Support NeoGAF

[Emitan]

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.

So all the money every platform holder has made from Greatest Hits titles are irrelevant because you think that it's a bad idea? Because it makes sense to you that it means less money?

 

[Mael]

So all the money every platform holder has made from Greatest Hits titles are irrelevant because you think that it's a bad idea? Because it makes sense to you that it means less money?

No it means that you're training people to treat your product as disposable trash which is NOT something you want.
For example while it's all well and good that they overshipped Metroid Other M, it means that most of the stock was sold at reduced price.
Which means that someone who've seen that he could just have waited a bit and saved a few bucks will do so next time if he's not caught in the hype machine.
I'm not against a reduced price line, I'm against flooding the retail channel so that you can post nice number at the end of the day while making your longterm situation worse.

AND I'm not talking about platform holder here, any publisher can do a reduced price line after all (and they usually do).

 

[charlequin]

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 can state with certainty both that I have never banned someone for arguing with me (given that basically all I do on GAF is argue with people, I'd rack up quite a bodycount) and that you have never been banned for arguing with a mod, which makes this a pretty weaksauce cover, really.

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.

Yes, and that's a good thing to train them on. (As opposed to waiting a month and getting a game used for half the price, which is a pretty terrible thing to train people on.)

If someone wants a game enough, they will buy it at full price right away. The prospect of waiting two years to save $30 is not going to change that; the wait is so long, and the discount so minor in comparison, as to have a minor behavior-modifying effect.

The goal, instead, is to get the people who don't want the game that much, but do still want it: the people who wait for the paperback or the DVD release, essentially, the crowd who will give the game a chance at $20 but were never even going to consider it at $50.

I mean, you're doing the same thing PataHikari did upthread: conflating price collapse with intentional long-term price-drop, when the two are actually very much distinct. People don't consider a novel "disposable" just because it's later released in a lower-price edition, or a film "disposable" because you can buy it on DVD after it's done in the theater.

 

[Dave Long]

The last banning I got was... odd. So I'd rather just avoid too much discussion with mods. Some are always on a hair trigger and there are so many of you that I'm never sure which ones might snap.

I like to read the boards and occasionally comment on things. I was part of the industry for many years. I feel like it affords me some level of respect that I rarely get. And again, in this particular case, I look at Nintendo's success and figure that they've obviously run some numbers and see no reason for a Player's Choice line or whatever you'd like to call it. Because for a company that has as much money as they do (and makes it seemingly hand over fist), their decision not to have that budget line says a lot.

I don't think it's Iwata's incompetence or whatever else has been postulated in this thread. There are smart business people running this company who have consistently made money even in the face of "failed" consoles. I think they would rather focus on promoting new $50 games and repromoting old evergreen games that still sell well at $50 while letting the others fade away. It promotes quality, even if we feel like a game that didn't sell was a quality game.

 

[pvpness]

"If the suggested retail price of any and all software is marked down in 6 months or 9 months, the customers will learn the cycle and wait for the discounting," he explained, "which will simply aggravate the decreasing sales of new software." - Iwata

Seems pretty clear. Nintendo has an advantage on this because on day two no one is able to buy a used copy of their games for half price. Most Nintendo titles retain their value for a very, very long time as we all know. So if you've got someone sitting on the fence and they have to choose between a $50 game and a $44.99 used game, N assumes most are gonna suck it up and by the new one. Why would they put a third option out there when it's unnecessary and ultimately deemed harmful to their business?

 

[The Technomancer]

"If the suggested retail price of any and all software is marked down in 6 months or 9 months, the customers will learn the cycle and wait for the discounting," he explained, "which will simply aggravate the decreasing sales of new software." - Iwata

Seems pretty clear. Nintendo has an advantage on this because on day two no one is able to buy a used copy of their games for half price. Most Nintendo titles retain their value for a very, very long time as we all know. So if you've got someone sitting on the fence and they have to choose between a $50 game and a $44.99 used game, N assumes most are gonna suck it up and by the new one. Why would they put a third option out there when it's unnecessary and ultimately deemed harmful to their business?

Right, except that we're talking two years plus after release here. I agree that they shouldn't drop the price on their evergreen titles, and that they probably shouldn't drop price within the first six months to a year, but the player's choice model has been proven to work. By Nintendo themselves!

This is one area where I really disagree with Iwata. I actually do agree about the problem with iOS pricing (or rather, the problem with thinking that that pricing scheme is the future), but these two issues don't seem related, and he always seems to link them. There's no more devaluation to be had this long after release.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

Why would they put a third option out there when it's unnecessary and ultimately deemed harmful to their business?

Because Nintendo doesn't keep all their titles in print indefinitely. Lots of Wii and DS games from 2005-2008 are hard to find, and Nintendo's essentially giving up new sales for (overpriced) used ones in many cases.

If you want to get Fire Emblem Wii, it's not the choice between $50 new or $45 used... it's $45 used or no sale. Nintendo's making $0 off the game now, where as they could be making something with a budget/reprint line.

 

[pvpness]

Right, except that we're talking two years plus after release here. I agree that they shouldn't drop the price on their evergreen titles, and that they probably shouldn't drop price within the first six months to a year, but the player's choice model has been proven to work. By Nintendo themselves!

This is one area where I really disagree with Iwata. I actually do agree about the problem with iOS pricing (or rather, the problem with thinking that that pricing scheme is the future), but these two issues don't seem related, and he always seems to link them. There's no more devaluation to be had this long after release.

Yeah, I'm with you but Iwata clearly is not. He apparently still thinks that devaluation will take place regardless of time spent.

Gotta remember that player's choice and it's precursors were all pre-Iwata. He's said multiple times he's not into it. Whether it's a bad choice or not is basically irrelevant. They seem to be doin ok as it stands.

I'm with you guys as far as wanting lower prices on games eventually, gradually or immediately but I don't understand how this pivots an argument about whether Nintendo is anti-consumer or not.

@lunchwithyuzo - Right. Nintendo obviously doesn't care or they would definitely put out more copies of said games. This is Nintendo we're talking about. They are all about profit above all else. If they saw a chance to make a shit load of profit or hell, any profit at all in a players choice I'm pretty sure they would have done it by now. We're missing ROI data on this type of shit, Iwata is not.

 

[Dave Long]

Because Nintendo doesn't keep all their titles in print indefinitely. Lots of Wii and DS games from 2005-2008 are hard to find, and Nintendo's essentially giving up new sales for (overpriced) used ones in many cases.

If you want to get Fire Emblem Wii, it's not the choice between $50 new or $45 used... it's $45 used or no sale. Nintendo's making $0 off the game now, where as they could be making something with a budget/reprint line.

Could they, though? What's "something"? Would it pay them to reprint? A budget reprint doesn't guarantee sales at that point. The only thing you guarantee for sure is it makes the used ones cheap, of which enough might exist to blunt any demand for new anyway.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

Could they, though? What's "something"? Would it pay them to reprint? A budget reprint doesn't guarantee sales at that point. The only thing you guarantee for sure is it makes the used ones cheap, of which enough might exist to blunt any demand for new anyway.

There's demand for these games, otherwise their 2nd hand values wouldn't have exceeded their retail. Try to get a complete copy of Canvas Curse or Wario Ware Wii or Tetris DS for at or below retail value, it's nearly impossible unless you happen upon a new copy somewhere.

 

[Of All Trades]

I don't think it's Iwata's incompetence or whatever else has been postulated in this thread. There are smart business people running this company who have consistently made money even in the face of "failed" consoles.

Smart people make bad decisions all the time. In this case the decision is limiting the ability for Nintendo and 3rd parties to sell quality titles to budget-minded consumers, thereby reducing the power to expand IP and leaving the budget range more vulnerable to low-budget shovelware.

I think they would rather focus on promoting new $50 games and repromoting old evergreen games that still sell well at $50 while letting the others fade away. It promotes quality, even if we feel like a game that didn't sell was a quality game.

What you're describing promotes the notion that the only time a game is quality is if it's $50, rather than promoting the idea that every price range of their console contains quality software. I literally cannot fathom how you think that's a good idea for a platform holder that wants to be optimally successful in the long-term.

I'm curious what it would take for you to admit that Nintendo was doing something wrong. Considering the amount of praise you dished out for the SMB anniversary thing I'm not sure you could.

 

[Evlar]

Pilotwings is an easy target as it's obviously barebones and therefore overpriced: it's the prototypical launch game. Nintendo is generally not guilty of this, however, as their games are often brimming with content. As an example, Smash Bros. Brawl has to be the most indulgent fighter ever made.

Content is the key: quality and quantity.

 

[charlequin]

And again, in this particular case, I look at Nintendo's success and figure that they've obviously run some numbers and see no reason for a Player's Choice line or whatever you'd like to call it.

And that's an empty appeal to authority, which is why I am chastising you for offering it in place of a real argument. People who are successful make mistakes all the time. People who are right about one thing are wrong about another. Suggesting that their success elsewhere makes them more likely to be correct than the assemblage of actual evidence is wrong-headed thinking of the deepest order and should be given no respect as an argument or a serious position.

You are welcome to PM me or another mod if you want to discuss your most recent ban in more detail, although there was nothing remotely "odd" about it.

@lunchwithyuzo - Right. Nintendo obviously doesn't care or they would definitely put out more copies of said games. This is Nintendo we're talking about. They are all about profit above all else.

The problem is actually that they're all about avoiding risk above all else. In almost every place where I take serious issue with Nintendo's policy, it's a situation where they look at a bet that has something like 15% risk associated with a 75% payoff and say "no, we can't afford to take that risk" -- even though they're flush with cash and any freshman-level student of economics would understand that such a risk is actuarially sound.

The opposition to price drops and Players' Choice is a good example of this (they're weighing guaranteed real profits against the risk that they might somehow devalue future full-price software), as is their unwillingness to invest money in improving third-party relations.

 

[Nirolak]

Reggie has clarified his comment to Joystiq.

As Nintendo did with WiiWare standouts 2D Boy and Gaijin Games, Reggie also hopes to court "independent developers who understand this business" for the 3DS. After his quotes on the matter last week, though, I asked Fils-Aime to explain where his company draws the line -- what separates an "indie" studio from a "garage" one? "We've been clear that we want to work with independent developers who understand this business, who have experience in this business," Fils-Aime said, citing the two aforementioned indies. "These are people who spent time working with larger publishers and larger developers, but had that idea in the back of their head that they needed to bring to life ... and so that's the type of entity that we want to work with."

He further distinguished between the two groups, saying, "These are talented developers. That's different from the person who envisions themselves as a developer, but actually hasn't necessarily created anything, who doesn't necessarily understand what it takes in this business to create compelling content. That's where we draw the line." According to Nintendo, that experience is just as vital as a good concept and a burning desire to make a game.

"I'll tell you, if someone calls us tomorrow who has no experience in the gaming industry, but has a passion and has a great idea, our perspective would be, 'Great, but get some experience. Understand your craft, and then come back to us,'" Fils-Aime said.

Source: http://www.joystiq.com/2011/03/28/reggie-fils-aime-on-the-competition-and-what-it-means-to-be-a-g/

Any opinions on his now very well defined position?

 

[Empyrean Heaven]

Sorry Reggie, still not buying it. While I'm not saying that Nintendo should take a completely laissez-faire policy (like Google does with the absolute train wreck that is the Android Market), they should at least work with untested developers who have GOOD ideas and give them an opportunity to create content that would benefit their systems. Sony and Microsoft does this very well with PSN and XBLA, but of course the King Kong of this procedure is Apple, who has consistantly turned minor devs into major stars. Nobody knew about Rovio before they put Angry Birds on iOS, and now, they're one of the biggest devs in the game.

 

[antonz]

Sorry Reggie, still not buying it. While I'm not saying that Nintendo should take a completely laissez-faire policy (like Google does with the absolute train wreck that is the Android Market), they should at least work with untested developers who have GOOD ideas and give them an opportunity to create content that would benefit their systems. Sony and Microsoft does this very well with PSN and XBLA, but of course the King Kong of this procedure is Apple, who has consistantly turned minor devs into major stars. Nobody knew about Rovio before they put Angry Birds on iOS, and now, they're one of the biggest devs in the game.

That doesnt mean Apple was right. The game rovio put up is nothing more than concepts ripped off from 10 year old flash games. These antique games just happened to find a crowd to get popular with all over again meanwhile the guys who made them on newgrounds etc 10 years ago get shit

 

[Nemo]

So he made it worse by adding that experience is a requirement

edit, he does mean actual shipped titles as a team right?

 

[MisterHero]

Just you wait Reggie, I'm going to get an oatmeal company to fund my games!

 

[Stylo]

Reggie's clearing up what he said so he won't be harrassed by the guy that made Bob's Game.

 

[Attack You]

I get the impression Reggie is asking for both development and publishing experience, not just development experience. Anywho...

In terms of moving physical retail product, Nintendo probably (...definitely?) has the least difficulty of any publisher in the industry. It would be ideal if they could move their own wares into the budget price catagory, but not doing so seems to leave window of opportunity open for their own misfires (see what Other M and Sin & Punishment are selling at right now) and Third-Party offerings that want to take advantage of that price bracket. I can't speak for anyone else, but to me, this is preferable because there are always going to be more Third-Party games to pick up in that price range than Nintendo games.

 

[[Nintex]]

After all the Iwata Asks stuff this is so strange to read. Nintendo in the early HAL Labs, R&D days was essentially a garage developer. Guys like Miyamoto doing graphics, design and Iwata handing over some code using decimals from Balloon Trip to create a swimming animation for Super Mario Bros. . HAL Labs was nothing more than a bunch of students writing computer code.

In Japan Nintendo also has some sort of student challenge program for game design. At times NoA and NCL seem completely different. NOA really tries too hard to ignore everything that happens around them and Reggie is at the top of that shitpile.

 

[stilgar]

So he made it worse by adding that experience is a requirement

I really don't understand why.