Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

1 Million Wiis To Be Sold in U.S. By December 206

Posted by Zonk
from the like-our-shiny-new-icon? dept.
Gamasutra reports on comments by Nintendo's Reggie-Fils Aime, who is claiming the company will have sold 1 Million Wii consoles by December 1st. From the article: "Nintendo's previously stated plans called for the company to ship approximately 4 million consoles globally before the end of 2006. It is not clear whether the new figures stated by Fils-Aime are still in line with these numbers, since no estimate for Japanese or European sales were given. Sony's plans call for 1 million consoles sales in the U.S. by the end of March, 2007. When interviewed by Reuters, Fils-Aime also commented on the potential lifespan of the Wii, suggesting that a four, five or even six year lifespan was 'just about right.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

1 Million Wiis To Be Sold in U.S. By December

Comments Filter:
  • by east coast (590680) on Monday November 20, 2006 @03:06PM (#16918698)
    Is there really any question that Wii is going to sell a million units if their available? PS3 would do the same at over twice the price...
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20, 2006 @03:11PM (#16918786)
      I doubt the PS3 would accomplish this (1 million in sales by December) if the units were available. There has been a lot of news out lately in regards to what a disaster the PS3 is turning out to be for Sony. Here is a listing of a few of the problems reported already:

      - Poor backward compatilibity with PS1 and PS2 games (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15712585/)

      - Numerous high def upscaling issues including PS3 BluRay movies not appearing in high definition properly (http://loot-ninja.com/2006/11/19/ps3-hd-scaling-i ssues-other-annoyances/)

      - A very poor online system, as compared to the Xbox Live System (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/20/arts/20game.htm l)

      - No high definition cables ship with the system, you are stuck with a composite cable unless you pay extra (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/20/arts/20game.htm l)

      - Poor graphics on side to side game comparison tests: http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/sports/tonyhawksprojec t8/review.html?sid=6161341 [gamespot.com]

      - Poor framerates and "tearing" reported on multiple game titles, including Tony Hawk and Mobile Suit Gundam: Crossfire (http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/sim/gundamworld/revie w.html)

      - Poor buggy development tools which make development very hard as compared to other current gen systems (http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=19611&he d=Atari+Founder+Likes+Xbox360%2C+Disses+PS3&sector =Industries&subsector=EntertainmentAndMedia)

      - Multiple launch titles cancelled or delayed due to development issues (http://www.gamesarefun.com/news.php?newsid=7200)

      With the Xbox 360 already having 7 million units sold worldwide, the Wii approximately 500,000 units, and the PS3 only having sold 200,000 units in North America and 80,000 units in Japan and none in Europe it is hard to see Sony succeeding with the PS3. The PS3 may be the largest disaster yet for Sony this year, with each PS3 losing $306 for Sony (http://www.videogamesblogger.com/2006/11/16/ps3-l oses-up-to-306-per-unit-xbox-360-profits-76-per-sa le.htm) and the PS3 having the lowest attach rate (0.98) in the industry.
      • by ThosLives (686517) on Monday November 20, 2006 @03:20PM (#16918988) Journal
        with each PS3 losing $306 for Sony

        You know, I doubt Sony counts this as a "loss" - they probably book it as an "investment".

        Think of it like this: if I spend $1000 on stock, I didn't "lose" $1000 - I invested it, with the hopes of getting more than $1000 back at some point in the future, but my returns are not guaranteed, just as Sony's returns are not. If Sony thinks that by spending (cost - revenue) per unit now will get them (cost + returns) later through game licensing, they don't consider it a loss, but a risky investment. It's only a "loss" at the end of the product cycle if (total sales - total cost) is negative when they stop selling.

        I would think that any business-savvy folks would recognize this, but apparently the media is portraying this in a very one-sided manner and getting quite a few people to bite on the misinformation (units costing more than sale price is probably a fact - but it isn't a useful fact in and of itself).

        That said, I don't know if the PS3 will end up being an investment for a gain or for a loss - and neither does anyone else.

        • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Monday November 20, 2006 @03:26PM (#16919076)

          Think of it like this: if I spend $1000 on stock, I didn't "lose" $1000 - I invested it, with the hopes of getting more than $1000 back at some point in the future, but my returns are not guaranteed, just as Sony's returns are not.

          You're more or less right, but there is a difference. If you invest in stock you get something, stock. You made a purchase that may or may not increase in value. When Sony loses money selling consoles they don't have anything. They have arguable increased their potential of selling games and movies. Thus, it is more like paying for advertising than it is investing in stock. This doesn't mean that the return is less likely, only that what they have purchased is more ephemeral. It also means their expenditure may be more exploitable by individuals who happen to want just that hardware, but who don't want any games or movies.

          • there is a difference. If you invest in stock you get something, stock. You made a purchase that may or may not increase in value. When Sony loses money selling consoles they don't have anything. They have arguable increased their potential of selling games and movies.

            Well, true, until you realize that the "something" that is stock, is itself just the potential of it having future value -- just like the $306 loss "investment".

            IMHO, the difference is that Sony's loss-leader investment is much less likely to
            • Well, true, until you realize that the "something" that is stock, is itself just the potential of it having future value -- just like the $306 loss "investment".

              Stock is not just the potential of something it is part ownership of a company. While a corporation may be a nebulous thing they do have real assets and cash and debts. So buying stock is a lot like buying gold or some other commodity. The value may go up or down or neither, but it is something purchased. This is how it is different from spending

              • That's a good point, and I wish fewer people would neglect the "ownership value" (e.g., including voting rights) that come with stock when talking about it's value. Still, I wish you wouldn't keep describing stock ownership as "having something", when the difference you were actually trying to highlight was that buying stock gives you ownership rights, while Sony's "investment" gives it no similar right. However, it can still "sell" what it "bought": Sony could sell to someone else the stream of software
            • by twistedsymphony (956982) on Monday November 20, 2006 @04:17PM (#16919910) Homepage
              I think the GP's point is that you can buy stock, and if you need/want you can resell it and get your money back give or take what has changed. The Money Sony "spent" on console losses cannot be re-sold, similar to advertising you can't un-advertise something.

              You also have to consider that it takes quite a hefty amount of game and accessory sales to make that $300+ back. Licensing for 3rd party titles is about $8 a pop, and Sony has arguably the weakest 1st party support out of the three major players so most of their games sales will be for 3rd party games. Even if you consider accessory markup around the 40-60% area you can only sell so many controllers and AV cables before people don't need to buy any more. Blu-Ray movie licensing is probably nothing compared to that of games. They're probably banking on PS3's helping move the format and thus the players that they can make money on. Unlike Microsoft they don't have an online service that brings in money, they also don't have memory cards to bring in money, or a network adapter accessory, etc.

              Thinking about it further this money spend really is more like advertising then anything else. They're just doing what they can to get the console out there, to start the word of mouth and get people interested and excited about it so that when there are more games available and the consoles are easier to track down, and Sony's losses per unit aren't as high, they'll sell more of them. It also boosts word of mouth and desire for the Blu-Ray movies which in turn boost sales of the Blu-Ray players that they can make money on. It almost works to their advantage to have so few units out in the wild because it buys them time to reduce the cost of manufacturing, drives up demand from the short supply and the console is still out there for people as a tangible object.
          • by planetmn (724378) on Monday November 20, 2006 @03:59PM (#16919624)
            You're more or less right, but there is a difference. If you invest in stock you get something, stock. You made a purchase that may or may not increase in value. When Sony loses money selling consoles they don't have anything.

            Sony bought a customer.

            -dave
            • Sony bought a customer.

              That is one way of looking at it, but in my mind a customer is someone who I'm profiting from, not who is profiting from me. I don't consider charging someone less than I paid for something to make them a customer (lot's or room for disagreement here). When they buy games which provide me a profit, they are a customer, but that is only one possibility when they buy the console. Maybe they're just going to pull the blu-ray drive out and put it in something else.

              • by planetmn (724378)
                Just look at the whole razor argument. Sell the razor cheap, make the money on the cartridges. Same with consumer printers. The printers are cheap, the ink is expensive. Now, I wouldn't call a $600 video game console cheap (I'm still waiting for used Gamecubes to come down in price), but it's the same theory.

                -dave
                • Just look at the whole razor argument.

                  I understand what they're doing and it is a reasonable business model. The point I was making, however, is that selling a loss leader is not the same as buying stock, but rather is more like paying for advertising because all you're buying is the potential of customers, not a real asset.

                  • by ThosLives (686517)

                    I agree that buying stock is not the same as selling a console (at a loss). However, both are valid investements; if you consider selling a loss-leader as "advertisement" then there's no problem; most companies do indeed count advertising as an investment. Also, you don't have to invest in "tangible goods" to be an investment - education also comes to mind as an "intangible" investment...

            • by freeweed (309734)
              So they'll make it up on volume?
              • by planetmn (724378)
                As I posted above in reply to somebody else, it could just be the whole "razor" theory where you sell the razor for cheap, and make your money (hopefully) on the blades. Same has been done in the Inkjet market where the printers are cheap, and they hope to make the profits on ink. I don't know if that is what Sony is doing, but it's possible.

                -dave
                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by Knuckles (8964)
                  As I posted above in reply to somebody else, it could just be the whole "razor" theory where you sell the razor for cheap, and make your money (hopefully) on the blades

                  I totally don't get how one could apply the razor concept to the PS3. The razor concept depend on the idea that the razor is cheap so that people buy it without thinking, and then buy the relatively expensive blades over time without noticing since in absolute terms the blades still don't cost very much and the purchases are spread out over t
            • "Sony bought a customer."

              For $304, I'd damn well better buy 15 games at $59.99 USD for them to break even, let alone for them to actually make back a decent return on their dollars. Or am I supposed to go ahead and buy around 10 games at $59.99 USD and then make up the other $100 in microtransactions somehow?

              (I'm assuming Sony makes $20 out of the $59.99, and the rest is retailer + distributor + publisher + developer overhead).
        • by redragon (161901)
          Yes, it's called a loss-leader. And I don't think it's going to pay dividends.
        • by RingDev (879105)
          I'm curious as to the odds on that investment. I have never owned a console in my life (I'm a PC gamer), but I've lived with a few stoners over the years.

          Those guys had pretty much every console that came out. But I don't think they had more than 5-10 games for any of them. I don't know if they are representive of the average consumer, but if they are, Sony would have to expect a $30+ profit per game sold. That seems a bit out of line considering that most of these games will sell between $45-$65. Does anyo
          • I don't.

            But I will add this: those numbers are what is required to make up manufacturing costs. That doesn't say anything about pre-manufacturing R&D or marketing, which are not amortized across all consoles in those calculations.

            So let's make a conservative estimate: $30 licensing revenue for Sony per game sold. Then you have to sell, on average, 8-10 games per console, NEW. And if you manage that feat, you've still lost the full R&D and marketing costs. And the fewer consoles they sell, the mo
      • by Chaffar (670874)
        - Poor backward compatilibity with PS1 and PS2 games (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15712585/)
        Because msnbc is most definitely THE source of unbiased news about the PS3. No question about that.
        • by planetmn (724378)
          Because msnbc is most definitely THE source of unbiased news about the PS3. No question about that.

          Do you have any evidence of bias? Just because there is a potential conflict of interest doesn't mean that it is acted upon.

          -dave
          • One thing that pops to mind is the fact that Microsoft has been far, far worse about keeping its promises of backwards compatibility than Sony has been thus far. That fact is mentioned nowhere in the article. Of course, the article is not an editorial and thus wouldn't be expected to mention such a thing, but it does reveal the biases of the AC who linked it.

            Rob
            • What are you talking about?

              Microsoft wouldn't even talk about Backwards Compatibility on the Xbox 360 until the console was just months away from launch, and even then they said that it would only be the top games, (Halo, Halo 2, Knights of the Old Republic, Fable, etc.) which they did deliver on.

              They did say that their goal was to get every game working but they never said it would (or when it would) happen--- unlike Sony who has taunted Microsoft repeatedly over backwards compatibility. It's hubris and hy
              • by Pluvius (734915)
                OK, so let's say that Microsoft never promised complete backwards compatibility with the XBox. (Never mind the fact that "They did say that their goal was to get every game working" suggests that they made something very close to a promise.) How does that make the AC's bias against the PS3 any more valid? While the PS3 is compatible with thousands upon thousands of PSX and PS2 games, only having issues with a small fraction of them, the XBox 360 is only compatible with a few hundred XBox games (and even
          • Microsoft has proven, time and again, that it is out for your best interests.
            Why would you even question them?
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Hassman (320786)
          You do realize that the article linked is a Reuters article. Reuters has nothing to do with MSNBC...kinda like the AP. It just happens to be on MSNBC, which by the way is more NBC than MS.

          Say it with me... Think, then post. THINK, then post. I know you can do it.
      • Additionally, all the game reviewers (justly) savaged the PS3 games - except for Resistance: Fall of Man, they are so lame as to want to make you barf.

        Can't say I blame them - after sitting thru the reviews, I'd be angry at the quality of the release games for the PS3.

        Not the same on the Nintendo Wii side - so far, all the games are great! Zelda - well, it's Zelda - my son and his friend were jazzed, but I never really was into that game. But it works well. They still have to master the jumping on pillars
        • by Anonymous Coward
          Bowling takes a bit to get used to (hint - line up with the sensor bar)

          That's a terrible hint. For the record I regularly bowl over 200 in Wii Sports' Bowling so I do know what I'm talking about.

          None of the Wii Sports games use the sensor bar. It is only used when you are selecting things from menus; even then you can still use the control pad as an alternate. Don't believe me? Try covering up the sensor bar or bowling from another room. It still works the same.

          A better (read: useful) tip is to watch y
        • I haven't picked up a Wii yet (had no intentions of camping overnight for a console), but probably will later this year, primarily just for Zelda.

          That said, I've been reading a lot of reviews for these games (Zelda, Excite Truck, and Wii Sports in particular), and it's generally only Zelda that has gotten the big thumbs up. The other two are fun, but it's questionable how long you'll be playing them. One of my biggest concerns is that some of the first Wii games are going to be like the first DS games ... i
      • Kind sir, I most definitely agree with you. PS3 seems like it's set up for a heavy drop down into the shitter. As always, there will be loyal fans of the platform who will buy it out of devotion, screaming and bawling kids who just think it looks cool and will practically tear their parents' hair out to get it, and those who just seem to have too much money and want to "try it out." Such will be the market for this new system. Regretfully, the PS3 seems to be taking the same path downhill that the Dreamcast
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Total_Wimp (564548)

        I doubt the PS3 would accomplish this (1 million in sales by December) if the units were available.

        Funny, you gave a lot of URLs for articles that say various negative things about the PS3, but not a single article to bolster your main point, that you believe they would have trouble with sales. On the other hand, Sony had 400k units go out the door in minutes on launch day (Please show me figures if you believe it's lower, because everything I read shows the higher number), with lots of frustrated people

        • by Garse Janacek (554329) on Monday November 20, 2006 @05:30PM (#16921066)

          It looks like you're using Sony's worldwide launch numbers, but Nintendo's (completely speculated) U.S. launch numbers. Why?

          "Everything you read" says Sony shipped 400,000 -- okay, though there are lots of rumors to the contrary I don't know of documented evidence otherwise -- the main documentation seems to say that there are no verified numbers... but, like many reporters you seem to accept Sony's advance numbers by default (despite widespread reports that shipments were short). On the other hand, no definite numbers are known for Nintendo yet, so you... reject Nintendo's numbers and go with lower numbers you made up. Without even the short shipments rumors as in the PS3 case. Why? Are you aware of even one single store that had fewer than twice as many Wiis as PS3s? Most of the margins seem to be well above that, though of course the dust has not settled yet.

          I had thought that the Wii was going to be 4 million units strong yesterday.

          Why did you think this? Nintendo never said this. Nintendo said 4 million by the end of the year. It's unreasonable to be disappointed in Nintendo because you misread the press releases.

          Based on the launch day alone, it looks like there was much stonger demand for the PS3.

          You made up your numbers backing this up, and I'm unclear how you define yesterday as "leisurely"... fewer people shot at/robbed? Okay, I'll give you that, but it seems like most stores were still sold out pretty early in the morning, if not right at opening. If it took longer for the sellout to happen than for the PS3, it seems mostly because there were more units available, and more stores with significant numbers of units, so tracking all of them down took longer. Also, people weren't as worried about shortages, and could afford to be less crazy about getting one.

          In any case, as basic econ tells us, in situations of inelastic demand (the hardcore fans), "shorter supply" can have effects that look very similar to "stronger demand," and it's very unclear why you're claiming the latter with no real evidence...

          • You made up your numbers backing this up,

            This is a cheap shot. I used the post I replied to for the Nintendo numbers and the reported shipped units for the Sony. 400k is what the company reported. It may be less, for example some people have claimed 200k, but if I used those numbers I really would be making them up.

            I don't have specific knowledge of either number, so the best I can do is rehash what's been reported to me. Of the Nintendo numbers I do know this; they're smaller than 1 million. That's wh

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Rallion (711805)
              This is more of an anecdote than a source, but I can state with certainty that the Target I work at got 8 PS3's in, as opposed to 51 Wii's. Both lines were full by midnight on launch day. All stores in my area (I've been given approximate numbers for a Walmart and 4 EBGameStops) have very similar ratios and reports. That may or may not be representative, but at least it's hard numbers.
          • by seebs (15766)
            Twice as many?

            I have heard of no store with more than ten PS3s; most of the ones around here got two or three.

            The Target I waited at had 39; the nearest other one had 60. Every WalMart in the area had 20 or more. Every EB and GameStop had however many they did preorders for. Best Buy was runninga round 60 a store. One local Target had 210.

            Every last one I have heard of was sold out by about 11AM on Sunday.
      • by brkello (642429)
        With the Xbox 360 already having 7 million units sold worldwide, the Wii approximately 500,000 units, and the PS3 only having sold 200,000 units in North America and 80,000 units in Japan and none in Europe it is hard to see Sony succeeding with the PS3.

        Did you hack Zonk's computer and steal all his bookmarks?

        Seriously though, your statement is jumping the gun here. And mostly comes off as fanboy garbage. Yeah, Sony hasn't sold as many units but it has sold out all of the units it has produced. Ultima
      • by DrXym (126579)
        - Poor backward compatilibity with PS1 and PS2 games (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15712585/)

        A couple of hundred titles with mostly audio problems out of 8000. How many XBox titles run on the XBox 360? How many Gamecube titles run flawlessly on the Wii? Is there a compatibility database for the Wii?

        Numerous high def upscaling issues including PS3 BluRay movies not appearing in high definition properly (http://loot-ninja.com/2006/11/19/ps3-hd-scaling- i ssues-other-annoyances/)

        By which you mean problems

        • By which you mean problems with extremely old HDTVs supporting 1080i (not even 720p) being treated as 480p (well duh) and an assortment of minor issues that could be corrected by a firmware update. Does the Wii upscale anything? Do existing XBox 360 games upscale to 1080p?

          If, by "extremely old," you mean "around 3 years old," then sure. But that isn't really the issue; every other HD outputting device I know of can up/downscale its signal to whatever you tell it to. Why must the PS3 be different? And yes, t
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by DrXym (126579)
            Point taken with the upscaling, and I will double check the 360's abilities, but my understanding was that it couldn't upscale to 1080p. As for old TVs, while I think the PS3 should support them, they really are non-standard to support 1080i only. In Europe TVs tagged as HD Ready have to cope with 720p and 1080i and scale between either mode for themselves.

            As for networking, I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare the PS3's networking to the PS2. The PS3 offers live chat (text, audio & video) for

      • you forgot: extremely annoying fanboys who can't help but turn it in a big tribal-identity pissing contest.

        here's a hint: when you care about what each company makes on each console, you are a fanboy. WHO FUCKING CARES how they make money, thats their problem.
        • WHO FUCKING CARES how they make money, thats their problem.

          If they don't make money on the console, then the console dies prematurely, and your return on investment suffers. Just ask the hundreds of thousands of gamers who bought a Dreamcast in 1999 and 2000, only to watch support for the console dry up in 2001 and 2002 as Sega's losses compounded.
    • by Fozzyuw (950608)

      I agree, however...

      four, five or even six year lifespan

      I can say I sure hope it's not a 4 year life span! I could live with 6, where is the decline of the systems popularity due to a new system being launched... Unless said new system is 100% backwards compatible again, like the Wii, so I could trade in my Wii and keep the games I love.

      • Gamecube had about a 4 year lifespan, I'd say. I love it, but I can't think of any games worth buying that came out in this past year. Maybe someone else can enlighten me.
    • by blueZhift (652272) on Monday November 20, 2006 @03:15PM (#16918860) Homepage Journal
      A million sales won't be a surprise. The fun begins when/if the Wii begins to vastly outnumber the PS3s available. Ramping up really fast will no doubt attract a lot of development that doesn't want to wait around for there to be enough PS3s. This time next year may well tell the tale of who wins this round of console wars.
      • A million sales won't be a surprise. The fun begins when/if the Wii begins to vastly outnumber the PS3s available. Ramping up really fast will no doubt attract a lot of development that doesn't want to wait around for there to be enough PS3s.

        Additionally, it's only $2000 for a dev kit for the Wii, but $20,000 for a dev kit for either the PS3 or the xBox360. I can see developing fun games in a small shop for the Wii on a lark - or even a hobby (ok, I'm not poor) - but $20K? This will probably result in a lo
      • by brkello (642429)
        This does seem to be the best thing that could happen for Nintendo. When a developer see the numbers of Wii sold, they will want to develop for them. More (quality) games will mean more "must-have" titles thus encouraging more sales. I'm still in wait-and-see mode to determine how well the new controller will work (I never buy first rev consumer electronics). But this is a bright start for Nintendo.
  • Compare to GameCube (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pluvius (734915) <{pluvius3} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday November 20, 2006 @03:16PM (#16918894) Journal
    That system sold roughly 700K in its first two weeks. Considering the fact that the Gamecube is considerably more popular than the N64 was (thus generating more brand loyalty), going up to 1M would not be an unexpected boost.

    Oh, and for the record, the Dreamcast sold about 500K in its first two weeks, and that was outside of the holiday season and limited by supply. As usual, launch figures don't prove much of anything.

    Rob
    • by ink (4325)
      The Nintendo 64 sold 32.93 million units, while the GameCube sold 21 million units (and counting, I suppose). This would imply that it wasn't as successful as the '64.
      • by Pluvius (734915)
        I said "popular," not "successful." A lot of those N64 sales came relatively soon after launch, when Nintendo was still the 500-pound gorilla in the industry. (I got an N64 myself when it came out; a stupid mistake on my part.) There's also the fact that that generation was a two-system war; the Saturn might as well not even have existed, unlike the XBox.

        As for the GameCube, not only was the media a lot better (being both cheaper and more spacious), but it nabbed more big third-party exclusives, like a c
    • by revlayle (964221)
      Not true. The N64 sold (about 32 million) approximately 10 million more units worldwide than the GameCube ever did (about 21-22 million). Also, the N64 sold 500K units in *24 hours* (I have no data to verify if the N64 sold at least another 200K in the following two weeks, however). Yes, this info is easily on Wikipedia - other places too with a bit of research.
    • by edwdig (47888)
      That system sold roughly 700K in its first two weeks. Considering the fact that the Gamecube is considerably more popular than the N64 was (thus generating more brand loyalty), going up to 1M would not be an unexpected boost.

      I wouldn't consider the GameCube more popular. It never had a really good run. The N64 and PS1 were pretty close in sales for the first half of the generation until developers got sick of cartridges and left in mass. From there PS1 sales really took off and the N64 dropped off. The Game
  • This, unfortunately, doesn't answer my most pressing question - when can we expect a restock?

    As someone who elected not to stand in line Saturday night, I don't have my Wii yet, and this depresses me. I keep hearing rumors that there should be more in stores before this Friday, but they're all completely unsubstantiated.

    So consider this an open letter (or at least, an open comment among dozens to a category-specific post on a blog that comprises an insignificant percentage of Nintendo's fan base) to Nintend
    • This, unfortunately, doesn't answer my most pressing question - when can we expect a restock?

      I talked to a lot of different stores, and most of them seemed to indicate monday afternoon is the earliest a restock could happen.

      Costco won't even be selling their bundle (Wii, controller, Wii Sports, Excite Truck, Zelda) until Tuesday.

      Fred Meyer should restock by Tuesday morning.

      I think the EBX guys said something similar.

      Sears said something like Tuesday.

      So, if you missed out on getting one at midnight Saturday
    • by Turken (139591)
      At my local wal-mart, they're expecting more units early this week. I got this info from one of the sales guys in electronics who was rather dissapointed that he had to work the launch instead of waiting to buy one himself, so he has both the means and motive to find out when the next batch will be coming in.
    • by seebs (15766)
      Target claims to be expecting them weekly, WalMart said a couple times a week.

      Nintendo has made it pretty clear that they are serious about producing boxes for people, so I'm pretty optimistic that you will be able to find one soon.
  • I wasn't sure about the Wii when I was waiting in line [xanga.com], but after playing with one I can definitely say that Nintendo has a good shot at #2, if not #1 in North America this time around. But Nintendo has got to get the third-party support to make it happen.
  • by MrPerfekt (414248) on Monday November 20, 2006 @03:59PM (#16919628) Homepage Journal
    Apparently, the firmware update is rendering the online portion of the system busted for many people. Mine is one of the affected units.

    See http://forums.nintendo.com/nintendo/board/message? board.id=internet&message.id=2729 [nintendo.com] for more.

    I waited 12 hours in line for the system so I'm disappointed by this and the fact that there are no component cables to be found (gotta order them online, joy). But the control scheme doesn't suck which can't be changed and is why I bought the system. Overall, another new tech snafu but I'm not really surprised.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      The component cables will be found in stores soon (EB games employee says they'll be recieving some tuesday). And I expect the firmware thing to be resolved soon. I'm not the one suffering, though.

      What I did find slightly annoying was the fact that they didn't have all the features ready by launch. No browser (it being free was one the reason I got a Wii early), no news and no weather. Bummer. But I'm sure it won't matter down the road.

  • by j741 (788258) on Monday November 20, 2006 @04:11PM (#16919818) Journal
    O.K. so they're sold out and Nintendo says more are coming. Great. But I don't want to spend the next few weeks driving around from store to store looking for one. I'd rather just go to Nintendo's website and order one directly and wait until it is available and ships to me without any hassle. But no, there's no way that I can see to order directly from Nintendo. Instead, a consumer MUST use a local retail outlet. Unfortunately, none of the outlets I visited are taking any orders. If they're out of stock, that's it. No other option. This sucks. Why cant they do some kind of 'pay now and we'll send it to you when it's here' ordering process.
    • by LKM (227954) on Monday November 20, 2006 @05:03PM (#16920664) Homepage
      I'd rather just go to Nintendo's website and order one directly and wait until it is available and ships to me without any hassle

      Console manufacturers need the stores' support. They won't compete with them. If Nintendo opened an online store, stores would stock less games and consoles and give them less shelf space. People going to the stores would perceive Nintendo to be the smaller brand and would buy other consoles instead.

    • This sucks. Why cant they do some kind of 'pay now and we'll send it to you when it's here' ordering process.

      Look, this seems to be really bothering you, so I'm willing to help you out: just pay me now, and don't worry about it. I'll send it to you when it's here.

  • (no pun intended)

    You can't tell by initial launch statistics what will happen to a game system. Expectations were low for the PS1 so its modest early sales were a great success, but by the time the PS2 came out every little problem was "the sony killer!."

    Hyperbole aside, all three of the major players have a good entry in this round of the "console wars" and victory will almost certainly come down to who has the better killer-apps.

    Halo 3 for the win!

    -GiH

    • Halo 3 for the win!

      20-year back-library of proven titles + innovative new games based on wiimote control scheme for the win!
  • by Animats (122034) on Monday November 20, 2006 @04:40PM (#16920264) Homepage

    12408 PS3 systems on sale on eBay. And 20574 Wii systems. Way too many. Many of those speculators are going to lose money.

    Actual selling prices on eBay are around $350 for the Wii and $750-$800 for the base PS3 today. That's today; there have been significant drops since yesterday. There are still many excessive "buy it now" prices on auctions, and high reserve prices, but those are just asking prices, and are meaningless. Those auctions fail, while the lower priced ones end in a transaction. "Reserve reduced" is now showing for many auctions.

    Prices are dropping faster than they did for the Xbox 360.

    • I agree; it's been interesting watching prices on transactions on eBay today.

      The morning started with Wiis going at a certain range; $350-$450. Presentation matters, since apparently giant red text makes more people bite. Bigger bites if you managed to grab a component cable at the same store.

      Reserves generally aren't being met at $380 sometimes. With a margin of $70-$170 (assuming you bought at $280 after taxes) and shrinking fairly quickly, it would be a good idea to just cash in and be rid of your Wii as
    • by ad0gg (594412)
      Supply and demand. No one wants a wii. I'd only buy a wii for base price and only to play zelda, the other games suck from reading the reviews, only other worth getting is madden. Of course ps3 doesn't have a good launch lineup either and looking at the reviews, worse than the wii's lineup. I guess i'll buy a 360 which actually has decent games to play(gears of wars is getting great reviews), wait till next year to decide whether or not to buy a wii or a ps3 depending what games they come out with.
      • Supply and demand. No one wants a wii.

        That's simply not a conclusion you can draw from the information the GP presented. The fact that Wii prices are dropping doesn't necessarily indicate anything about demand or supply, it only tells you something about the intersection of quantity demanded and quantity supplied.

        By your argument, if Sony shipped and sold 10 million units at launch, so the prices on ebay auctions weren't significantly higher than MSRP, the conclusion would be "no one wants a PS3." When, in
        • by ad0gg (594412)
          But you forget history, Microsoft sold 900k 360s from nov to dec. Yet the prices on ebay didn't drop till march. Some how i think i'll able find a wii in the store by christmas and nintendo has 1 million allocated to north america for the holiday season, only 10% supply difference.
  • I just keep pointing this out [gamezero.com] so it sticks in people's minds and helps scuttle the FUD and speculation when Nintendo is going to release this or that system down the line.

    It was nice to see Reggie actually put some back-handed validation onto a 30 year trend.

  • 6 year lifespan (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kelbear (870538) on Monday November 20, 2006 @06:23PM (#16921902)
    Don't get me wrong, I love the Wii for its controls. But I hate the weak graphics. I like gameplay, but I'm not going to pretend that graphics don't matter. I'd rather have both. I understand that they're focused on the controller this generation and that's great.

    But I was hoping that the following generation would come in 4 years and would maintain the fun controls while packing in some respectable power behind it. I sure hope I won't have to wait 6 years for the Wii's sequel.
    • by Rallion (711805)
      I sure hope I won't have to wait 6 years for the Wii's sequel.


      You probably won't. It's in Nintendo's best interest to overstate the lifespan of their consoles.

If entropy is increasing, where is it coming from?

Working...