Iwata bemoans current pricing models
by Ross Miller 
{ Jun 21st 2006 at 3:55PM }
An "unhealthy product cycle," according to Nintendo President Satoru Iwata, is a game that is released at a high price and then subsequently receives price drops every few months. Speaking at a corporate management policy briefing, Iwata suggested that consumers will see this universal trend and simply wait until the guaranteed price drop, and retailers will regard lower-priced games negatively."Each software should have its own price point depending on its volume, theme, contents or energies and ... development costs," Iwata says. Iwata further believed that publishers should stick to their suggested retail price (unless they become Player's Choice titles, of course).
What does this imply for the pricing of future Nintendo titles? Likely, while we can expect Wii games to cost less than other next-generation offerings, do not expect them to cut prices every trimester.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Amir @ Jun 21st 2006 4:02PM
After paying £37.99 for the mediocre Path of Neo when it came out in November (paying 8 quid on top of credit gained from trading in many AAA games like Panzer Dragoon Orta), I have/will never paid full-price for a game again. I got Jade Empire a few months back for a tenner (it's now even dropped down to £4.99 at Currys digital) and San Andreas for £9.99 (my Xbox keeps "eating" the disc though, it's getting old). That's why I still don't have a 360 as £49.99 is ridiculous. £29.99 as "budget" for Table Tennis? You got and still can get full-feature relatively new current-gen game for that much at retailers that don't try and rip you off. Bah! Humbug!
bassbeast @ Jun 21st 2006 4:02PM
But who's to stop them from doing that with the hardware cycle as well? The people who have to have it on day one get it at the higher price, and those who might get it later will get it after the price drops. Based on his logic, my 1982 Toyota should be worth the same amount of money it was worth in 1982? That's the nature of economics. You charge what you can get, and when sales slow, you drop the price to attract new consumers.
vidGuy @ Jun 21st 2006 4:05PM
I expect Wii games to contain wildly different release prices.
Indie games released only on the Virtual Console will be $9.99 or less.
Games meant for "daily play", but without much depth, will likely release for $19.99. I'd classify Wii Sports as the first title in this group, provided it is not packaged with the console.
Traditional games could be released for between $29.99 and $49.99 depending on developing costs and depth. LoZ, SMG, MP3 will all be $49.99, but games like WarioWare and the next Brain Age will likely be $29.99 - $39.99.
At least this is the pricing scheme I'm hoping for. If Nintendo went with this, and attempted to get 3rd parties to follow suit for Wii games, I'd buy a lot more, that's for sure. I'd expect it'd be the same for most of Nintendo's consumers, so this kind of pricing scheme would create more sales volume, if not great revenue overall.
MosquitoControl @ Jun 21st 2006 4:05PM
That's a bit dumb.
What about supply and demand?
When a game is released there is a demand for it. So the price is higher. Then, when sales stall, cut the price a bit to renew interest. It just promotes more sales. Personally I wait until the price drops on almost all games. If prices never drop I'll never end up buying some AAA titles that just don't appeal to me all that much. Which doesn't bother me, but is lost sales for them.
Derbeste @ Jun 21st 2006 4:06PM
This is one of the more intelligent suggestions I have heard from an executive for a long time.
It's not rhetoric. It's not bragging. It's something EVERY company can adopt.
Most importantly, it's very nice to know that there at least ONE gaming company that is at least TRYING not to punish early adaptors of new technology.
It makes sense that Ninty is doing this. They realize they have the "riskiest" product for early adopters and are trying to lesson their worries........and it's working.
Pancakeshouse @ Jun 21st 2006 4:11PM
It seems they have thought this way for quite sometime now, as first party titles that have been out for almost 3 years are still more than a typical game that has been for sale for that long. MArio Kart came out in fall of 2003, it's still 29.99.
Will @ Jun 21st 2006 4:14PM
Iwata said, "Each software should have its own price point depending on its volume, theme, contents or energies and ... development costs."
Ok, what if a publisher feels their game, based on its volume, theme, content, and development costs, deserves a $50 price point. Well what if I decide the game isn't worth $50 to me? Using Iwata's line of thinking, I'd never buy the game unless I somehow found more value in the game.
As it is, the same game could start for $50, and I could still decide that it's not worth it for me at $50. But, in a few months when it drops down to $40, maybe then I decide the game is giving me enough value for my money. Or maybe in a few more months, when it's $30, maybe there is when I find the value in buying it.
Which way makes more money? I have no idea. Which end of the scale is heavier: the money gained from people buying a price-reduced game that wouldn't have bought it otherwise or the money lost from people that waited to buy the game for a cheaper price that would have bought it at a higher price, had that been their only option? I'd assume the former, but that's for people with a lot more information than I have to figure out.
As a consumer, though, I know which side I'd much rather be on, and that's having the option of waiting for a lower price point if I'm not finding value at its current price point.
Grant @ Jun 21st 2006 4:14PM
"Most importantly, it's very nice to know that there at least ONE gaming company that is at least TRYING not to punish early adaptors of new technology."
I'm a big Nintendo fan, but lots of people have justifiably leveled the argument at Nintendo that they DO punish early adopters, what with releasing multiple versions of their hardware and waiting to release things in multiple colors and so on. But I hope Nintendo truly wants to avoid that in the future.
rhork. @ Jun 21st 2006 4:20PM
Sure- there won't be wiipeated price cutting trends, but if a game isn't clearing off of a shelf- s'gonna get a price cut.
As rational and bright an idea as this might be- I'm definitely not in favor of it. For gamers like me- who are willing to wait for these eventual price drops- this only burns the hole in our wallets deeper.
Obviously I'm not looking at the 'bigger' picture- for what hurts the company I buy from could hurt me down the road- but I'm for self-centered thinking when it comes to my own cash.
Felix Andrews @ Jun 21st 2006 4:25PM
No real change there for Nintendo. In the mid-to-short term after their goods are released, it's very difficult indeed to come across a cut-price bargain. At least, that's my experience of it anyhoo.
VaultedCeilings @ Jun 21st 2006 4:28PM
@rhork
By your own admission you aren't thinking about the bigger picture or about anyone's stake but your own, so I think it is safe to say that you should not be a part of the decision making process in this case. Iwata outlined a very sensible pricing strategy for software at the policy briefing. It is also something has more or less followed I've noticed; I've waited for games such as Mario Party to drop in price so I could buy them, but they never dropped. At any rate, his main point was that you should charge for the software based on what it took to make it, not on how long the software was available. Because a system that just drops the software price at set intervals after release regardless of the effort and cost to produce the product is destined to wind up selling games at below their actual value to customers who are picking up on the trend.
student @ Jun 21st 2006 4:33PM
I don't know, I hope if games aren't going to get price drops, that they'll at least come out at more middle of the road prices. As big a nintendo fan as I am, there are many titles on the gamecube I would like to have but they NEVER lower in price. The games that do get a price drop seemingly disappear as soon as it happens.
However, I do like the sound of this and if it means games might more often get released at a lower price but a guarantee it will stay that way, I'm thrilled (nothing like buying doom 3 for 50 dollars, going to the store three weeks later and seeing it for 20).
SuicideNinja @ Jun 21st 2006 4:39PM
True, Grant. However, this article is about software. But to address your point:
It makes sense to change the hardware because consumers will go for it. It also allows them to somewhat "relaunch" or fix a products previous downfalls (like size, too many moving parts, etc.). Slim PS2, PSOne, DS Lite, GBA SP...they all saw improvements that the manufacturers weren't necessarily aware of/capable of right away.
Back on topic: I still wait for a game to get cheaper. There is a problem with attempting to keep games at a steady rate. Some games are not good enough to even warrant $30-$40 at ANY point in their lifespan. But they may be fun enough for $10-$20.
Geist is a good example. Not that great, but not totally horrible. Worth a try, but not for anything over $15. I still see it sit on shelves for $50.
Derbeste @ Jun 21st 2006 4:45PM
@Grant
I don't think improved hardware and pricing models are a fair comparison. It's simply about encouraging consumers to take on higher risk. And I think this will be the riskiest console generation yet.
Case in point:
Which movie would you be willing to spend more on to see a midnight showing?
"Click" or "Superman Returns"?
I think most would choose the latter. Why? Because "Click" is unproven. I think more people are confident that "Superman Returns" will be worth the extra money to see it sooner. I think many will wait to see "Click" when it is garanteed to hit the dollar theatre.
That being said, I don't think anyone really feels cheated if a really GOOD movie like "LOTR" gets an extended edition. (yes I bought both. hehe)
This next generation will be filled with expensive, new, and unproven optical drives. It will have risky new methods of control that may or may not stand the test of time.
Think of how much money will be lost if everyone just waits for these new products to hit their metaphorical "dollar theaters"?
In short, the gaming companies should be encouraging people to embrace these risks early by avoid sticker shock and giving them incentives to wait. Else this generation will fail.
idioteraser @ Jun 21st 2006 4:54PM
Those sports games that are just a roster change or minor update should be like a pc game. You buy it once full price at 49.99 then pay 20 bucks next year for the expansion pack. This way one copy of Madden will last years and years but have new rosters etc.
Quite frankly there has been no huge leap in sports games like the NES era or SNES era saw.
idioteraser @ Jun 21st 2006 4:57PM
Mario Party games should come out at 20-30 bucks since they appear quite simple to game design and code for.
Maybe that is what Iwata is planning. Simple brand new games for the vc from five to ten bucks while retail releases are 20-30 bucks.
Game developers should figure that a price drop within a month or six months can be quite disastrous since it leaves the impression in a lot of retail chains the product isn't selling well which is the reason you often see price cuts. This means less of that publishers games or game developers will be stocked in retail.
Dave @ Jun 21st 2006 5:00PM
Wow, what a stupid plan. All that keeping the price constant does is drive the used game market. Why do you think Sony and Microsoft start dropping game prices? If God of War was $60 still, I would have picked up a used copy instead of buying a new one at a discount. What's better, to sell 2 copies of a game at $50, and have 1 of them be resold in the used bin, or sell 2 copies at $50 and one at $30? Guess which plan just made the company more money?
BenW @ Jun 21st 2006 5:02PM
Another metric to consider when pricing games is how many hours of use an average gamer can expect to enjoy. May be difficult to measure with multiplayer or puzzle games, but spending $50 on GTA San Andreas with 50+ hours of gameplay is a bargain and probably worth more.
However over time, games will get discounted. If they don't discount they won't be competitive with the used market - until they can stop that.
Joey @ Jun 21st 2006 5:18PM
I agree with this 100%. I haven't bought a game at full price in forever. There's just not enough value in it for me as I haven't been playing as many games (and I still play quite a bit). Too many titles hurts as well, because I'm sort of a collector. $50 canadian is becoming the "too much" point for me lately.
boots @ Jun 21st 2006 5:20PM
What the hell? He just stated some things obvious, but I disagree on other things. His logic in "everyone will wait for the price drop" is a very broad, and flawed, generalization; or simply, marketing and championing for his company on cheap yet steady prices.
I prefer higher prices at first with a lot of price drops. That way fanboys, enthusiasts and rich guys can get the game/console initially because they *want* it now, and the less money/hardcore/interest you have/feel for a particular product, the more you can wait.
Not healthy? If there is demand for a product that is expensive, then there is no problem because people are still buying it. It's pretty smart because it lets a company save for price wars or game development or soon big price slashes.
Perhaps what Iwata says should be a warning to us that Wii will rarely if ever see a price drop. Perhaps it'll launch at 150, but it'll stay like that forever.
rhork. @ Jun 21st 2006 5:50PM
@VaultedCeilings
Isn't it safe to say that none of us are going to be a part of this decision making process?
I have put my fair share of money into the industry. More than the average gamer. Unless those involved in this hypothetical decision aren't consumers themselves, isn't it only fair that I participate? =p
Aside from this whole pricing model, shouldn't the real grudge be with gaming piracy? ... Assuming Iwata brought this topic to the table to strengthen the industry. If there is anything that will hurt the industry in the long run, it's piracy (hands down). Solve that problem, then we can worry about trivial pricing models.
Just a thought (ignorant or not- you decide.):
Can't wii at least take into consideration that if such a pricing model is implemented by the market- would it lead to more piracy? (obviously, this would only be the case if a good percentage of consumers are actually taking the 'wait and buy' strategy like myself)
nootau @ Jun 21st 2006 6:12PM
There is another dimension to this equation, and that is used game sales. If you go to a game store and try to buy a used nintendo published game, you will be in for a shock. They are hard to find, and Nintendo's pricing never really faulters. If you price a game correctly first, most people will actually keep the game instead of trading it in. If you sell the game for way above what people feel it is worth, they will (rightfully so) try to get some relief by selling it used. This offsets the high price they paid for it. Usually getting half, so if the game was $60, they get $30, which means the gamer only lost $30 overall. Had they paid $30 to begin with, the game probably would not have been sold back (or at least as quickly). The used game store can then take advantage of early adopters too, by selling used games at 10-15% less than retail. Its the same game! This fact is horrible for the developers because they see no return for these games sold used.
Nintendo has a great idea.
adam @ Jun 21st 2006 6:41PM
I don't see it happening.
This is coming from the company that charged $29.99 for Super Marion Bros. 3 on the GBA, and $34.99 for the NSMB on the DS. Kind of crappy (IMO) considering one is a 20 year old port, and the other is a 20 year old remake. I think those games have paid for themselves.
I guess Mario plays by his own pricing rules, even if it nothing but a port.
Zanch @ Jun 21st 2006 7:37PM
This coming from the company who hocked the prices of their games throughout the 80's and 90's. Remember Donkey Kong Country 3? $69.99. That's just one example, but my point is that there were numerous games that cost $60 or more from Nintendo. I'll be buying a Wii, no doubt, but this is just funny.
Branewalker @ Jun 21st 2006 8:03PM
Many good points. Dave had a the best point about used game sales, as did nootau.
The problem is, games need to match the consumer's value. Simple economics tells us that a deal is reached when both parties feel they benefit from the trade. So, if you price your NEW games at a rate that drives sales, and not at one that sets everything, regardless of value (Tetris, I don't care how fancy, should never cost me more than 20 bucks.) Price cuts at retail are PART of that. They seek to drop the price of a new game to what the market feels its worth.
Now, retail also gets a better return on used games than new ones: so, they will price a used copy significantly lower than the new copy on the shelves. This practice discourages consumers from buying new. (along with the currently too-high price model for most games)
And, As was cleverly pointed out, when the consumer finds out his purchase wasn't worth 50 dollars, he's going to sell quickly to avoid loss, so that he gets as much as possible for the trade.
Now, here's what you can do about this: Take a look at Amazon, Half.com, and other private-sell used game markets. You get more for your used game, and other consumers pay less. This drives the market out of Gamestop, and will force the market to capitulate and lower new game prices to levels the avergae consumer will pay.
What I'm saying, is, let the free market set the prices, and retail will have to follow.
The worst part of videogame economics *is* the price-fixing. So what if all the PS3s show up on ebay the first month for $1000? That price won't stick around for long, and it makes sense because people wil pay it. They WANT to pay it, for the priviledge of owning the system first. Later on, they'll practically give the system away when you purchase a game for it.
If the retail models were *more* fluid, and less fixed, they would capture far more consumers than they currently do. And that's a good thing, because developers are more risk-averse when they have to sell 100,000 copies at $50 each. It's a bell-curve, guys. If you price that at half that amount, your audience has just expanded maybe 10 times.
Accurate pricing drives profits, and the ONLY way to accurately price merchandise is to let a free market decide what it's worth.
--Branewalker
epobirs @ Jun 21st 2006 8:32PM
It sounds like Iwata is really hoping to go over entirely to digital distribution as soon as possible. Which would be measured in years at the least.
Otherwise, there are problem with his proposal. Retailers would be perfectly happy if everythting on the shelf was an 'evergreen' item that sold forever at a decent pace for a set price. This is largely the basis of the Greatest Hits, Platinum Hits, Player's Choice, etc. product lines. Proven sellers at a low resistance price point.
But even those drift down over time as they age and chains compete to advertise the game for just a few pennies less. $19.99 games become $17.99 games and so on. Microsoft recently went so far as to have a best of Platimun Hits, a best of best of, for $9.99, and someday soon Wla-mart or Target is sure to advertise them at $9.88, just to claim the lowest price.
In real life very few titles are evergreens. Predicting just how much business they'll do is one of the most difficults tasks in the whole game industry. There is a capital investment for every unit you have manufactured and that can turn into a serious loss if more than a certain percentage fails to sell at full price. The retailer then demands writedown credits to allow them to reduce the price for clearance. The retailer wants every slot on the shelf to generate some action. Titles that don't need to be clearanced and replaced with something that might do better.
On the other hand, if you underestimate demand for a game and it quickly sells out, the consumer might take his money elsewhere before you can resupply the retailer. This is less of a problem these days with rapid turnaround on optical media manufacturing but is still a big issue for smaller DS and GBA titles. The long turnaround times for mask ROM orders are illustrated by the supply issues for games like Phoenix Wright. The relative popularity of that game ws very hard to predict and they played it safe on the initial production run. But which is worse? Missing out on an opportunity to make more money or losing money you already had by overproducing a game?
Online distribution changes all of that. Hard drive space on a server is extremely cheap. (The first terabyte drives for desktop systems are on the horizon for late this year or early 2007.) Shelf space is effetively unlimited. An online game store can be the equivalent or a cart in the mall or the entire mall.
Nor are concerns about overproduction or underproduction with online distribution. Every purchase is manufactured at that moment. Third parties only pay royalties on actual sales. In that set of circumstances, a game with a smaller audience that needs strong word of mouth over months to replace a costly marketing campaign can keep its price stable without fear of being clearanced. That is, so long as the company doesn't run into cashflow problems.
Great stuff but it will be a long process before online distribution becomes the primary sales channel for the industry. The aging of retail products that aren't major hits will go unchanged for the next few years.
Online distribution completely changes the landscape for used games. Just eliminating excess production means price on used games goes higher and makes them less competitive with buying new. Further, there may be no provision for reselling a downloaded Wii game without transferring the entire machine and online account to the seller. There may be some future litigation on this issue but for now games downloaded to the Wii or Xbox 360 XBLA aren't going to find their way to other people's machines without the platform companies' involvement. If they find thenselve legally required to allow resale of downloaded games they can probably still wrangle a fee for the process that would need to involve their servers and control systems.
#1
I think thats a bit overboard. Iwata's talking about the retail price cycle for a game within a year or so of release, not a 24 year old car. (I'm assuming you mean a pristine unused 1982 Toyota, not a beater with 250K miles on it.) I don't think Iwata is trying to suggest an NES game should be pulling down the same price as it did in 1988. Just the opposite from what he's indicated about Virtual Console pricing. I believe he's concerned with the rapid devaluation of software on a particular platform within that platform's lifecycle.
#11
I don't know if that movie analogy works for me. Did you see 'Superman IV?' Utter abomination of a movie. OTOH, Adam Sandler has a pretty good box office track record. There is a strong audience that will turn out for any new comedy he produces before it has to connect with the mainstream audience. Don't forget that many regular theater goers have no interest in superhero flicks. Fannish interest should not be mistaken for universal appeal.
(A bigger problem for 'Click' is that appears to be 'Bruce Almighty' with a more family oriented main character. Which could be bad news for the upcoming Bruce sequel, 'Evan Almighty,' with Steve Carrell's character in the lead.)
I'll see both movies eventually but I doubt I'll see either in the theater for the regular admission price or a premium. I've long since decided that my money is better spent on better equipment for my home viewing that also gets shared with my gaming.
There was a time when I'd go to see the Superman movie in a theater just for the SFX work but that doesn't get me as interested anymore as DVDs made it convenient to examine a scene in detail and more so as HD is finally becoming a reality.
But still, your primary point is right on. consumers who felt well served by their original purchase have no complaint when something better appears. The GBA SP was a marked improvement but the early purchasers of the original GBA should have gotten plenty of use out of their unit while those who felt it inadequate had to wait to enjoy those games. The release of the DS Lite doesn't bother me at all. My original DS still works fine and I've gotten plenty of use from it. I paid more to get it at launch but I knew what I was doing at the time.
LOTR is a good example since it would have been impossible to get the mainstream audience to sit through movies of extended versions' length. It was just a case of serving different market segments. Those who wanted the premium version got what they paid for but that mainstream audience was needed to make the whole venture financially viable. Those satisfied with the shorter version in effect served the desires of those buying the extended editions.
"This next generation will be filled with expensive, new, and unproven optical drives."
Filled? Theres Sony and... who else? Nintendo and Microsoft are using the well established DVD format. Not a lot of risk there. Offering a HD-DVD add-on that has no bearing on the primary application of the machine, gaming, hardly seems to be a Sega-CD-like risk.
epobirs @ Jun 21st 2006 8:37PM
#18
I doubt that. The big money is in the games, not the machine they run on. The hardware is just what you do to have a well managed environment for publishing games. The market for those game is limited by how many machines are out there in consumer's homes.
So keping the machine as low priced as possible is imperative to maximizing the software market. Nintendo would give them away if it were feasible just to make sure anyone who might buy a Wii game had the necessary hardware.
epobirs @ Jun 21st 2006 8:40PM
Argh! #1 became #2 and #11 became #13.
Really have to start adding names to replies. Although a forum that supported quoting would help.
bassbeast @ Jun 21st 2006 8:48PM
@ epobirs:
Yes, I was referring to a car in perfect condition. Thanks for not chewing me out on that. :)
That having been said, while I know the example might have been extreme, I could say the same thing about a 2004 Toyota. Or Honda. Or Ford. Or BMW. Or...
The point it, with few exceptions, commodities drop in price over time. This doubly applies with technology - how much is your rig worth now compared to when you bought it, even if when you bought it was last week?
Iwata seemed to imply that this consumer trend applies only to videogames. We all know that's simply untrue. Would you have bought a DVD player if you had to pay over $1000 for it? Of course not! And you have ever once bought either a used game or a game not within launch period (or even anything at a clearance sale), then it's hypocritical to talk negatively about something changing price within the first few months.
Again, there are always exceptions to every rule, but for the most part, that's the way almost every business work.
As Austin Powers said, "Woo, yay capitalism..."
idioteraser @ Jun 21st 2006 8:56PM
In the N64 era the carts cost 25 dollars each to make. DVDs on the other hand cost .01 cents.
Jeff @ Jun 21st 2006 9:05PM
"Most importantly, it's very nice to know that there at least ONE gaming company that is at least TRYING not to punish early adaptors of new technology."
No, instead he's trying to punish EVERYONE ELSE.
You're assuming what he's saying is "rather than release a game at $49.99 and then drop it to $9.99 over time, why not just release it at $19.99 or $9.99 on day one?" No. No no no no no! You'd have to be a moron to think that's what he means.
What he REALLY means is "rather than release a game at $49.99 and drop it to $9.99 over time, why not release it at $49.99 AND KEEP IT THAT PRICE FOREVER?"
They're already trying to do this with some GameCube titles. Mario Power Tennis, for example, never dropped in price. It was $49.99 until it was gone (and it is gone now, from most retailers). Expect this trend to continue with the Wii.
I think it's about the dumbest idea I've ever heard because it goes against pretty much every basic law of economics, starting with the law of supply and demand. There is always more demand on day one of a game's release, and less later. By saying you're never going to drop the price of your games, you're basically saying you don't want any sales past the early adopter phase. You're saying you don't care about those people who may want the game but not think it's worth $50. You're saying you don't care about taking some of the sales away from the used market. You're saying you don't care about enticing those casual buyers who sit there scanning the racks looking for good deals, shopping based on price first.
And let's face it, those deals will still exist for other consoles. If the Wii is $250 and *every* good game is $50 - including 2 or 3 year old titles - then it's not a very good deal compared to the $400 Xbox 360 or even the $600 PS3 if you can buy games for them for $20 a pop, is it? I haven't paid full price for a PS2 game in years, and I've got more than 100 games for it. I must be Nintendo's worst nightmare, but you know what? That's probably $2,000 worth of budget software and if those games hadn't been priced at those price points, that money would have gone to one of Sony's competitors.
Sometimes - not all the time, but sometimes - Nintendo acts like they have no competition at all. People accuse Sony of arrogance, but that's all style. Nintendo's arrogant in substance. They act like they don't even need to compete on power. They act like they don't need to compete on price. They act like nobody's ever innovated anything except them. Well then, why the hell are they in third place? They're on their way there again if they plan to charge full price forever for Wii games.
Adam @ Jun 21st 2006 9:33PM
I think that the online market from both Live Marketplace and the Virtual Console is partially what Iwata wants to see. There you can find the games with the least development costs offered at the minimal price.
Judd @ Jun 21st 2006 11:25PM
I have to agree with Jeff, and I'm a Nintendo fanboy. Nintendo knows that if they have a game that will come out, people are gonna buy it, because either it's gonna be bought by hardcore gamers who would pay $100 for the next Zelda game, or bought by a mom whose little kid is forcing her to buy Mario Party every year. In those cases Nintendo can charge as much as they want cause they will always be bought, as opposed to the casual gamer who just walks around a store looking for a cheap used PS2 or Xbox title. But Nintendo's strategy only works on their established franchises. Geist completely bombed, and yet somehow Nintendo has still kept the price at $50. Resident Evil 2 is like 10 years old yet somehow in my Gamestop it is selling on the Gamecube for $40. But Iwata is making a good point by saying "Each software should have its own price point depending on its volume, theme, contents..." The concept behind something like episodic content for Half Life 2 for $20 supports this economic ideology. If only Nintendo weren't so hyprocritical.
idioteraser @ Jun 22nd 2006 12:28AM
Odd several retailers sell those games you mentioned Judd for 20 bucks. Blame Capcom for not remaking Resident Evil 2. At least they could have made it worth 40 bucks when it came out by revamping the controls or at least offering the option as well as improving the game graphically.
It's funny but Geist actually from what I have seen got decent reviews. Better then a lot of PS2 titles buy hundreds of thousands of copies of.
molecule @ Jun 22nd 2006 1:19AM
It all depends on the quality of the games, if you ask me; as long as I truly believe my 50$ is worth the price of a particular game, then I'll happily pay the fee. I mean, if the standard for certain Wii games is for them to start out at 50 and then to stay at 50 for an extended period of time, then would this not put more pressure on these developers to pump out quality games? They'll have to prove to consumers that their 50$ games are really worth the price (especially to those that would normally just wait it out until the "guaranteed price drop") or risk having their games remain on store shelves because they didn't prove legitimate value to the consumer. Summarized, Iwata's policy could force developers to justify their 50$ price, thus leading to better, quality games.
vidGuy @ Jun 22nd 2006 8:23AM
I agree that Nintendo has been a price gouger in the past. I still can't believe those NES ports selling for $29.99 and $39.99. Nuts.
But now Iwata wants a different model, and Nintendo has a lot less cost to reproducing games (carts vs DVDs or online distribution) and a lot more to lose/gain. If the Wii did as horrible as the GC, Nintendo wouldn't neccesarily be in Sega-like trouble, but they would definitely be in the hole with the media and gaming community. Nintendo needs to do something this generation to get back on top. Selling all games at $49.99, and keeping them there, won't do that. Actually, I have planned on buying the Wii at launch for a while now, but if Wii Sports is released for $49.99, Nintendo can say goodbye to my money. They better package that with the console or sell it for $19.99, showing us that Nintendo plans to uphold this price model.
And Jeff has some good points, but the quote "Each software should have its own price point depending on its volume, theme, contents or energies and ... development costs,", speaks to me that Iwata wants games to be released for less. If they were released for more Nintendo wouldn't sell.
Especially since Nintendo is talking about releasing games that are smaller and simpler, but that beg playing "every day".
The biggest difference I see is the first few months of a game's life. If a new gamer, trying to make the decision about which console to buy, looks over the new games released, and everything non-Nintendo is $39.99-$69.99, but Nintendo has games from $19.99 to $49.99 at release, Nintendo looks good. For gamers with more than one next gen console, looking over new games to buy, Nintendo's games look like the bargain.
A different pricing model would set Nintendo apart, for better or worse.
Cubiedoo @ Jun 22nd 2006 1:01PM
I wanted to play Res4 but couldn't afford £40 pound on release. Thought I'd wait until the price dropped, now I don't see it in any game shops. Guess what I'm going to do now, buy the PS2 version at £20. Who wins or loses? I don't care as long as I finally get to play a version of that game and I haven't had to pay £40.
Jim @ Jun 22nd 2006 6:01PM
I impulse-buy PS2 or Xbox games at around 15 bucks per game.
Let's see: in the last 12 months I bought a single Nintendo gamecube game ( Paper Mario 2 ) for full price.
I wonder, if there is a relation?