Topic: Wii Price Drop in the First Week of October?

[Morari]

I've always thought something should be priced at what it's really worth, not what a company can get away with, but then again I've never had a capitalistic mindset. What do I care about supply and demand? Why should I care if Nintendo turns a profit?

Companies that don't turn a profit tend to go bankrupt, no profit, no Nintendo, simple as that. 

A company can profit without ripping people off. Sadly, none of them take this path. That's what capitalism is all about, after all.

[Mop it up]

Morari, that's the first thing you've ever said which I agree with. Amazing.

[KDR_11k]

Actually, I can see $199 with a Wii Sports / Play combo disc and two Remotes. The Wii Points card seems reasonable as well, since they want people to go online and spend more money.

I can't see that in the near term. Not a price drop AND a second controller. That's two steps in one.

I've always thought something should be priced at what it's really worth, not what a company can get away with

There is no difference. The worth of something is defined by what people are willing to pay for it. People are willing to pay more for a Wii than a 360, therefore the Wii is defined as worth more than a 360 no matter what an "objective" hardware comparison would conclude.

[Plugabugz]

I don't expect a price drop. If they do it would force the DSi down, as it's £149 for a DSi and £179 for a Wii.

[Spak-Spang]

The issues with price cuts is more complex than just doing calculations of how many units they will temporarily increase their sales with how the price difference of the original cost and see if the outcome is worth the potential loss in revenue for Nintendo with a price cut.

The reason being is that markets aren't static, they are ever changing and number of variables can change market trends.  The price decreases for Xbox 360 and PS3 will have an effect on the market, and it will directly effect the perception of the Wii.  Whether those perceptions are enough to change market trends is yet to be seen...but if Nintendo is caught being reactionary after a markets perception changed it is too late...that perception shift has already began to take place. 

What I mean is right now Nintendo Wii is perceived to be a very good value and a great system for casual gamers, families and the like.  Nintendo doesn't even want to begin jeopardizing that by allowing Xbox 360 or PS3 become an attractive purchase.  Even casuals and non gamers can look at the graphics, power, and all the other 'extras' that come with the other systems and see it as a superior system.  They still may not enjoy the games on there, but they may see Nintendo Wii as an overpriced system and reject it as well.

A price cut in a highly competitive market is sometimes needed to maintain growth, and yes the initial sales spike is only temporary, but IF a shift in perception happens and perceived value of the Wii in the market shifts that is more dangerous for Nintendo...and after being last a generation ago, being first place this generation for only 3-4 years but fizzling out would still leave consumers with a bad taste in their mouth.  And once again question if Nintendo truly has what it takes to compete in this market.

I don't know if a price cut will happen, or even if it is needed...and I certainly don't know what any cut would look like.  But I do know it is more complex issue than just number crunching, and Nintendo needs to weigh all the scenarios before making their decision this holiday season.

[Mop it up]

I've always thought something should be priced at what it's really worth, not what a company can get away with

There is no difference.

By "what it's worth" I meant the material cost.

[Morari]

Morari, that's the first thing you've ever said which I agree with. Amazing.

You just don't read enough of my posts.

[UncleBob]

I've always thought something should be priced at what it's really worth, not what a company can get away with

There is no difference.

By "what it's worth" I meant the material cost.

That's a great plan.

Then, Nintendo would have little-to-no reserves for development of future hardware.

Oh, and when they have a slow period, like they did with the N64/GCN, they'd have no fluffy pillows of cash to fall back on to protect them.

[Mop it up]

Right, because $17 billion isn't enough of a safety net. And if Nintendo actually spent money on the development of hardware then the Wii wouldn't be a repackaged GameCube.

I'll never understand why people try to defend corporate greed.

[that Baby guy]

Actually, the $17 billion is probably how games like Wii Music got approved for development.

I don't want to get into all of this, but corporations making money, striving to make money, and do so in abundance isn't a terrible thing, as long as there's room for competition.  Nintendo has gone out of their way to allow companies to compete with them on their platforms, and other console makers are beginning to offer competition as well.  That's a good thing, and it's all caused by "corporate greed."  I'd rather not get too into these ideas here and now, because it borders a well-known forum rule, and I don't feel like having Pale baby-sit me all day long, I'd get banned in a heartbeat if I knew he had to view all my posts.

Anyways, yeah.  Price cut.  Needed to happen.  Finally did.  Too late?  Hopefully not.

[UncleBob]

Right, because $17 billion isn't enough of a safety net. And if Nintendo actually spent money on the development of hardware then the Wii wouldn't be a repackaged GameCube.

I'll never understand why people try to defend corporate greed.

They wouldn't have $17 Billion if they sold stuff at cost.

Speaking of greed, how many video games do you own, Mop it up?  Look at all those kids out there without video games...

[Mop it up]

Speaking of greed, how many video games do you own, Mop_it_up?  Look at all those kids out there without video games...

I find this comment to be pretty hypocritical considering I've seen you flaunt your collection more than anyone else here. How many Wii Points do you have again?

It doesn't matter though, because the fact is, Nintendo makes a lot of money on games and the only reason why they overcharge for the Wii is because of greed.

[Spak-Spang]

Mop It Up:  I think you have a somewhat valid point, but I think you have written poorly.

I think you should of said:  I think products should be priced fairly after considering labor, materials, and profit margin to continue to ensure our favorite companies can continue to innovate and create the products we desire to buy from them.  And not, artificially raise the price of the good higher, just because they know it will sell.

Fortunately, markets actually do work that way Mop It Up, but there are exceptions and you can't take away on the concept of perceived value and the desire for many consumers to buy more expensive products for the status of it.  (Like people buying Lexus or BMW)  they cost the same to make as any other car...but much more expensive...and if they lowered the price people wouldn't buy them.  Same with many status symbol products.  That also goes for products you can buy cheaper but then you question the quality.  Pricing is an art sometimes not a science.

[UncleBob]

Speaking of greed, how many video games do you own, Mop_it_up?  Look at all those kids out there without video games...

I find this comment to be pretty hypocritical considering I've seen you flaunt your collection more than anyone else here. How many Wii Points do you have again?

But I don't go around accusing other people of being greedy...

Pot to Kettle: "Black".

[Mop it up]

Mop_it_up:  I think you have a somewhat valid point, but I think you have written it poorly.

You're probably right about that, I've never done too well at expressing myself.

Fortunately, markets actually do work that way Mop_it_up, but there are exceptions and you can't take away on the concept of perceived value and the desire for many consumers to buy more expensive products for the status of it.

I've always thought that is pretty stupid, but sadly it is true. It's similar to the whole greed thing, how everyone is so self-centered and focused on personal gain, but that isn't something I should get into.

UncleBob: I'm disappointed that you chose the route of borderline personal attacks. I expected better of you.

[UncleBob]

I'm just saying, you're calling a business greedy for making money beyond what they need, yet you're no Mother Teresa... what makes it okay for you to accumulate personal wealth but worth berating a company for doing the same thing?  Is it because they do it better?

[Mop it up]

I'm not selling a product and overcharging people for it, I worked hard to acquire what I have.
The truth is, I probably AM a hypocrite, but then again, so are a lot of people. Everyone has an ego and works towards their own personal gain rather than for the good of humanity. It doesn't matter if you think I do that too, because the subject here is Nintendo. And if you are accusing me of such, then you do agree with what I said.

[UncleBob]

I'm not saying I agree or disagree.  I'm saying it doesn't matter.  As you said: We all do it.  Why go on a mini-rant against one group of people who just happen to do it well?

[Mop it up]

Mini-rant? I just made one innocent comment, and I already said I didn't express it as well as I could have. If I had known you would have reacted with sarcasm and such then maybe I would have thought twice.

You're right though, it wasn't really related to the topic, and we're not helping by continuing with it even after Thatguy tried to get it back on track. Once again I regret saying anything...

[Spak-Spang]

Mop_it_up:  I think you have a somewhat valid point, but I think you have written it poorly.

You're probably right about that, I've never done too well at expressing myself.

Fortunately, markets actually do work that way Mop_it_up, but there are exceptions and you can't take away on the concept of perceived value and the desire for many consumers to buy more expensive products for the status of it.

I've always thought that is pretty stupid, but sadly it is true. It's similar to the whole greed thing, how everyone is so self-centered and focused on personal gain, but that isn't something I should get into.

UncleBob: I'm disappointed that you chose the route of borderline personal attacks. I expected better of you.

I agree that is is pretty vain for people to be like that, but it is also psychological and we all do it.  If you were to go to a store and find something undervalued.  Say you went to the store and found a brand new IPOD for $30.00 you would be suspicious of the quality of the product.  I know I would.  And you wouldn't buy it.  Your perceived value or conception is that any technology priced at that amount will not be top quality, and you want better for yourself...

Business HAVE to take that into consideration when targeting their price for a new system...and if the Wii was released at a price point of $199.99 in a market with other systems twice to three times the price people would question the quality.   

But profit isn't bad or evil, and greed is a perhaps an inaccurate word to through around.

[Mop it up]

But profit isn't bad or evil, and greed is a perhaps an inaccurate word to through around.

Just to clarify, I never stated that profit was bad or evil, nor do I think this. That said, I still think greed is appropriate.

There are sooo many things I want to say about consumerism right now, but this isn't the time or the place. Besides, people tend to hate me whenever I express my opinions on that and I have enough trouble being liked here as it is...

[UncleBob]

Right, because $17 billion isn't enough of a safety net. And if Nintendo actually spent money on the development of hardware then the Wii wouldn't be a repackaged GameCube.

I want to seriously go back to this statement for a second...

Obviously, Nintendo didn't have the huge "safety net" after the market failures that were the GameCube and the Nintendo 64.  They sank - and lost - a lot of money into the Virtual Boy shortly before the N64 was launched.  Hell, most analysts (hahaha, for what they're worth) believe that Nintendo would have been dead in the water if not for the money they had from GBA sales.  Remember all the claims that Nintendo was going to go the way of SEGA?

Now, there's no denying that Nintendo spent some money on R&D with the Wii.  Obviously, it didn't go into horsepower.  Remember the rumors that the Wii Remote was initially intended to be a GCN add-on?

What I would like to propose is this - imagine a world where, when developing the Wii, Nintendo *did* have that $17 Billion Safety Net.  Think we could have had the Wii HD?

[that Baby guy]

Actually, I'll disagree with that one, UncleBob.  Nintendo's initial idea with the Wii was to create gaming hardware that was fun to play, but would be affordable.  The Wii is intentionally not "HD" so consumers can afford it.  Had Nintendo had the $17 Billion Dollars, we would have merely seen more games available for the console upfront, and early on.

And I think that's what surprises us, as gamers:  We're not seeing an increased amount of games geared toward the traditional Nintendo gamers.  Essentially revenues generated by Nintendo's expanded audience is being invested into generating more revenue from that audience.  The same could be said about Nintendo's original audience, and the games created for them.  So if you don't appreciate both types of games, you won't see the full effects on Nintendo's new-found revenue growths.  The initial lack of funds is what created the "droughts" we saw in classic Nintendo games early on in the Wii.  Now, they're practically separate branches, most likely.

[UncleBob]

Actually, I'll disagree with that one, UncleBob.  Nintendo's initial idea with the Wii was to create gaming hardware that was fun to play, but would be affordable.  The Wii is intentionally not "HD" so consumers can afford it.

Wii launched at $50 less than the 360 Core.  It launched a year later (when tech prices likely fell).  It could have been "HD" without being quite as powerful as the 360 - and could have still been affordable.

[AV]

Actually, I'll disagree with that one, UncleBob.  Nintendo's initial idea with the Wii was to create gaming hardware that was fun to play, but would be affordable.  The Wii is intentionally not "HD" so consumers can afford it.  Had Nintendo had the $17 Billion Dollars, we would have merely seen more games available for the console upfront, and early on.

And I think that's what surprises us, as gamers:  We're not seeing an increased amount of games geared toward the traditional Nintendo gamers.  Essentially revenues generated by Nintendo's expanded audience is being invested into generating more revenue from that audience.  The same could be said about Nintendo's original audience, and the games created for them.  So if you don't appreciate both types of games, you won't see the full effects on Nintendo's new-found revenue growths.  The initial lack of funds is what created the "droughts" we saw in classic Nintendo games early on in the Wii.  Now, they're practically separate branches, most likely.

You never know. I never thought DSi was going to happen so soon. So Nintendo might surprise everyone and start releasing Wii HD this year.