News Article

Nintendo Not Interested in Producing Free-To-Play Software

Posted by Trevor Chan

Iwata not willing to take the risk, it seems

Nintendo's made it clear that it hasn't been totally satisfied with its online efforts thus far, and the upcoming Wii U will hopefully resolve all that. Although the company hasn't revealed exactly how things will be different with its next home console, Nintendo president Satoru Iwata has made one thing clear: Nintendo is not interested in free-to-play business models.

In an AllThingsD interview, Iwata was asked whether Nintendo had any interest in providing freemium software and generating revenue via virtual products and advertising, to which he replied:

We have no intention to provide a property to any other platforms, or making them available in a mode that does not require consumers to pay at all. Nintendo is a company, which is trying to maintain the overall value of video games. Of course, if Nintendo asks consumers to pay more money than the other platforms, then it’s Nintendo’s mission to provide the added value for which the people are willing to pay. In order to do that, we must remain unique and cannot be reproduced somewhere else. Something new, something fun and some surprise.

Iwata went further by saying that given the proportion of people who are willing to pay for microtransactions within a freemium model, it's simply not worth taking the risk in devaluing a product:

If we were simply going to say OK, the only the way we could sell more products is by decreasing the price, then there wouldn’t be a bright future and the entire industry will fold. When we look at the entire system of freemium, it’s not always that everyone is happy with the offers. Actually, there’s only a limited number of people who are willing to pay and many others are not paying for game titles at all. Nintendo is not interested... I’m not interested in offering software for free of charge. That’s because I myself am one of the game developers, who in the future wants to make efforts so the value of the software will be appreciated by the consumers.

Noting that other companies have found success by offering microtransactions as a way to generate income, Iwata seemed hesitant to entertain the idea that such a business model will last in the long term:

It’s not just the end result. We can’t simply compare the total revenue generated at the consequence of developing one thing. My point is about how we can keep the public’s perception of the software... Yes, it is true. There are great examples of advertising and doing the microtranscactions, and several companies who have come up with that kind of system. But on the other hand, if you ask me, is this the system that can be sustatined [sic] for the long time? I don’t know the answer. And, my point is that I’m not willing to go that direction, as well.


From the web

User Comments (81)



KrazyBean said:

Oh for crying out loud! If you don't want to distribute free software the how about you DECREASE THE PRICE FOR THE GAMES!!!

Plants vs. Zombies for £7.20????? WHAT THE FUNK!!!



FonistofCruxis said:

@Krazybean If you think thats expensive, there is a retail DS version with more content foe £20 and the original PC version had a similar amount of content as the retail DS version and was the same price.



Ernest_The_Crab said:

For a moment there I thought I read that Nintendo would be charging for their online services. Phew.

He does have a point I suppose. A ton of free to play MMO's have gone under using this method. Also some of the games that use the free to play and microtransaction idea aren't really games but more like an "addicting" experience like Farmville for example. Of course doesn't apply to all cases but it does apply to a lot of them.

Though Nintendo does have Pokemon. A free to play MMO type game for the series could possibly work with microtransactions but in the end it is still pretty risky.



Swiket said:

He's saying that Nintendo isn't interested in free-to-play games that make revenue through in-game micro-transactions. I thought that was pretty clear.



Retro_on_theGo said:

Well i get what he's saying. With the dirt cheap games on iphone,online mmo's, and if Nintendo did release bunch of free games the value of games in peoples eyes would go down. They wouldn't want to pay retail for games that have content to match the price. Like KrazyBean said at least put sales on the games. I can get where they're coming from, but Nintendo sure can be stubborn.



Blaze said:

Well done Iwata, although, retailing your 3DS Games for £20 might be good, seeing as how it costs you only £3.50 (that's about $6) to make each game....



Retro_on_theGo said:

Pokedex 3D is just a fun little app not an actual game and 3D classics: Excitebike is free only for a limited time plus it doesn't offer things in the game you have to buy with actual money.



SwerdMurd said:

right when Steam launches their free to play lineup too....Nintendo--it's not all about you. There are a lot of successful free to play model games out there, and not allowing for them to exist is kind of shooting yourself in the foot. At least let other companies release them...



Endro said:

@3DSneedsRPGs How does it only cost $6 to make each game? You mean it costs $6 to make the plastic that the game goes on? I'm pretty sure the salaries of all the brilliant minds involved in developing the game probably amount to a bit more of an expense. Personally I'm glad Iwata said this, Nintendo has almost always released top quality products and I don't mind paying the price to reward them for that. **EDIT: Also it should be noted that the free-to-play models are successful because the companies end up draining MORE money from their players - people keep paying over time - as opposed to paying once upfront. And generally if you don't pay anything, you're "free" experience is gimped. It cheapens (literally and figuratively) the overall enjoyment of the game... IMHO.**



RYBlast said:


Yeah I thought that he meant that they weren't interested in free online too 0.o



moosa said:

Yes, the article is potentially misleading.
It would help if you pointed out what these "free to play" games being referred to are.
We're talking about Facebook games, certain MMO's like Maple Story and other social games, games that lure you in with the idea of free gameplay, get you addicted, and then do everything they can to coerce your money out of you. These are not "quality" games; they're designed to be highly addictive and, bottom line, to take your money from you.



Blaze said:

@Endro I don't mind paying that price for the games but i sell games. You can buy them from US Wholesalers for $9, and they say it takes Nintendo about $6 and a half dollars to make them, so, you don't have to take it as proof, but, wel, it is.. Why not send Iwata an e-mail???



GEOFF said:

When I look at the long credits at the end of games I'm amazed some games make any money at all.



Burny said:

That interview is an interesting read, but comes from a strange angle. The site seems dedicated to current online trends, social networking, smartphones etc., but not to traditional gaming. As a result the questions are mostly "why don't you get into this market" and "how do you compete with this market you're not even a part of".

That interview has two parts. The first was labeled "Nintendo’s Iwata Hopes the Wii U Will Steal Back Couch Time From the iPad". Fairly enough, they discussed what Iwata has been saying a long time now: How Nintendo has to consider anything that takes people's free time as competition for their products. They mentioned tablets in general, but the iPad never appeared once in the whole article. Greedy bastards caching in on hits.

From my experience with "free-to-play", aka "pay-to-win" or "grind-your-free-time-to-death" games, I don't mind if Nintendo stays out of it all.

@GEOFF: That's the problem. Some don't.



Slapshot said:

I just want to see digital sales on the games in eShop this time around, then I'll be ecstatic.



Nintendoftw said:

Okay so next gen we can already see microsoft and sony getting games that are free to play similar to how the PC has free to play games... While Nintendo will be sitting there with their 300$ system with 60$ games not delivering as good of an experience.. Wth.. If the Wii U is as much of a FAILURE as the Wii is then I may quit being a fan of Nintendo.



Algorhythm said:

No kidding. $40 for Steel Diver - it's clear that Nintendo has no interest in doing anything even close to free, even for games that they should be pay you to play!!!



Swiket said:

@Nintendoftw The Wii is one of the best-selling consoles of all-time, I don't consider that a failure.

As if Nintendo cares if you're a fan or not.



ToneDeath said:

I'd like it if the prices of games were at least more in line with other media, like Blu Ray films for example. So a typical RRP of £20 in the UK would be about right I think.



Endro said:

@3DSneedsRPGs I think your missing my point on the cost of making a game. A Mario game takes a huge host of people working for a year or more on code and visuals and music and all that to create a finished product. To say it costs $6 to release a game doesn't make sense, unless you're just talking about the physical disc (or cartridge) and case. If lets say Mario costs 6 million dollars to develop after paying all relevant expenses (salaries, rent, tools, etc.) and Nintendo went out and sold a million copies, then yes, you could say each game should cost $6 for them to break even, but there's no way to know how many games they're going to sell. And the development costs of different games probably vary wildly. The point is that the industry has set a value on these products at around $39.99 for handheld games and $59.99 for console games which Iwata is trying to uphold. If every game only cost $1 than there'd be no incentive for game designers to create great games, the pay off wouldn't be high enough. So by keeping the price point, they're also ensuring that games will be held to a higher standard. (This would be in general, certainly not in every case.) Anyways, now that I've taught a course on economics, I'm going to shut up. (P.S. - The 3DS really does need RPGs, we can agree on that.)



SwerdMurd said:

I just don't understand where his comments come from....A substantial proportion of people pay for in-game content. Normally the issue is that they have to set up some account or link Paypal or something else that takes extra effort--Nintendo already has a payment system in place.

Look at a game like World of Tanks. That company's cashing in hard right now, and of the 8 people I know that play, 5 of them have spent real money--1 has spent 40 bucks and plays it 5-6 hours a day and can' t get enough. Hell look at Facebook games--there's almost nothing to them at all except "hey friendslist--look at my town" and they make a mint--people will spent 200 dollars at once on a million in-game credit points to be "set for life". I know Iwata's not blind to AppData and other services that allow you to see how well these types of games do...that model with Nintendo's ingenuity could end up with some really cool products with no barrier of entry.

Again, not losing sleep over the lack of their inclusion in Nintendo's next generation...I just don't understand why he feels this way about these games/this model.

Granted if they turn out another Steel Diver, they'll have to charge 100 dollars to break even because no one will buy it.



Henmii said:

Paying nothing for a game is just WRONG! Kids nowadays think that everything must be free. They forget that developers of entertainment also have to eat! And I don't want advertisements in my game, thank you very much!

"Of course, if Nintendo asks consumers to pay more money than the other platforms, then it’s Nintendo’s mission to provide the added value for which the people are willing to pay"

Like removing the leaderboards, and extra downloadable levels, and level editor from World of goo, yet charging more for it? Yeah, that makes sense!!! What also makes sense is asking 6 (!!!) Dollars for a gbc game (Links awakening dx). Even more then a nes game!!



Swiket said:


World of Goo was originally $20 on PC, and it never got downloadable levels or a level editor on either platform.



armoredghor said:

I think he just doesn't want this to turn into the art industry in which masterpieces cost $700+ each and the artist still barely makes ends meet. He just doesn't want to see Nintendo's multi million dollar corporation reduced down to be equal with garage developers. No offence to any indie developers.



XCWarrior said:

For those confused, they are talking about not wanting to do free to play, microtransaction fee MMO online games. Also no facebook games for free.
I'm cool with that. I don't think 3DS games should costmore than $30 though, and console games should be no more than $50.

I buy more games after they discount anyway though, and anymore that takes like 3 months. I'm always behind, so launch just means that much sooner until it drops in price.



Bankai said:

Very good Nintendo. Ignore proven business models.

This is why Zynga is now worth more than you.



AlbertoC said:

Yep Iwata, for sure your DSi games released as retail, and the same retail released as DSiware. That adds a lot of value.
But nintendo's strong point has never been hearing customer complaints.



edcomics said:

To be honest, now that I'm getting older and have less free time to play epic games, I'd actually appreciate shorter high-quality games at a lower price. As crazy as it sounds, I'd almost rather have a one-dungeon Zelda game over a full-sized Zelda game at this point. There's a place for the larger games, but I don't see why we can't have $10 games with the same quality as $50-$60 games. I'm not talking about WiiWare or anything like that. I'm talking discs. Maybe it's just a dumb idea, but that's what would fit my needs as a gamer right now.



Ren said:

He's right, in theory, but then he's also trying to back up a little of why Nintendo is so cheap. They sometimes take bigger risks then they need to just to make a larger profit from the get-go.
Their marketing could use an injection of cash if that's really his belief; the marketing HAS to be there, and it's often lacking with Nintendo. Sometimes that just means visibilty with things like occasional free bonuses or discounts, or even reasonably timed price drops which they are so stingy about.
things like the free demo 3D game we just got happen once in a console lifetime with them, and it needs to be more frequent than that and advertised like crazy. The WW service has all but failed really only because it wasn't advertised and there was never a demo or free samples/ rewards, nothing until it was too late (recent few WiiWare demos) That service would have soared if every Wii came with a free copy of Mario/Duckhunt on VC and one free WW game, but no one ever heard of it since it was buried and had no incentive and no marketing.
Now they're claiming that in 2006 the internet wasn't the kind of player it is today, thats why they didn't take it seriously! Ha! Anyway, I hope if this is his approach he can do it right, and keep that shop moving. Especially when WiiU comes around; the competition is not laying down, and they may serve other markets, but they're still competition.



Einherjar said:

Understanable. And i must say, nintendo makes games that do not disapoint and are well worth the money. And not creating free games with micro payments...thats MMO stuff. Its good that nintendo does not go the way square enix went (looks at my life as a king / darklord, FFIV The after years and that other WiiWare rip off game)



DarkKirby said:

I honestly don't give 1/2 a crap about "freeware" from Nintendo. I can get that stuff online fine. Just don't charge for internet use like those donkey holes at Microsoft.



AVahne said:

So this is a definite no for Wii U MMORPGs.
but what's really concerning me is....NO FREE GHOST RECON ONLINE? Not interested in the game anymore if I can just play it for free on my computer...too bad, being able to play on a big tv would've been nice



CerealKiller062 said:

You guys don't take in to the equation that developers need to recieve a profit, the lincensor, the retailer, the manufacturer. Everyone gets a cut of the profit. Sure the game might cost less that $10 dollars to make but nintendo can't give that up for free. The retailer can't just sell it to you for the same price they bought it, everyone needs a profit. A free to play game would eliminate some costs but in the end little people will actually pay for premium stuff.



k8sMum said:

there is an arrogance to this article that is off-putting. nintendo has such an enormous markup on their hardware that they should be grateful people can afford to buy them with today's economy. nintendo always justifies why things cost so much as being for the gamer, the gaming industry etc. when the truth is it's $ in their coffers. they are a business, so that's fine. just don't make it sound as if it's all for altruistic reasons.



Token_Girl said:

I'm ok with this. Most free to play games are full of ads OR rely on very simple mechanics where you basically just choose between grinding (in some cases grinding is just spamming your friends with ads) or paying to win. Not everybody needs to utilize every business model, and I don't mind paying for a full great game instead of free playing a game watered down by the advertising needed to make the microtransaction model worth it.

That being said, cut us a break with some digital sales now and then, and I won't complain.



Nintendoftw said:

Swiket- Actually Nintendo DOES care, because if i'm not a fan they lose my money for both their handhelds AND consoles. And sales has nothing to do with success. The Wii alone has been contributed for almost half of Nintendo fans feeling the need to buy a PS3/360. Mario and Zelda is NOT the only thing Nintendo fans need, they need decent hardware to play it on and good games other than first party titles. Wii didn't offer at all.



SilverBaretta said:

@Nintendoftw: What Swiket was trying to say is that you're one fish in a school of millions. They won't care if you're a fan simply because they have so many others to fall back on.

I honestly feel like too many people judge companies on their business models and not enough on, well, anything else. If that contributes to the fall of the company, that's their mistake, and while it would let haters get in a cheap, dirty "I told you so," it's not like we never had a good time with whatever they provided us with.



k8sMum said:

'I honestly feel like too many people judge companies on their business models and not enough on, well, anything else. If that contributes to the fall of the company, that's their mistake, and while it would let haters get in a cheap, dirty "I told you so," it's not like we never had a good time with whatever they provided us with.'

@silverbaretta: why does the term 'haters' get used whenever anyone dares offer anything other than praise for nintendo? some of us have been with nintendo since the beginning and are not 'haters' but merely wish some things were different.



Hardy83 said:

The funny thing is, Nintendo has a few IPs that would work really well with a F2P model with an in-game shop.

Animal Crossing comes to mind. Sell the game at retail really low (like $15-19) and have furniture packs to buy in the game.
Don't wanna grind out the Halloween set? Just buy it for $2.
New hair styles, hats and whatever.

Obviously some would have issue with it, but it would work, well.



NESguy94 said:

@Hardy83 That is a really good idea. I honestly never expected Nintendo to do any free downloads or anything like that. They put to much time and effort into their games anything out for free.

I like the idea of buying in-game items (like X-Box live) on the eshop.



Bankai said:

@Hardy - exactly. Pokemon would also work brilliantly with the microtransaction model "Too time strapped/ lazy to earn all the 'mons? buy packets of them"

Or even Pokemon Card game, if Nintendo ever decides to do one.

And every Nintendo game, bar none, would benefit from DLC content. Why Nintendo doesn't realise this is lucrative, I have no idea.



SilverBaretta said:

@k8smum: I wasn't really talking about Nintendo to be honest, I was talking about businesses in general. I've just been seeing this attitude a lot lately in the entertainment industry. As for the term "haters," well, would you believe I couldn't think of another term? No offense intended.



Skotski said:

Problem with that is, it'll take away from the game.
Imagine having all the furniture in AC that you wanted. ...what else do you have to do in the game besides expand your house?
The variety of number things to do is exactly what makes it better without DLC. This is a big difference from having games that give extra content rather than being a shortcut. Shortcut dlc = games lose their replay/play value. Extra content = adds value.

The problem with that idea is: Have you ever played an MMO where people can purchase new items with their own money?
It becomes a "rich vs poor" game. The rich (rich in the standard of willing to pay extra to unlock already-installed content) buy all the upgrades while the "poor" have to grind hours-and-hours just to get the item. By the time the "poor" gets the item, the rich have already mastered the item, dropped it, and moved to the next one.

...this splits the players heavily and ruins the fun for most.
Unless you can keep up in cash, there's no way it's a fair game for everyone.



TheGreenSpiny said:

@k8sMum: "Arrogance?" That sounds like your comments to a T. At $140 the Wii is the cheapest console on the market right now. Even the Wii Remote plus is only $40, which is $20 cheaper that the Wii remote & the Wii motion plus together. And considering Wii games are $10 cheeper than the competion. And as an added bonus the Wii lasts longer than 6 months. (Cough! 360 Cough!)



Corbs said:

As someone who witnessed the video game crash in 1984, I can say 100% that I'll do whatever it takes, even pay a little more money for games, to insure that nothing that devastating ever happens again.



FriedSquid said:

What people here aren't getting is that the developers need to get money, too. Making games costs money, and companies use the money they earn from sells to pay employees, pay for supplies, etc. If they give out free stuff the game would be awful because no money could be given to the workers to make the game good. It's only fair that you have to pay an expensive price for the game, since you're technically paying for the work needed to produce it. This creates a balance in the producer and the consumer. If there was free stuff, Nintendo would crash and burn, while we would get terrible games. It's fair trade, people. Deal with it.

@DarkKirby Well said, my friend. Well said.



Bankai said:


That's hardly exclusive to video games. CCGs like Magic the Gathering suffer from the same "problem." Dungeons and Dragons, and other Pen and Paper RPGs, have been asking people to shell out for the next book since before I was born. It's a proven business model... whether you consider it a problem or not is personal opinion, and not really relevant to what I was saying.

I don't see it as a problem at all. It's a hobby. If you like it a lot, you invest a lot, you get a lot out of it. The more casual players don't get as much out of it, but their level of invetment is lower.

For that reason I consider microtransactions the ideal way to to turn a single game into a full-time hobby. And, because the developers have an incentive to keep throwing cool stuff at you to buy, the games tend to be far better featured than traditional games.



Swiket said:

@Nintendoftw Sales has a lot to do with success. Nintendo knows full well that the Wii is vastly underpowered and underfeatured compared to its competition and built its tremendous success on a much more accessible price point and a wacky new control scheme that opened up the Wii to people who wouldn't have been able to tell a video game from a calculator. That decision was a concious one on Nintendo's part and no one can deny that from the financial bottom line - the only factor that really, truly matters at the end of the business day - it was a good decision.

And who are you to say what Nintendo fans "need" based on your own subjective analysis? Some arbitrary and baseless statement about how "almost half of Nintendo fans feel the need to buy a PS3/360"? And what would be the big deal if they do? Brand loyalty is silly.

My point is this: if it really does bother you that Nintendo might take the Wii U in a direction that you dislike then do not buy it.



SunnySnivy said:

Who cares? Can't afford the games, don't buy the console.

I'd rather have Nintendo focus on long games for 60$, rather than short games for free.

Free games are a waste of time. They would lose money if they spent time working on a game and then giving it away, when instead they could have spent that time working on a great game they could sell for 60$.



k8sMum said:

52. TheDarkness 17 Jun 2011, 04:15 BST
@k8sMum: "Arrogance?" That sounds like your comments to a T. At $140 the Wii is the cheapest console on the market right now. Even the Wii Remote plus is only $40, which is $20 cheaper that the Wii remote & the Wii motion plus together. And considering Wii games are $10 cheeper than the competion. And as an added bonus the Wii lasts longer than 6 months. (Cough! 360 Cough!)

how was my comment arrogant? do you deny the huge markup on nintendo hardware? the prices do come down when they consider one 'dead'. that's not a bad thing, but if you can justify the markup on the original Wii in the beginning or the 3DS now, then fine. i don't agree.



Skotski said:

The difference between card games and video games for this specific problem, is that trading is commonplace in card games. It's rare in video games.

Investment is fine and all, but availability can be a problem. This isn't always the best choice for all games out there. We tend to prefer genres and games to be split off from one another in these things. For instance, Champions Online - City of Heroes/Villains - and DC Universe Online all have different things to offer. Each have their own way of making the customer pay for the experience.
Some hate some, others hate others. Yet all of them please their aimed audiences.

For a game like Pokemon to go breaking the capturing-system that many people love without being a spin-off series? That can lose many customers in the long run.

And yes, devs throwing more things to make your game better is a great experience - but I think this is best for only certain titles. ...for instance, some games are best left finished once the story ends - others have several secrets that make the experience last longer - while others benefit greatly by constantly offering more and more.
... open world games tend to benefit greatly from microtransactions.

Everything else? Eh...



tweet75 said:

id much rather play an indepth entertaining, deep game with lots of great content and pay $39.99 for it than a piece of trash for nothing. The idea of having a games revenue from in game purchases is rediculous everything should be contained in a game. Even DLC should be free provided through game updates.



PSICOffee said:

Yeah fine, no free games whatever. What business would want to on a regular basis? But I've seen your salary Iwata, and $40 should not be the new average cost of a handheld game. I get the feeling they charge more because people buy it anyway and no one can stop them. Kinda like comedy central and fox selling family guy and futurama dvds by only 13 episodes per set instead of the 22 or so like it used to be and still keeping the same price tag. When I start seeing more AAA titles by the frequency of the NES and SNES on the modern and future consoles, I can agree with his logic of quality. The Wii clearly hasn't met that mark, but 30 games is better than none.



SuperSpank said:

I prefer buying a whole game more than playing a free game and keeping on paying €10,- to continue.



daznsaz said:

going to the shop in 50 mins to get my copy of oot dont know howmuch i will pay but im not expecting it for free give me my game happy days



Burny said:

If by "featured" you mean that there are a million different hats, shoulder pads and mounts to buy, then yes, they are potentially infinitely better "featured".

But half of the appeal of such things comes from the MMO nature of many free to play games. That is to say: These games are designed to be a hobby in the first place. Most Nintendo franchises aren't. They are timely limited experiences that are more or less wrapped up when the credits roll. And in regular intervals, Nintendo will sell a new iteration of these experiences. It's a proven business model for them.

The two Nintendo franchises that might arguably fit into a free to play, MMO or microtransaction model, are Animal Crossing and Pokemon. But as these two franchises have been successful in the past and there is no indication that this might change, it's a completely valid choice not to imitate what Cygna and similar companies are doing. As Iwata says: Just because many other people are thinking that way, we aren’t thinking that way.



J-Forest-Esq said:

Good. I hate freemium games. They're the bane of my life on the app store and they'd be the bane of my life on a Nintendo console.



Edwrd said:

Micro transactions will probably make Nintendo more money in the long run, but as a consumer, I probably pay more in the long run too, the worst is that the games will be designed around this business model, to lure and tease and drag the game out, it'll be a game about the items you can buy so you can be better, that sucks.



Pod said:

People rag on Nintendo, but seem to continously forget that this company hasn't seen a single year in the red for over 50 years.

They're a damn well functioning business, and while they may seem conservative at times, they're also frequently one of the industry's leading innovators.



TheGreenSpiny said:

@k8smum: What markup are you refering too? Do you know how much it costs to build a Wii or 3DS? Sony had no markup on the PS3 because it was too expensive and no one would buy it. Both Sony and MS have other businesses to fall back on. MSRP for products are based on thier percieved value. Lots of other businesses have way higher markup than the games industry. You only buy hardware once, so it's not a huge deal.

BTW... What the hell does this have to do with "free to play"? People bitching about Nintendo's prices don't understand what "free to play" means. Excite Bike 3D is not "free to play." It is a free game period. At least for the next month. Free to play games (such as Farmville or Maple Story) are scams that sucker you into paying way more than you ever should for a shallow craptastic experience that no real gamer in their right mind would pay for. Nintendo are first and formost leaders in gameplay innovations. Where is the gameplay innovation in something like Farmville? Why wouldn't somebody just buy Harvest Moon? I've never played Farmville but I'm pretty sure Harvest Moon is a much better farming sim. Free to play is a business innovation not a gameplay one. It targets non gamers who don't normally play video games. I for one are happy Nintendo is not doing this.



Robo-goose said:

If you think that a game with as much depth as your standard Nintendo game should only cost 1$-6$ at launch, then shame on you. Seriously, I could by one burger with a drink and fries for six bucks. You're putting the value of Super Mario Galaxy at the same level as a cheaply made piece of junk food!



Henmii said:

"World of Goo was originally $20 on PC, and it never got downloadable levels or a level editor on either platform"

I think you are wrong, but I am to lazy to investigate now.

"Although I agree with that statement, not all kids are that dumb. Second of all, the gaming industry isn't solely based on children. Children to adults all pay a part to the development of the gaming industry"

Well, lets say youngsters then. And maybe some older people too. Anyway, people who think that everything has to be free have the wrong attitude in my opinion.



composerzane said:

Nintendo's current IP's are all either (A), sufficiently successful (sales wise, if not always critically) without relying on free-to-play/freemium models, or (B), largely incompatible with said models.

Actually, come to think of it, when was the last time Nintendo unveiled a new, first party IP?
erm... Pikmin???

Which was the last one before that?!

Am I missing something?!?!?!



IronMan28 said:

I understand they are a company that wants to see profit right away, but I personally feel if they lower the prices of their games it will drive sales.



Burny said:


The whole Wii Sports/Play/Party/Music/Fit stuff are new IPs. Xenoblade is a new Nintendo IP (Monolith is first party), Excitetruck / Excitebots are new IPs, Pandora's Tower is a new IP (japan only by the looks), so are Endless Ocean and Another Code R. There should be some more I'm not aware of and some which will stay in Japan.

They have a whole lot of new IPs, but most people look only at the most prominent examples - mainly Mario and Zelda - and fail to see this. It's understandable, as these classic IPs eclipse most newer things in terms of critical reception and mass appeal, but the "no new IPs sentiment" is still a misconception.



motang said:

Well I really don't know what to say to this one, as there are certain games that Nintendo has released that are worth the price i.e. the Wii line of games like Wii Play etc. But I definitely agree that they shouldn't really do free to play with their core franchises.



Pod said:

People who say lower price will "drive sale":

The prices already ARE lower. Games cost largely the same as they have for 25 years, yet they hold MUCH more content, and inflation has meant we can afford many more of them.



mayhem13 said:

definately he's talking facebook games, I agree with him. While there are about 10 big facebook games that make a ton of money on microtransactions. There is also what feels like 500 or more other games that don't make a thing.

Now if someone wanted to be a real jerk, they could say, 50% of the Wii game library (mostly 3rd party) doesn't have any real value to begin with.

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...