5 ms·

The argument of below-cost hardware sales comes up frequently, yet I'm not at all sure it's true. Nintendo have certainly gone on record as saying the Wii was _

The argument of below-cost hardware sales comes up frequently, yet I'm not at all sure it's true. Nintendo have certainly gone on record as saying the Wii was _never_ sold for below hardware cost (don't have a reference to hand, sorry); I don't follow the scene enough any more to know the general current position but it's far from a given that hardware sales are subsidised by software. Frankly I'd much rather see the whole thing opened up and made more reasonable and competitive, into a proper market. Microsoft don't have any say over who releases what for Windows, Apple don't have a say over who releases what for OS X (though are heading down a slippery slope with the App Store following iOS...) - I see no legitimate reason for the games market to be different. If the hardware cost goes up, fine - we're still below the real-terms cost of the earlyish 16 bit era.

tzs 16y ago
Yes, the Wii hardware was sold at a profit. The PS3, though, was definitely at a loss. People took it apart, and the total cost of parts at the best prices available in available in large volume was well over the retail price (not all of which goes to Sony). edit: details: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2006/11/8239.ars http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2006/11/8239.ars
- eftpotrm 16y ago
  Interesting, particularly as it suggests the XBox 360 has been sold at a profit for at least four years now. So, of the three major home systems (as distinct from portables), at least two are being sold at a profit, further reducing the argument in favour of restricting their use due to recovering initial costs.
  - tzs 16y ago
    What makes most sense probably is for them to restrict use initially when (1) there is a shortage of hardware and (2) the hardware is often being sold at a loss per unit. When the hardware is not being sold at a loss (which was from day one for Wii, and after years for the others) and the units are readily available so that repurposing isn't preventing gamers from getting them, then dropping all restrictions makes sense. They'll sell more units (which is good for them since the units are profitable per unit) and hence make more money.

tzs 16y ago

Yes, the Wii hardware was sold at a profit. The PS3, though, was definitely at a loss. People took it apart, and the total cost of parts at the best prices available in available in large volume was well over the retail price (not all of which goes to Sony). edit: details: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2006/11/8239.ars http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2006/11/8239.ars

eftpotrm 16y ago
Interesting, particularly as it suggests the XBox 360 has been sold at a profit for at least four years now. So, of the three major home systems (as distinct from portables), at least two are being sold at a profit, further reducing the argument in favour of restricting their use due to recovering initial costs.
- tzs 16y ago
  What makes most sense probably is for them to restrict use initially when (1) there is a shortage of hardware and (2) the hardware is often being sold at a loss per unit. When the hardware is not being sold at a loss (which was from day one for Wii, and after years for the others) and the units are readily available so that repurposing isn't preventing gamers from getting them, then dropping all restrictions makes sense. They'll sell more units (which is good for them since the units are profitable per unit) and hence make more money.