shinobi602
Member
Game breaker? Typo? Nintendo wins next gen? Speculations for everyone.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0050SVHZO/?tag=neogaf0e-20
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0050SVHZO/?tag=neogaf0e-20
And those are third party titles. That would be huge if it's true. But I have no idea how Nintendo could convince third party devs to cut $10 off the prices of the same games that they're charging $60 for on the PS3 and 360.
And those are third party titles. That would be huge if it's true. But I have no idea how Nintendo could convince third party devs to cut $10 off the prices of the same games that they're charging $60 for on the PS3 and 360.
Amazon listed Vita prices for like $30 before Sony announced the specific prices and Amazon raised them accordingly. So I wouldn't say it's concrete but $50 seems like the price Nintendo would go with for first party at least.
Amazon listed Vita prices for like $30 before Sony announced the specific prices and Amazon raised them accordingly. So I wouldn't say it's concrete but $50 seems like the price Nintendo would go with for first party at least.
I wonder if this is a hint towards the power of the console.
If it was, surely it would be $60 as even the most pessimistic here aren't pegging the WiiU at less than the 360?
Competition? If Nintendo is sticking with $50 games third parties will look pretty stupid trying to sell $60 ones, especially considering they already complain about struggling to compete with Nintendo's games.
Edit: No, that kind of makes sense. Third parties will charge $60-$70 (whatever next-gen games cost) and complain when they can't sell alongside Nintendo's $50 games. Then they'll use that to justify not developing for the platform.
Competition? If Nintendo is sticking with $50 games third parties will look pretty stupid trying to sell $60 ones, especially considering they already complain about struggling to compete with Nintendo's games.
Edit: No, that kind of makes sense. Third parties will charge $60-$70 (whatever next-gen games cost) and complain when they can't sell alongside Nintendo's $50 games. Then they'll use that to justify not developing for the platform.
If it was, surely it would be $60 as even the most pessimistic here aren't pegging the WiiU at less than the 360?
You grossly underestimate the most pessimistic GAFers.
Pre-order the games now to lock the price in before they go up.
Sacrifice more of their cut? Drop manufacturing/licensing costs? There are things they could (but may well not) do to make a lower retail price feasible.
High retail prices have been a huge disaster for the industry. They just push consumers to either a) wait for price drops or b) buy it used. Meanwhile, they make consumers much more selective, eliminating middle tier games. None of these things are healthy. 50 dollars is much, much better for the industry. Forty would be even better. Thirty is I think where it needs to get before video games can break through to a truly mass audience.
if wii u games retail for 50, i will support the shit out of wii u and buy it day 1.
can of worms status: openedI wonder if this is a hint towards the power of the console.
I agree in principle, but I don't see games making a profit at $30 at their current budgets. Something's gotta give.
Amazon listed Vita prices for like $30 before Sony announced the specific prices and Amazon raised them accordingly. So I wouldn't say it's concrete but $50 seems like the price Nintendo would go with for first party at least.
I agree in principle, but I don't see games making a profit at $30 at their current budgets. Something's gotta give.