ViscountalphaThe pen is mightier than the swordhttp://youtu.be/G_sBOsh-vyIRegistered Userregular
edited September 2007
It sounds like this, The Wii is a big hit so they are going to pull the "high fee and cold shoulder" routine if you don't play nintendo's way. It appears that none of the devs are out right talking about it because that will only worsen the situation for themselves.
Nintendo need good quality 3rd parties or they will suffer a slow death in the console market. The DS seems secure but the wii? I don't know. I love my Wii but since then SNES it seems like nintendo likes to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to 3rd party titles.
Viscountalpha on
0
KorKnown to detonate from time to timeRegistered Userregular
It sounds like this, The Wii is a big hit so they are going to pull the "high fee and cold shoulder" routine if you don't play nintendo's way. It appears that none of the devs are out right talking about it because that will only worsen the situation for themselves.
Nintendo need good quality 3rd parties or they will suffer a slow death in the console market. The DS seems secure but the wii? I don't know. I love my Wii but since then SNES it seems like nintendo likes to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to 3rd party titles.
It sounds like this, The Wii is a big hit so they are going to pull the "high fee and cold shoulder" routine if you don't play nintendo's way. It appears that none of the devs are out right talking about it because that will only worsen the situation for themselves.
Nintendo need good quality 3rd parties or they will suffer a slow death in the console market. The DS seems secure but the wii? I don't know. I love my Wii but since then SNES it seems like nintendo likes to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to 3rd party titles.
...
...
...what?
How can you be any more secure than the Wii, without being the PS2?
In regards to Nintendo being assholes in the past (NES days). Though I admit, some of their practices were god damn strict, I think its actually what the industry needed to survive.
Hasn't anyone else heard the horror stories of random people making Atari games, and selling them for like $5-$10?
Which, ended up with parents thinking "why buy one game for 40 bucks, when I can buy 7 games for the same price?"
Of course, parents were dumb at the time, and didn't understand how Quality worked, so whatever. :P
But I always thought Nintendo's strict asshole policy back in the day, was to combat that whole thing?
It didnt' combat shit. Those games were still made.
Nintendo limited the amount of 3rd party games that could be SOLD per year so they could always out perform 3rd party companies. They also prevented 3rd party companies from printing their own copies of games so they could never have more copies of 3rd party games than 1st party games circulating. This meant that, at best, a 3rd party game could never perform as well as a first party game. It also meant that 3rd party companies were paying TWICE - once for a license to make an NES game, and then again for nintendo to actually print it for them.
It had absolutely nothing to do with quality control.
TheSonicRetard on
0
KorKnown to detonate from time to timeRegistered Userregular
In regards to Nintendo being assholes in the past (NES days). Though I admit, some of their practices were god damn strict, I think its actually what the industry needed to survive.
Hasn't anyone else heard the horror stories of random people making Atari games, and selling them for like $5-$10?
Which, ended up with parents thinking "why buy one game for 40 bucks, when I can buy 7 games for the same price?"
Of course, parents were dumb at the time, and didn't understand how Quality worked, so whatever. :P
But I always thought Nintendo's strict asshole policy back in the day, was to combat that whole thing?
It didnt' combat shit. Those games were still made.
Nintendo limited the amount of 3rd party games that could be SOLD per year so they could always out perform 3rd party companies. They also prevented 3rd party companies from printing their own copies of games so they could never have more copies of 3rd party games than 1st party games circulating. This meant that, at best, a 3rd party game could never perform as well as a first party game. It also meant that 3rd party companies were paying TWICE - once for a license to make an NES game, and then again for nintendo to actually print it for them.
It had absolutely nothing to do with quality control.
In regards to Nintendo being assholes in the past (NES days). Though I admit, some of their practices were god damn strict, I think its actually what the industry needed to survive.
Hasn't anyone else heard the horror stories of random people making Atari games, and selling them for like $5-$10?
Which, ended up with parents thinking "why buy one game for 40 bucks, when I can buy 7 games for the same price?"
Of course, parents were dumb at the time, and didn't understand how Quality worked, so whatever. :P
But I always thought Nintendo's strict asshole policy back in the day, was to combat that whole thing?
It didnt' combat shit. Those games were still made.
Nintendo limited the amount of 3rd party games that could be SOLD per year so they could always out perform 3rd party companies. They also prevented 3rd party companies from printing their own copies of games so they could never have more copies of 3rd party games than 1st party games circulating. This meant that, at best, a 3rd party game could never perform as well as a first party game. It also meant that 3rd party companies were paying TWICE - once for a license to make an NES game, and then again for nintendo to actually print it for them.
It had absolutely nothing to do with quality control.
That's certainly one point of view. I'm sure that limitation did stop some shitty games from coming out. It obviously didn't quite get them all, especially if you look at the crappier liscensed games. Total Recall anyone?
In regards to Nintendo being assholes in the past (NES days). Though I admit, some of their practices were god damn strict, I think its actually what the industry needed to survive.
Hasn't anyone else heard the horror stories of random people making Atari games, and selling them for like $5-$10?
Which, ended up with parents thinking "why buy one game for 40 bucks, when I can buy 7 games for the same price?"
Of course, parents were dumb at the time, and didn't understand how Quality worked, so whatever. :P
But I always thought Nintendo's strict asshole policy back in the day, was to combat that whole thing?
It didnt' combat shit. Those games were still made.
Nintendo limited the amount of 3rd party games that could be SOLD per year so they could always out perform 3rd party companies. They also prevented 3rd party companies from printing their own copies of games so they could never have more copies of 3rd party games than 1st party games circulating. This meant that, at best, a 3rd party game could never perform as well as a first party game. It also meant that 3rd party companies were paying TWICE - once for a license to make an NES game, and then again for nintendo to actually print it for them.
It had absolutely nothing to do with quality control.
That's certainly one point of view. I'm sure that limitation did stop some shitty games from coming out. It obviously didn't quite get them all, especially if you look at the crappier liscensed games. Total Recall anyone?
In regards to Nintendo being assholes in the past (NES days). Though I admit, some of their practices were god damn strict, I think its actually what the industry needed to survive.
Hasn't anyone else heard the horror stories of random people making Atari games, and selling them for like $5-$10?
Which, ended up with parents thinking "why buy one game for 40 bucks, when I can buy 7 games for the same price?"
Of course, parents were dumb at the time, and didn't understand how Quality worked, so whatever. :P
But I always thought Nintendo's strict asshole policy back in the day, was to combat that whole thing?
It didnt' combat shit. Those games were still made.
Nintendo limited the amount of 3rd party games that could be SOLD per year so they could always out perform 3rd party companies. They also prevented 3rd party companies from printing their own copies of games so they could never have more copies of 3rd party games than 1st party games circulating. This meant that, at best, a 3rd party game could never perform as well as a first party game. It also meant that 3rd party companies were paying TWICE - once for a license to make an NES game, and then again for nintendo to actually print it for them.
It had absolutely nothing to do with quality control.
That's certainly one point of view. I'm sure that limitation did stop some shitty games from coming out. It obviously didn't quite get them all, especially if you look at the crappier liscensed games. Total Recall anyone?
Which only serves to prove that shitty games can be released on any platform so long as the publisher is reasonably sure that they can sell enough copies to uninformed customers to make enough money to offset development costs and licensing fees. Nintendo likely still has a long way to go to prove that they won't pull the same crap again.
I'm reasonably sure that most if not all top selling games for any Nintendo system (handheld and console) are usually Nintendo made games. That kind of continued success might lead some folks to thinking that the 'bad old days' are still around in some aspect.
In regards to Nintendo being assholes in the past (NES days). Though I admit, some of their practices were god damn strict, I think its actually what the industry needed to survive.
Hasn't anyone else heard the horror stories of random people making Atari games, and selling them for like $5-$10?
Which, ended up with parents thinking "why buy one game for 40 bucks, when I can buy 7 games for the same price?"
Of course, parents were dumb at the time, and didn't understand how Quality worked, so whatever. :P
But I always thought Nintendo's strict asshole policy back in the day, was to combat that whole thing?
It didnt' combat shit. Those games were still made.
Nintendo limited the amount of 3rd party games that could be SOLD per year so they could always out perform 3rd party companies. They also prevented 3rd party companies from printing their own copies of games so they could never have more copies of 3rd party games than 1st party games circulating. This meant that, at best, a 3rd party game could never perform as well as a first party game. It also meant that 3rd party companies were paying TWICE - once for a license to make an NES game, and then again for nintendo to actually print it for them.
It had absolutely nothing to do with quality control.
That's certainly one point of view. I'm sure that limitation did stop some shitty games from coming out. It obviously didn't quite get them all, especially if you look at the crappier liscensed games. Total Recall anyone?
Deadly Towers.
Dragon's Lair. I am convinced that this is one of the worst games ever made. If this was released, that shoots the whole "quality control" claim down the drain.
It effected GOOD game companies more than BAD game companies. Look at Konami. They were really screwed in the US - they were pumping out great games in japan, but nintendo would only allow a company to release 3 games a year in the US. So they had to make a subsidiary, called Ultra Games. it was a way for them to release 6 games a year... except they had to buy 2 licenses to make NES games.
Nintendo's policies back then were terrible. Honestly some of the worst gaming policies ever to hit the scene.
Wait a minute...there are two gigantic video game schmucks with the same name?
Pretty much, he's not a dev, or anything. Just a terrible journalist/TV presenter who stopped being anything even approaching relevant/entertaining about fifteen years ago. He's by far the more annoying out of the two, and I pity the Shiny dude for being mistaken for him.
This dave perry might be an idiot but some how good ole' nintendo and their 3rd party exclusion seems about on par. I am not shocked at all. The lack of support to 3rd parties is appalling and very stupid. Nintendo will die a slow death if they think 1st party games will keep them indefinitely.
If anyone that works at nintendo reads this-- GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND HELP 3rd parties!
How are they not? Aren't the Wii and the DS the two cheapest consoles to develop for, right now? While also having the largest player base? What else should they do? Make worse games so the third parties' shit looks better?
Read the lime!
PaperPlate on
Minecraft: PAPRPL8
League of Legends (your friendly neighborhood support): PAPRPL8
Well, one recent example of how Nintendo has sucked in regards with 3rd party games is online capabilities. I believe it was the first Medal of Honor who's developer said they wanted online support, but nintendo denied them.
It sounds like this, The Wii is a big hit so they are going to pull the "high fee and cold shoulder" routine if you don't play nintendo's way. It appears that none of the devs are out right talking about it because that will only worsen the situation for themselves.
Nintendo need good quality 3rd parties or they will suffer a slow death in the console market. The DS seems secure but the wii? I don't know. I love my Wii but since then SNES it seems like nintendo likes to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to 3rd party titles.
...
...
...what?
How can you be any more secure than the Wii, without being the PS2?
The N64 was kicking ass and taking names what with the immense popularity of Goldeneye. History never repeats itself...
It sounds like this, The Wii is a big hit so they are going to pull the "high fee and cold shoulder" routine if you don't play nintendo's way. It appears that none of the devs are out right talking about it because that will only worsen the situation for themselves.
Nintendo need good quality 3rd parties or they will suffer a slow death in the console market. The DS seems secure but the wii? I don't know. I love my Wii but since then SNES it seems like nintendo likes to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to 3rd party titles.
...
...
...what?
How can you be any more secure than the Wii, without being the PS2?
The N64 was kicking ass and taking names what with the immense popularity of Goldeneye. History never repeats itself...
How long did it take for the N64 to be easy to find?
By the time the N64 was released in all regions, Sony had already shipped 13.5 million Playstation units. The N64 also failed to sell that well because of some really bad mistakes Nintendo made. Annoying the developers and high game prices discouraged developer support and people buying the system. There isn't anything comparable with the Wii.
It sounds like this, The Wii is a big hit so they are going to pull the "high fee and cold shoulder" routine if you don't play nintendo's way. It appears that none of the devs are out right talking about it because that will only worsen the situation for themselves.
Nintendo need good quality 3rd parties or they will suffer a slow death in the console market. The DS seems secure but the wii? I don't know. I love my Wii but since then SNES it seems like nintendo likes to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to 3rd party titles.
...
...
...what?
How can you be any more secure than the Wii, without being the PS2?
The N64 was kicking ass and taking names what with the immense popularity of Goldeneye. History never repeats itself...
How long did it take for the N64 to be easy to find?
Nintendo 1st party games on the GBA were always $29.99 and under except for some of the Pokemons (and those were still $30 at some retailers, $25 on sale, $20 after coupon, etc) while most 3rd party titles debuted for $35. This continued somewhat on the DS, where Nintendo and the 3rd parties increased the prices over all. While Nintendo does have a few $35 games, 3rd parties now have $40 games. Heck, for the longest time, Metroid Prime Hunters was the only $35 game from Nintendo and Blockbuster had it for $20 almost the entire time (just like they had the original Metroid Prime for $10 almost the entire time... even before Player's Choice).
So yeah, Nintendo undercuts 3rd party pricing all the time. They did it on the N64 and they're still doing it with Nintendogs... any 3rd party would've charged $35 for that instead of Nintendo's $30.
"And if Nintendo really sees you as a threat, they will take the moves to wipe you out."
He imagines that a Nintendo SWAT team busts through the windows of too-successful developer's houses, all screamin' "down! down! down!" at your wife and kids as they ransack your house. From your vantage point with your cheek against the floor, you watch helplessly as they smash up your family photos and whatnot. As they filter back out and into their silent, black helicopter, the last one pauses, looks at you in disgust, and urinates on your bed.
"What is this shit!? Monster Tamer? MONSTER TAMER MOTHERFUCKER!"
"I just..."
"*kick*SHUT THE FUCK UP! If I see ONE ELECTRIC MOUSE...God help you if there's any electric mice!"
Nintendo 1st party games on the GBA were always $29.99 and under except for some of the Pokemons (and those were still $30 at some retailers, $25 on sale, $20 after coupon, etc) while most 3rd party titles debuted for $35. This continued somewhat on the DS, where Nintendo and the 3rd parties increased the prices over all. While Nintendo does have a few $35 games, 3rd parties now have $40 games. Heck, for the longest time, Metroid Prime Hunters was the only $35 game from Nintendo and Blockbuster had it for $20 almost the entire time (just like they had the original Metroid Prime for $10 almost the entire time... even before Player's Choice).
So yeah, Nintendo undercuts 3rd party pricing all the time. They did it on the N64 and they're still doing it with Nintendogs... any 3rd party would've charged $35 for that instead of Nintendo's $30.
Didn't Sony do the exact same thing with their first party games mostly being forty dollars?
Nintendo 1st party games on the GBA were always $29.99 and under except for some of the Pokemons (and those were still $30 at some retailers, $25 on sale, $20 after coupon, etc) while most 3rd party titles debuted for $35. This continued somewhat on the DS, where Nintendo and the 3rd parties increased the prices over all. While Nintendo does have a few $35 games, 3rd parties now have $40 games. Heck, for the longest time, Metroid Prime Hunters was the only $35 game from Nintendo and Blockbuster had it for $20 almost the entire time (just like they had the original Metroid Prime for $10 almost the entire time... even before Player's Choice).
So yeah, Nintendo undercuts 3rd party pricing all the time. They did it on the N64 and they're still doing it with Nintendogs... any 3rd party would've charged $35 for that instead of Nintendo's $30.
Didn't Sony do the exact same thing with their first party games mostly being forty dollars?
Dave Perry seems to be a little cracked out. I have heard that some 3rd party devs complain that they have to compete with Nintendo's first party line-up, and that Nintendo system purchasers tend to shun third-party games in favor of picking up first-party titles. How true this is is anyone's guess, I'd be interested to see what the Wii's attach rate is, broken down into first-party and third-party game sales.
TxdoHawk on
0
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
edited September 2007
I have no idea who Dave Perry is but I'm fairly certain he's a fucking idiot.
Dave Perry seems to be a little cracked out. I have heard that some 3rd party devs complain that they have to compete with Nintendo's first party line-up, and that Nintendo system purchasers tend to shun third-party games in favor of picking up first-party titles. How true this is is anyone's guess, I'd be interested to see what the Wii's attach rate is, broken down into first-party and third-party game sales.
I just don't see why it matters that a company cannot "compete" with the first party titles if the third party games are still, nevertheless, selling well.
It's like some of these people, such as Perry, are starting to complain that 'selling well' on the Wii isn't good enough because they're not 'selling as well as Zelda/Prime3/WarioWare/whatever.'
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
edited September 2007
There's nothing stopping a 3rd party title from outselling a first party title on Wii. It's just a whiny excuse for lazy assholes pushing PS2 ports with waggle.
Well, outselling a major first party release on a Nintendo console is a considerable challenge in most respects. Especially if it has "Smash" or "Galaxy" in the title. Having successful third party games shouldn't be something that it difficult to do though.
Rehab on
NNID: Rehab0
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited September 2007
Successful doesn't have to mean "outsell first party." I think if developers go into things with that mindset, they're going to just screw up.
Well, outselling a major first party release on a Nintendo console is a considerable challenge in most respects. Especially if it has "Smash" or "Galaxy" in the title.
That's just because Nintendo have really popular franchises. Outselling Halo (or Madden) on the 360 is probably hard too.
But if developers consistently put out good games, they can do just as well as Nintendo does. I bet Dragon Quest IX sells just as many copies as Phantom Hourglass in Japan.
Well, outselling a major first party release on a Nintendo console is a considerable challenge in most respects. Especially if it has "Smash" or "Galaxy" in the title. Having successful third party games shouldn't be something that it difficult to do though.
That is true of most consoles. Gran Turismo was the best selling PS1 game and only the three GTA games outsold Gran Turismo III, A-Spec, and Gran Turismo 4. The fact that the best selling videogames on post SNES Nintendo consoles has more to do with Nintendo being one of the few developers for their consoles compared to the PS1 and PS2.
Nintendo 1st party games on the GBA were always $29.99 and under except for some of the Pokemons (and those were still $30 at some retailers, $25 on sale, $20 after coupon, etc) while most 3rd party titles debuted for $35. This continued somewhat on the DS, where Nintendo and the 3rd parties increased the prices over all. While Nintendo does have a few $35 games, 3rd parties now have $40 games. Heck, for the longest time, Metroid Prime Hunters was the only $35 game from Nintendo and Blockbuster had it for $20 almost the entire time (just like they had the original Metroid Prime for $10 almost the entire time... even before Player's Choice).
So yeah, Nintendo undercuts 3rd party pricing all the time. They did it on the N64 and they're still doing it with Nintendogs... any 3rd party would've charged $35 for that instead of Nintendo's $30.
Really? I didn't get a DS until after the Lite was out, but every new game, Nintendo or not, was $35 when new, with small exceptions like Brain Training or whatever. A couple third parties started to push $40 (FFIII and the upcoming Ninja Gaiden) but fuck them; if they're going above the normal market price it's their own damn fault if sales suffer.
Third parties are idiots if they're going to charge $40 for DS games. I mean, I'm all for well-produced DS games, but not if added production value is going to push the retail price up.
Some third parties have put out $20 and $30 DS games, too, ya know.... It's a balance between production value and eventual retail price I guess. Although of course N has the advantage of not having to pay their whatever fees.
But I would hardly complain, personally, for paying $5 'less' for N's games..
of course that doesn't stop EBstop from pricing first party games at $35 when everywhere else prices them at $30..
First party Wii games are usually 50 dollars. If it's 40 dollars, it's probably a very simplistic title.
Actually, there are a few $40 Wii games coming out this fall ... but the only two I know of are both third-party: Zack & Wiki and Geometry Wars: Galaxies. I think Kororinpa was also $40, and maybe the Mercury Meltdown port but that might have been $20, even.
First party Wii games are usually 50 dollars. If it's 40 dollars, it's probably a very simplistic title.
Actually, there are a few $40 Wii games coming out this fall ... but the only two I know of are both third-party: Zack & Wiki and Geometry Wars: Galaxies. I think Kororinpa was also $40, and maybe the Mercury Meltdown port but that might have been $20, even.
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
edited September 2007
The only Perry I listen to is Steve Perry.
I agree that third-party publishers are just getting qualifiers ready for low sales for sub-par games. "Oh, we had to compete with Nintendo, so, you know..."
And it's not like Nintendo is being dick with their releases. They space them out fairly so others can come in and clean up. Heck, you want to sell on the Wii, between May-Sept is your time.
Posts
Nintendo need good quality 3rd parties or they will suffer a slow death in the console market. The DS seems secure but the wii? I don't know. I love my Wii but since then SNES it seems like nintendo likes to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to 3rd party titles.
...
...
...what?
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
But Metroid didn't really sell that well. Only like 1.4 million copies. :P
Context
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
Wait a minute...there are two gigantic video game schmucks with the same name?
None of you played it, by the way.
It didnt' combat shit. Those games were still made.
Nintendo limited the amount of 3rd party games that could be SOLD per year so they could always out perform 3rd party companies. They also prevented 3rd party companies from printing their own copies of games so they could never have more copies of 3rd party games than 1st party games circulating. This meant that, at best, a 3rd party game could never perform as well as a first party game. It also meant that 3rd party companies were paying TWICE - once for a license to make an NES game, and then again for nintendo to actually print it for them.
It had absolutely nothing to do with quality control.
Well consider me educated.
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
That's certainly one point of view. I'm sure that limitation did stop some shitty games from coming out. It obviously didn't quite get them all, especially if you look at the crappier liscensed games. Total Recall anyone?
Deadly Towers.
I'm reasonably sure that most if not all top selling games for any Nintendo system (handheld and console) are usually Nintendo made games. That kind of continued success might lead some folks to thinking that the 'bad old days' are still around in some aspect.
Do not engage the Watermelons.
Dragon's Lair. I am convinced that this is one of the worst games ever made. If this was released, that shoots the whole "quality control" claim down the drain.
It effected GOOD game companies more than BAD game companies. Look at Konami. They were really screwed in the US - they were pumping out great games in japan, but nintendo would only allow a company to release 3 games a year in the US. So they had to make a subsidiary, called Ultra Games. it was a way for them to release 6 games a year... except they had to buy 2 licenses to make NES games.
Nintendo's policies back then were terrible. Honestly some of the worst gaming policies ever to hit the scene.
Pretty much, he's not a dev, or anything. Just a terrible journalist/TV presenter who stopped being anything even approaching relevant/entertaining about fifteen years ago. He's by far the more annoying out of the two, and I pity the Shiny dude for being mistaken for him.
Read the lime!
League of Legends (your friendly neighborhood support): PAPRPL8
The N64 was kicking ass and taking names what with the immense popularity of Goldeneye. History never repeats itself...
By the time the N64 was released in all regions, Sony had already shipped 13.5 million Playstation units. The N64 also failed to sell that well because of some really bad mistakes Nintendo made. Annoying the developers and high game prices discouraged developer support and people buying the system. There isn't anything comparable with the Wii.
About a year and a quarter.
So yeah, Nintendo undercuts 3rd party pricing all the time. They did it on the N64 and they're still doing it with Nintendogs... any 3rd party would've charged $35 for that instead of Nintendo's $30.
I think both of these games were $50 in the USA, except 4x4 came with a free steering wheel attachment.
Incidentally, and sadly, Monster 4x4 far outsold ExciteTruck.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
"What is this shit!? Monster Tamer? MONSTER TAMER MOTHERFUCKER!"
"I just..."
"*kick*SHUT THE FUCK UP! If I see ONE ELECTRIC MOUSE...God help you if there's any electric mice!"
Didn't Sony do the exact same thing with their first party games mostly being forty dollars?
Yep.
I just don't see why it matters that a company cannot "compete" with the first party titles if the third party games are still, nevertheless, selling well.
It's like some of these people, such as Perry, are starting to complain that 'selling well' on the Wii isn't good enough because they're not 'selling as well as Zelda/Prime3/WarioWare/whatever.'
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
That's just because Nintendo have really popular franchises. Outselling Halo (or Madden) on the 360 is probably hard too.
But if developers consistently put out good games, they can do just as well as Nintendo does. I bet Dragon Quest IX sells just as many copies as Phantom Hourglass in Japan.
That is true of most consoles. Gran Turismo was the best selling PS1 game and only the three GTA games outsold Gran Turismo III, A-Spec, and Gran Turismo 4. The fact that the best selling videogames on post SNES Nintendo consoles has more to do with Nintendo being one of the few developers for their consoles compared to the PS1 and PS2.
Really? I didn't get a DS until after the Lite was out, but every new game, Nintendo or not, was $35 when new, with small exceptions like Brain Training or whatever. A couple third parties started to push $40 (FFIII and the upcoming Ninja Gaiden) but fuck them; if they're going above the normal market price it's their own damn fault if sales suffer.
Some third parties have put out $20 and $30 DS games, too, ya know.... It's a balance between production value and eventual retail price I guess. Although of course N has the advantage of not having to pay their whatever fees.
But I would hardly complain, personally, for paying $5 'less' for N's games..
of course that doesn't stop EBstop from pricing first party games at $35 when everywhere else prices them at $30..
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Also, RE4 Wii was $29.
Metal Slug Anthology was $40.
GGXX AC will be $40
dragonblade, 40
puzzle quest, 30
r* table tennis, 40
geometry wars glxs 40
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
RE4: Wii Edition was £30 here.
I agree that third-party publishers are just getting qualifiers ready for low sales for sub-par games. "Oh, we had to compete with Nintendo, so, you know..."
And it's not like Nintendo is being dick with their releases. They space them out fairly so others can come in and clean up. Heck, you want to sell on the Wii, between May-Sept is your time.
A vieogame developer being beaten silly by Rabbids.
With plungers.
Steam BoardGameGeek Twitter