Topic: Will WiiU games be priced at $50 like the Wii, or $60 like PS360?

[Chozo Ghost]

The title says it all. I think this is a fair question to ask, and I haven't seen anyone ask/answer it yet, so lets discuss.

[Adrock]

Nintendo probably prefers to stay at $50 but it'd make them look awful to 3rd parties who will most likely want to set the price at $60 like on PS3/360.

[nickmitch]

I feel like Nintendo will set their games at $50, but most 3rd parties will release at $60 since they'd have more of an "across the board" incentive. If Nintendo could keep all games at $50, then that would be a huge push to capture PS360 owners.

[broodwars]

Nintendo's always about making a profit wherever they can, the easier the better.  And despite how much we hate it, most of us have probably gotten used to paying $60 for HD titles.  I think Nintendo raises their prices to $60, citing the same HD costs everyone else has.  I didn't think that Nintendo's $50 Wii price tags were often justified, so $60 won't be that different.


We seriously need to see more variable pricing in the market.

[ThePerm]

Nintendo also likes to offer things a value prices...if it makes them competative. I can imagine Nintendo keeping the prices at $50 just to increase userbase. I think individual game price plays more a factor in who gets the higher userbase than console price. PSX was expensive but their games were considerably cheaper than n64 games, and that worked out great for Sony.

[Louieturkey]

Nintendo will do what the 3rd parties do this generation as they want to cater to them. If they undercut the 3rd parties, the 3rd parties will not want to make games for the WiiU.

[JasonMaivia]

I think they'll be at $60.  I don't like it, but it probably will.  Just looking at the retail prices set for 3DS games vs DS games will give you an idea about what I mean.

[Shaymin]

They'll go to $60, which I'm already used to paying for 1st party Nintendo games.

[alegoicoe]

If they are ps3 quality titles or better, they will probably go for 60 bucks.

[nickmitch]

We seriously need to see more variable pricing in the market.

In a sense we already do. DL only games come cheaper than retail games, and indie games are cheaper even amongst the DL only games. I think the main reason we don't see any real variance is because in the retail space, being a $40 game next to a $60 game just makes your game look cheap and inferior. Even if such a pricepoint is totally justified in terms of game quality and development costs, most publishers just don't have the balls.
The other reason is of course that the cheaper to make games have to sell high to compensate for the big budget, low profit games.

[ThePerm]

its a myth that games cost more to make because they have HD visuals. If anything the more power the system has the easier it is to make games, because you can be kinda lazy with great results. It takes longer to work around lmitations.

[SixthAngel]

If Nintendo wants to court third parties they have to sell games at $60.  Every third party game will miss the Wiiu or be released on it late if they give third parties less money per sale.  We all asked for Nintendo to go down this route and there are going to be some negative consequences too.

I think there will be more variable pricing with the WiiU than the competion's though so I could see Nintendo published games being slightly cheaper .  I can't look it up right now but I think that was the case on the DS much of the time.  Can anybody confirm it?

[NWR_Lindy]

I don't think you can boil it down to HD visuals = more money.  It's more complex than that. If you look at HD games, when compared to the preceding generation...

1) The game worlds are larger
2) The character models are more detailed
3) The games themselves are more feature-rich (single-player and multi-player, online, etc.)

What this means is that you need to hire more front-line people (artists, designers, modelers, testers, etc.) to do all the work that's required in, say, a two-year period of time.  I don't think that the quality of the visuals themselves are really that big a deal, but it's more the scope of these projects and the timelines that they're on.

[SixthAngel]

1) The game worlds are larger
2) The character models are more detailed
3) The games themselves are more feature-rich (single-player and multi-player, online, etc.)

1 is simply not true.  The most obvious example being GTA4 which was much smaller than San Andreas.

[BlackNMild2k1]

1) The game worlds are larger
2) The character models are more detailed
3) The games themselves are more feature-rich (single-player and multi-player, online, etc.)

1 is simply not true.  The most obvious example being GTA4 which was much smaller than San Andreas.

Even so, you can always double down on #2
Character models and Environments and the things in them are much more detailed.
that includes physics, animations, textures, lighting and a variety of other effects that need to be tweaked to look right and realistic.

[SixthAngel]

Even so, you can always double down on #2
Character models and Environments and the things in them are much more detailed.
that includes physics, animations, textures, lighting and a variety of other effects that need to be tweaked to look right and realistic.

I agree.  I think that is responsible for 95% of the budget increase on the HD consoles.
I also don't see them being much more feature rich either.  More games do include multiplayer now but that is hardly an excuse for all games to raise in price since these new mulitplayer games are far outnumbered by the kind of multiplayer games (especially FPS) we had before and they still went up in price.
I think there are other miscellaneous factors like constant voice acting (and stupidly hiring movie stars) that have jacked up the prices as well but are relatively small compared to #2.

[NWR_insanolord]

Third parties are going to charge $60, and if Nintendo's serious about attracting third parties, who have complained in the past about having to compete with Nintendo's software, I doubt Nintendo's going to make that even more of an issue by charging $10 less than them.

[ThePerm]

yeah, that would be the reason for the prices to jump back up to $60. If 3rd parties want it then maybe Nintendo will cater, this is Nintendo however....

[Ceric]

If Nintendo keeps with their "Right Price" mentality then seeing all Nintendo games at $60 would be a mistake.

[BlackNMild2k1]

My prediction:

Core games will be $60
(Super Mario, Metroid, Fire Emblem, etc etc.)

Casual & Youth aimed games will be $50
(uSports Resort, uFit, Kirby's Playland, etc etc.)

[BeautifulShy]

I think most games will be $50 again as a starting price with possible lower price for some games.Things like RE4 was this gen. Things like that will be lowered price.Basicallly ports will be lower and new games will be $50.

[MorbidGod]

I feel like Nintendo will set their games at $50, but most 3rd parties will release at $60 since they'd have more of an "across the board" incentive. If Nintendo could keep all games at $50, then that would be a huge push to capture PS360 owners.

That be the worst choice ever. Nintendo all ready outshines everyone else on their consoles why increase that by making first party games cheaper? I know ur talking the company has a choice, but its not really a choice because being more expensive is not a good thing !!

[Ceric]

3rd Parties will price like Nintendo Prices.  They have to.  Though they may just chose not to bring a game over.  The lower price is an advantage they should strive to keep.  Which may mean less licensing fee for them.

[nickmitch]

its a myth that games cost more to make because they have HD visuals. If anything the more power the system has the easier it is to make games, because you can be kinda lazy with great results. It takes longer to work around lmitations.

That's not what I was trying to imply, but to build on what others have said, generally games like Gears of War tend to spend much more time in development and involve higher quality (read: actually famous) voice actors. It's often the little things that drive costs.

[nickmitch]

I feel like Nintendo will set their games at $50, but most 3rd parties will release at $60 since they'd have more of an "across the board" incentive. If Nintendo could keep all games at $50, then that would be a huge push to capture PS360 owners.

That be the worst choice ever. Nintendo all ready outshines everyone else on their consoles why increase that by making first party games cheaper? I know ur talking the company has a choice, but its not really a choice because being more expensive is not a good thing !!

It wouldn't be the first time 3rd parties shot themselves in the foot on a Nintendo system.