The Australian split is going to have a hell of a lot more fat you could easily trim for example.

And a big old chunk of plastic thrown in called "logistics."

And if Nintendo sell their own games online?

Nintendo starts making healthy profit.

Yes, "logistics" indeed. Because it costs $40 per copy extra to distribute games across Australia and yet they can somehow sell the Circle Pad Pro for ~$20....

The Circle Pad Pro is hardware. Likely it's being sold at break even if not at a loss.

Being less flippant, that $40/ game extra you're paying allows the bigger game publishers to maintain a local presence. You want them to stick around. When there's no local presence you end up with a situation like Tecmo Koei where distribution is being butchered by a disinterested third party (in this instance, THQ).

Think of is as a donation coming from someone living in the strongest small economy in the world to keep a company that you love alive and kicking.

Communism.

More like collusion.

Communism as a philosophy standardises a lot of things, so collusion is an appropriate term to attach to it, I guess.

Of course, whether that's a bad thing or not... well, people seem to think communism is a bad thing so I guess the logic is they'd be wrong about this as well.

Wake me when you've come up with a thesis to explain why healthily profitable companies is a bad thing for the consumer.

I wasn't arguing that profits are a bad thing I was saying that collusion is a bad thing. When competing companies collectively agree to set the conditions of their market for mutual gain they end up effectively acting as a monopoly. There seems to be a non-written agreement to sell games (and other media) at artificially high prices in Australia and that isn't a good thing for the consumer. Ontop of that they all put up artificial barriers, like region locking, that stop global competition.

There's a load of hot air over in Canberra on this ATM and while it is a load of hot air I do think they are right. This is not a free market and, for once, the government aren't the ones holding the keys.

I wasn't arguing that profits are a bad thing I was saying that collusion is a bad thing. When competing companies collectively agree to set the conditions of their market for mutual gain they end up effectively acting as a monopoly. There seems to be a non-written agreement to sell games (and other media) at artificially high prices in Australia and that isn't a good thing for the consumer. Ontop of that they all put up artificial barriers, like region locking, that stop global competition.

There's a load of hot air over in Canberra on this ATM and while it is a load of hot air I do think they are right. This is not a free market and, for once, the government aren't the ones holding the keys.

See, my view on this (and this is getting wildly off topic), is that people are too willing to accept that certain ideals are by default good, while not really understanding that they are deeply, deeply flawed ideals, and not necessarily in the best interest of society as a whole.

The idea that Democracy is good, capitalism/ free markets are the best way for things to work, freedom of speech should be protected like a religion - these things should be questioned.

In the context of this discussion - no one benefits from price wars that drive prices artificially low. No one - not even the consumer, who thinks he's getting a good deal, right up to the point where his favourite developers and publishers start becoming financially unviable. "Oh noes! XXXX is shutting down! Why is there no creativity? Why yearly releases? Why developers focusing on downloads or $0.99c apps?" Why? Because that's exactly what consumers, through their buying behaviour, have encouraged.

Monopolys are not a great thing either, but a fair price that benefits both consumers and the producers needs to be found, and I have not seen a single indication that the current pricing structure of the games industry - even in Australia - is remotely fair on the producers.

They are struggling. It's not even up for debate. The profitable ones (Activision) are a single failed major release away from deep trouble. The unprofitable ones (THQ, Sony, Nintendo) have a hell of a job ahead of them to turn things around properly. So many talented developers have closed up in the last few years, and the really successful developers (Rovio, Zynga) are not competing in safe markets. No one is making any real money in this industry, and Australia is no different. The Australian MDs of these companies are not swimming in pools of money. In fact, Australia is an incredibly difficult market to do business in. Consumers don't see the costs, because consumers don't care. They just want cheap stuff - which in turn makes them an unreliable source of unbiased opinion.

Just my view. I wouldn't trust the Government either - they're the most deeply unpopular government we've ever had, and this is an easy way to look like they're standing up for the people.

Sorry this isn't really continuing the conversation above.

The sad fact of the industry is that operating margins are tight. Really, really tight. It's always been the case, but I think is probably worse now that game budgets are bigger and games are being sold for less than they ever were (if prices are adjusted).

As a result, companies generally rely on big hits to stay solvent. However, it's difficult to keep pumping out big hits, and there will generally be several 'failures' (in terms of not breaking even) for every success. Thus, companies bank on their big earners (games that sell millions and millions of copies) in order to bring in 'guaranteed' profit so they can continue making games, and these big earners are expected to absorb losses from less successful games.

For the developers who are owned by the big publishers, and who make the 'hit' franchises, this isn't such a big deal. However, it's a different story for the smaller devs. I'm sure there are many examples, but one that comes to mind is Looking Glass Studios. They were a developer back in the 90s and responsible for games including the Thief and System Shock series - still regarded as some of the best PC games ever made. However, some of their games didn't sell as well as they needed to, and eventually Looking Glass went under. Just like that, an exceptional developer was lost.

This is the reason that there is a large degree of stagnation in the industry. The Assassins Creeds and Call of Duties of the world (not that I have anything against those franchises) get made because they will sell millions. A brand new IP no-one has ever heard of? Not so much. Thus, because of the extremely tight margins for developers, it is a huge risk to try a new IP that may or may not sell. To keep making games, they need to keep selling games for a profit.

To sum up, the more money devs have, the more they will be able to take a risk on a cool new idea for their next game. Just consider that next time you go to buy a game - should you buy it used, wait for a massive price drop, or buy it brand new so the developers get a cut?

EDIT: Sorry Choco, I repeated a lot of what you just said. I only skimmed your post, and I missed that bit!

All right, settle down, settle down. I was simply pointing out something interesting I found. We all do want healthy game companies but also low prices. It would not seem to make much sense if Wii U games were $10 less than the other HD consoles and no more than Wii games, but there's a chance it's just an error on Amazon's part, as no official prices have been announced. However, I do believe there's a chance that this is, perhaps, the price for the download code, but then again, I could be wrong.

Nintendo already said downloads will cost the same as retail versions in their online strategy.

They didn't say exactly that, they just said they didn't see a reason to have them priced lower, although the retailers get to control the prices. I think download prices might drop when no one buys them (that is if they don't have them priced low already).

You sure? Like, have you checked it recently? I can't get to the PDF right now, but I could've sworn they said specifically that download games will not cost less than their retail versions.

Ok, maybe they have [said that]. I was without connection to the internet for 11-12 days, so who knows what I've missed. So no, I haven't checked it recently. Sorry about that.

You could still be right, I just can't confirm it until I get my computer back.

What are you using now?

"We do not hold such a premise that digitally distributed software has less value. In fact, as we have discussed this with a number of software publishers around the world, we have found that their opinions are completely divided on the topic of the price points of the digital distribution of packaged software. Some publishers believe that the digital versions should be cheaper while others insist that both versions must be set at exactly the same price. So, it is not only Nintendo’s idea. Each publisher has various ideas on this point and, among them, Nintendo is now offering both versions at the same price point (the same suggested retail price)."

• Nintendo President Satoru Iwata

Source: http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2012/05/iwata_defends_identi...

I'm using my iPod touch, whose browser I hate, but it's the best I got.

Anyways, I found out that it's not a PDF, just a page on Nintendo's jp website. I read it over thoroughly this time, and it did say specifically that it will be up to the publishers. It also mentioned that there will be price drops, which is interesting. I must have misread it last time.

@Ryno
I remember that, too, but I think that's only referring to Nintendo's games.

That makes sense, as none of the games listed on Amazon are published by Nintendo (correct me if I'm wrong).

No, I didn't see any games listed by Nintendo on the Amazon site. I think video games made by Nintendo are a different Pokemon all together though. Their games hold their monetary value much longer then the rest of of the market because Nintendo strongly believes they should.

Yeah Mac, I read that as only pertaining to Nintendo. It will be interesting to see what other developers will charge for downloadable games in comparison. I wonder if Nintendo will move away from their Virtual Console set in stone pricing method.

Slightly off topic but I just saw that Playstation Vita games are to be 10% cheaper as downloadable. Kinda interesting.