Wind Waker HD cost?

^ ...seriously, a paragraph or two would've sufficed. :p

thetravman

That's what the tl;dr portion at the bottom is for. :P

I have a lot of information due to experience and my job, and I love to share it with my fellow Mario/Zelda/Nintendo fans.

[QUOTE="dino77c"]

maybe 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

My favorite Zelda game by far. Between this, Wonderful 101, MH3, DQX, and Pikmin 3, there may be enough for me to sink the money into buying me a Wii U.

On topic, it's the big N, they will charge full price for about 3 years then put it to $30.00. Kinda expensive for a remake, but the REmake was full price and so was Metal Gear Solid for the GC, so I can't complain about the price.

I don't understand how a game can still be a blast and fun, offer tons of content and still be better than a lot of modern games yet its insulting to pay more than $30 for it? Why does a ten year period diminish its value if it is still really good? Where were you people when MH3U came out at $10 more than the 2009 Wii version? Sure it has new content but so does Wind Waker HD, it is stream lined and improved at its core overall as Nintendo has already revealed.

I just don't get it. A good game is worth a good amount of money.

I don't understand how a game can still be a blast and fun, offer tons of content and still be better than a lot of modern games yet its insulting to pay more than $30 for it? Why does a ten year period diminish its value if it is still really good? Where were you people when MH3U came out at $10 more than the 2009 Wii version? Sure it has new content but so does Wind Waker HD, it is stream lined and improved at its core overall as Nintendo has already revealed.

I just don't get it. A good game is worth a good amount of money.

bonesawisready5

Also worth mentioning that the original Windwaker is easily selling for $40 or more used on online sites. Buying a superior version of it for $10-$20 more doesn't really seem that bad.

I don't understand how a game can still be a blast and fun, offer tons of content and still be better than a lot of modern games yet its insulting to pay more than $30 for it? Why does a ten year period diminish its value if it is still really good? Where were you people when MH3U came out at $10 more than the 2009 Wii version? Sure it has new content but so does Wind Waker HD, it is stream lined and improved at its core overall as Nintendo has already revealed.

I just don't get it. A good game is worth a good amount of money.

bonesawisready5

You know what I don't get about all of this? We've seen Wii U owners/fans complain numerous times about how third party publishers have charged $60 for their month-old multiplats, while on the other hand, there are those who are trying to justify a touched-up GCN game being $60, when frankly, it probably should be a Virtual Console release. Nintendo probably could have sold the original WW for $10/15 on the eShop, yet are selling this as a brand new title, not unlike what EA did with Mass Effect 3, etc. I don't want to use the "hypocrisy" card, but I honestly do question the logic behind all of this. Seriously, what's the big difference between other publishers trying to get by with selling old games at full price and Nintendo trying to get by with selling a MUCH older game at the same price?

My opinion of the matter is that pretty much ALL of the suspects are/have been overpriced, including most HD multiplats, MH3U, and Wind Waker HD. Given that only a handful of Wii U games have been original, recently released titles, the idea of so many games having $60 price tags on them is ridiculous, in my opinion. I realize that I'm speaking mostly for myself here, but I'm calling it like I see it. For me, HD and some minor "refinements" alone aren't worth rebuying a game I've played and beaten many times before at a greater price than the original game itself. I've already played that "good game," and what I would be paying for in this case wouldn't be worth the equal or greater price tag the second time around.

According to your logic, selling Super Mario Bros. in HD would be reasonable at $60, seeing as how it's still a great game and all. Sorry, but that's just not a message I support and want to send to a company. And since it's painfully obvious that Nintendo didn't spend anywhere close to $20 million on this little project, I'm not even sure how or why you're supporting this idea so strongly yourself, with all due respect.

My favorite Zelda game by far. Between this, Wonderful 101, MH3, DQX, and Pikmin 3, there may be enough for me to sink the money into buying me a Wii U.

On topic, it's the big N, they will charge full price for about 3 years then put it to $30.00. Kinda expensive for a remake, but the REmake was full price and so was Metal Gear Solid for the GC, so I can't complain about the price.

rockydog1111

Those games you mentioned (MGS: TS and REmake) were actually remakes (remade with new graphics, new engines and many changes to AI, even paying for new voice acting), this game is a remaster (more in line with HD remastered games we've seen like Prince of Persia HD, Ratchet & Clank HD, Metal Gear HD collection, Splinter Cell HD, DMC HD, Jak & Daxter HD, or God of War HD collection) and Zelda WW has no voice acting to deal with (Nintendo was saving money even back then ;)).

It is true, they are adding some bloom and tweaking to WW, but you also aren't getting three games in this package. This is a remaster closer to remastered games than those full on Remakes you mentioned. I do agree though, they will charge full price. I remember seeing Mario Galaxy 1 on the shelf when Galaxy 2 released, and both were full retail price.

I posted this above, but here's information on the remastered Zelda WW game just in case you were under the impression this was a full on REMAKE. BTW: I could justify paying a bit more for a REMAKE when you are talking about REmake or MGS TS, because those changes and additions were comprehensive. Zelda WW though, is no remake, it's a remaster.

"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)"...

[QUOTE="bonesawisready5"]

I don't understand how a game can still be a blast and fun, offer tons of content and still be better than a lot of modern games yet its insulting to pay more than $30 for it? Why does a ten year period diminish its value if it is still really good? Where were you people when MH3U came out at $10 more than the 2009 Wii version? Sure it has new content but so does Wind Waker HD, it is stream lined and improved at its core overall as Nintendo has already revealed.

I just don't get it. A good game is worth a good amount of money.

Madmangamer364

You know what I don't get about all of this? We've seen Wii U owners/fans complain numerous times about how third party publishers have charged $60 for their month-old multiplats, while on the other hand, there are those who are trying to justify a touched-up GCN game being $60, when frankly, it probably should be a Virtual Console release.Nintendo probably could have sold the original WW for $10/15 on the eShop, yet are selling this as a brand new title, not unlike what EA did with Mass Effect 3, etc. I don't want to use the "hypocrisy" card, but I honestly do question the logic behind all of this. Seriously, what's the big difference between other publishers trying to get by with selling old games at full price and Nintendo trying to get by with selling a MUCH older game at the same price?

My opinion of the matter is that pretty much ALL of the suspects are/have been overpriced, including most HD multiplats, MH3U, and Wind Waker HD. Given that only a handful of Wii U games have been original, recently released titles, the idea of so many games having $60 price tags on them is ridiculous, in my opinion. I realize that I'm speaking mostly for myself here, but I'm calling it like I see it. For me, HD and some minor "refinements" alone aren't worth rebuying a game I've played and beaten many times before at a greater price than the original game itself. I've already played that "good game," and what I would be paying for in this case wouldn't be worth the equal or greater price tag the second time around.

According to your logic, selling Super Mario Bros. in HD would be reasonable at $60, seeing as how it's still a great game and all. Sorry, but that's just not a message I support and want to send to a company. And since it's painfully obvious that Nintendo didn't spend anywhere close to $20 million on this little project, I'm not even sure how or why you're supporting this idea so strongly yourself, with all due respect.

Excellent point.

That post almost compels me to dig up the threads talking about the prices of Deus Ex, Dark Siders 2, and Mass Effect 3 and see which posters had a beef with that, and are very happy about the pricing of Zelda WW.

Almost. :P

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

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).

thetravman

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="Madmangamer364"]

[QUOTE="bonesawisready5"]

I don't understand how a game can still be a blast and fun, offer tons of content and still be better than a lot of modern games yet its insulting to pay more than $30 for it? Why does a ten year period diminish its value if it is still really good? Where were you people when MH3U came out at $10 more than the 2009 Wii version? Sure it has new content but so does Wind Waker HD, it is stream lined and improved at its core overall as Nintendo has already revealed.

I just don't get it. A good game is worth a good amount of money.

SolidTy

You know what I don't get about all of this? We've seen Wii U owners/fans complain numerous times about how third party publishers have charged $60 for their month-old multiplats, while on the other hand, there are those who are trying to justify a touched-up GCN game being $60, when frankly, it probably should be a Virtual Console release.Nintendo probably could have sold the original WW for $10/15 on the eShop, yet are selling this as a brand new title, not unlike what EA did with Mass Effect 3, etc. I don't want to use the "hypocrisy" card, but I honestly do question the logic behind all of this. Seriously, what's the big difference between other publishers trying to get by with selling old games at full price and Nintendo trying to get by with selling a MUCH older game at the same price?

My opinion of the matter is that pretty much ALL of the suspects are/have been overpriced, including most HD multiplats, MH3U, and Wind Waker HD. Given that only a handful of Wii U games have been original, recently released titles, the idea of so many games having $60 price tags on them is ridiculous, in my opinion. I realize that I'm speaking mostly for myself here, but I'm calling it like I see it. For me, HD and some minor "refinements" alone aren't worth rebuying a game I've played and beaten many times before at a greater price than the original game itself. I've already played that "good game," and what I would be paying for in this case wouldn't be worth the equal or greater price tag the second time around.

According to your logic, selling Super Mario Bros. in HD would be reasonable at $60, seeing as how it's still a great game and all. Sorry, but that's just not a message I support and want to send to a company. And since it's painfully obvious that Nintendo didn't spend anywhere close to $20 million on this little project, I'm not even sure how or why you're supporting this idea so strongly yourself, with all due respect.

Excellent point.

That post almost compels me to dig up the threads talking about the prices of Deus Ex, Dark Siders 2, and Mass Effect 3 and see which posters had a beef with that, and are very happy about the pricing of Zelda WW.

Almost. :P

Why should they sell it as a cheap VC title when clearly they're making new assets based off old assets, changing files in the game to change core mechanics, etc. It's not like they're just slapping off TV play and telling the system to upscale everything to 720p. You guys act like you know all the complications and fine details of developing this remake, which BTW is serving as a test for them on their road to develop Wii U Zelda. I understand if you think Nintendo should spend less money on this remake and less man power and resources but the fact is it isn't as simple a job as you guys are saying.

And your argument about late third party ports doesn't work. People were upset that those games already had price drops on platforms they likely still had plugged into their own HDTVs whereas a lot of people missed out on Wind Waker ten years ago due to various reasons (turned off by art, low Cube sales, etc) and a good conditioned copy of Wind Waker on Cube costs almost as much as this Wii U re-release will cost without the great additions like speeding up navigation and improved visuals.

There is a difference between ME3 being on sale for $20 on PS3/360 and  released on Wii U without all the DLC for $60 and and full on remake of WW with new content, ten years later when used copies are $40ish.

[QUOTE="rockydog1111"]

My favorite Zelda game by far. Between this, Wonderful 101, MH3, DQX, and Pikmin 3, there may be enough for me to sink the money into buying me a Wii U.

On topic, it's the big N, they will charge full price for about 3 years then put it to $30.00. Kinda expensive for a remake, but the REmake was full price and so was Metal Gear Solid for the GC, so I can't complain about the price.

SolidTy

Those games you mentioned (MGS: TS and REmake) were actually remakes (remade with new graphics, new engines and many changes to AI, even paying for new voice acting), this game is a remaster (more in line with HD remastered games we've seen like Prince of Persia HD, Ratchet & Clank HD, Metal Gear HD collection, Splinter Cell HD, DMC HD, Jak & Daxter HD, or God of War HD collection) and Zelda WW has no voice acting to deal with (Nintendo was saving money even back then ;)).

It is true, they are adding some bloom and tweaking to WW, but you also aren't getting three games in this package. This is a remaster closer to remastered games than those full on Remakes you mentioned. I do agree though, they will charge full price. I remember seeing Mario Galaxy 1 on the shelf when Galaxy 2 released, and both were full retail price.

I posted this above, but here's information on the remastered Zelda WW game just in case you were under the impression this was a full on REMAKE. BTW: I could justify paying a bit more for a REMAKE when you are talking about REmake or MGS TS, because those changes and additions were comprehensive. Zelda WW though, is no remake, it's a remaster.

"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)"...

[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.

Wind Waker re-make shouldn't cost any more than $30.  

It's an 8 year old game with minor improvements...

Why should they sell it as a cheap VC title when clearly they're making new assets based off old assets, changing files in the game to change core mechanics, etc. It's not like they're just slapping off TV play and telling the system to upscale everything to 720p. You guys act like you know all the complications and fine details of developing this remake, which BTW is serving as a test for them on their road to develop Wii U Zelda. I understand if you think Nintendo should spend less money on this remake and less man power and resources but the fact is it isn't as simple a job as you guys are saying.

And your argument about late third party ports doesn't work. People were upset that those games already had price drops on platforms they likely still had plugged into their own HDTVs whereas a lot of people missed out on Wind Waker ten years ago due to various reasons (turned off by art, low Cube sales, etc) and a good conditioned copy of Wind Waker on Cube costs almost as much as this Wii U re-release will cost without the great additions like speeding up navigation and improved visuals.

There is a difference between ME3 being on sale for $20 on PS3/360 and  released on Wii U without all the DLC for $60 and and full on remake of WW with new content, ten years later when used copies are $40ish.

bonesawisready5

No, there's NO difference between a third party publisher porting a multi-month old game that originally $60 to the Wii U at the same price with a few controller-based differences and Nintendo making a few minor tweaks to a 10-year game and re-selling it at a $60 price tag. They're both subject to questions and criticism, and neither deserves to be treated in a better light than the other. Again, you're trying to justify Nintendo's actions by making it seem like this "remake" was some enormous task when everyone knows it wasn't. How you can try to defend Wind Waker's value with this "a good game is worth a good amount of money" argument, while saying anything against third party games and publishers who are basically going by the same questionable philosophy is beyond me in this instance.

To get back to your first point, Nintendo SHOULDN'T have to sell WW as a VC game... if the company's attention is to make money and knows that there will be people lining up to buy the game, regardless of the price. However, such an action goes against the whole "we want people to experience the game" point that Nintendo and defenders of this re-release are trying to convince people of, since selling WW at a $60 price tag, as opposed to a $15 one doesn't seem very inclusive at all to newcomers. And under that same token, if Nintendo can get away with it, why can't third party publishers use that same point when talking about their games, not knowing if Wii U owners have had a chance to play their titles or not?

As a consumer, it's not my fault or problem if Nintendo has had to go through some struggles to make WWHD a reality. All I know is that as an owner of the original game and in an age where most HD re-releases are selling at a sub-$60 price tag on a regular basis, nothing about WWHD suggests that it's worth the cost of a fully-priced new game. We can agree to disagree on the matter, but please, let's not try this look like some noble act on Nintendo's behalf, shall we? I wonder if this "remake" would even exist if the Wii U wasn't in the shape it was in and Nintendo needing something of note to create some kind of software momentum as the year closes...

[QUOTE="sonic_spark"]

[QUOTE="AzatiS"] 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 ...meetroid8

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.

And your argument about late third party ports doesn't work. People were upset that those games already had price drops on platforms they likely still had plugged into their own HDTVs whereas a lot of people missed out on Wind Waker ten years ago due to various reasons (turned off by art, low Cube sales, etc) and a good conditioned copy of Wind Waker on Cube costs almost as much as this Wii U re-release will cost without the great additions like speeding up navigation and improved visuals.

bonesawisready5

I'm almost sure they said they would add more dungeons.Rod90