Drink In Cheap Wii! Sub-£100 Gathers Pace

I disagree, I think we're in for a nasty shock. Nintendo's idea of "affordable" might mean "cheaper than the rest". Nintendo have such a long history of making decisions that makes a lot of their fans unhappy, and their recent spate of good-will and general awseomeness feels like the calm before the storm.

Something is telling me that it's going to release for $200 and I'll tell you why - the Gamecube went for the same price when it was released initially. The hardware in the Wii is not old, it's not a bunch of old Gamecube innards stuffed into a box and overclocked. We're probably going to get a nifty ATI R520 in there, which is new. It's hardware that still has had some R&D go into it. It's not old, just not powerful (relatively), but you can still charge a sane amount for it.
Also, factor in that this is the first console that we've seen in a while that's going to be sold for a profit. (Did Nintendo make loses on the GC when released first?) Typically, if Nintendo were to release it with the typical 'loss model' (whatever you'd call it), then I'd say $150. But if they really want to make enough profit to pay for great new hardware in the future AND cover the FREE online play, I say $200.

Now, whatever that translates into £'s, that's fine. Here in Ireland, we get pillaged by the likes of GAME Retail Ltd. and Gamestop. They will automatically jack the price up by €20-€30, and probably force us to buy as a game in some ass-value pack.

And if there IS a price drop in the X360, or even a better value pack for the €300 model, Nintendo are going to have a real tough time selling the Wii over the X360 with its media-centric capabilities, especially here where people don't buy videogames, they buys fads, hence the initial trouncing the DS got by the PSP, because I believe that 60% of the games-buyers are feckin' morons who don't know jack about decent games. (example - the midst of the last console generation, I knew people who worked in game shops and witnssed the following:
"I want to buy a games machone for my son".
"Okay, this one plays games, this one plays games and DVDs, this one plays games and DVDs but you have to buy the DVD controller".
"Oh...well, what price?"
"This one is cheapest, this one is more expensive, and this is more expensive still, plus controller."
"Hmmmm..."
"Also, this one is really popular so he can share games with all his friends."
"Okay, I'll go for that one."

Can you guess which machine is which? I s**t you not, that's how the consoles were being sold in the Christmas panic. People don't know anything about games, and as much fun as the Wii is going to be, I really, really fear the the retailers are going to push the PS3 and X360 because they make more of a profit on it, and their jacked-up price of the feature-reduced-Wii doesn't make it seem attractive against the other two giants.

Approximately 90% of what I say is probably bull s**t, but I've watched the most amazing Nintendo games fail at retail because there's a kink along the line somewhere. Maybe they'll keep the price below €200, and maybe the free online play will looks great alongside Xbox Live, and maybe Nintendo could market the Wii as having "1,000's of games at €5" (Virtual Console). Maybe, just maybe, the dumb public will finally get what good interactive entertainment is all about.

Here's hoping.

You're dreaming, mate.

The hardware in Wii is, in fact, quite old. The CPU and GPU may be new custom designs, but they're custom designed to be cheap and use much of the technology in GCs chips, especially the CPU.
Wii will get an R520? Are you fecking mental? Xbox 360 has an R500 for God's sake.
Gamecube also made slim profits on launch.

No, here's my reasons why it won't be as expensive as Gamecube:

Gamecube was cutting edge technology at launch and retailed for $200. The same as every single Nintendo console before it. For the first time Wii will not contain cutting-edge technology, so it won't be as expensive to manufacture, so there's no realistic way it could cost more than $200. $200 translates into roughly £130 if you go by Gamecube's launch pricing.

Correct me if I'm wrong somebody, but I think Nintendo has always sold its hardware units at a profit. It never took the 'loss margin' way out. The Gamecube I know for sure gets Nintendo a return in profit, even though it's not selling nearly as well as PS2 or XBOX did a few months ago, it was still making Nintendo a profit, which was why it was able to continue in the game whereas for Sony and MS, if consoles fail to sell it could be dangerous as they're losing money on making the consoles in the first place.

Also, Nintendo never stated the Wii was 'next-generation', so it would make sense for them not to sell the console at next-generation prices. Besides, if the price is low enough to make it accessible to the massmarket, then all the better. Remember, Nintendo aren't playing the same game as MS or Sony, they're targetting everyone who doesn't play games as well as those who do.

Having a $250+ price range is going to alienate those very people Nintendo are trying to court. While gamers won't complain about a lower price range, because for them it just means more games to buy.

A cheaper price usually == less value in the past, particularly when the Gamecube was having severe price drops a year after its launch. But the Wii will be launching with this price, and if its fixed I don't think it will affect the public opinion of its value all that much.

I was going on Spong report from long ago (possibly Eurogamer?). It wasn't an actual R520, but a scaled down version.

I agree with what you said in terms of the customised hardware, and I think you nailed it when you said that it's customised to the point of being cheap (read - affordable). Good point.

All I'm saying is, I've lived with years of disappointment with Nintendo, and I'm just not getting my hopes up again.

Sorry to dissect your post in one go, lol, I felt it easier to do as a lot of it I liked the look of to comment on. :)

----


It annoys me that people tend to think that Nintendo need to 'do this' and 'be that' and become #1. Nintendo don't need to be #1. It would be nice, but you know. Nintendo aren't defeatist exactly, but they don't place being market leader over providing good content for their fans. Some fans want the company to be more competitive, but to be fair, if it compromises what they do why should they?

They didn't exactly seem bothered that the Gamecube wasn't #1. In fact they made no big deal when it became apparent that they were "third" in the big worldwide console race. They were happy just releasing games that would satisfy those who had invested time and money in getting a Gamecube, and that's admirable. The best show of this I'd say was with the N64. The console fell way behind PS1 but it was churning hit after hit after hit in its prime. And those who owned the console appreciated it.

You want Nintendo to sell lots and be #1. Nintendo might want that too, but their primary focus is on us. Selling the Wii at a lower price may damage public perception of the former, but would be another decent Nintendo move of satisfying the latter.


They seem to be doing alright providing free online play on Nintendo DS without releasing it at a higher price. I don't see why they would need to do it for the Wii for the same function.


If you pre-order, you're unlikely to get dumped with a value pack. This was the case when the Gamecube launched. And the 360 (to some extent, they did have some silly value pack pre-order deals in some stores). They tend to do value packs for the remaining unreserved stock they have. Probably so the poor sods who didn't reserve, if they want one, will have to give into the store's greedy add-on sale tactics if they want any chance of getting one. XP


True that. So, why are you suggesting Nintendo should be launching at a higher price then?


Yes. But that was because, if you line the two up, the fat DS looked like a train wreck compared to the sexy looks of the PSP. It's a style thing, not a game thing. Hence why DS sales have been more successful over here since the sexier Lite launched. To be fair, if you knew nothing about games and wanted a decent console, you would want one that actually looks the part don't you? Why do you think the (pff) iPod became so popular? I hate the feckers, but it's gotten popular because it actually looks desirable, particularly compared to my ugly Sony mp3 fecker.


I know some Nintendo fans that own Doshin the boring-as-hell Giant, lol. :) You seem to be saying that everyone who isn't buying a Nintendo game or console is a feckin' moron who doesn't know jack about decent games.

Take your DS/PSP example again. At launch, people chose style and familiarity over creative design in the DS. Why? Because the DS, at launch, was undeniably a gimmick. Aside from maybe Project Rub, I don't think there was a launch title that was really being creative with that touch screen. Why should people buy into a handheld that says it can do all these things yet doesn't deliver right away, when the PSP can do exactly what it says on the tin - crisp 3D games. The DS got more reasonable when decent games actually started coming out for it.

Both handhelds have their strong and weak points. Launch has a lot to do with it. Nintendo didn't effectively communicate what DS was trying to say until later on. Sony did with the PSP - because it was easier to do so, granted, but the fact remains.

While we're on the subject of decent games: Loco Roco, Tomb Raider, Burnout Legends, Puyo Pop Fever, Me & My Katamari, Street Fighter Alpha, Outrun2...


That's a broad generalisation. Yes, the top 10 can be full of s**t during Christmas (or even most times, whenever a brainless EA game is involved), but if people really didn't know anything about games, the Gizmondo would have been a success.

The XBOX and PS2 all had just as many exciting, original and damn-fine games as the Gamecube did. Just because the consoles are either too popular that they can get awash with s**t, or tend to not feature leaping fat men in primary colours doesn't make them any less stellar. Outrun 2, Headhunter, Katamari Damacy (worth the price of a PS2 alone), Chronicles of Riddick, Halo, Shenmue, Shadow of the Colossus, God of War, Jet Set Radio Future, Ninja Gaiden, Gitaroo Man (!), Guitar Hero...

The general gaming public aren't that stupid. There are still people buying Gamecubes, and more than you or I probably are aware of. But for all intents and purposes, the XBOX and especially the PS2 deserve their success. Nintendo's released some s**t in the past too. :P


Whatever they recommend is their perogative, it's up to the consumer to decide whether its any good or not. And look at how rampant the pre-owned scene is today. If someone doesn't like a console they've bought, guess where it goes? Bargain bin. If they decide to keep a console, there must be a reason why.

As I said before, consoles that deserve to fail almost always do. Even - and this goes against every SEGA fanboy bone in my body - the Dreamcast. In particular that failed due to SEGA's lack of third-party exclusives, or third-party anything (many third party titles were ports of PS1 games and looked fugly). It's first-party games were mostly stellar, but it was very ignorant about marketing, or just didn't have any money to do anything properly at all.


It's not just Nintendo games. Shadow of the Colossus, Gitaroo Man and Katamari Damacy didn't exactly set the shelves on fire, but are highly regarded as some of the best games of this current generation. And Nintendo games failing at retail is a complete fallacy - as long as you buy it and enjoy it, it doesn't matter. As previously said, the Top 10 is largely to be ignored because of the fact it's pummelled by the mainstream and those fortunate enough to either be marketed well or break the mould.

Well, affordable? Let's say they thought the GCN was affordable too. Yet this time they are using less cutting edge hardware, as the GCN did at the time. We know Iwata said they "might" lose a small amount of money, or make a small profit off of the hardware. We hear it's not going to cost Nintendo more than 170 $ to producs...

I'd say they're going for 200, or 150 at best. Given currency conversions, that means they'd be making a profit in Europe, and losing money in the states. (150 $ is usually converted to 150 €, while 150 € is actually more like 190 $ or about).

Or who knows, maybe 200 to 250, with a sweet bundle deal: 2 controllers, Wiisports, 10 classic downloads... just a thought.

To veer slightly OT for a second, if retailers did do some random value-pack deal I don't think I'd be all that averse to it. Most of the Wii launch titles look pretty damn decent, it's just a case of whether I would rather have a third party game or two in a pack with a genre or theme that piques my interest. :)

lol! That was one big disection! I won't reply to each point.
You said that I suggest Nintendo raise the price point of the Wii - I didn't mean to imply that in what I said. Also, while I do realise that Nintendo are loyal to their fans (and you are 100% correct with the N64, I still feel that that was a golden era for games), what I want isn't always priority. Outside of what games I want, I simply want Nintendo to succeed so that they can comfortably (in financial terms) complete their next project because I know that we'll all (as in, the consumer) benefit in the end.
Also, I agree with Spong's mentality that it would be nice for me and my girlfriend to sit down and play a game or two without her looking bored. (Note - I do not force my girlfriend to play games! =P ) I think the level of Nintendo's success may help achieve this.

In terms of the DS and PSP - yeah, that was my point, people just bought the nicer looking console. Even check out CNet.com's reviews of both machines. The PSP automatically scores higher because it has more features, and don't get me wrong, I do think the PSP is a a fantastic piece of hardware. But they just don't get it from the games point of view.
Also, I do not think that people are idiots for not just buying Nintendo products. Ico was the single biggest tragedy in the games industry, IMO, and, actually, it furthers my point. People really ARE idiots when they have the right console to play such a game and instead leave it piled on the shelves! Okay, I shouldn't call them idiots, that's wrong. They just don't know, and probably don't care, and that's fine. Maybe it was (is) Sony's fault. But now I think that Nintendo's new approach to gaming could be what's needed to introduce new people to experiences like Ico, which, lets be honest, in terms of sheer technical and artistic merit is up with any of the most highly regarded novels or films. (I'm sincere when I say that - am I being ridiculous?)

Last point - don't dis the iPod! I'm sure improvements on the Model T Ford were vast and expedient, but where would we all be without it? =)

You're right with the conversions. But we get shafted here in Ireland. Example a $200 Wii should cost €155. Say round it up to, oh, something generous like €200 to cover shipping costs. Well I absolutely guarantee that the shops will bring it up to €230, at most. They did it with the DS Lite, the X360, and they'll do it again.

Your bundle sounds cool. I'd go for it! =)

They probably keep "disappointing" you because you keep believing in total bullshit until Nintendo bring you back into the real world.

Wii won't have a scaled-down R520 for Christ's sake, it won't have a scaled down R420 either, or even an R360. In fact, Hollywood most likely isn't based off of Radeon architecture at all. Stop believing everything you hear, especially the crap that even Spong labels as "rumour".

Eh, no, I was disappointed because they lost the Final Fantasy series for years and the sequel to Wave Race was s**t.

By the way, did I say I believed the rumour? I said I was going on a story from ages ago. 'Going on' does not mean 'believe'. It means taking an idea and running with it.

Also, I think it's perfectly feasible that ATI would put some of the routines they've been developing for the (now troubled R520) into the Wii. And what are you talking about Hollywood not being based on Radeon? It's the same company - those water effects you see in GC games sure as s**t have ATI stamped all over them. I think it's pretty safe to say that anything that's in the Radeon cards has been scaled down into Hollywood.

Uhh, no. Retailers do not make a profit on game consoles; typically they lose unless high margin accessories (or warranties) are added to the sell. I worked for a retail for six years and found from personal experience there is little to make on the core systems.

Now, put the Wii into perspective. If Nintendo sells the Will for $199 (in US) above from the guessed $169, both Nintendo and the retailers will win. For example: if Nintendo can make a profit and guarantee a mere $10 profit or more for retailers, retailers . . . uh managers . . . will push Wii over PS3 (which is a guarantee to lose money for the retailers as an empty core.

Woah woah woah! Retailers not making a profit on hardware? I ran a very small videogame business for a while and even I made profit on PS2s and Xboxes. I really don't think that makes sense for anyone to go into business and sell somebody elses product at a loss.

But I agree with you that if Nintendo can introduce a better profit margin than yeah, the Wii will be more attractive for all.

Oh, and by the way, to everyone who reads this - Let us remember that when Regi Fil Amis was asked at E3 about lower price points, he said that Nintendo have their model in place and they plan to deliver, but he said retailers will have their own agenda. And this is what I was stating in my original post - I'm not sure about England, but you can bet your balls that GAME and Gamestop in Ireland will hike the prices up. If they see X360 and PS3 games selling for €70-€80 (which they are!) then they will feel that they can do the same with the Wii.

Hollywood doesn't have to be based on Radeon to be developed by ATI... heck, I've still got a few Rages laying around somewhere. Something tells me that a lil R&D went into the Hollywood rather than just sticking an old engine in a new ship.

I can see why AMD wanted to buy up ATI, they have 66% of the GPU's in the gaming market. Only a matter of time until Sony goes the way of Microsoft and jumps boats.