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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - What the literal heck Nintendo?!?

DonFerrari said:

You paid 3 times for the game to have content that isn`t really 3 games worthy of it. Or do you think from the base game to the additional chars and extras it costed them twice over the base cost?

I probably rounded it up to 200CAD, it was more likely 180CAD all in all, I won't go check my statements. The MSRPs are
60USD for Smash Ultimate
25USD for Fighter Pass Vol 1 containing 5 new fighters and all their related content (spirits, stages, music, etc.)
25USD for Fighter Pass Vol 2 containing another 5 new fighters and their related content

For a total of 110USD

I think it took them 4 years to get everything as it is today after the launch of the game, and with an MSRP of 60USD, at 50USD we get the rest of the content we have a factor of roughly 2. Moreover I accepted that price because it had value to me and I understand the work behind it and I esp. understand that without that setup, I would not be able to enjoy such a complete gaming experience for Smash.

I think it's acceptable.

As for online multiplayer, I also understand that it is a platforms for all games played on Switch and a service that I'm paying for. If you disagree with that setup, then like I said they should charge at the game level rather than at the platform level to recuperate costs.

However whether they charge a premium for online play at the game level or at the platform level, they must offer a working service.

This again is my point from the start.



Around the Network
padib said:
DonFerrari said:

You paid 3 times for the game to have content that isn`t really 3 games worthy of it. Or do you think from the base game to the additional chars and extras it costed them twice over the base cost?

I probably rounded it up to 200CAD, it was more likely 180CAD all in all, I won't go check my statements. The MSRPs are
60USD for Smash Ultimate
25USD for Fighter Pass Vol 1 containing 5 new fighters and all their related content (spirits, stages, music, etc.)
25USD for Fighter Pass Vol 2 containing another 5 new fighters and their related content

For a total of 110USD

I think it took them 4 years to get everything as it is today after the launch of the game, and with an MSRP of 60USD, at 50USD we get the rest of the content we have a factor of roughly 2. Moreover I accepted that price because it had value to me and I understand the work behind it and I esp. understand that without that setup, I would not be able to enjoy such a complete gaming experience for Smash.

I think it's acceptable.

As for online multiplayer, I also understand that it is a platforms for all games played on Switch and a service that I'm paying for. If you disagree with that setup, then like I said they should charge at the game level rather than at the platform level to recuperate costs.

However whether they charge a premium for online play at the game level or at the platform level, they must offer a working service.

This again is my point from the start.

So you are paying 5USD per char on the DLC and their related content... on the base game you paid 60 USD for like 60 char or 1 per char and the base game/gameplay/etc. So you are paying at least 5x over. That will show you that as usual DLC is a greedy mechanism. You`ll be fine with it and think it is acceptable to your or have value and that doesn`t really change it. Your defense of it is just like all other players used to defend in the past and were criticized by Nintendo fanbase.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Farsala said:
Dulfite said:

Game profits are a lot harder to get now days than they used to be. Game prices have not gone up alongside inflation. Development costs have skyrocketed as worker wages have increased in the tech era along with the expectation of massive games. The former Sony leader basically stated that each generation doubles in cost for games in a series to make. This isn't the 90's anymore. If they made enough profits off game sales before to maintain servers, they certainly are making less now.

Development costs skyrocket, but almost all gaming companies in the past few years have been doing quite well for themselves. The 90s were a brutal time to be a game dev, with probably over half of games studios ending up closed. 2000s, early 2010s weren't much better with some massive closures like THQ.

Basically what I am saying, since game servers have been a major part of games, most game companies have profited.

I would argue that studios were a lot more independent in the 90's, which means they had to secure investments and funding (and that is stressful and inconsistent). I would likewise argue that the major reason so many studios have been bought out by bigger groups in the last decade is the financial stresses being too much for many studios to deal with now compared to the 90's, so they instead consolidate under one big umbrella with a massive wallet and don't have to worry about finances anymore as long as the games continue to sell decently. If gaming was so easily profitable, I don't think you'd see as many studios join under MS/Sony/Nintendo/Embracer/EA umbrella as we have seen in the last decade.



DonFerrari said:

So you are paying 5USD per char on the DLC and their related content... on the base game you paid 60 USD for like 60 char or 1 per char and the base game/gameplay/etc. So you are paying at least 5x over. That will show you that as usual DLC is a greedy mechanism. You`ll be fine with it and think it is acceptable to your or have value and that doesn`t really change it. Your defense of it is just like all other players used to defend in the past and were criticized by Nintendo fanbase.

I don't keep a record of what was criticized in the past and don't care what the fanbase says, this is my personal opinion. You can put your vendetta behind you and talk facts with me.

Again, my value evaluation is based on my own knowledge of software development and effort, and I can tell you that it doesn't work at all how you explain it.

The core game was made with a crunch and made together as one piece holding together. The DLC was made after the fact to fit in with everything that was already made, that is always going to be more difficult. Add to this the licensing costs of the characters and intellectual property like music, stages, art, items that Nintendo must pay partners such as Square Enix, Capcom, Konami, Microsoft, SNK, etc. Also, add to this the particular attention put on these characters to make them to the standards expected of them as additional fighters.

Again, yes and especially given the time it took to make it all happen roughly equivalent to the time spent making the base game, I am OK with it and so should you.

I have been paying expansions since the days of Warcraft II and never had an issue with it when it has value to me. If I didn't agree, then I wouldn't buy it.

Edit for important point of worth: It is fair to expect that a modest portion of players will opt for the DLC, making the revenue from the DLC more limited than the base game, and hence a more expensive pricepoint to cover costs and obtain an honest margin.

Last edited by padib - on 20 October 2021

padib said:
DonFerrari said:

They get that money on spades from the sale of the games and the royalties from the 3rd party games. PC platforms can hold their servers fine enough.

There are no pc platforms other than blizzard.net and they do charge for it in WoW subscription costs.

So there aren't any PC games with multiplayer online except those on Battle.net?

Okay...



Around the Network
Conina said:
padib said:

There are no pc platforms other than blizzard.net and they do charge for it in WoW subscription costs.

So there aren't any PC games with multiplayer online except those on Battle.net?

Okay...

Really Conina?

We're talking about agglomerate platforms that offer multiple games AND online play. So steam (for instance) is not a usable example.



padib said:
Conina said:

So there aren't any PC games with multiplayer online except those on Battle.net?

Okay...

Really Conina?

We're talking about agglomerate platforms that offer multiple games AND online play. So steam (for instance) is not a usable example.

So why don't Valve, Epic Games, Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, Rockstar Games, Microsoft and Riot games count?

They all have PC platforms that offer multiple games AND online play. They all have to pay for servers.

And why is Blizzard a usable example? They only have ONE game they charge a subscription fee (WoW). You don't have to pay them for the Diablo servers, the CoD servers, the StarCraft servers, the Overwatch servers...



Conina said:
padib said:

Really Conina?

We're talking about agglomerate platforms that offer multiple games AND online play. So steam (for instance) is not a usable example.

So why don't Valve, Epic Games, Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, Rockstar Games, Microsoft and Riot games count?

They all have PC platforms that offer multiple games AND online play. They all have to pay for servers.

And why is Blizzard a usable example? They only have ONE game they charge a subscription fee (WoW). You don't have to pay them for the Diablo servers, the CoD servers, the StarCraft servers, the Overwatch servers...

Okay, so you didn't read my posts that you reply to I guess? Steam (Valve) does not offer online play for games on its platform other than its own, same as Epic, EA, and the others (Ubi, Riot, Rockstar) just offer their own games. Microsoft is the exception in your list but they are one of the three examples I was basing myself on (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft). I mentioned Blizzard to outline how they sell the online maintenance of servers in the MMO costs.