-
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
This. Or just boycott the games and play the ones that are doing it right like bandicoot.
Well no, because there are plenty who have just stepped away from Nintendo due to being priced out the market.
That's the reality of making a game good enough and not overshadowed that still sells 100k+ copies every quarter 30 months after launch. They don't need to and the market proves them right.
The value proposition of their games is different for us all, and missing out on something because it doesn't price collapse by 1/3 2 months after launch like most big games these days seems wild to me. Maybe being a console gamer my whole life and therefore not use to crazy PC sales has just normalized it to me.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Nintendo gets away with so many things no other publisher or dev can on the basis that they're Nintendo. They play by their own set of rules.
I get that to a point. I think there are a lot of people who don't value the hard work of the hundreds or thousand+ workers do for years when they are all "won't buy until below 10$".
But then there's Nintendo still selling Breath of the Wild for 70 euros on their online store 2,5 years after release.
This Nintendo game pricing thread keeps resurfacing for every new release on Switch.
Game pricing is simply based on demand-supply.
Personally for me $60 for one of the best Zelda game remake is good value, but I wouldn't waste my money on $20 Spyro or Crash.
The value of a product differs from person to person.
Game pricing is simply based on demand-supply.
Personally for me $60 for one of the best Zelda game remake is good value, but I wouldn't waste my money on $20 Spyro or Crash.
The value of a product differs from person to person.
probably not. That's exactly Nintendo's model. If your first time playing BotW is today or March 3rd, 2017, it's the same exact game. Until A sequel comes out, there is no reason to drop the value of a great game. On the other side, people can sell said game at a higher price because the value doesn't drop, which gives them a better return on investment. Honestly if you're not a collector, you can pretty much get every game for 30-35 dollars by trading in the ones you finish.
I mean look at two big titles from sony and nintendo. Spider-Man and Breath of the Wild. Spider-Man is now 40 bucks new and you can trade it in for 9 dollars, as it approaches 1 year on the market. Zelda is 60 bucks, and trades in for 30 dollars as it approaches 2.5 years on the market. The value goes on past how much you pay at POS.
They are already bad at not lowering prices... I'm not supporting Nintendo on this. Not on the heels of things like Pokemon downgrade and their absolute refusal to be normal when it comes to virtual console licenses and rollout, account services, the absolute bullshit you have to go through to backup saves, and etc.
They have to get their heads out of their asses. It pains me to feel this way because I'm really excited for this game... but as a company they are being really shitty.
They have to get their heads out of their asses. It pains me to feel this way because I'm really excited for this game... but as a company they are being really shitty.
It's pretty simple. If you don't think it's worth the money, then don't buy it. Both Crash and Spyro were largely dead franchises before their recent remakes. That's why Activision made a really appealing bundle to sell the title and it worked! Zelda has never had that issue, and thus Nintendo is convinced they can sell the game for $60.
Why do people not mention GTAV or the Last of Us Remastered or something? There were plenty of rereleases from like 3-4 years prior that were released with perhaps (eventually) some improvements and sold at $60 and no one batted an eye.
All these late ports on Switch are largely $60 (Skyrim, etc.), so why should a full-blown remake of Link's Awakening be different?
Just the loud minority. Watch the game selling gangbuster, as people always vote with their money showing that Nintendo pricing is completely fine. Also, if you look at the voting thread, people who are okay with the pricing and buying the game are winning the poll.
Still waiting for a sale on Doom at retail. I don't think it's ever dropped below $50.
I get what you guys are trying to say, but isn't supply and demand a different concept? Quantity/supply isn't really a factor for MSRP. The price the market is willing to pay is a different principle.
Nintendo have become ultra greedy since the WiiU launch (ports and collections were still reasonably priced on Wii) and don't give a shit to provide some sort of value for their fans (I'm still not over the fact they didn't even bother to add a DKCR Remaster to Tropical Freeze on Switch).
Well at least they don't add microtransactions to their remakes/remasters like Activision.
Well at least they don't add microtransactions to their remakes/remasters like Activision.
Yeah, those posts are weird.
Supply and demand argument makes sense if Nintendo increased the price after, let's say, a month because the are high demand. But setting your price at launch that high is not related to supply and demand factor.
Nintendo are in the business of maximising profits. The notion that their titles hold some sort of prestige over the competition is laughable to me.
They have plenty of great games, but also plenty of middling stuff that's handily outdone on basically every level by the competition. They really are the Apple of the video game world.
They have plenty of great games, but also plenty of middling stuff that's handily outdone on basically every level by the competition. They really are the Apple of the video game world.
I don't really think the if you don't think it's worth the money then don't buy it is very helpful to discussion. Because you can say the same thing against invasive micro-transactions and Epic buying exclusives at the last moment. Sure, that's a valid thing to say, but people are allowed to express their criticisms. It just reeks of trying to shut down the conversation because you don't like what you're hearing.
People don't mention GTA and TLOU because these games already have sky high production values that would obviously be sold at $60 dollars and they were only released 1 year later than their original release, not decades like with Zelda. Games like this release are more comparable in scale and production values to Ori and the Blind Forest, Hollow Knight, Steamworld Dig 2, and so on. Actually, I'd argue the production values are better on those titles and they are being sold at 1/3 the price.
Furthermore, critical darlings like Shadow of the Colossus was completely remade and was only sold for $40. Plus stuff like the Majora and Ocarina releases were only $40 bucks on the 3ds(I mention them even though it's 3DS because I think those titles would have cost more and been harder to remake than Links Awakening). So, the precedent is there for the price to be lower.
I do agree though that late ports like Skyrim, etc deserve the same criticism. There's no argument there.
I guess what I was trying to say is: as long as people are buying sufficiently buying it at this price, there's no real need to price it differently. I'm sure Nintendo did the price elasticity calculations.
this
plus I don't know why you would bring links awakening to that topic.
I mean, the game is basicly a completely new game.
Yeah Nintendo's pricing sucks.
NSMBUD was laughable. A port of a six year old game somehow costs full price?
No other company would be able to get away with shit like this.
NSMBUD was laughable. A port of a six year old game somehow costs full price?
No other company would be able to get away with shit like this.
I have noticed this awhile ago and I have always wondered why no one talks about Nintendo's bullshit prices in eshop. They release old games or ports from other consoles for full prices years after these games initial release. I think that's bullshit and they could start changing. You can find same games with much better performance cheaper in other platforms
Edit: i wish this thread had a poll, just to see how people defend this bullshit because it's Nintendo
Edit: i wish this thread had a poll, just to see how people defend this bullshit because it's Nintendo
Activision probably didn't think they could get away with $60 for Crash and they were wrong. They were kinda forced to keep the same price tag for Spyro and CTR. You can't blame Nintendo for not being competitive with something that even you agree was priced too cheap. Activision is the company that made an odd pricing decision, not Nintendo.
I'll agree that Donkey Kong should not be MORE expensive on Switch than it was on Wii U. That is some next-level greed. The rest is fine though. Nintendo doesn't want to devalue their games and I don't find that to be an outrageous move.
Imagine thinking Crash games and IP are on the level of Zelda.
"Nintendo should do a Zelda remake three pack for $40" lol
Might as well ask why Disney charges full price for Blu Rays of Snow White and Frozen "while I can get the 32 Betty Boop/ Koko the Clown cartoon pack for $15 on Amazon"
"Nintendo should do a Zelda remake three pack for $40" lol
Might as well ask why Disney charges full price for Blu Rays of Snow White and Frozen "while I can get the 32 Betty Boop/ Koko the Clown cartoon pack for $15 on Amazon"
Because they can.
Because I can't I still don't own a Switch, they almost had me with the Lite, but they had to completely cut the docking feature.
Good for them, that they can ask such prices on pretty much everything they sell, sucks for me. If I can't get my hands on a good sale for the new Switch this holiday, I'll just buy everything used in a couple of years like I did with the Wii.
Because I can't I still don't own a Switch, they almost had me with the Lite, but they had to completely cut the docking feature.
Good for them, that they can ask such prices on pretty much everything they sell, sucks for me. If I can't get my hands on a good sale for the new Switch this holiday, I'll just buy everything used in a couple of years like I did with the Wii.
If we continue to compare the value of games like this we're going to get in stupid arguments about how games like Skyrim are worth more because they have 100s of hours of gameplay and only cost $60 at launch or something.
I'm sure for the majority of people, Link's Awakening will be a brand new experience so it's not that strange for it to be worth the price of a brand new Zelda game. Even if you have played the game before, it's 3D now. That's a pretty big difference.
In the end, we don't know exactly how much money and resources have gone towards these remakes so trying to say how much it should be worth is weird to me.
As a consumer though, I'd love for Nintendo to embrace lower price points for some of their games (who wouldn't?)
I'm sure for the majority of people, Link's Awakening will be a brand new experience so it's not that strange for it to be worth the price of a brand new Zelda game. Even if you have played the game before, it's 3D now. That's a pretty big difference.
In the end, we don't know exactly how much money and resources have gone towards these remakes so trying to say how much it should be worth is weird to me.
As a consumer though, I'd love for Nintendo to embrace lower price points for some of their games (who wouldn't?)
It always blows my mind how people don't understand Nintendo's reasoning for charging full price for Wii U ports. The Wii U's lifetime sales were around 13 million while the Switch is at 35+ million. I know this is a gaming enthusiast forum but the majority of the people buying these games didn't own a Wii U and aren't double dipping.
I'm with you OP and that's why I won't buy those games unless heavily discounted. There's not much else we can do.
User banned (3 days): trolling, platform wars, history of related infractions
Have you not seen the pedastal people put them on, it's cult like.
Their pricing model works for them but not me so I make a point of playing their games for free.
And on a smaller scale even something like Tropical Freeze, which was released on the Switch more expensive than the Wii U version handily outsold it.
Lol at the contradiction.
Every company is in the business of maximising profits. Nintendo is able to do it this way literally only because their titles hold some sort of prestige over the competition.
If they didn't, why doesn't everybody else charge the same premium? Only because they cannot.
It's not Nintendo's fault that other devs devalue their games and that pricing in general is a race to the bottom.
Games that are consistently priced are healthier for the industry.
Games that are consistently priced are healthier for the industry.
Yeah who do Nintendo think they are? They should follow the same pricing model that everyone else is doing. Bring out a game at full price and then a a month or so later drop the price by 30% then a few months after that take 75% off during sales so that nobody ever wants to buy a new game, and instead are trained to wait for a couple of months to get it at half price. Then when Nintendo finds that they aren't making enough money they should force massive crunches on their studios to get games out faster. And if the game doesn't make enough money on release they should shut down the studio, because they bet the farm on that one game and the studio can't support lower than expected sales and they don't have a resilient business model that can ride out any tough times. Then to combat that sort of thing they should embed massive amounts of micro transactions and gambling mechanics into their games to bleed their players dry over a long period of time until the practices get so bad and are so targeted at addictive personalities and children that governments have to step in and ban their predatory practices. The race to the bottom in the games industry is exactly the sort of thing that Nintendo should be emulating.
Games are the same price or cheaper than they were in the fricken 90s, while being waaaay more complex, involving hundreds or thousands more staff, and having intense competition in a flooded marketplace. Yet people still complain about 'full price' games, and that is why we have micro transactions, endless season passes, nickel and diming, day one patches, loot boxes and games as a service models.
Everyone wants all of the games, right now, for next to nothing, and then they don't play them. Look at people's steam lists for example.
Games are the same price or cheaper than they were in the fricken 90s, while being waaaay more complex, involving hundreds or thousands more staff, and having intense competition in a flooded marketplace. Yet people still complain about 'full price' games, and that is why we have micro transactions, endless season passes, nickel and diming, day one patches, loot boxes and games as a service models.
Everyone wants all of the games, right now, for next to nothing, and then they don't play them. Look at people's steam lists for example.
Even among entertainment products, I'd understand this criticism better if, say, someone were complaining about the local theater jacking up their prices. Sure, you don't have to watch movies at a theater, but it's fun to do and nobody wants to pay more for an experience they were previously getting for cheaper.
But that doesn't apply here, because we're talking about video games. I literally cannot think of any other type of product with more competition in pricing. You have tons of big budget free-to-play games, or you could buy $100+ "Legendary" editions of games, or you could get some popular AAA game for $8 because of some ridiculous sale, or you could be a dummy and gamble away your life savings on lootboxes, or you could pay full price day-one and sell the game after completing it, or anything else in between. No matter what your budget is, you can easily find yourself with an endless backlog of games that you can never hope to finish.
I get wanting to complain about things you don't like, but why are we hundreds of posts into a topic about how one dev decided to sell their new game for full price? You have a million other options; support the publishers you prefer instead.
But that doesn't apply here, because we're talking about video games. I literally cannot think of any other type of product with more competition in pricing. You have tons of big budget free-to-play games, or you could buy $100+ "Legendary" editions of games, or you could get some popular AAA game for $8 because of some ridiculous sale, or you could be a dummy and gamble away your life savings on lootboxes, or you could pay full price day-one and sell the game after completing it, or anything else in between. No matter what your budget is, you can easily find yourself with an endless backlog of games that you can never hope to finish.
I get wanting to complain about things you don't like, but why are we hundreds of posts into a topic about how one dev decided to sell their new game for full price? You have a million other options; support the publishers you prefer instead.
Crash and Spyro experienced multiple, violent deaths under Activision. They had to exhume the corpses and fix them up in coats of shiny to paint to convince the masses that they weren't dead and it was okay to buy into these franchises again.
Zelda is coming off Breath of the Wild, which is the best selling Zelda game of all time and will be one of the best selling games of the generation when everything's said and done. Link's Awakening is considered one of best handheld games of all time. Zelda is one of Nintendo's prestige franchises and has never been in the position of being issued a death certificate. The idea that Nintendo should be basing its prices on other publisher's woes is hilarious. If anything, Activision should have charged more for Crash and Spyro.
Zelda is coming off Breath of the Wild, which is the best selling Zelda game of all time and will be one of the best selling games of the generation when everything's said and done. Link's Awakening is considered one of best handheld games of all time. Zelda is one of Nintendo's prestige franchises and has never been in the position of being issued a death certificate. The idea that Nintendo should be basing its prices on other publisher's woes is hilarious. If anything, Activision should have charged more for Crash and Spyro.
Doing it right like adding microtransactions after release to milk players?
Is the lighting new? I can understand not liking the price but with the success of Mario maker, I don't think you can dismiss dungeon maker
They are related to demand, shown by how much people are willing to buy $60 games. The supply is limited since you can only get a Nintendo game on one system right now. Not like Sony, who still offers games available on their dead portable via cross buy.
So I think supply and demand still covers this. Nintendo provides different experiences via mobile, not the same experience.
And as we can see from this thread, price dropping is considered normal, including price dropping soon after launch. So keeping the price the same, is in some ways, raising the price. They are just protected because they never actually raise the price.
They will next time.
I forgot about some of this. It started with Sony publishing and made their way to it's third publisher. These are games made 20 years ago, 3 generations ago. And it's almost a 7 treat gap between any crash games being released.
It's like a retcon to call this anything other than a necessity. They needed to release 3 games at that price. Which is funny. Nintendo is frequently accused of selling based on nostalgia. But it's working for a lot of companies.
Last edited:
Forums are not representative of the general public, this is an enthuiest place.
This is an amazing post and 10000% correct. No-one on here will pay any attention to you of course, lol.