Nintendo refuses to compete with $1 titles

By Fred Dutton Published 21 March, 2011

Immersive games impossible at that price.

Nintendo is not concerned by competition from cheap $1 smartphone games and has no plans to lower its software prices accordingly, so says the creator of the 3DS.

Hideki Konno explained to Gamasutra that rather than lower standards to allow it to sell games for less, Nintendo planned to pour more resources into making sure its titles competed at a quality level, rather than on price.

"We're not going to try to match that," he insisted, addressing the issue of rock-bottom priced smartphone titles.

"We're just going to continually strive to not just maintain, but increase, the quality of the entertainment that we're providing, and let it sort itself out. Again, we're not worried about competing at a price point level.

Konno then speculated that Microsoft and Sony held exactly the same opinion on the issue, adding that it wasn't possible to make an immersive, content-rich title for such a low price.

"Now of course as a customer, if somebody said to me, 'Hey, we've got Call of Duty on your portable device and it's only going to cost you 100 yen,' yeah, I'd be super stoked, really excited about that," he said.

"And I'd be really excited to see a great game at a really cheap price, but I just don't think that you could make a game that's immersive and as big as, let's say Call of Duty, or any other large title, and sell it at that price point; it's just not possible.

"The only way that you're going to get a game at that price point is if it's a limited version with limited levels or something. They're going to have to reduce it to sell at that price. So that other game - because the content is valuable - it's still going to be a viable product at a higher price point.

"If we went out and created one of our titles - a big title for Nintendo - and we decided to sell it at, like, say 100 yen," he continued, "how many do we have to sell to get back our investment? That number's insane. It's just incredible, right?

What's more, Konno argued, gamers don't mind paying extra if they know they're getting a quality product.

"As a game developer I've put my heart into what I create, and I'm hoping that what I'm putting out there is something that people will be engaged by and entertained by. And as a consumer, I want the same thing. If I go and I see a game that interests me and I think I want to play it, I don't mind the fact that I have to pay a reasonable price for it.

"I'm not trying to say that I think games on cell phones are a bad thing; I'm not trying to say that they're worthless, or have no value at all. I'm just saying that they're just different."

The 3DS launches this Friday, with full retail games currently priced at around £30. The eShop, which will offer cheaper downloadable titles, will be added in via a system update later this year.

Picture of Fred.

About Fred Dutton

Fred Dutton is Eurogamer's US news editor, based in Washington DC.

Read more articles from Fred by visiting the Fred Dutton archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (52) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Collymilad #1 1 year ago

    Absolutely right.

    You get throwaway shite for $1 and everyone knows it. Yeah it's good for the bus, but nothing else.

  • dirtysteve #2 1 year ago

    Isn't this the same story we had last week? or is it just someone else from Nintendo toeing the party line? We get it Nintendo, you don't want indie games, just stop being so snarky about it.

  • Eraysor #3 1 year ago

    I don't think he understands the point of super-cheap games at all. The whole idea is you can take single gameplay concepts that might not work for a full title, but are a great way to pass time on the commute/john. Then there's the odd game like Game Dev Story that consumes free time like a black hole does matter.

    I mean, an innovative company such as Nintendo doesn't incorporate every single idea it has into games it produces. I think he fails to see the potential that components of larger games that wind up on the cutting room floor could have were they released for a low price on a portable system. With DSiWare and online store built into the 3DS, it wouldn't be difficult to implement either.

  • ryandsimmons #4 1 year ago

    What about a middle ground? £20 games for instance?

    £40 RRP for 3DS games is ridiculous.

  • BigJonno #5 1 year ago

    Either he's intentionally setting up a straw man, or he's really, really thick. No-one is making comparisons between 59p mobile games and £30 handheld games. However comparisons between £10 mobile games and £30 handheld games are quite another matter.

  • M4RV #6 1 year ago

    Fear... This guy reeks of it.

    /evil disfigured orc

  • Hunam #7 1 year ago

    Sounds like the 3DS app store is going to be a riot :|

  • the_dudefather #8 1 year ago

    the great thing about $1 titles is that they can do one thing really really well and not have to worry about heaping unnessecary content to make it worth 30-30 quid, all you want is a game to play when waiting for a bus, and that's what you get

  • Paulie_P #9 1 year ago

    I think its wrong to simply dismiss them at the same time. What would be the problem giving the option to the customer if they can't compete with Nintendo's full-blown games? Surely the Iphone proves there is a market out there for them.

  • kar #10 1 year ago

    "As big as call of duty" haha, that's a pretty low bar to set if we're talking length of experience!

  • kirankara #11 1 year ago

    I'm in agreement with him, any games on my iPhone are simply not touched anymore. They're simplistic and fun for a while, but there's no depth to them at all.
    The "playstation " phone is closest I've seen to a real mobile gaming device I'd want to touch cause if controls on it, but even then I'd rather have a ngp and pay more for games.
    iPhone games whether 59p or 10 pound are not as detailed or as in depth as other mobile games. They're cheaper as there's less investment involved in them( Also production costs too) . iPhone is powerful machine but games are still never going to be as developed on it as on specialist gaming devices. Not unless they give it real buttons etc and start pumping into games the same money they do into mobile games on psp etc

  • Monkey_Puncher #12 1 year ago

    Because Mario Sports Mix and Wii Music were so immersive.... *face palm*

  • NimbusTLD #13 1 year ago

    I'd suggest to Nintendo to explore Warioware-type games for lower price points?

  • Nikanoru #14 1 year ago

    With all the worries I've had lately about the direction Nintendo seemed to be going, this is one thing I am so very glad to hear from them.

  • DJDog #15 1 year ago

    Nintendo shouldn't rattling their sabre like this, they look pathetic.

    Also, why are they worrying? They will always innovate with such future devices such as the 3DSi, 3DS Lite, 3DS XL.... so on and so forth...

  • Irien #16 1 year ago

    I think the 1$ price is rather nonsensical. However, I'd definately buy more games at (say) 5ukp a pop. Steam regularly offer games at or around that price, and I'll usually pick them up unless they're obviously not my thing. Certainly this has led to my purchasing a lot of stuff I usually wouldn't... food for thought?

  • el_pollo_diablo #17 1 year ago

    @Collymilad

    Absolutely wrong.

    For 59p you get an often pretty good and occasionally amazing bite-sized game. Occasionally, of course, you get shite. But don't forget that you get shite on traditional platforms and pay far more for owning it.

    You even pick an example in your argument that seems to support the 59p games' case - namely that such experiences are 'ok for the bus but nothing else'.

    Erm. Isn't that the definition of the perfect handheld game?
    Edited by el_pollo_diablo at 21/03/11 @ 18:23

  • FWB #18 1 year ago

    Quite a few of my favourite games from last year where 59p. Stopped using my DS as soon as I got my iPod touch, which has every time of game that I had on the former.

  • Marshall2008 #19 1 year ago

    LMAO, Nintendo has shipped and allowed to be shipped wanna be flash games for £30 for years. They don't want to change that.

  • Seoh #20 1 year ago

    Nintendo really have their heads in the sand here, current pricing for their handheld games are just ridiculous. I understand the development costs etc, but look at all the stuff gabe newel did with steam where a 75% price reduction can yeild a 200% increase in profits.

    I don't think anyone is suggesting that they sell their games for 59p but at £15-20 they are likley to sell so many more games and make their console much more appealing.

  • Quak #21 1 year ago

    > It's just incredible, right?

    Shouldn't you know the answer to this yourself?

  • Vyggo #22 1 year ago

    I would've bought a lot more games for the DS if they had a reasonable pricepoint. I find myself a couple of times a month watching the rows of DS games and in the end not buying anything. Take Picross 3d for example, now that's a great game at an impulse buy price point ($19).

  • Bartacus #23 1 year ago

    There is such a lot of crap on the DS thats not even worth 59p yet they still think £30.00 is a fair price for such rubbish.

  • septimus #24 1 year ago

    "Immersive games impossible at that price"

    But the waggle-a-thon, swipe-a-thon, tap-a-thon shit you normally release is.

  • Markusdragon #25 1 year ago

    It just seems like the low budget and high budget sides of the industry have no bloody idea what the point of the other side is.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #26 1 year ago

    But the waggle-a-thon, swipe-a-thon, tap-a-thon shit you normally release is.

    A bit ironic calling DS games a swipe-a-thon or tap-a-thon when the topic is smartphone games, isn't it?

    I agree with Nintendo though. I would not be concerned about cheap games because I think the biggest hype is already over. Newer titles are becoming more and more "full games" in the classic sense and the prices are already going up accordingly. Every new device brings a new accepted price range. Windows Phone 7 titles are already almost twice the price of what they were when the iPhone came out and some games for the iPad are already in the xbla/psn price range.

    This is were it gets a bit more interesting for Nintendo though. Yes, Angry Birds sold a lot but it's also no secret that this is not the kind of game that Nintendo will have to compete against with the 3ds. So while I generally agree with Nintendo they should be a bit more wary of how they put things because the last few days they sound very ignorant when they are talking about indie or cheaper smartphone games.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #27 1 year ago

    It just seems like the low budget and high budget sides of the industry have no bloody idea what the point of the other side is.

    Very well said. It's especially weird because both sides actually profit from and complement each other. I always find it quite amusing when indie devs say how they don't need major publishers when in fact they would not stand out at all if there were only indie devs around (which is something that is happening on the iPhone were so many people are releasing games/apps that go totally unnoticed in the flood of apps available). The opposite is true as well, which is probably what Nintendo was trying to say.

  • Toothball #28 1 year ago

    I agree with him and all, as I'd much rather spend extra money on a good game than £1 on a phone game. But isn't DSiWare littered with short games for minimal costs? I don't spend much time there myself, but I did make a point of acquiring Paper Plane.

  • Reedo #29 1 year ago

    The only reason we get stories like this is because of retarded interviewers constantly asking developers why their price points aren't lower. What do they expect them to say? That they just want more fucking profit? It's true that you don't always get what you pay for with all the shovel ware that the Wii and DS play host to but there are some prime examples of why paying a respectable developer (i.e. Nintendo, Sega, Capcom, Level 5) some decent money will get you a better game than 59p would.

    In reality the ratio of good games to bad games on the iPhone is undoubtedly a lot lower than on the DS thanks to higher development costs. Both platforms have diamonds in the rough - it's just a lot more obvious on the DS because the shite games are on display for everyone to see, in packaging and in ownership. Whilst the shit iPhone games are just forgotten about because there are so many of them.

    Lastly the trial that Valve did on their £5 games is ultimately flawed because they existed in a market that was full of games priced much higher. Of course consumers are going to buy into it if it's cheaper than anything else. Lower the price of ALL the games and maybe we'll see a more accurate depiction of what sales figures would look like.

  • coolbritannia #30 1 year ago

    Nintendo are not without a sense of irony, it seems.

  • Vin #31 1 year ago

    Astounding arrogance.

    Look at the number of amazing games on XBLA and PSN lurking around or beneath the $10 mark. It's just a matter of time before games pegged below the $5 mark provide loads more entertainment than the standard price title.
    Edited by Vin at 21/03/11 @ 20:20

  • PrivateFloyd #32 1 year ago

    I couldn't disagree more with this. Jesus one of the reasons alot of people invested in an R4 card was due to the fact that DS was 90% shovelware shite that they insisted on charging £20+ for. Look at GTA Chinatown wars....£30 on the DS or £4 on the iPhone, great port with serviceable controls.

    I keep swaying about buying a 3DS, not sure why.

  • TonyHarrison #33 1 year ago

    Nintendo launched Pokemon recently, it's sold about 3million in America and Europe since then at ~£30.

    So that's £90,000,000 in revenue.

    If Nintendo were launching Pokemon for the app store price point of $1 (or 59p over here), then they'd need to sell 152,542,372 copies of the game to attain the same level of revenue.

    But of course, Pokemon isn't done there, so it would need to sell something close to 300million (if not more) at 59p when all is said and done to attain the same financial return, which wouldn't happen.

    So really, Nintendo are not stupid for maintaining this stance, as popular as it is to suggest otherwise.

  • GamesConnoisseur #34 1 year ago

    DSiWare pops up and say 'are you ignoring me? Where do I figures?'

  • mowgli #35 1 year ago

    Someone really needs to show this guy the immersive games for the IPhone. Far too many people here and everywhere dismiss the se games because they think there are all angry bird levels of depth. They are not. I've played more epic and emmersive games on the iPhone than I have on the ds.

  • Kafeen #36 1 year ago

    $1 for new games may be asking a bit much but I don't think $1 for old Gameboy games is asking too much, they'll sell a lot more of them too if they're priced that low. I think $1 for VC games would be awesome.

  • Ashcroft #37 1 year ago

    Look, 3D Baby Dress Up 2012 is an expensive title to develop, they need that £40 rrp.

    Those babies aren't going to dress themselves.

  • sakealex #38 1 year ago

    if you look at the weekly charts you see the majority of people will buy any kind of crap you throw at them as long as it has a catchy name and it's new. Advertise the s*** out of it, lower the price and name it something with "call" in it= great success. (call of mario: yoshie's retreat would blow the planet up).

  • L0cky #39 1 year ago

    "Again, we're not worried about competing at a price point level."

    Just because they don't want to compete with 59p prices, doesn't mean they shouldn't try to price competitively at all. Sounds like they're using this as a straw man to help justify their high prices.

    "Konno then `speculated` that Microsoft and Sony and John Menzies held exactly the same opinion on the issue"

    Fixed :p

  • neoKEN #40 1 year ago

    Yeah, Nintendogs, Wii sports, Brain Training... oh wait.
    Edited by neoKEN at 22/03/11 @ 07:40

  • mkreku #41 1 year ago

    They refuse to compete with $1 titles.. but they will continue to flog 30 year old Mario titles for $15 for the umpteenth time.

  • UncleLou #42 1 year ago

    Nintendo is not concerned by competition from cheap $1 smartphone games

    If they weren't worried, there wouldn't be a news report every other day where they say they aren't worried.

    And if they really aren't worried, they are incredibly stupid.

  • CrumpledPaper #43 1 year ago

    Hard to reconcile these comments with 2 or 3 hour games like Pilotwings or Steel Diver @ €40.

  • CrumpledPaper #44 1 year ago

    Problem is , so is £40 for a lot of 360,PS3,Wii

    If Pilotwings or Steel Diver was on any of these other platforms, except the Wii perhaps, they'd at most be €15 on the digital stores.

    The funny thing about Konno talking about this kind of investment in game development is that they're not making those big investments. Yet.
    Edited by CrumpledPaper at 22/03/11 @ 10:13

  • geeza2020 #45 1 year ago

    So basically, "we wouldnt make the same ridiculously astronomical profits if we started pricing our portable games reasonably, so all you loyal customers thinking they might be rewarded with some cheaper games can fuck off"

    Thanks Ninty. Your so family friendly :D

  • Cronan #46 1 year ago

    Nintendo have had a very good run over the past few years, with an excellent short-term money-making strategy.

    But their failure to invest in HD graphics, their lack of exciting new IP, their poor support of third party developers, their very poor online offerings and their high software prices make them look very vulnerable compared to Microsoft, Sony, Apple and Google.

    Sure, smartphone games are not as good as the best Nintendo hand-held games. But I've got GTA Chinatown Wars and Game Dev Story on my iPhone, and I already carry it around all day, because it's my phone. Also, I paid less than £10 for both games.

  • BonzoBanana #47 1 year ago

    Nintendo have consistantly in recent years provided low spec hardware in their handhelds and home consoles. It seems they lost all ambition in hardware since the gamecube and never really had any at all for their handhelds. Its understandable for handhelds to a point though.

    Where as the 360 and PS3 are capable of hugely impressive immersive worlds like Fallout 3 this is something the wii will never be capable of. The 3DS also with its 266mhz processors and 64meg of memory won't be doing anything too sophisticated or immersive either. I realise its not totally about hardware specs but immersive to my mind means a virtual world of some detail to the point where it seems like you almost exist in another place/reality. If Nintendo keep going cheap on hardware they will be clearly only be able to sell casual and fairly limited games. No one wants a sandbox game where everything is limited and downscaled to run on primitive hardware.

  • TonyHarrison #48 1 year ago

    @TruthSlayer "Don't have a go at nintendo for FOLLOWING the industry on this (remember this is the first time nintendo have raised the RRP on games, MS and Sony already did it with the PS3 and 360), have a go at the industry for jacking up the cost of development accross the board just to make the graphics fancier then complaining that they don't amke enough money (because they are unable to budget)"

    This is what I don't get about these stories, Nintendo are in direct competition with MS and Sony, but it's debatable whether they're even competing with Apple as much as a few analysts would have you believe they are

    If Nintendo are 'threatened' by things like the app store, despite making massive profits that have basically become a massive war chest that could fund multiple generations of hardware, then surely MS and Sony are as well given the massive losses they've made this generation. That's probably where everyone goes wrong though, they don't bother with actually looking at it from a business point of view and instead let their childish fanboy ideals sneak through.

    It's simple logic, if a new company comes in to your market and takes all the business away, who dies first? The company that was leading and making massive profits, or the company that was already struggling with massive losses?

  • sidneyfife #49 1 year ago

    Bonzo:

    Besides better sound and graphics, what exactly do the XBOX360 and PlayStation 3 do that the XBOX and PlayStation 2 couldn't? The controllers are the same, the online services are essentially the same (PSN is better than what the PS2 had because there wasn't anything before), and the gameplay is more or less the same. What is the big difference between Halo 2 and Halo Reach outside of visuals? The worlds of Fallout, Dragon Age and Mass Effect are hardly "immersive" on a technical level because I can still see loads of glitches, screen tearing, blurry textures, and I'm still using a controller that was designed 15 years ago. Immersion comes down to how well the developer can get the gamer involved and all it takes is effort. It's not like we're comparing an Apple IIe to a $1,000 gaming rig, even the Dreamcast has enough power to make games feel "immersive" visually.
    Edited by sidneyfife at 22/03/11 @ 15:48

  • BonzoBanana #50 1 year ago

    @sidneyfife

    You must realise that as memory and speed increases games become more sophisticated. Each generation of console adds new power that can be used for more sophisticated game worlds. It could be more A.I. , richer more realistic graphics, environments that stretch to the horizon and not just 20 feet in front of the player. If you look at morrowind on the original xbox and then compare it to Oblivion on 360/PS3 you see a huge increase in detail and complexity. On the next generation of consoles bethedsa and other developers will be able to take this to the next level. Possibly something like kinect will add a new level of interaction too in such games. It will be amazing but Nintendo just trail behind because their hardware is out of date they just seem to play catch up nowadays. The wii 2 will probably come in with equal or less power than 360 or PS3 and yet cost more than Microsofts and Sonys offerings. I'd like to see a return to when Nintendo actually competed with other companies. The N64 was amazing and the gamecube was inbetween ps2 and xbox in power but the wii doesn't even compare to the original xbox in power.

  • sidneyfife #51 1 year ago

    Bonzo:

    You bring up Oblivion and Morrowind and I ask you this--do the games play any different? Yes the visuals are better in Oblivion but the gameplay is the same. The PC version of Oblivion is superior to the 360 one in every way but the 360 version isn't any less "immersive", is it? Same with Dragon Age, the 360 version was downright ugly and the PS3 one looked like a slideshow, yet they were still deep, fun games.

    As for the Wii's power, it is at least comparable to the original XBOX. Games like Metroid Prime 3, Super Mario Galaxy, Resident Evil 4, and No More Heroes are proof that if a developer takes their time with a Wii game, the results can be spectacular. Are you telling me that Knights of the Old Republic, Halo, Black, Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry, Project Gotham Racing, Halo, Shadow of the Colossus, Jade Empire, Indigo Prophecy, F-Zero GX, Persona 4 and a host of older games that are still good today could not be done on the Wii? They even got Super Street Fighter IV to fit on the 3DS for crying out loud.

    Interesting you bring up Kinect because that's probably the most innovative thing Microsoft has done this generation with the XBOX. Yet so far all of the games for it look like...Wii games.

    The bottom line is the hardware is good enough, the games aren't.

  • BonzoBanana #52 1 year ago

    @sidneyfife

    I've played Morrowind and Oblivion and for me they are a generation apart. Oblivion is probably written with 3 formats in mind, 360, pc and ps3 and sets its limits that way but the PC version being on more powerful hardware its visually superior. If you create a game world which has a core memory requirement of 256megabytes and 2ghz processing power it excludes hardware below it or has to have massive compromises and it allows enhancement on more sophisticated hardware.

    The original xbox is superior to wii in many important areas but pretty similar in others. Obviously in gpu terms the original xbox has games upto 1920x1080i in resolution, 32bit colour instead of 24bit and full 5.1 sound. Xbox has 64meg of main memory and a hard drive that caches about 750meg of harddrive space per game it allows for more sophisticated games. The wii has 24meg of main memory and 3meg video. The 64meg extra memory is used to buffer the dvd drive for faster loading and less pausing.

    I certainly think the wii is capable of anything the gamecube and ps2 can do although the ps2 does have some games with high resolution graphics, 5.1 sound and it has 32bit colour which obviously the wii can't do any of that. The real advantage of the Xbox is the extra memory and hard drive allows for much larger game worlds because in cpu terms they are pretty similar.

    Could the wii run Morrowind for example, yes it could but it would introduce horrible long pauses and cut back on detail in order to reduce memory overheads. I can't think of an Xbox game that the Wii couldn't do to some level albeit with horrible compromises on some. However the Xbox could do anything the wii could do (minus motion controls of course) with enhancement.

    The only game I'm pretty sure the wii couldn't do but the xbox has is Half Life 2. It was a real struggle to get that onto Xbox and had low frame rates until late in development. It represent a game the xbox could only just achieve. There are certainly no wii fps games to match it as it has a fairly sophisticated physics engine and comparing something like the wii's conduit to half life shows an engine on the wii of massive simplicity in comparison.