General Nintendo sales/business discussion topic (previously: The Wii U Thread)

[Sami]

Because it's an incomplete sham that does not provide you with the same experience as having the whole would. In Phoenix wright, you can be satisfied with one episode because you got a unique scenario that provides you a story that can't be found in the other chapters.

Having a Mario world be sealed off until you pay is pointless because you will want more, the game is designed in such a way that not getting to that final boss and ending is unsatisfying. Sure, for us hardcores it's a simple task of just buy the whole package, but for the casual consumer who doesn't want to pay for more but is left unsatisfied with the fact the rest of the game is being held back will feel conned and that damages Mario's reputation.

 

I don't remember any outrage being thrown at Ghost Trick for requiring a fee to play past the first chapter.

[Candescence]

If I could pay my way through Mario 3D World's Green Star Collecting and Stamp Collecting to unlock Champion's Road quicker, then where's the feel of satisfactory in getting that difficult Green Star? Or finding that hidden stamp? Microtransactions leave you feel empty when you use it to get past something that you should do with your own skill. I shouldn't have to pay for extra balloons in Donkey Kong Country with real money, I should be able to either learn the level or grind on Banana Coins.

What the... Who the hell is advocating this? Nobody, that's who.

 

 

If you can't see the difference there then I worry for you.

 

One method has the alternative where you must play the game more to continue. The other has where you waste you or someone else's hard earned cash to progress.

 

How is it crazy to find that totally unreasonable?!

Because if you pay for the whole package up-front, then it'll be like any normal release and you don't have to worry about paying piecemeal?

 

Seriously, it's like you're saying people will be forced to pay more in total than the existing $60 up-front purchase. It's just an option for people who just want to test the waters before they commit to a full purchase, for pete's sake.

 

 

Because it's an incomplete sham that does not provide you with the same experience as having the whole would. In Phoenix wright, you can be satisfied with one episode because you got a unique scenario that provides you a story that can't be found in the other chapters.

Having a Mario world be sealed off until you pay is pointless because you will want more, the game is designed in such a way that not getting to that final boss and ending is unsatisfying. Sure, for us hardcores it's a simple task of just buy the whole package, but for the casual consumer who doesn't want to pay for more but is left unsatisfied with the fact the rest of the game is being held back will feel conned and that damages Mario's reputation.

Oh, for God's sake. Ghost Trick is similar to Mario in that very similar respect, and the piecemeal method works fine. Nobody complained about that game using it.

[Sami]

Discoid also wants Nintendo to go to mobile phones.

Think about this as you're debating the topic. His mindset is completely different.

 

Not really. I'm just saying that this pricing format can work with the game design they already have. I prefer home consoles and dedicated handhelds over mobile by a pretty vast degree.

[PSI Wind]

I don't remember any outrage being thrown at Ghost Trick for requiring a fee to play past the first chapter.

That's because the game was already on the DS with all the content intact.

[Sami]

That's because the game was already on the DS with all the content intact.

 

I have no idea how this is at all relevant to the reception of the iOS release.

[Dejimon11]

Not many, if any. Only one that comes to mind is EA.

Didn't they start doing that recently though?

[azoo]

Because if you pay for the whole package up-front, then it'll be like any normal release and you don't have to worry about paying piecemeal?

 

Seriously, it's like you're saying people will be forced to pay more in total than the existing $60 up-front purchase. It's just an option for people who just want to test the waters before they commit to a full purchase, for pete's sake.

 

Don't companies already do this? With.. you know, demos? I assumed that we were talking about something different since that idea exists already and is rather heavily practiced by most game companies.

 

Nintendo should release demos of all of their games, sure. Can't disagree with that at all. But what's the point of paying a little more to get a little further? I could sort of understand players not having all the money at that time, but that really just makes not having the rest of it more painful when you can't progress (not to mention breaking the inner game's immersion).

 

Plus, if people just decide not to pay the whole price for the game, Nintendo is at a loss.

[MegasonicZX]

Don't companies already do this? With.. you know, demos? I assumed that we were talking about something different since that idea exists already and is rather heavily practiced by most game companies.

 

Nintendo should release demos of all of their games, sure. Can't disagree with that at all. But what's the point of paying a little more to get a little further? I could sort of understand players not having all the money at that time, but that really just makes not having the rest of it more painful when you can't progress (not to mention breaking the inner game's immersion).

 

Plus, if people just decide not to pay the whole price for the game, Nintendo is at a loss.

Yeah, but you have to admit that nintendo is pretty stingy with their demos, if there is one thing that I think both sony AND microsoft do better than ninty, its that they have demos for a lot of the things they put out instead of just relying on people to buy it blind (or at least in my experience since a good majority of nintendos platformers and stuff look interesting but im not willing to shell out money to them unless I know its fun to play and doesn't just look pleasing).

[Candescence]

Don't companies already do this? With.. you know, demos? I assumed that we were talking about something different since that idea exists already and is rather heavily practiced by most game companies.

 

Nintendo should release demos of all of their games, sure. Can't disagree with that at all. But what's the point of paying a little more to get a little further? I could sort of understand players not having all the money at that time, but that really just makes not having the rest of it more painful when you can't progress (not to mention breaking the inner game's immersion).

 

Plus, if people just decide not to pay the whole price for the game, Nintendo is at a loss.

Well, consider that the first level/world could be free. There's your 'demo' right there, it worked for Deus Ex (though it helped that Liberty Island was an amazing first level).

 

Though for people whose interests are piqued but not entirely convinced, they can pay a little to see a bit more. And the game itself could provide a discount for a full purchase, so the trade-off for playing the whole game piecemeal is that you'd have to pay full price overall, so there's incentive to pay for the whole thing.

 

And if people don't pay for the whole thing, well, that's more indicative of the quality of the game than anything else. But at least Nintendo would get some money, rather than none at all. It's much less of a risk since it's sold digitally, where the costs of publishing are paltry compared to retail.

[PSI Wind]

So what if the first area of Uncharted 4 was free, but you had to pay for every new area that you go to? That's fine?

[Sami]

So what if the first area of Uncharted 4 was free, but you had to pay for every new area that you go to? That's fine?

 

Yes? I don't see why not if it'll total out to $60, and I have an option to pay in bulk at the beginning. 

[MegasonicZX]

So what if the first area of Uncharted 4 was free, but you had to pay for every new area that you go to? That's fine?

No, you could either choose to pay for one level again or just pay for the whole thing right there without having to have them interrupt you again. Is what I think he's saying.

[PSI Wind]

Let's just think how games would be if all of them required microtransactions

Every main mission in GTA? $10

Want to recruit this person in Fire Emblem? $2

each mission in GZ? $5

Every new area in Uncharted 4? $5

Want to unlock this power-up in Mario so you find it in any stage? $9

Pay $5 to advance to each city after getting a Gym Badge in Pokemon

[MegasonicZX]

Well, consider that the first level/world could be free. There's your 'demo' right there, it worked for Deus Ex (though it helped that Liberty Island was an amazing first level).

 

Though for people whose interests are piqued but not entirely convinced, they can pay a little to see a bit more. And the game itself could provide a discount for a full purchase, so the trade-off for playing the whole game piecemeal is that you'd have to pay full price overall, so there's incentive to pay for the whole thing.

 

And if people don't pay for the whole thing, well, that's more indicative of the quality of the game than anything else. But at least Nintendo would get some money, rather than none at all. It's much less of a risk since it's sold digitally, where the costs of publishing are paltry compared to retail.

I can agree with this, it would make people who aren't too loose with their money to try a product their interested in without fully buying it until their comfortable with it.

[Candescence]

Let's just think how games would be if all of them required microtransactions

Every main mission in GTA? $10

Want to recruit this person in Fire Emblem? $2

each mission in GZ? $5

Every new area in Uncharted 4? $5

Want to unlock this power-up in Mario so you find it in any stage? $9

Pay $5 to advance to each city after getting a Gym Badge in Pokemon

Scratch those two off and then you're sorta getting it. But it would have to be structured so the player would get enough content to not feel ripped off and also so they can get a better idea of whether they like the game or not.

[PSI Wind]

But then what if that game would cost WAY more if you did it that way? Should the physical games be priced the same?

[Sami]

Let's just think how games would be if all of them required microtransactions

Every main mission in GTA? $10

each mission in GZ? $5

Every new area in Uncharted 4? $5

Pay $5 to advance to each city after getting a Gym Badge in Pokemon

 

The other two aren't even relevant to the discussion we're having, so I removed them.

 

And I see no issue with any of these so long they are priced to equal $40 - $60 and there is an option to pay in bulk.

[azoo]

After thinking about it a bit, its not a terrible idea as an option, and yeah I could see the line of profit being made (less masses of $60 at a time, but more payments in general) as well as the overall convenience of it. But I don't know, I still get bad vibes from the idea.

 

I personally wouldn't do it though, it'd just kill the immersion for me.

[Nintendoga]

!

Joke or not that was a pretty rude statement imo. When you get down to it everyone's mindset is different.

I don't think Nintendo should do F2P. I'm not really sure if that would even get them that much more money. I know F2P games are very popular on smartphones (Hell even I have a couple of em) but to my knowledge I'm not sure just how successful the market would be for Nintendo to do so on their console/handheld.

Yeah people like Capcom's done it before, but I don't think anyone's looked up yet to see if it's been successful for them or not. I've heard some good things with Killer Instinct's F2P, but I don't know how much money they've made off of that. Then again if it wasn't making them good money, they probably would have stopped doing it by now.

IF, Nintendo were to do F2P games in the future, I don't see how they wouldn't be able to do so according to some posts. Download Mario 3D World and then play one world for free before paying $5 for the next world. The Hidden Worlds unlock automatically after you've beaten all the worlds. I don't know. If they ever wanted to do F2P, they definitley could do it with a platformer, just probably not in the way I explained.

Doesn't mean I want or like F2P games though. I was playing Ghost Trick on the ios the other night, and it really irritated me when the game stated "LIKE THE GAME? WANT TO FIND OUT HOW IT ENDS? BUY THESE CHAPTERS FOR $__!" right as I was getting really invested in the game. That's how they get you in F2P games. Give you a taste of the game, get you invested, and then make you pay money in order to advance. Surprisingly, it works.

Maybe if they made F2P games more as to how Demos work? Going back to Mario 3D World, what if they allowed you to play the first world for free, and then for $50 you can download the rest of the game and play the rest of the worlds. I know people won't agree with me there, but I wouldn't mind it if companies did stuff like that. Yeah I know someone will say "I shouldn't have to pay extra money in order to play the rest of the game!" But let's be honest,

Are you really paying extra money? If each world had cost $5 in 3D World, all together the game would come out to around $60, the same amount you would pay normally. Of course I completely understand when people say they'd rather have the full package at hand first, I agree. I just don't agree to the complaints of paying extra money when you're probably paying a cheaper amount.

And hey, just speaking for me, going back to what I said two paragraphs ago, I personally wouldn't mind it because it would give me a chance to see if the game is good or not.

If I was allowed to play the first sector of Other M for free would I have bought the rest of the game? Maybe, maybe not. But it would give me a sense of what I would be going into and about to play. Hell I just wish more games had more demos these days is what I'm getting at.

Wait what are we talking about again?

Edit:

 

Snippet

Then I apologize. I read it as rude and that's what I get for being outside the circle.

[Indigo Rush]

Joke or not that was a pretty rude statement imo. When you get down to it everyone's mindset is different.

 

How was what I said rude? Discoid is looking at this from a different angle and I'm reminding everyone.

 

On another note he and I could literally rip each others throats out over Nintendo related discussion and still have a good time about it. We cool.

[JaidynReiman]

Yeah people like Capcom's done it before, but I don't think anyone's looked up yet to see if it's been successful for them or not. I've heard some good things with Killer Instinct's F2P, but I don't know how much money they've made off of that. Then again if it wasn't making them good money, they probably would have stopped doing it by now.

Capcom's doing amazingly well on Mobile: http://www.technobuffalo.com/2014/04/01/capcom-cuts-its-profits-forecast-by-half-because-of-poor-mobile-sales/ (discussed in this Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mExBoExxv4).

 

I don't think Nintendo should go F2P, in fact I think F2P is going to die off when people get too pissed off at it that they give up on F2P.

 

EDIT: Um... I wasn't trying to embed a Youtube video, I just wanted to link to it... Is there any way to JUST link to Youtube rather than embed it?

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

There's also the elephant in the room concerning the fact that companies are going to eventually abuse micro-transactions given such a chance. No question about it, they're going to find some bullshit way to make 100% completion attainable through having to pay extra.

 

Considering that they'd be risk losing even more of a profit from having games paid for fractionally in the first place, you can bet they're going to do all they can to squeeze the money out of whoever's willing.

[VO.SUPER]

Meh; after thinking more on the subject I decided that and yeah it works. It's basically an extended demo really. But the only thing I would say is that secret worlds should not cost any money to get they should still operate through in game secrets such as green stars and such.

As long as things like items don't cost money then I'm good with it.

[Sami]

There's also the elephant in the room concerning the fact that companies are going to eventually abuse micro-transactions given such a chance. No question about it, they're going to find some bullshit way to make 100% completion attainable through having to pay extra.

 

Considering that they'd be risk losing even more of a profit from having games paid for fractionally in the first place, you can bet they're going to do all they can to squeeze the money out of whoever's willing.

Do you think Nintendo would do that?

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

Do you think Nintendo would do that?

If they'd be as out of character to even make such console games micro-transaction infected, then I could see even them doing that to gain a profit.