So Ken's Rage 2 sells for £50 which is what, $70 USD? I don't know anything about the game so I can't say whether its deserved or not. I would assume that its a large game because of the price tag.

Anyway, people are saying its too expensive. That no game should cost that much. Is it right then for Nintendo to impose a cap upon creativity to keep games affordable? Perhaps they should remove content produced for large expensive games to bring the cost down? People don't like DLC but people also don't like paying high costs for games. A high price tag is a bigger killer than a cheap game with DLC. So maybe thats the way to go?

Anybody got any other suggestions?

It would be a horrible idea for Nintendo to say that any company can't sell their games at any price. Maybe talk to them to try to convince them that changing it would be for the best in extreme cases if they want? Maybe? But other than that, NOOOOO. Freedom for downloadable games is Nintendo's one big advantage over the other 2 consoles right now, they don't want to screw that up.

There's loads of smaller games out there so it's not really a problem for me. My University schedule is really tight so having small games to play in bursts is ideal. Though I think the people who have the time and want it bad enough will buy it anyways.
I agree with you that price is ridiculous, and I hope this will change. Developers can initiate their own sales on the eShop, right? Maybe it'll be on sale someday.

At today's exchange rate, £49.99 = $78.62.

In general, I'm not pro-DLC which should be a part of the game in the first place or any kind of pay to play model but maybe that's just me showing my age. As far as Ken's Rage 2 goes, it's worth pointing out that this is a full retail title that's released for the PS3 and Xbox360 this week in Europe as well (tomorrow, in fact). What's galling is that on those platforms it's a traditionally distributed title as opposed to download only and still costs £10 less (that's RRP, obviously several retailers are already discounting it).

In general, I'm not pro-DLC which should be a part of the game in the first place or any kind of pay to play model but maybe that's just me showing my age.

How about this - £40 for 80% of the game with the other 20% costing £10.

Either way, you're still paying £50 for the full game but I would think this is much more palateable for many people.

Would you think more people would prefer a cheaper game with cut content or the full game for full price?

To be clear - I'm not against DLC where it is an obvious "additional item". Examples might be a new story line or extra levels. Effectively, you could describe this as version x.5 of a game and, depending on length, this could cost a considerable proportion of the original game, anything from 20-80%. DLC such as costumes or additional weapons which do little to alter the game other than aesthetics should be cheaper than that but I likely wouldn't buy them anyway - some people will, and fair play to them.

What I am against is DLC as an intrinsic part of the full gameplay experience being split from that as a part of the marketing decision. If that 20% you give in your example is cut from the game rather than being added to it - if it detracts from the original game as envisaged by the developers and requires you to spend more money to complete it, then I'm against it.

I'm against that model, too. Asura's Wrath did that, and now I'm waiting for a bundle pack or until it's below $15, since I don't want to support developers Selling full price only a part of the full game.

Nintendo shouldn't make any cap. Let the developer have the freedom to price their games at whatever price they want to. The market will decide. Consumers vote with their money. If people don't buy the game for the expensive price the developer asks for they will be forced to lower it if they want to be profitable. I think restrictions on developers is a bad thing, give them as much freedom as possible. This is also why I like Nintendo Network, it doesn't seem as closed off as PSN and especially Xbox Live. And there are no mandatory achievements and other bull like that.

Don't worry Canis, there's no way Asura's Wrath will ever make a profit regardless.

(honestly it isn't the developer's fault Capcom probably slightly rushed the game, feel bad for them if my guess is correct)

Well, they have to make the development cost back somehow, don't they.

Games should be cheaper. They are already effing expensive >:[ Cut back on development costs some other way.

Ya. We shouldn't be discussing a common price point for games, and translating currency rates has nothing to do with the price in YOUR region. I like the game to have the full game(which is usual), plus maybe some WAY later(because it will take more time, and IS worth the extra money), but like others have said, that's the price they wanted to sell it for. It's up to you whether it's worth THEIR asking price, rather than always trying to talk people down and get what you can, which doesn't happen unless your at a secondhand sale.

Close studios and fire staff? That cuts costs

As far as Ken's Rage 2 goes, I was thinking about the price discrepancy again just now while I was doing the washing up (what can I say, my mind wanders). What I got to thinking was this: when it was announced a few weeks ago the general consensus was "if download only is the only way TK feel that they can afford to release the game then fair enough, at least they're making it available on the Wii U in the West". So the question really is do they think that the market for the game on the Wii U, in the West, is so small that they need to charge another £10 more than the PS3/Xbox360 versions to justify their costs and make a fair profit (baring in mind that the games has a full disc release on the Wii U in Japan anyway, so it was always being developed for that platform and it has a full disc release on those other platforms in the West so most of the localisation costs will already be covered) or did they simply look at the RRP of the majority of retail games on the Wii U (including their own recent efforts: NG3 and Orochi 3) and say "yeah, we'll stick with that"?

That's the question that should have been asked at the start of this thread: not "are games too expensive, should prices be artificially manipulated" which the majority of us who have commented thus far agree is a bad idea but "how far does the market dictate pricing over development and localisation costs?"

My own belief is that the games released at £39.99 so far will come to be regarded as a rarity fairly soon. The thing is that it's only really at the launch of a new console that publishers get to examine and realign their prices, once set, the market norm price stays for the generation.

Ken's Rage 2 is going to sell a couple of thousand copies on the Wii U across all western territories. At most.

Putting a game on a download network still incurs some costs, and that's before you need to take into account the less straightforward costs, such as the time that the marketing teams spent on the game (and there has been some social media attention and press release activity around the game, and yes journalists are being provided with review copies). A few thousand copies at profit margins of a couple of percentage points.

Tecmo Koei was wise to charge a premium, as the only people who were ever going to buy the game were the people who would buy it at premium price. No sense in dropping the price to sell a couple of dozen extra copies to the fence sitters across the world.

I really wish that consumers (gamers, whatever you want to call yourselves) would actually work in a company and be responsible for setting prices before they assume they know about setting prices for products.

But Waltz, lower prices means the consumer benefits, so the business benefits as well

That's a fallacy, actually.

The consumer benefits in the immediate term from a game being discounted.

The consumer benefits in the long term from the game developers and publishers being profitable.

They key is to strike a balance between satisfying the consumer's immediate wishes, and maintaining healthy profitability for long term sustainability.

Tecmo Koei isn't doing anyone any favours bending over and pandering to the handful of gamers that would actually be swayed to buy Ken's Rage 2 on a discount.

I don't care if they have to swim in maple syrup or run up mountains both ways with double sided tape attached to their shoes, if it cuts costs DO IT! >:0

Indeed. I never meant it, but that's the mindset of consumers everywhere

I'd rather have any game for free. Who doesn't? The fact is, stuff costs money, and companies usually(if not always) ask for the appropriate amount they NEED to get paid, so asking for a lower price is a waste of time. There might be a sale, but the only times sales happen, is if it's not selling enough and try to get what they can from, or they met the quota and can sell for less since they've already met their goal.