Well, I suppose I can understand the price tiering system. My guess is that it cost much more to produce a game for the N64 than it did for the NES. I could very well be wrong on this point (I suppose it would also depend on the game in question). At any rate, the public would likely perceive an NES game as being worth less than an SNES. I'm sure the average gamer probably considers 32 superior to 16 and 8 bit.
Perhaps they could just charge different prices based on the game. Obviously a game like Super Mario Bros. 3 would probably sell better than an SNES title like "Home Improvement." The fact that you could get SM3 cheaper than a lame SNES game like Home Improvement shows the deficiency of this system.
At any rate, though, I think Nintendo has blundered at least twice. I don't have much problem with the name "Wii", simply because the name "Nintendo" is pretty silly to begin with. They could call it "Hello Kutie Kitten" and probably still do well if everything else was on-target. However, the price is too high in all regards--initial console investment, individual games, and virtual games. The *only* thing that can save this project at this point is the usual Nintendo licensed exclusives. I'm sure there are still legions of diehard Zelda fans out there who will buy anything with the word "Zelda" on it. But if the exclusives turn out to be anything but extraordinary, I can't see this sytem fairing much better for Nintendo than the Dreamcast did for Sega--and that was a much better system relatively speaking.
$20 is the most I'm generally willing to spend on a game. After that, it's not an impulse buy. There are just too many other things I'd rather have for $50, much less $60, than a new game. True, this regulates me to the bargain bin and somewhat older games, but yesterday's treasures have always been good enough for me.
Well, I suppose I can understand the price tiering system. My guess is that it cost much more to produce a game for the N64 than it did for the NES. I could very well be wrong on this point (I suppose it would also depend on the game in question). At any rate, the public would likely perceive an NES game as being worth less than an SNES. I'm sure the average gamer probably considers 32 superior to 16 and 8 bit.
Perhaps they could just charge different prices based on the game. Obviously a game like Super Mario Bros. 3 would probably sell better than an SNES title like "Home Improvement." The fact that you could get SM3 cheaper than a lame SNES game like Home Improvement shows the deficiency of this system.
At any rate, though, I think Nintendo has blundered at least twice. I don't have much problem with the name "Wii", simply because the name "Nintendo" is pretty silly to begin with. They could call it "Hello Kutie Kitten" and probably still do well if everything else was on-target. However, the price is too high in all regards--initial console investment, individual games, and virtual games. The *only* thing that can save this project at this point is the usual Nintendo licensed exclusives. I'm sure there are still legions of diehard Zelda fans out there who will buy anything with the word "Zelda" on it. But if the exclusives turn out to be anything but extraordinary, I can't see this sytem fairing much better for Nintendo than the Dreamcast did for Sega--and that was a much better system relatively speaking.
$20 is the most I'm generally willing to spend on a game. After that, it's not an impulse buy. There are just too many other things I'd rather have for $50, much less $60, than a new game. True, this regulates me to the bargain bin and somewhat older games, but yesterday's treasures have always been good enough for me.
Matt Barton, Managing Editor
Location: St. Cloud, Minnesota, USA
Email: matt@armchairarcade.com