Wii U

From: Soccer_is_Best | #038

This is just a thought, but if Nintendo sells their games for 50 and the 3rd parties sell them for 60, couldn't that alienate some 3rd parties because Nintendo has an "advantage" where their games sell better. I mean, Nintendo is doing everything possible to make 3rd parties happy about their system. I know, its kinda stupid, but it is something to consider.

Why in the world should Nintendo charge $60 for their own games because of 3rd party publishers/developers? That's kind of stupid.

cavebear56 posted...

This Pachter individual isn't very smart.

Any reasonable person wouldn't associate price with quality.

Wow, this board is full of really stupid people.

Money = more polish/scope/content/etc vs the direct competition and if it doesn't, it would be an exception and an extreme case of gross incompetence.

Look at Oblivion vs Vampire Masquerade. Troika makes fun games with interesting characters but my god, the world is like the size of three Oblivion dungeons and they can't even bother to DRAW a door on 4 sided buildings. Whats worse, it is plagued with so many bugs that anyone who ever cried about Oblivion would tear their hair out in the first two hours. The bugs are in your face.

So money is a great determinant of certain types of quality depending on what you are talking about. Acting stupid is not the way to bash pachter.

Now lets look at direct game prices. Games are RELEASED at budget prices because they cost significantly less to make and often have less content. This is the case with Disgaea 3, Katamari and so on. XBLA games again cost even less, ranging from $5 - $20.

This won't tell us the quality of the game but will tell us how much to generally expect. If you thought that a $5 XBLA shooter is gonna have as much content as BF3 or The Darkness then you obviously shouldn't be telling Pachter anything.
---
GT: ZiiX360 PSN: BoxFighter85
PC: i7 930@4Ghz | EX58 UD5 | GTX 460 SLI | 8GB DDR3 | 500GB Spinpoint | Vertex 2 180 SSD | Cooler Master HAF X | VG236H

BSerenity posted...

The guy is such a damn joke...

---
My Game of the Year: Xenoblade Chronicles
"Broke my pipe on some fatass" - RPG_Apostle

DesperateMonkey posted...

Prince Shondronai posted...

Remember when PS1 games were generally cheaper than N64 games?

I have my own opinion on the quality of most PS1 games, but that didn't stop the general public from eating them up with spoons.

Now you are viewing things way too simply. Money is "a" factor. Not "the only" factor. People on GFaqs really need to start using their heads. Everytime they discuss something they discuss it in a vacuum. Does it really hurt people that much to take multiple factors into account?

A goodly percentage of the times when I saw people pick the PS1 over the N64 while I was working at Toys R Us (during most of those systems' lifetimes), they would say "Look how much cheaper PlayStation games are!" without knowing anything else about the games. Sometimes they'd even be under the impression that Mario and Pokemon games would be released on PS1 someday.

If there are two similar consoles and one has cheaper games, clueless consumers will choose the one with cheaper games.
---
One of us. One of us. One of us.

DesperateMonkey posted...

Yes but those aren't the consumers that determine the best titles and the big budget ones. Those titles sell regardless of quality and won't ever accumulate the massive million + sales (some exceptions of course). People didn't buy millions of copies of FFVII just because it was cheap. They obviously knew what they were getting. If price was all that mattered then we should see bad games selling just as much on the PSX but there are no such titles.

Pachter's point is that consumers are going to avoid a system with cheaper games, though. They're not, is what I'm saying.
---
One of us. One of us. One of us.