Nintendo is Expensive $$$

[Flojomojo]

Nope, it's just part of Nintendo's policy. They've said that they don't price-drop games because they don't think it's fair to customers who bought the games at release.

 

Games like Metroid: Other M and Star Fox Zero went to the bargain bins awfully fast, though

LOL Nintendo is full of hooey then. I guess that's the customer friendly way of saying, "we won't drop prices on games that are still strong sellers, but when a single player game has wrung out most of its value, we will discount it to get a little more money."

 

Example: there are no versions of Mario Kart or Smash Brothers on this list of "Nintendo Selects." In fact, you may be hard pressed to find a physical copy of MK or SSB around the holidays.

[adamchevy]

I’ve been a Nintendo fan for many years, longer than I’ve been an Atari fan. And Nintendo has been around much longer than Atari was.... They are a very old company, who is interested in making money. The most amount of money they can. They don’t care about Mario, Zelda, Luigi, Donkey Kong, or any of its other characters. They really only care about making money. And that’s fine, who doesn’t. They will only stick with this video game business as long as it makes them good money. They are truly a gifted marketing business, who understands branding and quality control like nobody else. They will have a Wii U and Virtual boy every now and then. But how else are you going to get a SNES and a Switch? Maybe the SNES was going to come along anyway as the evolution of the NES. Either way they usually course correct quickly in the direction of the most amount of $$$$ possible. Truly they are an amazing business who others strive to emulate(it’s getting harder everyday).

Edited August 19, 2018 by adamchevy

[Tanooki]

I'm going to have to say So? to that. Platinum Games isn't it, and Nintendo published it. I did say they do that with games they publish too, not just developed. WiiU was a bomb so I get Bayonetta 2, the only part I found disgusting was making the first one a download and not on a disc (like how that Rodea game had Wii+WiiU in the box.) Your one example doesn't really dent what I said, it fits. They make them, or publish them, they call the shots on the publishing and eventually stuff can hit the player's choice/select's line. Where Nintendo gets honestly expensive isn't Nintendo, it's the jerks who collectard the stuff into high prices on the aftermarket as the Nintendo stuff gets nastier than most other stuff.

 

Also as Asaki said, Nintendo does what they do on purpose not to hurt buyers and I have to actually kind of respect that. How many people here have been crapped on by a developer buying a game to then see the price drop 20-30%+ another week or month later feeling bad that you could just have waited it out? I had that happen just

[Jess Ragan]

I'm not willing to get into Switch collecting, partially because of the obnoxious things Nintendo has done in the past but also because the cost to value ratio is so poor. I've purchased physical PS4 games for as little as five dollars! If I wanted Doom on the Switch, it would cost substantially more. I'm not willing to pay the "Switch tax" for a game that already exists on superior hardware for a lot less.

 

Theres also the matter of the Switch being in the same remasters phase that the PS4 and Xbox One were in the first half of their lifespans. We're getting Dark Souls, Skyrim, and other last gen titles released at least five years earlier. You could make the argument that those remasters were enhanced on Sony and Microsoft's systems, but does anyone honestly expect them to be improved on a portable? They'll be lucky to be as good as they were on the Xbox 360.

[Tanooki]

I avoid the Switch tax, it's a non-starter with a 20% off amazon prime preorder. The few cases they brown out on that dishonorably, I just wait for a price drop or an used copy as I can be patient. I get why it's done, but I don't have to like or support it either. I don't mind the remasters as the Switch is a handheld so it's cool having stuff like Doom, Skyrim, upcoming Dark Souls on the go. Skyrims and Doom blew me away how well they hold up on that little screen, they're worth it.

[eightbit]

It's crazy that people are used to paying $5 for a game. That is just not how things work generally. Heck, back in the 80's I recall paying $79.99 for Phantasy Star on the SMS. A damn high price to pay even now...but in 80's money it was astronomical. I paid it though...and it was all so well worth the admission.

 

Now you have games come and go. So many publishers trying to cash into that market. Lots of games go unnoticed and lots of games end up selling at $5 in either some discount bin, or a Goodwill, or what have you. So that becomes the expectation. But, it was never the expectation. Games fail on some platforms and end up there. Some others, they don't. And just because a game title ended up at $5 on one platform and has been re-released on another does not mean it should sell for $5. It might be more desirable on another platform for various reasons.

 

I'd pay $5 for Doom on the PS4 maybe. But I'd pay $20 for it on the Switch definitely. Why? The portability and the medium...those are the reasons at least for me.

[adamchevy]

I’ve sold two switches. Why! Because they are the same games as my Wii U and Xbox 360. The portability isn’t useful for me in my life. I have recently used that money to buy a 7800 and 5200. I like the ability to move money around in this hobby when your interests change. It keeps it fun for me. Ofcourse paying the eBay tax is starting to annoy me. But it’s the price you pay to play the game I guess.

The only console I keep around permanently is my Wii, because it’s backwards compatible with the GameCube. And it has cheap component cables.

Edited August 21, 2018 by adamchevy

[Newsdee]

Say what you will, but the more I use the Switch the more brilliant I find the hardware design. I thought the "pick up from TV" and the multiplater options were gimmicky at first, but found myself using them a lot. Granted, I often play with family and friends, so that is precisely the target group. But even in lone couch potato mode I find myself bringing the console around sometimes.

[Tempest]

Well if anyone wants to trade a Switch setup for anything on my trade list (Apple IIgs setup, Atari 800, etc.) shoot me a PM, otherwise I don't see myself plunking down $300 just to play Xenoblade Chronicles 2 any time soon.

[Rick Dangerous]

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2018/08/is_switch_tax_a_real_concern_or_just_a_myth

 

Published yesterday. Interesting read RE this very topic.

[Flojomojo]

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2018/08/is_switch_tax_a_real_concern_or_just_a_myth

 

Published yesterday. Interesting read RE this very topic.

 

That's interesting ... especially how someone would go to such lengths to study this quantitatively.

 

The site has 1,042 Switch games in its database, 471 of which are also available on Steam. Buying all of these titles on the Switch's eShop would cost you $7,293.18, whereas on Steam it would only cost $6,550.03. This suggests that there is an average increase in price of just over 10%.

 

Of COURSE some games are more expensive on Switch, because they're new on the platform, and old on others. 9-year-old Skyrim comes to mind. It goes on sale on Steam (and Xbox, and PSN) all the time, but it's $60 on Switch. Same thing for the recent port of DOOM, not coincidentally from the same publisher as Skyrim.

 

Just like when Wolfenstein 3D and DOOM came out on Atari Jaguar. To have the privilege of playing cut-down versions of those on a console cartridge would cost $60 or $70. You could play the shareware demo for free, and buy the full version for $30 (for those who didn't pirate it), but you wouldn't have it on your cheap console on the big telly. This is not news, it's dog bites man stuff.

 

There are so many cheap indie titles in the Switch eShop that are selling at or close to their Steam prices that an "average" price increase is going to get washed out. It's the big name PC ports like LA Noire, DOOM, Skyrim, and other oldies that stick out as pricey.

 

I shudder to think of managing 471 eShop purchases on multiple SD cards.

 

I have a solution to people who don't like the prices for Switch games: don't buy so many, and play on Steam if cost is the main thing driving your behavior. Not everything has to be on a slick little handheld with tiny controls and a lower resolution screen.

[Tanooki]

That's my reasoning with the Switch plus it's a known what the media costs too vaguely. A few developers have said as much the 8GB switch card is an equal expense when buying an order of games to ship physically as doing the other guys blu rays. So when you have a 16Gb or 32GB game that has a higher expense eating into profit. That's why you see people get mad at stuff like Capcom going with a 1GB card for Mega Man Legacy leaving off #2, but then irrationally so when the game is bigger than the best card with another release like Wolfenstein II. It comes down to a mix of being cheap to an actual cost hit depending on the storage used so the Switch tax has two meanings with one having merit and the other just being sleazy.

 

I just buy what I'll play and I'm not much for a day one buyer anymore except if I really know I'll get the hours of enjoyment out of it. Any question I'll wait on deals since the 20% amazon thing is dead or just skip it perhaps for good or fairly later second hand.

[Rocket Man]

This is why my Wii, WiiU, and Switch collections are so small. Past getting a few exclusives, they're just not worth it.

[Mockduck]

No one should be buying a Nintendo product looking for the best bang for the buck. That's never really been their thing. They have long gone to great lengths to keep the price of their catalog high, and avoid the race to the bottom that Steam and many others do.

[Tanooki]

Umm isn't that kind of the opposite of what Nintendo is, the first sentence. They're all about having the best bang for the buck. That is exactly why they can get away with rarely price dropping anything out of some obscure fail or overproduced game until they do a Selects line like 3 years after a system is out. For the late adopters you can get a nice deal with a budget packaging deal on the games, and those who didn't go that route won't feel screwed as the game retained value so you're not stuck. You don't end up the clown who paid $60 for your console game to have it down to $40 a month or two later feeling stupid you didn't wait. As you said, Nintendo isn't to the race to the bottom.

[bojay1997]

No one should be buying a Nintendo product looking for the best bang for the buck. That's never really been their thing. They have long gone to great lengths to keep the price of their catalog high, and avoid the race to the bottom that Steam and many others do.

I would strongly disagree with your first statement. Nintendo first party games remain some of the very few that don't rely on DLC or half finished concepts in the hope of collecting $60 up front for an experience that will never bring hours and hours of compelling game play. Nintendo makes finished games of generally very high quality that are absolutely some of the best bang for the buck when compared to their competitors. Now, Nintendo as a company does a lot of things that aren't necessarily consumer friendly, but I've never personally felt cheated when I've purchased a Nintendo game for full price. I certainly can't say the same thing about Microsoft or Sony.

[dj_convoy]

It cost a bit too much, but I'll tell you this; their Switch pro controller blows away the wacky and "innovative" joycons, and doesn't make my hands want to fall off of my arms in cramped defeat when I use it for a protracted amount of time. It sucks that they can kind of get away with charging a premium for it (and other stuff), but sometimes you just want to get a solution that works, and you don't want to fuss around with 3rd party stuff. I guess that's precisely why they can get away with charging a premium.

 

At least they have sales in their eShop this time around. I don't think the Wii EVER had sales for digital downloads.

[Spike Danton]

Got nothing to do with quality, Nintendo tried racing others with price on two of their consoles and it failed. Generally, Nintendo was known for not being too supportive of third-parties usually having their first-party games steam roll them so that people would perceive they have to buy those 1st-party games once they buy a Nintendo device, giving Nintendo large profits. On consoles after SNES, this had players and third-parties consider other developers and the market reacted accordingly. For portables, there was no competition for the market to go to, which is why I believe the Switch will likely make Nintendo the biggest profits they've ever earned.

 

With the Switch being a hybrid, and generally not considered part of the same lane that PS4/XBO drive in, it fills the portable void while also removing most of the issues Nintendo had with their consoles. Now, if you want a portable games console you HAVE to deal with the prices, you can't run to XBOX or PS4 because the Switch is on a different road. Third-parties that put out portable games over the years HAVE to put their portable games on the switch because there is not another traditional portable console available. There's no Game Gear, No LYNX, no PSP, and no VITA.

 

In a few years Nintendo will likely say they made more money on the switch than any other device they have released.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Spike Danton

[Mockduck]

I agree that Nintendo has a very high standard of quality for its games. I just don't think paying full price for a five year old game is great value. Very subjective, though.

[MotoRacer]

LOL Nintendo is full of hooey then. I guess that's the customer friendly way of saying, "we won't drop prices on games that are still strong sellers, but when a single player game has wrung out most of its value, we will discount it to get a little more money."

 

Example: there are no versions of Mario Kart or Smash Brothers on this list of "Nintendo Selects." In fact, you may be hard pressed to find a physical copy of MK or SSB around the holidays.

 

 

It'sa nota fair that we gotta lose da money by lowerin the price a few monthsa later, HO HOOO. So we justa keep it high ... because we love you YA HOO!

[eightbit]

It cost a bit too much, but I'll tell you this; their Switch pro controller blows away the wacky and "innovative" joycons, and doesn't make my hands want to fall off of my arms in cramped defeat when I use it for a protracted amount of time. It sucks that they can kind of get away with charging a premium for it (and other stuff), but sometimes you just want to get a solution that works, and you don't want to fuss around with 3rd party stuff. I guess that's precisely why they can get away with charging a premium.

 

At least they have sales in their eShop this time around. I don't think the Wii EVER had sales for digital downloads.

 

I will go one forward and say that the Pro Controller is quite possibly the best controller ever manufactured. My own personal opinion mind you. It is just a work of art and feels right. I have two of these magnificent devices.

[Andromeda Stardust]

Nintendo is the "Apple" of the gaming world for quite some time. They sell quality product but you also pay more to be in their exclusive walled gardens compared to Android or Microsoft.

 

Every industry has one. For electronics, smartphones, and media, it's Apple. For movies, it's Disney (for instance classic Disney movies almost always stay full price after release, until they return to the "vault"). For console gaming, it's Nintendo.

 

I do kinda feel however, that porting $20 Selects Wii-U titles on Switch for $60 is kind of douchey. Mario Kart Deluxe for $60 is fine, having added value in the form of DLC packs, and so will New Super Mario +Luigi U. However I feel like games already in the Selects lineup such as Lego City and Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze should have been in the $30-$40 range since they ported over almost all assets with very little change. You would be paying an additional $10-$20 for porting an already complete game that sold for $20, as development cost is significantly reduced on ports.

 

Currently 3DWorld, Mario Maker, Color Splash, and the HD Zelda ports are among the few first party titles that haven't ported over to Switch / 3DS or announced. We are getting a new Smash Bros with Amiibo support, unclear how much changes there will be from Smash Bros 4. Mario Maker is currently gimped with the closure of Miiverse (commenting on levels /making doodles was a big part of the fun), and will be almost useless after online service for Wii-U ceases.

 

I kinda wish I hadn't bought a bunch of still full price Wii-U games (some still sealed) in a panic after Switch launch when Nintendo announced the system's discontinuation. Captain hindsight says, "if it's worth playing on Wii-U, it will get a Switch port." Thanks, but you should have told me that 2 yesrs ago...

[Tanooki]

Why is it douchy? The WiiU miserably failed and there was little to no profit in it for Nintendo. The system bled money so bad even 3DS in its highpoints couldn't even keep the company on the whole barely treading water, so the trickle of games selling for the joke of a console couldn't even help it. They're still in a way needing to recover from those years even if Switch has been jammin for the last year and a half, the Wii pU scorched their wallets hard for years. In this case I say re-release every game on Switch so they can finally make their money back both on the WiiU but also get the proper given sales for a Nintendo published title on a system that isn't a bomb. Had the WiiU been as sell through as the Wii, then yes, it would be a really jerk move. I'm just saying I can't blame them for it, it's there now to actually reach a willing paying audience unlike before. WiiU is to gamers as Amish is to electricity basically.

[Rocket Man]

Umm isn't that kind of the opposite of what Nintendo is, the first sentence. They're all about having the best bang for the buck. That is exactly why they can get away with rarely price dropping anything out of some obscure fail or overproduced game until they do a Selects line like 3 years after a system is out. For the late adopters you can get a nice deal with a budget packaging deal on the games, and those who didn't go that route won't feel screwed as the game retained value so you're not stuck. You don't end up the clown who paid $60 for your console game to have it down to $40 a month or two later feeling stupid you didn't wait. As you said, Nintendo isn't to the race to the bottom.

 

Anyone who's paying $60 for a video game in this day and age... and for the last 10 years for that matter, is a clown. They all come down to $10-20 eventually short of some specific Nintendo titles from what I've seen.

[Flojomojo]

Why wait for "eventually" just to save a few bucks? Multiplayer games are fun when they're new and have a big community. The point of video games is enjoyment, not to try and be the biggest cheapskate possible.