News Article

Talking Point: Are Wii U Games Going To Be Too Expensive?

Posted by Damien McFerran

At $60 a pop, can the Wii U really provide value for money?

In an age where many gamers are getting their entertainment for free via either 'freemium' smartphone titles or free-to-play web services, it should hardly be a massive shock to learn that there are some individuals out there that believe big-budget home console releases are a dying breed; they're far too expensive to survive in the modern gaming landscape.

This is despite the fact that many current-generation games costs millions to produce, and provide the kind of epic experience that you usually expect to see in a movie theatre. It's a line of argument that also ignores the fact that in most case, software is actually cheaper than it was almost two decades ago, when expensive cartridges ruled the roost.

However, the debate regarding how much we should hand over at the cash register for our interactive entertainment has reached a new level with the confirmation that Wii U software will cost around $60. That's the same as 360 and PS3 games, just in case you were wondering.

Although there's a parity with games on other formats - both in terms of price and graphical performance - Don Reisinger of SlashGear believes that Wii U games are overpriced.

In his piece entitled "Why You Shouldn’t Preorder the Wii U Yet", he states:

Chief among those concerns is how much the Wii U’s games will cost. Nintendo has said that its console will have about 50 games available to customers between launch day and the end of March, and it has even said that a new Super Mario game will be available, but those titles will cost $60.

That’s a problem. Nintendo customers have been conditioned to pay less for games for the last two generations. Now they’re paying the same as Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 customers for graphics that really don’t seem all that much better than what we’ve seen to this point? That’s a problem if I’ve ever seen one.

But it’s not just that. The Wii U will undoubtedly offer up better graphics than its predecessor, but there is real concern that it won’t be that much of a step up over the PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360. In fact, many of the games that are available on those other devices are now coming to the Wii U as simple ports. That’s not exactly the most reassuring news to people who are considering plunking down $300 or $350, plus games, to buy a console.

We're not sure that a Wii U game should automatically be cheaper because it looks the same as a 360 or PS3 game (which, lest we forget, also retail at sixty bucks), but Reisinger could have a point. When the next Xbox and PlayStation hit the market, it's almost certain that they will do with the same RRP for games - so where does that leave the Wii U? Can Nintendo realistically charge $60 for games which are - in visual terms at least - a generation behind the competition?

Gaming is entering a period where players are getting more entertainment than ever, but the cost of that entertainment is dropping. Prior to the smartphone revolution, there was literrally nowhere else to turn - you had to drop your cash on the latest release from Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft because - outside of the PC market - they had it locked down.

Now, with new challengers on the scene that are tempting players with games that don't cost a single penny to play, the field has changed dramatically. Could this force companies like Nintendo to drop the price of their games? Or do you think that full-price console releases provide value for money? Should Nintendo be aiming below the 360 and PS3 right from the off? Or is this entire topic a complete waste of time? Let us know your opinion by voting in the poll.

Is $60 too much for Wii U software? (339 votes)

No, I don't mind paying top dollar for quality


Yes, they should be cheaper


I don't really have an opinion either way


Please login to vote in this poll.


From the web

User Comments (157)



Retro_on_theGo said:

Are they're seriously people thinking $60 dollars is too much money for a Wii U game? Developers need to earn a living too, people!



Hokori said:

IDK it depends on the game, Rabbid Land NO, NSMBU YES, Bayonetta 2 YES, Nintendo Land NO, MH3U YES



MarioMario said:

The sole reason this system will sell: Nintendo. We buy Nintendo products because it's the only way to play the next alliterations in our favorite series. We just can't play them anywhere else, all the other multiplatform games are just a nice plus. Expect the biggest boost of sales when the next Smash Brothers come out



TruenoGT said:

It's the double edged sword of more sophisticated graphics and infrastructure. I still remember paying $75 for launch window N64 games (and $60+ for some Squaresoft SNES games). 16-17 years later, you can get a top notch game that undoubtedly cost many, many more times to make for $60 or less... sounds pretty reasonable compared to inflation in other industries.



Drobotic said:

Nintendo doesn't need to increase the price since Wii and 3DS games already sell greatly.The more people who buy,the more money they make.



Kagamine said:

It costs more to produce HD quality experiences, and the gamepad surely requires some extra work aswell. I don't see why $60 dollars is to much, it's what the games are worth.



shingi_70 said:

Deoends on the game and quality of the software as a whole.

I don't buy a game on just graphics, though I may salivate at the newest bullshots and tech demos.



Wilford111 said:

I think the games are too expensive. I'm just glad I'm mainly a portable system gamer
Although, I worry if those portable games will ramp up their prices over time...



dimi said:

Too expensive. 30 euro is a far more reasonable price. Prices are just ridicuoulous (PS3 and xbox games too). 20 or 30 dollar max is fair price.



OptometristLime said:

"Now they’re paying the same as Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 customers for graphics that really don’t seem all that much better than what we’ve seen to this point?"

Wait, wait. HD graphics aren't an improvement over standard visuals?



Slapshot said:

While I think the games are definitely worth the $60 asking price, I wish Nintendo would've opted to stay at the $50 market. I actually got in this conversation with quite a few guys at my local GameStop, as several customers were asking (hoping) they'd still get the $50 price for games on Wii U, as it was a selling point for them with Wii.

Wii U will sell great regardless, but I'd have liked to see the $50 price-tag to have stuck around. Personally, I've bought less games since the price went up to the $60 price point. If anything, I'd like to see the tiered pricing that Sony uses for Vita carried over to Wii U.



Splat said:

I voted "I don't really have an opinion either way" because I pretty much always wait for the price drop on whatever game I'm wanting.



willobee said:

No they are not too expensive. First, taking into consideration inflation, games have been more expensive in the past, and I would argue that for the most part current games offer much more involving or larger experiences. They certainly take much more money to be created these days. Second, gaming as a hobby is in many cases one of the most cost efficient forms of entertainment when it comes to dollar per hour. Third, can't afford the games brand new? Wait for a sale, or skip a couple. Gaming is a luxury, after all.



senatormarrero said:

The price is not too bad. Wii U provides additional functionality over PS3 and 360 controllers so if anything, games should be priced higher than PS3 and 360 games. Secondly, how do we know PS4 and 720 games are not going to be $70? Last generation games were $50 and now they're $60. Next gen could be $70 given how many developers are concerned with rising costs of more powerful hardware.



kkslider5552000 said:

Maybe if the industry wasn't obsessed with the standards for current gen graphics being absurdly expensive despite graphically imferior looking games being more popular than ever, we wouldn't have this problem.



steamhare said:

This is a natural consequence of the game industry using dark magic to maintain the same MSRP for over a decade. I thank my lucky stars publishers never decided that initial price points should be increased every 2 years.



McGruber said:

Well unless I have significantly more money, I am not going to drop $60 for a game. MAYBE for the new HD Zelda, but that's it. I might have payed $40 ONCE for a 3DS game. Everything else I buy is used or with trade-ins or through



Gate_Shikimuri said:

Nintendo = Mario
Nintendo = Zelda
Nintendo = Pokemon
Nintendo = Kirby
Sony ≠ These
Microsoft ≠ These

$60 is not too much. From standard to HD, this was expected. But as long as they throw out their best IPs with great gameplay and stuff, I'd buy it.



Ernest_The_Crab said:

My guess is that $60 will be the max though (unless it's one of those "special edition" packages). From what I've noticed from the more recent Nintendo platforms, Nintendo games are generally always at the maximum price point (you pay a premium to play a Nintendo game) but I've seen plenty of games that go for around 10-20 less range (less than the maximum price).

From what I've seen of Wii U game predicted prices, that trend seems to be continuing, where we'll have software ranging in price.



Emaan said:

I expected the games to be $60 honestly. That's what we've been paying since this past generation started. Its only a difference of $10 by the usual Wii game, and its identical to the price of major releases on the other platforms. Makes perfect sense.



Popyman said:

Wait, two generations? I don't remember GameCube games being cheaper than PS2/Xbox games. :/



Silverbullet89 said:

Prices eventually drop on all games. If the rumors are true then the WiiU will be the only console capable of playing used games, which not only drops the price of the game they're paying for but also makes people more likely to buy games knowing they can trade it in if they don't like it after a certain amount of time.



Bankai said:

Yeah, games are way too expensive.

It would have been far better for these multi-million dollar games to have been priced at $50, thereby guaranteeing the closure of any development studio that doesn't hit absurdly-high sales figures.

It would have been better because that extra $10 for the consumer is just so unfair, right.



Scarkaiser said:

The thing that scares me about crap like this, is that people are eventually going to have themselves convinced that $60 is too much for a game. It will be the death of the industry. Mobile/social gaming are just business models, poisons, that will eventually convince too many that paying $0.99 for a game is the same as paying $60.

Why do I like paying $60 for a game? Because I know it's going to deliver an experience that you can't get for free or $0.99. Mobile/social will not catch up in this regard ANYTIME soon. Can you imagine Halo 4 costing $0.99 or Zelda releasing for free?! Not gonna happen.

I hope that many of us continue to vote with our money. If we pay $60 for Nintendo's games, they will succeed as a company. Making people who write this trash look as stupid as they are.



fishman100 said:

There are undoubtedly going to be some excellent games (especially as more and more titles are developed) out there, and I don't really want to be paying $60 for just one game.

@Silverbullet89 True, but the price drops a while after the game was released (some exceptions apply, but not to most "big Nintendo" title such as Mario).



Chuie said:

60$ sounds fine idc either way im only buying bayonetta 2 zombiu and pikmin 3



ArmoredGoomba said:

$60 is too much. Mostly because nintendo NEVER drops the price of their top selling games. They only re-release them 4 years later. MAYBE. I can't afford to pay $60 every time I want a new nintendo game.



GrumpyGoomba said:

$60 is reasonable it's not like your going to be buying a game everyday.If your like me you buy a game and beat it then move on,but if a game doesn't have a good amount of content I can see if you say $60 is to much.From what i've seen though almost all the games for wii u look worth $60



Setrodox said:

I avoid paying full price anyway, but a $60 price point makes perfect sense. Maybe when the next Sony and Microsoft systems come out, the price point can drop across the board. For now, it's the same price for a comparable product across multiple systems.



Magi said:

Geeze ya'll. I can spend $20-$25 just to go see a movie and that's only 2 hours of entertainment. Imagine how the entertainment to dollar ratio is on games like Skyrim. $60 is a fair price.



iphys said:

I don't think $60 is going to bother anyone willing to drop $300 on the system. If it does dissuade anyone, there will always be game sales. I was already able to pre-order Wii U games for as low as $40.



King_Boo said:

I want to say cheaper just because I have no money, but if I look at it that 3DS games are a bit better than wii games and Wii U games are a ton better, then a 3DS game and Wii U game is the same as 2 Wii game but much higher value.



Grodus said:

"Or was this entire topic a whole waste of time?"
Yes. Clearly, this guy just wants a rload of attention, so he just said something against nintnedo. As the article states, current gen games cost $60. Next gen games wich are better (gameplay and graphics-wise) costing the same should be a good thing.



kyuubikid213 said:

I don't know why anyone would post an article about this... The last generation (PS360) had their games priced at $60 for launch, so I think it's fair. Besides, only the good games stayed expensive (as with Wii). Remember how fast Duke Nukem Forever dropped from $60 to $10? I personally think $60 is a more than fair price. Especially when the Wii U itself only costs $300.



1wiierdguy said:

I dream of the day I can get Wii U games here in Australia for $60. Us Aussies have been screwed over for years. Our $ is on par with the U.S yet we will pay between $99 and $108 for Wii U games!



kyuubikid213 said:

Let's look at this from a different angle for a second...
When the PS3 launched at 600 freakin' dollars, the games it had were at $60. Why is it an issue when Nintendo does it?



GeePers said:

No, $60 isn't too much nowadays. Especially when you compare it to the growing trend on the Xbox where it's $60 game + $50 yearly subscription + $35 to $60 for a year of Xbox Live. The DLC/Subscription model is really starting to get out of control on the other consoles. As long as the Wii stays away from that $60 is more than reasonable.



WaveGhoul said:

Rayman Legends is going for $49 CAD at BestBuy, so it seems not all titles will be locked in at $59. if anything, i think '$70' like some PS3/360 titles is over priced.



EvansLegends said:

I don't see how it's such a big problem for Nintendo to charge the same amount as 360 and PS3 games, if Wii U games are about in the same level...

That being said, I still think $60.00 is too much for a game. I was disappointed when they announced a $60.00 price tag for Wii U games.



AVahne said:

Really does depend on the game. For Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate, HELL YES simply because it's Monster Hunter.
For something like Bayonetta 2, DEFINITELY because it'll probably be one of the first games to demonstrate even a HINT of Wii U's power, being built for only the Wii U in mind and all. I'm thinking Smash Bros. will be the best indicator midlife of what the Wii U can do.
But I'll also pay $60 for Ninja Gaiden 3 Razer's Edge, if it's better than the original NG3. Why? Because new exclusive content like playable Ayane and hopefully an improved game.



Dodger said:

Publishers should make the decision on how expensive their game should be. Rayman shouldn't be forced to go up against Mario for the same price. A smaller shooter like Homefront shouldn't be forced to go up against Call of Duty for the same price. Same on downloadable shops. Some games are worth $60 (and more). Some games aren't because they stink. Some games are, but most people don't know that they are. Great reviews, horrid sales.

I wish it wasn't the norm. A game that costs millions of dollars to make, sure. A sequel like Wii Fit or New Super Mario Bros. DS 4 isn't quite worth that price. I might pay $60, but I don't think it would be an entirely fair price.

@45 Ignoring the fact that it was lame for Sony to have a $600 system with $60 games in the first place, it isn't really that big of a deal for it to be $10 more then a Wii game. I just don't think every game should have to be $60.

Of course, some developers need to stop using so much money on a game if they don't know it will sell. Nothing wrong with making a high quality, yet slightly smaller game and making a larger, more expensive sequel if you need to.



nothankyou said:

Like most people have stated, I think it should depend on the game. For example, a game like Wii Sports shouldn't be put on the same caliber price-wise as say, Xenoblade Chronicles.



C7_ said:

This is a joke right? I've seen new-to-3-month-old 360 and PS3 games go for $60 regularly, + $5 if you go to Gamestop and buy it brand spanking new, because hey, it's Gamestop.

From what's been seen, WiiU games are providing high quality games on a new medium with tight controls (no silly arm waving in front of a 3D camera or giant glowing balls, just an accurate touch screen and buttons). Need I remind everyone that SNES games came out new between $60-$80? That means the average price has gone down, even excluding inflation. As the articles pointed out, cartridges were more expensive, but you have to take into account how much more production time and money needs to go into games.

This is very much a fair price for top quality games, and the low-quality games will go down in price quickly anyway. If anything, they're cheaper than they should be for what they really are.(of course, I'd take an issue with $80 nowadays; they may have to make a living but I don't have to play video games.)

Oh, and on the topic of free games; They're designed specifically to get more money out of a wider player-base over time than one initial entry, so they're not competing with those because they are just as much if not more so money dumps.



Dodger said:

@Magi But I hate paying $25 to $30 at the movies too. I just don't buy food anymore. I don't like soda and I can't eat popcorn.

@Nin-Freak It isn't about the disk. If it was, Wii games would be horridly overpriced (and so would Wii U games). The development cost is what determines the price. They have to pay employees, shipping, packaging, advertising, lawyers, Etc. The problem still is that if they sell it for $60 and the game doesn't catch any attention because everybody buys the new CoD game instead, the game is still a loss.

And there still is the issue of everybody releasing their games at the holiday season next to that new CoD game without thinking about if a different release date would get them more attention...



Metal_Slugger said:

One thing I noticed about PS3 games is they will go WAY down in price even the exclusives. Even the new games don't take long to go down. Nintendo hold their value pretty well the first party ones. Until I go to sell one then all of a sudden the bottom drops out. I won't even buy a PS3 game if its more than 20 dollars its like burning money.



Kyloctopus said:

But I'm not buying graphics, I'm buying games. And with the Wii u there are plenty of Gameplay possibilities.
Mass Effect and Batman should be cheaper though.



WesCash said:

Too expensive.
I can go on Steam and get a bunch of high-quality games for $60.
If games are going to start at $60, they better have a heck of a lot of value. Also, Nintendo first party games almost never drop in price which is ridiculous.



Token_Girl said:

I don't see any issue with pricing HD games equivalently to other HD games. I do worry that the eShop prices for older games won't stay competitive with retail price drops, however.



Azikira said:

As long as the game has enough content to warrant that price, I am absolutely fine with it. ^^ So easily any first party title (minus the initial eye-candy games)



cheesesteak7 said:

not sure if any SP game is truly worthy of a $60 price tag.
well, I should say, 95% of the SP games that have come out the past handful of years are definitely not worthy of a $60 price tag.



Zombie_Barioth said:

I voted yes but not because $60 is too much Is it a lot yes but then I know what I'm getting for my $60, and is only a problem if your buying 3-4 full price games a month. Gaming is one of the easiest hobbies to do on a budget.

I do think the pricing system needs to change. We either need tiered pricing for smaller games lower budget games, $50 for smaller games and $60 for premium title which seems fair, with handheld games being $30-$40.

Or at least Nintendo needs to do something to compensate for a lack of a price drop. I'm still finding new copies of Mario Kart wii for $40 while SMG2 is still $50 after two years. They also can't just change their mind on the price without ticking people off.



I-U said:

I'm not okay with this. Having games at $60 means less of a library, as I get more picky the more expensive games are, which comes back to haunt the initial investment for the system. In the case of the Wii U, it will be the most expensive investment to start with. These games better be stacked. The Wii has taken until this year to really convince me that its $50 a pop is appropriate beyond three games.



AltDotNerd said:

I'm so sick of hearing about how "freemium games will overcome console games". Grade-A Bulls***! You're not
a true gamer if all you play are smartphone games.



Hyperstar96 said:

It amazes me how people think graphics resolution is representative of ALL technology. Just because it's 1080p doesn't mean it's not better than 360 and PS3 in every other technological aspect.



Tornado said:

$60 is too expensive for me. I have plenty of games from older eras (GCN/PS2/Wii) that I haven't played that are a tiny fraction of that cost. And someday the cost of those $60 games will come down to something more affordable. And I can definitely wait.



Tony3DS said:

I paid the $50 for Animal Crossing City Folk because I loved that franchise. Less than a year latter it was selling for $20, but I had no regrets because I had so much fun that year. Usually I wait for games to go on sale, just because I can’t keep up with playing them all. I’m getting the deluxe Wii U with Nintendoland and I’ll probably wait for other games to go on sale at least a bit. I guess I am accustomed to paying $50 or less, but still, I spend a lot on Nintendo games and hardly any anywhere else.



Porky said:

Graphics arn't everything! If you want top graphics, watch a movie >.<.



doctor_doak said:

I'm not convinced FTP is the 'game-changing' revolutionary method for delivering games despite all the hype. Many work on a model of 'pay-to-win', forcing the player to fork out money just to be able to compete with players who've purchased op items & they can be very unbalanced experiences.

At the end of the day the F2P model is only really currently relevant in the multiplayer on-line arena, and Nintendo's biggest titles like Zelda, Metroid, 3D Mario, etc.. tend to be focused on epic single-player experiences, so the F2P model just doesn't make a lot of sense for Nintendo's own games. They're just a different type of game.

Having said that, with the presence of an on-line store they could do something like the Steam sales you get on PC, where you can get games up to 75% off. Those sales are pretty lucrative and ensure that game sales tick-over during off-season periods for gaming (i.e. Summer). You get great bargains, and I definately find myself buying games that I think are great value, rather than the fact that I desperately want to play them..

I think having that flat $60 price-tag is an issue and needs to change, with there being so much competition in the gaming space. I mean, i'm not too worried about the lack of graphical prowess because like most people i'm buying a Wii U primarily for Nintendo's own franchises and exclusives like Bayonetta 2, kart racers and 3rd person action with local multiplayer, etc..

I mean, i'm just not sure how much Nintendo's own franchises would benefit from a cutting edge powerhouse system, and I think that plays into their thinking and has left them to try to do novel things from an input perspective as a point of difference from the other consoles.



sillygostly said:

@1wiierdguy : Just keep your eye out for those rare sales. I absolute refuse to pay over $60 for Wii games and I still ended up with the cream of the crop (Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2, Super Smash Bros Brawl, Animal Crossing, Punch Out, Mario Kart, Wii Sports Resort etc.). I'd probably be willing to pay up to $70 for a Wii U game though.



PopeReal said:

I remember paying $50 a game for SNES and up to $60 for N64 so really it is nice that games aren't more than they are now.



DrDingus said:

I'm the same way. 3DS is my system of choice right now and the typical $40 price tag isn't much of a burden. I can't really see that price increasing until at least the next generation of handhelds... if there even is one. Since the line between handheld and console is getting ever blurrier, the NEXT next generation could feasibly be both in one. But I digress, $60 is a fair price for now, but I'm curious too see how much PS4 and XBox 720 games will be in comparison.



Moonhillwat said:

I don't care if games were even more expensive back in the day, and I don't care if $60 is a great value considering how much is put into making a game. Sixty dollars is still sixty dollars. And that is a LOT of money. Twenty dollars more than I'm comfortable with paying for games.



Huiee123 said:

Zaavi sells the games for £40 rather than £50. I am buying my wii u there as it is inly £275 for the deluxe.



Alienfish said:

Some games will be the full $60 and others will be less, that's how it is with 3DS and Wii now and that's what will continue to happen (of course the cap right now is $50). As long as NSMBU has the content and polish then it's worth it, but a game like Nintendo Land that is so small that the limits of it are already known should be less. Honestly, I wouldn't mind paying upwards of $100 for a game that was so polished and so full of diversity and content that it was basically as good as two games combined.



TrueWiiMaster said:

I don't get it. Why would anyone question Nintendo charging $60 per HD game when that's been happening for 6-7 years on HD games? Of course I'd prefer less, but I don't think it's really fair to say Nintendo's games are being overpriced. I do think some of these ports are outrageously priced at full retail though. Right now Mass Effect 3 and Batman AC (GOTY Edition) go for $30 and about $40 respectively, and yet both are going to be $60 when they release for the Wii U in a couple months? Now THAT'S overpriced. I'm also still waiting for some justification for Scribblenauts' 50% price difference between the 3DS and Wii U versions. As far as I know they offer the same exact content.

That quote has a couple serious flaws in it. For one:
"Now they’re paying the same as Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 customers for graphics that really don’t seem all that much better than what we’ve seen to this point?"
This guy seems to want two opposing conditions here. 1) Nintendo fans never play other consoles, and so aren't used to the $60 price tag, and 2) They're used to the graphics of those $60 games they aren't used to getting. Without these two opposite points, his argument doesn't really work.

Also, what was he talking about with the "Nintendo customers have been conditioned to pay less for games for the last two generations" thing? As I recall, Gamecube games were the same price as PS2 games. In fact, didn't the N64 actually have games that sold for OVER the standard prices?




It is too much simply because the games depreciate in cost likr light speed in the PS3 and XBox world. The 2nd hand market sees a lot of very cheap games (nuch like the Wii). Basically, all video games are too expensive in the beginning, especially the HD versions. It'll decrease the sales of more niche sales further, which I like playing the Nintendo systems for (eg. Wonderful 101). It won't help devs in the long run.



StarDust4Ever said:

I'm tired of the nay-sayers saying Wii-U HD doesn't compare to PS3/Xbox360 HD. Virtually all Wii games output 480p. While the Xbox360 and PS3 are technically capable of outputting 1080i/p, the vast majority of games run at 720p. Do the math: 720p is 50% more scanlines than 480p. That's 2.25x as many pixels. Wii-U games play at 1080p x 60fps. That's 50% more scanlines than PS3, or 2.25x the screen pixels compared to PS3/Xbox360 games. So, technically the graphics are more detailed than last current gen games.

Thirdly, it has been long established by the industry that 60 dollars is a fair price for HD games. Also, Mario gets my money any day of the week. I own every 2D and 3D Mario core platform series game from NES SMB to 3DS NSMB2 and everything on between. So, Nintendo/Mario gets my money come November 18th. Developers need to get paid; it is worth the money for a premium gaming experience.



TheAdza said:

I don't see the value in paying that high price for a game like NSMBU. It's just not worth that much money. A new 3D Mario adventure game sure, but not a 2D platformer. Especially one that although I know will be great fun, it is just yet another remix of the NSMB formula in HD with different backgrounds. Would a HD Zelda game be worth the price? Yes. Bayonetta 2? Indeed. Rayman Legends? No. Even Pikmin is going to be a hard sell at the higher price. CoD and Mass Effect and all those AAA games deserve the higher price. But a 2D recycled HD Mario platformer does not in my opinion.

I can see Wii U games becoming more competitive once the next round of consoles start appearing.



19Robb92 said:

Doesn't seem too high. As long as I get the full game on the disc and not all of this on-disc DLC or DLC the day after release crap, I'm happy.

So I know Nintendo games will be worth it, as always.



Romeo said:

this some kind of joke?
20-30? are u serious?

or was that actually sarcasm?
if you were being serious, well.. dream on, if they'd sell for 20-30.. we would pretty quickly run out of top quality games

about the 60$.... i dont get why u pple are crying, i have to pay 60euro for a game, and i dont mind
60$ is absolutely fine for top quality games (which you know you'll love), of course there are also those games that arent even worth 30$, yet they cost 60$
its up to you

i paid 100euro for Diablo 3 CE and this fking game isnt even worth 10euro, huge disappointment
cant wait for great wii u games... a new zelda for example
i gladly pay 60$ for that



madgear said:

High prices are actually one of the things that are killing the industry. Most games take the average gamer several months to complete yet there's usually more than one "must have" title released each month. Considering games are released to a limited market (just people who own that particular console) how do they ever expect to make their money back when people don't have the time or the money to buy even a fraction of the games available?

This is why the games industry is NOTHING like the film industry. Films are cheaper, they don't require months of your life and anyone can watch them as they don't require you own a specific console. The solution is simple - don't make every single game an expensive sprawling epic. Obviously epic games like Zelda should always be that price but other titles should be kept simple fun and cheap so people can buy more than one game every couple of months. Fun arcade style games that cost around £15 that you can keep coming back to. Not everything needs to be a padded out epic - if the industry keeps like this then were going to continue to lose great developers.



WolfyWardark said:

You get what you pay for really in this day and age, so I'm happy with what the price of the games will be. Games that are bought for 69p or whatever get stale extremely quickly. I like longevity and replay value when it comes to gaming, and Nintendo always manage to cater for my needs.



Zombie_Barioth said:

@TrueWiiMaster The WiiU version has a content creator that the 3DS version lacks. Sucks cause I would rather have Scribblenauts on the go but still isn't worth the higher price imo.

Nintendo really needs to drop the lower price devaluing the game montra, yes the games sell well enough that they really don't need it but its silly to think they can say that while sweeping mega hits like Halo and COD also dropping in price under the rug. Its also foolish to think that just being a Nintendo game automatically makes it worth $60. It wouldn't tarnish their name if they released smaller budget friendly games, its the quality consoles and games that made them a household name not the price. While still great games like Nintendo Land usually aren't worth $60.



Void said:

So he doesn't think Nintendo games are worth as much as PS360 games becuase the graphics are(Currently) on just about the same level?
I'm sorry, but my brain can't wrap my head around that 'logic', and as @Magi said, it costs a lot just to see a, on average, 1 1/2 to 2 hour movie at the theater, I've enjoyed many games for 250+ hours.. I don't think it's too bad of a deal, although I do question the value of many PS360 games which don't even have 10 hour campaigns/stories.



SirSmugleaf said:

You spoilt brats in America!!!!!!
We in Australia have to pay close to $100 and you guys complain for $60!
It's a bargain if I find a $60 Xbox, Playstation, or EVEN Wii game!
And our dollars are pretty much exactly the same ATM!!!
So, I think $60 is good for you spoilt brats, coz we usually have to pay about DOUBLE THAT!!!!



Edwrd said:

Yeah its only $10 more than before, now you get HD graphics and sound, the whole feel of the game don't have to be simple sort of SD graphics anymore, I would say $50 is expensive for Wii games today because of the state of video games nowadays, $60 is just what everyone is paying for on the other platforms. If I pay $60 for a PC game to run on my mid range PC, I can't turn on all the graphical bells and whistles, but same price!

I read slashgear sometimes on other topics, a lot of these tech writers really don't know what they are talking about where ever they work, they say how the Wii is basically stupid and can't sell because its for kids and old people, then 6 years later it sells 100 million units, lets face it, that is what Reisinger wanted to say about Wii U too except it would be unprofessional to say it directly. A lot of these tech writers are idiots, its not that they don't have a future or anything, but their opinion sometimes come from stupidity, spend no time debating this nonsense. Simply wait and let these game companies do their marketing magic and BOOM, mad sales. To be honest, I think a lot of games are really stupid and not worth $60 at all, but others love them for some reason, if I write about that, I'll be among those tech writers mentioned. Just bloody wait and see! Whats all this dweeby "it won't see because I say so" nonsense ...



JuanitoShet said:

In some ways I agree and in some I dont. Thats the kind if money quality gamez cost nowadays. Wish they were lower than PS3 & The 360.



Kirk said:

Wii U games are too expensive.Any games above around £20 are too expensive in this day and age imo. Unless they really have something unique or special about them that justifies a higher price. I'm talking like they come in a special delux gold collectors edition case or something.



JimLad said:

If they're gonna charge that much, they better up their game. (no pun)
Because games like Skyward Sword, Kirby's Return to Dream Land and Animal Crossing are definately not worth as much as say Elder Scrolls, Darksiders, GTA, etc.
Not because I prefer those games, but they are simply bigger and cost a lot more to make.



Rekiotsu said:

I think 60 dollars or 60 euros is bit too much but around 50 would already be a lot better deal.



GazPlant said:

Too expensive, especially in the UK. £50 for a game is outrageous in my opinion



Shiryu said:

We are living in the most unprecedented economic crisis that ever was. I do not own a PS3 or 360 partly because the games over here in the shelves cost new €70. They're as expensive as SNES / Megadrive carts where 20 years ago. I found the Wii €40-€50 price to be much fair. Of course I do know that Wii U games are many times more expensive to produce, but the end consumer (us!) are already burden for money due to "real life". Developers and Retailers should take this in consideration above all else.



Kafei2006 said:

If the graphics are the same or even slightly better than on 360/PS3 then it's only natural that it should cost the same thing, especially since even more thought and game design will go into making the games exclusive to the console's unique controller and online features.

Can you count how many studios closed since the start of this console's generation just because HD games cost an awful lot of money to produce? I'm ready to bet we've lost more game developers since the start of this generation around 2006/2007 than in all the years preceding it. They HAVE to charge more money for what costs more produce. Comparing a smartphone game that looks like a web-browser flash based game to AAA HD games like what you see on consoles is ridiculous. Sure it's hard on the end customer but if the latter wants to see HD games to continue to be produced, he or she had better keep on buying them.

If the next PS or XBox come out as more powerful, then games for these platforms will also cost even more to produce and developer's margins will be reduced as well in the process. Better looking graphics cost more to produce, that's the way it works, isn't it? Do you think in the current crisis situation they'll be able to survive for long on the next generation of MS and Sony consoles without rising ever so slightly the price of their products again? I doubt it. If they don't, then we haven't seen the end of more big name studios closing their doors for good. Such a former giant as Sega reducing its production of AAA titles is already a bad sign of this and things won't improve in the years to come at this rate.



LavaTwilight said:

The prices of everything are going up. When the next consoles come out I don't see their games being $60. I rarely buy games at full price but there's a huge surge of decent games coming out for the Wii U and I feel like Iw ant to be there at the frontline for them! Esp Pikmin 3. I'm sorry but Microsoft will never get my money for an XBox and I'm losing loyalty for Sony too!



Big_Gamer said:

At first I thought Yes but then I checked how much 60$ actually is around here and No thats not too much.



NintyMan said:

As the technology and specs get more powerful, so will the price. It really depends on the game, but I'm fine with a slightly higher price if it means I'm getting a good-quality game. Besides the Christmas season blitz, you don't have to buy a bunch of these games in one sitting. Actually, I would've been surprised if Wii U games had stayed $50. I think it's just to be expected to have a higher price for each new game for a new console.

And as people already pointed out, new games are more expensive right out of the gate, but down the road they get slightly or even significantly cheaper.



Bass_X0 said:

No, I don't mind paying top dollar for quality

The problem seems to be that many games are evolutionary not revolutionary. The current Wii U games don't appeal to me. I had no problems paying £50 for Super Mario 64 on N64 launch day but I would have difficulty doing the same for New Super Mario Bros. U. Sure I will get NSMBU eventually, but it doesn't make me want to go out and buy a Wii U just to play it as soon as I can.



ouroborous said:

Cheaper would certainly be a great angle for selling more units. But with eShop and WiiWare and all that download stuff, if they provide decent and interesting games through digital means, they can sate the "fun games should be cheaper" crowd. People certainly expect to pay about $60 for a new console game, and less for any handheld or download fare, so maybe it's not really even an issue at all. There will always be handheld games and there will always be console games apparently. Though I will admit that my personal interest in console gaming has waned to the degree that I now favor handheld outings almost exclusively. Then again, the WiiU offers the feel of handheld gaming via a console, so that's an interesting angle for someone like me. I am 100% sure that I will play WiiU more on the gamepad controller screen than on the TV, for any game that supports it.



Araknie said:

How can i pretend less for a 25gb disc that's new and not blue ray. Plus put in a game.

I guess that complaints will last less when Sony and Microsoft will announce their priced software for the new consoles if they are so powerful as they keep to tell us. (i doubt that seeing that a PC like video card on the WiiU makes the console alone stand on 299$/€ unless they want to sell consoles at 600 again)



SaKo said:

@PoshSnivy Exactly what I am thinking! They complain about 3DS games being $40 whereas here the 3DS games are usually higher than $60! I guess if the same games were originally $10, they would complain if some were $20...



erv said:

Instead of asking whether the price is high, ask whether the product is great.

Because I buy great games, and some good ones are considered down the line, once the price drops. A quality game is worth its price, so with this price as a precedent, I hope developers are urged to go the extra five miles to present quality.



Bass_X0 said:

They won't. Not all of them. We will still see shovelware games marketed as 'casual' games that will still be expensive.



MAB said:

If you think games are way too expensive then maybe its time to find a new hobby In Australia I remember paying $30 for new Atari 2600 games, $50 for Master System/NES games, $80 sometimes $100 for Megadrive/SNES games so this guys argument means absolutely nothing to me and comes off as somewhat of a joke in my mind.



NightSmoke said:

Nice job Damien! This article is a great example of the kind of quality in journalism that makes Nintendolife one of my favorite websites. Your managed to present Don Reisinger's ideas in an impartial manner while still expressing his ideas better the he did in his own article. Thank you.



Dogmansp said:

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who remembers the N64 pricing.

As long as the games are decent, who cares!



stefenson said:

Only 349.99 for deluxe ver.,plus a HDMI cable.WHAT ELSE WOULD U WANT?! A PLANET?!LOL...Go Nitendo!



Banker-Style said:

$60 works out about £36/£38 in the UK.
Yet we Bits are supposedly paying £50 a pop,for a game.
£39.99 I can handle,but £50,that's taking the mick.



SteveW said:

He is wrong, many of those will not be $60, for example... Sonic All-Stars Racing Transformed will be $39.95.



New_3DaSh_XL said:

25GB a regular disc, 50GB a dual layer, $60 is fine. Plus with great games with a huge amount of content and great graphics, $60 is fine with me.



thanos316 said:

xbox and ps3 games been 60 for ever. well wii u games for $60 isn't too bad to me. but i won't be picking up a lot software at that price, i might wait for a lower price point on games, either by picking them up second hand. today $60 is the norm, and ninty has a right to place their software at what ever price they see fit. this shouldn't really be a big surprise to anyone. lets see how people feel about this in a couple of months..



citizenerased said:

For legendary games, such as the better Nintendo IPs, I have no qualms paying $60 at launch. Others will quickly drop in price, so there you go.



T1m1 said:

Well, $60 isin't a bad price at all, at long is theres enough bang and value into the games then it dosen't matter to me. Besides we already been paying $60 for PS3 and Xbox 360 game since 2006 so i don't see the big deal, I know the Wii U is a new console and all, but once the PS4 and xbox 720 come out they will probaly be around $70 and thats when i'll say games are too expensive.



Obvious78 said:

Dont know abt this. 1st party games from Nintendo are games with quality. But is it worth the 60 bucks? Its way too much for these times where crisis rules.



Gold_Ranger said:

The only problem with waiting for a sale with the WiiU games is that the main reason why we're getting a WiiU is because of Zelda, Mario, DK, Metroid, Kirby and other first party titles. Those titles NEVER go on sale. It's because they are EverGreen titles.



rjejr said:

Probably only about half of those 50 launch games are $60, the rest will be less. PSN and Xbox DL games are $10 - $15 so expect more of the same. Otherwise, wait fo rthe price drop.



ueI said:

A lot of people have been saying that $60 is fair because games have lots of content and are expensive to make. The thing is, I don't WANT my games to have as many gigabytes as possible crammed onto the disk. Stuff like 100 hours of busywork is superfluous and will turn me off a game. Have people's standards really risen so much more quickly than mine over the past 10 years? It's not as if people were dissatisfied with their games back then. I'm not suggesting that games be free or anything, but all these "hardcore" games are really supersaturating the market.



WesCash said:

I agree with that. I like to play games, but I also like to finish games and move on. I don't really care to spend hours collecting arbitrary achievements or whatnot. I don't have the time or desire to spend 100 hours playing through a single game.



MrWalkieTalkie said:

I said it was too expensive, but after reading some people opinions, I guess I have to agree now that I think about it. Im willing to throw Nintendo an extra 10 bucks for a game of great quality, seems like a good trade.



Doge said:

you guys are whining about it so much because your pure nintendo fans, like me, and your not used to high prices, but seriously, as the generations go on, the quality gets better, so get used to it



The_Fox said:

So, do any of you people remember the N64? Back then they were charging $70 for some titles which with inflation is equal to $96.26 today . Now THAT was a rip off.



edcomics said:

I paid $60 for Majora's Mask (the gold edition) when it was new, so there's a precedent for charging that much for a Nintendo game. I wish they could have stuck with the $50 price tag, but with lots of Nintendo Wii titles like NSMBW still on sale at retailers for $50, it only makes sense that WiiU games will have an upgrades price tag. I do think price should depend on the type of game, though. Looking down the preorder list, it seems some games are actually only $50 or even as low as $40. There's even a Family Party game listed at $30, though I often doubt anyone buys games like that. The top games, though, will most likely stick at $60. Let's just hope that price doesn't go UP. I expect it will for Xbox and Playstation games when the new iterations of those systems are released. I wouldn't be surprised to see $70 or $80 games become the norm for those systems.



XCWarrior said:

I have yet to pay $40 for any 3DS game, waiting for them to go on sale. I will do the same thing when it comes to $60 for a Wii U game. It's not going to happen. That's just too much.



Knux said:

Yes, $60 is ridiculously expensive. But then again, it depends on the game and how much content it has. I don't regret paying full price for games like Xenoblade Chronicles, Skyward Sword, and Radiant Historia. Why? Because you got what you pay for; huge and awesome games with loads of content.

But the problem is that there are more games that are not worth it's full price than the opposite. Games like Nintendo Land and New Super Mario Bros. U shouldn't cost $60 simply because they aren't going to provide enough content for what you pay for. If a 3D Super Mario platformer and/or a 3D Zelda game came out for the Wii U, I would probably drop $60 on it.

Also, people saying that we shouldn't be complaining about the high prices are dead wrong. Sure games cost just as much or more back in the past, but you didn't have an awful economy back then either. There are some digital exclusive games that are just as fun (if not more fun) than retail games. But reagrdless, my point is that some games are worth their full price (Xenoblade Chronicles) while others just aren't (Nintendo Land).

But in the end, it doesn't matter. Going by the 3DS, game prices went down depending on the game (at least on Amazon). I bet the same thing will happen to the Wii U's software library.

But the really sad thing is that the only game for the Wii U I see so far that's worth $60 is Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate, and that doesn't even come out until March, right? Yep, the Wii U is off to a wonderful start.



Teru said:

40-50$ FOR WII U



aaronsullivan said:

$60 is okay for me, BUT — I'm in love with Nintendo games and franchises, not so for everyone. Furthermore, I know Nintendo is trying to fight the good fight, but even I'm getting used to gaming in smaller chunks. For many games, I think less would have been more. Finally playing Rayman Origins and it is full of fantastic stuff, BUT it also feels a bit stretched out. "We need a few more levels, so do this again and that again." I didn't even get that feeling from NSMBW. And look, Rayman had to price itself down towards $20 to sell. They bloated it up past what people wanted and got no benefit.

Also, what does everyone complain about in the Zelda games? The segments where it feels artificially extended. (Triforce pieces in Wind Waker, multiple trials, etc.) Is the pressure going to be on to inflate these games further because of the higher cost?

Like it or not, a couple of forces are affecting expectations from games away from the big juggernauts: Indie games and mobile games. I honestly expect FAR more creativity and fun from the smaller games, no matter what platform, than I do from the big ones. It stands to reason if you are going to risk millions and millions on a game you are going to have to offset that risk game play that is already known to resonate with players. It trends towards high production value with middling game play. Skyrim, COD, Final Fantasy, etc.

Sadly, there is a third pressure which is freemium games (also spreading across all platforms including mobile, but really starting beside Facebook). This stuff has the potential to kill gaming quick. Fortunately, video gaming is a much more entrenched form of entertainment than it was back in the early 80's, so the consumers can reject it more easily and still survive, i.e. Zynga can fail but the industry will go on just fine.

Anyway, I'd be far more excited to see Nintendo announce something like smaller games at $30, than upping the standard price to $60. I, for one, would rather see MORE games from Nintendo --including some of those smaller franchises-- at lower prices at the expense of bloat and game length? I think that's the way to fight all this, but it requires more than a fair amount of bravery and adjustment.



aaronsullivan said:

Since no one will probably read the above:
I'll pay $60 for Nintendo games, many won't want to.
The wider game audience expects lower prices and don't care for excessive length due to many forces.
IMO, Nintendo SHOULD be brave and make their games cheaper and shorter.

More explanation:
This could manifest in several of the smaller franchises getting their day, and also partially episodic. A two part Zelda adventure, for instance, shorter but $30 each. Also, Star Fox, straight forward, no gimmicks and F-Zero, rather than only one but extended to the point of tedium and expensive.



MeloMan said:

This is the thing Nintendo has been worried about previously, the rising cost of games. Honestly, I don't care for it, but... people asked Nintendo to be HD, be more powerful, and well... to make devs and gamers happy, "something" has to give. I won't complain. I'm just glad that I utilize Gamefly for all games that I don't intend to keep (which are very few, such as multiplayer online games, MK7, KIU, etc.) which allows me to save boatloads of cash on games. My budget overall just can't keep up with the number and price of games I need to play.



Squiggle55 said:

60 dollars wouldn't be too much if Nintendo wasn't so rigid with their prices. I don't mind PS3 blockbusters costing 60 dollars because I know I can get it for 20 or less in a year. Mario is still going to be 60 dollars 5 years from now.



FluttershyGuy said:

$60 expensive? Shoot, I remember SNES and Nintendo 64 games often getting into the $80 range. My grandparents said the original Legend of Zelda was over $100! Quality comes at a price, and Nintendo regularly makes the price of admission worthwhile. Even though I'm in less than stellar economic condition, I'm saving my gaming dollars for fewer Nintendo games, rather than a ton of iOS games.

Judging how well Nintendo still did in the cartridge-based console days, they'll be just fine (admittedly, they took a hit in the N64 days, facing cheaper PSOne discs).

The likes of Mario, Zelda, and Samus in HD will be too much for gamers to resist. The speed with which preorders have been discontinued suggests that this will be another Wii, not GameCube, in terms of sales. And that tells me that millions still consider Nintendo games to be worth the sometimes steep price.



SPEtheridge said:

I'm not to fussed with the price of games (been paying that for 360 games for ages) as long as the game is good it'll be worth the money.



MrWu said:

I have an issue with the selection "No, I don't mind paying top dollar for quality"
While I voted No, i understand I'm not always paying for quality.

Nintendo can, if they wanted, continue to release their games at $50. I think that is infact what happened on the Wii. But having set that price themselves, 3rd parties have no choice but to follow or lose sales because they were pricing too high. (AFAIK, Nintendo does not have a hard and fast rule on pricing of games)

So $60 is I think the bare minimum Nintendo could afford to go with this time or risk alienating 3rd parties who expect the $60 to recoup their dev costs, even if it is a multiplat port of a HD game, they still expect $60 as this is how they will plan their revenue projects. X million units sold over all HD consoles at $60.



Malkeor said:

I don't think $60 is an unfair amount of money.

That's as long as Nintendo up holds its quality on value and if it really seems like a game is worth it or not. That's, of course, all up to the player. You think it's worth $60 or not.
Not all games ARE quality. I don't care who you are, but that is why I also think games should be priced according to what the developer sees fit. Yes...even if it's a retail game. Nintendo should look at these games though, and be honest about if it's being too much (Ninjabread man at $49....) but this is all a dream that might not come true.

The problem I have with freemium games is that there is almost always a Cash Shop of some kind. You use real life money to pay for accessories and upgrades and decoration, etc anything you can imagine.
I loathe that system with a passion.

Also with rising development costs, how else are they going to pay off their game?
You buy it with that premium price tag. I honestly don't see a problem with it, because it's been happening for so long now, and if it's a third party publisher the prices usually drop anyway fairly quickly.



Lunapplebloom said:

Pretty much what everybody else says. Some games are legitimate in their pricing. Others, not so much. I can take this $10 increase, but I understand that others can't. I've always loved Nintendo since their SNES days, and that's not going to be changing anytime soon. Also HD Zelda and Metroid will be awesome.



shinesprite said:

$60 for a retail game could hold up, but they should at least make the downloads a little cheaper, say $50. Lets face it, memory and bandwidth do cost something, right.



capitalism said:

Well since the wii u has double the power of the 360/ps3 and the games are still being priced the same I would say that's a great value for my money. Let's use our logic here people. This article only feeds into the misinformed or anti nintendo sites that have been reporting that the wii u is only on par performance wise with current gen consoles.



Varia01 said:

There is certainly nothing that can stop me with agreeing that the games are over-priced! Gamers are wanting to enjoy the games! I don't care how much power they hold, they should cost nothing more than $50 dollars! This is a huge problem for families,adults,and kids. They'll get to buy less games for such a awesome system! NO FAIR! >



Henmii said:

60 Dollar equels 60 Euro. And 60 Euro is not to expensive, though I hoped for 50 Euro. Remember that Gamecube games did cost 60 Euro. And PS3/Xbox360 games cost 70 Euro (!!).

But there is one problem: The European crisis! People in Europe think 50 Euro for 3DS games is to expensive! What If they also find 60 Euro for a Wii u game to expensive!

Nintendo, just ask a little bit less for your games/hardware in Europe! It may cost you a little, but who cares if the sales go tenfold? It's worth Nintendo's investment!!



scrubbyscum999 said:

$10 more than the normal $50 top notch Wii game is pretty acceptable. I think the 3DS game prices should be a bit cheaper though, $30-35. It's not that big of a deal, especially since you can be getting up to 100s of hours of gameplay for some games. I do think there is too expensive, but I can live with these prices. I think they are pretty fair.



Mandoble said:

For all these saying that 60€ is fine, lets see how many do you really buy at the end of the month, specially these from Nintendo which are a remake of a remake of a remake of another remake or just a bunch of minigames (oh! but now asymmetric of course). And if you are lucky, you will have ports of already existing HD games, but you will pay 60€ while the rest of users will pay 45 or less (future mass effect 2 port? Skyrim? Fallout 3? and few other hundreds of them). And 60€ means an instant bye-bye of all these millions of casuals playing Wii.



Tomatoboxer said:

60 dollars isn't a fair amount of money for a game on any console, but developing games is expensive and that's the standard right now, so I don't see why it should be different on the Wii U. Why do the people writing these articles have no problem with the PS3, 360, and most likely their respective successors doing this?



ZurrrrBlattTron said:

Just a measly 10 extra dollars and people are complaining good lord Xbox games and PS3 games go one for 70 dollars



SwimyGreen said:

I personally don't see the problem. If nothing else it should be $60 because of US inflation. Games were much expensive before CDs; before adding inflation. Also, the PS3 and 360 have been this way. If nothing else, Nintendo deserves the extra money.



sinalefa said:

Sorry if I missed something, but when or where Nintendo confirmed that $60 is the price for games on Wii U?

Anyway, for games that have the same graphics and capacity than the PS360 games, it makes sense if they are worth the same. If they were asking for more, then that would be a problem.

Still I believe that in that case Nintendo must release the Nintendo Selects on Wii U, and make it with more games and sooner in their lifespans. On PS3 I usually wait until the price drops a little, it depends on how much I want the game. Of my 20+ games, I paid full price for two or three of them.



x-mas_mii said:

you know, I like the tiered idea floating around. price may vary on development cost, popularity and age. like how I got the grand theft auto triple pack on ps2 for 20$(yes, I still play ps2)



WaxxyOne said:

My prediction: The assumption that Nintendo games won't be cheaper than their competitors titles anymore will be disproven the moment that Sony and MicroSoft announce their new consoles... along with the $70 price tags on all the mainstream games.



gamexpert1990 said:

If I had the excess money to buy some of the games I wanted, I would not mind paying even $70, but as it stands, I have a difficult time paying $35 per game that I want at the moment...

Leave A Comment

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