How the hell did we get into July already? Time seems to be flying faster than ever before. That must mean I'm getting older! Not enough time for fun, too much time on work. Pile on the issues hitting lately and I fear I'm aging at triple normal speed! Perhaps a good night's rest will slow things down. See you in a few, short hours!
As silly as it may sound, I still can't believe we are going to have the option of buying a mainline Mario game in two different forms. While some companies have been providing retail/digital versions of the same game for awhile now, this is a completely new territory for the big N. I can't think of a better sendoff than a brand-new Mario outing!
On August 19th, Nintendo is going to offer Mario fans a new game, New Super Mario Bros. 2. It's also going to mark the start of a major new initiative for Nintendo. You'll be able to get the game in traditional boxed retail form from your local game shop, or you can hit up the eShop from the comfort of your own home to grab a digital copy. Finally, the choice is up to the Nintendo fan!
There's positives and negatives for both sides of the deal, but that's what makes the choice so great. You can weigh these options for yourself and make the decision that best suits what type of gamer you are. If you're tight on space and don't have a game shop local, a digital download may be perfect. If you like displaying your game cases and having physical media, retail is the way for you.
I'm really curious to see what the split is with you guys and gals. Those of you planning to pick up New Super Mario Bros. 2, are you going to go the digital or boxed retail route? Leave us a comment and share your decision, but make sure to tell us why as well!
RSS Feeds:
@Kazin It would be this to all games I buy [excluding eShop-type games] - though still think this specific game looks completely uninspired and cheap...
If I can get my games retail, I will. I will be getting Mario via retail, but I can't say I won't be keeping my eye on other titles. Or if Nintendo does SALES, they could certainly drum up some purchases from me.
But in terms of Mario bros. 2 ? That's easily retail for me. I might buy a digital copy for my kid brothers 3DS to see how that is, though!
i don't think it's "great" that we have to choose between portability and rights of ownership. There's absolutely no good reason why we shouldn't be able to buy a physical copy that includes a code allowing us to download the digital version online, so that we can have both portability *and* the right to use the game on any 3DS system without lengthy erasing / downloading / rights transferal, along with the right to gift or resell the game to anyone we want at anytime - whether it's 2 months after the game's release or two decades later when Nintendo no longer even supports the system. Forcing us to choose between portability and consumer rights is a ploy by Nintendo (and other software developers) to slowly push us in the direction of unknowingly giving up our long-term consumer rights in favor of short term convenience. There's no other reason to force us to chose between the two things. Movie studios now include download codes for digital copies with physical DVD's and Blu-Ray discs. Video games should be exactly the same. And with simple rights management in place, there's no potential for abuse of whatever usage terms Nintendo wants to establish (use on one system at a time, for instance.)
If Nintendo sold you the box with a download code inside then maybe I would consider buying digital, but I'm a sucker for having the box so I will most likely stick to retail copies.
@BrandonDthe reason they are pushing digital is to not have to make boxes and cartridges
@YoshiRider123
Pretty sure the reason people hate DLC is because they want the content but do not want to pay for it.
And they do not want to support the business model. It's not just "Oh, I don't want to buy the DLC", they don't want to be a sale for a game that supports DLC.
Kind of like how people feel like they're special for owning a console or game since day one, when they could be saving money, but they can't stand the idea of people experiencing it and enjoying it while they aren't, so they gotta go out and get it right away.
DLC gives that same sense, where you're not playing all these stages or characters that other people are and it drives you nuts. But if you just avoid the game altogether, I guess it avoids that?
In any case, I assume it's to not support that kind of stuff.
On that note, I am not going to buy any of the DLC unless it is substantial, which I highly doubt it will be.
Then you'll either break or become a very bored man in the future. DLC is... the future!
The very, very, very pricey future.
For me? Retail. Much like Rebel doesn't support DLC, I don't support many things that are digital download simply because, in the event the system dies... I don't really own it.
@MisterOpinionHead Well said.
@MoldyClay I agree with that concept of avoiding DLC for the fact of not supporting the model as it is done now. As well as not even getting a game that is addicted to DLC (literally self-damaging the core product just for a quick buck).
I believe these things we see problems with CAN BE DONE correctly, we'll have to see if Nintendo has the right idea about DLC when they finally practice it. Talking about it is nice, but we have yet to see evidence of them not being complete dicks about DLC in games like every other slime ball publisher.
Retail, although I do shift back and forth on buying the game.
Retail, I don't want to use up VC space on full games
How is an abundance of DLC "self-damaging the core product"? If anything, it's the complete opposite.
Fire Emblem: Awakening.
Has anyone confirmed whether or not the digital version will be cheaper? To me, that would be the only incentive to buying a digital copy that I could possibly lose the rights to or find out I didn't have room for and etc. Especially if I needed to buy an extra/larger SD card for it, adding to the cost of at least the first few very-large digital games.
As far as what I'd WANT goes, I'd go for Retail over Digital otherwise. I want to be able to shove that card into my system and play it any number of years down the road that I still own a working compatible system for. If I want to play a mean game of Short Order / Explode, I pop it in my NES and play it just fine. But if I lost my SD card or it got corrupted after Nintendo's service no longer supported the download of a very old digital game, I could potentially not be able to get it back, so I dislike that much at least.
I'm not sure how DLC got into the discussion, but the thing that bugs me about DLC is A) most of the time, it's included on the game itself, but you 'don't own it yet', and B) if you lose it down the road, you might not be able to get it back... if you never got it during its release time, you may NEVER get it again. Case in point, that last 'Downloadable' island in the Dreamcast version of Skies of Arcadia, which was already on the disc, but needed a flag-file to be downloaded telling your game that 'you have it' and to then display it. Which of course the GCN version just added it flat out, but still, if I got the Dreamcast version I'd never be able to obtain that NOW, because it's gone.
No. We've yet to hear of those details.
Nintendo has time after time emphasized that the DLC that they create isn't or won't be content that's already included in the base game. Reggie even explicitly stated this for New Super Mario Bros. 2's case in the latest Nintendo Direct.
I'm surprised that game keeps getting passed over in regards to Nintendo doing DLC right too.
It's totally not like people didn't want them to do it on the Wii and DS all this gen or anything...
I'm sort of, sort of not, but I wouldn't disagree with you.
Fire Emblem has always appealed to a significantly niche market in non-Japanese regions, so it wouldn't be that uncommon to find people who haven't done their research in regards to the series. On the other hand, however, it is a fairly big deal that Fire Emblem, of all games, incidentally happens to be the subject of Nintendo's first foray into paid DLC and gets its DLC updates posted here on a biweekly basis, so you would have to imagine that these folks who seem to be very interested in the topic should've already known about Awakening's DLC.
I can't help but agree with you, they should include a level editor in addition to the paid DLC... and if their levels are better than what Mario fans create then we're talking!
Disagreed. I believe that concurrent forms of product distributions have every right to be priced equally if chosen to be.
I mean, at the end of the day, whether you choose digital or retail, you're still going to be playing the same game, which would be the reason why you paid anything in the first place. Tangibility, or lack thereof, shouldn't necessarily have to be the sole reason as to why one version costs more or less than another. Given how Nintendo operates its business model, I can't see how making the digital version cheaper wouldn't give rise to the possibility of creating financial losses on material productions because people choose not to buy the physical product.
In my eyes, it would only make sense if both versions were to be given the same price.
I know Nintendo's stance is different, and I'm really glad for that, but I was speaking in general-terms, it was usually included on-disc. But the possibility of losing it forever like with Skies of Arcadia still bugs me a bit...it's great that it can be added as extra, though.
Now on that, I can't agree. Physical game-cards are made up of materials that not only cost money to make, but also cost money to package, handle, distribute, ship, and even cost some money for store-shelf-space. Digital distributions require none of that... only the same ESRB rating charges and development money that also apply to the physical copy, and the one extra cost of server-space and maybe bandwidth. Cutting out all the costs that come with a full retail game, the digital copy would save THEM a bundle of cash, so why not us? Not to mention, not having a physical copy is a detriment to the user if Nintendo one day stops distributing the game on their servers, and your memory card corrupts. For a physical game, at worst, you might need to just open it up and solder in a new battery. But for an SD card, if you hadn't copied a backup at some point, you wouldn't be able to play it again.
I suppose they could lose money on physical copies if they never sell and the digital copies did. But to me, there would be little to no incentive to buy a digital version of the game if it was the exact same price, save for the novelty of it, or just having it on the system at all times, whether you have the card in or not. That novelty doesn't mean a whole lot to me, though. The way I see it, downloadable games mean trading a guaranteed-working-game-card for a weak promise that I'm allowed to play a non-physical game I paid for, and I feel I should be compensated for that lesser amount of confidence by not being required to pay as much.
I'm not saying a 40-dollar game should be brought down to 10, but at least reduce it to $35 or $30 to show that Nintendo acknowledges that I'm getting less than what I'd otherwise pay for, and they're spending less on the product I'm getting. I don't like the idea that they would sell me a cheaper package for the same price. Otherwise, between a Special Edition Wii game and the normal version, it would be like paying $60 for both versions. Yes, at the end of the day you're playing the same game, but why pay extra for something you're not getting? You might as well get the Special Edition and just throw away the extras instead of paying the same price for the lesser version. I'd just as well buy the physical copy and throw away the box than pay the same price for a bare bones digital copy.
I understand your sentiments. I originally replied to this because I saw you coming off as wanting to express your concerns about DLC possibly afflicting Nintendo despite the company's philosophy and the actions they've already made (Fire Emblem: Awakening, specifically). Although I can't relate to your experience with a game like Skies of Arcadia, I also can't see how I wouldn't be in the same boat if I were in your shoes.
Normally I'd agree with you for the most part, but I believe you're overlooking something important because of the fact that you may not personally benefit from owning the digital copy instead of the physical copy. At least, that's the impression that I'm getting from you.
When you're paying for the digital copy, you're not just buying the digital copy. You're also buying the benefits that the digital format provides over purchasing a physical copy instead, whose value varies from person to person. The advantages that the digital format offers may not personally cater to you, and that's okay, but as you can see here in this topic, it does to other people, who are willing to go digital and pay in full because of these pros.
It's not the best analogy, but that's sort of like being a card collector and saying that you should pay less for a starter deck in a trading card game because you see it as pointless to have multiples of the same card.
I belive this question was asked about NSMBU also, so my repsonse would be the same... The only way I would buy it digital is if it was cheaper than a retail version.
Yeah, that's not quite the angle I was going on it... more that I know they're spending less to get the game to me, but they're asking the same price, with none of the benefits of the physical-game-card itself, such as playing the game on another person's system, lending or trading a game to someone else, trading it in to Gamestop, and so forth. To that end, it's like me buying a trading-card-game starter pack online as a digital copy, but not being allowed to print it out and use it to play with people in real life, only in online-games. Or buying a digital version of a basketball card that, when the player becomes famous, can't be resold to someone else at a higher price.
Which it appears that yes, it IS after all indeed the same $40 price tag for the digital copy. Definitely not buying digital, then. The only benefit at this point would simply be having it on my system at all times, and I'm just not that desperate to play a simple game like that for 40 bucks THAT often anyway. I'd sooner just get the full package and deal with inserting/removing the actual game card itself than not....and even then, I don't think I'll do that. I'm running very low on income that I can waste on games, and I was really hoping it would be cheaper digitally in order to save me a little money, but nuts to that I guess. I can always get neither copy if they want it like that..
I was using the card analogy to explain how you were using your own personal situation and preferences in order to justify an objective standpoint on how a publicly available product should be priced. Since this particular topic is essentially moot at this point, I think I'm done talking about it.
Either way, you and me both. As I said earlier, I have no interest in getting this game digitally, but I do want the game somewhere down the road sooner or later. We all have our personal struggles and I hope things work out for the best of you, it's only natural that we'd want things in our favor. My only beef with some of the responses that I've seen is that because they don't personally gain enough to be satisfied with going digital, they think it should just be lowered in price to cater more to their interest (even though a majority would probably not buy it digitally anyway if it were), or otherwise Nintendo would be "doing it wrong".
The main summary of the feelings I have on it overall, is that having a physical copy means confidence in ownership and playability, as well as potential resale-value. Paying the same price for what is basically less-confidence and NO resale-value at least feels like I'm being cheated. Now, in some respects, I suppose I can also see that there may be some confidence in a digital copy, since it means you don't have a physical card that could be lost, damaged, or stolen..... although, if your 3DS is lost, irrecoverably damaged, or stolen, then it's essentially the same problem. Add to that, the same idea that one day you might not be able to download a game 'you own' ever again. But I guess there's at least that small pro towards digital, I just can't make use of it myself I suppose.
I'm undecided, if the cards are the same cheaper price in retail stores then definitely digital. But if not, I will have to consider my options. There's still over a month until it's released, so plenty of time to decide!
@MAGNUS-8M
re-sale value it the bomb, that is a major reason I like buying a hardcopy version at a retailer.
Also as games become nicer and more advanced they take up more data on a hard drive or sd card, data id rather have for other things
View the full discussion!