By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Is it just me $60 for a Wii U game is not too expensive.

 

Is $60 (USD) too much for a Wii U game?

$60 no big deal. 90 30.51%
 
I'll pay $60 but wish it was still $50. 105 35.59%
 
I will wait for the games to go on sale. 47 15.93%
 
I refuse to buy a Wii U, ... 28 9.49%
 
If Nintendo corrects this... 11 3.73%
 
Resultz. 14 4.75%
 
Total:295
rudyrsr8 on 17 September 2012

It's unfortunately the standard price for major releases now a days, however most in a few months go down. However Nintendo hardly if ever discounts their games themselves. Basically just their best sellers they do eventually but years after. The game has to be worth the price tag and just have to compare and do more research for every purchase.



"Like you know"

Around the Network
Proclus on 17 September 2012

Usual price so not cheap or expensive.



Flanneryaug on 17 September 2012

I only had a Wii so I was used to paying only $50, but I'll eventually get used to paying $60.



Nintendo Network ID: Flanneryaug

Friend Code: 4699 - 6552 - 3671

Add me! :)

Red4ADevil on 17 September 2012

Given that Nintnendo has kept their price tags under 60$ for decades (except for the N64) It's only fair that they raise it to 60. I mean look at the Wii; if they made it the same way as the other consoles, then they' would've antied up the price too because of the more expensive hardware.

Now that they made the Wii U's with graphics and hardware (currently) on par with what we already seen on the other two consoles, the price is gonna take some time to get used to.

Look on the bright side. For us Club Nintendo members; if this price point is confirmed, they're probably going to increase the value of the game's reward points. Thus more points for us to get free stuff.



Faxanadu on 17 September 2012

60 Euro is too much for almost any game. One of the reasons I liked the Wii compared to PS360 was that Nintendo games were at 50 Euro. Also a reason why many 3rd party games on Wii did poorly. Why buy a 3rd party game for 60 Euro when you can get a Nintendo game for 50?



Any message from Faxanadu is written in good faith but shall neither be binding nor construed as constituting a commitment by Faxanadu except where provided for in a written agreement signed by an authorized representative of Faxanadu. This message is intended for the use of the forum members only.

The views expressed here may be personal and/or offensive and are not necessarily the views of Faxanadu.

Around the Network
oniyide on 17 September 2012
JazzB1987 said:
oniyide said:
JazzB1987 said:
Teflon02 said:
Nothing wrong with 60 as long as the games worth it, something like CoD is fine at 60, but if NSMBU is $60, then that's a issue, cause anything over $40 for a side scroller is to much, and that was my problem with the wii NSMB, $64.99 everywhere is complete non-sense, i only have it cause it came with the wii when i rebought a wii for the red thinking mario allstar was in the box :p


So 60 for a game with really bad single player which has just 1 thing that makes it worth buying/ being fun or being difficult   which is strangers you meet online and that actually have nothing to do with the game at all  is okay.
But 60 for a game thats fun and which has fun singleplayer is not? (sure nsmb is not the best game and its boring by now but so is COD  but thats not the point people should rate games individualy and not compared to predecessors or competitions games)


Makes no sense to me.  Seriously   you play against other people   that are not part of the game so how is COD worht more money than 2d Mario?

IMHO people who play games online should get paid because they make other people buy the games (with crappy short singleplayer) so the publisher gets money.  I dont see why the publisher/dev combo is the only one that should get money here because they are clearly not the ones offering the fun etc they just built the infrastructure to have fun and  lay back and get money becauce  you might find cool strangers online to play with tell this your friends that will also buy the game and tell their friend other people not related to activision offer fun online. ...

well for one thing you have to consider the cost of keeping those servers online, not saying COD is better than Mario or whatever, but i would imagine one is more expensive to make or produce than the other


True but isn't it their fault if they keep making games without dedicated servers?  Seriously  as If i care wheter i play on a COD server or a good public server that has the same level of "security" and anti cheat software etc.

Forcing you to pay for something they force you to use is double dumb.

Thats a general problem with video games today  they remove the player hosted servers so they can shut down the official servers and you HAVE to buy the next version of the game if you want to keep playing. So server cost is no PRO argument for expensive games.

if they want they can make servers but should charge players for using them and not force anyone to pay for servers.  Give the normal folks dedicated player hosted servers and keep the "pro" servers for those who care and charge them!  Problem solved. 

thats all fine and dandy but how does that apply to console gaming??? ANd if they did that would it really drop the price of those games?? I kinda doubt thillat because even the non MP games still go to 50-60 bucks anyway. I was never a big PC gamer but it does suck that they have been removing player hosted servers.



Andrespetmonkey on 17 September 2012
Soriku said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
Soriku said:
$60 is too much no matter the console. I don't even know how you can classify one game for $60 as "very cheap".

Yeah, games in the past cost more. Who cares? These are different times.

Bolded relates to underlined


Not really. Games costing more in the past doesn't suddenly make $60 very cheap.

But it does tell you why some people consider $60 cheap.



My Music

JazzB1987 on 17 September 2012
oniyide said:
JazzB1987 said:
oniyide said:
JazzB1987 said:
Teflon02 said


True but isn't it their fault if they keep making games without dedicated servers?  Seriously  as If i care wheter i play on a COD server or a good public server that has the same level of "security" and anti cheat software etc.

Forcing you to pay for something they force you to use is double dumb.

Thats a general problem with video games today  they remove the player hosted servers so they can shut down the official servers and you HAVE to buy the next version of the game if you want to keep playing. So server cost is no PRO argument for expensive games.

if they want they can make servers but should charge players for using them and not force anyone to pay for servers.  Give the normal folks dedicated player hosted servers and keep the "pro" servers for those who care and charge them!  Problem solved. 

thats all fine and dandy but how does that apply to console gaming??? ANd if they did that would it really drop the price of those games?? I kinda doubt thillat because even the non MP games still go to 50-60 bucks anyway. I was never a big PC gamer but it does suck that they have been removing player hosted servers.

I was not the one bringing up the term  servers. I just explained how this cannot be a reason to increase prices.  Console games can also make you host servers.   Red Dead Redemption for example has  LAN  on both  PS3 and 360.  Nothing is holding the consoles back other then devs that willingly stopped offering the ability for players to host their own servers.  Its all about the profit.



thranx on 17 September 2012

I think they should cost $40. But i also think ms and sony games should cost $40 too. But thats me. I will probably buy most of my games used or on sale if i get a wiiu



oniyide on 17 September 2012
JazzB1987 said:
oniyide said:
JazzB1987 said:
oniyide said:
JazzB1987 said:
Teflon02 said


True but isn't it their fault if they keep making games without dedicated servers?  Seriously  as If i care wheter i play on a COD server or a good public server that has the same level of "security" and anti cheat software etc.

Forcing you to pay for something they force you to use is double dumb.

Thats a general problem with video games today  they remove the player hosted servers so they can shut down the official servers and you HAVE to buy the next version of the game if you want to keep playing. So server cost is no PRO argument for expensive games.

if they want they can make servers but should charge players for using them and not force anyone to pay for servers.  Give the normal folks dedicated player hosted servers and keep the "pro" servers for those who care and charge them!  Problem solved. 

thats all fine and dandy but how does that apply to console gaming??? ANd if they did that would it really drop the price of those games?? I kinda doubt thillat because even the non MP games still go to 50-60 bucks anyway. I was never a big PC gamer but it does suck that they have been removing player hosted servers.

I was not the one bringing up the term  servers. I just explained how this cannot be a reason to increase prices.  Console games can also make you host servers.   Red Dead Redemption for example has  LAN  on both  PS3 and 360.  Nothing is holding the consoles back other then devs that willingly stopped offering the ability for players to host their own servers.  Its all about the profit.

i never said it was a reason to increase prices, as there are alot of SP games with no servers at the same price. I dont like paying 60 either, but if i want it that bad i'll pay it or wait for price to drop. In the end its up to a person to decide whether its worth the price of admission, there are some games i would not pay full price for, IE most 2d plats some SP