tanman

Seems like an unexpectedly great move from Nintendo. Seems like the video game industry is in the process of major changes. It's getting more and more expensive to produce AAA title games. Gaming in the younger generation is seemingly condensing in to either mega popular cross platform games like Minecraft and Roblox and Fortnight or mobile games. Either way it seems like consoles are declining in popularity to the point that families might just buy one console. I'm not sure if many people care about cutting edge tech with gaming. Not to the point of having to repurchase new consoles, games, accessories etc. So if Nintendo can still provide their level of ingenuity with their games AND build a platform where you can play a lot of the AAA titles then that's a real value proposition. And all at little cost to them in terms of manpower or focus. Seems like a brilliant move. A lot better than MS studio purchases.

Decker

Really looking forward to playing this game for the first time. The reception for the remake has been overwhelmingly positive.

I happily used a Nintendo voucher on it. Got a long trip coming up, expect to play this a lot.

slop101

I'm still salty that they keep charging full price (that's never to be discounted) for a game that's essentially an HD upgrade.
I mean, they'd be charging the same for an all new game, so why full price for a remake?

Decker

Nintendo’s pricing has always seemed greedy to me for these remakes as well.

That said, the Vouchers help even things out. Using Costco to buy eShop credit, then using that credit for the vouchers works out to $90 for 2 AAA First-party games (at launch) + $5 eShop credit. That’s a nice deal. Gonna re-up as soon as I find something besides the Luigi Mansion remake to purchase…

nickdawgy

I always forget to do this. I just bought Paper Mario too.

tanman

That's very true. And I totally agree with you. But it is part of the reason why they've been so successful this generation. Nintendo got extremely lucky. They had an entire library of Wii U games that they were able to port over to the Switch and sell like new games. Most Swtich owners didn't even really know that they were Wii U games. That really helped prop up the stream of games coming out for the Switch and helped their bottom line by double dipping on some releases. I'm wondering how they'll do with the next generation without a backlog of games to port over. Hopefully they've used these past few years to start development games for the next console so they have a decent release schedule.

But honestly I can't really blame them. A good game is a good game even if it is still old. You could very easily argue that you get $60 worth of entertainment out of an HD upgrade. And way more than $70 out of a game like Tears of the Kingdom.

Michael Corvin

It's not just WiiU games though. There's a few I passed on because they never dip below $40. I'm not paying $40+ for a 20+ year old Gamecube/N64 era "remake." I'll just play the original.

tanman

I get it. And yeah Nintendo's pricing strategy is really baffling a lot of times.

But, just for the sake of argument. Why is it that we expect video game prices to fall? If you think about it it's the only piece of media that we consume that we expect to pay less and less for as time goes on. And not just like the difference between the price of a hard back book and the price of a paper back. We expect to pay just 20-30% of the cost of a brand new game in just a couple of years. The cost buying a movie to upgrade to 4K is the same or even more than it was to purchase it on Blu-Ray or DVD. And I would argue that it took a lot less work to release that than it does to remaster a video game.

Don't get me wrong I have the same expectations and yeah paying $60 for a 20 year old game is pretty hard to swallow. But if you're getting the same hours of entertainment for it? Maybe it is deserving of that?

Jay G.

I can't believe you're on the forum DVDTalk and arguing that. DVDs frequently hit "bargain bins" after a few years, and Blu-ray and UHD Blu-ray have followed the same patterns, although not quite as extreme.

But music also used to follow the same pattern back when physical releases were the most common way to consume it. There were CD "cutout" bins full of stock record companies couldn't sell at full price. Even cassettes ended up that way, on a spindle in a gas station with a full album for a few bucks.

And while this may be less known, books also go through this process, where publishers clear out unsold stock at a steeply reduced price, via what they call "remainders."

I do agree that a video game remaster can justify releasing it at full price... initially. But that same with Blu-ray and then UHD Blu-ray, the expectation is that the price will eventually drop again.

And a lot of this expectation is due to the way the costs are divided up and accounted for. For game releases, or actually nearly all media, the largest cost is the cost of making the actual content first. The cost of making copies is almost negligible compared to that, especially for media that's not a ROM on a cart. So the publishers sell at a high price initially, in the hopes of recouping the costs of not just the copies, but the entire production cost as well. Once that's met, the cost of pressing additional copies is so low that they can sell at a significant discount and still make money, since anything above the cost of making that copy is profit. Even if they don't ever cover the production cost, lowering the price to where it's at least brining in some money, instead of languishing on the shelf, barely selling, is better.

Note that we only really saw this for console video games once the storage media changed from carts to discs. Previously, you may see a retailer clear out a poor selling title for a cheap price, but if the game didn't sell well, the publisher wasn't going to go get more expensive carts made. Even if it did sell well, once the sales started to droop the game went out of print instead of move copies being made. It's not until the PS1 era when Sony launched the "Greatest Hits" line that we say console video games getting new copies pressed expressly to sell at a lower price point. When the cost of media is $1-3, compared to $20-30 for carts, making more money via cheap new copies makes sense. When the copy is digital only, the costs are even lower, and only need to be paid if another copy sells, on a sale-by-sale basis, instead of ordering another batch of copies to be pressed and hoping they all sell. So going super cheap like on some Steam sales makes sense.

Nintendo is an interesting situation, in that the Switch uses carts, so there's a much higher price floor than when using optical media. And then the eShop prices also can't drop too much lower than the carts. Plus, the Nintendo titles keep selling, even at the higher prices, so there's less incentive to cut prices to boost sales.

Michael Corvin

Jay nailed it, but the switch to digital has really encouraged price fixing. There's no competition for sales, clearance deals or even "Player Choice/Greatest Hits" releases.

Also, I don't know about anyone else but remasters/rereleased don't get the same hours of entertainment if I've already played the game. It's unlikely that I hunt down every last collectible, do every side mission or explore every nook and cranny. That's on top of possibly only playing a portion of the game for nostalgia's sake and not even finishing it.

The Questyen

I feel like we have this same discussion about Nintendo at least once a year. Again Nintendo thrives and is successful because they don't devalue their games. Think of the number of times in a non-Nintendo new game thread where the majority of the posts are "looks great but I'll wait until it's on sale" or "I'll wait until it's on Gamepass or PS+".

Video game publishers only care about pre-order numbers and first week sales numbers so if a game isn't selling in those time periods they consider the game a failure. But again the non-Nintendo publishers are to blame because they started putting their games on sale a month or so after release and taking the Gamepass or PS+ quick money.

This has raised a generation of consumers who don't care about supporting games they're interested in at full price and are happy to wait and buy at a discount not taking in to account that their buying habits are causing the games they want made to cease to exist.

Jay G.

I think the successes of Helldivers 2 and Baldur's Gate 3 show this isn't true. The problem is that for many studios, they're pumping out sequels or adaptations or uninspired originals, often half-baked at launch, which has made people gun-shy. Often the waiting isn't even about waiting for a sale, but waiting for the reviews, the online plays, to see if the game is any good and/or not glitched to hell at launch, and then maybe there's a wait until they patch all the worst bugs that really should've been fixed at least at launch, if not before.

And at that point, if you've waited a few weeks or months for the game to actually get its shit together, what's the difference with waiting a bit longer for a sale? The luster of playing the newest game is gone, a lot of the discussion and player base has already moved one, etc. So a sale works to draw attention to the game again and draw people back.

Nintendo hasn't been dropping the prices of older titles, but those older titles are still selling well, because Nintendo makes games people want to play, even years after release. There are sales, but they're closer to 25-30% off, instead of 70-90%. And people seem to trust that if they buy a Nintendo game at launch, it's at least going to be playable and not a glitchy, broken mess. So Nintendo has the trust and enthusiasm of a fanbase due to releasing quality games that are solid at launch and still fun to play years later.

The Questyen

Naming 2 games that sold well out of the hundreds that come out each year isn't much of a comeback. And obviously some games sell well or else they wouldn't keep making them.

Michael Corvin

Hard disagree. We're talking about remakes and remasters of games we already gave money for the original. It literally has nothing to do with not supporting a franchise. It's about being reamed for supporting the same game over and over again.

The Questyen

I don't think you know what "reamed" means. You said you gave money for the original. Then play that version since that is the version you paid Nintendo for. I bought The Little Mermaid on VHS many years ago I don't expect Disney to give me the 4K version for a discount.

fujishig

It works. It may not work on you but it works, because otherwise retailers would be blowing out these games themselves to reclaim shelf space and with few exceptions (mainly musou games) they aren't for Nintendo games.

The Greatest Hits and things like it are great for the consumer, but Questyen is right in that the near instant discounts in order to move inventory have trained me over the years to just wait unless I really really really need to play a game now, and these days those are few and far between. Take Ubisoft for example, only a sucker buys them at launch. With Nintendo, even if it's something I kind of want to play I might as well get it with a voucher because there's no guarantee of a discount. On the consumer side it sucks but for them it's great. They also have a captive audience for their system. And they don't have to spend as much per game (usually).

tanman

I can't believe you can be on this forum and totally miss my point and then went on to reiterate my exact point in a later post. It's not about other media not dropping in price at all. It's not even about media that sells poorly being sent to the bargain bin. Which is what your entire argument points out. Of course that happens. No shit if something doesn't sell it's going to go on sale. It's the fact that people expect games to plummet in price 70-90% within just a few months of release. I initially said a couple of years but honestly people expect it to be on sale a lot sooner or put on a game service a lot sooner than 2 years. It also doesn't matter if it's a crappy game or a blockbuster game. The general expectation is that you can just wait a few months and pick it up for huge discount. That doesn't happen in other media. You can't expect a NYT best seller book to be $5 in a few months. Or buy a movie on either digital or physical media for $5 just a few months after it's released. That never happened with CDs from popular artists. You had to go to the used market if you wanted any significant deal on someone popular. Of course now the music industry is totally different.

I think the argument that making some money off of an older game is better than no money is shortsighted and flawed. Yeah sure it moves some units and you bring some money in. But then you train consumers that you can just wait and pick something up for way cheaper than it sells for initially. Worse than that you devalue your product. You risk associating your product with the bargain bin.

Things are definitely in flux now though. On the movie side of things. Bob Iger has lamented how they set up this expectation that instead of going to the theater to watch a Pixar movie people could just wait a few months and see it on Disney+. He realizes that they've devalued their product and shot themselves in the foot. And first party PS5 games seem to be holding their value more for longer.

Nintendo has been taking a different approach since their first foray into the home video game market. They don't devalue their product and they have tried to control the price as much as they can over the years. As a consumer I absolutely hate it. But from a business stand point I can totally understand why they have chosen to control the prices of their games.

fujishig

Also one of the reasons they can hold to this strategy is that they control the hardware AND they carefully consider costs for both hardware and software. I don't like everything that comes out from them but they tend to try new things even if they fall on their face (like games based on cardboard) and there are very very few games which I consider low quality/effort. Even the glorified remasters don't flop, which means the pricing strategy is sound. Now when the hardware is a failure like WiiU they take a huge hit but as a company that resolves almost solely around making games, unlike their competitors, they seem to weigh every decision they make carefully and you rarely hear about just insanely over budget games losing money (maybe they just run a tighter ship when it comes to leaks as well)

Jay G.

If that wasn't part of your point, then maybe you shouldn't have written this:
I was responding to what you originally wrote. Now you're refining your argument, which is fine, but you're also trying to deny what you originally wrote, or claim I was unreasonable to have responded to what you originally wrote, which is a jerk move. Just admit you made some mistakes with your original post, and need to clarify/refine your stance.

But thank you for pointing out that I made a better argument for your point than you originally did.

tanman

If it's a few months or a couple years the point still stands. It's refining it to a stricter standard. It's not my fault you completely missed the point. It's not about clearance, or media that didn't sell. No other type of media sees the massive drops in price that video games do. You could never expect to buy virtually every single book, movie, or CD for $5-10 within two years of it's release. Let alone a few months. Were there some that fell to that price? Sure. But expecting them to fall to that price every single time? No.

You're the jerk for questioning my presence in this forum when you're the one that missed my entire point and went off on some tangent.

Michael Corvin

Ubisoft devalues their games. Nintendo is at the opposite end thinking their shit is made of gold and overvaluing their IP. There's no reason I should be paying $60 for a game (remastered or not) that I paid $60 for three generations ago. Hell, even rereleasing the entire WiiU catalog at full price on the Switch is borderline insanity.

That's fine for some ("thank you sir! May I have another?"), but the fact remains it's money they're leaving on the table because I'm not playing that game and I doubt I'm alone. Would anyone here pay $60 for Dig Dug, Pitfall or Bubble Bobble? Of course not. There's this weird Stockholm syndrome when it comes to Nintendo. Too many generations of just accepting whatever meager offerings a system had (N64 -> WiiU) as the way it has to be and now that they've turned things around, that mindset persists. I know, because I was one of them. There's a better way. They can keep their overpriced old games and I'll keep my money. Win-win?

Decker

Yeah, I struggle to see why anyone would willingly pay $60 to play Luigi's Mansion 2 HD when they could just replay LM3 instead.

That said, I kind of love Paper Mario Thousand Year Door on the Switch. I've never played it before. It's so cute, even though I struggle mightily with my timing.

fujishig

Are they leaving money on the table though? Selling one game at 60 is like selling three games at 20 (I know, I know, it's not exactly equal as far as profit), so if they did greatest hits and people waited for clearance would they make up for that in volume? Again, people are buying these at this price and they aren't just scraping by, nor are these such massive flops that they are flooding the shelves (for the most part).

Bottom line is if you want to play Nintendo games you "accept" it because there is no other alternative, and it works for them particularly from the perspective of risk. If that weans you off their games then better for your pocketbook anyway.

The confusing thing to me is that they do have somewhat variable pricing... some of their games are 49 instead of 59 (without using vouchers even), but I don't know how they determine what price to put things in.

Jay G.

You keep shifting the goalposts, further proving how wrong your original statements were. And yes, it's your fault that your original incorrect statements caused me to correct them, and then reach the point you tried and failed to make before you did.

OK, that wasn't my intent. I wasn't suggesting you don't belong here. I was expressing disbelief that you could've been here so long, a forum with a long history of people looking for deals on DVD and other media and discussion of their price drops over the years, and state what you originally stated. You've now admitted that your original statements were incorrect, so it's more understandable. It's not that you didn't know about the history of price cuts across DVDs, CDs, books, etc. , but were being much more specific about the degree of the price cuts in a very limited time frame for video games.

Goldberg74

Jay G. and tanman, I’ve been tracking your conversation for a while and that’s enough, please stop it.

We get it: amidst the deals that can be found across all types of media here on DVDTalk in it’s 25 year history, Nintendo has a pattern of not discounting titles very often while we all complain about how we wish they would.

Now, shake hands, move on, or I’ll have to break out the “get-a-long shirt.”