Quantcast
Is it just me $60 for a Wii U game is not too expensive.

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

$60 is no different than their PS3/Xbox 360 counterparts, so no; Wii U games should not be priced the same as Wii games.

The real issue here is whether the default price for all console (and increasingly for new release PC games) should automatically be $60, when there is a huge disparity in production and marketing budgets between various games being sold at the same price.

Sure, this is how it is in the movie industry where a ticket costs the same regardless of whether a film is an indy film made on a shoestring budget, or Avatar, made for a quarter of a billion, but with games being a license and or piece of inventory, the two products being sold aren't comparable.

But as the boxed game retail model decreases in relevance, it's likely there will continue to be a shift in terms of tiered game pricing for new release titles as we have already been seeing with games distributed through DD services like PSN, XBL and Steam.

So maybe the question is which games being sold for the box retail model should be allowed to get away with being priced at $60, regardless of platform, because there are plenty of games being released as such specifically because so many consumers have been conditioned to pay standard box retail prices for anything that isn't clearly a low budget release.



Around the Network
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. ...


Okay, what are you talking about now? Did I say anything about a games fun factor or am I talking about what the game offers? I'm no a CoD fanboy or anything but it has Co-op a single player and a multiplayer people play for years. Whether it is all rehashed and reused over and over isn't my point. My point is a game with more things to do is worth more. NSMB series hasn't done anything really with nsmb2 or nsmbu and honestly shouldn't be a expensive game. By your logic NSMBU should be the Same release price as Uncharted 3 was? Am I correct? All i know a typical sidescroller whether mario rayman megaman etc seem overpriced at 60. I'm a BIG Megaman fan, but if they made a new Megaman game that was Megaman X series, and it was 60, i wouldn't buy it till it atleast hit 40. But if it was Megaman Legends 3 on PS3 or something and it was over 20 hours and so on I'd pay 60 for that hands down. It depends on the game. The only sidescroller I can easily pay 60 for is a LBP and thats because its online 4-player and has all kinds of otber things and has millions of stages(over 7 million). Also has different things like racing, top down rpgs, i played a rpg someone entirely made where you buy armor abd so on and its like a hour. So point is, don't flip what i said. I don't care what the fun factor is for the simple reason people have different opinions. Me one of my most anticipated games this year is Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed and I see alot of haters, saying its a MK7 clone yet its not like it other then the genre. I loved the first game also. I also think the Sonic the Hedgehog '06 wasn't that bad other then The lack of debugging and i loved silvers gameplay since most hated it. 



$60 is cheap but it was expected. Only Sony and MS will dare to increase the price to $70 in next gen. We will see, it depends on the big publishers too.

But I agree with the guy who said it sucks that games drop in price so fast. It sucks to buy a game at $60 and perhaps you don't have the time to play it for a couple of months and all of a sudden discover that it's sold at half price.



60$ is too much for all consoles, the price kills software titles for smaller marketed games. If PS4/720 goes to 70$, then I do not think many games will be bought until it becomes used. Slightly like the Japanese market.



$1 per hour is still the limit. if the game is short don't buy it.



Around the Network

The prices doesn't bother me at all, besides i only pay full price for selected games. If i don't want to pay full price, in less than a year, you could find the game at half price, but we all know the problem with nintendo, the prices will be the same for years.



Nothing wrong with the $60 price tag, except you can't price everything the same. A game like mario is made so many times that it does not take that much effort to build a game. There should be tier system in pricing according to quality of games.



I'll pay it for companies I really like, and generally for JRPGs but like all new games now I will wait. I can't afford to continue wasting $64.72ish or so on games. It's just too expensive.



Companies should just drop that "1 price for all" mentality. Seriously.... give them a price limit e.g no more than 60 (limited editions excluded here) and let them decide to do the pricing. New Super Mario BrosU 29.99. Zelda HD 49.99.

And if third parties want they can go the 60 route. I wait for third party games to drop in price anyways no matter the system or I buy them when there is special offers like I did with Tales of Graces F day1 edition 42 instead of 60.
(I still dont get why those Idiots didnt release the Wii version in the west its 99% the same game PS3 just runs in higher resolution and has 1 additional chapter.... they said they didnt want to translate it but  its already done on the ps3....)



errorpwns said:
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.

I was talking about NSMBWII, didnt say anything about U, no idea how much that cost, i still dont think it was expensive though. I agree with everything else, but it still cost money to keep servers online, regardless of the game that is being run. And yes ME3 is stupid expensive