By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Smashchu2 on 24 May 2009
Edit Thread
Squilliam said:
Smashchu2 said:
Squilliam said:
scottie said:
Good points Squilliam, but I've got to disagree. If you look at the best selling games this gen, they are all full priced (for their console) All of the 1st party Nintendo games that are selling well are doing so without price drops, even after years on the market. What's the RRP for Nintendogs??

Although it is certainly true that a game now has to be either low priced or long lasting in order to sell.

The one comparable model which is steam and its metrics does show validity to what im saying. Revenue in the short run increases by over 100% for short term price cuts on the games. Unfortunately within the console market there is no such price discrimination, its generally one price and only one price. This is the big reason why a digital distribution model would would wonders for publishers by allowing this kind of stratified pricing.

@Smashchu: Theres no comparable game to Wii Fit, theres hardly any competition for that kind of game from any other game on any other system.

One problem with your ideas is they don't look at factor numero uno: consumers. Take digital distribution. Consumers will only want it when it becomes more convinient are more accessable that driving to the store and picking one up. With games getting bigger and bigger, even Wii games, the consumer will not take to a digital distribution method as downloading a game takes far too long. Although your comment was not dirrected at me. I will say that digital distribution is not the future as it pleases the publisher, not the consumer.

But Wii Fit is a perfect comparison. It is a game consumers demand and it is more expensive than other games on the market. JUust because Wii Fit is one of a kind means nothing. Every game was one of a kind at some time. We don't need a Wii Fit like game anyway, as the comparison is on price, not the product itself.

For many consumers its already more convenient. Online gamers already have a tendency to buying very fast internet connections, so for someone on say a 20mbit connection, they would only have to wait about 5 minutes before they could start playing a game (Xbox Live demos are about 600MB and fully functional in respect to being playable). Its very convenient. Also theres the factor where the publisher can offer short deals like Steam weekend deals on their games which is impossible to do at a retail setting.

Wii Fit as a comparison to what? Theres a difference between say Call of Duty IV which has about 5-6 viable competitors for the same genre and Wii Fit which is essentially a monopoly as no other company produces a good enough substitute. The product lifecycles for both Call of Duty IV and Wii Fit are essentially different enough to be non comparable with each other.

For most, it is not convinient. Retail is still dominate becuase it can take about 3 hours to download a game. Most users can't even get thier systems online, and for some, they wont have strong wenough internet to keep up. Internet was only 10% of the growth last year. Nintendo alone made up the other 90%. With games getting bigger, it will take to long for the user. Remember: digital distrubution is only wanted by producers, not consumers. They want this to stop reselling games.

The discussion was on price. Just becuase Wii Fit has no comparison means nothing. The consumer buys what they want. There was no Tennis game before Pong, but everyone wanted Pong. Is it irrelivent for discussion becuase there was no other game like it at the time? No. In fact, it is more relivent becuase there were no previous users. The same is true of Wii Fit. There were no previous "excersize game fans" so sales should be worse. Now that there is one, companies have to make it. So, the game had no previous audience and was much higher in price than ever other game on the market, and is outselling most games on the market.

Your problem is your still excluding consumers. Your answer was talking about the producers stand point, not how consumers may buy products. So there are 5-6 different games like Call of Duty. Why did the consumer pick up Call of Duty over the other games. Additionally, there has never been a excersize game (well, never one of this caliber). Yet, the consumer demands Wii Fit. Why did they? You question the product, not why consumers like/dislike the problem, hurting your argument.

However, what you have said is irrelivent. We are talking about price, not about genres. Your claim that there is no other game like Wii Fit is irrelivent becuase we are talking about price, or that consumers are not buying games becuase of price (your claim). Your argument is weak becuase you are attacking the validity of my claim, not why my claim is incorrect. As such, you are unable to disprove my claim and prove yours. Your goal is to say why my claim (price is not the reason consumers are buying fewer games) is incorrect. My goal is to say why your claim (price is the reason consumers are buying fewer games) is incorrect. You have, instead, tried to say why my example is poor rather than disprove my claim. Arguing the genre of Wii Fit can only help my claim, not yours. On my side, my example can either be right, or wrong, but that will not make the entire claim wrong. If you focus on that, than the most you can do is say my point was wrong, but you can not disprove the claim that way. It can not help your arguement; it can only hurt mine. Basically, you can either fail to reject the point, which will make my claim correct (since Wii Fit is more expensive and is selling, your claim must be false) or, you can reject my point, but it can not disprove the argument. All you can achive is to hope to throw out evidence, not win the case.