Nintendo says no price drop soon; well what's the damn rush anyway???

#31SL68Posted 1/31/2013 9:21:17 AM
I'm sure there'll be a price drop for xmas this year when either MS or Sony console arrives.

The GamePad is what makes Wii U expensive. So...

is a map or a status screen worth $150-200? I say no, and I think that's one of the reasons it doesn't sell.

No developer has made any good use of it yet, maybe because it's totally worthless with an extra screen. A totally worthless screen that makes the console expensive.
#32icarus231Posted 1/31/2013 9:27:57 AM
dougsdad0629 posted...
The PS3 was a bargain at $500-600 since stand alone Blu-ray players at the time were $1000. Do any of you people own a stand alone player? Did you get it for under $200? Maybe even under $100? You have the PS3 to thank for that. Without the mass production of Blu-ray drives to go into those millions of PS3s, the price to manufacture those drives wouldn't have dropped nearly as fast. The format might not have hit mass market. You'd still be paying $500 or more for a player.


So sony running themselves into the ground with a $200+ loss per unit was good because now you can have bluray. Its a game machine, for playing games. BR would have come down just like dvd cd and flat screen tvs. PS3 is not responsible for the price drop in it, are you really that delussional.
#33dougsdad0629Posted 1/31/2013 9:44:18 AM
icarus231 posted...
dougsdad0629 posted...
The PS3 was a bargain at $500-600 since stand alone Blu-ray players at the time were $1000. Do any of you people own a stand alone player? Did you get it for under $200? Maybe even under $100? You have the PS3 to thank for that. Without the mass production of Blu-ray drives to go into those millions of PS3s, the price to manufacture those drives wouldn't have dropped nearly as fast. The format might not have hit mass market. You'd still be paying $500 or more for a player.


So sony running themselves into the ground with a $200+ loss per unit was good because now you can have bluray. Its a game machine, for playing games. BR would have come down just like dvd cd and flat screen tvs. PS3 is not responsible for the price drop in it, are you really that delussional.


You really don't understand "economy of scale" do you?
---
Dear pessimist and optimist, while you were arguing about whether the glass was half empty or half full, I drank the water. Signed: The Opportunist.
#34JackalPosted 1/31/2013 9:52:12 AM
icarus231 posted...
dougsdad0629 posted...
The PS3 was a bargain at $500-600 since stand alone Blu-ray players at the time were $1000. Do any of you people own a stand alone player? Did you get it for under $200? Maybe even under $100? You have the PS3 to thank for that. Without the mass production of Blu-ray drives to go into those millions of PS3s, the price to manufacture those drives wouldn't have dropped nearly as fast. The format might not have hit mass market. You'd still be paying $500 or more for a player.


So sony running themselves into the ground with a $200+ loss per unit was good because now you can have bluray. Its a game machine, for playing games. BR would have come down just like dvd cd and flat screen tvs. PS3 is not responsible for the price drop in it, are you really that delussional.


Does the Wii U not do more than play games?
---
PSN: Jackal-5, XBox: Jackal 55 (No, I don't have a 360)
EVE Online: Jonak
#35dougsdad0629Posted 1/31/2013 9:52:43 AM
Allow me to explain "economy of scale". As you produce more and more of something, the average cost per unit to produce it decreases because the fixed costs associated with producing it are spread out over a larger and larger number of units.

Without the millions and millions of Blu-ray drives produced to go into PS3s, the price wouldn't have dropped nearly as fast. There would have only been stand alone players and computer drives. Millions less drives produced in those first few years resulting in a higher cost per drive, meaning higher cost per player.
---
Dear pessimist and optimist, while you were arguing about whether the glass was half empty or half full, I drank the water. Signed: The Opportunist.
#36P_A_N_D_A_M_A_NPosted 1/31/2013 9:55:13 AM
SL68 posted...
I'm sure there'll be a price drop for xmas this year when either MS or Sony console arrives.

The GamePad is what makes Wii U expensive. So...

is a map or a status screen worth $150-200? I say no, and I think that's one of the reasons it doesn't sell.

No developer has made any good use of it yet, maybe because it's totally worthless with an extra screen. A totally worthless screen that makes the console expensive.


Without the Gamepad the console would most assuredly be $250 at cost. It's not that expensive and it's really a great tool. Try it out yourself.
---
NNID: Ko-san
Currently Playing: Zelda2, Muramasa, One Piece
#37genlockPosted 1/31/2013 10:46:39 AM
I do wish Nintendo had gone without the gamepad and either beefed up the console or made it cheaper. The gamepad (for me) adds no value to the system. Perhaps that will change over time.
---
Are we not drawn onward, we few? Drawn onward to new era?
#38icarus231Posted 1/31/2013 11:05:20 AM
Jackal posted...
icarus231 posted...
dougsdad0629 posted...
The PS3 was a bargain at $500-600 since stand alone Blu-ray players at the time were $1000. Do any of you people own a stand alone player? Did you get it for under $200? Maybe even under $100? You have the PS3 to thank for that. Without the mass production of Blu-ray drives to go into those millions of PS3s, the price to manufacture those drives wouldn't have dropped nearly as fast. The format might not have hit mass market. You'd still be paying $500 or more for a player.


So sony running themselves into the ground with a $200+ loss per unit was good because now you can have bluray. Its a game machine, for playing games. BR would have come down just like dvd cd and flat screen tvs. PS3 is not responsible for the price drop in it, are you really that delussional.


Does the Wii U not do more than play games?


It does but not at the expensive of the companies financial health
#39icarus231Posted 1/31/2013 11:07:49 AM
dougsdad0629 posted...
icarus231 posted...
dougsdad0629 posted...
The PS3 was a bargain at $500-600 since stand alone Blu-ray players at the time were $1000. Do any of you people own a stand alone player? Did you get it for under $200? Maybe even under $100? You have the PS3 to thank for that. Without the mass production of Blu-ray drives to go into those millions of PS3s, the price to manufacture those drives wouldn't have dropped nearly as fast. The format might not have hit mass market. You'd still be paying $500 or more for a player.


So sony running themselves into the ground with a $200+ loss per unit was good because now you can have bluray. Its a game machine, for playing games. BR would have come down just like dvd cd and flat screen tvs. PS3 is not responsible for the price drop in it, are you really that delussional.


You really don't understand "economy of scale" do you?


I do, point is with or without the ps3 it would have happened
#40PendragoonPosted 1/31/2013 11:37:10 AM
DeathSnipe777 posted...
From: STN79 | #007
I don't see how PS4 could possibly cost less than PS3 did at launch. Wouldn't newer technology and more features have to be more expensive? If that thing is even close to 500 dollars I ain't buyin it. I could probably get a good PC for that price.


Bluray and cell processor contributed a lot to that price.


http://news.cnet.com/Is-Sony-eating-hundreds-of-dollars-on-each-PS3/2100-1043_3-6136204.html?tag=mncol

The higher costs for the PS3 are largely driven by the expenses associated with the Blu-ray Disc drives and the custom chips used inside the machine. The Blu-ray drive costs $125, while the Cell microprocessor likely costs about $89. The reality synthesizer, a graphics chip from Toshiba designed for the PS3, comes to $129.
---
Know Japanese? Post your advice in the topic below!
http://gamefaqs.com/boards/316-gamefaqs-world-japan/63714709