archbrix said: Einsam_Delphin said: archbrix said: While Nintendo would be sitting pretty this holiday with a $250 deluxe WiiU, I'll leave you with two points to think about: Point 1: Keep in mind that Sony and Microsoft are likely not competition for most people choosing a console this holiday because they're not going to have enough stock to line the shelves. All of their available units will surely be snatched up by the enthusiasts/diehard fans/ebay scalpers. Point 2: That kind of massive price drop is what incurred Nintendo's first posted loss ever back in 2012 (fiscal year 2011) since they've been in the games industry. They're going to avoid repeating that again, especially when (see Point 1). Well considering you ignored my key points, I don't feel very inclined to take yours to heart. Also you're assuming they price cut this holiday which may or may not be the case and regardless the price cut will last forever, not just for that holiday season, hence why I never factored the holidays into my reasoning. If it were up to me, I wouldn't price cut during the holidays as their console will already see a boost in sales. I didn't ignore your points, I simply disagree with most of them. Not everyone who posts in your thread is going to wholeheartedly agree with you. Now, with that said, you raise a good point in your last post regarding when they drop the price. If a price reduction doesn't occur this year and they wait until, say, the launch of Mario Kart next year for a price drop, then I agree that a larger reduction than $50 is possible. This also supports my point that, regarding the masses, Nintendo really isn't competing with the PS4/XB1 this holiday because every one of their consoles are likely sold as soon as they arrive at stores. The problem is that WiiU will still be competing with the PS3/360 which will do well again this holiday, so a $50 price drop in Sept/Oct would help it to remain competitive with them. Furthermore, as someone else pointed out Nintendo has never dropped the price of a system - console or handheld - by a full $100 in one shot, but they've also never had a system perform as badly as the WiiU has so far, either. Still, the one thing I'd be willing to bet is that if they do indeed drop the price this year it won't be by a full $100.

Not acknowledging = ignoring.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me, that's the point of all this. Good, civil, and intelligent discussion is all I want here, and ignoring ones points does not make for a healthy debate. If you don't agree with something, simply explain why. Don't just pretend it doesn't exist, as that doesn't help anyone.

Anywho, you're probably right about the competeing with PS360 rather than PS4/XO thing. Of course, that's just short term. Long term, which is far more important btw, it will be the PS4/XO they're competeing with. Either way, a $100 drop works great as it gets the Wii U much closer to PS360 and further away from PS4/XO.

As for your last paragraph, I already explained why all that was the case. Basically those consoles were cheaper, so they had less to lose. A $50 price drop meant a lot to them, as that's like 1/4th of the original price. However, that same $50 wont mean as much for the Wii U as it's much more expensive.

Egann said: Einsam_Delphin said: Egann said: It's too early to call a price-drop. It will depend on their fall/ spring lineup and how that picks up Wii U sales. I never said when they'll price drop, but with the way the Wii U's been selling, sooner is much better than later. Plus the 3DS got a cut around this time afterall. I meant that the Wii U's sales performance could vary wildly based on the new titles slated to come out. It could need a big price drop or none at all. It's just too hard to call. Personally, I have no problem with a $300-$350 console because it is, indeed, cheaper than the competition. So long as it has titles. I just wish I could buy a Basic with Nintendoland because, hey, why do I need a delux when I have an external? In two or three years, though, the Wii U will be going for the second console slot alongside another Gen 8 console, and then it will be rather price sensitive. My guess is that it can't cost more than $250 at that point.

Well let's see. It's sold terribly so far, even the 3DS did better. That certainly screams "It's time for a price cut!" to me, as most people clearly don't like the price it's at right now. Of course games will help, but why not throw a price cut on top of them to really spark interest. This aggressive maneuver worked out great for the 3DS, so it seems like it should be a no brainer to do it again.

Einsam_Delphin said: Heh, I knew someone would bring up Nintendo's price cut history. The thing is, all those consoles started out at lower prices than the Wii U and even the 3DS. They have less room to drop their prices by and as such they recieved lower cuts. Plus, a $50 cut on a $200 system is much more impactful than the same $50 cut would be on a $350 system. Even if/when the Wii U get's a $100 cut, it'll still be moar expensive than every other console they've released except for the Wii. Speaking of which, the Wii was the same price as 3DS at launch, but the Wii was doing amazingly while 3DS was doing badly, so it's first cut was average sized and years after launch, while the 3DS received a bigger cut and sooner than the Wii did. I'd say the Wii U is much more comparable to the 3DS than the Wii, so it's logical to assume it's price cut will resemble the 3DS's. The 3DS price cut was also the latest price cut Nintendo issued, so it makes sense to go by that one rather than ones for uber old systems. Also, if Nintendo were really focusing on the 3DS alone this holiday, why would they bother releasing games like SM3DW and DKCTP?

I agree with you that they should drop the price to $250 but will they? I still think it's unlikely. Nintendo was taking a small loss on the system at launch and recently took their 1st annual lose ever. Nintendo will avoid potential profit lose at all costs. Based on what Iwata has said, they are focusing on profit and building investor trust. I could see a $50 cut in September since that would be a decent gap between launch and sales are extremely low at the moment. I understand that a $50 cut is much bigger with a system already reletivly low in price but I just don't see Nintendo doing it. (sadly)

Obviously, Nintendo needs to release games on the Wii U and that's why Mario, DK, and many others are releasing this Holiday but the focus throughout 2013 was definitely the 3DS. 3DS is doing good but still a bit lower by Nintendo HH standards. They wanted to work on putting 3DS in a high state before helping the Wii U. After all, Nintendo relies on their HH's because their consoles are typically less successful. They need something to fall back on just in case. 2014 will be focused on the Wii U because Nintendo is hoping that by then, 3DS will be bringing in huge amounts of money. 

Cold-Flipper said: Einsam_Delphin said: Heh, I knew someone would bring up Nintendo's price cut history. The thing is, all those consoles started out at lower prices than the Wii U and even the 3DS. They have less room to drop their prices by and as such they recieved lower cuts. Plus, a $50 cut on a $200 system is much more impactful than the same $50 cut would be on a $350 system. Even if/when the Wii U get's a $100 cut, it'll still be moar expensive than every other console they've released except for the Wii. Speaking of which, the Wii was the same price as 3DS at launch, but the Wii was doing amazingly while 3DS was doing badly, so it's first cut was average sized and years after launch, while the 3DS received a bigger cut and sooner than the Wii did. I'd say the Wii U is much more comparable to the 3DS than the Wii, so it's logical to assume it's price cut will resemble the 3DS's. The 3DS price cut was also the latest price cut Nintendo issued, so it makes sense to go by that one rather than ones for uber old systems. Also, if Nintendo were really focusing on the 3DS alone this holiday, why would they bother releasing games like SM3DW and DKCTP? I agree with you that they should drop the price to $250 but will they? I still think it's unlikely. Nintendo was taking a small loss on the system at launch and recently took their 1st annual lose ever. Nintendo will avoid potential profit lose at all costs. Based on what Iwata has said, they are focusing on profit and building investor trust. I could see a $50 cut in September since that would be a decent gap between launch and sales are extremely low at the moment. I understand that a $50 cut is much bigger with a system already reletivly low in price but I just don't see Nintendo doing it. (sadly) Obviously, Nintendo needs to release games on the Wii U and that's why Mario, DK, and many others are releasing this Holiday but the focus throughout 2013 was definitely the 3DS. 3DS is doing good but still a bit lower by Nintendo HH standards. They wanted to work on putting 3DS in a high state before helping the Wii U. After all, Nintendo relies on their HH's because their consoles are typically less successful. They need something to fall back on just in case. 2014 will be focused on the Wii U because Nintendo is hoping that by then, 3DS will be bringing in huge amounts of money.

You say Nintendo will avoid potential profit loss at all cost, yet they had been selling the 3DS for a loss after it's price cut, and you even say the Wii U was/is being sold at a loss. I believe they do this because software makes them more money than hardware, so they needs a big install base so their games sell more and to attract third partys. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Also, what else is Iwata suposed to say lol?

How exactly is their focus primarily on 3DS? I don't remember them saying anything like this. Now that I think about it, if the Nintendo Directs and E3 are any indication, their focus is actually more on Wii U, which makes perfect sense considering the 3DS is in a good spot while the Wii U suffers.

Einsam_Delphin said: Not acknowledging = ignoring. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, that's the point of all this. Good, civil, and intelligent discussion is all I want here, and ignoring ones points does not make for a healthy debate. If you don't agree with something, simply explain why. Don't just pretend it doesn't exist, as that doesn't help anyone.   Anywho, you're probably right about the competeing with PS360 rather than PS4/XO thing. Of course, that's just short term. Long term, which is far more important btw, it will be the PS4/XO they're competeing with. Either way, a $100 drop works great as it gets the Wii U much closer to PS360 and further away from PS4/XO.   As for your last paragraph, I already explained why all that was the case. Basically those consoles were cheaper, so they had less to lose. A $50 price drop meant a lot to them, as that's like 1/4th of the original price. However, that same $50 wont mean as much for the Wii U as it's much more expensive.

The problem is you're equating not agreeing with your points to not acknowledging them, which is truly what doesn't make for a healthy debate. I could just as easily claim that you are ignoring my point as well when I say that Nintendo is not "2006 Sony" and are not going to cut into their profit margins to that degree. I've already explained why and you continue to make the same argument (yes, acknowledged and yes, I still disagree) in your last paragraph.

The fact that WiiU is more expensive is because it costs Nintendo more to produce than their previous consoles, not because they are enjoying a profit from it. That wasn't the case with the 3DS which was expensive because they were profiting from it. I can't quite understand why you're not grasping what this means.

3DS AFTER $80 price drop = loss per unit sold.

WiiU BEFORE price drop = loss per unit sold. Now imagine the loss that would result in a $100 price drop on top of that.

Contrary to what you personally want to happen, Nintendo is simply not going to do business that way. They cannot just magically cut the price so drastically and not feel the repercussion. It would make more sense to reduce less now that the BOM is still relatively high and then again in the future when it's cheaper to manufacture than it would be to reduce dramatically now that production cost is at its highest.

Sony with the PS3 is probably the single best example as to why this is not a smart idea. They cut a loss-leading console because they had no choice. $600 was too expensive for mass market sales. WiiU, on the other hand, would be at $300 for the deluxe model with just a $50 price drop. That's only about fifty dollars more expensive than the seven year old PS3's current price and a full hundred less than the PS4. Selling consoles leads to profit, yes, but it's a balancing act and you have to be realistic about what is possible.

Finally, I'll conclude that you certainly don't have to agree with my reasoning and that's completely fine. Just don't accuse me of continually ignoring your points when I've already acknowledged them. I just don't agree with their validity in the grand scheme of things.

@archbrix:
Yep, you acknowledged them alright, and I'm just saying you didn't because that's simply what I do.

But seriously, telling me what I'm equating stuff to and lying about ignoring some stuff I said only tells me we should just stop this. In time we'll see who was right, so no need to get all worked up over this now, or ever really. It's just video games.

Einsam_Delphin said:   You say Nintendo will avoid potential profit loss at all cost, yet they had been selling the 3DS for a loss after it's price cut, and you even say the Wii U was/is being sold at a loss. I believe they do this because software makes them more money than hardware, so they needs a big install base so their games sell more and to attract third partys. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Also, what else is Iwata suposed to say lol? How exactly is their focus primarily on 3DS? I don't remember them saying anything like this. Now that I think about it, if the Nintendo Directs and E3 are any indication, their focus is actually more on Wii U, which makes perfect sense considering the 3DS is in a good spot while the Wii U suffers.

They did take a small loss after the 3DS price cut but are definitely making a profit on each system now. It has been nearly 2 years since then and they were already only take a small loss. Wii U was being sold at a small loss at launch and is now likely a little profitable or will be soon. They for sure make he majority of their money on games but they still won't want to continue taking a loss on the Wii U itself. That's why a $50 cut might be optional because it won't be a big risk unlike a $100 cut would be.

2013 was always supposed to be 3DS focused. They are only talking much more about Wii U because it is currently a sinking ship. They are focusing on Wii U press-wise but game-wise? You think they don't know Pokemon will take sales away from Wii U? That a new Zelda game will get people's attention more than a HD remake? I will admit that Wii U is their focus now but it wasn't supposed to be like that...it's clear from their release schedule.

I am predicting a $50 price cut this fall, just to get sales up. I think they will keep the basic model just to have a $250 entry point. If 3rd party publishers see that it is selling well, the games will come.

As people already mentioned, a $100 price cut would hurt their profits too much.

Maybe Nintendo can strike a deal and sell a vita with each wii U. Then maybe both can get some good numbers.

But serious at least 75$ off would be a good amount. They need to discontinue the basic unit, and increase the storage to a min of 64gb (prefer 128gb). Add in nintendoland and Mario U pre loaded with a pro controller for
$349.99, or stay at 32gb with pro controller and a game for $299

Einsam_Delphin said: @archbrix: Yep, you acknowledged them alright, and I'm just saying you didn't because that's simply what I do.   But seriously, telling me what I'm equating stuff to and lying about ignoring some stuff I said only tells me we should just stop this. In time we'll see who was right, so no need to get all worked up over this now, or ever really. It's just video games.

@bolded: Oh? What exactly did I lie about ignoring?