By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Is it just me $60 for a Wii U game is not too expensive.

 

Is $60 (USD) too much for a Wii U game?

$60 no big deal. 90 30.51%
 
I'll pay $60 but wish it was still $50. 105 35.59%
 
I will wait for the games to go on sale. 47 15.93%
 
I refuse to buy a Wii U, ... 28 9.49%
 
If Nintendo corrects this... 11 3.73%
 
Resultz. 14 4.75%
 
Total:295
Wagram on 17 September 2012

I'll pay it for companies I really like, and generally for JRPGs but like all new games now I will wait. I can't afford to continue wasting $64.72ish or so on games. It's just too expensive.



Around the Network
JazzB1987 on 18 September 2012

Companies should just drop that "1 price for all" mentality. Seriously.... give them a price limit e.g no more than 60 (limited editions excluded here) and let them decide to do the pricing. New Super Mario BrosU 29.99. Zelda HD 49.99.

And if third parties want they can go the 60 route. I wait for third party games to drop in price anyways no matter the system or I buy them when there is special offers like I did with Tales of Graces F day1 edition 42 instead of 60.
(I still dont get why those Idiots didnt release the Wii version in the west its 99% the same game PS3 just runs in higher resolution and has 1 additional chapter.... they said they didnt want to translate it but  its already done on the ps3....)



oniyide on 18 September 2012
errorpwns said:
JazzB1987 said:
oniyide said:
JazzB1987 said:
Teflon02 said:
Nothing wrong with 60 as long as the games worth it, something like CoD is fine at 60, but if NSMBU is $60, then that's a issue, cause anything over $40 for a side scroller is to much, and that was my problem with the wii NSMB, $64.99 everywhere is complete non-sense, i only have it cause it came with the wii when i rebought a wii for the red thinking mario allstar was in the box :p


So 60 for a game with really bad single player which has just 1 thing that makes it worth buying/ being fun or being difficult   which is strangers you meet online and that actually have nothing to do with the game at all  is okay.
But 60 for a game thats fun and which has fun singleplayer is not? (sure nsmb is not the best game and its boring by now but so is COD  but thats not the point people should rate games individualy and not compared to predecessors or competitions games)


Makes no sense to me.  Seriously   you play against other people   that are not part of the game so how is COD worht more money than 2d Mario?

IMHO people who play games online should get paid because they make other people buy the games (with crappy short singleplayer) so the publisher gets money.  I dont see why the publisher/dev combo is the only one that should get money here because they are clearly not the ones offering the fun etc they just built the infrastructure to have fun and  lay back and get money becauce  you might find cool strangers online to play with tell this your friends that will also buy the game and tell their friend other people not related to activision offer fun online. ...

well for one thing you have to consider the cost of keeping those servers online, not saying COD is better than Mario or whatever, but i would imagine one is more expensive to make or produce than the other


True but isn't it their fault if they keep making games without dedicated servers?  Seriously  as If i care wheter i play on a COD server or a good public server that has the same level of "security" and anti cheat software etc.

Forcing you to pay for something they force you to use is double dumb.

Thats a general problem with video games today  they remove the player hosted servers so they can shut down the official servers and you HAVE to buy the next version of the game if you want to keep playing. So server cost is no PRO argument for expensive games.

if they want they can make servers but should charge players for using them and not force anyone to pay for servers.  Give the normal folks dedicated player hosted servers and keep the "pro" servers for those who care and charge them!  Problem solved. 


COD cost more to produce?  Wow.  NSMBU  is using a brand new engine, brand new art assets, brand new everything.  The only thing that's the same is the IP. The Call of Duty engine isn't impressive at all.  It's been the same exact engine since COD4.  2 hour short campaign, and a copy and pasted (literally) multiplayer.  Reused models, and on top of that in MW3 they had a bug for PC that said "Modern Warfare 2 has stopped responding" or something like that.  Yet it surely cost a lot to copy and paste.  Also Mass Effect 3, etc being 60 dollars on the Wii-U is terrible.  It cost the company little to port the games for their expected return.

I was talking about NSMBWII, didnt say anything about U, no idea how much that cost, i still dont think it was expensive though. I agree with everything else, but it still cost money to keep servers online, regardless of the game that is being run. And yes ME3 is stupid expensive



oniyide on 18 September 2012
Teflon02 said:
Heavenly_King said:
Teflon02 said:
Nothing wrong with 60 as long as the games worth it, something like CoD is fine at 60, but if NSMBU is $60, then that's a issue, cause anything over $40 for a side scroller is to much, and that was my problem with the wii NSMB, $64.99 everywhere is complete non-sense, i only have it cause it came with the wii when i rebought a wii for the red thinking mario allstar was in the box :p

basically this.  That is why I did not bought Rayman.  60 bucks for a 2D sidescroller? It should have been a $15 PSN/XBLA title.


i waited for the price to drop for it 2 and got it free with my vita instead cause even though i loved the demo and it had amazing reviews that game isn't worth 60 its like a 10-20 dollar psn title, but a little longer then most so 30 is the most they shuld have released it for plus, it was dumb to make it a disc game in the first place

I used to think the same thing, but ubi knew exactly what they were doing, for one, they could make the game longer and put it on other systems. IE the WIi which it would have been probably impossible to get it on WiiWare due to file limitations and they knew the game wasnt worth 60 which is why the priced dropped SO fast. They had the illusion of the game being on "sale" to get it to the price it was actually worth and have more people interested in it.



errorpwns on 14 October 2012
babuks said:
Nothing wrong with the $60 price tag, except you can't price everything the same. A game like mario is made so many times that it does not take that much effort to build a game. There should be tier system in pricing according to quality of games.


Oh wow.  Do you not understand how technology and game engines work? 



Around the Network
errorpwns on 14 October 2012
oniyide said:
errorpwns said:
JazzB1987 said:
oniyide said:
JazzB1987 said:
Teflon02 said:
Nothing wrong with 60 as long as the games worth it, something like CoD is fine at 60, but if NSMBU is $60, then that's a issue, cause anything over $40 for a side scroller is to much, and that was my problem with the wii NSMB, $64.99 everywhere is complete non-sense, i only have it cause it came with the wii when i rebought a wii for the red thinking mario allstar was in the box :p


So 60 for a game with really bad single player which has just 1 thing that makes it worth buying/ being fun or being difficult   which is strangers you meet online and that actually have nothing to do with the game at all  is okay.
But 60 for a game thats fun and which has fun singleplayer is not? (sure nsmb is not the best game and its boring by now but so is COD  but thats not the point people should rate games individualy and not compared to predecessors or competitions games)


Makes no sense to me.  Seriously   you play against other people   that are not part of the game so how is COD worht more money than 2d Mario?

IMHO people who play games online should get paid because they make other people buy the games (with crappy short singleplayer) so the publisher gets money.  I dont see why the publisher/dev combo is the only one that should get money here because they are clearly not the ones offering the fun etc they just built the infrastructure to have fun and  lay back and get money becauce  you might find cool strangers online to play with tell this your friends that will also buy the game and tell their friend other people not related to activision offer fun online. ...

well for one thing you have to consider the cost of keeping those servers online, not saying COD is better than Mario or whatever, but i would imagine one is more expensive to make or produce than the other


True but isn't it their fault if they keep making games without dedicated servers?  Seriously  as If i care wheter i play on a COD server or a good public server that has the same level of "security" and anti cheat software etc.

Forcing you to pay for something they force you to use is double dumb.

Thats a general problem with video games today  they remove the player hosted servers so they can shut down the official servers and you HAVE to buy the next version of the game if you want to keep playing. So server cost is no PRO argument for expensive games.

if they want they can make servers but should charge players for using them and not force anyone to pay for servers.  Give the normal folks dedicated player hosted servers and keep the "pro" servers for those who care and charge them!  Problem solved. 


COD cost more to produce?  Wow.  NSMBU  is using a brand new engine, brand new art assets, brand new everything.  The only thing that's the same is the IP. The Call of Duty engine isn't impressive at all.  It's been the same exact engine since COD4.  2 hour short campaign, and a copy and pasted (literally) multiplayer.  Reused models, and on top of that in MW3 they had a bug for PC that said "Modern Warfare 2 has stopped responding" or something like that.  Yet it surely cost a lot to copy and paste.  Also Mass Effect 3, etc being 60 dollars on the Wii-U is terrible.  It cost the company little to port the games for their expected return.

I was talking about NSMBWII, didnt say anything about U, no idea how much that cost, i still dont think it was expensive though. I agree with everything else, but it still cost money to keep servers online, regardless of the game that is being run. And yes ME3 is stupid expensive

Matchmaking servers cost squat.  If COD wasn't Peer2Peer I would of considered server cost.



Kenology on 14 October 2012

$60 doesn't bother me too much.

I made a promise to myself that I'll only buy the most essential software titles at full price for now on. I bought so many titles during the Wii and Gamecube era at full price, on launch day, when they didn't really deserve that treatment.

So I'm gonna be more patient this gen.



krafty89 on 14 October 2012
Bristow9091 said:
Honestly, here in the UK, games are £40 by default, and that isn't expensive whatsoever if you ask me, I mean, considering I make £160-200 a week after tax (Depending how many hours I do), £40 is absolutely nothing to me, and I don't see why so many people complain about it.

If you compare the entertainment value of a game to say, a bluray film, here, most bluray films are £15-20, and last for what, 90-120 minutes, maybe more, whereas if you pay £40 a game, you should be getting around 240 minutes (4 hours) of game time with it, and I don't know about you guys, but EVERY game I've bought has lasted me a LOT more than that, I mean sure, I've had games that are only 5-6 hours for the singleplayer, even singleplayer only games, but by ratio of price:entertainment, it still tops that of films, whereas I've bought other games, such as my favourite game of all time, Final Fantasy X a decade ago for £40, and over all the playthroughs I've done, I've had way over 1000 hours of entertainment (My current run is at 200 hours going on strong), and there's games like the Disgaea series that I've bought full price, and Disgaea 3 lasted me 600 hours, whereas so far, I've not even finished Disgaea 4, not even close, and I've put in over 100 hours... and let's not forget multiplayer games such as the Call of Duty series, sure, they ask for a little more, usually £45, but again, for the price you pay, the multiplayer gives you TONS of entertainment value, since my mates play it religiously and have put hundreds, maybe thousands of hours into them.

tl;dr
For the price you pay for a game, you get a LOT more entertainment value than the price of a film. (But nobody complains about prices of those...)

Games maybe £40 by default but who except the Game/Gamestation avid fan pays that much? Halo 4, and Mass effect 3 Fifa 13 were all discounted by many retailers (£32.97 for ME and Halo 4) Fifa 13 was £29.99!

I do remember final fantasy being £49.99 which im sure was the RRP for alot of PS2 games (Basically because Game or Gamestation had very little competition). Competition has meant that prices have come down quicker.

On topic: No $60 isn't too much for a Wii U game if its just for the first week, wii games may have started $50/£29.99 but they stayed that price for a ridiculous amount of time. Maybe Nintendo finally realised that some more people will actually buy your game if its cheaper down the line instead of just thinking "Well they didn't want it 6months ago at $50 why would they want it now".  

Also Blu-rays for £15-20? Where are you buying them from HMV? ;) Incidently HMV had Avatar Blu-ray for £29.99!



PSP Lifetime more than PSV+3DS Lifetime.

oniyide on 14 October 2012
errorpwns said:
oniyide said:
errorpwns said:
JazzB1987 said:
oniyide said:
JazzB1987 said:
Teflon02 said:
Nothing wrong with 60 as long as the games worth it, something like CoD is fine at 60, but if NSMBU is $60, then that's a issue, cause anything over $40 for a side scroller is to much, and that was my problem with the wii NSMB, $64.99 everywhere is complete non-sense, i only have it cause it came with the wii when i rebought a wii for the red thinking mario allstar was in the box :p


So 60 for a game with really bad single player which has just 1 thing that makes it worth buying/ being fun or being difficult   which is strangers you meet online and that actually have nothing to do with the game at all  is okay.
But 60 for a game thats fun and which has fun singleplayer is not? (sure nsmb is not the best game and its boring by now but so is COD  but thats not the point people should rate games individualy and not compared to predecessors or competitions games)


Makes no sense to me.  Seriously   you play against other people   that are not part of the game so how is COD worht more money than 2d Mario?

IMHO people who play games online should get paid because they make other people buy the games (with crappy short singleplayer) so the publisher gets money.  I dont see why the publisher/dev combo is the only one that should get money here because they are clearly not the ones offering the fun etc they just built the infrastructure to have fun and  lay back and get money becauce  you might find cool strangers online to play with tell this your friends that will also buy the game and tell their friend other people not related to activision offer fun online. ...

well for one thing you have to consider the cost of keeping those servers online, not saying COD is better than Mario or whatever, but i would imagine one is more expensive to make or produce than the other


True but isn't it their fault if they keep making games without dedicated servers?  Seriously  as If i care wheter i play on a COD server or a good public server that has the same level of "security" and anti cheat software etc.

Forcing you to pay for something they force you to use is double dumb.

Thats a general problem with video games today  they remove the player hosted servers so they can shut down the official servers and you HAVE to buy the next version of the game if you want to keep playing. So server cost is no PRO argument for expensive games.

if they want they can make servers but should charge players for using them and not force anyone to pay for servers.  Give the normal folks dedicated player hosted servers and keep the "pro" servers for those who care and charge them!  Problem solved. 


COD cost more to produce?  Wow.  NSMBU  is using a brand new engine, brand new art assets, brand new everything.  The only thing that's the same is the IP. The Call of Duty engine isn't impressive at all.  It's been the same exact engine since COD4.  2 hour short campaign, and a copy and pasted (literally) multiplayer.  Reused models, and on top of that in MW3 they had a bug for PC that said "Modern Warfare 2 has stopped responding" or something like that.  Yet it surely cost a lot to copy and paste.  Also Mass Effect 3, etc being 60 dollars on the Wii-U is terrible.  It cost the company little to port the games for their expected return.

I was talking about NSMBWII, didnt say anything about U, no idea how much that cost, i still dont think it was expensive though. I agree with everything else, but it still cost money to keep servers online, regardless of the game that is being run. And yes ME3 is stupid expensive

Matchmaking servers cost squat.  If COD wasn't Peer2Peer I would of considered server cost.


the what is the actual cost then? Enlighten me. COD still has to pay their voice actors everytime they do a new game. Hell Black Ops, had Ice Cube, Sam Worthington and Gary Oldman, those arent some C level actors, I imagine at the very least Mr. Oldman was expensive enough, his work was probably half the budget for NSMBWiiU and where did they say they are using a new engine. I just played teh game and it didnt look all that different



DieAppleDie on 14 October 2012

Many PS360 games are 65/70€
i think 60 is cheap