Your point would be valid if they had released at the same time on all the same consoles and you are comparing an enhanced port with a remake.
Not to mention in revenue it's already getting close.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
In the age of the Crash/Spyro remakes, Nintendo still charging 60$ for their remakes seems especially screwed up.
- Thread starter Durden
- Start date
Your point would be valid if they had released at the same time on all the same consoles and you are comparing an enhanced port with a remake.
Not to mention in revenue it's already getting close.
Are you serious. All Nintendo games have been on sale. I picked up Odyssey, NSMBUD, Mario Party for 40$ and since I purchased EShop credit with 20% discount that resulted in paying 32$.
Gold points not counted in that is less than 1$ per hour I sent in those games, that's worth it for me.
Side node: You don't have kids obviously ;)
forgot the most important one
d, crash trilogy is the best crash game in like two decades after tons of terrible games, there are good mario games every year
It's not hard to discount a game or two once in a while. Pro-consumer strategies like discounting probably encourage more consumer spending. Multiple people in this thread have already said they've been deterred from spending with Nintendo because of how high the cost of each game is.
You know amiibo are a thing, right? Hey, I gladly bought 40+ of them, but let's not act like all mighty Nintendo is above microtransactions. Come on.
I suppose there are marketing studies and cosnequent decisions behind this: probably they researched and found out that they would get more profit keeping the price at 60$ and selling less copies than lowering the price at 20$ and selling more copies. Moreover, without lowering the price, they are not devaluing the games themselves in my opinion. I would not buy an Ubisoft game (such as a possible future Mario+Rabbids 2) at day one because I know I can get it ad half the price few months later. Instead, I am more keen on buying Nintendo first party games at day one, because after few months I would have saves 10$ at maximum.
Then, about ports, we must also consider offers. I bought NSMBUDeluxe at 40€, I have Link's Awakening preordered at 44€. If they had decided to sell them at 40€, with offers they would be already at 20€.
do you actually know what anti-consumer means? your rights as a consumer aren't being violated because you're not able to buy something at a cheap enough price. you have no rights to cheap games. it's good when they're offered, but no one is violating your rights when they don't drop the prices of their games.
edit: sigh, thread is a shitshow of the same tired arguments. i'm out.
Is it favourable to consumers to charge more for your games and not discount them? No.
Is it favourable to consumers to charge less for your games and not discount them? Yes.
Tell me how one isn't more anti-consumer than the other.
Nah, this thread was cursed from the beginning. Price not being directly proportional to "content" or "effort" is neither new nor special.
You know they're not just porting it and adding polish. It's a fully realised high definition version that costs MONEY TO MAKE. Just because another company put their out at a cut price doesn't mean Nintendo should.
Crash and Spyro has been in the gutter so long that asking $60 for them would have been a nope. Zelda on the other hand has always been seen as a premium entry, and this is a game not many have played compared to the main games.
Crash and Spyro has been in the gutter so long that asking $60 for them would have been a nope. Zelda on the other hand has always been seen as a premium entry, and this is a game not many have played compared to the main games.
Being favourable or not for the consumer has no relation to whether or not the thing violates your consumers rights, which is what being anti-consumer means.
The excuses, so many excuses.
Giving things away for free is also less anti-consumer. Flawless logic
Yeah it sucks. I didn't buy some of them because of it.
"Abusive"...I don't think you know what that means.
NSMBUDX will pass 10m without much trouble and might even hit 20m counting the Wii U version. It's selling stupidly well and already hit 4.1m in around 4 months, it's nearly doubling Crash sales aligned (2.5m in 3 months).
"context is just another way of making excuses", right ?
this thread is just another console war fanfest
Okay, fine. I cannot seriously fathom why you would even want to defend something to willingly pay more for a product, when other companies themselves are doing the same for less.
I'm pointing out you use words you don't understand. Nothing else.
Nice comeback. Shows you don't want and can't have a reasonable discussion on this.
Ignored.
Why would we do a comparison? Are those titles still charting in regions around the world? BOTW was #10 in the July NPD All Software without digital sales taken into account, meanwhile none of those are even in the top 10 for PS4 software. The price drops are so those titles continue selling, not out of the goodness of Sony or MS' hearts. Nintendo's titles continue selling despite being full price. if Sony or MS titles had the tails Nintendo's do they wouldn't drop the price
This.
I mean... Isn't this new LA a full HD, 3D remake of an 8-bit game plus a dungeon maker feature? Even Bluepoint had the skeleton of SotC to work with for their remake.
Okay, one is more favourable to consumers than the other. Does that sate your desire?
You just answered your own question .
Nintendo does this because they can , coming from PS4 I find it pretty greedy but there is nothing we can do .
We can compare if we want to, because the premise of the thread is based on a comparison anyway. If we're gonna look at NPD charts, then games like GTA are discounted and are still charting highly. So, please explain to me why Nintendo's strategy to sell high is justifiable when other publishers are doing it for less - from a consumer perspective.
You misunderstood what I said.
Smash has always been a full priced game until the 3ds version obviously. So your post should've been comparing the 3DS and the WiiU version to argue against me. Ultimate is a sequel and yeah sure "more of the same" I guess but the pricing is no different from the previous console based Smash games.
Ah you must live by those wise words...
Yup, this happened on the Wii U. People didn't buy the games and big games like 3D World and Mario Kart 8 dropped to $20. People can vote with their wallets.
The customers will decide if it's worth or not, Link's Awakening is a game I've wanted to revisit for years and the voucher system got me the game for 50 so I'm okay with it.
I do agree that 40 would have been excellent for the game but it's Nintendo and Zelda.
I do agree that 40 would have been excellent for the game but it's Nintendo and Zelda.
It's because several people here, sadly, think of themselves more as good friends of the company than consumers who actually have to spend their own limited money on different things, so it's impossible to have a good discussion when they can't go past that barrier. I've learned that the hard way and it's mostly Nintendo-related threads where this kind of discussion is the hardest to have.
I'm personally waiting for a buy 2 get 1 free at Best Buy/Target that finally includes Switch games. I personally don't want to spend above $40 for it, myself.
Honest question, what makes you view these as excuses rather than legitimate points?
lol excuses?
Meanwhile back on planet Earth NSMBUDX is outselling Crash NST aligned. Yes, the people have chosen and their choice appears to be one great ported platformer (plus dlc) for $60 over 3 mediocre remastered platformers for $40.
No word on Spyro yet but given Activision hasn't commented I'll assume it's even underselling Crash.
The price has always been defined by the console the game is on, nothing more. Random example: Animal Crossing 3DS had a lot more content and better graphics than the $60 Wii game but it still costed $40.
For me personally the difference is between stuff like Amiibo and the currency shops you saw only in mobile games a few years ago.
I rarely feel like I missed out on not having Amiibo, while other games get ruined by all the "best value get 20000 coins for 50 bucks now!" bullshit.
I praised MH World's pricing model too, even though it had MTX because you had to actively search for them in some menus. That's still better than these blatant moneygrubbing schemes.
Ah got you.
I think TP HD alone was $50 on Wii u, and if you got it with the amiibo, it was $60. I feel like WWHD on Wii U was $50 also, but my memory is hazy.
-That being said, DKC:TF being $60 at launch was an absolute joke since we just saw double the resolution and a funky mode, but really nothing significant. Should have been the same price as captain toad treasure tracker at 40-50
-I feel the same way with Pokken Coliseum. There were some new Pokemon but hardly any performance improvements. That game should have been $50 at the most.
-mk8 deluxe though included all the DLC and some extra modes and some change in mechanics, as well as performance improvements. I think adding the dlc justifies the $60 price, and it should have been at least be $50 at launch.
You know in some ways I'm proud of Nintendo putting value in their games. I feel like steam and Sony/Ms are too quick with price drops and devalue their games (half price in 1-2 years is crazy). That being said, old ports like the games I stated above with minor changes should not be 60.. and the first party games that have bee out for the first two years should at least have a $10 permanent price drop everywhere
-That being said, DKC:TF being $60 at launch was an absolute joke since we just saw double the resolution and a funky mode, but really nothing significant. Should have been the same price as captain toad treasure tracker at 40-50
-I feel the same way with Pokken Coliseum. There were some new Pokemon but hardly any performance improvements. That game should have been $50 at the most.
-mk8 deluxe though included all the DLC and some extra modes and some change in mechanics, as well as performance improvements. I think adding the dlc justifies the $60 price, and it should have been at least be $50 at launch.
You know in some ways I'm proud of Nintendo putting value in their games. I feel like steam and Sony/Ms are too quick with price drops and devalue their games (half price in 1-2 years is crazy). That being said, old ports like the games I stated above with minor changes should not be 60.. and the first party games that have bee out for the first two years should at least have a $10 permanent price drop everywhere
At least with Amiibo you get a multi game toy to use for content as well as a neat collectible
T
They're both luxury products. If you cannot afford luxury products then buy a less expensive alternative.
100% agree. First party Nintendo titles never go on sale either for a reasonable discount either. It's been a frustrating part of owning a Switch for me.
The DK: TF pricing was ridiculous, so much insatiable greed..
The DK: TF pricing was ridiculous, so much insatiable greed..