Eat Some, Double A: Wii Price Drop Coming in October

Originally Posted by squall24

See, I don't really care about all that when I typed what I did. The Wii in itself is not worth that kind of money no matter how you look at it. While people may be willing to pay that much for it, doesn't mean it should cost that much. Oh I know I'll get flamed for this, but whatever...

You could say that of all things of value.

The thing is, what really sells consoles are the games. So, you're not actually paying for the hardware itself, you're paying for the chance to play those games you will eventually get on said console. This is why it was so wrong for Sony and MS to promote (and create) systems which could "do everything".

The value comes from the games, not from the hardware itself.

Originally Posted by squall24

I can get a get a Gamecube for about $30 or so. The wii is not much stronger then one no matter what you want to believe, they didn't up the hardware that much. Sure they added in some motion sensing, but do you really think that added that much to the price?

Why can't a system's value be determined by things other than the power of its technology? Like for example, the experience.

To the mainstream, the Wii experience is better and more valuable than one they could get from the PS360. If they're willing to pay more for it, why not?

I seriously just think that the "hardcore" are getting pissed off that Nintendo's little "underpowered" white box is outselling their systems when their systems' prices aren't that far above the Wii.

And remember, the PS3's supposed to be worth$600, and the 360's supposed to be worth $400 (?). They cut the price, does that really mean that they cut the value? No, if they had to cut the price to get it to sell, that means that the value of those consoles was low from the start, one could even argue that their value was lower than the Wii's.

Originally Posted by squall24

Again, just because you are willing to pay $250 does not mean the value of that item is $250.

Why not? Are you judging by technological standards? It should be clear that those are no longer the standards by which the industry goes by.

Originally Posted by JoGoron

Hmmmm...

That price cut's probably looking very attractive to Nintendo right about now.

Why? All they need to do is wait until early next year to see increased sales.

I do agree with some of Double A, mostly that it's software that really determines the value of a system for me. I mean, I'd find far more reason to buy a Wii now in September 2009 than I would have at, say, launch, or even mid 2007.

Another comparison could be a handheld title compared to that a console title. I've seen games like MGS4, Mass Effect, Warhawk and Ninja Gaiden II go for $30-$40 at Best Buy. Meanwhile just about all DS titles remain at $35. Is that more expensive handheld software now no longer worth the price because a title of significantly greater complexity (in design terms) and efforts costs the same/less? Personally, I'd say no, because I find more value in a lot of DS games than HD games.

Just the same, I see as much value in motion sensing as I do upgraded specs for a console. I don't see why the latter is so much more important. We've seen that same improvement every gen, and eventually it just becomes horribly outdated.

And, as someone who has actually seen the numbers behind Nintendo's Research and Development costs, I firmly believe that the money and resources that were put into creating things like the DS touch screen, the Wii remote and Motionplus is very much comparable to that of making the hardware behind a 360 or PS3.

Originally Posted by Double A

You could say that of all things of value.

The thing is, what really sells consoles are the games. So, you're not actually paying for the hardware itself, you're paying for the chance to play those games you will eventually get on said console. This is why it was so wrong for Sony and MS to promote (and create) systems which could "do everything".

The value comes from the games, not from the hardware itself.

Sure I may be paying for a chance to play the games, but I want it to that price to reflect the technology that actually exists in the system.

Also those extra features you pay for on the PS3 or 360 are a very good selling point. You've heard this before, but the blu ray function alone is a good selling point for people who own HD televisions. So by your definition they are paying for that experience and it was a god move on Sony's part. You can't have it so Nintendo is good for doing something, and the others are bad for doing it, it has to go both ways

Why can't a system's value be determined by things other than the power of its technology? Like for example, the experience.

To the mainstream, the Wii experience is better and more valuable than one they could get from the PS360. If they're willing to pay more for it, why not?

Most games I've played for the wii have just had button presses replaces with simple wrist movement. For the most part a lot of games haven't really adapted very quickly to motion control. Experience really isn't too different.

I seriously just think that the "hardcore" are getting pissed off that Nintendo's little "underpowered" white box is outselling their systems when their systems' prices aren't that far above the Wii.

I don't care about sales, no one should except the companies themselves. While devs may use sales to decide which platform to develop for, that has certainly not helped the wii at all.

And remember, the PS3's supposed to be worth$600, and the 360's supposed to be worth $400 (?). They cut the price, does that really mean that they cut the value? No, if they had to cut the price to get it to sell, that means that the value of those consoles was low from the start, one could even argue that their value was lower than the Wii's.

Price for the technology went down, they're cheaper to make now so they can afford the price cut. If Sony and MS were able to cut their prices by $100 with the current technology in them, what does that say about Nintendo?

Also Jeff:
I find software to be software. Yes some games do go down in price, but that's probably for several different reasons. The developers probably make a lot of their money back off the initial sale, so after awhile they are able to sell it for those lower costs without really losing anything.

It seems like people think I hate the Wii. I do want to like it, that is why I bought one. It just almost seems like wasted potential for some reason. I know it has its share of good games, just for the most part I get more use out of my PS3. And before anyone really tries to call me some "hardcore" fanboy, let it be known my most played games are Rock band and GH. I enjoy some casual stuff, I just like Nintendo's business plan right now.

Originally Posted by squall24

Sure I may be paying for a chance to play the games, but I want it to that price to reflect the technology that actually exists in the system.

Also those extra features you pay for on the PS3 or 360 are a very good selling point. You've heard this before, but the blu ray function alone is a good selling point for people who own HD televisions. So by your definition they are paying for that experience and it was a god move on Sony's part. You can't have it so Nintendo is good for doing something, and the others are bad for doing it, it has to go both ways

1. Again, you show your opinion. Do not let your opinion cloud your judgement. Price is determined by more than technological power alone.

2. Wow. Those extra non- gaming features are selling points for the HD twins? Fat lot of good they did, in fact, Sony and MS would have be a whole lot better without em.

Originally Posted by squall24

Most games I've played for the wii have just had button presses replaces with simple wrist movement. For the most part a lot of games haven't really adapted very quickly to motion control. Experience really isn't too different.

Are you serious? Can you honestly not look at the high amount of casual titles on the Wii and tell me that the experience hasn't changed?

And cmon, let's be serious. Shaking like a madman is always more fun than mashing a button .

Originally Posted by squall24

Price for the technology went down, they're cheaper to make now so they can afford the price cut. If Sony and MS were able to cut their prices by $100 with the current technology in them, what does that say about Nintendo?

Yeah? The price of the tech did go down. That means the value of the HD twins has gone down, since it seems that much of the value from the HD twins comes directly from their technological power...

You wanna know what it says about Nintendo? It says that the value of Nintendo's system is still holding pretty well, considering that there have been nearly no hardware-moving software released recently (According to Iwata, the "evergreen" games take a while to have a noticeable effect on hardware sales).

A decline in sales means a decline in value, and that comes directly from a lack of hardware-moving games.

Originally Posted by Double A

1. Again, you show your opinion. Do not let your opinion cloud your judgement. Price is determined by more than technological power alone.

2. Wow. Those extra non- gaming features are selling points for the HD twins? Fat lot of good they did, in fact, Sony and MS would have be a whole lot better without em.

Without Blu ray PS3 games wouldn't work. Besides, 50 gigs is a lot to work with per disc, uncompressed audio and visuals is a very nice thing to have. Besides who needs those extra features like a HDD or well thought out online community? Apparently not you. Those kinds of things help sales, not hurt them.

Are you serious? Can you honestly not look at the high amount of casual titles on the Wii and tell me that the experience hasn't changed?

And cmon, let's be serious. Shaking like a madman is always more fun than mashing a button .

Most of those casual games are rubbage and I don't even really consider them games. Besides, I play games to relax, not look a fool.

Yeah? The price of the tech did go down. That means the value of the HD twins has gone down, since it seems that much of the value from the HD twins comes directly from their technological power...

You wanna know what it says about Nintendo? It says that the value of Nintendo's system is still holding pretty well, considering that there have been nearly no hardware-moving software released recently (According to Iwata, the "evergreen" games take a while to have a noticeable effect on hardware sales).

A decline in sales means a decline in value, and that comes directly from a lack of hardware-moving games.

Value in someones mind, maybe that hasn't dropped. But you really can't say that the value of the hardware itself has remained that high. Yes, hardware value is important. I want the most for my dollar, all those little features you hate for some reason are added bonuses. Why buy something with a semi lackluster library with no real redeeming features like the Wii when I can get another system for $50 more that does way more in terms of gaming and entertainment. The gaming part may be subjective, but I honestly feel the Wii falls flat in a lot of its gaming options.

Also, what was that about a lack of sales?

Originally Posted by squall24

Without Blu ray PS3 games wouldn't work. Besides, 50 gigs is a lot to work with per disc, uncompressed audio and visuals is a very nice thing to have. Besides who needs those extra features like a HDD or well thought out online community? Apparently not you. Those kinds of things help sales, not hurt them.

The 360 is doing not-so-badly with DVDs.

And I'm still amazed at how much those "features" helped the sales of the PS360 (yeh, sarcasm ). As far as I'm concerned, a HDD raises the price of the console, which is usually a bad thing. Plus, I hear that BluRay players are pretty cheap nowadays.

Besides, with Blu-Ray, Sony have sealed their fate in the same way that Nintendo has with the Wiimote. Most 3rd party devs will feel compelled to make games which take advantage of these features, more so with the PS3, since it's more "hardcore". The heavy use of the Blu-Ray and Cell will result in more "escapist" type games for the PS3, which is clearly not what the mainstream wants. Also, by choosing more advanced tech (e.g. Blu-Ray), Sony have made the price of their consoles rise unneccesarily.

As long as Sony and MS cater almost exclusively to the "Hardcore", they will keep cutting their price until they're cheaper than the Wii, and the Wii will still be outselling them.

Originally Posted by squall24

Most of those casual games are rubbage and I don't even really consider them games. Besides, I play games to relax, not look a fool.

Casual gamer: "Most of those "hardcore" games are rubbage and I don't even really consider them games. Besides, I play games to have fun, not look a nerd".

It's true. Gaming has gone too far from its roots to be able to flourish. You could even say that casuals are the "real" gamers, since they play games just to enjoy themselves.

Originally Posted by squall24

Value in someones mind, maybe that hasn't dropped. But you really can't say that the value of the hardware itself has remained that high. Yes, hardware value is important. I want the most for my dollar, all those little features you hate for some reason are added bonuses. Why buy something with a semi lackluster library with no real redeeming features like the Wii when I can get another system for $50 more that does way more in terms of gaming and entertainment. The gaming part may be subjective, but I honestly feel the Wii falls flat in a lot of its gaming options.

You're acting as if the casual gamer just goes to a game shop and says "Hmm.. I'm going to buy the console with the least value. Which one will give me the least for my dollar?"

Casuals are many things, but they are not stupid.

And yea, I'm saying that the value of the hardware matters very little. If people were able to play games without a console, you could bet that nobody except fanboys would still buy consoles. In the words of Iwata: "The hardware is something that [consumers] reluctantly buy in order to play games".

And yea, you view is completely subjective. The casual gamers see your games and your consoles in the same way. But there are more of them. Whose opinion do you think matters more?

And, Squall, could you please tell me what you think it is that sells a console?

Originally Posted by squall24

Also, what was that about a lack of sales?

1. You obviously didn't read the article.

2. An increase in Wii hardware sales will be seen with NSMB Wii and WiiFit+, and Resort's sales still have a while before they take effect.

3. Wii has had no hardware-moving games in quite a while (Resort takes effect in a while), yet the HD twins have had game after game. And the Wii is still not selling badly, and Nintendo are still profiting. Cmon, what does it take to convince you that the Wii don't need no pricecut?




However, if they pricecut and annihilate Wii Sports (original), I see no negative effects, as the value of the hardware remains the same.

I don't know if this adds to the evidence of the price cut, but the biggest home electronics retailer in Scandinavia, Gigantti (or Giganten in Swedish), has dropped the Wii price from 269 to 199 euros. There is a possibility that this price cut won't remain since the chain is also turning 10 years and have lowered the price in almost everything. Anyway this is a huge drop at least in Finnish standards.

Originally Posted by Mr. Wonderful

Just coz they're doing it doesn't mean that its the best thing to do. Nintendo have been pretty damn stupid recently.

They're not pressured by the HD twins' pricecuts, I tell you.

Originally Posted by Sean Malstrom: "Wii Mistake #2"

*Insert Above Picture Here*

Sheer business incompetence. This isn’t going to increase Wii sales longterm.

Wii sales were already going back up and steady due to Wii Sports Resort. Now every ‘forum dweller’ and ‘analyst’ are going to say it is going up due to ‘price cut’.

And Wii will always be perceived to be in the ‘Red Ocean’ now.

If a price cut were to come, it should have occurred after the holidays.

Nintendo has really been making some piss poor business mistakes since 2008 (which is why there have been no new articles). First, there was the user generated content ‘direction’ the company decided to embark on. Now, there is the price cut which isn’t going to boost interest in the system.

What is going to happen is people are going to sit back and wait for more price cuts.

A good question for a journalist to ask a Nintendo exec next time is why Nintendo is diverting from the Blue Ocean Strategy. Do they still intend to follow it? Another question to ask is how is this price cut supposed to increase value in a declining core market?

Why doesn’t Nintendo cut the price of the DS? It makes as much sense as cutting the price of the Wii.

Tsk tsk, Nintendo. I have now lost faith in your business strategy.

I'd like to add that this move could soon be followed by another move. Like maybe they're clearing out stock to make way for a Wii+Resort $250 bundle.

That would be really good for WM+.

Or maybe they're releasing a "Wii Lite" or something .

Indeed a price cut at this point would be goddamn foolish, which is why I'm honestly waiting until we get an official goddamn statement from Nintendo themselves. If they are to be getting a price cut they better let the whole world know, and not just those who would happen to pass Toys 'R Us.

Originally posted by squall24
I find software to be software. Yes some games do go down in price, but that's probably for several different reasons. The developers probably make a lot of their money back off the initial sale, so after awhile they are able to sell it for those lower costs without really losing anything.

Then the game wasn't worth $60 to start with.

I don't see why it's any different with software than it is hardware. I don't see why hardware is of the utmost importance in gaming.

Originally Posted by Abyss Master

Indeed a price cut at this point would be goddamn foolish

Indeed. The problem is that Nintendo have yet to release their big system sellers, so they hav no right to cut price.

Nintendo denies price cut in NA/Europe

Silly Nintendo.

Originally Posted by Jeff

Then the game wasn't worth $60 to start with.

I don't see why it's any different with software than it is hardware. I don't see why hardware is of the utmost importance in gaming.

Games really aren't worth that much, but that's my take on things. I may spend $60 on the game, but that doesn't mean I think the game needed to cost that much, besides to make money for the store and the developers.

Originally Posted by squall24

Games really aren't worth that much, but that's my take on things. I may spend $60 on the game, but that doesn't mean I think the game needed to cost that much, besides to make money for the store and the developers.

As long as you're willing to spend the money to get it, it isn't too much.

Originally Posted by Double A

As long as you're willing to spend the money to get it, it isn't too much.

Just because I buy it doesn't mean I think that $60 is cheap. Its why my game collections are generally pretty small, I have other things to spend that money on, like insurance and gas. These are a luxury, and an expensive one at that.

Originally Posted by squall24

Just because I buy it doesn't mean I think that $60 is cheap. Its why my game collections are generally pretty small, I have other things to spend that money on, like insurance and gas. These are a luxury, and an expensive one at that.

Yeah, but think about it.

You're basically saying "I wish this was cheaper", which contributes nothing to this argument, since evertbody wishes everything was cheaper.

And a $50 pricecut isn't going to affect the Wii's longterm sales majorly. If I remember, the GC had its own pricecuts, and people still didn't buy it. The low-end version of the 360 is cheaper than the Wii, and what did that bring? Slightly increased sales?

It's a matter of value. Why do you think more people buy PS3s than PS2s nowadays? If price were so important, the old consoles would be outselling the newer ones like there were no tomorrow, and 3rd parties would put more effort into them.

Not a surprise, since the Wii has been floundering sales-wise. The Xbox 360 Elite and PlayStation 3 Slim for $300 each represents a great value for the average consumer, and the Wii, with its more limited library and lack of more advanced hardware and functionality, doesn't look as exciting a value proposition, especially when you can get a basic Xbox 360 for less money than the Wii. I think come this holiday, we'll see a price drop on the Wii to the $200 price point, coupled with a MotionPlus bundle to help take away some of Natal's thunder. Frankly, $150 as a base price for the console would be a sweet spot, because it'd cut into a lot of the PlayStation 2's sales, and it'd also of course be half the price of the competition. I doubt we'll see that though, despite the fact that it'd still be profitable for Nintendo to sell it at that price point.

Originally Posted by ɹɐǝqıɹǝ

Not a surprise, since the Wii has been floundering sales-wise. The Xbox 360 Elite and PlayStation 3 Slim for $300 each represents a great value for the average consumer, and the Wii, with its more limited library and lack of more advanced hardware and functionality, doesn't look as exciting a value proposition, especially when you can get a basic Xbox 360 for less money than the Wii. I think come this holiday, we'll see a price drop on the Wii to the $200 price point, coupled with a MotionPlus bundle to help take away some of Natal's thunder. Frankly, $150 as a base price for the console would be a sweet spot, because it'd cut into a lot of the PlayStation 2's sales, and it'd also of course be half the price of the competition. I doubt we'll see that though, despite the fact that it'd still be profitable for Nintendo to sell it at that price point.

SOOOOOO many things wrong with this paragraph.

1. The value of a console comes directly from the games. If the Wii has more games that the "average" consumer would like, then the Wii would be of greater value to them.

2. Very little of the value of the console comes from the hardware itself (graphics, sound capability, input/controllers). Why do you think the 360 is outselling the PS3?

3. Natal has no thunder and never will. MS are primarily trying to introduce Natal to the "hardcore" gamers. The casual gamers will always be treated as second class customers, and thus very few will buy it. As long as MS's primary consumer is the "hardcore" gamer, Natal will never gain steam.

4. If Nintendo was able to greatly outsell the competition with a price of $250 and a Wii Sports Bundle, why would they need to cut the price and introduce a Resort bundle?