3DS costs about $100 to make

[mugs]

You do realize most consoles released are sold at a loss for awhile

[citation needed]

I always ask, but no one has ever been able to cite a reliable source for that. We know Microsoft and Sony do it, but people think that's the way it has always been. I don't believe Nintendo ever has.

Also, for your edification: "awhile" literally means "for a while," as in "why don't you stay awhile." You should never say "for awhile."

 

[Ross Ridge]

[citation needed]

I always ask, but no one has ever been able to cite a reliable source for that. We know Microsoft and Sony do it, but people think that's the way it has always been. I don't believe Nintendo ever has.

I'm pretty sure when he wrote "for awhile" he didn't mean always, and when he said "most consoles" he didn't mean all consoles. So I'm not sure why you're asking him to prove something he never said.

 

[mugs]

I'm pretty sure when he wrote "for awhile" he didn't mean always, and when he said "most consoles" he didn't mean all consoles. So I'm not sure why you're asking him to prove something he never said.

"For awhile" was referring to the beginning of the console's life, not recent history. That is clear from the rest of the sentence (which I didn't quote).

Even if you want to limit it to the last two generations, it's not really relevant to the 3DS. Nintendo doesn't sell their consoles at a loss because they don't need to. They don't need to because they don't pack them full of expensive hardware that they'd never be able to sell for a profit. To try to apply the Microsoft/Sony business model to Nintendo is to not understand how Nintendo does things.

 

[Ross Ridge]

Even if you want to limit it to the last two generations, it's not really relevant to the 3DS. Nintendo doesn't sell their consoles at a loss because they don't need to. They don't need to because they don't pack them full of expensive hardware that they'd never be able to sell for a profit. To try to apply the Microsoft/Sony business model to Nintendo is to not understand how Nintendo does things.

Nintendo may have not followed the example Sony and Microsoft, but they're clearly not following their own example either. The retail price alone is unprecedented for a Nintendo handheld, and while I don't have the numbers to prove it, I'm pretty sure that this 250% markup on the raw component costs would be just as unprecedented.

Quite frankly I suspect that the actual marginal cost to Nintendo to produce a Nintendo 3DS device is a lot closer to $250 than it is $100. The $100 iSuppli figure doesn't include licencing fees or royalties, so payments to ARM, DMP, and whoever owns the patents on the parallax barrier display could drive up the actual cost significantly.

I really have a hard time believe Nintendo is trying to gouge consumers with the price of the 3DS. Even though they've made money selling hardware in the past, they've made a lot more money selling software. I don't know why they'd try to reverse that now.

 

[CountZero]

I don't know how else to explain it. The point wasn't the price, the point was about not being greedy just because you can (not that MS and Sony aren't greedy by any means). Also, the 3DS is a handheld, not a console. Why didn't they put more R&D into it to warrant the price? They couldn't have spent an extra $50 per system and made the battery life not suck shit?

This is a simple concept. All companies do what they do to maximize profits. Period. I guarantee you MS and Sony set the prices they did towards the goal of maximizing profits and nothing more.

By your logic maximizing profits == greedy and since all companies work towards maximizing profits then all companies are greedy so I guess you need to boycott everyone that sells pretty much anything.

Your problem isn't them being greedy it is that you don't believe the 3DS is worth $250, if you didn't know the 'cost' would it change your valuation in any way at all? I doubt it.

 

[Wuzup101]

Nintendo NEVER (afaik) sells hardware at a loss, which is absolutely ridiculous. Both Sony and Microsoft did it with the current gen, yet Nintendo (who makes more money than both of them) can't do it? Fuck you, Nintendo. Thanks for giving me a fantastic childhood and all, but I'm done with your shenanigans.

This is what is fundamentally wrong with our country. There really are people like this that think that companies owe them something. I've read some pretty funny things on message boards in my life... but this one takes the cake.

"Oh my god company X is selling good Y for more than it costs them to make it. This is not the business model of other companies who have billions of $$$ worth of income from other sources and thus can operate at whatever deficit is necessary to gain market share. Everyone should sell all their hardware at a loss because I can't afford for them to make a profit and I am entitled to own whatever I want."

personal attack removed, infraction issued. -Admin DrPizza

 

[Ns1]

This is a simple concept. All companies do what they do to maximize profits. Period. I guarantee you MS and Sony set the prices they did towards the goal of maximizing profits and nothing more.

By your logic maximizing profits == greedy and since all companies work towards maximizing profits then all companies are greedy so I guess you need to boycott everyone that sells pretty much anything.

Your problem isn't them being greedy it is that you don't believe the 3DS is worth $250, if you didn't know the 'cost' would it change your valuation in any way at all? I doubt it.

this

 

[SandEagle]

only 128MB RAM in the 3DS? underpowered for sure...

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2011/03/nintendo-3ds-found-to-only-have-128mb-of-ram/

 

[Monster_Munch]

only 128MB RAM in the 3DS? underpowered for sure...

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2011/03/nintendo-3ds-found-to-only-have-128mb-of-ram/

128MB isn't low for Nintendo, the Wii only has about that much.

 

[waggy]

lol at complaining that Nintendo won't sell it at a loss. WTF its a business. I don't think its worth $250 (i already own a 2 DS lites, and a DS XL). IF/When it drops to $150 i might pick it up. now? nope. but i don't expect them to lose money on it. thats just silly

 

[gorcorps]

lol at complaining that Nintendo won't sell it at a loss. WTF its a business. I don't think its worth $250 (i already own a 2 DS lites, and a DS XL). IF/When it drops to $150 i might pick it up. now? nope. but i don't expect them to lose money on it. thats just silly

No kidding. I hate when people complain so much about the price... just don't buy it then. It'll drop eventually. Sure, everybody has a little shock at the initial starting price but to keep whining about it when Nintendo is just trying to make money is absurd.

 

[purbeast0]

for some reason everyone on the internet thinks they are entitled to everything for free.

 

[Beev]

Ok, I had left this thread because I was alone in my opinion, so I figured it was the better thing to do, but apparently I need to clarify my position.

I am NOT saying Nintendo doesn't deserve to make a profit, and I'm NOT saying consumers deserve for the system to be cheaper. The logic that a company should charge as much as they can as long as people buy it (which is what seems to be the consensus here) is flat out flawed. My problem is that the markup was 250%, which seems ridiculous. Granted, when I made my first post I wasn't thinking and didn't take into account licensing fees and whatnot, so the real cost is (as someone mentioned earlier) probably closer to $250 than $100, which makes the price make more sense. If the total cost after licenses etc. was only $100 and they were charging $250 then I would very much not agree with the price, similar to my initial stance.

Now stop repeating the same damn points every other post and thinking you're cleverly adding more to the topic.

 

[Monster_Munch]

The logic that a company should charge as much as they can as long as people buy it (which is what seems to be the consensus here) is flat out flawed.

I still don't really understand why you think it's flawed. Nintendo are a very successful company, I'm sure they put a lot of effort into determining the optimum price point.

 

[reallyscrued]

I am NOT saying Nintendo doesn't deserve to make a profit, and I'm NOT saying consumers deserve for the system to be cheaper. The logic that a company should charge as much as they can as long as people buy it (which is what seems to be the consensus here) is flat out flawed.

404, flaw not found. Take a Marketing class, it's called 'skimming pricing' and it's a common practice.

Only in this day and age will people actually complain when a new product enters the marketplace. Instead of hating on yourself for not being able to afford it, you hate the company for pricing it they way they want to? Utterly ridiculous.

Most of you complaining in this thread, especially Anarchist420, sound like 14 year olds who are mad that their allowance isn't high enough. Get a job, or another job, or wait for the price to come down. You're not as fortunate as those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, boo hoo.

Next thing you know, it's Nintendo's fault for making you "want it so much." No wait, that was an argument for the 90's.

For the record, I'm a student myself, still doing undergrad. I can't afford the 3DS, but I'm not pointing fingers at Nintendo for making life suck.

 

[reallyscrued]

128MB isn't low for Nintendo, the Wii only has about that much.

Interestingly enough, the Wii has only 88 MB of RAM. (Granted, 24 megs of that is 1T-SRAM)

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Ok, I had left this thread because I was alone in my opinion, so I figured it was the better thing to do, but apparently I need to clarify my position.

I am NOT saying Nintendo doesn't deserve to make a profit, and I'm NOT saying consumers deserve for the system to be cheaper. The logic that a company should charge as much as they can as long as people buy it (which is what seems to be the consensus here) is flat out flawed. My problem is that the markup was 250%, which seems ridiculous. Granted, when I made my first post I wasn't thinking and didn't take into account licensing fees and whatnot, so the real cost is (as someone mentioned earlier) probably closer to $250 than $100, which makes the price make more sense. If the total cost after licenses etc. was only $100 and they were charging $250 then I would very much not agree with the price, similar to my initial stance.

Now stop repeating the same damn points every other post and thinking you're cleverly adding more to the topic.

For being flat out flawed, it's driven the world's largest economies...

 

[gorcorps]

Ok, I had left this thread because I was alone in my opinion, so I figured it was the better thing to do, but apparently I need to clarify my position.

I am NOT saying Nintendo doesn't deserve to make a profit, and I'm NOT saying consumers deserve for the system to be cheaper. The logic that a company should charge as much as they can as long as people buy it (which is what seems to be the consensus here) is flat out flawed. My problem is that the markup was 250%, which seems ridiculous. Granted, when I made my first post I wasn't thinking and didn't take into account licensing fees and whatnot, so the real cost is (as someone mentioned earlier) probably closer to $250 than $100, which makes the price make more sense. If the total cost after licenses etc. was only $100 and they were charging $250 then I would very much not agree with the price, similar to my initial stance.

Now stop repeating the same damn points every other post and thinking you're cleverly adding more to the topic.

Your math is as flawed as your thought process on pricing.

If it costs $100 and the MARKUP is 250%, then the markup alone is $250 which would put the final price at $350. It's a 150% markup if you assume the $100 was the total cost.

 

[BladeVenom]

$101 is just the cost of the hardware, not the cost of the final assembled product, and doesn't include the cost of putting it on store shelves.

Although I do think $250 is too much, and they probably should have started at $199. If you don't like the price, don't buy them, and they will be forced to lower their prices.

 

[Ross Ridge]

Your math is as flawed as your thought process on pricing.

If it costs $100 and the MARKUP is 250%, then the markup alone is $250 which would put the final price at $350. It's a 150% markup if you assume the $100 was the total cost.

Unfortunately, it was my math that was wrong, and he was probably just repeating my mistake. In any case, I believe a 150% markup on raw teardown costs at introduction would be unprecedented for a Nintendo handheld.

 

[Dumac]

The logic that a company should charge as much as they can as long as people buy it (which is what seems to be the consensus here) is flat out flawed.

How is that flawed, at all?

You are a company. You want to make money. What do you do? Sell your product for maximum profit, which means a balance between supply/demand.

If a substantial amount of people will by your product for a high price, you sell your product for a high price.

 

[Phynaz]

The logic that a company should charge as much as they can as long as people buy it (which is what seems to be the consensus here) is flat out flawed.

When you get a job, make sure you negotiate a salary lower than the initial offer. Because after all it is flawed logic that you should charge as much as you can.

 

[mmntech]

It's a new technology. Early adopters always pay a steep price. Still, it is unprecedented for the Gameboy line. Mind you, the price of those has been creeping up for years.

I haven't seen it in action yet but I personally don't think it's worth $250. I personally prefer the Swiss Army type devices like the iPod Touch and PSP/NGP. They provide a lot of bang for the buck. But that's just my little ol' opinion.

 

[Dumac]

It's a new technology. Early adopters always pay a steep price. Still, it is unprecedented for the Gameboy line. Mind you, the price of those has been creeping up for years.

I haven't seen it in action yet but I personally don't think it's worth $250. I personally prefer the Swiss Army type devices like the iPod Touch and PSP/NGP. They provide a lot of bang for the buck. But that's just my little ol' opinion.

Yeah, $250 is high for a handheld and I can see why most people wouldn't think it's worth the money. That makes perfect sense.

I don't know why people have to act like Nintendo is being a criminal by pricing their product however they want to.

 

[The-Noid]

Its competition these days is also iPad and iPod touch which have higher costs. Shocking amount of kids buying iPod touch to play games on. The games are fun however dsi does better IMO.