View Single Post
Old 17 July 2016, 05:43   #29
ReadOnlyCat
Code Kitten

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Montreal/Canadia
Age: 46
Posts: 1,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by idrougge View Post
Your definition of "originals" must differ from mine then. My original Super Mario had a package, a manual, some more paperwork and a cartridge containing the game. The reason it costs money is that it's a tangible product filled with nostalgia and of a limited supply and not some file you can crank out a million copies of in ten minutes.
That may be the reason why our reptilian brains attribute value to originals but this does not change the fact that for the originals package, manual and the rest are negligible costs compared to development costs and distribution.

When I was developing for the PS1 in 1998, it already cost barely above one euro to manufacture the whole package, CD pressing, manual and jewel case included.
Moreover, distribution swallowed well above 50% of the retail price. Even the publisher got lucky to get 40%, not to mention anything about the developer.

So, no, the reason your originals cost money has nothing to do with the content.
Especially after 30 years when dev costs are long reimbursed, only distribution and license remain. And as you said license value also depends on supply and demand, if there is no demand, it's worthless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by idrougge View Post
You perfectly know that the price of a used NES game is not a factor of licence costs, but of supply and demand. That's why the price of a game may vary based purely on the country code printed on one of the flaps of the packaging.
I know it perfectly indeed. This is why the NES classic is so cheap.
Because the market, although large would not pay much more for 30 legitimate games. Otherwise the eBay retro market would be long dry for lack of supply if people were willing to pay the current prices of physical retro product (without manuals shall I say! ).

There is demand but not enough supply so costs of physical products are high simply because there is no alternative. Nintendo is actually factoring exactly your points by offering a physical alternative, equally official and guaranteed to work properly at a much reduced price, I am not sure what you are complaining about?

You get 30 games for 60$ plus a hardware which likely will be hacked to play more games than that anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by idrougge View Post
And no, I will not feel bad for refusing to pay money to one of the world's richest companies when they re-re-re-release a 30 year old game that's sold in the millions already.
That's not a question of fairness or respect, that's just praying at the altar of capitalism.
Well, you can argue all you want about politics but the law applies to everyone and also prevents Nintendo, Konami, EA, etc. as well from infringing on your IP if you had any. If you want these limits gone then they will be gone for you as well and others, including Mike Montgomery, the Cinemaware guys, John Hare, and so on.
You essentially would end up with eBay profiteers selling everyone's stuff in crappy packaging from China, a great race to the bottom with no guarantee on the quality of the content or that the owners are paid properly.

Your position is easy to defend when your income does not depend on selling your intellectual property but it does not make for something that would work out for small players in the end.

Also, you are sorely overestimating Nintendo's wealth, it is not even in the top 1000 of international companies by market value.
It has climbed a bit recently following pokemon Go, but not that much.

Last edited by ReadOnlyCat; 17 July 2016 at 06:16. Reason: Mentioned Pokemon Go share surge.
ReadOnlyCat is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.09364 seconds with 9 queries