DonFerrari said:
1 - Being made by the same company doesn't make the costs similar at all. Mario on NES and Mario Switch doesn't cost the same being same company and even same name. 2 - Marketing cost isn't cost to make a game. And I didn't say GoW3 justify it's price based solely on the production cost. FOR ME the price is justified for, it is standard AAA game price, I liked the game, it had a lot of production value and thus for the profit margin was reasonable for me to pay the 60 usd. You are still to prove how much Labo costed to develop. Because even if you were to use pokemon as basis, to say Nintendo expended 50M on marketing (will you really say Labo had as much marketing push as Pokmenon?) you don't have how much it costed to make. I'll tell you people estimate between 500k-1M (which seems reasonable considering the time it was made, the platform and how it looks and plays) so I don't think you want to say Labo costed 1M to be made. 3 - You said "costs a lot more", when someone sells something it can be priced higher or lower, but cost is internal. So in fact Visual Studio could cost lot less to develop (I don't have the numbers) but since they will sell to a lot smaller market that cost will have to be recovered in less sales, so the price will be higher (besides possible higher margins due to less competition, although I think Word has less competition than Visual Studios). 4 - 500k isn't a bad number on first month for small releases, but for major games (which Labo have been considered for many) it is small. And you don't really release a game, put a lot of inventory in April to have it selling in November/December. |
1. Same goes for your comparison of GOW3 and the new GOW. As far as I am concerned, they are only made from the same company. Until you show me confirmed numbers of what was actually spent on the last Kratos outing, I am at liberty to formulate my own parameters to estimate a cost.
2. It should be obvious to you why you cannot use standard AAA pricing for Labo, that Nintendo didnt go for AAA type game does not automatically mean they spend any less to make their games. If you find me one of your AAA games that does what Labo does and you have pricing for it then you have a basis to compare and say Labo is overpriced. Surely you shouldnt struggle to find one of your Sony AAA games that allows you to make a piano and make music on it ?? If it is such a cheap way to make money, why didnt Sony think of it or do it ?
Kindly provide one of these so called estimations with facts and figures which is not a 'finger in the air' to decide which way the wind blows analysis and then we can have a discussion on it.
3. You are now beginning to understand and confirm that there is a lot that goes into pricing than just manufacturing costs. What you wrote in that paragraph is exactly why an informed person would not be quick to jump to a conclusion that Labo is overpriced. Now read that section again and apply to the issue we are discussing.
4. Well, I am not one of your 'many' and you havent given me a census of your so called 'many'. To some people, 10 is many, to some others 1,000,000 is small hence why I prefer to use the term 'some' instead. If you want an idea of scale, put up a poll, the results might actually surprise you. Also if you want an idea of how well Labo is doing, just wait for the next set of official figures from Nintendo.
Finally, if Labo is truly overpriced, then we should all look forward to its price halving in the very near future but I assure you, even then those who have no need for it will still not buy it.
