Since nothing is added to this besides upgraded graphics, I hope the price isn't going to be $60. I really couldn't see myself making that purchase even though I wouldlove to replay it. I would spend $40, MAYBE $50 at most.
Wind Waker HD cost?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Its Nintendo ... You already paid 350$ , a very high price for a low end machine , why not to pay 60 for a remake with shiny new graphics? Its Nintendo for you! Dont scratch your head if they stop supporting Wii U in 3 years from now like they did with Wii ...Since nothing is added to this besides upgraded graphics, I hope the price isn't going to be $60. I really couldn't see myself making that purchase even though I wouldlove to replay it. I would spend $40, MAYBE $50 at most.
peach79
[QUOTE="peach79"]Its Nintendo ... You already paid 350$ , a very high price for a low end machine , why not to pay 60 for a remake with shiny new graphics? Its Nintendo for you! Dont scratch your head if they stop supporting Wii U in 3 years from now like they did with Wii ...Since nothing is added to this besides upgraded graphics, I hope the price isn't going to be $60. I really couldn't see myself making that purchase even though I wouldlove to replay it. I would spend $40, MAYBE $50 at most.
AzatiS
Well to be fair, there's supposed to be additional content. Which, hopefully and should include the dungeon(s) they cut from the original release. Maybe someone who knows more could clarify that.
Its Nintendo ... You already paid 350$ , a very high price for a low end machine , why not to pay 60 for a remake with shiny new graphics? Its Nintendo for you! Dont scratch your head if they stop supporting Wii U in 3 years from now like they did with Wii ...[QUOTE="AzatiS"][QUOTE="peach79"]
Since nothing is added to this besides upgraded graphics, I hope the price isn't going to be $60. I really couldn't see myself making that purchase even though I wouldlove to replay it. I would spend $40, MAYBE $50 at most.
sonic_spark
Well to be fair, there's supposed to be additional content. Which, hopefully and should include the dungeon(s) they cut from the original release. Maybe someone who knows more could clarify that.
They're making the same kind of small improvements they made to the Ocarina of Time remake to improve the overall experience, but I don't believe there will be any real new content.
$60 but I will buy it since it's one of my favorite Zelda games.
[QUOTE="peach79"]Its Nintendo ... You already paid 350$ , a very high price for a low end machine , why not to pay 60 for a remake with shiny new graphics? Its Nintendo for you! Dont scratch your head if they stop supporting Wii U in 3 years from now like they did with Wii ...Since nothing is added to this besides upgraded graphics, I hope the price isn't going to be $60. I really couldn't see myself making that purchase even though I wouldlove to replay it. I would spend $40, MAYBE $50 at most.
AzatiS
Wii support was not dropped after three years. It launched in 2006.
All of these were developed and/or published by Nintendo. So support didn't drop until almost six years after launch.
2010: Endless Ocean 2, Samurai Warriors 3, S&P: Star Successor, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Metroid: Other M, Kirby's Epic Yarn, Donkey Kong Country Returns , Wii Part, FlingSmash, Super Mario All-Stars
2011: Kirby's Return to Dreamland, Skyward Sword, Mario Sports Mix, Wii Play Motion, Fortune Street
2012: Xenoblade Chronicles, Rhythm Heaven Fever, Mario Party 9, Pikmin 2(NPC edition), Kirby's Dream Collection
Don't buy it if its not the price you want...not worth full price if you've already played it before.Since nothing is added to this besides upgraded graphics, I hope the price isn't going to be $60. I really couldn't see myself making that purchase even though I wouldlove to replay it. I would spend $40, MAYBE $50 at most.
peach79
Tree-fiddy
I really don't think they should charge more than $50, but who knows with Nintendo. I'll still buy it for $60 but reluctantly.
I don't get it. The game is rare (somewhat) and costs $30-$40 most places online. It is still a great game with dozens of hours of gameplay, 30 hours +
Do you think you're entitled to a lower price simply because it's an older game? The game is worth $60. I think they'll price it at $50 since Game & Wario shows they're flexible on prices.
It has new content in the form of miiverse integration and they sped things up. Its more intuitive. I don't understand how all that plus a great game that was already worth $50 in its original form is a bad thing. $49.99 maybe, $39.99 not likely
I feel the game would be much better if delayed and expanded into a true Wind Waker sequel but it's too late for that...
A ten year old game that we've all already played doesn't have the same value as a brand new game.I don't get it. The game is rare (somewhat) and costs $30-$40 most places online. It is still a great game with dozens of hours of gameplay, 30 hours +
Do you think you're entitled to a lower price simply because it's an older game? The game is worth $60. I think they'll price it at $50 since Game & Wario shows they're flexible on prices.
It has new content in the form of miiverse integration and they sped things up. Its more intuitive. I don't understand how all that plus a great game that was already worth $50 in its original form is a bad thing. $49.99 maybe, $39.99 not likely
bonesawisready5
I'm fairly certain it's going to be $59.99. Ocarina of Time 3D and Star Fox 64 3D were still regular price despite being remakes.
[QUOTE="dino77c"]Because I'd totally rather pay 300 dollars for a copy of earthbound...*sarcasm pretty sure nobody is paying $300 for a rom dump of earthbound. Just funny people are so excited about a game for the "next gen" Nintendo that can be played on a calculator or phonemaybe this is their master plan...release a system with no games and sell overpriced old games for it
people are buying earthbound for $10 and now this
wiicube64
[QUOTE="bonesawisready5"]A ten year old game that we've all already played doesn't have the same value as a brand new game.I don't get it. The game is rare (somewhat) and costs $30-$40 most places online. It is still a great game with dozens of hours of gameplay, 30 hours +
Do you think you're entitled to a lower price simply because it's an older game? The game is worth $60. I think they'll price it at $50 since Game & Wario shows they're flexible on prices.
It has new content in the form of miiverse integration and they sped things up. Its more intuitive. I don't understand how all that plus a great game that was already worth $50 in its original form is a bad thing. $49.99 maybe, $39.99 not likely
meetroid8
So it being ten years old diminishes how good it is? That makes the gameplay worse? I think it has held up well. If a game is worth X amount and ages well then by all means it should be worth X amount years later.
This game isn't taking much out of Nintendo's resources to develop, I have the original, and HD remake packages usually ship with 3 games for $40. It's Nintendo though (long history from late Wii Greatest Hits to eshop pricing to 3DS remake pricing to N64 pricing), so they'll charge full price or close to the original 2003 price.
I'll get this remake in 2017 when it's $15 somewhere (or never because I have my GC version), because I've already beat WindWaker a number of times this past decade and I would rather reward new games with my money as it should be. I own the GC version, and I can't imagine skipping over it back then to play a bunch of remade games then. No. By that same token, I'm not skipping over AAA amazing games to play this remake all over again. I wanted a new Zelda, and I'll wait for one and pay full price for that. I'm not going to fanboy it up and try to justify these insulting price schemes. There is already way too many AMAZING games to play for me to justify paying top dollar for a remade game I"ve beat various times. I won't do it, and I haven't done it.
Hell, I bought some of those HD remakes that include 3 games for $15-$20 because I wait on those prices at $40 as is. Three old games in HD for $40 isn't bad, but I still WAIT because I already played them. Nintendo wants to charge $60, and you only get 1 (ONE) HD remake?! Huh? This is Nintendo's first try at HD console gaming, so they still have a lot to learn...especially in pricing and gouging their fans. I wish people would just stop supporting full price HD remakes like this and those 3DS ones, it only perpetuates the problem. Buy those HD remake games, but at the cheaper prices, drought or not.
-----
Tl;dr : It doesn't cost Nintendo a lot to remake the decade+ old game, it shouldn't cost the consumer a lot of money to buy the HD remake. Other companies know these games are not gobbling up resources and charge little for them ranging from Ubisoft (Splinter Cell HD Collection, 3 games one pack) to Capcom (DMC HD collection, 3 games one pack) to Konami (Metal Gear Solid HD collection, 3 games one pack) even competitor Sony (Sly Cooper HD Collection[4], Ratchet & Clank HD Collection[3], Jak and Daxter HD Collection[3], God of War HD [2, 2, 5], etc), I wish Nintendo paid more attention to pricing and the competition.
It's honestly not a big loss if I never play WindWaker on my Wii U, I have money set aside for a Wii U exclusive NEXT Generation Zelda game and on that glorious day I will pay full price for THAT NEW ZELDA GAME. When that next gen Zelda arrives, you better believe ten years from then I won't REBUY the game on a handheld or new console for full price. That's a joke. By then, there will be other AAA experiences that have captured my attention until that generation's ZELDA arrives. THINK ABOUT IT.
I think its kind of rediculous the way nintendo has been pricing HD remakes. You can go on amazon and get the Ratchet and Clank HD collection(3 games) for about $20 and you could get it with PS+ last week for under $10. I love nintendo games, I will replay some of their classic releases but it seems a little bit like a slap in the face to buy their new system, get a laughably bad release schedule of games, and then have them release a slightly upgraded game from 10 or so years ago for $60. I personally think nintendo should have all their virtual console games at $5 or less and the HD rereleases at most $40.
I bought the wii u for nintendo games but not nintendo games that I played a decade ago. I know they will start pumping out great games soon but right now my wii u basically goes unplayed which is quite sad for being leas than a year old. If they are going to rely on their old games to appease their early adopting fans, at least make them a good deal.
I think its kind of rediculous the way nintendo has been pricing HD remakes. You can go on amazon and get the Ratchet and Clank HD collection(3 games) for about $20 and you could get it with PS+ last week for under $10. I love nintendo games, I will replay some of their classic releases but it seems a little bit like a slap in the face to buy their new system, get a laughably bad release schedule of games, and then have them release a slightly upgraded game from 10 or so years ago for $60. I personally think nintendo should have all their virtual console games at $5 or less and the HD rereleases at most $40.
I bought the wii u for nintendo games but not nintendo games that I played a decade ago. I know they will start pumping out great games soon but right now my wii u basically goes unplayed which is quite sad for being leas than a year old. If they are going to rely on their old games to appease their early adopting fans, at least make them a good deal.
unreal223
QFT. Agreed. All the way bro. IF you multiplatform game, it's very obvious what's going on, and I don't like it one bit.
QFT. Agreed. All the way bro. IF you multiplatform game, it's very obvious what's going on, and I don't like it one bit.SolidTyAgree with you completely. I already have a wii u but at this point I can already tell that I'll probably buy a ps4 in a few years and still rely on my pc as the main gaming system. When I can download relatively new games for 75% off on steam a few months after release I have little incentive to pay $60 for games on wii u. I can already tell that this year I will probably buy Mario 3d and maybe wonderful 101. Next year I will get mario kart and smash. I like nintendo but that is pretty pathetic. The value proposition for wii u is insanely low.
I'm not a nintendo hater at all. I also have a 3ds which I play a lot and buy a lot of games for. I'm just annoyed at how bad nintendo has fumbled with the wii u. I almost feel like they should just let all the SNES/NES/N64 games on the Wii U virtual console be free. How many times have they made money reselling these old games. At least that way there is a value to the system. Pay $300 and get a few new games and also relive your gaming childhood with unlimited old games. :)
A ten year old game that we've all already played doesn't have the same value as a brand new game.[QUOTE="meetroid8"][QUOTE="bonesawisready5"]
I don't get it. The game is rare (somewhat) and costs $30-$40 most places online. It is still a great game with dozens of hours of gameplay, 30 hours +
Do you think you're entitled to a lower price simply because it's an older game? The game is worth $60. I think they'll price it at $50 since Game & Wario shows they're flexible on prices.
It has new content in the form of miiverse integration and they sped things up. Its more intuitive. I don't understand how all that plus a great game that was already worth $50 in its original form is a bad thing. $49.99 maybe, $39.99 not likely
bonesawisready5
So it being ten years old diminishes how good it is? That makes the gameplay worse? I think it has held up well. If a game is worth X amount and ages well then by all means it should be worth X amount years later.
Yes, being ten years old diminishes its value. It has nothing to do with the gameplay. The longer a game is available and the more people play it, the lower it's value becomes. Game prices go down, they don't go up (typically).
[QUOTE="bonesawisready5"][QUOTE="meetroid8"] A ten year old game that we've all already played doesn't have the same value as a brand new game. meetroid8
So it being ten years old diminishes how good it is? That makes the gameplay worse? I think it has held up well. If a game is worth X amount and ages well then by all means it should be worth X amount years later.
Yes, being ten years old diminishes its value. It has nothing to do with the gameplay. The longer a game is available and the more people play it, the lower it's value becomes. Game prices go down, they don't go up (typically). Value is subjective. Gameplay has EVERYTHING to do with every game, even the past ones. In this case, Nintendo hasn't done enough with the HD remake to justify full price, but that is only my opinion, since WWHD's value is subjective in itself.Yes, being ten years old diminishes its value. It has nothing to do with the gameplay. The longer a game is available and the more people play it, the lower it's value becomes. Game prices go down, they don't go up (typically). Value is subjective. Gameplay has EVERYTHING to do with every game, even the past ones. In this case, Nintendo hasn't done enough with the HD remake to justify full price, but that is only my opinion, since WWHD's value is subjective in itself. The value of a product lessens over time. That's an economic constant. WIndWaker's value has gone down, and the little improvements Nintendo is making aren't enough to bring that value back up to full price.[QUOTE="meetroid8"][QUOTE="bonesawisready5"]
So it being ten years old diminishes how good it is? That makes the gameplay worse? I think it has held up well. If a game is worth X amount and ages well then by all means it should be worth X amount years later.
FFCYAN
[QUOTE="FFCYAN"]Value is subjective. Gameplay has EVERYTHING to do with every game, even the past ones. In this case, Nintendo hasn't done enough with the HD remake to justify full price, but that is only my opinion, since WWHD's value is subjective in itself. The value of a product lessens over time. That's an economic constant. WIndWaker's value has gone down, and the little improvements Nintendo is making aren't enough to bring that value back up to full price. In most cases I would say your correct in value diminishing as time passes, but there are exceptions. Example are Final Fantasy 7 selling for 60-100 bucks or more before it got released digitally, earthbound selling for 200 bucks before it came out on Wii U, Lunar 2 on PS1 (a great japanese rpg) sells for around 70-80 bucks. I think wind waker was a great game and its value wouldnt diminish IMO[QUOTE="meetroid8"] Yes, being ten years old diminishes its value. It has nothing to do with the gameplay. The longer a game is available and the more people play it, the lower it's value becomes. Game prices go down, they don't go up (typically). meetroid8
My experience with Nintendo all of these years is that they are always looking to the the next generation of players who have never played their games. They will probably charge full price. Yes, it is a remake not just another version of a game like Paper Mario, Donkey Kong and the like, but many buyers will be first timers so they won't reduce price. Sure, they always say (lately) that they want to please the longtime players, so the game will have a few small changes to justify the full price.
Hell, I bought some of those HD remakes that include 3 games for $15-$20 because I wait on those prices at $40 as is. Three old games in HD for $40 isn't bad, but I still WAIT because I already played them. Nintendo wants to charge $60, and you only get 1 (ONE) HD remake?! Huh? This is Nintendo's first try at HD console gaming, so they still have a lot to learn...especially in pricing and gouging their fans. I wish people would just stop supporting full price HD remakes like this and those 3DS ones, it only perpetuates the problem. Buy those HD remake games, but at the cheaper prices, drought or not.
-----
Tl;dr : It doesn't cost Nintendo a lot to remake the decade+ old game, it shouldn't cost the consumer a lot of money to buy the HD remake. Other companies know these games are not gobbling up resources and charge little for them ranging from Ubisoft (Splinter Cell HD Collection, 3 games one pack) to Capcom (DMC HD collection, 3 games one pack) to Konami (Metal Gear Solid HD collection, 3 games one pack) even competitor Sony (Sly Cooper HD Collection[4], Ratchet & Clank HD Collection[3], Jak and Daxter HD Collection[3], God of War HD [2, 2, 5], etc), I wish Nintendo paid more attention to pricing and the competition.
SolidTy
To be fair, this is a REMAKE. The ones you mentioned are just HD remasters with their original textures intact and everything upscaled to HD. Usually nothing else is added to the product (besides trophies/achievements). Those would take much less resources then a full-fledged remake like OoT 3D and WW HD. Remakes like this usually sell for full price anyway. However Halo Anniversary is a remake also and it only sold for $40. So I guess a new standard is in place. If not much new features are going into WW HD, I'd say $40 is reasonable.
[QUOTE="SolidTy"]
This game isn't taking much out of Nintendo's resources to develop, I have the original, and HD remake packages usually ship with 3 games for $40. It's Nintendo though (long history from late Wii Greatest Hits to eshop pricing to 3DS remake pricing to N64 pricing), so they'll charge full price or close to the original 2003 price.
I'll get this remake in 2017 when it's $15 somewhere (or never because I have my GC version), because I've already beat WindWaker a number of times this past decade and I would rather reward new games with my money as it should be. I own the GC version, and I can't imagine skipping over it back then to play a bunch of remade games then. No. By that same token, I'm not skipping over AAA amazing games to play this remake all over again. I wanted a new Zelda, and I'll wait for one and pay full price for that. I'm not going to fanboy it up and try to justify these insulting price schemes. There is already way too many AMAZING games to play for me to justify paying top dollar for a remade game I"ve beat various times. I won't do it, and I haven't done it.
Hell, I bought some of those HD remakes that include 3 games for $15-$20 because I wait on those prices at $40 as is. Three old games in HD for $40 isn't bad, but I still WAIT because I already played them. Nintendo wants to charge $60, and you only get 1 (ONE) HD remake?! Huh? This is Nintendo's first try at HD console gaming, so they still have a lot to learn...especially in pricing and gouging their fans. I wish people would just stop supporting full price HD remakes like this and those 3DS ones, it only perpetuates the problem. Buy those HD remake games, but at the cheaper prices, drought or not.
-----
Tl;dr : It doesn't cost Nintendo a lot to remake the decade+ old game, it shouldn't cost the consumer a lot of money to buy the HD remake. Other companies know these games are not gobbling up resources and charge little for them ranging from Ubisoft (Splinter Cell HD Collection, 3 games one pack) to Capcom (DMC HD collection, 3 games one pack) to Konami (Metal Gear Solid HD collection, 3 games one pack) even competitor Sony (Sly Cooper HD Collection[4], Ratchet & Clank HD Collection[3], Jak and Daxter HD Collection[3], God of War HD [2, 2, 5], etc), I wish Nintendo paid more attention to pricing and the competition.
It's honestly not a big loss if I never play WindWaker on my Wii U, I have money set aside for a Wii U exclusive NEXT Generation Zelda game and on that glorious day I will pay full price for THAT NEW ZELDA GAME. When that next gen Zelda arrives, you better believe ten years from then I won't REBUY the game on a handheld or new console for full price. That's a joke. By then, there will be other AAA experiences that have captured my attention until that generation's ZELDA arrives. THINK ABOUT IT.
thetravman
To be fair, this is a REMAKE. The ones you mentioned are just HD remasters with their original textures intact and everything upscaled to HD. Usually nothing else is added to the product (besides trophies/achievements). Those would take much less resources then a full-fledged remake like OoT 3D and WW HD. Remakes like this usually sell for full price anyway. However Halo Anniversary is a remake also and it only sold for $40. So I guess a new standard is in place. If not much new features are going into WW HD, I'd say $40 is reasonable.
According to various sources, this Zelda Wind Waker HD is only a simple remaster. I know I used the word remake, but it's a Remaster according to here(link) and here(link) and here(link) and here (link) and here(link). and here(link) and here(link). Even Gamespot.com where we are refer to the game as a Remaster. There is a lot more links showing this Zelda WW is a REMASTER and not a REMAKE, but you can see it's very clear that the word REMASTER is used for Zelda, not REMAKE in every single one of these links. I actually cut the links short because the point was made.
You did look at Halo HD remake and saw it was $40 instead of $60, so that's good that you noticed that (I did as well when I wrote that but since Zelda is a Remaster I compared it to remaster pricing). I can see you were trying to be fair in that sense but even by that Remake standard, Nintendo is still over charging because the word ZELDA is on the box. However, now we can see this game is a REMASTER (not even a REMAKE), so there is really no excuse. Also, the whole idea of taking an old game and reselling it for full price is very greedyand lazy.Doing the fan service I get, but charging the same price you would a brand new Zelda game? No.
Remember too that those HD Remasters were from one generation, from PS2 to PS3 and from Xbox to Xbox 360. This game is going from Gamecube, skipping over the Wii, and coming to Wii U. That's another HUGE money saver for Nintendo, using even newer hardware for an easy upgrade for a two generation old GC Zelda WW cel shaded game. So, if we are going to compare situations, we should also compare the money saved with time and hardware upgrades Nintendo benefits from the Wii U hardware finally being HD.
Either way, there you go on various links. REMASTERED Zelda WW HD is on the way. Remaster or Remake, it's not taking as much resources to make this game Zelda WW than it would a brand new ZELDA Wii U game. There should be savings for the fans for a REMAKE and even more savings for a REMASTER. Whatever this final product is, there should be savings. Sly Cooper Collection HD came with a brand new fourth game, created by the ground up by the collection team (Sanzaru Games) in addition to having the THREE Sly Cooper games. So even HD remasters can have sweet extras.
As far as OoT #3, as I recall, Nintendo never said it was HD or a remake. They said from day one that it was a remastering. They ported the game, yes. but they remastered it in that they updated the character models and the textures, and fixed a few small flaws in the game (like the Iron boots being treated as an Item instead of an upgrade so you don't have to constantly go to the Equip screen in the water temple).
Either way, we've seen the screens, we know the deal. This is the same game. Nintendo knows it. We know it. It shouldn't be $60, full priced, the same way the next Zelda original Wii U title will be. It's overpriced if it's released for $60.
----
Tl;dr : It doesn't cost Nintendo a lot to remaster or remake the decade+ old game, it shouldn't cost the consumer a lot of money to buy the HD REMASTER or HD Remake.
I agree with your analysis, if this is considered a Remake (we have to be careful of rampant fanboyism as fanboys will claim anything) in the vein of what was added to Halo Anniversary, this Zelda game should be $40. Zelda WW HD doesn't seem to be bringing what Halo Anniversary brought to the table (AI, engine, HD to SD button), including no online modes for Zelda WW HD have to fiddle with like Halo did. I still felt even back then Halo HD was overpriced for $40, but it came down to $15 at select retailers later.
If this Zelda WW HD game is more in line with what the press is saying, a Remaster, it should be $20, or released with 2-3 games for $40. I see a situation where Nintendo is charging us $60 for Zelda WW HD no matter what, and pinching pennies as much as possible.
Either way, $60 is unreasonable, but fanboys will bite the bullet and some new comers won't know any better. I'll wait for a better price though, I have the WW experience memorized and played it a decade ago many times. Another point that I don't like is that although this WW HD game doesn't take a lot of resources, it still does take studio time, this means other titles I would buy are being pushed off a bit to make room for this Remaster. The HD remasters of the past (Prince of Persia, DMC, Sly Cooper) weren't MEGA ICONIC releases that filled a hole for those companies. They were extra, and promoted that brand. Those HD titles didn't hinder or prevent the release of major games. This Zelda WW HD title seems to be getting a special push as if it's a new Zelda/Mario but it's not, and is taking resources away from brand new titles I would buy day one.
As far as OoT #3, as I recall, Nintendo never said it was HD or a remake. They said from day one that it was a remastering. They ported the game, yes. but they remastered it in that they updated the character models and the textures, and fixed a few small flaws in the game (like the Iron boots being treated as an Item instead of an upgrade so you don't have to constantly go to the Equip screen in the water temple).
SolidTy
This was ultimately what I'm getting at. Nintendo actually put effort into reworking the graphics and gameplay features rather than a simple HD makeover like all of the other HD collections and I highly doubt they take the same amount of resources and time. This is the same case with WW HD - reworked textures, additional effects, convenient gameplay tweaks and apparently a reworked Triforce quest and hopefully more to be announced- but you compared it to those HD collections instead of something like Halo Anniversary. With that said, of course these remakes take much less resources than new games and it should never be full price, but they still hold more value than the remasters you listed earlier. That's why they have collections rather than single game for $40 while Halo itself was $40 which WW should follow suit.
[QUOTE="SolidTy"]
[QUOTE="thetravman"]
SolidTy:
This game isn't taking much out of Nintendo's resources to develop, I have the original, and HD remake packages usually ship with 3 games for $40. It's Nintendo though (long history from late Wii Greatest Hits to eshop pricing to 3DS remake pricing to N64 pricing), so they'll charge full price or close to the original 2003 price.
I'll get this remake in 2017 when it's $15 somewhere (or never because I have my GC version), because I've already beat WindWaker a number of times this past decade and I would rather reward new games with my money as it should be. I own the GC version, and I can't imagine skipping over it back then to play a bunch of remade games then. No. By that same token, I'm not skipping over AAA amazing games to play this remake all over again. I wanted a new Zelda, and I'll wait for one and pay full price for that. I'm not going to fanboy it up and try to justify these insulting price schemes. There is already way too many AMAZING games to play for me to justify paying top dollar for a remade game I"ve beat various times. I won't do it, and I haven't done it.
Hell, I bought some of those HD remakes that include 3 games for $15-$20 because I wait on those prices at $40 as is. Three old games in HD for $40 isn't bad, but I still WAIT because I already played them. Nintendo wants to charge $60, and you only get 1 (ONE) HD remake?! Huh? This is Nintendo's first try at HD console gaming, so they still have a lot to learn...especially in pricing and gouging their fans. I wish people would just stop supporting full price HD remakes like this and those 3DS ones, it only perpetuates the problem. Buy those HD remake games, but at the cheaper prices, drought or not.
-----
Tl;dr : It doesn't cost Nintendo a lot to remake the decade+ old game, it shouldn't cost the consumer a lot of money to buy the HD remake. Other companies know these games are not gobbling up resources and charge little for them ranging from Ubisoft (Splinter Cell HD Collection, 3 games one pack) to Capcom (DMC HD collection, 3 games one pack) to Konami (Metal Gear Solid HD collection, 3 games one pack) even competitor Sony (Sly Cooper HD Collection[4], Ratchet & Clank HD Collection[3], Jak and Daxter HD Collection[3], God of War HD [2, 2, 5], etc), I wish Nintendo paid more attention to pricing and the competition.
It's honestly not a big loss if I never play WindWaker on my Wii U, I have money set aside for a Wii U exclusive NEXT Generation Zelda game and on that glorious day I will pay full price for THAT NEW ZELDA GAME. When that next gen Zelda arrives, you better believe ten years from then I won't REBUY the game on a handheld or new console for full price. That's a joke. By then, there will be other AAA experiences that have captured my attention until that generation's ZELDA arrives. THINK ABOUT IT.
-----
To be fair, this is a REMAKE. The ones you mentioned are just HD remasters with their original textures intact and everything upscaled to HD. Usually nothing else is added to the product (besides trophies/achievements). Those would take much less resources then a full-fledged remake like OoT 3D and WW HD. Remakes like this usually sell for full price anyway. However Halo Anniversary is a remake also and it only sold for $40. So I guess a new standard is in place. If not much new features are going into WW HD, I'd say $40 is reasonable.
thetravman
According to various sources, this Zelda Wind Waker HD is only a simple remaster. I know I used the word remake, but it's a Remaster according to here(link) and here(link) and here(link) and here (link) and here(link). and here(link) and here(link). Even Gamespot.com where we are refer to the game as a Remaster. There is a lot more links showing this Zelda WW is a REMASTER and not a REMAKE, but you can see it's very clear that the word REMASTER is used for Zelda, not REMAKE in every single one of these links. I actually cut the links short because the point was made.
You did look at Halo HD remake and saw it was $40 instead of $60, so that's good that you noticed that (I did as well when I wrote that but since Zelda is a Remaster I compared it to remaster pricing). I can see you were trying to be fair in that sense but even by that Remake standard, Nintendo is still over charging because the word ZELDA is on the box. However, now we can see this game is a REMASTER (not even a REMAKE), so there is really no excuse. Also, the whole idea of taking an old game and reselling it for full price is very greedyand lazy.Doing the fan service I get, but charging the same price you would a brand new Zelda game? No.
Remember too that those HD Remasters were from one generation, from PS2 to PS3 and from Xbox to Xbox 360. This game is going from Gamecube, skipping over the Wii, and coming to Wii U. That's another HUGE money saver for Nintendo, using even newer hardware for an easy upgrade for a two generation old GC Zelda WW cel shaded game. So, if we are going to compare situations, we should also compare the money saved with time and hardware upgrades Nintendo benefits from the Wii U hardware finally being HD.
Either way, there you go on various links. REMASTERED Zelda WW HD is on the way. Remaster or Remake, it's not taking as much resources to make this game Zelda WW than it would a brand new ZELDA Wii U game. There should be savings for the fans for a REMAKE and even more savings for a REMASTER. Whatever this final product is, there should be savings. Sly Cooper Collection HD came with a brand new fourth game, created by the ground up by the collection team (Sanzaru Games) in addition to having the THREE Sly Cooper games. So even HD remasters can have sweet extras.
As far as OoT #3, as I recall, Nintendo never said it was HD or a remake. They said from day one that it was a remastering. They ported the game, yes. but they remastered it in that they updated the character models and the textures, and fixed a few small flaws in the game (like the Iron boots being treated as an Item instead of an upgrade so you don't have to constantly go to the Equip screen in the water temple).
Either way, we've seen the screens, we know the deal. This is the same game. Nintendo knows it. We know it. It shouldn't be $60, full priced, the same way the next Zelda original Wii U title will be. It's overpriced if it's released for $60.
----
Tl;dr : It doesn't cost Nintendo a lot to remaster or remake the decade+ old game, it shouldn't cost the consumer a lot of money to buy the HD REMASTER or HD Remake.
I agree with your analysis, if this is considered a Remake (we have to be careful of rampant fanboyism as fanboys will claim anything) in the vein of what was added to Halo Anniversary, this Zelda game should be $40. Zelda WW HD doesn't seem to be bringing what Halo Anniversary brought to the table (AI, engine, HD to SD button), including no online modes for Zelda WW HD have to fiddle with like Halo did. I still felt even back then Halo HD was overpriced for $40, but it came down to $15 at select retailers later.
If this Zelda WW HD game is more in line with what the press is saying, a Remaster, it should be $20, or released with 2-3 games for $40. I see a situation where Nintendo is charging us $60 for Zelda WW HD no matter what, and pinching pennies as much as possible.
Either way, $60 is unreasonable, but fanboys will bite the bullet and some new comers won't know any better. I'll wait for a better price though, I have the WW experience memorized and played it a decade ago many times. Another point that I don't like is that although this WW HD game doesn't take a lot of resources, it still does take studio time, this means other titles I would buy are being pushed off a bit to make room for this Remaster. The HD remasters of the past (Prince of Persia, DMC, Sly Cooper) weren't MEGA ICONIC releases that filled a hole for those companies. They were extra, and promoted that brand. Those HD titles didn't hinder or prevent the release of major games. This Zelda WW HD title seems to be getting a special push as if it's a new Zelda/Mario but it's not, and is taking resources away from brand new titles I would buy day one.
This was ultimately what I'm getting at. Nintendo actually put effort into reworking the graphics and gameplay features rather than a simple HD makeover like all of the other HD collections and I highly doubt they take the same amount of resources and time. This is the same case with WW HD - reworked textures, additional effects, convenient gameplay tweaks and apparently a reworked Triforce quest and hopefully more to be announced- but you compared it to those HD collections instead of something like Halo Anniversary. With that said, of course these remakes take much less resources than new games and it should never be full price, but they still hold more value than the remasters you listed earlier. That's why they have collections rather than single game for $40 while Halo itself was $40 which WW should follow suit.
I know that Halo HD wasn't full price (I remember researching and waiting for a price drop on New), but I didn't accept the high pricing scheme for that singular Halo HD game either as it was too high and modes were cut out. I am glad they recognized they shouldn't charge full price for Halo HD though. Still, Halo HD had more reworking than the upcoming Zelda WW HD, and that WW HD game doesn't even offer online, and it's being released in 2013 for even newer Wii U hardware. WW doesn't offer as much as Halo HD offered in reworked graphics, AI, engine, or online. I agree it shouldn't be more than $40, but comparing it to Halo HD, Wind Waker HD falls short in what it offers in comparison. I felt Halo HD was overpriced as it was anyways. The minor issue I have is that you are holding onto Halo HD as a rightly priced product (which I didn't agree when that released and I bought it for $20), and you are also saying that WW HD = Halo HD in the amount of resources both companies used. They aren't.
In the end, the WW experience won't be far different than the original experience. Is it worth it to pay so much over those HD collection experiences if given the choice?
I do agree and I said myself that Zelda WW HD should not be full price. All examples aside, I said it best when I said:
It doesn't cost Nintendo a lot to remaster or remake the decade+ old game, it shouldn't cost the consumer a lot of money to buy the HD REMASTER or HD Remake.
I think we both agree that it shouldn't be a full price $50 (WW old price) - $60 (Wii U pricing). You suggest $40, I suggest less. We may disagree with pricing, but we agree WW HD shouldn't be so expensive. Primarily, my message was to those fanboys who were attempting to justify a full priced Package for Zelda WW HD. We both agree Zelda WW HD shouldn't be so expensive considering the costs in it's production.
Looking at OoT 3D and hearing some initial pre order stories, it looks like Nintendo's going to go full $60 for this game, but they shouldn't cross $30 in my opinion as this isn't as comprehensive as Halo HD was. In fact, they are giving this a Banner title release treatment. Still, I won't buy WW HD until it's $15-$20 NEW or less since I have the original WW which I proudly preordered and bought the day it launched. If I don't ever get it, I'm fine since I never bought a Wii U for Wind Waker HD anyways. Same logic I apply to my other machines. That is what I will do when a new Wii U Zelda game is announced.
This game isn't taking much out of Nintendo's resources to develop, I have the original, and HD remake packages usually ship with 3 games for $40. It's Nintendo though (long history from late Wii Greatest Hits to eshop pricing to 3DS remake pricing to N64 pricing), so they'll charge full price or close to the original 2003 price.
I'll get this remake in 2017 when it's $15 somewhere (or never because I have my GC version), because I've already beat WindWaker a number of times this past decade and I would rather reward new games with my money as it should be. I own the GC version, and I can't imagine skipping over it back then to play a bunch of remade games then. No. By that same token, I'm not skipping over AAA amazing games to play this remake all over again. I wanted a new Zelda, and I'll wait for one and pay full price for that. I'm not going to fanboy it up and try to justify these insulting price schemes. There is already way too many AMAZING games to play for me to justify paying top dollar for a remade game I"ve beat various times. I won't do it, and I haven't done it.
Hell, I bought some of those HD remakes that include 3 games for $15-$20 because I wait on those prices at $40 as is. Three old games in HD for $40 isn't bad, but I still WAIT because I already played them. Nintendo wants to charge $60, and you only get 1 (ONE) HD remake?! Huh? This is Nintendo's first try at HD console gaming, so they still have a lot to learn...especially in pricing and gouging their fans. I wish people would just stop supporting full price HD remakes like this and those 3DS ones, it only perpetuates the problem. Buy those HD remake games, but at the cheaper prices, drought or not.
-----
Tl;dr : It doesn't cost Nintendo a lot to remake the decade+ old game, it shouldn't cost the consumer a lot of money to buy the HD remake. Other companies know these games are not gobbling up resources and charge little for them ranging from Ubisoft (Splinter Cell HD Collection, 3 games one pack) to Capcom (DMC HD collection, 3 games one pack) to Konami (Metal Gear Solid HD collection, 3 games one pack) even competitor Sony (Sly Cooper HD Collection[4], Ratchet & Clank HD Collection[3], Jak and Daxter HD Collection[3], God of War HD [2, 2, 5], etc), I wish Nintendo paid more attention to pricing and the competition.
It's honestly not a big loss if I never play WindWaker on my Wii U, I have money set aside for a Wii U exclusive NEXT Generation Zelda game and on that glorious day I will pay full price for THAT NEW ZELDA GAME. When that next gen Zelda arrives, you better believe ten years from then I won't REBUY the game on a handheld or new console for full price. That's a joke. By then, there will be other AAA experiences that have captured my attention until that generation's ZELDA arrives. THINK ABOUT IT.
SolidTy
Who are you to say that it doesn't cost them much? Nintendo has said they've mismanaged the leap to HD gaming, so it is reasonable to assume that they may be using more resources to develop a ground up remake than simply an HD up-port.
You don't know how much the game costs and with such a low install base on the Wii U it does make sense to charge $50 or so for one HD remake since, well they only have 3.5 million consumers to sell it to, something you aren't factoring in. All those other HD collections came out when those consoles had bigger install bases. Plus, you shouldn't forget that Nintendo probably thinks including multiple games on an HD collection is de-valuing those games. I'm not saying that's right, but it may be what they think.
If Wind Waker HD costs $20 million + to develop and sells at $60 with $12 going to retailers ($48 profit roughly for Nintendo, maybe a bit less in actuality) then that means they'd make $20 million off 500k sales on the game. Now they will likely sell more than 500k copies, I'd wager close to a million but you never know, the system isn't exactly selling well.
If they sold 1 million copies for $48 each (which once again is probably less) they'd make $40-$50 million, about double their investment. Maybe $20 million in profit on a $20 million investment isn't enough.
Basically, I'm saying unless we're doing their budget we can't really say how much it should cost and shouldn't feel entitled to it being cheaper. Just because other companies make HD upscaled ports for a few million doesn't mean Nintendo does the same for their HD remake.
[QUOTE="SolidTy"]
This game isn't taking much out of Nintendo's resources to develop, I have the original, and HD remake packages usually ship with 3 games for $40. It's Nintendo though (long history from late Wii Greatest Hits to eshop pricing to 3DS remake pricing to N64 pricing), so they'll charge full price or close to the original 2003 price.
I'll get this remake in 2017 when it's $15 somewhere (or never because I have my GC version), because I've already beat WindWaker a number of times this past decade and I would rather reward new games with my money as it should be. I own the GC version, and I can't imagine skipping over it back then to play a bunch of remade games then. No. By that same token, I'm not skipping over AAA amazing games to play this remake all over again. I wanted a new Zelda, and I'll wait for one and pay full price for that. I'm not going to fanboy it up and try to justify these insulting price schemes. There is already way too many AMAZING games to play for me to justify paying top dollar for a remade game I"ve beat various times. I won't do it, and I haven't done it.
Hell, I bought some of those HD remakes that include 3 games for $15-$20 because I wait on those prices at $40 as is. Three old games in HD for $40 isn't bad, but I still WAIT because I already played them. Nintendo wants to charge $60, and you only get 1 (ONE) HD remake?! Huh? This is Nintendo's first try at HD console gaming, so they still have a lot to learn...especially in pricing and gouging their fans. I wish people would just stop supporting full price HD remakes like this and those 3DS ones, it only perpetuates the problem. Buy those HD remake games, but at the cheaper prices, drought or not.
-----
Tl;dr : It doesn't cost Nintendo a lot to remake the decade+ old game, it shouldn't cost the consumer a lot of money to buy the HD remake. Other companies know these games are not gobbling up resources and charge little for them ranging from Ubisoft (Splinter Cell HD Collection, 3 games one pack) to Capcom (DMC HD collection, 3 games one pack) to Konami (Metal Gear Solid HD collection, 3 games one pack) even competitor Sony (Sly Cooper HD Collection[4], Ratchet & Clank HD Collection[3], Jak and Daxter HD Collection[3], God of War HD [2, 2, 5], etc), I wish Nintendo paid more attention to pricing and the competition.
It's honestly not a big loss if I never play WindWaker on my Wii U, I have money set aside for a Wii U exclusive NEXT Generation Zelda game and on that glorious day I will pay full price for THAT NEW ZELDA GAME. When that next gen Zelda arrives, you better believe ten years from then I won't REBUY the game on a handheld or new console for full price. That's a joke. By then, there will be other AAA experiences that have captured my attention until that generation's ZELDA arrives. THINK ABOUT IT.
bonesawisready5
Who are you to say that it doesn't cost them much? Nintendo has said they've mismanaged the leap to HD gaming, so it is reasonable to assume that they may be using more resources to develop a ground up remake than simply an HD up-port.
You don't know how much the game costs and with such a low install base on the Wii U it does make sense to charge $50 or so for one HD remake since, well they only have 3.5 million consumers to sell it to, something you aren't factoring in. All those other HD collections came out when those consoles had bigger install bases. Plus, you shouldn't forget that Nintendo probably thinks including multiple games on an HD collection is de-valuing those games. I'm not saying that's right, but it may be what they think.
If Wind Waker HD costs $20 million + to develop and sells at $60 with $12 going to retailers ($48 profit roughly for Nintendo, maybe a bit less in actuality) then that means they'd make $20 million off 500k sales on the game. Now they will likely sell more than 500k copies, I'd wager close to a million but you never know, the system isn't exactly selling well.
If they sold 1 million copies for $48 each (which once again is probably less) they'd make $40-$50 million, about double their investment. Maybe $20 million in profit on a $20 million investment isn't enough.
Basically, I'm saying unless we're doing their budget we can't really say how much it should cost and shouldn't feel entitled to it being cheaper. Just because other companies make HD upscaled ports for a few million doesn't mean Nintendo does the same for their HD remake.
It doesn't mean Nintendo will make their HD REMASTER (it's a Remaster according to here(link) and here(link) and here(link) and here (link) and here(link). and here(link) and here(link). Even Gamespot.com where we are refer to the game as a Remaster) for a few million, but Nintendo certainly should have done so (and probably have done so despite fanboy proclamation to the contrary to justify their overpriced future re-purchase)because as you said, the cheaper it is to remaster the HD remake, the more profit for Nintendo.
You brought up the install base and business of Nintendo as if we will get money as stockholders, but that is of little concern to the end consumer buying their games, which is what this thread is about and my entire posts have been about.
The best deal wins to the consumer. This is the type of thinking that gets Nintendo into trouble and pushes gamers to buy more than Nintendo machines. I will play "armchair business associate" with you for a second though (although I know we both are wasting our time). You should have also brought up the fact that the Wii U hardware has elements of the Gamecube architecture, the nature of the celshading technique, and the advantage of Nintendo being able to use even newer 8th generation Wii U hardware (instead of the 7th Gen used for previous HD remakes/remasters) to get the production of WW HD down. Nintendo is going to make a profit on WW HD big time, and I have a feeling you secretly know it.
Bottomline we don't need access to Nintendo's budget to know that creating a new 8th generation ZELDA Wii U game from the ground up would cost a HELL of lot more than remastering a decade old cel-shaded 6th generation Zelda game. We shouldn't have to pay top dollar for a decade old remastered HD game, period. If that means we wait until 2014, so be it, but that's not what's going on. Nintendo needs Wii U SOFTWARE quick to drive sales, and what's quicker than an overpriced HD remaster of a Zelda game?
If someone wants to say, "Bu-bu-but Nintendo spent more on this ONE HD remaster than 3 games included in a UBISOFT HD collection, Konami collection, CAPCOM collection, or Sony HD collection did!" Do they really believe that considering the hardware power of the Wii U and 2013 timing? The time of remastering THREE titles on odder hardware, than a single title on familiar hardware? Three titles would be longer job than one title, that's more work, in most cases. We aren't getting more titles, but as a selling point we get some bloom and other effects/polish while Nintendo saves a buck from having to add the WORK of two more remastered titles in a package. No way, I don't see the budget overkill. Nintendo doesn't even have to worry about voice acting in Celda. There is no proof on costs as you said. What if they dared to say "Nintendo spent more than Microsoft did on the Halo HD Anniversary REMAKE $40 package!" Is that believable? No online MP to worry about. No AI changes? Really believable considering Nintendo isn't looking to spend a lot to pump this out quick? No. We are also understating the Wii U hardware advantage, as Nintendo waited an entire generation to roll this game out where as 360 and PS3 were 7th gen consoles with funkier architecture.
I'll play Devil's Advocate: If that is true and Nintendo actually did spend more on this one 6th gen celda remaster game than those companies did on those three remaster game packages (doubtful) or even Microsoft did on the HALO HD REMAKE (again, very, very doubtful) the question is...WHY would the frugal Nintendo suddenly change their nature and go overspend for a single HD remastered Celda? No, Nintendo don't have the motive to overspend, it's not in their nature, their history doesn't support a decision like that, it's cheap to remaster games, Nintendo don't have the budget to do so when major new games are where the main resources are going, and it's not logical from a fiscal business sense to spend unneeded money. The majority of resources is being dedicated to an ACTUAL 8th gen Zelda title.
You say we don't have their budget? That goes both ways, that means you don't know what they spent either. So, why assume they overspent on a one title HD remaster than assume the more obvious they spent less considering 8th Gen hardware, Wii U-GC compatibility, etc?
While we don't have their budget information, the most logical course of action is that Nintendo is charging full price for an HD remaster of Zelda WW because they can as it says ZELDA on the box, and the fans will justify it because they want to support the BIG N. It's easier to believe that Nintendo spent a lot on a remastered decade old game while paying full price for a decade old remastered game than accept that this isn't the first time a company, or Nintendo, have overcharged on a product. Nintendo has a long history of this actually, especially if you have worked retail and seen how long it took to get a Greatest Hits series in the west for Wii or DS. Things of this nature, but a long list I won't go into here now as my post is too long.
I know what you have at stake in this thread as you are one of the users in here that said you would spend full price on this product, and in the past you have been a very loyal Nintendo fan in your posts and in your GS history. I can understand that as I have a long history with Nintendo, but I have noticed trends over and over, and this is the venue to post about my views on the pricing of this Zelda WW HD product in this thread "Wind Waker HD Cost?"
Nintendo is saving money remastering 6th Gen Zelda Wind Waker to tide us over until a REAL 8th gen Zelda arrives. We should save money buying the remastered 6th Gen Zelda for our Wii U's.
I will be bold and suggest that Nintendo would actually sell MORE copies and reap more long-term money if they considered getting that price down. They saved the money, we should too and from a business sense more people will buy the tired old Zelda game. It would also be a nice deal for Wii U fans that have suffered this long drought. Just because the Wii U isn't selling as Nintendo hopes doesn't mean we Wii U supporters should be overcharged. That doesn't explain a lot of the poor pricing habits on Wii then (lack of VC holiday sales, lack of Nintendo Select GH line until 2011), because the Wii had the biggest install base. Clearly, Nintendo can't have it both ways.
I will sum up my thoughts here...
---
tl;dr : It costs Nintendo a LOT LESS To REMASTER a 6th generation GC game on 8th Gen hardware, than it costs Nintendo to create a whole new ZELDA game from scratch.
Considering that a future 8th Gen Zelda game we will most assuredly be spending a full (and more justifiably so) $60 on.
I'll make it easy. Here are two sentences, one of these deals is a far better deal to the end consumer:
1.) 6th Gen Zelda remastered HD for Wii U = $60.
2.) 8th Gen Zelda Totally new HD for Wii U = $60.
[QUOTE="bonesawisready5"]
[QUOTE="SolidTy"]
This game isn't taking much out of Nintendo's resources to develop, I have the original, and HD remake packages usually ship with 3 games for $40. It's Nintendo though (long history from late Wii Greatest Hits to eshop pricing to 3DS remake pricing to N64 pricing), so they'll charge full price or close to the original 2003 price.
I'll get this remake in 2017 when it's $15 somewhere (or never because I have my GC version), because I've already beat WindWaker a number of times this past decade and I would rather reward new games with my money as it should be. I own the GC version, and I can't imagine skipping over it back then to play a bunch of remade games then. No. By that same token, I'm not skipping over AAA amazing games to play this remake all over again. I wanted a new Zelda, and I'll wait for one and pay full price for that. I'm not going to fanboy it up and try to justify these insulting price schemes. There is already way too many AMAZING games to play for me to justify paying top dollar for a remade game I"ve beat various times. I won't do it, and I haven't done it.
Hell, I bought some of those HD remakes that include 3 games for $15-$20 because I wait on those prices at $40 as is. Three old games in HD for $40 isn't bad, but I still WAIT because I already played them. Nintendo wants to charge $60, and you only get 1 (ONE) HD remake?! Huh? This is Nintendo's first try at HD console gaming, so they still have a lot to learn...especially in pricing and gouging their fans. I wish people would just stop supporting full price HD remakes like this and those 3DS ones, it only perpetuates the problem. Buy those HD remake games, but at the cheaper prices, drought or not.
-----
Tl;dr : It doesn't cost Nintendo a lot to remake the decade+ old game, it shouldn't cost the consumer a lot of money to buy the HD remake. Other companies know these games are not gobbling up resources and charge little for them ranging from Ubisoft (Splinter Cell HD Collection, 3 games one pack) to Capcom (DMC HD collection, 3 games one pack) to Konami (Metal Gear Solid HD collection, 3 games one pack) even competitor Sony (Sly Cooper HD Collection[4], Ratchet & Clank HD Collection[3], Jak and Daxter HD Collection[3], God of War HD [2, 2, 5], etc), I wish Nintendo paid more attention to pricing and the competition.
It's honestly not a big loss if I never play WindWaker on my Wii U, I have money set aside for a Wii U exclusive NEXT Generation Zelda game and on that glorious day I will pay full price for THAT NEW ZELDA GAME. When that next gen Zelda arrives, you better believe ten years from then I won't REBUY the game on a handheld or new console for full price. That's a joke. By then, there will be other AAA experiences that have captured my attention until that generation's ZELDA arrives. THINK ABOUT IT.
SolidTy
Who are you to say that it doesn't cost them much? Nintendo has said they've mismanaged the leap to HD gaming, so it is reasonable to assume that they may be using more resources to develop a ground up remake than simply an HD up-port.
You don't know how much the game costs and with such a low install base on the Wii U it does make sense to charge $50 or so for one HD remake since, well they only have 3.5 million consumers to sell it to, something you aren't factoring in. All those other HD collections came out when those consoles had bigger install bases. Plus, you shouldn't forget that Nintendo probably thinks including multiple games on an HD collection is de-valuing those games. I'm not saying that's right, but it may be what they think.
If Wind Waker HD costs $20 million + to develop and sells at $60 with $12 going to retailers ($48 profit roughly for Nintendo, maybe a bit less in actuality) then that means they'd make $20 million off 500k sales on the game. Now they will likely sell more than 500k copies, I'd wager close to a million but you never know, the system isn't exactly selling well.
If they sold 1 million copies for $48 each (which once again is probably less) they'd make $40-$50 million, about double their investment. Maybe $20 million in profit on a $20 million investment isn't enough.
Basically, I'm saying unless we're doing their budget we can't really say how much it should cost and shouldn't feel entitled to it being cheaper. Just because other companies make HD upscaled ports for a few million doesn't mean Nintendo does the same for their HD remake.
It doesn't mean Nintendo will make their HD REMASTER (it's a Remaster according to here(link) and here(link) and here(link) and here (link) and here(link). and here(link) and here(link). Even Gamespot.com where we are refer to the game as a Remaster) for a few million, but Nintendo certainly should have done so (and probably have done so despite fanboy proclamation to the contrary to justify their overpriced future re-purchase)because as you said, the cheaper it is to remaster the HD remake, the more profit for Nintendo.
You brought up the install base and business of Nintendo as if we will get money as stockholders, but that is of little concern to the end consumer buying their games, which is what this thread is about and my entire posts have been about.
The best deal wins to the consumer. This is the type of thinking that gets Nintendo into trouble and pushes gamers to buy more than Nintendo machines. I will play "armchair business associate" with you for a second though (although I know we both are wasting our time). You should have also brought up the fact that the Wii U hardware has elements of the Gamecube architecture, the nature of the celshading technique, and the advantage of Nintendo being able to use even newer 8th generation Wii U hardware (instead of the 7th Gen used for previous HD remakes/remasters) to get the production of WW HD down. Nintendo is going to make a profit on WW HD big time, and I have a feeling you secretly know it.
Bottomline we don't need access to Nintendo's budget to know that creating a new 8th generation ZELDA Wii U game from the ground up would cost a HELL of lot more than remastering a decade old cel-shaded 6th generation Zelda game. We shouldn't have to pay top dollar for a decade old remastered HD game, period. If that means we wait until 2014, so be it, but that's not what's going on. Nintendo needs Wii U SOFTWARE quick to drive sales, and what's quicker than an overpriced HD remaster of a Zelda game?
If someone wants to say, "Bu-bu-but Nintendo spent more on this ONE HD remaster than 3 games included in a UBISOFT HD collection, Konami collection, CAPCOM collection, or Sony HD collection did!" Do they really believe that considering the hardware power of the Wii U and 2013 timing? No way. There is no proof on costs as you said. What if they dared to say "Nintendo spent more than Microsoft did on the Halo HD Anniversary REMAKE $40 package!" Is that believable? No online MP to worry about. No AI changes? Really believable considering Nintendo isn't looking to spend a lot to pump this out quick? No. We are also understating the Wii U hardware advantage, as Nintendo waited an entire generation to roll this game out where as 360 and PS3 were 7th gen consoles with funkier architecture.
I'll play Devil's Advocate: If that is true and Nintendo actually did spend more on this one 6th gen celda remaster game than those companies did on those three remaster game packages (doubtful) or even Microsoft did on the HALO HD REMAKE (again, very, very doubtful) the question is...WHY would the frugal Nintendo suddenly change their nature and go overspend for a single HD remastered Celda? No, Nintendo don't have the motive to overspend, it's not in their nature, their history doesn't support a decision like that, it's cheap to remaster games, Nintendo don't have the budget to do so when major new games are where the main resources are goin, and it's not logical from a fiscal busines sense to spend unneeded money. The majority of resources is being dedicated to an ACTUAL 8th gen Zelda title.
You say we don't have their budget? That goes both ways, that means you don't know what they spent either. So, why assume they overspent on a one title HD remaster than assume the more obvious they spent less considering 8th Gen hardware, Wii U-GC compatibility, etc?
While we don't have their budget information, the most logical course of action is that Nintendo is charging full price for an HD remaster of Zelda WW because they can as it says ZELDA on the box, and the fans will justify it because they want to support the BIG N. It's easier to believe that Nintendo spent a lot on a remastered decade old game while paying full price for a decade old remastered game than accept that this isn't the first time a company, or Nintendo, have overcharged on a product. Nintendo has a long history of this actually, especially if you have worked retail and seen how long it took to get a Greatest Hits series in the west for Wii or DS. Things of this nature, but a long list I won't go into here now as my post is too long.
I know what you have at stake in this thread as you are one of the users in here that said you would spend full price on this product, and in the past you have been a very loyal Nintendo fan in your posts and in your GS history. I can understand that as I have a long history with Nintendo, but I have noticed trends over and over, and this is the venue to post about my views on the pricing of this Zelda WW HD product in this thread "Wind Waker HD Cost?"
Nintendo is saving money remastering 6th Gen Zelda Wind Waker to tide us over until a REAL 8th gen Zelda arrives. We should save money buying the remastered 6th Gen Zelda for our Wii U's.
I will be bold and suggest that Nintendo would actually sell MORE copies and reap more longterm money if they considered getting that price down. They saved the money, we should too and from a business sense more people will buy the tired old Zelda game. It would also be a nice deal for Wii U fans that have suffered this long drought.
I will sum up my thoughts here...
---
tl;dr : It costs Nintendo a LOT LESS To REMASTER a 6th generation GC game on 8th Gen hardware, than it costs Nintendo to create a whole new ZELDA game from scratch.
Considering that a future 8th Gen Zelda game we will most assuredly be spending a full (and more justifiably so) $60 on.
I'll make it easy. Here are two sentences, one of these deals is a far better deal to the end consumer:
1.) 6th Gen Zelda remastered HD for Wii U = $60.
2.) 8th Gen Zelda Totally new HD for Wii U = $60.
I get it that it shouldn't be a concern to you as a consumer if they don't make much money off of it but you should understand it and how it impacts the price. (off topic, did Wind Waker ever actually hit $20 or less brand new on Cube? Or did they keep it $30 like Melee, Double Dash?)
As a consumer, you should be aware that spending your money on something creates more interest in a franchise going forward, causing sequels to more likely. While Zelda is in no danger of needing fan support, you can't ignore how much it costs to make something as a consumer and honestly expect good games to continue to be made without understanding its impact. Its similar to people saying "lol that game plays on a 2D plane thats so old school it can't be $50!" to titles like Rayman Legends, Donkey Kong Country Returns, etc thinking that just becaus something has a simpler design then modern action games that it is somehow cheaper to produce.
Nintendo isn't in the business of charity and I understand that you don't feel like you should be concerned about how much X game costs to make but you shouldn't be surprised when you don't get the games you want. These people aren't making games for you personally just to be happy, then have to pay bills and these projects must make a lot of sense financially no matter anything else.
And I don't believe something being from an older gen devalues its worth. If a game is worth $60 to me because of the vast amount of joy it brings with its large quality of content then why shouldn't I pay $60 for something if it is worth it? I mean surely people keep spending the same amount to buy the same classic films with no additions every time a new format is introduced (VHS, DVD, BR) just because they still bring them $10-$20 worth of joy and value. Or else you'd hear more people demanding $1 Indiana Jones/Star Wars collections
Being from the 6th gen doesn't automically devalue Wind Waker and it can easily still be worth a lot of money for a player. Maybe not to you specifically.
EDIT: I'd like to add your argument is straying dangerously close to the same "I can get $1 new games on my phone so why should I pay $30-$40 for new games somewhere else"?
^ ...seriously, a paragraph or two would've sufficed. :p
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment