I kinda feel dirty for buying Etrian Odyssey IV now on the eShop, but at the same time it was on sale.
Nintendo Explains Why Digital Games Aren't Any Cheaper
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And what those stores drop the prices of those games, e-shop is still expensivebdcjacko said:
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?
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...
CORPORATE SHILL!chikusho said:
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?
Putting aside their BS reason (whatever they said would have been bullshit) I am glad they are the same price. That ensures Physical copies will always do great, and that's the world I want to live in. Once it gets to the point that digital is doing so well physical is being phased out, I'm out as well. That's not a gaming environment I want any part of.
There's no excuse to price a digital version equally as their retail counterparts, or worse, there's no excuse to price a freaking SNES game to $10 and don't tell me your "but servers are expensive" bullshit. I'm sorry, but no, you're full of shit Ninty.
BTW, who the fuck is giving you that "info" that digital versions are going to devaluate retail versions!?, you haven't tried it yet and there's no single trace of info telling otherwise!.
And while we're at it, could you please stop charging $77 for Mario Galaxy 2 and every other "high profile" Wii game here in Mexico?, that's kinda ridiculous and one of the main reasons I haven't bought a Wii U yet and I'm having my doubts for 3DS games prices too :/
BTW, who the fuck is giving you that "info" that digital versions are going to devaluate retail versions!?, you haven't tried it yet and there's no single trace of info telling otherwise!.
And while we're at it, could you please stop charging $77 for Mario Galaxy 2 and every other "high profile" Wii game here in Mexico?, that's kinda ridiculous and one of the main reasons I haven't bought a Wii U yet and I'm having my doubts for 3DS games prices too :/
On the SNES comment, I rather pay 10 dollars for a game that works on a current system, then 30+ for a used copy that might not work.SupahGamuh said:
Those prices probably have a lot more to do with your country than Nintendo itself.SupahGamuh said:
Just speculating on that.
Why does your post smell of the "Don't care got mine" attitude? When companies like Atlus does incentives to buy physical I don't honestly see a worry about that format going away. Besides outside of reselling the means to play the game (because even if you own a physical copy of a game you don't own the rights to it) I don't see a benefit over physical anymore unless your a collector.xPixelatedx said:
Was that a mistranslation or something? I mean, technically if you sell a product at the same price but don't lose out on expenses that come with physical retail, then yes, you've heightened the value of your software since that version is worth more to you.
I don't think that's how he wanted to come across....
"Digital games aren't cheaper because we want gamers to value software as highly as possible."
That sounds remarkably similar to Sony when they tried to justify the PS3's rather expensive release price point:
http://www.joystiq.com/2005/07/06/sony-wants-you-to-earn-that-playstation-3/
And we know how well that worked out for them.
What nonsense. Arrogant nonsense too.
It was a bloody stupid thing to say back then, and it's moronic now. I mean really. At least be honest, or don't say anything at all if honesty is going to cause a PR scandal.
That sounds remarkably similar to Sony when they tried to justify the PS3's rather expensive release price point:
http://www.1up.com/news/ps3-job
http://www.joystiq.com/2005/07/06/sony-wants-you-to-earn-that-playstation-3/
And we know how well that worked out for them.
What nonsense. Arrogant nonsense too.
It was a bloody stupid thing to say back then, and it's moronic now. I mean really. At least be honest, or don't say anything at all if honesty is going to cause a PR scandal.
Nonsense. Disk + packaging costs money and is factored in the retail price. Digital games need neither, but they cost the same because... apparently they want us "to value software as highly as possible"? Fuck you Nintendo and fuck your corporate parlance.
Alright Nintendo, have it your way, just don't ever count on getting a digital sale out of me. Digital games should cost less, digital games have no manufacturing costs, don't have to be distributed by third party retailers, physical games often come with bonuses/extras that you DON'T get with digital copies, physical games can also be traded in or sold, digital can't... do I need to go on?
If you want digital games to stay on par with physical copies, then depreciate the games prices accordingly! When a games physical price has a permanent drop (not counting things like sales) then adjust the digital price to match, otherwise you're just driving people to get physical copies. Also, why are Nintendo games that are over 4 years old still $80+ here?
Don't pee on my head and call it rain!
If you want digital games to stay on par with physical copies, then depreciate the games prices accordingly! When a games physical price has a permanent drop (not counting things like sales) then adjust the digital price to match, otherwise you're just driving people to get physical copies. Also, why are Nintendo games that are over 4 years old still $80+ here?
Don't pee on my head and call it rain!
Damnit Nintendo, I know that this is the attitude of every other damn corporation, but come on. I want to like you, but this has got to be the third or forth time you proved that you are just as capable of the same bullshit everyone else is.
Seriously, couldn't you have just kept your mouth shut? We didn't need to hear your half-assed excuse to cover the fact that you just want more money (that everyone knew already). Thanks for insulting my intelligence just for the hell of it.
Oh, and where I live (NZ), I pay MORE online than in the stores.
Seriously, couldn't you have just kept your mouth shut? We didn't need to hear your half-assed excuse to cover the fact that you just want more money (that everyone knew already). Thanks for insulting my intelligence just for the hell of it.
Oh, and where I live (NZ), I pay MORE online than in the stores.
This is almost as audacious as Kit-kat downsizing their chocolate bars and telling consumers it reflects a 'healthier option'.
If you make something interesting and it fades away, maybe it's not that interesting.
They've said some amazingly dimwitted things after the Wii was released. My favourite is still "but if we release too many good games straight away, you won't want any more", something like that.
They've said some amazingly dimwitted things after the Wii was released. My favourite is still "but if we release too many good games straight away, you won't want any more", something like that.
Walmart is popular among the poor and lower class income families.
Walmart is therefore conveniently located in poorer neighborhoods, because when every dollar counts, there's nothing like near warehouse prices for foods and other sundries.
Walmart, because of this popularity they have among the poor, the lower class, the working poor, basically any demographic that might qualify for food stamps, chooses to increase the prices of a large portion of their food items on around the first of the month.
Why does Walmart do this?
They do it because at around the first of the month is when food stamp recipients get more food stamps, and they can therefore exploit this timing to optimize profits by taking advantage of people who usually do not have the ability or the will to not buy food on or near the beginning of the month.
Walmart has freely admitted to this.
Walmart is unashamed of it's ability to turn a larger profit at the expense of the poor and the disadvantaged.
Walmart sees this as just pragmatic business sensibility and practices.
What do Walmart and Nintendo have in common?
It's actually what they do not have in common, because at least Walmart is willing to admit when it's just about the dollars.
Thank you, and good day.
Walmart is therefore conveniently located in poorer neighborhoods, because when every dollar counts, there's nothing like near warehouse prices for foods and other sundries.
Walmart, because of this popularity they have among the poor, the lower class, the working poor, basically any demographic that might qualify for food stamps, chooses to increase the prices of a large portion of their food items on around the first of the month.
Why does Walmart do this?
They do it because at around the first of the month is when food stamp recipients get more food stamps, and they can therefore exploit this timing to optimize profits by taking advantage of people who usually do not have the ability or the will to not buy food on or near the beginning of the month.
Walmart has freely admitted to this.
Walmart is unashamed of it's ability to turn a larger profit at the expense of the poor and the disadvantaged.
Walmart sees this as just pragmatic business sensibility and practices.
What do Walmart and Nintendo have in common?
It's actually what they do not have in common, because at least Walmart is willing to admit when it's just about the dollars.
Thank you, and good day.