Virtual Console “Starting” Prices

Kotaku is reporting that Sega is releasing four more games for the Virtual Console.  They could be awesome games for all I know (I never played any of them), but the games themselves aren’t what concern me.  What concerns me is the fact that Sega says the game will “start” at 800 Wii Points.  I have to agree with Crecente’s sentiment here.  “Starting” at 800 Wii Points?  Are they going to charge more than 800 points for games that are 10-15 or more years old?  Are they kidding?

Let me start off by actually defending differentiating prices for games within the same system.  A lot of people get angry at the mere suggestion that some games on the same system may be worth more than others.  While perhaps it simplifies things, this is, in some ways, nonsense.  Some games are certainly worth more than others.  In fact, I’d argue that the original Zelda is probably worth more than most if not all of these games that Sega is releasing now, and Zelda is only $5.  If you don’t want to compare across consoles, Zelda is certainly worth more than, say, Tennis.
That being said, I’m definitely not suggesting that these games cost MORE than $8.  Rather, I think Nintendo needs to make their “Starting” prices more like their “Ceiling” prices.  I should never have to pay MORE than $8 for an SNES or Genesis games… some games will perhaps warrant the $8 price, but others almost certainly shouldn’t cost as much.  The same goes for the other generations… Zelda should not cost the same as Tennis.  Perhaps Zelda is worth $5, but Tennis, more resembling an Atari game than an NES game, should probably be no more than $1.

One could argue that, why should there be any price ceilings or floors, then?  Why not just release games at what the company thinks it should be valued at?  Well, for one, this discourages many people probably from buying the “best” games.  But also, ostensibly they have these “starting” prices because the games actually cost more to make in the first place (better graphics typically require more money).  Of course, none of these have had extensive development costs in quite awhile, so in reality, it’s basically just an excuse for Nintendo to charge people for better graphics (which there isn’t anything necessarily wrong with).
Yes, I believe, overall, the prices of VC games are too expensive and should probably be lowered across the board… but barring that, since I highly doubt Nintendo will do that, there SHOULD be some differentiation in prices for some games. This would HELP Nintendo to sell more games because people may be willing to take more of a chance then with some titles, and also realize better what they’re paying for.  Perhaps some simple puzzle titles, like Dr. Robotnik’s Mean Bean Machine, would be priced less than long and epic adventures like Zelda: A Link to the Past.  Maybe “Tennis”, basically nothing more than a “collector’s” item for people who want to compare the very first generation with the most recent one, would actually sell more copies if it were priced cheaper than Zelda.