Random theory - Wii game prices
Thursday, September 27th, 2007 at 8:26pm by David
Here’s an random theory to bounce around your brains: Nintendo was relieved to see 360 and PS3 games come out at $60 a pop because it meant they could continue to charge $50 for their console’s titles.
What I’m getting at is whether or not Wii games would be worth $50 if software for 360 and PS3 cost the same amount. Share your thoughts about this random theory in comments!
September 27th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Most Wii games aren’t worth $50 no matter what the other prices are. Actually that makes me think of DS games, I don’t think that they are worth $35, but it is better considering PSP games are $40-$50. (although I still don’t buy new ds games or ones that are $35)
September 27th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
What are you basing that on?
September 27th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
He’s basing it on common sense and common knowledge maybe? Nintendo couldn’t wait to fire off a press release last month on how it managed to make an insane amount of money even though it was only charging $50 a game. Fact.
That said, if this random theory were true, I’d pay $40 for a Wii game, and Nintendo woudl still be making bank.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Very few Wii games, thus far, have been worth $50 to me. Metroid Prime 3 (which I rented, but eventually intend on purchasing) is worth $50. Zelda is worth $50. Super Paper Mario… eh, maybe $40. WarioWare… let’s say $30.
It takes a lot for me to buy a video game at full price. This goes for 360 titles as well. I’ve only bought 1 360 game at full price - NCAA Football, which I buy at full price every year. And yes, it’s worth it every year.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:00 am
$50 has been the sweet-spot price for a couple decades, $40 is a cheap game, $60 is starting to get expensive. It really doesn’t matter how much it cost to the developer. If that was the case, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Forza would be costing around $70 or $80.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Considering that almost every brand new PS2 game, even good ones like Odin Sphere, Tomb Raider: Anniversary and Okami, hit the market at $40 bucks, I’d say paying $50 is too much for most new Wii games.
I finally bought Kororinpa a few weeks ago, but the damn game hit the market at $50, I remember. It’s a fun game, but I’d have felt really, really burned if I had paid that. Instead I paid $25.
I’m on the fence about Dewy’s Adventure, now. I can’t bring myself to pick it up for $50. I WANT the game, but I can’t…
If it were $40, though, I’d have no problems buying a game that, according to most reviews, at least, will deliver me a solid 7.0-8.0 experience.
Same goes for Excite Truck! Why is this game still sitting at the $50 dollar range?!
But at least Manhunt 2 will only cost $40. Ditto Zack & Wiki. I won’t be buying Manhunt 2, but at $40 bucks, Z&W is auto-bought from me.
I’m all for companies making money, but it’d be nice if they treated us consumers with a little more respect. We shouldn’t be paying a premium for games on the Wii when we can get the exact same one on the PS2, in many cases.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:35 am
errr…Am I the only one not offended by this random theory? I guess it just makes sense. If I sell bananas, and so do two other companies, price is an issue. If the other two companies add more potassium to their bananas and start charging an extra $ .25 for them, I win. Sure hardcore potassium nuts will only buy their products and don’t mind paying the quarter. But a lot of people could either care less about potassium, or know that regular bananas already provide a sufficient amount of it. So if their prices increase, the everyman will come to my cheap bananas.
Wow that was the longest and most awkward analogy ever, what I am trying to say is that I like bananas, and Nintendo.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Being a college student, I generally get to spend about $30 a month on video games, and that’s if I don’t go out much. This month’s purchase: GTA Trilogy. 3 of the best selling games for the PS2 for $10 a pop. I believe the last time I paid $50 for a game was Wind Waker, and that was just so I could get the Ocarina of Time bonus disc when I preordered.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:29 am
Yes, most Wii games are overpriced which is why renting is your best gaming friend. I use Gamefly and it has saved me a lot of money on crappy games. The only two games that I’ve bought outright in the last few months without renting were Metroid Prime 3 and Bioshock, both well worth the price.
September 28th, 2007 at 3:24 am
I never expected that Nintendo would lower prices below 50 USD.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:53 am
I’m with KillerHeroes .. renting has saved me a LOT of money on games (I have a GameFly subscription). I was able to try out a lot of games, play through some, or even review for Infendo in some cases. (It has been a good way to get ahold of some rare games, too.) For less than the cost of buying a game every two months, I’m able to play anywhere from 4-8 games without being stuck with a stinker at full price.
Like DrewMG, I rented Metroid Prime 3 (also via GameFly) and am enjoying the heck out of it. I’ll probably take my time, finish in a month, and then send it back. I’m not one to replay games like that, but it’s definitely worth fifty bucks if you’re thinking of buying it.
September 28th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Hardly anything on the Wii is worth $50, especially the ports. I laugh when I see a PS2 port charged for $50. Yeah, that’s going to happen.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Sure, very few Wii games are worth $50, but almost NO 360/PS3 games are worth $60 so it all works out in the end.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
The economics of game pricing is not nearly as simple as stated here. Look at movie prices, the cost to get into Disneyland and drug prices. Why would I compare these to game prices? Because these industries price on a “what the market will bear” strategy to recoup large capital and operating investments. All this on a product that may or may not succeed. The economics of the situation to level out the price, and prices tend to centralize and standardize in a range.
That is until someone comes in with a radically new business model and changes things. (Think Southwest Airlines.)
September 28th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
The worth of a game, for me, is directly proportional to how much you are going to use it. A game can double or triple its replayability with extensive online play, which most 360 titles have.
Then there’s also production costs… but I won’t get into that since most people in this blog agree that if higher production costs raise the cost of the game, then developers should ditch whatever raises that production cost (e.g., HD graphics, 5.1 sorround sound, etc.), so don’t add it to the list, since it is the developer’s fault.
But the main cost issue for me is the time the high cost lasts for games. I recently wanted to purchase a non-competitive “easy” game to play with my daughter, and MySims immediately came to mind… then I saw the $50 price tag! Then I looked at the 360 bin, and saw Viva Piñata (really great game, by the way) for $20! And if used, you can get it for $17.50!! So, the choice was clear… And since MySims is a game for Wii, I don’t expect it to go down in price for a couple of years.
My point is, 360, PS2, PSP, and most probably PS3 games will NOT cost you $60 if you only wait six months to purchase them. Nintendo games, for ANY platform (and this includes the venerable GBA) will, at the most, go down $10 in price, and that is several years later!
So, for me, the problem with prices for Nintendo games is not their launch prices, but that their prices rarely go down over time…
September 28th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
“but I won’t get into that since most people in this blog agree that if higher production costs raise the cost of the game, then developers should ditch whatever raises that production cost (e.g., HD graphics, 5.1 sorround sound, etc.), so don’t add it to the list, since it is the developer’s fault.”
NO! It is the the marketers fault for telling us that we need these features and the consumers fault for believing them and voting for the features with their wallets!
September 28th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
That post about bananas made my day.
As far as the topic, games have always been expensive. It’s an expensive hobby, just like most technology hobbies.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
The standard price of a systems game is based on the predicted development cost, that’s all there is to it, and nothing more.
September 28th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
@reefinyateef - glad I could make someones day, after I posted that I went on a hunt for bananas on campus, unfortunately of no avail.
September 28th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
AAA games should be the only ones released at 450, all the other games should be priced lower. That’s as objective a stance I can take. Personally I feel that games should priced based upon quality and replay value, but the problem with that is that any scale based on it would be mostly opinion based.
There are games that release for $50 that shouldn’t even be releasing for $20 but they’re released that way anyway. I guess it’s too much to expect a game to sell at a lower price point to gain more sales and fan base so that it can have a sequel or or new IP released later that’ll be worth more dough. There’s no way a Mario Party game should ever cost more than $20. Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition has a sweet price point and as a consumer I love it, but honestly I’d have been welling to shell out $40 to get it, $50 if they had included playable Luis missions to get some of the more hairier parts of the story.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
This theory is bull though it doesnt surprise me that nobody thought about it and instead went on to complaining.
First, nintendo would have charged $50 no matter what for their own games because they are so unique and exclusive to the system that they arent worried about them being compared to the competition. they know that the majority of the world, even the majority of gamers dont care about HD or online.
Second, Nintendo has also said before that they think prices should not be the same across all games. and 3rd parties are following through with that practice, with some companies being smart and releasing games at $30-40. Ubisoft needs to jump on that train, but nintendo can only encourage, not force.
The fact that nobody mentioned the many $40 games on Wii only shows that all their is online is hate, not truth or thinking minds. Just because the game you want costs $50 doesnt mean they all are. nintendo really doesnt compete with the competition. they have always simply done their own thing, whatever it takes to keep gaming alive and fun, and spread it to the masses.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
“The standard price of a systems game is based on the predicted development cost, that’s all there is to it, and nothing more.”
That is 100% wrong. The price of a game is based on what they think people are willing to pay. Then the development budget is based on how much profit they get per disc and how many discs they think they can sell.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Up here in Canada 360 and PS3 games are 60 dollars. So are Wii games. Nintendo is not charging any less for Wii games than the competitors charge for their games. Nintendo Canada sucks. And now that the Canadian and American dollar are equal we’re paying an extra 10 dollars on top of the extra 10 dollars already being paid.
September 29th, 2007 at 12:44 am
“And now that the Canadian and American dollar are equal we’re paying an extra 10 dollars on top of the extra 10 dollars already being paid.”
No. You’re not paying an EXTRA $10 CDN because the value of the US dollar is down. If the value of the dollar goes down, people in the US may end up paying “more” to compensate for the lower value, but if Canadian currency is stable, your prices/values do not change. A soft USD doesn’t make a CDN worth more, its only worth more relative to the USD, not necessarily the JPY.
September 29th, 2007 at 9:46 am
if 360/ps3 games were $50, only AAA titles would be sold for that price. The rest would be $40-45.