• 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.

Deleted member 896

User Requested Account Deletion
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,353
In a world where Hollow Knight launched for $15 should any game ever cost more than $15? No. $15 should be the maximum price for a game.

And before anybody asks "are you for real?" the answer is "no." Ultimately, there are expectations you have to keep in mind when pricing something. But this is part of the strategy at this point. There are multiple pricepoints that are viable these days all the way from 99 cent indie mobile games all the way up to full price games packed to the brim with day one microtransactions and season passes. The "correct" strategy is to price it at what you think most people are willing to pay. And part of guessing that amount is keeping in mind the competitition and what expecations are.

Nintendo is also better positioned to get away with stuff like this because they've long had a tradition of seeing their titles as evergreen and not discounting them very regularly. Sure, there'll be stuff like a Selects lineup near the end of the console's life sometimes, but aside from that stuff like the Mario _____ Deluxe games can get away with it simply because they never devalued the Wii U versions either. Assuming you could easily find Wii U games in stores, outside of stores clearancing out inventory Mario Kart 8 Wii U and New Super Mario Bros. U would still be $60 probably right next to their Switch counterparts. You can check eShop prices for confirmation of that.
 

Deleted member 11413

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
22,961
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!
People definitely thought the NES classic was too expensive. In which case they didn't buy it and moved on.
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
I will never understand why people here love and even defend a company for charging high prices for their products
It's not something that really needs defending. It's an entertainment product, right or wrong, morality, or any other concerns really have nothing to do with it.

It makes sense for consumers to want prices as low as possible, but it equally makes sense for companies to charge the price they will most benefit them.
 

Akita One

Member
Oct 30, 2017
4,632
People definitely thought the NES classic was too expensive. In which case they didn't buy it and moved on.
Well of course, I didn't say 100% of people in the world had no problem with the price...but it was wildly successful to the point where it was hard to find for over a year and Nintendo had to apologize for lack of stock. A few posts on a message board will not outweigh that.

In a world where Hollow Knight launched for $15 should any game ever cost more than $15? No. $15 should be the maximum price for a game.

And before anybody asks "are you for real?" the answer is "no." Ultimately, there are expectations you have to keep in mind when pricing something. But this is part of the strategy at this point. There are multiple pricepoints that are viable these days all the way from 99 cent indie mobile games all the way up to full price games packed to the brim with day one microtransactions and season passes. The "correct" strategy is to price it at what you think most people are willing to pay. And part of guessing that amount is keeping in mind the competitition and what expecations are.

Nintendo is also better positioned to get away with stuff like this because they've long had a tradition of seeing their titles as evergreen and not discounting them very regularly. Sure, there'll be stuff like a Selects lineup near the end of the console's life sometimes, but aside from that stuff like the Mario _____ Deluxe games can get away with it simply because they never devalued the Wii U versions either. Assuming you could easily find Wii U games in stores, outside of stores clearancing out inventory Mario Kart 8 Wii U and New Super Mario Bros. U would still be $60 probably right next to their Switch counterparts. You can check eShop prices for confirmation of that.

Thank you...this is literally the whole point.
 

Deleted member 11413

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
22,961
Well of course, I didn't say 100% of people in the world had no problem with the price...but it was wildly successful to the point where it was hard to find for over a year and Nintendo had to apologize for lack of stock. A few posts on a message board will not outweigh that.



Thank you...this is literally the whole point.
Sure, no argument there.
 

Menx64

Member
Oct 30, 2017
5,774
You dont have to buy them OP. Everyone is free to decide whether the price of a game is fair for them.
 

Range

Banned
Aug 22, 2019
26
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!

No company in the industry release a triple A game for 10$. But there are lot of companies that release remakes for less than 60$.
So asking for a 10$ triple A game is unrealistic.
 

Merc_

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 28, 2017
6,548
Being cheaper would be nice, but it clearly isn't necessary for Nintendo to do it since plenty of people are willing to pay full price for their remakes/remasters. I can't really fault Nintendo for doing what works for them.
 

Nano-Nandy

Member
Mar 26, 2019
2,302
When people don't agree with you, just call them anti-consumer. Heck, call everything you don't like anti-consumer for extra damage.
 
OP
OP
Durden

Durden

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
12,511
To be fair, there's a pretty big difference between remastering a game and rebuilding it from the ground up.

Yeah, I tried to stress that in the OP. Particularly the fact that Nintendo's remasters/re-releases are priced just as high if not higher than some full-on remakes. Their own or others.
 

Lyrick

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,818
I'm guessing that if Crash and Spyro had the demand to command a $60 price tag they would have been $60. But they didn't and both releases were budget priced compilations.

The Legend of Zelda Links Awakening remake is currently not a budget priced priced title, and Nintendo feels it will perform at their expectations with premium pricing so it is a $60 release.
 
Last edited:

Dunban_Fyuria

Member
Oct 27, 2017
481
Company offers x product for y price, then consumer decides of its worth the price or not. It's not always anti-consumer and pointing that out is not "defending the company". You either buy the game and think it's worth the $60 (people sure love being condescending with people who think its worth it tho) or you wait for a sale or look for a better deal.

Also comparing a company wanting $60 for a remake to predatory practices like lootboxes is certainly a...take.

Edit: Also it's clear that Activision is fine with only charging $40 since they can try to use that price point to justify adding predatory microtransactions in their games (crash team racing for example).
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 2254

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
21,467
I never bought a full priced remake of a game that is readily available on other platforms for 5/10 bucks. Since Nintendo insists on doing this, I don't really buy their remakes.
 

Akita One

Member
Oct 30, 2017
4,632
No company in the industry release a triple A game for 10$. But there are lot of companies that release remakes for less than 60$.
So asking for a 10$ triple A game is unrealistic.
But that makes no sense! Spider-Man on PS4 at $60 sold over 9 million? So, at $10...90 million dollars in revenue would likely be enough to get a profit, not to mention DLC sales. Then...the fallacy here that "lower price=more sales"...so if Spider-Man sold at $10, it would have sold at least 20 million copies, right? Plus Sony is a multi-billion dollar company, so they only need a million or two of profit right? Anything else is greedy and anti-consumer?

See the issue you get yourself into when you don't have a basis for your argument besides I WANT IT? No price is "unrealistic". Especially for an entertainment product. You are making up "this should be priced this way" and "that should be priced that way" with reasoning that defeats your own argument.

Spider-Man on PS4 costs $60 because they want to make the most money possible. As in tens of millions in profit. It did not cost $300 million dollars to remaster Crash games.
 

Deleted member 6730

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,526
Considering DKCTF sold more on Switch at $10 more, I'm not sure they're exactly in the wrong here. People clearly don't care.
 

Gotdatmoney

Member
Oct 28, 2017
14,547
The value of the Crash and Spyro IPs were nothing compared to most Nintendo IPs. Games aren't priced just by content or classification. Even now, there is no comparison between Mario/Zelda and Spyro and Crash as IPs.

I get not wanting to pay full price for a remake (I'm not), but that really is not how content is priced.
 

TooFriendly

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,031
I wouldn't play through the crash or Spyro games now even if they were free.

That's seems like a shit comment but it's true. There are so many games coming out constantly that there's more games that I want to play than I will ever have time for. So having 3 games that I don't think are very good for a cheap price is not some amazing value proposition.

By contrast having a small game that is tightly crafted and full of little puzzles and story, that I would most likely sit down and play from start to finish, is actually worth it for me, even at a normal game price.
Both sets of games are trading on nostalgia, but the games themselves are completely different in what they do.
 

Hate

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,730
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.

High prices are the definition of anti consumer.

Definition of anti-consumer

: not favorable to consumers : improperly favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers

I don't care about how these companies run their business. All I see is I'm paying more. That's it. I don't give a shit about supply and demand. I only care about what I'm paying. Don't care about second hand value. Don't care about profit in higher prices vs higher sales. I care about myself, me, a consumer.
 

Tibarn

Member
Oct 31, 2017
13,376
Barcelona
Well, Link's Awakening is a far better game than the others you listed, people know it and they are willing to pay.

Are 100h games 10 times more expensive than 10h games? No they aren't, but people doesn't pay for content, in fact this notion is one of the main problems with most AAA nowadays: lots of padding, sidequests etc... to sell the game as a 50+ hours game.

Link's Awakening will sell well at the entry point, while I'm sure that both Crash and Spyro trilogies at 60€ would have sold less copies. You simply can't compete with one of the favorite videogame series ever, and if it's this way is because Nintendo takes care that every new Zelda game is a really good one, so in a way they deserve it.
 

Swift_Gamer

Banned
Dec 14, 2018
3,701
Rio de Janeiro
Well, Link's Awakening is a far better game than the others you listed, people know it and they are willing to pay.

Are 100h games 10 times more expensive than 10h games? No they aren't, but people doesn't pay for content, in fact this notion is one of the main problems with most AAA nowadays: lots of padding, sidequests etc... to sell the game as a 50+ hours game.

Link's Awakening will sell well at the entry point, while I'm sure that both Crash and Spyro trilogies at 60€ would have sold less copies. You simply can't compete with one of the favorite videogame series ever, and if it's this way is because Nintendo takes care that every new Zelda game is a really good one, so in a way they deserve it.
I don't think a game being good or bad should be regarded as a reason to charge more for a remake.
 

Poimandres

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,909
Nintendo is just going to keep doing what they are doing. They have a very different view of the value of their games, and it's not hurting their bottom line.

Personally I hate it, but I simply don't buy the games I feel are over priced.
 

Deleted member 896

User Requested Account Deletion
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,353
High prices are the definition of anti consumer.

Definition of anti-consumer

: not favorable to consumers : improperly favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers

I don't care about how these companies run their business. All I see is I'm paying more. That's it. I don't give a shit about supply and demand. I only care about what I'm paying. Don't care about second hand value. Don't care about profit in higher prices vs higher sales. I care about myself, me, a consumer.

Who decides what prices are "high"? You may think I'm being obtuse, but this is an actual question. Like if I said "I bet these greedy assholes would still make money if video games sold at launch for $10!" am I being reasonable? If the argument is just that they are high relative to the competition then I'd agree to some extent. However, they aren't really violating the standard MSRP in as much as they just don't like devaluing IPs over time. Like, they're not just arbitrarily going "We think Smash is such a content-stacked title that we think we can launch Smash Ultimate at $200! Prove us wrong and resist buying it you impulsive cowards! We know you can't! Make it $250!"
 

Ehoavash

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 28, 2017
7,250
Agree op fuck Nintendo's anti consumer agenda. All those Wii u ports shouldnt have been full Price

but at the same time...I'm part of the problem

You see crash, Spyro and those games you listed are meh meh meh, I'd take a Zelda any nintendo game / remake anyday over those

Hell I even got crash and spyro remake trilogy from my local library for FREE ( can rent them for free many times you want where I live ) yet I played only like a hour of each and said yeah these games aren't fun, felt like a waste of my time .And I just returned them the next day cause I didn't like what I was playing.

But a remake of a Zelda game I never played? Yeah I'm hyped for it cause I know I'll love it and it's probably GOTY worthy
 

Tibarn

Member
Oct 31, 2017
13,376
Barcelona
I don't think a game being good or bad should be regarded as a reason to charge more for a remake.
If a game is good, people will buy it when it's remastered to replay it. If it's not that good, it will be mostly sold because of nostalgia, so the overall sales will be lower at the same price. One thing is to sell average games because a generation grew with them and it's nostalgic to put the game in your new system again (to play it for 2 hours and never touch it again). This kind of consumers are not spending 60 € in the game. On the other hand, selling what is considered a masterpiece, remastered with a new artstyle, will be interesting to both nostalgic users and people intersted on what they have listened about the game. And if people knows that the game is considered great even for today's standards, they will be more eager to spend the 60€.

Of course the quality of the remaked game is a reason to be more expensive.
 

Lizardus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,276
High prices are the definition of anti consumer.

Definition of anti-consumer

: not favorable to consumers : improperly favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers

I don't care about how these companies run their business. All I see is I'm paying more. That's it. I don't give a shit about supply and demand. I only care about what I'm paying. Don't care about second hand value. Don't care about profit in higher prices vs higher sales. I care about myself, me, a consumer.
Then anything that isn't free is anti-consumer right? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 

Deleted member 896

User Requested Account Deletion
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,353
Someone in a previous Switch thread found the chip Nintendo uses for video out and bulk pricing for it.

It could be that simple. I also think it's worth noting that something about the design may make that impractical in terms of the cooling of the unit. I'm not the most technical person here and as such I'll defer to people who know more about the inner workings of the switch, but I'm assuming that in docked mode the system overclocks relative to portable mode, correct? Maybe the Lite isn't built to handle that? I guess either way it should still be able to output the mobile profile to TV-out, but that may not be a sacrifice they think serves it well.

Or they're just being super greedy here. I don't know.
 

Wamb0wneD

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
18,735
High prices are the definition of anti consumer.

Definition of anti-consumer

: not favorable to consumers : improperly favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers

I don't care about how these companies run their business. All I see is I'm paying more. That's it. I don't give a shit about supply and demand. I only care about what I'm paying. Don't care about second hand value. Don't care about profit in higher prices vs higher sales. I care about myself, me, a consumer.
Predatory microtransactions are anti-consumer. Selling games at a standard price point just isn't. Just because you think they are too expensive doesn't mean they are for other you know...consumers. By your logic any pricepoint is anti-consumer because someone out there still might think 20 bucks or 10 bucks for any game is too expensive. That's not how it works.
Agree op fuck Nintendo's anti consumer agenda.
Oh god. Now it's even an agenda.
 
Last edited:

AzVal

Member
May 7, 2018
1,877
Should have been 40 bucks, would have not bought it anyway, same reason I never bought the lets go games, too many games out there to waste time on money playing remakes/ remasters I ve already played. For people playing it for the first time, sure it might be worth 40 bucks.
 
Oct 29, 2017
924
Australia
sweetie, you're comparing Zelda to franchises that were dead a minute ago.
Nintendo's been in this remake business much longer than anyone else. They have no reason to change anything now.
 

Hate

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,730
Who decides what prices are "high"? You may think I'm being obtuse, but this is an actual question. Like if I said "I bet these greedy assholes would still make money if video games sold at launch for $10!" am I being reasonable? If the argument is just that they are high relative to the competition then I'd agree to some extent. However, they aren't really violating the standard MSRP in as much as they just don't like devaluing IPs over time. Like, they're not just arbitrarily going "We think Smash is such a content-stacked title that we think we can launch Smash Ultimate at $200! Prove us wrong and resist buying it you impulsive cowards! We know you can't! Make it $250!"

I decide it cause I'm the one buying it. If I think it's high I won't buy it. Obviously everybody has their own set of perceived value and they're welcome to buy these high priced games if they want.

The thread is about remakes so strictly speaking about remakes the vast majority of it is never at $60. Same deal with apple. Vast majority of smart phones are priced lower yet they still charge a lot for it.

Everybody can't have the same value system so we simply look at what the majority think is fair and call it a standard. The standard for remakes aren't $60. Nintendo is the exception. Just like apple, there are many that feel it is worth it but there is a lot more that feel it's not since they're not following the standard.

Besides I rarely buy games full priced anyway so I'm definitely not the target market of these remakes.
 

Swift_Gamer

Banned
Dec 14, 2018
3,701
Rio de Janeiro
If a game is good, people will buy it when it's remastered to replay it. If it's not that good, it will be mostly sold because of nostalgia, so the overall sales will be lower at the same price. One thing is to sell average games because a generation grew with them and it's nostalgic to put the game in your new system again (to play it for 2 hours and never touch it again). This kind of consumers are not spending 60 € in the game. On the other hand, selling what is considered a masterpiece, remastered with a new artstyle, will be interesting to both nostalgic users and people intersted on what they have listened about the game. And if people knows that the game is considered great even for today's standards, they will be more eager to spend the 60€.

Of course the quality of the remaked game is a reason to be more expensive.
I consider crash trilogy a masterpiece and a lot of us do it to.
As much good Link's Awakening is, it's still an old GBC game.
There's no excuse at all for charging $60 for the game.
How much did the Shadow of the Colossus remake cost? It's regarded as a masterpiece too and they charged $40 for it.
There's no amount of words you can write that'll convince me or everyone else the game should cost $60. It's simply not cool by Nintendo to do this.
 

Tibarn

Member
Oct 31, 2017
13,376
Barcelona
As much good Link's Awakening is, it's still an old GBC game.
There's no excuse at all for charging $60 for the game.
So how the original system should change the price of a remake? This doesn't make any sense. In fact the game has some really significant gameplay adjustments (like having the sword and shield mapped to a button all the time), so no, it's not a old GBC game anymore (the original was a GC game, not a GBC one btw).
How much did the Shadow of the Colossus remake cost? It's regarded as a masterpiece too and they charged $40 for it.
Yep, they charged 40 € for one game, and I'm sure that lots of dedicated players would have bought the game at 60. Thing is that Sony did some math and it was the best price to sell the game, Nintendo did the same with LA. As I've said before, game is considered a masterpiece and the Zelda name means that it will sell better than any old masterpieces.
 

Kraq

Member
Oct 25, 2017
808
Lots of bad takes here. Not surprised to see the usual spiel about the supposed superior quality of Nintendo's games.

Nintendo charges maximum price because they know their fanbase will buy it no matter what. Activision charged $40 because they had no idea how these games would do in the current market - turns out they were a huge success. The Crash Trilogy in particular sold over 10 million copies with a tiny budget and little marketing, something which many game publishers would salivate over.
 

Omnistalgic

self-requested temp ban
Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,973
NJ
I try to catch them on sale and Nintendo games are the only consoles I buy hard copies of because they keep high resale value.

It's messed up but I usually just don't buy it unless it's an amazing experience like BotW or its a game ill buy once and keep all gen like Mario Kart. Some of Wiiu stuff that got ported was straight BS with the price points.