Gaming Capcom explains Resident Evil: Revelations $50 price tag

[dsfanatic5]

As long as this Resident Evil gets back to the series roots, and offers a better experience than RE: 5 or Mercenaries, I don't mind paying $49.99 for it. I've been paying that much for RE games since the first one on PSX, and every game has been worth it (up through RE: 4). I wouldn't be happy if every 3DS game was $50, even though all PSP games were that much when it first launched. However, paying this amount for a good RE game, which doesn't come around very often, is of little bother to me. I can't wait to buy this, and the circle pad pro on the day it comes out.

 

[dragonkid6]

Seriously some people need to get their heads out of Capcom's ass. Stop acting like RE:Rev is the best damn game ever, stop acting like it's the best game on the system. It's not, get off their nuttsack. It's not the only full console experience on the 3DS. Samurai Warriors, Tales of the Abyss, Devil Survivor, Monster Hunter, LoZoT, Ace Combat (the PSP ones are over a gig), and they're sure to be more console games on the 3DS. Point is, they won't do it cause no matter what the select few say, that $50 price tag will cut their profit cause who wants to pay that much for handheld game. Let's face it, if you own a 3DS/PSP you already own a console and why pay that much when there will be a major title you like coming out same weekend. Capcom is getting greedy and I'm not gonna waste my money, the game will drop to $40 everywhere after a month when they realize they less than half the sale Mercs got.

 

[SpaceJump]

When the first 128 MB (and later even 256 MB carts) came out, it didn't cost more that any other DS game. Come on Capcom, give us the fourth Street Fighter 4 game with one new character and balanced out gameplay and make the other 3 obsolete online...

 

[Snailface]

If the demo is anything to go by, this is not worth $50. That said, if the reviews are stellar I might change my mind.

 

[dragonkid6]

If the demo is anything to go by, this is not worth $50. That said, if the reviews are stellar I might change my mind.

Yeah people should wait for reviews instead of previews. Friend of mine thought Dark Sector was the shit, based on previews, he had it fully paid a month before it came out. He sold it a week later, said he made different type of characters but beyond that the game was dull. Technically even, RE5 was huge let down from the old style of RE games, the problem is that on it's own it's a great game and drew in more customers, myself included (I've since played most other RE games but they are frigin hard).

 

[totalnoob617]

people should just wait period ,just send them a message and dont buy it, if nobody buys it they will have to lower the price ,people that go right out and run and buy it are only encouraging them the charge $50 for a handheld game , then other developers will see that too and follow suite, just be patient and dont buy it till they drop the price

like i said the 3ds carts are going to go up to 20gigs , so what are we going to pay an extra $10 for every next bigger size cart they use, by that logic we will be paying an extra $80 for games on 20 gig cards when they come out

 

[spark1223]

I don't think $50 is too bad for 20 hours. Aren't most console games 20 hours now and have $60 price tags? I'm sorry, I've been too long to not get this game. It's the reason I got 3DS.

 

[GeekyGuy]

Seriously, a game where you match cakes would cost $30 on a DS, and people wouldn't complain, because "that's how much a DS game costs." How and why is it okay to pay $30 for a piece of shovelware that took one whole week to make, but the entire forum is up in arms when a AAA title dares to cost $50?

Wait, what?

I feel confident most of us get the hyperbole you're going for, but it's an argument that has no legs. For starters, where are the Tempers who "wouldn't complain" about a $30 piece of shovelware? Hell, most of us on GBAtemp don't want to pay $30 for AAA titles, but most of us all agree, if we had the money and the publishers were being fair about what they were selling, we'd still gladly pay it.

But you've offered no defense for Capcom's pricing of this game at $50. Is it worth that price? The market will let them know after its release. My personal feeling is it's not worth $50. Furthermore, the 3DS software market has already be unable to sustain a $40 price tag for most games.

The whole iPhone vs. dedicated-portable-gaming-system argument is well established, and we all get it. There's a premium value on great DS/3DS games most of us can accept, and most folks understand and appreciate the distinction between your average iOS game and a DS/3DS/PSP game. Doesn't mean the value stretches infinitely in one direction and infinitely in another. With this economy, with this market, tradition, the competition, and all other elements of the argument in consideration, $50 for this game is, to me, typical Capcom gouging. I won't support it. That's where I personally come out on the matter, and I know it's not an unreasonable position to take.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

I don't think $50 is too bad for 20 hours. Aren't most console games 20 hours now and have $60 price tags? I'm sorry, I've been too long to not get this game. It's the reason I got 3DS.

Wait, is or isn't too bad?

And depends on the game. I can beat most platformers in like 10-12 hours (Super Mario Galaxy, Alice: Madness Returns, etc), but a good RPG takes me forever. Resident Evil 4 I think took me about 20-odd hours and it cost how much on release? I actually don't know, I got the game for $3 at a local record exchange, but I'm assuming it was $50. On the flip side, I did a run of RE5 in like under 3 and a half hours with a friend of mine.

The game seems more RE4-ish than RE5-ish so that's at least a plus to content. I couldn't stand RE5's "lasting appeal" of just replaying the game to unlock some dumb weapons which you would use in the game anyway. Mercs wasn't worth much thought either and it was way too multiplayer driven. I do defend multiplayer oriented games when they're known for being multiplayer oriented games (CoD, Halo, etc), but on a game that stood up on single player for its entire lifespan (exception being Outbreak), it seemed really dumb to make a co-op and multiplayer oriented game.

 

[Foxi4]

I don't see why Capcom would have to explain a price tag of their own product. They made it, and if they feel like it, they can ask even for a $100 and they don't really have to deliver. It's their own decision regarding their own product, whether people will buy it or not for said price tag is irrelevant - that a marketing matter.

You may feel it's too much, but at the end of the day, you're just nagging.

Put together by Nintendo, yes, and they may make the interface to the memory modules, but it's very doubtful they construct and assemble the modules for the 3DS cards from scratch. They are a game company, not a full-blown hardware company like Panasonic, Intel, etc.

That explains why they're producing gamimg consoles since the 80ties, hmm?

3DS game cards can't be compared to SD cards, HDD, etc in price because they can't be re-written. Part of the extra cost comes from that capability alone. A single write-once DVD costs much less than a single re-writable DVD.

Incorrect. A 3DS cart is simply a FLASH module with some other hardware that's used to be recognized by the 3DS. Also, re-writtablilty on FLASH modules is a matter of attaching or detaching a single chip pin, it's nothing like a DVD.

I may have exaggerated on it being only $1 more, but only a loony would think that an extra 2GB on these 3DS cards costs more than $3-4. These cards aren't like cartridges used by the GBA, SNES, etc. that had a high transfer rate, similar to computer RAM, as they became part of the device's memory itself, reading the game code straight from the carts. The DS, 3DS, etc require loading/transfer protocols for any interaction between the devices and the cards they use, and that data must be stored on the device's own RAM before they can be used.

Mistaken yet again. Streaming content doesn't meant they're any different - they're exactly the same as a DS cart, or even a GBA cart for that matter. At least from a hardware standpoint.

 

[Wintrale]

people should just wait period ,just send them a message and dont buy it, if nobody buys it they will have to lower the price ,people that go right out and run and buy it are only encouraging them the charge $50 for a handheld game , then other developers will see that too and follow suite, just be patient and dont buy it till they drop the price

Or better yet, Capcom will simply decide to not bother supporting the 3DS ever again. They aren't going to lower the price of the game. If it flops because an extra tenner is too much to ask, then it flops. Capcom will either simply not bother spending anywhere near as much money developing a 3DS game as they did for Revelations or they'll simply only make handheld games for the Vita.

like i said the 3ds carts are going to go up to 20gigs , so what are we going to pay an extra $10 for every next bigger size cart they use, by that logic we will be paying an extra $80 for games on 20 gig cards when they come out

Who says they're ever even going to go up to 20GBs? I'd be surprised if anyone ever goes higher than 4GB, myself.

 

[Veho]

I feel confident most of us get the hyperbole you're going for, but it's an argument that has no legs. For starters, where are the Tempers who "wouldn't complain" about a $30 piece of shovelware? Hell, most of us on GBAtemp don't want to pay $30 for AAA titles, but most of us all agree, if we had the money and the publishers were being fair about what they were selling, we'd still gladly pay it.

"Imagine" titles cost $30. I haven't seen anyone complain about that. I have seen many people mention the amount of shovelware on the DS, but not the pricing. It's a $30 piece of shovelware and nobody seems to have an issue with the fact that a $1 game costs $30 on the DS. AAA titles cost $35 when they come out. It's not about whether we buy the games or not, it's whether anyone comments on the prices. It is okay for a $1 game to cost $30 "because DS games cost $30." But it's not okay for a $40 game to cost $50 because... because it's more than some arbitrary number that has no direct relation to the gameplay, graphics, replay value or the time it took to develop the game, but is for some reason considered the amount that games are supposed to cost.

You mentioned publishers being (or not being) fair about what they were selling. Is it fair that Bejeweled clones cost almost as much as Pokemon? Not really. But what direction should the value stretch? Should shovelware be cheaper? Or should quality games be allowed to be more expensive?

But you've offered no defense for Capcom's pricing of this game at $50.

I know. I haven't. In fact, I said games should cost $1. Is there a reason they should cost more than that? Well the same reasons apply to Capcom's pricing. Are people going to pay that much for a game? We'll see. But is Capcom entirely unreasonable in asking for $50? It's no less reasonable than asking for $30 for a $1 game.

Furthermore, the 3DS software market has already be unable to sustain a $40 price tag for most games.

I think that has more to do with the number of 3DS sold. High School Musical on the DS sold more than Ocarina of Time on the 3DS and I don't think it's because it was $5 cheaper.


And here's another thought: exchange rates. ¥4,000 used to be $40 two years ago. It's $50 now. Capcom is still asking for ¥4,000 for their games, only now it's $10 more from your perspective

 

[KingVamp]

That "they have the right to price it at any cost, it there game" mindset is why we are getting rip off so badly now with some companies.
We don't complain about "Imagine" titles or shovelware costing $30 because we are to busy complaining about itself to get to the point to
complain about the price.

The clones/copies usually have more substance/content and stability to justify the price. Who says we don't complain about the games that don't?
Those games only get bought because the people that bought them don't know what they are buying. Can't lump everyone together.
In all honesty past games get easier to make as time goes on, losing value. They lose value to a point that a
console game isn't a console game anymore.

That "games should be $1.00" is stupid. People who are buying a game like RE can tell the difference between a non-substance game like angry birds ,but that doesn't mean they want to get rip off from it.As much as I didn't want have that mindset for this company,though they make good games, they aren't really a trustworthy company. Which
makes me surprise why people are so quick to defend them.(and some to the point to bash people who aren't)

The currency can't be directly compared.

It is mess up(or sad for some) when a company tries something (as in try to rip people off or even truthfully have it at a high price than normal ),don't give it enough a chance or don't promote the game much and then get mad (or worry) that their game won't sell.

 

[Andrew_DS]

Meh it's all good I'll buy myself a copy online and pay about the same as Americans which is fine by me =)

 

[Arnold Schwarzen]

Price will drop in time and I'll just wait a little longer while that happens. Looks like a fantastic game but I'd hate to see even handheld game prices increase.

 

[GeekyGuy]

"Imagine" titles cost $30. I haven't seen anyone complain about that. I have seen many people mention the amount of shovelware on the DS, but not the pricing. It's a $30 piece of shovelware and nobody seems to have an issue with the fact that a $1 game costs $30 on the DS. AAA titles cost $35 when they come out. It's not about whether we buy the games or not, it's whether anyone comments on the prices. It is okay for a $1 game to cost $30 "because DS games cost $30." But it's not okay for a $40 game to cost $50 because... because it's more than some arbitrary number that has no direct relation to the gameplay, graphics, replay value or the time it took to develop the game, but is for some reason considered the amount that games are supposed to cost.

You mentioned publishers being (or not being) fair about what they were selling. Is it fair that Bejeweled clones cost almost as much as Pokemon? Not really. But what direction should the value stretch? Should shovelware be cheaper? Or should quality games be allowed to be more expensive?

Well, we obviously run in different circles, as the insane mark up on DSiWare/3DSWare/WiiWare is something I hear groaned about almost daily.

To be clear, though, I don't think it's unethical to price their games at $50 -- not a question of fair or unfair in that sense -- but I just don't think the price is right for the product. It's obviously all relative and highly subjective, and like I said, it's a personal choice. Bejeweled, I don't feel is shovelware, but I get your meaning all the same. Whatever the market can bear, publishers will set their price.

The heart of what makes this so frustrating for me, though, is that publishers like Square Enix and Capcom are quick to blame a lack of support from fans and/or piracy as a key factor to a game's failure, yet their pricing is so often unrealistic. On DS, Square Enix routinely priced their games $5 and $10 above everyone else, and here in the States, they routinely undersold what they "hoped" the product would sell. You can't value a product solely on what you, the creator, think it's worth. You have to realistically interpret the market, not blame fans for what "they didn't do."

Sell RE: Rev at a fair market price, I will buy it on release day as I intended. Gouge me like you so often do, Capcom, and well, I'll wait for the sale price. It's really that simple. With a market this flooded with great content, I only have to wait for the ball to come to me. I've experienced it both ways, and it's nice to have choices.

 

[DJ91990]

I say screw greedy game developers by buying used games! Mu ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

 

[Clydefrosch]

consindering that half this community would simply not pay anything for this game (or most any other games) i think these companies actually do have some right to claim lack of support
also, considering that half this community has probably "saved" enough money to buy this game 20 times at this price, i dont even understand why so many are so mad and enraged.
now, i also know a game downloaded would not necessarily be a game bought, had download not existed as an alternative
but its hard to deny that companies like square and capcom are in a position where they have to, and actually are able to counter lost sales on account of having pretty good games most off the time. so yeah, dont look at it as paying 10 bucks more for this game, look at it as "four people buying this game pay the price for one guy pirating it in 2 years or whenever this thing gets hacked"

 

[Weaselpipe]

Well, we obviously run in different circles, as the insane mark up on DSiWare/3DSWare/WiiWare is something I hear groaned about almost daily.

To be clear, though, I don't think it's unethical to price their games at $50 -- not a question of fair or unfair in that sense -- but I just don't think the price is right for the product. It's obviously all relative and highly subjective, and like I said, it's a personal choice. Bejeweled, I don't feel is shovelware, but I get your meaning all the same. Whatever the market can bear, publishers will set their price.

The heart of what makes this so frustrating for me, though, is that publishers like Square Enix and Capcom are quick to blame a lack of support from fans and/or piracy as a key factor to a game's failure, yet their pricing is so often unrealistic. On DS, Square Enix routinely priced their games $5 and $10 above everyone else, and here in the States, they routinely undersold what they "hoped" the product would sell. You can't value a product solely on what you, the creator, think it's worth. You have to realistically interpret the market, not blame fans for what "they didn't do."

Sell RE: Rev at a fair market price, I will buy it on release day as I intended. Gouge me like you so often do, Capcom, and well, I'll wait for the sale price. It's really that simple. With a market this flooded with great content, I only have to wait for the ball to come to me. I've experienced it both ways, and it's nice to have choices.

I pretty much agree with all of this. As good as RE looks, 3DS games are only going to get bigger- I'm sure Nintendo have a license to use 8gb cards so to let Capcom charge over the odds for one half the size of a hypothetical future game (hopefully the Zelda one they're making) is inviting a return to the NES days where one game cost about half the price of the console. If the PS3 is anything to go by, £60 becomes £25 very quickly as people lose interest once something new is released- there are still a bunch of Wii games I promised myself at launch, got put off by the price and never revisited.

 

[azure0wind]

i think i'll wait for the price drop, else will not buy even though i like this game.