wii-u Wii U could retail for $300

[Muhammad Farrukh]

Forget The Box is reporting publisher's upcoming console carries manufacturing costs of around $180;

Wii U's retail price "will be no less" than $300 at launch.

A new report claims Nintendo's upcoming Wii U console could retail for around $300 at launch.

Citing "sources closely involved with manufacturing and distributing Nintendo products", Forget The Box reports the total cost of materials required to manufacture the Wii U console, including the Wii U controller, is estimated to be around $180, with materials and components costing Nintendo an additional $50.

Based on these estimates, the report claims Nintendo is likely to finalize the cost of the Wii U to be no less than $300 at retail when it launches before the end of the year.

"Cutting production costs to maximize profits is Nintendo?s main concern with the Wii U," the source told Forget The Box."

"They are cutting costs in the Wii U's hardware to build back confidence in investors. Nintendo wants investors to view Wii U as a less risky proposition."

At the time of the Wii U's unveiling at last year's Electronic Entertainment Expo, Nintendo president Satoru Iwata indicated the new console will probably cost more than ?20,000 ($250.47).

By comparison, the Wii began its life cycle selling for $250.

Earlier this month, it was reported the Wii U could be set for a November 18 global release date.

[Blackhearted]

And yet at only $300(if this rumor is true) it could still be more powerful than the 360/ps3 due to how those things are horribly overpriced for their age.

[~Johnny]

And yet at only $300(if this rumor is true) it could still be more powerful than the 360/ps3 due to how those things are horribly overpriced for their age.

Technically the rumour says it's only around $130 for the consoles parts, although I don't know how much a PS3's parts costs. But either way, there's benefits to be had from newer architectures.

[MightyJordan]

And yet at only $300(if this rumor is true) it could still be more powerful than the 360/ps3 due to how those things are horribly overpriced for their age.

Hmm, the last Wii U rumour I heard was developers claiming that it's less powerful than the 360 and PS3.

Like almost everything else about the Wii U so far, it's all rumours and speculation, but I personally wouldn't be surprised if this rumour turns out to be true. Nintendo usually focus on everything but the graphics, which isn't a bad thing, especially when you look at this gen's console sales.

[compl3x]

$300 in the US, $500 in Australia.

People here in Aus aren't that exceited when we hear about cheaper pricing for gaming related products because we usually get screwed anyway.

[threetonesun]

$300 seems reasonable for a new console these days.

[c3ntury]

I'd have hoped the Wii U would surpass the current generations graphics, or at least, if it doesn't, have a low price-point to reflect it.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

$299.99 sounds probable. Nintendo cant afford a more expensive console.

[The Teej]

$300 would probably retail for ?230 over here which would be fine for me :)

[Alladaskill17]

Specs please? not that I'd get one, but for those on the fence...thats a good chunk of the cost for next gen Xbox/Playstation..or an awesome PC GFX upgrade.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

$300 would probably retail for ?230 over here which would be fine for me :)

except it'll also be ?300 in the UK too :p

[jerzdawg]

I'll be hoping for another $250 price @ release. I feel like that $50 difference will stop me from picking it up @ launch. Hopefully we'll see alot more of this @ E3

[The Teej]

except it'll also be ?300 in the UK too :p

If it does, it had best have the world's greatest line-up on launch or expect me to purchase it when there's a price drop :p

[_neutrino Veteran]

and yet no matter what cost they charge it will still be outdated prior to ever being released. as it is only targeted to be as powerful as current generation consoles :p

[BetaAddict]

Just as I predicted. $300 at launch, with a potential price cut to $250 next year to counter the launch of the new xbox, which I would predict to sell for $299 and $399 for two different models just like the xbox360 did.

and yet no matter what cost they charge it will still be outdated prior to ever being released. as it is only targeted to be as powerful as current generation consoles :p

People don't buy nintendo products for the graphics, rather the games. Franchises like Mario and Zelda always had enough brand power and quality to get people to buy it, even as a secondary console.

[The Teej]

and yet no matter what cost they charge it will still be outdated prior to ever being released. as it is only targeted to be as powerful as current generation consoles :p

Well it won't be outdated... it'll pull a dreamcast... be better looking then the 360/PS3 for a whole year until PS4/XB3 come out... here's hoping it won't bomb with it's secondary screen controller just like the Dreamcast ;)

[compl3x]

People don't buy nintendo products for the graphics, rather the games. Franchises like Mario and Zelda always had enough brand power and quality to get people to buy it, even as a secondary console.

And frankly, playing Nintendo franchises is getting a little tiresome. I wonder how much longer they can milk those titles.

[Blackhearted]

Well it won't be outdated... it'll pull a dreamcast... be better looking then the 360/PS3 for a whole year until PS4/XB3 come out... here's hoping it won't bomb with it's secondary screen controller just like the Dreamcast ;)

That is assuming microsoft and sony actually decide to get off their asses and do anything next year. Last i heard any talk about them actually doing that is merely rumors.

And frankly, playing Nintendo franchises is getting a little tiresome. I wonder how much longer they can milk those titles.

Considering facts such as a zelda title always being one of the best games of the year, or how no alternate kart racer has came close to being as good as mario kart constantly is, i'd say quite a while.

And nowadays you can't really complain about sequels, and point only at nintendo.

[BetaAddict]

And frankly, playing Nintendo franchises is getting a little tiresome. I wonder how much longer they can milk those titles.

Considering facts such as a zelda title always being one of the best games of the year, or how no alternate kart racer has came close to being as good as mario kart constantly is, i'd say quite a while.

And nowadays you can't really complain about sequels, and point only at nintendo.

Sums up my response pretty well. Don't confuse video game franchises with movie franchises. Movie franchises like spiderman eventually become tiresome when they do enough sequals/remakes and the plot becomes too ridiculous to watch. But tell me, when was the last time a Super Mario game bombed? Like never. Good franchises, like Mario, Zelda, even more hardcore franchises like Call of Duty, have absolutely brilliant devs that always manage to produce remarkable storylines and code some of the best sellers of that year. Probably the only notable exception might be Need for Speed, which definitely had its highs and lows over years in terms of quality.

[compl3x]

Sums up my response pretty well. Don't confuse video game franchises with movie franchises. Movie franchises like spiderman eventually become tiresome when they do enough sequals/remakes and the plot becomes too ridiculous to watch. But tell me, when was the last time a Super Mario game bombed? Like never. Good franchises, like Mario, Zelda, even more hardcore franchises like Call of Duty, have absolutely brilliant devs that always manage to produce remarkable storylines and code some of the best sellers of that year. Probably the only notable exception might be Need for Speed, which definitely had its highs and lows over years in terms of quality.

Are you telling me what I can and cannot get tired of playing? If you dig basically playing the same game over and over again, good on you.

The reason why Mario and Zelda always get great reviews seems more to me to be about them being gaming's sacred cows. I don't hate the series, but to pretend they're fresh games is absurd to say the least.

[BetaAddict]

Are you telling me what I can and cannot get tired of playing? If you dig basically playing the same game over and over again, good on you.

The reason why Mario and Zelda always get great reviews seems more to me to be about them being gaming's sacred cows. I don't hate the series, but to pretend they're fresh games is absurd to say the least.

No. Please clarify from my previous response where there is a slightest dictation of me instructing on what you can and cannot get tired of playing. In any case, what you prefer to play or have opinions on a particular game is a matter of personal preferences and tastes. I'll agree to disagree.

As for "fresh games," can you honestly say that Super Mario Galaxy was not original compared to, for example, Super Mario Sunshine or even Super Mario 64. I could argue the same thing for the Mass Effect franchise that you seem to have been playing on xbox lately. Yes, there is an overlap to some extent in terms of gameplay, but every game has their own concept just like FPS games retain a certain concept of levels. But the storyline,complexity, and strategy involved with the levels change, and that is what makes it exciting and adventurous.

I agree with you on that these games are not made for replayability like Mass Effect 3, nor have I ever replayed a Super Mario game after I beat it the first time, yet the games continue to be fun in their own right for me to stay loyal to the franchise for future sequels.

[compl3x]

No. Please clarify from my previous response where there is a slightest dictation of me instructing on what you can and cannot get tired of playing. In any case, what you prefer to play or have opinions on a particular game is a matter of personal preferences and tastes. I'll agree to disagree.

Why were you implying I was "confusing" video game franchises and movie franchises? Implying I couldn't tell the difference between one medium and the other in terms of becoming repetitive and/or boring as I see it. I never expressed my views as being objective truths, it goes without saying it's merely my opinion. Games can become boring. That isn't something unique only to movie franchises.

As for "fresh games," can you honestly say that Super Mario Galaxy was not original compared to, for example, Super Mario Sunshine or even Super Mario 64. I could argue the same thing for the Mass Effect franchise that you seem to have been playing on xbox lately. Yes, there is an overlap to some extent in terms of gameplay, but every game has their own concept just like FPS games retain a certain concept of levels. But the storyline,complexity, and strategy involved with the levels change, and that is what makes it exciting and adventurous.

I wish Nintendo would expand their library beyond Mario and Zelda. I like those titles too, but at some point you have to offer gamers more than just your first party games.

Although they'll probably never have to because those games do so well. I just wonder how much longer they can keep altering games slightly or just cobbling together old stuff, like in the case of Super Mario 3D Land, and attempt to pass it off as fresh. Rayman Origins, on the other hand is an example of a new, fun, beautiful and engaging platformer which wasn't given anywhere near enough appreciation. At least sales wise.

[Blackhearted]

I wish Nintendo would expand their library beyond Mario and Zelda. I like those titles too, but at some point you have to offer gamers more than just your first party games.

Although they'll probably never have to because those games do so well. I just wonder how much longer they can keep altering games slightly or just cobbling together old stuff, like in the case of Super Mario 3D Land, and attempt to pass it off as fresh. Rayman Origins, on the other hand is an example of a new, fun, beautiful and engaging platformer which wasn't given anywhere near enough appreciation. At least sales wise.

So we complain about mario games being the same with minor changes, and then point out a game that, despite the pretty visuals, is basically a standard sidescrolling platformer.

Brilliant argument there. :rolleyes:

[BetaAddict]

Why were you implying I was "confusing" video game franchises and movie franchises? Implying I couldn't tell the difference between one medium and the other in terms of becoming repetitive and/or boring as I see it. I never expressed my views as being objective truths, it goes without saying it's merely my opinion. Games can become boring. That isn't something unique only to movie franchises.

So that's what ticked you off :) . When I said "don't confuse video game franchises with movie franchises," perhaps I could have been more clearer but it was meant to be an comparison between two and with the context it was written in, it's rather apparent.

I wish Nintendo would expand their library beyond Mario and Zelda. I like those titles too, but at some point you have to offer gamers more than just your first party games.

Although they'll probably never have to because those games do so well. I just wonder how much longer they can keep altering games slightly or just cobbling together old stuff, like in the case of Super Mario 3D Land, and attempt to pass it off as fresh. Rayman Origins, on the other hand is an example of a new, fun, beautiful and engaging platformer which wasn't given anywhere near enough appreciation. At least sales wise.

So we complain about mario games being the same with minor changes, and then point out a game that, despite the pretty visuals, is basically a standard sidescrolling platformer.

Brilliant argument there. :rolleyes:

Again, you have outdone yourself. :rolleyes:

As I said before, every franchise maintains it's basic concept, and simply improve on it. You like Rayman's, I like Mario. Both games are side-scrolls, just different characters, level, and gameplay. The rest comes down to personal preference. Let's just leave it at that. :)

[compl3x]

So we complain about mario games being the same with minor changes, and then point out a game that, despite the pretty visuals, is basically a standard sidescrolling platformer.

Brilliant argument there. :rolleyes:

We must have played a different game. The game I played offered challenging platforming, rewarding replayability options for completists, wonderful art style etc. Standard isn't a word I would have used to describe it. Maybe just the fact it wasn't another Mario game was enough.