backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 75 comment(s) - last by inperfectdarkn.. on Sep 25 at 12:47 PM
Price cut expected to be announced Friday by Nintendo

We all knew that once the Sony PS3 Slim hit the market at $299 that the other console makers would likely make similar cuts. Shortly after the PS3 Slim launch, Microsoft slashed the price of its Xbox 360 Elite to $299 as well.

It didn’t take long to see that the new $299 PS3 Slim was very popular with Sony seeing a 104% increase in sales the first week alone. With Sony and Microsoft dropping the price to $299, the Nintendo Wii was seen in a tight spot at $249 with must inferior hardware for the money compared to the competition.

If you expected Nintendo to cut the price of its console to meet the pressure from Sony and Microsoft, you were right. Engadget has received a tip that shows a screen grab from what appears to be a Best Buy computer showing that the price cut for the Wii to $199 will be announced by Nintendo on Friday.

Strangely, the same post also says that the price cut will not go into effect until Sunday. The source also claims that stores are getting increased inventory to support the expected rush of $199 Wii buyers.

This is the first price cut for the Wii since it launched three years ago.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
$$
By lopri on 9/23/2009 10:08:08 AM , Rating: 2
Nintendo might still make money after the price cut unlike Sony.




RE: $$
By glenn8 on 9/23/2009 10:14:47 AM , Rating: 5
Of course they are.. even at $199 it's overpriced :). (Yes I own a Wii).


RE: $$
By StevoLincolnite on 9/23/2009 10:30:01 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Of course they are.. even at $199 it's overpriced :). (Yes I own a Wii).


Supply and Demand my friend!
Nintendo would have more than likely dropped prices like the proverbial ball if it's sales was in a similar fashion to the Gamecube, however it wasn't and because people are buying a significant amount of Wii consoles, they haven't needed to drop the prices.

Now the heat is on, Microsoft had the $100 price drop, and a $50 rebate going on at the moment for the Elite, the Wii with it's price drop to remain competitive, and the PS3 Slim with it's significant price slashed, and much smaller form factor.

Pity Sega isn't still in the Console race, would have been nice to have a 4th contender to stick it to the other 3 behemoths to push prices down quicker.

The great thing is that we aren't even in the Christmas shopping season yet, so I expect some nice deals from the Big 3 in the coming months on top of all the Price cuts going. :)


RE: $$
By inperfectdarkness on 9/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: $$
By StevoLincolnite on 9/23/2009 10:24:26 PM , Rating: 4
I'll have whatever this kid is smoking.

This line makes me laugh every time I read it...

quote:
d be willing to bet that the ps3 might have actually come down in price SIGNIFICANTLY faster if microsoft wasn't in the market.


I mean, common, you can't be serious? I mean it's cool you like the PS3 and all, but you cannot blame Microsoft for all of the worlds troubles.

The fact is, Sony over-extended itself hardware wise, creating an expensive machine, they were loosing allot of money on each console sold as it is, economics tells us that without a major hardware revision to cut production costs, that dropping the price would have been un-economical, and thus didn't happen till the Slim arrived.

quote:
funny thing is, if APPLE ever sold a console, microsoft & sony would both be bust; but not nintendo.


We don't know what changes to the landscape would occur if Apple decided to jump into the Console arena, for all we know it could be a flop, as Apple has had a pretty bad perception of making devices which are not suitable for gamers.


RE: $$
By Calin on 9/24/2009 4:43:11 AM , Rating: 2
If Microsoft wasn't in the market, then more games for PS3 would have been sold, so Sony would have had a greater money income.
On the other hand, lack of competition is certainly known to induce higher prices...
So, Sony would certainly have been in a better position, financially, in market share and so on - but I don't think they would have slashed prices as long as the demand was strong


RE: $$
By mikefarinha on 9/24/2009 11:42:50 AM , Rating: 1
Actually if Microsoft wasn't in the market I'd be willing to bet that the PS3 would have become the next 3DO.


RE: $$
By inperfectdarkness on 9/25/2009 12:47:09 PM , Rating: 2
read it again. and read my comments below. the initial cost for ps3 would have been much cheaper. probably in the 399 range for the high end (vice 599/699 as it were).

the increased sales from a lower initial price point would have driven faster software sales; which in turn would drive profit for sony & reduce prices faster. it's not a lack of competition; it's about faster depreciation of the cost of parts.


RE: $$
By afkrotch on 9/24/2009 12:33:15 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
in fact, i'd be willing to bet that the ps3 might have actually come down in price SIGNIFICANTLY faster if microsoft wasn't in the market.


If you have no competition, there's no need to bring down prices. The Wii was a prime example of that.

quote:
funny thing is, if APPLE ever sold a console, microsoft & sony would both be bust


Mediocre hardware for a high cost. Also doesn't support everything around. Ya, they'd bomb like the other console manufacturers in the mid-to-late 90s. Remember the 3DO?


RE: $$
By inperfectdarkness on 9/25/2009 12:19:20 PM , Rating: 2
my comment wasn't insinuating that an apple console would be better--just that their marketing would drown all competitors. and brainwashed masses tend to buy what they are told...not necessarily what's "best".

microsoft's marketing hype machine for the xbox is 2nd to none; unless apple jumps into the market.

and like i stated (which everyone MISSED)--sony wouldn't have gone off the deep end with tech & power on the ps3 if it didn't feel it had to shove it down microsoft's throat. i.e. lower initial cost for the system.

lower initial cost, more developer friendly, and less consoles in the market = increased installed userbase, more games coming out faster, and less stupid exclusivity from 3rd parties.


RE: $$
By cdwilliams1 on 9/24/2009 9:45:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
funny thing is, if APPLE ever sold a console, microsoft & sony would both be bust; but not nintendo. sounds strange, and you'd think nintendo's offerings would be similar to apple's--but nintendo is like a cockroach. you can't kill it; it'll be around forever; and it's incredibly resilient.


Umm, Apple did make a gaming console in the 90's. It was a huge flop. Google the Apple Pippin.


RE: $$
By tviceman on 9/23/2009 1:11:07 PM , Rating: 3
It's overpriced only if you don't think it's worth $200. Despite it's old tech, I've played the living daylights out of Wii Sports and Wii Sports Resort. I also own and played Mario Kart, Punch, a few other games and a lots of VC games that have had plenty of play time.

Is the hardware amazing? No. Are many of the titles that drive the hardware lots of fun? Absolutely. There is the reason for it's price.


RE: $$
By glenn8 on 9/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: $$
By SPOOFE on 9/23/2009 2:04:48 PM , Rating: 3
That would be true if the PS2 were selling for $500. It's not. Conversely, the Wii IS selling for $250. Your assertion is inaccurate.


RE: $$
By glenn8 on 9/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: $$
By SPOOFE on 9/23/2009 3:11:19 PM , Rating: 3
Then you are simply wrong. Nothing has an inherent "price". There's no magical law stating "X costs Y". A thing is worth what people will pay for it. People paid - in DROVES - $250 for a Wii. That overwhelmingly confirms that it is worth that price.

You're completely ignoring the gestalt nature of the product. It is NOT only worth the sum of its parts or the effort gone into making/supporting it. "Price" is an abstraction of a huge number of different factors, but the most important one is... what people will pay for it.


RE: $$
By glenn8 on 9/23/2009 3:30:34 PM , Rating: 1
It's not really that hard actually... if you want to know if a product is overprice you generally compare its cost against other available products of similar or better quality and of similar or better interchangeable value (branding, support, etc).
Whether people are willing to spend X dollars for a product does not change the products worth relative to other existing products.


RE: $$
By glenn8 on 9/23/2009 3:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
"interchangeable" should have been "intangible"


RE: $$
By Schrag4 on 9/23/2009 3:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're missing the point. If the Wii was so horribly overpriced before (before the other consoles cut their prices as well), then people would not have gone out and bought them at that price. But they did. Yes, the hardware is inferior, but people value the fun-factor of the games, the fact that most games are kid-friendly and the novelty of the motion control, and considered the Wii a "bargain" at 250 compared to the other consoles. THEY would argue that the Wii should be priced 500 bucks...

This is obviously just a matter of you not liking the Wii when so many others do.

FYI, I don't own ANY consoles, but since I have kids ages 1.5 to 6, I will likely be getting a Wii, if any console. I, too, value the kid-friendliness of the Wii (not just in content, but the fact that the don't just sit there like lumps).


RE: $$
By glenn8 on 9/23/2009 3:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
I own a Wii actually and I don't have the other systems (yet).

Anyways I see the point here, but I just don't agree that it's accurate.
There are many reasons people buy something, but their willingness to pay doesn't mean that they've paid a good price for it. If I conned you into buying my sandwich for $30 telling you it's the best in the world; you still willingly paid for it... but would it not be overpriced?
With the same logic NOTHING that sells can be overpriced... because clearly someone bought it... this is a ridiculous notion if you think about it...


RE: $$
By Alexstarfire on 9/23/2009 5:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
It depends on the product. How do you put a monetary value on fun? You can easily put monetary value to something such as gasoline, tires, and many many many other products because there really isn't that much that is subjective about them. Toys and other such things that have subjective qualities to them, like fun and style, can vary a lot. Yes, there are cheap toys that are a lot of fun, and the same goes with style type objects, like clothes and such. Sure, usually the "better" stuff is going to cost more, but it's almost always a subjective cost.

Now, if you had something like a D cell battery you were selling for $5 then it's most likely going to be overpriced, unless for some odd reason there is a shortage of batteries for where you are at. You can only really do one thing with a battery, use it to power a device of some kind.


RE: $$
By SPOOFE on 9/23/2009 5:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not really that hard actually... if you want to know if a product is overprice you generally compare its cost against other available products of similar or better quality and of similar or better interchangeable value

You're correct that it's not hard; everything you say after that is silly and ridiculous. Define "value". Define "better". Define "quality". Do so in an objective manner.

I'll wait.

... La de da... tum te tum...

Can't do it? Big surprise. You're trying to treat subjective measures as if they were objective measures.

The only objective measure to an outside observer is sales numbers. And the sales numbers overwhelmingly show that the Wii was worth $250.


RE: $$
By glenn8 on 9/23/2009 6:08:35 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, I have no idea why you're acting all arrogant.
Secondly you can't give quality and value a number, but you sure as hell can compare them. Ever heard of "relative"?
Compare quality of Sony products with Nintendo... most people would say they are of similar quality. Compare their brand recognition... most people would say they are both pretty well known. What's there not to understand?
Wii sales number have ZERO to do with it's worth. There are lots of non-price reasons why people would by the Wii:
- hype
- kids begging parents
- cause their friends have it
- etc, etc

Do you believe that everyone who bought a Wii sat down a weighed the pros and cons of it? Hell I know lots of people who buy things KNOWING that it costs way more than its worth just because other people have it.

So let me ask you.. how do you define something that is "overpriced"? Or is there no such thing?...


RE: $$
By SPOOFE on 9/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: $$
By glenn8 on 9/23/2009 7:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's because I'm right and you're not.

Wow... just wow... :)

quote:
Yup, but in order for it to be "relative", there has to be an objective method of measurement. Otherwise, it's just "opinion".

Um no.... if that were the case, there would be no such thing as perceived quality from company X. People trust a brand because of this perceived quality. Public opinion IS something that you CAN compare.

quote:
You just said we CAN'T. Don't contradict yourself.


Yeah I said no such thing... please learn to read.


RE: $$
By SPOOFE on 9/23/2009 10:59:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Wow... just wow... :)

It is what it is. I didn't make you wrong. You did that. Don't blame me.

quote:
Um no.... if that were the case, there would be no such thing as perceived quality from company X. People trust a brand because of this perceived quality. Public opinion IS something that you CAN compare.

Yeah, that's what I said. You can compare the various opinions that people have about the value of a thing.

How do we compare opinions? Do we go and ask everyone what they think?

Or do we gauge it based on what their opinions lead them to actually DO? Isn't it reasonable to suggest that if people overwhelmingly agreed that a product was worth it for them at a given price, they would be of the opinion that product was WORTH that price?

So what are you arguing? We should gauge a thing's worth based on what people say, but not what they do? That makes no sense.

quote:
Yeah I said no such thing... please learn to read.

I don't need to; you're expending all this effort to prove my point for me. A thing is worth what people will pay for it. Sales numbers prove that the Wii is worth $250, to at least enough people to matter. There is no internally consistent logic you can dream up that would justify your assertion that a PS2 console is worth $500. Your assertion is what the scientific community would refer to as "bonkers". It's silly and crazy and based on nothing but what is likely a drug-addled haze of mental processing. But I'd certainly love to hear you expound; please, go on about your theory of the PS2's value being pegged at half a grand.


RE: $$
By afkrotch on 9/24/2009 12:37:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's overpriced only if you don't think it's worth $200. Despite it's old tech, I've played the living daylights out of Wii Sports and Wii Sports Resort. I also own and played Mario Kart, Punch, a few other games and a lots of VC games that have had plenty of play time.

Is the hardware amazing? No. Are many of the titles that drive the hardware lots of fun? Absolutely. There is the reason for it's price.


Actually, none of what you mentioned has anything to do with the price. The console, regardless of what you think, is not worth $200.

If the games are fun, then the value of the game is what increases. Not the value of the console. Hence why there are games that are under $10 and games over $50.

There are tons of high performance parts for a car, but you don't see the manufacturers increase the price of the car due to this.


RE: $$
By Samus on 9/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: $$
By Hiawa23 on 9/23/2009 11:05:47 AM , Rating: 2
Honestly, I could care less how much money any of the console manufacturers make. It baffles me why the Nintendo fans always bring up how much money Nintendo makes compared to Sony or MS, like they work for em or something, LOL. I own a Honda & a Mitsubishi & don't really care how much one makes on each vehicle sold compared to the other, same goes for the plastic boxes that plays the games we like. No attachments here, it's about who delivers the games & services I like, & sadly it hasn't been Nintendo this gen.

I bought my daughter the Wii, I don't care for it at all, as I much prefer the PS3 & 360, but it's good to see Nintendo back on top where they belong.

I currently own every Nintendo console since the Nes, but the motion controls, the Gamecube like hardware I just don't like. I think the $199 price is great, & I will say it again, when you have competition like we now have pricewise for the consoles all gamers benefit no matter which one you prefer. Great job, Nintendo or I probably should say, Good job Sony cause the PS3's price drop set alot of this in motion.


RE: $$
By xti on 9/23/2009 11:09:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I own a Honda & a Mitsubishi & don't really care how much one makes on each vehicle sold compared to the other, same goes for the plastic boxes that plays the games we like.


I am probably stereotyping, but you cant expect much maturity when the retort is "x company makes more than y" company. hence, car manufactures are maybe outside of the scope that those replying are able to partake in.


RE: $$
By Hiawa23 on 9/23/2009 11:20:53 AM , Rating: 2
I am probably stereotyping, but you cant expect much maturity when the retort is "x company makes more than y" company. hence, car manufactures are maybe outside of the scope that those replying are able to partake in.

I think they get the point I was making. You can substitute any product for Mitsu & Honda. I just don't get the chest thumping gamers have towards consoles, like they get a piece of the porfit or something. I am less concerned with how much money Nintendo makes rather than getting more games I may want to play.


RE: $$
By xti on 9/23/2009 11:41:14 AM , Rating: 2
agreed


RE: $$
By AEvangel on 9/23/2009 1:03:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I own a Honda & a Mitsubishi & don't really care how much one makes on each vehicle sold compared to the other, same goes for the plastic boxes that plays the games we like. No attachments here, it's about who delivers the games & services I like, & sadly it hasn't been Nintendo this gen.


The only problem with that thought process is 3 years from now when the Company not making a profit decides to drop the line all together, not support it, or worse case go under. Then you are left with a product that no longer is supported or getting any drive from the market.

In this case WII has huge profit margin so Nintendo has had lots of money for advertising and pushing the product. Which leads to more sales, which leads to more developers making games for it.

The same could be said for the 360 which has more units has a more robust game library then the PS3 since developers can see better profits in developing games for that system. The same goes for accessories and other products.


RE: $$
By Hiawa23 on 9/23/2009 1:26:21 PM , Rating: 1
The only problem with that thought process is 3 years from now when the Company not making a profit decides to drop the line all together, not support it, or worse case go under. Then you are left with a product that no longer is supported or getting any drive from the market.

Not something I worry about since I have no control over that. Based on everything I have read Nintendo will either release a Wii2 or Wii HD console in 2011. You take that chance with any console you buy kind of goes with the territory as far as I am concerned.


RE: $$
By SPOOFE on 9/23/2009 2:08:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not something I worry about since I have no control over that.

Sure you do. You can observe that a company is doing poorly and not likely to survive, and thus choose not to purchase their product and get stuck with a device with no more support. That's why I never bothered getting a Dreamcast; their prospects didn't look good.


RE: $$
By Hiawa23 on 9/23/2009 3:45:49 PM , Rating: 2
Sure you do. You can observe that a company is doing poorly and not likely to survive, and thus choose not to purchase their product and get stuck with a device with no more support. That's why I never bothered getting a Dreamcast; their prospects didn't look good.

All that goes without saying. I would hope that anyone would do some research on any console whether it be you are buying cause of the companies history, or cause they have franchises you like, or other reasons. When I say I have no control over what's going to happen, you missed my point. I bought the 360 on day 1 2005. When I bought the console I had no clue what would take place in the industry. Regardless of what happened my point is I still own the console & how much money MS makes is not important to me, although running a company myself, I would hope all companies are profitable, but let's be realistic here. What was important to me were the games & services. I was invested in the 360 in 2005, invested in the Ps3 2006. My initial point was how some fans attach profit margins to the value of their consoles like they in on the profit sharing or something, or like it makes them feel all warm inside or something. I would rather have a console that lasts 3 to 4 years but provided me with many hundreds of hours of gameplay than a console that lasted 10 years & not much gameplay time. I can't make it any simpler than that, & to me ultimately this is what you should judge the value of the console on not how much dough the company brings in as Nintendo can bring in all the profits in the world but if it isn't making the games or providing the services you want, what good does that do you if you don't work for em?


RE: $$
By SPOOFE on 9/23/2009 11:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When I say I have no control over what's going to happen, you missed my point. I bought the 360 on day 1 2005. When I bought the console I had no clue what would take place in the industry.

I'm sure you were able to make an educated guess. I'm sure you were aware that Microsoft had the deep pockets and the Freshman enthusiasm to Go The Distance, or whatever metaphor one prefers. Don't tell me that MS and their piles of sweet, beautiful money didn't cross your mind; don't tell me that if the X-box had been pushed out by some no-name start-up of dubious future that you'd have even considered it.

quote:
My initial point was how some fans attach profit margins to the value of their consoles like they in on the profit sharing or something, or like it makes them feel all warm inside or something.

That's the only reason you can think of to be concerned about profit margins of third parties? Sir, I assert that you're not thinking hard enough.

What if someone really, really likes a game? They want that game to do well; that helps ensure that there will be more like it in the future. If that game does poorly, it may discourage other developers from trying similar things.

What if someone really, really likes a given dev team, and wants them to be rewarded with the exposure a game deserves? Don't tell me that all good games get their fifteen minutes of fame; most any game reviewer, for instance, would tell you that there are a lot of games that get overlooked, for whatever reason.

Gamers vote with their wallet, and publishers and devs respond the same way. If a cool title, or console, or accessory, or what-have-you doesn't catch on, well, that could be that for a long time.

And hey, who knows, maybe there are some people that actually DO own stock in one or several of the big game companies?

quote:
I would rather have a console that lasts 3 to 4 years but provided me with many hundreds of hours of gameplay than a console that lasted 10 years & not much gameplay time.

You act as if it's a binary choice. Why can't there be an option for a console that lasts 10 years and provides you with many hundreds of hours of gameplay? You've committed the fallacy of the excluded middle.

quote:
what good does that do you if you don't work for em?

Entertainment. I thought that's what games were for.


RE: $$
By afkrotch on 9/24/2009 1:02:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sure you were able to make an educated guess. I'm sure you were aware that Microsoft had the deep pockets and the Freshman enthusiasm to Go The Distance, or whatever metaphor one prefers. Don't tell me that MS and their piles of sweet, beautiful money didn't cross your mind; don't tell me that if the X-box had been pushed out by some no-name start-up of dubious future that you'd have even considered it.


Even if you look at that, doesn't mean the product is going to run well. You really have no idea.

3DO. That console lasted all of 2 years, but hey. It was partnered with 6 very large companies that are around right now and they have deep pockets.

Looking like you have a bright future, doesn't necessarily mean you'll have a bright future. Goodbye HD-DVD.


RE: $$
By SPOOFE on 9/24/2009 1:19:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even if you look at that, doesn't mean the product is going to run well. You really have no idea.

An excellent point; the likelihood of a flop always exists, even from the best. I'm just saying there are different levels of probability involved, and that going with an established player in a given field or market can be less of a crapshoot than going with a newcomer. There are exceptions, of course, but I would offer that those exceptions would be in industries that are fairly dissimilar to the gaming industry.


RE: $$
By StevoLincolnite on 9/23/2009 11:51:30 AM , Rating: 2
It's just interesting how much the console manufacturers loose/make on each machine sold, plus it gives you some idea of potential price cuts, for instance, if Microsoft was making $100 on each console sold, it would make sense to be more competitive that they would bring a price-cut of at-least $50.
After all they make the bulk of there money back on accessories and the games actually sold, so breaking even on the machine-itself doesn't matter.

I have to agree with you on the disliking of the motion controllers, but then again I didn't really like the feel of the Gamecube controllers either, my favorite controller from Nintendo would have to be the Nintendo 64 controller, it just felt "Right" for me.


RE: $$
By The0ne on 9/23/2009 12:14:12 PM , Rating: 2
Well to put it into perspective.

1. If you make money off of your hardware and software, in the MILLIONS, then you're in good shape to survive.

2. If you lose money on hardware and/or software and don't sell as good then you're going to have to survive by putting your own money, somehow, to continue.

3. If you don't sell well and the competition IS, Nintendo here, than you're clearly missing the market whether you're goal was to cater to idiot "hardcore" and "serious" gamers or not. Hence the motion gimmick both Sony and MS will be coming out later.

4. profit speaks for itself. Consumers are buying it whether you think it's a good thing or not. And if you have one and ARE STILL complaining then do yourself a favor and sell it so we can all stop reading your useless complaints.

5. Why would anyone in their right mind not care that Nintendo is making millions and millions? Clearly there is something to be learned from this by Sony and MS, which they are trying.


RE: $$
By ChristopherO on 9/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: $$
By The0ne on 9/23/2009 3:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
Damn, who are these companies that are making the BILLIONS that the market doesn't hear about. You mean to tell me that Sony and MS are purposely suffering by losing money on hardware/software just so these companies can make BILLIONS? And Nintendo or any other company hasn't picked up on this model? My God, BILLIONS...where should I invest!

Please site your sources and their earnings then I'll believe your your statement. It is because of their business model that they are suffering. It was a gamble, a good one, but consumers have chosen with their pocket to go with what the Wii offers. It is a model that Sony and MS are not trying to embrace and I'm waiting to see the tech involve.


RE: $$
By ChristopherO on 9/23/2009 5:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft is no longer losing billions, the Xbox is a profitable division. Why are you asking me? Do some research yourself, look up their annual report. Stuff like that is always publicly available, and since this is not a thesis, and I'm not getting paid for writing this, I'm too lazy to do the work for others. The division is solid. If anything the Xbox is more solid than the game division as a whole because the division also includes the money losing Zune.

EA, Activision, etc, are firms making oodles of money off MS/Sony. They are also making money off Nintendo, but not nearly as much. Nintendo is really a self-contained entity in some regards. No big deal, this strategy works for them. They have so many in-house titles they really don't *need* others like MS/Sony does. Every firm chooses to act differently.

Although they each have a big point holding them back from where they could be.

Sony: Bundled Blu Ray, which made the starting price out of most people's league. Better now, but their lower-end is still at or above everyone else's upper-end.
MSFT: Reliability of early hardware.
Nintendo: Not nearly as robust 3rd-party profits.

Nintendo is making a lot of money on themselves, MSFT, some money, with others making a lot, and Sony, well, the jury is still out on them. Sony 3rd parties might be doing okay, but internally they still might not be profitable on hardware (no one knows really except Sony).

To each his own really. I have no idea why people care so much. Buy what you like, play it, and don't rag on others for making a different decision.


RE: $$
By The0ne on 9/23/2009 7:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
Do you know how much the term "billion" is? Seriously, you think MS, Sony and Nintendo are actually making money in billions from the consoles? Add to that 3rd parties that are what, making games and peripherals, also making money in the billions. Trust me, I don't have to look into their "books" to know this is complete and utter BS from you. You're not going to convince anyone here of this Billion revenue from the three. Just please stop. If you had used millions I would at least agree with you to some extent but billions is ludicrous.

And for the record I ask because you're the one that threw these billion comment without any supporting info. Would you like it if I say Nintendo is raking in trillions with no data to support it? Absurd yes.

There is not argument going on as far as I can tell. I'm just stating that if a company is doing well by their earnings then that's one way of telling the company is healthy. You could skip this altogether and say that each is still going strong because they are meeting their quota.


RE: $$
By SPOOFE on 9/24/2009 1:02:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seriously, you think MS, Sony and Nintendo are actually making money in billions from the consoles?

They're generating billions of dollars in revenue, that's for sure. I don't know how much of that, for each company, is an actual "profit". They're certainly hoping to MAKE billions of dollars in profit, and there's certainly enough money floating around to make it feasible.

If it helps, Nintendo is expecting their operating profit for the year ending March 2010 to be hovering around the $5 billion mark. That's prior to any interest payments or income taxes, mind you, and I don't know what obligations the company may have, but they're likely to be left with a significant chunk of that for liquid capital.


RE: $$
By SPOOFE on 9/24/2009 1:10:54 AM , Rating: 2
To expand... I searched up this old Reuters article I remembered from a couple months back for my info: http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUS...

Microsoft is probably still in the hole, division-wise. Individual consoles are no longer being sold for a loss, but they also took a fat dunk paying out for extended warranties and RROD failures and such (over or around a billion dollars, just for that? I think?). Anyway, I suspect they're making money, increasingly so, too, but I have no idea what the numbers are. I don't know what Sony's situation is, either. I think the whole company's in a funk at the moment.


RE: $$
By The0ne on 9/24/2009 1:55:33 AM , Rating: 2
Here are a few links to help the two of you. We're talking about the console division now, not the entire company line of products.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/09q1_...
http://dubiousquality.blogspot.com/2009/07/earning...
http://metue.com/07-30-2009/sony-nintendo-earnings...
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY09/earn_r...

And if we're considering the entire company then there's a huge problem with both Sony and MS, especially Sony. I would advise you two to read up on the Sony restructured and MS's layoffs this year.


RE: $$
By ChristopherO on 9/24/2009 1:42:25 PM , Rating: 2
"Do you know how much the term "billion" is?"

Given that I studied economics, yes I do, thank you very much. I don't ever get accusatory, just point some things out, and people like you try to make it personal because you have a love-affair with some random company. Seriously, did I run over your cat or something? Grow up.

The gross from the division is in the billions, the EBITDA is in the hundreds of millions, granted the quarterly cash-flows depend on the season, since obviously the holidays are hot for them. And as I said before, you can't cite their financials for the E&D division since it includes a huge number of other things that aren't profitable. The Xbox is currently profitable, and the entire division is being pulled down by everything else.

The net result on this is that the Xbox 360 will be a positive earner in the billions over the lifespan.

Who knows what's going to happen with the PS3. Their prior strategy was a complete disaster. The new slim might eventually cause the device to be profitable. It depends if people jump-in gangbusters, and if Microsoft doesn't come out with something new in the next year or two to cut the legs out from under Sony. There are too many variables right now. If they are making money on the PS3, *today* they're the only one who knows for certain. Like Microsoft their financials are complicated, so it's impossible to figure out a specific product's success.

Nintendo on the other hand has only a small handful of products, all gaming, and as a result, it's not very difficult to make an educated guess what the contribution rates for certain products happen to be.

Or, am I allowed to say, only Nintendo is making billions because that's the only company you like?

Seriously, why do people care what everyone else plays? It doesn't make them bad people. It's not like they enjoy clubbing baby seals in their down-time.


RE: $$
By ChristopherO on 9/24/2009 1:47:48 PM , Rating: 2
I should point-out that Sony's financials can be more obfuscated than Microsoft's. Purely because the PS2 revenues are still pretty hot, and Sony doesn't seem to want people to know how the PS3 is doing since saving-face is seemingly more important than crystal clear financial reporting.

Microsoft is still a bit obtuse, since the division includes a lot of other things, but they have a single gaming device, no portables, no legacy console, and they tend to make announcements about the specific product on occasion. If it weren't for the billion-dollar write-off, they'd be in really good financial shape this generation. They learned a very expensive lesson on the need for extended QA evaluation.


RE: $$
By afkrotch on 9/24/2009 1:08:26 AM , Rating: 2
Nintendo doesn't have a console, if they didn't have partners. It's not a Nintendo designed/produced cpu and gpu in there is it.


RE: $$
By Hiawa23 on 9/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: $$
By The0ne on 9/23/2009 2:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
As you said you own a business and are doing well BASED on your $1mil earnings. Why would you make a comment like...

quote:
Honestly, I could care less how much money any of the console manufacturers make.


and then defend your position by stating the same thing. Again, whether you like it or not millions of consumers have already spent their money to own a Wii. This is a success and their earnings is one of the proof of that. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a lecture to you or anyone, it's just common sense that if you're making millions on profit then you're doing well as a company.


RE: $$
By afkrotch on 9/24/2009 1:21:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
it's just common sense that if you're making millions on profit then you're doing well as a company.


uh huh. Need too look a hell of a lot more than just a profit. Falling profits sure as hell doesn't mean your company is doing well.

Going from $100 mil in profit to $50 mil in profit the next year, then $25 mil the next year isn't a good sign.

According to you, it's still profit, so they're doing well.


RE: $$
By The0ne on 9/24/2009 2:04:16 AM , Rating: 2
Sigh, where did I said profit was the only indicator that a company is doing well? Did I not state that there are other ways you can view a successful company? And where did I state that by "making millions" it was lower than expected. Somewhere along the line, successful, making money and all that talk seem to not have gone through your head. Don't spew trouble when there's NONE to begin with.


RE: $$
By afkrotch on 9/25/2009 4:08:37 AM , Rating: 2
You simply stated...

Common Sense
making millions in profit = doing well

Apparently it becomes a lot less common, when you have to attribute multiple aspects to that minor equation, to figure out whether a company is doing well or not.


RE: $$
By Hiawa23 on 9/24/2009 8:11:12 AM , Rating: 2
As you said you own a business and are doing well BASED on your $1mil earnings. Why would you make a comment like...

quote:
Honestly, I could care less how much money any of the console manufacturers make.

I mentioned my own company for this simple reason. I run a company so, yes, I am concerned with the profits of the company I run, as an employee as my livelyhood, but I don't work for Nintendo, so how much profit they bank really doesn't improve my enjoyment with their products & games. It's the games & whether or not they appeal to me are what I use to rank these videogame companies on. Last time I checked Nintendo has usually always made money as they are an amazingly great run company. I am talking as a gamer, & based on that fact the games are all I base things on & how they appeal to me. I am glad millions of gamers spen their money on the Wii, I did too, & I continue to buy games for my child. All I am saying is how much money these companies make does improve the games, my interest or lack of the games that appeal to me & that's all I rank them on. I have nothing against Nintendo, like I said I have every console of theirs since the Nes. I just don't like the motion controls, & Gamecube like hardware, but I have enjoyed the nice family time the console has provided for me & my daughter. the PS3 & 360 are more my speed, that's all..


RE: $$
By Oregonian2 on 9/23/2009 12:38:24 PM , Rating: 3
Think of what companies do as a game. Dollars (/yen/etc) are the points. Whoever nets the most points wins! So think teamwork. Good to be on a winning team.

Best I could do. :-)


RE: $$
By Hiawa23 on 9/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: $$
By SPOOFE on 9/23/2009 2:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
The only winners are the shareholders.


RE: $$
By CZroe on 9/24/2009 4:06:16 AM , Rating: 2
It's a Gamecube with a CPU/GPU on a smaller process (cheaper), 512MB onboard flash memory, Bluetooth/Wifi hardware, and a motion controller. Gamecube was $99 years before the Wii arrived and Nintendo claimed to be making a profit on each one even then. Sure, there has been a ton of inflation and USD devaluation since then, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the Wii would be profitable even at $130.


Too Late!
By Smilin on 9/23/2009 11:50:13 AM , Rating: 1
Just picked up a 360 yesterday.




RE: Too Late!
By Hiawa23 on 9/23/2009 12:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
Just picked up a 360 yesterday.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! The evil empire. j/k..

Just curious, why 360?

All seriousness, I love the PS3 but the 360 is my fav this gen. I own 66 games for it 8 exclusives only for the PS3.


RE: Too Late!
By Smilin on 9/23/2009 12:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
I bought it mostly to have something to do with the wife and kids. My hardcore gaming will always be on my PC.

I like the way the 360 integrates with the other devices in my home: homeserver, Windows 7, and zune.

I'm reaaaaly looking forward to the full integration of Zune marketplace and Xbox Live. That will be the bomb.

For the other possibilities:

PS3 - I've already got a blu-ray player so no big bonus there. XBox live online service is better. The only compelling game is little big planet for me.

Wii - I *almost* got this one. Really I'm just not a big fan of the full motion controllers though. Give me some button mashing. I may yet pickup a Wii some day.

Besides man, lets face it: Microsoft has come out swinging in the last year. They are listening to customers and releasing awesome products: Xbox360, ZuneHD, Bing, Windows 7, Office 2010 plus all the other big commercial stuff: OCS 2007 R2, Exchange, SQL. Monster stuff. Very impressive.


RE: Too Late!
By Parhel on 9/23/2009 1:04:04 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, man. That would make me sick to my stomach . . . Can't you return it or something?


RE: Too Late!
By Parhel on 9/23/2009 1:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
I think I totally missed your point. :) You bought it after the price drop, right?


RE: Too Late!
By Smilin on 9/24/2009 3:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
I bought the 360 after the price drop but before the Wii price drop.

I'm actually delighted with the 360 so I'm cool with how things turned out. Hell I might even go pickup a Wii early next year.


RE: Too Late!
By rburnham on 9/23/2009 3:40:15 PM , Rating: 2
I would be curious to know when your 360 fails. Maybe you'll get lucky and it will last four or more years, like one friend of mine, or you'll be replacing them once every three to six months, like another friend. Good luck!


RE: Too Late!
By Smilin on 9/24/2009 3:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'm really not RROD concerned. If I get one, life will go on. They've pretty much got it fixed on the new ones anyway.


RE: Too Late!
By Smilin on 9/24/2009 3:29:19 PM , Rating: 2
Gotta love that -1 I got. Beautiful. Thanks guys.


no thanks
By DotNetGuru on 9/23/2009 3:44:01 PM , Rating: 2
250 -> No thanks
200 -> Still not interested

I just can't believe how many of these gimmick toys have sold. If people hadn't wasted money on these, maybe more of the real "next-gen" hardware would've sold.

Maybe when the PS4 and Microsoft's new system comes out, Nintendo will just repackage the Powerglove and sell it for 200 bucks. lame




RE: no thanks
By Motoman on 9/23/2009 5:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you, rabid fanboi. Please see all previous related articles where it's pointed out that the Wii is not expected to be sold to hardcore ha><ors like yourself.

And to give you the same brilliant rebuttal to your insightful post, I just can't believe how many of those gimmicky 360/PS3 toys have been sold. If people hadn't wasted money on those, maybe we'd have more of the real "next-gen" innovation in video gaming instead of the same old thing.

Maybe when the PS4 and Microsoft's new system comes out, Nintendo will still be selling the original Wii at greater volumes than those.

360/PS3 = more of the same thing we've always had, and redundant against the PC. And, targeted at the "hardcore" gamer market, which is smaller than the casual gamer market.

I am not interested in a 360 or PS3 at any price. And am quite happy with the $250 I paid for our Wii years ago.


RE: no thanks
By The0ne on 9/23/2009 7:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
Good comment :)

Damn that 7-mode 3D effect introduced in SNES. Damn the multiple parallel scrolling psynosis introduced. Damn all the DMA programming. Damn everything that has brought about the technology for the ps3/360. What matters to us elite, hardcore (hard-a$$), serious gamers is the best there is now and those are ps3 and 360! Forget about the PC because you know, well...just forget about them!

Yea, hardcore gamers alright. 5 years from now they'll be bashing their very technology they had loved so much today. Clueless kids that have no love for the history of games or the games themselves. Funniest sht ever imo.


Definately S&D
By lenardo on 9/23/2009 11:00:11 AM , Rating: 2
until recently-beginning of this year-
the Wii has Not needed a price drop it was sold out- in the US- for over 2 and a half Years. why drop the price when you KNOW that every single Wii shipped will sell.

now - after almost 3 years supply has surpassed demand and coupled with the price drops of the ps3 and 360, it is time to drop the price.

also i Think that they will also introduce a new 250 dollar bundle (UK is getting it) that includes everything you get for 199 + wii sports resort/M+

expect sales to jump significantly, especially since this is intime for the fall/xmas sales rush.

ps3 Will win Sept- for the first time in years, however oct-dec i expect the new priced wii to catapult it back into the lead.

i own a wii, have ~60 titles for it- have 6 games i cannot afford to get on my wanted list....i need another job.




RE: Definately S&D
By The0ne on 9/23/2009 12:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
Market will eventually start to saturate and to draw the few remaining indecisive consumers the lower price might just do it for the holiday.


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki