Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo's unrealistic pricing for old-school platformers et al.

Tagged games:

Immortal said:
You can find cheap shooters, RPGs, action games and just about everything else for under 10 dollars on iOS. Does that mean that all the games from these genres need to get realistic and drop their prices?


The quality of an iOS FPS game isn't even close to the quality of a console FPS title, while a 2D Mario quality is very much on par with PSN/XBLA budget price 2D platform games.



________________________________________________________________

Around the Network
happydolphin said:
KHlover said:
happydolphin said:
Immortal said:

Considering the rest of us have to tolerate the words "unrealistic", "appaling" and "robbery", I think you can humour me.

Not really, you're always like this. The attributes I'm using are actually relating to my points, whereas your are simply insulting my PoV.

Rolstoppable said:

So this another one of this thread's where you are trying to force your opinion on everyone.

Newsflash: Opinions differ and people can buy what they want with their money. So what you'll see in this thread will be a lot of people that tell you that they gladly paid $50 for Nintendo games and don't regret it one bit.

Also, if others are offering more interesting games at a much better price, then why aren't they outselling Nintendo games? The obvious answer is that others aren't offering more interesting games at better prices and their only option to even compete with Nintendo is to drastically undercut Nintendo's prices.

In my humble opinion, Nintendo is selling at that price on brand alone, and that can only go so far.

Had super mario been released on Steam with no prior name recognition, at 60$, you can be sure Trine 2 will destroy it in sales. Temple Run is selling much more than Nintendo games, so is Angry Birds, so if it's sales you need you have them. League of Legends probably has an immense userbase at the moment.

From Wikipedia: As of July 2012, League of Legends had over 32 million registrations and averages 12 million players worldwide per day, with the number of concurrent users online at any given time peaking over 3 million. Players also collectively log 1 billion hours per month, making League of Legends the world's most played video game[46][47]

People bought Mario for 50$, I'm thinking that with the increased competition from the marketplace, with games of IMHO competing value, the markup will no longer be in Nintendo's favor. I'm not sure how this is me imposing my opinions on anybody...

This single word makes me disagree with your post: Temple Run is a free game, as are Angry Birds and League of Legends. As such they are guaranteed to VASTLY exceed the Mario games sales (except LoL totally doesn't), additionally the combined userbase of Android and iOS / PC vastly exceeds the userbase of the current Nintendo consoles, providing further DOWNLOADS. 

You're not following the thread...

He asked me

"Also, if others are offering more interesting games at a much better price, then why aren't they outselling Nintendo games?"

Yeah and my tl;dr complaint about your respond would be: They are NOT selling.



happydolphin said:
Immortal said:

Considering the rest of us have to tolerate the words "unrealistic", "appaling" and "robbery", I think you can humour me.

Not really, you're always like this. The attributes I'm using are actually relating to my points, whereas your are simply insulting my PoV.

I'll concede I'm being rude (it's on purpose, though; don't worry, :P), but you ought to get off that high pedestal. Saying anything is appaling is not an objective description. It's about as bad as calling anything ridiculous.

Saying that what Nintendo does is equivalent to robbing people, though? Now, that's outright insulting. It's completely unnecessary and just offensive to anyone who sees value in these games. It's extremely inflammatory and, even if you genuinely feel such a sentiment, can be phrased in a much less troll-ish terms.

Since this won't get us anywhere, though, I'll amend my statement:

"Until the market shows Mario or even Kirby at $50 making less revenue than any one of those cheap online games, your argument is wrong and disconnected with how consumers see it."

I hope wrong isn't too strong a word for you, too.



 

“These are my principles; if you don’t like them, I have others.” – Groucho Marx

thekitchensink said:
I know what you mean. Monday Night Combat, a downloadable third-person shooter, is 800 Microsoft Points, or $10. Therefore, I am appalled that Microsoft and Sony have the gall to charge $60 for Gears of War and Uncharted.

Wait, what?

I don't believe anyone would agree with what I just said. So, unless you mean to imply that 2D sidescrollers in general are somehow not worth as much as other genres, the OP makes absolutely no sense. Nintendo's continued success in this area is evidence that people find their prices fair, and the developers behind Trine and Limbo would absolutely love to sell their games for $50 or $60. The problem is, no one would buy those particular titles at that price.

And before anyone accuses me of bias toward one price/format/whatever else, I recently purchased both New Super Mario Bros U and Trine 2: Director's Cut, thoroughly enjoyed both, and thought they both provided great value for their prices.

@bold. Somewhat, but it's only part of a bigger situation. Also, the work involved in GEoW and UC are at a whole other level than NSMB. That price difference is understandable.

Immortal:

 

I'll concede I'm being rude (it's on purpose, though; don't worry, :P), but you ought to get off that high pedestal. Saying anything is appaling is not an objective description. It's about as bad as calling anything ridiculous.

Saying that what Nintendo does is equivalent to robbing people, though? Now, that's outright insulting. It's completely unnecessary and just offensive to anyone who sees value in these games. It's extremely inflammatory and, even if you genuinely feel such a sentiment, can be phrased in a much less troll-ish terms.

Since this won't get us anywhere, though, I'll amend my statement:

"Until the market shows Mario or even Kirby at $50 making less revenue than any one of those cheap online games, your argument is wrong and disconnected with how consumers see it."

I hope wrong isn't too strong a word for you, too.

 

Ok, I can work with this.

In my opinion, the effects of an improper markeup is only visible in the follow-up to the original "rip-off" (except in the case of those who are ok with the price). In other words, until the sequels come out showing a lack of sales, it's hard to say.

One example of a failure is Nintendogs + Cats. We know that that strategy is no longer working for Nintendo, people got the idea and it's not going to sell any more. Same goes with Brain Age.

Though NSMB U was meant to be a system seller, it wasn't able to push U sales like it was expected to. For example, NSMB 2 seems to be doing less well than its predecessor. It would indicate that people are coming to understand that the game is marked up as compared to what alternative entertainment they may be enjoying atm.



happydolphin said:

In my humble opinion, Nintendo is selling at that price on brand alone, and that can only go so far.

Had super mario been released on Steam with no prior name recognition, at 60$, you can be sure Trine 2 will destroy it in sales. Temple Run is selling much more than Nintendo games, so is Angry Birds, so if it's sales you need you have them. League of Legends probably has an immense userbase at the moment.

From Wikipedia: As of July 2012, League of Legends had over 32 million registrations and averages 12 million players worldwide per day, with the number of concurrent users online at any given time peaking over 3 million. Players also collectively log 1 billion hours per month, making League of Legends the world's most played video game[46][47]

People bought Mario for 50$, I'm thinking that with the increased competition from the marketplace, with games of IMHO competing value, the markup will no longer be in Nintendo's favor. I'm not sure how this is me imposing my opinions on anybody...

Nintendo has built their brands for well over 20 years and as long as they continue to provide high quality, their brands aren't going to fizzle out. You can only call it "selling on brand alone" when the product itself is bad, but the examples you provided in the OP are the best platformers on the market.

No sane company would lower the price of something that sells millions, so why should Nintendo? Price drops happen when a product has reached an insufficient level of sales. The examples you provided in the OP cost $10, because their publishers can't charge more for them. They would like to, but their games wouldn't sell at that price.

NSMB2 has sold more than 5m copies by now and NSMBU has sold 1.5m copies on a console with a tiny userbase. It doesn't look like Nintendo's pricing model will change anytime soon. You are forcing your opinion on others by saying things like "games like Super Meat Boy have competing value". That's up to every person to decide for themselves. Judging from sales, most people don't think like you.

Lastly, you should have realized how bad your argument is when you had to use games that are not platformers as examples for commercial success.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Around the Network
KHlover said:
RolStoppable said:
$10 for a game like Limbo is much more expensive than $60 for NSMBU.

I agree. $10 for 3h of gameplay is much more than $60 for (depending on what one is willing to sink into the game) 15+hrs of gameplay. 


Limbo has barely an hour of gameplay in it, but that's what's so great about. I can play it in one sitting and have a complete, satisfying experience. Plus try to die as little as possible, of course.

Though realistically, a game like that could sell at full price in the early early 90s (Prince of Persia which is 89, Another World 91) but not today. Last game similar to it sold at retail was Heart of Darkness, and although about the same gameplay length, it had varied graphics and CGI cutscenes.



KylieDog said:
Immortal said:
You can find cheap shooters, RPGs, action games and just about everything else for under 10 dollars on iOS. Does that mean that all the games from these genres need to get realistic and drop their prices?


The quality of an iOS FPS game isn't even close to the quality of a console FPS title, while a 2D Mario quality is very much on par with PSN/XBLA budget price 2D platform games, in my opinion.


Words we all tend to forget all too often.

Regardless, even if you don't want to acknowledge that quality is subjective, whoever was it that said that quality has anything to do with pricing? It has something to do with the value an average consumer sees in the product, but nothing whatsoever to do with "quality" as you or I or any other individual sees it.



 

“These are my principles; if you don’t like them, I have others.” – Groucho Marx

LemonSlice said:
KHlover said:
RolStoppable said:
$10 for a game like Limbo is much more expensive than $60 for NSMBU.

I agree. $10 for 3h of gameplay is much more than $60 for (depending on what one is willing to sink into the game) 15+hrs of gameplay. 


Limbo has barely an hour of gameplay in it, but that's what's so great about. I can play it in one sitting and have a complete, satisfying experience. Plus try to die as little as possible, of course.

Though realistically, a game like that could sell at full price in the early early 90s (Prince of Persia which is 89, Another World 91) but not today. Last game similar to it sold at retail was Heart of Darkness, and although about the same gameplay length, it had varied graphics and CGI cutscenes.

But LIMBO in general already is a bad example as I'd describe it as "playable art" rather than "platformer" and thus has a completely different value attached to it^^



RolStoppable said:

Nintendo has built their brands for well over 20 years and as long as they continue to provide high quality, their brands aren't going to fizzle out. You can only call it "selling on brand alone" when the product itself is bad, but the examples you provided in the OP are the best platformers on the market.

No sane company would lower the price of something that sells millions, so why should Nintendo? Price drops happen when a product has reached an insufficient level of sales. The examples you provided in the OP cost $10, because their publishers can't charge more for them. They would like to, but their games wouldn't sell at that price.

NSMB2 has sold more than 5m copies by now and NSMBU has sold 1.5m copies on a console with a tiny userbase. It doesn't look like Nintendo's pricing model will change anytime soon. You are forcing your opinion on others by saying things like "games like Super Meat Boy have competing value". That's up to every person to decide for themselves. Judging from sales, most people don't think like you.

Lastly, you should have realized how bad your argument is when you had to use games that are not platformers as examples for commercial success.

@bold. Do you really need to say things like that? The argument applies to retro games in general I used platformers because it was, to me, the easiest genre to analyze, but it applies to everyting else that is retro, 2D, arcade, or that doesn't involve a hefty amount of development like say Gears of War or Halo 4, or Mario Galaxy.

If I'm imposing my opinion, then why is it that you are saying that the titles in OP couldn't sell at 40-60$? You do realize that there's much more to the sales of a game than intrinsic value? Or you don't see that?



happydolphin said:
forest-spirit said:
Out of those "overpriced" games I've played NSMBWii and DKCR and they are totally worth full price in my book.
Just because you don't see that kind of value in those games doesn't mean that no one does.

I see you liked Minecraft. Minecraft had an MSRP of 26.95 on release . Is that a competitive offering to the games you listed?


Sure is. And I bought the game back in the alpha days for $10. That doesn't make me feel like every $10+ game is overpriced though. If anything, it's Minecraft that is undervalued and if a sequel came out for $50 I'd happily buy it day 1.

But just like the case with 2D platformers there are those who can't see how a game with crappy retro graphics, no story and no goal can be worth more than $5. So in the end, it's all about what kind of games we enjoy.