gaming Nintendo isn't "cheaper"

[Guest]

So many times I will see people insist that the Nintendo brand is "cheaper" and more affordable than its "overpriced" competitors. Right now as I write this, the price of the Wii U (default wise, not talking about sales, promotions or used, just the suggested retail price) is $299 with bundles with a game being $349. At this exact same moment the average price of a PS4 is $349 and some bundles being $349 as well. So we're talking a $0-50 difference in price. The Xbox One sits at $349 for the 500GB model.

 

So price wise, these consoles are all about the same price. Which begs the question of why the Wii U thinks it's okay to charge the same for weaker hardware. Actually when you get the Wii U, you can not instantly do everything with it out of the box. Using the virtual Wii mode will require a wiimote and num chuk (and batteries) and if you download a lot of games off the eShop or DLC you will need an external hard drive which many PS4 and Xbox One gamers no longer need due to having a relatively beefy internal storage. If you shop around you can get a 2TB hard drive for less than the Wiimote and batteries will run you.

 

So it really boils down to where are you saving money? Many will argue "the games". Well the truth is that a lot of Nintendo fans do not know how badly they are getting ripped off. Allow me to explain:

 

Let's cut right to brass tax here: Nintendo fans buy Nintendo consoles for those first party games. Especially since the Wii. Let's not bullshit or pretend you're buying the Wii U to get the superior experience of Call of Duty or anything. We know the truth is, Nintendo fans care about the first party titles.

 

The problem is that Nintendo overcharges and under-produces their own games to purposely keep prices high. Some examples:

 

Majora's Mask 3D was obviously one of the most anticipated titles of the 3DS and Nintendo knew that a lot of people wanted it and at the time over 50 million 3DS were out there. The game sold 2.2m copies worldwide, and yet the game was still sold out for nearly a month in most retailers. They were selling shipments almost the day they got them in. Why is this an issue?

 

Black Ops 2 for the Xbox 360 was one of the most anticipated titles of the franchise. In its lifetime it sold over 13m copies worldwide and never really sold out for very long.

 

The problem is that Nintendo purposely produced less copies so that they can justify keeping the value of the game high. Let us look at Ocarina of time 3D. If you go to Best Buy, you can clearly see the game was released in 2011, and yet the price is still $39.99. Full price for a game that is getting close to 5 years old now. A similar instance happened with Twilight Princess for the Wii, which remained at $60 for nearly 5 years before dropping. Nintendo purposely produces less copies of their games to keep the supposed "value" high, force pre-orders (because how else are you going to get the game in the first 2 months when it's sold out?) and justify keeping the price high for long periods of time. Many will argue that there is a level of "quality" involved that justifies their price, and yes quality should dictate price, but that should determine how the price goes down after time. Quality should mean the difference between becoming a $20 discount game for being old or a bargain bin game.

 

Let us look at the Playstation for a comparison.

 

Bloodborne was a best seller on the PS4 and sold far more copies than many Nintendo titles, and it's not even a year old yet and it already is discounted to $40 from its original $60 price.

 

So at the end of the day, Nintendo fans actually end up paying more for software in the long run because if you buy Nintendo you essentially pay full price. Sony players have the option to wait a few months and get a deal. With the systems costing around the same, I don't really see why people insist that Nintendo is the cheaper platform and has price going for it. Even with the Wii being $250 when the other consoles were $400-500, you still paid $60 a pop for first party titles where as my wife's entire PS3 collection is a bunch of AAA titles which she picked up for $10-20 a piece by waiting a few months. The money saved by the console being "cheap" was negated by the cost of the games always being high.

 

Just something to think about.

[TubeSock2018 325]

And this affects you how?

[Guest]

And this affects you how?

It's a discussion. Do you have anything to contribute or no?

[Untitled Goose Q 5,136]

I'd be interested in knowing the price differences between the older Nintendo consoles and their counter partts

[Nuke87654 1,849]

 

And this affects you how?

It affects me and I appreciate Key Sharkz for bringing this topic up as being a Nintendo euthsiast, I agree with him as Nintendo games have a notorious reputation of remaining high several years later because Nintendo loves to produce low despite many of their products selling high. It's also annoying that Nintendo is the only gaming company where they typically do not have daily sales on their games, I mean 40% off after you buy one game at full price is considered an awesome sale by nintendo's standards. It's unacceptable for what Nintendo is doing to price gouge it's loyal customers and pushes me to try Sony for a change of pace.

[TubeSock2018 325]

It's a discussion. Do you have anything to contribute or no?

So Nintendo creates artificial value and isn't cheaper than the competition.

What can I say? It is how it is.

Some people say it's cheaper. Others say it's not.

If someone thinks it's cheaper, good for them. If someone disagrees, good for them.

If someone thinks the competition is cheaper, good for them too.

What could I contribute?

Can't argue with numbers and you laid it out pretty well. You covered game costs and accessory costs.

It is what it is.

[Megas 27,069]

I feel most of the time their games are usually worth it so I can a bit more forgiving, but at the same time there's no reason why launch titles should still be $50-$60 a pop. And it's not like they ever understock their games either, you can find plenty of their best selling titles on your average trip to Target or Best Buy. But there's absolutely no reason their games should stay at a high price for ever, and if anything, it keeps me from buying more games. As far as Nintendo games go, I currently only have 5, and one of them was free(Tropical Freeze) and the other was slashed(Wonderful 101). I mean even their Wii titles are still pricey as fuck(which is even more ridiculous)

 

Nintendo games may sell, but they'd sell even more if they actually regularly dropped prices like they did during the GC/GBA era

[Guest]

I'd be interested in knowing the price differences between the older Nintendo consoles and their counter partts

 

Well I can take you back a little:

 

The Wii was $250 when it was released, next to the $500 PS3 and $500 Xbox 360. Price wise it was easy to see that the Wii was the cheaper device, but Nintendo is VERY good at hiding "hidden" costs. Let us take note that the PS3 came with everything you essentially need in the box as did the 360 for the most part. The Wii had a measly 512MB of internal storage so if you bought too many virtual console titles, you needed and SD card, but let's ignore that for a second and do a real comparison price wise:

 

So for this example I shall use myself and my wife who bought her PS3.

 

I bought the Wii when it came out for $250, then I INSTANTLY had to invest in rechargable batteries for a good $10 because otherwise I'd be dumping tons of money into batteries. I bought mostly first party Nintendo titles for it and paid $60 for each of them. So here is my price break down:

 

• System: 250.
• Batteries: 10.
• Twilight Princess: 60
• Metroid Prime 3: 60
• Animal Crossing: City Folk: 60
• Smash Bros. Brawl: 60
• Skyward Sword: 60
• Mario Galaxy: 60
• Mario Galaxy 2: 60

Total: $680 for the full use of the console with a library of just 7 games. And a lot of these games basically did not go down in price until years after they came out, so there was no "waiting for them to drop in price."

 

Now let's look at my wife and her PS3. First of all, the system didn't need any batteries, so assuming she got it on launch (which she didn't, but for the sake of argument):

 

• Console: 500
• Resident Evil 5: 20
• Resident Evil 6: 20
• Resident Evil: Revelations: 20
• Lolipop Chainsaw: 15
• Bioshock 1 and 2: 15
• Fallout 3: 20

We're already at our 7 games and the price is $610. Because you can wait like 8 months to a year or so and get most of these games cheap. So for last gen if you got the PS3 and you were willing to wait a bit. But if you went Nintendo, there were no bargains for you.

 

If we go back to the Gamecube, it was more or less the same as well. It started around the Gamecube time and before that all the systems were about the same in terms of price because Nintendo USED to do like everyone else and lower the prices after a while. During the Gamecube run though they must have figured out how to do this crap.

[Leave a Whisper 703]

As far as consoles they are a bit cheaper. As far as games, well I buy a lot of used games and Nintendo games almost never seem to lower, so your right on the money there.

[joanro 247]

One thing that you didn't mention is that Nintendo doesn't charge people to play online. I know it is not hugely significant, but I do think it's worth noting because it adds about $50-60 per year extra to the price of the PS4 and the Xbox One. I don't really disagree with what you are saying though...the games are pricey.

Edited February 22, 2016 by joanro

[Steve Piranha 28,782]

Yeah, at first I thought the scarcity of N games was because of lack of demand, but your explanation of artificial scarcity makes more sense. They do the same thing to diamonds

[Radiance64 7,051]

The last thing I'd call Nintendo lately is cheaper lol... their products are worth it for me but I can see their pricing being a barrier for some people, heck the Wii U's pricing was a barrier for me but eventually I did decide to get one and don't really regret it.

[honk friend 1,972]

i don't buy nintendo because it's cheaper, i buy nintendo because i want something different

xbone and ps4 are basically the same console and they offer me nothing a pc doesn't have

rarely does nintendo put something out that isn't worth the price anyway

[Ziggy + Angel + Rain 11,298]

 *Shrugs.*  Nintendo is generally worth the money to me.  The value isn't merely dependent on how many titles you ultimately get; it's how much you enjoy them.

 

No matter which way you go, you're paying hundreds of dollars for a console and $60 if you want a game around the time it releases.  That's not taking into consideration things like season passes / dlc and a year's worth of either Live or PS Plus; I wasted a total of, I think, $140 on Destiny (PS4) alone (for the original game and add-on content).

 

You did a pretty admirable job of glossing over the price tag of the PS3 at launch, though (and I saw price gougers doing worse when people were literally crapping themselves over it - don't ask).  It's one thing to drop $60 on a single title (and at least three of those games you listed eventually became Nintendo Selects titles and dropped in price during the Wii's life cycle), but it's a different thing altogether to be expected to drop $500 (console only) all at once.  Taking the launch prices of both consoles into consideration, you could walk into a store, buy a Wii and one game, and walk out having spent no more than $310 for everything you needed to play (pretty sure I bought rechargeable batteries x3 before long).  If you walked into that same store and bought a PS3, you'd be out $500 even without a game to play.  Nabbing a title out of the discount bin wouldn't have done much to guard your wallet against that first initial hit.

 

I'm not wealthy; I'm on a limited income.  But it's typically easier for me to save for a Nintendo console, and, afterwards, I can simply purchase one title I really want a month.  Or, you know, spend five to eight dollars here and there for classic digital content; I have far more Virtual Console games than I'll ever have retail titles.  I know the point you're making is that it costs more in the long run...  And that's only conditionally true.  Only IF you buy the competitors' titles at a discount, only IF you don't find - or wait for - deals on the Nintendo titles (or don't buy non-first party titles; these do and did exist for Wii and 3DS), only IF you don't buy season passes or take into account online console-specific services, only IF you don't throw more money at dlc / expansions.

[Guest]

One thing that you didn't mention is that Nintendo doesn't charge people to play online. I know it is not hugely significant, but I do think it's worth noting because it adds about $50-60 per year extra to the price of the PS4 and the Xbox One. I don't really disagree with what you are saying though...the games are pricey.

That $50/60 a year though hardly puts a scratch on the price of games these days. Because the system itself is about the same price as the PS4. So even if you pay that $50 for PS+, you can make it back through game sales. Not to mention PS+ gives you discounts on games and free games every month so it pays for itself.

 

 

Yeah, at first I thought the scarcity of N games was because of lack of demand, but your explanation of artificial scarcity makes more sense. They do the same thing to diamonds

Yup! The irony is that diamonds are actually inherently worthless. XD

 

 

i don't buy nintendo because it's cheaper, i buy nintendo because i want something different

xbone and ps4 are basically the same console and they offer me nothing a pc doesn't have

rarely does nintendo put something out that isn't worth the price anyway

Except the Wii U according to the sales. Also Nintendo's "different" approach is hurting them. The Wii U is more difficult to program for because of its odd hardware. I mean on the plus side it makes it harder for people to "emulate" Nintendo these days, but it works against them when development is too difficult or expensive. Right now consoles being more like PCs is actually what is helping the PS4. The PS4 is super easy to develop for, and makes porting from PC super easy, so they get all those third party titles that Nintendo is losing out on.

 

 

 

 *Shrugs.*  Nintendo is generally worth the money to me.  The value isn't merely dependent on how many titles you ultimately get; it's how much you enjoy them.

 

Who is to say I can't enjoy a $20 game as much as a $60? I would say if I enjoy a $20 game as much as a $60 then the value for the $20 is clearly better because I'm getting the same enjoyment for less, that extra $40 I saved can be used towards other games.

 

 

 

No matter which way you go, you're paying hundreds of dollars for a console and $60 if you want a game around the time it releases.  That's not taking into consideration things like season passes / dlc and a year's worth of either Live or PS Plus; I wasted a total of, I think, $140 on Destiny (PS4) alone (for the original game and add-on content).

 

Yes, but by waiting a year, I was able to get ALL the content for Destiny for $60. Whereas with Nintendo if I look online right now, even after 2 years Mario Kart 8 is STILL $60, and that is NOT including the DLC. So with the other consoles I can just wait and get the games at a much better price rather than pay full price even 2 years after launch. So it's all about how you buy, but my point is that if you're a Nintendo fan, you basically have to pay full price regardless of how long you wait unless you're willing to wait 5 years. Hell even if you waited less than 10 months many games go on sale for Playstation. You couple that with your discount you get for PS+ and the $50 you spend on it seems irrelevant. PS+ gives you free games every month, and not just 1 either. You usually get 2 PS4 titles and a lot of the time big name PS3 titles from last gen. Then you get discounts on stuff in the PS Store and a lot of the time it's for big name titles. I remember Black Ops 3 was like 15% off 4 days after launch on PS4 for PS+ members. That's literally a $60 game that you're getting 15% off on 4 days after launch.

 

Literally the price of the PS4's + membership balances out so quickly that it's almost a moot point. On top of that, as I said: waiting gives you the option to snag games for cheaper. If you waited to buy Dying Light, you can now get the game with all the DLC for the same price. With Nintendo you do not have that option. You want Smash with all the DLC? Even if you wait 2 years you will need to pay full price, I am almost certain of that.

 

 

 

You did a pretty admirable job of glossing over the price tag of the PS3 at launch, though (and I saw price gougers doing worse when people were literally crapping themselves over it - don't ask). 

 

I stated the price. It was $500. I was very clear on that. Price gouging happened on online marketplaces like eBay, but the SAME price gouging happened with the Wii literally at the exact same time. I do not go by what scalpers try to flip the systems for, I go by what the system ACTUALLY costs if you had pre-ordered it. It goes without saying that scalpers will flip systems that sell out for tons. I saw people selling Wiis for $1,000 on eBay, but that's irrelevant.

 

 

 

It's one thing to drop $60 on a single title (and at least three of those games you listed eventually became Nintendo Selects titles and dropped in price during the Wii's life cycle),

 

Yes, close to the END of it. When they are virtually irrelevant. I know all of those games took over 3 years to drop in price, and many of them didn't drop until the next game came out or after the Wii U launched. HELL, they wanted $60 for Skyward Sword AFTER the Wii U came out and they discontinued the Wii. They wanted full price for a game that was for a system they didn't even sell anymore. Many of these games didn't go on sale until less than a few months before the Wii U hit. That's basically pointless because most of your potential customers have now just decided to either give up on waiting, wait for the new system or just decided they don't want the game bad enough after years of waiting for the price to go down. I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone that is willing to wait 3 years for a price to drop for a $60 game. They usually just get another game.

 

 

 

but it's a different thing altogether to be expected to drop $500 (console only) all at once.

 

That's about what people expect to drop these days.

 

 

 

Taking the launch prices of both consoles into consideration, you could walk into a store, buy a Wii and one game, and walk out having spent no more than $310 for everything you needed to play (pretty sure I bought rechargeable batteries x3 before long).  If you walked into that same store and bought a PS3, you'd be out $500 even without a game to play.  Nabbing a title out of the discount bin wouldn't have done much to guard your wallet against that first initial hit.

 

The thing is this the point I am making: Nintendo creates the illusion of being the cheaper system by making a lower initial cost. It's called the long game, and businesses play it because they know if they wait for money they can get it without people noticing. Yes, it's easier to drop $310 at once over $500, but in the long run you're going to pay more.

 

On top of that, let's also consider for current gen: if you bought the Wii U you only really possibly saved $50 over getting the PS4. And now the next Nintendo console is coming out. So if you bought the Wii U you only got 5 years or so of use out of it, whereas the PS4 you're going to get way more years of use. So now that $50 is going to seem irrelevant when you have to buy a whole other system again. Which no doubt will be at MINIMUM $300.

 

 

 

I'm not wealthy; I'm on a limited income.  But it's typically easier for me to save for a Nintendo console, and, afterwards, I can simply purchase one title I really want a month.

 

I own both the Wii U and the PS4 and I can honestly say, it's cheaper for me to get PS4 games. I owned the Wii U FIRST too. The reasoning is because I get DEALS on PS4 titles all the time, relatively new ones even. I got Until Dawn at LAUNCH for $30 by shopping around, a $60 game, AT LAUNCH for half price. I found discounts on Amazon Prime for PS4 titles that are only 1-2 months old for $20 off all the time. My PS+ membership gave me free games and discounts on big titles and DLCs. HELL EVEN MY EMPLOYEE DISCOUNT makes it so I save $9 on EVERY new PS4 title but since Nintendo is THAT fucking greedy they do not let their games work with my discount. My store discount for work works like this: they sell the products to employees for 5% over what it costs to stock it. So if say a game costs them $57 but the game costs $100 for the customer, I get the game for like $62. There are literally only TWO companies that refuse to discount their products to us though that we are not allowed to discount for ANY reason:

 

One of them is Apple, the other is Nintendo. Nintendo does not let us discount any game, ever. If we discount one Nintendo game, we actually get a nasty email from Nintendo bitching at us. Nintendo is that against letting their games go on sale.

 

Any game I actually WANT on the Wii U generally I was forced to pay $60 for because they go on sale VERY RARELY (if you want the virtual copy of course) or just so long after launch I don't care to wait anymore. I don't see a point in waiting 4 years for Splatoon to go on sale because by then the online community for it will diminish.

 

 

 

Or, you know, spend five to eight dollars here and there for classic digital content; I have far more Virtual Console games than I'll ever have retail titles.

 

So content I already own? I am a huge old school Nintendo gamer, and I have literally stacks of old school games. Many of us older players are the same and do not have a need to buy games again. On top of that, the virtual console has been proven successful among OLDER players only. Younger players it has virtually no value because many younger players do not want to pick up old school games due to difficulty, and just being raised in a different time. So for me, that has virtually no value. Also it's so insanely easy to put the Homebrew channel on the Wii and the Wii U to emulate old school that a lot of people just do that option.

 

I use the Homebrew channel for one purpose: to emulate the games I already own, but I just don't want to set up each old system to my TV and it's convenient to have them all on one device. But buying them all again is pointless to me. There is little value in that.

 

 

 

I know the point you're making is that it costs more in the long run...  And that's only conditionally true.  Only IF you buy the competitors' titles at a discount, only IF you don't find - or wait for - deals on the Nintendo titles (or don't buy non-first party titles; these do and did exist for Wii and 3DS), only IF you don't buy season passes or take into account online console-specific services, only IF you don't throw more money at dlc / expansions.

 

First of all I ask you this:

 

Who the hell is buying the Wii U for anything but Nintendo exclusives/First party Nintendo games? Is there anyone out there that legitimately thinks that the Wii U is going to be the definitive Call of Duty experience? Or the better version of Watch_Dogs? I doubt it. The Wii U is bought FOR those Nintendo exclusives, I know that's why I bought mine, my brother-in-law bought his and virtually everyone else I know that owns one bought theirs'. I have not met one person that went "Oh yeah I bought the Wii U because it's going to have the best version of Call of Duty" or "I bought the Wii U for those third party titles". Virtually no one is buying the system for any other reason beyond Nintendo exclusives, anyone that is most certainly is in the minority.

 

So we can safely assume that a majority of software sales for the Wii U are first party titles. Actually we don't even need to assume, we have math to verify that we will be including Amiibos and DLC into this since you stated DLC for the other consoles. So anything you need to pay extra for to get the "full" game, we will count.:

 

Top selling Wii U titles:

 

1. Mario Kart 8 ($60 after 2 years + Full price DLC and Amiibos)
2. New Super Mario Bros. U ($60 After an October Launch)
3. Super Smash Bros. for Wii U and 3DS ($60 after a year+ and full price DLC and Amiibos)
4. Nintendo Land ($30, price cut after bad feedback from $60, still took Nintendo a YEAR to make that decision)
5. Splatoon ($60 despite being a year old now, Also Amiibos)
6. Super Mario 3D World ($60 despite being 2 years old)
7. Super Mario Maker ($60 despite being more of a tool than a game)
8. New Super Luigi U ($60 despite being 2 years old)
9. Wii Party U ($40, no price drop since launch 2 years ago)
10. The Legend of Zelda Windwaker HD ($50, no price drop since launch despite being a remaster and 2 years old)

So out of the top ten games on the Wii U... None of them are not Nintendo first party games. If fact if you keep going down the list you don't get a third party game until 16 and that would be Lego City Undercover which only sold 1.01m version Mario Kart 8 which sold over 6.66m. There are only about 12.7m Wii Us out there so 1.01 is only about 8% of Wii U owners. So we can safely assume that the vast majority of Wii U owners are buying the Wii U for Nintendo exclusives.

 

And as I just illustrated here, all of those titles people are buying rarely go on discount and rarely go for less than $60. Nintendo legitimately thinks every game they pump out is worth $60 when it's not. I sort of expected this kind of counter argument as the moment I EVER criticize Nintendo for anything people are quick to jump in with defenses and try and make it seem like their competitors are worse than them, but the numbers don't support those arguments.

 

The age old argument of "DLC and SEASON PASSES!" is not really a completely valid one because you can wait 1 year to get the full game with all the DLCs for the same price or even less with the PS4. With Nintendo if I buy Smash Bros. 2 years after launch I will still be paying $60, I will STILL need to buy all the DLCs and I will STILL need to get Amiibos to get the "full" experience. After 2 years I can buy Dragon Age: Inquisition with ALL the DLC included for $40 and that is a far more popular game than Smash Bros. is. That's the other issue is that Nintendo fans feel the prices are "worth it" even though they are the only ones who think that. Nintendo's best selling game for this generation only sold 6.66m copies, even crappy games like Star Wars Battlefront outsold that on the PS4. PS4's best selling title has over 11.31m sales. Nintendo only has 17 games that broke a million sales, the PS4 has 56. So what about Nintendo is more "worth it"? Clearly more people feel that the PS4 games are better because they are destroying them in sales, yet Nintendo still tries to sell games at full price 2+ years later.

 

At the end of the day, it is FAR MORE LIKELY that if you go for the Wii U over the PS4 you will end up paying more money unless you are in a minority of customers that never buys Nintendo titles or is willing to way 3+ years for a game to go on sale and at the end of it, you'll end up with a much smaller library than most PS4 owners anyways, so you still aren't getting the most bang for your buck. Not to mention your options for games will be MUCH smaller because you do not get any of those third party titles. So I ask this: why does it make sense to pay more for literally less? It doesn't.

 

If Nintendo wishes to survive this next generation, they will need to give people incentive to get the NX in terms of dollars. You are already trying to convince people to buy ANOTHER console which many of them KNOW you are going to try and charge $60 a pop for every piece of software again after only 4 years. $50 saved on buying the Wii U over the PS4 and $50 saved from not getting PS+ becomes insanely irrelevant when you consider the numbers:

 

• Sony has promised another 8-10 year life for the PS4 like the PS3. If we average out the original purchase price: That's about $50 a year if we lowball it and assume 8 Compared to the Wii U which more than likely will be replaced either this year or next year. Let's be generous and say next year. The Wii U's $300 asking price factored over 5 years: $60 a year, and that's ASSUMING that the PS4 only lasts 8 years and the Wii U doesn't get replaced in December by the NX.
• PS+ gives people free games every single month. Many of them worth between $10-30, and usually 2 a month. Even if I lowballed it and assumed 2 $10 games every month, that's $240 extra in value a year subtract that from the $50 price and you are looking at $190 extra a year. That literally already has made the purchase worth the extra $100 you might spend on getting the PS4 over the Wii U, whereas Nintendo you get literally nothing.
• The discounts with your PS+ membership on big titles literally will save you from having to pay $60 a few days after launch for many titles. Used games for the PS4 also tend to be much lower than used Nintendo games due to Nintendo purposely keeping the value of their games high. Smash Bros is still only $5 off at Gamestop used despite being 2 years old.

At the end of the day, the numbers don't lie and it's statistically more likely for Wii U owners to have a library that is smaller that they paid more to obtain than PS4 owners unless they are within a very small minority of players.

[\/ 650]

Well I can take you back a little:

 

The Wii was $250 when it was released, next to the $500 PS3 and $500 Xbox 360. Price wise it was easy to see that the Wii was the cheaper device, but Nintendo is VERY good at hiding "hidden" costs. Let us take note that the PS3 came with everything you essentially need in the box as did the 360 for the most part. The Wii had a measly 512MB of internal storage so if you bought too many virtual console titles, you needed and SD card, but let's ignore that for a second and do a real comparison price wise:

 

So for this example I shall use myself and my wife who bought her PS3.

 

I bought the Wii when it came out for $250, then I INSTANTLY had to invest in rechargable batteries for a good $10 because otherwise I'd be dumping tons of money into batteries. I bought mostly first party Nintendo titles for it and paid $60 for each of them. So here is my price break down:

 

• System: 250.
• Batteries: 10.
• Twilight Princess: 60
• Metroid Prime 3: 60
• Animal Crossing: City Folk: 60
• Smash Bros. Brawl: 60
• Skyward Sword: 60
• Mario Galaxy: 60
• Mario Galaxy 2: 60

Total: $680 for the full use of the console with a library of just 7 games. And a lot of these games basically did not go down in price until years after they came out, so there was no "waiting for them to drop in price."

 

Now let's look at my wife and her PS3. First of all, the system didn't need any batteries, so assuming she got it on launch (which she didn't, but for the sake of argument):

 

• Console: 500
• Resident Evil 5: 20
• Resident Evil 6: 20
• Resident Evil: Revelations: 20
• Lolipop Chainsaw: 15
• Bioshock 1 and 2: 15
• Fallout 3: 20

We're already at our 7 games and the price is $610. Because you can wait like 8 months to a year or so and get most of these games cheap. So for last gen if you got the PS3 and you were willing to wait a bit. But if you went Nintendo, there were no bargains for you.

 

If we go back to the Gamecube, it was more or less the same as well. It started around the Gamecube time and before that all the systems were about the same in terms of price because Nintendo USED to do like everyone else and lower the prices after a while. During the Gamecube run though they must have figured out how to do this crap.

Never before have I paid more than 40 dollars for a game. Anywhere. I don't see Nintendo being out to steal your money or anything. And the whole thing about memory on the Wii, I don't see it. I could buy a 16 GB SD card (way too much memory, as everyone knows) for only 15 dollars. That's the cost of a cheap game. And I don't see how one can compare the purchase of new release titles to that of older games. Prices drop dramatically within the first year, nearly no waiting required. I could find 10 games that would make your Nintendo system price below 400. And all decent games, too. If you were going to compare, you'd have to use things worth comparing.

[Guest]

 

 

Never before have I paid more than 40 dollars for a game.

 

How? I am actually curious.

 

 

 

Anywhere. I don't see Nintendo being out to steal your money or anything.

 

Smash Bros.:

 

$60 for the game.

More for the DLC

Amiibos to get the "full experience"

Gamecube adapter

 

:\

 

That all ends up costing more than Fallout 4 with season pass.

 

 

 

And the whole thing about memory on the Wii, I don't see it. I could buy a 16 GB SD card (way too much memory, as everyone knows) for only 15 dollars.

 

Provided it's one that works on the Wii. Remember the system didn't read all memory cards, and we're talking around when it came out and 16GB SDs were rather new. So $15 now is kind of irrelevant.

 

 

 

And I don't see how one can compare the purchase of new release titles to that of older games. Prices drop dramatically within the first year, nearly no waiting required.

 

Except that's not what I did? I literally pointed out in my last post most of the top 10 games on the Wii U are over 1-2 years old and STILL full price.

 

 

 

I could find 10 games that would make your Nintendo system price below 400. And all decent games, too. If you were going to compare, you'd have to use things worth comparing.

 

What are you talking about? I literally gave numbers in the above post. I already proved that the top 10 games on the Wii U the vast majority are still full price where on the PS4, the top 10 games half of them are already discounted. Including a game that has sold more than EVERY Wii U title on that list. :\

 

If you are going to claim my argument is false and that my numbers are somehow incorrect, you'll need to do more than just insist they're incorrect. I pulled my numbers from actual retailers, and legitimate sales charts of the Wii U.

 

I'm sorry you don't want to admit that Nintendo is ripping people off, but the truth is: they are. They are charging more than their competitors for less. The Nintendo Wii U library is FAR smaller than the PS4, that is a fact. The Wii U is less capable hardware wise than the PS4, that is a fact. And the Wii U keeps first party titles (which I have already proven is what a majority of people buy the Wii U for with the numbers above) for full price much longer than their competitors, that is also a fact.

 

If you wish to dispute facts, please provide evidence, not just claims with nothing to support them,

[TailsIsNotAlone 3,694]

So at the end of the day, Nintendo fans actually end up paying more for software in the long run because if you buy Nintendo you essentially pay full price. Sony players have the option to wait a few months and get a deal. With the systems costing around the same, I don't really see why people insist that Nintendo is the cheaper platform and has price going for it. Even with the Wii being $250 when the other consoles were $400-500, you still paid $60 a pop for first party titles where as my wife's entire PS3 collection is a bunch of AAA titles which she picked up for $10-20 a piece by waiting a few months. The money saved by the console being "cheap" was negated by the cost of the games always being high.

 

Just something to think about.

Well, you've convinced me. 

I wasn't going to buy any of the new consoles or their games for the record, but I have a friend who is a huge Nintendo fan and is always telling me how Sony and Microsoft gouge gamers with higher prices while Nintendo is cheaper. I don't follow the modern scene or the sales figures closely, so until now I believed him.

 

However, you make a good case for Nintendo essentially doing the same thing over a longer period of time. I guess it shouldn't surprise me that they're playing "the long game" as someone called it, or that that they started it in the GameCube era--about the same time 3rd party support was drying up and Sony and Microsoft were beating them on sales of both systems and games. Nintendo wanted to make the most of what they still had to offer. The fact that that they're still doing this 13 years later troubles me a little, though. It gets them guaranteed money from people who still want their first-party titles badly enough, but apparently it doesn't do much to reward the loyalty of those fans.

 

Still, it's a valid strategy and apparently it's working for them. It's their responsibility to be as profitable as they can while still providing a quality product; it's our responsibility to get as much value as we can and keep each other informed as consumers, as you are doing here. Thanks for the info. 

[Ziggy + Angel + Rain 11,298]

@@Key Sharkz: It feels to me as though you've gone an awfully long way just to express buyer's remorse.  Home consoles are expensive, period.  Buying video games is frivolous regardless of how long you waited or how much it was that you paid.  The funny thing is: I, personally, will probably get more actual enjoyment - and therefore value - out of the one Nintendo game I spent $60 on than I would from a handful of discounted titles (even exclusives) on other consoles.  That's me.  I don't feel as though I'm being cheated because I get exactly what it is that I want: An enjoyable gaming experience.

 

You cite titles like Call of Duty and Bloodborne...  You're already aware of my stance towards the former, and the latter is oftentimes masochism masquerading as entertainment.  My tastes aren't necessarily what most people would call "current" or "hip" (if anyone still considered using the word "hip" to indicate anything other than a body part, that is); I select games based, firstly, on recreational value.  I would rather pay $60 for a game I'll love, play repeatedly, and keep in my library out of developing nostalgic affection than $20 for a title I'll lose interest in before a month has gone by and hope to turn into a few bucks at a Gamestop.  You're talking purely in dollars and cents, and most people here aren't even arguing against your points...

 

But so what?  Does it even matter if people agree with you and with the numbers?  People nowadays repeatedly miss the point of playing games: It's to, you know, play.  Games.  You play the games and have fun, is what I'm saying.  I'm paying for fun; all the value is in the fun.

[Chara 1,565]

@@Key Sharkz, Well, it's very hard to debate with you, because I did my research and almost all your facts are correct. 

 

 

How? I am actually curious.

Steam sales in a nutshell 

[Guest]

 

 

@Key Sharkz: It feels to me as though you've gone an awfully long way just to express buyer's remorse.

 

I study video games and the video game industry daily. I review games, game consoles, technology and pretty much all things tech related. Because I review, I try to avoid pulling punches when I criticize something. That being said, I find reviewing to be an informative job so that I can advise people who are thinking of making purchases how to get the best bang for their buck. My goal is more or less to prevent others from having to experience buyers remorse and giving them all the information necessary to make informed purchases. This isn't a personal matter, and as I have stated: I am not against Nintendo.

 

 

 

Home consoles are expensive, period.

 

Exactly! Thus why people deserve to be informed to get the most bang for their buck.

 

 

 

Buying video games is frivolous regardless of how long you waited or how much it was that you paid.  The funny thing is: I, personally, will probably get more actual enjoyment - and therefore value - out of the one Nintendo game I spent $60 on than I would from a handful of discounted titles (even exclusives) on other consoles.  That's me.  I don't feel as though I'm being cheated because I get exactly what it is that I want: An enjoyable gaming experience.

 

That's you, but a majority of people would enjoy being able to get that same experience for less and more games is always better. We live in a poor economy at the moment so people want to get the most out of their money and I can definitely see how people legitimately can feel cheated. I mean my PS4 I have a handful of really great titles that have given me probably the same amount of hours a piece of enjoyment as every Nintendo title I own and I definitely paid a lot less for them. So as a result I got more hours of enjoyment for less money and that is ALWAYS a good thing.

 

 

 

You cite titles like Call of Duty and Bloodborne...  You're already aware of my stance towards the former, and the latter is oftentimes masochism masquerading as entertainment.  My tastes aren't necessarily what most people would call "current" or "hip"

 

Like I said, you are in a minority of gamers. That is not an insult or a bad thing, it's just a fact. The truth is that Bloodborne and Call of Duty sell a lot of copies and many people clock hundreds of hours into them. Black Ops 3 has in fact outsold every Nintendo game and has gotten equally high ratings. That being said, the game was discounted 15% off within the first 4 days for PS+ members, something that Nintendo has not done for their $60 titles even though Black Ops 3 has sold nearly twice as many copies as their best selling game. I think that it's fair to say that a demand high enough to justify 11m+ copies speaks that a good portion of people feel the game is quality and entertaining. Couple that with insanely high review scores. I mean it becomes apples and oranges but I would say it's fair to say that people enjoy CoD just as much as a Nintendo fan enjoys Mario or Zelda.

 

 

 

I would rather pay $60 for a game I'll love, play repeatedly, and keep in my library out of developing nostalgic affection than $20 for a title I'll lose interest in before a month has gone by and hope to turn into a few bucks at a Gamestop.

 

Absolutely! I am there with you. However the problem is when titles are $60 at launch we have little way to KNOW if they are going to become library games that we will play again out of nostalgia or they will become well... Crap we only play once because it's not good enough to play a second time. But when we can get games at a discount for say $20 we are more willing to take the risk on game we've never tried. Discounting these titles after time is super beneficial to both the developers and the players. The players do not have to risk as much money so they are more willing to try something new, and this opens the game to more people for the developers to turn into fans.

 

Nintendo could start doing this and possibly gain some new fans for the Wii U. I mean for $60 a pop, so few people are going to "try" Smash Bros. but for $20 they will gladly pick up a copy and give it a whirl. That's a new potential fan.

 

 

 

You're talking purely in dollars and cents, and most people here aren't even arguing against your points...

 

Entertainment comes at a price sadly. And some people are actually.

 

 

 

But so what?  Does it even matter if people agree with you and with the numbers?  People nowadays repeatedly miss the point of playing games: It's to, you know, play.  Games.  You play the games and have fun, is what I'm saying.  I'm paying for fun; all the value is in the fun.

 

Fun is subjective, that being said, as I said before: entertainment comes at a price. If you pay $60 for a game and get maybe 50 hours of fun out of it, and I pay $20 for a game and get 50 hours of fun out of it, then I am definitely getting more for my money. We ALL want to have fun and we want to have the maximum amount of fun possible. That being said this kind of information could make that more possible for someone. If I only have $60 to drop on games this month (which many people do these days) then if someone told me I could get 3 games that will be the same level of enjoyment as 1 game, I would go for the 3 because I don't have an unlimited supply of disposable income.

 

In the end you are correct: fun is the most important part. The only catch is that companies like Nintendo give people the illusion they are paying less for that entertainment and people do deserve to be informed so they can make decisions.

 

If you are an economy gamer who is trying to game on a budget, the cheapest path for you is the PS4 right now. However does that mean that the Wii U's games are trash? No. There are plenty of good titles on the Wii U, but you should still understand that buying the Wii U means you are not going to be getting the most bang for your buck, but if you are okay with that, then go crazy. The point is simply to be aware of it.

 

 

 

@Key Sharkz, Well, it's very hard to debate with you, because I did my research and almost all your facts are correct. 

 

It's sort of a second job. XD

 

 

 

Steam sales in a nutshell 

 

Steam sales have definitely helped PC gamers, but let's be honest: with console players being able to buy systems for much cheaper than gaming PCs and being able to buy games used to save a lot of money, the savings from Steam sales are almost negated.  

[Megas 27,069]

I'm gonna go ahead and say that I think Steam sales have really spoiled us gamers in terms of online sales. 

 

With that said, even without Steam's ridiculously high standards, I still believe Nintendo should still do a lot to improve on that. Stop having the mentality of "our IPs are the best so we don't drop the prices", bite the bullet and have some frequent sales(and no bs $10 bucks off launch games still at $60) with tons of titles on sale(and not 5 VC or indie games), and make permanent price drops on their big games on the eShop. Bringing back "Nintendo Selects" is a great thing but make them more frequent. Nintendo always touts that their games sell a lot, but I can guarantee they can move a lot more units and sell even more if they start making noticeable price drops more often

 

Oh and finally put Radiant Dawn on the eShop because that game is a major pain to find cheap

Edited February 24, 2016 by ChicksDigGiantRobots

[Guest]

 

 

I'm gonna go ahead and say that I think Steam sales have really spoiled us gamers in terms of online sales. 

 

But the thing is though we kind of got Steam sales without Steam sales as console gamers through used games.

 

 

 

Oh and finally put Radiant Dawn on the eShop because that game is a major pain to find cheap

 

I literally just sold that game to Gamestop for $40 and they sell it for $70.

 

 

It's fucking bad when a game for a LAST GEN SYSTEM that is not even being made anymore for YEARS now sells for MORE than full price and this is not even a game that is old enough to be "rare". It's just price gouging.

[Megas 27,069]

But the thing is though we kind of got Steam sales without Steam sales as console gamers through used games.

Yeaaah, though I think used games vs Steam sales is another argument all together

 

I literally just sold that game to Gamestop for $40 and they sell it for $70.

 

 

It's fucking bad when a game for a LAST GEN SYSTEM that is not even being made anymore for YEARS now sells for MORE than full price and this is not even a game that is old enough to be "rare". It's just price gouging.

 

Didn't know it had to be old to be rare

 

The game didn't sell well and had a low print. But now that Awakening made the series popular, people with copies are now taking advantage of those who are interested in the older titles

 

But once/if RD ever makes it to the eShop I'm gonna feel sorry for those who want PoR(which gets just as ridiculously expensive)

 

Also I don't think Nintendo(or any publisher) has any effect on used-games/retro prices, even with digital rereleases and price drops I still see used copies going for super high prices

Edited February 24, 2016 by ChicksDigGiantRobots

[Guest]

 

 

The game didn't sell well and had a low print.

 

And that's the problem, Nintendo purposely prints low copies to keep prices high. It's kind of crappy.

 

 

 

Also I don't think Nintendo(or any publisher) has any effect on used-games/retro prices, even with digital rereleases and price drops I still see used copies going for super high prices

 

Well marketplaces like Ebay and such is because people are trying to inflate the value of older games to keep collection values high, but in terms of games from this generation which only recently went out of print, Nintendo and publishers have a direct effect on used game sales (not necessarily retro after a certain point though). If say a game is worth $40 used by many stores, but the company decides to lower the price of a new copy still in stores to $20, the used price shoots down instantly to match it.