Nintendo Explains Why Digital Games Aren't Any Cheaper

[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.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

I kinda feel dirty for buying Etrian Odyssey IV now on the eShop, but at the same time it was on sale.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

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.

And what those stores drop the prices of those games, e-shop is still expensive

http://www.gamestop.com/nintendo-3ds/games/etrian-odyssey-iv-legends-of-the-titan/105993

The e-shop right now is 29.99 (it's on sale), why hasn't the e-shop price dropped yet to match?

 

[mitchell271]

Let me paraphrase it as best I can. "It's not cheaper because we like your money." Way to at least be transparent about it...

 

[Mr C]

Who's he trying to kid? This bullshit excuse is up there with his nonsense on why they region lock systems. Nothing but claptrap that will be hurting business.

 

[Ipsen]

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.

CORPORATE SHILL!

Kidding aside, I think a legitimate question is, between the consumer and the industry, who should determine value? Or reworded, whose measure of value weighs more?

Left to the consumer, many factors are considered (price, features, quality, etc.). They often tell a truer story than marketing, and out of experience, have to be after the game releases. No one goes around thinking that because a game costs less, it's less enjoyable. Normal people don't go into stores intending to buy the most expensive products, and if the price could be lower for what they've intended to purchase, they'll take that.

Left to the industry, determining value only serves them only; as long as units are moving at any period of time, they'll keep the price up. Since I'm not part of the industry, I'll surmise that if 'value' to them was simply the having standard price, it only serves those with some optimal level of interest in the game; we consumers have to drag ourselves up to pay the standard price of a game, or find a cheaper alternative (which doesn't serve the industry at all). That's it; this seems to be all the responsibility that industry wants to take in garnering interest in their titles, or growing the mindshare that it can take up.

The part I have with the industry, or particularly Nintendo, is that they now have two methods to distribute their product, but take no responsibility in growing either's use. Standard pricing is fine, when a game is fresh and relevant, and there's not much you can do about standard retail price fluctuations. But Nintendo controls their digital distribution; shouldn't they be trying to properly incentivise it's use? If retail can get continued sales by lowering prices, why does Nintendo, or even most other DD from publishers stand to not learn from this?

But I think you were just rewording Iwata's statement, right?