Nintendo Explains Why Digital Games Aren't Any Cheaper

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Dont want to be another poster saying exactly the same thing...

Though i wonder how long they spent in a board meeting to come up with this public excuse?

Im pretty sure a lot of senior japanese business types are not aware entirely of western cynicism. Still not that it matters much now. Literally all my innocence is lost now, i think i might go and cry in a corner for a bit

 

[Tel_Windzan]

I pretty much agree with a lot of other people in that this is a stupid reason to give. Yes, a lot of games Nintendo sells are usually good sellers because Nintendo does have a few IPs that sell really well. Yes, I recognize that those games do require some work so I understand that Nintendo should earn some profit from these games to cover the production costs of those games. Even the digital games sold help out in that goal, even if it is ridiculous to care the same, or more, for the digital games. So long as it finally covers the initial production cost of the game, I guess I'll be okay with it. Once that is over though, I hope they would be reasonable to reduce the price of their games, especially the digital version, as after that one cost is covered, they should just be getting straight profit from each sale afterwards.

Only except, I don't see Nintendo doing that at all, ever. Heck, at my Walmart, some of the older Pokemon Titles from Generation 4 were still going for 30 to 40 dollars despite the newer games having been released sometime later (at least the last time I checked them out, which has been a while). Why not reduce the price for their older games to at least give the "straggling" fans a chance to enjoy these titles as well? I feel like it is a missed opportunity of Nintendo to try and do that to make buying games a bit easier for some of their potential customers

Which is the same thing with the digital sales too! I'd imagine they would get a lot more people interested in buying digitally if the games were cheaper because they are cheaper! I'd seriously like to hear an answer as to why this isn't an idea that Nintendo is trying out!

 

[Ipsen]

Why do people get outraged the games cost money?

Because you pay the same and get less, that's why.

What do you get less of, do they withhold the last level if you buy a digitial copy?

You get less of an entire game if you ever use another system.

How if that different than a physical copy? If I buy say call of duty for wii u, it would play on Xbox 360. So that is dumb argument.

He's referring to the limits on titles, specifically here. Staying within the realm of the console '3DS', it's a bit bullshit that a physical copy, that you can potentially pay LESS for, has MORE options (IE, playing on a different 3DS) than the digital version, which should be easier. Why consider that alternative, when the company controlling it creates so many limitations, and thus inconveniences for it? This is, of course, a train of thought going in the direction that you WANT to give money to this company.

But limitations are just one facet of the problem. Nintendo keeping their 'standard' at best puts words in the mouths of their consumers, and at worst appears blatantly AND unreasonably greedy. Overall, no one want's to pay more for a title.

I also find it baffling that companies would hamstring incentive to move units over keeping a bottom line. Especially when digital is virtually unlimited (just keep security and power to the servers on). There's a limit to how much incentive on price you can add to a title, but you see a lot more bullshit if you have to base purchases solely on your interest in the title.

If businesses want to pinch pennies over incentives of convenience, then by all means, consumers should/could/will do the same.

 

[kasperbbs]

So basically "it's not cheaper because people will buy it anyway, so why miss out on some extra cash?".

 

[Psychobabble]

So it's an arbitrary price that doesn't actually reflect the cost of the medias creation. Can't say I'm surprised. Oh well since I seem to be buying less and less games every year it's not really hurting my wallet. And is certainly making what used to be pointless leisure time more productive.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Sheesh a lot of people are taking this negatively at face value. Not actually looking at it from Nintendo's perspective.

Nope. Not buying it.

Nintendo lost the right to that defense when they presumed to speak falsely on behalf of their customers. If they're trying to hold onto retailer support, they should just keep their mouths shut and the physical<->digital prices equal.

And if they can't compete properly anymore, then they don't deserve their customer's money anymore, history be damned.

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.

Nintendo's anti-consumer bullshit here doesn't make any of Microsoft's anti-consumer bullshit any better.

 

[NotHankHill]

"[Digital games aren't cheaper] because we want consumers to value software as highly as possible and because we have been trying to heighten the value of our software whenever we produce it," Iwata said

Wait hold on, so what is he saying? Is he implying they won't try to "heighten the value" of their games if they aren't charging full retail on digital? Would they just slop out whatever shoots across their desk if digital downloads were at a discount? Does the quality of our favorite IP's hinge on that price-point? Call me a cynic, but I just ain't buying it.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

So basically what I got from this thread was:

Typical business motives because a business is there to make money, not rainbows for free.

People taking major offence from Nintendo's statement as if the users word were law and was denied.

People comparing a console company plus their service to Steam a PC only digital market once again as if to prove that everything should and only be Steam based (I game on PC and handhelds for the time being) due to lower prices on some games.

Look people just because Steam has had some positive light for a long while now doesn't bloody mean it should be the norm for every single company to follow as if you decree it as some fucked up law just because you want it to.

Jesus it would be like bullying the shit out of little timmy down the road because he doesn't sell his lemonade cheaper than Billy across the road while treating Billy as if he were some god because you can agree with him which means Little Timmy somehow deserves the biggest shitting.

I bought a Nintendo 3DS (crystal White) along with Pokemon Y, Fire Emblem Awakening and Animal Crossing new Leaf and yet I was happy I purchased them for their price and I'm not even rich as fuck, I'm not pouting like some downtrodden child, wishing Nintendo to make that whole lot I just bought amount to pennies because that would be bad business and devalue the bundle I got in general.

I really can't take some of the shit some users love to spout on here, if anything all 3 consoles will always get shat on when they somehow don't appease the PC only user which 90% of this site may as well be.

If you don't like their prices and deals then just ignore them and buy elsewhere, don't give the finger and pull a spat like some child just because you can't have everything your way.

 

[michael87cn]

Bullllllllllllllllllllllllllllshit. They just want dem dolla bills is all.

"Why don't you make something that costs you substantially less to distribute cheaper?" "Cuz it wouldn't be worth as much to the customer!!!!"

>:|

 

[DirgeNovak]

Stop bullshitting us, Satoru. Digital games are not cheaper because you want more motherfucking money. Period.

 

[hazydawn]

blub

The old "don't complain you entitled bitches" argument again?
I think most users here feel their intelligence is being insulted by so much bullshit.
They might as well have said:
"We charge you the same price as before even with production prices down, because you buy it anyway."
And there is no problem with that. But if a company slaps you in the face with such reasoning people tend to get pissed.
They should have kept quiet.

 

[Ghostface2206]

I've been annoyed at the fact that they don't have cheaper prices for digital versions of retail games for months now, I've run out of energy to complain about this. Sometimes, the games cost MORE than they do at retail, why?

 

[weirdee]

all comments about the resale and preservation of physical copies aside, I find that my willingness to buy a physical copy of a pc game has declined since they stopped packaging most of the actual game in the physical game, so if this is what it takes for nintendo to continue leaving its games as complete as possible, I'm not going to look down on it as long as the price points are realistic

 

[Dragonbums]

I didn't say they weren't being stupid, but the way comments on this thread is going is less of just being genrally tired of digital copies being the same as retail copies and more or less being like "X company is stupid for doing this what clowns" like they are the only company doing it.

Doesn't make it better, but considering how they are basically reinforcing the standard mentality it doesn't even surprise me at all.

You realize that's because this is a thread about "[X Company]", right?

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.

Exactly. Which at this point why is this even news anymore?

Every company on the planet refuses to reduce the price of digital games.

And no Valve doesn't count because outside of their sales, they do the same thing. Portal 2 if I remember was a hearty $60.00 when it first released.

I'd rather see news of a game company not following the norm. As opposed to following the crowd.

 

[Lightknight]

I didn't say they weren't being stupid, but the way comments on this thread is going is less of just being genrally tired of digital copies being the same as retail copies and more or less being like "X company is stupid for doing this what clowns" like they are the only company doing it.

Doesn't make it better, but considering how they are basically reinforcing the standard mentality it doesn't even surprise me at all.

Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony, any company is stupid if they seriously claim that digital copies somehow must be the same price when they cost them less to produce.

Nintendo's mistake here was commenting on something that is clearly a cash grab by publishers. You're quite right that this is the status quo though. But what does it being normal have to do with us not ridiculing them on it? As long as we're equal opportunity ridiculers then let us do that all day long.

 

[Dragonbums]

I didn't say they weren't being stupid, but the way comments on this thread is going is less of just being genrally tired of digital copies being the same as retail copies and more or less being like "X company is stupid for doing this what clowns" like they are the only company doing it.

Doesn't make it better, but considering how they are basically reinforcing the standard mentality it doesn't even surprise me at all.

Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony, any company is stupid if they seriously claim that digital copies somehow must be the same price when they cost them less to produce.

Nintendo's mistake here was commenting on something that is clearly a cash grab by publishers. You're quite right that this is the status quo though. But what does it being normal have to do with us not ridiculing them on it? As long as we're equal opportunity ridiculers then let us do that all day long.

In general, I honestly felt it was beat to death overall.

Not this particular thread with Nintendo, but the whole thing in essence.

It's like "X company not reducing price of digital games" and at that point I'm just like whoopee, what else is new.

As I said to another user I'd be more interested in them reporting on game companies that do indeed release their digital versions cheaper. See how much more successful (or not you never know) they are doing that, as opposed to doing the norm.

Hype that up a whole lot (and we are really good with causing shit storms so this not working would all be on us) and eventually one of those studios are going to say "okay, let's actually try that out"

At this point it's like another article stating that EA is trash.
Yeah we all get angry about it, but honestly what is the big deal anymore. EA did a stupid. Move along to the next article.

 

[Lightknight]

I didn't say they weren't being stupid, but the way comments on this thread is going is less of just being genrally tired of digital copies being the same as retail copies and more or less being like "X company is stupid for doing this what clowns" like they are the only company doing it.

Doesn't make it better, but considering how they are basically reinforcing the standard mentality it doesn't even surprise me at all.

Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony, any company is stupid if they seriously claim that digital copies somehow must be the same price when they cost them less to produce.

Nintendo's mistake here was commenting on something that is clearly a cash grab by publishers. You're quite right that this is the status quo though. But what does it being normal have to do with us not ridiculing them on it? As long as we're equal opportunity ridiculers then let us do that all day long.

In general, I honestly felt it was beat to death overall.

Not this particular thread with Nintendo, but the whole thing in essence.

It's like "X company not reducing price of digital games" and at that point I'm just like whoopee, what else is new.

As I said to another user I'd be more interested in them reporting on game companies that do indeed release their digital versions cheaper. See how much more successful (or not you never know) they are doing that, as opposed to doing the norm.

Hype that up a whole lot (and we are really good with causing shit storms so this not working would all be on us) and eventually one of those studios are going to say "okay, let's actually try that out"

At this point it's like another article stating that EA is trash.
Yeah we all get angry about it, but honestly what is the big deal anymore. EA did a stupid. Move along to the next article.

I understand that this issue is beat a lot. But we need to keep doing it. If we buy games digitally then we deserve to have a price reduction. The publishers and the platform get to have a much higher cut and have much lower distribution costs.

This is the number one reason I buy dozens of more games on Steam than I do on consoles.

 

[Sheo_Dagana]

A practice that's well researched, tested and proven to work if pulled off correctly?

Yeah! 'cause charging retail price for digital content is working out great for EA Origin.

So... You're using an unsuccessful execution of a pricing strategy in order to, what.. disprove the successful ones?

So translation; we are charging retail price because we know you're going to buy it anyway, so we might as well as get the most cash out of you as possible. That and we'll be pushed even further to the back of gamestop if we make it cheaper.

More like: We are charging retail price because if the games were cheaper they would be perceived as less valuable, which would hurt the product and/or our brand.

I'm saying that it's the exact same model. People level all kinds of complaints at EA Origins, but because Nintendo is Nintendo, they can get away with doing what they're doing. They aren't really doing anything different at all. So why is one succeeding where the other isn't?

That's the problem with assuming that we will value games less if we pay less for them, because you can't arbitrarily assign 'value' to a game based on it's dollar amount. That's like saying Call of Duty would be a worse/better game that's valued among gamers less/more just because it's now $40/$100.

I paid $60 for Batman: Arkham Origins recently and the game was absolutely awful. It in no way shape or form has the same level of value I placed on Batman Arkham City, a game that I once paid $60, but can now acquire for less than $20. It will always be superior to the higher priced game. And what of games like The Walking Dead or Gone Home? Gone Home only set me back $20, but I would have gladly paid $30 or $35. The Walking Dead is cheaper digitally, costs less than a normally priced game, and guess what, it was being compared to most AAA titles from last year. But you're saying it should be valued less because Tell Tale didn't charge more for it?

You might not agree, because (spoiler alert) people have different values. It's not rocket science - if I'm not getting a box or instructions or anything extra with the game, I shouldn't have to pay as much. If I value the game more, I'm going to want all the trimmings, so I'll pay more for a physical copy. That's it.

The consumer should decide what the value of a game is worth - either by waiting for it to go on sale, paying full price, or just not buying it at all. The retailer can charge whatever they want, 'cause I get that 'companies exist to make money', but just call it what it is, rather than acting like you're doing us a favor by lining your own pockets.

 

[LetalisK]

Eh, to be fair, at least they are honest about it. The statement boils down to "They cost that much because we want them to cost that much." and yeah, it's straightforward. They are fucking idiots and I won't buy anything from them ever, but yeah, kudos on being honest.

Pretty much my sentiment(that has been happening alot lately, actually). This is the fancy way of saying "We like money and we can get away with it." Though now that I think about it, I can't think of a major publisher that doesn't go full retail price with their digital games.

 

[bdcjacko]

Why do people get outraged the games cost money?

Because you pay the same and get less, that's why.

What do you get less of, do they withhold the last level if you buy a digitial copy?

You get no disc, case or manual. You get no option lend, resell or give the game away at any time. And the part that Nintendo fuses the game to the device it was downloaded onto has already been explained.

And despite all this, you pay the very same (and probably even more after a month or two) as you would in the store. Sounds like a bad deal to me.

I didn't realize that Nintendo doesn't allow you to move your digital copy. Also what probably isn't being said is that they are also probably contractually obligated to keep the digital price the same as retail so they can stay in the walmarts, best buys and targets.