|
|
|
A Nintendo community by the fans!
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|
Thoughts on game piracy and emulation [roundtable]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@TriforceBunIt's not at all unreasonable to think the VC games are overpriced for what they offer. New indy games can sell for that much. Full price games can be sold for that much or less. A few weeks ago the next gen remaster of the Last of Us on the PSN was on sale for $10. This is a modern game 3 years old (the remaster is even less) and it is what Nintendo is charging for a N64 game. And I have more freedom with that game than I do with VC games. I can play it on as many PS4's as I want. The issue I take with the argument that it sells so clearly it is worth it is that it ignores what other company's offer as value. On top of that it assumes that just because it sells some amount that it is therefore successful and thus right. You could charge $50 for VC games and some people would still pay for it. Now true, some people do find value in what Nintendo offers and will argue that the price is worth it. That being said though it isn't really possible to argue that relative to other competitors Nintendo offers more except that maybe Nintendo's games are better. Even with that though you still have to argue credibly to me that Ice Climbers is worth $5 in 2016 and that cost is totally fair for just one instance of the game. If I was a Nintendo fan who wanted easy access to my VC library across all my devices that inflates very, very quickly. On Steam I can play my games on any computer, with Sony I can play games across various platforms, iTunes, Xbox, Android, you can basically just assume that any company will do what Nintendo isn't. EDIT: And as far as the public determining if something is worth it it should be noted that they do and Nintendo is currently doing the worst it has ever been. Policies like this aren't the only reason for that to be sure but it's not exactly unrelated either. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@StephenI think it's kind of a slippery slope to think about these things in relative terms though, because the inevitable conclusion is always that Binding of Isaac offers 200 hours of awesome gameplay for a dollar during Steam sales, so shouldn't EVERY game be less than a dollar? Age of the game doesn't play into it for me--all that matters is quality of the game, and The Legend of Zelda is still one of the best games ever made, so five bucks is fine. I'd love to be able to play the game on multiple devices too, but here's my logic for why it isn't that big of a deal (that might just be me rationalizing a poor decision on Nintendo's part): let's say I own Metroid on the Wii, but not the 3DS. And I really, really want to play it on 3DS! I want to play it so badly on 3DS that I'm willing to shell out five dollars for it. Doesn't my strong desire to play the game say something about how much I value it? Like, if I'm not willing to spend an amount of money equivalent to a burger on it, how badly do I actually want to play the game in the first place? And I think that's where Nintendo is coming from, they don't want their games to be looked at the way we look at the dozens of indie games we get for almost free in Humble Bundles that just sit in our Steam libraries until we get around to trying them out. Personally, I really respect that mindset. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|