Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Nintendo President Vows Cheap Games 153

Posted by Zonk from the more-mario-for-your-yen dept.
Chris Morris, over at CNN's Game Over column, had a chance to talk to Nintendo President Iwata last week about that company's goals for their next generation console. The message Morris came away with: $60 games are not in Nintendo's plans. From the article: "If we can come up with an addictive, but simple title - such as Tetris 15 years ago - my attention should be focused on containing costs ... So, I would make it available through the Virtual Console. I think the opportunity for ourselves will be much larger than software that costs $50-$60. ... Of course, there are a number of people waiting for a 'masterpiece' title. For those games, we'll utilized traditional distribution channels."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nintendo President Vows Cheap Games More

Nintendo President Vows Cheap Games

Comments Filter:
  • How is this any different than the XBOX 360? Games like Grand Theft Auto and Madden will still cost an arm and a leg, while lower budget games will be downloadable through the system. Again, how is this any different?

    • Re:How is this different? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NewWorldDan ( 899800 ) <dan@gen-tracker.com> on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @03:58PM (#15020160) Homepage Journal
      Nintendo will have much of the old SNES and Sega Genesis catalog available for download. There's a lot of games out there that I didn't get to play the first time around. Heck, this would be a lot like the Phantom game console, only real.
    • I agree, but those simple addictive games will be the ones that hook the users, and they won't cost much. Games that you see yourself playing when you close your eyes, hours after you've put them down. Like Lumines.
      • I agree, but those simple addictive games will be the ones that hook the users, and they won't cost much. Games that you see yourself playing when you close your eyes, hours after you've put them down. Like Lumines.

        Good point. It might be a good time to invest in popcap games [popcap.com].
        • Good point. It might be a good time to invest in popcap games.

          I would... if only they would have a Linux version... and somehow, I can't get them to work through Wine :-( Anyone had any success with that?

    • Yes, XBOX 360 also has online distribution and cheaper prices for some games. So? What's your point?
      • Yes, XBOX 360 also has online distribution and cheaper prices for some games. So? What's your point?

        My point is how is this different? I believe I stated that three times in my original post.

        I don't think anyone expected Dr. Mario to sell for sixty bucks in the first place.
        • Well, y'see, both the 360 and the Revolution will have games that you can download for fairly low prices. What are you trying to get at? Make yourself clear, boy!
        • My impression, however, is that we might not see games like madden and such on the revolution (just a feeling). I think this may play into the whole pricing scheme as well. Sure xbox 360 has indie and old school stuff for cheap online, as will the revolution, but my guess is the difference in "in store" prices will be the change. I think we will see the revolution pushing games like zelda (and other stereotypical nintendo games like are available on the DS) for reasonably affordable prices. This is just

    • Re:How is this different? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by syntax ( 2932 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @04:00PM (#15020171) Homepage
      While the summary doesn't make it immediately apparently, the article states that this is for more than the downloadable content:

      Satoru Iwata, president of Nintendo of Japan, told me last week that while the company has no control over what its partners ask for their games, "I cannot imagine any first party title could be priced for more than $50."

      And one would assume that the industry would generally follow the lead of the publisher... generally.
      • Quick fact: all of Microsoft's first party titles were $50, too. Draw your own conclusions.

        -Erwos
      • And one would assume that the industry would generally follow the lead of the publisher... generally.

        MS tried the same, first party games as 50 and we know how it ended. OTOH Nintendo is a much stronger competitor for anyone who would dare to release a game a 60$, in fact they pretty much destroy all other games published on their platform, no matter what the pricepoint is.

        • MS tried the same, first party games as 50 and we know how it ended.

          All we know at this point is that third-party 360 games tend to be $60 because everybody's following EA's lead. We don't know how this increase in price affects quarterly earnings, and it'll probably take at least one more quarter to find out since the limiting factor of Q3 FY06 is lack of 360s in the channel, possibly artificially limiting the number of games sold.

          Chances are the $60 price will stick, but we can still hope that the p

    • Well, if you had read the article, the Nintendo president said he didn't understand how games could sell for more than $50.

      Nintendo's been doing what it can to keep costs down -- hell, they were the most profitable of the last round of consoles, even with the much smaller share.

      And as for downloading -- unlike MS, they already have a massive collection of console games to distribute -- the article (which I'm guessing you neglected to read), make reference to selling more lower cost items, rather than focus
      • Well a good portion of what they're going to have available is going to be 3rd party stuff, however if they bring over all the first party games from the first three consoles you're looking at around 150-200 games just from Nintendo. That's an awful lot of games people have to choose from on launch day, not to mention the fact that hopefully people will get to demo them before purchasing. And that's going to be a good chunk of profit for them.

        Hearing about SD Cards and possible USB hard drive hook ups mak
      • Well, if you had read the article, the Nintendo president said he didn't understand how games could sell for more than $50
        Perhaps he should take a look at his own company's Gamecube offerings, which are consistently priced 5-10 euros more than PS2 or Xbox games.

    • Re:How is this different? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      who said it was?

      Im tired of all these "simpsons did it first" responses from fanboys ANYtime an article on a console or console company is posted.

    • Re:How is this different? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by danpsmith ( 922127 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @04:05PM (#15020219)
      Maybe not in that regard, but let's see the XBox run Mario or classic Zelda without using some illegal emu and roms that takes chips and crap to make it happen.
      • This is irrelevant flamebait. Microsoft doesn't own that IP, so it really doesn't matter. It's akin to being able to download Halo on your X360 and pay a lot less than you would at a retail outlet. Microsoft's only been in the game for 1 generation, they don't have far less "Timeless Classics" than Nintendo has with its massive catalog of titles from the past.
        • Just to play Devil's Advocate...
          Microsoft could pull out all the titles it made for Win32, DOS, and the MSX and resell them; after all, it shouldn't be difficult for MS to emulate any of THOSE platforms (although they'd probably need an agreement with ASCII to resell the MSX stuff). MS actually HAS made quite a few games over the years.
        • it's certainly NOT irrelevant.. the fact that ONLY nintendo can provide access to this library is what sets them apart.
        • Microsoft's only been in the game for 1 generation, they don't have far less "Timeless Classics" than Nintendo has with its massive catalog of titles from the past.

          But FPS's age like no other genre. NO ONE will play a 2001 game in 2011. No one plays Heretic, Dark Forces or Rise of the Triad anymore. No one. And those 3 games were HUGE in the mid-90's.

      • Maybe not in that regard, but let's see the XBox run Mario or classic Zelda without using some illegal emu and roms that takes chips and crap to make it happen.

        Nitpick: emulators are not illegal. The roms usually are - I'm not sure that it's actually been tested in court whether it's fair use to transfer software from a cartridge you own in order to play it on a different platform, but even if it is, we all know that's not how most people get their roms. But the emulator itself is not illegal.

        (Unless it v
        • A nitpick on your nitpick: Most emulators designed for the Xbox are illegal since they used the Xbox SDK and copyrighted libraries to compile. Now, if you ran them under Linux on the Xbox, that would be legal. Of course, you're most likely going to be using them for illegal things anyhow.
    • XBox Live is the blueprint. It's a very good online gaming system - smooth and easy to use. I agree that it won't be much different, but I think it's a smart thing if Nintendo and Sony pick up on the more innovative aspects of Live and apply them to exhaustingly big gaming catalogues. That can only mean significant revenue.

      As far as Live goes: they struggle with insufficient killer content. It's hard out here for a monopolist, but they can't seem to get enough good games out there enough.

      Also, XBox has gear
  • "How is this any different than the XBOX 360? Games like Grand Theft Auto and Madden will still cost an arm and a leg, while lower budget games will be downloadable through the system. Again, how is this any different?"

    It fundamentally isn't. The only real differences will be the $150/$200 price tag compared to the $300 for the actual console - and Nintendo may focus slightly more on their version of Xbox Live Arcade.

    • Re:Xbox360 (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I don't mean to flame, but I really wish you'd learn to reply to the comment instead of the article. Click on the "Reply to This" link at the end of the comment you want to answer, not the Reply button at the top. That way, you won't break threading and appear to be talking to ghosts.

  • Profit in quanity, ever hear of it? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheSkepticalOptimist ( 898384 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @04:04PM (#15020213)
    For the most part, Nintendo has always strives to make game affordable. They were the first to offer "Best Of" games, those popular titles that sold over a million or more copies that they started to discount from their original price, usually in the $30 CDN range. But I ask, if you know your next Legend of Zelda is going to sell millions, why launch it with a $60 price tag?

    Its not like Nintendo has to guess what will be a hit and what won't. A Zelda, Mario, Metroid, etc incarnation will always sell like hotcakes, so why not just offer them at a discount price to begin with.

    I hope this isn't just all talk and no action, which has been very typical of Nintendo for the last 10 years. The Revolution name should be more then just a marketing gimmick. If it doesn't offer dramatically different game play, more features and lower costs then where is the Revolution except on the label. If its just another vehicle for more Pokemon and Mario and Zelda derivative titles, then I think Nintendo might be in big trouble.

    • Re:Profit in quanity, ever hear of it? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I think you've made your own argument against your assertions! If they "know" it will sell millions of copies at $60, why the hell would they discount it to sell a few more? It sounds to me like they have a guaranteed fortune on a good title, and they are in this to make a profit after all. Now if you want them to turn it into a charity and discount all titles just to be nice guys then that's sweet but not very realistic.
      • You're missing the big picture. If Nintendo undercuts the price of the market, the Xbox 360 and PS3 will be left out in the cold with their massivly expensive hardware - which inflates the cost of their titles. Nintendo doesn't only want to lower the cost of the games, making it an easier choice for the consumer to pick-up. They also want to lower the license fee to develop Nintendo Revolution titles. Which would help a developer decide where to put their next game. (Developer: "Hmm, Microsoft = $10 license
    • But I ask, if you know your next Legend of Zelda is going to sell millions, why launch it with a $60 price tag?
      Are you serious?? that $60 game nets nintendo about $15 while that $30 game might net nintendo $5. $15*2mill=30million $5*4mill (assuming they will sell twice the game which is unlikly) = $20mill if you where an investor which would you want. In all seriousness though most games would sell very few copies at $60 but Zelda would easily sell almost as many as it would sell at $30.

    • But I ask, if you know your next Legend of Zelda is going to sell millions, why launch it with a $60 price tag?

      You've phrased the question completely wrong. If you know your game will sell millions, why not sell it for a $60? Heck, why not a $100 price tag? That's millions times ten to forty or more dollars Nintendo is missing out on. Surely there's a price point at which sales will decline for a guaranteed hit title, but from a financial standpoint, how much money is Nintendo leaving on the table?

    • Because Nintendo is a well run business (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Syncdata ( 596941 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @04:17PM (#15020314) Journal
      A Zelda, Mario, Metroid, etc incarnation will always sell like hotcakes, so why not just offer them at a discount price to begin with.

      Because if they were to do this, they wouldn't be Maximizing profit. You sell Zelda at the 50 dollar price point initially to customers like myself, who will whip out a check the second it comes out, and you keep it there, so that little billy has time to save up to buy the game at full retail price.

      The only reason you drop prices is because after a year and a half, there is plenty of new hotness out there, and chances are, you will get lost in the full retail price shuffle. So you slap a distinctive yellow stripe on top of the box, slash the price to 20 bucks, and sell to everyone that "heard it was good from somewhere" but weren't willing to fork over $54.11 just to see if he would enjoy running around as an elf with a boomerang. You don't get as much profit, but you're making more money then you would selling 0 copies at $50.00.
    • A Zelda, Mario, Metroid, etc incarnation will always sell like hotcakes

      That's exactly why they WON'T offer their "masterpiece" games for a discount but will instead distribute them as normal. If they know that a $50 and a $20 price point will sell virtually the same number of games they will price it at $50. Then they can drop it to $20, list it as a "Best Of", and get sales from the people wanting to save money who don't care about getting Zelda or Mario right when it comes out.
    • re:"For the most part, Nintendo has always strives to make game affordable."

      Such lovely shit! Oh this is the new 2006 model bullshit? How nice! Does it come in Mauve?

      - er-um-ina -

      That of course makes perfect sense why Nintendo imposed carts on the N64 audience (and me) creating a supply of games that cost 50 dollars, to and including 80 (1998) dollars (Quake - note no rumble or memory pack-in).

      So insert-your-adjective-fucking affordable - that "one" game - cost more than 2/3rd the cost of the whole console
  • I think they are looking at the success of Geometry Wars and hoping to capitalize on something like that.

    • Re:Geometry wars (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Geometry Wars came out in November. As I recall, Nintendo first announced the Virtual Console at E3 last year, in May. I don't know when Microsoft announced Live Arcade, but I'd wager both companies came up with the idea concurrently. Sony, on the other hand, appears to be far enough behind that I think they're just copying the idea.
      • Live Arcade has been around for a while now. You do know there was a version for the original xbox, that came out a few days before Halo 2. So, it was released at the beginning of November, 2004. So, if you recall correctly, Microsoft had this way before Nintendo. With all Nintendo's claims of other companies ripping off their ideas, it's interesting to see them using Microsoft's. Also, how is this going to work for the Revolution without a hard drive? I'd imagine the space could start filling up fast.
  • Nintendo is doing everything they can to get back to the #1 spot. They have the entire 8 and 16 bit catalog at their disposal. They should should try to get the entire Atari 2600-7800 catalog up there too and I think they'll hit a homerun with their system especially if they get Revolution out there at a $150 price tag.

    I honestly think Nintendo is going to pull a coup this time around and get back to being #1 in the video game console arena.
    • I don't see it like that. I think Nintendo is planning on still doing what they are doing right now, ie. filling a niche market while staying profitable by not wasting ressources on actively participating in the current console wars.
    • I don't think they will be #1 - not in terms of console sales at least, or in terms of retail games which is what the industry counts.

      Microsoft are doing well with Arcade in a way I think they thought wasn't possible. But at the end of the day Arcade game sales don't count in the retail game charts and these ratings. You are going to see MS Live Arcade go head to head with Virtual Console and nobody being the "official" winner. But MS will sell more retail games as a whole, apart from when Nintendo brings o

  • I couldn't agree more ... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Frag-A-Muffin ( 5490 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @04:15PM (#15020300)
    funny timing this article, I just blogged about it on my site [kinezo.com]. :)

    Basically, I ranted about how I saw Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion at futureshop the other day. The prices are getting a little out of hand if you ask me. This is what I saw:

    (All prices in $CDN)
    PC Version : $59.99
    XBOX 360 Version : $69.99
    XBOX 360 Deluxe Version : $79.99

    Why on earth are the console counterparts so much more? Does the xbox 360 license cost that much more? I certainly do not like this trend, and am happily awaiting my Nintendo Revolution. Speaking of Nintendo, here's another plug for them. I just picked up Tetris DS the last week for $34.97CDN. I've been playing it a LOT. It's a great pick me up game. I can turn it on, connect to Nintendo's Wifi service, have a few games against people around the world, all in the span of about 10 min. What a great deal this game is.
    • $60 Canadian? That's, what, $7.54 US? Hold a copy for me.
    • The concept is a "Deluxe Edition" is one that's been in PC games for a long time. There's "Collector's Edition" versions of Guild Wars, World of Warcraft, and Half Life 2 that I saw at Gamestop yesterday. Paying $80 for HL2? You get a T-Shirt with it! It's just a way for the companies to make more money. As for the added cost for consoles, I think it has to do less with the licensing, and more to do with the statement that the console makers made a while ago about games costing more in the next generat
      • ...As for the added cost for consoles, I think it has to do less with the licensing, and more to do with the statement that the console makers made a while ago about games costing more in the next generation...

        Ummmm .. This I certainly don't understand. We've heard the arguments about higher-res next gen. consoles, more texture details, more time to create all the hi-def artwork blah blah blah.

        Answer me this: Most [gamer] PCs can and do play in higher resolutions than 1080i. Some games just stretch texture
      • I was reading what was actually in the Elder Scroll: IV collector's edition box. Basically what you get is a big fat 100-page manual. I remember when those came standard with PC games. Baldur's Gate, Fallout, and even non RPG titles, like Homeworld, all had thick, interesting manuals to read. That's how you could tell what the good games were. If I couldn't decide between two titles in the store, I would go by the heavier box. Today's games really cheap out on the extras. I bought the regular edition of Obl
    • You should see the UK prices of Oblivion. I was in a shop the other day and the PC version was £30 and the 360 version was £50!!!
    • Yes, console games are more expensive. I don't see what's so unusual about it. Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft get their share of the profits too. Computer games OTOH are a completely free platform, with no one to control it..
  • I think that Nintendo has been looking at the Apple system and realizing that's the way to go - not just with thier own 1st party games, but providing lots of 3rd party support. Then they don't have to worry about shelf space or spending on distribution - it's all bandwidth costs (a near constant) and profit from there.

    How is this different from the Xbox 360 Arcade system? Nothing really - only that Nintendo has a *huge* library to pick from (though it would be nice if they got the Rare library too - rumo
    • Microsoft wont let Rare's games be on Nintendos Virtual Console. It is OK for Rare to make GBA and DS games because those systems arnt competiting against Microsofts XBOX. The Virtual Console is.

      • Microsoft wont let Rare's games be on Nintendos Virtual Console. It is OK for Rare to make GBA and DS games because those systems arnt competiting against Microsofts XBOX. The Virtual Console is.

        There's also the added complication of licensing. Even if Rare wanted to release GoldenEye on the Revolution, and Microsoft would let them, EA owns the Bond license now and Rare, Microsoft, and Nintendo would all have to come to an agreement on the usage of that license.

        It would be pretty sweet to get some of

  • Translation -- (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    -- get ready for some new NES/SNES/N64 releases via virtual console!
  • When it comes to the business of games I listen to N. They are the only company that is in the market to make money by selling game hardware and software. Not media centers, not set top boxes. Game systems and games.
  • It's true that Nintendo hasn't pushed the upper limits, but they certainly abuse pricing on the low end.

    $20 to $30 for GBA ports of NES games? No, I'm not talking about the versions with new graphics and sound. I mean the original Zelda and Excitebike, etc. Some people talked about these prices being reasonable. That's ridiculous.

    Most GBA games were far to expensive, but then the DS came. Naturally prices had to be hire. They just tacked $10 on there. Never mind that few games had any of the content
    • Yeah, this has kept me from buying a handheld (well, the cost of games, plus the fact that I would rarely use it). I can get most of these on an emulator, anyway. I don't understand why people are so willing to pay so much for so little.

      I had hoped the Revolution would offer the back catalog for reasonable prices (I mean how much revenue are those games generating at the moment? Nada. So anything they charge is a plus for Nintendo), but you're right, they will probably charge too much.

      Plus if you ha
    • If you find $30 for a DS game expensive wait until you see the price of Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories for PSP...
    • Actually, I bought Mario Kart DS for $30-35. I know most of the Square-Enix GBA games have been going for $35 when they get released.

      The NES Classics series was a bit pricey. And look how far that went... Japan got two sets of releases, we only got one. I wonder why. Funny though, most of the games had been re-released for the e-Reader which no one bought because it was a $50 peripheral.
      • And look how far that went... Japan got two sets of releases, we only got one.

        Nope. There were eight titles initially (June 2004), and a second set of four (Metroid, Dr. Mario, Castlevania, and Zelda II) came out in October 2004. I'd call that two sets of releases.

        And as far as pricing goes...once they dropped on clearance ($5-$10 each for the Classic NES, e-Reader for $10 or less, packs of cards for a dollar each), they're bargains. I know that that's not the point of the argument (and that the argu

        • Not to mention even the initial pricing of the Classic NES series of games was below market average for new GBA games.
          Here in the central US, new GBA games typically go from $25-35, and the Classic NES games started at $20 and quickly fell from there.
          As for DS games, they tend to range $30-35, with possibly a few at $40 (though I can't remember any specific ones offhand that went that high)
          I don't follow the PSP game market as closely, but I know they are priced at least $5-10 above the DS games (PSP is too
    • One issue is that ROM cartridges are expensive to make, compared to CDs.

      That said, I agree that there just aren't enough great GBA games, and the prices are too high. Metroid Zero Mission is still $30+, and it's a 2 year old game for an old system.
    • Well, they pushed the upper limits on the N64. What were those games, $60 or $70 MSRP new?
    • The problem with those 20-30$ NES ports is that cartridges are very expensive to manufacture. I bet they don't make that much of a profit on those titles. What they should've done is either bundling more than one on one cartridge, or use some other storage media (like they did for some time with the eReader).
    • "Some people talked about these prices being reasonable. That's ridiculous."

      More like "most people." I haven't bought any of the "NES Classics" series myself, but I do remember when they came out, many of the first run of games were also available as eReader card sets, the same game, identical in all respects. The cards sold for $5, the GBA games for $30. The GBA games still sold.

      If they managed to sell well at those prices, especially next to such inexpensive competition, the price of $30 seems to be th
    • And I'm gonna have to ask you what the hell you're talking about.

      The NES Classics thing I understand, those were too high, I never bought any of them either. But DS games are not that expensive. You will, occasionally, find DS games running at $50 US, and that is usually games like Metroid Prime Hunters, Mario Kart DS and Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow, all of which have enough content and replayability to be worth as much as a PS2, Xbox or GC game. And this comes from a person who buys PS2 RPGs when they

  • How about coming down on prices now Nintendo? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PoderOmega ( 677170 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @04:39PM (#15020520)
    Gamecube games currently take the longest to come down in price. Their best sellers cost $30 where the PS2 greatest hits only cost $20. I've also noticed that it takes many of their games a long time to come down in price compared to PS2 and XBOX. You can argue quality over quanitity I guess. They also made a killing on selling un-updated NES remakes for gameboy for 20 bucks a pop. I haven't exactly associated them with being budget oriented. I think they are just doing some smart marketing to respond to the gripes gamers are expressing about $60. Let us not forget there were SNES and Genesis games that cost $75 15 years ago. Like I've said before, Street Fighter 2 for SNES blew me away and was totally worth $75. If they can make a game today that has the same effect, I would pay that much again.
  • it LICENCED it from the state run software company of the old ussr.
  • I wasn't surprised at all when I saw the Xbox 360 games shooting up in price. When they announced that they were going to have downloadable content (for a minimal cost) I really wanted to believe that they were going to do that in addition to the then standard $50 price tag I associated with most games. Now I'm seeing that games are hitting $60 (Quake 4 for XBox 360 yet the PC Deluxe version was $50 and included Quake 2... you do the math) and there's still going to be pay-for content online? Throw a new
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • USB and SD (Score:3, Interesting)

    by simpsone ( 830935 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @08:05PM (#15022178)
    The thing in this interview I found most interesting were the details and hints at storage options. First, they flat out said that the Revolution will have a SD slot. Hopefully this will get away from the proprietary memeory cards of the past (or present). Second, Iwata said that there will be usb ports built in for practically andy storage method. So USB flash drives and external hard drives become an option. Sweet. I have to admit that the $400 price tag of the 360 is very off-putting. If Nintendo can keep the cost down by not including a HDD while still making one a practical expansion option, I'm all over it.
    • Perhaps this is part of their strategy to keep the cost of the console down. Instead of having a ethernet port, you could just use your PC and SD/USB storage to get the games to the machine.

      This could open up the possibility of downloading games via your PC instead of just directly to the console. They would probably ask for your Revolution's serial number to lock/encrypt the game's rom to play on just that machine.
    • What I really like is the fact that buffer overflows in sound files and save games suddenly became much more accessible!

Slashdot Top Deals

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Close