Penny Arcade responds to our "hideous editorial," misses the point [update 1]

"All else being equal" doesn't recognize the restrictions of the consumer's budget. Considering the consumer's budget to be equal -- whether he buys the highly subsidized system or not -- totally misses the point. If there is a larger subsidy for a system that has a much higher base price, it could be out of reach of those with a tiny budget. Maximum savings does not equal minimum cost; therefore, an item with less of a subsidy may still be preferable to those with limited funds.

Why is the DS a success and the PSP a failure? IT DEFIES LOGIC

"193. My god, it's full of stupid."

You are a great, great man. And I mean that with TOTAL sincerity.

> Nintendo said they were the affordable option. But we find that not to be true.

If they were $200, some people still couldn't afford it. Would that be more lies on their part?

Should they give it away for free? Hey, maybe people have to go to the store to pick it up, and then can't afford bus fare. So I guess even free means it wouldn't be affordable (for some people).

I guess they could ship a Wii to anyone who fills out a postage-paid postcard and drops it in the mail. That would absolve Nintendo of their massive corporate guilt and let those bastards bringing the most affordable console game to the market sleep at night.

I had respect for this blog.

Sony and Microsoft have no designs on the entering the working class family home with HD, Blue Ray, and all those type of hook ups.

Nintendo has clearly set there sites on the middle class and the working class with the lack of HD support.

Is that enough for you...

"69. Tycho: "When reading it, it may help you to know that 'ceteris paribus' is Latin for look how fucking smart I am."

"Hi, Pot? This is Kettle...""

^^^Glad someone noticed. For a while there I was worried I wasn't going to see anyone make this comment.

For those of you who obviously can't read. The reason I said what I said about having a housekeeper was because I was giving an example why $50 in savings for console makes a difference. Here it is, and look at John's brillant comments too:
148. @ Steve Roger, Oh God.

Please.

This is the very essence of whining and piss-headed crybabyisms. You can't help but think about how it could have been $50 cheaper? Thanks for nothing? What a travesty.

The mere fact that the system reinvents the way games are played, and does it for a good $150 less than the next cheapest (realistic) option is astonishing. The only people who have sand in their vaginas about it are the people who would prefer to incorporate latin into their writing, and want the intarwebs to see how brilliant they are because they can compose a sentence.

153. John you are not only a sexist with your sand in the vagina remark. You are incredibly insenstive to the working class. $50 is a huge amount of money to people who live on the margin. Case in point is my housekeeper. I can go out to dinner and go to the movies with my wife and two kids every weekend. She can't. She can't even pay for school pictures. And her son wants a Wii for Christmas. She wants to give it to him and wants to save for it, about $25 dollars per week if she can. But when I told that the base model was $250 with no games she said that it was out of her range. She said she can't buy it because should not be able to buy her daughter anything.

John, you are really a lousy person.

Yes, a $200 console would make a big difference as to whether or not Nintendo's console will make into a working class family. $50 bucks is a lot of money when living on the edge.

Come on, man. Let's disassemble.

Your saying that the Wii is a worse value than the Xbox 360 or the PS3 is arbitrary at best, and based on the assumption that the Wii will have significantly fewer capabilities, speaking on part of the hardware itself. How much fewer?

Let's compare your price analogy. $200 is one half of $400, and $200 is one third of $600. In order for the Wii to be a 'bad value' at that point, it would have to have LESS than one half of the Xbox 360's value, speaking in entertainment terms, and *less than one third* of the entertainment capability of a PS3. Significantly less, in fact, in order for this value distinction to be as clear as you purport to make it.

That, sir, is a damn tall assumption.

What are you saying instead? We should go with the company that gives us the most free stuff. Okay, that almost makes sense, but consider that this free stuff might not be free stuff we need or use. It might be better to streamline the system and save on the bottom line first, rather than pander to your audience, but then we're getting into design marketing and I don't consider that crap worth theorizing about as though I know something. I'm trying really, really hard not to turn that train of thought into an insult.

And what was that garbage about profitability for a game-machine-producing company is irrelevant to gamers? Man, you can shove it in your ear; mention the Dreamcast to any gamer worth their salt and you will likely be met with a bow of the head in revered silence. The economics of manufacturers of the genre of products in which we invest as a sort of lifestyle are of great importance to us. We should want them to make the smartest business decisions possible, so that the industry can thrive and provide us with newer, better experiences and products further on into the future.

This is not to say that we should just throw money at them for fun (although I'm sure that wouldn't really hurt the situation too much). Buy games that you like. Buy systems that have the ability to play the games you like. Buy systems that you like for their own merits. Don't buy the things you don't want--that, too, is an important part of the economy; the supply-and-demand law, the 'natural selection' of the business world.

You just can't cut that part out of the equation, say that we should all be selfish pigs looking to take companies for all they're worth. There will be some people who do; power to 'em. But in order for the industry to remain healthy, its constituents have to do the same, and rational consumers should be aware of that. It seems you fall a little short on that 'rational' thing, though.

Gotta go back to work, I hope the blog police here have a field day. By the way kudos to Joystiq for providing such a stimulating subject.

Speaking as an academic economist, your ceteris paribus point is well taken.

Still, the point is that, in this particular case, things are anything but equal.

And even ignoring all other things, consider this. When making his choice, a consumer considers the "deal" he's getting, but he also considers his price sensitivity.

Don't forget that actual preferences are nonlinear, and typically probably concave in specs, while cost functions are typically convex. In other words, even if they both had a constant markup, most people would still be buying more Volkswagen Golfs instead of Ferrari's, because most people don't really care all that much about extreme performance, while extreme performance costs.

In other words, a perfectly rational consumer with non-linear preferences might still say to himself "gee, the ps3 seems like a good, subsidized deal, but you know what, i still can't justify splurging $600 on a games console." Or, as the Penny Arcade guys put it in your own PAX video interview, "the wife will kill me if come home with a ps3 (and without Singstar)."

By the way, I think the fact that people are actually buying tons of the black MacBook (which is at a $150 price premium once you adjust for specs) is just about the most ridiculous thing ever. But, you know, you can't help people's preferences. Now if only The Steve will give us our MeromBooks already...

Okay, I've never used a single inappopriate word in comments on this blog ever, and I mean that sincerely.

Now I just have to ask why the f@$# you have this retard posting this hideously dumb shit as 'Joystiq' and sullying your name. Seriously. This is like reading a goddamn usenet thread. It was dumb enough the first time he posted his horribly flawed argument, and now you're letting him carry on?

Not sure what else I can add to the discussion, but I have to admit I had the same reaction as PA last night when I read the post.

Just because something is subsidized more doesn't mean that it's worth buying it. If I told you Car A was $20,000, but had an interesting unique feature and was sold for $1000 profit, and Car B sold for $48,000 and performed a bit better overall, but sold for $1000 loss, would you immediately run out and buy Car B?

Of course not... you may not be willing to shell out $48,000, even if it does perform better and is sold for $1000 loss. You may rather just spend $20,000 and despite the loss in performance, you gain a unique feature and save $28,000 total.

This, while I can't speak to the amount of subisidization, is the same ratio in total price as the Wii is to the $600 PS3. The point is the amount of subsidization doesn't matter when you're talking about two different, and differently priced products.

But why would cutting the price to $200 be sufficient?

I can play this game, too, of saying "OMFG, you must not know the poor, but there are people who cannot afford $200, listen to me, I know poor people!"

Of course, then I'd just get 1-up'd by someone who who could criticize them for not pricing it as $150.

And then there's the question of "if Nintendo started the price at $300, and then dropped it to $250, wouldn't that be a sweet savings? Isn't $50 bucks [sic] a lot of money to some people?"


When did Nintendo assume the mantle of responsibility for providing game systems to people who are, and I quote, "living on the edge"?

I'm with zero - THIS is your rebuttal?

I feel like I've been assaulted with an avalanche of word diarrhea. Not once, but twice - first for the original blog, and now again with the rebuttal.

VC, please, do us all a favor and take a creative writing class so that you may better learn how to string words together into cohesive and intelligent sentences that properly convey a concept instead of the word salads that comprise your posts.

I'm left to wonder why I still read Joystiq.

Vladmir...

You have NO idea of what you're talking about. Plain and simple.

Two viewpoints: Consumer and Investor.
- Consumers want something that works well and is within their budget. That's it.
- Investors what their company to make a profit and show that they will in the future. That's it.

Companies that sell at a loss initially with the HOPES that they make a future profit after cost reductions and other indirect ways are risky. Bad risky. Companies that out the gates make a profit and can increase demand and continue to increase profit are the best companies to invest in. All companies want to be in that situation. ALL OF THEM. That's it.

You obviously don't invest (in stocks or funds) and probably don't buy much stuff. No seasoned consumer nor investor would make such a assine, idiotic statement AND 'rebuttal'.

I've gone over your previous posts (all 36 of them) and you have a tendency to rant with no info. Maybe you should even read your own post on Nintendo being used as a case study (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/09/nintendos-8-bit-power-play-a-staple-for-mba-courses/)

Editors... this is a definate +10 to firing Vladmir. To think he had the nerve to attack Penny Arcade with blanks. But then again, more hits means more money (eCPM).

There's a very simple issue to keep in mind here, and that's that there is no Wii equivalent.

Console A runs games U, V, and X.
Console B runs games U, W, and Y.
Console C runs games V, W, and Z.

Console A ties into service 1, console B ties into service 2, and console C ties into service 3.

Service 1 Service 2 Service 3.

Game U V W X Y Z.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Hell, more accurately, you're comparing apples and fictional spacefaring bacteria. It's a worthless comparison, because while someone would buy the less expensive Wii, if color were the only difference, cosmetic choices are NOT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE.

Who cares if Nintendo is making a small profit off of a device at pricepoint X, if the device with the subsidy costs 2*X, and doesn't deliver the same value?

Plain and simple, Nintendo's philosophy is two fold.

One: Fun is valued at a $250 entry cost, and $50 per added chunk of fun.

Two: Turning a profit on the hardware at launch while undercutting your competition makes the shareholders very very happy.

Sony and Microsoft also have a few key advantages over Nintendo, when it comes to development.

Sony is building the core CPU for their console. The Cell is Sony's intellectual property, and Sony's R&D. They can sink that loss into other divisions. Nintendo has no budgetary dumping ground. Microsoft specifically set out to own ALL silicon IP for the 360. If they don't like the manufacturing arrangement next year, they can take the chip designs, and send them off to a new fab. Nintendo simply spent far less money on the guts to their system, but they can't lower their costs on that front in the future. Sony and Microsoft's systems will get cheaper to manufacture as they sell more of them, but Nintendo's costs will remain relatively static.

Of course Nintendo won't subsidize their system in this arrangement, as there's no elasticity involved in the manufacturing costs. They've instead passed on the savings by NOT having to pay off the bills on a massive chunk of R&D time and resources.

As a gamer, I want to pay for a game system. I don't want to pay for the development of a media center extender (MS,) or a fancy high-powered server (Sony.)

The subsidies paid off today reverse direction the day that the manufacturers break even, and that day isn't far off. I personally feel that it's to my benefit to pay for the system that *I* am getting, not the system that someone else will pick up a few years down the line.

you know that ign bastard also told me that it supports video formats, if they're stored on flash memory, and to go check out ign for video of it. I checked ign, didn't see any video of it, haven't found any source that says that there is a sort of video channel.

So I'm selling corn, and if you buy two tons of corn I will give you a "discount." If you want beets for dinner but you only want one, you must buy the corn because you don't get a discount on the beets?
(Either vegetable in this assertion may be replaced with "light bulbs" at the reader's discretion.)

These comments make you guys sound like the ranters in the Gawker network.
Kotaku and Gizmodo blow because they don't report - they rant. I have officially cut them off my RSS feeds and I no longer submit tips to them. I like Weblogs because most of the stuff you report are factual with wit and minimal rant.

If you want to rant, quit (or be fired) and work for the numbskulls at Gawker.

Seriously.

finally something to show just how stupid Joystiq editors are.

Roger wrote "Yes, a $200 console would make a big difference as to whether or not Nintendo's console will make into a working class family. $50 bucks is a lot of money when living on the edge."

Roger, I must ask...if a family is, as you put it, "living on the edge"...why would a $50 price drop in a gaming console make a difference? Would it or would it not be unwise for a family that is, again as you put it, "living on the edge" to spend even $200 for such a non-essential item? I seriously doubt that a difference in price of $50 is going to be a deal-breaker on whether or not to purchase a gaming console when you're having trouble with even just feeding your children or paying your rent - that ENTIRE $250 or $200 could be put to better means, like groceries or taking a sick child to the doctor or paying the electric bill. I'm pretty sure that a gaming console isn't really uppermost in their minds when they're thinking of what they need to spend their paychecks on. I'm thinking the Wii isn't really even on the radar of poor families - they have more important things to worry about.

Just some food for thought...

Vladimir... just give up. Pretend you never made that post. You're embarassing yourself.

Actually, I thought Tycho hit the nail on the head. Your argument was confused and contrary to all common sense.

just... WOW.

so either his point is 'that people would prefer to pay less for things that are the same', or that 'if two things are the same price and one is better people will buy the better one.'

THANKS VC. I NEVER KNEW! I JUST GIVE ALL MY MONEY TO HOMELESS PEOPLE TO SPEND ON ALCOHOL.

Also we have Steve here who decided for his housekeeper that his house keepers daughter wouldn't think Wii Sports was a game. I bet your housekeeper's are glad they have you to make all their decisions for you!

Economics aren't completely straight forwards. There's a matter of what is the most you can afford to take into account. There is the matter of perceived value. There is the matter of supply and demand.

If your console is in limited supply, you should sell it for a price that only as many people as you have consoles on the market will want to pay. anything else is just throwing money away. when supply increases, price decreases to move stock off of shelves. *if* nintendo sell out at $250 regardless of what it cost them to make it was the right price to sell the console at.

that's why, for example, the higher end PS3 has an open price in Japan.

if you still don't get it, here's a final thought experiment.

if the Wii was an apple, and the PS3 was an orange, which one would you say was best?

GET RID OF VLADMIR COLE. HE IS RUINING YOUR BLOG.

My problem with the original article was the notion that "worth" is directly proportional to "cost." I want a Wii more than I want a PS3. If they were the same price, and they cost the same amount to manufacture, I would still buy a Wii. The fact that it's $350 cheaper than a PS3 just sweetens the deal. I really couldn't care less how much it costs to manufacture. I think $250 is a perfectly reasonable price for a new console, and if it makes Nintendo a profit, good for them. I like Nintendo, and I'd like them to stay in business.

“Which of the two devices would a rational consumer choose, all else equal?”

But they aren’t equal. You came out blasting Nintendo for not taking a loss on their system as having no trust or care about their systems future when they are in fact the only console maker that did something innovative or new.

This post is the kind of rebuttal you’d expect from a chimpanzee who just ran face first into a wall and tried to explain why he did it, as if he meant to.

Oh and I have an @google.com email address, I'll save you the time from looking through my records, VC. OMG I work for Googles, quick make a post and point out that I work for Google and now Google needs to tighten up their act! What a waste you are to what used to be a decent place that was building a rep for having "gaming news". Now, it seems this record keeps playing over, and over, and over.. And just days after an apology from the site promising more integrity.

Well,

Lets see my first meander onto joystiq and probably my last. The original post was so completely flawed and idiotic that it deserved to be torn apart. The entire premise of your "point" was flawed.

And to continue this by posting a rebuttal to PA. It's kinda like watching a retarded monkey eat the peel instead of the banana. Amusing as hell but pointless and something someone should put a stop to.

Have you ever taken any sort of economics course? The cost of the console to the producer should in no way affect your (the consumer's) judgement.

If the marginal benefit of the product is greater or equal to the marginal cost, then its econimical for you to buy the product. In common terms, if the Wii is worth $250 to you then you are going to buy it. If it's not, you aren't going to. It is the same with the PS3. If it's worth $600 to you then by all means buy it.

By no means should how much the producer (Sony, Nintendo, etc) pays for it influence your decision. It's just simple economics.

"He'd choose the one with lower factored-in profit margin. That is, the lower-priced console."

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Consumers *never* factor in the manufacturer's profit margins when making a purchasing decision. They base it on the price and the perceived value of the item.

You would have been better off not making a rebuttal and just letting the whole thing go. As it is, all you've done is confirm the speculation that most of your readers had about your intelligence.

"As it is, all you've done is confirm the speculation that most of your readers had about your intelligence."

Haha. Good point! How does the saying go?

"It's better to close your mouth and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt?"

vlad's not talking about the customer getting screwed by nintendo making a profit. he's asking for opinions and what qualifies someone as a rational gamer vs. a fan or brand supporter. here are some questions:

since both the 360 and ps3 are subsidized and the wii is not, are they overbuilt and risky? is the wii underbuilt? is being profitable a sign of risk and a fear of longterm commitment? or does it mean stability for the future since it is risk adverse?

is a gamer partially (sony can't subsidize the whole thing) paying for blu-ray enough of a subsidy to overcome the percieved non-value of an hd movie player in a $600 console?

how do you feel about the subsidy applying to the whole package of the ps3 vs. all of the 360 parts being "added on" later and not being subsidized? (wifi, hd-dvd, etc. these are all sold at a profit)

does the inherent sense of confidence a company has in its business model that comes with subsidizing hardware trickling down to percieved value for customers?

if nintendo were selling 2 versions of the wii -- EXACTLY THE SAME -- one for $250 (profit) and one for $199 (subsidized), which would you buy? do you want to get the good deal and lean on nintendo, or do you take the expensive one and "donate" to your favorite console maker?

are console subsidies a consumers right instead of a console maker's obligation?

does any of it even matter because "percieved value" doesn't have the granularity to distiguish between any of it?

m3mnoch.

Wow... Roger is just freaking special.

Has anyone considered that the PS3 might cast so much more to produce NOT because it's actually worth more, but because it was put together in aa cast inefficient, overall poorly thought out way?

Anyone with a brain between his two ears will agree that "console horsepower" isn't the only thing to evaluate when you buy a console.
Nintendo has always been the leader in innovation in console. Why? Because they think about the GAMEPLAY! It's not they don't care about niceness of graphics but it's not all about visuals.
Sure there are hardcore gamers who only talk about the 47 trillion-mega-pixels-shaders/s that their PS3 will do. But while these people will always kill the terrorists on their screen by pulling the (very likely) right trigger, people on Wii will have something which will emulate much more a real gun or a saber. But it's very true : you killed the terrorist with a 7909 polygons bullet and the blood of the guy will be anistropic-shaded-vertexed. W.H.A.T. A. R.E.V.O.L.U.T.I.O.N !

Suppose Vlad posted in his defense, now suppose vlad posted something intelliteng in his defense... Which would you chose? Personally I would chose anything other than this lame attempt at changing his argument until it isn't the same argument as it was. Your idea that something cheaper than another thing of equal value is true... only an idiot would pay more for the same thing, however that is not generalizable. You cannot say "only an idiot would pay more for a different thing" That doesn't follow from your previous argument. Sorry bub, the assumption that the dollar per 'hardware awesomeness point' or whatever you are chosing to measure your value by is even accross the board is screwy at best.

Your argument would only hold if you could show that a $600 x-box was precisely 2.4x as "valuable" as a $250 wii, and that you were getting 2.4 Wiis for $400 since Small&soft is taking a loss... However, you are comparing different things, all things being equal peanuts = macademia nuts.... but I only swell up and die from one... Calling a Wii a scaled down version of a 360 doesn't make it one.

"This was to have been a multi-part series of editorials dissecting the value attributed to the Wii versus its rivals. With hardware power out of the way entirely, the discussion would narrow to more meaningful topics."

Mmmmm... I call BS on this one. If you wanted to editorialize on the value attributed to the Wii versus the other systems from the outset, then why not do exactly that? One way to have done that would have been the pose the following question: "If Nintendo announced that it would be selling the Wii for $600, would you rather buy a Wii or a PS3?" Or, "If Sony announced today that it was going to sell the PS3 for $250, which next generation system would you get and why?" Problem solved.

Just admit it, your first post was ill-conceived and the reason why everyone "missed the point" was that there WAS none.

You now say it was necessary to point out the painfully obvious fact that rational people would rather pay $100 than $200 for the EXACT SAME ITEM, or would rather get more expensive hardware for the EXACT SAME PRICE in order to delve into the "deeper" question of "if gamers are showing a preference for undiscounted hardware, what is at play?" As others have pointed out, both here and in the previous post, that, too, is a stupid thought exercise because, again, we are still not dealing with either the SAME HARDWARE or the SAME PRICE POINT.

To answer the general (and obvious) question of what people are paying for if not hardware: "It's the games, stupid." This was addressed a hundred times over in response to your original, inane post, as well as, to a lesser extent, in the Penny Arcade commentary ("When the Wii is on, when a visionary developer is actively trying to channel tactile experiences, it can be extremely potent.").

Vladimir, you posted something stupid and got called on it. Your posted an inane rebuttal, and you're getting called on it again. My advice is that you spend some time educating yourself before posting any more.

In the comments below, JB Cougar (and others) wrote: "I believe the black MacBook outsells the white one, and yet Apple charges a $200 (might even be $300) premium for it. They are the same system, save for the color."

Just going to point out that's not true. the hardware -isn't- the same. The base model white MacBook has 20GB less hard drive, no DVD burner and less processor power. Look for yourself at the additional stuff the black macbook has over the base model macbook and even the mid-grade macbook. You're still getting more with the black and I'd say the additional $200-400 is worth what you get in color and features. Do your homework before ranting about something and misquoting, it only makes you look like more of an idiot.

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/0.RSLID?mco=A4791B5D&nclm=MacBook

I believe what the readers here are truly irritated by, VC, is just how, well, ECON101 the entire explanation is. Yes, if we created artificial environment where everything but one factor was a control factor, then of course the one variable factor would determine the outcome. That is why it is ECON101, to build the foundation understanding of what happens in a simpified environment before throwing in a myriad of different equations.

It would be like Floyd Mayweather bitching about how Matt Hughes would beat him silly in the UFC ring, but he could win if all the variables, like kicks, holds, slams, throws, etc, were removed. Floyd is a better puncher, and in a highly controlled environment, Floyd would win.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out a $200 Wii would beat a $250 Wii any day of the week. Not because the consumer is saying, "Oh, I cannot support the $250 one because it provides a profit," but, "The $200 is cheaper for the same damned thing."

As it stands, I personally cannot think of a single industry outside of gaming that subsidizes the hardware and makes up profits later on software. Does that make every industry on the planet not worth buying from? They're just trying to fleece us for profits, after all. Even the most irresponsible form of economic governance, Communism, wouldn't advocate that all business should sell products at a loss, just for reference.

Yes, in a perfect world where everything and everything was controlled to perfect specifications would this discussion even be remotely true. However, this isn't the perfect world. $600 for a PS3 that costs $900 to manufacture is not more enticing than a $250 Wii that costs $170 just because one is being sold at a $300 loss. All people care about is what the out of pocket expense will be and how much enjoyment that expense will bring.

At the core of this debate is the fact that:
A. the assumption is that Gamers are rational
B. people are rational

I submit that they are neither, and who cares?
zz

Wow.

If sony made an ocean liner for 10 million dollars and then wanted to sell it to me for only 1 million, a loss of 9 whole million dollars, still wouldn't want to buy it. Why? I still can't afford it (but I can afford the 60 dollar inflatable dingy that nintendo made for 50 dollars... it's really all I want at this point anyway).

...plus the dingy plays zelda :)

I gotta agree w/ PA on this one. Buying the console with the lowest profit margin makes sense if financial gain was the only or primary purpose. But it's not. The primary goal is to get the most entertainment from your console, so you should be looking at the entertainment/cost ratio, not the "price to make the console"/cost.

Not everyone wants to shop at Costco.... (which, if your argument was true, everyone would do.)

"if the Wii was an apple, and the PS3 was an orange, which one would you say was best?"

Well thats an obvious question, the Wii, but then again I'm alergic to citrus and there fore the PS3/Orange would cause me great pain.

Wait.. thats true without the metaphor.

Will Nintendo sell as many consoles as they can ship for $250? Yes.

Will Nintendo be able to drop the price whenever they need to? Yes.

It's one thing to have the opinion that Nintendo's fans are stupid for buying an 'upgraded Gamecube' for $250. But it's totally different (and foolish, imo) to think it reflects badly on Nintendo to sell their wares at a profit.

Isn't it better for a company to develop a product which is worth more to the market than the cost of manufacture? That shouldn't be up for debate, right?

And the nunchuk is probably $20 because it has accelerometers in it... If it was just a joystick with a couple buttons, it could be cheaper. It looks like a couple bucks a piece isn't out of the question for an accelerometer, even when purchased in quantity.

Ok, this whole article/discussion is completely idiotic. Why does it matter if Nintendo is selling their console at a profit? They are a BUSINESS, which needs to make MONEY, and if they aren't losing money off each console sold, thats smart business sense. Nobody should be thinking that Microsoft and Sony are any different. They aren't sacrificng their profits for us gamers out of the kindness of their hearts or because they feel that the games come first. Fact of the matter is, they HAVE to lose money on each console sold. They spent so much money on graphics chips and proccessors, that if they wanted to sell their consoles for profits, it would be far too expensive for gamers to buy. The fact that their losing money on each console is the ONLY way that they will be able to sell them until the technology becomes cheaper. Or have we all forgotten about the original XBox already?