Bankai is right on the money there and its part of the reason Nintendo has spoken out against allowing developers total freedom on pricing. In the App Store some developers have produced big hits by gambling on price; the problem for most devs is this has created an unrealistic expectation amongst consumers that ALL download games should cost less than $2. This is why people like Jeff Minter are barely able to make a profit despite making great iOS games (I really hope we see Llamasoft in the eShop some day).
Read reviews of quality download games in the App Store and if a game costs more than a couple of bucks I guarantee you'll see negative reviews just on price and that's just wrong. I'm sure that if retail download titles are felt to be under performing we'll see movement on price, but until then I'm happy to support a studio making something I want to play.
You guys just keep throwing apples at my oranges. I'm not equating this game to bad cell phone games. I'm just saying that with a lower price, they're still making more of a profit than they would if they had to do a retail release. That's it. That's all I'm saying.
They can't sell a game for less price just because it's digital. Your gonna pay the same ammount for the game new either way. All in all, your buying the game, whether it's on disc or not. Blurays cost $1.50, cases $1, and instruction manuals $2. So really, the eShop price should be $55, but only if there's no physical copy of game that this digital purchase has to make up for in return. There should be no complaint about buying stuff digitally, especially with iTunes charging $2 more than the disc for a full album. Sometimes more. The difference is you can't make CD copies of games legally.
Qwest
3DS Friend Code: 4253-3737-8064 | Nintendo Network ID: Children
You guys just keep throwing apples at my oranges. I'm not equating this game to bad cell phone games. I'm just saying that with a lower price, they're still making more of a profit than they would if they had to do a retail release. That's it. That's all I'm saying.
Not really. Like $5 a game. No one's going to buy a game just because it's cheaper. People are complaining over 30ยข for Ballon Fight on Wii U VC. They would rather buy a gumball and chew it for 20 min., than have a full NES game forever to play, while chewing a piece of gum.
Qwest
3DS Friend Code: 4253-3737-8064 | Nintendo Network ID: Children
You guys just keep throwing apples at my oranges. I'm not equating this game to bad cell phone games. I'm just saying that with a lower price, they're still making more of a profit than they would if they had to do a retail release. That's it. That's all I'm saying.
And we're saying your logic is flawed. Bankai alone has a mountain of evidence to support that (and I'm quite liking his wording this time around), while others have either agreed or furthered that very point. Lowering a price doesn't necessarily create an audience. It mearly makes it easier for those on the fence. I can assure you that there aren't a whole lot on the fence for Warrior-style games. Their fanbase is dedicated, as are their haters. It's also a sequel, so that alone might put off newer customers unfamiliar with the brand. It's also based on a license that is not well known outside of Japan. What makes you think most people won't give it a pass, even if it's cheaper?
You guys just keep throwing apples at my oranges. I'm not equating this game to bad cell phone games. I'm just saying that with a lower price, they're still making more of a profit than they would if they had to do a retail release. That's it. That's all I'm saying.
According to maths, you're incorrect. You've made an assumption that halving the price more than doubles the audience, and markets don't work like that.
You guys just keep throwing apples at my oranges. I'm not equating this game to bad cell phone games. I'm just saying that with a lower price, they're still making more of a profit than they would if they had to do a retail release. That's it. That's all I'm saying.
Actually that's only true if you know how many units they expect to sell and at what threshold they make a profit on what was spent to make the game. $60 may well be the price they need to sell it at considering the niche nature of the game and the estimated audience; as Canis has said the handful of sales they might make probably isn't worth a launch day price gamble. It would make more sense to invest in creating a demo than arbitrarily lowering the price.
The reason the standard for games has become $60.00 is 100% because of the costs of putting them in retail stores.
Well, retailers do mark up games, and there's also the cost for manufacturing a set number of physical copies, AND it's certainly possible for a competitively priced game to make huge profits provided it's a game people actually want, but Ken's Rage isn't that game. I agree with the others, a price cut isn't going to make a game like this more attractive to mainstream gamers. There's no one on the fence here. If you want it for less, you'll just have to wait for a sale, but I think you'll find something better to spend your money on.
Angry Birds cost next to nothing to develop. It ended up making a fortune because Rovio has been able to spin it into a franchise.
Not quite. The first Angry Birds alone has made over half a billion dollars.
You also can't compare N64 games because, again, entirely different scenario. Developing HD games is an order of magnitude more expensive than making N64 games were. Development teams are bigger, console game engines are more costly to license. If developers needed to stick them on cartridges you would be likely spending $100 + on them now.
You forgot to mention there are many more people buying games today than there were 15 years ago. More buyers mean bigger returns. The video game industry is more profitable now than ever.
And I would argue Angry Birds is criminally underpriced. I paid 59p and they keep on releasing new levels for it. It's nice, but most companies would have gone bankrupt doing that and I'd argue that game alone is largely responsible for the attitude towards pricing we see on mobile platforms today. I like it and I think it's great Rovio has had massive success with it, but I think it's right for Nintendo to try to avoid that situation arising in it's own eShop.
Ahhh. I see what the disconnect is now. It makes sense.
I never suggested that halfing the price of the game for downloads would double the audience. I said that they should do that to pass on the savings that they make by not selling it at retail stores to their fans, rather than taking a huge profit. It's an ethics thing that I'm arguing.
Say a game like this sells 200k copies at retail. And say that they're making $10 in profit per copy sold. That's 2 million dollars profit for their team, which they can live very comfortably on. Now say we move into the download age and they're selling it for the same price and maintain the same audience, but they're now making $40 in profits for each game! Well, now we're talking $8 million in profits. Instead of being greedy like that, why not make it cheaper for their loyal fans? The lower price point certainly may attract new customers, but it would also show that they appreciate their fans, and they'd still be making as much or more of what they made BEFORE the download age came around.
Considering you can tank an entire company with one big release that fails to sell, I wouldn't begrudge a studio doing essentially what the music industry has done in the past: use the proceeds from a big-selling title to fund riskier ones. It's not like most of these outfits are taking the money and putting it into mattresses to sleep on!
They should be investing in the company and ensuring they can continue to make more games. Pretty much what any other business does with its profits (and I include employee salary increases and bonuses in "investing" - happy staff are productive staff and all that).
And say that they're making $10 in profit per copy sold. That's 2 million dollars profit for their team, which they can live very comfortably on. Now say we move into the download age and they're selling it for the same price and maintain the same audience, but they're now making $40 in profits for each game! Well, now we're talking $8 million in profits.
There are advantages to producing physical copies. And you're the only one that I've seen say that it costs $30 to make a disc. And you seem to really be underestimating bills, what's the largest console game developer that doesn't have any publishing expenses (besides online store fees)?
Ahhh. I see what the disconnect is now. It makes sense.
I never suggested that halfing the price of the game for downloads would double the audience. I said that they should do that to pass on the savings that they make by not selling it at retail stores to their fans, rather than taking a huge profit. It's an ethics thing that I'm arguing.
They are not making a huge "profit," even with the additional margin from digital download sales. The problem is that with retail sales they make too little "profit" (you actually mean margin, not profit, but let's run with it), and that consumers now have it in their heads that the too-low figure is somehow "fair"
Say a game like this sells 200k copies at retail. And say that they're making $10 in profit per copy sold. That's 2 million dollars profit for their team, which they can live very comfortably on.
At 200K sales most games have barely broken even.
Now say we move into the download age and they're selling it for the same price and maintain the same audience, but they're now making $40 in profits for each game!
... I'm not sure you're even listening to what other people write. There is no way on heaven or earth that going from a retail sales model to a digital sales model results in an additional $30... "profit"
Well, now we're talking $8 million in profits. Instead of being greedy like that, why not make it cheaper for their loyal fans?
You do know what game developers do with profit, right? They reinvest in in hiring more people, greenlighting riskier games, making more games, making bigger games.
Instead of being greedy, "loyal" fans should support their favourite companies by paying properly for the games.
The lower price point certainly may attract new customers,
No, that's now how discounting and sales work.
but it would also show that they appreciate their fans, and they'd still be making as much or more of what they made BEFORE the download age came around.
If everyone had the same attitude as you the industry would collapse.
If everyone had the same attitude as you the industry would collapse.
Either that or the industry would consist of small software houses creating games that don't fully leverage current console tech - I'm not entirely sure if that's a bad thing, mind...
If everyone had the same attitude as you the industry would collapse.
Either that or the industry would consist of small software houses creating games that don't fully leverage current console tech - I'm not entirely sure if that's a bad thing, mind...
In such a scenario a full half the people currently working for the big guys would lose their jobs and not be able to find new game development roles. We'd have an instant brain drain.
Even if you can't stand the AAA-games and don't play any of them (which would be like refusing to watch Hollywood blockbusters. Even the biggest movie elitist likes to kick back and have fun sometimes), the Ubisofts, Activisions and Nintendos of the world are essential for cultivating talent and feeding that talent's families.
Well, the AAA talent could re-bond into smaller development houses. It would be a sea change and I agree I would miss the odd big title. There's certainly a difference between playing a fun, quirky game and something from a big outfit like Nintendo, just like I wouldn't buy a lot of the games I play on my iPad on my Wii U.
But if the Wii U ended up only being a haven for independents and Nintendo I think that would be okay by me - I can always get Left 4 Dead on my Mac!
I have a feeling the development costs for the sequel are significantly lower than the original, as they probably reused and updated some character models and animations, rather than starting from scratch again...
Forums
Topic: Fist of the North Star: Ken's Rage 2
Posts 21 to 40 of 73
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.