When Warner Bros moved their entire catalog from HD-DVD to Blu-Ray the MSRPs didn't get reduced due to having been release on another platform prior.
-
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
When Warner Bros moved their entire catalog from HD-DVD to Blu-Ray the MSRPs didn't get reduced due to having been release on another platform prior.
Nah, those games should have cost $60 as well. Just because some devs undercharge it doesnt mean you should devalue your product.
Tangentially. I see this at trade shows all the time, artists devaluing their product more and more to stay competitive and it makes (some of) the audience take it for granted to the point they scoff at very fair prices.
Tangentially. I see this at trade shows all the time, artists devaluing their product more and more to stay competitive and it makes (some of) the audience take it for granted to the point they scoff at very fair prices.
I agree that the price tag for Nintendo remakes seems high compared to other companies.
But I have also had Link's Awakening as a preorder since like three seconds after it was possible.
I am not part of solution, but the problem. Then again I don't have a problem since it's my money and my decision.
But I have also had Link's Awakening as a preorder since like three seconds after it was possible.
I am not part of solution, but the problem. Then again I don't have a problem since it's my money and my decision.
The art comparison works quite well I think. This is a good comment.
In that regard, all microtransactions suck.
But in regards to the topic and what OP considers right with how the title is phrased, bandicoot falls in the 'right' category.
I just buy fewer Nintendo games. Videogames aren't worth $60 to me anymore. Maybe when I was a kid, but not now.
Yeah, people who don't want to buy games at full price are always in the wrong, and publishers who reduce prices of their games after a while are simply devaluing their properties because their games were no good in the first place anyway. Stop with this scummy practice! #60forlife #makegamepricesgreatagain
This guy just shitted on all yall crying about price. The truth hurts
Undaunted in the face of the banditry of such porcine capitalists I continued on my odyssey for cheese dip arriving at the supermarche only to see my favourite brand out of stock! "No more!" I cried "my blood may boil at the satanic obstacles thrown to defeat me but I shall not quaver!".. A mousy assistant sidled toward me and I enquired what, if any, substitute there may be for my paste de fromage.. She removed a package from the shelf and displayed it. "By zeus and mars! this substitute costs two dollars more!!!" I bellowed.. "It's organic" she mumbled.. "organic? ORGANIC?! madam, do I resemble a lichen? what foodstuffs do you sell that are inorganic may I ask!!!!!" Upon the third occasion I was prepared for the hand on my shoulder and vacated the premises under my own puissance.
If by "truth" you mean a "fantastic slippery slope narrative" then yes, it "hurts".
Anyway, the reason crunch exists or monetization exists is definitely not because some games cost less than $60 upfront or because their prices get reduced during their life cycle.
First off, it's definitely a cultural thing within some developers. Secondly, developing complex titles not only takes a lot of time but also require a lot of unforeseen work. Publishers in general avoid delaying their games too much, so once delaying the release date is no longer an option, only through crunch can the game be released in time.
So games getting discounted down the line causes crunch or the addition of MTX and live features? What about Crash or Spyro, that have no MTX of any kind? Or Splatoon and Arms that clearly had a live service model even if these games were somehow not subject to the supposedly aggressive discounts from other publishers?
So are indies devaluing their products by charging $30 or less most of the time for completely new games or would you raise your eyebrow if something like Bloodstained or Hollow Knight cost $60?
But why do they do it? Why does crunch exist? Why can a release date no longer being an option exists?
Because making a game involves budgeting all sorts of expenses with shipping, marketing and so forth and at some point the product must be released in order to not blow its budget with the costs of the delay, or missing an ideal release window. Sometimes even the licensing of the game's content can factor into this, I suppose.
Good. Thats the whole point of that post. Games are crunched due to financial/marketing reasons. If you dont see how video game prices affects that then Idk what to tell you.
If you don't want to buy it at full price, don't. Nintendo will have multiple 30% off sales for links awakening within the next two years on the eshop, at minimum.
Heck, by that point, they'll probably have introduced Nintendo selects for switch and given a bunch of high profile titles the price cuts people are yearning for.
It's not as fast as the rest of the industrys race to the bottom, sure, but there's no point pretending they won't be offering discounts on the game eventually.
Is it really a remaster when the source material is 2D? I have a problem paying full price for HD upgrades but Link's Awakening is a new game that just happens to share a scenario and layout with the original game: everything else was built froM scratch.
Hollow Knight is SEVERVELY undervalued. I think it's worth 60 bucks hands down. I've not played blood stained, so I can't say, but you also have to remember, indie games generally don't have marketing budget to consider as well.
I wouldn't describe other publishers' price practices as a race to the bottom. It certainly feels much fairer than Nintendo's, though. I don't even mind getting games at full price, but I do welcome discounts as well and cannot fathom why a discount would be considered a devaluation.
I think you need to read that post again. He's saying any business model other than Nintendo's leads to crunching/monetization/live services, not that crunch exists due to the complexities/financial challenges of developing and publishing games.
Its not excluded to only Nintendo's model its more of an example of why they choose that model.
I think something like Hollow Knight would have been destroyed if it launched at $60. Nintendo unfairly gets more leeway with their pricing practices, and that extends to their hardware and accessories. People complained when they thought Last of Us Remastered was going to be $60 and then Sony dropped it to $50 at launch. There are people passing on the Grandia Collection at $40 because they think it's too expensive, but they'll line up for Link's Awakening. People should just be more honest with themselves about their bias.
The Grandia and Link's awakening comparison doesn't quite make sense. At all. Grandia is not remade. Its remastered.
Is it? Because where's the relationship between Nintendo's business model and crunch not being an issue on the development of their games, or their games not having live services or microtransactions? Let me just give you some references before continuing this discussion:
https://kotaku.com/at-nintendo-working-all-night-is-mario-time-1794042341
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...t-and-12-other-devs-how-they-deal-with-crunch
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.nintendo.zaba
Yeah learned this the hard way this gen. I can either buy one pre-owned Switch game or like four PS4 games instead for the same amount. I've restricted my Switch purchase to a handful of games only. Coupled with the lack of VC support or rerelease of classic games it's been a bit of a disappointment. Worth it to play BoTW and Odessey though.
I think the big thing, and this is the entrie premise of the thread in the first place, is that they're charging full price for ports of games that don't really have many new features, and have already gone through the eShop sales and Nintendo Select route.
It's not that they're charging full price for Wii U ports that are full price, it's that they're charging full price for ports of Wii U games that you can get officially, via Nintendo Selects, for half the price. It's bad enough for people who never had a Wii U, but for people like me who did, I'd have to pay full price again, solely for the convenience of playing it on a console I currently play.
Obviously Link's Awakening is different, as that is far more than a simple 1080p upscale with a few unique features.
I dont think he said they didn't crunch. As another person stated it is an exaggerated post but its not wrong. What makes Nintendo able to push out Animal Crossing which will probably be $60 until on Nintendo selects and Sony crunching for Death Stranding which will probably be $40 the next month?
What something is "worth" is more art than science. I mean, as consumers we do this kind of stuff all the time. That thing is a day one "shut up and take my money" purchase. That other thing I'll impulse buy at 25-33% off. Then I'll buy something else only at 50% off. Some things I buy and they just go into my backlog raising the question of why I purchased it to begin with. I'd be better off a lot of the times if "pro-consumer" sales didn't exist that tempted me to buy shit I don't need.
I mean I think you're right about the "biases" part but I don't necessarily know if I agree about Nintendo "unfairly" getting more leeway. In general I don't understand why people think that there is some sort of objective argument to be made about what something "should" be priced. I'm not obligated to pay what merchants are asking and they're not obligated to lower the price to what I'm willing to pay.
I'm at a loss here, what do your examples prove exactly? Is Animal Crossing being developed free of crunch or anything else because it'll likely have less discounts than Death Stranding?
Feels like Nintendo is doing a favor to all the people in here by pricing remakes and remasters at the standard price of a new game and keeps them from buying games they apparently don't really want to play. Honestly, if you don't feel a game is worth it at 60 € (in reality if you look for the cheapest seller more like 45 - 50 €), it probably wouldn't be worth it at 30 € either. At least that's my position as somebody that hasn't nearly enough time to play everything he is interested in.
I'm not trying to prove anything its just an example based on what the original posted quote said.
Nobody sees the same amount of value in everything. For me, Zelda is not at all worth $60. If it was half as ambitious of a project as RE2make then it might be... but it's from a top-down perspective and overly simplistic in terms of visuals (for my taste). It doesn't invoke my memories of the original concept art at all.
It's not necessarily connected but they did (officially FWIW) say they delayed Animal Crossing to avoid crunch.
It's not necessarily tied to their pricing model but it's an example of a publisher moving the release date out of the holiday season in order to avoid crunch.
Gaming is pretty cheap in general. Like any other hobby is way more expensive. Gamers can be really entitled. Try being a sneakerhead or a vehicle enthusiast and buying new parts for your whip.
I think that's a good thing, but like you said, it's not necessarily a decision driven by a pricing model. Nor is Death Stranding sticking to the only date they ever announced a decision driven by the game's pricing.
I don't think the discussion about the prices of games or their perceived value is a sign of entitlement, at least not when done in good faith.
Call it entitlement but its good for consumers to voice their opinion. What bad can happen? Its already 60. What good can happen? Maybe they'll consider in their next remaster or discount this one early. A consumer should always voice out. People saying 60 is fine are the same people who wouldn't mind it one bit saving a good 20 had it been 40.
The Dungeon maker thing is added to the main game. Like the Color Dungeon and GB Camera extras were in DX.
Of course it is good for consumers to voice their opinion I do all the time. I love to save but I ultimately feel your wallet speaks. When PS classic came out I didn't buy it, price went down and boom. Even with as much PS fans there are the price still dropped.
Hmm interesting that no one ever replied to this LOL
Again...it's more likely that Crash and Spyro were greatly overpriced. But $40 is the right price because one of the most cuthroat and aggressive companies on Earth tell you it is? Because if it wasn't overpriced, you wouldn't have seen the deep sales on these games that you do, a few months after release. The post that MELLO commented on above nails this.
Either almost all AAA games are overpriced, regardless of remake/reissue or not, or only games that cost more than $60 are. Last year I brought up that the Spider-Man DLC was glorified DLC on a disc, except kept off the disc...people swore that "OMG Sony NEEDED to charge for that because the sales from the base game didn't account for that...BECAUSE INSOMNIAC SAID SO". Then the DLC came out and people saw how basic it was.
I'll never get the anti-Nintendo bias when it comes to pricing. Yeah Red Dead Redemption 2 really needed 20 million copies sold at $60 a pop to break even...
They go that low is because the market keeps waiting for these games to show up for free or to have a 90% discount at some steam sale. Sounds great for the consumer but it also sounds like a great way to go broke. As an average, I personally never liked the move to $60, I liked $50. Knowing the amount of time, hardship, marketing and everything else that comes into making a game, I hate seeing developers continually have to justify their incredibly hard work to people who sometimes feel like they want their entertainment for free.
I hope the people complaining about Nintendo prices in this topic are also complaining about FF7's Remake price, despite it being less than 1/3 of the original.
According to logic in this topic, a graphical update does not warrant a full priced game after all.
According to logic in this topic, a graphical update does not warrant a full priced game after all.
i dont get complaining about price. if you want it and are comfortable paying $60, get it. if not, wait until it drops to what you're comfortable paying.
i know nintendo games dont drop in price much, so if you want to play it/have that experience pony up the cash
i know nintendo games dont drop in price much, so if you want to play it/have that experience pony up the cash
Personally, I paid $60 for Bloodstained as a backer.
However, I don't think wanting a game to have discounts down the line or wanting releases cheaper than $60 is the same as wanting free entertainment. Games with strong launches especially shouldn't be in a position where a discount means people's work was devalued. Unfortunately some consumers are sort of hardwired to wait for discounts, especially for smaller titles, but these people wouldn't buy the game at full price anyway.
Links Awakening is completely worth the price for me, so I already bought it. Predatory prices and scamming? Get outta here, lol.
Holy smokes you are killing me with these!
Holy smokes you are killing me with these!