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
SnakeDrake on 17 September 2012

Will the Will U use blue ray if not it should be the same as Xbox prices. Snyways $60 bucks is fine, but If the ports of games that been out for 1-2 years.......yeach its overpriced



 

Bet with gooch_destroyer, he wins if FFX and FFX-2 will be at $40 each for the vita. I win if it dont

Sign up if you want to see God Eater 2 get localized!! https://www.change.org/petitions/shift-inc-bring-god-eater-2-to-north-america-2#share

Around the Network
MDMAlliance on 17 September 2012
Soma said:

Nintendo defined themselves the entire generation as a mass market company and now they are behaving the other way. WiiU isn't even much more powerful than the Xbox360, I don't get why can't they charge $50 for their games. If this is true this may be the first generation I don't buy games day one, not because I can't but because I don't want! I supported the Wii buying many games, specially third party at $50, and turns out the games weren't that good. I won't be making the same mistake at $60.

As disolitude says, is better to wait a month for the INEVITABLE price cut anyway............. thinking about it, I may wait a year to buy the WiiU, just as the 3DS if the bad news continue I can see a price cut in the near future.


"Isn't even much more powerful than the Xbox360"  
What's your definition of much more powerful?  10x more powerful?  40x more powerful?  The Wii U specs have partially been released, and it's showing to be around 3-4x more powerful.  I don't know about you, but I feel like that qualifies as much more powerful, considering that shows it's more than double the power.

edit: Also to be on topic, there's a certain psychology about the pricing.  If Nintendo priced the games at $50 or less, people would assume that the games are of lower quality than the other games that cost more.  This is true as I've seen and experienced this before.



HappySqurriel on 17 September 2012

$60 isn't bad for a new big budget game, $50 is decent for a new moderate budget game, and $40 is good for a new lower budget game. I would like to see the Wii U use its digital distribution service to also allow these games to be sold in a digital form with the prices determined by the publisher; so that 2 years after a game was released you can pick it up for $10.



Mummelmann on 17 September 2012

Seeing as how Nintendo games have cost about 10% more than PS360 games here in Norway this generation, does that mean that they will cost even more now? If so, that is not acceptable for me. Then again, I think I can count on one hand the number of games I've bought at launch and at full price this gen.
The one thing that Nintendo really have to do, in my opinion, is get their shit together when it comes to platinum and bargain releases, their games drop very slowly in price and only in tiny increments, same goes for peripherals.

In the end though, the whole problem might just become completely irrelevant to me in the upcoming gen as it seems more and more likely that I won't purchase a single console (for the first time since I started gaming) this time around.



errorpwns 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. 


COD cost more to produce?  Wow.  NSMBU  is using a brand new engine, brand new art assets, brand new everything.  The only thing that's the same is the IP. The Call of Duty engine isn't impressive at all.  It's been the same exact engine since COD4.  2 hour short campaign, and a copy and pasted (literally) multiplayer.  Reused models, and on top of that in MW3 they had a bug for PC that said "Modern Warfare 2 has stopped responding" or something like that.  Yet it surely cost a lot to copy and paste.  Also Mass Effect 3, etc being 60 dollars on the Wii-U is terrible.  It cost the company little to port the games for their expected return.



Around the Network
WiiBox3 on 17 September 2012
KylieDog said:
When games like GTA5 will be $60 you have to question why NSMBU is the same price. Especially when you've got XBLA and PSN games that are very comparable to Mario costing only $10-15.


That's a good question. The reason why NSMBU can charge the same amount as GTA5 is because people will pay that much for it. It will probably be still priced at $60 well after the MSRP of GTA5 has fallen to $29.99. Nintendo tends not to drop the MSRP on their first party games until they become a Nintendo Selects game. For example, look at Kirby Epic Yarn, the MSRP on it is still $49.99 (Though many retailers are discounting the price). Most other game companies would have dropped the MSRP by now.

Also there is a good chance that it may outsell GTA5. If you look at the top selling GTA game (San Andreas) across PC, PS2, and Xbox it sold 23.57Million. NSMB Wii sold 25.81 Million on one platform. That's just insane for a 2d platformer in standard def also without a price drop, still $49.99 MSRP.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but why would they charge less when the games sells gangbusters at $50 and probably would do just as well at $60 since it will now be in HD.



Euphoria14 on 17 September 2012
Red4ADevil said:
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.

It was very common to find SNES games costing $70-80+.



iPhone = Great gaming device. Don't agree? Who cares, because you're wrong.

Currently playing:

Final Fantasy VI (iOS), Final Fantasy: Record Keeper (iOS) & Dragon Quest V (iOS)     

    

Got a retro room? Post it here!

johnsobas on 17 September 2012

NES games and master system games were often $50 or more. SNES and especially genesis games would be $50-$80 easily. I hope you guys realize that after inflation most of these prices are around or over $100 a this point, and many of these games could be beaten within an hour.



currently playing: Skyward Sword, Mario Sunshine, Xenoblade Chronicles X

Red4ADevil on 17 September 2012
Euphoria14 said:
Red4ADevil said:
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.

It was very common to find SNES games costing $70-80+.

True they were common but thats becuase most of thoes games utilized acutal pieces of hardware within the cartridge due the game and console needing them. StarFox was pricier than most because games like thoes used (at the time) state of the art co processors and other components to give the SNES a boost. That was the beauty behind cartrigdes and that justitfied the price of thoes games.  I remember reading about Street Figher Alpha 2 needing a special chip for some kind decompression on the SNES.



Naum on 17 September 2012

The funny thing is I pay the same or a less now then what I did 15 years ago during snes/PS1/N64/GC/PS2 and I know you did too.



If it isn't turnbased it isn't worth playing   (mostly)

And shepherds we shall be,

For Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti. -----The Boondock Saints