Worldwide Wii Day (Sep 14/15): the official thread *Released Nov 19 for $250 (US)*
- Thread starter darkblu
- Start date
Since taxes are collected by the individual member states, there has been no "need" for unified taxing.
Generally prices in Europe are given with tax included. So it's 249 EUR after taxes.
The Europe integration thing saw 3 major things happen. 1) Common currency. 2) Freedom to work in any EU state despite EU nationality. 3) An EU court that makes common rules (mostly to bug the British it seems
)AFAIK all prices are inclusive of tax. In the US the price isn't because sales tax varies from State to State so tax isn't included in prices on any products. It's typically around 6%. This means Nintendo will pocket less money from a Wii sold in an EU country with 20% tax than one with 15%. This is for the same Euro price though. Not all of the European territories are Single Currency, so you get regional prices in places like the Scandinavian countries that probably take account of their very high sales-tax rates.
Yeah that's why I thought tax might not have been included in Euro pricing because basically you have the same situation there as in the US where each state/country has a different percentage of tax.
Anyway so removing sales tax from the equation European countries under the single currency and Australia (assuming Australia's price also includes tax) are overpaying by about 10% on average compared to the US. But to make them feel better the UK is overpaying by just under 14%. Nintendo's biggest single market outside of Japan and the US and once again they treat us the worst of all. Just one more reason for me not to buy a Wii.
Then again Sony and MS treat us far worse compared to the US, but at least not worse then the rest of Europe (I think
)..
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, you know what to do about it... Demand that your government introduces the Euro to the UK, along with the metric system. I am sure you have the majority on your side
Well, you know what to do about it... Demand that your government introduces the Euro to the UK, along with the metric system. I am sure you have the majority on your side
Nah I still wouldn't want the Euro and I think the majority would agree. Not that its necessary anyway, there's no extra cost for Nintendo to sell something in pounds
Also I can already measure things in meters if I want
Last edited by a moderator:
We are metric, on the whole. Apart from Miles for distance everything else is in metric units. Of course, quantites come in Imperial amounts, so instead of 500 ml milk you get 568 (a pint), and you buy jam in pots of 454 grams (same weight as a pound) instead of 500 grams...but we're still metricWell, you know what to do about it... Demand that your government introduces the Euro to the UK, along with the metric system. I am sure you have the majority on your side
Metric is very clever, and great for science (you'd have to be a really backward nation to use imperial measures for science...) and economists, but very boring too.
We are metric, on the whole. Apart from Miles for distance everything else is in metric units. Of course, quantites come in Imperial amounts, so instead of 500 ml milk you get 568 (a pint), and you buy jam in pots of 454 grams (same weight as a pound) instead of 500 grams...but we're still metric
Metric is very clever, and great for science (you'd have to be a really backward nation to use imperial measures for science...) and economists, but very boring too.
I find Imperial units to be more useful for 'everyday' measurements, as well as Fahrenheit for temperature. On the other hand, as you say, metric units are very useful for scientific measurements and decimalized currency is very convenient as well.
scooby_dooby
Legend
How is Fahreinheit better for temperature? Celsius seems MUCH more sensible to me
Farenheit makes sense because the 0-100 scale pretty much covers the entire range of temperatures you'll experience in temperate climates, give or take a few degrees and ignoring stupid places like Minnesota
. Whereas with Celsius, you're living between like -18 and 35, which is just kind of a weird range. In other words, "Below zero is really freaking cold" and "over 100 is really freaking hot" makes more sense than "Below zero is pretty much standard for winter" and "Over 100 will kill you in seconds."scooby_dooby
Legend
Farenheit makes sense because the 0-100 scale pretty much covers the entire range of temperatures you'll experience in temperate climates, give or take a few degrees and ignoring stupid places like Minnesota
Well it gets -40celsius here every year, which is also -40 fahrenheit, so really F spans -50 to 110, while, Celsius spans -45 to 45.
Back home in the Yukon we used to hit -50, which is about -58 Fahrenheit .
Ot
i think it all stems from the fact that farenheit was likely devised for agriculture weather forecasts, and celsius for chemistry/physics. it makes a lot of sense to know boiling of water starts at 100 and freezing at 0, whereas humans and plants tend to all have different preferences toward temperatures.
but yes, i have to agree with scooby here - humans span the -50 to 50 celsius scale, so nothing special about farenheit here.
i think it all stems from the fact that farenheit was likely devised for agriculture weather forecasts, and celsius for chemistry/physics. it makes a lot of sense to know boiling of water starts at 100 and freezing at 0, whereas humans and plants tend to all have different preferences toward temperatures.
but yes, i have to agree with scooby here - humans span the -50 to 50 celsius scale, so nothing special about farenheit here.
Last edited by a moderator:
How is Fahreinheit better for temperature? Celsius seems MUCH more sensible to me
Well, you must be a hydrologist, then. But for everyday human experience / climate use, Fahrenheit actually makes more sense because 0F is the temperature at which salt water freezes and 100F is the temperature of the human body (well, as close as the technology of the day could measure it). It's more granular, there isn't such a need to deal with decimal values as in Celcius.
What a nonsense. 0F is the temperature of the coldest day in Danzig in the winter of 1708. 100 F is the temperature of the human body.
Launch units are white only. I am sure they will add a black Wii later on, as the original mock-ups included a black version. There probably will be other colours as well later on...
Well I already said the second one, and as for the first, I found this on the web:
Wikipedia suggests the following:
This is fantastically off topic, but...
Why do we need granular temperatures to understand weather? How much difference is there between 16 and 17 degrees C? I can't say I notice it, so is there need for a finer scale that works in divisions half the size of degrees C? And what's wrong with decimals? If you stick to half degrees (could go fractions instead of decimals
) that's hardly confusing. And besides, temperatures aren't accurate except in scientific situations. If the weatherman says it's 22 degrees C outside (or Fahrenheit) that doesn't mean it is 22 degrees. It could be 22.3, or 23.1, or 21.9. The figures used are approximations to give an idea of the sort of temperatures you might experience. How much granularity do you need in approximations? The more you have, the more chance for error. If the weatherman pegs the temperature at 30 degrees, in Celcius the range of error might be +/-1 degree, whereas in Fahrenheit that same range would be +/-2 degrees. Throw in other factors like clothing, wind chill, sunshine, environment, individual preference for heat or cold, and the whole temperature thing is very rough. I can't see why granularity is an issue.Fahrenheit was developed as a scientific measure using a couple of fairly arbitary high and lows and an arbitary set of divisions. Key points along the scale don't mean anything (0 degrees doesn't correlate to any physical phenomena, and 100 degrees isn't/wasn't human body temperature) so the values are less meaningful than Celsius which is based on water's properties. Low figures of C tell a gardner to be wary of frost, as 0 is freezing.
And this brings me to the whole point of this argument - what sort of granularity do game review scores need?
p) When a Wii title is measured, is it enough to 5 ranks from good to bad? Or ten? Is it worth having a percentage? Can you tell the difference between a 74% game and a 75% game? We also have problems with non-standard scoring. Some reviewers place 0 as the worst possible game, 5 mediocre, and 10 the best possible game. Others tend to use a higher, non-calibrated scale, ranging from maybe 5 (bad) to 10 (great). This mix of measures is very medieval, like non-standard weight measures and different temperature measures. Hundreds of uears ago these standards have been standardised, but review scores, an important metric in entertainmentology, are still a muddle. The IEEE still seems unconcerned to sort this mess out, and I hope Nintendo take steps to standardise scoring for their game reviews.Another interesting point this throws up is true values versus perceived values. How much colour fidelity does a game need? Years ago it was decided an absolute measure for the number of 'colours' the eye could see was 2^24, but that still shows banding. However, it's enough that in most cases it's not noticed. How much lower can we go in the colour space granularity before it becomes a concern? Nintendo feel granularity in this situation isn't a prime concern, and are willing to settle for 2^16 colours. Will this end up like Celsius? Will the framebuffer's inability to express 173/256ths of absolute blue intensity be as insufferable as Celsius's inability to communicate 60 degrees Fahrenheit using integers?
scooby_dooby
Legend
You tell him Shifty