zerocool84
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
They do it because of their games yet unfortunately not enough people want to play them. If they dropped the price they could get more people to play their games.
sze5003
Lifer
- Aug 18, 2012
- 14,182
- 625
- 126
True, I've always liked Mario and Zelda. But I will not just get a Wii only for those few reiterations. Those are the only Nintendo games I would ever play and maybe if they made another donkey Kong.
CZroe
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2001
- 24,195
- 856
- 126
Stop saying that they were "always like that." They played the price game during the GameCube era. They still lost. If anything, it only made it hurt worse. When the Wii cost almost as much as an XBOX 360 or low-spec PS3, they flourished. Obviously, it's not as big a factor as we imagine. They are probably correct to keep the cost of buying into the platform where it is if lowering it only eats into their profits.
purbeast0
No Lifer
- Sep 13, 2001
- 52,857
- 5,729
- 126
don't kid yourself - the wii ONLY flourished because of the gimmicky "motion" controls and it came with wii sports.
EDIT:
oh and also because of the "artificial" shortage lasting like a year which made it the hot item to have.
Last edited:
CZroe
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2001
- 24,195
- 856
- 126
That only proves exactly what I just said about price not being the most relevant factor.
That BS about artificial supply limitations was proven BS even back then. They were GREATLY out-shipping everyone and still being accused of deliberately limiting supply.
The "logic" gets repeated so often it almost sounds like it makes sense, but limiting supply has NEVER been shown to increase total demand, even if it is proven to inflate the price at the same level of demand.It seems you can't even decide on one reason why the Wii sold well despite costing more than the GameCube ever did. Now do you agree that price is not the primary factor that determines the market's acceptance? It's a proven fallacy.
Last edited:
The Wii released at a price of $250, and the 32GB Wii U was $350 at launch... I personally feel like the Wii U's initial price was a bit too high to entice any casual buyers, but combined with poor marketing and a lack of games for casual buyers (no Wii Sports title was available at launch), and it didn't make a lot of sense. For the core gamer market, the Wii U was priced higher than the PS3 and Xbox360 while offering less games, and only marginally better hardware... all the while with the PS4 and Xbox One on the way, and no Wii U exclusives that would lure any core gamers to buy the system anyway.
What do you pick really? The slightly too high price? The lack of any 3rd party dev support? The lack of any big exclusives in the first year, up to the PS4 and XBO launch? Abandoning the casual gamers? Abandoning the core gamers? The Wii U was just a disaster all round.
What do you pick really? The slightly too high price? The lack of any 3rd party dev support? The lack of any big exclusives in the first year, up to the PS4 and XBO launch? Abandoning the casual gamers? Abandoning the core gamers? The Wii U was just a disaster all round.
sze5003
Lifer
- Aug 18, 2012
- 14,182
- 625
- 126
To be fair the Xbox and ps4 also didn't have many exclusives the first year or so. I have both consoles and the game selection didn't interest me much. Except for blood borne, uncharted and last of us.
The price of the new Wii u was a bit high but I know plenty with kids that still bought one. Well of course because of kids but that could be true for any game system.
The price of the new Wii u was a bit high but I know plenty with kids that still bought one. Well of course because of kids but that could be true for any game system.
purbeast0
No Lifer
- Sep 13, 2001
- 52,857
- 5,729
- 126
That only proves exactly what I just said about price not being the most relevant factor.
That BS about artificial supply limitations was proven BS even back then. They were GREATLY out-shipping everyone and still being accused of deliberately limiting supply.
It seems you can't even decide on one reason why the Wii sold well despite costing more than the GameCube ever did. Now do you agree that price is not the primary factor that determines the market's acceptance? It's a proven fallacy.
umm i put "artificial" in quotes because it was the thought at the time, not because it really happened
and i did give you exactly the reason wii sold so well - read my post again, it's right there plain as day.
and wii was significantly cheaper than the 360 at launch. of course price played a reason in it selling so well though, i thought that was a given. 360 was $400 at launch no games included, wii was $250 at launch with wii sports. that's a huge price difference. and don't give me the "core" 360, that was a joke that failed and was off the market after that was realized that nobody wanted it. ps3 cheapest version was $500 at launch.
Last edited:
WhiteNoise
Golden Member
- Jun 22, 2016
- 1,075
- 184
- 106
I have a XboxOne, PS4 and Wii U. The kids enjoy playing games on the wii u for sure. I haven't seen anything yet to entice me to sit down in front of it. The Xbox One has a lineup of games that literally do not make me want to even turn it on. The PS4 on the other hand has quite a few games i have enjoyed.
On topic: I heard about Sony releasing a new PS4 and at the time I think it was said that Sony and Microsoft were looking at the cell phone industry and how a new model comes out each year and how they like that system. (Good for money grabbing)
I personally buy the new consoles from Sony and Microsoft when they release but I refuse to buy an upgraded console. Screw that. I'll run my consoles until either a completely new system releases or support falls away. I'm not going to spend $400-$500 every year on consoles. /end
On topic: I heard about Sony releasing a new PS4 and at the time I think it was said that Sony and Microsoft were looking at the cell phone industry and how a new model comes out each year and how they like that system. (Good for money grabbing)
I personally buy the new consoles from Sony and Microsoft when they release but I refuse to buy an upgraded console. Screw that. I'll run my consoles until either a completely new system releases or support falls away. I'm not going to spend $400-$500 every year on consoles. /end
CZroe
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2001
- 24,195
- 856
- 126
Yes, you did give reasons, which I understood perfectly well. My point was that those reasons SUPPORTED what I was saying and neither contradicted my assertion that the low price was not the primary factor.
The XBOX 360 and PlayStation 3 both got price cuts in the first year while Wii availability was still tight, making them even closer. I recall being dead-wrong when I predicted at launch in 2006 that the Wii would get a price cut "by Spring." I learned from my incorrect assumptions.
Just ordered the Xbox one. $170 for the console only plus power brick. Already have a controller.
This actually isn't much different than how much it would have cost to get a hard drive on my 4gb 360. Should be fun.
This actually isn't much different than how much it would have cost to get a hard drive on my 4gb 360. Should be fun.
Pheran
Diamond Member
- Apr 26, 2001
- 5,849
- 48
- 91
A French gaming site is claiming that Sony will announced the PS4 Neo (or whatever it will be called) at a press event in New York on September 7th.
http://www.vice.com/read/report-sony-to-unveil-upgraded-playstation-4-in-september
http://www.vice.com/read/report-sony-to-unveil-upgraded-playstation-4-in-september
Pheran
Diamond Member
- Apr 26, 2001
- 5,849
- 48
- 91
I've heard conflicting rumors about launch dates, some say holiday 2016, some say spring 2017. One thing I'm concerned about is Sony's messaging about the gaming resolution. If they advertise this as 4K gaming they are going to get lambasted, assuming the rumored specs are true. It won't even be close to enough horsepower for 4K - it will be like trying to run an RX480 at 4K resolution. However, where the original PS4 is only adequate for 1080p, the Neo will be phenomenal at 1080p, they should be able to crank up the effects while retaining a nice smooth 60 FPS.
sze5003
Lifer
- Aug 18, 2012
- 14,182
- 625
- 126
I don't think it will be advertised as a 4k gaming console. I would hope they know better than to do such a thing.
It's more of a 4k streaming upgrade and now games scaled to 1080p will run better and look a bit better assuming they were developed properly for the new enhancements.
It's more of a 4k streaming upgrade and now games scaled to 1080p will run better and look a bit better assuming they were developed properly for the new enhancements.
CZroe
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2001
- 24,195
- 856
- 126
It's the UHD Blu-Ray Disc aspect that will be marketed to 4K TV users. They'll obviously play up the increased gaming resolutions as the perfect companion for their 4K TVs, but they aren't going to call it "4K gaming" where it isn't. I want to see if Studio Liverpool pulls some 4K magic like they did 1080p60 magic on the PS3 (WipEout HD).
It wouldn't surprise me but I don't think that will be the case as if it was then Microsoft would be getting crucified over the Xbox One S. If Sony is smart they'd make the case for it and the Morpheus VR headset. In fact, I'm almost baffled that they apparently didn't have plans to launch them both at the same time, seems like a no brainer. The Neo would provide just enough extra oomph for the extra resolution and/or framerates to make the VR experience better. That doesn't mean they had to lock it out from the original PS4, just that it would make for a good upsell for both.
Maybe things will change, but they almost seem to be actively not connecting the two. In a way that to me hints that they won't be launching anywhere close together (and since we know PS VR is due out in October, I'd wager the Neo won't be out til next year). I think that will be a failure, as people will wait for Scorpio. Plus it will give Microsoft time to make more concrete VR plans (if Scorpio also supports say a new 4K VR headset that will be a pretty big deal). Sony will be outgunned or have to update quickly, which will rub people that go for Neo the wrong way.
cmdrdredd
Lifer
- Dec 12, 2001
- 27,052
- 357
- 126
I don't think Sony has anything to worry about. Hardware is useless without games to go with it and I've been pretty vocal about how MS is ok with putting some of their better exclusives on the PC. It's good for MS maybe but not good for the Xbox brand. Anyway the specs can change from reported rumors.
Pheran
Diamond Member
- Apr 26, 2001
- 5,849
- 48
- 91
That's because Microsoft is being careful with their advertising, and making it very clear that the Xbox One S only does 4K video, not gaming. The Neo will be significantly more powerful than the Xbox One S (but still not good for 4K gaming based on the rumored specs), so it will be interesting to see how Sony markets it.
Pheran
Diamond Member
- Apr 26, 2001
- 5,849
- 48
- 91
This event is now confirmed to be real.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/08/sony-ps4-neo-event-details/
mode101wpb
Senior member
- Aug 16, 2005
- 445
- 0
- 71
CZroe
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2001
- 24,195
- 856
- 126
Uhh, clearly. It doesn't make sense to release and continue selling the less-capable hardware along side the new one.
poofyhairguy
Lifer
- Nov 20, 2005
- 14,612
- 318
- 126
Sure it does if the price points are different. I know you know Nintendo released the "slim" NES after the SNES came out and sold both.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter