Why no Player's Choice for the DS or Wii?

[DonMarco]

I guess to collectors, this isn't something to complain over if they went away all together. Besides having an ugly logo added to the boxart and driving down resale values, I just think there's definitely a place for them in the game stores. However, even in the absence of a formally recognized series, DS and Wii games naturally finding themselves to the $20 mark. The invisible hand of the market at work?

So did Nintendo put the "Player's Choice" to rest with the GameCube and GBA?

Or! Is it crazy conspiracy theory time!

-----

http://dontpressstart.com/upload/sb/castlevaniads.jpg

1. The re-released box art of Castlevania: Dawn of Spirits was so laughably bad, Konami canceled all plans to release any other games under this "Best" label. (Seriously, DS collectors, are there any other games like this?) No other company has re-released any game since.

2. No Wii game sells enough to meet the X-hundred thousand copies requirement... Except the Nintendo ones that sell just fine at $50, years after they come out, so fat chance they'll ever be lowered to $20. That's just stupid.

3. DS games originally released with the Squeenix tax on them would keep it upon re-release. Those games would only be lowered to $25.

4. Player's Choice games are being held off "for now". They will be the first releases as digital download for next year's Wii HD console. (HD stands for hard drive)

-----

I think I covered all bases. If you think you can out-crazy me, be my guest... Or are they so crazy they make sense? I can't tell anymore.

[j_factor]

Nintendo just wants to be able to charge $50 for Zelda and Mario indefinitely. Third-party games just get price drops, normal reprints as warranted, and occasionally, two-in-one bundles.

I think there is an advantage in having a unified, identifiable "Greatest Hits" style lineup, but from Nintendo's point of view, perhaps the benefit isn't worth it. I've always hated the label changes myself, but that's my only complaint. (I don't see why they can't just put a big sticker on the outside of the shrinkwrap, but that's another subject.)

[kupomogli]

Nintendo just wants to be able to charge $50 for Zelda and Mario indefinitely. Third-party games just get price drops, normal reprints as warranted, and occasionally, two-in-one bundles.

This.

All their Gamecube games followed this, atleast until they went out of print.

[Ro-J]

I couldn't find what I am about to reference, so this may be a figment of my imagination, but Nintendo has spoken out against re-releasing games under the "Player's Choice" moniker. Their stance is based around the "why would anyone pay full retail for a game when they know it'll be re-released in a few months for half price" argument.

[delafro]

Nintendo's strategy for the Wii all along has been make as much possible per item and not worry as much about stuff like market numbers... for example selling the Wii (at profit) for $250 even though a lower price point would make more sense from the traditional industry point of view.

Fortunately for them demand stayed high enough until recently when they had to drop the price. I would guess that the price drop had almost nothing to do with PS3/360's price drops and more with the drop in sales.

[Bojay1997]

This.

All their Gamecube games followed this, atleast until they went out of print.

Completely untrue. Nintendo re-released a number of first party GC titles with a yellow player's choice banner along the top at a $30 price point.

[Baloo]

I'm going to have to agree with Nintendo on this.

If I have a product that sells extremely well at $50, why the hell would I drop the price down to $30?

[kupomogli]

Completely untrue. Nintendo re-released a number of first party GC titles with a yellow player's choice banner along the top at a $30 price point.

Okay, I did stretch the truth a bit, but for Mario and Zelda, only Sunshine and Windwaker were Player's Choice, atleast from what I can recall. Other than that, there hasn't been one Mario game for the Gamecube that went to Player's Choice. All of them stayed at 49.99 until they went out of print. Twilight Princess never had a Player's Choice either.

Also, that sounds so much better. "Nintendo released a number of first party GC titles with a yellow Player's Choice banner at a $30 price point." While Sony's and Microsoft's Platinum and Greatest Hits were at 19.99, first party or not.

The first party titles that Sony and Microsoft are releasing now as well as on both the XBOX and PS2 own any of those that Nintendo has released for the Wii and Gamecube aside from the Smash Bros games and Wind Waker. Unlike Nintendo though, they still dropped their prices. Still dropping prices for the PS3 and 360.

Where's the excuse about Nintendo outselling the competition that they don't drop their prices now? They hardly dropped their prices when they had the worst system on the market, and when they did it never matched as low as the competition did. It took them four years before they dropped Super Smash Bros. to 29.99 and it never left that price, while every Sony title such as God of War, Shadow of the Colossus, etc, dropped to 19.99 within a year. When Twisted Metal Head On for PS2 was rereleased with more areas, I think the MSRP was 19.99.

So like I've said time and time again. Don't buy a Nintendo system for first party games. You'll be paying out the ass because they never drop prices(they do, but it'll be nearly the entire lifespan of the system.)

--

Buy one of these. Or all of them, great systems.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41K2VDCPCNL._SL160_AA115_.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41%2B7ijf43jL._SL160_AA115_.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/417Ec%2B5AA3L._SL160_AA115_.jpg

Or this(get the Phat or DSi if you can.) Atleast only for the amazing amount of GOOD third party games. Nintendo always has a winning handheld and it's never due to Nintendo.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41J1wenkUTL._SL160_AA115_.jpg

Don't buy this piece of shit. Atleast don't buy it if you want to play good games, because Nintendo sure as hell doesn't support this piece of crap and there's hardly anything good on the system that can't be found somewhere else.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41xM31QiwdL._SL160_AA115_.jpg

[PapaStu]

Nintendo has does a 'Players Choice' of sorts for the DS. The Touch G series is comprised mostly of reprints. Now, thats not saying that they've all gotten price drops some did, (Hotel Dusk, Clubhouse Games, both moved to 19) but everything else thats gotten the Touch G logo (thats been a reprint) has stayed at its initial price point (most notably Nintendogs).

Konami has been the only company that did a 'flagged' reprint and that was mentioned above. Many other games have gotten the reprints, however (the Phoenix Wright series for example) none of them have any kind of notation on the cases to designate as such.

[Oobgarm]

Well, Smash Bros. got one too...not technically a Mario or Zelda game, but easily a top seller for the system.

[adam_devry]

Okay, I did stretch the truth a bit, but for Mario and Zelda, only Sunshine and Windwaker were Player's Choice, atleast from what I can recall. Other than that, there hasn't been one Mario game for the Gamecube that went to Player's Choice.

What about mario golf has a players choice does Luigis masion count I think it did too. But if you do not count the sports and paper mario's than sunshine was the only real mario game that came out on the cube anyway so they could only do sunshine if that was the case but mario golf does have the yellow banner. What about Mariokart did that have one too

[ScourDX]

Nintendo is not known to drop their price. If they are winning the console or handheld race, they typically don't drop their price. I find it strange they did it for GBA eventhough they have no competition.

[PapaStu]

What about mario golf has a players choice does Luigis masion count I think it did too. But if you do not count the sports and paper mario's than sunshine was the only real mario game that came out on the cube anyway so they could only do sunshine if that was the case but mario golf does have the yellow banner. What about Mariokart did that have one too

Mario Kart got that treatment too. Zelda would have only had Wind Waker go PC, since Twilight Princess came out, beyond the end of the cube lifespan, and Four Swords came with the GBA link cable, so a 'PC' reprint was a low priority as well.

[Dr. Dib]

I'm going to go with the whole they don't have a reason to.

Well on the DS I think it had something to do with pricing of carts. If you remember, player's choice didn't arrive on the GBA until very late in the console's life span and only affected a select few games. I remember reading somewhere that because it was more expensive to produce carts, it was not profitable to sell games at a cheaper price. Plus a $10 drop probably never did a great deal to sales.

On the Wii, it is probably because of how well Wii games were selling and Nintendo not wanting to miss any lost sales cost. I remember thinking to myself that GCN's players choice started about a year after the console's launch, so I hoped we'd see Player's choice come to Wii in 2008. Of course that never happened. Perhaps we'll see it soon with the Wii's decline in sales, but it is wishful thinking at this point. Especially if Nintendo follows past marketing trends and releases the N6 in 2011.

[whoisKeel]

Personally, whatever they decide, I'm waiting for Wario Smooth moves, Mario Kart, Smash Bros., Zelda, and the Wario shake-it platformer to come down to $20-30. Their choice is get my money now, or not at all when I finally buy it used. I either buy a game when it comes out (I will be getting New Super Mario Bros. day one) or wait. And when I wait, I wait. I don't care if it is next gen and used. Offer those titles at $20-30 and I will eat them up.

[j_factor]

Nintendo is not known to drop their price. If they are winning the console or handheld race, they typically don't drop their price. I find it strange they did it for GBA eventhough they have no competition.

The GBA PC line was pretty limited and very late. It seemed like an afterthought.

[Aussie2B]

They hardly dropped their prices when they had the worst system on the market, and when they did it never matched as low as the competition did.

And yet they had the best profits of the three companies.

I think Nintendo knows what they're doing.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I'd rate the butthurt in this thread an 8.

Does Wii or DS need a reduced line at this point? The new release software, on average, is already the cheapest on the market (minus the me-too pricing for crap like RB and GH). Wii/DS is already a reduced line at full retail by comparison. We might get some of the big sellers coming back with a reduced rate, in the future, but now just doesn't seem to be the time for it. I'd think that if static price drops were needed, it would have been done already. I mean, their not Sony or anything. :p

[DonMarco]

Nintendo has does a 'Players Choice' of sorts for the DS. The Touch G series is comprised mostly of reprints. Now, thats not saying that they've all gotten price drops some did, (Hotel Dusk, Clubhouse Games, both moved to 19) but everything else thats gotten the Touch G logo (thats been a reprint) has stayed at its initial price point (most notably Nintendogs).
I always though Touch Generation had something to do with either educational games or games that don't have scores in them for the DS. Wikipedia says "showing games created to appeal to a broader audience than the traditional gamer" which also sounds about right. These games use the Touch G label to attract people that would normally just pass over the game.

In the same way, Player's Choice bars and bright colors attracted people who would normally not see the game. You have 100 games on a shelf, all $20, and five of them had a golden bar on the side of the case with "SUPER SELLER" stamped in foil, I guarantee you you'll wonder why those five are so damned special. I also guarantee those five will outsell the other 95 by a great deal.


The GBA PC line was pretty limited and very late. It seemed like an afterthought.
This may be because the DS was backwards-compatible. People flooded the used markets with GBA systems, but not the games. Also, as DS systems were hard to find, many went with the backup plan and got a GBA SP instead. More systems on the market means more games were needed. As developers switch to the new system, new game selections dwindle even with the PC re-releases.

Afterthought? They came out right as more systems (and DS systems) were being sold. They struck while the fire was hot and it just so happened that the GBA's greatest competiion was from the DS. Both of which used the GBA PC games... Sure the GBA PC games could have come out sooner, but that's just Nintendo being Nintendo I guess.



Does Wii or DS need a reduced line at this point? The new release software, on average, is already the cheapest on the market.
But, on average, most Wii games are crap. Rather than spit numbers and metacritic percentages, let me instead insist that the average Wii shopper, whom I'll call "casual shopper" isn't really all that in to reading reviews, following release dates, and planning out buys weeks or months in advance. Why bother when everything's so plentiful and cheap anyway? They get a fitness this or an animal that or a driving this or combination of the three. Maybe once in a while some game with a gun on the cover.

How about using the PC label to differentiate between cheap games and inexpensive games?

[Icarus Moonsight]

Casual 360/PS3 users do the same thing... It's nothing special pertaining only to Nintendo.

[TonyTheTiger]

From what I've seen around here there's always going to be something to complain about so Nintendo can't win.

Player's Choice Label: "WTF is with Nintendo and these ugly Player's Choice variants? They totally mess up the aesthetic of my game shelf.

No Player's Choice Label: "WTF is with Nintendo not giving any indication which copies are original print runs and which are reprints? That totally screws over collectors."

[BetaWolf47]

Yeah, I suspect it'll come later on, but for GBA it took until about 2005 to come, IIRC.


Okay, I did stretch the truth a bit, but for Mario and Zelda, only Sunshine and Windwaker were Player's Choice, atleast from what I can recall. Other than that, there hasn't been one Mario game for the Gamecube that went to Player's Choice. All of them stayed at 49.99 until they went out of print. Twilight Princess never had a Player's Choice either.

Also, that sounds so much better. "Nintendo released a number of first party GC titles with a yellow Player's Choice banner at a $30 price point." While Sony's and Microsoft's Platinum and Greatest Hits were at 19.99, first party or not.

So like I've said time and time again. Don't buy a Nintendo system for first party games. You'll be paying out the ass because they never drop prices(they do, but it'll be nearly the entire lifespan of the system.)
Don't buy Nintendo systems for first-party games? That's laughable.

And Mario games that hit Player's Choice:
-Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour
-Super Mario Sunshine
-Mario Kart: Double Dash!
-Luigi's Mansion
-Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door
-Super Mario Strikers

Also, for Zelda, Four Swords Adventures and Wind Waker hit Player's Choice. Ocarina of Time/Master Quest and Collector's Edition didn't, but weren't retail games. Twilight Princess probably went out of print by the time it even reached Player's Choice, so they weren't selling it at all after it reached 250,000.

The only games that were never sold as Player's Choice that needed to be were the Mario Party games. I remember seeing Mario Party 4 for $39.99 used for years after its release. It was ridiculous. Other than that, every other game that needed to go Player's Choice went Player's Choice.

The notion that they avoided selling Gamecube games under the Player's Choice label out of greed is ridiculous. 120 games made the label. (http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/gamecube/file/915781/44349) Most games went $19.99 when they hit Player's Choice... only a small handful went for $29.99.

I have nothing against you, but I'm going to say you never owned a Gamecube and didn't do any research before posting that.

[PapaStu]

I always though Touch Generation had something to do with either educational games or games that don't have scores in them for the DS. Wikipedia says "showing games created to appeal to a broader audience than the traditional gamer" which also sounds about right. These games use the Touch G label to attract people that would normally just pass over the game.



Well, thats partially why I said 'of sorts'. The Touch G series is a random hodgepodge of games (all published by Nintendo) of varying genres. I didn't think Nintendogs or Clubhouse Games was very 'educational' and I know Hotel Dusk isn't and nor would True Swing Golf. You could make an argument (all be it weak) for Crosswords DS , Big Brain Academy, Brain Training, Flash Focus, but their educational 'ness' is pretty weak.

I just went with the TouchG notion, because A. they have reprinted those games, and B. A bunch dropped in price upon re-release.

[GarrettCRW]

Don't buy this piece of shit. Atleast don't buy it if you want to play good games, because Nintendo sure as hell doesn't support this piece of crap and there's hardly anything good on the system that can't be found somewhere else.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41xM31QiwdL._SL160_AA115_.jpg

THIS


Is the most ridiculous pile of fanboy garbage I've read on the DP forums in ages.

Well done, kupomogli!

[skaar]

THIS


Is the most ridiculous pile of fanboy garbage I've read on the DP forums in ages.

Well done, kupomogli!

QFT.

Seriously.

[GrandAmChandler]

Stop the fanboyism.

[Ed Oscuro]

I award this thread a stinking green Greatest Hits label. Enjoy, well deserved.

On-topic, the simplest choice is the right one; Nintendo realized that there wasn't any point to fighting with sales figures. They have a rabid fanbase (not meant as a slam) and original intellectual property nobody inside gaming can match (and increasingly nobody outside; Nintendo characters are just as recognized as Disney's these days). With all this you don't need to make people feel they're getting price cuts on older games (and besides, we've all been grumbling for years over uglified "greatest hits" and "player's choice" or "million seller" packaging).

[Nature Boy]

Their stance is based around the "why would anyone pay full retail for a game when they know it'll be re-released in a few months for half price" argument.

QFT.

I didn't buy Fable II until recently for this exact reason. I purchased other games instead (like Fallout 3) and decided I'd just wait until Fable dropped in price before grabbing it. Instead of paying $60 (new) for Fable I got it for $25 (used) a year after release.

If your consumers know the price is going to drop eventually they will absolutely base their purchasing decisions around that. If they know the price won't ever drop they are more inclined to buy it now rather than wait.

[DKTheArcadeRat]

I guess we don't count these as "Player's Choice"? They were at least somewhat budget re-releases were they not? I thought when they put them out in the Touch Generations line they had them priced at $19.99. Unless I'm mistaken.

Example.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/adaptiveblue_img/video_games/hotel_dusk_room_215

[kupomogli]

I have nothing against you, but I'm going to say you never owned a Gamecube and didn't do any research before posting that.

I do own a Gamecube. That's actually a picture I've taken in 2006. At the time was my entire Gamecube collection aside from one import and that disc to play the import. I might have two more games at the most.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/kupomogli/46e84e9c.jpg

[j_factor]

From what I've seen around here there's always going to be something to complain about so Nintendo can't win.

Player's Choice Label: "WTF is with Nintendo and these ugly Player's Choice variants? They totally mess up the aesthetic of my game shelf.

No Player's Choice Label: "WTF is with Nintendo not giving any indication which copies are original print runs and which are reprints? That totally screws over collectors."

I only ever heard the latter complaint about Game Quest Direct.

My opinion is that the ideal situation would be to have a Player's Choice (or whatever) line of games, but without altering the packaging with a garish stripe. I bought God of War right when it went GH, and I got the original labeling with a big "Greatest Hits" sticker on the outside of the shrinkwrap. I think it would be nice if that was the normal way these were done.

[TonyTheTiger]

I only ever heard the latter complaint about Game Quest Direct.


Same here. But the same principle is at work. A later print run indistinguishable from earlier ones. I'd imagine if reprints in general were more publicized, particularly for games known for retaining their value, the complaints would come forth regardless of whether GQD is involved or not.


My opinion is that the ideal situation would be to have a Player's Choice (or whatever) line of games, but without altering the packaging with a garish stripe. I bought God of War right when it went GH, and I got the original labeling with a big "Greatest Hits" sticker on the outside of the shrinkwrap. I think it would be nice if that was the normal way these were done.

Perhaps. I think the issue is less important to the GQD complainers because any game getting a Greatest Hits label is usually common as dirt anyway so they don't care. But it isn't completely absurd to imagine releasing a GH version to spur sales of a game that otherwise had a small print run. And if copies were going for $60+ before the GH release, I guarantee once the GH version comes out you'd have at least a few people here pissed off if there isn't some sort of identifier on the insert itself.

Not saying either way is right or wrong but just that there won't be much of a universally satisfying solution.

[chicnstu]

I haven't read every post but I didn't think "Greatest Hits" and "Player's Choice" were there just to show off that the game sold well. I was thinking the showing off was to, once sales get low, get people who were unsure to buy the game. Nintendo's games somehow continue to sell well so there's no need yet. I'm willing to pay $50 for the most polished games this or any generation. If you can't find something fun in anything Nintendo makes, it seems hate has clouded your judgement.

Also, people aren't looking hard enough for good Wii games. Little King's Story is one of the best games this year. People are stuck in a graphics coma and can't see the fun in Wii games. So there's less good games on Wii, it doesn't make them worse.

[j_factor]

Same here. But the same principle is at work. A later print run indistinguishable from earlier ones. I'd imagine if reprints in general were more publicized, particularly for games known for retaining their value, the complaints would come forth regardless of whether GQD is involved or not.

Meh, I always thought those complaints were without much merit. I can see getting a little miffed if you just paid a premium price for a used game and then it gets a reprint, but otherwise, get over it. The people who insisted "they have to distinguish it for collectors' sakes!" are just silly. Game companies are under no obligation to go out of their way to make variants.


Perhaps. I think the issue is less important to the GQD complainers because any game getting a Greatest Hits label is usually common as dirt anyway so they don't care.

Well, for me, that's the problem. When I'm looking at listings of Playstation games, they might not specify whether or not it's GH. So I grab the list of Greatest Hits releases and just avoid buying any of those games. It kind of sucks to go, "ooh, they have Game X I Want for seven bucks! Oh wait, that's on the GH list, I'm not buying that one."

For what it's worth, I'd bet that there are more people bothered by the Greatest Hits packaging than by reprints not being distinguished. Not that it's a grave situation or anything.


But it isn't completely absurd to imagine releasing a GH version to spur sales of a game that otherwise had a small print run. And if copies were going for $60+ before the GH release, I guarantee once the GH version comes out you'd have at least a few people here pissed off if there isn't some sort of identifier on the insert itself.

I'm not really opposed to "some sort of identifier", if they do it more "quietly". Like the Majesco releases for Genesis that say Majesco Sales in small print on the back. But I have a feeling that wouldn't satisfy certain collectors who'd prefer the new copies be more significantly devalued. I think that's a crock, and they should just get over it. But I digress.

Perhaps more significant is the fact that some games get revised code or extra content on re-release. I ended up never buying Fable for Xbox because I wanted The Lost Chapters, but I didn't want it to be Platinum Hits. Another possibility would be to have the packaging somehow changed, but without the hideous GREATEST HITS labeling. Like, I've noticed sometimes PC games get different packaging when they're re-released. Maybe the GH version of Silent Hill 2, for example, could've just said "Silent Hill 2: Restless Dreams" on the cover. For games that don't do that, they could just change the cover, or revise press quotations, or something.

[TonyTheTiger]

Meh, I always thought those complaints were without much merit. I can see getting a little miffed if you just paid a premium price for a used game and then it gets a reprint, but otherwise, get over it. The people who insisted "they have to distinguish it for collectors' sakes!" are just silly. Game companies are under no obligation to go out of their way to make variants.

I'm with you 100%. I'm just pointing out what kinds of complaints we'd probably see.


I'm not really opposed to "some sort of identifier", if they do it more "quietly". Like the Majesco releases for Genesis that say Majesco Sales in small print on the back. But I have a feeling that wouldn't satisfy certain collectors who'd prefer the new copies be more significantly devalued. I think that's a crock, and they should just get over it. But I digress.

Perhaps more significant is the fact that some games get revised code or extra content on re-release. I ended up never buying Fable for Xbox because I wanted The Lost Chapters, but I didn't want it to be Platinum Hits. Another possibility would be to have the packaging somehow changed, but without the hideous GREATEST HITS labeling. Like, I've noticed sometimes PC games get different packaging when they're re-released. Maybe the GH version of Silent Hill 2, for example, could've just said "Silent Hill 2: Restless Dreams" on the cover. For games that don't do that, they could just change the cover, or revise press quotations, or something.

I think there are two reasons why people don't like GH packaging. First, because it's often uglier than the normal version. Mismatched colors, sometimes weird framing, etc. That's easily fixed with more aesthetically pleasing designs. I think Nintendo had it right back in the SNES days with the Player's Choice label affixed like a gold medal. Classy, charming, not ugly.

The other reason is harder to address. The fact that GH versions actually do stand out, something that the publisher wants, is exactly what somebody setting out a shelf of games doesn't want. The lack of uniformity itself is less aesthetically pleasing. I guess that's why a lot of people here don't like when games are released exclusively under a GH label like Fable: The Lost Chapters or Virtua Fighter 4: Evolution. Because now they have no choice but to have the oddball entry.

[MrRoboto19XX]

The other reason is harder to address. The fact that GH versions actually do stand out, something that the publisher wants, is exactly what somebody setting out a shelf of games doesn't want. The lack of uniformity itself is less aesthetically pleasing. I guess that's why a lot of people here don't like when games are released exclusively under a GH label like Fable: The Lost Chapters or Virtua Fighter 4: Evolution. Because now they have no choice but to have the oddball entry.

Agreed, this is the reason I prefer non-gh titles, and will pay a slight premium for them.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Also, people aren't looking hard enough for good Wii games. Little King's Story is one of the best games this year. People are stuck in a graphics coma and can't see the fun in Wii games. So there's less good games on Wii, it doesn't make them worse.

Good is a subjective qualifier though. What falls in/out is going to vary from person to person. I have around 60 or so Wii games now with a short list to pick up yet. I've nabbed 5 360 games so far, and thinking about that Souls Atlus game for PS3. I went in with the Wii and looking back, it turned out to be the right choice for me. The only games that I feel that I've truely missed out on is the new KoF's and BlazBlue. They're on the short list, but IDK whether to get them for 360 or PS3 yet. I have SFIV for 360, but it was very cheap when I found it so, IDK if my fighters are going to land on 360 or PS3 yet as the rule. If Sony hadn't dug their heads out of their asses this year like they did so well (at least for a start) I would have already taken on a 360 I think. At this point, it's a hard choice to make between the two.

Little King's Story, :hmm: Looks like it's sorta Pikmin 3. Adding that one to my short list. LOL

[DonMarco]

Bump!

Nintendo is releasing a new series of budget titles in Jaypan (http://nintendo.joystiq.com/2010/01/21/nintendo-releases-budget-line-in-japan-based-on-nintendo-channel/)! (Official website (http://www.nintendo.co.jp/wii/selection/index.html))

Only seven games listed so far, and *gasp* no first-party games. There's this precious medal ranking things going on (from platinum to gold, silver, then bronze) based on their rankings as voted by the Wii channel or something.

Hideous packaging design though... Wow.

http://www.dontpressstart.com/upload/murasaki_pc.jpg

At least the games will be cheaper at... ¥2,800, or about $30 each. Twilight Princess still costs a bit, if this amazon page can be trusted (http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E4%BB%BB%E5%A4%A9%E5%A0%82-193681011-%E3%82%BC%E3%83%AB%E3%83%80%E3%81%AE%E4%BC%9D%E8%A A%AC-%E3%83%88%E3%83%AF%E3%82%A4%E3%83%A9%E3%82%A4%E3%8 3%88%E3%83%97%E3%83%AA%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BB%E3%82%B9/dp/B000IN8FOW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1264208228&sr=8-1). New from Amazon.jp for ¥5,382 and used starting at ¥3,910? Those two prices are about the same for Muramasa (http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E3%83%9E%E3%83%BC%E3%83%99%E3%83%A9%E3%82%B9%E3%8 2%A8%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BF%E3%83%BC%E3%83%86%E3%82%A4% E3%83%A1%E3%83%B3%E3%83%88-%E6%9C%A7%E6%9D%91%E6%AD%A3-%E7%89%B9%E5%85%B8%E7%84%A1%E3%81%97/dp/B0023B2Z2U/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1264208464&sr=1-2), only Muramasa's dropping down a good $20.

[kupomogli]

Supposedly the Japanese were able to pick what games they wanted to be on the budget releases. Anything that sells a lot probably wasn't on the list to choose from.

[Sonicwolf]

I think Nintendo is saving the budget series titles for a time when the Wii begins to slow down in sales.

[deltoidsteep]

Bump!

Nintendo is releasing a new series of budget titles in Jaypan (http://nintendo.joystiq.com/2010/01/21/nintendo-releases-budget-line-in-japan-based-on-nintendo-channel/)! (Official website (http://www.nintendo.co.jp/wii/selection/index.html))

Only seven games listed so far, and *gasp* no first-party games. There's this precious medal ranking things going on (from platinum to gold, silver, then bronze) based on their rankings as voted by the Wii channel or something.

Hideous packaging design though... Wow.

http://www.dontpressstart.com/upload/murasaki_pc.jpg

At least the games will be cheaper at... ¥2,800, or about $30 each. Twilight Princess still costs a bit, if this amazon page can be trusted (http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E4%BB%BB%E5%A4%A9%E5%A0%82-193681011-%E3%82%BC%E3%83%AB%E3%83%80%E3%81%AE%E4%BC%9D%E8%A A%AC-%E3%83%88%E3%83%AF%E3%82%A4%E3%83%A9%E3%82%A4%E3%8 3%88%E3%83%97%E3%83%AA%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BB%E3%82%B9/dp/B000IN8FOW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1264208228&sr=8-1). New from Amazon.jp for ¥5,382 and used starting at ¥3,910? Those two prices are about the same for Muramasa (http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E3%83%9E%E3%83%BC%E3%83%99%E3%83%A9%E3%82%B9%E3%8 2%A8%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BF%E3%83%BC%E3%83%86%E3%82%A4% E3%83%A1%E3%83%B3%E3%83%88-%E6%9C%A7%E6%9D%91%E6%AD%A3-%E7%89%B9%E5%85%B8%E7%84%A1%E3%81%97/dp/B0023B2Z2U/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1264208464&sr=1-2), only Muramasa's dropping down a good $20.

that is some truly horrendous box art

[Baloo]

That's worse that Konami's Best for Castlevania on DS boxart.

[The 1 2 P]

I think Nintendo is saving the budget series titles for a time when the Wii begins to slow down in sales.

This is what I was thinking too. However, considering how Nintendo first party games stay on the top 20 sold list years after their initial release, we may not see any budget series for the Wii until the very last few years of it's existence.

[Kid Ice]

QFT.

Seriously.

retracted. kupomogli you're a luggan, but damned entertaining, like a Wii hating bot.