Support NeoGAF

[DDayton]

When Nintendo releases games that are lacking in content like Pilotwings(3hrs) and Steel Diver(5 hours) and charges $40 for them, i think it's reasonable to expect Angry Birds to cost more on the 3DS than it costs on the iphone. They are the manufacturer, and they're setting a precedent over what's acceptable to charge for content.

... and yet there are $2-$3 DSiWare titles. It seems silly to claim that an overpriced launch retail title means 3DS downloadable software will of an entirely bizarre price range, ESPECIALLY when Nintendo already has sub-$5 downloadable titles.

 

[velvet_nitemare]

... and yet there are $2-$3 DSiWare titles. It seems silly to claim that an overpriced launch retail title means 3DS downloadable software will of an entirely bizarre price range, ESPECIALLY when Nintendo already has sub-$5 downloadable titles.

If Angry Birds was a 3DS launch game, it would be retail, since the shop isn't even up yet. It could easily be $20, and still give more value for money than any of the other launch games bar SSFIV.

 

[antonz]

If Angry Birds was a 3DS launch game, it would be retail, since the shop isn't even up yet. It could easily be $20, and still give more value for money than any of the other launch games bar SSFIV.

Rovio are going the 3DSware route because they intend to milk Angry Birds for all its worth releasing each game etc as they have confirmed all 3 games will be on there.

As for its value all in the eye of the beholder. I can go on newgrounds and play the games Angry Birds ripped off for free

 

[Amir0x]

Okay, this is really stretching things. Heck, I could make a contrived argument that Nintendo was the only company caring for consumers, as its titles retained their resale value for years (unlike EA, for example.) I could argue that Nintendo gives value by enabling free online play, unlike MS. I could comment on the fact that Nintendo's titles are $10 less than titles on MS and Sony systems, and use that to argue that Nintendo is giving back more by charging less. We could even get into a wacky discussion about how Nintendo was giving customers the #1 selling game, FREE, with their home console and still selling it for less than their competitors.
Trying to argue that Nintendo "refuse(s) to give their customers any value for their purchases" sounds like meaningless hyperbole, honestly. Perhaps your point would be better made if you rephrased it, but I can't see how you can argue against Nintendo giving customers "value" and retain a straight face.

I'll say it with a straight face and mean it - that's one of the more difficult things about Nintendo, no matter how good their games can be. Nintendo frequently pushes horrendous outdated technology with garbage feature sets for massively overpriced points. Yes, these products sell regardless and yes, as a business, that's the right - but as far as I'm concerned, I don't give a fuck. The best companies to me are the ones that push as much as they can without trying to cut corners so they can earn one more penny here or one more penny there. That's Nintendo: a bunch of penny pinchers who rarely pass values onto consumers. It's ok sometimes, but especially for something like games that came out a while ago, it's unacceptable. Every other company knows the value of giving back to their consumers, and having value priced games.

Sony and Microsoft positively stuff their platforms with shit, loss leading on their platforms, providing features and infrastructure that matter.

I mean, of course Nintendo gives their online free - who in the fuck would pay for that abysmal thing they call infrastructure on Wii? Of course their Wii games are cheaper - they look worse, generally play worse and are not in high definition. If Wii wasn't utilizing Gamecube-era technology, it too would have $60 games. That price was set by necessity of publishers, not the console manufacturers.

Yes, Microsoft is dumb for charging for Xbox Live, I totally agree. That's a separate argument. They also charge waaaay too much for peripherals. However, that's just one drop compared to all the other way they don't totally ream consumers on the videogame end.

Yes, Sony is also dumb about...well, since PS3 and PSP, a whole fucking lot. But most of it is not related to reaming customers.

But on average, Sony and Microsoft consistently give back to consumers with deals, value priced lines, reduced price on older products or well selling products, more cutting edge technology at a loss leading price. Infinitely more packed in features.

At the end of the day, that's not Nintendo's philosophy. And it does well for them as a business. But, for something like a price of videogames (and, in my opinion, the ridiculous way they overcharge for their ancient technology consoles), they go a little too far.

The counter argument is that they're a business and it's working for them financially obviously. But I'm not a stockholder. I'm always going to prefer companies who don't ream me, the consumer.

 

[PKrockin]

So developers have to be a bit successful with some other product on the PC or Apple store already and be serious about making games. Not like a teenager in his mom's basement desperate for cash who decides to play the indie game lottery with a POS glitchy Tetris clone.

I'm okay with this.

 

[DDayton]

I'll say it with a straight face and mean it - that's one of the more difficult things about Nintendo, no matter how good their games can be. Nintendo frequently pushes horrendous outdated technology with garbage feature sets for massively overpriced points.

See, I'm the last person to argue that Nintendo's recent output isn't stupidly expensive (see DSi and 3DS, as well as 3DS software) -- I think you're being a bit over the top with "They refuse to give their customers any value for their purchases." Aside from the odd release on occasion, Nintendo software generally has longevity in play value (compared to most other software) and retains its resale value, which would seem to imply that value was missing from those titles to begin with. I mean, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that most Nintendo software had little "value" in comparison to most software from the rest of the industry.

If we're talking primarily in terms of hardware, I'd agree that Nintendo's recent hardware is overpriced in comparison to its core components (and, in the case of the DSi and 3DS, stupidly expensive as well). However, your original argument seemed more to do with the lack of a line of discount software, and using that to show that Nintendo "refused to give their customers any value for their purchases." Again, that seems just a tad hyperbolic.

While I'm all for low priced reprints (and low prices in general), lambasting a company for not dropping its prices when a title continues to sell puzzles me. Unless, of course, you truly believe that Nintendo's competitors simply lower prices out of the goodness of their hearts, and pack systems "to the gills" because they simply love the consumer.

 

[Amir0x]

While I'm all for low priced reprints (and low prices in general), lambasting a company for not dropping its prices when a title continues to sell puzzles me. Unless, of course, you truly believe that Nintendo's competitors simply lower prices out of the goodness of their hearts, and pack systems "to the gills" because they simply love the consumer.

Even when Sony was in the absolute lead, they introduced budget priced line. Even when they were in the lead, they packed their consoles with great feature sets for the time. That was called giving back to the consumers. It also has the round about benefit of boosting sales even further, giving further incentives to consumers to support.

No, it's not purely out of the goodness of their hearts (after all, being nice to consumers and giving them a break is good for you in the end; Nintendo should learn this), but the result is the same in practice. It isn't out of the goodness of their hearts, but it IS for the goodness of consumers.

I don't care who the company is, if you're helping me the consumer out, that's who I'll prefer in any given time. I only care about my selfish needs, and any company that meets them and knows when to give us a break or pack more shit in for less price is the company that is worth respect.

 

[DDayton]

I don't care who the company is, if you're helping me the consumer out, that's who I'll prefer in any given time. I only care about my selfish needs, and any company that meets them and knows when to give us a break or pack more s--- in for less price is the company that is worth respect.

While I don't disagree with you generally, I guess I take issue with your phrase "no value". Why NOA hasn't introduced NCL's budget line is odd to me, and I do think Nintendo was offering better value to most consumers throughout the majority of the Wii's lifespan. Yeah, the PS3 and 360 were sold at a loss, but that didn't matter to most consumer when they were getting the cheapest, best-selling new system WITH the hottest new game.

None of this excuses a $250 3DS, mind you. I'm fully in agreement about the DSi and 3DS being stupidly overpriced. However, I'm sure I'll find Sony's new system stupidly overpriced as well.

 

[Amir0x]

While I don't disagree with you generally, I guess I take issue with your phrase "no value". Why NOA hasn't introduced NCL's budget line is odd to me, and I do think Nintendo was offering better value to most consumers throughout the majority of the Wii's lifespan. Yeah, the PS3 and 360 were sold at a loss, but that didn't matter to most consumer when they were getting the cheapest, best-selling new system WITH the hottest new game.

None of this excuses a $250 3DS, mind you. I'm fully in agreement about the DSi and 3DS being stupidly overpriced. However, I'm sure I'll find Sony's new system stupidly overpriced as well.

Like I said, the uneducated consumer might not know the difference so the value may be of no import to them if they can play Mario 598. But for the informed, it's hardly right to make any excuses for the behavior. The Wii was grotesquely overpriced - at $250, it was literally a souped up Gamecube, which could be found at the time for bargain basement prices sub $99. It sold with motion technology that was NOT that expensive broken down even at its birth. And it shipped with a glorified sports tech demo, which I'm sorry as popular as it is I'm not going to pat them on the back for. Because, as I said, I'm an educated consumer so that sort of thing isn't going to get enthusiastic applause.

 

[Hero]

I'll say it with a straight face and mean it - that's one of the more difficult things about Nintendo, no matter how good their games can be. Nintendo frequently pushes horrendous outdated technology with garbage feature sets for massively overpriced points. Yes, these products sell regardless and yes, as a business, that's the right - but as far as I'm concerned, I don't give a fuck. The best companies to me are the ones that push as much as they can without trying to cut corners so they can earn one more penny here or one more penny there. That's Nintendo: a bunch of penny pinchers who rarely pass values onto consumers. It's ok sometimes, but especially for something like games that came out a while ago, it's unacceptable. Every other company knows the value of giving back to their consumers, and having value priced games.

Sony and Microsoft positively stuff their platforms with shit, loss leading on their platforms, providing features and infrastructure that matter.

I mean, of course Nintendo gives their online free - who in the fuck would pay for that abysmal thing they call infrastructure on Wii? Of course their Wii games are cheaper - they look worse, generally play worse and are not in high definition. If Wii wasn't utilizing Gamecube-era technology, it too would have $60 games. That price was set by necessity of publishers, not the console manufacturers.

Yes, Microsoft is dumb for charging for Xbox Live, I totally agree. That's a separate argument. They also charge waaaay too much for peripherals. However, that's just one drop compared to all the other way they don't totally ream consumers on the videogame end.

Yes, Sony is also dumb about...well, since PS3 and PSP, a whole fucking lot. But most of it is not related to reaming customers.

But on average, Sony and Microsoft consistently give back to consumers with deals, value priced lines, reduced price on older products or well selling products, more cutting edge technology at a loss leading price. Infinitely more packed in features.

At the end of the day, that's not Nintendo's philosophy. And it does well for them as a business. But, for something like a price of videogames (and, in my opinion, the ridiculous way they overcharge for their ancient technology consoles), they go a little too far.

The counter argument is that they're a business and it's working for them financially obviously. But I'm not a stockholder. I'm always going to prefer companies who don't ream me, the consumer.

So Nintendo should just bleed money so you get more value for your purchase? I also see that you fail to take into consideration that Microsoft and Sony incur such losses that they aren't profitable day one, whereas Nintendo almost always is. Difference being Sony and Microsoft have non-gaming divisions of their company that are large enough to absorb and sustain those losses.

 

[[Nintex]]

So Nintendo should just bleed money so you get more value for your purchase? I also see that you fail to take into consideration that Microsoft and Sony incur such losses that they aren't profitable day one, whereas Nintendo almost always is. Difference being Sony and Microsoft have non-gaming divisions of their company that are large enough to absorb and sustain those losses.

When you sell SNES roms for $30+ you'll be profitable no matter what.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

When Nintendo releases games that are lacking in content like Pilotwings(3hrs) and Steel Diver(5 hours) and charges $40 for them, i think it's reasonable to expect Angry Birds to cost more on the 3DS than it costs on the iphone. They are the manufacturer, and they're setting a precedent over what's acceptable to charge for content.

It's entirely reasonable to expect Angry Birds to cost more on the 3DS, based on Nintendo's price points with DD content (including a lot of iOS/DSi cross-platform stuff) on the DSi (i.e., games ranging from $2 to $12). It's entirely unreasonable, and rather stupid, to claim that a DD game like Angry Birds would cost $20 on 3DS and to try and conflate it with - admittedly content-light - retail titles that have all the costs involved with physical retail/manufacture etc.

EDIT:

To add to this, a brief example:

Flight Control (iPhone) - $1
Flight Control (iPad) - $5
Flight Control (DSiWare) - $5

Those are the kind of price differences I would expect - not $1 vs $20 - though I'm hoping Nintendo will follow the lead of other DD services and start offering sales and other promotions.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

I also see that you fail to take into consideration that Microsoft and Sony incur such losses that they aren't profitable day one, whereas Nintendo almost always is. Difference being Sony and Microsoft have non-gaming divisions of their company that are large enough to absorb and sustain those losses.

Forget day one, it's unclear if Sony or Microsoft's gaming divisions will be profitable at all this cycle.

 

[Oppo]

So Nintendo should just bleed money so you get more value for your purchase? I also see that you fail to take into consideration that Microsoft and Sony incur such losses that they aren't profitable day one, whereas Nintendo almost always is. Difference being Sony and Microsoft have non-gaming divisions of their company that are large enough to absorb and sustain those losses.

But you as a player and buyer of video games don't have any dog in that fight. I agree with Amirox completely, but moreover what some are taking issue with is the palpable disdain dripping from his posts. You can't really argue the guy's opinion with the guy, you know? The rest is hand-wringing over use of the terms "no value" and other proclamations that are basically de rigueur in these parts. His* (and my own) ambivalence to Nintendo's value offering (such as it is) really has no effect on your fun, right?

(*edit - forgive me if you are not in face a he, I know not.)

 

[Pathetic Basement Virgin]

I think The bosses at Nintendo ran a train on somebody in this thread mom. Damn homie give it up.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

But you as a player and buyer of video games don't have any dog in that fight.

I think as a player and buyer of videogames it's completely fair to support the long term sustainability of the companies involved. If Nintendo had taken a similar approach to Sony or Microsoft five years ago, and incurred similar scale losses, there possibly wouldn't be a Nintendo today. As a consumer, I don't want that.

Now, that's not to say that Nintendo isn't stingy or is putting forward as much as they could in terms of value offering on their hardware or software. I'm a huge Nintendo fan and they can easily suck harder than about anyone when it comes to their fanbase (see: localization, or the lack thereof). But throwing out the profit blackholes that are Microsoft's and Sony's gaming divisions as counter examples strikes me as delusionally out of context.

 

[devildog820]

... and yet there are $2-$3 DSiWare titles. It seems silly to claim that an overpriced launch retail title means 3DS downloadable software will of an entirely bizarre price range, ESPECIALLY when Nintendo already has sub-$5 downloadable titles.

True, DSiWare games sell more cheaply. I was using hyperbole to illustrate the larger point that Angry Birds wouldn't have debuted on the DSiWare platform because of Nintendo's model, and attitude, towards developers. Nintendo is missing out because garage developers can't get on the system. To me, it's like Newspapers and the Internet. Or Cable and the Internet.

 

[kodt]

pilot wings and steeldiver are supposedly 2 to 3 hours long and dont offer a lot gameplaywise either

Why would you want to play longer than 2-3 hours? The battery wont last much longer.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

True, DSiWare games sell more cheaply. I was using hyperbole to illustrate the larger point that Angry Birds wouldn't have debuted on the DSiWare platform because of Nintendo's model, and attitude, towards developers. Nintendo is missing out because garage developers can't get on the system. To me, it's like Newspapers and the Internet. Or Cable and the Internet.

...which ties in with Iwata's point about devaluing your own content. The decline of newspapers has been due in large part to the devaluing of the kind of reporting papers offered by blogs, or perhaps more particularly the free versions of stories on the newspapers' own sites etc. etc. The argument now is, "Why buy a paper to get news I can find for free online?". On face value, it's a fair question for most people as the bare facts - X happened in Y today - will be covered pretty much the same in most news sources, and that's all that most people want. But the quality of reporting in papers, with experienced journalists, often on-site and with the local knowledge to put things in context, is often lost when people get their news from an aggregator or blog. And once you've lost the kind of quality writing you get from people paid to do it, with that kind of experience, you have the kind of news coverage that "free" gets you - basic, blunt, info, with no context or subtlety and no real interest in anything beyond major events and no incentive to do any real investigative work.

The same goes for a whole range of things, thanks to the spread of free or incredibly cheap, quality content online.

 

[FoneBone]

Why do you not count Twilight Princess a AAA title? As for the rest I would assume that it isn't worth the money to bother with a re-release (especially as they dropped very quickly in price originally).

I believe he's talking about sales terms. Those games certainly haven't been evergreens a la Mario Kart, Wii ____, et al.

 

[The Lamp]

Looks like the 'calvary' arrived just after this post.

This threads going to be a hot one. Is that the distant sound of iOS fans on the horizon..

You mean "cavalry".

And there's no surprise here. Nintendo's always done this, I suppose.

 

[Vinci]

According to sales, Nintendo is one of the only companies in the industry releasing content that provides anything close to its value in dollars. I have no idea how anyone could argue the opposite given what's actually happening in the market.

 

[charlequin]

If stores are already stocked with these titles, and stores already do internal price drops, is there really enough of a demand to print up another run of these for $20 each?

Stores are not "already stocked" with these titles; you'll not see new copies of most of these at most specialty stores, much less being promoted in the proper fashion for price-drop lines of this sort (that is, in giant end-cap displays at Wal-Mart and other non-specialty retailers where they can drive impulse purchases.)

And no, Twilight Princess is not still "selling reasonably well."

So Nintendo should just bleed money so you get more value for your purchase?

When a company is in competition with other companies that actively pursue the dedicated customer through value-add and discount promotions, yes they should.

The issue here with Nintendo isn't that their strategy isn't profitable -- the things Nintendo does right, they do so right that they're guaranteed to be making money on them. The problem is that their strategy is suboptimal (they're so risk-averse that they turn down 95% chances at increased profit in many circumstances out of excessive concern over that 5% outlier chance) and it's suboptimal specifically in ways that make their products less friendly to the consumer.

Essentially, I don't expect Nintendo to take staggering losses on their hardware (a strategy that's self-destructive and has made it basically impossible for either Sony or Microsoft to profit overall during this generation) but I do think expecting competitive pricing on software (and the closely related idea of offering software at a wide range of price points) is entirely reasonable.

 

[Dave Long]

And no, Twilight Princess is not still "selling reasonably well."

Given the new reality of NPD, how do we know?

Also, if Nintendo still sells a few thousand or more each month (which is certainly possible) at $49.99, that might be just as palatable to them as selling twice or three times that at $20 while potentially cutting into sales of some new game at $50 because people take the value route instead of the full price one.

 

[StevieP]

Why would you want to play longer than 2-3 hours? The battery wont last much longer.

Durrrrrr.

You guys do remember that the original Pilotwings games lasted around the same amount, don't you? Gee, what was the price on those?

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

Given the new reality of NPD, how do we know?

Also, if Nintendo still sells a few thousand or more each month (which is certainly possible) at $49.99, that might be just as palatable to them as selling twice or three times that at $20 while potentially cutting into sales of some new game at $50 because people take the value route instead of the full price one.

I dunno, I can't see essentially selling "for more to far less" as a great strategy, which is what I think this sort of thing does long term. Lower pricepoints would grow their base, that's literally what happened with PlayStation in the 90s, or iOS now.

I just don't see a budget/reprint line actually hurting Nintendo in any way. They've done it literally every previous generation, it's a no brainer massmarket strategy. People will still buy new games like Skyward Sword or Kirby for $50, or evergreens like NSMB or Mario Kart for $50, but they'll probably also buy significantly more copies of Twilight Princess or Wario Land for $20-25. And the problem isn't just price, but availability... have you seen what new sealed copies of something like Yoshi's Island DS or Canvas Curse go for? A DS/Wii budget line reprinting older, hard to find games would be a goldmine for Nintendo.

 

[MisterHero]

According to sales, Nintendo is one of the only companies in the industry releasing content that provides anything close to its value in dollars. I have no idea how anyone could argue the opposite given what's actually happening in the market.

I don't know why people would argue what Nintendo is doing is wrong given what happened so many developers in both the last and this current generation. I know, as a Nintey fanboy opinions like mine might be easilly written off, but I believe that not only are they in the best situation to make money, but they are quite possibly the only game company that makes ANY business sense.

Other companies offer more value, and throw enough money in the hope that others in the industry will question Nintendo's sensible policies. The competitor's products are great for the consumers but they do not make sense business-wise. Aside from Blu-ray's contribution to the PS3's high price, Sony quite clearly tried outdo the others by trying to skip a generation rather than push standards logically, and they STILL fell behind compared to 360's XBL advantage and Nintendo's software support.

Over time though I realized there's no need to be right over MS and Sony's fowl-ups because they keep happening anyways while the industry pays for it, and while Nintendo endures having been patient with technology and the economy.

Imagine all the complaints about unfairness from devs if people got their wish for the already price-balanced Nintendo to be more competitive with software and hardware prices.

 

[Deku]

Given the new reality of NPD, how do we know?

Also, if Nintendo still sells a few thousand or more each month (which is certainly possible) at $49.99, that might be just as palatable to them as selling twice or three times that at $20 while potentially cutting into sales of some new game at $50 because people take the value route instead of the full price one.

Not having a $20 or $25 player's choice line on the Wii is one of their biggest errors in terms of supporting the platform.

A stable of high quality and low priced games has worked to extend the SNES and N64's software market in the tail end of their lifespans.

They even did it on the DS with rebranded titles like Hotel Dusk on touch Generations for under $20.

But that is for another discussion and has nothing to do with Nintendo wanting a bare minimum of standards for a game to be released on their downloadable service.

 

[Vinci]

Not having a $20 or $25 player's choice line on the Wii is one of their biggest errors in terms of supporting the platform.

Undoubtedly. There was no excuse for it either. It was an unforced error.

 

[Dave Long]

Why is it an error? The sales of the system are still extremely high. They also have huge software sales every month. I don't see any error in moving away from undercutting their own games with budget offerings?

Please explain what the error is. There's nothing to extend right now. They're still barely being outsold by Microsoft here in the US on a monthly basis. The base is still growing by a large amount every month. There's no need to have $20 games to entice the budget buyer to buy the system.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

Undoubtedly. There was no excuse for it either. It was an unforced error.

What I don't really understand is why it happened. They had one in place for the 'Cube, they brought in the Minna no Susume range in Japan, they released budget ports in the New Play Control line... it just seems odd.

The Minna no Susume/Everyone's Recommendation range was a great idea for getting budget, quality third-party titles into the hands of gamers, with backing from the platform holder, and I'm hoping that the only reason it never made it here is because Nintendo were doing their usual foot-dragging and it appears for the 3DS.

 

[Vinci]

Why is it an error? The sales of the system are still extremely high. They also have huge software sales every month. I don't see any error in moving away from undercutting their own games with budget offerings?

Please explain what the error is. There's nothing to extend right now. They're still barely being outsold by Microsoft here in the US on a monthly basis. The base is still growing by a large amount every month. There's no need to have $20 games to entice the budget buyer to buy the system.

Because they'd make more money that way? I don't see how this is debatable. What you're arguing is that cheaper will always outsell more expensive even when we have evidence that this is not what happens at all. People buy based on an experience they want, not buy something that offers a different experience but, hey, at least it's cheaper.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

they released budget ports in the New Play Control line...

Offtopic, but I really wish this would've kept going. I wanted Luigi's Mansion, Kururin Squash and F-Zero GX bad.

Still hoping we Americans eventually see NPC Pikmin 2 as well, as a preorder bonus for Pikmin 3 or whatever.

 

[Starchasing]

The issue here with Nintendo isn't that their strategy isn't profitable -- the things Nintendo does right, they do so right that they're guaranteed to be making money on them. The problem is that their strategy is suboptimal (they're so risk-averse that they turn down 95% chances at increased profit in many circumstances out of excessive concern over that 5% outlier chance) and it's suboptimal specifically in ways that make their products less friendly to the consumer.

In what ways they are not friendly to the consumer? Because they Wii and DS are the most consumer friendly consoles out there.

 

[charlequin]

Given the new reality of NPD, how do we know?

Because the game isn't shipping more units and hasn't been for a long time.

Also, if Nintendo still sells a few thousand or more each month (which is certainly possible) at $49.99, that might be just as palatable to them as selling twice or three times that at $20

Well-chosen and correctly promoted Greatest Hits titles don't sell "twice or three times as many" copies at $20, they sell hundreds of times more. God of War sold like 5/6ths of its total lifetime sales at $20. Every Final Fantasy game on PS2 more or less doubled its lifetime sales after releasing a GH version.

while potentially cutting into sales of some new game at $50

This is total nonsense.

Undoubtedly. There was no excuse for it either. It was an unforced error.

Exactly. And one of the downsides of Iwata emerging as a charismatic and visionary leader in the industry is that occasionally he tries to sell people on the game-market equivalent of "don't use banks, hide money in your mattress!" and people believe and defend him instead of stopping for two seconds to say "hey wait, that was totally stupid!"

What I don't really understand is why it happened.

Somewhere in the throes of the DS's success, Nintendo decided that price cuts on hardware were destructive, and like any fresh convert to a new religion or diet, they immediately began applying that concept to aspects of their daily routine where it steadfastly did not belong.

In what ways they are not friendly to the consumer?

Their pricing strategy. I, like, just explained that at length.

 

[Jokeropia]

Because the game isn't shipping more units and hasn't been for a long time.

Well, the the last shipment figure we got was from March 2008 and the only thing we know for sure is that it's been shipping less than 1 million per year since then. I agree that it probably isn't moving much at this point, though.

 

[mentalfloss]

According to sales, Nintendo is one of the only companies in the industry releasing content that provides anything close to its value in dollars. I have no idea how anyone could argue the opposite given what's actually happening in the market.

Not enough value sparks.

 

[Dave Long]

Well-chosen and correctly promoted Greatest Hits titles don't sell "twice or three times as many" copies at $20, they sell hundreds of times more. God of War sold like 5/6ths of its total lifetime sales at $20. Every Final Fantasy game on PS2 more or less doubled its lifetime sales after releasing a GH version.

5/6 of its unit totals? At $20, that's a lot less money than you might get if you continue selling at $50 for a longer period of time.

Obviously every game has a point where people won't buy it anymore at $50, but as we've seen, Nintendo games don't typically work the way everyone else's games do. They also don't cannibalize sales of their still selling games by releasing a sequel too quickly.

There are a lot more factors at play here than "At $20 they'll sell more units!"

Here's another one... with God of War, Sony was pushing a brand new game with no prior track record. Of course they want more people to get their hands on it, thus promoting the already in development sequel before it ships.

Nintendo doesn't really work like that.

 

[charlequin]

5/6 of its unit totals? At $20, that's a lot less money than you might get if you continue selling at $50 for a longer period of time.

No, it isn't, because the game was already 100% finished selling at $50. Your choices are zero sales (the wrong choice) or tons of sales at a reduced price point and mass-market store positioning (the correct choice, and one that was a phenomenally good idea when Nintendo invented it on the SNES.)

Obviously every game has a point where people won't buy it anymore at $50

And every single game I listed -- along with every other Wii title older than a year that isn't amongst the small stable of about ten evergreen titles -- has unambiguously hit it, which is why your defense of this objectively terrible policy decision is so ridiculous.

 

[Dave Long]

I dunno man. Every time someone says Nintendo is objectively doing something wrong, I look at where they are both financially and within the marketplace as a whole and wonder just who might really be objectively wrong with their opinion.

 

[charlequin]

I dunno man. Every time someone says Nintendo is objectively doing something wrong, I look at where they are both financially and within the marketplace as a whole and wonder just who might really be objectively wrong with their opinion.

On this side we have the collected weight of experience: the Greatest Hits concept executed by all three gaming platform-holders (until Nintendo ditched it this generation) to huge and universal success, as well as comparable or even near-identical systems executed across diverse media including DVDs/BRDs, books, and board games, and the basic economic principles which explain why price-discrimination is a valuable strategic tool.

On the other side we have Dave Long whose argument has now literally boiled down to "Nintendo makes a lot of money, so there's no possible way even their obviously idiotic ideas are actually idiotic -- they must instead be secret genius!"

Hmmmm, I wonder which side I should support!

 

[PataHikari]

Even when Sony was in the absolute lead, they introduced budget priced line.

This is because of the way that the Sony and Microsoft consoles developed, counter to the way Nintendo does things.

Namely, video games became disposable. Something you play once, then trade in for the Next Big Thing. In such a market not having a budget option is insane, because you need to find a way to get some new sales when the market is flooded with used copies.

With Nintendo, they make titles that people want to keep. A person isn't going to beat New Super Mario Bros once and then trade it in. There's not going to be a New Super Mario Bros: Mushroom Ops released next year to make the previous game obsolte.

Also, Loss Leader stratagies lead to unsustainable budget growth that ultimately harm the industry. Sure, you may think it's awesome that you have some super hgh tech HD console. Except that it leads to million sellers being required to break even, developer after developer shutting down, consoles costing 600 dollars and still being sold at a loss. Massive damage to the health of the industry is not worth a few more pixel shaders.

 

[Dave Long]

I've said my bit. Carry on.

 

[antonz]

I Like budget lines as a gamer so with that out of the way why should Nintendo do budget line if many of their biggest titles live on for years after release.

The Budget line exists basically to sell what no longer sells

 

[charlequin]

Namely, video games became disposable.

Budget lines are not about games being disposable. In fact, it effectively serves as a strategy to do the opposite: it takes titles which have a fundamentally limited lifespan at "full price" and often transforms them into low-level evergreens, titles that continue to sell in small but steady quantities from then on. Ultimately, the vast majority of games (including pretty much all of Nintendo's games outside their ultra-hit Wii */Mario/Nintendogs/Brain Training club) aren't worth full price to most consumers, but many of them have a fairly broad and enduring appeal once their price is adjusted to a reasonable price. This is the insight Nintendo had when they invented Player's Choice and it has not become untrue in the interim.

It's really deeply inaccurate to conflate the phenomenon of the AAA price-crash (which is very bad and which the HD consoles strategy does unfortunately contribute to) with the idea of price-discrimination strategies. The most effective execution of the budget-line price-discrimination strategy isn't to fight against a glut of ultra-cheap used copies on the market; it's to ship a game relatively conservatively upfront to maintain a full price for a while post-release, then later expand the supply significantly with cheap copies sold at mass-market retail.

Also, Loss Leader stratagies lead to unsustainable budget growth that ultimately harm the industry.

Loss leader strategies also have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of budget software lines.

I've said my bit. Carry on.

This is why I generally don't recommend running defense for terrible policies when you have no evidence to support your position!

 

[Dave Long]

This is why I generally don't recommend running defense for terrible policies when you have no evidence to support your position!

No, it was the point I stopped bothering with the thread because you are a mod and people who argue with mods get banned. Didn't feel like dealing with that again.

 

[gerg]

No, it was the point I stopped bothering with the thread because you are a mod and people who argue with mods get banned. Didn't feel like dealing with that again.

I don't think that charlequin's ever been that type of moderator.

The one thing that gives me either a glimmer of hope or makes me very concerned is the 3DS' price tag. Either Nintendo has learnt from the hardware side of the problem and will institute price drops on it, or Iwata's misguidedness will really start to make matter's worse.

 

[m.i.s.]

I dunno man. Every time someone says Nintendo is objectively doing something wrong, I look at where they are both financially and within the marketplace as a whole and wonder just who might really be objectively wrong with their opinion.

And we also had a Nintendo that faced declining relevance in the N64 / GCN years. ie Just because nintendo is in the ascendancy (albeit with key problems) with the Wii and DS doesn't necessarily mean that this situation will never change.

From S/NES to Playstation/2 and then from Playstation to Wii, the industry has a tendency to "reset" itself after every 10 years or so. Just look at the software situation in the DS in Europe. Except Pokemon, the DS software market there is in a state of near collapse (even before the 3DS was even announced).

 

[Mael]

No, it isn't, because the game was already 100% finished selling at $50. Your choices are zero sales (the wrong choice) or tons of sales at a reduced price point and mass-market store positioning (the correct choice, and one that was a phenomenally good idea when Nintendo invented it on the SNES.)

The problem I see with this strategy (reduced price line) is that since it exists you're basically training your consumers that if they wait a few years they'll get it for a reduced price instead of getting the brand new shiny thing you're selling now.

That and you have to support a product line for an obsolete product you don't have much interest in selling (I doubt the profit margin is better than on a brand new product from a pure product production view (manufacturing I mean)).

The way I see it, they should provide a reduced price line but only use it to promote their new product :
new Fire Emblem on DS? renew copies of Fire Emblem on Wii at a reduced price
or something like that.

Still the idea to sell a product at Xamount and then since you overshipped it, you're forced to price crash it is like the worst kind of business model you can devise for obvious reasons

 

[Mael]

And we also had a Nintendo that faced declining relevance in the N64 / GCN years. ie Just because nintendo is in the ascendancy (albeit with key problems) with the Wii and DS doesn't necessarily mean that this situation will never change.

From S/NES to Playstation/2 and then from Playstation to Wii, the industry has a tendency to "reset" itself after every 10 years or so. Just look at the software situation in the DS in Europe. Except Pokemon, the DS software market there is in a state of near collapse (even before the 3DS was even announced).

Don't mistake the cause for the effects, 3DS was announced BECAUSE the DS market was collapsing.
Don't forget that the biggest market for the DS is Europe