Topic: Profit on each console sold?

Yeah, this too.

No one product pulls down a company of Nintendo's size and scale in the modern games market. Not when it's a listed company with a few major, and hundreds of minor revenue streams.

And as you said, Nintendo doesn't exist in a vacuum. Nintendo is a Japanese company, and Japanese companies are universally feeling the pain right now. To blame the 3DS and a proven marketing strategy (loss leading) for a company-wide loss is a little harsh.

Well in Europe they probably will.

i think they could even sell it for 249 and still make a profit.

but most people on the interwebs said they think it would cost over 300. nintendo isnt stupid. they listen to their potential consumers. so they make the price right where people think "oh it is even a bit cheaper than a i thought it would be."

I think the Basic set should have included a game or been $250, even if it meant less profit or a slight loss, because a lot of people still would have paid the $350 for the Deluxe just for all the other extras, but they'd get so many more potential buyers. As it is, there's barely any rationale to get the Basic model when you're going to be paying $360 just to get a system and one game, while it's cheaper to pay $350 to get the Deluxe with all the extras, and $350 is a price that's going to dissuade so many people that really didn't want or need all those extras that come with the Deluxe model. It wouldn't shock me to see the Wii U sell well before x-mas and then completely stop selling like the 3DS did after launch, and if they have to do a major price cut early on again, they might have to give up on the idea of new hardware being profitable anymore.

@iphys
I don't think that makes any sense. If the Basic model included Nintendo Land why would you buy the premium version? As it is they've convinced a whole bunch of people who probably weren't going to grab Nintendo Land to spend extra purely because the Deluxe version looked like a better deal. If they bundled it in the standard version nobody would have spent the extra.

I mean $250US is a nice price....... but I don't know of many people who would get a shiny new console without buying any games for it. They're spending $250 AND grabbing New SMB U, Assassin's Creed 3 or Zombi U.

iphys...

They're selling out everywhere at alarming rates as is, I don't think Nintendo should've lowered the price... and certainly not have made it so they were being sold at a loss. It's simply unnecessary. They can keep doing this until sales slow, whether it be soon or a few years from now, and then chop the price. And so what i they need to cut the price? They've found ways with the 3DS early adopters to make them feel like they didn't waste their money, yet the ambassador games were smartly chosen as the 'remedy.' The GBA games is purely an accepted loss for Nintendo, though it was only to make them function on the 3DS, but they gave us NES games for free... which they're just charging late adopters for! Genius.

From what i understand, Nintendo, unlike Sony and Microsoft, make it a point to make a profit on each console sold, they more have too since they are not backed by a an electronics conglomerate or operating system running 80% of the world's computers. the loss per console on the 3DS after the price drop was the exception not the rule and if I remember correctly they even started making a profit per console on the after drop price within 6-9 months later.