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

Forums - Nintendo - Virtual Console games are too expensive . . .

Senlis on 10 August 2009
Onyxmeth said:
Khuutra said:
 

It's still a relevant comparison, because players had to buy from collectors up to this point.

I don't believe it is. The most popular emulators on the PC are rather good at emulating games, and the majority work without a hitch. There was no moral reason to not use them since the market had been dead for years and no one was making money on the sale of games. Someone that wanted to play a game could have used that method. Many did. I'm sure many of the people using the "eBay/Amazon" argument in this thread used that emulator method themselves.

It's also not fair to use a collector's market to justify the prices of downloadable titles, because then when is it not fair? So long as Nintendo charges under the standard price of a used cartridge, they'll always be in the right, regardless of how high the price is or how low the competition prices their own ROMs. The bottom line is this. Sony has a sliding scale from $5.99-$9.99 for PSN games, meaning everything under the $9.99 price point is better priced than comparable VC titles. Xbox Live has new enhancements on old classics and still generally comes under the price of comparable VC titles. This is direct competition. ROMs against ROMs. Downloadable content vs. downloadable content. Not collector's cartridges vs. ROMs. We have justifiable comparisons with Xbox Live and PSN, making the Amazon/eBay argument largely useless now.

I agree with everything except for the "There was no moral reason to not use them since the market had been dead for years...."

Besides the point emulation is illegal and therefore wrong (before you ask, i'm not a boyscout), there were people making money off of older games.  The people making new consoles, whatever they are called.  The ones that can play 2-3 classic systems at a time.  Therefore, you cannot claim that illegal emulation is not hurting companies' sales.  Besides the point that now Nintendo is selling thier older products now.  They have the right to do that at any price they want.  If you don't want to pay that price, you don't have to play their games. 




 

Around the Network
Onyxmeth on 10 August 2009
Senlis said:
Onyxmeth said:
Khuutra said:
 

It's still a relevant comparison, because players had to buy from collectors up to this point.

I don't believe it is. The most popular emulators on the PC are rather good at emulating games, and the majority work without a hitch. There was no moral reason to not use them since the market had been dead for years and no one was making money on the sale of games. Someone that wanted to play a game could have used that method. Many did. I'm sure many of the people using the "eBay/Amazon" argument in this thread used that emulator method themselves.

It's also not fair to use a collector's market to justify the prices of downloadable titles, because then when is it not fair? So long as Nintendo charges under the standard price of a used cartridge, they'll always be in the right, regardless of how high the price is or how low the competition prices their own ROMs. The bottom line is this. Sony has a sliding scale from $5.99-$9.99 for PSN games, meaning everything under the $9.99 price point is better priced than comparable VC titles. Xbox Live has new enhancements on old classics and still generally comes under the price of comparable VC titles. This is direct competition. ROMs against ROMs. Downloadable content vs. downloadable content. Not collector's cartridges vs. ROMs. We have justifiable comparisons with Xbox Live and PSN, making the Amazon/eBay argument largely useless now.

I agree with everything except for the "There was no moral reason to not use them since the market had been dead for years...."

Besides the point emulation is illegal and therefore wrong (before you ask, i'm not a boyscout), there were people making money off of older games.  The people making new consoles, whatever they are called.  The ones that can play 2-3 classic systems at a time.  Therefore, you cannot claim that illegal emulation is not hurting companies' sales.  Besides the point that now Nintendo is selling thier older products now.  They have the right to do that at any price they want.  If you don't want to pay that price, you don't have to play their games. 

If a console was made that could play 2-3 systems at a time, then obviously it merely replaces my point of the emulation as the cheaper alternative to going into online auctions. Regardless of the method of retreiving them, my point stands that going through auctions was not the only method, and has always been the unecessarily expensive one for the gamer.

Nintendo can do that any price point they want, but it seems to me they are forcing their third party partners to follow this method regardless of whether the third party wants to or not. It seems Sega would want to sell their Genesis titles cheaper, since they do so on two other consoles. Also, this is a discussion and using the argument that Nintendo can do what they want is not productive at all in explaining whether or not their games are too expensive. In fact, it's more of a copout because you don't seem to have a better argument at hand to explain why the pricing is isn't too expensive.

It's very simple. Either the Virtual Console is too expensive, or PSN and Xbox Live are too cheap. Which is it? Considering that Nintendo themselves seem to be backing away from the Virtual Console in favor of WiiWare, it would appear enough people aren't buying to justify pumping titles in on a regular basis, and a very good explanation as to why could be a poor pricing model.



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



Vectorferret on 10 August 2009

I'd like to make a new argument that games are overpriced. People aren't buying them. Nintendo is dropping the amount of VC release because it's much less successful than WiiWare. It doesn't take a genius to realise that if people aren't buying it at the current price, the price isn't a good one.



3DS - 2277 - 6636 - 6675 WiiU - Vectorferret
(Write on wall or PM if adding)
LordTheNightKnight on 10 August 2009

"but it seems to me they are forcing their third party partners to follow this method regardless of whether the third party wants to or not"

Nintendo doesn't. I guess you missed the part where some third party games cost differently, and Nintendo said that was their choice.

Now most of those cost more, but Nintendo has not stated less is not an option, just that the third parties haven't taken it.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

mike_intellivision on 10 August 2009
Onyxmeth said:
sauss said:
KylieDog said:

£6 for a regular SNES game.  £7.50 for N64 (some cost more than this).


By comparison PS1 titles on the Playstation Store are only £3-4 on average (a few exceptions only).


Want more reasons why it is overpiced?   How about the fact that most of the stuff on the VC has already been re-released in compilation 'classic' packages a load of times on previous consoles including the PS1, PS2 and Gamecube?  Most of these games are only rare in their original format of release and if you just want to play them are have been easily buyable for many years now (and a lot cheaper than VC).

The Sega Mega Drive Ultimate Collection (as the most recent example) was released for PS3/360 this gen and has 40 Mega Drive/Genesis games on it as well as a few arcade games in addition to those 40.  It was released at a budget £25.  How much would those 40 games cost from VC?  


£240!

 

No wonder the Wii didn't get a port of that compilation, you only need buy 3 or 4 games on VC and they would have made more profit than from the compilation.



Yes, the Virtual Console is overpriced.

Now, That's a good point.

To expand on this, remember that Sega also releases Sega Genesis games over Xbox Live, gives them online multiplayer when applicable, gives you achievements, and charges $5. Many of these are the exact same games available on the Virtual Console. I personally think Nintendo needs to loosen the pricing structure by offering a ceiling no game may go above, but also letting them go lower than the standard price setup for the console's library.

Edit: To those using the Ebay and Amazon argument, it's flawed. Those games are expensive because they are originals, they are physical copies and are collector's items. Even with the availability over VC, they're still expensive. This is no different than saying ebooks arent overpriced because some 20 year old out of print first edition book is on ebay for $70.

It is interesting that Sega Genesis games are $5 on the 360 and $8 on the Wii. But the two N64 games on the 360 are $15 while those games would be $10 on the Wii.

Does anyone know how much Sony is charging for the TG games on PSN? (They would be in the $6-$8 range on the Wii).

As for the arguement of buying old copies vs. digitial downloads, those are the only two LEGAL ways to play the games, hence the comparison.  It is an apples to oranges comparison, but it is the only one that can be made.

 

Mike from Morgantown 

 



      


I am Mario.


I like to jump around, and would lead a fairly serene and aimless existence if it weren't for my friends always getting into trouble. I love to help out, even when it puts me at risk. I seem to make friends with people who just can't stay out of trouble.

Wii Friend Code: 1624 6601 1126 1492

NNID: Mike_INTV
Around the Network
Onyxmeth on 10 August 2009
LordTheNightKnight said:
"but it seems to me they are forcing their third party partners to follow this method regardless of whether the third party wants to or not"

Nintendo doesn't. I guess you missed the part where some third party games cost differently, and Nintendo said that was their choice.

Now most of those cost more, but Nintendo has not stated less is not an option, just that the third parties haven't taken it.

So then Sega is by their own hand overcharging Wii owners for inferior ports to what is available on competing consoles? That doesn't seem to be their style. While I understand Nintendo went on record stating this (I'd like to see a link for correct wording though), it doesn't quite add up, and could not have told the whole story. I've yet to see a price drop on Virtual Console. I've yet to see a large fluctuation in the pricing model. Nintendo's own words suggest the VC isn't doing so hot nowadays, so you're saying no third parties have thought of decreasing prices to entice customers? It doesn't seem very likely.

I believe Sega was locked into an $8 price point for Sega Genesis games because they directly competed with the SNES games at $8 and Nintendo didn't want to see their own console seemingly overpriced. I have no links to support this, but it's my theory.



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



Onyxmeth on 10 August 2009
mike_intellivision said:

It is interesting that Sega Genesis games are $5 on the 360 and $8 on the Wii. But the two N64 games on the 360 are $15 while those games would be $10 on the Wii.

Does anyone know how much Sony is charging for the TG games on PSN? (They would be in the $6-$8 range on the Wii).

As for the arguement of buying old copies vs. digitial downloads, those are the only two LEGAL ways to play the games, hence the comparison.  It is an apples to oranges comparison, but it is the only one that can be made.

 

Mike from Morgantown 

 

The two N64 games are enhanced ports. More work has gone into them than any N64 game on the Virtual Console. I don't necessarily agree with a $5 price hike, but at least there is a justification for charging more than the same titles do on the VC.

My point regarding the auction house comparison being invalid is that now we have competing digital download services, meaning we no longer have to use the oranges comparison when we have three different apples to compare. It would have been a fairly valid argument back in 2006, but in 2009, these three services are starting to overlap in titles and basic generation comparisons, so they are far better guages of what is overpriced or not than a collector's market is.

Let me also clarify that I don't necessarily disagree completely with the prices Nintendo has on the VC. I'm against what appears to be a very rigid pricing structure that appears to be very controlling on Nintendo's part, and that is exactly their style; all titles(save the rare price hike) for a set price based on console and no price drops.



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



Khuutra on 10 August 2009
Onyxmeth said:
Khuutra said:
That is a good argument. I acquiesce on that front, though I would still say that the prices on the Virtual Console are justified by the games themselves.

For every game you feel is justfied, I could probably list off 1-2 games that would feel overpriced at it's current price point. Like I said previously, and you agree with, Nintendo needs to open the pricing structure up for third parties to give their own prices for their games, while still implementing a ceiling so those same third parties cannot take advantage of the customers. Nintendo also needs to look at their own catalog and start pricing games individually based on anticipation and perceived quality. They have a poor pricing model, their third parties are offering the same games with enhanced features for less money on the competition, and that all to me says that there are a good amount of overpriced games on the Virtual Console, far more than there are fairly priced titles.

That is very fair, but the point remains that there are games that are well worth the price - otherwise we wouldn't be buying them.



Onyxmeth on 10 August 2009
Khuutra said:
Onyxmeth said:
Khuutra said:
That is a good argument. I acquiesce on that front, though I would still say that the prices on the Virtual Console are justified by the games themselves.

For every game you feel is justfied, I could probably list off 1-2 games that would feel overpriced at it's current price point. Like I said previously, and you agree with, Nintendo needs to open the pricing structure up for third parties to give their own prices for their games, while still implementing a ceiling so those same third parties cannot take advantage of the customers. Nintendo also needs to look at their own catalog and start pricing games individually based on anticipation and perceived quality. They have a poor pricing model, their third parties are offering the same games with enhanced features for less money on the competition, and that all to me says that there are a good amount of overpriced games on the Virtual Console, far more than there are fairly priced titles.

That is very fair, but the point remains that there are games that are well worth the price - otherwise we wouldn't be buying them.

There sure are, but not nearly enough for Nintendo to continue being interested in supporting the Virtual Console like they used to. Considering how low the costs must be, it should have been an absolute gold mine, but with them tapering off supporting it in favor of WiiWare, I can't help but to think something went horribly wrong. What I think happened is that for all the money they might make on a high profile title, there are far too many overpriced, shitty quality titles selling practically nothing and just using up resources. Loosening up the pricing structure, along with demos, user reviews, and allowing developers to enhance the ports could go a long way into revitalizing the Virtual Console. I feel Nintendo is far too cautious and rigid in their thinking to allow it though.



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



Khuutra on 10 August 2009

I freely acquiesce to that point, and am similarly disappointed in the way Nintendo has been scheduling releases.