your over-confidence is blinding you.

2) Yes, but the harm is already done. Basically from here on out, you are simply supporting the fact that the Wii was successful thanks to the blue ocean, while presuming that was a return to roots. What you're missing is that Nintendo got BOOTED OUT of the hobbyist gamer space. That was its turf (along with casual offerings) at the time of the NES. You'll say by default, but the SNES kept a good hold on that segment despite serious competition.

3) The harm was already done.

4) Not to that extent! And compare the quality.

Top playstation games - Mostly Japanese releases:

PosGamePlatformYearGenrePublisherNorth AmericaEuropeJapanRest of WorldGlobal
1 Gran Turismo PS 1997 Racing Sony Computer Entertainment 4.22 3.87 2.54 0.52 11.15
2 Final Fantasy VII PS 1997 Role-Playing Sony Computer Entertainment 3.01 2.47 3.28 0.96 9.72
3 Gran Turismo 2 PS 1999 Racing Sony Computer Entertainment 3.88 3.29 1.69 0.50 9.36
4 Final Fantasy VIII PS 1999 Role-Playing Square 2.28 1.72 3.63 0.23 7.86
5 Crash Bandicoot 2: Cortex Strikes Back PS 1997 Platform Sony Computer Entertainment 3.78 2.17 1.31 0.31 7.58
6 Tekken 3 PS 1998 Fighting Sony Computer Entertainment 3.27 2.22 1.40 0.29 7.16
7 Crash Bandicoot 3: Warped PS 1998 Platform Sony Computer Entertainment 3.68 1.75 1.42 0.28 7.13
8 Crash Bandicoot PS 1996 Platform Sony Computer Entertainment 3.23 2.35 0.94 0.30 6.82
9 Driver PS 1999 Action GT Interactive 3.11 2.80 0.02 0.33 6.27
10 Metal Gear Solid PS 1998 Action Konami 3.18 1.83 0.78 0.24 6.03
11 Resident Evil 2 PS 1998 Action Virgin Interactive 1.88 1.47 2.02 0.45 5.82
12 Tekken 2 PS 1996 Fighting Sony Computer Entertainment 2.26 1.89 1.36 0.23 5.74
13 Final Fantasy IX PS 2000 Role-Playing Square 1.62 0.77 2.78 0.14 5.30
14 Tomb Raider II PS 1997 Adventure Eidos Interactive 2.30 2.46 0.20 0.28 5.24
15 Resident Evil PS 1996 Action Virgin Interactive 2.05 1.16 1.11 0.73 5.05
16 Tony Hawk's Pro Skater PS 1999 Sports Activision 3.42 1.38 0.02 0.20 5.02

PS3 - Mostly western releases:

PosGamePlatformYearGenrePublisherNorth AmericaEuropeJapanRest of WorldGlobal
1 Call of Duty: Black Ops PS3 2010 Shooter Activision 5.45 3.70 0.40 1.68 11.23
2 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 PS3 2011 Shooter Activision 4.81 3.91 0.36 1.70 10.78
3 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 PS3 2009 Shooter Activision 4.75 3.21 0.37 1.47 9.81
4 Grand Theft Auto IV PS3 2008 Action Take-Two Interactive 3.97 3.19 0.39 1.40 8.95
5 Gran Turismo 5 PS3 2010 Racing Sony Computer Entertainment 1.76 3.49 0.68 1.31 7.24
6 Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare PS3 2007 Shooter Activision 2.79 2.05 0.28 0.94 6.05
7 Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots PS3 2008 Action Konami 2.47 1.51 0.83 0.75 5.57
8 Uncharted 2: Among Thieves PS3 2009 Action Sony Computer Entertainment 2.61 1.82 0.19 0.84 5.47
9 FIFA Soccer 12 PS3 2011 Sports Electronic Arts 0.60 3.39 0.07 1.18 5.25
10 Assassin's Creed II PS3 2009 Action Ubisoft 2.09 1.81 0.21 0.79 4.89
11 LittleBigPlanet PS3 2008 Platform Sony Computer Entertainment 2.42 1.51 0.17 0.73 4.83
12 Call of Duty: World at War PS3 2008 Shooter Activision 2.42 1.64 0.00 0.74 4.80

(Important point here, most sold equal sales on the X360, which proves that had Wii had graphical parity, it would also have had these kinds of sales, unless some kind of marketing abomination re-occured. The same can't be said for those generally japanese PS exclusive games.)

5) That tie ratio is despite piracy. We all remember the mod chips, most people had one.

6) Not at all, the Wii succeeded where the PS3 tumbled.

7) Define traditional, in the sense you very first meant it. What did it mean at the time of NES? Now I would appreciate if you were specific about what your terms mean in their respective contexts, because I suspect we're comparing apples to oranges for the sake of somebody winning the argument (which is not the point).

"destruction of the original values" Please clarify. And also distinguish Sony's PS/PS2 direction from the N64/Gamecube direction  (I don't see it), as well as do distinguish the NES/SNES vs N64/Gamecube strategies. And please, if you're going to say 2D Mario vs 3D Mario, just save it. If you're going to say something more along the lines of appealing to a broader audience than to a niche base, then I'd like to hear it.



sethnintendo on 01 March 2012
RolStoppable said:

I hope they include a Wiimote and Nunchuk with each system, otherwise the Wii spirit will die completely. Third party developers won't necessarily support controllers that not every Wii U owner is guaranteed to have, this goes especially for singleplayer games.


Probably won't happen with a 300 price tag considering they will have the Wii U controller and probably Wii U Sports.  What they should do then is release a Wiimote+ and nunchuck bundle for at the most $50.  That would be like giving away a nunchuck for free with their current controller prices. 



sethnintendo on 01 March 2012

I was just about to go off on a rant stating the GC launched with one of the best lineups ever and to blame the GC shortfalls on software alone is not a good argument. I'll just leave it at that.



happydolphin on 01 March 2012
RolStoppable said:

 

As I understand it, you were basically telling me that I shouldn't use stuff that supports my argument, because you don't like it. If that's the case, then you are in outright denial mode.

Nope, it's because I knew you were going to say it, and it's totally based on HINDSIGHT. Nintendo had no idea at the time that a 3D Mario would not perform in similar trends to its 2D offerings. To them, they were making the next Mario, like SMW was to SMB3. Mull over that. Your whole 3D dimension argument holds on that broken thread.

Lastly, I will distinguish the PS1/PS2 direction from the N64/GC direction. I have to admit that for the most part I can't. 

Yes you can, and you did. Intrinsically you can't, but historically you can. I understood your point. Since Nintendo worked off sequelitis, and since Sony was a new player in the game, Sony had something new to offer.

However! What you're doing is putting the focus on the wrong place. What propelled Sony into PS stardom was 3rd party backing, not 1st party offerings. Yes, GT and Crash obviously helped the system alot, but not much more tham Mario 64/OOT did, and on a much smaller userbase (the 64 feat is greater). In that sense, what PS1/PS2 did was follow exactly the NES/SNES formula. Offer interesting 1st party games, and rest on 3rd parties to propel the system.

The one difference between NES and PS1 is the fact that Nintendo targetted both the mainstream and the hobbyist while the PS1 mainly targeted the hobbyist (even with Crash). The mainstream with games like Duck Hunt and Tetris, the hobbyist with games like Super Mario Bros (an arcade game at the time), punch out and Zelda I/II.

So, since the PS1 and NES are apples to apples for the most part, then N64 to NES are also apples to apples, but what actually happened? 3rd parties rejected it. As of that moment, Nintendo broke off its tradition because it didn't have the lifeline to support it.

That's what actually happened.

Wii succeeded despite all this and had to fish in a new pond, like I said.

 

The only area in which I can agree with you here is that the Wii returned to target the mainstream. Yes, indeed, that was a return to a segment of the Nintendo tradition. But it isn't the full picture, you're missing the importance of hobbysits in the NES days, a lost piece for Nintendo's business, hence why your POV is incomplete.

 

Of course it looks upside down, I told you just that. Rather than stepping back and looking at the broader picture, people like you are trying to piece the puzzle together in the context that the Nintendo 64 and Gamecube cannot have failed on their own merits, but fell victim to the circumstances of their time.

 

1) The basic point here is that third parties didn't want to make games for a Nintendo system anymore, so both the Nintendo 64 and Wii had to rely almost exclusively on first party software. The Gamecube got the most quality third party support out of these three systems, but oddly enough it sold the least units. How is that possible?

2) So the kiddy image counts as excuse for why the N64 and GC failed, but it suddenly doesn't matter anymore for the Wii? How is that possible?

3) Yet the Wii wasn't harmed by it. How is that possible?

4) What does it matter whether the majority of topselling third party games was Japanese or Western? The only point is that Nintendo consoles didn't have those games.

5) This supports my point. What is going on here?

6) The Wii would have succeeded regardless of the PS3 failure, because Sony had nothing to offer in response to the Wii (well, they had the Sixaxis, hahaha). Neither had Microsoft. You see, it doesn't matter what Sony and Microsoft do/did. Nintendo failed with the Nintendo 64 and Gamecube due to their own incompetence.

7) Nintendo's tradition is defined by the NES, because it was their first console. The same goes for Sony and the PS1 and Microsoft and the Xbox, respectively. And yes, that leads to apples and oranges when you compare these traditions to one another. Only when you pit Sony and Microsoft against each other, then you are looking at an apples to apples comparison.

The destruction of the original values includes the lack of accessibility due to a monster controller and complete retooling of established series to make them work in a 3D space. Furthermore, Nintendo stopped making simple sports games (which were very popular on the NES) and just about everything became franchise-based. No new impulses and traditional games becoming virtually non-existent, because they changed into something else with the step into the third dimension. I have to mention Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario 64 as the prime example here, because Nintendo stopped to continue their biggest series. 

Lastly, I will distinguish the PS1/PS2 direction from the N64/GC direction. I have to admit that for the most part I can't. And that right there was the problem with Nintendo's fifth and sixth generation consoles. They did let Sony define the rules of the game and played along. Sega did the same thing and thus is largely guilty of the very same mistakes as Nintendo. Sega stopped continuing their biggest series too (Sonic the Hedgehog). The main difference is that Sega's businessmen were idiots and decided to opt for Sony's razor and blades model which ultimately forced the company out of the hardware business. And of course it didn't help either that Sega's first party was notably weaker than Nintendo's. A deadly combination.

 

Point by point, I'll try again:

1) Cube support was offered to Nintendo by 3ps at a time when Sony had an iron grip on them and on the market. The effort was futile, and much too late. As I said the harm was already done (apologies for the gloom).

2) It is possible, because you need to open your eyes, I'll try to explain. When Sega, then Sony portrayed Nintendo as kiddy, what happened is that Nintendo lost alot of consumer confidence from what was the most important segment, mediatically speaking, of the industry. And media drives sales. In other words, during the N64 days, Nintendo got booted out of the general trad segment (a pity) and was relegated to nintendo trad and any other untapped market. When the Wii came out, a change of image was put in place and Nintendo caters to untapped markets: females, elderly. The kiddy image is not alien to those targets, so it was compatible. No issues there.

3) What I mean is that the negative effect of cartridges came at a crucial time in video game history. Fixing that later was a good thing, but it was too little too late. It's only one peg in a much larger scheme of Nintendo resentment.

4) It matters, because those games were exclusive to Sony, and it took much more to make those games multi-plat than it did for western offerings, which were already going multi-plat since the N64 days. Hence the prestige of said games. The only thing that withheld Nintendo from that easy win this time around was graphical disparity (too bad), or some abominable marketing fail (hypothetical).

5) The tie ratio is high, but it doesn't negate piracy. People used to have hundreds of games on 1 console. This made people much more ready to buy a PS (system), and a few most-wanted games. It made the system much more appealing for many a buyer.

6) I see what you're saying. For example, had the Wii released during the PS2 era, things may have been a little different. Even then, I doubt people would have bought it... The PS2 was deadly popular, time travel would be really nice here. If people called Wii a gimmick this gen, while the PS3 was a 600$ fail, imagine against a 400$ PS2!



Plezbo on 01 March 2012

Wow, I figured 350-400 and I was totally in at that price. Guess maybe I'll buy 2 and eBay one.