PS3 - X-Box 360 - Nintendo Revolution

[koaftder]

lou_dias wrote:
In Oct of 2003 is when the price got lowered to $99
http://in.tech.yahoo.com/030924/137/28002.html

In late 2003/early 2004, they got rid of the progressive scan component and the gc went to profitability again from losing about $7-$8 for a couple of months.

So you are all ass-clowns as the GC has been profitable for 95+% of it's existence.  And that's the real point - isn't it?

As Revolution will be...

And if you really do the numbers...the GC was (as you claim) losing money for the better part of that fiscal year yet Nintendo doubled it's profits.  Coincidentally, when the GC went down to $99, it enjoyed a healthy and sustained sales boost.

Funny thing, prepubescent, is that the article you posted contradicts many of the claims about Nintendo hurting that you made in my 'potential PPC Amiga real cheap' thread which further iconifies your status as the Troll-king.

You claim I am reading between the lines!
You just posted an article telling you the GC was profitable even at $150 and would only be in single digit losses @ $99...
...that in of itself means you don't know what you are talkng about as you claimed it was always sold at a loss - it was your statement that started this not mine...allow me to quote you here:

Not true. Due to poor sales, production cost went up early on in the GCNs lifecycle. Couple that with price cuts to stay competitive and it's been losing Nintendo a ton of money. At ~$150 they were breaking even, at $100 they are losing money. Now at $100 with a pack-in and (new release) first party title they are losing even more.

...then Ninendo puts out the Rev C board with no Progressive Scan circuitry or connector in order to make it profitable again about 2 months after the price drop to $99...and I am reading between the lines and you are a bunch of know-it-alls.

I.A.C.'s - idiot ass clowns

who double as trolls...

Just immagine if you put all this energy into an AROS bounty, we would have a reliable installer and a firefox port... Geez

[adolescent]

@lou

Funny, you don't seem to read so well (or DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND).  My quote clearly said that the cube broke even at $150, and lost money at $99.  Just like the article(s) I quoted/linked.  

Of course, it's easier for you to just call names than have a civilised discussion so we'll leave it at that and not troll this thread up any more than you already have.

[Louis Dias]

the article you posted contradicts your own statement.

if @ $99 the GC losses were temporarily in single digits ($1-$9) then it was also profitable at $150.  Can you not do math?  Don't back peddle.

Face the facts: the Gamecube hardware has been profitable for Nintendo.  Rev B. removed serial port 1 and around that time is when they dropped to $150.  Rev C. also removed the progressive scan capability and that was done shortly after the $99 price drop.

Going by Japan's latest open pricing policy, one can deduct that the GC cost about $75-$85 to produce.  Throw in a game that cost <$10 to produce as a bundle and even if profits are only $5 per bundle, it moves inventory and spurs sales of future/concurrent additional software sales...which we all agree is where the meat of the profits comes from.

[Louis Dias]

@koaftder

If I was a low-level file system/ operation system coder, I would have.

I'm just a Windows .NET coder.

[Waccoon]

In late 2003/early 2004, they got rid of the progressive scan component and the gc went to profitability again from losing about $7-$8 for a couple of months.

Source?

So you are all ass-clowns as the GC has been profitable for 95+% of it's existence. And that's the real point - isn't it?

The point is you still haven't provided a source, and probably never will when you can just call everyone ass-clowns, instead.

And if you really do the numbers...

Based on what?

I.A.C.'s - idiot ass clowns

who double as trolls...

Enough with the name calling.  If you're so damn smart, tell me how much money Nintendo spends manufacturing each Gamecube.

When you tell me your manufacturing quote, don't forget to include packaging and shipping costs.  Obviously, Gamecubes don't jump into pretty boxes or swim across the ocean from China all by themselves.

Also, note that Nintendo doesn't sell Gamecubes for $100.  The stores do.  Tell me how much money the stores pay, and use that value to determine Nintendo's profit per hardware unit.

You, ah, DO have that information, don't you?

[Louis Dias]

Waccoon wrote:

In late 2003/early 2004, they got rid of the progressive scan component and the gc went to profitability again from losing about $7-$8 for a couple of months.

Source?

So you are all ass-clowns as the GC has been profitable for 95+% of it's existence. And that's the real point - isn't it?

The point is you still haven't provided a source, and probably never will when you can just call everyone ass-clowns, instead.

Are you ignorant?  I have 2 gamecubes, a Rev A and a Rev C.  I can email you pictures of the both, one with the ports and one without.  You can jump into any GC forum or faq page and get this information.  Even the hardware faq at www.gamefaqs.com will tell you about the differnt Gamecubes.  Look at www.qoobchip.com click the 'manuals' link and you will see pics of the Rev A/B board and the Rev C. board.

And if you really do the numbers...

Based on what?

based on the new pricing policy about to go in effect in Japan where the GC is sold at cost, with no MSRP.

I.A.C.'s - idiot ass clowns

who double as trolls...

Enough with the name calling.  If you're so damn smart, tell me how much money Nintendo spends manufacturing each Gamecube.


When you tell me your manufacturing quote, don't forget to include packaging and shipping costs.  Obviously, Gamecubes don't jump into pretty boxes or swim across the ocean from China all by themselves.

Also, note that Nintendo doesn't sell Gamecubes for $100.  The stores do.  Tell me how much money the stores pay, and use that value to determine Nintendo's profit per hardware unit.

You, ah, DO have that information, don't you?

funny how I'm the only one that has to provide sources.  You try to find the information since you act like what you believe it the absolute truth.

I just told you there is going to be no MSRP in Japan so you may see the units sell ~$80 to spur sales.  Why would a store sell it for less than they paid for it?  Stop being so trollish.  I will provide a link to the 'no MSRP' policy later when I get home from work as I'm behind a firewall right now.

And in the end, here's the whole point:

What is so hard to understand about economics?
Over time, espcecially after MILLIONS of units sold, things get ALOT cheaper.

It happens in Intel/AMD land, why not IBM/Motorola land?  The PPC cpu's are not expensive just because Eyetech wants to rape you of your wallet.  Get your heads out of the Amiga waste bucket and smell the fresh air.  PPC cpu's have been in millions of Macs, Gamecubes and embedded devices.

You can look up on Gamespot.com or gamesindustry.biz on how MS is only losing $75 initially on the 360.  So by typical Amigan troll math, the custom developed brand spanking new 3.2GHz triple-core PPC cpu must cost $1500 and the rest of the system must cost -$1125.  Gee if they sold it without a cpu, MS could clear out the US national debt...

And there is no such thing as guarranteed sales.  There are, however, pricing policy adjustments AFTER x amount of units have shipped.

[Louis Dias]

http://www.gonein60fps.net/thescreenshot/2005_01_01_archive.shtml

So if they Cubes hit the selves after May 04 in the US.  When do you think they were produced?  And you know they were on the shelves in Japan well before that.

Now, if you bought a GC today and wanted Progressive scan output.  You have to contact Nintendo and ship them your GC and they'll send you a Rev B. for a $50 charge + shipping.  Coincidence?

http://www.qoobchip.com/images/diagrams/qoob_pro_gc_ab.jpg

see the connector at the top middle?  That's the DV out.  Notice serial port 1 board connection on the board in the upper left corner next to the analog A/V connector
In this version, there is also a transformer that you have to be careful with when removing the board.

http://www.qoobchip.com/images/diagrams/qoob_pro_gc_c.jpg

here is the Rev C.  NOTICE, no serial port 1 connector on the board, the transformer in now part of the board and the analog A/V connector was moved to where the DV connector was.

Anymore stupid questions?

expected losses on initial 360 and PS3: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/news.php?aid=9838

[koaftder]

Dang, another GC controller bit the dust. This time a pelican transparent controller with a red glowing outline. This is at least the 12th controller ive broken in a fit of rage. I usually get pissed off and wing the controller by the cord and sling it into the GC. The sheer ammount of plastic shards that hit me and my surroundings was most impressive this time. There were even plastic bits in my open beer.

Spiderman 2, effin game, I cant get past the first boss. I  have several games, i'm stuck in all of them. Levels that are just too f'n hard to beat. I suppose if i were a professional gamer it wouldnt be an issue.

on most PC games you have differing levels of hardness you can select. They should adopt this on console games. When i was 12 i didnt seem to mind banging my head into the wall trying to complete some frickin level. Now that i'm almost 30 i want to murder the developers who wrote the game.

[Waccoon]

Are you ignorant?

Will you show proof if I say yes?

I can email you pictures of the both, one with the ports and one without

Change the subject all you want, but you know very well I asked for actual costs, not changes that affect cost.

BTW, I own a Rev C. Gamecube, so I don't need photos.

funny how I'm the only one that has to provide sources.

Er, yes.  During any debate, people who make claims bear the burden of showing proof.  :-)

I just told you there is going to be no MSRP in Japan so you may see the units sell ~$80 to spur sales. Why would a store sell it for less than they paid for it?

So, this means US stores make a profit, right?

OK, so only answer what I actually asked:  what's the store profit?

Oh, and while you're at it, tell us the manufacturing cost.  You kinda forgot about that.  :-)

Stop being so trollish.

Stop calling us ass-clowns because we're asking questions you don't know how to answer.

What is so hard to understand about economics?

Your economics are based on information you are pulling out of your navel, such as the hardware profits extracted from Nintendo's quarterly report which doesn't actually show hardware profits.

PPC cpu's have been in millions of Macs, Gamecubes and embedded devices.PPC cpu's have been in millions of Macs, Gamecubes and embedded devices.

Correction for systems other than Mac:  PPC cores.

Oh yeah, and Macs won't be using PPC anymore.  Somehow, I suspect you'll insist that's a good thing.  :-)

[Louis Dias]

I don't give a rat's ass that MACs won't be PPC anymore.
When a Mac doesn't get any cheaper when it goes Intel then maybe you'll finally realize what you are paying for.

You ask me to provide store profits.  You want them, you provide them.  Same goes for manufacturing costs.  You have given me nothing that provides me with proof that selling GC hardware makes Nintendo lose money.  Adolescent provided an article blantantly telling you the system was costing Nintendo $100-108 just before the move to $99 which was just before they lowered their manufacturing costs again by going to rev C.  I knew this already because I read that same article a couple of years ago on another site...but didn't have a link.  By the way - thanks, adolescent, for the link.

If you need more proof than that, start by proving you aren't an ignorant troll because all you are doing is choosing to ignore facts.

So let me figure out your Amigan troll math again.  You are saying by eliminating components from a manufacturing process, Nintendo actually increased their manufacturing costs?  That's as brilliant as Eyetech's fix of the bugs in the A1 where the workaround is for the consumer to spend more money on an extra PCI card(s) for a feature(s) that you've already paid for on the motherboard.

Infact if Eyetech removed those buggy components, they would charge you extra for not having them on the motherboard.  That's the sad logic of you and them.  That's why the Amiga will stay DEAD.

Now I've also stated that Sony is making a profit selling the slimline PS2.  Would you care for me to provide links?  Why it so hard to believe selling consoles can be profitable?  Want to know why Sega stopped selling consoles?  Because they sold the Dreamcast at a loss and everybody and their grandmother pirated games to they had no way to make any substantial profit.  That was Sega, that will never be Nintendo...or Sony...and now it won't be Microsoft either eventually.

Just because zealots here are willing to pay ~$900 for 6 year old technology...heck how much do people buy A1200's here?  It's worth about <$5 in real world value today.  Give me a break.

I've sold around 10 CD32 titles on EBAY over the last couple of months.  I've charged $5 shipping and started the bidding at $0.01...  One did sell at that price and it didn't bother me one bit.  I shipped it.  Those games are 12 years old and worthless to me.  Just as an A1200 is worthless to me.  Heck, when I dig out my CD32 that will go on Ebay as well with an opening bid of $0.01 with the appropriate shipping costs.  This community pays too much money for worthless junk.

Don't hate because other hardware manufacturers can sell a QUALITY product at an AFFORDABLE price.

In the end - what does anyone care what it costs to manufacture product X from company Y as long as they are happy paying pice Z?  Just because people are dumb enough to pay $50 or more for a 15 year old A1200 or whatever doesn't mean a Gamecube should cost hundreds of dollars.  I told you - get your head out of the Amiga waste bucket.

[Turambar]

Wtf does any of this have to do with the amiga market? The only one bringing amiga into this is you. You have been asked to provide evidence to back up your claims, nothing more. You seem to have an inability to do this and so have resorted to name calling in an attempt to mask your inadaquacies. If you cant provide evidence and continue the debate in a mature manner then i suggest you leave the thread alone before you are banned from the site for repeated breach of the terms and conditions.

Oh and just so you know im not an amiga troll, i've spent more money on gamecube hardware than on amiga hardware. Im just a gamer who has fond memories of old amiga games.

[Louis Dias]

As am I.  However the original claim was that all consoles lose money.  There has been no proof to that but proof to the contrary.

What does this have to do with the Amiga market?
Read the last 8 pages of my "potential PPC Amiga real cheap" thread and you will see exactly where all this hostility comes from.

[Waccoon]

You have given me nothing that provides me with proof that selling GC hardware makes Nintendo lose money.

Again, the burdon of proof is yours.  Note that I never said you were right or wrong.

Adolescent provided an article blantantly telling you the system was costing Nintendo $100-108 just before the move to $99 which was just before they lowered their manufacturing costs again by going to rev C.

I asked you to back up your claim before he even got involved.  You still haven't confirmed that Nintendo makes a profit on hardware.

If you need more proof than that, start by proving you aren't an ignorant troll because all you are doing is choosing to ignore facts.

First, you need to actually post some facts.  So far, the only thing you've posted is Nintendo's quarterly report, which does not show hardware profit.

That's the sad logic of you and them. That's why the Amiga will stay DEAD.

The Amiga is dead because the company's ideas suck and so does their execution.  No level of price fixing will resolve that -- including a switch to Nintendo hardware.

Now I've also stated that Sony is making a profit selling the slimline PS2. Would you care for me to provide links?

Go for it -- so long as you post links for Gamecube, too.

You are saying by eliminating components from a manufacturing process, Nintendo actually increased their manufacturing costs?

I asked how much the console costs to manufacture, not how much Rev A is different from Rev C.  If you don't know, just say so.  :-)

In the end - what does anyone care what it costs to manufacture product X from company Y as long as they are happy paying pice Z?

You do.

I told you - get your head out of the Amiga waste bucket.

I see you're as desperate as ever to change the subject.  I'd expect you to be all too willing to spill the beans on Nintendo's manufacturing costs -- unless you don't know, of course.  :-)

[Louis Dias]

@Waccoon

So just because adolescent posted a like that says the gamecube was profitable through Sept 2003 and cost UNDER $109 to manufacture and I didn't, then I didn't prove it to you.  He did.  The fact that you insist on me doing it is what makes you a troll as you keep repeating your statements without any obvious comprehension of my replies or the facts presented to you.

I can post articles about when Nintendo moved to the $149.99 price point they were about breaking even where as they were profitting at launch.  Then in those same articles they mention moving production to China.  Adolescen't post is some time after that when they were already producing in China and that's when the costs were at the sub $110 level already and they are also at Rev B at this point.

I've specifically outlined to you the differences in the Rev C board and given you an accurate timescale of when it was produced.  I've conceded that the Gamecube wasn't profitable for about 2-5 months between the price drop to $99 and the production of the Rec C board.

You are just a troll as your last couple of posts are mirror images and I'm sure you will again state I've proven nothing to you.  You take comments I make as an excuse to change the subject.

Yes, I do care how much I pay for ANY product, the less I pay the better and it better be worth the money.

http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000407062281

Update: it’s also important to remember that Nintendo doesn’t sell its consoles at a loss. If a $99 Revolution is a real possibility, we can expect the system to be only a fraction as powerful as the PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360.

Have a nice day.  :-P

[amigadave]

@ Wacoon,

Quote:  "That's why the Amiga is DEAD"

Sh!t, when did that happen?  I must have been asleep at the wheel or something. I had better inform the few thousand users that frequent this website and the many other thousands that still use their Amigas daily.  Oh, and while I am at it I'll tell the programmers that are still coding for it too so they can stop wasting their time.

The Amiga will never die, in fact I believe the number of users is slowly increasing through emulation and curiosity.

Pardon my intteruption of your flame war, the two of you can go back to arguing now. (lou you really need to let this go, or provide some hard facts, get a life)

[c64_d0c]

my bet is on the xbox360, it will rock the console world, but alot of people will buy a ps3 when it comes also since they got the xbox360. the nintendo will be the losing part again thats for sure... i am defently going to buy the xbox360, the xboxs is the 2005 amiga thats for sure
________
Montana Medical Marijuana