Topic: Should Nintendo lower 3DS prices because of the Vita?

[ymeegod]

"Bloomberg Japan reports today that the new 3DS price point means Nintendo will incur a loss on every system sold"

 Nintendo's profit margin on consoles isn't all that much--with the WII it was something in the teens ($15 or something) and I doubt Nintendo was making much more than that on the 3DS.

Not sure if was the Vita that pushed forth the price drop.  In the states alot of gamers on the go are using their smart phones now, like those 200 million AB users.  That and the lineup really is weak. 

Surprised to see it soo soon, figured Nintendo would have waited until the major titles shipped during the holidays.

[TJ Spyke]

The 3DS has only sold 833K systems in the US, I think that was a big factor in it.

[Adrock]

Okay, I was mistaken with the half as much part. Sony cut the price first then Microsoft and then Nintendo. PS2 was on the market for over a year and was doing well. Microsoft and Nintendo's price drops were desperate attempts at keeping up with Sony, Nintendo especially since Gamecube was already $199. It was as if they felt like they couldn't compete on a level playing field.

The question posed in this topic was should Nintendo drop the price of 3DS because of Vita. No. They shouldn't and I don't believe they did BECAUSE of Vita. They're dropping the price because 3DS was selling worse than expected and the price of entry was too high. That has nothing to do with Vita and everything to do with Nintendo's hubris. Vita is going to run into the same problem, not because Sony priced the hardware too high, but because they can't price it any lower. The point of bringing up the Gamecube price drop was that Nintendo was dropping the price in response to getting their ass kicked and to try anything to draw interest in the console. 3DS has neither of those issues. It's main competition isn't even out yet and I believe more people would have bought it had the price been lower.

[Ceric]

And the Game costs.

[Adrock]

I'm not convinced game prices are the deal breaker for a lot of people. 3DS games are $5 more than most big release DS games. Personally, I paid the Square Enix tax on Chrono Trigger. The price dropped rather quickly but, like a sucker, I paid $40. Phantasy Star Zero may have been $40 and I bought 2 of those.

[Ceric]

I'm not convinced game prices are the deal breaker for a lot of people. 3DS games are $5 more than most big release DS games. Personally, I paid the Square Enix tax on Chrono Trigger. The price dropped rather quickly but, like a sucker, I paid $40. Phantasy Star Zero may have been $40 and I bought 2 of those.

I have 2 3DS games and an avg I paid $30 per of them.  Pilotwings is the next big one I really like to buy but I can't bring myself to pay $40 dollars for it.  I guess my real problem is that almost all the games are $40 and there is now sense of the content tiers.

[noname2200]

I'm not convinced game prices are the deal breaker for a lot of people. 3DS games are $5 more than most big release DS games. Personally, I paid the Square Enix tax on Chrono Trigger. The price dropped rather quickly but, like a sucker, I paid $40. Phantasy Star Zero may have been $40 and I bought 2 of those.

It's worth noting, though, that both of those games sold like crap at retail.

[Adrock]

That's true. I certainly never pay full price for something I don't think is worth full price. I guess my point is that the price point isn't inherently the issue, it's the value of the games. I don't even think I would buy Ocarina of Time for $40 since I have 3 copies of the original. I would, however, pay full price for both Mario Kart and Super Mario 3D Land since their new games. Without knowing exactly how much content is in those titles and going off what I expect based on other games in each respective series, they're both pretty much console games so I kind of feel like I'm saving $10.