LogFAQs > #912407271

GanglyKhan posted...

I'm with Rev on this one. The effort it takes to upload the entire first party SNES library is next to none. SNES games should be $5. They're making virtually 100% profit off of it in the long run. Yeah, you pay the workers a good what, month's worth of salary across a dozen people or so and then for the next six to eight years, you just rake in the money from having the games on there for a cheap price.

And that is their right, as the owners of the intellectual property. Nobody is entitled to play Earthbound for any less than Nintendo wants to charge for it, because Nintendo is the only party that gets to decide how Earthbound is distributed.

Could they charge less? Absolutely. Should they? That's 100% their choice. Earthbound is easily worth $10, no matter how much it costs to distribute it or whether or not they've already recovered the development costs (though given that it kinda flopped initially, I'm not actually sure if they have). Ergo, $10 is not an unreasonable price.

TigerTycoon posted...

Also, Nintendo straight refuses to sell these retro games now, they only want to have them accessible though their subscription service.

That's purely for NES games, and even then, I don't think that's so much a matter of wanting to sell them through their subscription service as it is them adding an incentive to the service. The service's primary function is online play. Everything else is just a bonus (some of which, like save backups, should be available without it, but that's another story).