Nintendo Explains Why Digital Games Aren't Any Cheaper
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Wow. I don't get why EA can't get along with Nintendo when they seem to share the same fucking logic when it comes to pricing, digital content, etc. Only difference is Nintendo's games are generally good whereas EA is generally shit.
All kidding aside (not really), this logic is kind of bullshit. Digital copies can only be bought and played and that's it. With no resale value or anything, the price should already be cheaper. Let's also not forget that there's no added costs for shipping, packaging, or manufacturing. And I'm sure there's some kind of cost in sharing profits with distributors like GameStop. So, yeah, there's no justification why the price should be EXACTLY the same. If Nintendo wants to charge higher than the usual digital amount we would have expected, fine. Full price? No. That's an EA move that no one really appreciated (or still appreciates, idk if Origin still pulls that bullshit) and I'm not buying their lame excuse.
Furthermore, if Mario, Zelda and all of it has such high value, then why are you charging so little for the old games on NES and SNES on the virtual console? Those are games many Nintendo fans love to the point of preferring some of those over the newer games being released. Clearly their more valued and should be charged to reflect that, right? But they aren't They cost roughly what you'd expect them too (maybe a tinge more). So, yeah, not buying it.
EDIT: And Nintendo wonders why they aren't making WiiU sales. If their games were cheaper digitally, it would probably convince people to go in that direction and buy through them. At least it would also balance out the cost of the system everyone seems so happy to ***** about despite it being the cheapest console of the lot.
All kidding aside (not really), this logic is kind of bullshit. Digital copies can only be bought and played and that's it. With no resale value or anything, the price should already be cheaper. Let's also not forget that there's no added costs for shipping, packaging, or manufacturing. And I'm sure there's some kind of cost in sharing profits with distributors like GameStop. So, yeah, there's no justification why the price should be EXACTLY the same. If Nintendo wants to charge higher than the usual digital amount we would have expected, fine. Full price? No. That's an EA move that no one really appreciated (or still appreciates, idk if Origin still pulls that bullshit) and I'm not buying their lame excuse.
Furthermore, if Mario, Zelda and all of it has such high value, then why are you charging so little for the old games on NES and SNES on the virtual console? Those are games many Nintendo fans love to the point of preferring some of those over the newer games being released. Clearly their more valued and should be charged to reflect that, right? But they aren't They cost roughly what you'd expect them too (maybe a tinge more). So, yeah, not buying it.
EDIT: And Nintendo wonders why they aren't making WiiU sales. If their games were cheaper digitally, it would probably convince people to go in that direction and buy through them. At least it would also balance out the cost of the system everyone seems so happy to ***** about despite it being the cheapest console of the lot.
You know game devs, it's not bad to say, "we want profit". I understand that and accept that, I'm sure others do to. So please just be brave and say, "You already showed you're willing to pay 60 - 100 dollars + petrol/bus money/exercise to get the game, so pricing isn't all that bad".
Oh there's so many things wrong with this "logic". I mean there's probably nothing that people haven't already said here (reduced company costs for manufacture, digital games often being MORE expensive than retail, can't share digital copies in the same way etc) but it's still flabbergasting to see Nintendo try and pull such thin wool over everyone's eyes, I would have thought they'd at least make a small effort to find a plausible explanation.
As far as I'm concerned there's nothing here that doesn't come across as "we want bigger profit margins for less work" although I may be biased as I much prefer having hard copies of games to having downloads.
As far as I'm concerned there's nothing here that doesn't come across as "we want bigger profit margins for less work" although I may be biased as I much prefer having hard copies of games to having downloads.
Translation: we're trying to find out how far we can go.Steven Bogos said:
I get you need to make money Nintendo, just stop dancing around it. "No, we're not trying to make money, we're keeping up the value of our product"
Bullshit.
They'd make more money off of digital sales due to not having to give retailers, shippers and packaging companies a slice of the pie.
How the hell do they think Steam works so well? Nintendo could easily make their digital games cheaper. A better answer would have been, "we wouldn't want to see anyone involved in making the physical version of the game lose their jobs."
They'd make more money off of digital sales due to not having to give retailers, shippers and packaging companies a slice of the pie.
How the hell do they think Steam works so well? Nintendo could easily make their digital games cheaper. A better answer would have been, "we wouldn't want to see anyone involved in making the physical version of the game lose their jobs."
And it's just as bullshit in those cases. There is no good reason that they can't reduce the price just a little. Five dollars less for a digital copy would be nice. Then, I have to decide if getting the physical copy, case, and manual is worth the extra money. If I would rather make the drive or allow it to download. In that case, there would be a minor debate to be had.Dragonbums said:
I'm pretty sure Sony does the same thing, and I rarely buy games off PSN, unless they are only available on PSN. If Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, EA, or anyone else wants people to use digital distribution, they should offer incentives to make it worth doing.
So, yes, it is Nintendo being idiots. Because everyone is being idiots in this case. Just because the crowd is doing something, doesn't make it smart.
Is Activision mind controlling Iwata? I love Nintendo, but when I went to Gamestop to buy Pikmin 3, they were out, so they offered me a download code...for the same exact price. I said no an bought it from Amazon. If Im paying full, Im getting full.
Well the thing I see is that yes digital games are less valuable than retail games, why because with digital you don't own an official physical disc, the box, manual and anything else that may come in the box. So why should a digital copy of a game be worth the same as a physical one?
You say that, I actually frequently find that retail copies are significantly cheaper than steam (e.g. I picked up Skyrim at Tesco for £19.99 whereas Steam was selling it for £39.99 at the time) and quicker too since it only takes me an hour to go to the shop, buy the game, come home and install it whereas steam can take 5 hours for a large download. Hence, I prefer retail in most instances, as I don't actually see any overriding value to me in using Steam, plus if I physically own the disc no greedy publisher or belly-upping company can rob me of it.STENDEC1 said:
Another reason why Nintendo won't drop their digital prices: They don't want to upset retailers with more competitive sales pricing than what retailers can provide. Dunno about most places, but I'm fairly certain Gamestop only makes about a $2 profit off of every new game that's sold. If the publisher is offering the same game at a cheaper price that makes it not possible for the retailer to compete then what incentive does the retailer have for ordering more product from the publisher when the publisher is actively undermining the retailer's own business? Digital distribution isn't getting any cheaper because there still isn't a viable amount of people with internet connectivity and still very much a heavy reliance on physical copies to play games.
Steam and GoG get a pass from this as they don't have much of a stake in cutting into retailers' profits. Not sure if you've been to a PC Section in your local Gamestop or WalMart, but aside from WoW, Diablo 3 and some other random hot games of the month, there isn't much physically offered by way of PC gaming. This allows Steam and GoG to make deals and have competitive pricing as a majority of people who game tend to favor consoles instead of PCs and can't be bothered to do what is necessary to set up a physical disc computer game most times.
I dunno, that's my supposition anyways.
Steam and GoG get a pass from this as they don't have much of a stake in cutting into retailers' profits. Not sure if you've been to a PC Section in your local Gamestop or WalMart, but aside from WoW, Diablo 3 and some other random hot games of the month, there isn't much physically offered by way of PC gaming. This allows Steam and GoG to make deals and have competitive pricing as a majority of people who game tend to favor consoles instead of PCs and can't be bothered to do what is necessary to set up a physical disc computer game most times.
I dunno, that's my supposition anyways.
EA's reasoning for having less sales than Steam - and less good ones, at that - was because they didn't want to be seen to be running an "Ikea store", or something like that. I doubt it's the real reason, but then it's so pathetically transparent that I wonder if it is a genuine insight into how these peoples' minds work.
Bloody idiots.
Bloody idiots.
So... what is your point? PC gaming sections are always dwarfed by console sections in size, variety and abundance.Chaosritter said:
side note: I am not a fan of these solvemedia checks.
The contents aren't really the same. A physical copy brings with it certain advantages like being able to play the game on any 3DS and/or Wii U. A physical copy is likely to go on sale more often too and you can resell it.
It's like buying a car that can be driven on any road or a car that can only be driven on the road you bought it on and can never be resold. If such cars existed, they certainly would not be the same price.
It's like buying a car that can be driven on any road or a car that can only be driven on the road you bought it on and can never be resold. If such cars existed, they certainly would not be the same price.
You realize that's because this is a thread about "[X Company]", right?Dragonbums said:
If "[X Company]" happened to be Ubisoft instead of Nintendo, most of the responses would still be "[X Company] is stupid for doing this, what clowns", because regardless of the state of the rest of the industry, [X Company] is the only one being shown under the spotlight here.
Besides, not being surprised by something doesn't mean you can't be disappointed by it. I'm not surprised; It still annoys me that Nintendo has the gall to just say "Yeah, we're going to keep them full-price because we want all of the money". Especially since, as you yourself stated, Nintendo titles are notorious for staying full-price years after their release.
Man for all the people who say MS doesn't care about customers, here is a prime example of a company that TRULY does not think of them as anything other than money machines. He is equating perceived value with actual value, ignoring the fact that games are priced too high to begin with, why? Because companies spend tons of money on pointless marketing and wasteful packaging. Digital media has a much lower inherent cost and should be priced accordingly. What they truly don't want is for people who are unable to access digital media right now to not buy the physical version because they know a cheaper option is out there. What they really don't want to do is set a precedent for digital media, forcing them into a price point when ALL games are delivered that way.
Greed, pure and simple.
Greed, pure and simple.