Now lets talk about prices, and this amazing growing amount of people wanting stuff for free and of course the lovely predicament of payed goods having cheaper prices.
Now this morning I was catching up on the latest Video Game news- more specifically the Nintendo side of the coin, which seems to be the most active around now. What was the news? Pokemon Dungeon is heading to WiiWare, the price point? 1200. Now in some ways that’s not to shabby, depending on the content included. Now these games originally appeared on the DS, they hit prices around $60AUD RRP. Which means, for 1200 Nintendo Points, if the game is the same quality of the DS versions, you should be getting one hell of a deal.
On this site is a nice section of comments posted by the users. You know what the biggest complaint in these comments? Apparently 1200 is way to many points to pay for this. Now in some ways I agree, defiantly the WiiWare service is more basic quality compared to the garbage on retail releases. This then lowers the expectation of what an average price point should be. Also the fact that even from Nintendo they haven’t seemed to have hit the nail on the head on how the service should work- meaning the quality is debatable again.
So it be a price to large to sallow and if it was on the DS- it would be acceptable (as it would be about $18). So why does this cheapish price feel to large on the WiiWare service?
I believe it is because the highest the price can go is to close to this price. Which means for people still not following- to the average consumer eye, this doesn’t seem cheaper then the retail product. Also because of the appearance of past downloadable titles- it feels like a less of a product for more. Which means for most customers, they see this as in fact while its cheaper then if it was a retail release, they are seeing it as a rip off because its got the appearance of a lesser product and is close to the highest price point on the service.
Okay so we have covered downloadable systems, lets look into the same philosophy used on retail games.
X game retails for $100AUD RRP. This means that the recommended retail price is $100 and this usually is the highest retailers will set the price. X game is on special for lets say $20 off. The game is now $80 AUD this means that its cheaper than the $100. Now usually this would be a point that people will see this as a reasonable price considering its cheaper than the $100. But slowly people have got the pespection that the big 3 are money hungry bastards who don’t give a shit about them. Which I say for the most part is true.
Now once this $80 mark becomes the “reasonable” price point- while the games are still $100 AUD RRP. The customers see this $80 as the RRP which means they are now looking for deals cheaper than this point. Which means a retailer selling X game for $50 AUD RRP will be considered a great deal by many.
Now we are in the phrase especially with the Wii that this price point for the “hardcores” (is this problem with those people who buy Imagine and Bratz games?) where $50 is now considered the RRP or close to it by the consumer eye. When it in fact is still and always has been $100 AUD RRP.
Now lets assume that the point I raised in the last paragraph is true (that this cheaper is better ideal is only from the hardcore) because the games that are been picked up are Bratz and Imagine games- that means that the developers see these as the only ones selling. Which means that the “hardcore†titles will be still a high price point for longer because its not selling as well- and when its time to shift stock it will be dropped only then. Which means for the most part sales will be contrasted on the “casual” titles which go down to the prices “hardcore” find acceptable.
I don’t even know if I’m still making sense here.
Lets look at this say there is 54 million Wii consoles each owned by separate households. Now if a developer made a game which everyone must had, and swiped the market and it was only priced at $1 AUD RRP. Now if everyone owned this title- that means 54 million sales and that means that the publisher sees 54 million (before it all goes away and they are left with nothing).
Now if the same title was at $100 and only 1 million people bought it and it wasn’t a must “have title” or no one picked it up because of its price (remember people in a shop look at something if its $1 and the rest is $100 for the most part when its a game- if it looks appealing then they’d pick that shit up) so that means about 100 million? Dude I just fucked up my argument.
My point was going to be along the lines that cheaper games means happier people and more money to support more of your titles and then something like you still get money from the title? Fuck just go digital distro already and leave all the people out of it and you would still get a good amount. :/