Topic: The OFFICIAL Big N rumor thread *bring your own salt*

[MegaByte]

Nope, they had the memory expansion, but tech probably got too expensive.

[Oblivion]

Did the memory improve graphical capabilities?

[tendoboy1984]

Why are people assuming that the Wii U might be "underpowered" if it costs $300? Since when do we judge a system's power based on it's price?


$200 - $300 was the standard launch price of consoles for many years.  The PS1, PS2, and Xbox were all launched at $300, and they were vastly different in terms of power. The PS2 was more powerful than the PS1, yet it launched at the same $300 price. The Xbox was more powerful than the PS2, yet it also launched at $300.


As the cost of components goes down, then the cost of the console goes down. We see this all the time. Manufacturers drop the prices of their older consoles so they can launch the next one at a comparable price. It's how the industry has always done things.


The only reason the PS3 cost $500 is because the cost of components was so expensive at the time (Blu-Ray, Cell processor, etc.). Nintendo doesn't have to go the route Sony did. They can still make a powerful console without going all-out.


We can't have these preconceived notions of how powerful the Wii U will be just because it might cost $300.


If anything, the Xbox 360 and Wii are way overpriced for how old they are. The Wii was technically outdated and overpriced the day it came out. Xbox 360 is showing it's age as well, the components must be dirt cheap by now (by PC standards). PS3, on the other hand, can possibly last a few more years, simply because of how advanced that Cell processor is.


There is no reason for the Xbox 360 to still cost $300. It should be under $200 by now. And the Wii should be about $99.

[Oblivion]

Because, generally, it's true. Lower price generally is a sign of lower power.

[tendoboy1984]

Because, generally, it's true. Lower price generally is a sign of lower power.

Lower power compared to what? For Nintendo, the Wii U is a huge step up compared to the Wii. They shouldn't have to compare themselves to what the competition is pricing their consoles. The Wii U is their first true HD system, with technology that is more advanced than an Xbox 360. The components are newer and faster, so it has to be more advanced than the current consoles.


$300-$350 is perfect, it shows that the Wii U is a big leap ahead of Nintendo's older system.


When Sony priced the PS2 at $300, the same launch price as the PS1, did people say to themselves "damn that system must be underpowered"? No. Sony knew that $300 was a price that their customers were comfortable with paying. Microsoft also launched the original Xbox at $300, the same price as the PS2 and PS1. But in their situation, they had to take a loss the console.

[tendoboy1984]

Sony must have really brainwashed people this gen. People are really expecting $400+ to be the new standard of console prices? Even though for the past 30 years, console prices have generally stayed around the $200 / $300 mark?

[Oblivion]

Lower compared to whatever Sony and Microsoft has up their sleeve in the next two years. It may look good next to the Wii, but the 360/PS3? No difference so far. And please, no need to insult us with accusations of brainwashing.


I think I found my first smite. xD

[tendoboy1984]

Lower compared to whatever Sony and Microsoft has up their sleeve in the next two years. It may look good next to the Wii, but the 360/PS3? No difference so far. And please, no need to insult us with accusations of brainwashing.


I think I found my first smite. xD

I wasn't insulting you or anyone. I was simply pointing out a fact that expecting a $400+ price is a bit excessive. People complained when the PS3 launched at $500, and now they think it's the norm from here on out?


Launching a system at that high of a price hasn't worked before, and it more than likely won't work in the future.


Remember: 3DO ($600), Saturn ($400), PS3 ($500)


The PS3 almost flopped until Sony drastically cut the price down to $400 in just 2 years. They had to wait for the cost of components to come down, because they were already taking heavy losses as it was.


Also, the gaming industry will never be able to expand to new audiences if we keep launching consoles at these high prices. People turned away from the 3DO, Saturn, and PS3 for a reason. It's financial suicide to continue down that path.


Even Nintendo learned a hard lesson with the 3DS launch. Nintendo priced the original Wii at $250 because they knew that it would be an acceptable price for many people. It's safe to assume that they won't make the same mistake with the Wii U. Iwata even discussed this in the company's recent investors meeting.

[Oblivion]

PS3 launched at $600. Hence the "599 US DOLLARS" meme. And I wasn't aware they announced the price for the Wii U.

[TJ Spyke]

PS3 launched at $600. Hence the "599 US DOLLARS" meme. And I wasn't aware they announced the proce for the Wii U.

Technically they had a $500 model too. It was inferior, but it existed.

[tendoboy1984]

PS3 launched at $600. Hence the "599 US DOLLARS" meme. And I wasn't aware they announced the proce for the Wii U.

Fixed my typo. I meant "the original Wii".


So do people really expect the standard launch price of consoles to be $400 - $600 from now on? If so, then the gaming industry won't last much longer with those prices. People can't afford to spend that much on what are essentially "toys".


$300 is the most I will spend on a game system. Why do you think people waited years for the PS3 to drop to under $300 before buying one?

[Oblivion]

PS3 launched at $600. Hence the "599 US DOLLARS" meme. And I wasn't aware they announced the proce for the Wii U.

Technically they had a $500 model too. It was inferior, but it existed.

Really? In what was it inferior?

[tendoboy1984]

PS3 launched at $600. Hence the "599 US DOLLARS" meme. And I wasn't aware they announced the proce for the Wii U.

Technically they had a $500 model too. It was inferior, but it existed.

Really? In what was it inferior?

Smaller hard drive, less USB ports, no Wi-Fi, no chrome detailing on the disc tray.

[Chozo Ghost]

$200 - $300 was the standard launch price of consoles for many years.

Did you miss what I said earlier about inflation?

50 years ago a Coke cost a nickel. Things change. Just because video game consoles used to be a certain price level doesn't mean its always going to stay that way forever.

[tendoboy1984]

$200 - $300 was the standard launch price of consoles for many years.

Did you miss what I said earlier about inflation?

50 years ago a Coke cost a nickel. Things change. Just because video game consoles used to be a certain price level doesn't mean its always going to stay that way forever.

Inflation doesn't affect everything. Game consoles have generally launched at around $200-$300, with the manufacturers taking losses on the hardware.

The reason for this is because console makers usually take a loss on the hardware, so they can sell the system at an affordable price to consumers. They then make up those losses on game and accessory sales.

3DO and PS3 were the only mass-market game systems to launch at $500-$600, and they came out 10 years apart. Sony took a loss on the PS3, but they still had to price it at $600 because the technology was so new (and expensive) at the time. 3DO was different, they wanted to profit on every console sold, so they priced it accordingly.

The next-gen consoles can easily be affordable if the console makers don't go balls out with cramming new tech. Nintendo did that with the Wii, and they were able to launch it at under $300.

Also, inflation hasn't affected the PC market that much. PC prices have generally gotten cheaper over the years, because chips have become more efficient and smaller, so it costs less to build them.

[nickmitch]

Nintendo doesn't take losses on hardware. The current situation with the 3DS is a first. If the Wii U os priced $250, it would mean that the system would cost Nintendo what the Wii cost (not very much). If the Wii U is priced $350 then we could assume that it's worth closer to what the Xbox 360 cost MS at its launch (ie, more than the Wii). The cost of the system is already driven up for the controller. All anyone is really saying is that it should be driven up EVEN HIGHER THAN THAT because the hardware is just so kick-ass.

Now, the PS3 cost Sony a whole bunch. They had to cut the price so soon because the BluRay wasn't worth that much to consumers at the time, it just drove the cost of the system (and thus its price) up through the roof. We know Nintendo's markup is on the high side, so if we see a low price, we can assume that either Nintendo is taking a hit, or the components don't cost that much and the system is underpowered.

[Spak-Spang]

Actually I have to say it is not the price of the hardware that is killing the industry.  It is the cost of the software period.

If you break down the cost from a depreciation standpoint and look at the value you are getting.  6 years of possible entertainment is a great deal for only $400.00  That is less than $100.00 a year.  That is a reasonable price.  Going higher than that...it gets less reasonable. 

This is why price drops of hardware are important, because the value of the system goes down each year because it is closer to the next new system.  If the next generation of hardware can last longer than 6 years it is even a better deal. 

However, paying $60.00 a pop for a game is where it gets pretty unreasonable for gaming.  I am not someone that expects my games to be $2.99 or $5.99 like in the ios market...I think those games can do well if they are a great game, but they survive only by volume sales.  However, that $60.00 is a killer.  Remember that premium pricing hurt the N64, and it helped elevate that PS1 to popularity because they had lower price games. 

I think that the market would do better with most games being priced at $49.99 as the highest cost game, and closer to $39.99 for regular games...final games like Wii Sports Resort being priced at $29.99 or less would be even better.  Basically, the industry is launching about 2 games a month per system it seems like...with some months getting even larger number of games.  At $60.00 I can at most buy 1 maybe 2 games a month...but realistically I will only get 1.  Some people can only get one game every few months...so this price is really hurting the industry.

What if games cost less?  I could potentially buy 2-3 games a month then...and probably would. 

[tendoboy1984]

All anyone is really saying is that it should be driven up EVEN HIGHER THAN THAT because the hardware is just so kick-ass.

Sony did just that with the PS3 and look what happened. They had a disastrous 2 years. The PS3 didn't take off until they finally dropped the price to under $400 a few years later. Do you want Nintendo to be in Sony's shoes next gen?


We don't even know what MS or Sony are planning for their next systems, so all this speculation is pointless. Nintendo will price the Wii U based on how they design the system (cost of components, power, features). Iwata already said that he wants to balance cost vs power (cost of the system, power of the hardware), so I highly doubt they will price themselves out of the market like Sony did.


Long story short:  Nintendo knows that a high price will turn away consumers, like what almost happened with the 3DS.

[Ymeegod]

A vast majority of Nintendo's market is parents so pricing the console high isn't going help.  $300 might sound reasonable to a core-gamer but as Core-gamers we only make about 10% of the market.

$250 is about as high as most parents would go IMO.  Once you figure in extend warranty and taxes it's still going be around $300. 

[Stogi]

Parents are willing to buy a good bargain as well. So $300 with a pack-in game is do able.

[Spak-Spang]

Yes, I think $300-$350 is the highest you can go with the Wii U.  The reason being is the perception that the controller is expensive. 

People are now getting into the tablet thing, and understand how much a tablet PC costs.  Now, I know that the Wii U is not a tablet PC...but it will function like one for the general public in a way...and that will give perceived value.  Same with Nintendo sticking to the Wiimote Plus as the central controller for the system. 

But, a pack in game would not hurt at all.  Honestly, what parents would see as a bonus is seeing Nintendo across the board drop the price of their games by $10.00.  This would help all people see the system as the go to system for affordable gaming.  Buy 5 new games in the lifetime of the system and you have made up the $50.00 difference of 250-300...and 10 games...add into that the possibility of not having to buy new controllers....and you have yourself a good bargain overall.

[Adrock]

Perceived value is only beneficial if consumers understand what they're getting. Nintendo needs to make sure people realize that they aren't getting a bargain tablet because the controller isn't one. It's a controller that can do tablet-esque things around your house. If people (albeit not very smart ones) buy Wii U thinking they're getting the equivalent of an iPad and a game console for a little more than half the price of an iPad, they're going to be very angry. It's not Nintendo's fault but they could certainly do without the headache.

I agree that a pack-in game would be nice but I really don't see Nintendo dropping the price of their games by $10. In fact, prices of 1st party titles are likely going up for parity. 3rd parties will not be dropping the price of their games. They're going to continue selling brand new titles at $60. Nintendo would be wise not to strain 3rd party relations by undercutting them on pricing especially after trying so hard to accommodate their needs and listen to their concerns. Nintendo could have probably sold Wii games at $40 and still turned a decent profit because their games are low risk, high reward. They can probably continue selling games at $50 but doing so negatively affects them in too many ways. 3rd parties have expressed concern over competing against Nintendo's own titles. They certainly would not be happy doing so with Nintendo at a lower price.

[Ceric]

You know the ironic thing about this whole discussion.  The $500 dollar PS3 which is pretty much equivalent to today's PS3 was consider at Launch a Cheap Blu-Ray Player.  Considering it has/had a lot more capability then most/all Blu-Ray players at the time.  Its can stream video, Play Games, Store and play Music, output 3D, etc.  Being one of the people who decided to buy a $600 PS3 for Hardware Backward compatibility I can easily say that my RoI for the system is better than almost anything I own.  It definitely wasn't because of the games.

[nickmitch]

All anyone is really saying is that it should be driven up EVEN HIGHER THAN THAT because the hardware is just so kick-ass.

Sony did just that with the PS3 and look what happened. They had a disastrous 2 years. The PS3 didn't take off until they finally dropped the price to under $400 a few years later. Do you want Nintendo to be in Sony's shoes next gen?

Like I said, the value of the PS3's components outweighed their cost. Nintendo has never really had that problem (except maybe with the 3DS). I want Nintendo to show the value added.

We don't even know what MS or Sony are planning for their next systems, so all this speculation is pointless. Nintendo will price the Wii U based on how they design the system (cost of components, power, features). Iwata already said that he wants to balance cost vs power (cost of the system, power of the hardware), so I highly doubt they will price themselves out of the market like Sony did.

Long story short:  Nintendo knows that a high price will turn away consumers, like what almost happened with the 3DS.

We've already talked about the various things that hurt the 3DS at launch. It wasn't just the price tag. With balancing cost, we just don't want to see too many concessions made because of the controller. A lower price tag (sub 299.99) suggests those concessions were made.

[Chozo Ghost]

Inflation doesn't affect everything.

Nah. Just the stuff that costs money.

You know the ironic thing about this whole discussion.  The $500 dollar PS3 which is pretty much equivalent to today's PS3 was consider at Launch a Cheap Blu-Ray Player.  Considering it has/had a lot more capability then most/all Blu-Ray players at the time.  Its can stream video, Play Games, Store and play Music, output 3D, etc.  Being one of the people who decided to buy a $600 PS3 for Hardware Backward compatibility I can easily say that my RoI for the system is better than almost anything I own.  It definitely wasn't because of the games.

The only problem with that is the Phat PS3 model has a really bad failure rate. Maybe its not quite as bad as the 360 was in its first years, but it was still pretty bad. So $600 is a lot of money for something that breaks down a few months or a couple years after purchasing it. In order for the RoI to pay off the investment has to actually continue operating, and with the Phat model that was an issue for a good number of people.