Labo is a huge ripoff and a waste of a great concept (so far)

[DonFerrari]

duduspace1 said:

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. So why would you think the cost of GOW 3 would be similar to the cost of the latest in the series ? Besides, it is an easy argument to make that GOW might have reusable assets since it has an existing basis to work from whereas Labo is completely new from the ground up.

If you can't use reasonable toughs than I can't help you much. GoW for PS4 have better graphics, bigger environments, longer duration, perhaps more cutscenes, etc. So it is reasonable to expect that it would cost at least similar to GoW3 (and as I said, that is the ballpark for AAA games) do you think Labo is an AAA game?

Assets from PS3 where made for 720p game, while GoW on Pro run closer to 4k, so the assets couldn't be reused. And if you had played both you would see they don't play the same nor have similar environment. So very few could be reused (even the char model of Kratos because the polycount would be much bigger, while all the rest is new stuff).

2. Marketing costs is however part of costs and atimes (if not most times) costs more than even development costs.

Doesn't matter. Still isn't the cost to make the game. 

3. Now you are beginning to see the point.......have Nintendo told you exactly what factors went into their pricing ?

Still doesn't mean it COSTS more. And also, Labo is aimed at market level not professional, and Nintendo expect market level sales (which can be evidenced by it being on shelves, and also by unsold inventory)

4.Labo is a new concept and for Nintendo, new concepts are never guaranteed to receive immediate acceptance. The inventory situation might have been to prevent something similar to what happened to the Switch with shortages.

You can say it is to prevent whatever situation, but shelf space costs and unsolved inventory cost. So if they overshipped is because they expected it to be sold.

 

duduspace1 said:

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.

They are made by the same studio, with just a gen apart, being much more similar in scope than would be Mario NES to Switch... or in the silly example you gave the marketing of Pokemon as development cost for Labo.

You haven't formulated any parameter, you just estimate Labo cost similar to GoW to make because Pokemon marketing expenses was similar to how much GoW3 costed to develop.

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.

Do you have any idea of cost of development at all? In VG a lot of the cost goes to VA, CG creation, high resolution assets, etc that Labo doesn't have (because it isn't AAA). You can go and see what is Nintendo average development budget (I'll tell you that even Zelda and Mario got 50M budget for development), if I'm not wrong Zelda at 2M broke even (so considering the margin for Nintendo, when excluding the profits of other parties involved like retailer, it shall have costed no more than 50M total, considering marketing).

Nintendo budget is more in line with 10M (Pokemon R&B is estimated to have costed less than 1M).

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.

I'm beginning to understand? I had to explain to you how it is calculated, you haven't said a Iota on the subject expect that Visio and Word price is different even if a layman doesn't know why.

Or do you really think Nintendo had a lot higher budget for Mario Maker than for Mario Switch, since Mario Maker allows you to create?

Or LBP and ModNation racer costed more than Uncharted and Gran Turismo?

The fact that a SW can be used to create content doesn't mean it will cost more to make.

Or does RPG-maker costs more than Zelda BotW?

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.

Yes sure... those people that expected many sales though Labo would sell 10.

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.

WiiU was considered overpriced and Nintendo haven't cut it's price for the life of it.