Seriously though, I couldn't fathom paying $6 for many NES games. Some games would be worthy, like SMB3.
With this one I would have to agree that it is a licensing issue with the TMNT brand. Tecmo Bowl had the NFL player names removed for VC because of this (Well what most people have agreed with since I have not seen an official explanation). But even if this is not the case I don't think you can blame Nintendo, the game is still owned by a third party and they have full control of how much the product sells for.
YES! Well, no. I can pretty much speculate wildly that, hence why all the titles are (read, were) at that single price point up until this particularly thorny one, the prices were set by Nintendo for several very importaint reasons. 1. Perceived value for money 2. Ease of use, evaluation and purchase by the user. 3. Sensible business model. Now, I think the more pertinent question is -why- Turtles, of all things, was the one to buck this trend? Probably the movie and the cash in value, but surely there are other titles more worthy of that extra dollar in terms of play value. It's known that Microsoft set the price for -all- downloadable content on XBLA, whether or not they take publisher wishes in to this is unknown, but all XBLA developers are quick to point out that "Microsoft set the price". I would be very surprised (read; floored) if Nintendo were not the ones setting the price on downloadable content for the Wii. Without that... you'd likely have chaos.
its an extra dollar.. come on lol im gonna go with the dude who said it has to do with liscencing fee's. isn't this the first game Nintendo have put up on the VC that they don't own?
They've still got to be able to make the deal worth it for both Konami and Ubi, or they don't get a game to set a price on. So would Microsoft with the arcade game, but we already know Microsoft is willing to take huge financial hits if they think it will improve their position in the market. Nintendo is less willing to do that. If it takes an extra dollar to satisfy multiple layers of licensing, maybe MS is willing to front that dollar themselves, and Nintendo isn't.
Are you implying Nintendo now own Sega and the Turbografx back catalogue, cos that some big news, yo.
Oh no, I agree with you there, and if the games weren't -already- overpriced (mostly and most certainly IMO) I wouldn't even flinch. And it's not like Nintendo will allow this precedent of price creeping to continue onward with every title. If they know one thing, it's good business. How else would they still be in business?
Obviously they don't, but they've only got to pay one company each for those games. Not three or more like they have for TMNT. I dunno how he'd think they own those though. Especially Sonic.
TG16 was co-owned by NEC and Hudson. Bomberman was made by Hudson. But even in the case of games not made by either company, or by Sega, Nintendo doesn't necessarily have to pay for what console it was on. Just the game. Unless you think Nintendo gets money for all of the old Mega Man games being on PlayStation and Xbox?
I didn't know Hudson were in bed with NEC on the ole Turbografx (we never got it over here). As for the second part, I shall not dignify that with a response
Yup. That's why the TG16's proprietary media were called "HuCards". "Hu" for "Hudson". That's also why they got Bonk, and about a bazillion Bomberman and other Hudson games. Because you can't think of one?
Okay, my comment was a little snarky, first time that has happened on these boards. Anyways, at the time I had it it was not available unless I dusted off my NES. Since I own said title I only downloaded it for backup purposes. Besides, Nintendo, Sony and Sega have made plenty of money off of me. I have buoght PS2 PS3 and PSP, NES, N64, GB,GBC,GBA,GBA SP,DS,DS LITE, Genesis and tons of games for said systems. My point really(if there was one) is $6 is high for a sort of crappy game. I agree with Joe, $6 for SMB3 is worth it. But to each his own. Not everyone would say flOw was worth $7, but I do.
