Nintendo has released a lengthy Q&A article discussing its decision to re-launch Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen separately — rather than as part of the Nintendo Switch Online service.
Unlike physical cartridges, a digital, emulated copy of FireRed has no resale or collector’s value. The lack of physical copes for virtual console games also means each copy sold costs Nintendo nothing beyond the initial emulator development cost, which would be minuscule on a per-game basis.
Considering those factors, and the Switch having a higher install base than prior systems (over ten times Wii U unit sales), maintaining the Wii U and 3DS price points is the most reasonable means for Nintendo to monetize their back catalogue in a way that makes piracy less enticing for many people: $3 per GB, $4 per GBC, $5 per NES, $7-8 per GBA, $8 per SNES, $10 per N64, and $20 per Wii.
Given that each emulated console only requires that a Switch emulator be developed for it once (something Nintendo has already done for NSO) to support hundreds of paid titles, there’s no need to increase prices when the games will sell several times more than they had any chance to on the Wii U.
Given how many games NSO includes, they could continue offering them that way for people who prefer renting their library. Consumers want meaningful options; pricing a GBA game at $20 is not that.
Fair enough, I would personally prefer those price points too. I agree that this isn’t a particularly meaningful option. But it is significantly more meaningful than what existed before it. I think the big disparity on the pricing is a symptom of everything having a subscription nowadays. Not justifying it, just acknowledging it. They probably tell themselves that $20 for one game is fair becuase they could have charged $20/month if they added it to NSO. It does feel high, but just the added value of not having to pay a subscription every month or year to play this game feels significant to me. I recognize that’s a bit dystopian, but it feels like a tiny breath of fresh air in this gaming landscape.
Unlike physical cartridges, a digital, emulated copy of FireRed has no resale or collector’s value. The lack of physical copes for virtual console games also means each copy sold costs Nintendo nothing beyond the initial emulator development cost, which would be minuscule on a per-game basis.
Considering those factors, and the Switch having a higher install base than prior systems (over ten times Wii U unit sales), maintaining the Wii U and 3DS price points is the most reasonable means for Nintendo to monetize their back catalogue in a way that makes piracy less enticing for many people: $3 per GB, $4 per GBC, $5 per NES, $7-8 per GBA, $8 per SNES, $10 per N64, and $20 per Wii.
Given that each emulated console only requires that a Switch emulator be developed for it once (something Nintendo has already done for NSO) to support hundreds of paid titles, there’s no need to increase prices when the games will sell several times more than they had any chance to on the Wii U.
Given how many games NSO includes, they could continue offering them that way for people who prefer renting their library. Consumers want meaningful options; pricing a GBA game at $20 is not that.
Fair enough, I would personally prefer those price points too. I agree that this isn’t a particularly meaningful option. But it is significantly more meaningful than what existed before it. I think the big disparity on the pricing is a symptom of everything having a subscription nowadays. Not justifying it, just acknowledging it. They probably tell themselves that $20 for one game is fair becuase they could have charged $20/month if they added it to NSO. It does feel high, but just the added value of not having to pay a subscription every month or year to play this game feels significant to me. I recognize that’s a bit dystopian, but it feels like a tiny breath of fresh air in this gaming landscape.