It's about time, two years overdue, IMO.  Seriously.  As a stock holder, this whole stubborn pricing, with Nintendo refusing to lower the price in order to increase demand, drive up interest, and keep the Wii on the forefront of consumer's minds has been moderately painful.

Your overconfidence is your weakness.

ON SNAPS

It must cost just about $100 to $150 to make a Wii now. Its about time.

Two years overdue? They were selling out last holiday season! Not sure how much more demand you need it has been stomping the other consoles in sales.

Though I do agree it is probably time to drop the price. What I would do if I was Nintendo is drop the price to 199.90, and make a combo disk with Wii Sports/Wii Sports resort.

They could also trick all of those casual gamers by releasing a black version of the console at the reduced cost with "Wii Sports System 2!"

$200 should have been the original price, I think. There was no reason to break the trend of $200 Nintendo systems and the only reason they could get away with was because it included a game.

Well economically the original price should match the demand, they showed that at $250 the demand was there. The point is that it is simple economics of supply and demand, at $250 they obviously didn't have the demand problem though they had a supply problem for well over 2 years. It should be interesting to see how the supply/demand scale shifts if it is lowered to $200. But it is quite clear it did not balance out until this year so it would be wrong to say they should have lowered the price when demand was exceeding supply for so long.

I've always thought something should be priced at what it's really worth, not what a company can get away with, but then again I've never had a capitalistic mindset. What do I care about supply and demand? Why should I care if Nintendo turns a profit? All I care about is not paying too much for something I want. I feel the Wii is overpriced at $250 considering what's really in the box but obviously most people don't share that sentiment.

If the Wii didn't include Wii Sports then it would have been $200. That was my point. Wii Sports isn't "free", you pay $50 for it.

GP, you know how it can work... If for one moment it seems the market is saturated with the product, interest can drop dramatically.  Proactive, albeit minimal drops in pricing can help interest remain intact without a sudden, steep decline.  $20-30 a year isn't a very big drop when you consider Wii Sports had paid for itself by then, and the manufacturing costs surely would have gone down, but it would have had a dramatic effect on Nintendo and it's competition.

The truth is that regardless of the price there was a demand for it. Nintendo had no need to lower the price since the console was still selling despite what everyone else was doing. But now that demand has lowered and the PS3 has seen a new design and price I do think its time for them to lower the price, and perhaps focus on brand new games and accessories.

$200 with Resort/MotionPlus would be a wicked deal for the holidays, but I don't think the new SKU will be that lucrative.

The steep decline is not really true either, the Wii's sales have slowly slowed down but STILL beating the competition.

Righto, Wii sales went from "insane" to "strong," as in #1 and still ass kicking with inferior hardware to boot.  The industry has a short memory, and has a "new" idea of what "good" sales rates are.

At a loss of at least 50$ in revenue per unit sale permanently and maybe a gain of 300k sales for a month or two, is that really worth it? Pricedrops are extremely short-term boosts unless you're under pressure from a competitor which Nintendo is not (noone's deciding between an HD console and a Wii based on the price, they'll either decide they like or don't like the Wii's games and therefore get or not get a Wii independent of whether they get an HD console). Are you trying to pump and dump the stock or what? It's much healthier for long term revenue to keep the hardware price and just wait for those new games to drive the demand up instead. It might also help to read up on the business strategy of the company you invested in, the Blue Ocean Strategy does not work like that.

I don't know about that jonny. Nintendo needs to give them an incentive to buy more and new software. Most of the casual gamers may only buy the game for wiisports, and than get wiiplay, and wiisports resort, and maybe wiifit. Nintendo knows software is where profit is really made and they need to get them into the stores to buy more, more , more.

My idea.

1. $199.99 price tag
2. More console colors: Black, Pink
3. Include a demo disk that has the following: playable demos: New Mario wii, Mario galaxy, smash brothers, metroid trilogy, zelda twilight princess, carnival games Videos: Wiifit, The Conduit, Rabbids go home, Silent Hill Shattered Memories, Wii Sports Resort, Madden 10
4. 5 minute demo of Super Mario Brothers 1 on the Wii menu: Virtual Console. - Have a video: Want more download it at wiishop channel
5. 5 Minute demo of Tetris Party on the Wii menu: Wiiware - Have a video: Want more ? Download it at wiishop channel
6. Include internet channel in the main menu
7. make up a 1000 point Nintendo points card. Put in all the boxes
8. Add DVD movie watching channel

I think doing all those things will make for a worthy new package.

3.) Why include these on a disc?  Why not make them channels as well?  Discs cost money.
7.) No points card - make it like the DSi - buy the system, bring it online, get 1,000 points for doing so.  This would keep someone from buying the system, selling the points card, and never bringing it online.  Wouldn't stop them from "gifting" the games, but they'd still have to bring it online for that.

I hope they drop the price of the controllers as well.  That is the main sticking point for me, I am not willing to pay $160 to get 2 more controllers, especially not if I think have to shell out another $45 to play wii sports resort.  That is over $200 just in controllers.

I doubt they will lower the price of the controllers, but I would be happy if they did. I didn't mind the Wii Remote, but I thought 20  bucks for the nunchuck was too much.

Lets not forget that Nintendo is a big fan of the 29$ adjusted range in the United States.  For a price drop that doesnt change anything, I could easily see a wii price of 229 then have a following up a month later with new colors.  That way they can tap the slightly cheaper market, and then drive the demand a month later with new colors. 

a 50 price drop would be to dramatic for the wii.  Its selling and they would be chopping off limbs at the rate of a 50 dollar drop.  A 50 dollar price drop is for floundering/failing consoles, and I am sure that Nintendo wouldnt want that image on the wii.

They should add a poll to the topic that has guesses on where people think the price point will be.  (not want)

Then what does a $200 price drop(X360) and a $300 price drop(PS3) mean?
$50 hardly seems like much in comparison, especially after almost 3 years.

Actually, I can see $199 with a Wii Sports / Play combo disc and two Remotes. The Wii Points card seems reasonable as well, since they want people to go online and spend more money.

It's not all that likely that the Wii will have a price drop before the holiday season. Now right after while people still have some holiday cash leftover is the sweet spot.

That's way too overboard

1 Possible
2 Will happen in black
3-4-5 Nintendo HATES demos, and by all mean if there is one it will be just one game for god sakes.
6 If you have internet than you can just download. (Death to preloaded software)
7 Slim but it will be preloaded into the shop channel.
8 Never Happening.

I don't think they'll change what comes in the box, it seems very unlikely with how well all of their games and accessories sell. If anything happens, it will be a price drop, and probably not a $50 one either. I say this because of the DS. Everyone thought it would drop to $100 but instead they cut $20 and priced it at $130. I expect a cut like that, maybe $30 for Wii which would put it at $220.

Companies that don't turn a profit tend to go bankrupt, no profit, no Nintendo, simple as that. 

TO BNM:  Where does that put ps3 and 360? I believe that would make them the 2nd and 3rd players.. hence the struggle and the need to drop the price.  so a 200 and 300 dollar price drop is simply just trying to stay in the game for the next generation.

Looks like Mop is thinking the same way as me, nothing different just 20-30 dollars cheaper..

I dont want DVD playback, but with the growth of the media market and downloads, nintendo should just make a pc channel for media.  The homebrewers already have this, so why not just deliver it.  Streaming media through my consoles is the right move.  The industry has been pushing forward (computer industry btw) for the convergence of the home systems (read computer and tv).  If nintendo would release a media channel, it would satisfy my dvd and other media needs along with staying on the curve thats happening in the former comment. 


Now, you want to see some fun colors on your wii for about 2 dollars max..  Go out, buy the 3d glasses for crayola chalk paint and enjoy.

A company can profit without ripping people off. Sadly, none of them take this path. That's what capitalism is all about, after all.

Morari, that's the first thing you've ever said which I agree with. Amazing.

I can't see that in the near term. Not a price drop AND a second controller. That's two steps in one.

There is no difference. The worth of something is defined by what people are willing to pay for it. People are willing to pay more for a Wii than a 360, therefore the Wii is defined as worth more than a 360 no matter what an "objective" hardware comparison would conclude.

I don't expect a price drop. If they do it would force the DSi down, as it's £149 for a DSi and £179 for a Wii.

The issues with price cuts is more complex than just doing calculations of how many units they will temporarily increase their sales with how the price difference of the original cost and see if the outcome is worth the potential loss in revenue for Nintendo with a price cut.

The reason being is that markets aren't static, they are ever changing and number of variables can change market trends.  The price decreases for Xbox 360 and PS3 will have an effect on the market, and it will directly effect the perception of the Wii.  Whether those perceptions are enough to change market trends is yet to be seen...but if Nintendo is caught being reactionary after a markets perception changed it is too late...that perception shift has already began to take place. 

What I mean is right now Nintendo Wii is perceived to be a very good value and a great system for casual gamers, families and the like.  Nintendo doesn't even want to begin jeopardizing that by allowing Xbox 360 or PS3 become an attractive purchase.  Even casuals and non gamers can look at the graphics, power, and all the other 'extras' that come with the other systems and see it as a superior system.  They still may not enjoy the games on there, but they may see Nintendo Wii as an overpriced system and reject it as well.

A price cut in a highly competitive market is sometimes needed to maintain growth, and yes the initial sales spike is only temporary, but IF a shift in perception happens and perceived value of the Wii in the market shifts that is more dangerous for Nintendo...and after being last a generation ago, being first place this generation for only 3-4 years but fizzling out would still leave consumers with a bad taste in their mouth.  And once again question if Nintendo truly has what it takes to compete in this market.

I don't know if a price cut will happen, or even if it is needed...and I certainly don't know what any cut would look like.  But I do know it is more complex issue than just number crunching, and Nintendo needs to weigh all the scenarios before making their decision this holiday season.

By "what it's worth" I meant the material cost.

You just don't read enough of my posts. ;)

That's a great plan.

Then, Nintendo would have little-to-no reserves for development of future hardware.

Oh, and when they have a slow period, like they did with the N64/GCN, they'd have no fluffy pillows of cash to fall back on to protect them.

Right, because $17 billion isn't enough of a safety net. And if Nintendo actually spent money on the development of hardware then the Wii wouldn't be a repackaged GameCube.

I'll never understand why people try to defend corporate greed.

Actually, the $17 billion is probably how games like Wii Music got approved for development.

I don't want to get into all of this, but corporations making money, striving to make money, and do so in abundance isn't a terrible thing, as long as there's room for competition.  Nintendo has gone out of their way to allow companies to compete with them on their platforms, and other console makers are beginning to offer competition as well.  That's a good thing, and it's all caused by "corporate greed."  I'd rather not get too into these ideas here and now, because it borders a well-known forum rule, and I don't feel like having Pale baby-sit me all day long, I'd get banned in a heartbeat if I knew he had to view all my posts.

Anyways, yeah.  Price cut.  Needed to happen.  Finally did.  Too late?  Hopefully not.

They wouldn't have $17 Billion if they sold stuff at cost.

Speaking of greed, how many video games do you own, Moppy?  Look at all those kids out there without video games...

I find this comment to be pretty hypocritical considering I've seen you flaunt your collection more than anyone else here. How many Wii Points do you have again?

It doesn't matter though, because the fact is, Nintendo makes a lot of money on games and the only reason why they overcharge for the Wii is because of greed.

Mop It Up:  I think you have a somewhat valid point, but I think you have written poorly.

I think you should of said:  I think products should be priced fairly after considering labor, materials, and profit margin to continue to ensure our favorite companies can continue to innovate and create the products we desire to buy from them.  And not, artificially raise the price of the good higher, just because they know it will sell.

Fortunately, markets actually do work that way Mop It Up, but there are exceptions and you can't take away on the concept of perceived value and the desire for many consumers to buy more expensive products for the status of it.  (Like people buying Lexus or BMW)  they cost the same to make as any other car...but much more expensive...and if they lowered the price people wouldn't buy them.  Same with many status symbol products.  That also goes for products you can buy cheaper but then you question the quality.  Pricing is an art sometimes not a science.

But I don't go around accusing other people of being greedy...

Pot to Kettle: "Black".

You're probably right about that, I've never done too well at expressing myself.

I've always thought that is pretty stupid, but sadly it is true. It's similar to the whole greed thing, how everyone is so self-centered and focused on personal gain, but that isn't something I should get into.

UncleBob: I'm disappointed that you chose the route of borderline personal attacks. I expected better of you.

I'm just saying, you're calling a business greedy for making money beyond what they need, yet you're no Mother Teresa... what makes it okay for you to accumulate personal wealth but worth berating a company for doing the same thing?  Is it because they do it better?

I'm not selling a product and overcharging people for it, I worked hard to acquire what I have.
The truth is, I probably AM a hypocrite, but then again, so are a lot of people. Everyone has an ego and works towards their own personal gain rather than for the good of humanity. It doesn't matter if you think I do that too, because the subject here is Nintendo. And if you are accusing me of such, then you do agree with what I said.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree.  I'm saying it doesn't matter.  As you said: We all do it.  Why go on a mini-rant against one group of people who just happen to do it well?

Mini-rant? I just made one innocent comment, and I already said I didn't express it as well as I could have. If I had known you would have reacted with sarcasm and such then maybe I would have thought twice.

You're right though, it wasn't really related to the topic, and we're not helping by continuing with it even after Thatguy tried to get it back on track. Once again I regret saying anything...

I agree that is is pretty vain for people to be like that, but it is also psychological and we all do it.  If you were to go to a store and find something undervalued.  Say you went to the store and found a brand new IPOD for $30.00 you would be suspicious of the quality of the product.  I know I would.  And you wouldn't buy it.  Your perceived value or conception is that any technology priced at that amount will not be top quality, and you want better for yourself...

Business HAVE to take that into consideration when targeting their price for a new system...and if the Wii was released at a price point of $199.99 in a market with other systems twice to three times the price people would question the quality. 

But profit isn't bad or evil, and greed is a perhaps an inaccurate word to through around.

Just to clarify, I never stated that profit was bad or evil, nor do I think this. That said, I still think greed is appropriate.

There are sooo many things I want to say about consumerism right now, but this isn't the time or the place. Besides, people tend to hate me whenever I express my opinions on that and I have enough trouble being liked here as it is...

I want to seriously go back to this statement for a second...

Obviously, Nintendo didn't have the huge "safety net" after the market failures that were the GameCube and the Nintendo 64.  They sank - and lost - a lot of money into the Virtual Boy shortly before the N64 was launched.  Hell, most analysts (hahaha, for what they're worth) believe that Nintendo would have been dead in the water if not for the money they had from GBA sales.  Remember all the claims that Nintendo was going to go the way of SEGA?

Now, there's no denying that Nintendo spent some money on R&D with the Wii.  Obviously, it didn't go into horsepower.  Remember the rumors that the Wii Remote was initially intended to be a GCN add-on?

What I would like to propose is this - imagine a world where, when developing the Wii, Nintendo *did* have that $17 Billion Safety Net.  Think we could have had the Wii HD?

Actually, I'll disagree with that one, UncleBob.  Nintendo's initial idea with the Wii was to create gaming hardware that was fun to play, but would be affordable.  The Wii is intentionally not "HD" so consumers can afford it.  Had Nintendo had the $17 Billion Dollars, we would have merely seen more games available for the console upfront, and early on.

And I think that's what surprises us, as gamers:  We're not seeing an increased amount of games geared toward the traditional Nintendo gamers.  Essentially revenues generated by Nintendo's expanded audience is being invested into generating more revenue from that audience.  The same could be said about Nintendo's original audience, and the games created for them.  So if you don't appreciate both types of games, you won't see the full effects on Nintendo's new-found revenue growths.  The initial lack of funds is what created the "droughts" we saw in classic Nintendo games early on in the Wii.  Now, they're practically separate branches, most likely.

Wii launched at $50 less than the 360 Core.  It launched a year later (when tech prices likely fell).  It could have been "HD" without being quite as powerful as the 360 - and could have still been affordable.

You never know. I never thought DSi was going to happen so soon. So Nintendo might surprise everyone and start releasing Wii HD this year.

But the HD angle wasn't because Nintendo was trying to save money for consumers...but save money for developers and in effect help the industry grow and become healthy again.  Look at how many companies filed bankruptcy and died after a few average games that didn't sell well.  HD gaming isn't really that much more expensive for gamers...but it is a hell of a lot more expensive for developers.

Wii was never going to be HD because Nintendo saw it more important to help and protect developers instead of going towards the HD consumer.

I don't know if I quite follow that angle either.  Look at how many companies folded in the NES, SNES, N64 and GCN eras as well.  I think it's pretty well known that the video game development industry is volatile.  One bad game and you can do a lot of damage to even the best company.

It seems to me that Nintendo went the direction they did because they knew they had to do something different than Sony/MS if they wanted to continue past this generation.

Rather their cash reserves limited them to only developing the Motion Sensing tech vs. HD Tech, I don't know...

I subscribe to this theory.... partially, but have to add that Nintendo saw the HD adoption rates were not high enough WW(but especially in Japan) to really focus the system around HD graphics.

The 360 sold at a loss per unit and was driven by a company completely willing to bail it out all the time even if it lost billions of dollars. The razor and blade model does not work for videogame consoles, especially when you aren't certain that it will be a success (and if you are sane you never will be). Look at Sony's finances, they're losing money so fast they've already lost all their money they made from their winning platforms (which by the way still didn't make that much money because they were also razor and blades). Nintendo is a sane company who did know they cannot bail a console out if it loses tons of money and who did know that the hardware must be sold above cost or you will lose money like mad. They also did know that the Wii might bomb so throwing a ton of money at it and getting lower results even with a success was a no-go.

They did the math. The gaming market's growth is predictable, it's tied to population growth (or was until the Wii). The growth of the costs in the HD switch was also known. It's not hard to figure out that the growth of the costs outpaces the growth of the market by far.

Furthermore the number of customers who really needed those HD graphics was extremely small, the vast majority will be happy enough with PS2-level graphics. Meanwhile a huge number of customers demanded better controls and accessibility than games offered. Scaling back the hardware push to HD (which would be extremely expensive as well because it's already pushed so far, MS and Sony had to up their launch prices just to keep the loss sane) while instead pushing for those values that previously undershot a LARGE number of people drastically increased their market. Why push values noone cares about when there are so many values that are being neglected and keeping new people from entering gaming?

Also let's be honest here, if Sony or MS had any clue that this change in direction would be THIS profitable they'd have done it in a heartbeat.

Here in Canada the price difference between a PS3 and a Wii is only 20 bucks.  There is effectively no price difference anymore.  The Wii no longer has any price advantage.  For a consumer now it's "which console best suits your needs?"

Does Nintendo want this comparison?  Part of the Wii's appeal has been its affordability.  It didn't support HDTVs, it didn't play Blu-Ray movies, and it's graphics look last gen.  But that was okay because it was more affordable.  Now there are going to be consumers that will think "why should I pay the same amount of money for a Wii when it doesn't have this or this?"  I don't think the Wii is screwed now but why give people an excuse to buy the other consoles?

And you can say "well Nintendo can get away with not dropping the price because the demand is there".  Okay, but why be THAT company?  Why be the company that charges the maximum amount they feel they can get away with?  I look at Nintendo now and my image of them is a greedy company that always pushes it as far as they can.  You know why Sony lost the top spot this gen?  It's because they were THAT company.  They were arrogant and thought they were industructable.  "We can charge an arm and a leg for the PS3 because we're Sony and this is the Playstation brand and people will always love us and do whatever we want!"

I think Nintendo would be better off with an image of a company that is willing to give a little to their customers.  That's part of the whole hook of the Wii in the first place.  "We're making a more affordably console for you and your whole family to enjoy."  It has this wholesome appeal that really dumb people fall for.  Embrace that image because that's why you're number one again in the first place.  This arrogant nickle-and-diming bullshit is why Nintendo lost the number one spot all those years ago.  It's why no one gave the Gamecube a chance.  I think the goodwill of a price cut is worth more in the longterm than charging the max price possible and being damn obvious about it.

Precisely, I agree.

Where do I begin?  Should I even begin?

Mods, cast your votes.

Nintendo is still outselling the competition, obviously the price isn't an issue (we'll see how PS3 slim holds up).
The main reason Nintendo would need to drop the price is to push sales back up to manufacturing capacity. It cost money to have a whole production line up and running but only pushing out a percentage of it's capability.

Besides Nintendo is giving their customers what they want, because if they didn't want a Wii for $250 they wouldn't buy it, and certainly not 55million of them. Supply and demand. Demand at that price is there, so the supply at that price is there. plain and simple.

A Toys R US ad is showing that the new Wii price will be 199.99 in October :)

::cough cough::

Technically that ad shows September 27th being when the Wii will lower the price.

I guess we just have to wait it out.

Probably cross-promoted with Wii Sports Resort, resulting a $250 bundle.  SNAPS.

I wouldn't say anyone "wants" to pay $250 for a Wii.  It's really more of a "willing to pay".  And I would say that with any of the three consoles.  A couple hundred bucks ain't throwaway cash.  Are you 100% cool with every purchase you make?  Probably not.  I know I'm not.  There are purchases we all make, even fun ones, where we may think that we're getting jerked around on the price.  I think Wii controllers are stupidly expensive (so are PS3 controllers).  But when I got Guitar Hero: World Tour it turned out I was one controller short to have my friends and I play as a full band.  Fine.  So I bought the controller, but I wasn't too thrilled with it.  I certainly don't feel I got a good deal or good value for my money.  I just felt that not experiencing four player Guitar Hero was worse than getting ripped off for a controller I felt was overpriced.  It was a lesser of two evils.  It's really no different than how I think Dairy Queen Blizzards are a fucking rip-off BUT I like them enough that sometimes I will still buy one.  Though DQ would get more frequent Blizzard purchases and thus more money out of me if the prices were more reasonable.

The true demand is for the Wii, not necessarily the Wii for a higher price than the Xbox 360 Arcade.  People's desire for a Wii may be such that are willing to deal with a lack of price cut, but they may not actually like the price where it is.  It may just be "well I can pay this price that is obviously inflated since the other consoles that offer more features and more advanced hardware are the same amount of money... or I can not have a Wii at all."  There are going to be people that are just saying "eh, fuck it" and buying the Wii anyway even though they're annoyed that Nintendo has never cut the price.

Realistically what Nintendo has done is thrown away a bullet point.  Being the least expensive console by a significant margin was one of the pros for the Wii.  Now it's gone and it is perfectly within Nintendo's means to re-instate it.  Why be the bad guys?  You used to be the good guys when the Wii launched so be the good guys again, providing the most affordable console in a time of economic uncertainty.

To me, it's not necessarily being the least expensive, but having the best value.  When you start to see 360's with Scene It Bundles, or maybe some extra controllers and offerings of free Live Arcade games, things like that, for lower prices, you start to wonder if you'd have more fun for less money, even if it's not the same fun you intended to have originally.

I think Nintendo is afraid of appearing "cheap," really.  It's something they've had go against them with the Cube, and so they're trying to avoid that comparison, as well.  The truth is, a great bundle can keep the price up, but add a lot more value.  You through in another Wii Remote, the motion plus, and Wii Sports Resort, and all of a sudden, the consumer is going to be getting a lot more for $250 than he did before.  People would notice, and the average consumer would probably start seeing Nintendo's competition, with the price bottom falling out, as the cheap competition instead, right?

"When you start to see 360's with Scene It Bundles, or maybe some extra controllers and offerings of free Live Arcade games, things like that, for lower prices, you start to wonder if you'd have more fun for less money, even if it's not the same fun you intended to have originally."

Just who are you talking about?  Think of the customers who were walking into a store, considering Wii in the first place -- I'm not talking about niche shrinking non-casual price-sensitive fringe customers (these people have always been the fringe slow-adopters throughout the business, these price-contemplating customers aren't the ones behind the sales accelerations that Wii and DS experienced), I'm talking about the ones driving Wii sales and keeping Nintendo afloat this entire time.  They probably saw Wii Sports in action somewhere, and that's what drew them to the store.

They saw Mii and My Samurai Waggle, and therefore they came for SAMURAI WAGGLE.

HOW IN THE WORLD does a 360 bundle come into play here?

It's a comparison to the Wii, with Wii Sports bundled in.  Microsoft began bundling in games with their Arcade edition of the console last year, and at this point, the price of those bundles match the Wii.  That's how 360 bundles come in: Price.

You've never seen a customer walk into the store for one reason, and later see him or her walk out with something completely different than he or she intended?  Even if the customer walks in for a Wii because of Wii Sports doesn't mean he or she has already purchased said Wii.  People do comparison shop, people do try out in-store demos, and people do ask nearby employees questions.  It doesn't always matter why you walk into a store, what matters is what you walk out with.

I've seen *numerous* customers zip straight to the clerk, grab a Wii, and leave.  I'm not excluding the slow decision-making browsers from the realm of possibility, but the "quick" ones have shown up in force.

History has already shown what they've walked out with.  They might have just been buying for someone else, but the final conclusion probably wasn't hard to arrive at (To Waggle or Not to Waggle).  I can't agree this is the customer type you're trying to generalize.

The customer I'm trying to describe is the source of "insane" sales rates.  The value-hesitators are just bumps on the sales charts.

I think the graphics capabilities makes it such though that the other consoles don't across as cheap.  Most stores have all three consoles hooked up to in-store demos.  If someone looks at all three they're going to very quickly notice that the visuals for the other consoles noticably better than the Wii's.  Keep in mind that a store like Best Buy is going to have these things hooked up to big ass HDTV's, partially to drive HDTV sales.

Most people can put two and two together and assume that improved graphics comes from more advanced hardware which would logically cost more money to produce.  Back when the PS3 cost $600 I don't think people assumed that Nintendo was offering the same thing for less money.  The assumption was that the Wii didn't have as pretty of graphics but this was a suitable trade-off to have a more affordable price.  Yeah PS3 games looked really good but no console was worth that much money.  So I don't think people would associate the $300 PS3 as "cheap".  Remember that the Gamecube wasn't just cheaper but it also didn't play DVDs and essentially wasn't online.  It was missing features and cost less.  That is a cheap product.  But the PS3 has all sorts of bells of whistles the Wii doesn't.

Though a different bundle is a fine idea.  Something needs to be different and it doesn't necessarily have to be a price drop.

Here's the problem, Pro.  It's not 2006.  It's not 2007.  Midway through 2008, the Wii stopped selling out at stores everywhere, and stores have them readily in stock now.  The console has already sold those insane levels.  The people left are those who are hesitating for some reason.  If someone doesn't have a Wii at this point, they either are looking for a reason, or they simply don't see the value.  You're too busy talking about the way things were a year and a half ago to realize it's not exactly how they are now, and that this industry is one that can undergo constant changes.

Edit: Ian, I've said in another thread that a blunt price drop to eliminate existing, non-bundle stock, with a nice, fancy new bundle to become the main SKU is the way I think Nintendo should go.  Who doesn't like guaranteed game sales?

I'm not sure what BestBuy you've been shopping at, but all the ones I've been to have all 3 systems set up on nothing bigger than a ~25" LCD and they all look fine.

But your first mistake was thinking that the people swarming into BB to buy a Wii were concerned about the graphics in the 1st place. it really was a decision on WiiSports like I played at so&so's house or the other system that doesn't have WiiSports packed in the box. It was a rather quick and easy decision.

Generally people that window shop at Best Buy can't put one and one together.

:P

Here in Germany I bought my XBox 360 Pro for 50€ less than my Wii last year (sure, that was a promotion but the regular price was still 10€ lower and even included bundled games occasionally). The charts are still being dominated by the Wii and the stores that only dabble in selling games tend to have PS2, DS and Wii games only with the PS2 being phased out slowly (in fact you can't get an XBox 360 game in the entire downtown here ever since the big department store went bankrupt but there's two different stores selling a few Wii games).

I got my PS3 for £179. The exact same price as i paid for my Wii. I bought my Wii on launch day, December 8 2006 for £179. So effectively in inflation terms, the Wii's price has increased over these years.

While I'm happy with both the 3 and Wii i'm amazed at how Nintendo have boxed themselves in with the DSi. The same logic Ian uses for the Wii and PS3 is identical to that of the Wii and DSi.
Should i spend £149 for a DSi or 179 for a Wii? The DSi loses that "its £90? BOUGHT!" spontaneity to its price point because they think an SD card slot, modern-capable WiFi and a camera (that probably costs no more than 50p per unit to produce) is worth another £60.

It's just that your currency crashed and the DSi is priced according to the current value of the pound, not the old one. In mainland Europe it was a price increase of merely 20€, pretty much a no-brainer to get the DSi over the Lite unless you prefer the Lite's features.

Sony has done the same thing with the PS3 and the PSP.
PS3 for $299 or a PSPGo for $250?

1 I might buy, but the other one has no chance.

Malstrom has an article on it and from the sound of it he sees this as the beginning of the downfall for Nintendo because pricedrops are a MASSIVE mistake while Nintendo is failing to properly address the Wii's primary problem: Insufficient games!

they should lower the price, isn't xbox 360 elite $199 now?

But games take time, and Nintendo can't deliver them all on their own. A price drop might spur some increased 3rd party support but the effect really won't be known until they happen.

Handheld's are far more popular though. The console market is the niche market. So it makes sense to maximize your profits in the market that is more popular and the one that you have an even tighter choke hold on.

It's business, man; business.

Like that whole "2nd job" thing, amirite.

"Readers understood, even though the marketers didn’t, that the strong Nintendo backing on this site was due to Nintendo going against the “Game Industry” and acting (as was perceived) as a weapon to dismantle it. I don’t want Nintendo to save the “Game Industry”. I want Nintendo to destroy it."

Sean and I have been on the same wavelength this whole time, despite his wacko individual gamer preferences.

I want Nintendo to flip the industry like a pancake, turning its face onto the hot skillet.  But Nintendo doesn't want to do that, evidenced by the price drop.  I am not pleased.

Target Sept 27 ad also confirms the 199.99 price.

Sounds like the day I leave gaming 4evar.

R.I.P Pro666
2003 - 2009

So Nintendo is officially screwed then.

I think its a good move.  Lower the price now while sales still have momentum rather than waiting until they grow stale.  There are people waiting for a price drop, its just the way some people are.  Now they'll buy it, they're friends will play and they may buy one too.

It's official, September 27.

I predict that this will happen on the last week of September instead.

This Impossible Price Drop is Nintendo's reverse birthday gift to humanity.

That's the only way to rationalize it.