chapset said:
so add on = overprice but main controller = fair price??? from Nintendo who sell their games full price for the length of a generation, what make you think Nintendo will not price it the same as kinect, if they cost roughtly the same to make |
They won't.
Kinect's biggest merit ("controllerless play") meant that users would only have to buy one unit ever, barring broken hardware. Naturally, as something that was marketed extensively (a well known $500 million budget which does factor into initial pricing) as a "new" way to play, MS was going to price it to recover their initial investment as soon as possible from the standpoint that they would only be selling one Kinect per console at best.
This is why comparisons with Move as revenue/profit generators tend to fall a bit short; they take both to be controllers (replaceable items that are typically bought multiple times between extras for more players or regular replacements over the life cycle of a console) where as Kinect is a one time purchase.
I think just about any reasonable, well-informed individual would agree that if Nintendo priced Wii U controllers "similarly" to Kinect ($149), they were out of touch with their consumer base and that the Wii U as a platform would be in jeopardy as a potential general consumer game console.
Even at $99, they would have to bundle it with something more than just a Wii Play or Link's Crossbow Training level game.
As for Nintendo's game pricing (which now includes a "Nintendo Selects" collection of budget priced first party back catalog titles, same as "Player's Choice" or "Platinum Hits"), prices on their first party titles are rarely reduced as there is a limited secondary market for those releases for the simple reason that those who keep playing their Nintendo consoles rarely trade in/sell those games.
