Nintendo (NCL) wants to avoid devaluing indie games, sees them the same as AAA, wants both on Switch

[HotHamBoy]

I think someone from Nintendo said this a while back. That's why indie games fill the perceived "gaps" between big games. There's no distinction for Nintendo and every week there seems to be a good game on the Switch.

Click to shrink...

This is why it pisses me off when people bitch about Switch's current release schedule.

First of all, the launch year was an insane anomaly. You're all spoiled, your expectations are unrealistic.

Second, why do people feel they need a new, big AAA $60 game every month or a system is trash? There's so many great indies releasing on Switch all the time, more than enough to have at least one new, great game every week. And for a fraction of the cost you get a game that's often just as fun.

Some of my most anticipated games this year are indies. That's where most of the clever, interesting, inventive, risky stuff is.

Also, people don't give indies the credit they deserve. These people give up their lives and work their asses off for what usually ends up being very little return. Many are lucky just to make enough money to keep making games. There's something to be said about a small group of people making a passion project and a shared vision come to reality vs a 100-300 person media factory churning out corporate-mandated commercial products for mass consumption.

 

[Jedeye Sniv]

Second, why do people feel they need a new, big AAA $60 game every month or a system is trash?

Click to shrink...

It's not like this is exclusive to Switch, the X1 struggled hard due to a lack of big games. Even early PS4 was a bit bare.

I agree that indies are great but you need those big tentpole games to bring in casuals and newbies.

 

[LightEntite]

1) advertising and making games know have totally no links, devaluation only talks about monetary values of things, there are many ways to make games know without almost giving them.

2) the selling Price of a game is the price the dev sells them, he is the best to decide how much to sell them, because he is in the known of the price enabling him to be Well paid for his work, time spent, employees and that's even more important for small companies

3) haha sure Nintendo is brainwashing me. For information i'm a dev myself, my wife is a sewstress, and have many graphists friends so i directly feels the results of devaluation on few domains, that can be clients not willing to pay for clothes because in supermarket it's less expensive, or graphism/dev market completly screwed by devaluation because some are making illustration free or cheap, why would i pay more for seemingly semblable things?

In my opinion if a game was good and is not outdated now, who am i to decide that the company bringing it to me don't deserve money for that? Every thing has value, and i'm willing to pay for that, and even if i don't see the value, then fine, it's not for me but i won't blame anyone for being interested.

Click to shrink...

Transistor is currently $19.99 on PSN. I obtained the game through PS+ one month when it was free. I would not have bought Transistor at $20, my initial interest wasn't big enough and my backlog already too large. Without PS+, I likely never would have played Transistor.

I will recommend Transistor to anyone who hasn't played the game. But Transistor is currently not free on PS+, it might not ever be again.

To anyone I recommend Transistor to, i would direct them to PSN, where the game is currently $19.99.

I win for getting to enjoy Transistor. Sony wins because experiences like those provide value to my PS+ subscription, which is why I keep it going. The Transistor dev wins for gaining awareness, and most likely a good deal from Sony for allowing the free month, plus future sells from people who played their game who might not otherwise have known about them.

3) haha sure Nintendo is brainwashing me. For information i'm a dev myself, my wife is a sewstress, and have many graphists friends so i directly feels the results of devaluation on few domains, that can be clients not willing to pay for clothes because in supermarket it's less expensive, or graphism/dev market completly screwed by devaluation because some are making illustration free or cheap, why would i pay more for seemingly semblable things?

Click to shrink...

What you're describing is something more like devaluation through saturation, which is similar to the issue that PSN has over Nintendo Eshop, but not fundamentally due to the fact that PSN has a subscription service for temporarily granting free games.

PSN does not make game cheap, it gives you a chance to obtain them as long as you're subscribed. This doesn't cheapen them because it doesn't lower their base cost, and it doesn't necessarily provide a strategy for bypassing the cost of a game you want to play because there's no guarantee that it's going to end up on rotation. And to anyone who would rather just "wait for it to be free", they probably wasn't going to ever buy the game to begin with.

These situations aren't really comparable, competitive pricing and PS+ are not the same thing and i'm not sure why you're mixing the two

 

[Soap]

Nintendo may view these as equals, but here's the thing... Indie games that have been out for several years are now releasing on Switch, and most of those games have been deeply discounted on steam and elsewhere. Even there non indie games have this issue. Why in the world is bayonetta 1 £24.99 on switch and £14.99 on steam? Craziness.

 

[Amiibola]

This thread is proof of two things

1. Nintendo has the correct approach imho. Games are games, no matter where they come or how high its budget is
2. The sale culture is actually very toxic.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Nintendo may view these as equals, but here's the thing... Indie games that have been out for several years are now releasing on Switch, and most of those games have been deeply discounted on steam and elsewhere. Even there non indie games have this issue. Why in the world is bayonetta 1 £24.99 on switch and £14.99 on steam? Craziness.

Click to shrink...

Because not everyone games on PC or has one capable?

The other thing is these games will go on sale.

 

[LightEntite]

Nintendo may view these as equals, but here's the thing... Indie games that have been out for several years are now releasing on Switch, and most of those games have been deeply discounted on steam and elsewhere. Even there non indie games have this issue. Why in the world is bayonetta 1 £24.99 on switch and £14.99 on steam? Craziness.

Click to shrink...

because you get the chance to enjoy it on the revolutionary Nintendo Switch ofc

 

[Yukinari]

I think their perceived value of indie games is also why they decided to give out VC titles for Nintendo Online.

For 20 bucks a year im not gonna expect PS+ or Xbox Gold Rewards tier games.

 

[HotHamBoy]

It's not like this is exclusive to Switch, the X1 struggled hard due to a lack of big games. Even early PS4 was a bit bare.

I agree that indies are great but you need those big tentpole games to bring in casuals and newbies.

Click to shrink...

But Switch has those, already.

BoTW and Odyssey are both massive, they were supported by quality titles like Splatoon 2, ARMS, Xenoblade Chronicles 2 and Mario x Rabbids.

The system hasn't even been out for a year.

Compare that to PS4 and XB1's first year.

It's unreasonable to expect them to deliver content on that level all year, every year.

Nintendo may view these as equals, but here's the thing... Indie games that have been out for several years are now releasing on Switch, and most of those games have been deeply discounted on steam and elsewhere. Even there non indie games have this issue. Why in the world is bayonetta 1 £24.99 on switch and £14.99 on steam? Craziness.

Click to shrink...

They are also releasing brand new indies on the same day as other platforms on a regular basis, including the occasional exclusive like the brilliant Golf Story.

While it does seem a slight to have to pay new prices for the older indie games, consider that a lot of them have additional content including along with Switch-exclusive features (usually in the form of new multiplayer modes).

Games aren't cheap to port and people gotta eat. The alternative is to just not port the games to the sysyem at all.

 

[Soap]

Because not everyone games on PC or has one capable?

The other thing is these games will go on sale.

Click to shrink...

That arguement is kind of weird to me. You should not be punished with higher prices for buying a certain machine. Even Switch owners acknowledged this with the Rime pricing fiasco.

I mean, sure, if people value portability then I can see why people would be willing to pay the higher price (and that's fine since how other people choose to spend their money is not my business), but for me it just seems a bit cheeky.

 

[HotHamBoy]

That arguement is kind of weird to me. You should not be punished with higher prices for buying a certain machine. Even Switch owners acknowledged this with the Rime pricing fiasco.

I mean, sure, if people value portability then I can see why people would be willing to pay the higher price (and that's fine since how other people choose to spend their money is not my business), but for me it just seems a bit cheeky.

Click to shrink...

Switch tax is a thing that is determined by third party publishers, not Nintendo. They are taking advantage of the fact that there's a big hungry audience with a lot less content to choose from compared to other platforms that have been around for years.

I have a PS4 and a Vita. If I would rather buy a game there I will. But a lot of Switch owners don't have other consoles and don't intend to any time soon.

As a side note, I'm starting to think all these deep-discount sales on other digital store platforms is actually harming games in the long run. They've been seriously devalued.

It's crazy playing the SNES Classic Mini and thinking about how insane it would be if most, if not all, of those games launched at $65-85 in early 90s money today.

 

[Yep]

Transistor is currently $19.99 on PSN. I obtained the game through PS+ one month when it was free. I would not have bought Transistor at $20, my initial interest wasn't big enough and my backlog already too large. Without PS+, I likely never would have played Transistor.

I will recommend Transistor to anyone who hasn't played the game. But Transistor is currently not free on PS+, it might not ever be again.

To anyone I recommend Transistor to, i would direct them to PSN, where the game is currently $19.99.



What you're describing is something more like devaluation through saturation, which is similar to the issue that PSN has over Nintendo Eshop, but not fundamentally due to the fact that PSN has a subscription service for temporarily granting free games.

PSN does not make game cheap, it gives you a chance to obtain them as long as you're subscribed. This doesn't cheapen them because it doesn't lower their base cost, and it doesn't necessarily provide a strategy for bypassing the cost of a game you want to play because there's no guarantee that it's going to end up on rotation.

These situations aren't really comparable, competitive pricing and PS+ are not the same thing and i'm not sure why you're mixing the two

Click to shrink...

And like i told you, there are other way to advertise than giving quasi-free copies to millions of consumers, it stays a way that hurts the industry as whole, because, like wishlist on Steam, many users just wait the game to be on PS+/Steam sales to play games, resulting less revenues to the devs for the same quantity, and almost pushing them to make huge sales, or trying to be gift with PS+ to try to sell huge quantity at low cost than good quantity at fine cost.
And i can't honestly think that a system which push creators to sell more for cheaper is in any way sane.
Of the ways to advert, increasing visibility could be one, as current store, when you're going they aren't pushing you to look for new things, it throw you big ads and AAA's to the face.
Most popular sections are a good way too (lack this and notation system in the eshop)

What i'm describing is not devaluation through saturation, to come back through my examples, the problem is not there are too much of dev/graphists the problem is that a lot of these accepts to make an equivalent job cheaper, and by that fact they become most popular, inducing that to stay competitive, the rest of the market have to lower their price (the only way to stay at an acceptable price is to sell himself well enough to justify the higher price) and starting from that it escalate, because some continue to sell themselves lower, of course for them it's a success, they can sell them a lot, but it doesn't change the fact that for millions others they are forced to lower their prices to still be interresting.
So no, it's not a problem of quantity, it's a problem of trying to demark itself from the lot by lowering the price.

 

[TechnicPuppet]

The debate about Indies bring devalued by PS+, GWG, Humble Bundles etc is interesting. I wonder what effect gamepass will have where even the biggest exclusives are 'free' on day 1 with the service.

 

[HotHamBoy]

And like i told you, there are other way to advertise than giving quasi-free copies to millions of consumers, it stays a way that hurts the industry as whole, because, like wishlist on Steam, many users just wait the game to be on PS+/Steam sales to play games, resulting less revenues to the devs for the same quantity, and almost pushing them to make huge sales, or trying to be gift with PS+ to try to sell huge quantity at low cost than good quantity at fine cost.
And i can't honestly think that a system which push creators to sell more for cheaper is in any way sane.
Of the ways to advert, increasing visibility could be one, as current store, when you're going they aren't pushing you to look for new things, it throw you big ads and AAA's to the face.
Most popular sections are a good way too (lack this and notation system in the eshop)

What i'm describing is not devaluation through saturation, to come back through my examples, the problem is not there are too much of dev/graphists the problem is that a lot of these accepts to make an equivalent job cheaper, and by that fact they become most popular, inducing that to stay competitive, the rest of the market have to lower their price (the only way to stay at an acceptable price is to sell himself well enough to justify the higher price) and starting from that it escalate, because some continue to sell themselves lower, of course for them it's a success, they can sell them a lot, but it doesn't change the fact that for millions others they are forced to lower their prices to still be interresting.
So no, it's not a problem of quantity, it's a problem of trying to demark itself from the lot by lowering the price.

Click to shrink...

But Rocket League is 100% the phenomenon it is today because of PS+ and cross-play with PC.

The day it came out millions played it who would have completely ignored it and the online playerbase was massive from Day 1. From there word of mouth from millions continued to drive sales.

Right now as I type this Rocket League is currently the #2 best selling game on Switch eShop.

 

[Beje]

I think their perceived value of indie games is also why they decided to give out VC titles for Nintendo Online.

For 20 bucks a year im not gonna expect PS+ or Xbox Gold Rewards tier games.

Click to shrink...

I wouldn't be surprised if, analysing the sales of the VC games during the last years, they realised nostalgia no longer justifies asking for such high prices for essentially throwing an old ROM into a barebones emulator when the same price tag on an indie game can give you much MUCH more value for your money. The other way around might be that they didn't want to devalue indie games for uninformed people that might think that, if they're as cheap as a 20 years old games, they might not even be good.

In any case, the good old VC is gone. They can no longer (and in good conscience) keep on selling SNES games for 8€ a pop when an SNES mini comes with 20 games for 80€ with all the emulation features that the VC never ever had, plus all the hardware involved. It would be idiotic and shortsighted.

 

[HotHamBoy]

I wouldn't be surprised if, analysing the sales of the VC games during the last years, they realised nostalgia no longer justifies asking for such high prices for essentially throwing an old ROM into a barebones emulator when the same price tag on an indie game can give you much MUCH more value for your money. The other way around might be that they didn't want to devalue indie games for uninformed people that might think that, if they're as cheap as a 20 years old games, they might not even be good.

In any case, the good old VC is gone. They can no longer (and in good conscience) keep on selling SNES games for 8€ a pop when an SNES mini comes with 20 games for 80€ with all the emulation features that the VC never ever had, plus all the hardware involved. It would be idiotic and shortsighted.

Click to shrink...

Wii VC was a huge novelty. By Wii U it was really just there to fill in release gaps. Other platforms didn't have anything called something cute like "Virtual Console" but PS3, 360 and Steam got plenty of retro ports over last gen and a lot of them went beyond dropping a rom in an emulator.

I don't think they see much value in it now beyond a supplement to the online program. Look at the dire line up of SNES VC on N3DS. They barely tried.

 

[Yep]

But Rocket League is 100% the phenomenon it is today because of PS+ and cross-play with PC.

The day it came out millions played it who would have completely ignored it and the online playerbase was massive from Day 1. From there word of mouth from millions continued to drive sales.

Click to shrink...

Sure, Rocket League is one exemple, there are always success stories, which are the exceptions.
I think the market is more sane if even where there is success story (there will always be) the averages won't have to make too much sacrifices too.
And for exemple for Rocket League i think if instead of free games, the PS+ had offered you a big demi, the success would still have been the same, the visibility made it that big, free games are increased visibility true, but that's not the only way to increase visibility (but i agree it's one of the most effective, but at which cost)

The debate about Indies bring devalued by PS+, GWG, Humble Bundles etc is interesting. I wonder what effect gamepass will have where even the biggest exclusives are 'free' on day 1 with the service.

Click to shrink...

I don't know about the game pass, i'm not really confident (even if for the consumer i find it a great offer, i fear for the small devs) but i really only hope that Nintendo future (rumored) subscription service won't be a free for all shop, that the products value will still be there, with the feeling of buying a product, not just picking flowers (dunno maybe the subscription could give you credits every month usable on the VC, but that's my hopes)

 

[Deleted member 8593]

Not that Nintendo doesn't have any ulterior motives here but "indie" has completely lost its original meaning. Too many people use it with a negative connotation to its scope and/or quality and thus perceived value. Just look at how people reacted to the price announcement of The Witness for example. Whereas I'd argue that it mops the floor with many fullpriced retail releases. Funnily enough, Path of Exile and Warframe, which have a staggering amount of quality content are technically also indie. It's stupid.

Similarly, the term AAA is also completely arbitrary. Ubisoft classifies games with a budget of $100m or higher as AAA. By that metric, only Breath of the Wild might quality.

So yeah, Nintendo's motives are most likely not pure here but they absolutely do have a point.

 

[Yep]

So yeah, Nintendo's motives are most likely not pure here but they absolutely do have a point.

Click to shrink...

True, when you have evergreen all around the belt, not wanting devaluation as the norm is for their game mainly

 

[Niceguydan8]

But Rocket League is 100% the phenomenon it is today because of PS+ and cross-play with PC.

The day it came out millions played it who would have completely ignored it and the online playerbase was massive from Day 1. From there word of mouth from millions continued to drive sales.

Right now as I type this Rocket League is currently the #2 best selling game on Switch eShop.

Click to shrink...

The problem with this sort of thing is that there's no way to actually quantify what you are saying. Its all speculation on your end. You are saying that RL got big because of PS+, but where is the information that suggests that it wouldn't have happened if it launched like any other indie?

 

[LewieP]

I'd love to see Nintendo themselves making more indie scale/experimental games. They've dabbled in that space over the years (often on their handhelds), but the Switch would be a great platform for that sort of thing.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

That arguement is kind of weird to me. You should not be punished with higher prices for buying a certain machine.

Click to shrink...

Console gaming has always been more expensive game by game than PC. Especially with the advent of Steam.

I mean, sure, if people value portability then I can see why people would be willing to pay the higher price (and that's fine since how other people choose to spend their money is not my business), but for me it just seems a bit cheeky.

Click to shrink...

Wasn't really the point. Like every game in existance these games will get reduced in price. But just comparing PC to Switch, yeah PC games are going to be cheaper.

 

[kvetcha]

The problem with this sort of thing is that there's no way to actually quantify what you are saying. Its all speculation on your end. You are saying that RL got big because of PS+, but where is the information that suggests that it wouldn't have happened if it launched like any other indie?

Click to shrink...

PS+ certainly kickstarted the game's console visibility, but it had already had a successful PC launch, and I think given the ubiquity of Twitch, etc it would have eventually become A Thing on its own regardless.

 

[The Great Khali]

I'd love to see Nintendo themselves making more indie scale/experimental games. They've dabbled in that space over the years (often on their handhelds), but the Switch would be a great platform for that sort of thing.

Click to shrink...

I wish buy they won't even offer different price tiers.

I would have bought Kirby, but not at full price.

Kirby is around £40 here in the UK. I can get Shadow of Collosus for about £20. If I was going to buy something for £40ish I rather get something like Zelda or Monster Hunter and that price, not Kirby.

 

[The Great Khali]

Nintendo may view these as equals, but here's the thing... Indie games that have been out for several years are now releasing on Switch, and most of those games have been deeply discounted on steam and elsewhere. Even there non indie games have this issue. Why in the world is bayonetta 1 £24.99 on switch and £14.99 on steam? Craziness.

Click to shrink...

That's a weird assumption. Do you expect Switch to match prices from consoles that already had those games released. The Switch is a new market for these publishers and they can price the game based on that market. If publishers were restricted to pricing these games and the dirt cheap prices of steam would they even have an incentive to even port the games to Switch. If you are unhappy about the price then you can still buy on PSN and Steam.

 

[Beje]

I wish buy they won't even offer different price tiers.

I would have bought Kirby, but not at full price.

Kirby is around £40 here in the UK. I can get Shadow of Collosus for about £20. If I was going to buy something for £40ish I rather get something like Zelda or Monster Hunter and that price, not Kirby.

Click to shrink...

That's also true. Nintendo is too happily throwing console price tags (~50-60€) on Switch games that would have previously been released on portables for 35-45€ and Kirby is the first glaring example. I fear that they will end up killing the middle tier of pricing if they keep with this pace. Some games did really well on Wii and Wii U precisely because they weren't afraid to launch them at price points that were typical of handheld games, and they risk alienating the audience coming from portables that expect lower price points for new releases.

 

[mrfusticle]

The sale culture is actually very toxic.

Click to shrink...

Agreed.. It's a straight line from "F2P" mobile and "free" media on Google Youtube etc imo .. Kids today grumble *shouts at cloud*

 

[The Great Khali]

That's also true. Nintendo is too happily throwing console price tags (~50-60€) on Switch games that would have previously been released on portables for 35-45€ and Kirby is the first glaring example. I fear that they will end up killing the middle tier of pricing if they keep with this pace. Some games did really well on Wii and Wii U precisely because they weren't afraid to launch them at price points that were typical of handheld games, and they risk alienating the audience coming from portables that expect lower price points for new releases.

Click to shrink...

I think this is something that they will learn or fix itself. I can already see Fire Emblem Warriors being sold for much less than what it was launched at. Hopefully Nintendo realises sooner so they can have a good launch from the get go. Shadow of Collosus, Crash Bandicoot and Ratchet are great examples of launching at budget prices and doing well commercially.

 

[Deleted member 2254]

I think it's a mixed bag regarding indies. For clarity, I'm a huge indie fan, and some of my most played games of the decade are, by all means, indies. Minecraft, Rocket League, etc.. Microsoft started the generation correctly with indies: ID@Xbox gave indies AAA-like experience, exposure. Indies weren't relegated to secondary pages anymore, they'd be right there, rocking the scene inbetween Call Of Duty and FIFA. With no restrictions on online, leaderboards, full access to achievements (same score as the triple-A titles), they basically guaranteed that, theoretically, anything can become a hit. ID@Xbox is often barely considered when talking indies, but it's a fascinating program that is truly helping indies delivering indies that can, by all means, compete with the big guns.

The downside of this (and this is where Switch also comes in) is that the barrier between games is starting to disappear. This isn't an issue per se, but when everything is categorized generically as "game" and not "indie" "triple-A" "tech demo", etc., a hypothetical "Call Of Duality"-named indie would rock inbetween your Call Of Duty games, without much you could do about it. Maybe it's just a cheap asset flip knock-off, but it's there, unless you hide it or delete it it'll be right there, without anything telling you it's, in fact, a quick indie made in 5 minutes. In turn, this also kinda devalued achievements: why bother spending 50 hours grinding on the latest RPG when you could knock off an indie game that gives you 1000G in 30 minutes?

Valuing indies is the right call. Games like Minecraft, Limbo, Rocket League, PUBG, etc. show that you don't need a crazy budget or a massive publisher behind you to make something unique that millions of people want. You also have to be careful not to open the floodgates to a billion shovelware titles that risk taking away visibility from worthwile titles, risking to give you a bad impression. Imagine opening up the store, only to see the last 30 games released contain maybe 1 or 2 titles that don't look cheap mobile ports. A line has to be drawn, and I'd still make a point in trying to distinguish things while still giving huge visibility to indies as well.

 

[HotHamBoy]

PS+ certainly kickstarted the game's console visibility, but it had already had a successful PC launch, and I think given the ubiquity of Twitch, etc it would have eventually become A Thing on its own regardless.

Click to shrink...

It launched the same day on PC and PS4.

The problem with this sort of thing is that there's no way to actually quantify what you are saying. Its all speculation on your end. You are saying that RL got big because of PS+, but where is the information that suggests that it wouldn't have happened if it launched like any other indie?

Click to shrink...

Scroll down to "Calculated"

Btw, it's really fucking stupid to see PC, Switch and XB1 having a grand ol time together while PS4 sits off in a corner. It can already play with PC, just unite the entire playerbase, god damn it! (Blaming Sony here)

I already have RL on PS4 and that's where all my friends play, they don't have a Switch. I considered double dipping for Switch RL but I'd have no friends to play with. Really annoying.

 

[Niceguydan8]

It launched the same day on PC and PS4.



Scroll down to "Calculated"

Click to shrink...

Thats not a useful response to what I said because theres no alternative scenario where Rocket League launched on PS4 without the free promotion.

It's still speculation. There's really nothing wrong with speculation, but it's not useful when things like causality are being discussed, especially when there are huge holes elsewhere (not having any alternative scenario to compare to)

 

[HotHamBoy]

Thats not a useful response to what I said because theres no alternative scenario where Rocket League launched on PS4 without the free promotion.

It's still speculation. There's really nothing wrong with speculation, but it's not useful when things like causality are being discussed, especially when there are huge holes elsewhere (not having any alternative scenario to compare to)

Click to shrink...

I get what you are saying but this entire forum is just armchair speculation.

 

[Yukinari]

That's also true. Nintendo is too happily throwing console price tags (~50-60€) on Switch games that would have previously been released on portables for 35-45€ and Kirby is the first glaring example. I fear that they will end up killing the middle tier of pricing if they keep with this pace. Some games did really well on Wii and Wii U precisely because they weren't afraid to launch them at price points that were typical of handheld games, and they risk alienating the audience coming from portables that expect lower price points for new releases.

Click to shrink...

Kirby definitely should cost 50 bucks considering Woolly World and Tropical Freeze were also that price. Meanwhile the TF port to Switch is now 60.

 

[Deleted member 5621]

Hopefully they'll keep that stance during the late stages of the console life, unlike the other companies.

 

[senj]

I agree with that Nintendo isnt exactly playing catch up here, but to call it "free trash" just because its "free" (you pay for the subscription) is also counter productive in my opinion. I get the notion, but calling it "free trash" maintains the idea that the games are shit simply because they are "free".

Its also the developers themself who want to be a part of these things. They get payed to be a part of the monthly "free" games on PS+ and Xbox Live Gold. Its the same thing with Humble Bundle and Steam sales, its the developers themself who participate in those things.

Click to shrink...

To be clear (since it seems like there's some misunderstanding here?) I don't think they're trash -- I'm describing the attitude you commonly see directed at indie games in eg) Monthly PS Plus threads when people find out the games of the month aren't all AAA titles. A large large large number of people perceive these games as having essentially no value.

And yes, the devs themselves agree to participate. It's usually actually a really good deal for them! But that doesn't contradict my point -- I think it's both the case that in the short term it's a great deal for your team and game specifically to be featured on PS Plus, AND in the long term the perception of indie games as "those non-AAAs I get for free" erodes the perception of the dollar value of indie games in a lot of consumers' minds.

 

[test_account]

To be clear (since it seems like there's some misunderstanding here?) I don't think they're trash -- I'm describing the attitude you commonly see directed at indie games in eg) Monthly PS Plus threads when people find out the games of the month aren't all AAA titles. A large large large number of people perceive these games as having essentially no value.

And yes, the devs themselves agree to participate. It's usually actually a really good deal for them! But that doesn't contradict my point -- I think it's both the case that in the short term it's a great deal for your team and game specifically to be featured on PS Plus, AND in the long term the perception of indie games as "those non-AAAs I get for free" erodes the perception of the dollar value of indie games in a lot of consumers' minds.

Click to shrink...

Ah ok, i understand. I was reading more what you said as a way to keep using the label "free trash" for those type of games, but i see now that you're not calling them that yourself. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

I agree that there are some truth to what you say. If games get too cheap, its easier to "throw them away" if they arent that entertaining. But i dont think this has much to do with Sony in specific as you mentioned earlier. Its more of a industry trending thing overall. The developers doesnt need something like PS+ or Game with Gold to do something like this afterall. Theres often sales where the developers themself decide the price. If many developers/publishers wants to have big sales on Nintendo platforms more regulary, i dont think Nintendo will stop them (or who knows?). Theres also so much competition right now, so if they keep having the same prices, that will limit the potential consumer base. Its easier to take a chance on a game that cost e.g $10 rather than e.g $25.

 

[Yasumi]

So this is why eShop sales are so awful.

 

[Jpop]

So this is why eShop sales are so awful.

Click to shrink...

Prices and sales are set by publishers and devs. So what is your point?

 

[Yasumi]

Prices and sales are set by publishers and devs. So what is your point?

Click to shrink...

The devaluation talk certainly makes it seem like there's an upper percentage limit.

 

[Oregano]

The devaluation talk certainly makes it seem like there's an upper percentage limit.

Click to shrink...

Oxenfree has just been 75% off so there's definitely room for big reduction if publishers see fit.

 

[Jpop]

The devaluation talk certainly makes it seem like there's an upper percentage limit.

Click to shrink...

So you are trying to make a point based on your assumptions that aren't grounded on any fact?

 

[Yasumi]

So you are trying to make a point based on your assumptions that aren't grounded on any fact?

Click to shrink...

Based on Nintendo's previous price practices, this article mentioning that Nintendo wants to prevent indie devaluation, and years of sales on Nintendo platforms being lackluster compared to any other platform?

Sure, no facts. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[legend166]

Steam conditioned people to wait for minimum 75% off sales before buying these games. It was fantastic as a consumer because every Christmas you get basically get the best 10 indie games released that year for a combined $50. And people did it because the incentive to jump in at launch to ride the hype wave isn't there with indie titles like it is with bug budget releases.

Then Humble Bundles came along and made indie games have even less value because you could get like 7-8 games for $10.

Of course there's success stories in all this - games that managed to reach critical mass with sales prices that would fuel increased sales titles. And initially we got lots of stories from Valve and publishers about how this deep discount strategy was working and revenue was increasing. Then that all dried up along with the deep discounts on Steam, which makes me think consumers became conditioned to essentially not buy anything outside of the major Steam sales.

So as I said, it was amazing as a consumer but I also don't think it was sustainable for developers. As much as it sucks, it's hard to argue with Nintendo's strategy seeing their basically the only publisher who has managed to consistently release games with large tails (excluding GaaS).

 

[Jpop]

Based on Nintendo's previous price practices, this article mentioning that Nintendo wants to prevent indie devaluation, and years of sales on Nintendo platforms being lackluster compared to any other platform?

Sure, no facts. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Click to shrink...

Did you even read the article?

This about NCL and indies in Japan.

They don't want to build a perception that indies are lesser titles.

Again publishers/developers control pricing whether that is MSRP or Sales. That is a fact.

Again you are making assumptions and trying to use them as fact.

 

[DuperGoon]

There is two different things, PS+ in a way pay well the developpers, there is no problem with that, if your game is successful via this way, then you're gonna get well paid.
But the thing is, it really devalues games to the consumers, which feels that these games are free, or not expensive, so they won't want to pay for these at their real price, and that's totally devaluating.

Click to shrink...

Well, in the end no one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to put your games on PlayStation Plus. Lots of actual publishers and developers have stated it helped them and people here are pretending like there isn't a choice.

 

[scourge_of_tirany]

thanks nintendo,i will buy these indies cheaper on other systems

 

[TheMisterManGuy]

thanks nintendo,i will buy these indies cheaper on other systems

Click to shrink...

How many times does it need to be said that publishers set their own prices on Switch games?

 

[Yep]

Well, in the end no one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to put your games on PlayStation Plus. Lots of actual publishers and developers have stated it helped them and people here are pretending like there isn't a choice.

Click to shrink...

The problem is that even if you're not forced to put your game in ps+ the general value of indies to mass market is diminushing, and when users sees an indie which looks fine, without incentives like the fact it's the game to play fast for reasons, they just wait and see when it comes with ps+ (same with Steam sales) so the gun is not here, but all is made to push dev to do that (which is a normal thing for Sony and good for them)

 

[scourge_of_tirany]

How many times does it need to be said that publishers set their own prices on Switch games?

Click to shrink...

that changes nothing,disparity in prices is a thing,and the sales on the nintendo store are abysmal

 

[LegendofLex]

Second, why do people feel they need a new, big AAA $60 game every month or a system is trash? There's so many great indies releasing on Switch all the time, more than enough to have at least one new, great game every week. And for a fraction of the cost you get a game that's often just as fun.

Click to shrink...

I think it's worth questioning whether Switch can achieve the growth it needs to continue as a flourishing platform without a slate of big system-seller caliber releases (at least in the first half of 2018) that comes anywhere close to matching the successful slate they had in 2017.

But, at the same time, it's painfully obvious that those 2017 system sellers are still selling systems, and so even the relatively more lightweight games on the docket for 2018 so far don't have to do all the work.