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

[duduspace1]

DonFerrari said:

duduspace1 said:

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:

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.

1. That they were made by same studio, doesn't mean the cost to develop them is the same, that is also a silly assumption to make. I never gave marketing costs as a development cost. I gave it because like you yourself pointed out, the development costs of GOW 3 alone does not justify its price, development conts is not the only factor that goes into pricing, hence the need to adopt a model that factors in the total costs of which marketing cost is included. 

2.That is precisely the mistake you are making, that the cost of making a game is only increased by it having high Graphical assests (hence my reference to eye candy). Labo, while it might not be a demonstration of Graphical prowess can do other things your typical graphics heavy AAA game cannot do. It provides interfaces that allow the dumbest person on earth manipulate the internals of the switch itself, that also costs money to develop even if your heavy graphic emphasized view does not factor this as anything meaningful or valuable. The fact that what it does is not readily available on other platforms also naturally confers a premium on it. 

3.You are beginning to understand....because you are yet to apply what you wrote so brilliantly about the various factors that go into pricing asides from development costs to the issue of Labo pricing. 

4. If you say so, I'll accept your word for it.

5. That should tell you that being considered overpriced and being actually overpriced are two different things. The Wii U's failure had nothing to do with it being overpriced, it had to do with the fact that people weren't largely interested in what it had to offer in terms of both Hardware and Software. It remains to be seen if that is the case with Labo. If you say the 3DS was overpriced initially, I would agree with you.

Last edited by duduspace1 - on 25 May 2018