Somnid said:
First off I don't think this will "beat" VC prices. If VC started in the 70s era they would probably start around $3 going by current pricing. That number is flat across system because they are from a very similar generation, I'd be willing to bet if MS expanded into the 80s or 90s there would be a price jump.
Well, we really don't know what the 70s or early 80s games would cost on Virtual Console, because they haven't tried yet. I've wondered why we don't have any games from that period on VC, at least Atari 2600 as that was a very popular system for several years. I don't know if this is because Nintendo doesn't want Atari 2600 games to have a presence on VC, or if companies like Atari and Activision (who has a sizable 2600 game library, over 40 games) don't want to get involved with VC.
Regardless of who's at fault, it's regrettable that VC has existed for over three years on this generation's most popular home video game console without the presence of the 2600, yet Microsoft is able to waltz in with a new classic game service and gain support from Atari on Day One, with Activision already waiting in the wings. I'd say it's high time Nintendo and Atari sat down at the negotiating table (Sony and Atari, too).
I'm interested in seeing how they start pricing late 80's/early 90s games on Game Room, whenever they start offering them. If they are priced lower than VC games, then would Nintendo consider reducing their prices to stay competitive? I know I got Gunstar Heroes for PS3 with online play for $3 less than I would've paid for an offline-only version on GC, so a precedent's already been set.
Somnid said:
The flat-rate is mostly because there's no way to setup variable pricing. All the games started at the same price for the most part (actually VC isn't totally flat Japan still pays the Japanese RPG tax which is supposedly for content but mostly a bullshit cultural thing) but how can you seperate them? Collector's value is a rather worthless metric for selling these because it's due to a number of factors including the original print run. Should a popular game be expensive or a game that's hard to find be expensive? Should games that had a lot of re-releases be cheaper (Sonic)?
Those are good questions. How do companies determine pricing for downloadable games that aren't (mostly) unaltered ROM dumps?
Somnid said:
It just makes more sense to pretend that doesn't exist. Poor games will sell less and good game will sell more, you license by groups of games and not by individual titles. Maybe after the market settles you can re-examine the pricing and try to mine more money out of the less-than-stellar ones but not right off the bat.
The existence of a flat rate might have been acceptable in 2006 and early 2007, when the systems were still new and had relatively small downloadable game libraries. Nearly every XBLA/PSN game was selling for $10 at that time, with only a handful dipping lower. Now the pricing is all over the place, because there are hundreds of games out there that you have to compete with. XBLA is like this, PSN is like this, and even WiiWare is like this. Wii Virtual Console is the only downloadable game library where pricing is
solely dictated by "platform of origin" and (with only one exception, the recent Sega sale) doesn't allow the publisher the flexibility to raise or lower the price to account for greater or lesser demand.
Somnid said:
It's true some games get de-valued because they've been packaged in numerous retro compilations and end up in the bargain bin (which certainly makes Atari 2600 games hard to swallow since you can buy a whole set on Steam for $5) but you have to make that call for yourself. I think it's less that they are overpriced but rather the games in the compilations were undervalued to meet price standards for retail games. It's actually very hard to beat VC prices with physical media and if you did you have to factor in it will always be used and come with no warranty.
It really doesn't matter if the classic game compilation discs were "undervalued". They've been widely available for years. In the PS1/Saturn days, it was usually 5 or 6 games on a disc for $50-$60--and that was a considered good deal at the time, when classic game emulation was new. However, as the years passed, and competition increased, the prices have fallen, while the number of games packed on a disc has risen. People just aren't willing to pay $60 for 6 games now, and they probably aren't willing to pay $10 for a single one of those games.
Keep in mind that there are other outlets for getting games. Let's not get caught up in thinking of "retro games", but simply think of them as "small downloadable games". There are loads of Breakout and Space Invaders and Pac-Man clones out there, for devices ranging from computers to cell phones. There are loads of original games as well. Look at the rapidly rising popularity of the iPhone and iPod Touch. You can't ignore the elephant in the room any longer.
Maybe there's something about buying the "original" Breakout or the "original" Asteroids that tickles the nostalgia bone, and might command a premium over some 30-years-later derivative...or maybe people who recognize those games already played them to death years ago, perhaps already own them (either the original game, or an emulated version in a compilation), and don't feel like buying them
yet again for the umpteenth time for $3 or $5 a piece when they can get some hot new indie iPhone game for half the price.
The flat rate might be a necessary evil for launching a new service, but it cannot last long in light of larger competition. I don't believe Microsoft will adhere to that throughout Game Room's long-term existence (though I'd be surprised if they do), and after three long years I don't think Nintendo
should adhere to it any longer.
