GoVegan

Oh, sorry. I didn't mean at launch. My perspective is probably different from most, because I've never purchased a console at launch. I just meant that for the past few years, which is when I got back into console gaming, the Cube has been $100, PS2 $130 and Xbox $150 (I think).

Josh H

No, people were pissed that it was $50 higher than any past Nintendo console, and that it came with a multiplayer game but only 1 controller, and that a second controller sets you back $60.

Combine that with the it's a suped up gamecube/ X-box 1.5 impressions, and the price was hard to swallow for some.

I've came to terms with it, but I'm still not happy about shelling out $250 (never paid more than $200 for a console) and only getting 1 controller. Even more so with Zelda being the only launch game that I'm interested in...

But I am dying to play Zelda with the new control scheme, so I'll be there on day 1.

jeffdsmith

Quoted from a user comment on joystiq:
Other fact worth considering:
1. Nintendo planned to alunch the N64 for $250, it was dropped in price to $200 weeks prior to launch due to a PSX price drop.

Not claiming you are innaccurate, just some additional perspective on the pricing situation over time.

Josh H

Inflation doesn't really apply to technology. We tend to get more advanced tech for the same or less cost as time goes on. Development costs drop and enable this.

Nintendo's consoles up until this one fit that bill, and the classic example is cell phones.

Michael Corvin

Precisely. Most notably the jump from cartridge to disc based media. That is a huge drop in manufacturing costs.

jeffdsmith

Inflation always applies, its not something you can choose to invoke on only commodity goods or something. Just because technology tends to get cheaper with time does not make inflation irrelevent, its a variable in the quation in evaulating any price of any good at any point in time.

So how does this not apply? You are only paying $250 for something far superior technology wise. You guys are thinking about this in a backwards fashion and using improper logic.

To your points specifically:
1. $250 Today is less then $200 in 1996, etc.
2. The Wii is far superior to any nintendo console before it.
Your criteria has been met. Perhaps not to the level you would like, but its been met.

jeffdsmith

Here you are introducing the medium the games play on, different subject altogether.

hail2dking

If you use this same logic with a PC, one would expect a PC of today to cost much more than one 10 years ago, but quite the opposite is true. It was very common to spend $1500-$2000 on a "decent" PC, where as now you can get a "decent" one for under $1000 (far superior to any PC 10 years ago)

PCs of today can be updated every 2-3 years and one would expect to pay the same or less for a newer model.

With the 360 and PS3 you are paying for state-of-the-art technology that make their respected systems substantially more powerful than their predecessors.

The jump from the GC to the Wii isn't (technologically speaking) as great as the jump from the N64 to the GC

Josh H

The SNES, N64 and GC were also far superior to any nintendo consoles before (and I'd argue more so as the Wii is less of a tech upgrade on the GC than any of the previous new consoles were) and they all sold for $200.

That's my point. Along with the fact that I've never paid more than $200 for a console before. Period. And had hoped to keep it that way. I've given in and decided to buy simply for Zelda. But I'm still a bit bitter about it.

If they were going to break from their $200 price line, I'd have prefered it to be for a system that was a signficant upgrade power wise, and/or came with a real pack in game (i.e. Zelda, Mario etc.) so I felt like I was getting more than I had in past launches.

As it is, I feel like I'm paying $50 more and getting less than I got with the SNES (huge improvement in graphices over NES and Super Mario World Bundled in) or the N64 (3D graphics, 3D gaming for the first time for me, Super Mario 64 a launch title and truly innovative game that defined a genre).

Thus I was much more excited for those launches, and now I feel like I'm paying an extra $50 sheerly for the potential of the new controller (which could end up not being all its hyped up to be) and the luxury of playing Zelda 3 weeks early.

jeffdsmith

If you believe the video game industry to be the same as the PC industry in terms of economic modeling its no wonder you are confused on the issue. How you can begin to rationalize a 2-3 proprietary player and licensed industry with one that involves over 100 open system players is beyond logic. These are radically different industries, trying to compare them offers little insight to each other.

I believe you under value the level of technology and cost associated with the controllers for this system. Technological advancement is more then pretty colors and polygons. Check out iSupply's cost analysis of the Wii controller when it hits, I think you will be in for a surprise.

jeffdsmith

See my previous post regarding Wii technology.

$200 is a arbitrary number, its a physcological thing. Bottom line is, you are spending less of your transferable "value" for a Wii then you did for a N64.

Ah, I think we are starting to get to the real issue here... I have no issue with you or anyone not thinking its a good deal to buy a Wii. My only issue in originally posting was to try an illustrate what the true cost of the system is comparatively to the past. If people don't think its worth it, thats fine. The arguement that you never had to pay more then $200 is mental, because if you were adjust the value of what you spent before, you have spent far more then $200 for a console. Also regading this specific "price line" Nintendo has had, as I said prior, the N64 was to launch at $250, they only dropped the price to save face, not because it was some sort of company line. Also consider this, what about future console releases? Should nintendo forever be held to this $200 price, even in X years when $200 only buys you a gumball?

I refer you to my previous post again regarding technology.

There is no doubt the controller could be a dud, but bottom line is its not your typical controller. Considering the functions it offers compared to the 360 controller, it easily out paces it feature per $. Are those features worth it, I have no clue.

Josh H

I see your points. I just more think in terms of what I get for my dollar at the time, rather than sheer economic terms.

I don't feel like I'm getting enough over the GC to justify paying $50 more than I paid for the GC in 2001, and mentally (you're right on that part) it's tougher to swallow since in my eyes they upped the actual launch price by $50 for the system that offered the least tech upgrades.

I see your point about the controller etc., but I'm not so hot on paying more for a new type of control and not much upgrade in graphics. If it was 250 with the controller and could do graphics closer to the PS3/360 I'd be less annoyed.

Don't get me wrong, graphics are VERY secondary to me, and I'm excited for the wii. I just got sucked into the hype that because it is such a woefully underpowered system compared to the competition it would be MUCH cheaper (i.e. $200 with 2 controllers and wiisports).

At $250 with 1 controller, its still cheaper than the competition, but in terms of tech bang for your buck it's very debateable whether it is a "better value" than the 360.

I'm still going with one as I'm a total whore for Nintendo 1st party games, and with my busy schedule that is about all I plan on playing next gen. But if I was still into gaming more, and had more freetime, to justify multiple consoles I'd probably pass on the Wii for now and wait for a price drop and more games to be out and pick up a 360 to tide me over. But since I'm planning Nintendo only for the next gen, I'm just going to pick up wii with zelda and be done with it.

hail2dking

OK smartypants, how about the Macintosh then? $2500 in 1985, $1000 today.

In the past (and present), console companies (including the big N) have been willing to take a loss on the hardware to increase sales, hoping to make that up in software and accessories. Nintendo has decided to price the Wii so that the hardware itself makes a profit (as well as the software and accessories). I am not saying that this is a poor business decision, but from a buyer's perspective, I see Sony and MS willing to sell at a loss to make the console more affordable, and, at the same time, I see Nintendo opting not to sell at a loss and choosing not to make their console more affordable. This inturn leads me to believe that I am getting less bang for my buck with the Wii.


Of course, with this pricing, Nintendo sets itself up to allow for a pretty significant price cut in the next 6 months like it did w/ the 'Cube

03euroSVT

jeffdsmith, I think that you should change your DVD Talk name to => It has a good ring to it.

Brent L

All of that talk is making my head feel like it's going to explode. Nintendo has stated that they'll be making a profit on each system they sell, I do believe, and at the very least they'll be breaking even. I don't see why they couldn't have lowered the price, because no matter what, I'm sure Nintendo would have still made a profit had they done that.

They want to make as much money that they think is possible without losing sales, and the customer wants to save as much money as possible no matter what. It's the thin like that we all walk. The bottom line is that I'm a cheap ass and I'd like it to be cheaper, period.

The funny thing is that by raising the price, most people that would buy one for $50 less is still going to be picking it up, and they know that will be the case for most people who are interested, so they raised the price. I can't blame them, but darn it, I'd still like for it to be cheaper.

pizzamousechips

Me too, but for different reasons. Mellow down people!

Brent L

Oh trust me, there's more than one reason why I feel like that.

When it all comes down to it, most of us are going to buy it anyway, and in the end that's all that matters. Nintendo knows that's the case, so why not charge us more if we'll buy it regardless?

Bastards!

Brent L

Check out these new Red Steel screen shots:

http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/ar...8055015400.jpg



http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/ar...8055014103.jpg



http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/ar...8055012400.jpg

GreenMonkey

Has the big N actually ever lost money on the hardware? I seem to remember even the Gamecube was sold at about break-even and can't remember a time in which it was selling at a loss for Nintendo...maybe at the $99 pricepoint at first...

In my opinion both Sony and Microsoft are caught up in an E-penis war. All of the sudden new console prices have spiked from $200-$300 to $300-$600. (And the $300 base model xbox360 is an awfully bad value for most).

There's 2 differences here. #1 - Nintendo is not willing to engage in the same e-penis war as Sony & Microsoft....and #2 - Nintendo spent more of their development money on the Wiimote/nunchuck and less of it on sheer graphical hardware power.

If you're not interested in the controller you shouldn't be getting the Wii, just like if you aren't interested in the graphic prowess of the 360/PS3 you shouldn't be buying those.

Mr. Cinema

So the only way to play any new games on the Wii is by using the new controller? The standard one won't work? I want to own the Wii, but I want to be able to push buttons only while playing. I don't want to be involved that much into a game if I have to fling my arms around to get enjoyment out of it. If I want to swing a tennis racquet or golf club, I'll get off my ass and go outside and physically do it. but for videogames, I want to be a lazy bum and set on my ass and push buttons. If the new controller is the only way to play new Wii games, then I'll have to pass, though I did want the system.

Michael Corvin

Sorry, sounds like you will have to buy a 360 or a PS3 if you only want traditional gaming.

pinata242

Not 100% of the games will require the Wii controller (see SSBB) and there's likely to be others, but every Zelda/Mario/Metriod/etc will only be on the Wii. You're talking about sacrificing arguably the greatest set of IPs because you don't believe the controller will work. I find it very difficult to believe that the big N hasn't done their homework on this input device and we're in for a treat.

It is true that over time I fully expect every game to utilize the Wiimote's features, but that's still not true for the DS yet so it is anybody's guess.

Also, I wish people would stop assuming they're going to be flinging their arms around and generally running around their living rooms like a chicken with its head cut off. Besides the promo trailers, has anyone seen anyone look like they're batting away a horde of mosquitos while playing?

Wait till you try it before you write it off. But I have absolute faith in Nintendo and their franchises to really give me something fun and fresh.

Mr. Cinema

been enjoying the 360 for several months. The PS3 will have to wait. I'll wait on reviews of the Wii's remote before making a final decision. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to play games in a traditional way.

PixyJunket

THANK YOU. This post should be kept bolded on every page of this thread until the system is released.

kajs

Then I don't understand why you were ever interested in the Wii at all, since that's all they've been promoting about it.