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

[Spak-Spang]

But the HD angle wasn't because Nintendo was trying to save money for consumers...but save money for developers and in effect help the industry grow and become healthy again.  Look at how many companies filed bankruptcy and died after a few average games that didn't sell well.  HD gaming isn't really that much more expensive for gamers...but it is a hell of a lot more expensive for developers.

Wii was never going to be HD because Nintendo saw it more important to help and protect developers instead of going towards the HD consumer.

[UncleBob]

I don't know if I quite follow that angle either.  Look at how many companies folded in the NES, SNES, N64 and GCN eras as well.  I think it's pretty well known that the video game development industry is volatile.  One bad game and you can do a lot of damage to even the best company.

It seems to me that Nintendo went the direction they did because they knew they had to do something different than Sony/MS if they wanted to continue past this generation.

Rather their cash reserves limited them to only developing the Motion Sensing tech vs. HD Tech, I don't know...

[BlackNMild2k1]

But the HD angle wasn't because Nintendo was trying to save money for consumers...but save money for developers and in effect help the industry grow and become healthy again.  Look at how many companies filed bankruptcy and died after a few average games that didn't sell well.  HD gaming isn't really that much more expensive for gamers...but it is a hell of a lot more expensive for developers.

Wii was never going to be HD because Nintendo saw it more important to help and protect developers instead of going towards the HD consumer.

I subscribe to this theory.... partially, but have to add that Nintendo saw the HD adoption rates were not high enough WW(but especially in Japan) to really focus the system around HD graphics.

[KDR_11k]

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.

The 360 sold at a loss per unit and was driven by a company completely willing to bail it out all the time even if it lost billions of dollars. The razor and blade model does not work for videogame consoles, especially when you aren't certain that it will be a success (and if you are sane you never will be). Look at Sony's finances, they're losing money so fast they've already lost all their money they made from their winning platforms (which by the way still didn't make that much money because they were also razor and blades). Nintendo is a sane company who did know they cannot bail a console out if it loses tons of money and who did know that the hardware must be sold above cost or you will lose money like mad. They also did know that the Wii might bomb so throwing a ton of money at it and getting lower results even with a success was a no-go.

I don't know if I quite follow that angle either.  Look at how many companies folded in the NES, SNES, N64 and GCN eras as well.  I think it's pretty well known that the video game development industry is volatile.  One bad game and you can do a lot of damage to even the best company.

It seems to me that Nintendo went the direction they did because they knew they had to do something different than Sony/MS if they wanted to continue past this generation.

Rather their cash reserves limited them to only developing the Motion Sensing tech vs. HD Tech, I don't know...

They did the math. The gaming market's growth is predictable, it's tied to population growth (or was until the Wii). The growth of the costs in the HD switch was also known. It's not hard to figure out that the growth of the costs outpaces the growth of the market by far.

Furthermore the number of customers who really needed those HD graphics was extremely small, the vast majority will be happy enough with PS2-level graphics. Meanwhile a huge number of customers demanded better controls and accessibility than games offered. Scaling back the hardware push to HD (which would be extremely expensive as well because it's already pushed so far, MS and Sony had to up their launch prices just to keep the loss sane) while instead pushing for those values that previously undershot a LARGE number of people drastically increased their market. Why push values noone cares about when there are so many values that are being neglected and keeping new people from entering gaming?

Also let's be honest here, if Sony or MS had any clue that this change in direction would be THIS profitable they'd have done it in a heartbeat.

[Ian Sane]

Here in Canada the price difference between a PS3 and a Wii is only 20 bucks.  There is effectively no price difference anymore.  The Wii no longer has any price advantage.  For a consumer now it's "which console best suits your needs?"

Does Nintendo want this comparison?  Part of the Wii's appeal has been its affordability.  It didn't support HDTVs, it didn't play Blu-Ray movies, and it's graphics look last gen.  But that was okay because it was more affordable.  Now there are going to be consumers that will think "why should I pay the same amount of money for a Wii when it doesn't have this or this?"  I don't think the Wii is screwed now but why give people an excuse to buy the other consoles?

And you can say "well Nintendo can get away with not dropping the price because the demand is there".  Okay, but why be THAT company?  Why be the company that charges the maximum amount they feel they can get away with?  I look at Nintendo now and my image of them is a greedy company that always pushes it as far as they can.  You know why Sony lost the top spot this gen?  It's because they were THAT company.  They were arrogant and thought they were industructable.  "We can charge an arm and a leg for the PS3 because we're Sony and this is the Playstation brand and people will always love us and do whatever we want!"

I think Nintendo would be better off with an image of a company that is willing to give a little to their customers.  That's part of the whole hook of the Wii in the first place.  "We're making a more affordably console for you and your whole family to enjoy."  It has this wholesome appeal that really dumb people fall for.  Embrace that image because that's why you're number one again in the first place.  This arrogant nickle-and-diming bullshit is why Nintendo lost the number one spot all those years ago.  It's why no one gave the Gamecube a chance.  I think the goodwill of a price cut is worth more in the longterm than charging the max price possible and being damn obvious about it.

[that Baby guy]

Precisely, I agree.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

stuffs

Where do I begin?  Should I even begin?

Mods, cast your votes.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Nintendo is still outselling the competition, obviously the price isn't an issue (we'll see how PS3 slim holds up).
The main reason Nintendo would need to drop the price is to push sales back up to manufacturing capacity. It cost money to have a whole production line up and running but only pushing out a percentage of it's capability.

Besides Nintendo is giving their customers what they want, because if they didn't want a Wii for $250 they wouldn't buy it, and certainly not 55million of them. Supply and demand. Demand at that price is there, so the supply at that price is there. plain and simple.

[Flames_of_chaos]

A Toys R US ad is showing that the new Wii price will be 199.99 in October

[vudu]

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

Pot to Kettle: "Black".

::cough cough::

[BeautifulShy]

A Toys R US ad is showing that the new Wii price will be 199.99 in October

Technically that ad shows September 27th being when the Wii will lower the price.

I guess we just have to wait it out.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Probably cross-promoted with Wii Sports Resort, resulting a $250 bundle.  SNAPS.

[Ian Sane]

Besides Nintendo is giving their customers what they want, because if they didn't want a Wii for $250 they wouldn't buy it, and certainly not 55million of them. Supply and demand. Demand at that price is there, so the supply at that price is there. plain and simple.

I wouldn't say anyone "wants" to pay $250 for a Wii.  It's really more of a "willing to pay".  And I would say that with any of the three consoles.  A couple hundred bucks ain't throwaway cash.  Are you 100% cool with every purchase you make?  Probably not.  I know I'm not.  There are purchases we all make, even fun ones, where we may think that we're getting jerked around on the price.  I think Wii controllers are stupidly expensive (so are PS3 controllers).  But when I got Guitar Hero: World Tour it turned out I was one controller short to have my friends and I play as a full band.  Fine.  So I bought the controller, but I wasn't too thrilled with it.  I certainly don't feel I got a good deal or good value for my money.  I just felt that not experiencing four player Guitar Hero was worse than getting ripped off for a controller I felt was overpriced.  It was a lesser of two evils.  It's really no different than how I think Dairy Queen Blizzards are a fucking rip-off BUT I like them enough that sometimes I will still buy one.  Though DQ would get more frequent Blizzard purchases and thus more money out of me if the prices were more reasonable.

The true demand is for the Wii, not necessarily the Wii for a higher price than the Xbox 360 Arcade.  People's desire for a Wii may be such that are willing to deal with a lack of price cut, but they may not actually like the price where it is.  It may just be "well I can pay this price that is obviously inflated since the other consoles that offer more features and more advanced hardware are the same amount of money... or I can not have a Wii at all."  There are going to be people that are just saying "eh, **** it" and buying the Wii anyway even though they're annoyed that Nintendo has never cut the price.

Realistically what Nintendo has done is thrown away a bullet point.  Being the least expensive console by a significant margin was one of the pros for the Wii.  Now it's gone and it is perfectly within Nintendo's means to re-instate it.  Why be the bad guys?  You used to be the good guys when the Wii launched so be the good guys again, providing the most affordable console in a time of economic uncertainty.

[that Baby guy]

To me, it's not necessarily being the least expensive, but having the best value.  When you start to see 360's with Scene It Bundles, or maybe some extra controllers and offerings of free Live Arcade games, things like that, for lower prices, you start to wonder if you'd have more fun for less money, even if it's not the same fun you intended to have originally.

I think Nintendo is afraid of appearing "cheap," really.  It's something they've had go against them with the Cube, and so they're trying to avoid that comparison, as well.  The truth is, a great bundle can keep the price up, but add a lot more value.  You through in another Wii Remote, the motion plus, and Wii Sports Resort, and all of a sudden, the consumer is going to be getting a lot more for $250 than he did before.  People would notice, and the average consumer would probably start seeing Nintendo's competition, with the price bottom falling out, as the cheap competition instead, right?

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

"When you start to see 360's with Scene It Bundles, or maybe some extra controllers and offerings of free Live Arcade games, things like that, for lower prices, you start to wonder if you'd have more fun for less money, even if it's not the same fun you intended to have originally."

Just who are you talking about?  Think of the customers who were walking into a store, considering Wii in the first place -- I'm not talking about niche shrinking non-casual price-sensitive fringe customers (these people have always been the fringe slow-adopters throughout the business, these price-contemplating customers aren't the ones behind the sales accelerations that Wii and DS experienced), I'm talking about the ones driving Wii sales and keeping Nintendo [more than] afloat this entire time.  They probably saw Wii Sports [Resort] in action somewhere, and that's what drew them to the store.

They saw Mii and My Samurai Waggle, and therefore they came for SAMURAI WAGGLE.

HOW IN THE WORLD does a 360 bundle come into play here?

[that Baby guy]

It's a comparison to the Wii, with Wii Sports bundled in.  Microsoft began bundling in games with their Arcade edition of the console last year, and at this point, the price of those bundles match the Wii.  That's how 360 bundles come in: Price.

You've never seen a customer walk into the store for one reason, and later see him or her walk out with something completely different than he or she intended?  Even if the customer walks in for a Wii because of Wii Sports doesn't mean he or she has already purchased said Wii.  People do comparison shop, people do try out in-store demos, and people do ask nearby employees questions.  It doesn't always matter why you walk into a store, what matters is what you walk out with.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

I've seen *numerous* customers zip straight to the clerk, grab a Wii, and leave.  I'm not excluding the slow decision-making browsers from the realm of possibility, but the "quick" ones have shown up in force.

History has already shown what they've walked out with.  They might have just been buying for someone else, but the final conclusion probably wasn't hard to arrive at (To Waggle or Not to Waggle).  I can't agree this is the customer type you're trying to generalize.

The customer I'm trying to describe is the source of "insane" sales rates.  The value-hesitators are just bumps on the sales charts.

[Ian Sane]

I think Nintendo is afraid of appearing "cheap," really.  It's something they've had go against them with the Cube, and so they're trying to avoid that comparison, as well.  The truth is, a great bundle can keep the price up, but add a lot more value.  You through in another Wii Remote, the motion plus, and Wii Sports Resort, and all of a sudden, the consumer is going to be getting a lot more for $250 than he did before.  People would notice, and the average consumer would probably start seeing Nintendo's competition, with the price bottom falling out, as the cheap competition instead, right?

I think the graphics capabilities makes it such though that the other consoles don't across as cheap.  Most stores have all three consoles hooked up to in-store demos.  If someone looks at all three they're going to very quickly notice that the visuals for the other consoles noticably better than the Wii's.  Keep in mind that a store like Best Buy is going to have these things hooked up to big ass HDTV's, partially to drive HDTV sales.

Most people can put two and two together and assume that improved graphics comes from more advanced hardware which would logically cost more money to produce.  Back when the PS3 cost $600 I don't think people assumed that Nintendo was offering the same thing for less money.  The assumption was that the Wii didn't have as pretty of graphics but this was a suitable trade-off to have a more affordable price.  Yeah PS3 games looked really good but no console was worth that much money.  So I don't think people would associate the $300 PS3 as "cheap".  Remember that the Gamecube wasn't just cheaper but it also didn't play DVDs and essentially wasn't online.  It was missing features and cost less.  That is a cheap product.  But the PS3 has all sorts of bells of whistles the Wii doesn't.

Though a different bundle is a fine idea.  Something needs to be different and it doesn't necessarily have to be a price drop.

[that Baby guy]

I've seen *numerous* customers zip straight to the clerk, grab a Wii, and leave.  I'm not excluding the slow decision-making browsers from the realm of possibility, but the "quick" ones have shown up in force.

History has already shown what they've walked out with.  They might have just been buying for someone else, but the final conclusion probably wasn't hard to arrive at (To Waggle or Not to Waggle).  I can't agree this is the customer type you're trying to generalize.

The customer I'm trying to describe is the source of "insane" sales rates.  The value-hesitators are just bumps on the sales charts.

Here's the problem, Pro.  It's not 2006.  It's not 2007.  Midway through 2008, the Wii stopped selling out at stores everywhere, and stores have them readily in stock now.  The console has already sold those insane levels.  The people left are those who are hesitating for some reason.  If someone doesn't have a Wii at this point, they either are looking for a reason, or they simply don't see the value.  You're too busy talking about the way things were a year and a half ago to realize it's not exactly how they are now, and that this industry is one that can undergo constant changes.

Edit: Ian, I've said in another thread that a blunt price drop to eliminate existing, non-bundle stock, with a nice, fancy new bundle to become the main SKU is the way I think Nintendo should go.  Who doesn't like guaranteed game sales?

[BlackNMild2k1]

I think Nintendo is afraid of appearing "cheap," really.  It's something they've had go against them with the Cube, and so they're trying to avoid that comparison, as well.  The truth is, a great bundle can keep the price up, but add a lot more value.  You through in another Wii Remote, the motion plus, and Wii Sports Resort, and all of a sudden, the consumer is going to be getting a lot more for $250 than he did before.  People would notice, and the average consumer would probably start seeing Nintendo's competition, with the price bottom falling out, as the cheap competition instead, right?

I think the graphics capabilities makes it such though that the other consoles don't across as cheap.  Most stores have all three consoles hooked up to in-store demos.  If someone looks at all three they're going to very quickly notice that the visuals for the other consoles noticably better than the Wii's.  Keep in mind that a store like Best Buy is going to have these things hooked up to big ass HDTV's, partially to drive HDTV sales.

Most people can put two and two together and assume that improved graphics comes from more advanced hardware which would logically cost more money to produce.  Back when the PS3 cost $600 I don't think people assumed that Nintendo was offering the same thing for less money.  The assumption was that the Wii didn't have as pretty of graphics but this was a suitable trade-off to have a more affordable price.  Yeah PS3 games looked really good but no console was worth that much money.  So I don't think people would associate the $300 PS3 as "cheap".  Remember that the Gamecube wasn't just cheaper but it also didn't play DVDs and essentially wasn't online.  It was missing features and cost less.  That is a cheap product.  But the PS3 has all sorts of bells of whistles the Wii doesn't.

Though a different bundle is a fine idea.  Something needs to be different and it doesn't necessarily have to be a price drop.

I'm not sure what BestBuy you've been shopping at, but all the ones I've been to have all 3 systems set up on nothing bigger than a ~25" LCD and they all look fine.

But your first mistake was thinking that the people swarming into BB to buy a Wii were concerned about the graphics in the 1st place. it really was a decision on WiiSports like I played at so&so's house or the other system that doesn't have WiiSports packed in the box. It was a rather quick and easy decision.

[Morari]

Generally people that window shop at Best Buy can't put one and one together.

[KDR_11k]

Here in Canada the price difference between a PS3 and a Wii is only 20 bucks.  There is effectively no price difference anymore.  The Wii no longer has any price advantage.  For a consumer now it's "which console best suits your needs?"

Here in Germany I bought my XBox 360 Pro for 50€ less than my Wii last year (sure, that was a promotion but the regular price was still 10€ lower and even included bundled games occasionally). The charts are still being dominated by the Wii and the stores that only dabble in selling games tend to have PS2, DS and Wii games only with the PS2 being phased out slowly (in fact you can't get an XBox 360 game in the entire downtown here ever since the big department store went bankrupt but there's two different stores selling a few Wii games).

[Plugabugz]

I got my PS3 for £179. The exact same price as i paid for my Wii. I bought my Wii on launch day, December 8 2006 for £179. So effectively in inflation terms, the Wii's price has increased over these years.

While I'm happy with both the 3 and Wii i'm amazed at how Nintendo have boxed themselves in with the DSi. The same logic Ian uses for the Wii and PS3 is identical to that of the Wii and DSi.
Should i spend £149 for a DSi or 179 for a Wii? The DSi loses that "its £90? BOUGHT!" spontaneity to its price point because they think an SD card slot, modern-capable WiFi and a camera (that probably costs no more than 50p per unit to produce) is worth another £60.

[KDR_11k]

It's just that your currency crashed and the DSi is priced according to the current value of the pound, not the old one. In mainland Europe it was a price increase of merely 20€, pretty much a no-brainer to get the DSi over the Lite unless you prefer the Lite's features.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I got my PS3 for £179. The exact same price as i paid for my Wii. I bought my Wii on launch day, December 8 2006 for £179. So effectively in inflation terms, the Wii's price has increased over these years.

While I'm happy with both the 3 and Wii i'm amazed at how Nintendo have boxed themselves in with the DSi. The same logic Ian uses for the Wii and PS3 is identical to that of the Wii and DSi.
Should i spend £149 for a DSi or 179 for a Wii? The DSi loses that "its £90? BOUGHT!" spontaneity to its price point because they think an SD card slot, modern-capable WiFi and a camera (that probably costs no more than 50p per unit to produce) is worth another £60.

Sony has done the same thing with the PS3 and the PSP.
PS3 for $299 or a PSPGo for $250?

1 I might buy, but the other one has no chance.