kowenicki said:
thismeintiel said:
No, Nintendo dropping its price by $80, which lead to them selling it at a loss, is what saved the 3DS. Nintendo can't do that with the Wii U, though they may be forced to, because they are already selling it at a pretty big loss.
@ OP
Pretty bad numbers all around. I do think the PS3, 360, and Vita will get price cuts, which will help with sales (the 360 less so). To look on the bright side, at least Sony is making profit off of the Vita. Can't say the same for Nintendo and the Wii U.
|
I'd like to see the proof that they are making a profit on sales of he vita. Factor in the advertising of the hardware and cost of producing games that aren't selling and this is one disastrous venture. They expected for the project to be profitable after 3 years, no chance of that now.
|
Well, just think of how much money Nintendo is losing if you factor in "the advertising of the hardware and cost of producing games that aren't selling." Especially when you need to sell 2 or more $60 games to even come close to breaking even. And the 3 year comment included R&D. I'm speaking purely on manufactoring cost vs. retail price. A qoute from Shuhei Yoshida backs my statement up.
"For Vita, the price on performance was something we definitely wanted to hit, although we all agreed because we are PlayStation, people expect better graphics and prettier pictures, so we have all those things we wanted to achieve in terms of capabilities, but we capped our ambitions with a cost of goods target that we can profitably sell the hardware for $250.
To answer your question, we set out a goal: Yes, we're going to hit the $250 price, and no, we don't want to sell the hardware with a deficit. That's a goal we set out to do and I'm very happy we are achieving that."
So, at the very most, they are taking a slight loss on the $249 SKU, but it is made up for by a memory card or game purchase.
