Endless shooters.
Nintendo could do plenty of good games but churn out a lot of shovelware.
Super Metroid
Super Mario 64
Donkey Kong 64
All ripe for TRUE sequels. Super Metroid 2/Metroid 5 with SNES graphics similar to the recent Mega Man 9 and 10 comebacks would be great.
A free roaming Zelda think OOT but even more free roaming. Not like TP and SS which I thought were very much on rails.
A Banjo Kazooie type game.
3D Platforming to me has gone backwards since the N64 bowed out.
Also how about a trading in section for downloaded games - you set your own price for your digital rights and when bought Nintendo/Sony/msoft take a cut.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-23 21:58
I'm excited for the Wii U zelda. It really sounds like they're getting their shit together, and I hope it turns out to be fun.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-24 8:10
Nope, better than shitty Halo, Cod, wars.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-24 10:14
OP has shit taste, all the nintendo games he listed fucking suck.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-24 14:39
>>4
>>OP have excellent taste, all the nintendo games he listed are great and always sell million copies.
fixed 4 you.
Also how about a trading in section for downloaded games - you set your own price for your digital rights and when bought Nintendo/Sony/msoft take a cut.
Let's take a look at an example of this...
Fire Emblem: Awakening costs $40. Let's say there's, I dunno, $5 in distro costs (bandwidth.) Pulling these numbers out of my ass mind, so grain of salt. So every time Nintendo sells the game, they get $35 in gross profit. If they offer a license buy-back, whatever they pay comes out of the gross profit. Common mom-and-pop-shop says that if they buy back games at 33% of what they expect to make on the return sale. Let's further say that the "used" license price is $30. Nintendo offers to buy your game back at $10, so that $35 in gross profit has become $25. If they then sell it back at $30 and take away another $5 for distribution, their gross profit becomes $50. That sounds okay, but each used game they sell is potentially the loss-of-sale of a full-price retail game which means potentially a $20 loss. Further, profit from new+new= $70; profit from new+used=$50. They'd need to sell the same license, starting at new pricing, four times (new+used+used+used = $35+15+15+15) to exceed the price of two "new" licenses.
You'd need to do some probability crunching to figure out how many new games and how many used games the average consumer buys, as well as figuring out how many people would be willing to trade in their games, but my hunch is that it wouldn't be nearly as profitable.
Gamestop can get away with this because their profits from the sale of new/unopened games is fairly minimal. After the publisher's cut and distribution costs, they only make about $5 per sale. So they buy it back at 25 to 50 cents on the dollar, price it at (New - $5), and the difference is pure profit. Example: Bioshock Infinite will retail for $60. Guy X buys it, hates it, returns it the next day. GS gives him $30 for it, sticks a $55 price sticker on it, throws it back on the shelf. Because it's a hot property, someone with one of their discount cards comes in and snags it at 10% off (call it roughly $50.) They just turned a $5 initial profit into a $25 profit. They'd have to sell *five* of the more-expensive new editions in order to just MEET the profit from the one new + one used sale.
Long story short, it might not be a financially viable solution for Nintendo to adopt a similar model digitally. They'd likely lose money.