Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Nintendo boss Satoru Iwata says cheaper digital games could hurt the value people put on big franchises like Mario and Pokemon
You may have noticed that Nintendo has been making a push into digital distribution of its games this generation, with a large portion of its 3DS and Wii U library being made available for purchase through its online eShop. While you may think that digital distribution = no manufacturing/shipping costs, so therefore cheaper games, all of the digital games available on Nintendo's online stores are priced exactly the same as their retail counterparts. Nintendo boss Satoru Iwata explains that making the digital versions of games cheaper could potentially devalue them when compared to their boxed versions.
"[Digital games aren't cheaper] because we want consumers to value software as highly as possible and because we have been trying to heighten the value of our software whenever we produce it," Iwata said during an investor Q&A, adding "We decided that, since the contents are the same, the company would offer the software at the same price, be it the packaged version or the digital version."
He said that people have come to expect that big name Nintendo franchises such as Mario and Pokemon will be well "worth the price" before even purchasing them, announcing that sales for titles such as Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon and Pokemon X and Y have been very strong for both their respective digital and retail versions.
Iwata did conceed that he was open to the concept of lower price points for digital games if the game in question is a new IP, or a franchise with well-known characters, but new gameplay features. Examples of this already happening include the Mario Vs. Donkey Kong franchise, and Dillon's Rolling Western.
"For these titles, if we take the ordinary approach of selling the packaged software, the software might not reach its full sales potential, and even when we are able to create something interesting, the games often can just fade away without being noticed by consumers," Iwata said.
Tl;Dr Nintendo won't price their digital downloads lower as it "lowers the value" of their console, and are trying to set the market price while keeping control of digital products (as in what you download isn't actually registered to your account, if you replace your 3DS or upgrade it, those downloads are gone for good, meaning another drop of £40 for pokemon or whatever you downloaded. Ok, it's not a "GW" thing strictly, it's a "big company" thing, but considering customer PR between the two are rather on different levels, it's the sort of thing that lets be honest we'd expect from one of those companies, not the other. Well not recently, I do know of Nintendo's earlier shenanigans regarding C&D's, but you'd at least expect better business tactics from Nintendo.
- 1250 points
Empire of the Blazing Sun (Combined Theaters)- 1950 points
FUBAR Starship Troopers- Would you like to know more?
GENERATION 9: The first time you see this, copy and paste it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation. Consider it a social experiment.
If a game is worth X, then it is worth X whether it is downloaded or bought in a store. You are deciding whether you want to keep your games on a shelf or save space and store it in the cloud, but they are right that it would devalue their brand if they made it cheaper just just because it is a digital version.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Besides I think comparing Nintendo to GW is a bit of a stretch. One company prices their product fairly yet aggressively and the other gouges is customers every chance they get, which has been yearly. Hell Nintendo still has that Nintendo customer thing where you register your products for points and you can buy things from the Nintendo fan club. GW? pfff forget customer loyalty
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/07 11:41:48
Physical cartridge/disc currently offers more as it can be resold, off setting the initial cost. It will continue to work for as along as the hardware lasts (in theory), unlike the risk of losing access to the digital copy if the service is ever discontinued. And you always have the option of lending a friend the physical copy, I can't think of many digital game services that allow this (I think steam has some version of this currently but haven't played around with it).
Lysit wrote: Physical cartridge/disc currently offers more as it can be resold, off setting the initial cost. It will continue to work for as along as the hardware lasts (in theory), unlike the risk of losing access to the digital copy if the service is ever discontinued. And you always have the option of lending a friend the physical copy, I can't think of many digital game services that allow this (I think steam has some version of this currently but haven't played around with it).
That is a personal assessment of what you value about physical copies, and one I generally agree with, but has no bearing on the overall value/pricing of a game. If a physical copy is X and the digital is X-Y then really the game is valued at the lesser price. Again, it is all about choice; if you don't want the digital copy don't get it, if you do, it is available to you. You get the same game either way, you just have more options on how you get it.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Lysit wrote: Physical cartridge/disc currently offers more
That is a personal assessment of what you value about physical copies
Im not sure how its a personal assessment, thats exactly how those 2 products often work and its different. If you say the value of playing the game is equal then thats entirely true (barring times when DRM/Servers go down and prevent you playing a game, Diablo 3 on pc vs console is a good example), however your not just getting the experience of the game depending on if you buy a physical cartridge/disc of a digital download.
Lysit wrote: Physical cartridge/disc currently offers more
That is a personal assessment of what you value about physical copies
Im not sure how its a personal assessment, thats exactly how those 2 products often work and its different. If you say the value of playing the game is equal then thats entirely true (barring times when DRM/Servers go down and prevent you playing a game, Diablo 3 on pc vs console is a good example), however your not just getting the experience of the game depending on if you buy a physical cartridge/disc of a digital download.
You listed things that aren't inherently important, and are of value to someone who values those qualities, not universal values. For example, people who don't sell their games, like me, the ability to do so isn't really factor, and thus, has no value to me when determining a purchase. If someone doesn't lend their games out that really doesn't matter at all either. You are more likely to lose a physical copy of a game then a digital copy. Some people don't want stacks of games taking up space, and having everything available in the cloud is a nice alternative. The case and book aren't the value of the game either. I wouldn't buy a game without them, but people do all the time, it is just important to me. I assign that aspect value, Nintendo doesn't. Really all you have done is list the things you like about having a physical copy, because all Nintendo is doing is selling you the game, and as you say, none of those things affect the inherent value of that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/07 13:50:15
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
The actual reason is far simpler though, they make more money from digital sales because there are no physical production costs involved, only bandwith and server space, which are a lot cheaper at that scale. Not to mention the cut taken off by the stores.
This is the reason that, yes, a lot of digital games are cheaper then their physical versions (not in the AAA market offcourse).
And let's be honest, Japanese video game companies still don't seem to understand how the internet and the west works.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/11/07 14:11:42
As a general rule, I think Nintendo is increasingly out of touch with their own market with spotty consistency, especially on the console market and in terms of PR. Of course sometimes that works to my favor. No Day 1 DLC bs from the good ol Nintendudes (usually, at least that stuff for Fire Emblem Awakening was Free).
This is a case though where I'm not sure what there is to complain about. Digital copies are often priced the same as a physical copy. Company's love extra cash on less overhead and they like maintaining a degree of control in their sales. Keeping prices the same means one side doesn't cut the under out from the knees.
all Nintendo is doing is selling you the game, and as you say, none of those things affect the inherent value of that.
Not quite what I meant, I tried to say, as far as your personal values go, they might just be selling you a game, both physical and digital versions deliver this. But depending on digital/physical format, the game can have more or less value, even if you don't care about it.
Lets run through a situation, in which you might not care about the value of a physical copy, but it clearly shows it has this value inspite of your indifference. I will try to keep this simple to prevent previous confusion, consider this theoretical situation.
You get into debt.
You pay off as much as you can, but are left needing to immediately settle the remaining £20.
As such, a bailiff (debt collector) appears at your home, to remove none essential items upto your remaining debt of £20.
He discovers you own 2 items you can live without, which can be sold on for £20 each and as such only has to pick one. He discovers you own a DIGITAL copy of pokemon X and a PHYSICAL copy of pokemon Y.
At first he is going to take pokemon X, but realises a DIGITAL game such as this has no resale value (As you know, you can resell few digital games), so he goes to grab pokemon Y, knowing he can get £20 for it at a local Pawn Shop.
You listed things that aren't inherently important, and are of value to someone who values those qualities, not universal values.
I'd argue since the physical copy of the game has a monetary value, and money being the closest thing we have to universally assigning items value, it has a universal value that you have made a personal choice not to use, as opposed to it having a personal value to sell and no universal value at all.
---------------------------
This is of course ignoring PC games that come with cdkeys attached to accounts, and some EA games that lose value due to the online pass stuff. As far as Nintendo games go, I believe the above situation still holds true however.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/07 16:36:35
Of course if we ignore contradictory evidence it is easy to make any point. People pay real money for all sorts of non-physical things, which also means they to have monetary value.
I personally wouldn't buy the digital version, but if I were running a company I wouldn't wreck my physical copies sales by undercutting my own price. It really makes no sense for them to charge less for the digital as it doesn't cost them much to have it available, and while digital sales will most likely be fewer then physical, they also make more on each sale.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Of course if we ignore contradictory evidence it is easy to make any point. People pay real money for all sorts of non-physical things, which also means they to have monetary value.
Well considering this is about nintendo games, I pointed out cases were I would be wrong outside the scope of the first post topic.
But since you think its a fantastic point of logic on your part, lets look at those PC games, ones which cannot be resold, so much like many digital games. You'll notice they are often cheaper than the console ones that can be resold (well atleast in the UK not checked other prices), example:
You'll notice it lets you change platform, PC is consistantly cheaper. Its also the only version you cannot resell, like the digital nintendo games. The other copies can be resold, but also cost more.
So physical copy often means it can be resold, but not true in all cases, giving the item more value.
Digital means it often cannot be resold, but not true in all cases, giving them less value.
But sure man, snip quotes to make poor arguments, its cool bro, its an internet thing
Its nice to know you keep glossing over the resale angle common with physical/digital formats. I'll accept that as agreement of my points on some level.
Between stuff like this, terrible variety of games (It's either a 1st party game or it's a terribly ported 3rd party game) and the "Let's play" crackdown I've been burned pretty hard off of Nintendo.
Which is a shame because I grew up playing their games.
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell
I think we have moved off the reservation here, and your attempts at insults aren't really helping, so lets get back to subject at hand: why should Nintendo price their digital version of Mario 3D differently than the store bought copy? How does your ability to resell, it if you choose to, effect their setting prices for their games?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/11/07 22:27:19
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
LordofHats wrote: As a general rule, I think Nintendo is increasingly out of touch with their own market with spotty consistency, especially on the console market and in terms of PR. Of course sometimes that works to my favor. No Day 1 DLC bs from the good ol Nintendudes (usually, at least that stuff for Fire Emblem Awakening was Free).
This is a case though where I'm not sure what there is to complain about. Digital copies are often priced the same as a physical copy. Company's love extra cash on less overhead and they like maintaining a degree of control in their sales. Keeping prices the same means one side doesn't cut the under out from the knees.
On a general rule I consider the japanese market to not quite understand the internet and western market all that much.
Sony and Square Enix I think have an effective grasp of the internet. Sega does fine. Capcom and Nintendo however stand out as two examples that seem to have a spectacularly bad grasp of it.
Ahtman wrote: I think we have moved off the reservation here, and your attempts at insults aren't really helping, so lets get back to subject at hand: why should Nintendo price their digital version of Mario 3D differently than the store bought copy? How does your ability to resell, it if you choose to, effect their setting prices for their games?
My point was that you generally get more value out of a physical copy. I never said they should be priced differently. I never said it should effect there setting of prices, just that if they are priced the same, the physical copy carries more value.
LordofHats wrote: Sony and Square Enix I think have an effective grasp of the internet. Sega does fine. Capcom and Nintendo however stand out as two examples that seem to have a spectacularly bad grasp of it.
Hrmmmm... forgive me if I am wrong but didn't Sony go on a mad censoring a while back or something?
Hrmmmm... forgive me if I am wrong but didn't Sony go on a mad censoring a while back or something?
Nobody's perfect
Mostly what I mean by an 'effective grasp' is that they use it in their business in a way that isn't "internet? wtf is that?" Sometimes it seems like Capcom and Nintendo just recently found out the internet exists between Nintendo's odd actions with lets plays and Capcom's craptastic DLC models.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/08 01:59:47
KingCracker wrote: Besides I think comparing Nintendo to GW is a bit of a stretch. One company prices their product fairly yet aggressively and the other gouges is customers every chance they get, which has been yearly. Hell Nintendo still has that Nintendo customer thing where you register your products for points and you can buy things from the Nintendo fan club. GW? pfff forget customer loyalty
On the other hand, Nintendo has that thing where they release a new console, push it for a couple of years, and then give up on it due to being hugely outclassed by their competitors and just concentrate on their latest handheld device while they spend the next few years trying to come up with the next 'groundbreaking' console.
Unless the free market no longer applies online (which if it doesn't, is news to me), I don't see what the fuss is about. If people deem it too expensive, they won't pay.
Paradox Interactive moved to a completely digital distrobution model a couple of years ago and IIRC they didn't go down in price.
LordofHats wrote: Sony and Square Enix I think have an effective grasp of the internet. Sega does fine. Capcom and Nintendo however stand out as two examples that seem to have a spectacularly bad grasp of it.
Hrmmmm... forgive me if I am wrong but didn't Sony go on a mad censoring a while back or something?
Pretty sure that was Sega, though Sony has it's fair share of feth ups too.
Also, Square Enix? What? The guys who keep trying to sell us final fantasy 1-6 on mobile for upwards of 20 bucks?
And hell, I'll throw Namco/bandai on this list too, they suck as a publisher.
- 1250 points
Not to mention the cut taken off by the stores.
2375
/ 
1690
WIP (1875)
760
WIP (350)
WIP (150) 
