Forums

Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

Posts 5,081 to 5,100 of 69,952

Buizel

@jamesRainbowBoy Wouldn't Sony and Microsoft be as affected by the devalued pound as Nintendo?

In the UK we usually have significantly more expensive consoles than the US, even when accounting for tax: e.g. we paid the equivalent of $300 for the Wii whereas it was $250 in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_launch ((edit: changed from $350 to $300)) It'd be interesting to know why this is in the first place!

Edited on by Buizel

At least 2'8".

gcunit

@jamesRainbowBoy You raise an interesting point, though at least we have the relatively straight-forward option of importing from mainland Europe.

I imported my N3DS from France about a month after launch and the price I paid was still less than you can get it for in the UK now, and I'm pretty sure it came in a standardised European box, so no difference in the product at all. So sure, it might be more expensive relatively for us in the UK, but unless they mess Brexit up completely, we can still access the goods.

Are there comparable examples of other products that have delayed launching in a territory due to exchange rates though? I imagine it will launch at the same time with an invisible notice on the UK price tags saying "Suck it."

Edited on by gcunit

You guys had me at blood and semen.

What better way to celebrate than firing something out of the pipe?

Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.

My Nintendo: gcunit | Nintendo Network ID: gcunit

gcunit

@Buizel Don't no where you'd have paid $350 equivalent in the UK for a Wii, but you got done. Launch price was more like £180, which didn't convert to $350. Think I got mine new for £130, not at launch but within a year I think.

You guys had me at blood and semen.

What better way to celebrate than firing something out of the pipe?

Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.

My Nintendo: gcunit | Nintendo Network ID: gcunit

Octane

@gcunit The exchange rate back in November 2006 between the GBP and the USD was around 1.9. £180 in November 2006 was indeed around $350. In the Eurozone, the Wii launched at €249, which was also around $330, while the MSRP in the US was $250. If shipping was free, you would've saved $80-$100 if you imported the Wii from the US.

Octane

Buizel

gcunit wrote:

@Buizel Don't no where you'd have paid $350 equivalent in the UK for a Wii, but you got done. Launch price was more like £180, which didn't convert to $350. Think I got mine new for £130, not at launch but within a year I think.

My mistake - the Wii was indeed £180 at launch here, and the exchange rate was almost $2 to the pound: http://www.x-rates.com/average/?from=GBP&to=USD&amoun... meaning that with tax we would've paid about $350. Without tax, however, it was $300 (for fairer comparison to the tax-free US price of $250).

Edited on by Buizel

At least 2'8".

jamesRainbowBoy

Sony and Microsoft aren't immune from this issue, but launching pre-Brexit prices have already come down on these systems, whereas Nintendo will come in full-priced. It's not as if they will be operating from a position of strength here in the UK.

jamesRainbowBoy

Buizel

Ignore me if this is a silly question (I don't have the best understanding of business and economics!) - but seeing as Nintendo are Japan-based, would yen to GBP be more relevant? GBP is also down to the yen, but only approximately to the level it was in 2012: http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=JPY&vie...

@jamesRainbowBoy I see your point. Also Nintendo are usually less willing to sell their consoles at a loss.

Edited on by Buizel

At least 2'8".

LzWinky

Buizel wrote:

gcunit wrote:

@Buizel Don't no where you'd have paid $350 equivalent in the UK for a Wii, but you got done. Launch price was more like £180, which didn't convert to $350. Think I got mine new for £130, not at launch but within a year I think.

My mistake - the Wii was indeed £180 at launch here, and the exchange rate was almost $2 to the pound: http://www.x-rates.com/average/?from=GBP&to=USD&amoun... meaning that with tax we would've paid about $350. Without tax, however, it was $300 (for fairer comparison to the tax-free US price of $250).

Conversions don't really mean much with prices unless you buy internationally.

Current games: Everything on Switch

Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky

Buizel

TheLZdragon wrote:

Buizel wrote:

gcunit wrote:

@Buizel Don't no where you'd have paid $350 equivalent in the UK for a Wii, but you got done. Launch price was more like £180, which didn't convert to $350. Think I got mine new for £130, not at launch but within a year I think.

My mistake - the Wii was indeed £180 at launch here, and the exchange rate was almost $2 to the pound: http://www.x-rates.com/average/?from=GBP&to=USD&amoun... meaning that with tax we would've paid about $350. Without tax, however, it was $300 (for fairer comparison to the tax-free US price of $250).

Conversions don't really mean much with prices unless you buy internationally.

My point isn't so much about the consumer, but the return to Nintendo. Does this extra cost in USD reflect any extra costs to them for selling in the UK?

At least 2'8".

Octane

@BiasedSonyFan It's not as if there's no difference between the Wii Remote and 4K media playback. One changes the way you play games and limits the amount of games playable on the console, the other is just an extra feature. The GamePad itself didn't do anything wrong, cause it does what every controller does, but it does look like a clunky oversized Fisher-Price toy, and it was expensive. Of course, those aren't the only reasons that the Wii U didn't fly off the store shelves.

Also not sure where that 4K rant is coming from, but I do have a question, how many of the households that own a video game console are expected to have a 4K TV by the end of this year, or next year? I reckon that's more than the 15% or 50% you mentioned.

Octane

TuVictus

"Gimmicks" that add to the way you play, or enhance the way you play, is definitely very different than completely changing and restricting how you play a game (starfox zero) . Nintendo is just a ton more eccentric with their "gimmicks" than Sony or Microsoft, who stick to what gamers know and instead opt for more software based ideas to get people interested.

Edited on by TuVictus

TuVictus

Buizel

My gripe with the word "gimmick" is that it's entirely subjective, and it's use it=s usually biased towards features that were one-off (which we can try to predict, but only really know in hind-sight). Where do you draw the line? Was the rumble pak a gimmick? Touch screens? Wireless controllers? Internet connectivity? Is VR?

Edited on by Buizel

At least 2'8".

LzWinky

Buizel wrote:

TheLZdragon wrote:

Buizel wrote:

gcunit wrote:

@Buizel Don't no where you'd have paid $350 equivalent in the UK for a Wii, but you got done. Launch price was more like £180, which didn't convert to $350. Think I got mine new for £130, not at launch but within a year I think.

My mistake - the Wii was indeed £180 at launch here, and the exchange rate was almost $2 to the pound: http://www.x-rates.com/average/?from=GBP&to=USD&amoun... meaning that with tax we would've paid about $350. Without tax, however, it was $300 (for fairer comparison to the tax-free US price of $250).

Conversions don't really mean much with prices unless you buy internationally.

My point isn't so much about the consumer, but the return to Nintendo. Does this extra cost in USD reflect any extra costs to them for selling in the UK?

There's a lot more to it than a simple exchange rate though. I often point out that exchange rates are overused in arguments regarding comparisons across regions.

Current games: Everything on Switch

Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky

TuVictus

@BiasedSonyFan I meant in the sense that it's the only way you can play the game. You can't play with regular controls. And yes people learn but those controls are specific to that game. If they were used in every wii u game then maybe I'd see your point. Plus, I think the general consensus is that they were a bad idea.

TuVictus

Octane

BiasedSonyFan wrote:

I do have a question, how many of the households that own a video game console are expected to have a 4K TV by the end of this year, or next year?

I don't know about households with video game consoles. I don't see why that matters, though. Most homes just buy consoles for their existing TVs, and they don't really upgrade their TVs unless they need to meet more general TV needs beyond getting a better IQ for their video games.

For any household, last time I checked, it's about 15% by the end of 2016, 33% by 2019, and 50% by 2020. That's just the adoption rate for getting any 4K TV. Then you have to factor in prices for UHD TVs that are large enough for people to enjoy the IQ improvement over 1080p at the typical 9-foot viewing distance that American homes view their TVs from: in the living room, the same room where home consoles are usually found. Gamers might sit closer to the TV, but you still need a 75+-inch TV to fully enjoy the IQ improvement over the same 1080p display at a 5-foot viewing distance.

It kinda does. The average 60+-year old couple won't get a 4K TV anytime soon, they won't be buying consoles either. I think that the people with gaming as a hobby, and especially younger people (age 20-30) are in the group that upgrades to a 4K TV first when they become affordable. They are also the most likely people to buy a home console. And the people who can afford a gaming console and multiple games, are more likely to be able to afford a 4K TV than people who can't afford a gaming console. So even if there's only a 15% market saturation for 4K TVs by the end of this year, I think that there's a big overlap between the people that buy 4K TVs and the people that buy gaming consoles. You're treating the two variables as completely random, when they aren't. So the 50% market saturation by the end of 2020? That doesn't mean that only 50% of the home console owners own a 4K TV by then, it's more likely the saturation of 4K TVs is a lot higher for home console owners.

BiasedSonyFan wrote:

It's not as if there's no difference between the Wii Remote and 4K media playback. One changes the way you play games and limits the amount of games playable on the console, the other is just an extra feature.

Define limits. No developer is limited from making an award-winning video game with the Wiimote for GamePad. Many developers only make video games to satisfy the gaming needs of the market, and the market that Western AAA developers market to don't like the Wiimote or GamePad. If the market accepted the GamePad, then the Wii U likely would have more video games for it.

And sure, UHD Blu-Ray and 4K TVs are optional. Sony and Microsoft know that many gamers don't see these things as optional, however; these gamers see them as necessities. That's the whole point of using gimmicks.

Well, the Wii lacked a second control stick to begin with. And just the general lay-out made it that the games were limited to a certain set of controls. Not saying that you can't make good games on those systems, but it's important for stuff like third party support. I personally found a lot of the Wii games that relied heavily on motion controls to be nothing more than fancy tech demos. Some worked, but the controls in most games were kinda wonky. So I can completely understand why people don't like the waggle motion controls. And let's not pretend that this is some western aversion towards motion controls. The Wii sales from Japan were only a fraction of the sales in the west. The Wii has the same ratio of sales in Japan as the PS4 for example.

I also disagree about ''accepting'' the GamePad. There was nothing to accept, it does everything a regular controller does, it only looks a bit weird. And it lacks analog triggers.. Other than that, it's pretty similar. Anyway, that's not what caused the Wii U to become the commercial joke that it is, it was the lack of marketing, the different architecture, the incapability to run third party games, and therefore the lack of support, the lack of sales as a result and finally a downward spiral from there on.

Octane

erv

Hmm. Call of duty black ops was best on Wii.

Played it a lot too.

Switch code: SW-0397-5211-6428
PlayStation: genetic-eternal

Nintendo Network ID: genet1c

rallydefault

The 4k adoption rate is more important/higher than you guys think. Since we're discussing games, to just ask such a broad question like "How many households are expected to have 4k TVs in 2017?" is pretty darn unfair. So you want to lump in half the population or more (baby boomers - ages 51-69) into data that you're going to try and impress upon video game consoles? Maybe you guys do, but I don't know many 65 year-olds who are on the cutting edge of video games; my dad's not rushing out to buy Gears 4 or anything this weekend.

The question you should ask is how many MILLENIAL households (ages 18-34) will have 4k TVs in 2017 and beyond, as that is your key age market for video game consoles. Not only does that include your "hardcore" gamers of high school and college age, but also your young adults and young family households. Those are the people/places you would likely see 4k TV adoption, and that's most likely where Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony are looking when evaluating the usefulness of going 4k. And my guess would be that the adoption rate within that age group, AKA the one that actually matters to game companies, is MUCH higher than what some of you are citing.

rallydefault

TuVictus

I think many people would agree that pointer controls are a very good alternative to traditional controls for first person shooters. But I'd give that up if it meant a traditional control scheme for every other genre

TuVictus

Buizel

Operative wrote:

I think many people would agree that pointer controls are a very good alternative to traditional controls for first person shooters. But I'd give that up if it meant a traditional control scheme for every other genre

I agree.

I'd love to see Wiimote compatibiity return, but only in a completely optional way. The NX controller should be compatible with, and the standard for, every game, but I'd be quite happy to see, for example, FPSs having Wiimote and mouse/keyboard compatibility.

Edited on by Buizel

At least 2'8".

skywake

On the rants about 4K there's one simple point I'll make here. How many people had 1080p sets when the Wii launched? We're about at a similar point now with 4K I'd argue.

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

Please login or sign up to reply to this topic