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
sperrico87 on 16 October 2012
babuks said:
sperrico87 said:
babuks said:
sperrico87 said:
babuks said:
errorpwns said:
babuks said:
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.


Oh wow.  Do you not understand how technology and game engines work? 

 

I may not be a pundit of how games are made, but I know the basics. A game like Uncharted or LA Noire spends much due to its story, animation and voice over. I don't know how you say Mario or LBP games should be in the Uncharted or LA Noire level cause they did not spend that much money making it. 

With the exception of Galaxy 2, your comment about Mario games is quite inaccurate.  The leap and jump in hardware and graphics between Mario 64, Sunshine, and Galaxy is quite large.  They all use completely different engines and required a large team of people over 2 1/2 years to make.  Same as most games.  Also, it isn't fair to say a game lacks 'quality' merely because it is re-using assets or engine specs.  Galaxy 2 re-used the engine from the first game, but it was an entirely new game... with a 2 1/2 year development cycle.  Most highly-rated Wii game ever.

 

I am not talking about re-using the same engine or assets, I am talking about not using any new things in the series. No storyline, no hiring for voice-over and motion capture etc.

May be you think it is justified that Mario and GTA games to be priced similar at $60 although GTA cost way more to develop.


It's apples and oranges.  If Nintendo had decided to make an HD Mario sandbox box game with 100 hours worth of gameplay, the budgets would most likely have been very similiar.

I am not sure where you want to drag the argument. Let's say Mario game's budget is $30 million and GTA's budget is $100 million. You want to say both should cost $60? Why?

Well, because $60 is the accepted standard for console games, and value is relative.  Even if GTA took 6 months longer to make, and the team was 40% larger than EAD's team for a Mario, why should that change the price of the game?  A lot of people see value in a big 3D Mario game.  They only come around every 3-4 years.  Same with GTA.  I see value in both.



 

Around the Network
AndrewWK on 16 October 2012

It is not too much for now. Because Box and PS3 games cost the same. But when Sony and MS bring their new consoles with "enchanced" games. Then I think Nintendo should reduce their game price.



fedfed on 16 October 2012

It is ok but £50 was better of course!



Switch!!!

TomaTito on 16 October 2012

Both the console and games are priced higher than I thought, must be the HD tax (read: strong yen).
When I first saw these prices online, I believed they were just placeholders... I was wrong.

DieAppleDie said:
Many PS360 games are 65/70€
i think 60 is cheap

Third party Wii U games are also 70 EUR.



@Twitter | Switch | Steam

You say tomato, I say tomato 

"¡Viva la Ñ!"
runqvist on 16 October 2012

60$/€ is way too much for any game. I don't buy games for that price. I will wait for the bargain bin.



Around the Network
babuks on 16 October 2012
sperrico87 said:

-------

Well, because $60 is the accepted standard for console games, and value is relative.  Even if GTA took 6 months longer to make, and the team was 40% larger than EAD's team for a Mario, why should that change the price of the game?  A lot of people see value in a big 3D Mario game.  They only come around every 3-4 years.  Same with GTA.  I see value in both.


Well, I don't see how you see 'same value' in both. People will not buy 'Angry Birds' for $60, though it is played by all, loved by all. People will look into it and say, this game does not look like  a $60 game.



sperrico87 on 20 October 2012
babuks said:
sperrico87 said:

-------

Well, because $60 is the accepted standard for console games, and value is relative.  Even if GTA took 6 months longer to make, and the team was 40% larger than EAD's team for a Mario, why should that change the price of the game?  A lot of people see value in a big 3D Mario game.  They only come around every 3-4 years.  Same with GTA.  I see value in both.


Well, I don't see how you see 'same value' in both. People will not buy 'Angry Birds' for $60, though it is played by all, loved by all. People will look into it and say, this game does not look like  a $60 game.


It's apples and oranges.  Angry Bird's is a cell phone game.  A 3D Mario is quite a bit different.



 

babuks on 20 October 2012
sperrico87 said:
babuks said:
sperrico87 said:

-------

Well, because $60 is the accepted standard for console games, and value is relative.  Even if GTA took 6 months longer to make, and the team was 40% larger than EAD's team for a Mario, why should that change the price of the game?  A lot of people see value in a big 3D Mario game.  They only come around every 3-4 years.  Same with GTA.  I see value in both.


Well, I don't see how you see 'same value' in both. People will not buy 'Angry Birds' for $60, though it is played by all, loved by all. People will look into it and say, this game does not look like  a $60 game.


It's apples and oranges.  Angry Bird's is a cell phone game.  A 3D Mario is quite a bit different.


And GTA and Mario or LBP are not apples and oranges? How you determine apples and oranges? 



sperrico87 on 20 October 2012
babuks said:
sperrico87 said:
babuks said:
sperrico87 said:

-------

Well, because $60 is the accepted standard for console games, and value is relative.  Even if GTA took 6 months longer to make, and the team was 40% larger than EAD's team for a Mario, why should that change the price of the game?  A lot of people see value in a big 3D Mario game.  They only come around every 3-4 years.  Same with GTA.  I see value in both.


Well, I don't see how you see 'same value' in both. People will not buy 'Angry Birds' for $60, though it is played by all, loved by all. People will look into it and say, this game does not look like  a $60 game.


It's apples and oranges.  Angry Bird's is a cell phone game.  A 3D Mario is quite a bit different.


And GTA and Mario or LBP are not apples and oranges? How you determine apples and oranges? 

No, because I'm not taking into account art style or game style.  I'm taking into account the depth, scale, and immersiveness.  If GTA looked like a cartoon and Mario Galaxy was M-rated and photo-realistic, it wouldn't change the factors.



 

babuks on 20 October 2012
sperrico87 said:
babuks said:
sperrico87 said:
babuks said:
sperrico87 said:

-------

Well, because $60 is the accepted standard for console games, and value is relative.  Even if GTA took 6 months longer to make, and the team was 40% larger than EAD's team for a Mario, why should that change the price of the game?  A lot of people see value in a big 3D Mario game.  They only come around every 3-4 years.  Same with GTA.  I see value in both.


Well, I don't see how you see 'same value' in both. People will not buy 'Angry Birds' for $60, though it is played by all, loved by all. People will look into it and say, this game does not look like  a $60 game.


It's apples and oranges.  Angry Bird's is a cell phone game.  A 3D Mario is quite a bit different.


And GTA and Mario or LBP are not apples and oranges? How you determine apples and oranges? 

No, because I'm not taking into account art style or game style.  I'm taking into account the depth, scale, and immersiveness.  If GTA looked like a cartoon and Mario Galaxy was M-rated and photo-realistic, it wouldn't change the factors.


Depth wise a Mario game is nowhere near GTA level. Same thing about scale etc. I did not finish Super Mario Galaxy 2 but played Super Mario Bros. It is a simple addicting game, but budget wise, scale wise and depth wise not GTA level. Why a game that has way less budget, less scale and less depth be priced the same?