ugh these prices are killing me...

Quick question guys, even though the games are at an adequte price when compared to its console counterparts, don't you guys think that 40 is a bit much for a game? I'm willing to pay 20, but for 40 dollars...are the games truly worth it's value? (By the time I payed for 5 games...I've already paid for another system)

At that price I can 2 console games that are each under 20...yet, 3ds games aren't even around that range yet.

Granted, the system just got out, and developers require more time/effort to build on this new system they are not used to...

Real question: I have enough money to buy 3ds game, should I go for one? Or just buy a couple of ds games?

A good game is well worth it, especially when you compare to console games ($60). You guys are freaking out over something that wasn't a raise in price compared to some DS games.

A lot of the games have been $20 on Amazon already, like Resident Evil and Dead or Alive, and even Zelda is down to $30 currently.

But I agree completely about $40 being too much for most games. I did buy Pilotwings and Zelda at $40, but Pilotwings was the best launch title and I was willing to pay the price for a real game to play, and Zelda is worth $40.

Nintendo should probably rethink the pricing strategy for retail games. I know they don't want to devalue their software, but a starting price of $30 would be much more palatable.

I feel somewhat the same way. DS games used to be at times $30, and cheaper if they are used. This is making me hesitant about buying games.hydralisk86

I would be willing to pay $100 for most Nintendo first party games. However I do feel that the price of 3DS games needs to be a lot less static. Its like Nintendo is telling the thrid parties to price at $40

$40? Almost all of them are $20-30 on Amazon, brand new. Just learn to be patient. Games today drop in price quicker than ever before.

A lot of the games have been $20 on Amazon already, like Resident Evil and Dead or Alive, and even Zelda is down to $30 currently.

But I agree completely about $40 being too much for most games. I did buy Pilotwings and Zelda at $40, but Pilotwings was the best launch title and I was willing to pay the price for a real game to play, and Zelda is worth $40.

Nintendo should probably rethink the pricing strategy for retail games. I know they don't want to devalue their software, but a starting price of $30 would be much more palatable.

JordanElek

The average 3DS game costs around $2million to make, so a price of $40 ensures that a dud that sells 60k-100k worldwide can net some profit potentially. Lowering that price only lowers the chances of more games. Like I've said, I think the games by all means should be more expensive but they haven't gone up as production costs have gone up.darth-pyschosis

If games were 20, I would take more risks with purchasing games...but due to the high prices, I have to research on the game, read reviews...until finally purchasing the game...I believed I haven't purchased a single game on day one due to the prices

...I know over time, OoT is going to be 10 dollars...but that's when more games are readily avaliable..

...my problem is that these games are going to be the same price as vita games...which could pose as a major conflict when purchasing games...

well, i just bought a used copy of SFIV:3D for like 25$, i live in Ecuador, so the shipping cost are like 10 more bucks. 35$... hurmmm, expensive but affordable considering my economy. I'm trying to buy a new copy of pokemon black(you know for the nintendo club coins) those are like 35$(+10$ for the shipping), now those 10$ are pretty important for me, leaving me without my game..

if they drop prices just 10$ i could afford any game... i could buy the games here and not online, but prices are just ridiculous..(60$ for street fighter and 70$ for LoZ:OoT)

[QUOTE="darth-pyschosis"] The average 3DS game costs around $2million to make, so a price of $40 ensures that a dud that sells 60k-100k worldwide can net some profit potentially. Lowering that price only lowers the chances of more games. Like I've said, I think the games by all means should be more expensive but they haven't gone up as production costs have gone up.forgot_it

when i think about game prices, i think they are very reasonable. they have got cheaper not dearer over the years.

for example when i had my snes i was often paying over $100($aus) for many snes games.. that was 1992/1993/1994

now almost 20 years later i get new 360 for under $50 on special and havent paid over $100 for a game since the snes days

I buy mine on Amazon, which most of the time they're on sale or have huge promotions, so it's not so bad. Need to change where you shop if you can.

I really don't see the problem with games being 40, isn't that just around 5 more than the majority of ds games were. and with 3ds game production being more involved doesn't it make sense for them to be a little more? and I completely understand that point that was made that its surprising games aren't more expensive. Throughout gaming history, games have gotten cheaper as they have gotten more involved and technical. Seems kind of backwards consisdering everything else is increasing in prices (movies), but I am not complaining about the games being cheaper.

[QUOTE="JordanElek"]

A lot of the games have been $20 on Amazon already, like Resident Evil and Dead or Alive, and even Zelda is down to $30 currently.

But I agree completely about $40 being too much for most games. I did buy Pilotwings and Zelda at $40, but Pilotwings was the best launch title and I was willing to pay the price for a real game to play, and Zelda is worth $40.

Nintendo should probably rethink the pricing strategy for retail games. I know they don't want to devalue their software, but a starting price of $30 would be much more palatable.

darth-pyschosis

Like I and others have said, some 3DS games are worth $40, but a lot aren't. Nintendo has already said that it doesn't want to devalue their software by simply lowering prices to compete with mobile games; they'd rather offer a high quality product that's worth full price to most people. But to make $40 the starting price for almost all software is over-valuing some of it (maybe most of it). Amazon didn't cut their prices in half on many 3DS games so soon after release for no reason.

I am kind of glad they went up, honestly. I feel like when handheld games cost half as much as games for full-sized consoles, you wind up w/ a lot of games that are half as good. A higher price point gives developers more of an incentive to develope games that are unique to the 3DS. Besides, if you need a quick new game fix, there is always the eStore with a ton of really great games for under ten bucks.

I know where you're coming from, but I'm thinking about it from a long-term perspective. The market has changed and is still changing drastically thanks to mobile games. The business model for iOS and Android is an extremely cheap buy-in with mainly micro-transactions or ad support to build revenue from there. Like it or not, from a business perspective, that model has changed the psychology of buying handheld games, and $40 looks insane compared to the rest of the market ("why would I buy another device with $40 games when I have my phone with $1 or free games??").

Like I and others have said, some 3DS games are worth $40, but a lot aren't. Nintendo has already said that it doesn't want to devalue their software by simply lowering prices to compete with mobile games; they'd rather offer a high quality product that's worth full price to most people. But to make $40 the starting price for almost all software is over-valuing some of it (maybe most of it). Amazon didn't cut their prices in half on many 3DS games so soon after release for no reason.

JordanElek

Looking at some of the games coming out ... I can't really justify buying something like Shinobi 3D for $39.99 versus something else on the market that will provide me with more content and probably be a better game overall.

I really think the $29.99 price point was just right, though in Canada sometimes Nintendo's first party games went for $34.99, which wasn't too bad. I mean I'd really feel awful if I bought a game with only a few hours of content and not much replayability for $39.99 as opposed to something like The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D which offers more than enough content to justify the price.

People may have paid $35-$40 for the various Pokemon games on DS, and got hundreds of hours without multiplayer, let alone with it.darth-pyschosis

This is true. I've gotten a ridiculous amount of play time for what I payed. :P Probably ends up being something like 15 cents per hour.

I still only own one game (OoT) and I intend to very selectively pick the cream of the crop games as they are released, simply because I do not feel that a portable game is worth $40 unless it is top-notch quality and loaded with content.

I doubt I'll ever pay full price for more than a handful of games. I've pre-ordered Super Mario 3D Land simply because of the current drought.

... I can't really justify buying something like Shinobi 3D for $39.99 versus something else on the market that will provide me with more content and probably be a better game overall...Haziqonfire

What is it nowadays with all this 'quantity>quality' nonsense? Who cares how short a game is if it's a good game? Awesome game's too short? Play it again. And again. What use is a game with massive amounts of content if it isn't any good? Who honestly believes "more content=better game'? Video games are not one time use affairs. And c'mon! Speculating on the quality and the amount of content in a game still in development? Never a good idea.El_Zo1212o

If I'm paying $40 a pop for a game I really don't want one that has very little for me to do, even if the core game is well made and fun. It has to have substance and it has to be priced appropriate for what it has.

The example I mentioned (Shinobi) seems like it would have benefited from being an eShop title more than being a full retail game. It's not really doing anything taxing on the hardware and the idea's they shown so far seem fairly simplistic, that if they sold it for $9.99 I'm sure it would have much more success than being a $39.99 game. I know that if it was $9.99 I would've bought it without much hesitation -- but if it's a $39.99 game, there's no way in hell I'm going to buy that when I can spend my money on something that provides much more value like Mario Kart 7.

This industry is pretty tough and you have to be smart about where you put your content. Shinobi being a full retail game for $39.99 really doesn't make much sense.

If it bothers you so much just wait for a price drop and only buy the games you really want at full price.I'm waiting for re mercenaries to go to $10, it hasn't been out for a year and it's already $19 in some stores.

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]What is it nowadays with all this 'quantity>quality' nonsense? Who cares how short a game is if it's a good game? Awesome game's too short? Play it again. And again. What use is a game with massive amounts of content if it isn't any good? Who honestly believes "more content=better game'? Video games are not one time use affairs. And c'mon! Speculating on the quality and the amount of content in a game still in development? Never a good idea.Haziqonfire

If I'm paying $40 a pop for a game I really don't want one that has very little for me to do, even if the core game is well made and fun. It has to have substance and it has to be priced appropriate for what it has.

The example I mentioned (Shinobi) seems like it would have benefited from being an eShop title more than being a full retail game. It's not really doing anything taxing on the hardware and the idea's they shown so far seem fairly simplistic, that if they sold it for $9.99 I'm sure it would have much more success than being a $39.99 game. I know that if it was $9.99 I would've bought it without much hesitation -- but if it's a $39.99 game, there's no way in hell I'm going to buy that when I can spend my money on something that provides much more value like Mario Kart 7.

This industry is pretty tough and you have to be smart about where you put your content. Shinobi being a full retail game for $39.99 really doesn't make much sense.

So you assume that because it's merely a side scrolling action platformer that it is less worthy as a retail release? You don't know about anything like the length of the campaign, alternate modes, scoring systems or anything else, and you're ready to dismiss one of the most well-bred ninja series in videogame history as 'better off downloadable.' And why? Because the screenshots and the demo video weren't pretty enough? What if it has one or more of the previous Shinobi titles on the game(much like Metroid Fusion/Zero Mission did)? Would it be worthwhile as a retail release then? Since when has the sidescroller been relegated to the purgatory of 'downloadable only' even among handheld games? It used to be handheld games were the last place where being a sidescroller didn't immediately bar access to the cool kids' club. El_Zo1212o

Because it'll be a more successful game on a downloadable space than retail. They would've made more money off of it being on the eShop and spent less distributing the game.

I'm not saying sidescroller titles can't excel at a premium price, but very few developers give you a reason to pick up a game for $40 a pop on the 3DS so far.