Rumor: Wii U Will Cost Nintendo $180 and Retail for $300

[dalauder]

@Kevin Parrish--that is some horrendous reporting you're doing. Did you even read your first two sentences?

It will cost $180 in parts alone, but once labor is included...you still expect Nintendo to profit $120 per console? Seriously, the math is right there. Nintendo won't make a dime selling this for $300. After LABOR, DISTRIBUTION, & OVERHEAD (includes retail profit), they'll break even at best.

So quit practicing bad sensationalism journalism saying Nintendo's gonna profit selling the hardware--unless you got your facts wrong so that my argument is null and void, which would still be your error, not mine.

 

[alidan]

wow, im dissapointed in how little toms knows about the wiiu.

the table is just a screen, its an input device, all the real processing and graphics takes place on the wiiu console, not the tablet.

this is how i want ALL tablets to be, a subset of the pc, an input device...
i dont take a tablet in the car with me outside or any of that crap, i use it (its not mine) only when im in front of the tv and want to look something up quick, it would be a FAR better investment to make a base station for the tablets, and have multipul tablets sync up to the main base station... can you play infinity blade on 6 devices at once... i doubt it, but could you access the internet with 6 devices and stream hd content to each device? i can do that on my current pc hardware.

i have no doubt that the tablet itself will be in the sub 60$ range when all is said and done, but the console itself... im thinking it would be a bit higher than that with about 200$ in it. not the best profit, but a decent one none the less.

 

[christarp]

The last successful console that nintendo had was the N64.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

This is not surprising at all considering the lame ass hardware it has.

 

[Eman25th]

[citation][nom]RedYellowBlueBlast[/nom]Unfortunately, I don't see the Wii U wowing the masses. Ever since the Gamecube, Nintendo has slowly been loosing its footing. The future "looks" to be pretty grim for Nintendo to me.[/citation]

you really think so?
World wide console sales -
Wii – 11,534,590 as of 1 April 2011
PlayStation 3 – 6,341,950 as of 1 April 2011
Xbox 360 – 1,448,665 as of 1 April 2011

 

[JOSHSKORN]

$180 in parts? I'd sell it for $189.99. Sorry Nintendo. Should've used more current generation parts. Maybe the games won't suck as much in comparison to what will come from the XBOX720/PS4, not that Microsoft and Sony specs for next gen consoles are anywhere near current gen enthusiast PC builds, which they SHOULD be, considering we won't see another upgrade...who knows, maybe ever. I don't know if the console will be around after this next generation, but that's just my guess.

 

[Guest]

I Love my Wii, I am PC Gamer first, and Wii second. I have found the Wii to be the only console I need, specifically for FUN! PC Takes care of cutting edge immersion (In full 3d now AMD have sorted out Stereoscopic drivers framerate)

But the Wii, now that is just family fun, gets played with a group, never on its own, and to be honest, Skylanders is the culmination of fun on the Wii, immersive gameplay for its kind, the kids and adults love it all, and its quick, responsive and does not look at all bad on a 50" plasma.

Now with all that loving for Wii and PC, I will not be buying another console fast, Wii U is not needed in our household, just like an xbox or ps3 are not needed!

 

[Guest]

Forgot to say, for all Wii Bashers, ANY console that can get my 93 year old second world war veteran grandad and 90 year old WAF Grandma into a bit of gaming does something right!

 

[blubbey]

Weren't there also reports of the new Xbox being 20% faster than the Wii U a few months ago? So, that would've made it ~5x faster than the 360.

Tl;dr:
Rumours are rumours.

 

[notuptome2004]

[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]The people who think the Xbox360 or PS3 is on par with the leaked specs of the Wii U are either noobs, trolls, or teenage fanboys (its amazing how often those three coincide). I still remember when the Wii U hardware specs were first leaked. Some people automatically associated the tri-core IBM CPU in the Wii U to the tri-core IBM CPU in the Xbox 360. They're both tri-core, they're both made by IBM, they must be the same. The Wii U will pack 7 year old tech!... lol.Unless you guys know something we don't, every rumor/leak I've heard indicates that the Wii U will be quite a bit more powerful than the Xbox360 or PS3. In fact if the latest hardware leaks are to be believed, the Wii U's discrete GPU should be just about on par with the PS4 and next Xbox. Maybe the GPU's in the PS4/next Xbox will just be clocked significantly higher, but at least when comparing their desktop counterparts the HD4870 beats the HD6670/7670 in practically every benchmark out there.[/citation]


We dont know how many cores the Wii U packs we just know 3 things and that is it is based on the Power 7 architecture but customized with lots of Edram onboard that it is a Multi-core chip and it may have since based on the power 7 may pack 3 to 4 threads per Core .

Agian it is stupid that some people out ther still Assume the thing is the same as what is in the 360 but it is not as it be dumb for Nintendo to use 5 to 6 year old technologies that be far to inefficient for power needs let alone performance to be able to allow the Wii U to stream Data from the main system to the controller screen as i am sure some of the processing will need some CPU not just the GPU

 

[Guest]

According to past history, Nintendo has usually used slightly outdated tech. An example is the Nintendo 3DS, which has graphics slightly better than the PSP but it significantly falls below the performance of the PSP Vita.

 

[notuptome2004]

[citation][nom]christopher8827[/nom]According to past history, Nintendo has usually used slightly outdated tech. An example is the Nintendo 3DS, which has graphics slightly better than the PSP but it significantly falls below the performance of the PSP Vita.[/citation]


that dont matter because the 3DS was annouced way before the Vita even made a peek on the world the 3DS was about the 3D and also did improve graphics so it dont have to be on par with the Future Vita at the time

3DS was announced Announcing the device in March 2010, Nintendo officially unveiled it at E3 2010


PS Vita The device, then known by its codename Next Generation Portable (NGP for short), was announced on January 27, 2011 at the "PlayStation Meeting


That is nearly 11 months apart

 

[warmon6]

[citation][nom]moricon[/nom]I Love my Wii, I am PC Gamer first, and Wii second. I have found the Wii to be the only console I need, specifically for FUN! PC Takes care of cutting edge immersion (In full 3d now AMD have sorted out Stereoscopic drivers framerate)But the Wii, now that is just family fun, gets played with a group, never on its own, and to be honest, Skylanders is the culmination of fun on the Wii, immersive gameplay for its kind, the kids and adults love it all, and its quick, responsive and does not look at all bad on a 50" plasma.Now with all that loving for Wii and PC, I will not be buying another console fast, Wii U is not needed in our household, just like an xbox or ps3 are not needed![/citation]

[citation][nom]moricon[/nom]Forgot to say, for all Wii Bashers, ANY console that can get my 93 year old second world war veteran grandad and 90 year old WAF Grandma into a bit of gaming does something right![/citation]


See tha'ts the one thing that people need to realize that the Wii was never targeted at the same group as the PS3/Xbox 360 (young adults/teens), it was meant for a wide age group that not going to care what kind of graphic's there are as long as they have fun.

So do you need bleeding edge hardware to run games such as Wii sports? Im doubtful even with PS3/Xbox 360 graphic levels that they would of improved the look of those types of games.

Like most of us say about building computers, build what you need and going to use it for. Like you don't need a Core i7 2600k overclocked beyond 4GHz to be simply run a HTPC system.....

 

[maddoghoek1]

The title of this article is misleading. It doesn't cost them $180 to make each console, it costs them $180 in parts to make each console. Anyone that's worked in manufacturing can tell you actual cost is far and above just the parts cost. Nintendo will not make $120 in profit on each console. That's just an outright lie.

Same with the 3DS. $150 in profit? I don't think so. "There may be other costs involved including software, research & development, packaging costs and more?" There may be other costs involved? You think? How about marketing? Distribution? How about, oh, I don't know, making money?

Besides, if Nintendo is actually making money, who cares? It's not like they're some bailed-out US bank paying bonuses to greedy CEO's with my tax money.

 

[shawn808]

While you guy bicker over unreleased hardware...

Ill be playing Super Smash Brothers in 1080p with the dolphin Emulator

 

[sporkimus]

Graphics don't mean a damn thing if the games are not fun. You can pump all the hardware you want into a machine and have the most awesome graphics ever... but if the games suck, then the console sucks. Sorry, but I don't buy games based on their graphics alone.

I'm perfectly fine with Nintendo scaling back their hardware, just as long as the games they release for it are fun.

 

[DEY123]

[citation][nom]Eman25th[/nom]you really think so?World wide console sales -Wii – 11,534,590 as of 1 April 2011PlayStation 3 – 6,341,950 as of 1 April 2011Xbox 360 – 1,448,665 as of 1 April 2011[/citation]

no way that is right..I played Black ops in late 2010 on xbox and there were millions of people online.

based on wiki sales are as follows
Worldwide sales figures

Wii – 94.97 million as of 31 December 2011[9]
Xbox 360 – 65.8 million as of 12 January 2012[53]
PlayStation 3 – 62 million as of 31 December 2011[54]


However Wii is the leader just saying not by the ratio you claim. Also, I have no idea how much revenue all for the companies have gotten (XBOX360 has things like gold membership to gain more revenue)

source http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_wars

 

[jasonpwns]

[citation][nom]DEY123[/nom]no way that is right..I played Black ops in late 2010 on xbox and there were millions of people online.based on wiki sales are as followsWorldwide sales figures Wii – 94.97 million as of 31 December 2011[9] Xbox 360 – 65.8 million as of 12 January 2012[53] PlayStation 3 – 62 million as of 31 December 2011[54]However Wii is the leader just saying not by the ratio you claim. Also, I have no idea how much revenue all for the companies have gotten (XBOX360 has things like gold membership to gain more revenue)source http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_wars[/citation]

A chart in 2010, went back since 1998 or so. According to charts, Nintendo has remained profitable every year up till 2010 (as that was the year the chart was made) in their game division, even with the abysmal gamecube sales, and sub par N64 sales. Where as Sony who gained with the PS1, took a hit the first year the PS2 came out, and profited a few years after it (not quite as much as Nintendo, which probably sparked Sony to make the PSP as a bit of Nintendos success was seen through GBA/GBASP sales and software) Microsoft on the other hand, has taken a loss every year up until 2010. The only company in the negative on profit in their respective video game department is Microsoft. They lost a chunk of money on the original Xbox and the RROD from the 360. So it'll take them a few generations to catch up. The PS3 nearly destroyed any profit Sony has made over the years, and Nintendo could float for years at a small loss without any damage to their overall profits.

 

[Marco925]

[citation][nom]RedYellowBlueBlast[/nom]Unfortunately, I don't see the Wii U wowing the masses. Ever since the Gamecube, Nintendo has slowly been loosing its footing. The future "looks" to be pretty grim for Nintendo to me.[/citation]
Don't quit your day job, Industry analyst isn't for you.

 

[whiteodian]

Seems like a reasonable price for a new console and I believe they are making a profit off of it. Good for the big N. Some consoles sell at a loss just to get the systems out and sell games (profit). I remember growing up that each new console had ground-breaking graphics compared to the old one. It seems this has slowed down quite a bit. Especially with Nintendo's stance on hardware. I own all the current Gen consoles, but I'm mainly playing PC games these days. I don't think I'm ready for a new system. I'm sure others are.