By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
MDMAlliance on 15 June 2015
Edit Thread
midrange said:
MDMAlliance said:

@Bold:  Except if you aren't buying it, you didn't pay money for it.  That only applies for if the content itself isn't very good/faulty.

And no, it doesn't make sense to hold Nintendo to a different standard, because the standard you're referring to is different.   Also, calling this a great disservice is a huge exaggeration.  The prices aren't insane, they just seem high to the consumer.  Objectively, they are actually pretty low.  

Also, your Injustice example is not true.  Many games that do NOT have DLC drop down to lower prices as well.  It has nothing to do with making it up with DLC.  They drive down the prices because that's what they need to do to drive up sales.  It's especially important for games with DLC because it then lets more people have access to said DLC.  Nintendo doesn't drop their prices because they believe customers will buy it regardless.  The same doesn't apply to games like Injustice.  That goes doubly so when you consider that many people EXPECT the game to drop and wait for it.

Saying Nintendo has no need for "such high DLC prices" (hyperbole), they price it separately from their other sources of income.  That's like saying that you made something and sell it, then you make another thing that can go with it, but because you're making money on other things, it shouldn't be priced as much.

Quite the contrary, it is because I am buying it that I am very critical of it. You see, in the competitive field of smash bros., it is a very good idea to have the entire roster for obvious reasons (making counterplays, getting a feel for how the character plays, etc...). You think I am going to ignore ryu when his combo oriented gameplay may make him a force to be reckoned with?

Objectively, the price is insanely high. For $20 you get 4 characters and 3 stages. That is ridiculous. Compared to fighting games, the dlc may seem reasonably priced, but compared to games in general, fighting games have overpriced dlc.

Since the price of dlc usually remains at the same price, I would believe that producers would make paid dlc to counteract falling prices (among other reasons).

"many people EXPECT the game to drop and wait for it." That is precisely why producers would make overpriced dlc.

Point is, smash bros was launched at a high price, is now a high price, and will be a high price (unlike most other games), so why make high priced dlc that quite clearly hurts your consumers. Just because you sell a $70 game for $60 does not mean you should sell $2 dlc for $5. 

@Bold: I was making the claim that if you don't buy the DLC, you cannot say you were paying money for the content.  The point was about something being "too expensive."  In most cases, you simply don't buy it.  You don't "need" it.  Also, I know very well how the competitive field of Smash Bros is like, and that while having the entire roster can be "good," a truly competitive player usually sticks with a select few and not pick certain characters because someone else chose another character.  You CAN use the character to see how the character is like (range, knock back, animation, lag, etc.) but it isn't necessary.  Everything about it is not deemed "necessary."  

And no, objectively it isn't.  Your reasoning isn't objective.  The reason the "content" on fighting games is priced higher has to do with the fact that more work goes into making said content.  Like making a new character in a fighting game takes a bunch more resources than making a new character in an RPG.  Objectively, determining if something is expensive or not would be to compare it to other things similar to itself.  Such as other DLC prices from fighting games of similar caliber.  Otherwise it isn't objective.

Producers make paid DLC to make a profit, it has little to do with falling retail prices.  It has way more to do with getting money from those who already bought the game.

No, people expecting the prices of games to drop is NOT why DLC is priced the way it is.  If you had been following game sales as much as I have been now, you would have realized that the first few weeks of sales (which is when the game will still be full price) will, the vast majority of the time, account for much more than 50% of lifetime sales.  Many Nintendo games, however, do NOT follow this trend.  Hence, the stubbornness to lower prices (why do you think even last gen pokemon games stay full priced but plenty of other Nintendo IPs actually drop?)

You still don't get the point.  The pricing of their DLC has NOTHING to do with the price of the game currently, as is the case with most DLC now.  Also, your idea of what games or DLC SHOULD cost is really worthless.  Just playing a game, you would have a hard time figuring out how much money was spent on the game.  The reason games aren't actually like $150,000 a copy is because a lot of people buy them (and are willing to buy them) at a settled lower cost that collectively offsets the costs of development, advertising, manufacturing, etc.  There's really no such thing as "a $70 game for $60."  That's just you projecting what you think it's worth, based off of your experiences.  That's precisely why there's no point in discussing how much you think it's worth.  Nintendo definitely cares about how much people are willing to pay for DLC, and that's actually what explains the pricing model.  It's a combination of how much people are willing to spend, along with how many people they think will buy it to offset costs (and then some).