-
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
Real talk.
I really hate how people that absolutely know better, play dumb whenever it comes to pricing only so they can complain....there arent many plattforms online with more inside talk about sales, development and how all these things affect publishers and the overall market.
Im getting tired of people wanting everything to as cheap as possible, or even being offended at companies charging money for something yet at the same time crying foul whenever DLC, micro transactions or f2p mobile games are mentioned. You cant have it all - its straight up common sense. Same way you cant use all your Google services for "free" and expect them to not use your data to make money in background.
Cant take people seriously that want everything for free but then act surprised when shitty monetisation mechanics are introduced or devs studios are being closed.
Again - usually people being just greedy or not knowing better is expected online ....but Era knows better.
I think Link's Awakening and maybe the other Wii U ports should have been $50 at most if we are trying to match other publishers. For better or worse, Nintendo has enough cache that they can launch at these prices with relatively little effect on sales.
I don't know if it bombed, but if 5 million people bought it for $10, it would only make $50 million... not the hundreds of millions that Fire Emblem Heroes and Pokemon Go can pull in.
Minecraft seems to be doing perfectly fine on mobile with no Gacha Mechanics (At least as far as I am aware of).
Relative bomb I guess. For a mobile game (that was supposed to be their premiere product with their main mascot) I think it's fair to say it bombed.
We would have all these things even if games went up in price. We would have all these things even if other publishers made their games retain value longer. Nintendo games on phones have microtransactions.
Nintendo isn't the beacon saving the industry lol. They have a business strategy and it works. That's literally all this is. If the whole industry followed Nintendo's model (if they actually could which they cant for reference), the thing would see massive contraction.
Nintendo games on phones also don't cost $60.
I agree we would probably still have some of these things (crunch/MTX) if other publishers adopted Nintendo's pricing strategy but I don't think it would be nearly as prevalent. On top of that, it wouldn't be as necessary. Which is the major issue with games rising astronomically in budget but being cheaper than ever to purchase.
they have fostered quite a healthy software buying ecosystem with pretty well defined price tiers that rarely intersect. there's no doubt that their strategy helps smaller indie titles find success because they're not frequently brushing shoulders with Nintendo's heavy hitters. $20 for something like Cadence of Hyrule becomes less appealing if you can get Breath of the Wild for the same price. obviously all of the ills of the games industry don't just magically go away but it does help stave off the race to the bottom for the smaller more vulnerable game studios by giving their games a chance to stand out and find an audience at a reasonable price for them to be able to continue doing business.
They still aren't opposed to MTX. They gave up on the upfront model with Mario Run. They are not immune to industry trends.
Not probably. Would. There is no reason for anyone to believe these things would go away if every publisher could adopt this strategy which btw they absolutely cant.
Games had crunch since the beginning of time. If you have ever managed a project you know there is always some level of crunch. The games industry not being able to handle that reasonably is because it treats employees like shit vs every other software development career path. It isn't due to making games be $60 longer.
Publishers are making more money than ever. They are having record profits. Games being cheaper to purchase is not why they have microtransactions. Games also sell millions more units and have many other monetization paths than back in the older days.
This shit is non sense.
What does that mean? God of War, GTA, and tons of other huge brands are bigger than crash and Spyro and after some months on the market you can get them much cheaper. Not to mention Nintendo's pricepoints on straight ports of WiiU games. Is this a veiled "Nintendo quality justified" argument? Cuz that's bs
I'd rather pay $60 for one of Nintendos remakes over $40 for Crash/Spyro. Quantity and value is fine and dandy, but I'd rather play a Zelda or Donkey Kong over Crash/Spyro any day of the week and I don't mind spending more money for a better game.
Spyro was alright, and aged fine, but the $40 I spent on Crash was such a waste of money. The gameplay did not age well at all.
Spyro was alright, and aged fine, but the $40 I spent on Crash was such a waste of money. The gameplay did not age well at all.
Awww you shouldn't have banned this guy .. He made me laugh out loud in the office
you think the 18 million people who have bought mario kart 8 deluxe, a full price port of a 2014 wii u game, are part of nintendo's defensive fanbase or just, you know, people?
But they still don't put these MTX in their $60 console games. Until they do I think it's fair to say that they are intentionally signalling that the premium price of their games corresponds to a premium value and people should not expect to be asked to pay more constantly for those games. Even Amiibo they've basically given up on at this point (outside of Smash).
Think about Smash Ultimate. How ripe that game was for MTX, what with spirit battles and extra modes, costumes, echo fighters, whatever. Instead we get 5 discrete meaty DLC packs and that's it (so far). I'm not arguing that they're doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, rather that they are trying to justify their pricing strategy by not nickel and diming consumers. People would probably be less willing to pay $60 for Smash or for Mario Odyssey if Nintendo decided to start selling costumes for $5 a pop.
The argument TooFriendly made was suggesting that, if we magically force Nintendo to adopt the practices of the rest of the industry and devalue their games a couple months after release, we will likely get things like MTX creeping into their games to make up for the lost revenue. I don't see how that's terribly controversial.
The biggest publishers are fine, but not the smaller guys, many of which completely vanished during the previous generation due to this issue of game development costs rising while gamers expect purchase price to drop. I'm not saying this can all be fixed by charging $60 for your games for years, but the idea that rising game dev costs compared to game prices have led to studio closures, additional crunch, and predatory MTX practices seems fairly sound.
I mean that's a port from a system that notoriously bombed, unlike say the remasters from Game Boy or N64 games which were a) far more popular systems and b) much older games.
I still begrudge them for charging £12 for Game Boy games on 3DS when I can get PS1/ps2 games on PSN for less (not including sales)
Edit: Also I don't blame people for buying them, I get annoyed at the vocal minority who will defend Nintendo's charging of full price and Nintendo's lack of willingness to reduce costs for almost any of their games.
Last edited:
there's nothing to defend. it's a sound business strategy that works. i, like any other sane person, would like to pay less for video games across the board. but i also know that i'm not entitled to cheaper games, and after many years any person interested in nintendo games should have gotten used to their business strategy. they're not interested in devaluing their games, and most of the time it works in their favor since their games keep selling for years. understanding why they're not dropping their prices isn't the same as not wanting cheaper games. it's just being, you know, realistic and getting used to something that's not gonna change anytime soon.
This whole debate about Nintendo's price strategy reminds me a little bit of Apple. They sell quality products for high prices. A vocal group of people think they charge too much for their poducts but in the end they sell a ridiculous amount of them.
So would I like if Nintendo ports/games were cheaper?
Sure, who would not.
Are they going to change it because some people don't like it?
Nintendo is a corporation that wants to maximize its profits and since it seems to work (see sales numbers) why would they do it?
So would I like if Nintendo ports/games were cheaper?
Sure, who would not.
Are they going to change it because some people don't like it?
Nintendo is a corporation that wants to maximize its profits and since it seems to work (see sales numbers) why would they do it?
Hate to be this guy, but as long as people pay they'll continue pricing them this way. But yeah, Activision's remakes have some insane quality and amazing value, CTR is basically an entirely new game with monthly updates entirely for free.
Also:
yeah but what 3 games ?
there's a reason to complain when a 3rd party charges more for their game on switch while it's available for cheaper on another platform. it's not like link's awakening remake is being sold for 30 or 40 bucks on other consoles.
Some of those do keep their price. Doom on Switch is still full price, presumably because they know it's on a platform with less racing to the bottom they're using the same strategy.
Rockstar games do keep their prices higher longer than average, as do COD games until the next one is out. Like Nintendo games, these also maintain their second hand value better too, which is another factor.
Are you seriously calling LInk's Awakening Switch a 'remaster'?
Huh? £3.59 for original Game Boy.
You are assuming that those 3rdParty game have Nintendo first party IP selling power....which is rarely the case.
Links Awakening is a remake, I was also thinking of the Ocarina/Majoras 3ds versions which I would count as remastered.
I specifically meant the Pokemon games which are extortionately expansion on 3ds.
Edit: just checked and Pokemon Red is £9 on the eshop which £1 more than the PS1 final fantasy games as PS1 classics (which are also on sale far more often)
I don't have any problem with that. I could sell my copy of Breath of the Wild for $45 or more.
I'm sure Nintendo prices their products to maximise profits (current and future).
However, when we ask for cheaper products (in general) we have to be careful what we're wishing for.
However, when we ask for cheaper products (in general) we have to be careful what we're wishing for.
It's the same everywhere. We want cheaper clothes and it is a race to the bottom with £1 tshirts from Primark. God knows in what conditions they're produced. Same with cheap food. Cheap electronics. Cheap energy. There's always a price to pay, but it's often hidden or somebody else is paying it. Ok, Nintendo may not be the beacon of ethical game development, they're still in it for profit, but aggressively forcing a business to follow unhealthy industry practices in an entitled way isn't nice to see.
Not to mention, that allows 3rd parties to compete at a lower price point. If all of Nintendos games were at 15-30 dollars by now, goodluck selling 50 dollar 3rd party late ports.
They have all new graphics and new features.
And cost $39.99 aka 2/3 of full console game price.
Which Game Boy Pokemon is £12?
Pokemon games are also modified to support Pokemon Bank.
That's why Nintendo ips from the 80s are still relevant today, because they don't devalue their brand.
For a new generation of gamers, the Zelda remake is a completely new game worth the 60$ price tag, the rest of us can debate all day wether it's worthy of that price or not because we played it in the 90s.
Don't want to disrespect the devs on the Spyro remakes, but I think I'd rather have one gb Zelda remake for 60$ than the entire Spyro remake trilogy, but that's just me.
For a new generation of gamers, the Zelda remake is a completely new game worth the 60$ price tag, the rest of us can debate all day wether it's worthy of that price or not because we played it in the 90s.
Don't want to disrespect the devs on the Spyro remakes, but I think I'd rather have one gb Zelda remake for 60$ than the entire Spyro remake trilogy, but that's just me.
Hahhahaha you're insane.
Yes let's thank our Nintendo overlords for not gouging us even further
Taking a break from my literary labours and, having run out of cheese dip, I perambulated past my local Ferrari dealer the other day and, can you believe the nerve of them with the prices they charge?! .. I felt my humours rising as I said to the signor "How dare you insult me with the outrageous cost of your automobiles! .. I could buy 5 Toyotas for one of your overpriced bangers!".. I was loudly calling them "anti-consumer" as security escorted me out.. I'm sure I changed a few minds with the glances I was getting.. Or maybe it was my fetching deerstalker.. Who can know for sure!
How? The lifetime sales for the WiiU were like 13 mil while the Switch is at 35 + mil. Nintendo screwed up with the Wii U and this is their opportunity to give those games a fighting chance. I know Era is a game enthusiast forum but the majority of people who bought those titles weren't double dipping.
Give them a fighting chance by charging 60 quid for a game that got released years ago??
Fighting chance by putting them on a system people actually own and are enthusiastic about. Which incidentally worked.
Imagine calling releasing something for sale at a clear set price a 'scam'.
"Oh that is too expensive for me, I shall choose not to buy it."
"Phew I just missed being SCAMMED!!!"
The millions of people who bought those games should file a class action suit! They were SCAMMED into buying them! Such disgusting behaviour, setting a standard RRP!
Nintendo will price based on what the market is willing to pay. Simple as that.
I don't always agree with it, but I can't blame them for doing it. If you don't like it, don't buy it, or wait for a good deal on the game (usually used since they rarely do promos).
I don't always agree with it, but I can't blame them for doing it. If you don't like it, don't buy it, or wait for a good deal on the game (usually used since they rarely do promos).
I picked myself up from the pavement where the unruly thugs of the car showroom had bundled me and spied that the local art gallery had some new exhibits and decided to bestow my patronage on less a grubby pursuit. Upon arrival I spied a painting by some fellow named Pablo .. It really was a horrific vision.. Eyes askew and one ear on top of her head.. She looked like a grotesque from the baroque down by the river (so Ihave been told). I asked the attendant what the value of this dawb .. He said $50 million.. "fifty million!!!" I roared "that's highway robbery sir! I could paint a far more comely likeness of that lady for one percent of that outrageous price!!!" "Some know the price of everything and the value of nothing" I declared as I was, again, escorted from the building.
Yes. Most people didn't even know those games existed. Its not the developers fault their game got released on a dead console.