Topic: EarthBound Listed to Appear on the Wii U eShop Today

[BlackNMild2k1]

How many suckers are gonna support these outrageous prices!??



although I'm almost tempted to buy it just out of curiosity. $10.00 is hard to swallow for a NES game though, especially for one I will likely never really play.

[pokepal148]

How many suckers are gonna support these outrageous prices!??



although I'm almost tempted to buy it just out of curiosity. $10.00 is hard to swallow for a NES game though, especially for one I will likely never really play.

Thats a very nice looking NES game

[nickmitch]

Never have I ever wanted to give someone ten dollars before.

[Shaymin]

If you have a WiiU and are not willing to buy this, please provide your NNID so I may flood your Miiverse with genitals.

[pokepal148]

first thing as soon as I get a points card in. 

[BlackNMild2k1]

How many suckers are gonna support these outrageous prices!??



although I'm almost tempted to buy it just out of curiosity. $10.00 is hard to swallow for a NES game though, especially for one I will likely never really play.

Thats a very nice looking NES game

NES games... SNES games, whatever.

$10 for a game that is almost 20 years old is just a little much if you ask me.
But this game has been on the most wanted list for so long, that most people wouldn't care if they charged $20. I just hate that Nintendo feels the need to keep the prices on these games so steep when I think these very same games might garner more sales and attention if Nintendo just made a few changes to the Virtual Console in it's entirety. starting with the prices of these games and going all the way to universal access of said games.

Virtual console could be Nintendo's trump card if they only treated it as one service across all Nintendo consoles. But stating this is probably akin to digging up a horse that was already beat to death and then beating it some more. [/rant]

[Luigi Dude]

How many suckers are gonna support these outrageous prices!??



although I'm almost tempted to buy it just out of curiosity. $10.00 is hard to swallow for a NES game though, especially for one I will likely never really play.

Thats a very nice looking NES game

NES games... SNES games, whatever.

$10 for a game that is almost 20 years old is just a little much if you ask me.
But this game has been on the most wanted list for so long, that most people wouldn't care if they charged $20. I just hate that Nintendo feels the need to keep the prices on these games so steep when I think these very same games might garner more sales and attention if Nintendo just made a few changes to the Virtual Console in it's entirety. starting with the prices of these games and going all the way to universal access of said games.

Virtual console could be Nintendo's trump card if they only treated it as one service across all Nintendo consoles. But stating this is probably akin to digging up a horse that was already beat to death and then beating it some more. [/rant]

The only other way to play EarthBound is to pay over $100 for a used copy on Ebay.  Do you want to pay $10 or $100 for this game?  Those are the only options you have if you legally want to play Earthbound.  Even if you hate it, Nintendo's price on the Virtual Console is still the much better deal.

[Adrock]

$10 seems steep to me as well. I own the original cartridge on SNES so I probably won't download this unless it goes on sale which I'm not betting on. Of course, if Nintendo released a physical copy on 3DS...

[BlackNMild2k1]

which is why I stated that "most people wouldn't care if they charged $20"

I realize this game has been hard to come by legally, but my rant was more over VC as a whole, I was just using this thread to vent.

[EasyCure]

Just downloaded it; I might just do an all night session and see how far I can get just too see if they changed anything.

I've played the game many many many many times before and can probably breeze right through it, but Earthbound is such an awesome game that I'll likely spend hours talking to everyone in Onett just to reminisce.

[Bullwinks]

Free phone games have kids so spoiled these days.  I agree, I wish the game was cheaper, but $10 is fair.  Nintendo would give away it's games too if it could charge you $50-$150 a month to use it's products.  Jesus.

[UncleBob]

My biggest issue with the VC in regards to pricing is the entire "NES Games = $5", "SNES Games = $8" idea.

NES Yoshi is *NOT* worth the same as NES Super Mario Bros. 3.

With that said, what's with Nintendo charging a $2 premium for Earthbound?

[BlackNMild2k1]

Free phone games have kids so spoiled these days.  I agree, I wish the game was cheaper, but $10 is fair.  Nintendo would give away it's games too if it could charge you $50-$150 a month to use it's products.  Jesus.

I understand that Earthbound has a certain value to it because of it's limited availability.
But the difference between VC and cell phone games that you can buy for $0.99 is that the VC games were made and paid for decades ago. They've already made their budgets back. At worst it takes a small team at Nintendo to "optimize" a emulator and add in a few features for each game, but the game is already made. $10 for such a product just seems greedy, especially when you would have to buy it several times to play it on multiple machines between TV and Portable screens.

[BlackNMild2k1]

My biggest issue with the VC in regards to pricing is the entire "NES Games = $5", "SNES Games = $8" idea.

NES Yoshi is *NOT* worth the same as NES Super Mario Bros. 3.

With that said, what's with Nintendo charging a $2 premium for Earthbound?

It's only worth what someone is willing to pay for it, and with how people have been begging for this game for years, I'm surprised they didn't charge more.

[Traveller]

How many suckers are gonna support these outrageous prices!??



although I'm almost tempted to buy it just out of curiosity. $10.00 is hard to swallow for a NES game though, especially for one I will likely never really play.

Thats a very nice looking NES game

NES games... SNES games, whatever.

$10 for a game that is almost 20 years old is just a little much if you ask me.
But this game has been on the most wanted list for so long, that most people wouldn't care if they charged $20. I just hate that Nintendo feels the need to keep the prices on these games so steep when I think these very same games might garner more sales and attention if Nintendo just made a few changes to the Virtual Console in it's entirety. starting with the prices of these games and going all the way to universal access of said games.

Virtual console could be Nintendo's trump card if they only treated it as one service across all Nintendo consoles. But stating this is probably akin to digging up a horse that was already beat to death and then beating it some more. [/rant]

I don't get how people can think that just because something is old, means it should automatically cost less. Do people complain when a movie is released on DVD or Blu Ray for the same price as a new release?

The game costs $10 now, it used to be what, $50-$60 when new?

[Oblivion]

I don't get how people can think that just because something is old, means it should automatically cost less. Do people complain when a movie is released on DVD or Blu Ray for the same price as a new release?

The game costs $10 now, it used to be what, $50-$60 when new?

Took the words right out of my mouth. If it's a very good, quality game, and the people want it, how in the hell is it "greedy" for them to charge $10 for it?


You fanboys have been wanting this game for years and when you finally get it, you bitch and moan that it's too expensive? Gimme a break.

[Adrock]

Is it that something should cost loss less or that people want it to cost less? Everyone loves a good bargain.

[Ceric]

Capitalism at work.

Nintendo could have easily found a way to charge more.

[Fatty The Hutt]

That stupid Mona Lisa is so old. Da Vinci made back the cost of his paint and canvass, like, ten times over already. Why the heck are ticket prices to the Louvre so damned expensive? Why the heck should I have to pay, like, $8.99 or 40 Euros or whatever for a poster with Mona Lisa on it?

[thedefalcos]

If there was a new rpg game that was released today for the first time that had 16 bit style graphics and they were charging $10 for it, none of you would say jack about it. It's only because they game is old and most of you have played it that you're griping about the price.

I've NEVER played it and I've always wanted to, so $10 for a new gaming experience ($5 off thanks to deluxe credit deal) is a good deal.  I will for sure get my $10 worth back in entertainment value.
Compare that to Contra 3, a game that I have played and beaten more times than I can count. I will NOT be buying that game any time soon because I've played it to death. So, $8 or whatever they decide to charge is not worth it for me. But, I'm not going to sit here and argue the point that the prices need to be lower across the board. If you've never played Contra 3, I would say it's worth paying $8 for you to play.

Where does it end, anyway?  $5 too much? how about $3? How about .99 cents?  How about they give YOU money to play it? 

[Adrock]

$10 is too much for a digital download of a game I already own a physical copy of. It's a good price for someone who has never played the game and wants to, even if they're just checking out what all the fuss is about. If Earthbound was one of the $0.30 games, I would have bought it, maybe if it was a few bucks. $10 can get an entirely new eshop game so it's harder for me to justify double dipping even if the game is as amazing as Earthbound.

Still, and I admit this doesn't make sense from a financial standpoint, I would pay more than $10 for a physical copy on 3DS. I'll go the extra mile (and dollars) for physical media.

[broodwars]

If there was a new rpg game that was released today for the first time that had 16 bit style graphics and they were charging $10 for it, none of you would say jack about it. It's only because they game is old and most of you have played it that you're griping about the price.

I've NEVER played it and I've always wanted to, so $10 for a new gaming experience ($5 off thanks to deluxe credit deal) is a good deal.  I will for sure get my $10 worth back in entertainment value.
Compare that to Contra 3, a game that I have played and beaten more times than I can count. I will NOT be buying that game any time soon because I've played it to death. So, $8 or whatever they decide to charge is not worth it for me. But, I'm not going to sit here and argue the point that the prices need to be lower across the board. If you've never played Contra 3, I would say it's worth paying $8 for you to play.

Where does it end, anyway?  $5 too much? how about $3? How about .99 cents?  How about they give YOU money to play it?

Here's my problem with this argument: PSN and XBLA are full of $5-$15 new titles of comparable quality to full retail titles like Earthbound was.  As those games become increasingly common, it makes less sense for these 20-30 year old VC titles to be in this rigid 8-year old pricing scheme.  This is especially true since, as previously noted, there's an awful lot of crap on the VC priced the same as some of the best games on the platform.  I paid the $10 for Earthbound because I feel Nintendo justified the value proposition, at least at first.  However, the more I see the massive slowdown in the game when more than 3 sprites are on-screen (a faithful reproduction of the original version's issues), the less that price seems justified to me.

It seems to me that if Nintendo wants to keep charging these premium prices for decades-old games, the least they can do is make them play the best they can play on their given hardware.  As it is, it's becoming increasingly harder to defend these practices, especially with how terrible Nintendo is about releasing VC games in the first place.

[Ceric]

...
PSN and XBLA are full of $5-$15 new titles of comparable quality to full retail titles like Earthbound was.
...

I take issue with that statement simply because $10 is smack dab in the middle of the range of Comparable Quality.  So what your saying is in Earthbound's Peer group their are $15 games and also $5 games.  That makes Earthbound at a Median price and not a premium price.

IF Earthbound is as great game as everyone has been told then the $10 price point is fair enough within the peer group your giving it. 

June 5th, 1995 was the last release of this game in America.  Now that would put someone who was born the Day it was released at as 18 Years old.  They are going to College, here in the States they are considered an adult for most thing.  Have some of their own money to make bad decisions with.  The whole point being their is a fairly large group of people who have heard the Earthbound Mythos but have not been able to legally play the game. 

$10 is just a shade above eating at Fast Food for most places.  Definitely a sit down restaurant.  $10 can be the cost of a SINGLE Skylander. 

So here's a question for you is Earthbound worth more than a Skylander?

[broodwars]

...
PSN and XBLA are full of $5-$15 new titles of comparable quality to full retail titles like Earthbound was.
...

I take issue with that statement simply because $10 is smack dab in the middle of the range of Comparable Quality.  So what your saying is in Earthbound's Peer group their are $15 games and also $5 games.  That makes Earthbound at a Median price and not a premium price.

I still argue that it's a premium price for what's pretty much just a ROM dump.  You want a more apt comparison?  Fine, I can go onto PSN right now and buy the considerably newer Psychonauts (another cult classic game that failed at retail) and Persona 3 FES for $10 each.  Final Fantasies 4-9 on the PS1 are also $10 on PSN, and non-Square Enix PS1 games are commonly priced at $5.99.  Are you going to tell me that an SNES game should cost more than a generation-newer PS1 game, or for that matter that a ROM dump of a 30 year old NES game like Ice Climbers is worth just $1 less than a ROM dump of Resident Evil 2 on the PS1?

Like I said, I paid my $10 for Earthbound, and aside from the slowdown issues I don't have much of a problem with the product.  However, Nintendo's VC pricing in general makes absolutely no sense when you look at the competition, both on and off Nintendo's digital download services, and I don't think Nintendo's justified the value proposition of their premium pricing.

[UncleBob]

Not just here, but I get a giggle whenever people use the qualifier "legally" or when they talk about how the VC games are available free through emulation.

Someone remind me again how piracy on older titles doesn't hurt publishers?