Nintendo's Revolution games will be cheap-er, vows Iwata [Update 1]

I think it should really be mentioned that in the same article Iwata said that the USB ports on the Revolution will allow "practically any storage method" to be used.

In other words the Revolution will support external hard drives.

Is grant giving me the dirty eye?

Is that really how small that thing is? That's almost as small as the Mac Mini ! Awesome!

KEY WORDS 1st party titles and the 360 does this

Last time I check first party Xbox 360 titles were $50. Now if all rev games are $50 then that's something. I don't see ea charging 60 bucks for ps3 and 360 games and 50 for rev game though.

I'm Sorry, This Is Pretty Random

Sorry for posting this...but i had to.

On the Australian 'Today' show this morning (it's still on) they were talking about the xbox and playstation, and their new games. The two hosts were then talking about how they dont play games becasue thay are afraid, and that the contollers and too confusing fo them, Karl said "Is very confusing, holding the controler with both hands, and with all those buttons...".

Sorry, just made me want to chuck a rev through the tv to give to them...

Thankyou for reading....sorry for posting...

Cool. Did you know the 360 also allows utilize ANY USB storage device? But it can only read music and photo files? Who knows if Nintendo will allow it to read ANY files (of course which make Homebrew emus and hacking much much easier), which I doubt will happen. And as Master X 24 stated, 1st party 360 titles are $50. The $60 price tag is set by 3rd party developers. Gawd this article is misleading.

And to that I say "Who cares?"

Nintendo has left most of its games at $50. Mario Kart DD was just recently reduced to $30, Mario Power Tennis among many other first party games are still $50. Nintendo will probably do the same next generation but they will have a $40-$50 price for first party games, but then they will never drop the price of them.

"Last time I check first party Xbox 360 titles were $50. Now if all rev games are $50 then that's something. I don't see ea charging 60 bucks for ps3 and 360 games and 50 for rev game though."

Yup. Joystiq needs to fix this pronto. This shouldn't even be news if the 360 already does it.

The Japanese and American markets could care less about the price of games. Look at what people are willing to spend now adays on their gadgets. People have no problem buying GPS systems, iPod's, laptop computers, car stereos, digital cameras. They will not have a problem dropping $60 on a video game they want.

It will be nice to have cheaper Rev games, but it won't undercut Sony or Microsoft at all. One could argue that the DS is doing so well because of it's cheaper games, but I'd have to disagree and say it's doing so well because of it's GOOD games. I'd be willing to bet that if Nintendogs debuted for $50 on the DS, it would have sold just as well.

Also, 360 titles are starting to sell for less than $50, Amped and Top Spin (and possibly Tomb Raider) at least here in Canada...

"They will not have a problem dropping $60 on a video game they want. "

Thats funny. I live in a well off part of England. Guys with HDTV's in bedrooms and Sim projects etc. Yet one of the biggest reasons none have a 360 is because of the game prices. Talk about flawed logic. Some people just will never spend more than what they've been used too. My parents are both on a very good wage, yet they will never spend more than £600 on a TV, £100 on a graphics card etc.

I have about a dozen 360 games and I have firmly decided that I am never buying a $59 game again. Even the hardcore gamers have a problem with going over the $50 price point unless the game is spectacular.

"Sorry, just made me want to chuck a rev through the tv to give to them.."

yes because not having 1 joystick to master but TWO joysticks will be much less confusing.

nice logic there son.

Personally I refuse to buy any game for more than $50, unless it is coming with some kind of accesory or something. Seriously, why the hell do companies suddenly think they can charge $60 for games that are no better than those of the previous generation and we won't notice? I'm glad at least Microsoft and Nintendo are not joining that group.

On DS, it's actually the opposite. Most 3rd party titles I've picked up are $30 and most Nintendo games are $35.

Price is something to which I am very sensitive, and I am glad that Mr. Iwata wants to hold the line on game prices, which I feel are very high.

On the other hand, the point must be made that what I'm really looking for is value. My daughter played a $35 Pokemon game for 200 hours, and loved every minute. Conversely, my son suffered through a $10 monster truck game for a total of 20 minutes before deciding it was lame.

The quality of the software is what matters. $10, $20, $30 more for twice as much fun strikes me as a good deal.

Ummm... If I remember correctly, people were paying $70 and $80 for nintendo 64 games during its life cycle .

Lets just hope no-one hits that "sour-spot" again and keeps them in the $40 - $50 range; that is perfect for most gamers budget.

Nah, this is news. Why? Because it's Nintendo. If EA said this while everybody else was going to $60 prices, it would be news, too. The reason nobody cares about Microsoft first party titles going for $50 is because there's not many of those games that anybody gives two hoots and a hollar for.

LOL why is this news? Nintendo would still be charging between $60-$80 a cartridge like they did in the SNES/N64 days. The only reason that ended was because of the wonderful God-loving Christian-soldiers over at Sony who stand for capitalism, democracy and all things free!

I seriously don't understand why people today choose to overlook the decade of harm and colluding that Nintendo did back when they were on top. Oh yeah, fond childhood memories of Zelda and Mario blind common sense.

Here, let me just give the response everyone wants:

Wow! Thanks Nintendo! Thanks for defeating 60 dollar vid game price tags!! Woo,

Shouldn't that be UPDATE 1? =X

So what is the point of this post? If it's just first-party titles and the Xbox 360 already sells first-party titles for $50, Nintendo isn't "undercutting" anything. The post shouldn't have been "updated" with a little note at the bottom; it should have been deleted or at least rewritten from top to bottom. There's little news of note here.

Anyhow, I don't mind paying $60 for a title. I am, however, finding myself being a lot more discriminating about what I'm buying. Example: I might have bought Blazing Angels b/c the multiplayer sounds a lot like Crimson Skies, which is super fun on multiplayer. But no way am I paying $60 for such an awful single-player experience. I'll wait until I can buy it used for $25.

I also find it funny to see what some gamers complain about re: affordability. The other day, there was a post by a kid who said he planned to buy an HDTV and a PS3, which he said he was going to buy because he couldn't afford to pay $50/year for Xbox Live. Uh, what?

it's a good thing the Revolution prints fifties.

Most third party Revolution games will cost $60. Why is this even an article? Revolution games will cost the same as Xbox 360 games. No story here folks!

funny how some nintendo first party titles on the nintendo DS cost more then third party titles do and nintendo doesn't pay a royality so they should be cheaper, not more expensive.

All you whiners about this "not being news" are really starting to piss me off. This is just as much news as it is from it coming out of any other publisher's mouth. Iwata clearly stated that he meant that for FIRST PARTY titles as to avoid confusion, because publishers can charge WHATEVER THE HELL they want. There's no way he could have said that it would be this way for ALL Revolution titles. That said, from the perspective of Nintendo as a PUBLISHER, this IS NEWS, just as it would be news if ANY OTHER publisher, such as Activision, EA, etc., said that they were going to refrain from raising their prices for next generation games.

So all you whiners just STFU and let Joystiq do their thing. All you whiners that complain about the stuff that Joystiq posts need to learn to STFU or go somewhere else, too. This isn't a NEWS site, even though it's where a lot of people get their news from - it's a BLOG.

Whether third parties charge more than $50 for Revolution games will depend a lot on how they regard the platform, how best to apply its features, and its associated costs.

The indication so far are that a game that really pushes the Xbox 360 and/or PS3 is going to lose a lot on the Revolution. So rather than treat the Nintendo as a lesser platform, wouldn't it make better business and artistic sense to instead make the Revolution version of a multiplatform franchise strongly oriented towards the controller, much as a DS game shouldn't just be a shrunken adaptation of the console game but rather something that makes use of the touchscreen, dual display, and other DS features.

This makes artistic sense by offering developers a chance to exercise more creativity. It makes business sense by giving consumers something that may be worth buying in addition to the X360/PS3 showcase version of the game, much as they may now buy a portable version in addition to the console version.

One thing that could add to the cost of Revolution games is controller extensions. There have always been a few games in each generation with custom controllers but the nature of the Revolution and the expansion connector on its wand makes this, I'm hoping, a strong driver for new ideas that can be implemented cheaply as inexpensive add-ons to the wand. An extra $5 to $10 isn't bad if the game offers something fun and unique through controller extensions. If more games appear that support the add-on in question, all the better.

If publishers can get a lot of sales to Revolution owners who are also buying games from the same series for the higher powered machines, it can help keep costs down by sharing assets and increasing overall sales volume. It would make sense to have a lower price on the Revolution game if it is likely to be bought in conjunction with a PS3/360 version. Games for the Xbox, PS2, and GameCube may have system specific features but those are rarely compelling enough to get consumer to buy a title for more than one of those platforms. That could change in the coming generation.

"So all you whiners just STFU and let Joystiq do their thing."

Yep, in their typical misleading fashion of making people "think" that Nintendo is cheaper for games. When in reality, the same damn price as the 360 and more than likely PS3.

Typical pre-mature pro-Nintendo blogging that this site does. You would think instead of being so blinded to everything they say, they would do the simple and well known research, and not have to wait for the comments section to correct them.

Duera,

It's not so much that it's "not news." It's the way Joystiq framed the story. It's misleading to compare Nintendo's decision to price first-party titles at $50 to third-party Xbox 360 titles priced at $60. Both companies took the same stance on pricing, with Microsoft also pricing first-party titles at $50. (I don't think Sony has made an announcement yet.) To suggest that one console maker has one-upped the other two (via the use of the word "undercut") is wrong-headed.

Though you guys could use this? If you've seen it then cool, but alot of people think nothing cool will come out of the rev or the use of it's controller...

http://forums.nintendo.com/nintendo/board/message?board.id=revolution&message.id=889594&view=by_date_ascending&page=1

Now after looking at this realize that they know that the rev will be 2 to 3 times more powerful. Yet they are still excited? Prehaps they realize thats all they need? Prehaps they realize that hey nvidia is not going to out do ati/artx? Graphicly they will be on the same level...

Well If you spend 4 years making a game i understand high prices associated with large production teams. The cool thing is I think Satoru Iwata releases that most good games have small teams instead of ware houses full of code and 3d art slaves...LOL
The more control you give a person over their "art" the better a good artist will make it. I feel the game creators of this industry understand where I'm coming from. Realism shouldn't have to cost more content wise unless it truely is a work of art. How many games have made that leap successfully? You can't put a high price on some thing just because it is only longer, more of the same, took poeple more time or man power to make. It has to offer some thing more worthy of it's price. Fun could be one of those things but buyer's remorse could crush the industry as soon as the ps3 is released , because every one is hoping it will be every thing the hype has shown us and at a price that put it's out of the fun catagory and into the this better be tight or I'll be pissed 4 real....

Even doom started as a shareware purchase but it's shareware download was up into the 9 mil plus range... You see if the purchase price lowers then the buy rate will go up more... So what does this mean? Well It means a new way of putting games out need to be developed beside the tried and true current game structure... You have to realise that gaming is interactive and we (well most of us) loved arcades... So a smaller fee to buy games and a system is an instant hook. I mean I spent over 4 hundred when I went to get my ds.... two systems and alot of really fun games... I'm hoping the rev can pull off a feat like that... Never had I been happier to spend that much money on a new system purchase knowing my games won't become stale. To boot it was close to the same price as an xbox purchase with one game... Satoru Iwata is only echoing a forgotten idea... value...

What will Rev games be cheaper then? Nothing. Sony may have a different pricing sceme, but they haven't announced it yet. MS and Nintendo are doing the EXACT same thing. Fix your headline, don't just 'UPDATE'.

#28

Try to keep things in perspective. The list of the most successful games in recent years is dominated by big budget titles with large staffs. There is no escaping that, even for Nintendo. The credits crawl for any major GameCube title (Metroid Prime, Zelda:WW, Mario Sunshine, various Mario sports titles) is quite lengthy. Niche titles like Katamari Damacy are all well and good but it was a bargain game that did well for a bargain game. Its business number are not terribly great. On the chart of 2004 top 100 sellers in Japan its way down at #83
http://www.the-magicbox.com/Chart-BestSell2004.shtml

The fact is that the investment in big budget games pays off big if the project is good. The only thing that will reduce the cost of Revolution games in that respect is the limits presented by the system. This is reasonable if it is marketed correctly and buyer aren't given false expectations in comparison to what they'll be seeing on other consoles. The silicon Nvidia is selling to Sony for the PS3 is more expensive because it is substantially more powerful. It isn't a matter of Nvidia outdoing ATI. Need I remind you that ATI is the video solution supplier for both the Xbox 360 and Revolution? Ati delivers the most capability they can for a specified price. Since Nintendo is targeting a lesser price they get a lesser capability.

That is not inherently bad. It's just a matter of what they think is their target. But nobody should have the illusion that three years from now the Revolution will be regarded as being on a par visually with the PS3 and Xbox 360. This doesn't necessarily mean realism. An engaging environment completely removed from anything that could exist in reality still requires computational power to achieve the creator's full ambitions.

If you have doubts about what a future console will do compared to its maker's hype, simply don't buy it until you are convinced. What have you to lose other than early adopter's bragging rights? Longterm, although it will likely be like the PS2 in not living up to the hype, it is a given that just based on putting a certain amount of CPU power and an up to date GPU in a console it is going to do a great deal that isn't possible in current machines and that the leap will be considerably greater than a mere 2 to 3 times. That is what they're selling. It just isn't the only way to sell games.

I remember when brand new NES games were $70+. But now that a single disc with a title costs about a buck to manufacture, $50 seems feasible for all future games.

I was reading post #29 and thought, "Man, what a post of gigantic ignorance." Then I noticed it was a post by epobirs, apparently some poster Joystiq likes awarding stars. If his post above mine is a reflection of his usual posts, than it appears those stars are misplaced.

Let us start with his first error: "Try to keep things in perspective. The list of the most successful games in recent years is dominated by big budget titles with large staffs."

Epobirs then posts two misleading pieces of 'evidence' to support this. First, the Katamari Damacy sales. Katamari Damacy has not, to any information I can find, sold over a million units on a single platform. Why the gaming press keeps blowing the trumpet of an unpopular game has always perplexed me. But second, Epobirs is using misleading data: only the 2004 numbers. Why not use 2005 numbers, Epobirs? Or even the latest of 2006? Why not use all the world numbers for the history of consoles for that matter?

The answer is because it destroys Epobirs' argument. It is true that the game industry has gotten into a 'blockbuster' style. Huge budgets and huge marketing aimed at usual franchises and sequels. If Epobirs would look at all sales data instead of one year, he would find that these 'huge blockbusters', while selling the most this console cycle, are really puny compared to the industry's overall bestsellers. What is worse is that the franchise sellers are dwindling in sales. Final Fantasy 12 will not sell more than Final Fantasy 7 for example. It would be amazing if it even achieved half of that number of sales.

Look at the 2005 and 2006 sales data. One of the fastest and best selling games worldwide is Nintendogs which is already at six million. This title is still on the top ten charts in countries such as France and Spain (I believe). It is safe to say this game will outsell the much balleyhoowed Halo 2. Why? Because the game hits more demographics than Halo 2 does. Was Nintendogs expensive to make? It is very cheap compared to the best-sellers that Epobirs cites. And the advertising for Nintendogs was much smaller than any typical blockbuster.

Another example would be Mario Kart DS whose sales are around four million worldwide and the game has been out for only a few months and still have strong legs. Or perhaps Elobirs missed the GDC Iwata speech where Iwata explains how Brain Training came about. Brain Training, made by a few people in only a few months, has sold millions in Japan and has stayed at the top of the best-seller charts. The legs of such a game is amazing.

Elobirs does not mention the risks of the 'blockbuster' format. The track the game industry has been on with the 'blockbusters' is, aside from high development costs, is an enormous marketing price tag. As technology of the consoles improves, the treadmill the industry is on gets faster and faster. Cliffy B, when interviewed about Gears of War, said that the industry is in trouble due to the increasing amount of staff for game development and higher price tags. While the budgets and marketing are increasing, the profit is not. Did the latest Gran Turismo outsell the previous one? No.

"But nobody should have the illusion that three years from now the Revolution will be regarded as being on a par visually with the PS3 and Xbox 360."

Only geeks will tell the difference. PS2 games never suffered by being on a par visually. Most gamers couldn't even tell. Why? The biggest factor in visual performance is the artistic talent, not the technology of the polygons. Did poor graphics harm the sales of PC games such as The Sims, Rollercoaster Tycoon, or even World of Warcraft? Of course not. Technology is not the requirement of a best-selling game. Concept talent is.

In fact, every console that has dominated the market has beaten competitors that had more graphical power. Playstation 1 and 2. The entire twenty years of Gameboy history. The DS. The NES. The Atari 2600. The only exception to the rule has been the Super Nintendo who only dominated the American market at the end of its console cycle due to its excellent line-up of innovative games (Star Fox, Donkey Kong Country, etc).

I think Epobirs needs to wake up and look at the latest sales sheets. Iwata is making it clear that game development for the Revolution will be as similiar and as 'disruptive' as it was for the DS. The cheap to make DS games are outselling their more expensive competitors in Japan by insane amounts. Throughout the rest of the world, the DS software is still selling very well. Even third parties are surprised. Konami is surprised Castlevania DoS did so well in North America. Atlus's Trauma Center was the best selling title for the company. Age of Empires DS surprised its makers for selling as well as it did. Due to demand, Capcom is re-issuing Phoenix Wright.

Citing 2004 sales and looking at Gamecube, Xbox, and PS2 software sales is now silly. We are well into 2006 and are well into the next generation of consoles. The new handhelds, the DS and PSP, have already been released over a year ago. The Xbox 360 has been out.

Doom3's post #28 gets it correct. Epobirs needs to get with this generation instead of being stuck in the last generation, and start looking at the recent sales information which backs Iwata's points on disrupting development (especially in Japan).

How could Nintendo possibly need any MORE in-game advertising when they've got Mario on-screen?

Jus' sayin'.

"KEY WORDS 1st party titles and the 360 does this"

The difference is that people actually want Nintendo's First Party titles.

Sloopydrew - Your right, I'd rather play ANOTHER round of the same games from Nintendo. I guess I'm not an elite gamer, but the only Nintendo game I've enjoyed in a long time is Smash Bro., and that was years ago. Every first party title from MS for 360 has been good. Kameo, PGR3 and Perfect Dark Zero are all good games. It's funny because if Rare made Kameo for the Rev fanboys would LOVE IT.

#36

You speak the truth...

If Kameo was a Nintendo game, it would be sooooo highly rated!

The game has a great mixture of Zelda, Mario, Jak and Daxter, Donky Kong Country, etc. But since Rare is now MSFT, they all of a sudden suck.

Fanboys ... they crack me up.