@yavix I don't think anybody is being "tricked" here any more than a person is being tricked when they put $1,000 down payment on a car or $10,000 down on a house. Clearly they understand that doesn't represent the total cost of the item.
Like everything else in society, from cell phones and credit cards to houses and businesses, this is just a short-term loan, and one that has pretty good terms at that. If you go in understanding that and it works for you, there's absolutely nothing wrong with this deal.
We all know that the Wii U games won't cost $100, but what will they cost? The cost of a new game has increased $10 with each new generation since the mid-90s. And even though the Wii games were typically cheaper (at $50) than games on the XBOX 360 and PlayStation 3 (both at $60), that was largely because the lack of high-definition graphics meant less time creating resources for highly detailed environments and characters. It doesn't take as much time for an artist to draw / animate Mario as Altair, for example.
So as Nintendo consoles move into HD, should we expect to see their games increase to match the $60 price point set by its competitors? Or will those consoles bring advances that will move the bar up to $70 and take the Wii U along with it? Nintendo has not been immune to the generational price increase, so I have no reason to be optimistic that it's not going to happen again.
But as I have said before on this topic, if the average price of new games reaches $70, I'm tapping out.
@OhSnapitz Whether you want Kinect or not is a personal choice, of course. I'm just comparing apples to apples. Of course Microsoft wants you using Kinect...that's good for them. You have to decide whether it's good for you too.
Frankly, I can recall the old debates five years ago about which was better, getting everything you need for gaming at once with a more expensive PS3, or buying components and accessories one at a time on a less expensive XBOX 360.
Clearly, each has its advantages, but I don't think it's hard to see that the bit by bit buildup will work for a certain underserved segment of gamers. It doesn't make them suckers. Their cash flow dynamic is just different, that's all.
Somebody could start out with this system and eventually add a hard drive and be on par with somebody who bought the bundle out of the gate. Would the total cost increase if purchased that way? Yes. But forgive those of us who can't leap from one floor to the next for taking the stairs. :-p
@Oni_Taedo There's so many problems with your logic that I don't know where to begin. Why would anyone have to pay for two years of subscription *and* pay an early termination fee?
@crakrman If you're going to do that, why not just buy a $200 console ($300 if you want Kinect) and be done with it? Why start a contract you know you don't intend to keep? Your "scam" doesn't make sense here.
I'm in complete disagreement with all those people who say that this is a ripoff. It's nothing of the sort. First, this potentially allows a person with a steady income but only a couple of hundred dollars on hand to walk out with a new game system and games to play immediately. It beats the brakes off a used system for that reason alone. (And if you wanna talk about being a fool, look at GameStop's markups on used systems...sheesh.)
But more importantly, this is a 9.5% difference in cost on a two-year loan! Those are perfectly reasonable rates, far better than you'd get by charging the initial $420 to a credit card and paying it off month-by-month. It's better than the mark-up that most of you end up paying for your subsidized smartphones.
Clearly, this deal isn't for everyone. If you have the cash on hand, it probably makes more sense to buy everything outright and be done with it. If your income isn't predictably sound over the next two years, you shouldn't enter a two-year contract FOR ANYTHING. But for a certain segment of the population, this deal will be right on time. I suspect it will spur sales at the low end, and if it is successful, I expect to see other console makers (Sony, at least) eventually follow suit.
Nintendo really pulled a fast one on me last generation with their bevy of controllers. Sure, the initial console outlay was only $250, but if you wanted extra controllers -- and given how big the console was on multiplayer gaming, who didn't want extra controllers? -- then they were $60 each for the remote + nunchuck set. Throw in a couple of classic controllers and the Wii Fit board, and suddenly you're way past the initial cost of the console in extra controllers and add-on peripherals.
I always think backward compatibility is a good thing for game systems, and I think it's especially good for the Wii U to allow folks to continue to use their Wii controllers. But I will be keeping a close eye on what the new tablet and other controllers cost so I can get an idea of what my true total cost for multiplayer, family-oriented Wii U gaming is going to be.
PS -- I know the Kinect had some weaknesses compared to the Wii's controllers and the PS Move, but I loved the fact that you only had to get one Kinect sensor and you were done. That was definitely a plus compared to the other systems in which controllers were sold piecemeal and required redundant copies of each controller for local multiplayer.
I agree with Pachter and others. I think this thing lands at $300 in the U.S. That will probably be a good enough price to sell out of whatever limited inventory they will have during the holiday season. The console will start to sell like hotcakes when it drops to $250 or $200, by which point the games picture should be clearer.
theKSMM's comments