-
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
And my response is for. Do you really think these companies care about any of that? "Remake vs new release" is probably the least important factor on why these games were priced this way.
What price point will this product bring in the most revenue at...that's it...it's not Activision doing something good. Like the other poster compared Crash remake sales to NSMUDX sales...not knowing he hurt his own argument. If Crash sold 10 mil at $40 and NSMB sold 5 mil at $60, that's means in 2 years, Crash has done $400 mil while NSMBU has done $300 mil in just 8 months. So like I said...the better argument could be made that Activision is the one that overcharged.
And that's the issue...the sole logic behind it is "well Activision's price is less than others" and not "wow Activision really ripped us off selling Crash for $40 when soon after launch there were many sales and discounts after that"
User banned (1 day): platform wars
Clueless Switch users (parents for example) mostly buy those overpriced Nintendo remasters. A hardcore gamer knows that those remasters shouldn't cost more than 20.
Spyro remakes alone annihilate those Nintendo cashgrabs, content wise.
Lets not forget about Halo MCC. Freaking FOUR games (two of them are fully remade) that filled with an insane amount of MP maps.
Spyro remakes alone annihilate those Nintendo cashgrabs, content wise.
Lets not forget about Halo MCC. Freaking FOUR games (two of them are fully remade) that filled with an insane amount of MP maps.
I see, that makes sense.. Maybe it's also the fact that the customers to which Nintendo and other publishers sell to differ tremendously, in that one is more conservative and ready to wait for a price drop, while others quickly give in because they know Nintendo won't drop the price? I mean, most here seem ready to douse Nintendo with money because they know Nintendo won't drop the price.
This is just basic supply and demand really. If those other companies were 100% confident that those games would've sold as well at $60 as they did at $30/40 of course they'd have been $60. They didn't sell them at that price to be nice or be generous or something.
Again, this isn't conductive to discussion. People pointing out faulty arguments isn't the same as arguing in favour of higher prices. Wanting to pay less is a preference, not an argument. And it's a preference that even people that have "defended" their pricing have voiced in this thread. To call it blind fanboyism is just giving yourself an easy out because people don't agree with you.
I dont really care about that really. Since entertainment is about how much you value it, i pay for what i want how much i think its worth it. I think the links awakening remake is worth 60 dolars, so ill pay just that. Unless its about something ethically wrong, as in exploiting diseases or workers, i wont join on any angry costumer crusade.
Yes, exactly. And GTA isn't even a great example because the online mode is loaded with microtransactions. Most Nintendo games don't have them. Rockstar offers a lower entry price so people will spend more with the mtx.
I don't agree at all. The race to the bottom of pricing utterly ruined the market for videogames on mobile platforms, for example. It was/is definitely getting near that point too for console titles with how microtransactions are so prevalent among big games. If a company wants to have a steady pricing model and avoid that kind of thing, I'm totally in support
I just see it as odd that I can pay for other remakes for $40, and yet Nintendo still charges $60, and people will defend it. That's all. Ah well.
I don't buy any consoles or console games because I'm poor and in debt, I play maybe 1 mobile game at a time until I feel I get my $5 worth. To me they all seem like ridiculously overpriced products.
I'm just saying people are singling out Switch games for no reason.
High prices aren't anti-consumer. Ubisoft doesn't discount their games because they are pro-consumer, they do it so they can present better numbers to their shareholders. Please check up on basic things like supply and demand.
That's the thing though, they would never hurt. I could as well argue that having SotC for 10 bucks instead of 40 wouldn't hurt. The consumer always wants things as cheap as possible. Pointing out why a company doesn't need to do that isn't blind fanboyism, it's just a reasonable thing to argue.
It's also hilarious when some people are arguing that 60 bucks for a game isn't enough these days and that's why we have predatory mtx in our games, and then you have others call Nintendo selling their games for 60 "andti-consumer", "a bad business decision" and whatever else.We have someone in here arguing Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze at 60 is as bad as having predatory microtransactions in your game.
Not saying oyu argued that, but this line of thinking is way more ridiculous than people saying they can understand why Nintendo is doing it the way they do.
An easy argument could be made that Halo MCC is the most overpriced game this gen. Do you really think people thought they got their money's worth? Oh and it was such a dagger to the Halo brand that 343 is still trying to recover.
Also, just curious...everyone that bought Mario Kart 8 Deluxe isn't a hardcore gamer? Some of you are going out of your way to insult someone over an entertainment product lol
Some bad assumptions here.
- Switch userbase has always been mostly adults
- "Hardcore" gamers are typically the early adopters and enthusiasts who buy day one.
- Halo MCC had a hilariously buggy and troubled launch.
Crash Bandicoot and Spyro only now again have brand power, I am sure Activision's bean counters ran projections and found lowering the price would increase bulk sales volume. This has paid off for them, even though it is quite obvious they did a job worth more than the average price people paid for it. Remaking both trilogies, 6 games, from scratch on a custom engine... that had to have been ridiculously expensive. Particularly when you consider they also ported it to additional platforms.
Nintendo is charging 60 bucks because they believe in preserving brand value. Each Zelda game sells what Crash or Spyro sold at their height or better, consistently. They can demand that kind of price, even if it contradicts the reality that it was likely less expensive to produce than what their competitors are doing. This is the power we as consumers have given them. If you think it's bad, wait to buy it or don't at all.
Personally, I wouldn't buy it for $60.
Nintendo is charging 60 bucks because they believe in preserving brand value. Each Zelda game sells what Crash or Spyro sold at their height or better, consistently. They can demand that kind of price, even if it contradicts the reality that it was likely less expensive to produce than what their competitors are doing. This is the power we as consumers have given them. If you think it's bad, wait to buy it or don't at all.
Personally, I wouldn't buy it for $60.
Nintendo doesnt want to devalue their IP which is why they always sell their games at full price and for the longest of times.
Remasters/Remakes are more likely to sell to a new customer than to someone who has bought it previously - and in that case, it's a brand new game sold at a fair price.
And it seems to be working just fine for Nintendo. That's just the way it is, like it or not.
Remasters/Remakes are more likely to sell to a new customer than to someone who has bought it previously - and in that case, it's a brand new game sold at a fair price.
And it seems to be working just fine for Nintendo. That's just the way it is, like it or not.
Huh? The argument is that generally, remakes seem to be sold at $40, and Nintendo is out of this standard and sells them at $60. That's the point of the OP; to decipher why Nintendo isn't called out on it. That's all.
I mean, it ultimately comes down to perceived value. Lower pricing is always nicer, but remakes at $40 are what I generally view as a fair price and am willing to pay. $60 for a game I've played before with additional changes can seem like cashgrabs, perhaps?
Gambling mechanics exploit those with addiction problems into spending literal fortunes on ingame tat. Nintendo remakes are 20 bucks more expensive for a one time purchase at worst.
This is not medicine or something, don't like it don't but it is pretty appropriate for something completely innocuous like charging a bit more for a single upfront purchase.
I hope you go into every Apple or Disney thread and berate the companies for charging more for their comparatively more prestigious and desirable products.
this is very sad to see someone defend a company that practice anti-consumer behavior
I understand you OP.... but if they can change you full $$ and ppl srill buy it... why they shouldn't
Agreed. I skipped NSMBU initially on Switch, but when the $40 Mario deal happened, you can bet I jumped on it. I'd be happy to double dip on other Wii U ports like Tropical Freeze for $40, or even the remakes like Link's Awakening and Pokemon Let's Go, but $60 is just a hard sell when the old games are still perfectly playable and they are essentially 1:1 remakes.
But Nintendo is as Nintendoes. They still sell at that price so nothing will change. I just wish there were more sales.
But Nintendo is as Nintendoes. They still sell at that price so nothing will change. I just wish there were more sales.
They are called out for it. What do you think you're doing right now?
But a lot of people will pay their price. That's why they do it. Activision probably figured they would make more money by selling Crash at $40. Nintendo figured they could make more selling at $60. That's all it is. For you, unfortunately, calling them out isn't doing much. Millions of people are still paying full price for their remakes.
Yeah, that's right. You're dead on. Not much else is to be said about it. :P
Remember when you got 3 games for 30-40€ last gen? Good times. But I guess TLOU showed everyone that people are willing to pay 60€ for one HD remaster.
It's a buzzword to use when a company does something that you don't like basically.
How do you reconcile this mindset with the fact that none of the handheld Zelda offerings all the way to LTTP2 didn't retail for $60?
Sure. I didn't get the Mario Bros U port because I don't think it's worth it, I did get Tropical Freeze because I thought it was worth it. I think stuff like Capcom selling a Street Fighter 2 port for the money they did at the Switch's launch as a cash grab.
Personally I don't have this fixed pricepoint of $40 for remakes in my head just because one company does it that way and then start to say everyone who doesn't do it the same way is making cash grabs.
Is there even a single person ITT who has said that they "love" this? Because I haven't seen it.
People 'defending' this- like myself- are basically explaining something rather straightforward without resorting to buzzwords and generalisations.
Nintendo knows their games are going to sell. Therefore, absolutely no reason for them to drop prices/sell games cheaper in the first place. That's all there is to it
I do. I don't sell a single game I buy. I'm sure there are plenty of people here like that too, considering we're enthusiasts.
You used to at least put some effort on your troll posts, what happened?
Because Handheld and Home Console games are priced differently based on precedent. Nintendo and the market have decided that Switch games are in line with Home Console games, and Link's Awakening is priced as such.
Basically. As much as I want Links Awakening I'm super not jazzed about paying 60 bucks for it
Like maybe I haven't kept up enough but as far as I know it doesn't really have any new content to it either
Like maybe I haven't kept up enough but as far as I know it doesn't really have any new content to it either
beauty is in the eye of a beholder. someone doesn't think a 15 hour single player game is worth it, that's fine. some people wouldn't pay the $50 USD + that M2 charges for their ShotTriggers line-up, that's fine. There is usually a justification for the higher prices.
The scenario for Link's Awakening, for example, is just one aspect of the game. If you look at the graphics, the music, the anime cutscene(s?), the bevvy of official translations, etc. and say it is a 1:1 remake-- I don't know what to tell you.
Games are priced to generate the most revenue for the publisher. Crash and Spyro weren't less than $60 for any reason other than the fact that AB thought that price would lead to more sales, which would overall lead to more $.
Nintendo doesn't feel that way about these titles, and considering how well all of their Switch ports have done, they are right.
Nintendo doesn't feel that way about these titles, and considering how well all of their Switch ports have done, they are right.
The only question that matters is whether or not you as a consumer think a game is worth the price a publisher is asking for. If so, then buy it. If not, don't buy it. If it doesn't sell well enough Nintendo or other retailers will discount it.
The idea that remakes HAVE to be priced at a certain price point because they are remakes is stupid. Do you get a cheaper ticket price on the box office when they remake a movie concept? No. Do you think FFVIIR is going to be less than $60? No.
The idea that remakes HAVE to be priced at a certain price point because they are remakes is stupid. Do you get a cheaper ticket price on the box office when they remake a movie concept? No. Do you think FFVIIR is going to be less than $60? No.
Normally I tend to get physical, but admittedly I was interested in grabbing Super Mario Maker 2 (and therefore one other title) digitally. I thought the voucher promotion ended at the end of July, though? Also, I haven't seen a discount from one of the major retailers in a while.
OP
OP
Geez there's some intense takes in this thread.
What I was basically saying was that, in my opinion, the Crash and Spyro remakes have changed the way that I view games like the Link's Awakening remake, and have made some of other Nintendo's previous remakes or remasters/re-releases look even worse in hindsight. I wanted to see if others felt the same way or not, and have a discussion about whether or not if should effect the way Nintendo and possibly other companies should value projects like these.
I was singling out Nintendo because of their general pricing structure of 60$ or bust. I am not saying that Activison is "the good guys" or that Nintendo is "the bad guys" or any of that shit. I still happily buy many fully priced Nintendo games, the Switch is very much my primary console. I'm just choosing not to for LA because of these reasons. Certain things change certain market climates, and I personally believe those Crash/Spyro/CTR remakes were such strong values that it warrants a discussion on whether or not other companies should take heed for consumers like me, who feel as though they have set a new standard in this field. I also think there could be a lot to be gained from following that standard on not just a consumer viewpoint, but a business viewpoint as well.
I do appreciate the legitimate discussion that has been had though. I do understand a business has to create their own value, and I wouldn't say I'm in support of just blanket pricing on these things. From what I've seen, I still disagree with LA's pricing though.
I'll update the OP with WWHD and TPHD being apparently 50$ at launch. (TPHD on Wii U is actually 63$ on Amazon right now though.....lawl).
What I was basically saying was that, in my opinion, the Crash and Spyro remakes have changed the way that I view games like the Link's Awakening remake, and have made some of other Nintendo's previous remakes or remasters/re-releases look even worse in hindsight. I wanted to see if others felt the same way or not, and have a discussion about whether or not if should effect the way Nintendo and possibly other companies should value projects like these.
I was singling out Nintendo because of their general pricing structure of 60$ or bust. I am not saying that Activison is "the good guys" or that Nintendo is "the bad guys" or any of that shit. I still happily buy many fully priced Nintendo games, the Switch is very much my primary console. I'm just choosing not to for LA because of these reasons. Certain things change certain market climates, and I personally believe those Crash/Spyro/CTR remakes were such strong values that it warrants a discussion on whether or not other companies should take heed for consumers like me, who feel as though they have set a new standard in this field. I also think there could be a lot to be gained from following that standard on not just a consumer viewpoint, but a business viewpoint as well.
I do appreciate the legitimate discussion that has been had though. I do understand a business has to create their own value, and I wouldn't say I'm in support of just blanket pricing on these things. From what I've seen, I still disagree with LA's pricing though.
I'll update the OP with WWHD and TPHD being apparently 50$ at launch. (TPHD on Wii U is actually 63$ on Amazon right now though.....lawl).
The bolded make zero sense. People buy a console to play games. If there isn't game you want to play on it the price is irrelevant? So what does the console have to do with game pricing?
So every product should be free? Sony is a multi-billion dollar company...so Spider-Man should cost $10? Because at $10, they would have sold more than they have at $60, right? Why haven't we seen a "OMG Spyro at $40 is way overpriced"...again...the people that agree with you are not making sense. A $20 difference doesn't make one company "anti-consumer" and another company "pro-consumer". But mysterious, no one thought that $70 was too high for an NES Classic with $10 worth of tech and games from 30 years ago. It makes no sense!
Yes, so why buy a console that had no games for almost a year, and about 4 games to play after two years...that was priced at $300 in 2012 for 32 GB of save space and couldn't do 1080p graphics? Some people here are arguing over $20, yet overpaid by at least $100 for a console because reasons.
So it's okay to overcharge on hardware but not software?