3DS costs about $100 to make

[Soccerman06]

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/03/24/report-3ds-components-cost-about-100/

So many more people would buy it if the damn system cost $100 less.

 

[zerocool84]

Like is the same with any product:

Retailers are selling the 3DS for $250, but that's not all markup -- there are marketing, research and other charges associated with a console release, and everyone in the supply chain has to take their own cuts, of course

 

[purbeast0]

title should probably say 3DS and not DS ... big difference.

 

[Soccerman06]

title should probably say 3DS and not DS ... big difference.

fine

 

[xboxist]

fine

haha I love the attitude implied in that response, as if you don't quite agree with him but you're going to change it anyway.

DS and 3DS is a huge difference.

 

[gorcorps]

Yes, more people would buy it at a lower price... but there's a lot of people that will pay the higher price for it now. They'll drop the price eventually, and that's when others will buy it. It makes perfect business sense to keep things as high as possible to milk the early adopters, then drop the price to get the next level of consumers. That way it maximizes the income on the system and also spreads it out over a longer period of time.

It really bothers me when people think these companies should just give their shit away. It's a business. They're there for a single purpose, to make money. If you don't like the price, then wait. I'm actually quite proud that Nintendo has such a decent margin on this thing when it's the first mass produced non-glasses based 3D display. I expected that tech to cost them a lot more.

 

[Soccerman06]

Yes, more people would buy it at a lower price... but there's a lot of people that will pay the higher price for it now. They'll drop the price eventually, and that's when others will buy it. It makes perfect business sense to keep things as high as possible to milk the early adopters, then drop the price to get the next level of consumers. That way it maximizes the income on the system and also spreads it out over a longer period of time.

It really bothers me when people think these companies should just give their shit away. It's a business. They're there for a single purpose, to make money. If you don't like the price, then wait. I'm actually quite proud that Nintendo has such a decent margin on this thing when it's the first mass produced non-glasses based 3D display. I expected that tech to cost them a lot more.

You do realize most consoles released are sold at a loss for awhile, atleast until a hardware revision or 2. I know companies want money but there are other ways. Hell, PS3 and 360 only recently became profitable in the last year. I know nintendo generally uses lower end hardware, but when the gameboy launched it cost $150, color was $80, advance was $150, sp was 100 (no one cares about micro), DS was $150, DS lite was $130, DSi was $170... $250 is more than some consoles, not to mention phones which have emulators.

 

[Queasy]

I've come to loathe these type of articles. The component part may cost $100 but there's much much more that goes into the cost of the product than just the component parts. There's also R&D, prototyping, marketing, labor costs, shipping costs, OS/software development, middle-man markup, retail mark-up etc.

Nintendo is known for making their stuff so that they profit but you shouldn't expect $100 worth of parts to magically come together into a fully functioning product.

 

[Aikouka]

I've come to loathe these type of articles. The component part may cost $100 but there's much much more that goes into the cost of the product than just the component parts. There's also R&D, prototyping, marketing, labor costs, shipping costs, OS/software development, middle-man markup, retail mark-up etc.

Nintendo is known for making their stuff so that they profit but you shouldn't expect $100 worth of parts to magically come together into a fully functioning product.

A lot of those figures that you mentioned can't be figured in easily because the amount per unit becomes smaller as more units are sold. If it cost Nintendo a million dollars to develop the software for it and they sell a million 3DS units, then it only cost $1 per unit.

People actually seem to love using awkward measurements to push a point. You even see such things in government spending like the stuff with the F22 a few months ago.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I've come to loathe these type of articles. The component part may cost $100 but there's much much more that goes into the cost of the product than just the component parts. There's also R&D, prototyping, marketing, labor costs, shipping costs, OS/software development, middle-man markup, retail mark-up etc.

Nintendo is known for making their stuff so that they profit but you shouldn't expect $100 worth of parts to magically come together into a fully functioning product.

While true, let's be honest here, Nintendo is not spending anywhere close to an extra $150 per system for what you're getting from this. That's fine, and obviously from an economics standpoint they're genius. However, from a gamer's standpoint, that is the problem with Nintendo these days. They offer compelling hardware and software, but I think the value is out of whack.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Sony or Microsoft are not also guilty, but Nintendo really strikes me as a company that is best left to focus on peripherals, some software (the games namely, and even then, I think they could benefit hugely by focusing on the content and taking advantage of middleware so that they spend less time having to eke out the good but lacking compared to what they could offer with better hardware performance/graphics they currently offer), only they've had so much success with hardware that they just keep at it, despite clearly being in a bit over their head there (good ideas, ho-hum at best implementation). Again, I'm not faulting them for keeping with that, as its obviously been hugely successful for them, but I feel like Nintendo is actually limiting themselves.

I know some people would hate it, but I think Nintendo and Apple would make a great collaboration, they're already quite similar, and their differences play to each other's strengths. Apple would be able to help with hardware and even software (although, I gotta say, both Apple and Nintendo's current online gaming setup is lacking, I think Apple is just going slow and has not really put much effort into it, and Nintendo just needs a tech company to show them how to handle things properly). It would certainly help Apple become a legitimate gaming option as well, which is something they've been rumored to want for a couple of years now.

A big reason why Nintendo builds in so much profit margin is to mitigate risk (even if the system fails, they'll almost certainly not lose on it). If they focus on software and peripherals, Apple is the one risking on hardware (and right now, its not really a risk at all). Plus, while you almost certainly wouldn't end up with the combined sales from both companies products, but you'd end up between that and the individual product sales, so Apple sells even more, and Nintendo's games are able to reach an even larger audience. I'd argue its a win-win-win situation. Both companies end up at least as well off as they already are, likely better, and the consumer ends up better off as well, as hey, look now instead of having a $200 iPhone and a $150 Nintendo handheld, I have a $200 device, and it can play those Nintendo games, the hardware is better (and so the games should be better in aspects where that matters), plus I have the money I would have spent on both and can buy more games/peripherals/whatever.

No, I don't see it happening, partly because I think, to Nintendo, it would be the 90s with Sony all over again (and also, I think they wouldn't want anything at all to bring back memories of the Philips CD-i), and I think they probably feel they would lose too much control and identity.

 

[Anneka]

Well this doesn't surprise me.
In my country there is a saying: "The stupid man is not the one that sells, is the one that buys".
But what else do you expect. I mean if you were a company would you sell a product that costs to be made $100 at the $101 price ?

 

[Beev]

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.

 

[wuliheron]

You have to at least double the price for retail sales, then add in marketing, then research which includes all the products they produced that failed, and finally profit margins for the stock holders. Otherwise its a piece of plastic with a little metal, sand, and a battery inside and in another ten years they'll sell for $10.oo.

 

[Monster_Munch]

There's not much competition at the low end so they can charge what they want, the PSP2 and Sony Ericsson Playstation phone will be a lot more expensive.

The PSP1 is cheaper but it's old tech now and there isn't much hype behind it.

 

[Macamus Prime]

People are going to buy it anyway.

Also, Nintendo is in it to make a profit; one that will make them the MOST money. Not a fair amount of money. They know people will pay for it. Frankly, the fault is on the consumer. Past experience has proven something like this will be popular, therefore, they can charge what they want.

What is worse however, is that 2-3 years from now, the 3DS "slim" will probably come out at $250. And people will buy that.

But, the biggest offense is that people will buy the shitty launch titles with the 3DS.

 

[purbeast0]

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.

why is that ridiculous?

they had record breaking sales with the wii so it's not like they are struggling for sales.

if people are willing to pay X for your product and you have world record breaking sales, why the HELL would you sell it for X/2 instead?

same thing with the DS ... nintendo owns the handheld market and can do as they please in that area, and will still sellout of their product.

it would be absolutely ridiculous and stupid IMO if they sold things at lower prices when they are selling like hotcakes at the current prices.

 

[Beev]

why is that ridiculous?

they had record breaking sales with the wii so it's not like they are struggling for sales.

if people are willing to pay X for your product and you have world record breaking sales, why the HELL would you sell it for X/2 instead?

same thing with the DS ... nintendo owns the handheld market and can do as they please in that area, and will still sellout of their product.

it would be absolutely ridiculous and stupid IMO if they sold things at lower prices when they are selling like hotcakes at the current prices.

PS3 launched at 599 US dollars, at a loss, and still sold out. I guess Sony is just stupid for not raising the price since clearly people would have paid more? Same for 360's and whatever their price was.

 

[purbeast0]

PS3 launched at 599 US dollars, at a loss, and still sold out. I guess Sony is just stupid for not raising the price since clearly people would have paid more? Same for 360's and whatever their price was.

and that has what to do with nintendo selling products at a lesser price than both of those, and still making a profit on each one being sold?

 

[smackababy]

I don't get how most of you seem to believe Nintendo is selling the 3DS to Gamestop, Wal-mart, etc. for $250. Its sold to them for less.

 

[A5]

I don't get how most of you seem to believe Nintendo is selling the 3DS to Gamestop, Wal-mart, etc. for $250. Its sold to them for less.

Not much less, though. The margins on video game hardware and software are razor-thin (except on used games...) for the retailers.

 

[Beev]

and that has what to do with nintendo selling products at a lesser price than both of those, and still making a profit on each one being sold?

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?

 

[AstroManLuca]

I know some people would hate it, but I think Nintendo and Apple would make a great collaboration, they're already quite similar, and their differences play to each other's strengths.

LOL, yeah, Apple and Nintendo are perfect for each other. They both sell underpowered hardware at a ridiculous markup to mindless drones who will buy everything they make regardless of price, performance, or any other factor.

They're made for each other.

 

[Macamus Prime]

PS3 launched at 599 US dollars, at a loss, and still sold out. I guess Sony is just stupid for not raising the price since clearly people would have paid more? Same for 360's and whatever their price was.

,... the PS3 sold out? When did this happen? The Playstation went from the #1 spot to 3rd place. And price was the main reason. Yes, Sony did sell it at a loss, but people wheren't clawing over each other to get a PS3.

The PS3 proved that the majority of the console gamers are not willing to pay $600 for a system.

Another example is the PSPGo. It didn't do well, because Sony did not offer a solution for porting over UMDs. No one wants to buy the same game twice.

$250 is something people will be able to stomach - therefore, Nintendo (a business) will charge that price. You may feel that $250 is unacceptable, but millions of others feel is is acceptable - who do you think Nintendo will listen to??

 

[TanisHalfElven]

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.

wait so you want nintendo to take hit so you can pay a few buck less ? why should they ? they shouldn't they make money. I'm sure both MS and sony wish they didn't take a loss on consoles. And honestly, i doubt they'll do that for the next one.

 

[Monster_Munch]

$250 is pretty cheap by today's standards. I paid probably double that for an N64 at launch and that was in the 90s, adjusting for inflation would be around $700 in today's money.