Wii News (Virtual Console prices, Opera, launch date?, etc.)
- Thread starter StefanS
- Start date
I hope the people complaining about $4 for an old video game aren't the same people who insist that if you don't have at least two $500 graphics boards in parallel, it's totally not worth playing Half-Life 2 for the 30th time. $4 is chump change. You can't see a matinee movie or rent a video game for that much. I've given beggars more than that, and I'll bet my annual income was less than half of most of yours. The way you guys are talking, you'd think they were asking you to take out a second mortgage or something. Obviously, some of you are still bitter about the cost of cartridges back in 1988 and think Nintendo owes you something, but that's ridiculous on its face.
Four bucks. Let's all go out and self-immolate, because this cruel world has clearly gotten to be too much tears and strife for any sane man.
Four bucks. Let's all go out and self-immolate, because this cruel world has clearly gotten to be too much tears and strife for any sane man.
Thoguh I agree it's not much money, the profit margins are insane. They already made heaps of cash on the games the last (5) times round, so charging so much once again, on a download platform with negligable overheads, is a bit of cheek. For most other things you spend that much money on (matinee, video rental) there's lots of costs like building running costs, staff, etc. Digital distribution cost next to nothing to run on a large scale, pennies per download, so almost all the charge is profit. They'd still make a killing at half that price, and the only reason to charge more is greed. Which is what most companies are about, and you get the same complaints levied at them too!
Shifty Geezer said:
Hit the nail on the head as usual. If only I had your way with words. I second this post.
Also would it not be beneficial to Nintendo to have $2 games as a lure to their platform? A while ago they spoke of being "the next Ipod" but they only charge $1/song which drives their sales. If they would charge $2/game I think the end result would be the same in overall profit as I think you'd have twice as many people likely to buy and try games which they would perhaps normally not be interested in.
I don't know if $2 versus $4 has a psychological difference on buyers. In the realm of disposable income the difference between $4 and $5 in a non-issue. You won't drive away any potential customers for want of an extra dollar. It could work to attract more customers but I'm unsure. It'd need some proper market research.
Shifty Geezer said:
It is very diferent for me, and I think it is for many as games for cellphone and such the bellow 2 euros are popular but higher than that isnt that much.
Well those prices for new games is diferent still I hope it isnt the same kind of game that we can get from a flash for free (there is a l ot of very nice games on this).
fearsomepirate said:
i second that. it does not matter how much something costs to produce, how many times it has been sold before, etc, etc. market is a psychological thing. if a price is psychologically alright for the customer - it's fine. if four bucks is not alright for a some of you guys i wonder how you put up with your inet providerts - the cable companies are ripping you a new one (uncontrolled re-selling of bandwidth while maintenance costs peanuts (relative to profit)) - but you still post here, don't you?
darkblu said:
Well for me it's not about profit vs. cost.
I mean, paying $45 for unlimited cable that constantly gives me new content (such as this forum) is better spent than $4 bucks for a game that used to be fun (old content). And no, I wouldn't pay $45 bucks to only access web pages from 15yrs ago.
Don't get me wrong, there are some definite jewels in there but the vast majority of old titles will be ugly dreck much in the same way that the vast majority of current titles are pretty dreck.
So for me, the whole virtual console idea really doesn't amount to much. Maybe if they released access to old titles for free, over time? Then the games would be like presents and I could look forward to sifting through.
Ty said:
Ty, the games i play i usually vest in hundreds of hours of play time - yet those games do not give me minty new experiece by the hour. i like what they deliver and i can consume big amounts of it. if a game i used to play for hundreds of hours 5 years ago was fun then, chances are very high that i would consider that same game fun today. if not at 100% of its 'fun nominal' then maybe at at least 80% (people's tastes change). for example, i have so much more playtime in the gba metroids compared to the gc metroids that my friends poke fun of me asking me when the hell will i finally get to beat the gc mp1 and why have i not sold the disks yet (no, i won't, don't ask to sell it to you : ). in comparison the gba mp cartridges are valuable commodity at home and a cause of many a raffles : )
of course it's all subjective. with me, maybe because visuals can hardly wow me so they get a second plan in my value system .. games that rely on their visuals to appeal to me have as much chances of success as porn magazines before a gynecologist ; )
that why i select the games i play very carfully. i play about 2-3 games a year. the games i play regularly are games i can see myself continuing playing ever after 10 years. visials are visuals. gameplay is gameplay.
So for me, the whole virtual console idea really doesn't amount to much. Maybe if they released access to old titles for free, over time? Then the games would be like presents and I could look forward to sifting through.
why would you expect to get any commercially-created entertainment for free in the first place? if you don't like retro games don't run em. at all. don't pretend you don't like them but if they were free you would not mind browsing through them (you'd be able to do that even if they were not). paying 4 bucks? oh come on!
darkblu said:
I'm much the same in that I don't play vast quantities of different games but play many hours of just a few.
For me though, these games DO give me new experiences because they tend to be PVP - and even though I've played a hundred hours on Dust2, playing with and against real people is the holy grail of player generated content.
darkblu said:
That's different from my personal experience because those that I play with so much dedication depend on the social network I built up back then that no longer exist now (again I focus on PVP games a lot). So though the gameplay itself is still much the same, the enjoyment factor is not nearly as high.
darkblu said:
I didn't say I was expecting. I implied that that's what I would like. I completely understand the desire to monitize wherever possible (I work in the MMO industry).
darkblu said:
Maybe I'm just a buffet kind of guy. If say, they released a set of 10 games for free per month, then I'd sure grab all 10 and probably try them all. *Maybe* one would stick with me. But at least the whole virtual console would be a stronger draw to me than it is currently.
I don't go with that. It depends a lot on the game of course, but I spent loads of time on Space Invaders and Asteroids years ago, and they hold no amusement for me now, though an improved Galaga can keep my attention, or Stardust on the Amiga had me playing Asteroids again. There's very few games I care to play again. Master of Orion is one. The rest, thing I have tried on MAME and other emulators, tend to have zero appeal. It's like old TV programmes you used to watch as a kid. A DVD comes out, you get all excited and nostalgic, buy it, and realize what a lot of rubbish it was and wonder how you ever liked it in the first place. I expect most games of yesteryear to have been mediocre space-fillers, like many games these days, and most of them are worth only a few hours of play before they become monotonous. These days at least the graphics are more varied and progressive on the monotonous games to get past the repeated button bashing. Old games don't even have as much as that.darkblu said:
Chris123234
Regular
Shifty Geezer said:
$5 is only a little more than $4. But $4 is DOUBLE the price of $2. The way I see it, I could buy twice as many games at $2 than $4. Would you rather spend $30 dollars on your most favorite 15 games or $60? Would you rather spend $1.50/gal for gas or $3.00/gal?
Sorry if my thought come across as unorganized but i havent slept in many many hours. And I keep imagining all the old games I can buy at $2 each.
No one's twisting your arm to make you rebuy Paper Boy. Don't buy something you don't want. It's not terribly complicated. You know, I'm sure this whole "Connect 24" thing costs money to run, and I doubt they're going to take Virtual Console profits and use them solely to buy Cuban cigars for Iwata.
I'm planning to buy the games I want and pass on the ones I don't want. Honestly, only a handfull of NES games appeal to me, so I won't be buying them. I'm not losing any sleep over it, because even if they were free, I wouldn't be downloading most of them. I'm mostly interested in the 16-bit stuff. Maybe Nintendo figures that a game you won't even pay a few bucks for isn't one you'd actually play if they gave it away for free.
I'm planning to buy the games I want and pass on the ones I don't want. Honestly, only a handfull of NES games appeal to me, so I won't be buying them. I'm not losing any sleep over it, because even if they were free, I wouldn't be downloading most of them. I'm mostly interested in the 16-bit stuff. Maybe Nintendo figures that a game you won't even pay a few bucks for isn't one you'd actually play if they gave it away for free.
fearsomepirate said:
You seem to be of the opinion that people here are up in arms and about to storm off to the Nintendo castle with pitch fork and torches. Yet no here as far as I see is really going off nearly as much as you're making out.
fearsomepirate said:
Absolutely, and I'm sure this is true for many of us. It's as darkblu mentions, a perceptual battle and some here just don't want to pay 4 bucks for a NES game. I don't know why you should have an issue with it.
fearsomepirate said:
Perhaps, or at the very least it will get them something instead of nothing or that the potential draw of a free virtual console and game downloads isn't enough of a draw to help hardware adoption.
Most of these games have been available on MAME for years right?
I know some retro game collections (Midway Arcade Classics) have sold well enough. But really, are retro games so popular as to help Wii adoption?
Then again, people are raving about the XBL Arcade games, because apparently, people buy a next-gen console to play old technology games instead of new games meant to exploit the new console design.
I know some retro game collections (Midway Arcade Classics) have sold well enough. But really, are retro games so popular as to help Wii adoption?
Then again, people are raving about the XBL Arcade games, because apparently, people buy a next-gen console to play old technology games instead of new games meant to exploit the new console design.
That's absolutely true, but spontaneous purchases can be grouped into price ranges and the question is where do those price ranges begin and end for a certain product? The question is whether at cheaper prices, would Nintendo sell more games enough to cover the losses relative to selling at a higher pricepoint? If everyone's like fearsomepirate and will only buy the games they already want to play, say 20 titles, at $4 each Nintendo make $80. If they were to sell those games at $2 each, they'd only make $40. Only if games for $2 sell more than twice as many as games for $4 is it worthwhile from Nintendo's business POV. This is for the proposal from theChefO suggesting $2 games would be beneficial. From actual takings, unlikely. As a draw to the platform, well that's an unknown really.Chris123234 said:
