The Wii is MORE Expensive This Year Than Last

Believe it or not, not everyone wants a Playstation 3.

Which is why I can walk in and buy one today (if I want) and conversely why I can't do the same with a Wii.

I'm not sure why you never seem to accept that the Wii appeals to a far broader category of gamers (including non-gamers) and also, why you never seem to think that this is a legitimate niche to fill. Hardcore gamers are a pretty small segment of the world population, and it was utter foolishness for all three companies to ignore that fact for so many years. In short, that money was being pissed away until Nintendo wisely stepped in to fill the niche.

Casual gaming is here to stay, and it's not "stupid" to want in on that rather than shelling out for a harder core system if a person is unlikely to ever play it.

Hardcore gamers are a pretty small segment of the world population, and it was utter foolishness for all three companies to ignore that fact for so many years.

I think that explains the sluggish sales of the PS3. Not everybody wants to shell out $400-$800 for the console itself. Sony's own (relatively cheap) PS2 has still been outselling the PS3.

Well said. My parents want a Wii. They are not interested at all in a PS3 or 360. Somewhere along the line Nintendo decided to expand the market rather than merely compete for a fraction of the hardcore gamer market.

But will that come back to bite Nintendo in the ass? If most people, even if they're a much larger number, are only buying one game, that's gotta hurt their bottom line eventually.

Unlike other vendors, Nintendo makes a profit on every console. Their model does not include selling hardware at a loss.

As I recall, Nintendo made a profit even off the Gamecube.

As far as the cost of the Wii - it's only more expensive if you go grey market. Mine was normal priced, it was affordable, and I use it. However, I use my 360 far more, and it more than fulfills my hard-core needs. I've got zero desire for a PS3, although I imagine I'll get one probably next xmas. You know, when it's even cheaper, and there are actual (exclusive) games worth playing on it. Otherwise it'd just be taking up valuable inputs on my tv/sound system and going unused. My HDDVD player (360) covers me just fine in that department, too.

I'm not sure why you never seem to accept that the Wii appeals to a far broader category of gamers (including non-gamers) and also, why you never seem to think that this is a legitimate niche to fill.

I know that the Wii appeals to a broader categorie of gamers. That said, if you are going to spend that much money - why not get your money's worth (or don't get anything)? Then, in January, when there are some available at the retail price - pick up a Wii. I suppose that's just rationality conflicting with the Christmas tradition of having it on a specific day.

There's also a little thing called the 360 available, but these are other options for gamers - not your grandparents.

That said, if you are going to spend that much money - why not get your money's worth (or don't get anything)?

How would buying a system aimed at a different demographic that a person probably doesn't even want and probably won't play count as "getting your money's worth?" Again, I'm not sure why you think you need to (or are qualified to) let people know what they want, or how much they should be willing to spend for it.

Clearly, you don't get the appeal, but your taste (or your interest) isn't better than any other person's.

That's why I said "gamers" instead of "casual gamers".

There is no reason to be a jerk, Brian. It is perfectly logical to state that if you can get two systems and one game for $1000 or two systems and six games for $1000 - you should choose the former. If you only want the Wii and have no problem giving up 5 games to have it a month sooner, that is your prodigal prerogative. If you want more than one system, as most "gamers" do - you would do better to purchase them when they are reasonably priced.

I'm not being a jerk, I'm just going by the attitude I've observed from you regarding casual gaming in the past.

I guess I just don't get why you care that people might want to spend that much money on something, if they feel they're not going to get it any other way, when they want it.

Did you have the same attitude about people who were spending ridiculous money on the PS3 when it was released? Did you suggest that they simply wait and buy a $250 Wii, rather than spending twice the amount for an already expensive PS3?

I guess I also don't get how this:

I know that the Wii appeals to a broader categorie of gamers. That said, if you are going to spend that much money - why not get your money's worth (or don't get anything)?

is equal to this:

It is perfectly logical to state that if you can get two systems and one game for $1000 or two systems and six games for $1000 - you should choose the former.

Your first quote reads as though a person who is spending extra money on a Wii would be getting more for there money by buying something else. I think that's a bad conclusion, and probably wrong.

I don't really follow your second quote at all, but it appears to say something very different than your first quote.

Did you suggest that they simply wait and buy a $250 Wii, rather than spending twice the amount for an already expensive PS3?

No, for two reasons. One - The Wii was $476 last year, if you bothered to read the article. Two - The PS3 did not sell for significantly more than retail. Generally, you could go to a few stores and find them. You are not making the distinction between retail cost and actual cost.

The two quotes are targeted at people who are gamers. I have said that numerous times. Gamers probably want all 3 consoles. If a gamer buys a Wii now and a PS3 later, he will end up paying just about $1000 for the two systems and one game ($539 Wii + $400 PS3 + $60 game). If a gamer buys a PS3 now and a Wii later, he will end up paying just about $1000 for the two systems and six games ($400 PS3 + $250 Wii + $350 games). That is how you should interpret the second quote.

The whole argument I am making is that if you are considering the PS3 or 360 at all, you will be a hell of a lot better off getting one of those now - because the Wii will be $250 again in a couple months. Is that clear enough for you or are you blinded by sheer fanboyism?

I want all three consoles, so that advice does not go out to people that only want the Wii. If you only want the Wii and never plan to get a PS3, Blu Ray player, or 360 - then pay the $539 if you really need to have it for Christmas. Just know that if you can wait until a month after Christmas, you'll be able to pick up the Wii with six extra games.

I don't get why you responded to my comment about "casual gamers" with a comment about gamers in general, or why I'm expected to follow that leap. If you don't want to be misunderstood, you might want to try to stay on the subject of the comment you're responding to.

You started off by asking why people wouldn't buy a PS3 instead of a Wii. I countered that with some pretty specific reasons why -- because people who are paying this much for a Wii are likely to be casual gamers and parents -- and because the two systems serve different niches.

So, your response to that is to discuss "gamers" in general?

I actually have my doubts that most people want all three systems. I suspect a bigger number of "gamers" either go for a Wii/360 combo, OR a PS3. (With most people going for one of the three.)

I'll concede that a fairly small group of really hardcore gamers go for all three.

I'm also not sure where this $476 number is coming from. (Oh, I see -- wholesale outlets.) I recall any number of articles saying that e-bayers were lucky to get anything over the $250 purchase price last year, but I definitely don't recall any massive returns on investment.

At any rate, I can't really find anything to argue against your more recent comments -- but that's because they seem to be making a different argument than the first comment I responded to.

You are the one that first responded to me. Further, I didn't ask why people didn't purchase a PS3 instead. I was simply asking why someone would pay PS3 price for a Wii. It's no worse a question than asking why someone would pay filet mignon price for a hotdog.

You think most gamers will go Wii60 or PS3, but that is completely unfounded. Few gamers can get all three, but most gamers want all three. Further, on what you recall about the Wii on eBay - you may want to play some Brain age because you're going senile if you don't remember Wiis going for $500 regularly on eBay.

Yes, I responded to you, but your first comment didn't mention "gamers" at all -- it mentioned the Wii vs. the PS3. I suspect that much of the current demand from the Wii stems from its appeal to casual gamers, not to mention outright non-gamers who have suddenly found a console to call their own.

I didn't ask why people didn't purchase a PS3 instead. I was simply asking why someone would pay PS3 price for a Wii. It's no worse a question than asking why someone would pay filet mignon price for a hotdog.

No, but you're proving my point: By using the analogy of Filet Mignon and Hotdog, you're basically saying, "the PS3 is the real deal, and the Wii is a lesser product." (I don't know how else to read that comparison.)

Clearly, for its niche, this isn't the case. In fact, the PS3 -- at least in that niche -- is a worse product than the Wii. It's not the product these people are interested in, nor a product they'd actually have a use for.

That is why there is nothing "wrong" with people, and it's the same answer I gave in my first response to your (initial) question. If you want to change this to a discussion about another segment of gamers, that's fine -- but I still say you're moving the goal posts.

As for Wii ebay sales -- you're right, I was thinking of the iPhone, which managed to meet demand and sold very poorly on ebay.

No, for two reasons. One - The Wii was $476 last year, if you bothered to read the article. Two - The PS3 did not sell for significantly more than retail. Generally, you could go to a few stores and find them. You are not making the distinction between retail cost and actual cost.

Actually, I paid $299 for my Wii last year. I also got one of the PS3 pre-orders and sold it for $1100 on eBay. So, essentially, I got my Wii plus a couple games and an extra controller for free.

No, but you're proving my point: By using the analogy of Filet Mignon and Hotdog, you're basically saying, "the PS3 is the real deal, and the Wii is a lesser product."

The Wii is (should be) a cheaper and lower quality. There is no debating that issue at all. That said, it can be quite fun - like a hotdog at a baseball game. The PS3 is more expensive and higher quality. That said, not everyone is a filet mignon guy. The Wii games are more oriented at just having a good time, while the PS3 can offer a deeper experience - if you are willing to invest the time and money, which casual gamers will not.

You are the one that moved the goal posts first by assuming my initial comment was targeted at casual gamers. It was not.

You are the one that moved the goal posts first by assuming my initial comment was targeted at casual gamers. It was not.

I can only do so much with a vague comment that doesn't specify in any way "who" it is aimed at. As such, I'm left with evaluating the scope of the article, based on the topic, and your past commentary. If you don't want people to have to do that, be more specific when you post a comment.

No one said you had to assume anything.

It's nice to know I have this kind of control over you though.

A thread wouldn't be complete without a side bar of disagreement and contention over something trivial... but then I'm a "casual gamer" and not a "hardcore gamer" :)

I think you've got that backwards: If you continue to post vague comments, forcing people to make assumptions about your meaning, that means they have control over you.

I guess I'm just having a hard time debating when the topic of debate is shifting from one comment to the next.

I answered your initial question, based on the information you provided.

The initial question was obviously rhetorical. You responded in anger out of fanboyism. How is it that you have control over me when I am supposedly forcing you to make assumptions. You you see how irrational that sounds?

Ah, I see. Now it was rhetorical.

So, now I'm a fanboy for answering your question with a valid response? You posed a question, I responded. If you don't want that to happen, why pose questions?

The Wii is (should be) a cheaper and lower quality. There is no debating that issue at all.

It's cheaper, but that somehow means lower-quality?

I'd love to see how you justify that one.

The Wii games are more oriented at just having a good time, while the PS3 can offer a deeper experience - if you are willing to invest the time and money, which casual gamers will not.

The PS3 can offer a deeper home theatre experience, but again, that's going from the perspective of a hardcore gamer. The Wii is arguably more immersive, more accessible, and more intuitive for the casual gamer. "Deeper" is an excuse to say "according to my personal litmus test, the PS3 pwns."

For the record, I own a 360, and gave my sister a Wii, I'm not coming from the perspective of the casual gamer.

Between Wii and PS3, it's all about opportunity cost. You value the things that are usually associated with "the hardcore gamer," so the PS3 appeals to you, and justifies its price point thusly. For the casual gamer, the appeals of the Wii could very well more than justify a $600 price tag, because for their proclivities, the Wii is far more valuable than the PS3 or the 360.

Lower quality in the sense that its individual parts are presumably cheaper and easier to manufacture (aside from perhaps the motion sensing stuff)

Vincent: Actually, the motion sensing is mostly accelerometers, which aren't particularly expensive now (which is why we see them in laptops and the iPhone, among other electronics) and IR.

However, I take issue with the notion of cheaper and/or easier = lower quality. I think "quality" is far too vague of a term to be of much use as, especially when it really comes down to the individual's taste and enjoyment. Quite frankly, Nintendo has a good reputation of building very high quality equipment, from a durability standpoint. Just look at all those big flatscreens that lost out to little plastic wiimotes. :)

So, now I'm a fanboy for answering your question with a valid response? You posed a question, I responded. If you don't want that to happen, why pose questions?

It's not a valid response if you have to make assumptions.

It's cheaper, but that somehow means lower-quality?

That doesn't mean lower quality. It's lower quality because it is significantly technologically inferior.

"Deeper" is an excuse to say "according to my personal litmus test, the PS3 pwns."

I suppose that's true. But saying The Sopranos is deeper than Two and a Half Men is also just an excuse to say the same thing. Really, we can't compare anything at all in that case.

It's not a valid response if you have to make assumptions.

Good, then we can agree that your initial comment wasn't very well thought out. Thank God.

It's lower quality because it is significantly technologically inferior.

What do you mean by "quality"? I would argue that the Wii does what it is supposed to do as well as or better than the PS3 in its own category, and I would also argue that the buying public apparently agrees.

But saying The Sopranos is deeper than Two and a Half Men is also just an excuse to say the same thing.

And that would be yet another dumb comparison. It'd be like saying Raiders of the Lost Arc is a better adventure movie than Rushmore.

It's lower quality because it is significantly technologically inferior.

You're assuming technology = quality. Not always true. Just because something is not as technologically advanced does not mean it's lower quality. The two don't really have a causal relationship. My grandfather's antique wood desk is much higher quality than my technologically superior metal/glass desk. A high quality leather bound book is higher quality than the technologically superior Amazon Kindle.

At any rate, to get back to the initial point, which had nothing to do with one being "better" than the other, it's like saying that someone would be better off buying The Sopranos at regular price even though they hate mob dramas and would probably never watch it than they would be if they spent double the regular amount to get the last copy of Season 1 of Two and a Half Men, which they really like a whole heckuva lot.

And, I maintain that this is a silly comment to make, and can only be made if you have a really deep dislike of Two and a Half Men. At which point, what you're really saying is: I don't like something, so it's stupid for other people to pay a lot for it.

Good, then we can agree that your initial comment wasn't very well thought out. Thank God.

No, I did not think of every contingency (like grandparents) and every individual Newsviner's ability to pick up on a rhetorical question. P.S. There is no god.

What do you mean by "quality"?

Ability to create truly engrossing games. I can go bowling down the street. Chances are that I will not be tomb raiding or racing $500,000 cars. Believe it or not, graphics matter for these kinds of games. Further, the one draw of the Wii is the controller - but the same things can be done on the SixaxiS and DualShock 3. It is simply that developers are not interested in spending the money to create games that make good use of the controller (then again, Nintendo is really the only one making quality games for the Wii anyway).

A high quality leather bound book is higher quality than the technologically superior Amazon Kindle.

No, it isn't - because you get one leather bound book. Kindle (or better, Reader) users can read thousands of book and RSS feeds anywhere they go. Your comparison is like saying a record is better than an Mp3 player.

Wow - You really hate Two and a Half Men, don't you Henry?

I really, really do.

Ability to create truly engrossing games.

So, I'm to believe that Metroid Prime, Twilight Princess, and Resident Evil aren't truly engrossing games?

You're stating opinions as though they're facts. While I have a hard time denying the benefits of doing so for your arguments, it doesn't really work that way.

Beyond that, how does one qualify "engrossing"?

I've gotten more replay value out of Mario Kart for the Gamecube than any other game in the history of video games.

At any rate, to get back to the initial point, which had nothing to do with one being "better" than the other

Wow. There is an identifiable initial point in all this?!

What do you mean by "quality"?

Ability to create truly engrossing games. I can go bowling down the street. Chances are that I will not be tomb raiding or racing $500,000 cars.

I'm sorry, but "difficulty of doing the real thing" has absolutely nothing to do with how engrossing an experience is. When the Wii came out, there were frequent Internet reports of owners being amazed that Wii Sports could actually take over a party or family get-together.

Graphics do not an engrossing game make. Actually, I would argue that the reality-mimicking motion sensing of the Wiimote is far more engrossing and immersive than a simple jump from 480p to 1080p.

Further, the one draw of the Wii is the controller - but the same things can be done on the SixaxiS and DualShock 3.

Yes, the same technical things have been done on the PS3, but as an afterthought. The motion sensing of the PS3 is not intuitive at all in its current implementation. It's, at most, treated as a nice gimmick (Ratchet & Clank), and at worst, a crippling control pitfall (Lair).

The Wiimote was designed for gesture-mimicking motion control from the start. The 6A and DS3 had motion sensing crammed in as an afterthought.

It's, at most, treated as a nice gimmick (Ratchet & Clank), and at worst, a crippling control pitfall (Lair).

The same could be said of the Wii, which is why there are so may poor games out there that simply buy into the gimmick without having a good game to build around it. I would rather a good game add motion controls as a gimmick than have excellent motion controls without a quality game. I am not saying there are no quality games on the Wii, as we can certainly see with Super Mario Brothers Galaxy.

What is being done on the Wii could be done on the PS3, but developers simply are not doing it. What is being done on the PS3 can not be done on the Wii. That is the difference I see. Motion sensing was not crammed in, as it was clearly in development before the Wiimote was announced. It is simply that most games in standard genres do not benefit from motion controls.

I've been politely staying out of this spat, but I think this warrants a response:

Ability to create truly engrossing games. I can go bowling down the street. Chances are that I will not be tomb raiding or racing $500,000 cars. Believe it or not, graphics matter for these kinds of games.

No one has a problem with calling the PS3 technically superior. As far as I can tell, no one minds if you love the PS3. I think the problem is that you keep making statements like these:

The Wii is (should be) a cheaper and lower quality. There is no debating that issue at all.

It's lower quality because it is significantly technologically inferior.

The problem here is that "quality" is a value assessment. Technical superiority is quantifiable and can be proven; hence, no one's arguing with you on that. But "quality" is about the value one finds in a product. You find more value in the PS3. Several people find more value in the Wii. Heck, some people find more value in the 360. There's no way you can quantify "quality" in such cut-and-dry terms, and the way you keep stating it like a fact is just coming off as frustratingly arrogant.

You love the PS3. We get it. But live and let live. Other people like the Wii better, and beating them over the head with these logical leaps of "tech = objectively better" is just getting tiring to watch.

Ah, I see you replied while I was typing mine. I decided to write a new one rather than edit, so I wouldn't have that clock bothering me.

What is being done on the Wii could be done on the PS3, but developers simply are not doing it.

Not true, actually. Of all the Wii games I've played, the best uses of the Wii remote have been the Nintendo properties: Twilight Princess, Wario Ware, Metroid Prime 3, and Mario Galaxy.

All of them could not be done on the PS3 due to the IR sensor. While the SIXAXIS and DS3 have some of the accelerometer support, neither has the IR support. Twilight Princess uses it for precision aiming of the bow beyond anything in earlier Zelda games. Wario Ware uses it in a variety of ways. Metroid Prime 3 uses it for the best FPS controls this side of mouse-and-keyboard. And Mario Galaxy uses it to collect Star Bits. Not a single one could be done on the PS3.

It's, at most, treated as a nice gimmick (Ratchet & Clank), and at worst, a crippling control pitfall (Lair).

The same could be said of the Wii

Metroid Prime 3, Rayman RR, Trauma Center, Wario Ware, Super Mario Galaxy, Elebits, etc. use motion sensing above and beyond gimmick status (not to mention Wii Sports). Sure, it's possible to make these games without motion controls, but that's like saying "it's possible to play most games with just the function keys on a keyboard."

The problem here is that "quality" is a value assessment. Technical superiority is quantifiable and can be proven; hence, no one's arguing with you on that. But "quality" is about the value one finds in a product. You find more value in the PS3. Several people find more value in the Wii. Heck, some people find more value in the 360. There's no way you can quantify "quality" in such cut-and-dry terms, and the way you keep stating it like a fact is just coming off as frustratingly arrogant.

Absolutely. Henry's preferences dictate that the PS3 is worth an opportunity cost of at least $400, and the Wii is not worth the opportunity cost of $600. However, even if common sense doesn't, the market indicates that there are many people with different preferences.

"Tickle Me Wii"

That sounds perverse.

Such a device would be rather popular, and it would certainly open up the hardcore market. Just not the gaming one.

my thoughts exactly.

I've been searching for one for my husband since before last Thanksgiving. Nothing.

I called every electronics/department store within a 60 mile radius and came up empty for 3 days straight. I called Best Buy and asked when they expected to get some. The lady told me that they had a truck coming in but she didn't know if it would have any Wiis on it but I could call after the truck came in and they would tell me if they had any. I called back and they had received 6. I tried to buy one over the phone but she said I would have to come in. I drove the 30 minutes to Best Buy and when I got there they had 4 left. The next day was my son's birthday so I was fortunate.

Well played, Jason. Well played. You, I mean your son, of course, are is going to really enjoy it.

You, I mean your son, of course, are is going to really enjoy it

You, sir, are talking to the reigning Mario Party 8 champion of the world. There's no feeling in the world like defeating your 13 year old son at video games. I still got it.

Jason: I, on the other hand, got my ass handed to me in Wii Bowling by my mother-in-law (a 60 year old Korean woman). I can assure you, there's no feeling in the world like that either (thank goodness).

The good news is, I can beat my 4 month old daughter at any game. She sucks at gaming. For now...

I, on the other hand, got my ass handed to me in Wii Bowling by my mother-in-law (a 60 year old Korean woman).

Ouch. :)

LOL, Jason, my tiny, skinny little 9 year old daughter, who weighs less than 50 pounds soaking wet beat the heck out of my 215 or so pound brother in law, the tough guy, at Wii bowling.

It was a proud moment in a mom's life. Sniff sniff. LOL

Jason, biggerthebetter: I guess I don't have too much pride about it. I'm only a casual gamer, you know. Something about being the parent of an infant child demands that.

Of course, that being said, I've found that she enjoys being held while I'm playing Metroid Prime or Mario Galaxy. I've not attempted to play Wii Sports or Wario while holding her, though. That seems dangerous.

I just came across this again: My mother-in-law Wii bowling.

I ordered mine from a private seller on Amazon. Sure I ended up paying... *currency conversions* about 600 dollars for it,
but the pound is strong and it's only about 100 pounds (200 dollars) over what it would retail on shelves for. However, good look finding one on a shelf,
anywhere in Northern or Southern Ireland.

The wii is supposed to be for my 10 year old sister....
But I'm getting guitar hero 3 for christmas. ^-^

-Dave

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence, but here we go: Over the course of the year, I've walked in to countless vendors (I live in a medium sized city in Canada) and have seen them sitting on shelves. Not once, many times. No one cares anymore, no one is lining up looking for them.

In the Kansas City area:

I've not seen a single Wii on the shelf since the day I bought mine on the first day of availability last year. Yes, I look.

I don't recall having seen a single Wii system available in any Gamestop, Target, Best Buy, or Circuit City in the Richmond, VA area since I purchased mine on the first day.

Yeah, I've never seen one in the wild since I got mine by standing outside Target in the November cold.

Yes, I remember it being bitterly cold here in Richmond. It was kinda fun, though. Definitely the best 9 hours in line I've ever had.

You guys should come to Canada.

Here's the going rate... new/used

600 bucks for USED !? Oh man ..I'm ebaying mine right now unless somebody here wants it for 550 because I'm a nice guy :) 2 sets of controllers & 4 games + carry bag. I'll even gift wrap it :)

Shoot, really? Because I've been licking mine fairly regularly for the last year or so.

Ewe.

If you are referring to the recent Greenpeace score, there's actually little information to back that up. I'm an ardent environmentalist, and supporter of Greenpeace even, but that study was simply flawed and misleading. If you have other information, you should consider sharing it instead of leaving vaguely worded and dismissive comments.

More FUD from Simon...Perfect.

Nintendo received a "zero" on the Greenpeace "report" because Greenpeace wasn't able to find specific answers to their own criteria posted on the Nintendo website. Greenpeace did NOT, at any time, actually *test* any Nintendo hardware for toxidity. None. Nada. Zip. The Greenpeace "report" is simply a gauge of how well a given company plays their game by making promises in press releases and FAQs.

I kind of figured he was kidding.

I kind of figured he was kidding.

Trust me, he's not. We've gone round and round on this issue many times. He blindly believes the Greepeace "report", even when it's been shown to be based on nothing more than marketing materials, and he'll keep repeating it until he's blue in the face.

Take a peak at his column -- you'll figure out he's not kidding very quickly.

;)

Take a peak at his column -- you'll figure out he's not kidding very quickly.

Oh, carry on with the verbal bashing then. No need to excuse idiocy.

While we're on the subject, though, I was listening to an IGN podcast today that made a good observation... does anyone else find it interesting that Greenpeace – an organization that needs publicity – happened to include consoles for the first time this year, as the Wii is a hot item and everything it touches gets publicity?

No, I don't find that Odd, but I imagine Apple is happy to have their idiocy shift to a new target, if only temporarily.

Brian, don't tell us you've been licking your Wii.

;)

Gecko, Brian, and Steve: Well, I just want to be clear that I myself share a great deal of Simon L's concerns in life. I didn't mean to simply dismiss him entirely. I just want to be clear that this particular campaign by Greenpeace is generally without merit, especially when it comes to their claim against Nintendo. Further, Simon's comment above was off topic and added no value to this conversation. That is why I responded as I did. I noted a fairly vicious discussion on a article on Simon's column, so I'm going to just leave it at that.

Jason,

I, too, share environmental concerns, which is why the Greenpeace technology report (and the "Green My Apple" campaign) get me so riled up. Greenpeace is *hurting* the cause with this campaign. They've now lost all credibility in many people's eyes, so when they have anything substantive to say it'll be like the boy who cried wolf. They need to stop playing games for publicity sake and start doing actual research.

gecko: I couldn't agree more and I hope my comments reflect that.

They can switch companies, invest a little in that company to help bring up production capacity, ... something along those lines. But I don't see why they would. A 15-20% bump in production would make shortages a bit more tolerable for gamers, but significantly less profitable... Who knows.

I'm not sure if that report that the Wii is a profitable console is true or not (I'm speaking of the hardware itself at retail value). If no, then it makes sense that they would hold back production to make a buck on it, especially in light of less than stellar game sales (Console developers cash cow). They say only every other Wii owner actually goes out and buys additional games (usually not more than one) that hadn't already came with the Wii. And if they do make money off of it, well... same reason still applies, their just being greedy/lazy lol. Afterall, why invest in producing more of a product, just so that you can sell it for less as opposed to maintaining a high profit margin and steady long(er) term income. Only reason I can think of? It becomes outdated or the PS3 and 360 pick up some additional steam (which the PS3 is doing quite well).

While the Wii's initial launch sales rate was higher than average for a console, I wonder if its growth rate has been consistently better than the PS2's during its Prime.

We generally get our little ones a single "real" present, and a few odds and ends, and we try to keep it cheap.

Honestly, between their numerous aunts, uncles, grandparents and other wellwishers, my kids just don't need much from us.

That, and they'll never be wanting for videogames, since I buy them for *me* and will be more than happy to share.

The only problem with that theory is that after some reasearch I've found numerous consoles selling for less than or around 300 bucks. most of these come with 2 controllers and a respectable supply of games.

I've played the Wii. It was boring.

So have I. It wasn't.

Ain't anecdotal evidence fun?

I just can't fathom paying more than the retail price for "hot" items. The Wii will be just as fun when you can buy one in a store...why do people insist on blowing money that could've bought several games and extra controllers?

I won't personally spend more than retail, unless the product is, for its production lifetime, going to be in short supply, but I can definitely see the rationale behind spending more for earlier procurement, especially when spending more means that a kid will get the Christmas present he's been dying for.

Granted, I'm even more puzzled by the crazy people who bought PS3s for $1000+ on eBay last year.

I still kick myself for not getting in on an easy PS3 launch preorder when I had the chance. Same with the 360.

The only problem with that theory is that after some reasearch I've found numerous consoles selling for less than or around 300 bucks. most of these come with 2 controllers and a respectable supply of games.

I actually looked on eBay to gauge the Wii market, and there were many Wiis up for maybe $350, including Wii Play. Granted, there could be bidding war madness in the last 5 minutes of each auction, but even for auctions ending within an hour or two, the prices were still respectable.

I've played the Wii. It was boring.

You know we're talking about the Nintendo Wii, right? ;-)

I looked this morning at the completed auctions for the Wii and it seemed that the console was selling at a $100-120 premium, and then there were quite a few with "14 games" (That one with bowling, baseball, etc that comes with the console and Wii Play, or whatever that one with 9 games and a Wiimote is.) were selling for significantly more, but many had further extras, like the nunchuck.

Thanks for the info. I had guessed that there were probably last-minute upticks.

I remember back when nunchucks were in very short supply. The Times Square Toys 'R Us had huge bins filled to the brim with Wiimotes and Classic controllers, but no nunchucks and Wiis in sight. Come to think of it, I really should get a second nunchuck for our Wii.

Sell it on ebay.

@!$%#ty service and lies just to make things go "easier" and blatant favoritism toward fanboy customers? Sounds like Gameslop to me. I haven't been inside one in years.

Clerks all over again.

I went to Gamestop to buy Mario Galaxy the other day and the clerk was very curtious and helpful. I even asked if they had any blank, white DVD cases that I could purchase to put Wii Sports in. He went in back, found one, and didn't even charge me 1¢ for it.

I know they have a bad rep. but I've always had a fairly good experience there. At the very least, I don't find them any worse to do business at than Best Buy or Circuit City. To my knowledge, there aren't any locally owned, independent places with great service selling gaming consoles; at least not around here. As such, I might as well go to the place that knows something about games and I can at least get in and out of quickly.

I use Gamefly. Try before you buy is so much better than taking them back and selling them used.

I've never had any issues with Gamestop. Heck, I've never had any issues with any of the places that people go all crazy over how much their service sucks or this that or the other thing.

Maybe its just me, but I don't really deal with the customer service that much. I actually try to avoid it. I research what I want before I walk into a store looking to buy something, If they have it great, if not, too bad, try again next time.

The only exception to this is Car Salesman. Man, I know the guys are just doing their job the way they've been trained/instructed, but damn. I hate it lol.

Congrats on your Wii.

So hooray! Now I have to figure out how to make that @!$%#ing bar work on my TV which somehow does not have any flat horizontal surfaces.

Is it an LCD? I'd just put the sensor bar on whatever your TV is on. Then again, f it's wall-mounted, you can always try making duct-tape donuts.

I even asked if they had any blank, white DVD cases that I could purchase to put Wii Sports in. He went in back, found one, and didn't even charge me 1¢ for it.

Oooooh. Good idea!

Nah, it's an HD-ILA (which is a lot like a projection TV but different...or something)...the trouble is that there's no nice flat surface anywhere on the TV, so I think I'm going to have to use some tape to make it sit right (and then hope my cats don't go @!$%#ing around with it at night)

It's seems strange that there's no flat surface on the TV, then. I would think that at least the top edge would be flat for at least a centimeter or two in depth.

If anyone says eBay its there own fault because they are available in the store if you are willing to try.

Is it the fault of people willing to be gouged? or those rounding up as many Wii's as possible and contributing to stock outs for eBay cash? or nintendo for missing the demand bubble?

The choice to buy or not remains quite free...

I agree. The local best buy store had several wii's in stock all week long (I have a friend that works there). They finally sold out the day before they got restocked, and the markup price is marginal, like 260 or something. The only place I've ever seen these outrageous prices is on ebay.

Well, the Wii did just have what could arguably it's most anticipated title released, in the most well known franchise in the gaming world, it'd be weird if it wasn't number 1.

Oh man! High School Musical Sing It w/ Mic is out now?!

Time for some Amazon shopping!

In all seriousness, it's a travesty that that game is outselling New Super Mario Bros. and Mass Effect. Utter travesty.